“The Role of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration in Low-Income Housing Management: Case Studies from Global Metropolises and Multi-Actor Coordination Mechanisms”

Abstract

The management of low-income housing in Bangkok reflects structural challenges that embody social inequality and urban livelihood issues. Although the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) has established a dedicated Housing Development Office, in practice it still faces institutional, financial, and personnel constraints that limit its capacity. This study aims to analyze the role and structure of BMA in managing low-income housing, compare its governance with New York City’s case, and propose pathways for strengthening BMA’s role as a systemic coordinating mechanism. In addition, the research reviews the institutional roles of relevant Thai agencies, including the National Housing Authority, the Community Organizations Development Institute, and private developers, in order to highlight their strengths, limitations, and interlinkages with the BMA as the key municipal actor.

The research objectives are fourfold: (1) to examine the current roles and limitations of BMA in low-income housing management; (2) to compare institutional and governance structures with the case of New York City; (3) to analyze strengths and constraints of Thai agencies involved in housing provision; and (4) to propose strategic directions for BMA to function as a “multi-actor coordinator” in low-income housing governance.

A mixed-methods research design was employed. Quantitative data were collected from 416 household surveys across four project types: BMA housing, Baan Mankong housing, National Housing Authority (NHA) projects, and private sector projects. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA to assess differences in quality of life, housing problems, and satisfaction levels. Qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews with six key informants from government and private sector representatives, analyzed using coding and thematic synthesis. Documentary analysis of New York City’s housing institutions—including HPD, HDC, NYCHA, and MIH/PACT—was conducted to derive comparative lessons.

The findings indicate that BMA housing projects were evaluated as having the highest problem severity across all dimensions, whereas private sector projects showed the lowest severity, reflecting higher management efficiency. Baan Mankong projects demonstrated strong community participation but were constrained by land tenure and legal frameworks. NHA projects, while accommodating large numbers of households, remained rigid and dependent on central government funding. These findings align with qualitative evidence of systemic gaps in four dimensions: finance, housing projects, target groups, and institutions. By contrast, New York City demonstrates that effective low-income housing management requires a clear housing agency (HPD), sustainable financing mechanisms (HDC), long-term project management (NYCHA), and mandatory urban planning tools (MIH/PACT).

The study concludes that BMA must shift its role from being a direct implementer of housing projects to functioning as a systemic coordinating mechanism. This involves establishing a Strategic Housing Agency with clear mandates, alongside developing a Matching Platform that integrates population data, housing projects, and policy measures across public and private actors. Such an approach would allow Bangkok to bridge institutional gaps, enhance governance capacity, and build a more effective, transparent, and sustainable low-income housing system.