Issues of housing in India are synonymous with ignorance of housing in active government involvement at the policy and program formulation levels. They are also due to the problems that unplanned urbanization, income disparity, poverty, illiteracy, and unemployment brought. These issues extenuated the housing problem, causing a housing shortage of 51 million in 2011. Though India has a long history of establishing policies, programs, and institutions to cater to housing, without allocating adequate resources, their impact in ameliorating the shortage has been marginal. This paper argues that to address the housing shortage in India, there is desperate need to prepare a framework for housing by (i) including housing as a constitutional right; (ii) resolving issues of unclear land titles and ensuing claims; (iii) building adequate financial resources for affordable housing programs; (iv) building responsive instruments to facilitate the affordability of housing by all income segments; and (v) overcoming market segmentation, which is currently catering to the housing needs of creditworthy clients and is overlooking the growing demand from middle- and lower-income segments. India needs to leverage its extensive architecture of agencies, policies, and market frameworks for housing by equipping them with adequate resources so they can deliver housing for all.

Allocating land-related social, economic, and legal benefits to people is crucial for meeting the commitments made by various countries for achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs). Economic growth in developing countries in the Southeast Asian region is very rapid, requiring primary resources such as land, which poses challenges for implementing nationally determined commitments towards SDGs. This paper quantitatively compares the relevant policy instruments issued by the key ASEAN countries to analyze the importance of land provision in achieving the specific SDGs. Using content analysis to formulate a framework for comparing the various policy instruments and strategic plans, the article identifies the importance of land use in various policy instruments focused on achieving SDGs. Most countries use authoritative instruments to incorporate land-related aspects. The use of the symbolic, capacity-building, and incentive instruments is relatively lesser. Many countries give prominence to land for providing shelter or as an economic resource, while land use for managing gender equality is negligible. Policy makers could incorporate a more balanced mix of instruments and those addressing different dimensions of land use while redesigning their policy or strategy documents to implement SDGs.

Compulsory acquisition of land is contested bitterly by affected landowners for various reasons including fairness in the compensation that is offered to landowners and fairness in the process that is followed in land acquisition by acquiring authorities. While there is a volume of research that has focussed on compensation, there is a paucity of literature analysing fairness in the process of land acquisition. This paper examines fairness in land acquisition using the case of Scotland, which is currently in the process of reforming laws and policies governing the compulsory acquisition of land. A primary survey was undertaken with stakeholders involved in a road project and information was analysed using ‘qualitative content analysis’. This research identifies the gaps in the existing process of compulsory acquisition using the theoretical lens of ‘procedural justice’ with a strong focus on the social psychology dimension and argues for the incorporation of basic principles of ‘procedural justice’. Fifteen major procedural gaps were identified, which include weak decision-making power of the members of the public in the identification and design of public projects; inadequate representation of objectors due to the high personal cost associated with representation in a public inquiry; time delays; information asymmetries and inefficient grievance management.

Purpose: Homeownership has been the main focus of housing policies in most countries. Typical means that households use to achieve homeownership is to take out a loan and supplement this with accumulated wealth for a downpayment. This paper aims to analyze the mortgage demand behavior of households in the UK, Australia and Japan.Design/methodology/approach: Using three panel data sets, HILDA for Australia, KHPS for Japan and USS for the UK, the paper estimates three equations using ordinary least squares: mortgage demand function, housing demand function and initial loan to value ratio function.Findings: Though homeownership is a preferred tenure and the mortgages are “recourse” loans, housing markets in these three countries operate in different mortgage market institutional structures. Results indicate that income elasticity of mortgage demand differ despite income elasticity of housing demand being similar. Different mortgage institutions in countries that pose constraints for borrowers also determine mortgage demand. Other factors such as demography and economic conditions have also played an important role in determining mortgage and housing demand.Originality/value: The paper is first, to the authors’ knowledge, that explores the role of institutions in mortgage demand in a comparative framework for the UK, Japan and Australia.

A rapid increase in land and property values has been one of the driving forces of urban ecosystem development in many countries. This phenomenon has presented project proponents/policymakers with multiple options and associated challenges, nudging them to configure or incorporate elements of land-based financing in their policies and legislations. Specifically, the Government of India and various state governments have sought to monetize land through diverse instruments, for augmenting the financial viability of infrastructure and area development projects. This paper compares Indian central and state infrastructure policies/acts with regard to land monetization strategies. The analysis indicates that policies and legislations are taking a turn towards promoting land monetization mechanisms as a financing tool for cities and project implementation agencies. However, the approach is cautiously used and implementation is often seen to fall behind actual project timelines. Based on the findings, key determinants of a successful policy that captures an increase in land values, are identified. The learnings provide useful inputs for states to strengthen their policy documents and legislative/institutional frameworks, for ensuring the effectiveness of land-based financing tools.