A/68/289 D. Summary 20. Housing finance policies based on credit for homeownership are inherently discriminatory against lower-income households and, at their best, promote affordable access for upper- and middle-income groups. Housing finance policies often “redline” the poor, who are required to pay much higher prices for financial services, exposing them to financial risks and indebtedness. At the same time, housing finance policies tend to focus solely on access to a roof while failing to effectively and comprehensively address the various elements of the right to adequate housing: location, access to infrastructure and services, habitability, cultural adequacy and security of tenure. At the macro level, the disproportionate use of such policies has contributed to price volatility and to the ongoing housing affordability and availability crises. 21. By contrast, countries that have adapted a more balanced housing policy, by encouraging a variety of tenure forms, such as Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, have suffered little from the recent property crises. According to Housing Statistics in the European Union 2010 and Eurostat 2010, 40 per cent of the population in Austria rents and 56 per cent owns their dwellings; 54 per cent of the population in Germany and 56.1 per cent in Switzerland are tenants. Such examples demonstrate that the division between the various forms of tenure and housing policies is not a “natural” or necessary choice but rather influenced by State intervention and regulation of the housing sector through the use of its available resources as well as through legislation and policies, including fiscal, taxation and subsidy measures. 22. The sections below provide a review of alternative housing policies for the urban poor that have been largely ignored by States in recent years — rental arrangements and collective and tenure — while analysing their compatibility with the promotion of the right to adequate housing of those living in poverty. III. Alternative housing policies for the urban poor A. Rental arrangements 1. Public and social rental housing 23. As mentioned earlier in the report, the availability of public rental housing in many developed countries has diminished substantively or disappeared altogether. Most developing countries have never had a substantive stock of public housing, and those that have privatized it. A partial exception is the Republic of Korea where, in 2002, the Government announced a plan to build 1 million public housing units for rent over the next decade. 35 Similar attempts have been made in recent years in Indonesia as part of a national programme for 1,000 Towers, some of which were intended for low-cost rental apartments (rusunawa), albeit with mixed results. 36 24. In recent years, some Governments have looked towards non-profit organizations to provide housing for the poor and to limit Government involvement __________________ 35 36 13-42184 R. Ronald and M-Y Jin, “Homeownership in South Korea: examining sector underdevelopment”, Urban Studies, No. 47, No. 1, pp. 2367-2388. According to Indonesia’s reply to the questionnaire. See also http://www.en.indonesiafinancetoday.com/ read/30632/Govt-Fails-to-Meet-Rusunawa-Construction-Target. 9/24