Singapore's government builds and sells most housing through its Development Board. It restricts ownership to one unit per citizen and allows sales only within a closed market of residents. This effectively divorces the function of shelter from the speculative pressures seen in other global cities.
The most powerful voting bloc—homeowners—is financially incentivized to oppose new housing development that would lower prices. This political reality means politicians cannot address housing affordability without alienating their core voters, leading to policy stagnation and an intractable crisis.
The most effective way to lower housing prices is to increase supply. Instead of artificially freezing rents, which discourages investment, policymakers should remove regulations that make building new units difficult. More construction creates more competition, which naturally drives down prices for everyone.
The policy restricted developer borrowing to curb speculation but failed to address the core drivers: households' need for a savings vehicle and local governments' dependency on land sales for revenue. By attacking the intermediary, the policy caused a crisis without solving the fundamental problem.
High home prices should not be interpreted as a sign of a healthy market. Instead, they indicate a system that is malfunctioning as designed, where artificial scarcity created by policy and corporate buying drives prices up. This reflects a structural failure, not robust economic demand.
Housing scarcity is a bottom-up cycle where homeowners' financial incentive is to protect their property value (NIMBYism). They then vote for politicians who enact restrictive building policies, turning personal financial interests into systemic regulatory bottlenecks.
New rent control laws don't just limit rent; they fundamentally cap the equity upside for real estate investors. By limiting potential cash flow growth from an asset, these policies make building or upgrading apartment buildings less attractive. This discourages the very capital investment needed to solve the housing supply crisis.
Institutional investors treat homes not as places to live but as financial products for generating cash flow and appreciation. By buying up entire neighborhoods, they have effectively created a new institutional asset class, turning communities into rental portfolios and pricing out individual buyers.
Politicians at all levels actively restrict housing supply through zoning and other policies. This is not incompetence, but a deliberate strategy to protect and inflate property values, which satisfies the large and reliable homeowner voting bloc, ensuring re-election at the expense of renters and future buyers.
While local policies like zoning are often blamed for housing crises, the problem's prevalence across vastly different economies and regulatory environments suggests it's a global phenomenon. This points to systemic drivers beyond local supply constraints, such as global capital flows into real estate.
The most effective solution to the housing crisis is to radically increase supply by removing restrictive zoning and permitting laws. Government interventions like subsidies often create market-distorting bubbles, whereas a free market allows builders to meet demand and naturally stabilize prices.