Vietnam’s goal of building at least one million social housing units by 2030 is entering a decisive phase, as demand continues to rise while supply remains limited. At this time, many experts argue that social housing needs a financially capable “locomotive” with sufficient land resources and a long-term vision to lead the market, namely the state economic sector.
Market gaps and the need for leadership
The Politburo's Resolution No. 79-NQ/TW on the development of the state economic sector affirms its leading role as a key material force for guiding, regulating, and stabilising the economy. In social housing, which is closely tied to social welfare and labour market stability, this role must be reflected in concrete projects and measurable outcomes.
Housing pressure on low-income groups, industrial workers, young civil servants, and armed force personnel is increasing, especially in urban centres and manufacturing hubs. Meanwhile, commercial housing prices remain high in comparation to average incomes, pushing the dream of homeownership further out of reach.
Social housing is designed to fill this gap, yet the segment faces structural constraints. Sale and rental prices are capped by regulations; eligibility screening is strict; and project preparation is often prolonged. At the same time, land, materials, and financing costs fluctuate, leaving profit margins significantly lower than in commercial housing. As a result, many private developers remain cautious or participate only on a limited scale, creating persistent market gaps.
According to economist Dr. Nguyen Dinh Cung, this is the moment to clarify the role of the state sector. Leadership does not mean subsidising or replacing the market, but guiding it, shaping it, and setting standards. Without a sufficiently strong force to initiate and sustain momentum, it is difficult to achieve long-term goals.
State-owned enterprises (SOEs) possess advantages in land access, infrastructure development experiences, and the ability to mobilise large-scale resources. More importantly, they can pursue long-term objectives and accept reasonable returns in exchange for broader socio-economic benefits.
From a financial perspective, Dr. Can Van Luc noted that social housing is not only a welfare issue but also has spillover effects on the labour market and consumption. When workers have stable housing, they are more committed to their jobs, thereby reducing social costs, boosting productivity, and strengthening the foundation for investment attraction.
Amid a restructuring real estate market, SOEs can act as an “anchor,” ensuring stable supplies and helping maintain reasonable price levels. Their participation also builds confidence among credit institutions and investors. However, experts stress that leadership must go beyond policy statements; it requires large-scale, well-executed, and transparent projects.
Conditions to become a “locomotive”
Experience shows that when SOEs treat social housing as a core mission, outcomes improve significantly. Integrated models - combining social housing within urban developments or linking worker housing with industrial zones - have begun to create cohesive ecosystems of living, working, and essential services.
Experts believe that with appropriate mechanisms and a clearly defined role, SOEs can become a driving force that encourages participation from other economic sectors. Associate Professor, Dr. Tran Dinh Thien emphasised that the leading role of the state sector must operate within market principles, with modern governance and transparency. Leadership should mean paving the way and setting standards, not crowding out the private sector.
Several key conditions are required. Land planning for social housing must be clearly defined and aligned with urban and industrial development plans; without accessible land at reasonable cost, targets are unattainable. Financial and credit mechanisms must also be stable and long-term, as social housing requires sustained preferential capital rather than short-term, fragmented packages.
It is equally important to clearly separate public service obligations from purely commercial activities. If SOEs are assigned social tasks beyond their financial capacity, transparent compensation mechanisms are needed to avoid weakening their competitiveness.
At the same time, improving operational efficiency in line with Resolution 79 places pressures on SOEs to enhance governance. To lead the market, they must demonstrate strong project management, cost control, and timely delivery. Only then can their “locomotive” role gain credibility./.
