The global housing crisis has deepened further, according to a coordinated set of analyses released on October 15, 2022, with housing costs rising faster than incomes in most major cities, homelessness increasing in many jurisdictions, and the specific pressures of supply constraints, investor demand, rising interest rates, and demographic change combining to produce conditions in which access to adequate housing has become a defining challenge of the current era. The analyses, prepared by international organisations, national housing authorities, and specialist research institutions, describe a situation that is unfolding across cities and countries at very different stages of economic development but that shares a set of common features that together constitute what researchers increasingly describe as a global phenomenon.

The specific indicators documented in the analyses are striking. The share of household income required to cover housing costs has been rising across many markets, with specific affordability ratios in major cities reaching levels that exceed long-term averages and that impose specific financial stress on households. The absolute numbers of people experiencing homelessness, overcrowding, and specific other manifestations of housing need have been rising in many jurisdictions. Specific populations — including young adults unable to establish independent households, low- and moderate-income families, specific minority groups, older adults with limited retirement resources, and specific categories of essential workers — have been disproportionately affected.

The Dimensions of the Crisis

The crisis takes different specific forms in different contexts, but a set of common dimensions is visible across the affected jurisdictions. Affordability — the relationship between housing costs and household incomes — has deteriorated in most major markets. Median house prices relative to median household incomes have been rising across many developed and developing countries, reaching levels that would have been considered extreme in earlier periods. Rental costs have been following similar trends, with rent-to-income ratios in specific cities reaching levels at which routine housing costs consume substantial majorities of household income.

Availability — the specific stock of housing relative to specific demand — has been inadequate in many markets. Housing construction has in many cases not kept pace with household formation, population growth, and specific demographic trends. Specific barriers to housing construction, including zoning and planning restrictions, specific construction costs, specific labour and material constraints, and specific financing dynamics, have contributed to persistent supply shortfalls. The cumulative effect over decades has produced housing stocks that are too small to match demand in many of the most affected markets, and specific policy responses aimed at expanding supply have been advancing unevenly.

Quality — the specific physical conditions of housing — remains inadequate for substantial populations. Overcrowding, substandard construction, specific structural deficiencies, and specific environmental hazards including dampness, mould, lead paint, and specific other issues affect the housing in which significant populations live. Specific programmes aimed at improving housing quality have been advancing in many jurisdictions, but the specific scale of need continues to exceed response capacity.

Security — the specific tenure protections that residents enjoy — varies widely across contexts. Homeowners face specific risks associated with mortgage affordability and specific market dynamics. Tenants face specific risks associated with lease terms, rent increases, and specific eviction procedures. Residents of informal settlements, which house substantial urban populations in many countries, face specific tenure insecurity that affects their willingness and ability to invest in their housing over time. Specific legal frameworks governing tenure vary widely, and specific reforms to strengthen tenure security have been advancing in some jurisdictions and not in others.

The Drivers Behind the Crisis

Multiple interacting drivers have contributed to the current situation. On the demand side, population growth, household formation, and specific demographic trends including ageing, smaller household sizes, and specific patterns of urbanisation have been producing sustained upward pressure on housing demand. Internal and international migration, often driven by specific economic or security factors, has contributed to specific localised demand pressures in particular cities.

Investor demand has been a particular focus of analysis in recent years. Institutional investors, including specific categories of private equity firms, pension funds, and specific real-estate investment trusts, have been expanding their holdings of residential real estate in many markets. Individual investors, including specific categories of buy-to-let investors and specific cross-border property buyers, have also been active in many markets. The specific effects of these flows on housing affordability and accessibility have been subjects of active research and policy debate, with specific evidence suggesting that investor activity contributes to price pressures in specific markets while also providing specific forms of housing supply in others.

On the supply side, constraints have been significant. Land availability and land-use regulation have been major factors in many jurisdictions, with specific restrictions on where housing can be built, on what types of housing are permitted, and on the specific density of housing development producing specific effects on supply. Construction costs have been rising substantially in many markets, driven by specific material costs, specific labour costs, and specific regulatory requirements. Financing costs — particularly as interest rates have risen — have been affecting both the financial feasibility of specific projects and the specific demand from prospective buyers whose mortgage costs have been rising.

Specific government policies have shaped the overall environment. Tax policies affecting homeownership, investor ownership, and specific other aspects of housing markets vary widely. Subsidy programmes aimed at supporting homeownership, affordable rental housing, and specific vulnerable populations have been scaled up in some contexts and reduced in others. Specific regulatory frameworks including rent control, tenant protection, specific requirements on new construction, and specific other interventions have been adjusted in various directions in various jurisdictions. The cumulative effect of these specific policies has shaped housing outcomes in specific contexts in ways that researchers have been working to understand in detail.

Specific Populations Affected

The analyses document the specific populations most affected by the crisis. Young adults have been particularly affected, with homeownership rates among younger age groups falling in many jurisdictions and with specific barriers to household formation producing effects on specific life decisions including marriage, family formation, and specific career choices. The specific financial circumstances of younger generations, including student debt, less stable employment, and specific patterns of wealth accumulation that differ from earlier generations, have interacted with housing market dynamics to produce specific pressures.

Low- and moderate-income households have been affected across age groups. The specific share of households in these income categories who are housing-cost-burdened — spending substantial proportions of income on housing — has been rising in many jurisdictions. Specific consequences include reduced capacity for other essential spending, specific risks of eviction and homelessness, and specific limits on the accumulation of wealth and the specific economic mobility that such accumulation supports.

Specific minority groups have faced particular housing challenges in many contexts. Historical and continuing patterns of discrimination, specific geographic patterns of segregation, specific economic disparities, and specific manifestations of specific biases in housing markets have produced disparities in housing outcomes that have been documented extensively. Specific anti-discrimination laws and specific equity-focused programmes have been advancing, but the scale of disparities continues to require sustained attention.

Older adults face their own sets of housing-related challenges. Retirement resources that were expected to support housing costs have in many cases proven inadequate. Specific housing needs associated with ageing — including accessibility modifications, specific care-related services, and specific preferences for ageing in place — have been receiving policy attention but often remain inadequately resourced. Specific experiences of housing insecurity among older adults, including homelessness and specific forms of housing inadequacy, have been documented in many contexts.

People with disabilities face specific barriers to accessing appropriate housing, including limited availability of accessible housing, specific affordability pressures, and specific discrimination in housing markets. Specific legal frameworks aimed at protecting housing rights for people with disabilities have been advancing, but implementation gaps remain substantial.

People experiencing or at risk of homelessness face the most acute form of housing crisis. Homelessness takes multiple forms — including rough sleeping, specific forms of unsheltered homelessness, use of emergency shelters, specific forms of transitional housing, and specific arrangements that blur the boundary between housing and homelessness. Responses to homelessness have been advancing in many jurisdictions, with specific evidence for the effectiveness of Housing First approaches and specific other models, but the scale of response has in many cases not matched the scale of need.

The Response Landscape

Policy responses to the housing crisis have been advancing in multiple jurisdictions, though with varying degrees of ambition, coherence, and success. Supply-focused policies have received substantial attention, with specific reforms to zoning and planning frameworks, specific investments in publicly supported housing construction, specific incentives for private development, and specific other measures aimed at expanding the housing stock. The specific balance between market-based and publicly led supply strategies varies widely, as do the specific degrees to which supply-focused policies have produced measurable increases in housing available to particular populations.

Demand-side interventions have included specific housing subsidies, specific tax policies affecting housing demand, specific programmes supporting specific populations, and specific regulatory interventions affecting the terms on which housing is accessed. Specific evaluations of the effectiveness of different demand-side interventions have produced specific evidence about what works well and what produces unintended consequences, and this evidence has been informing the continued evolution of policy.

Specific interventions in housing markets — including specific rent control and stabilisation policies, specific tenant protection frameworks, specific regulations of investor behaviour, and specific other measures — have been advancing in varying forms in different jurisdictions. The specific evidence on these interventions is often contested, with specific research findings pointing in different directions depending on specific contexts, specific design features, and specific implementation practices. The accumulated experience in recent years has been informing more nuanced and more context-specific policy prescriptions than were common in earlier periods.

Specific responses to homelessness have been advancing, with specific investments in permanent supportive housing, specific prevention programmes, specific outreach and engagement work, and specific policy frameworks that address the particular needs of homeless populations. The specific evidence supporting Housing First approaches — in which housing is provided to homeless individuals without preconditions, with specific services then wrapped around the housing — has been strong in specific contexts, though the specific scale of implementation varies widely.

International Dimensions

The international dimensions of the housing crisis have been receiving specific attention. International capital flows into housing markets have been a particular focus, with specific cross-border investment patterns producing specific effects on housing prices in particular cities. Specific policy responses — including specific taxes on foreign buyers, specific restrictions on specific categories of purchase, and specific other measures — have been advancing in various jurisdictions, though their specific effectiveness has been the subject of active debate.

International learning on housing policy has been advancing through specific networks of cities, specific research collaborations, and specific multilateral bodies. Specific approaches developed in one context have been adapted to others, with specific successes and specific failures producing further evidence for policy design. International cooperation on specific aspects of the crisis — including specific regulatory responses to cross-border capital flows, specific approaches to migration-related housing pressures, and specific frameworks for addressing homelessness — has been advancing, though the specific governance of international housing cooperation remains less developed than cooperation in some other sectors.

Specific development challenges in housing have been a continuing focus of international attention. Specific programmes to support the upgrading of informal settlements, to expand access to secure tenure, to support the development of housing finance systems in specific contexts, and to address specific other aspects of housing in lower-income settings have been advancing. Specific international financing for housing — through multilateral development banks, specific bilateral arrangements, and specific private-sector partnerships — has been growing, though the specific scale remains well below what analyses of need would suggest is required.

The Broader Consequences

The broader consequences of the housing crisis extend beyond the immediate experience of affected households. Economic consequences include specific effects on labour mobility, on specific patterns of economic activity, on household consumption patterns beyond housing, and on specific aspects of wealth accumulation and distribution. Health consequences, including the specific physical and mental health effects of inadequate or unstable housing, have been documented extensively. Educational consequences for children in unstable housing situations have been a specific focus of research and policy attention.

Specific social consequences include the effects of housing cost pressures on family formation, on specific patterns of community life, and on specific manifestations of social cohesion. Specific political consequences have been visible in specific jurisdictions, where housing issues have become significant drivers of political debate and specific electoral outcomes. The cumulative effect is a pattern in which housing — long recognised as a foundational element of individual and family wellbeing — has become one of the most consequential policy and political issues of the current era.

Looking Ahead

The analyses released today include specific projections about the trajectory of the crisis in the absence of substantial policy responses, and the picture they describe is one of continued deterioration. Demographic trends will continue to drive housing demand. Climate change will affect the specific habitability of specific locations and will produce specific pressures on housing stocks in particular areas. Economic dynamics, including specific interest rate environments and specific patterns of capital flows, will continue to shape market conditions. Without specific and substantial policy action, the specific trends documented in the analyses will continue to produce worse outcomes for more households.

At the same time, the analyses are explicit that effective responses are possible. Specific jurisdictions have demonstrated that determined action — across supply, demand, regulatory, and targeted intervention dimensions — can produce measurable improvements in housing outcomes. The specific combinations of policies that have worked vary across contexts, but the general finding is that sustained commitment to addressing housing as a priority, backed by specific policy and financial resources, can produce progress.

For the households currently affected by the crisis, the specific experience is often one of financial stress, specific limits on opportunity, and specific anxiety about the future. The specific responses being mounted in various jurisdictions, while often insufficient in scale or pace, reflect the commitment of authorities and civil society to addressing the specific challenges their communities face. The specific choices being made now will shape not only the immediate experience of current residents but the specific conditions under which future generations will seek to build lives and families.

A Defining Challenge

The housing crisis is, in the framing of today's analyses, one of the defining challenges of the current era. Its specific contours vary across contexts, but its fundamental dimensions — adequate, affordable, accessible, and secure housing for all — are shared across the societies that are grappling with it. The specific work of addressing the crisis requires sustained commitment across many actors and many levels, and the specific outcomes will depend on the specific choices that governments, investors, builders, service providers, advocates, and communities make in the coming years.

Today's analyses contribute to the work of making those choices on the basis of the best available evidence. The specific recommendations they offer, the specific lessons they draw from particular experiences, and the specific framing they provide for the overall challenge are intended to inform the decisions of those who will shape housing outcomes in the period ahead. Whether those decisions will produce the substantial improvements that the scale of the challenge requires remains to be seen, but the specific case for action has been made as clearly as the available evidence allows.

For today, the message is straightforward. The housing crisis affects billions of people around the world. It has specific causes that can be addressed through specific policies. It has specific consequences that can be mitigated through specific interventions. The specific work of doing so — across cities, countries, and international arrangements — is continuous, and it requires sustained commitment at every level. The specific futures of the households whose lives are shaped by this crisis depend on whether that commitment can be mobilised, and on the specific choices that will be made in the months and years ahead.