Lessons Singapore Has To Offer Narendra Modi's Housing For All Mission

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has for long maintained that India has much to learn from Singapore's success in building affordable homes for its growing population. A fact check would show the same. According to news agency Bloomberg, a prime 100 square metre residence in Singapore would cost an average citizen's income in 42 years, while in India's financial capital Mumbai, it would cost an average citizen's income in 308 years. Further, Singapore has been successful in building affordable home without congesting itself. While Singapore's population grew from 1.6 million to 5.4 million during 1960 to 2015, it became less crowded, despite being the third-densest country in the world.

The success of the city state's model is evident from the fact that Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu has decided to model the state's new capital Amaravati on Singapore. Singaporean company Surbana Jurong will help the southern state in implementing this model.

Here are a few lessons from Singapore's success that the government's Housing for All mission can rely on:

• Singapore is a small country that spreads over 710 sq km. But due to an open immigration policy, migration here has been quite high. Apart from an increase in its population, this also made real estate here more expensive. Economist Tyler Cowen draws an analogy by pointing out that if Hollywood stars and tech titans moved to his neighbourhood, home prices would rise, but he would not benefit from the proximity to movie stars and tech titans. However, over the past few decades, Singapore has been able to manage housing a growing population by allowing high building density. The city state has managed to create more floor space in limited land. In Singapore's central business district (CBD), the floor space index (FSI) is 25. Floor space index is the ratio of floor area to the size of the plot. 

• Data show that Singapore's annual GDP per capita is $56,287, while in India, it is $1,596. This is another reason why citizens of Singapore find homes more affordable. In a country like Singapore where land is scarce, homes can be made affordable only through using capital instead of land. This means that homes can be made more affordable, if greater floor space is built on existing land. However, as cement and steel are internationally traded commodities, a country with a GDP per capita of $56,287 will find homes more affordable than a country with a per capita GDP of $1,596. 

• Singapore's ports, airports and transportation networks are among the best in the world. Better infrastructure networks have made more urban land accessible to public. Building bridges around the bay has also made greater land available by linking land masses that are not contiguous. Cities like Mumbai, which have the same geographical constraints, are yet to do this. This has made homes more affordable in Singapore, where home ownership is among the highest in the world. 

• It is easier to do business in Singapore. According to the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business report in 2014, the number of days required to start a business in Singapore is 2.5 days, while in Delhi and Mumbai, it is 29 days. While it takes 26 days to get a construction permit in Singapore, it takes 147 days in Mumbai and 231 days in Delhi to get it. In Singapore, it takes an average of 4.5 days to register property, while in Delhi and Mumbai, it takes an average of 47 days. It takes 150 days to enforce contracts in Singapore, while in Delhi and Mumbai, it is nearly 10 times, at 1,420 days. To sum it up, the ease of construction is high in Singapore. This is one of the reasons why homes are more affordable. 

• Despite the fact that Singapore's healthcare spend is much lower than the US, Canada and many European nations, the city's performance in life expectancy, infant mortality and other such parameters is unparalleled. One of the reasons behind this is that dwelling units are better constructed, with better water supply and sanitation. Health has more to do with environment and air and water quality than with medicine and healthcare spending.