On 17 January 2004, the Prime Minister gave assurance to provide houses to all government employees across the country complete with infrastructure and utilities. This move was aimed to fulfil the shelter needs of a vast number of government employees on one end while helping to kick-start some three dozen industries on the other. Support from the nationalized commercial banks was sought in this respect.

The Prime Minister showed his optimism that in the coming few years, all the government servants shall have a decent house to live in.

This statement has come as a repeat of various misconstrued ideas that successive governments and policy documents emphasize. For instance, there are more than two million government employees in different ministries, divisions, departments, organizations and autonomous bodies.

This estimate does not include armed forces personnel who are separately accounted for. A sizeable number of these employees do not have adequate shelter. The access to shelter is also limited due to extremely limited incomes, particularly for the non-gazetted cadres.

If one takes them as a representative case study, it shall be a fallacy to imagine these cadres acquiring housing without absolute government subsidies - a policy no more subscribed by the government at any level. The low grade government employees and the lower income households continue to suffer due to non-availability of appropriate housing options. No policy or programme has hitherto addressed this issue on the basis of realities that are vital in this sector.

In Pakistan, scarcity of appropriate housing is one of the most crucial issues. Only in urban areas, the present need stands at 4.3 million units, based on current projections. This shortage has evolved due to several reasons. Natural growth rate of population has contributed significantly to housing need. This rate remained at around 03 percent as a national average. The immigration to cities also caused a rise in housing need in the cities. It was more acute for the primate cities such as Karachi and Lahore, which experienced a net growth rate of above 06 percent per annum during 1980s and 1990s respectively. The rise in housing backlog continued to add the figures over and above the prevailing demand.

Another factor that contributes to the rise in housing need is the sociological change leading to nuclear families. Housing replacement needs, peculiarities of tenancy options and unplanned expansions in city dimensions also affect housing need. Although this need is apparent for all the income categories, it is acute for the low income groups. Scarcity of options, limited resources, lack of supporting measures including state policies are a few reasons in this respect.

Over the period of time, several policy interventions have been made in the context of housing. Few prominent mentions include the First and Second Five Year Development Plans; National Housing Policy of 1992-93 and 2001; Katchi Abadies and Regularization Directives by some provincial governments during 1980s and 1990s and the special purpose initiatives for housing societies by several government, semi-government and autonomous bodies. It is a concern that most of such initiatives claim to address the issues pertinent to housing, without necessarily accounting for the key standing factors.

Needless to say that the lack of recognition of these realities culminated in failures to achieve targets. Although a National Housing Policy was announced in 2001, which restricted the role of government as a regulator and facilitator, no implementation effort has been made in its follow-up. Apparently the lack of appropriate realization of the ground realities pertinent to this sector gave rise to this scenario.

Several research studies have been undertaken in the housing sector to outline the prevailing realities, their scale and intensity of existence. It is vital that the realities must be examined in an objective manner whenever on attempt towards policy making is made.

Conceptually referring, housing is found to be a process. It is not an end product of any mechanically devised delivery product as it is often erroneously considered. The people continue to develop, change, amend and expand their housing stock according to their emerging needs.

These adaptations are sociological and economic phenomena, not necessarily governed by physical considerations. It is for this reason that often a formally built scheme of housing is not accessed by the people who otherwise reside in a katchi abadi with apparently lesser physical standards. Housing is integrally tied up with locational advantages, employment conditions, transport, amenities and socio-cultural aspects of the society.

People, especially those belonging to low income groups, wish to acquire such housing which has an acceptable standard and provision of these factors. However, in a situation of paucity of options, such people have to compromise even on unfavourable choices.

Housing is inconceivable without corresponding options of land supply. In the recent past, a sea change has appeared in the status of land. Previously the state used to consider land as an asset which was allocated for common good in different sectors including housing. It has now become a commodity which is transacted freely in the market. Due to this reason, the poor cannot acquire it even for their most essential need. With the rising influence of market practices, the number of stakeholders related to land use determination has increased. For instance, in a classical situation, the planning agency used to determine the landuse after obtaining the feedback from the prospective users and citizens. Nowadays, international financial institutions, banks, real estate developers, investors, builders, venture capitalists, armed forces, political forces, religious, ethnic and cultural interest groups are some of the key categories that affect land supply for various projects and programmes.

Since 'housing for poor' is not a profitable enterprise, it is almost totally shunned aside. Besides, the land markets continue to receive capital investment in both white and black money. Fluctuations, anomalies and poor performance of other markets is one reason for this state of affairs.

The dynamics of poor, which constitute at least half of the total national population, are very different from the other social classes. The poor live on a day to day basis. They are hardly able to save. Thus they are able to attend only those issues that are most vital for their subsistence. Most of their survival strategies revolve around dividing their areas of significance/spending given the long list of needs. They cannot spend large amounts of money on any single priority.

In houses, it has been found that poor build their houses very slowly and gradually. The addition, alteration or expansion in a house depends upon the rise in needs, social conditions and affordability. It is also important to note that poor cannot afford to buy full fledged house that is complete in all respects. The value of construction and accessories add to the cost value.

Besides it is generally assumed that the households possess regular income which would enable them to pay the instalment. Reality is different. Poor cannot regularly pay the money as several of them are daily wage earners. They can pay only when they receive a sizable amount on their own or through social links. Cheap options with flexible conditions is what the poor can afford.

The State Bank of Pakistan has been advising the banking sector to expand the credit facilities in housing. However the banks have been unable to devise such credit lines that are commensurate with their socio-economic conditions.

Banking credit is essentially tied with collateral, which excludes all those who do not possess any legally valid proof for ownership. Besides, banking loans are meant for house building and house improvement. On the contrary, the poor require capital to access land for which no provision exists. Due to management costs and overheads, banks and housing finance institutions prefer to grant loans of large sums. On the contrary, poor people need loans of very small amounts - barely a few thousand rupees. Thus, since the banks are not able to serve this vast clientele, poor are left with no option but to obtain loans from informal lenders at exorbitant interest rates or sell their family assets.

There is a myth that housing cannot develop unless all components of infrastructure are not provided. The researches and some pilot projects have shown that with minimum but acceptable level of infrastructural provisions, the poor are willing to live on such less serviced plots if provided at affordable prices.

The example of Khuda ki Basti is valid to demonstrate this aspect. In this scheme, the household is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 as down payment. After wards he gets the possession of land immediately. Cost of land and external development is then paid through a monthly instalment of Rs. 300. The sequence of provision of infrastructure comprises water, transportation, sanitation, electricity and natural gas.

It has been clearly found that by using appropriate technologies, modes of construction and eliminating contractor from lane/cluster level work, the cost can be sizably reduced. People are normally capable of managing and providing lane level infrastructure through their own input. Main or trunk level components may be provided by the government agencies.

Several lessons become apparent in this respect. The housing policy or programme must be based upon such approaches that have been proved to be successful. Indeed a good policy is that which builds upon good practices and regulates negative ones. If the state is serious to provide housing options to poor people, it must facilitate appropriate land supply that is tailor-made for them. This is the foremost priority.

In Karachi alone, there are 30,000 plots needed every year. For several years, there has been no fresh scheme launched to cater to this massive figure. As a consequence, poor are pushed outside towards suburban locations in squatter settlements.

The government needs to review the status of squatters and unapproved land subdivisions. Land information systems must be created to organize the land supply and management tasks. It must be understood that isolated projects of small scale or hollow promises can not improve the housing situation.