T his paper will adopt a technocratic approach to outline the structure of housing deficiency in India, to contextualize nine central government policies/ schemes relevant to the housing sector, initiated in the past decade. Deficiency is understood here as a measure of deficit (households requiring new houses), inadequacy (existing houses that can be upgraded), and unacceptability (houses requiring replacement). The nine central government initiatives that will be described in terms of their aims and stipulations comprise JNNURM, RAY, NUHHP, MSAHP, SUH, RRY, PMAY, AMRUT, and the Smart Cities Mission. The final section will discuss the main orientations of these initiatives. T he paper argues that housing policy in India seems to be a response to factors other than the challenges posed by the urban housing sector. It also argues that the variegated nature of the sector demands diverse policy interventions—with a special focus on supporting and enabling incremental growth, environmental improvements, and self-help—rather than a single-minded pursuit to promote new house construction.

India’s policymakers and planners find urbanisation1 crucial for achieving the twin objectives of rapid economic growth and poverty alleviation. T he country’s “slow and top-heavy” urban growth pattern2 (Kundu 2014) has been a source of much scholarly debate. Sluggish urban growth rates have been suggested as a likely contributor to persistent social and regional inequalities (Kundu 2011) and a reflection of the failure of Indian cities to create formal manufacturing jobs (Nijman 2015). Some scholars have focused on the “highly unsatisfactory” state of urban infrastructure and public service delivery that has been hampering faster and more inclusive growth of the economy (Ahluwalia et al. 2014, 2). To stimulate urban growth, therefore, Kundu (2011) argues for inclusive policies for large cities and more support for economic growth in smaller urban centres. Ahluwalia and others (2014) call for greater investments in the urban infrastructure sector for institutional and governance reforms and building the capacity of local governments for urban management.

Due to an increased focus on making large cities attractive for business (Kundu 2013), and with slum settlements being identified as “the most visible manifestation of poverty in urban India” (SCUPC 2011), the vision a ‘slum-free India’ has been pursued by the Government of India (GoI) through its various programmes and schemes. A determination of housing ‘shortage’—as a single-target approach—in India, across income and rental categories, was undertaken in 2012 by the Technical Committee on Housing Shortage (TCHS). T he TCHS pointed out that housing shortage was a consequence of the mismatch between people who need housing and people for whom housing is being built. The Committee devised a methodology for computing the housing shortage4 in India, as the sum of (a) excess of households over existing housing stock, (b) households residing in unserviceable or obsolete units, (c) households residing in congested units, and (d) houseless households (MoHUPA 2012). According to TCHS, 18.78 million or 23 per cent of urban households are in need of new or renewed units, of which 56.2 per cent is the shortage for the economically weaker section (EWS) households5 and 39.5 per cent for low-income group (LIG) households (Table 1). Shortage for middle-income-group (MIG) households and above is about 4.4 per cent. The findings of the TCHS show that housing shortage in India, while significant, is overwhelmingly concentrated among the income poor.

More….