By – Ayushmaan

Abstract

This article examines the limited efficacy of India’s current Slum Housing policy – PM Awas Yojana Urban, despite receiving a significant and increased budget every 5 years. The centralised decision-making framework of the policy hinders implementation at the lowest level, affecting the beneficiaries in return, resulting in a lower use value and a higher cost, a problem described by John Turner in his works. As a viable alternative, this piece proposes to adapt a modelled approach of the Brazil Favella-Bairro program, focused on a decentralised upgrading program, community-oriented, multi-sectoral coordination for services, aimed at linking and improving already built structures to a better urban community. India can leverage its budgetary capacity and digitisation to overcome the setbacks of the Favella Bairro program to overcome contemporary challenges to improve the slum condition in India.      

Introduction

India’s 2011 census reported 65 million residents living in slums across various cities in the country. More than a decade has passed since the last census and the collection of data on slums. During these years, numerous policies have been implemented in rural and urban areas, enhancing access to basic sanitation, water, and electricity. Additionally, a major flagship program, PM Awas Yojana Urban and Rural, was launched in 2015, and to date, a total investment of Rs. 8 Lakh Crores has been made by the government. Despite the program having a significant number of housing units that contribute to the policy objectives, its effects remain limited. The Central Government has been providing regular and increased financial support, but the program has not seen noticeable actual effects on the slum residents, primarily on the people living in urban slums. NITI Aayog has reported overall improvements in water supply, electricity coverage, and internet connectivity across states, along with growing digitized online payment systems. These data may indirectly help gauge the current position of slums in India and the scheme’s effectiveness but are not conclusive of anything related to urban slums. The Brazil Flagship program – Favela Bairro program provides India a better example of improving slum conditions and reducing costs, but it has its challenges. 

The Favella-Bairro Program

The Slums policies in Brazil consisted of eradication in the early 1950s to forced urbanisation in the late 1950s; however, these policies failed and led to an increase in the number of favelas in the region. In the year 1995. Brazil’s policy shifted from centralized forced eradication to a decentralized favela upgrading program, which was slow at the start, but then, as it reached phase 2 of the program, it gained significant positive effects from the communities. Though the Favella-Bairro program may seem an attempt at forced urbanization, the aims of the programme were not to shift the favelas to urban areas rather to raise the living standards and integrate the areas with the urban communities through government services and facilities. One of the aims of the Favella-Bairro Programme was to increase the income generation of these societies. What separates this Brazil Flagship programme from other countries slum housing policies is that, whereas the other policies rely on nationalized polices with solely relying upon contractors and execution which pushes its cost of completion and involves significant administrative hurdles and eventually fails whereas the Brazil programme is rather a decentralized and is balance of community participation and administration of the municipalities, societies and NGO’s. The Programme incorporated 3 stages and multi-level decentralized coordination across different societies and ministries, such as hospitals, cleanliness, and schools etc, to deal with the issues of hygiene, and opportunities before connecting such communities with the urban spaces. 

Problem with India’s slum housing policy

India’s PM Awas Yojana Urban (U), though it has decentralized implementation, district authorities and municipalities known as Urban Local bodies (ULB’s) but to achieve a uniform implementation across the states, the Central Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee (CSMC) along with the State Level Sanctioning and Monitoring committee (SLSMC) decides housing structures, guidelines, and services and there is no consultation process from the beneficiary. The ULB’s only duty is to prepare demand and thus, identify the beneficiary and carry out the implementation of the project according to the guidelines set by the state and the centre. The grants flow is divided amongst the Centre, State, and the beneficiary through 4 operational and distinct verticals, which range from centrally subsidized houses from 100% subsidized to 1.0 Lakh minimum subsidized based on the laid down criteria. This structure of implementation involves several administrative hurdles from the state to districts, which significantly increases the transaction cost under this scheme. The beneficiaries are not in control of the houses that are being provided by the government, and thus, it reduces the effect of this scheme. The Government recorded completion of 9.64 Lakhs of houses in the year 2024-2025; however, nearly 46% of the housing units are unoccupied due to infrastructural problems, allotment issues, and bureaucratic hurdles. Though some states like Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra in some districts saw positive affirmation from the side of beneficiaries, where government services and implementation were at their best, however, most of the northeastern states have failed to do so. 

The problem with the Awas Yojana (U) can be best looked at through the lens of John Turner’s work on housing policy for petty houses. He identifies that institutionally provided housing has significant problems, which involve it being a “bureaucratic and heteronomous system with centralised hierarchical structures and having high costs and low use-value.” He suggests that such systems poorly match the beneficiary (user) needs due to a mismatch of authority levels in such systems. Housing system built under the Awas Yojana is prone to two problems – the mismatch of authority levels, and low use value of the houses. He proposes that self-help housing is an autonomous system with a local self-governing process, adjusted to the needs of the beneficiary. It emphasises as little as possible the use of capitalist resources to reduce the cost and the use of self-labour force as practically possible. Though this approach may not be fully implemented in contemporary capitalist economies but directs us that the current housing policies may not be effective in solving the problem. Therefore, a more collaborative, decentralised, and small-scale development of housing projects would provide better use-value houses for the slum residents.

Solution

The Favella-Bairro Program is one of the examples of what Turner hoped for, though not completely. The Program was decentralized and community based. The local authorities had established decentralized offices named POUSOs within each construction site area to help integrate the local community with the municipalities and the project. Phase 1 of the Program identified favela regions based on their cost ratio to upgrading of favelas and started to plan the building plan of the area with the help of the local community, such as having parks and health centres. The implementation of the project started in Phase 2 of the program, which saw huge participation from the community. The construction was aided by the local community, which reduced the government’s cost on labour. The government, with the help of NGO’s and cross-government organizations, built essential government services, mainly water, electricity, hospitals, trash collection, mailboxes, and roads with bus connections.

The issues that the program faced were mainly coordinating the local authorities, land titling, and budget costs. However, India has significantly more budget towards this aim, but the coordination of local authorities remains a significant problem for effective implementation. Digitalisation of local government services at a national scale, such as the digitisation of the PM Fasal Bima Yojana, which has a single national portal where all land records, satellite data, and insurance payouts are integrated and done on a single platform that has boosted efficiency, accountability, and reduced corruption. Further, reducing the costs through self-labour and community planning under the digitalised platform can push the government to focus on providing better government services and maintaining them through the budget. The Awas Yojana has further mandated to register the lands at no cost; however, it is only valid if it is registered under a woman’s name in the house. This approach not only reduces the problem of land titling issues, which Brazil is currently facing, but also boosts other policies in place. Already, six countries have modelled their programs after the Brazil Favella-Bairro program, and India can also achieve this by adjusting the scheme to meet the demands raised by such communities and focusing on sustainability and awareness.    

Conclusion

India needs to shift its approach towards housing policies for slums. India allocates a significant amount of budget towards the aim of uplifting slum areas and improving India’s standard of living, as India aims to be a developed nation by 2047. PM Awas Yojana, though it reported significant milestones however its effects have not reached the beneficiaries of the policy. The Brazil Favella upgrading programme is a significant shift that has seen positive results, which extend beyond improving the standard of living in the favelas to also boosting their economy. India is far better equipped to implement this programme at a decentralised level, as evident in other decentralized schemes with the help of the central government. Eradication or relocation of slums is not the approach that the Indian Judiciary marks. Along with the implementation, such an approach provides the government a better window to integrate other social policies more effectively, most of which require a better decentralised implementation.   

Author’s Bio:

Ayushmaan is a second year student at Jindal Law School, pursuing L.LB. His research interests include public policy, development growth, commercial and cyber law.

Image Source: Slum Upgrading – Lessons Learned from Brazil