Satisfaction with physical outcomes

Though Baan Mankong is about more than housing, the physical outcome of the upgrading process is probably the residents' primary concern. Residents take on a big loan, so their satisfaction in the quality of the house will be of as much, if not more importance, as the social outcomes.

Government loans are limited to 300,000B per household for land and housing⁵, of which housing loans make up 150-200,000B, which is only enough for a basic structure of walls and a roof. Consequently, certain households which don’t have access to more money (either from savings, by borrowing from family or friends, or taking a commercial loan) have to live in an unfinished house (Figure 5.2). Though people are encouraged to live within their means

5 As some communities buy land for relocation.

- in line with the Sufficiency Economy principle advocated by the King and the government - this creates disparities within communities between those who live in completed houses, and those who live in half-finished structures. As BB9, who spent 1 million baht on a double house with his brother, explains, “150,000B is no way enough money – the government has made a bad calculation there. It’s not fair that they expect people to build a proper house with that little money”. As inflation rose in 2008, so did the cost of construction materials, though many households reuse materials from their old houses, in line with the sufficiency principle, a practice encouraged by CODI.

Nevertheless, in Bang Bua, residents generally feel that their quality of life has improved, though their satisfaction depends on their pre-upgrading house. For BB19, the new house is

“a bit smaller, 4X8.5m instead of 9X10m”, while BB9 is very pleased with his new house, as

“it’s brilliant now, really much better than before. It was too squashed”. BB8 feels “100%

pleased with Baan Mankong, I’m very satisfied” though “sometimes I regret spending so much and being in debt for 15 years”. Other respondents also feel their satisfaction is tempered by debt and increased expenses, though some find debt repayments cheaper than renting a room. The residents no longer fear flooding during the rainy season, and the overall community is “developed, neat, orderly” (BB11) with better paths. There are still some problems such as rubbish, which people throw “in the spaces behind their houses” (BB21), and waste water in the canal. A few respondents cite drugs as a remaining problem.

In Klong Toey, respondents are generally satisfied with houses but ambivalent about the community environment. According to KT8, the “old place was ‘natural’, it grew naturally, each lived to his means. Here, everything is arranged into blocks as someone thinks is good, looks nice, but it is not natural”. However, this provides access for fire engines and decreases theft because of the openness. According to KT13, there is “no space for car parking so you feel krieng jai⁶ if you park it too close to someone’s house or encroach on communal space”, though others think there is ample parking space. The debt factor is mentioned by the majority of respondents, in comparison to Bang Bua, and for many, the satisfaction with physical outcomes is tempered by social problems: “The culture of helping has decreased though, here it is each to his own as we have houses now. The problems are not with the

living environment” (KT20). Drugs remain a prevalent problem, as well as insufficient outside lighting.

Figure 5.1: Lottery winner’s house (Bang Bua)

Figure 5.2: Unfinished house (Bang Bua)

In Ruam Samakee, the new housing is considered an improvement by most. RS7 feels that this house is “much better: prettier, safer, secure”, but problems remain with infrastructure and the environment, with garbage and smells from the canal and drains. For RS10, “it’s

better and neater, but before there was more privacy”. With regards to communal living,

“there are some noise problems, especially in the evenings when the kids play sport” (RS20), but the community now has an open sports area, unlike previously.

In Bonkai, B1 says that “thanks to the fire, we got to do Baan Mankong and got new houses”.

The respondents seem happy with their new houses and the increased space. B16 feels that the housing design is flawed, however, she acknowledges that they “were limited by the budget, and everyone was okay with the design because they wanted a house” – for phase 2, the design was modified to include a balcony. Though residents feel that drugs problems have decreased, they still exist, as does some theft.

Although the residents generally agree that their houses have improved, the accompanying debt burden hampers the satisfaction of many respondents in the upgrading program. In Klong Toey, communal living problems also impinge upon satisfaction. When residents were asked whether they would recommend Baan Mankong to others, the Klong Toey respondents’ recommendations are usually conditional: “Baan Mankong depends on the people and on the leaders” (KT1); “I would recommend that people … buy their own materials, not through the cooperative” (KT17). In Bang Bua, BB2 would recommend it to people only if they can afford the loan, and others warn of debt. BB13 says that “Baan Mankong is not easy. [We] need the moobarn to form a community, [we] need a leader”, and BB19 believes community unity is necessary for success. Most of the Bonkai respondents would recommend Baan Mankong, if the opportunity to upgrade arises. In Ruam Samakee, RS4 emphasises the importance of good money management, whilst RS5 only recommends upgrading to those who can afford it without a loan. RS13, a renter waiting for construction of the flats to finish in order to move in, says she “wouldn’t recommend it since we can’t even do it” – a rare voice of dissent, but with good reason, as she and fellow renters still have nowhere to live.

Housing as an investment?

The upgraded communities have seen a surge of interest in their properties from outsiders wishing to buy or rent them. However, for those who took a 15-year loan, the houses technically belong to the cooperative until the loan has been repaid, and the cooperative has the power to repossess homes if loans are not repaid for over three months. The housing was

which is why the land-owning government agencies were willing to provide long-term leases over the land. The Sufficiency Economy principle means that the government does not want people to spend beyond their means on their homes, as Khun Siam from CODI explains:

“…we want residents to think about what is sufficient for their life. They might decide they want things like tiles… But they could gradually build up the house, start with the kitchen, toilet, roof, but some people want to finish it all” (6/5/08). CODI wants the urban poor have a secure roof over their heads, not necessarily a house with painted walls and tiled floors, at least in the short term. As such, they would not approve of RS3’s approach: “with the new house I have more debt. Now that we have a new house we want new things to go in it, [whereas] before we didn’t care”. This kind of spending is what CODI would rather avoid, as residents are then burdened with high-interest commercial loans which they have to repay before the housing loan⁷.

Though the upgrading process means that certain community residents who had multiple properties lose their assets, for others, the upgrading could be perceived as an opportunity to make money. As Mukhija points out in the case of Mumbai slum upgrading, “Beneficiaries were not treating their housing as merely ‘shelter’. They were also thinking of it as ‘real estate,’” (2002:567). However, this is not a goal of Baan Mankong, hence the strict rules about eligibility, and why cooperatives exist as buffers, controlling the transfer of properties.

For example, when Bang Bua cooperative announced over the loudhailer that a house was for sale, ten interested persons signed up, whom the leaders explained would be prioritised according to need. The owner wanted to sell the house for 3-400,000B – however, the leader explained that this was not possible as it would mean making a profit.

Bang Bua residents also face requests from soldiers in the neighbouring camp to rent or buy their houses, with offers of up to 4-500,000B. Residents proudly explain that their houses would cost one million baht elsewhere. Upgrading also means value-adding improved infrastructure such as pathways, and residents talk of making “investments” in their houses:

“Someone wanted to buy my house, the person in the row behind. The leader said if you want to sell you have to return the house to the cooperative. I think it shouldn’t be impossible to sell the house, they can just make the buyer take over the repayments. But then I’d lose my right to the house, and the investment we made in water and electricity connections” (BB2).

7 CODI wants to avoid non-repayment becoming non-performing loans.

For RS1, upgrading has potential financial benefits as, “Lots of people want to buy or rent my house, they think it is secure [but] the community code says can’t rent out your house, if you decide not to live here”. The restrictions on selling their property means that residents who plan on selling up would not, in theory, invest beyond the bare minimum in constructing the house, as the added value from tiles and paintwork would not be accounted for in a sale back to the cooperative. However, most residents do use their savings or borrow from friends or family to make their house comfortable and attractive. Thus, Baan Mankong houses cannot be considered as an investment for profit, at least in the first 15 years, as B14 explains: “some people have asked to buy my house but I’ve made a 15 year investment of 200,000B”, and the loan cannot be passed on. Neither can the houses be used to get a mortgage, as they are owned by the cooperative until the loan is repaid.

When residents were asked whether they had any plans to leave the community, the responses suggest that the residents display adaptive preferences, that is, “the adjustment of people’s aspirations to feasible possibilities” (Elster, 1982:219) and they did not do Baan Mankong for its real-estate potential, but rather to improve the quality of their life. Some residents had initially signed up for Baan Ua-Arthorn houses built by the NHA before the opportunity for Baan Mankong arose, “many of us applied but then we decided to cancel. It’s expensive, we don’t know each other [there]” (Bang Bua focus group). Those who have no plans to move feel this way for various reasons. Many are happy where they are, like BB10:

“I don’t have plans. I will leave this house to my daughters”, and “I never thought of moving.

My kids work here, don’t want to move away” (B14), suggesting that existing social networks are valuable. Others feel tied to the community by debt: “No, never. It took a long time to get this, now I have to pay back for 15 years” (BB24). A lack of alternatives is another reason: “I have nowhere to move to, and anyway I can’t sell the house, I would have to return it to the cooperative” (KT1); “Where would I move to? But if I had money I would like to move”

(RS15). However, some respondents harbour aspirations to move if they can, like RS19: “I want to buy a house somewhere, it’s my aim”. Others face concerns about tenure security, like RS6, who wants “a house that’s totally mine. Now I don’t know if the CPB will want the land later”, a concern echoed by B2 and B17. Then there are those who want to move back to their roots in the countryside, like RS2: “Yes, I want to go back to Sukothai to work the farm”. In the meantime, they have adapted their preferences to what is feasible in the short run, and taken the opportunity that Baan Mankong has presented them.