Debdulal Thakur
A subsidised house can make a family poorer. That sounds contradictory, until the keys unlock a dwelling far from work, schools, and reliable transport. The purchase price falls; commuting costs, lost earnings, and unpaid care burdens rise. At what point does a housing subsidy cease to make housing affordable? That question deserves attention when the National Urban Conclave meets in Bhubaneswar later this month.
India has genuine achievements to defend. Under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana–Urban, millions of homes have been sanctioned and built; its successor explicitly recognises rental housing. Yet the familiar scoreboard measures administrative production more readily than improved lives. A completed building is a necessary achievement, but not conclusive evidence of a successful housing intervention.
The southern States expose both ambition and the limits of easy comparison. Official figures dated September 28 put completion at approximately 91% of sanctioned houses in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, 80% in Karnataka, 71% in Andhra Pradesh, and 61% in Telangana. These differences deserve investigation, not simplistic rankings: project vintage, beneficiary-led construction, land constraints, and implementation conditions matter. None of those percentages reveals whether households can afford to remain in their new homes.
Housing is not merely a commodity; it is a location from which people reach labour markets, schools, care networks, and public services. Economists call this spatial accessibility. A dwelling can be cheap in monetary terms but prohibitively expensive once travel time, transport fares, and foregone employment enter the calculation. Particularly for informal workers, employment opportunities are not easily transferred to the outskirts.
For instance, research comparing low-income neighbourhoods in Chennai found that residents nearer the centre were more likely to walk or cycle than households in peripheral Kannagi Nagar. Subsequent studies of resettlement examined interrupted livelihoods, longer journeys and the distinctive burden on women. One published account describes large-scale movement into peripheral settlements where essential services sometimes followed residents years later. These studies do not prove that every relocation fails. They demonstrate why a housing policy evaluated without location can overlook substantial welfare losses.
There is a second statistical trap. Dividing completed houses by sanctioned houses estimates execution against approved supply, not success against total need. Applicants excluded by documentation, tenure rules, or eligibility thresholds are absent from that denominator. Migrants who need a room for six months may never seek subsidised ownership. A high completion ratio can therefore coexist with unmet demand, overcrowded rentals and informal accommodation.
Nor is occupancy the final answer. A family might occupy a dwelling while sacrificing a second earner's job, children's schooling, or essential consumption. Conversely, some peripheral estates become viable as transport, services, and employment develop. Affordability is dynamic. It must be tracked after allotment, not presumed on handover day. That requires asking residents themselves, because administrative records rarely capture the sacrifices made behind closed doors.
This distinction also improves how we interpret State performance. Tamil Nadu's long experience in public housing offers lessons, including difficult ones from resettlement; Kerala's settlement patterns and Karnataka's metropolitan job markets pose different problems. Southern States should be compared on household outcomes within similar project types, not by mixing construction models into a single league table. Otherwise, policy rewards what is easily counted rather than what citizens actually gain.
What should the the National Urban Conclave in Bhubaneswar decide? First, require a location-adjusted affordability assessment before public housing projects receive final approval. For representative intended beneficiaries, estimate rent or loan payments, utilities, recurring maintenance, and the cost and time of reaching realistic employment opportunities. Report the proportion whose combined burden exceeds a publicly specified threshold. The threshold should be tested against local wages and household composition, not copied mechanically from international rules. Projects that save on land but impose large transport costs should face redesign or funded mobility improvements.
Second, commission independent outcome audits at occupancy, twelve months and three years. Measure actual residence, service reliability, job retention, commuting burden, schooling continuity, and women's ability to undertake paid work. Compare findings with credible pre-move baselines and similar non-beneficiary households wherever feasible. Publishing only averages would conceal who loses; disaggregate by income, gender, disability and migration status. Privacy protections and grievance mechanisms must be built in.
Third, treat rental housing and in-situ improvement as genuine choices, not inferior substitutes for ownership. PMAY-U 2.0's rental vertical creates an opening, particularly for mobile workers near factories, hospitals, and transport nodes. Well-regulated partnerships could combine secure leases, predictable charges, and enforceable maintenance standards. Where relocation is unavoidable, livelihood restoration and connectivity must be budgeted before families move.
These proposals are not costless. Land is expensive in core areas, rigorous evaluations require capacity, and transport investment can raise project costs. Nor should every housing project be judged by identical commuting standards - retired households and workers with home-based livelihoods have different needs. But ignoring these differences is precisely the problem. A transparent accounting of lifetime household costs and benefits is better than celebrating low construction costs that merely shift expenses onto residents.
The conclave, especially alongside an urban mobility conference, offers a chance to connect two ministries' familiar questions: Where should housing be built, and how should people move? The answer cannot be supplied by housing departments working alone. Planning, transport, labour and municipal finance must shape the same decision.
India should celebrate every safe home completed. But its next housing milestone should be more demanding: not how many doors were opened, but how many households gained affordable access to the city beyond them.
Thakur is Professor and Director, Centre of Excellence (CoE) for Public Policy, Sustainability, and ESG advances research, Alliance University, Bengaluru