Mexico's massive housing construction model, initiated in 2000, offers a compelling case study in the juxtaposition of economic gain against social ramifications. For real estate moguls and public funds, the financial benefits have been vast. However, this model has exhibited a parallel decline in the societal realm, primarily affecting those securing mortgages.
A Dual-Faceted Story
This phenomenon was elucidated by Luis Alberto Salinas Arreortua, a researcher at UNAM's Institute of Geography. He stressed the need to view housing not merely as a commodity, but to prioritize its use value over its exchange value.
The mortgage market in Mexico stands out as highly profitable, which might seem beneficial from an economic perspective. Yet, it brings its share of challenges. Consider the high-interest rates. The National Housing Fund Institute (Infonavit) charges rates as towering as 9 or 10 percent, mirroring those in traditional banking sectors. Furthermore, mortgages from the Housing Fund of the Institute of Security and Social Services for State Workers (Fovissste) are indexed to the Measurement and Updating Unit (UMA), leading to an escalating debt year after year.
Understanding the Mortgage Landscape
The National Housing Survey (2020) provided a lens into Mexico's housing scenario:
- Of the 35.3 million private homes, 57.1% are fully owned, while 10.7% are still being paid for.
- Of the private homes owned, 65.4% used personal resources for purchase, whereas 18% leveraged Infonavit credit.
Mortgage loans, either from banks or public funds such as Infonavit and FOVISSSTE, became indispensable for families seeking homes. Initially, these funds aimed to provide housing access to workers earning around two to three minimum wages. However, following the World Bank's recommendations in the 1990s, their target audience shifted to those earning over three times the minimum wage.
This shift undoubtedly elevated the profitability of public funds. But the societal ramifications have been severe, particularly for families residing in peripheral locations with limited infrastructure and amenities.
Real Estate Monopolies and Their Aftermath
Arreortua’s research unveiled agreements among real estate firms to “divide” municipalities. Such monopolies have led to areas dominated by specific builders, with some even flourishing to the point of being listed on stock exchanges. However, others, like Casas Geo, struggled and declared bankruptcy in 2019.
A recurring sentiment among mortgage holders is regret. Many did not anticipate the prolonged financial strain and found themselves mainly paying off interest rather than the principal.
Cultural perspectives play a role too. Homeownership in Latin America, including Mexico, symbolizes stability and success. This ideal often masks the drawbacks of distant homes and extensive commuting. Such pressures have led to abandoned homes, notably in Mexico’s northern border and central regions.
Further, the commodification of housing has resulted in a rise in properties bought for investment purposes, pushing aside the concept of social housing. “Article 4 of the Constitution establishes that every Mexican is entitled to decent and dignified housing, but it is not being complied with,” Arreortua points out.
Drawing a comparison, Arreortua mentions European models where governments own housing units, renting them affordably without seeking profits. Such a shift is stark against the Latin American backdrop, which focuses heavily on individual ownership rather than exploring communal housing concepts.
Recommendations and Future Research
For current mortgage holders, Arreortua suggests consulting public funds to understand potential debt modification options. Prospective buyers must be acutely aware of the long-term implications of mortgage debt.
Arreortua's ongoing research will delve deeper into the pandemic's effects on housing and employment, hoping to contribute to the municipalization of housing complexes in Mexico's northern periphery.
In sum, while Mexico's housing model paints a picture of economic victory, it demands a re-evaluation of its social cost. Balancing both facets remains essential for a sustainable future.