Public Housing Case Study

Affordable Rental Flats in Indonesia

Mochammad Agung Sumassetiyadi
agungsspi2003@gmail.com
Graduate School of Policy Science Ritsumeikan University

Abstract
Indonesia has been in shortage of

success of completing the programs

housing supply and in 2015 the number

physical

has reached 7.6 million units. Among

complex issue where more than half of

other programs, one of the program that

them are still left unoccupied by the

deemed as a solution of this problem is

intended

Rusunawa

writing, the background of rusunawa,

(Indonesian

terms

for

construction,

beneficiaries.

Through
issues,

also

this

affordable rental flats). Since 2003 until

current

2014, Indonesian central government

comparative analysis and preliminary

has built 1396 buildings (blocks) of

recommendations are described and

Rusunawa. Unfortunately, along with the

discussed.
1

progress,

comes

brief

Current Progress of Rusunawa

Introduction
In 2015 shortage of housing in

Two years after the rusunawa

Indonesia has reached 7.6 million units.

program was started, the changes in the

Vertical housing is deemed as one of the

government and political condition at

solutions especially in urban areas due to

that has given rise to another institution

land

of

responsible of housing development, the

vertical housing in Indonesia was started

Ministry of Public Housing (MoPH). Since

in 1980s by Perumnas, state-owned-

then, there were two ministries on the

company engaged in housing, but due

central government level developing

to monetary crisis in 1998, the program

the same program with different budget,

was

location,

scarcity.

halted.

The

In

development

2003,

the

central

and

beneficiaries.

This

government through the Ministry of

condition lasted until 2014 where the two

Public Works (MoPW) re-initiated the

institutions were merged into MoPWH.

program under the banner of rusunawa

The overlapping of responsibility in public

or affordable rental flats. Until today,

housing development inevitably has

more than 1000 rusunawa has been built

affected

and

developed.

succeed

in

housing

tens

of

thousands of people. Nevertheless, some

issues

regarding

emerge

and

the
give

program
the

also

talking

of

rusunawa

Originally, rusunawa

that was

identical 5-floor-tower, joint together by

corridor connecting each floor, thus

public

forming one building in the shape of

housing issues, it can be seen from two

letter H referred as Twin-block (TB). The

sides of supply and demand. This writing

building provides 96 dwelling units along

focuses on issues emerge on the supply

with its public facilities and communal

side, as public housing in Indonesia is

spaces. Ever since, the design becomes

provided and managed by government.

the standard of rusunawa building, and

The issues become relevant to be

even if there were variation in its

discussed

application it did not deviate much.

since

the

about

type

developed by MoPW consists of two

central

government home work to be dealt with.

When

the

provision

of

affordable rental flat is funded by state

In the latest year, due to the

budget which mainly generated from

dynamic of political situation and the

taxes.

interdependent relation with the house

2

RECIPIENT

Building

Percentage

Percentage

by Buildings

By Units

Units

Low Income People

461

42512

32.6 %

58.9 %

College Students

253

15462

17.9 %

21.4 %

Boarding School Students

541

4869

38.3 %

6.7 %

Armed Forces

90

5387

6.3 %

7.4 %

Police Officers

67

3888

4.7 %

5.3 %

1412

72118

100%

100%

Total

Source: Authors analysis based on data from Directorate of Vertical housing (2015)

of

representative,

the

MoPH

were

school students topped the rank, while in

gradually adapting its design to the

terms of units number, rusunawa built for

situation. It affected not only the building

low income people is in the first position.

design but also its beneficiaries as well as

Interestingly, rusunawa built for boarding

the recipient institutions that will receive

school students shares is only 6.7% from

the building asset handover. Currently

total units, contradict with the number of

the beneficiary are not limited to the low

building.

income people, but also broaden to

The anomaly were caused by the

police officer, army, and also students.

difference in type of affordable housing

The composition of total rusunawa built

built for these beneficiaries. Instead of

are as shown in the table above.

using the same design developed by

In total, since 2003 to 2014 there

MoPW, the MoPH developed specially

are 1412 buildings of rusunawa that have

designed rusunawa for boarding school

been completed, providing more than

students which smaller in size, number of

72.000 dwelling units. During those years,

floors and units. By doing this, the MoPH

the MoPW built 425 buildings whilst the

were

MoPH built 971 buildings. The figures

hundreds

above show that in terms of number of

assistance proposal from all over the

building, rusunawa built for boarding

country.

able

to
of

accommodate
rusunawa

the

building

Issues in Rusunawa Development

on the beneficiaries which deemed to

have shifted from the targeted group.

Despite the progress and results

Backlog is defined as the number of

achieved by both institution, there are

shortage of dwelling units and/or the

several problem that emerge and make

number of households that do not lives in

the rusunawa development called into

question.

Based

on

the

decent housing. While in reality, there

authors

are lots of rusunawa building built by

observation when still active in carrying

central government are intended for

out tasks at the MoPH during 2009-2014,

college students or students of boarding

three issues from the supply side that

were

most

frequent

discussed

at

government

institution

meetings

or

public

discussions

involving

school. Students are individual, and

supported financially by their family.
Therefore, building rusunawa for them is

public

not in relevance with the backlog

housing stakeholders are: the relevance

reduction

of current rusunawa program with the

The next issue is the lack of local

housing backlog problem, the lack of

support from local governments, and the

government

occupancy issue.

decentralization era in Indonesia, lots of

execute

addressing the problem of housing

fact,

even

the

local level, including the budget to

whether or not rusunawa is actually

In

Since

authority were transferred from central to

There are disputes among people

shortage.

support.

local

area

development

program. Among other sectors, housing

among

is one of the sector that clearly stated as

government ministries and boards there

the

are also disagreements. The problem lays

compulsory

affairs

of

local

government.

On the left side is rusunawa built for low income workers in Batam City with 5 floors and 96 units of room,
while on the right side is rusunawa developed for students of boarding schools in Purwakarta Regency
with only 2 floors and 12 units of room. Source: Deputy of Formal Housing, 2009 and 2014

Unfortunately the reality shows

buildings; the location which relatively

different things. From more than five

far from peoples livelihood location; the

hundreds

level

absence of social and public facilities;

government only a handful that establish

no water and electricity connection;

housing services unit. The rest of them

incompleteness

even

housing-related

administrative documents; problems in

technical unit but it simply under other

legal basis of the national asset transfer

sector

from central to local government.

city

thought
work

or

regency

have
units.

This

means

less

of

technical

and

attention, less funding, less resources to

deal with the complexity of housing

Comparative Case Analysis

issues.

It is clear that the Indonesian

The last issue is, low occupancy

government have different point of view

rate, which at least from the authors

opinion,

the

most

complex

in determining their main target of public

issue

housing which greatly affects the results

because it involves multiple parties. It

of rusunawa program. The country is also

also link to each other with other issues.

still in its developing stage, therefore it is

Moreover, the cause of this problem can

emerge

from

any

stage

of

fair to state that Indonesia is still struggling

the

to develop its best public administration

development. The occupancy issue of

system.

rusunawa mainly are not because of the

In relation with this, the author

would like to make a brief comparison

beneficiaries unwilling to inhabit the

with another country which gives better

existing units. Indeed there are few cases

impression in terms of public housing.

where the intended group do not want

Japan is a developed country

to live in the rusunawa due to the not-soof

with a clear system of housing provision

rusunawa built by the Indonesian central

designed for different targeted group.

government, the causing factor are

According to The Building Centre of

many. According to Abidin (2012), there

Japan (201), after the end of World War

are several factors that causing the

II,

affordable flats are still not utilized and

shortage of housing where 4.2 million

occupied by the beneficiaries such as:

new housing were needed. Due to the

no technical unit formed to manage the

great effort of the government, in two

strategic

location,

but

in

terms

the

country

faced

an

eminent

decades the condition changed and

intended for different target groups,

the number of housing stock exceed the

where the first one mentioned is the one

number of households. This allowed the

specified

Japanese government to shift their

Different target group are treated with

policy of housing from quantity to quality.

different requirements according to its

The

seriousness

government

in

of

income

people.

economic ability.

Japanese

It is obvious that the comparison

housing was reflected on the issuing of

between Indonesia and Japan is not an

housing

Publicly-

apple to apple one, but in developing

Operated Housing Act of 1951, The

policy for peoples welfare what seen as

Housing Construction Planning Act in

an ideal system is what we should be

1966, and The Basic Act for Housing in

looking at.

from

with

low

public

acts,

dealing

for

The

2006. These legal bases has given strong

support that resulted in the increase of

Conclusion and Recommendation

housing construction.

To conclude, the rusunawa program has

In the authors opinion, the strong

had its own achievement despite the

will of the central government and the

issues that still clinging until today. In

clarity of authority distribution between

order to ensure the success of the

Japanese central and the municipal

program, the issues must be address

governments has allowed the policy to

thoroughly. The government need to

be run effectively. Central government

plan

can give strong fund support which

allows

local

government

recommendations

Japan also has a clear mode of

Agency,

and

Urban

can

be

which one is the main target

Housing Policy of Japan are: PubliclyFinance

that

1. The government have to consider

Yoshida (2015), the Three Pillars of

Housing

and

considered are:

housing provision system. According to

Japan

tightly

relevance to that, several preliminary

affordable rental housing for its people.

Housing,

monitor

managed efficiently the rusunawa. In

provide

Operated

wisely,

group

that

treatment

needs

and

immediate

develop

plan

accordingly. A clear target and

Renaissance Agency. These pillars are

6

consistent measures are required

to ensure the success of the
rusunawa program.
2. A clear distribution of authority in

building as soon as the rusunawa

housing development and strong

is completed. The role of local

support

government

of

government

the
is

central

important

to

institutions

in

and

recipient

the

monitoring

accelerate the provision of public

during the construction process is

housing

also significant in ensuring the

in

rusunawa
central

Indonesia

through

development.

government

need

The

building quality and completion

to

punctuality can be achieved.

reconsider its role whether as an

References:

executor that builds or supervisor

Abidin, M.R. 2012. Developing Asset

that supports and encourages

local

government

Management System for Public

through

Housing Provision in Indonesia;

regulations and fund subsidy.

3. Considering

the

spread

Case Study: Low Cost Rental Flat

of

Program,

rusunawa projects location, the

and

local government and recipient

Housing.

coordination

Strategic

between central and local level

of

technical

of

2015.
Plan

2015-2019
(In

Bahasa

Indonesia). Ministry of Public

of government will avoid the

occurrence

Institute

Ministry of Public Works and Public

the development. Well-designed

good

Bandung

Technology (ITB).

institution since the early stage of

and

Master

Thesis. University of Groningen

government should involve the

plan

2005-2009.

Works and Public Housing.

and

administrative problems at the

The Building Centre of Japan. 2015. A

later stage. Early involvement of

Quick Look At Housing in Japan.

the beneficiaries will also ensure

The Building Centre of Japan.

that they will be ready to accept

Yoshida, T. 2015. The Three Pillars of

the asset transfer and utilize the

Housing Policy
7