evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Baan Mankong — Thailand's Community-Driven Secure Housing Programme

Thailand · Bangkok · See the Thailand profile · See the Bangkok profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 34% 76/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Thailand's Baan Mankong programme channelled government infrastructure subsidies and soft loans directly to community-run savings cooperatives, who then negotiated land tenure and designed upgrades themselves. By 2011 it had reached over 90,000 households in 1,546 communities.

90,000+ households
Households reached (2003–2011)
1,546 communities
Communities reached (2003–2011)
570 USD
Average cost per family (2003–2011)
60 %
Households able to remain on or near original site (2003–2011)
43 %
Of those, households securing long-term leases (2003–2011)
35 %
Of those, households achieving cooperative land ownership with title (2003–2011)
Baan Mankong — Thailand's Community-Driven Secure Housing Programme

Details

Promoter
Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI)
Period
2003–2011
Keywords
housing, informal settlements, urban regeneration, community finance

Context

Launched in 2003 by Thailand's Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI), Baan Mankong ("secure housing") channels government infrastructure subsidies and soft housing loans directly to community savings cooperatives rather than to contractors or local authorities.

Activities

Residents of informal settlements organise into savings groups, survey their own communities, and negotiate land tenure arrangements with landowners — public or private — before designing and building upgraded housing and infrastructure themselves.

Results

Between 2003 and 2011 the programme reached more than 90,000 households across 1,546 communities, at an average cost of roughly US$570 per family. More than 60% of participating households were able to negotiate arrangements that let them remain on or near their original site; of these, 43% secured long-term leases and 35% achieved cooperative land ownership with title, typically subject to a 15-year minimum holding period before individual titling options opened up.

Conclusions

The model has been credited internationally as a rare example of slum upgrading that treats residents as co-financiers and co-designers rather than beneficiaries, and it has been studied academically for its effects on tenure security and community cohesion. Independent commentators note that outcomes vary significantly by community — land negotiations "can be difficult" and results depend heavily on local landowner cooperation — and that even after nearly a decade the programme had reached under a third of Thailand's estimated 300,000 informal-settlement households, underlining the limits of scaling a negotiation-intensive model.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Average cost of roughly US$570 per family across government infrastructure subsidies and soft housing loans, 2003–2011.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Reached its reported scale (90,000+ households, 1,546 communities) over 2003–2011; individual communities' timelines depend further on the pace of land-tenure negotiation.
Staffing & skills
Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI), a quasi-government finance institution, Community savings cooperatives (resident-run)

Conditions for success

  • Channelling subsidies and loans directly to community savings cooperatives rather than contractors gave residents control over financing
  • Community-led survey, design and construction built local ownership and cohesion

Common failure modes

  • Land negotiations with landowners can be difficult and outcomes vary significantly by community
  • After nearly a decade the programme had reached under a third of Thailand's estimated 300,000 informal-settlement households, illustrating the limits of scaling a negotiation-intensive model

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes ERDF — European Regional Development Fund

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful