El Proceso de Institucionalización del Sector Vivienda en Guatemala, 1996–2003

This discusses the process of institutionalization of the national housing policy of Guatemala between 1996 and 2003. The authors describe in detail the key institutions and their interrelations, scrutinizing successes and deficiencies and identifying future challenges that emerge from this process. After 36 years of civil war in Guatemala, a peace agreement was signed in 1996, followed by social demobilization. One of the main concrete actions for assuring peace was to improve a national housing law that could tackle the precarious situation of millions of people after years of war. Since the promulgation of the Law of Housing and Human Settlements, many institutional and administrative efforts have sought to ensure access to a dwelling for every Guatemalan family. Unfortunately, the still unstable democratic system has been unable to overcome various institutionalized weaknesses and the corruption that exists in this sector. Thus, housing was (and still is) a critical issue. In 1995, the total housing deficit was calculated to be over one million units; six years later, the figure had grown to more than 1.5 million, for a national population of 11 million.

The authors explain why and how the state, civil society and the peace agreement are the three basic institutional pillars that have sustained the process of housing institutionalization in Guatemala. Within this there are key institutions with a long history and experience, and others that are more recent and that were created as specific responses during the process. Despite their differences, the particular sectoral interests and the limited results, generally there has been a successful interaction between the state, civil society and private interests. The most important step has been to agree the concept of “habitat as a fundamental catalyser for rebuilding democracy”.

The authors conclude with several recommendations aimed at improving the still weak national housing policy. Efforts might be directed to ensure real social participation, to set effective mechanisms of civil accountability, and to reinforce the fact that the housing sector is part of a broader policy of social development. Moreover, every actor needs to modify roles and attitudes in the future: the private sector should overcome its traditionally narrow “financial” approach, the civil society should develop its organizational capacities much more, and the government should strengthen its regulations at national and local levels. Most of all, there are two crucial elements that need to be assured: first, the national housing policy must transcend short-term electoral interests; and second, the most fundamental way to achieve a successful policy is through effective and real participation of all the actors involved.