The overlooked foundation

THE constitution of Bangladesh recognises shelter as one of the basic necessities of life, alongside food, clothing, education and medical care. Over the decades, successive governments have made substantial investments in food security, primary education, health care and social protection. These investments have helped improve literacy, reduce poverty and raise life expectancy. Yet one essential pillar of human dignity and national resilience, housing, continues to receive far less attention in public policy than it deserves. According to the FY2025–26 proposed national budget, per capita public expenditure on education is approximately Tk 4,600, accounting for about 10 per cent of the total budget. Health receives around Tk 2,300 per person (roughly 5 per cent), while food security amounts to about Tk 1,500 per capita (around 3–4 per cent). In contrast, housing — though constitutionally recognised as a basic need under Article 15 — receives barely Tk 200 per person per year, representing less than 0.5 per cent of the national budget. The imbalance is not temporary; it is structural. By comparison, per capita housing spending in neighbouring West Bengal is roughly ten times higher in dollar terms — a contrast that underscores how marginal housing remains in our own budget priorities. This is not an argument against education, health or food security. These remain indispensable national priorities. But without safe and secure housing, the benefits of those investments are weakened. Housing is not a secondary welfare issue. It is the foundation upon which human development rests. A house is far more than a physical structure. It is where children study, families rest, the elderly seek safety and working people recover from the pressures of daily life. When housing is overcrowded, poorly ventilated, flood-prone or structurally unsafe, its effects are felt far beyond the home itself. Children struggle to learn. Disease spreads more easily. Women and older persons face greater insecurity. Families living in fragile dwellings remain one disaster away from destitution. In this sense, housing is best understood as a development platform. A secure home improves educational attainment, supports public health, protects household assets and creates the stability that people need to work productively and plan for the future. Conversely, poor housing traps vulnerable families in a cycle of risk. A storm, a fire, river erosion or structural failure can wipe out years of savings in a single day. This reality is particularly urgent in Bangladesh. Few countries face such an intense combination of climate and structural risks. The coastal belt remains exposed to cyclones, tidal surges and salinity intrusion. Riverine areas confront recurring floods and erosion. In the cities, rapid urbanisation has often outpaced planning and enforcement, producing dense settlements with uneven construction quality. Bangladesh also lies in a seismic risk zone, making structural safety an issue of national importance rather than a niche technical concern. Against this backdrop, resilient housing is not simply a matter of compassion for the poor. It is a matter of public safety, economic prudence and national risk management. Every year, the state spends large sums on post-disaster relief, reconstruction, rehabilitation and social assistance for affected families. Yet preventive investment in safe housing remains limited. This imbalance is difficult to justify. Prevention is almost always more cost-effective than rebuilding after devastation. A stronger housing policy would, therefore, serve multiple national objectives at once. It would reduce disaster losses, ease pressure on future public expenditure and make communities more resilient to climate shocks. It would also have direct economic benefits. Housing is a high-multiplier sector. Public investment in housing stimulates construction activity, creates jobs, supports local building-material industries and encourages the development of skills in design, engineering and climate-adaptive construction. It can also deepen financial inclusion by expanding access to home-improvement finance and affordable credit. The broader gains are equally significant. Families with secure housing are more likely to keep children in school, protect savings and maintain productive livelihoods. Stable housing improves neighbourhood cohesion, strengthens local economies and reduces vulnerability to social breakdown after disasters. In that sense, housing is both a social investment and an economic one. What Bangladesh needs, therefore, is not merely a collection of small housing schemes, but a change in policy mindset. Housing must be treated as a strategic sector within national development planning. That means integrating affordability, structural safety, climate resilience and urban planning into the mainstream budget process rather than treating housing as a marginal add-on. Such a shift does not require abandoning other priorities. On the contrary, greater investment in housing would reinforce them. Better housing reduces health risks linked to dampness, poor sanitation and unsafe living conditions. It improves children's learning environments. It lowers the likelihood that vulnerable families will slip back into poverty after climate or economic shocks. It also enhances the safety and dignity of women, children and older persons. A gradual increase in public investment in housing — for example, towards 1 to 1.5 per cent of the national budget — could begin to change this picture in a meaningful way. Even such a modest rebalancing would signal that housing is no longer being treated as an afterthought. If targeted properly, it could strengthen low-income and climate-exposed communities, support safer construction practices and reduce long-term fiscal pressures associated with repeated disaster recovery. Of course, public spending alone will not solve the housing challenge. Better regulation, stronger enforcement of building standards, improved urban governance and incentives for climate-resilient construction are all essential. But without a clearer budgetary commitment, the country will struggle to address housing vulnerability at the scale required. Mohammad Abu Sadeque is executive director of the Centre for Housing and Building Research and former director general of Housing and Building Research Institute.