Seven years after it first mooted the idea, the UPA government has set up a Credit Risk Guarantee Fund with an initial corpus of Rs.1000 crore that will encourage banks to offer home loans to the poor. In a recent written reply to a question raised in Parliament, the government stated that it has notified the scheme and registered a trust to administer the fund. This is the second scheme promoted to help low-income groups’ access funds to buy houses. The Interest Subsidy Scheme for Housing the Urban Poor, launched in 2008, hardly had an impact and achieved only one-third of the target. Sadly, the new scheme is unlikely to do any better. Recent estimates show that the housing shortage is a staggering 18.78 million units, 95 per cent of which pertains to low-income groups. The government believes credit barriers for the poor fuel this persisting shortage. Banks do not consider low-income groups — households which earn less than Rs. 2 lakh per annum — as credit worthy and are reluctant to offer loans. The government has thus assured lending agencies that the new fund would cover any risk of default in loans given to the poor and hence they should not hesitate to support their efforts to acquire homes. This is sound in theory, but ineffective in practice.
The guarantee fund, as the accompanying conditions state, would be available only for housing units which are about 430 square feet in size and for loan amounts that do not exceed Rs 5 lakh. There are two problems with this. There is hardly any supply of small-sized dwelling units in most of our cities; and even if they were available, prices would far exceed the affordability threshold, which is four times an applicant’s annual gross income. Hence, loan applications would cross the cut-off figure, and the poor would not benefit from the fund. The scheme may work in small towns, but the housing deficit is not acute there. At the root of the housing crisis is inadequate supply created by non-availability of cheap land. This is where lessons from cities such as São Paulo could help improve the situation. Indian city managers could demarcate low-income housing areas as Special Zones of Social Interest and apply revised planning standards to produce lower plot sizes, create higher densities and optimise land use. When cities apply this concept to new areas, they can reserve more land for social housing. Simultaneously, they should improve schemes to help the poor buy small land parcels and build self-help housing. In addition, the government should implement the National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy (2007) recommendation to reserve 15 per cent of developed land in all housing colonies for low-income housing.
Keywords: Credit Risk Guarantee Fund, low-income group, Interest Subsidy Scheme, UPA, government schemes



It is good move by the government to launched the new scheme for the underprivileged section . But it is the responsibility of govt that it should be implemented properly. And money should reached at grassroot level and empowered the poor .
I, though wants the scheme to be successful, suspect its credibility. First, numerous schemes run at the back stage of Indian politics and the beneficiaries are the policy makers themselves rather than poor. One reason for this is latter's lack of knowledge about the availability of any such schemes and the the twist and turns. Second, few people, who luckily get the house, rent their abode to get their income increased. They still live in slums turning down the scheme's fate. Transparency in the system and a strong monitoring body is required to make these schemes successful.
I have started reading your newspaper and enjoy the coverage and high
quality of the web presentation. Please keep it up.
A footnote: I used to be a reader of Times of India but it now seems
more inclined to present stories about "hotties" with less than
honorable pictures. In spite of their very timely coverage, I rarely
visit their site anymore.
The author is right in every context except in the last section wherein 15% reservation for poor in all societies is asked for.This case will be similar to the RTE act wherein 25% of all seats are reserved for poor..but will the poor adapt to the hi-fi lifestyle of the rich ?.will the builders accept the losses after pouring in large capital?If the builders are forced to accept the mandate..will they assure the same quality as given to the rich?..these question wont get easy answers...
When interest subsidy is provided the poor should be able to buy houses at a very competitive price. But construction industry is not really known for extending any special benefit to the poor and chances are that the prices of houses meant for the poor may go up as builders see an opportunity in making some quick money.
If the government really wishes to help the poor, it has to study how the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh (GBB) has succeeded in providing credit to millions of very poor families and it is also providing housing loans.
Incidentally, general experience is that if credit is provided to self help groups of women, risk of default of repayment of loans as also interest payment is considerably reduced. It would be better if bankers are encouraged to provide loans to women’s self help groups.
This is a welcome step by the govt. but to augment its effectiveness
following steps may be taken into consideration:
1.As most of the urban population are employed somewhere or the
other,contribution from their employer can be mandated with timely
recovery.
2.govt. should cover the partial bad loan that may occur as banks
still remain shy when it comes to lend loans to poor.
3.contributions from the respective MP of that area(from its MPLAD) be
arranged.
4.PPP should be encouraged,as Tatas are doing an incredible good job
in providing cheap,affordable houses.
5.Funding of Rajiv Awas Yojana be merged with the financing of houses
for those who are marginally above BPL but are no good than their BPL
counterparts when it comes to drawing benefits from govt. programs.
With all due respect to all the poverty alleviation programs which are
designed to address one issue or the other,but the key problem is
either they are too much overlapping or too isolated rather than
coherent and in-sync.
Please Email the Editor