CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

Urbanization in Africa is characterized by informal settlements, insufficient

infrastructure, and the increasing impact of climate change, leading to disparities in access to

services and opportunities between urban and rural areas (de Bruin, Dengerink, & van Vliet,

2021; van Vliet et al., 2020). Although rapid urbanization is occurring in many Africa countries,

the trend varies across countries. For instance, Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, has

experienced a significant increase in urbanization from 17% in 1960 to over 50% in 2020, with

projections showing it will reach 68.4% by 2050.

As the global human population grows rapidly, much pressure is on the existing housing

stock and other urban infrastructural services. A recent report by the UN-HABITAT (2016)

observes that although housing accounts for about 70 percent of land use in cities globally over

881 million people are estimated to be still living in urban slums where there are appalling

housing and living conditions. This suggests that every country in the world has its own share of

housing problems. However, the most critical housing challenges are in cities in the global South

where there is mismatch between the unprecedented high rate of urbanization and population

explosion in cities and provision urban infrastructure, inadequate housing. Nigeria, with an

estimated population of 183 million people and urbanization rate of 50 percent (Bloch et al.,

2015) has housing supply deficit of about 17 million units. As a result, between 60 percent and

70 percent of the country’s 80 million urban residents live in slums and informal settlements

with life-threatening housing conditions. According to Okonjo-Iweala (2014), although Nigeria

needs to produce a minimum of 700,000 housing units annually to close her housing supply gap,

1
the yearly housing production in this country is about 100,000 units. Although the federal

government of Nigeria budgeted N40bn ($134.06 million) in the 2016 fiscal year in conjunction

with the 36 state government to build 500,000 housing units, throughout the federation, this

attempted target ran short of the estimated 700,000 minimum to salvage the housing debacle.

The attempt in the 2016 budget just like others in the previous budgets reflects the public sectors

declining capabilities to address the challenges of low income houses. Current realities indicate

that it is practically impossible for the government to shoulder this responsibility alone without

the help of the private sector. In recognition of this, the Nigerian government has identified the

need for public-private-partnerships (PPPs) in the provision of affordable housing for the low-

income households (Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN, 2002).

The public-private partnership strategy involves collaboration between government

agencies and private sector entities to jointly plan, finance and manage housing projects. It is a

‘marriage’ between public-and-private sector operators, it is employed as a ‘third way’ to

optimise the use of public funds and boost the quality of services traditionally provided by the

public sector (Allard and Trabant, 2007). Private sector involvement in urban infrastructure

provision is expected to reduce the burden of public sector financing as well as ensure

accountability, monitoring and management in the provision of infrastructure (Agbola and

Adeniji, 2009).

In Nigeria, public-private partnership (PPP) housing schemes have been implemented as

a means to address the country's housing deficit and provide affordable housing solutions to its

citizens. The aim is to leverage the expertise, resources, and efficiency of both sectors to increase

the supply of affordable housing. One notable PPP housing scheme in Nigeria is the Federal

Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN), National Housing Fund (NHF) Scheme. The FMBN is a

2
government-owned institution that provides mortgage finance for affordable housing

development. The NHF was established primarily to address the constraints to the mobilization

of long-term funds for housing development and to ensure that every Nigerian has access to

housing loans at affordable rates of interest. The fundamental concept which is a new approach

to housing facilitation in Nigeria is to make the private sector the main source of housing

finance. Through the NHF Scheme, the FMBN collaborates with private sector developers and

financial institutions to provide low-interest mortgage loans to eligible contributors. The scheme

also supports the construction of affordable housing units across the country (Adeniji, 2005).

According to Dominic et al (2016), Public Private Partnership as a practice is making its

impact on the Nigerian landscape. The growth of Public private partnerships is linked to the

insufficient funds available to government for financing numerous development projects

(including Housing) as well as governments poor risk management capacity. The noted

challenges to government financing and its impact on the nation’s development, has increased

the prospects of Public Private Partnerships as an alternative to delivery of infrastructure and

housing.

In Nigeria, several PPP initiatives abound. One of the significant PPP initiative is the

Lagos State Home Ownership Mortgage Scheme (Lagos HOMS). This scheme was launched by

the Lagos State Government in partnership with private developers and financial institutions. It

aims to provide affordable homeownership opportunities for residents of Lagos State. Under this

scheme, eligible individuals can access mortgage loans at subsidized interest rates to purchase

completed or off-plan housing units developed by private sector partners. Additionally, the Ogun

State Homeowners' Charter Program is another example of a PPP housing scheme in Nigeria.

This program was initiated by the Ogun State Government in collaboration with private sector

3
developers and financial institutions. Its objective was to facilitate homeownership by granting

title documents to property owners and providing access to mortgage financing through partner

banks.

In Makurdi town, there are different housing programmes that have been produced under

the PPP initiatives, some of the operators include Eskay housing estates, BIPC, the evergreen

gardens. The impact of these public – private partnership on low income housing delivery is of

paramount importance. This study seeks to delve into the dynamics of these partnerships and

their influence on various aspects of housing, such as affordability, quality and accessibility.

By examining the successes and setbacks of public-private partnerships in housing

delivery, the research aims to shed light on their effectiveness in tackling the housing shortage.

Additionally, it intends to explore the roles played by both public and private stakeholders in

these partnerships, as well as the challenges they face in the collaborating to provide adequate

and sustainable housing solutions.

Ultimately, the findings of this study could offer valuable insights for policymakers,

urban planners and stakeholders in Makurdi, enabling them to make informed decisions about

the role public-private partnerships in shaping the city’s housing landscape and addressing the

evolving needs of its growing population.

1.2 The statement of research problem

The problem of this study is couched in the question “how effective is PPP in providing

low income housing to the urban residents?”

The housing sector in Makurdi town has witnessed the emergence of public private

partnerships (PPPs) as a strategy to address housing delivery challenges. However, there is a lack

of comprehensive analysis and understanding of the effectiveness, equity and sustainability of

4
these partnerships in achieving improved housing outcomes. This study sets out to provide a

clear understanding of these public private partnerships housing schemes in makurdi and assess

their overall impact on the housing landscape of Makurdi town.

1.3 Research Questions.

i. What are the specific public-private partnerships initiatives currently operating in

Makurdi?

ii. What is the nature of partnership with government?

iii. Who are the intended and actual beneficiaries?

iv. What are the housing facilities provided and how affordable are they to the public?

v. What is the occupant’s satisfaction with these facilities?

vi. How assessable are these to low income earners?

1.4 Aim and Objectives

To assess the impact of the public-private partnerships (PPPs) on housing delivery in

Makurdi town. To achieve the above aim, below are the objectives:

i. To identify the public-private partnership that exists in Makurdi town.

ii. To examine the quality of housing provided by public-private partnerships.

iii. To analyse the affordability of the housing units offered.

iv. To investigate accessibility (availability) of public private partnership housing to the low

income populace.

v. To analyse the impact of public private partnership on residents wellbeing and quality of

life.

5
1.5 The study area

Makurdi is the capital of the Benue state of Nigeria located between latitude 7° 44’

27.96" N and longitude 8°30’43.56"East. It is bounded by Guma Local Government to the North,

Gwer Local Government to the south, Gwer-west to the South-West and Doma Local

Government Area of Nasarawa State to the North-West. It covers 804km 2 land mass in a 16km

radius. It is situated in the Benue Valley on the bank of river Benue. The town is strategically

located on the North-South transportation network by road and by rail respectively, between

Nasarawa and Enugu States.

What is known as Makurdi today has been in existence since 1912. It started as a typical

village composed of scattered Tiv compounds and Jukun fishermen settlement. With the advent

of colonialism, Makurdi became a centre of river trade, a railway town and an administrative

town. It became a provincial headquarters of Benue Province in 1927, when it was transferred

from Abinsi. Following the Local Government reforms of 1970, Makurdi became the

headquarters of Makurdi Division. In 1976, following the creation of Benue State out of the

Benue Plateau, Makurdi doubles as the State headquarters (capital) as well as the headquarters of

Makurdi Local Government Area. The rail road and the trunk ‘A’ road that connect the Eastern

states to the North and the North-East making Makurdi a major cross road centre. Makurdi has a

population of 226,198 a density of 323 persons per square kilometres as of 1991, the National

Population Census data figures, has a population of 300, 377 with a density of over 400 persons

per square kilometres as of the 2006 National population census data figures and the highest in

the state .

6
S

Fig 1. Map of Benue State showing the study area Makurdi.

1.6 Significance of the study

This research is significant because it addresses a pressing issue in urban development. It

has the potential to shed light on the effectiveness of the collaboration between the public and

private sectors in providing housing solutions. The findings could guide policymakers, urban

planners and stakeholders in optimizing resources and strategies to meet the housing needs of the

growing population. This research can also contribute to the broader understanding of how

public-private partnerships impact urban infrastructure and development in similar contexts

beyond Makurdi town.

1.7 Scope of the study.

The study would involve examining various aspects related to the collaboration between

the public and private sectors in delivering housing solutions in Makurdi. This could include

assessing the effectiveness of such partnerships in addressing housing needs, analyzing the roles

7
of government agencies and private developers, evaluating the quality and affordability of

housing units, studying the socio-economic impact on residents and identifying any challenges

and success factors in implementing these partnerships.

The study would likely involve data collection, surveys, interviews and analysis to

provide insights into how such partnerships affect housing availability, affordability and overall

urban development in Makurdi town.

1.8 Limitation of the study

One limitation of this study is that it focuses solely on the impact of public-private

partnerships in housing delivery in Makurdi town, which may not fully capture the broader

complexities of the housing sector. Factors such as economic conditions, government policies

and cultural influences were not extensively examined, potentially limiting the generalizability of

the findings beyond the specific context of Makurdi town.

1.9 Definition of terms

Impact: It is the effect or influence that something has on a situation, system or process.

Public-Private Partnership (PPP): A collaboration between a government agency or a public

sector organization and a private sector company for the purpose of funding, designing,

implementing, and operating projects and services that were traditionally provided by public

sector.

Housing Delivery: This is the process of providing housing units, which includes various stages

such as planning, construction, financing and allocation of residential spaces.

8
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Framework

To get a better understanding of the possibilities and shortcomings of PPP, it would be

useful to base the review of the study on an analytical framework. Such a framework would also

be useful when structuring the discussion of findings in the reviewed literature. A number of

scholars in the public management realm have highlighted the theoretical foundations of PPPs,

although there is no unified theoretical basis for PPPs. It is possible to situate this paper within

the context of the Principal –Agent framework and Institutional Theory given the specific nature

of risks existing in most PPP projects.

2.1.1 Principal-Agent Theory

Applying Principal-agent theory to PPP interventions, the principal is the state (or other

“public” actors) and the agent is the private sector company, partnership or consortium that the

state contracts with. The state wishes to harness the capacity (human and investment),

entrepreneurship and innovation of the private sector “agent” to achieve public policy goals, but

has to recognize that; private sector “agents” have their own objectives and; will only enter into

deals if they think that these will in some way be furthered by implementation of the Public

Private Partnership agreement. Specifically, firms will only enter into PPP agreements if their

expected “utility” from concluding the deal exceeds what they could obtain from directing the

same resources to alternative uses, i.e. the opportunity cost of these resources (Poulton, 2009); he

further asserted that at the heart of Principal-agent theory is the problem of asymmetric

information. If the state had perfect information, concerning the capability and motives of

9
potential private sector partners (prior to signing of a contract) and the actions and motivations

for these actions (during implementation of a contract), the challenge above would be fairly

straightforward. However, in reality these things are at least partly hidden from everybody

except the (senior management of the) firm itself. In compliance with principal agent theory the

two contract parties in PPP are named principal (the public authority) and agent (the private

enterprise). Both actors are intrinsically motivated by self-interest based on rationality (Greiling,

2009). This theory is mainly interested in how the agent can be forced to act in accordance with

the principal. A so-called agency problem evolves that is not only derived from the actors'

egoism but from information asymmetries in favor of the agent. The principal agent theory is

applied as a theoretical reference framework for the PPP partnering model and the PPP

performance process model to restrict opportunistic behavior. The principal agent theory

therefore constitutes the theoretical base for optimally structuring contractual incentive

mechanisms to protect against opportunistic behavior (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). Principal

agent theory also broaches the issue of risk-bearing. This is a central topic for Public Private

Partnership because the share of risks is supposed to be one main advantage of the PPP concept

for growing efficiency in public service delivery. There are several general conclusions on

Principal agent theory. These include; Firstly, the risk should be allocated to the Agent to the

extent he does manage the risk. Secondly, risk should be allocated to the least risk adverse

partner in order to minimize the overall risk-bearing cost. In the Principal-Agent literature, the

Agent is most of time supposed to be risk averse whereas the principal is supposed to be risk

neutral. Thirdly, the Principal should support risk in order to minimize the overall risk-bearing

cost.

10
2.1.2 Institutional Theory

Governments operate in an institutional environment which influences their actions. In

this environment, the main goal of organizations is to survive not only economically, but they

need to establish acceptability within the world they operate. Institutional theory (DiMaggio &

Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1995) analyzes how structures including

procedures, rules, schemas, and routines, become established as guiding principles for social

behavior through processes. Institutions determine how different elements are developed,

diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time (Scott, 2004; Scott, 2008). An important

element of institutional theory is conformity. While formal institutions are conscious guiding

principles which prescribe or proscribe parties' behavior, it is also important to include informal

rules or trust patterns as part of the institutional framework since behavioral patterns become

institutionalized and informal rules become seen as given, or, informal commitments become

institutionalized over time due to the repetitive execution of acts by individuals involved (Winch,

2010).

The institutional environment shapes political processes and the rules of the political

game and vice versa. There is a link between how political institutions shape political incentives,

how political behavior influences policy making processes and their capabilities. In the case of

PPPs, governments are responsible for the establishment of programs and to develop the

necessary capacity to ensure project success. The way a government shapes the environment for

PPP development will depend on the institutional context where projects take place. The policy

interventions will have an impact on the institutional capabilities of the environment to foster

PPP development and provide an enabling environment (Spiller et al, 2003; Jooste et al, 2011).

11
Institutional theory is used to analyze the influence of the institutional environment on PPP

projects with the intention of refining it and proposing it for further research to study the

interplay between the institutional and project outcomes. The categorization proposed by

Mahalingam et al (2011) serves as a means to delimit the institutional environment and

characterize the institutional capabilities needed for PPP development so then we can compare

different institutional environments. The institutional environment has a contract structure, the

duration of negotiations for planning and procurement, and the emergence of public opposition.

Projects' outcomes result in lessons learnt. The influence of the institutional environment on

project outcomes and context specific factors shape the evolution of the institutional environment

in different ways in different arenas, thereby leading to diverse project outcomes over time, even

when the initial set of institutional logics surrounding PPPs are the same across these arenas.

2.1 Concept of Public Private Partnerships

Public-Private Partnership is a concept of executing public projects and services through

a “partnership arrangements with the private sector” (Adediji, 2009). The concept originated

from the United Kingdom in the 1960s as PFI (Private Finance Initiative) and it can be

summarized as the overall concept and understanding of responsibility, sharing parameters

between the public sector and private sector. Oyebanji (2003) categories a public developer as

Federal, State or Local Government or any of its agencies which undertakes construction

activities and which uses taxpayers’ funds for the benefits of general public interest rather than

for an individual satisfaction. Bode Adediji (2009), described Public-Private Partnership as a

relatively novel concept of executing public projects and services through a “partnership

arrangements with the private sector notably in the areas of infrastructure”, originating from UK

in the sixties as PFI (Private Finance Initiative). He describes PPP as falling along a spectrum of

12
different contributions of public and private arrangement. This spectrum of possible PPP extends

from business almost entirely controlled by private sector at one end, to those almost entirely

controlled by the public sector at the other end.

Agbola and Adeniji (2009) identify general definition of PPP as a set of cooperative

activities between the public and private sector. However, these scholars argue that there is no

precise definition of the concept and this is also in line with William (1997) argument which

states that precise and imprecise definitions of PPP do not abound because it is assumed that the

issue is so transparent that the entity needs no definition although a variety of definitions exists.

In the research Paper NO 1 of the Parliament of Australia (2002-2003), PPP is defined as

“Partnership between the public sector and the private sector for the purposes of designing,

planning, financing, constructing and/or operating projects which would be regarded traditionally

as falling within the remit of the public sector.” Common to all the definitions in the literature,

however, is that PPP include various types of cooperation between the state and private firms

with respect to the planning, construction, financing and operation of hitherto state controlled

projects. Long term cooperation and risk sharing between the partners are also important features

of PPP; it tries to establish risk sharing so that private sectors can take responsibility for the

success of the project (Aluko, 2009). According to Sagagi (2007), the consistent failure of

governments in Africa to provide adequate services is very frustrating. He further explored that

the failure is partly because governments lack the money and resources to maintain and expand

the existing infrastructure. As a result of this, there should be merger between the public

developer and private developers to balance the merits and demerits existing in the activities of

both sectors, hence the concept of Public-Private Partnership.

13
2.2 Public-private partnership in Housing

The public sector which has been striving very hard to formulate, implement and finance

effective and efficient housing delivery policies in Nigeria have numerous services to be

provided to the citizenry but with limited resources. However, realizing the fact that private

home owners and rental housing sector have been and will continue to be the major provider of

the bulk housing in the country, the Nigerian Government recently adopted public-private

partnerships in reforming the housing sector in the new National Housing Policy of 2006 (Aluko,

2009).

In the history of housing delivery in Nigeria, the public sector have played dominant role

and since it has been an established fact that private sectors are the major providers of housing in

Nigeria although with financial gains motives, the government in the provision of housing should

act as “an enabler, promoter and facilitator to individual and cooperative housing efforts rather

acting as a direct implementer of housing policy (Aluko, 2009). It is on this premise that Agbola

(1998) recommends integration of both private and public resources as a policy frame work for

encouraging private sector participation on the housing delivery. In the same vein, Mabogunje

(1993) also agreed that the problems or constraints militating against effective private sector

participation in housing delivery should be addressed through public-private partnership if

housing and urban development is to be promoted in Africa. The modalities for public-private

partnership in housing delivery of a large scale involve two major actors and other stakeholders

which are being used by the major actors. The major actors are the public sector (Government at

any level) and the private sector (Real Estate Development Companies) while the other

stakeholders could be financial institutions, insurance companies, construction companies,

suppliers of building materials etc.

14
2.3 A global perspective of PPP

PPP have received extensive attention from public infrastructure, housing development

and financing over the past years due to its essential advantages and is currently used in more

than 40 nations (Zhang & Kumaraswamy, 2001; RICS Policy Report, 2012). The impact of PPP

is of great importance for the delivery of public housing developments on a global measure. For

example, between 2005 and 2010, a total of 1,046 PPP transactions reached a value of three

hundred and thirty billion dollars ($350 billion), the 2007 PPP market peaked when the 241

projects had a total capital value of seventy nine billion dollars ($79 billion), and these

development projects financing has been completed. In 2010, 122 PPP transactions reached

financing transactions with the total of value fifty one billion six hundred million dollars

(US$51.6 billion) (RICS Policy Report, 2012). In the United Kingdom, the National and regional

governments use PPP primarily, Norway, the United States, Australia, Ireland, Norway, Canada,

Spain, France, Japan, Singapore, Finland, Malaysia, South Africa and Nigeria. It is necessary to

briefly explain the main support countries of PPP in the following areas, which are the main

supporters of PPP, as stated below:

1. United Kingdom; are the world's major users of PPP (Deloitte, 2007; Zhang &

Kumaraswamy, 2001). This is testify by (Vanweez, 2007), which is a leader in PPP

because it has carried out initial activities in helping to promote private finance of public

project and has been continuing its operations. (Africa Development Bank 2010) Stated

that on 13 March, 2014, there are seven hundred and twenty eight (728) PFI projects in

the UK, of about 671 are in operation with the accumulated capital value of fifty six

billion six hundred dollars (£56.6 billion). The PFI's approach is perfected, and must

15
 importantly, the UK's service suppliers. Therefore, the United Kingdom PFI model was

used in most countries within the Western world (Bult-Spiering & Dewulf, 2006).

2. The United States; United States narrowly accepted PPP (Public Works Financing 2010)

before 2007. Subsequently 2007, the nation has experienced a great number of PPP

development (RICS Policy Report 2012). Among the project of PPP, notable is the new

station at JFK, the fast commute at Denver, the light rail project, and the Chicago Skyline

Toll Bridge. Public Works financing (2010) reported that within 1985-2010, there were

three hundred and sixty three (363) PPP projects. It was recorded with the accumulated

value of fifty five billion nine hundred million dollars ($55.9 billion).

3. The Australia; The country has implemented PPP for many sports and social

infrastructure housing projects at the national and local levels, include toll roads, sports

facilities, prisons, hospitals, schools and utilities. The PPP markets is one of the best in

the Word with the most mature market (RICS Policy Report 2012). English (2006)

Asserts that as of the end of 2005, 127 PPP projects have been recorded with an

accumulated value of thirty five billion six hundred million dollars (A$35.6 billion).

4. The Canada; Public-private partnerships has become more progressively

institutionalized as an alternative to providing large-scale projects in Canada. From 1990-

2012, 195 one hundred and ninety five (PPP) projects were constructed or are being

planned and delivered. These PPP development projects include Brampton Hospital in

Ontario, 407 Toronto's Highway, and the, connecting Prince Edward Island, Royal

Ottawa Hospital and the Commonwealth Bridge in New Brunswick to connect Frederick

in New Brunswick Dunton and Moncton's toll roads and the development of Nova Scotia

schools. British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta and Quebec delivered the biggest number of

16
 PPP at the nationwide level. Bamisile (2004) reported that more than one hundred (1000)

PPP development project was recorded with the accumulated value of almost thirty one

billion ($31 billion).

5. The India; a significant development was made in providing housing, infrastructure and

facilities project since year 2000 using PPP. More than three hundred (300) project was

delivered nationwide. The primary mission of the central government's is the road

linkage, with approximately 86 per cent of nationwide roads using PPP project delivery

(RICS Policy Report, 2012).

6. The South Africa; in terms of PPP, south African is on top using PPP for infrastructural

development and housing, e.g some of the PPP project were perform at the nationwide

level since 1994 with about 50 project and more three hundred (300) were implemented

at the metropolitan level (Farlam, 2005). The South African National Reserves is the

organization that is in charge for all PPP contacts, and the organization that established a

PPP guide and standardized PPP regulations to lead all the PPP projects.

2.5 The Nigerian National Housing Policy

Various federal and state programs and policies have been created to address the

country's housing needs. The nation's first housing policy was implemented in 1991. However, it

was unable to provide adequate housing for all Nigerians due to its implementation issues

(Okewole, & Aribigbola, 2006). In Nigeria, the government has a complex housing policy that

has been criticized for its lack of transparency and accessibility. It has led to a shortage of

affordable and decent housing, which has affected many people. The federal government's failure

to address the housing needs of the country during its independence period was a major issue.

For instance, in 1991, a review of the national housing policy was carried out to ensure that it

17
focused on providing adequate housing for all Nigerians. The objective of the exercise was to

ensure that the country's economy would benefit from the program.

This new policy seeks to address the nation's housing needs. The new policy aims to:

i. Sustain and develop the federal government's political will to provide Nigerians with

adequate housing;

ii. Encourage private sector involvement in the housing sector;

iii. Strengthen the role of public institutions in the delivery of housing;

iv. Ensure that the land for housing projects is reasonably priced; and

v. Encouraged other government agencies to participate in the delivery of housing projects.

The previous housing program was launched in 2006. Its implementation was delayed by

the Land Use Act's failure to provide the necessary management of the nation's resources. This

issue led to high construction costs. In 2011, a new housing policy was attempted, and it was

expected to have updated data that would influence the market. The previous policies were

reviewed to make sure that the sector would be able to contribute to the country's economic

recovery and bring it back to its original state. To address the challenges in the delivery of

housing, the federal government will work with private and public sectors to address the issues.

The National Housing Policy, 2012, also encourage the use of locally-made materials (National

Housing Policy Federal Republic of Nigeria; 2012).

2.6 Public Housing Policies in Nigeria

The country is struggling with a severe shortage of housing. According to the nation's

first national housing plan, released in 1990, the deficit could reach as high as 5.9 million by

2000. It noted that by the end of this century, around 700,000 new homes should be constructed

18
to address the country’s housing needs. The country has tried different strategies to address its

housing and urban population needs since it became an independent country in 1960. Some of

these involve relocating slums, establishing self-sufficient housing units, and taking advantage of

opportunities offered by public housing. Most of the housing policies introduced were focused

on the public providers. The expensive public housing program was the most thorough and

expensive of its kind. Unfortunately, even though the various housing schemes were launched

during the past two decades, they only managed to produce around 76,000 homes. During the

country's early years as an independent country, public housing was regarded by some as elitist.

The first national housing program was launched during the 70s during the Second Plan's

implementation. It involved the construction of 59,000 units.

In the third plan, which was launched in 1975, housing projects were planned for

200,000. Out of the 200,000, only 19% were completed by the end of the program (Aina, 1990).

Agbo, (1996) cited various factors as the reason for the poor performance of the third housing

project. These include the lack of service infrastructure and technical workers. Despite the

program's poor performance, the military still continued with the project (Ikejiofor, 1999). A

committee was then set to look into the program's implementation, and it was revealed that the

target for the number of units was not met. Following the country's civil rule in 1999, several

state governments and the Federal Ministry of Works Housing (FMWH) started implementing

small-scale housing projects. Through the contracts that were awarded by the government, over

7730 sites were started. The commercialization of the housing industry in 2000 revealed the poor

performance of previous projects (Ikejiofor, 1999). Other factors such the country's debt

problems and declining financial status also suggest that the federal government might reduce its

participation in the sector.

19
2.7 Challenges of housing delivery in Nigeria

In Nigeria, both the informal and formal sectors play a role in the delivery of housing

(Taiwo, 2015). The informal sector refers to houses that are delivered by individuals, families,

cooperatives, and community development projects that do not meet the building standards of the

local government (Ezeanah, (2021). On the other hand, the formal sector refers to houses that are

provided by the private or public sectors. In 2015, the Lagos State Bureau of Statistics reported

that the private sector provided over 90% of the housing units in the country (Enisan, (2017). In

this region, over 90% of the houses were self-built, which indicates that most of them were made

by individuals. The level of housing that the government and organized private sectors provide is

insignificant. In Nigeria, there are numerous households that are composed of individuals from

different socioeconomic groups (Awotona, 1990; Painter, et al 2001). The diversity of the types

of housing that are offered in the country's cities mirrors the varying backgrounds of its

residents. For instance, those from the lower income group tend to live in rented homes while

those from the middle class live in expensive homes (Shaibu, & Abdullahi, 2018). This suggests

that despite the various efforts made by the country's residents to provide housing through the

private sector, the delivery of housing units remains a mirage (Shaibu, & Abdullahi, 2018).

The lack of proper building standards and the country's culture are some of the factors

that prevent the country from achieving its goals (Adenuga, 2013; Awotona, 1999; Taiwo, 2015).

Due to the restrictions imposed by local customs officials on the building of housing units in

different states, it is difficult for individuals to participate in the process of providing housing.

These restrictions are caused by the requirements set by the CDA, which include levies. Besides

being required to submit necessary documents to the relevant authorities to get building licenses,

20
the developers are also required to pay levies by the CDA. This is a major issue that prevents the

construction of new homes in various states. Ezeanah, (2021) revealed that home builders in Edo

were collecting huge sums of money before they were allowed to start building. Around 80% of

Nigeria's households live in rented homes. These housing types of are usually affected by

numerous challenges, such as the high cost of living and the lack of proper building materials

(Mba, 1992; Taiwo, 2015; Tokman, 1992). In addition to these, other factors such as the

bureaucratic bottlenecks and the financial difficulties experienced by home builders are also

contributing to the country's housing shortages. Despite the various efforts being made by the

authorities and private sector to address the country's housing shortage, it still has a significant

number of homes that are not available (Awotona, 1990; Habitat, 1993; Ezeanah, 2021).

Despite the private sector's efforts to increase the number of homes that can be built, the

restrictions imposed by the customs officials in different states prevented many Nigerians from

participating in the building of houses. This led to a reduction in the number of housing units that

could be built in the country. Since the country has a shortage of around 16 million housing

units, it is very unlikely that the homes that are delivered will be able to meet the demand.

2.8 Public-Private Partnership and Housing Delivery in Nigeria.

A public-private partnership is a type of housing arrangement that involves the

government and the private sector. It allows the government to take control of a housing

enterprise and manage its operations. The private and public sectors need to work together to

produce effective solutions to the housing crisis. Besides being politically-motivated, PPPs are

also beneficial for addressing social issues. Private businesses can benefit from public-private

partnerships as they can participate in affordable housing projects. Public-private partnerships

are designed to establish and share goals that are financially feasible and sustainable (Ibem,

21
2011; Taiwo, 2015). Through this process, the public and private sectors can work together to

carry out their tasks in different ways. As the federal government continues to implement public-

private partnership programs in the area of affordable housing, it is conducting studies on

different methods that can be utilized to deliver such units (Ibem, 2011 ; Daramola, 2005).

Various advantages can be obtained through these arrangements, such as the managerial and

financial resources of the private sector. This strategy aims to involve the private sector in the

efficient management and delivery of public services. It does not involve the government giving

up its efforts to deliver vital services.

In 2006, the government launched a new strategy that urged private organizations to play

their part in addressing the country’s housing shortages and increasing prices (Shaibu, &

Abdullahi, 2018). It also supports the public private partnership program, which caters to the

growing population. Shaibu, & Abdullahi, (2018), said that the federal government plans to

establish a new housing market that will provide low-interest loans to people. The objective of

the program is to make low-income earners more self-sufficient by providing them with the

necessary resources and tools to buy homes (Habitat, 1993). In addition, it encourages private

organizations to work with the administration to develop affordable housing. Developers are

required to construct homes that are in accordance with the specified requirements of the federal

government.

Public-private partnerships have been used in various countries to address the issue of

affordable housing. In 2006, UNHSPI noted that Turkey was one the first nation to implement

this strategy. From 1979 to 1990, over 120,000 houses were built through 27 municipalities'

partnership (Tokman, 1992). In 1985, the number of housing units in Turkey was 18.1, but it

increased to 25.3 in 1990. The partnership helped the country's housing delivery by allowing the

22
authorities to work with various real estate firms. In Nigeria, the partnership with three real

estate firms was able to produce more than 500 homes in just 10 years (Habitat, 1993). The state

government should partner with private sector entities to develop and build affordable housing as

a means of solving the problem. Through this partnership, more people will be able to enjoy the

benefits of the economic growth and development of the area. The money will also be used for

other essential needs such as education and infrastructure development. All these things will help

to improve the quality of living for everyone in the community.

2.9 The Basis for adopting PPPs Project in Nigeria

PPP is efficiently used to provide projects that would else be unavailable for public

funding. In addition to other drivers of PPP in the world, the Nigerian government's other

reasons for using PPP are as follows:

i. Corruption in the public procurement: Corruption in increases the general cost of the

project public contracts, challenges contributor support, and has a significant influence on

accomplishing the social goals (Babalola et al, 2010; Thomas et al, 2006) . An analysis

was conducted in 2000 and shows that prior to 1999, Nigeria has a standard annual loss

of two hundred and seventy million dollars ($270 million) through several managements

of granting and executing public contract procedures (Wahab, 2000). These operations

include: exaggerating contract costs, using contract systems to transfer public funds to

private pockets, awarding contracts for non-existent projects, using inexperienced

contractors, invoicing, invoice impact, awarding contracts to friends, relationships and

family members, and giving contracts without adequate program and budget

requirements (Wahab, 2000). On this note Babalola et al., (2010) confirm that

infrastructure and housing project can be attained by eliminating assets (human, money

23
 and the time) that are wasted on public appropriation due to deficiency of financial

integrity.

ii. The Budgetary limitation: infrastructure and housing construction face enormous

challenges, and the country needs ten billion dollars ($10 billion) a year to meet the

requirements in the next decade (Sanusi, 2012). Sadly, the government of Nigerian

budget can‘t simply fund a project. As example, National Implementation Plan (NIP) fist

price was two hundred and twelve billion dollars ($212 billion), this exceeded the

government‘s budget capacity clearly (Africa Development Bank (AfDB) 2010).

iii. Inadequacy in the traditional procurement: according to (Jin & Doloi, 2007)

traditional government-funded supply of project leads to inefficiencies and limits the

development of housing to government funding. The public project provided through

traditional procurement faces some problems. These comprise ongoing budget overruns,

poor workmanship, project delays, contractors requesting additional payments, and

operational performance shortcomings (Flyvbjerg, 2003; Siemiatycki, 2009)

iv. Deficiency of skills and knowledge in the public segment: The deficiency of skill and

knowledge in public sector to develop project alone, which is the cause of failure; the

project that is abandoned or degraded in most parts of the nation (Africa Development

Bank (AfDB), 2010). Deficiency capacity in the public sector management and technical

expertise is continually hampering countries' ability to meet their needs (Gidado, 2010).

With the lack of expertise, increased demand for public services make it problem for

governments to respond. As a result, the government Nigerian have no choice than to

employ the service of private developers to provide the need of public services and

projects development (Gidado, 2010). Consistent with worldwide movements, the federal

24
 and the state governments of Nigerian have to take decision to use PPP as a significance

to meet their housing and infrastructure needs.

2.10 Public Private Partnership Approach as a catalyst for Effective Housing Delivery

The introduction of private and public intensive roles in the housing market was greatly

influenced by the global market open trade known as the world trade organization (WTO). The

process of globalization, which creates multiplicity of linkages and interconnectivities across the

global space, brought about this arrangement. International organizations like the World Bank

and International Monetary Fund and WTO have constantly exerted increasing measure of

influences on inter-state relations. There are increasing inter boundary influences through the

socio-political governance institutions of most nations. Public private partnership has been

widely recognized as a natural response to meet the colossal demand for housing in the context

of government's dwindling budgetary capacity. The need for it is also accelerated by the massive

market demand for better quality of housing delivery. PPPs in housing provisions, therefore,

imply a change in the role of the government from a provider of housing to an enabler. This is

particularly important in enhancing the performance of the housing market by encouraging

public institutions, private developers and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to be

involved in joint decision-making and management of housing provisions which can contribute

to sustainable housing development (Erguden, 2001; Sengupta and Ganesan, 2004; Sengupta and

Tipple, 2007). PPP has helped governments to execute a lot of housing projects that otherwise

would not have been executed. PPP increased efficiency, expertise, and innovation from the

private sector contribute to better infrastructure and greater cost and time savings across the

25
construction and operation phases, increasing the value for money equation of a project. It

provides the private sector with access to reduced risk, secure, long-term investment

opportunities that are underwritten by government contracts. Such agreements ensure private

capital flows, provide investment opportunities, and stimulate local industry and job markets.

The main types of Public–Private Partnerships are:

1. Build–Own–Operate (BOO): The private business builds and operates a public facility

and retains legal ownership

2. Build–Operate–Transfer (BOT): The private business builds and operates the public

facility for a significant time period. At the end of the time period, the facility ownership

transfers to the public

3. Buy–Build–Operate (BBO): The government sells the facility to the private business.

The private business refurbishes and operates the facility

4. Design–Build–Operate (DBO): A single contract is awarded to a private business which

designs, builds, and operates the public facility, but the public retains legal ownership

5. Build–Develop–Operate (BDO): The private business buys the public facility,

refurbishes it with its own resources, and then operates it through a government contract

(USGAO, 2002)

PPPS have helped governments to execute a lot of projects that otherwise would not have

been executed. The main purpose of PPP in development is that financial, technical and

management risks should be allocated to the party that is best placed to manage it at the least

cost, acceptable quality and reasonable time. With PPP, governments are now achieving greater

provision of infrastructure. PPPs gives local authorities access to new sources of capital

investment and management skills for new or improved facilities and create new opportunities

26
for the private sector to combine facility management, finance and operation skills. As a result, it

helps the state to afford to engage in more capital investment than it would by following

conventional procurement methods.

2.11 PPP intervention in Housing Delivery in Nigeria

The Public-Private Partnership is the collaboration between the public and private sector

for the purpose of delivering a project or service which was traditionally provided by the public

sector. For a very long time, until recently the government has been saddled with the enormous

responsibility of providing housing for its citizens. The basic approach to development explains

that the state is the primary agent of development with little or no role assigned to the private

sector in the development process. This model endowed the public sector with a commanding

role in the regime of developmentalism which dominated the political economy of post-colonial

Nigeria (Mabogunje, 2007; Olukoshi, 2003). However, it is tragic that state enterprises thrown

up by state-led development approach could make significant contributions to the economy in

spite of huge investment in their operations. As a result, the Nigerian state witnessed a decline in

its capacity for social and infrastructure provision and this led to increased legitimacy crisis of

the state (Jega, 2000; Amin, 1996).

Private sector participation in housing delivery in Nigeria dates back to the early 1990s

when the 1991 National housing policy (NHP) was produced (FRN, 1991). Government pursued

a two-pronged strategy of encouraging direct public housing provision and simultaneous

stimulation of the private sector housing to improve housing delivery. Recently, the private

sector has been showing considerable interest in the provision of housing, not as a social service

to the people but with the intension to make profits (Taiwo and Adedeji, 2013). Ikekpeazu,

27
(2004), noted that the expediency of the increased adoption of the Public-Private Partnership for

housing delivery in the present socio-economic circumstances of shortage of housing in Nigeria

is now even more glaring.

Nigeria has had several housing programs and policies geared towards the provision of

housing her citizens since colonial era to the post-colonial period. The Nigerian Government had

always been directly involved in the provision of housing for the public servants and with the

advent of the public-private partnership initiative (Abraham, 2013). Ikekpeazu (2004) noted that

the expediency of the increased adoption of the Public-Private Partnership for housing delivery

in the present socio-economic circumstances of shortage of housing in Nigeria is now even more

glaring. With the increasing demand of the population on the national economy and the

government's propensity for enlarging the multi-sectorial allocations in terms of finance, it is

becoming more obvious that government alone can no longer provide adequate housing for all

categories of her citizens. Thus, the public-private partnership will facilitate the provision of

housing delivery (Abraham, 2013) There is no doubt that some of the past policies and programs

relating to housing and urban development in Nigeria were contextually and practically relevant

in addressing popular needs. Undeniably, some of the policies initiated by the government at

both the federal and states levels in meeting the housing needs of the people are moves in the

positive direction, as such actions, however minimal, have alleviated the problems of the grave

inadequacies of services and facilities in housing, as well as defusing the persistent housing

tension among the low-income group in the major urban areas (Adesoji, 2011). However,

considering the scope and magnitude of the housing problems necessitated the intervention in

housing delivery in Nigeria. There is no doubt that the magnitude of the quantitative housing

needs of Nigerians is enormous considering the rapid increase in population, and the rate at

28
which urbanization is occurring in the country. It is pertinent to observe that in the past years the

importance of the PPP has been harped on by researches. For instance, Akintoye et al, (2006)

and UNCHS (1997) observed that PPP is more efficient to deliver adequate housing through a

properly functioning housing market than through the public agencies or the non-profit

nongovernmental agencies.

In recent years, Public-Private Partnership approaches are embraced and employed in

housing schemes across the country. Cities all over the world developed through both the efforts

of government organizations and private individual efforts and initiatives. Abuja cannot therefore

be an exception. In recognition of the above challenges, the Federal Capital Territory

Administration (FCTA) and the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) decided in the

year 2000 to embark on a new approach in order to meet the challenges. Private Public

Partnership concept was introduced in housing delivery. The Mass Housing Scheme in Abuja

was organized to enable the Organized Private Sector produce housing for sale at affordable

prices to low and medium-income groups in the city (Ukoje, 2014). The mass housing scheme in

Abuja was initiated in 2000 to utilize the PPP strategy, with the main objective to provide

adequate and affordable housing accommodation for the growing population in the territory.

Based on the policy, the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) launched its

guidelines for Mass Housing Development (MHD) which provides the background for mass

housing under the PPP approach (FRN, 2009). The guideline allows for large parcels of land to

be granted to private sector real estate developers at low prices. These developers were to then

construct estates of affordable housing and tertiary infrastructure, linking these communities to

the government provided primary infrastructure. The FCTA allocated the mass housing districts

within parts of phases II, and III of the city of Abuja where private organizations are required to

29
develop large scale residential apartments and sell to the public. There are 360 private developers

who were allocated 12,691 hectares of land within the 22 districts in the mass housing zones

(Ukoje and Kanu, 2014).

Lagos State currently has an estimated population of 22.5 million (LBS 2011), projected

to grow to 24.5 million by 2015. It is the fastest growing mega city in the world. There is a daily

influx of people whose purpose is to stay permanently to make a living, with the attendant need

for social infrastructure, facilities and services including power, food, and transportation but

especially housing. With a population of 140 million, it is estimated that Nigeria has a housing

deficit of 17 million units (NPC 2013) requiring addition of 780,000 units annually (NHF 2014)

to bridge the gap in the long term. A Public-Private Partnership Unit has been established under

the Lagos State Ministry of Finance, with the mandate of implementing PPP projects in Lagos

State. It is a one: stop PPP business office for prospective investors on PPP project initiatives. It

would also facilitate the coordination between Project Initiative Ministries, Agencies of

Government and the Private Sector.

Over the years, the Lagos State Government had made efforts to tackle the housing

challenge by establishing institutions, encouraging the private sector and directly creating

housing estates. It established the Lagos State Property and Development Corporation, Lagos

Building Investment Corporation, Lands Bureau, Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban

Development, Ministry of Housing, Office of Public-Private Partnerships and very recently the

Lagos Mortgage Board. The government also introduced the Private Estates Developers Scheme,

sites and services, and built housing estates in different parts of the state for sale to the public

usually at subsidized costs. Between 1999 and 2011 the government built 3786 family units of

medium & low income in 17 housing estates averaging 316 units annually (Olatunji, 2014).

30
 In Ogun state, it has been very difficult to equate housing supply with its demand in

many countries, including Nigeria. This is because housing development involves different

stages of planning and construction. The study has shown that the role of government in PPP in

housing in Ogun State focuses on those areas that usually contribute to increasing cost of

housing and most often cause delays in the execution of housing projects. Therefore,

government's role in PPP in housing in Ogun State is seen as a deliberate strategy to speed up the

process of executing housing projects, increasing the productivity of public-sector housing and

making the cost of housing affordable to low-income people. Ogun State Government was using

land as a key incentive to encourage private sector participation in PPP in housing, developable

land in choice areas is not readily available for PPP housing schemes.

Table 1: PPP Housing Schemes in Ogun State (2003 – 2013)

Source: Eziyi and Egidario, 2013

Unfortunately, the issue of adequate implementation and affordability of the housing

units and the contributions of PPP to addressing urban housing challenges of the low-income

earners appear to have received little attention from Nigerian researchers. From available

31
literature on housing in Nigeria, the organized private sector are recognized to have interest on

housing the upper- and medium-income groups (Ikeojifor,1997) and a general tendency of profit

maximization (Keivani &Werna, 2001). In particular, the capacity of the private sector towards

providing housing at affordable costs to the low-income earners has not elicited serious

investigation. As Nigeria has adopted the PPP approach there is the need to appraise this

partnership (Ukoje, 2014).

2.12 Housing Delivery in Benue state

Housing delivery in Benue State refers to the process of providing adequate and

affordable housing units to meet the growing population's needs in the state. Benue State is

located in the North-Central region of Nigeria and is known for its agricultural activities, diverse

culture, and rich history. As the population continues to increase, there is a growing demand for

housing, which poses challenges and opportunities for the government and stakeholders involved

in housing delivery. The Benue State Government plays a significant role in housing delivery

through various initiatives and policies. One of the key initiatives is the provision of social

housing schemes targeted at low-income earners and vulnerable groups. These schemes aim to

provide affordable housing units with basic amenities such as water supply, electricity, and

access roads. The government also collaborates with private developers to increase the supply of

housing units in the state. To facilitate housing delivery, the Benue State Ministry of Housing

and Urban Development is responsible for formulating policies, regulations, and guidelines

related to housing development. The ministry works closely with other relevant agencies to

ensure compliance with building codes, land use regulations, and environmental standards. They

also provide technical assistance and support to developers and individuals interested in

constructing or acquiring houses. Private sector involvement is crucial in addressing the housing

32
needs in Benue State. Real estate developers play a significant role in constructing residential

buildings and estates to meet the demand for housing. These developers invest in land

acquisition, infrastructure development, and construction activities to provide quality housing

units. They often collaborate with financial institutions to offer mortgage facilities that enable

individuals to purchase homes. In addition to government initiatives and private sector

involvement, there are several challenges that affect housing delivery in Benue State. One of the

major challenges is land acquisition. The process of acquiring land for housing development can

be complex due to issues such as multiple ownership claims, inadequate land documentation

systems, and conflicting interests. This often leads to delays and increased costs in housing

projects. Another challenge is the availability of finance for housing development. Many

individuals, especially low-income earners, face difficulties in accessing affordable mortgage

facilities to purchase or construct houses. The limited availability of long-term financing options

hinders the affordability and accessibility of housing units in the state.

Infrastructure development is also a critical factor in housing delivery. Adequate

provision of basic amenities such as water supply, electricity, and road networks is essential for

the successful development of housing projects. Insufficient infrastructure can limit the

attractiveness and viability of housing developments, particularly in rural areas. To address these

challenges and improve housing delivery in Benue State, there are several strategies that can be

implemented.

i. Firstly, there is a need for effective land administration systems that streamline the

process of land acquisition and ensure proper documentation. This can be achieved

through the establishment of a comprehensive land registry system and the

implementation of clear land use policies.

33
 ii. Secondly, financial institutions should collaborate with the government and real estate

developers to provide affordable mortgage facilities tailored to different income levels.

This can be achieved through the creation of mortgage guarantee schemes, interest rate

subsidies, and flexible repayment terms.

iii. Thirdly, there should be a focus on infrastructure development to support housing

projects. The government should invest in the provision of basic amenities such as water

supply, electricity, and road networks in both urban and rural areas. This will enhance the

livability and attractiveness of housing developments.

Housing delivery in Benue State is a complex process that involves various stakeholders

such as the government, real estate developers, financial institutions, and individuals. The

government plays a crucial role in formulating policies and providing social housing schemes to

address the housing needs of low-income earners and vulnerable groups. Private sector

involvement is also essential in increasing the supply of housing units. However, challenges such

as land acquisition, finance availability, and infrastructure development need to be addressed to

improve housing delivery in the state.

2.12.1 Public-Private Partnership in Housing Delivery in Benue state

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have become a popular approach in housing delivery

in Benue State, Nigeria. PPPs involve collaboration between the government and private sector

entities to address the challenges of housing provision, particularly in areas where the

government lacks the necessary resources or expertise. This comprehensive approach aims to

leverage the strengths of both sectors to achieve efficient and sustainable housing development.

Benue State, located in North-Central Nigeria, faces significant challenges in housing delivery

34
due to rapid urbanization, population growth, and limited resources. The state government

recognizes the importance of addressing these challenges and has embraced PPPs as a viable

solution. One notable PPP initiative in Benue State is the Benue Investment and Property

Company Limited (BIPC). BIPC was established by the state government to facilitate private

sector involvement in housing development. The company acts as a catalyst for investment,

providing technical expertise, land acquisition, and other necessary support to attract private

developers. Through BIPC, the government has successfully implemented several PPP projects

in different parts of the state. These projects include the construction of affordable housing units,

infrastructure development, and slum upgrading initiatives. The involvement of private

developers brings efficiency, innovation, and financial resources to these projects, ensuring their

successful implementation.

One example of a successful PPP project in Benue State is the Makurdi Modern Market

Housing Estate. This project involved collaboration between BIPC and a private developer to

construct affordable housing units within the Makurdi Modern Market complex. The partnership

enabled the government to leverage private sector expertise in design, construction, and

marketing while ensuring affordability for low-income residents. Another notable PPP initiative

is the Benue State Urban Development Board (BSUDB). BSUDB serves as a regulatory body

overseeing urban development activities in the state. It collaborates with private developers

through various mechanisms such as joint ventures and build-operate-transfer arrangements to

deliver housing projects. This partnership approach ensures compliance with urban planning

regulations and promotes sustainable development practices. PPPs in housing delivery in Benue

State have several benefits. Firstly, they help address the housing deficit by increasing the supply

of affordable housing units. The involvement of private developers brings efficiency and

35
innovation, leading to faster project implementation and improved quality. Additionally, PPPs

attract private investment, reducing the financial burden on the government and freeing up

resources for other developmental projects. Furthermore, PPPs promote job creation and

economic growth. Housing projects require a significant workforce, providing employment

opportunities for local residents. The construction sector also benefits from increased demand for

building materials and services, stimulating economic activity in the state. To ensure the success

of PPPs in housing delivery, it is crucial to establish a conducive legal and regulatory

framework. This framework should provide clarity on roles, responsibilities, and profit-sharing

mechanisms between the government and private sector entities. It should also address issues

such as land acquisition, financing arrangements, and dispute resolution mechanisms. In

conclusion, PPPs have emerged as an effective approach to address the challenges of housing

delivery in Benue State. Through collaborations between the government and private sector

entities like BIPC and BSUDB, affordable housing units are being constructed, infrastructure is

being developed, and slums are being upgraded. These partnerships bring efficiency, innovation,

and financial resources to housing projects while promoting job creation and economic growth in

the state.

Case Study 1 - HOB Housing Estate, Akure, Ondo State

In August 2005, the Federal Government of Nigeria signed a Memorandum of Understanding

(MoU) with private developers for the construction of housing units across the country.

Development of the above estate was undertaken by the real estate arm of HOB Nigeria Ltd. in

partnership with FMHUD under the Partnership and Business development programme. HOB is

a private company involved in human and infrastructural development, educational

advancement, telecommunication, automobiles and housing development. It is a registered

36
member of the Real Estate Developers Association of Nigeria (REDAN). The official handing-

over of the project site by the Federal Minister in charge of Housing took place on 15 December

2005 at Igbatoro Road, Akure. It was learnt that funding for the scheme was secured from

institutional lenders with particular reference to the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria.

The housing scheme was aimed at providing permanent housing for the low-income group,

especially the public servants in the Akure Metropolis. The estate is located directly behind the

Federal Secretariat Complex and adjacent to the Nigeria Police State headquarters; that area

therefore accommodates the largest concentration of federal public servants in the state. There

are 3 modes of acquiring any of the dwelling units. The first is outright payment, then instalment

payment within one year and payment through mortgage finance. Contributors to the National

Housing Fund through accredited Primary Mortgage Institution PMI can make payments in

instalments that span 25 years.

New Dimension Consultants, an architectural firm undertook the design for the estate in 2005.

The 29.9 ha of land was subdivided into 110 blocks to accommodate 314 units of 2-bedroom

semidetached, 3-bedroom detached and 3-bedroom semi-detached dwellings. Other supporting

facilities include a school, a religious centre, a petrol station, an administrative building,

recreation spaces and so on. The scheme is only on its 1st phase which has to date seen the

construction and delivery of only 3-bedroom detached units. Different building contractors were

engaged by the developer to handle construction of the units in this phase. Taiwo and Adegun

(2011) reported that less than 70 units of this phase have actually been delivered while others are

under construction, although no construction work was seen to be ongoing at the time of their

study. A few of the units delivered have already been sold, allocated and occupied.

Case Study 2 - Sunshine Gardens, Oba Ile, Akure, Ondo State

37
The State Government through her Ministry in charge of Lands and Housing entered into a

partnership with Locke Homes Ltd., a Lagos-based real estate company in 2009 to develop a

lowcost housing scheme. The housing estate is located on land earlier earmarked for housing

development which also adjoins the existing Oba-Ile housing estate. PMG Nig. Ltd. undertook

architectural design and site layout for the estate to a total of 405 dwelling units. Other facilities

proposed include a sports centre, a police post, and a shopping mall.

This phase of the scheme was developed in 3 typologies, namely Liberty, Diamond, and Starlet

design options. Liberty is 3-bedroom detached dwelling unit with all the bedrooms en-suite.

Diamond is also a 3-bedroom detached dwelling unit with only the master bedroom en-suite.

Starlet is a 2-bedroom semi-detached dwelling unit with a bathroom. There are 3 modes of

payment for any of the units. The first is outright payment, then instalment payment within one

year (10%) initial payment, (30%) for provisional allocation, and the balance (60%) upon

completion/occupation of the house. Payment is also possible through mortgage finance that is

provided by the National Housing Fund. Other payments include a 5% of the selling price as

agency fee and 5% also as value-added tax (VAT).

Case Study 3 - 500 Unit Estate, Lafia, Nasarawa State

In October 2007, the Administration of Governor Aliyu Doma signed an MoU with CHIPA Nig.

Ltd. for the construction of 500 housing units in Lafia, the Nasarawa State Capital through PPP.

CHIPA Nig. Ltd., as learnt, was selected from the list of bidders due to its track record in similar

projects and a strong company profile. The housing scheme was developed in 200 blocks of 3-

bedroom detached bungalow dwellings and 150 blocks of 2-bedrrom semi-detached units. This

38
makes a total of 500 dwelling units. The scheme was also aimed at providing permanent housing

for low-income civil servants in the State capital.

The agreement provides that Government will shoulder the following as its contribution to the

joint venture:

 Land with secured tenure

 Access roads, water supply, electricity supply (off and on the site)

The State Government secured a 58 ha piece of land along Doma Road, in Lafia for the

development. Having paid compensations to the land owners, the land was cleared and handed

over to the developer for the commencement of construction. The Certificate of Occupancy (C of

O) was also issued to the developer to facilitate mortgage transactions. The C of O is under lease

tenure of 99 years to be sub-divided among beneficiaries on completion of the housing estate.

The remuneration to Government and other parties in the joint venture shall be based on pro-rata

of contribution to the total project cost. The State also signed a contract with a construction

company to provide infrastructural services in the estate. The mortgage arrangement will involve

the sourcing of NHF loan from the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN) through a PMI at

an interest rate of 6% on behalf of interested civil servants. The loan would be utilised by the

allottees to purchase the houses from the developers. The developer, in concert with the Office of

the Head of Service and an accredited PMI, would secure the loan facility for interested civil

servants. The Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport took into account the developer’s

design and specifications to arrive at prices for the various units.

Case Study 4 – Shelter-View Estate, Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State

FMHUD, on behalf of the Federal Government signed an MoU with Shelter-View & Investment

Nigeria Ltd. (a private real estate organisation) towards the development of a housing estate on

39
Afao Road of Ado Ekiti. Ado Ekiti is a major city in Nigeria and capital of Ekiti State. The

scheme was proposed to provide 220 dwelling units in typologies of 2-bedroom, 3- bedroom and

4-bedroom detached bungalows. Other facilities for the estate include a police post, a religious

centre, a health centre, an educational institution.

Ownership of any of the dwelling unit is open only to Nigerians above the age of 21 who have

been contributors to the National Housing Fund for a period of not less than 6 months.

Membership and contribution to the NHF scheme is taken as collateral for the loan. Platinum

Savings and Loans, a mortgage banking organisation was designated as the PMI and marketer

for the scheme. The schedule before acquisition includes 10% of the selling price as initial

payment, accessing a loan at 6% annual interest from FMBN, payment of 3.5% on loan as

administrative charges, payment of other charges (mortgage deed, facility charge) before

handing over of the building to the owner. Repayment of the loan is spread over the number of

years between the owner’s age at purchase and 60 years. It was observed that some of the

dwelling units have been delivered and are occupied while others are in various stages of

construction.

40
 CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

The research design adopted in this study is the Survey design. This is because the study

variables are not subjected to manipulation and can be generalized to larger population. The

target population for this study were basically household members and public-private partnership

agent. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009)

3.2 Method of Data Collection

In achieving the objectives of this research, both primary and secondary data are employed in the

study.

3.3 Sampling size

In order to obtain the sample size, 2006 population census of Makurdi was 300,377 which was

projected to 2023 to be 496,477.

41
Using the formula; Pt = Po (1 + R) n

Where;
Pt = Expected Population
Po = Present Population
1 = Constant Value
R = annual growth rate
n = number of years to which projection is made

The Taro Yamane’s formula for finite population was used to determine the sample size from the

population of households to be studied. This gave a sample size of 400 respondents.

The formula is given thus:

N
n= 2
1+ N (e)

Where,
n = the sample size;
N = the finite population;
e = level of significance (0.05 limit of tolerance error);
1 = unity (a constant)

3.4 Sampling technique

A multi-stage sampling technique is used to select household respondents for the study. Multi-

stage sampling is normally used to overcome problems associated with a geographically

dispersed population when face-to-face contact is needed or where it is expensive and time

consuming to construct a sampling frame for a large geographical area (Saunders, Lewis and

42
Thornhill, 2009). The technique involves taking a series of cluster samples, each involving some

form of random sampling. The sampling phases include:

Phase 1: carrying out a reconnaissance survey to identify the residential neighbourhood within

Makurdi. Number of Streets will be identified within the study area.

Phase 2: selecting streets for building counts/ numbering of the buildings and household from the

selected streets.

Phase 3: Selection of household to be studied from the selected streets.

Phase 4 selections of household respondents using simple random sampling.

3.5 Data analysis

The data obtained from the questionnaires were analyzed using statistical package for social

sciences (SPSS. 20) while data gathered were presented using frequency distribution tables and

component bar charts.

43
44