Social Housing and Housing Justice

30-Second Overview

Housing is a basic need of the people and an important responsibility of government. Since 2016, Taiwan has promoted the policy of “200,000 social housing units in eight years,” advancing on two tracks: direct construction and lease-and-management arrangements. The goal is to realize “housing justice.” This policy effort seeks to reconstruct the nature of housing, moving it away from being purely a commodity and back toward a guarantee of the right to adequate housing.

By the end of 2024, the policy had delivered about 213,000 units, exceeding its target. Yet high housing prices and rental-market difficulties have not disappeared. The role and limits of social housing remain central issues in Taiwan’s policy debate.

Keywords: social housing, housing justice, lease-and-management program, Housing Act, secure housing for young people, housing for disadvantaged groups

Why It Matters

Housing is the foundation on which people settle down, build families, and pursue their aspirations. When the house-price-to-income ratio reaches 15 to 20 times annual income, many young people fall into the predicament of being unable to buy and poorly served by the rental market. Social housing has become a key policy instrument through which the government responds to housing justice.

The significance of social housing policy is not merely that it builds homes. It represents a choice: to allow economically disadvantaged people to enjoy adequate housing quality, to give young people an opportunity to live securely, and to use urban renewal to improve aging communities.

From an international comparative perspective, Taiwan’s share of social housing remains relatively low. But the rapid expansion since 2016 has moved the issue from the margins into the policy mainstream.

• Social Equity: Allowing economically disadvantaged people to enjoy adequate housing quality
• Generational Justice: Giving young people the chance to live securely without carrying heavy mortgages
• Urban Development: Guiding urban regeneration and improving the environment of aging communities
• Social Harmony: Reducing social conflict arising from housing problems

The Current State of Taiwan’s Housing Problems

Housing Difficulties in an Era of High Prices

Taipei City’s house-price-to-income ratio is about 15 to 16 times annual income according to 2024 data; New Taipei City is about 12 to 13 times, and Taoyuan City about 9 to 10 times, all far above the internationally accepted affordability benchmark of 5 to 6 times.¹ An ordinary household would need 10 to 15 years of income, without spending on anything else, to buy a home. Many young people are therefore forced into the rental market.

Yet the rental market is also fraught with problems: a large informal rental sector, landlords commonly not reporting rental income for tax purposes, opaque rent levels, widespread short-term leases, and insufficient effective protection for tenants’ rights. The overlap of these two difficulties has made housing one of the most urgent policy issues in Taiwanese society.

Housing Needs of Specific Groups

• Young People: Wages cannot keep pace with housing prices, putting homeownership far out of reach
• Single-Parent Families: Heavy economic burdens and limited rental choices
• Older Adults: Declining fixed incomes and growing housing risks
• People with Disabilities: Need barrier-free environments, but available choices are even scarcer

Background of Policy Evolution

Early Housing Policy (1950-2010)
Taiwan’s early housing policy primarily focused on “encouraging home purchases”:

• National housing policy: constructing public housing for sale at preferential prices
• Preferential home-purchase loans: supporting purchases through financial policy
• Tax refunds for replacement purchases and first-time buyer incentives: using tax preferences to encourage home purchases
• Problem: the main beneficiaries were middle-class households, while disadvantaged groups benefited only to a limited extent

The Enactment of the Housing Act (2011-2016)
The Housing Act was enacted in 2011, establishing a new direction for housing policy:²

• Listing the “right to housing” as a basic human right
• Establishing the legal foundation for social housing
• Promoting a rent subsidy system
• But implementation remained insufficient, and social housing construction proceeded slowly

Content of Social Housing Policy

The Plan for 200,000 Units in Eight Years

After the new government took office in 2016, it proposed the policy of “200,000 social housing units in eight years”:³

Policy Goals

• Develop 200,000 social housing units between 2017 and 2024
• Directly construct 120,000 units
• Deliver 80,000 units through lease-and-management arrangements
• Total investment of about NT$440 billion

Implementation Strategies

1. Central-Local Cooperation: Coordinated planning by the National Housing and Urban Regeneration Center
2. Diversified Land Sources: State-owned land, units allocated back through urban renewal, donations, and other sources
3. Innovative Financing Mechanisms: Housing funds and special budgets for forward-looking infrastructure
4. Professional Implementation Teams: Establishing dedicated agencies to improve implementation efficiency

A Dual-Track Model

Track One: Direct Construction
The government directly builds, owns, and manages social housing:

• Construction target: 120,000 units
• Funding sources: housing funds and special budgets
• Management approach: directly operated by the government or outsourced to private managers
• Features: better quality control and the ability to plan complete community functions

Track Two: Lease-and-Management
The government cooperates with private landlords to match disadvantaged tenants with housing:

• Target number of units: 80,000
• Operating model:
  • Leasing: the government leases private homes, then subleases them to disadvantaged households
  • Management: assisting landlords with rentals and providing management services
• Advantages: activating vacant housing and rapidly increasing the social housing supply

Implementation Results

Statistics as of the End of 2024

• By the end of 2024, about 213,000 units had been completed, exceeding the target of 200,000 units, with an achievement rate of 107%⁴

Regional Distribution

• The six special municipalities account for about 75%, concentrated mainly in Taipei, New Taipei, Taoyuan, and Taichung
• New Taipei City: 32,000 units, the highest number
• Taipei City: 28,000 units
• Taoyuan City: 21,000 units
• Taichung City: 19,000 units

Design Philosophy of Social Housing

Taiwan’s social housing design philosophy begins with “socially mixed residency.” It deliberately seeks to avoid repeating the concentration of poverty associated with Hong Kong public housing or U.S. social housing, allowing residents from different backgrounds to live together.

The Principle of Socially Mixed Residency

Disadvantaged households are guaranteed 30% of residency slots, while ordinary households, with priority for young people, newly married couples, and families raising children, account for 70%. Regular lotteries are used to ensure fairness. The Housing Act defines disadvantaged groups broadly, including low-income households, families in special circumstances, families with three or more minor children, older adults, survivors of domestic violence, people with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, disaster victims, and other groups.

Scope of Disadvantaged Groups
As defined by the Housing Act, this includes:

• Low-income and lower-middle-income households
• Families in special circumstances
• Families with three or more minor children
• People who have completed placement in residential care institutions or foster families and cannot return home
• People aged 65 and above
• Victims of domestic violence or sexual assault and their children
• People with disabilities
• People infected with human immunodeficiency virus or living with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
• Indigenous peoples
• Disaster victims
• Homeless people
• Others recognized by the competent authority

Planning of Community Facilities

Necessary Facilities

• Barrier-free environments: accessible ramps, elevators, and unit designs
• Preschools: priority establishment of nonprofit preschools
• Long-term care sites: day-care centers and community care stations
• Community activity spaces: assembly halls and reading rooms
• Commercial facilities: convenience stores, laundromats, and other services for daily needs

Innovative Design

In recent years, social housing projects have continued to experiment with innovative facilities. Youth entrepreneurship spaces provide studios for young entrepreneurs, while shared kitchens promote interaction among residents. Rooftop farms combine urban agriculture with environmental education, recycling centers advance the concept of the circular economy, and some new developments have introduced IoT equipment to create smart community management platforms.

Principles of Rent Affordability

The 85% of Market Rent Principle

• Rent is set at 85% of nearby market rates
• Avoiding market distortion caused by excessive subsidies
• Ensuring affordability for ordinary households

Tiered Subsidy System

• Tier 1, extremely low income: rent at 30% of market level
• Tier 2, low-income households: rent at 50% of market level
• Tier 3, lower-middle-income households: rent at 70% of market level
• Tier 4, ordinary households: rent at 85% of market level

Major Social Housing Cases

Taiwan’s social housing cases show different experiments in design philosophy and community building. Several representative projects have become benchmarks for national policy. Taipei’s Jiankang Public Housing, completed in 2017; New Taipei’s Zhonghe Youth Social Housing, completed in 2019; and Taoyuan’s Bade Social Housing, completed in 2020, each represent different scales and design orientations.

What the three cases share is that they go beyond purely residential functions, integrating public facilities such as preschools, long-term care sites, and youth entrepreneurship spaces into social housing to form composite community living circles. This planning idea of “social housing as community” has also gradually influenced the design direction of later projects.

Taipei City Jiankang Public Housing

Taipei City’s Jiankang Public Housing is located in Zhongshan District. Completed in 2017 with a total of 1,400 units, it was Taipei City’s first large-scale social housing project. The building facade uses vertical greening to mitigate the urban heat-island effect. Inside are a nonprofit preschool, a day-care center for older adults, and a youth entrepreneurship space called the “Jiankang Lohas Creative Base.” It also introduced a smart parking system and community app management.

The case’s most important social significance lies in changing many people’s stereotype that social housing is equivalent to a “slum.” It also revitalized the surrounding commercial district and became a benchmark for social housing planning in other cities and counties.

New Taipei City Zhonghe Youth Social Housing

New Taipei City’s Zhonghe Youth Social Housing was completed in 2019 with a total of 522 units. Its defining feature is the integration of urban renewal and social housing. The same building includes social housing, retail space, and office space, as well as a community-based long-term care institution, rooftop farm, and rainwater recycling system. It received diamond-level green building certification. In community governance, residents formed a “Youth Participation Group” and regularly organize community festivals. Resident satisfaction surveys have reached more than 85%, making it one of Taiwan’s successful cases in social housing community building.

Taoyuan Bade Social Housing

Taoyuan’s Bade Social Housing was completed in 2020 with a total of 1,003 units, making it Taiwan’s largest single social housing project. The site is adjacent to light rail transit infrastructure and includes 300 motorcycle parking spaces and 50 car parking spaces. Commercial facilities include well-known brands such as PX Mart and Starbucks, while community amenities include a preschool, long-term care center, and activity center. Management uses an AI facial-recognition access-control system and a community app integrating various services. It has also established a community volunteer system, making it one of the most advanced smart social housing cases in Taiwan.

Lease-and-Management Policy

Lease-and-management is the second track of Taiwan’s social housing policy. Through government intervention in the private rental market, it rapidly increases the supply of social housing while activating vacant housing resources. By the end of 2024, it had matched about 68,000 units and benefited about 27,000 disadvantaged households.

Operating Models

Leasing Model
The government leases private homes through professional contractors, then subleases them to disadvantaged households:

• Lease term: three years, extendable up to six years
• Government leasing price: 80% to 90% of market rates
• Sublease price: 60% to 70% of market rates
• The government assumes vacancy risk

Management Model

The government matches landlords and tenants, while professional contractors handle tenant screening, rent collection, and repair coordination. The government provides repair subsidies, up to NT$10,000 to NT$30,000 per unit, reductions in house tax and land value tax, home safety insurance arranged on landlords’ behalf, as well as dispute mediation and legal consultation to reduce landlords’ rental risks.

Implementation Mechanisms and Results

About 200 operators currently participate, including housing service enterprises, real estate brokerages, and property management companies. By the end of 2024, the lease-and-management program had matched about 68,000 units, involved about 55,000 landlords, benefited about 27,000 disadvantaged households, and driven about NT$120 billion in private housing investment.

Major challenges include some landlords’ reluctance to participate because of concerns about tenant quality, the concentration of available units in metropolitan areas, continued affordability burdens for extremely disadvantaged households under current rent levels, and substantial differences in service quality among contractors.

Policy Effects and Social Impact

Quantitative Effects

On the supply side, social housing policy has added about 200,000 units to the rental market, helped moderate rent increases, and increased rental-market transparency through the promotion of lease-and-management arrangements. On the demand side, the policy is estimated to have addressed the housing problems of about 400,000 to 500,000 people, increased housing stability for disadvantaged groups, and improved the share of young people able to live securely. The associated industrial effects are also significant: the policy has created a housing services industry, stimulated the development of construction and renovation businesses, and generated about 30,000 to 40,000 jobs.

Assessment of Social Impact

Realizing Housing Justice

The spatial quality of newly built social housing is generally better than that of ordinary rental housing. Community facilities are comprehensively planned, rent levels are more affordable than the market, and longer-term housing security is provided. For groups that have long occupied a disadvantaged position in the rental market, this is a concrete and perceptible improvement.

Social Integration and Urban Development

Mixed-residency design allows disadvantaged and ordinary households to live together, avoiding the concentration of poverty in particular areas. Some social housing cases have also driven the development of surrounding commercial districts, becoming catalysts for urban regeneration in aging communities and improving overall community environmental quality.

International Comparisons

Singapore’s HDB System

Singapore is known for government-led, large-scale construction of HDB flats, with about 85% of citizens living in them. Its ethnic quota system promotes group integration, while linkage with the pension system encourages homeownership and asset accumulation. Taiwan can draw lessons from Singapore’s long-term, stable policy implementation capacity and comprehensive approach to community planning. But Taiwan places greater emphasis on rental housing rather than purchase, so the overall direction differs.

Social Housing in the Netherlands

Social housing accounts for about 34% of all housing in the Netherlands according to 2023 statistics. It is built and managed by nonprofit housing associations, and an income-tier system is used to ensure fair allocation. The Netherlands’ emphasis on architectural design quality and environmental sustainability offers Taiwan a reference point for quality-oriented development.

Public Housing in Hong Kong

About 45% of Hong Kong’s population lives in public housing, which is divided into rental public housing and subsidized-sale flats. Taiwan has consciously distinguished itself from the Hong Kong model: it places greater emphasis on socially mixed residency, avoids large-scale concentrated development, and pays attention to comprehensive community facilities in order to prevent the “concentration of poverty.”

Future Challenges and Development

Major Challenges

Social housing policy faces four major structural challenges. Land acquisition is the first barrier: urban land is scarce and expensive, landowners have limited willingness to cooperate, urban planning amendment procedures are complex, and public NIMBY attitudes toward “social housing being built next door” make site selection highly difficult. On the fiscal side, rising construction costs, long-term operating expenses, and pressure on housing funds also crowd out government budgets.

Some members of the public still hold a “slum” stereotype of social housing and worry that it will affect surrounding housing prices. Community integration requires time and sustained communication. At the management level, co-residence among tenants with different needs, the cost of maintaining community facilities, and relatively high resident turnover all place high demands on the professional capacity of management teams.

Future Directions

Policy proposals from the field cover several directions. Amending the Housing Act, strengthening the legal basis, and promoting a dedicated social housing law are institutional priorities. In financing innovation, introducing private capital and developing social housing REITs and land trust systems would help expand resource sources. Smart management, including IoT systems and community app integration, along with the promotion of green building certification, offers a path for quality improvement. Balanced regional development also deserves attention: social housing is currently highly concentrated in the six special municipalities, while housing needs in non-urban areas still await greater policy attention.

Conclusion: Toward Housing Justice

Social housing embodies the practice of social values, rather than merely being a housing policy. Since 2016, Taiwan has promoted the plan for 200,000 units in eight years. It has not only nearly reached its quantitative target, but also established a “Taiwan model” in qualitative terms:

Taiwan’s social housing is characterized by several core choices: using mixed-residency design to avoid the concentration of poverty, combining direct construction with lease-and-management arrangements as complementary tracks, emphasizing design aesthetics and community functions, and adapting policy implementation to Taiwan’s climate and cultural characteristics. Although this “Taiwan model” is still being revised, it has already formed a recognizable policy path.

A Future Vision
Every person living in Taiwan, regardless of economic capacity, should be able to enjoy an adequate, stable, and dignified housing environment. Only by reaching this goal can Taiwan build a fairer and more inclusive society.

Realizing housing justice requires the joint effort of society as a whole. The government provides the policy framework and resources, professionals contribute technical capacity and creativity, and the public offers understanding and support. Only then can social housing truly play its role and help move Taiwanese society forward.

Further Reading:

• National Housing and Housing Justice — The “government-built-and-sold” route that was abolished before the 2016 social housing policy: from the 1975 National Housing Act to its abolition in 2015, how national housing became an asset ladder, and the contemporary debate over Taoyuan’s 2026 affordable housing bringing “sale” back into the picture (a companion piece to this article)
• Metal-Roofed Structures — The governance dilemma posed by Taiwan’s 716,000 illegal structures; rooftop metal additions and illegal construction are part of the underlying structure of the housing justice issue
• Environmental Justice and NIMBY Controversies in Taiwan — The land-use extension of housing problems: unequal distribution of environmental risks and community conflicts over NIMBY facilities

References

1. National Land Management Agency, Ministry of the Interior, Social Housing Promotion Results Report, December 2024
2. National Housing and Urban Regeneration Center, Implementation Results of the Social Housing Development Plan, 2024
3. Executive Yuan, _Social Housing Development Plan_, approved version, March 2017
4. Housing Act (2017 amended version), Laws and Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan)
5. Urban Regeneration R&D Foundation, Statistics on Urban Renewal Promotion Results, 2024
6. Wikipedia, “Social Housing in Taiwan” entry, March 2024 version
7. Urban Renewal Information Platform, report on “Record Highs in Direct Construction and Lease-and-Management Units”, 2024
8. Taipei City Urban Development Department, Social Housing Policy White Paper, 2023
9. New Taipei City Urban and Rural Development Department, New Taipei City Social Housing Development Plan, 2024
10. Taoyuan City Office of Housing Development, Taoyuan City Social Housing Promotion Results, 2024
11. Tsuei Ma Ma Foundation for Housing and Community Service, Survey Report on the Current State of the Rental Market, 2024
12. Social Housing Advocacy Consortium, Social Housing Policy Recommendations, 2023