Ofori, G (1989) Housing in Singapore: Determinants of success and lessons for the developing countries. Construction Management and Economics, 7(2), pp. 137-153. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper considers the successful mass housing programme implemented in Singapore since 1960. With emphasis on the central housing agency an attempt is made to outline the main features of the organizational framework and the relevant policies and procedures. The factors which contributed to the success of the housing programme are identified. These are compared with those commonly found in the developing countries, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa. It is concluded that the main aspects of Singapore's programme worth emulating include a firm government commitment, the formation of a strong and effective executing agency, appropriate policies firmly enforced, identification of target groups, tailoring of designs to meet specific needs and, especially, resource management.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | developing countries; housing and development board; lessons; resource management; Singapore |
| Index terms: | determinant, housing, resource management, agency, Sub-Saharan Africa, Singapore, programme, commitment, developing country |
| Subjects: | physical geography and landforms, psychology, sociology, construction type, development economics, Geography, project controls, risk assessment, control systems |
| Topics: | Research Practice, International Construction, Risk Management, Construction Technology, Organizational Design, Project Management, Time Control, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here