Speakers
Description
The relationship between public housing policies and ownership presents several challenges which often stem from the tension between the goals of providing affordable housing for low-income households and the realities of market dynamics, socio-economic factors, and policy implementation (Phang & Pacey, 2018; Aalbers, 2016; Rolnik, 2013; Rohe, Van Zandt, & McCarthy, 2002). Iran’s Mehr Housing Policy (IMHP), implemented between 2007 and 2013, represents the Iranian government's most extensive intervention aimed at providing affordable housing for low-income households. Under this policy, numerous residential units—both in the form of complexes and stand-alone buildings—were constructed across the country. In Mazandaran Province particularly, 65,000 units were built to accommodate 200,000 individuals, with one-third of these units organized into residential complexes. These complexes varied significantly in ownership—state-owned versus self-owned—and location-inside versus outside of the administrative municipal border-.
Affordable housing, as defined by Freeman and Schuetz (2017), must be sold or rented at below-market prices and occupied by households below a defined income threshold. To achieve this, IMHP employed several implementation tools, including: allocation of state-owned land, construction on inexpensive suburban plots, provision of state loans, legal and bureaucratic facilitation, applicant registration, and resale restrictions.
More than a decade after the delivery of IMHP units to target households, this study examines the effectiveness of IMHP in achieving its goals. Specifically, it addresses the question: ‘Has IMHP leaded to own and occupy housing units by low-income households’?
Empirical studies highlight that public housing units are increasingly treated as financial assets, leading to speculation and price inflation that exclude low-income groups (Aalbers, 2016). Market mechanisms often transform public housing into a commodity, benefiting investors rather than low-income residents (Rolnik, 2013). Public housing policies may also displace low-income residents, creating housing more attractive to middle- and high-income buyers (Hackworth & Smith, 2001), or result in mixed-income neighborhoods (lees, 2008). Resale restrictions, commonly imposed to maintain affordability for future low-income households (Rohe, Van Zandt, & McCarthy, 2002), have varying impacts on neighborhood stability and socioeconomic integration. In some cases, these restrictions lead to vacant units (Han, 2014), while in others, they enable low-income households to benefit from housing market gains (Phang & Pacey, 2018).
This explorative study employs quantitative methods (field surveys and statistical tests) to investigate ownership dynamics in IMHP housing complexes in Mazandaran Province. Using proportional stratified sampling and systematic sampling, 335 questionnaires were distributed across 13 IMHP housing complexes in Babol and Babolsar, encompassing 3,031 housing units.
Preliminary findings suggest that in some IMHP complexes, target households sold their units to profit from the price difference between affordable and market-rate housing, leading to new owners replacing them. In other cases, units were rented out for monthly income, attracting new residents. Additionally, some units remained vacant due to inadequate demand. These outcomes raise critical questions about the viability of IMHP in meeting its original objectives and point to broader implications for designing effective future housing policies.
References
Aalbers, M. B. (2016). The Financialization of Home and the Mortgage Market Crisis. In M. B. Aalbers, The Financialization of Housing (p. 24). Routledge.
Freeman, L., & Schuetz, J. (2017). Producing Affordable Housing in Rising Markets. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 19(1), pp.217-236.
Hackworth, J., & Smith, N. (2001). The changing state of gentrification. Journal of economic and human geography, 92(4), pp.464-477. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00172
Han, H. (2014). The impact of abandoned properties on nearby property values. Housing Policy Debate, 24(2), pp.311-334.
lees, l. (2008). Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance? Urban studies, 45(12), pp.2449 - 2470. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098008097099
Phang, S., & Pacey, R. (2018). Policy innovations for affordable housing in Singapore. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer International Publishing.
Rohe, W. M., Van Zandt, S., & McCarthy, G. (2002). Home Ownership and Access to Opportunity. Housing Studies, 17(1), pp.51-61. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030120105884
Rolnik, R. (2013). Late Neoliberalism: The Financialization of Homeownership and Housing Rights. International journal of urban and regional research, 37(3), pp.1058-1066. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12062
Scanlon, K., Whitehead, C., & Arrigoitia, M. F. (2014). Social Housing in Europe. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
| Keywords | IMHP; Affordable Housing; Ownership Dynamics, Low-Income Households; Real Estate Market. |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
