
Figure 1
Policies and their results for the housing sector during the first program
Source: authors own elaboration
Table 1
Shortcomings and successes of the first development program
| Shortcomings | Successes |
|---|---|
|
|
[i] Source: authors own elaboration
Table 2
Problems and consequences of the first development program
| Problems | Consequences |
|---|---|
| Mismatch between housing policy and urban development policies | The supplying of land around small and medium cities. The supply of land should be have been increased around the megacities because megacities were in trouble. Lack of coordination between the urban land organization and mass producers concerning the policy of handing over land. There was no coordination between sectoral programs and the master plans. |
| Lack of production factors | Due to the increase in building construction, prices of construction materials rose sharply. The price increase was a deterrent because the middle and low-income classes could not afford to build houses. The share of the housing sector and its share of credit decreased compared to other sectors. Public sector investment in the housing sector decreased. There were no adequate facilities for the preparation of urban land and no new cities were adequately developed. |
| Population planning at the national level | Despite population control policies being in place during the years 1987–1992, the population growth rate was not reduced. The rise in urban population from 35.4% in 1987 to 57% in 1992, led to the housing crisis. The population increased due to rural-urban migration, and cities were faced with population accumulation. With the accumulation of populations in large cities, the need for housing also increased. |
| Laws, regulations, and standards | There were many shortcomings in the landlord and tenant act. There is no appropriate tax system for the housing sector. Construction standards were not inclusive. |
[i] Source: Adapted from Rafie 2009
Table 3
Shortcomings and successes of the housing sector during the second development program
| Shortcomings | Successes |
|---|---|
|
|
[i] Source: authors own elaboration
Table 4
Reasons for the failure of housing sector objectives in the second program
| Problems | Reasons |
|---|---|
| Governmental | Inappropriate participation of institutions related to the housing sector, especially at the municipality level. A mismatch between housing construction patterns and needs, and economic problems. Lack of incentive mechanisms for the mass production of housing. |
| Private | Reduction in effective demand due to lower per capita income. The reluctance of private investors to invest in the housing sector. Lack of housing investment institutions. |
[i] Source: authors own elaboration

Figure 2
Policies and their results for the housing sector during the second development program
Source: authors own elaboration
Table 5
Housing problems during the third development program
| Production, supply, and demand problems | Planning constraint problems |
|---|---|
|
|
[i] Source: authors own elaboration
Table 6
Shortcomings and successes of the housing sector during the third development program
| Shortcomings | Successes |
|---|---|
|
|
[i] Source: authors own elaboration

Figure 3
Policies and their results for the housing sector during the third development program.
Source: authors own elaboration

Figure 4
Policies and their results for the housing sector during the fourth development program
Source: authors own elaboration
Table 7
Shortcomings and successes of the housing sector during the fifth development program
| Shortcomings | Successes |
|---|---|
|
|
Source: authors own elaboration
* ‘Dutch Disease’ is a negative consequence arising from steep increases in a country's income. It is primarily associated with natural resource discovery; however, it can result from any significant increase in foreign currency, including foreign direct investment, foreign aid, or a substantial increase in natural resource prices (Ebrahimzadeh 2020).
Table 8
Number of Mehr units by city type and project type
| City type | Owner-developer units | Tripartite Agreement units | Cooperative units | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Share (percentage) | Units | Share (percentage) | Units | Share (percentage) | Units | ||
| More than 25k | 67% | 608,875 | 44% | 239,798 | 65% | 390,199 | 1,238,872 |
| Less than 25k | 29% | 267,941 | 0% | 20 | 23% | 134732 | 402,693 |
| New cities | 4% | 33,797 | 56% | 305,189 | 12% | 74297 | 413,283 |
| Total | 100% | 910,613 | 100% | 545,007 | 100% | 599228 | 2,054,848 |
[i] Source: Tajrishy & Vesal 2021
Table 9
General characteristics of the housing sector during six development programs
| Program | Policies | Strategies | Objectives | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First program | Supportive land | Direct government intervention in the land market. Modification of land use patterns and housing. Land preparation. | Provision of low-cost land. Provision of low-cost materials. Supply and construction of affordable housing. | Due to the high share of land in the production costs and the complexity of rules, housing plans failed to achieve their objectives. |
| Second program | Supportive land | Supporting housing production. Savings, downsizing, and mass production. Encouraging the private sector. Direct construction by government. | Land preparation. Supply of affordable housing for low-income groups. Supporting mass producers (mass). | Due to the lack of investment in housing, the lack of incentive mechanisms, and the reluctance of private investors, this program failed to achieve its goals. |
| Third program | Supportive housing | Establishing associations and local institutions to provide low-income housing. Optimal use of urban land for downsizing and mass production. | Production of residential units was in line with quantitative targets, and it was successful between 2001 and 2004. | |
| Fourth program | Supportive housing | Provision of housing master plan. The Mehr housing policy. Ratification of the organizing law and related regulations. | Preparation of housing master plan document. Establishing lease-purchase schemes. Providing loans to purchase and construct a house. | In fact, the Mehr housing program was temporarily removed from the government's agenda. However, due to increasing demand in the housing sector, it once again became important, and the government allocated special financial resources to complete the Mehr housing project. |
| Fifth program | Revision of previous policies | Housing provision for low-income groups. Improving the qualitative and quantitative production of housing. Supporting investment in production. | Mehr housing projects continued, but a significant portion of the housing was not delivered. | |
| Sixth program | Urban regeneration | Completion of Mehr housing projects. Start of regeneration projects. | 10% annual regeneration in worn textures. | About 40% of dilapidated textures were regenerated. |
[i] Source: authors own elaboration