![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper discusses the reorganization of the roles of the national and local governments in public housing policy alongside decentralization, with particular reference to South Korea. Focusing on policy changes over the past decade, it reveals that rather than retrenchment amid a push towards greater local autonomy, the national government has diversified and expanded its public housing policy, and is increasingly pursuing a universal approach to public housing. Through case studies of Seoul and Gyeonggi, it also shows how the two local governments have become creative suppliers of public housing that is more customized to the local context. In particular, it highlights the rising emphasis on targeting young people rather than the very poor in public housing policies, a shift that is partly a legacy of Korea’s ‘productivist’ welfare state. The paper closes by discussing the implications of this latest policy trend, especially on local–national policy coordination.
Notes
1. Korea began decentralization reforms in the 1990s and held the first popular local elections in 1995.
2. In Korea, as long as the units are built on publicly developed lands with government subsidy, they are categorized as public housing. There are two types of public housing: short-term and long-term lease. The long-term lease public housing is permanently owned by government agencies, while short-term lease units (provided by the private sector with government subsidies) are sold in the private market after five or ten years of mandatory lease, to promote homeownership among moderate- and middle-income households. Our discussion of ‘public housing’ refers only to long-term lease housing.
3. While PPRH development costs are covered by the state (85%) and tenants (15%), NRH projects are financed by state grants (10−40%), state loans (40−50%), tenants (10−30%) and suppliers (10%). NRH’s lease period is 30 years, and it targets the lowest four income decile groups, which is wider than PPRH’s target group of the lowest two decile groups. (See Table ).
4. Korea originally had 5397 sq. km of green belt nationwide, 28.4% (1535 sq. km) of which has been released for development purposes since 2000. About 92% of the released green belt took place between 2001 and 2006, during a period of aggressive NRH expansion (MoLIT, Citation2016b).
5. The housing supply ratio is the number of housing units to the number of households, and is a measure popularly used in Korea to see the overall availability of housing.
6. The government changed the calculation method for the housing supply ratio in 2004. The old calculation method shows the housing supply rate as reaching 100% in 2002.
7. The Chonsei rental system is unique to Korea, where a tenant pays, in lieu of monthly rent, a lump sum deposit (equivalent to 40−60% of the house price), which is fully returned when the contract is terminated. This rental system worked largely because, amid high economic growth and interest rates, landlords were able to earn more from the interest coming from the deposit than from the monthly rent.
8. 80% of Happy House units are to be supplied to the young population, and the rest is allocated for elderly and low-income non-homeowners. The young population refers to: (1) single college students; (2) single workers who started working within the past 5 years; and (3) couples who married within the past 5 years. The lease period is set as 6 years, but it can be extended up to 10 years if single occupants get married or newlyweds bear two children (MoLIT, Citation2017).
9. The target group of the public housing for the ‘less poor’ does not necessarily exclude the most underprivileged households, but the proportion of units allocated to them is small.
10. The capital region, where 50% of the Korean population resides, comprises Seoul Metropolitan City, Gyeonggi Province, and Incheon Metropolitan City.
11. The scheme was abolished in 2014, albeit unofficially, as the state promoted its ‘Happy House’ policy.
12. Social housing as non-profit, non-state housing is very limited in Korea due to the predominant public housing system administered by the public sector and the lack of a legal and financial infrastructure for social housing policy. Currently, only SMG has set social housing as a policy goal from 2012, and other local governments provide piecemeal subsidies at best. Despite SMG’s efforts to expand the social housing system in the light of increasing demand among lower-middle income people, social rented housing only accounts for 0.03% of total housing in Seoul as of 2017 (Jeong, Citation2017; Park et al., Citation2017).
13. A similar trend is also observed in the case of Seoul (Table ), although the changes are less drastic; LH already has had difficulty in building new units in Seoul, failing to provide any in some years.
14. Dabok is a shortened form of the Korean words meaning ‘warm and blessed’.
15. Table shows how SMG began to provide affordable housing for the less poor even earlier than the national government. Although GPG is a latecomer, providing 0 units for the less poor up to year 2014 (Table ), its recent launch of the Dabok policy clearly indicates where its interest lies in public housing.
16. In our interview, a KHRIS researcher admitted that comparatively nothing much is being done for the elderly in terms of public housing (interview, 2 December 2013). Although the state has mandated the allocation of 3–5% of newly built public rental flats to the elderly since 2012 (Ministry of Health and Welfare, Citation2010), there has not been a public housing plan dedicated to low-income seniors. Only very recently, in 2017, did the state launch ‘Public Silver Housing’, with a target of a mere 1000 units (MoLIT, Citation2017).