IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Efficiency and Effectiveness Review of the National Housing Authority Resettlement Program

  • Ballesteros, Marife M.
  • Egana, Jasmine V.
Registered author(s):

    This paper examines the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation of the National Housing Authority (NHA) resettlement programs. The review focuses on the recent operations of NHA covering the period between 2003 and 2011, which covers one of the largest resettlement projects of NHA involving about 93,000 families for the North and South Rail infrastructure project. During this period, the resettlement program received about 85 percent of NHA budget. NHA has executed the development of 88 resettlement projects nationwide of which 45 project sites are located in Metro Manila and the peripheral areas (or the Greater Manila Area) and 43 in the regions. The dominant scheme in GMA is the Completed Housing Project (CHP) with more than 70 percent (32 sites) of total projects developer constructed. The balance consists of Incremental Housing Projects (IHP) (6 sites) and mixed projects (7 sites), which combined the CHP and IHP methods. By location, there are more in-city projects (68 sites) than off-city projects (20 sites). However, in-city projects are dominant only in the regions and provinces outside Metro Manila. In the highly urbanized cities of Metro Manila, large-scale resettlement was not provided due to land constraints. Based on actual cost per unit, it costs less to produce a unit of housing using the CHP scheme than IHP by about 17 percent or about PHP 25,000 per unit, on the average. However, cost benefit ratio analysis shows that IHP is more cost effective considering the value of developments and the greater participation and investments of households and community in maintenance of housing estates. Between in-city and off-city CHP projects, the average total project cost is higher for in-city projects compared to off-city projects mainly due to higher cost of land but in-city projects are more sustainable and acceptable to both households and local government units (LGUs). It is recommended that the most effective and efficient approach to resettlement is a combined approach of in-city and incremental housing. However, there are necessary conditions that require specific actions not only from NHA but other stakeholders as well to implement this approach such as: (1) land for socialized housing has to be made available by the LGU or national government especially in highly urbanized cities such as Metro Manila; (2) the feasibility of vertical developments in-city should be considered; and (3) the need for the NHA to improve the production process for incremental housing.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Philippine Institute for Development Studies in its series Discussion Papers with number DP 2013-28.

    in new window

    Length: 65
    Date of creation: 2013
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:phd:dpaper:dp_2013-28
    Contact details of provider: Postal: NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City,
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Mayo, Stephen K., 1986. "Sources of inefficiency in subsidized housing programs: A comparison of U.S. and German experience," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 229-249, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:phd:dpaper:dp_2013-28. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Aniceto Orbeta)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.