Experts of the Institute for Analytics and Advocacy and Transparency International Ukraine analyzed the experience of reconstruction after the severe destruction of eight countries: Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Great Britain, Georgia, Lebanon, Puerto Rico, Turkey, and Croatia.

They studied approaches to the reconstruction and replacement of housing in these countries under the same structure. The conclusions present the main trends that have been identified, as well as examples of successful solutions and problematic aspects.

In particular, the study indicated that most countries tried to resolve the issue of resettlement in the first place: to provide people with temporary shelters. Introducing a comprehensive reconstruction policy was a secondary matter. Despite this, many people continued living in temporary housing. 

In the approaches to comprehensive reconstruction and providing the population with long-term housing, two dominant approaches were actually used:

  • mortgage lending;
  • construction of new houses in cases of complete destruction and compensation (financial or with supplies) for repair or partial restoration.

Problems with the quality of newly built housing were recorded in almost every case. In general, negative assessments were caused by two factors: the lack of community engagement in the planning and implementation of reconstruction, the absence or violation of building codes.

Moreover, analysts have recorded a number of risks and drawbacks that turned into fatal obstacles for countries:

  • corruption during the implementation of construction contracts (closed procurement systems and gaps in tender legislation);
  • human factor in determining the priorities of housing distribution (commissions that were created to accept applications, record losses, distribute housing might have worked not in the interests of the most vulnerable categories of the population).

The study was prepared with the financial support of USAID / UK aid project Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration and Services / TAPAS and the European Union. Its content is the sole responsibility of the Institute of Analytics and Advocacy think tank and Transparency International Ukraine and does not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, the U.S. Government, the UK Government, the Eurasia Foundation, and the European Union.