A Comparative Housing Policy and Policy Transfer between Countries with Respect to Low-Income Housing in Korea

Introduction

The document explores the evolution of low-income housing policies in South Korea, comparing them with international practices and examining the transfer of housing policies between countries. It highlights how Korea, once a recipient of housing policy ideas from developed nations, has now become a model for other countries seeking to address housing affordability and accessibility for low-income populations. The study emphasizes the importance of policy adaptation, contextualization, and the role of globalization in shaping housing strategies.

Historical Context of Low-Income Housing in Korea

South Korea’s housing policies have undergone significant transformation since the mid-20th century. In the aftermath of the Korean War (1950–1953), the country faced severe housing shortages, with rapid urbanization exacerbating the problem. The government initially focused on rebuilding infrastructure and providing basic shelter, but these efforts were insufficient to meet the growing demand. By the 1960s and 1970s, Korea’s economic development, driven by industrialization, led to increased rural-to-urban migration, further straining housing resources.

During this period, Korea adopted a “supply-oriented” approach, prioritizing the construction of large-scale housing projects to address the shortage. However, these projects often neglected the needs of low-income households, as they were primarily aimed at middle- and upper-income groups. The lack of affordable housing for the poor resulted in the proliferation of informal settlements, known as daldongne (moon villages), characterized by substandard living conditions.

International Influences on Korean Housing Policy

The document highlights how Korea’s housing policies have been influenced by international models, particularly those from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. For instance, the U.S. public housing system inspired Korea’s early efforts to provide subsidized housing for low-income families. Similarly, the UK’s emphasis on social housing and tenant rights influenced Korea’s approach to rental housing policies.

However, the study underscores that policy transfer is not a straightforward process. While Korea borrowed ideas from these countries, it adapted them to fit its unique socio-economic and cultural context. For example, Korea’s Jeonse system—a unique rental arrangement where tenants provide a large lump-sum deposit instead of monthly rent—reflects local financial practices and has no direct equivalent in Western housing systems.

Key Phases of Korean Low-Income Housing Policy

The document identifies several phases in the development of Korea’s low-income housing policies:

1. 1960s–1980s: Focus on Quantity Over Quality
   During this period, the government prioritized rapid housing construction to address shortages. Policies were largely top-down, with little consideration for the specific needs of low-income households. The result was a mismatch between supply and demand, as many low-income families could not afford the newly built units.
2. 1990s: Shift Toward Social Housing
   Recognizing the limitations of earlier policies, Korea began to introduce social housing programs aimed at low-income populations. The government established public housing corporations and implemented subsidies to make housing more affordable. However, these efforts were still insufficient to meet the growing demand, particularly in urban areas.
3. 2000s: Emphasis on Rental Housing
   In the 2000s, Korea shifted its focus toward rental housing, recognizing that many low-income families could not afford to purchase homes. The government introduced long-term public rental housing programs, such as the Permanent Rental Housing and National Rental Housing schemes. These programs provided affordable rental units to low-income households, with rents set at below-market rates.
4. 2010s–Present: Integration of Market and Social Policies
   More recently, Korea has sought to balance market-driven approaches with social welfare objectives. The government has introduced mixed-income housing developments, where low-income units are integrated with market-rate housing. This approach aims to reduce social segregation and promote inclusive communities. Additionally, Korea has expanded its support for vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and single-parent households, through targeted housing programs.

Comparative Analysis with Other Countries

The document compares Korea’s low-income housing policies with those of other countries, highlighting both similarities and differences. For example:

• United States: The U.S. has a long history of public housing, but its approach has been criticized for concentrating poverty in specific neighborhoods. In contrast, Korea’s mixed-income housing model seeks to avoid such segregation.
• United Kingdom: The UK’s social housing system is more comprehensive than Korea’s, with a stronger emphasis on tenant rights and community involvement. However, Korea’s Jeonse system offers a unique financial model that has attracted international interest.
• Germany: Germany’s housing policies emphasize tenant protections and rent control, which have helped maintain affordability. Korea has increasingly adopted similar measures, such as rent stabilization policies, to address rising housing costs.

The study notes that while Korea has learned from these countries, it has also developed innovative solutions tailored to its own context. For instance, Korea’s use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) to finance low-income housing projects has been praised for its efficiency and scalability.

Policy Transfer and Adaptation

A central theme of the document is the concept of policy transfer—the process by which policies are borrowed, adapted, and implemented across different contexts. The study emphasizes that successful policy transfer requires careful consideration of local conditions, including cultural norms, economic structures, and political systems.

Korea’s experience illustrates both the potential and challenges of policy transfer. While international models provided valuable insights, their direct application often proved ineffective. For example, early attempts to replicate U.S.-style public housing in Korea failed to account for differences in land availability and population density. Over time, Korea developed its own hybrid models, blending international best practices with local innovations.

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite its successes, Korea’s low-income housing policies face ongoing challenges. Rising housing prices, particularly in major cities like Seoul, have made it increasingly difficult for low-income families to access affordable housing. Additionally, the aging population and changing family structures have created new demands that existing policies may not fully address.

The document suggests several strategies for addressing these challenges:

• Expanding Supply: Increasing the availability of affordable housing units, particularly in high-demand urban areas.
• Enhancing Tenant Protections: Strengthening rent control measures and tenant rights to prevent displacement.
• Promoting Inclusive Communities: Continuing to develop mixed-income housing projects that foster social integration.
• Leveraging Technology: Using data and technology to improve housing policy planning and implementation.

Conclusion

The document concludes by reflecting on Korea’s journey from a recipient of housing policy ideas to a potential exporter of innovative solutions. It highlights the importance of context-specific adaptation and the role of international collaboration in addressing global housing challenges. Korea’s experience offers valuable lessons for other countries grappling with similar issues, demonstrating that effective low-income housing policies require a combination of innovation, flexibility, and a deep understanding of local needs.

This summary captures the key themes and insights of the document, providing a comprehensive overview of Korea’s low-income housing policies and their international context. Let me know if you’d like further elaboration on any specific section!

Also Read: Fundamental value of Korean housing price