The author develops a framework for evaluating the sustainability of government-led housing finance programmes, while recognizing that solutions should be adapted to local conditions. Sustainable programmes uphold and strengthen social networks and these non-monetary criteria can be more important to programme sustainability than their financial aspects. Frank critiques profit-oriented initiatives that build mass housing at the expense of existing social ties and concludes that housing finance can contribute to poverty reduction only by promoting long-term economic development and respecting social networks. While the case studies are largely derived from secondary literature, Frank uncovers important lessons to promote lasting improvements in urban housing and livelihoods.

The study analyzes institutional factors that contribute to programme sustainability and also explores how to target low-income people and support social networks. Following an introduction that defines sustainability and the problem of housing finance, Part 2 discusses formal and informal low-income housing and provides a theoretical exposition of modernization processes. Part 3 describes six case studies of government-led housing finance programmes from Chile, South Africa, Thailand and Ecuador, all dating from the 1980s or 1990s and often still ongoing. Tables provide an assessment of sustainability with respect to economic, institutional, socioeconomic and physical considerations. Frank critically evaluates the case studies in Part 4, highlighting the strengths of Thailand’s CODI programme, and in Part 5 offers conclusions and recommendations for ensuring sustainable programmes in the future.
The six case studies are classified as market-driven, community-driven or hybrid, based on the roles played by government, the private construction sector, financial institutions, NGOs and international donors. In market-driven initiatives such as South Africa’s project-linked subsidy or Chile’s basic housing programme, government subsidies enable private construction of formal housing on a mass scale. Housing deficits are quickly reduced – but with minimal involvement by financial institutions, NGOs or communities. Since beneficiaries are viewed as passive recipients, families cannot voice their opinions and self-help capacities are stifled. In turn, social networks are destroyed and families do not value their houses nor consolidate their settlements.

Chile’s Progressive Housing Programme and Ecuador’s Housing Incentive System are examples of hybrid programmes, in which fewer houses are produced but beneficiaries are seen as clients and are offered technical assistance. Private construction firms are still dominant, leaving only minor roles for financial institutions and NGOs, but housing improvements and incremental building procedures are supported. International donors underwrite both hybrid programmes and community-driven programmes, with the latter including Thailand’s Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI) and People’s Housing Process in South Africa. But unlike other models that provide individual subsidies, community-driven programmes offer loans to local groups and thereby strengthen social networks. Frank argues that targeting is easier when groups have existing social networks, although even CODI has struggled to reach the poorest residents. Community-led initiatives produce the fewest housing units and may still relocate families to marginal areas. However, the book makes a compelling case that these programmes are often more sustainable, since they respect beneficiaries’ “lifeworlds” and provide long-term opportunities for income generation, housing improvements and continued community ownership. The conclusion offers specific recommendations for market-driven and community-driven programmes as well as overarching suggestions. These include reducing bureaucratic hurdles, strengthening the role of local authorities, introducing