Page 1 of 21
453
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.7, No.12
Publication Date: December 25, 2020
DOI:10.14738/assrj.712.9369. Adegoke, S. A. O. (2020). Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized
Private Sector Housing. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 453-473.
Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of
Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized Private Sector
Housing
Samson Akinbamide Omobayo Adegoke (Ph.D)
Department Of Estate Management and Valuation,
Osun State College Of Technology, Esa-Oke, Osun State
ABSTRACT
Housing delivery in Nigeria has been dominated by the On-Site-Builders,
each building incrementally as private individual for his household. The
need to take advantage of economy of scale in housing delivery to enhance
affordability led to the emergence of Organized Private Sector Housing
Delivery in Nigeria. Despite this initiative, the majority of the people are
not accessing housing from the Organized Private Sector Housing
Developers, still employing their incremental housing approach. This
study is therefore a comparative analysis of housing affordability of
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of Organized Private Sector Housing
Delivery in Nigeria. A cross-sectional survey design was adopted. The
respondents, beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, were selected by
systematic random sampling technique. Ten percent of beneficiaries’
household heads were selected from the occupied houses (19500) in the
estates. The respondents among the non-beneficiaries were selected
among the occupied housing units within 1km radius of the houses
around each of the sampled estates until equal numbers of respondents
from beneficiaries was selected, where possible. Thus, there were 1,950
and 1,332 number of respondents among beneficiaries and no- beneficiaries respectively. The structured questionnaire administered on
the heads of households’ elicited information on demographic
characteristics (age, sex, household size, etc) and housing affordability
variables such as (household income, housing expenditure, access to
mortgage, other non-housing expenditure, etc). The questionnaire
administered on Organized Private Sector Housing Developers (OPSHDs)
seeks information on types of houses produced, selling prices, sales terms,
among others. We rely on affordability rating scale of: normal ≤30%;
tolerable 30.1-50% and stressed ≥50% to measure and compare housing
affordability of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. They study revealed
that while about 42% of beneficiaries fall within normal housing
affordability, about 76% of non-beneficiaries are in that category. About
37% of beneficiaries are in tolerable housing affordability category while
only about 16% of non-beneficiaries are there. Those under varying
degrees of housing affordability stress are about 21% and 8% among
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries respectively. The major policy
implication of the findings is that direct support to non-beneficiaries – the
Page 2 of 21
454
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
On-Site-Builders by government, through serviced plots and mortgage
facility may be a more veritable approach for resolving the current
housing crisis in the country.
Keywords: On-Site-Builders, Housing Affordability Profile, Tolerable Housing
Affordability, Non-Housing Expenditure, Housing Expenditure.
1.0. INTRODUCTION
Housing is a fundamental right, as citizens can hardly enjoy other rights without it. Housing delivery
in Nigeria was initially treated as a social responsibility of government. In the Third National
Development Plan, government came out boldly to state that “government now accept it as part of
its social responsibilities to participate actively in the provision of housing for all income groups
and will therefore intervene on a large scale in this sector during the plan period” (FGN, 1975).
Since that time, a lot has changed, with housing moving through the trajectory of social good to
commercial and to full privatization in Nigeria. This paradigm change has also make “affordability”
to replace “need” in housing policy discourse. Therefore, housing has traversed from the public end
of public-private partnership continuum to the private sector end resulting in full privatization of
housing delivery. Thus today in Nigeria, housing provision has become more of a function of the
market and less the responsibility of governments. Therefore, the shrinking role of the state in
many developed and developing countries over the past three (3) decade due to the neo-liberal
economic policies has brought housing affordability to the fore in global housing discourse.
According to Whitehead (1991), recent housing debates in the UK have shifted away from
discussion of housing need to more market-oriented analysis of affordability. Similarly, the fact that
Nigeria has embarked on a pro-market housing reform that is private-sector-driven, has placed
affordability concern at the forefront of the Nigerian housing policy discourse (Ndubueze, 2009).
The 2002 National Housing Policy has as its main thrust “to seek vigorously to make an increasing
majority of Nigerians home owners on the basis of mortgage finance (Mabogunje, 2004). This
implies that not all Nigerians can be captured in the policy implementation. In truth, not only that
all Nigerians are not captured, the fast majority is not. Thus, despite the new Organized Private
Sector Housing Delivery, fast majority of Nigerians still build their own houses unaided by
government. The question this paper seeks to answer is “which one is more affordable between
governments facilitated organized private sector housing and the one privately built by the owners
with or without government assistance?” Therefore, this study is an assessment and comparison of
housing affordability of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of organized private sector housing in
Nigeria. The findings from this study will be highly valuable for government, politicians and policy
makers in taken decisions on the best approach to adopt to enhance housing affordability of
majority of Nigerians.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
The term housing affordability simply implies the ability to afford housing. However, beyond this
point, any attempt to precisely define and grapple with the concept becomes slippery. The term
housing affordability come to popular usage in the last three decades replacing “housing need” at
the centre of debate about the provision of adequate housing for all (Whitehead, 1991; Swarts and
Miller, 2002). Although “affordability has been in widespread use in US housing policy since 1960s,
it was not until late 1980s that it became part of policy discourse in Australia and UK. Its usage can
Page 3 of 21
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2020). Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized Private Sector
Housing. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 453-473.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9369 455
be traced to the promotion by governments of neo-liberal modes of housing. Confirming this view,
Heywood (2017) asserted that the shrinking role of the state in many developed countries over the
past three decades due to neo-liberal economic policies brought housing affordability to the fore in
global housing discourse. The adoption of neo-liberal economic policies in Nigeria led to the
adoption of the current national housing policy with emphasis on the market and private sector
driven housing provision. This paradigm shift has therefore make clarity and measurement of
housing affordability imperative in Nigeria.
Generally, affordability is a measure of ability and capacity of consumer to pay for goods and
services to be consumed. Therefore, in a market economy, price will not only allocate quantity, but
also, the quality of goods and services that each household will consume based on their level of
affordability. According to UNCHS/HABITAT (1991), housing affordability is an assessment that
relates a particular housing solution to the amount that can be paid for without unduly stretching
the payer’s resources. This view of affordability is of wider applicability, as it is applicable to
renters, as well as those who want to build or buy their houses without recourse to mortgage facility.
According to Arthur et al, 2002), housing affordability is more difficult to define as it involves the
capacity of households to consume housing services, specifically; it involves the relationship
between household incomes and housing prices and rents. Maclennan and Williams (1990) gave
one of the most quoted definition of housing affordability as “a measure with securing some given
standard of housing (or different standards) at a price or rent which does not impose, in the eye of
some third party, (usually government) an unreasonable burden on household income.
In a more explicitly way, Whitehead (1991) pointed out that definitions of housing affordability
usually focus on the relationship between housing expenditure and household income and that they
seek to establish a standard in respect of which the amount of income spent on housing is defined
unaffordable. This standard can be defined in terms of absolute residual income, once housing costs
have been met or as a ratio measure, specifying the acceptable proportion to be spent on housing.
However, in a mortgage-based housing delivery, housing affordability can be conceptualized as
ability and capability of household to meet their periodic mortgage obligations without jeopardizing
their health or reducing their family nutrients intake (Agbola, 1990; Olatubara and Agbola, 1992).
This is mortgage affordability; the ability to meet all requirements to quality to raise enough fund
through mortgage to buy a house. On the other hand, repayment affordability considers the burden
imposed on a household of repaying the mortgage and ability to cope without failing to meet other
non-housing necessities. Income affordability is simply a measure of the ratio of house prices to
household income. Finally, there is the renter housing affordability which specifically measures the
ability of renters to pay rent of a minimum standard housing without jeopardizing the ability to
meet other non-housing needs. All these variants of housing affordability further attests to its
complexity, contentious nature and implications for different segments of the population.
The contestation in housing affordability debates does not end with its definition. The greater
debate is in the approaches to measuring housing affordability. Notwithstanding the controversies
in the housing affordability measure methods/approaches, it has gained wider global recognition
and acceptance in housing policy outcomes analysis. According to Bramley (2012) affordability
measure, over the last 25 years, has become a more commonly used even ubiquitous, term in
housing policy discourse. Affordability measure has come as the most concrete measure to relate
anticipated policy outcomes to the households, and therefore has become a kind of acid test for the
Page 4 of 21
456
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
analysis of policy outcomes. However, due to its increasing popularity, acceptability and
application, housing affordability measure has equally become extremely controversial, generating
intense intellectual discourse and ultimately leading to refinement in operational modalities. This
intellectual debate has pitched the proponents of housing affordability measure into two major
divides (Adegoke, 2016).
Therefore, most recent research efforts and debates are concerned about how the affordability
measure should be operationalized – particularly whether a housing costs-to-income ratio
approach or residual income relative to subsistence approach should be adopted. (Bramley and
Kantley, 2004; Kulty, 2005; Stone, 2006; Gan and Hill, 2009; Chen, et al; 2010 and Bramley, 2012).
According to Stone (2006), mathematically, the relationship between housing costs and income can
be computed either as ratio or as a difference. These two approaches are the formal foundation of
the prevailing affordability paradigm and its principal challenger respectively.
Housing costs-to-income ratio approach expressed affordability as the ratio of housing costs to the
household income (Kulty, 2005). This approach has the longest history and widest recognition
(Stone, 2006). It is the most common measure of housing affordability (Chen, 2011). The threshold
of the price or housing expenditure-to-income has been set at 25%, 30% and 50% and households
that exceed these ratios are regarded as having housing affordability problem (Kulty, 2005).
Housing costs-to-income approach appealed to many researchers and professionals because of its
“mathematical simplicity,” also, because ratios are pure numbers, they can be compared across time
and space and are susceptible to being verified as universal and lawful (Stone, 2006). However,
despite the widespread recognition and acceptance of this approach, it has several drawbacks
which invariably led to agitation for an alternative approach (Adegoke, 2016). Prominent among
the flaws are lack of theoretical foundation for the concept or particular ratio or ratios that are used;
it ignores differences in quality and preference (Kulty, 2005; Stone, 2005). It also fails to
appreciate/capture income constraints and differentials among household and cannot distinguish
between households that willingly and those that are forced to spend more than 30% of their
income on housing.
Residual income approach emerged as a result of the perceived flaws and several criticism of the
ratio approach. Mathematically, it is a measure of the difference between household housing
expenditure and the household income. This approach relied on the fact that for the fast majority
of households, housing expenditure is by far the single largest chunk of their income. According to
Stone (2006), the approach arises from the recognition that because of housing’s distinctive
physical attributes in comparison with other necessities its costs makes the largest and least flexible
claim on after-tax income for most households. This approach can also be anchored on the “housing
and other goods theory” by Jameson (2004), where he asserted that: “from a theoretical base, the
trade-off between spending on housing and spending on other goods in the consumption basket
follows from the neo-classical theory of consumer choice. The outcome of such a trade-off is
determined by a result of the interaction between an individual’s preferences (tastes) and their
budget constraints” (Jameson, 2004). In essence therefore, the non-housing expenditures are
limited by how much is left after paying for housing consumption. Essentially, residual income
approach measures whether the household’s income after deducting the costs of standard housing
consumption is sufficient to meet minimum acceptable non-housing consumptions. Thereafter, the
approach indicators of housing affordability should be the difference between housing costs and
Page 5 of 21
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2020). Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized Private Sector
Housing. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 453-473.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9369 457
the residual income after paying for housing (Luffman, 2006). Stone, a leading advocate and
proponent of residual approach further clarified the approach in his publication when he developed
the concept of “shelter poverty” which he described as a situation when housing costs are too high
that household cannot meet the minimum acceptable non-housing consumption. Kulty (2005)
similarly came up with “housing induced poverty,” which he described as the situation when a
household cannot afford the minimum non-housing goods after paying for housing. The strength of
residual income approach includes taken the housing decisions of individual households and
socially acceptable level of consumption into consideration; which make it possible to establish
under and over consumption. This approach also offers a more precise treatment of how to identify
housing needs and problems, which promotes the allocation of housing subsidies in a more efficient
and impartial way (Kulty, 2005); Stone and Chen, 2010; Stone et al; 2011; Bramley, 2011). One
major weakness of residual income approach however remains how to define and establish the
“minimum standards” of adequacy for non-housing consumption (Gabriel et al; 2005; Stone, 2006
and Yang et al, 2011).
By and large, residual income approach has enriched the debate on housing affordability measure
by introducing some variables which invariably make it to capture more aspects of housing
affordability that ratio approach neglected. Despite that, Stone and one of the strongest advocates
of the adoption of residual income approach, admitted that residual income is neither well known
nor widely understood, let alone accepted. That notwithstanding, the approach is sound and very
robust and sooner or later, it will effectively compete with, if not replace the traditional paradigm
of housing affordability measure (Stone et al, 2011). Generally however, whichever of the two
major approaches that will be employed, the starting point is to properly define housing
affordability. According to Bramley and Karley (2004) affordability is of a decent home, within the
means of the family. While affordability ratios measure the “housing costs-to-income,” residual
income approach measures “what percentage of income is left” (residual) relative to subsistence
needs after paying for housing.
This review of literature has revealed absence of serious theoretical efforts and application of the
two major contemporary measures of housing affordability and a narrow application of measure of
repayment affordability in public housing scheme in Nigeria. More importantly, there is a
noticeable dearth of empirical investigation of housing affordability of urban dwellers in Nigeria at
a national scale and across all income groups. This therefore exposed major research gap in national
housing affordability. This research fills this major gap and provides a basis for contributions to the
ongoing global debates on housing affordability from the Nigerian perspectives. More importantly,
this research is becoming imperative in view of the rising costs and increasing housing deficit; as
well as rising homelessness and increasing vacancies currently emerging in Nigeria urban centres.
3.0 CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL ISSUES IN HOUSING POLICY AND DELIVERY
Housing policy and delivery are shaped by the theories of economics and political economy adopted
by any government. This is because while economists focused largely on “the allocation of scarce
resources among competing ends,” political economy helps to extend the focus of classical
economics to include analysis of “allocation of scarce resources, not only among competing ends,
but also among competing users.” (Agbola, 2005). Therefore, who gets what, where and how is
central to political analysis and distribution is critical to political economy, normatively in judging
Page 6 of 21
458
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
the desirability of economic outcomes (Boyce, 2002). Therefore, few of the theories and concepts
that shape housing policy, delivery system and distribution are discussed in this section.
3.1 Housing Delivery System
Housing delivery system is a combination of many interrelated processes that determine housing
production and ultimate distribution to consumers. This system is influenced and affected by many
exogenous and endogenous variables. The system consists of the production of housing units;
renovation of existing ones and the distribution of new and old houses to all consumers. Therefore,
the housing delivery system is a collection of production mechanism, regulatory and administrative
devices by which housing services are provided to the consumers. Generally, the principal
components of the housing delivery system are: land and infrastructure; construction technology,
labour and management, building materials, housing finance system, and the distribution
mechanisms. This general housing delivery system is captured by the housing delivery model, which
was developed by Housing Strategy Western Australia.
3.2 General Housing Delivery Model
The model provides a broad conceptual framework for considering the principal
components/drivers that shape the housing delivery system (Housing Strategy WA, 2001). This
model is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Housing Delivery Model
Source: Housing Strategy WA (2001) p. 5.
DEMAND
DRIVERS
INDUSTRY
CAPACITY
HOUSING
SUPPLY
EXISTING
HOUSING
STOCK
EXTERNAL
IINFLUENCES
SOCIETAL
CHANGE &
ASPIRATIONS
SUPPLY
DRIVERS
FINANCE
TAX &
WELFARE
SETTINGS
EFFICIENCY
HOUSING
DEMAND
AFFORDABLE
Ownership & Rental
ACCESSIBLE
Marginalized
Complex Needs
Indigenous
Youth, aged, etc.
SUSTAINABLE
Society
Economies
Environment
TENURE
LOCATION
Home Ownership
Private Rentals
Public Housing
Community Housing
Regional & Remote
POPULATION
OUTLOOK
ECONOMIC &
Demand
Profile
INTERVENTION
Land & Servicing
Labour& Materials
Technology
•
•
•
Careers
Housing
Page 7 of 21
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2020). Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized Private Sector
Housing. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 453-473.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9369 459
The model is an exposition of the major drivers of the general housing delivery system and their
interrelationships. These major drivers are categorized as demand drivers, supply drivers and
government intervention mechanism.
The supply side is represented by the house building industry, which supplies houses based on the
demand generated by the economy or stimulated by government policies. The housing demand and
supply as managed through the housing policy, particularly towards the achievement of equity
objective in the distribution of housing stock, will generate housing outcomes, which in turn have
socio-economic impact on the whole economy.
The demand drivers essentially include the economic and population outlook. This relates to
population growth rate, particularly household formation, distribution pattern between the urban
and rural areas; the income levels and distribution, all of which will substantially influence demand.
The societal changes and aspirations as they affect housing concept, standards, etc. Finally, the
demand profile and housing careers will focus on the cohort projections plus changing
demographics and socio-economic profiles, which will influence housing careers and the demand
for various types of housing.
The supply side drivers are the factors that stimulate the supply of housing in response to the
demand generated in the system. This will include the determination of the capacity of the existing
housing stock; which will include the understanding of the current housing stock in terms of age,
size, location, tenure and access by different income groups. Also, the Industry Capacity is a major
supply side driver. Thus, in determining the industry capacity, issues such as land and their
servicing, labour and materials for house construction and finally, the level of technology in the
country are major supply factors.
Government interventions that will affect housing supply and demand are finance, taxation and
other welfare settings. Also, availability of mortgage to developers, buyers and renters and the
terms of such mortgages are critical. The issue of taxation is particularly important as they affect
property taxation on property transactions and their effects on affordability. Other taxation policies
as they affect building materials and the building industry as a whole will impact greatly on supply
and the price at which housing come to the market. Finally, the welfare packages such as subsidies,
in various forms, will greatly affect housing demand and affordability.
3.3 Housing Delivery System in Nigeria
The housing delivery system in Nigeria is a bit unique as it exhibits certain features that the general
model does not explicitly explained. In Nigeria, housing delivery is basically through the public and
private sectors. The private sector suppliers can be further categorized as organized private sector
suppliers and individual members of the private sector that build for themselves and others, either
for personal use or rental purpose. These categories of people supply from single units to many.
Therefore, for the private sector operators in Nigeria, there are five categories of private builders.
Surprisingly, they collectively supply the bulk of the houses in the country, at a ratio of 4 to 1
between them and the public sector (Agbola, 2005). The five categories of private sector builders
are:
(i) Marchant Builders
(ii) Builder Investors
Page 8 of 21
460
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
(iii) On-Site-Builders
(iv) Prefabricators, and
(v) Land Developers/Speculators
3.3.1. Merchant Builders: These consist of wealthy industrialists, syndicate groups and corporate
organizations who build primarily for commercial purpose. This group, are organizations that will
take a single design (prototype) and build many units to take advantage of economies of scale and
dispose of the houses at a price that will allow them to recoup their investment quickly. The bulk of
those in this category are now in the organized private sector with the advent of 2002 National
Housing Policy. They are now mostly members of Real Estate Developers Association of Nigeria
(REDAN); an association that was facilitated by the government to serve as fulcrum of the housing
delivery in Nigeria.
3.3.2 Builder Investors are similar to the merchant builders, but are distinguishable by the
scale/number of units they supply and the fact that they retain ownership of their estates/houses.
This group is equally becoming prominent in housing delivery as some of them are taking advantage
of the impetus offered by the 2002 National Housing Policy to join REDAN and widen the
scope/scale of their operation.
3.3.3 On-Site-Builders: This is the most common type of builders in the private sector in the
country, and bye and large, the major suppliers of housing. They collectively contribute more to the
housing delivery pool than all other groups combined, including the public sector. This group is
made up of individuals who build for the use of their household. They are the individuals who build
instalmentally, trying to own a house as fast as their resources could permit. They buy land first,
perhaps through the cooperative system; use the land for farming (to confirm ownership and ward
of predators) before it is his turn to collect cooperative again after which he lays the foundation ad
rest again until the process is finally completed many years after. This is the common process by
which most households own their houses in Nigeria. The typical process is depicted in Figure 2.
Page 9 of 21
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2020). Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized Private Sector
Housing. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 453-473.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9369 461
Fig.2 Stages in The Sequential House Building Process in Nigeria.
Agbola (2005) Pg. 8
3.3.4. Prefabricators: This is the category of private builders who take advantage of industrialized
system to mass-produce housing elements/components to maximize cost savings. This is not very
popular in the country. It is only an Israeli firm – HFP that is experimenting with this type of house
production in Nigeria, and the results have not been particularly beneficial to the beneficiaries of
the resulting units (Agbola, 1989).
3.3.5 Land Developers/Speculators: This category are those that acquire land, lay it out and
service it with infrastructure ready for occupation or purchase while the latter (speculators)
acquire the land but holds it without any improvement, only to sell later; and reap the unearned
income when the land appreciates in value. The land developers in some instances do site and
service, where they made serviced plots ready for sale to individuals or the rich On-Site-Builders.
Some members of REDAN now do this for interested individual members of the public.
In this study, the beneficiaries are those that purchase or rent from merchant builders – the
organized private sector, who are all members of REDAN; while the non-beneficiaries are mostly
the On-Site-Builders around the estates developed by members of REDAN.
Page 10 of 21
462
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
3.4 Equity, Housing Policy and Delivery System
The conception of equity pursued will greatly shape housing policy and impact on housing delivery
system and distribution. Usually, one of the cardinal objectives of any housing policy is equity in
the distribution of housing. Therefore, housing policies are usually initiated by governments either
on the basis of government willingness to accept responsibility or as a reflection of the demand and
pressure emerging from various interest groups. Hence, arguments about housing policy are
usually based implicitly, if not explicitly, on different conceptions of equity or distributive justice
(Heady, 1978). Equity therefore has always been a major consideration in any housing policy. The
question then is to what extent has housing policies and delivery system achieved equity among
various income groups and different tenures? Or, put in another way, despite the equity objectives
in housing policy and delivery, why are inequalities so prevalent in housing distribution or
allocation? The basic answer is that there are different conceptions of equity. According to Frank
et al (1974), equity has a number of specific meanings, but they recognized three (3) standards of
equity as market equity, equal opportunity and equal results.
The advocates of liberal or market equity contends that there should be “the free interplay of market
forces in the housing sector, primarily for reasons of efficiency rather than equity” (Heady, 1978).
This conforms with the market equity of Frank et al (1974). The idea of market equity is based on
the assumption that market mechanism is the most suitable strategy for sharing resources such that
would allow the maximum use of all the factors of production. The liberal conception of equity
advocates succinctly maintain that the nature of the house individual household wants to choose
should be determined by income and affordability. This implied that equity would be determined
by income at one’s disposal. The liberal scholars see government intervention in the market
operation through public expenditure and construction of houses as a mere interruption, which
destroy and distort market conditions. The liberal group believes strongly that government should
not be involved directly in housing construction, but rather facilitate the operation of the housing
delivery system and allow the market forces to allocate/distribute the housing stock produced. This
is the theoretical foundation and argument for organized private sector led housing delivery in
Nigeria. According to Freedman (1969), housing delivery should be left to the private sector to
manage; as the heart of capitalism is that it is more productive, more efficient and more successful
than government ownership and operation.
The foundation and core values of social democracy as found in the battle cry of the French
revolution are; freedom, equality and solidarity. The realization of these core values will lead to a
just society – where social justice prevails (Havek, 1979). The social democratic group believes that
equity as the equal distribution of goods is not in need of justification. It is the deviation from this
that must be defined and negotiated from the standpoint of justice. They asserted that genuine
freedom unconceivable without equity. Social justice refers to all aspects of justice including legal,
political and economic. It demands for distribution of public goods, institutional resources and life
opportunities. This implied that the conception of equity by this group essentially is about an
egalitarian society. This implied that the limited opportunities should therefore be distributed
“fairly” as against merit based justice. This equity conception is the foundation for a welfare state;
which in housing distribution, means treating all citizen equally and fairly. The achievement of this
perception of equity is however largely dependent on the interest of the political power class, their
sincerity and benevolence.
Page 11 of 21
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2020). Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized Private Sector
Housing. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 453-473.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9369 463
The view of the Maxist of equity in housing distribution is that resources be distributed from “each
according to his ability” to “each according to his needs” (Heady, 1978). This group believes that a
policy maker in the area of housing can hardly take a decision that would allow distributive justice.
What this group opposes is the continued existence of inequalities often perpetuated by the
lopsided economic plans to the neglect of the larger majority needing the houses. To the
protagonists of this group, equity is not achievable because the state apparatus is controlled by the
powerful class who careless about the housing condition of the low-income group.
The last group is the elitist group. Their perception of equity revolves around the common saying
that “to him that has, more shall be given,” or what Frank et al (1974) called “the more, the more
the syndrome” and which they traced to the Bible in Mathew Chapter 25, verse 29, which says “for
whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even
what they have will be taken from them.” But from him that hath not shall be taken away even that
which he hath.” This conception of equity is not often consciously pursued, but many housing
policies often end up with such outcomes.
3.5 Housing and Other Goods Theory
Another important theory relevant to housing policy study is the “housing and other goods theory”.
This is the anchor theory for this study. The theory assumed that there are only two items in the
consumption basket – housing and all other goods needed for a healthy living by a household. The
main thesis of the theory is that there is always a trade-off between spending on housing and all
other items in the consumption basket of a household. This theory follows from the neo-classical
theory of consumer choice. According to Jameson, et al (2004), the outcome of such a trade-off is
determined by the result of the interaction between an individual’s preferences (tastes) and their
budget constraints. The housing and other goods theory is a model of consumer choice in housing.
The diagram in Figure 3 depicts this model.
Page 12 of 21
464
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
Figure 3: Choosing Between Housing and Other Consumption Goods
The axes of the above diagram represent increasing quantities of each good, for simplicity, there are
two goods-housing and others to be consumed. With that, the model can be interpreted as follows:
(i) An individual’s (or household’s) preferences reflect the desire to consume a combination of
housing and other goods. Furthermore, this preferred combination varies as more housing
is consumed and the ratio at which housing is willingly swapped for other goods also varies.
(ii) This ratio is reflected in the diagram as the slope of the curves shown. The preferences
curves themselves represent combinations of housing and other goods that jointly provide
the individual with the same level of satisfaction (utility). The higher the preference curve
indicates a higher level of satisfaction (e.g. the dashed curve shown) while shifting along one
curve represents different combinations of housing and other goods that provides the same
level of satisfaction.
(iii) An individual’s (household’s) budget constraint is determined by the combination of
available income as well as the prices of housing and of other goods.
v The triangle that is bordered by the two axes and the solid straight line, depicted in
figure 3.3 illustrated the combination of housing and other goods that are available to
be chosen.
v The budget constraints will expand outward as the income increases, thereby
expanding the choice set to encompass more possible combinations of housing and
other goods.
v The budget constraint will also change where there is a change in the price of housing
relative to other goods. Such a change will alter the slope of the budget constraint. For
example, a fall in the price of housing – relative to the price of other goods would
‘flatten’, the budget constraint, bringing more “housing intensive” combinations into the
available choice-set.
Other
consumption
QO
Budget
constraint
Preference
(indifference curve)
Housing
consumption
Source: Jameson, B & Nana, G. (2004), p. 11.
QA
Page 13 of 21
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2020). Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized Private Sector
Housing. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 453-473.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9369 465
v Given the depicted sets of preferences and set of budget constrained choices, this
individual will choose QA units of housing consumption and Qo units of other goods.
This represents the combination of housing and other goods of highest preference
(satisfaction) that is available to the individual that is within its budget constraint.
The key aspect of this theoretical model that makes it relevant to this study is to present an
argument that the choice between housing and other goods depends on the preferences, income
available and price of housing relative to the price of other goods. Thus, if any of these three
influences alter, then the chosen quantity of housing to be consumed (QA) will also change.
Conversely, if housing consumes too high a proportion of income, a household will be forced to
consume less of other goods of necessity, since a certain minimum of housing must always be
consumed by a household. Affordability measurement is a measure of degree of incursion of
housing expenditure into what the household will normally expend on other goods. This is the
anchor for the residual income approach to measure housing affordability and for this study.
4.0 CONCEPT OF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Affordability generally is a measure of ability and capability of consumer to pay for goods and
services to be consumed. In a market economy, price will not only allocate quantity, but also, the
quality of goods and services that each household will consume based on their level of affordability.
According to UNCHS/HABITAT (1991), housing affordability is an assessment that relates a
particular housing solution to the amount that can be paid for without unduly stretching the payer’s
resources. This view of affordability is of wider applicability, as it is applicable to renters, as well
as those who want to buy their houses without recourse to mortgage facility (UNCHS/HABITAT,
1991). According to Arthur et al (2002) housing affordability is more difficult to define, according
to them, it involves the capacity of households to consume housing services; specifically it involves
the relationship between household incomes and housing prices and rents. This is aptly captured
by MacLennan and Williams (1990) when they gave one of the most quoted definitions of housing
affordability. “Affordability is measured with securing some given standard of housing (or different
standards ) at a price or rent which does not impose, in the eyes of some third party, (usually
government) an unreasonable burden on household income.” Whitehead (1991) pointed out that
definitions usually focus on the relationship between housing expenditure and household income,
and that they seek to establish a standard in respect of which the amount of income spent on
housing is deemed unaffordable. This standard can be defined in terms of absolute residual income
once housing costs have been met or as ratio measure specifying the acceptable proportion to be
spent on housing.
However, in a mortgage-based housing delivery system, housing affordability can be conceptualized
as the ability and capability of household to access and meet their periodic mortgage obligations
without jeopardizing their health or reducing their family nutrients intake (Agbola, 1990; Olatubara
and Agbola, 1992). That is, ability to meet all requirements to qualify to raise enough funds to buy
a house. On the other hand, repayment affordability considers the burden imposed on a household
of repaying the mortgage and ability to cope without failing to meet other non-housing necessities.
Income affordability is simply a measure of the ratio of house prices to household income. Finally,
renter housing affordability specifically measures the ability of renter to pay the rent of a minimum
standard housing without jeopardizing the ability to meet other non-housing needs. All these
variants of housing affordability only further confirms the complexity of housing affordability and
Page 14 of 21
466
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
its implications for various segments of the population. Measurement of affordability is problematic
as what individual household can afford is often underestimated. The often quoted rule of thumb
is that household should not spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing unless they
choose to do so. Therefore, according to Arthur et al (2002) measuring housing affordability is thus
complicated by the inability to determine whether household spend more than 30 percent of their
income on housing by necessity or by choice. They further identified other measurement problems
with housing affordability to include the definition of income – whether permanent or transitory,
liquid or illiquid, personal or household and the definition of housing expenditure – whether
voluntary or involuntary, total or per unit of housing services, nominal or real rents, mortgage
payment or down payment. Similar view had been expressed by Agbola (1990) that statistical
studies of what individual household can afford often considerably underrate the ability of the
households to improve their housing circumstances over time. This, according to him, is because of
the admitted restrictive assumptions underlying the calculation and the snapshot image of
household’s income, which disregards the income and family life cycles through which household
tend to pass. Thus, only the income of the breadwinner is relied upon, thus disregarding the income
of other members of the household that are working and who are often willing and able to
contribute towards house ownership of their family.
In the context of this study, therefore, affordability is viewed broadly as the ability of the household
to meet condition for ownership and or occupation, which will include ability to pay the purchase
price of a house, meet rental obligations; and down payments requirements, meeting periodic
mortgage repayment obligation without sacrificing the household’s health and nourishment. The
incomes of the household are considered as all formal and/or informal, incomes accruable to the
breadwinner of a household on monthly basis. This is because it is difficult to know the other
members of a household that may be willing and able to contribute towards the household housing
expenditure. The view of affordability by Agbola and Olatubara (1992) is what Gan. and Hill (2009)
called “Repayment Affordability” but which is better described as “Mortgage Affordability”. This
means that in discussing the concept of housing affordability, there could be five variants. These are
general housing affordability, purchase affordability, mortgage (repayment) affordability, income
affordability and rental affordability.
Conclusively therefore, housing affordability can be broadly conceptualized to be wider than any of
the different conceptions above. According to UN-HABITAT (2011), it is more than the often used
simplified conception of house purchase price to household income. The various components of
housing affordability is captured in Figure 4. In figure 4, the two principal sets of variables are:
capital variables (house purchase price or construction costs) and occupational variables (costs
associated with keeping the house or cost of occupation). This is in tandem with the concept of cost- in-use.
Page 15 of 21
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2020). Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized Private Sector
Housing. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 453-473.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9369 467
Figure 4: Basic Components of Housing Affordability
Source: UN-HABITAT (2011).
The figure above shows the various dimensions of housing affordability. This paper adopts this
broad conceptualization in the measurement of housing affordability.
5.0 RESEARCH SETTING AND METHODOLOGY
5.1. Research Setting
This study is based on survey conducted with the three stakeholders. These are:
(i) The Organized Private sector Housing Developers (OPSHDs) who are members
of Real Estate Developers Association of Nigeria (REDAN).
(ii) The Beneficiaries, who are purchasers and renters of houses developed by the
Organized Private Sector Housing Developers (OPSHDs).
(iii) The Non-Beneficiaries (the on-site-builders; individual owners or renters who
are within 1km radius) of the Organized Private Sector Housing Developers
(OPSHDs) estates sampled for this study.
The study was conducted with the beneficiaries of Organized Private Sector Housing Estates
(OPSHEs) developed across the six (6) geo-political zones of Nigeria and the non-beneficiaries
within 1km radius of the sampled estates. As a result of the new impetus given to private sector
participation in 2002, organized private sector Real Estate Developers (REDAN) emerged with
members developing housing estates for Nigerian in all parts of the country. Two (2) states with the
prevalence of organized private sector housing developers in each of the six (6) geo-political zones
were selected. These are Lagos and Ogun States in South-West; Edo and Rivers in the South-South;
CAPITAL VARIAB L E S
Material/House Inputs
Land
Infrastructure
Building Materials
Labour & Profit
Finance
Down payment
requirement
Savings and debts
Savings and other assets
(minus)
Outstanding debts
Material/House Inputs
Land lease/rates
Service costs
Building Maintenance
Finance
Interest rates and
loan period
Income and expenditure
Income
(minus)
Non-housing
expenditure
OCCUPATIONAL VARIABLES
Ability to
finance
purchase
Ability to
finance
service
House
Purchase
Cost
House
Purchase
Cost
Housing
affordability
for households
Page 16 of 21
468
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
Enugu and Abia in the South-East; Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja and Nassarawa in the
North-Central; Kaduna and Katsina in North-West and Bauchi and Gombe in the North East.
5.2The Study Area
Nigeria is a country of about 200 million people on a total land area of about 910,770km2. The
country operates a unitary federalism, made up of thirty-six (36) States and a Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja. The country is grouped into six (6) geo-political zones, with three (3) zones
consisting of six (6) states each; these are North-East, South-West and South-South. North-East
consists of seven states, North-Central is made up of six (6) States and a Federal Capital Territory
of Abuja, while South-East consists of only five (5) States.
In the unitary federalism operated in Nigeria, most laws and policies are formulated at the national
level and implemented throughout the country. Therefore, since the introduction of the First
National Housing Policy in 1991 to the Third National Housing Policy of 2002, the national housing
policies have been accepted as the main documents setting the tones for housing delivery
throughout the country (Adegoke, et al, 2020). The details of the six (6) geo-political zones in
Nigeria are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Map Showing the Six (6) Geo-Political Zones in Nigeria
Page 17 of 21
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2020). Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized Private Sector
Housing. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 453-473.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9369 469
5.3 Research Methodology
A cross-sectional survey design was adopted. Multi-stage sampling technique was employed to
choose residents of the sampled estates (beneficiaries) for interview. The respondents;
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were selected by systematic random sampling technique. Ten
percent household heads were randomly selected from the occupied houses (19,500) in the estates.
The respondents among the non-beneficiaries were selected among the occupied housing units
within 1km radius of the houses around the sampled estates until equal number of respondents
from beneficiaries was selected where possible. The total number of respondents from beneficiaries
was 1,950 while that of non-beneficiaries was 1,332. The difference in the number of respondents
among the two groups was due to remote location of the OPSHEs, which in most cases are just
developing. The questionnaire administered on both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries elicit
information on households’ social, economic and demographic attributes. These are household size,
income, housing expenditure, choice of housing unit, among others. The information collected is
essentially to determine the proportion of household income consumed by housing (housing
expenditure) and to establish the residual that is available for other necessities (non-hosing
necessities). The intension is to determine the extent of incursion of housing expenditure into what
is available for all other non-housing necessities for a healthy living by each household (a measure
of housing affordability).
6.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The major anchor for this study, as can be seen from the previous section, is the “housing and other
goods theory”. To this end, our data analysis relied on the Residual Income Approach to establish
the housing affordability profiles of both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. This entails the
calculation of the proportion of household consumed by housing expenditure and the residual
therefrom established. This is because we have established from our anchor theory that by the
nature of housing, it cannot be consumed in part. In view of this, it means that a certain minimum
must always be consumed by a household; and housing usually take first priority, and it is whatever
remains that is always available for other non-housing necessities (Jameson et al, 2004). The
comparative housing affordability profile of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries was analyzed based
on a ten percentile scale. These are those that are spending 1%-10%; 10.1%-20%; 20.1%-30%;
30.1%-40%; 40.1%-50%; 50.1%-60%; 60.1%-70%; 70.1%-80%; 80.1%-90%; 90.1%-100% of the
household’s income on housing.
6.1 Broad Categorization of Housing Affordability Profile
International Labour Organization (ILO) recommended a maximum housing expenditure of 30% of
household’s income. This was corroborated by Crouch and Wolf (1972); Buting, Walks and Fillion
(2004); and Bramley and Karley (2004). Based on this position, housing affordability can be
categorized into three (3). These are:
(i) Normal Housing Affordability: these are households that are spending between 1% and
30% of their income on housing. This is regarded as normal because it falls within the
maximum housing expenditure canvassed by the International Labour Organization
(ILO).
(ii) Tolerable Housing Affordability: These are households that are spending between
30.1% and 50% of their income on housing. This is presumed tolerable, because it is
believed that this level of income can be spent on housing without jeopardizing other
Page 18 of 21
470
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
non-housing necessities needed for the household for a healthy living, particularly for
the upper-medium and upper income groups.
(iii) Housing Affordability Stress/Burden: These are the households spending more than
50% of their income on housing. The households in this category are believed to be
under varying degrees of housing affordability stress or burden. The more the housing
expenditure is moving away from 50%, the more the household is tending towards
homelessness and expulsion from the formal housing market, unless they receive
housing assistance in one form or another, particularly if they belong to low income
group.
(iv) Comparative Housing Affordability Profile of Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries:
Based on these broad categorization; the comparative analysis revealed that while only 42.42% of
beneficiaries fall within the normal affordability category, about 76% of non-beneficiaries enjoyed
normal housing affordability. In the tolerable housing affordability zone, we have about 37% of the
beneficiaries while only 16.40% of the non-beneficiaries are within that category. About 21% of the
beneficiaries are experiencing housing affordability stress of varying degrees while only about 8%
of the non-beneficiaries have similar experiences. These comparative analyses revealed that while
about 92% of non-beneficiaries are theoretically within comfort zones, only about 79% of
beneficiaries are in that category. In contrast, while about 21% of beneficiaries are under varying
degrees of housing affordability stress/burden, only about 8% of the non-beneficiaries are
experiencing such.
The comparative housing affordability profiles of Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries are as
depicted in Figure 6.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
10-Jan 10.1 -
20
20.1 -
30
30.1 -
40
40.1 -
50
50.1 -
60
60.1 -
70
70.1 -
80
80.1 -
90
90.1 -
100
Frequecy (%)
Housing Expenditure (%)
Non- Beneficiaries
Frequency
Page 19 of 21
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2020). Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized Private Sector
Housing. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 453-473.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9369 471
7.0 FINDINGS, POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
7.1 Findings and Policy Implications
The major findings of this study are that majority (about 92%) of non-beneficiaries are within
housing affordability comfort zone. In contrast, only about 79% among the beneficiaries are within
that zone. Conversely, this implied that while only about 8% of non-beneficiaries are under varying
degrees of housing affordability burden/stress, about 21% of beneficiaries are in similar
circumstances. The implication of this is that, generally, the non-beneficiaries enjoyed better
housing affordability than the beneficiaries. Various reasons account for this; they include the fact
that non-beneficiaries choose their design and develop their houses incrementally, at their own
pace. Also, the quality of finishing varied widely among the non-beneficiaries; reflecting their status
and financial ability. On the contrary, the beneficiaries are affected by cash and carry sales policy of
developers, limited access to mortgage facility and hash mortgage terms, where available. Finally,
the problem of prototype design and finishing of houses leave beneficiaries with limited choice
despite variation in their financial capacities. The implication of the findings above is that if
individuals are allowed to build their houses, they will build cheaper houses, that will be a true
reflection of their status; and that can be done with varying amount which in most cases could cost
around #5 million to build an acceptable housing unit.
The policy implications of the findings are that if organized private sector housing will substantially
alter housing affordability status of Nigerians, beneficiaries must have enhanced access to mortgage
facility at more favourable terms. Therefore, there is the need to reform and harmonize mortgage
terms in the country in tandem with the global best practice to enhance mortgage affordability and
penetration. Furthermore, option of site-and-service scheme will enhance the ability of
beneficiaries to choose their design and finishing in tandem with their current financial
circumstances, which can be upgraded as their financial circumstances improved. Finally, the
research finding that non-beneficiaries (on-site-builders) enjoyed better housing affordability than
the beneficiaries is a pointer that if these categories of people can be supported by government, it
may be a veritable approach for resolving the housing crisis in the country.
7.2. Conclusion
This comparative study of housing affordability of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries has further
corroborated the findings from previous studies that organized private sector housing delivery is
not affordable to most Nigerians (Adegoke, 2020). The findings from this study also revealed the
significance of the contribution of on-site-builders (non-beneficiaries) to housing delivery in
Nigeria. The imperative of an enhanced mortgage affordability and penetration to both the
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries for better housing affordability is equally brought to the focus.
Finally, this study has escalated the importance of the need for multiple strategies in resolving the
housing crisis in the country.
References:
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2016). Housing Affordability in Nigeria: A Study of the Organized Private Sector Housing .
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ibadan: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of the Social Sciences,
University of Ibadan.
Agbola, T. (1990). Affordability and Cost Recovery in Shelter Projects. The Case of Nigeria. Third Planning World Plan
Review, 12, 59-74. https://doi.org/10.3828/twpr.12.1.8517204g3773w60t
Page 20 of 21
472
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
Agbola, T. (2004). Achieving and Sustaining the Potentials of Housing in the National Poverty Alleviation Programme.
In International Housing Summit (pp. 1-45). Abuja: Development Policy Centre.
Agbola, T., & Alabi (2000). Sustainable Housing Delivery: Lessons from International Experience. In National
Workshop on Sustainable Housing Delivery in Nigeria: Challenges for Public/Private Partnership. Abuja: Development
Policy Centre.
Bramley, G., & Karlye, N. K. (2004). Affordability, Needs and the Intermediate Markets: Measurement, Change and
Significance. In ENHR Conference (pp. 35-75). Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Bunting, T., Walks, A., & Fillion, P. (2004). The Uneven Geography of Housing Affordability Stress in Canada
Metropolitan Areas. Housing Studies, 19, 361-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303042000204287
Centre for Affordable Housing in Africa (2018). Housing Finance in Africa: A Review of Africa’s Housing Finance
Markets (pp. 35-105). Abidjan: Center for Affordable Housing in Africa.
Chen, J., Yao, Q. J., & Stephens, M. (2010). Assessing Housing Affordability in Post-Reform China: A Case of Shanghai.
Housing Studies, 25, 877-901. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2010.511153
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (3rd ed.).
Washington DC: Sage.
Crouch, C., & Wolf, M. (1972). Inequality in Housing. In P. Townsend, & N. Bosanquet (Eds.), Labour and Inequality (pp.
145-165). London: The Fabian Society.
Gabriel, M., Jacobs, K., Arthurson, K., Burke, T., & Yates, J. (2005). Conceptualizing and Measuring the Housing
Affordability Problem. National Research Venture 3: Housing Affordability for Lower Income Australians . Reports for
May, Melbourne Victoria: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Heywood, F. (2004). Understanding Needs: A Starting Point for Quality. Housing Studies.
A. O. Adegoke, T. Agbola DOI: 10.4236/jss.2020.84013 192 Open Journal of Social Sciences dies, 19, 709-726.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303042000249161
Jameson, B., & Nana, G. (2004). Furthering Our Understanding of Tenure Transition: The Impact of Financial
Circumstances on Tenure Choice in New Zealand (pp. 125-156). New Zealand: Business and Economic Research
Limited.
Kutty, N. K. (2005). A New Measure of Housing Affordability: Estimates and Analytical Results. Housing Policy Debate,
16, 113-142.https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2005.9521536
Linneman, P. D., & Megbolugbe, I. F. (1992). Housing Affordability: Myth or Reality? Urban Studies, 29, 369-392.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989220080491
Luffman, J. (2006). Measuring Housing Affordability. Perspectives on Labour and Income, 7, 16-25.
Maclennan, D., & Williams, R. (1990). Affordable Housing in Britain and America . York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
National Bureau of Statistics NBS (2015). National Bureau of Statistics, Nigeria.
https://knoema.com/atlas/sources/NBS-NG
Ndubueze, O. J. (2009). Urban Housing Affordability and Housing Policy Dilemmas in Nigeria . Thesis, Birmingham:
University of Birmingham for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, School of
Public Policy.
Olatubara, C. O., & Agbola, S. B. (1992). Cost Recovery in Nigerian Public Housing. Habitat International, 16, 83-94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-3975(92)90010-V
Oyo-Ita (2017). Tackling the Housing Affordability Challenge: Nigeria Experience. In 30th International Union of
Housing Finance (IUHF) World Congress on “Global Opportunities in Housing Finance” (pp. 1-20).
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Reis, P. M. O. (1992). Non-Conventional Housing Finance in Nigeria . Unpublished PhD Thesis, London: Council for
National Academic Awards (UK), Architectural Association School of Architecture.
Page 21 of 21
Adegoke, S. A. O. (2020). Housing Affordability In Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis Of Beneficiaries And Non-Beneficiaries Of Organized Private Sector
Housing. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 453-473.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9369 473
Stone, M. E. (2005). A Housing Affordability Standard for the UK. Housing Studies, 21, 453-476.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030600708886
Stone, M. E. (2006). What Is Housing Affordability? The Case for the Residential Income Approach. Housing Policy
Debate, 17, 151-184.https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2006.9521564
Stone, M., Burke, T., & Ralston, L. (2011). The Residential Income Approach to Housing Affordability: The Theory and
the Practice.
UNCHS/HABITAT (1991). Housing Finance. Manual for Developing Countries. A Methodology for Designing Housing
Finance Institutions . Nairobi: United Nations for Human Settlement (Habitat).
Whitehead, C. (1991). From Need to Affordability: An Analysis of UK Housing Objectives. Urban Studies, 28, 871-887.
World Bank (2018). The World Bank Annual Report 2018. Washington DC: World Bank Group.
Yang, Z. (2001). An Application of the Hedonic Model with Uncertain Attribute: The Case of the People’s Republic of
China. Property Management, 19, 50-63. https://doi.org/10.1108/02637470110366202
Yang, Z., & Chen, J. (2014). Housing Affordability and Housing Policy in Urban China. Berlin: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54044-8
Adegoke, S.A.O and Tunde Agbola (2020). Housing Affordability and the Organized Private Sector Housing in Nigeria.
Open Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 177-192.
Crouch, C. and Wolf. M. (1972). “Inequality in Housing”, in P. Townsend and N. Bosanquet (eds), Labour and
Inequality. London. The Fabian Society.
Mabogunje, A. (2004). “Implementing a Policy of Available and Affordable Housing in Nigeria”. A Paper Presented at
National Workshop on New National Housing Reforms with The Theme” Towards Effective Strategies for the
Implementation of the New Housing Reforms at National Centre for Women Development, Abuja on 2nd -3rd March,
2004.
UN-HABITAT (2011). “Affordability, Land and Housing in Africa”. United Nations Human Settlement Programme,
Nairobi.
Housing strategy, Western Australia (2001). Housing StrategyWA: Conceptual Framework and Methodology. Office of
Policy Planning, Development of Housing and Works. Western Australa. Rerieved on 11th March, 2009 from
www.dhw.wa.gov.au/housingstrategywa.
Agbola, T. (2005). The Housing Debacle. Inaugural lecture Delivered at The University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Agbola, T. (1988)
Heady, B. (1978). Housing Policy in the Developed Economy. London, Croom Helm.
Frank, L; Arnod, J.M and Aaron, W. (1974). Urban Outcome. Califonia. University of Califonia Press.
Freedman, L. (1969). Public Housing: The Politics of Poverty. New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Hayek, F.A. (1979). Social Justice, Socialism and Democracy. Centre for Independent Studies. CIS Occasional Paper 2.