Breaking the Cycle of Inaction: Connecting National Resources to Local Realities via Shared Responsibilities and Data
Dr. Robert P. Ndugwa
Chief of Data and Statistics, UN-Habitat
Biography: Dr. Robert P. Ndugwa is a data scientist and statistician who leads UN-Habitat’s work on urban data and analytics. He oversees global monitoring and reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda and serves as a technical lead for urban statistics. His work involves coordination of the Global Urban Monitoring Framework, the National Sample of Cities, earth-observation tools and the development of urban observatories. He has contributed to international reports and peer-reviewed research and advises cities and national governments on using locally grounded evidence, innovation and data for planning and urban policy.
Breaking the Cycle of Inaction:
Connecting National Resources to Local Realities via Shared Responsibilities and Data
Introduction
The global housing crisis is marked by a striking contradiction: many countries continue to add housing, yet shortages, unaffordability, informal settlement growth, homelessness and vacant homes can exist at the same time. The problem is therefore not simply how many units are built, but also whether housing is delivered in the right location, at the right price, with secure tenure, adequate services and access to everyday opportunities.
In this dialogue, we speak with Dr. Robert P. Ndugwa of UN-Habitat to examine why decades of action have not closed the housing gap, how land, law and finance shape affordability, why national policy must be connected to local knowledge, and how urban observatories can turn fragmented information into collective decisions. The conversation is based on the recognition that housing is a fundamental right and is extended to exploring how data platforms and artificial intelligence might support more targeted local action.
1. The global housing crisis has been described in the World Cities Report 2026 as the result of ‘decades of inaction’. With countries continue building new homes, what does this ‘inaction’ really mean?
Firstly, the housing crisis is not new. It has accumulated over many years. UN-Habitat’s recent global assessment estimates that globally up to 3.4 billion people lack access to secure, safe and adequate housing, including more than 1 billion people living in informal settlements. These figures show that the gap is not merely a temporary market imbalance but rather the result of demand and need growing faster than effective, affordable and adequate provision.
Secondly, inaction does not mean that nothing was built. It rather means that housing was often not treated as a sustained policy priority, that finance and legal instruments were not aligned with the scale of need, and that new supply did not necessarily reach the people facing the greatest exclusion. A country can add units every year and still deepen the crisis if those units are unaffordable, poorly located or disconnected from the needs of young people, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups.
Thirdly, the crisis also takes different forms across regions. In much of the Global South, affordability is intertwined with housing quality, insecure tenure and the expansion of slums and informal settlements. In many countries of the Global North, the dominant pressure is the cost of entering homeownership or remaining in the rental market, especially for younger households starting independent lives. Affordability is therefore a shared global issue, but its mechanisms and the groups most affected differ by region, country and city.
This is why evidence must be both targeted and local. National and regional comparisons help us see the broad pattern, but they can conceal sharp differences between cities and neighbourhoods. Effective action begins by identifying who needs housing, what kind of housing they need, where that need is concentrated and what price is genuinely affordable. Without that diagnosis, broad supply programmes risk increasing the housing stock without reducing the housing deficit for those who need help most.
Figure 1. The Intersecting Components of the Global Housing Crisis
Source: UN-Habitat (2026), World Cities Report 2026: The Global Housing Crisis, Figure 1.2, p. 6.
2. If inadequate housing is not simply a shortage of funds, which structural constraints matter most, and how can government lower the risk of delivery?
Firstly, financing matters, but it is only one part of a larger structure. In some countries the binding constraint is the cost and complexity of securing land or a building title. In others, historical land arrangements, slow registration, restrictive rules, high construction costs or expensive mortgage finance prevent supply and access. These factors interact: costly land raises development costs, legal uncertainty raises risk, and expensive finance then makes both construction and purchase less affordable.
Land is often the most powerful public lever. Where government can contribute well-located and serviced land, simplify tenure arrangements or reduce the upfront cost of site acquisition, it can materially lower the risk of affordable-housing delivery. The objective is not simply to transfer public assets to developers; it is to use land policy to make a clearly defined affordability outcome possible for households who would otherwise remain excluded.
Secondly, government can also de-risk finance. Loan guarantees, first-loss support, interest support for carefully defined groups and public backing for early project stages can build confidence among commercial lenders. For younger households who have income potential but little financial history, a time-limited guarantee may help them enter the mortgage market. For housing providers, a public land contribution or financing backstop can reduce the capital that must be committed before construction begins.
The most effective arrangement is therefore a partnership, but one with clear roles. Government has to initiate the process, set the public objective and absorb risks that the market cannot reasonably carry. The private sector can contribute delivery capacity and investment, while citizens and community organisations help define real needs and test whether proposed solutions are usable. The point is not for one actor to replace the others, but for public action to change the conditions under which all three can work together.
Figure 2. Public Levers for Reducing Risk in Affordable-housing Delivery
Source: World Bank (2020), Public-Private Partnerships for Investment and Delivery of Affordable Housing in Emerging Market Economies, p. 61; reproduced in UN-Habitat (2026), World Cities Report 2026, Figure 8.7, p. 224.
3. How should national and local governments divide and share responsibilities, and why is subnational data essential?
Housing requires multi-level governance because different levels hold different capabilities. National governments are generally best placed to establish legal frameworks, mobilise finance, set broad standards and coordinate major infrastructure. Local governments and city leaders are closer to residents. They understand where demand is changing, how neighbourhoods function and how housing relates to roads, parks, schools, health facilities and other daily services.
The strongest model connects national capacity with local knowledge. National policy and resources should enable local governments to design and implement responses that fit their own conditions. Even where housing is managed centrally, national ministries still need formal channels to use city-level evidence and to work with local institutions, neighbourhoods and citizens. Otherwise, central programmes may be well funded but poorly matched to the places where they are delivered.
Data should follow the same layered structure. National statistics are essential for comparison and accountability, but national averages often mask local housing pressure. Cities need disaggregated information on household characteristics, tenure, housing quality, costs, vacancy, access to services and future demand. Local data can then be aggregated upward to form the national picture, rather than the national picture being treated as a substitute for local understanding.
The practical test is whether evidence changes a decision. Data should help a city determine not only how many units to build, but which types, in which locations, for which groups and with what accompanying infrastructure etc. When evidence is connected to budgeting, land allocation and project sequencing, it becomes part of governance. When it remains in a report that local departments do not use, it has little effect on housing outcomes.
Figure 3. A Dynamic Representation of Multilevel Governance Systems for SDG Localization
Source: UN-Habitat (2023), Multilevel Governance for SDG Localization, ‘A Dynamic Representation of Multilevel Governance Systems for SDG Localization,’ p. 26.
4. UN-Habitat urban observatories serve as shared knowledge platform. How can they convert fragmented data into tangible policy influence and urban outcomes, and how can cities build trust around sharing data?
An urban observatory is best understood as a local knowledge partnership, not simply a database. It brings together multiple information on housing with data on water, sanitation, transport, public space, air quality, health and other systems that shape urban life. This allows a city to move beyond counting dwellings and ask whether homes are connected to the services and opportunities that make a neighbourhood function.
UN-Habitat runs different hosting models with diverse partners that offer different strengths. A municipal observatory may have strong political backing and direct access to planning decisions. A university-based observatory can offer stability when political leadership changes and can protect a longer institutional memory and monitoring continuity. Comparatively, a private-sector host may mobilise technical resources and actions quickly but can become vulnerable if commercial funding ends. For this reason, the most resilient model is often a network in which public agencies, universities, communities and technical partners share responsibility.
Trust develops when data is locally collected, locally owned and locally used. If an external organisation arrives with a finished dataset and tells a mayor what is happening in the city, the first questions will be: Where did these numbers come from? When were they collected? Do they describe our city today? When departments and residents participate from the beginning, they understand the evidence, recognise their contribution and are more willing to discuss how it should be governed, updated and shared.
Shared evidence also breaks departmental silos. A housing project cannot be planned effectively if the housing team does not know future trasnport infrastructure investment, the water department’s network plan or the location of schools, hospitals and public spaces. Thus, a jointly maintained observatory or dashboard creates a common evidence base. It allows departments to coordinate investments, monitor change over time and explain decisions to the people they serve.
Figure 4. How An Urban Observatory Links Local Data, Partners and Decisions
Source: UN-Habitat Global Urban Observatory, “Urban Observatories,” accessed on 13 August 2026.
5. What does ‘adequate housing’ mean, and how can cities address shortage and vacancy at the same time? What role could AI play next?
People understand housing in many ways: as shelter, an address, a sign of independence, an investment and an expression of culture. UN-Habitat recognises these meanings but starts from a fundamental position: housing is a human right. Every person should be able to live in a home that protects dignity and provides a secure basis for participation in urban life.
Adequacy therefore reaches far beyond the physical unit. International human-rights standards identify security of tenure; access to services, materials, facilities and infrastructure; affordability; habitability; accessibility; location; and cultural adequacy as core elements. In practical terms, a home should be safe, structurally sound and connected to water, sanitation, transport, schools, health care and other essential services. It must also be affordable to ordinary citizens rather than available only to a small group. Noteworthy, housing quality matters across both the Global North and the Global South, although standards and priorities vary by context. At the core is the same rights-based principle: people are entitled not only to a dwelling, but to good-quality housing. This also means that adequacy cannot be assessed by quantity or affordability alone, helping to explain why housing shortages can coexist with vacant or unsuitable stock.
Figure 5. The Seven Elements of the Right to Adequate Housing
Source: UN-Habitat (2026), World Cities Report 2026: The Global Housing Crisis, Figure 1.1, p. 3; adapted by UN-Habitat from CESCR (1991).
This broader definition helps explain why shortage and vacancy can coexist. A city may have empty homes and still face a housing crisis if the available units are in the wrong location, are the wrong type or are priced beyond the reach of citizens in need of housing. The apparent contradiction is actually a mismatch between stock and demand. Without comprehensive data on housing type, price, quality, location, vacancy and household need, investors may continue to build where returns are expected rather than where suitable housing is required.
Cities therefore need to work with the existing stock as well as prevent future mismatch. Good evidence can identify where vacant housing may be brought back into use, where adaptation or conversion is appropriate, and where new supply remains necessary. It can also guide investors toward the right locations and housing types. The goal is to use resources efficiently, rather than continuously expanding the stock in ways that reproduce vacancy and unaffordability.
The next step is to make housing knowledge more interactive and usable. UN-Habitat is developing a Housing Knowledge Platform intended to bring together integrated and disaggregated housing data, policies, case studies, tools and good practices in a publicly accessible repository. Artificial intelligence could, in the future, help users interpret complex datasets and connect city leaders and partners with relevant examples and possible responses. Its value, however, will depend on reliable local evidence, transparent provenance, shared ownership and solutions tailored to context.
Figure 6. UN-Habitat’s 2025 progress report on the Housing Knowledge Platform
Source: UN-Habitat (2025), Progress towards the Establishment of a Housing Knowledge Platform, HSP/OEWG-H.2025/3, p. 1.
Dr. Robert P. Ndugwa
Chief of Data and Statistics, UN-Habitat
Biography: Dr. Robert P. Ndugwa is a data scientist and statistician who leads UN-Habitat’s work on urban data and analytics. He oversees global monitoring and reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda and serves as a technical lead for urban statistics. His work involves coordination of the Global Urban Monitoring Framework, the National Sample of Cities, earth-observation tools and the development of urban observatories. He has contributed to international reports and peer-reviewed research and advises cities and national governments on using locally grounded evidence, innovation and data for planning and urban policy.
Breaking the Cycle of Inaction:
Connecting National Resources to Local Realities via Shared Responsibilities and Data
Introduction
The global housing crisis is marked by a striking contradiction: many countries continue to add housing, yet shortages, unaffordability, informal settlement growth, homelessness and vacant homes can exist at the same time. The problem is therefore not simply how many units are built, but also whether housing is delivered in the right location, at the right price, with secure tenure, adequate services and access to everyday opportunities.
In this dialogue, we speak with Dr. Robert P. Ndugwa of UN-Habitat to examine why decades of action have not closed the housing gap, how land, law and finance shape affordability, why national policy must be connected to local knowledge, and how urban observatories can turn fragmented information into collective decisions. The conversation is based on the recognition that housing is a fundamental right and is extended to exploring how data platforms and artificial intelligence might support more targeted local action.
1. The global housing crisis has been described in the World Cities Report 2026 as the result of ‘decades of inaction’. With countries continue building new homes, what does this ‘inaction’ really mean?
Firstly, the housing crisis is not new. It has accumulated over many years. UN-Habitat’s recent global assessment estimates that globally up to 3.4 billion people lack access to secure, safe and adequate housing, including more than 1 billion people living in informal settlements. These figures show that the gap is not merely a temporary market imbalance but rather the result of demand and need growing faster than effective, affordable and adequate provision.
Secondly, inaction does not mean that nothing was built. It rather means that housing was often not treated as a sustained policy priority, that finance and legal instruments were not aligned with the scale of need, and that new supply did not necessarily reach the people facing the greatest exclusion. A country can add units every year and still deepen the crisis if those units are unaffordable, poorly located or disconnected from the needs of young people, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups.
Thirdly, the crisis also takes different forms across regions. In much of the Global South, affordability is intertwined with housing quality, insecure tenure and the expansion of slums and informal settlements. In many countries of the Global North, the dominant pressure is the cost of entering homeownership or remaining in the rental market, especially for younger households starting independent lives. Affordability is therefore a shared global issue, but its mechanisms and the groups most affected differ by region, country and city.
This is why evidence must be both targeted and local. National and regional comparisons help us see the broad pattern, but they can conceal sharp differences between cities and neighbourhoods. Effective action begins by identifying who needs housing, what kind of housing they need, where that need is concentrated and what price is genuinely affordable. Without that diagnosis, broad supply programmes risk increasing the housing stock without reducing the housing deficit for those who need help most.
Figure 1. The Intersecting Components of the Global Housing Crisis
Source: UN-Habitat (2026), World Cities Report 2026: The Global Housing Crisis, Figure 1.2, p. 6.
Official source link: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2026/05/wcr_2026_chapter_1.pdf#page=7
2. If inadequate housing is not simply a shortage of funds, which structural constraints matter most, and how can government lower the risk of delivery?
Firstly, financing matters, but it is only one part of a larger structure. In some countries the binding constraint is the cost and complexity of securing land or a building title. In others, historical land arrangements, slow registration, restrictive rules, high construction costs or expensive mortgage finance prevent supply and access. These factors interact: costly land raises development costs, legal uncertainty raises risk, and expensive finance then makes both construction and purchase less affordable.
Land is often the most powerful public lever. Where government can contribute well-located and serviced land, simplify tenure arrangements or reduce the upfront cost of site acquisition, it can materially lower the risk of affordable-housing delivery. The objective is not simply to transfer public assets to developers; it is to use land policy to make a clearly defined affordability outcome possible for households who would otherwise remain excluded.
Secondly, government can also de-risk finance. Loan guarantees, first-loss support, interest support for carefully defined groups and public backing for early project stages can build confidence among commercial lenders. For younger households who have income potential but little financial history, a time-limited guarantee may help them enter the mortgage market. For housing providers, a public land contribution or financing backstop can reduce the capital that must be committed before construction begins.
The most effective arrangement is therefore a partnership, but one with clear roles. Government has to initiate the process, set the public objective and absorb risks that the market cannot reasonably carry. The private sector can contribute delivery capacity and investment, while citizens and community organisations help define real needs and test whether proposed solutions are usable. The point is not for one actor to replace the others, but for public action to change the conditions under which all three can work together.
Figure 2. Public Levers for Reducing Risk in Affordable-housing Delivery
Source: World Bank (2020), Public-Private Partnerships for Investment and Delivery of Affordable Housing in Emerging Market Economies, p. 61; reproduced in UN-Habitat (2026), World Cities Report 2026, Figure 8.7, p. 224.
Official source link: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2026/05/wcr_2026_chapter_8.pdf#page=19
3. How should national and local governments divide and share responsibilities, and why is subnational data essential?
Housing requires multi-level governance because different levels hold different capabilities. National governments are generally best placed to establish legal frameworks, mobilise finance, set broad standards and coordinate major infrastructure. Local governments and city leaders are closer to residents. They understand where demand is changing, how neighbourhoods function and how housing relates to roads, parks, schools, health facilities and other daily services.
The strongest model connects national capacity with local knowledge. National policy and resources should enable local governments to design and implement responses that fit their own conditions. Even where housing is managed centrally, national ministries still need formal channels to use city-level evidence and to work with local institutions, neighbourhoods and citizens. Otherwise, central programmes may be well funded but poorly matched to the places where they are delivered.
Data should follow the same layered structure. National statistics are essential for comparison and accountability, but national averages often mask local housing pressure. Cities need disaggregated information on household characteristics, tenure, housing quality, costs, vacancy, access to services and future demand. Local data can then be aggregated upward to form the national picture, rather than the national picture being treated as a substitute for local understanding.
The practical test is whether evidence changes a decision. Data should help a city determine not only how many units to build, but which types, in which locations, for which groups and with what accompanying infrastructure etc. When evidence is connected to budgeting, land allocation and project sequencing, it becomes part of governance. When it remains in a report that local departments do not use, it has little effect on housing outcomes.
Figure 3. A Dynamic Representation of Multilevel Governance Systems for SDG Localization
Source: UN-Habitat (2023), Multilevel Governance for SDG Localization, ‘A Dynamic Representation of Multilevel Governance Systems for SDG Localization,’ p. 26.
Official source link: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2023/05/mlg_for_sdg_localization_final_report.pdf
4. UN-Habitat urban observatories serve as shared knowledge platform. How can they convert fragmented data into tangible policy influence and urban outcomes, and how can cities build trust around sharing data?
An urban observatory is best understood as a local knowledge partnership, not simply a database. It brings together multiple information on housing with data on water, sanitation, transport, public space, air quality, health and other systems that shape urban life. This allows a city to move beyond counting dwellings and ask whether homes are connected to the services and opportunities that make a neighbourhood function.
UN-Habitat runs different hosting models with diverse partners that offer different strengths. A municipal observatory may have strong political backing and direct access to planning decisions. A university-based observatory can offer stability when political leadership changes and can protect a longer institutional memory and monitoring continuity. Comparatively, a private-sector host may mobilise technical resources and actions quickly but can become vulnerable if commercial funding ends. For this reason, the most resilient model is often a network in which public agencies, universities, communities and technical partners share responsibility.
Trust develops when data is locally collected, locally owned and locally used. If an external organisation arrives with a finished dataset and tells a mayor what is happening in the city, the first questions will be: Where did these numbers come from? When were they collected? Do they describe our city today? When departments and residents participate from the beginning, they understand the evidence, recognise their contribution and are more willing to discuss how it should be governed, updated and shared.
Shared evidence also breaks departmental silos. A housing project cannot be planned effectively if the housing team does not know future trasnport infrastructure investment, the water department’s network plan or the location of schools, hospitals and public spaces. Thus, a jointly maintained observatory or dashboard creates a common evidence base. It allows departments to coordinate investments, monitor change over time and explain decisions to the people they serve.
Figure 4. How An Urban Observatory Links Local Data, Partners and Decisions
Source: UN-Habitat Global Urban Observatory, “Urban Observatories,” accessed on 13 August 2026.
Official website: https://data.unhabitat.org/pages/urban-observatories
5. What does ‘adequate housing’ mean, and how can cities address shortage and vacancy at the same time? What role could AI play next?
People understand housing in many ways: as shelter, an address, a sign of independence, an investment and an expression of culture. UN-Habitat recognises these meanings but starts from a fundamental position: housing is a human right. Every person should be able to live in a home that protects dignity and provides a secure basis for participation in urban life.
Adequacy therefore reaches far beyond the physical unit. International human-rights standards identify security of tenure; access to services, materials, facilities and infrastructure; affordability; habitability; accessibility; location; and cultural adequacy as core elements. In practical terms, a home should be safe, structurally sound and connected to water, sanitation, transport, schools, health care and other essential services. It must also be affordable to ordinary citizens rather than available only to a small group. Noteworthy, housing quality matters across both the Global North and the Global South, although standards and priorities vary by context. At the core is the same rights-based principle: people are entitled not only to a dwelling, but to good-quality housing. This also means that adequacy cannot be assessed by quantity or affordability alone, helping to explain why housing shortages can coexist with vacant or unsuitable stock.
Figure 5. The Seven Elements of the Right to Adequate Housing
Source: UN-Habitat (2026), World Cities Report 2026: The Global Housing Crisis, Figure 1.1, p. 3; adapted by UN-Habitat from CESCR (1991).
Official source link: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2026/05/wcr_2026_chapter_1.pdf#page=4
This broader definition helps explain why shortage and vacancy can coexist. A city may have empty homes and still face a housing crisis if the available units are in the wrong location, are the wrong type or are priced beyond the reach of citizens in need of housing. The apparent contradiction is actually a mismatch between stock and demand. Without comprehensive data on housing type, price, quality, location, vacancy and household need, investors may continue to build where returns are expected rather than where suitable housing is required.
Cities therefore need to work with the existing stock as well as prevent future mismatch. Good evidence can identify where vacant housing may be brought back into use, where adaptation or conversion is appropriate, and where new supply remains necessary. It can also guide investors toward the right locations and housing types. The goal is to use resources efficiently, rather than continuously expanding the stock in ways that reproduce vacancy and unaffordability.
The next step is to make housing knowledge more interactive and usable. UN-Habitat is developing a Housing Knowledge Platform intended to bring together integrated and disaggregated housing data, policies, case studies, tools and good practices in a publicly accessible repository. Artificial intelligence could, in the future, help users interpret complex datasets and connect city leaders and partners with relevant examples and possible responses. Its value, however, will depend on reliable local evidence, transparent provenance, shared ownership and solutions tailored to context.
Figure 6. UN-Habitat’s 2025 progress report on the Housing Knowledge Platform
Source: UN-Habitat (2025), Progress towards the Establishment of a Housing Knowledge Platform, HSP/OEWG-H.2025/3, p. 1.
Official source link: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2025/09/hsp-oewg-h.2025-3_-_ed_progress_report_on_housing_knowledge_platform.pdf
Online Dialogue Photo of Dr. Robert P. Ndugwa and Dr. Yunqing Xu