SOCIAL HOUSING AFTER FIVE YEARS: BALANCING SOCIAL WELFARE, SELLING PRICES AND PROJECT FEASIBILITY

1. From the Resale Period to the Goal of Social Welfare

On October 28, 2026, during discussions on the draft amended Housing Law, the issue of reselling social housing after five years continued to attract attention from several National Assembly deputies. The discussion focused on eligible resale buyers, the principles for determining resale prices and mechanisms to ensure that preferential housing policies continue to benefit their intended recipients.

Under Point e, Clause 1, Article 89 of the 2023 Housing Law, buyers may resell social housing at market-based prices after five years from the date of full payment, provided that they have been issued a Certificate of Land Use Rights and Ownership of Assets Attached to Land (hereinafter referred to as the Certificate). This is the current legal provision.

Meanwhile, the draft amended Housing Law currently under discussion proposes changing this mechanism. Under the proposal, after five years, buyers would only be permitted to resell their homes to individuals eligible to purchase social housing and would still be required to satisfy the Certificate requirement. The draft also raises the issue of controlling resale prices. These are proposed amendments and should not be confused with the current regulations unless and until an amended law is officially promulgated and takes effect.

The underlying issue is that social housing must meet genuine housing needs while relying on preferential resources provided by the State. If the value of these incentives is converted into substantial profits on the secondary market, the policy’s objective of supporting low-income households may be undermined. Conversely, if resale restrictions are imposed without clear pricing mechanisms or practical arrangements for owners who need to sell, the legitimate rights of buyers may also be affected.

2. Social Housing Prices: What the Figures Tell Us

At an explanatory session on October 28, 2026, Minister of Construction Trần Hồng Minh stated that social housing prices in recent years had ranged from approximately VND 15 million to VND 29 million per square metre, depending on the locality, area and characteristics of each project.

According to the Minister, price differences reflect variations in construction costs, infrastructure investment, building materials and borrowing costs. Although social housing projects benefit from preferential policies relating to taxes, land, site clearance and credit, they must still account for actual investment expenses. For example, requirements for parking floors and infrastructure standards can affect construction costs from one project to another.

It should be noted that the VND 15–29 million per square metre range was cited by the Minister during the explanatory session. It should not automatically be interpreted as the average price or a price level applicable to all social housing projects nationwide.

The five-year period also needs to be understood precisely. Under the current provisions of Article 89 of the 2023 Housing Law, the period is calculated from the date of full payment for the property, rather than automatically from the date of handover or the date on which the Certificate is issued.

These two points demonstrate that resale price controls cannot be considered separately from the mechanism for determining initial selling prices and the legal requirements governing individual transactions.

3. Key Changes Proposed Under the Amended Housing Policy

The draft amended Housing Law introduces an approach to managing social housing throughout its entire lifecycle, rather than focusing solely on the initial period following purchase.

First, restricting the pool of eligible resale buyers after five years is one of the proposed measures aimed at ensuring that social housing remains available to the intended beneficiaries. However, the effectiveness of this approach will depend on how resale prices are determined, whether the rules can be implemented in practice and how transitional provisions are applied to buyers who purchased their homes under the existing legal framework.

Second, clarifying the principles for determining resale prices and strengthening price oversight have emerged as important issues during the legislative discussions. Proposals concerning the disclosure of cost components and post-sale cost audits need to be considered alongside the mechanism for determining initial selling prices, ensuring that prices are transparent and supported by clear cost-based justifications.

Third, integrating housing, land and population databases could help verify eligibility, monitor transactions and prevent attempts to circumvent the regulations. However, the effectiveness of such integration will depend on data quality, verification procedures and the responsibilities of the relevant authorities.

4. Challenges Facing Social Housing Developers

4.1. Actual Demand Must Be Matched with Affordability

Meeting the eligibility criteria for social housing does not necessarily mean that an applicant can afford the purchase or find a suitable property near their workplace. A project may offer relatively low selling prices, but if it is located far from employment centres, lacks public transport connections or has limited access to essential amenities, residents may face higher commuting and living expenses.

Therefore, site selection should be aligned with land-use planning, employment distribution, transport infrastructure and public services. Developers should monitor the proportion of eligible applications, transaction completion rates, buyers’ affordability and the actual occupancy of units after handover.

4.2. Legal Compliance Must Be Managed Throughout the Project Lifecycle

Developers need to exercise control over land-related legal documentation, project approval conditions, the basis for determining selling prices and the eligibility assessment process for buyers. At the resale stage, they must accurately establish the relevant five-year period, verify Certificate requirements and comply with the regulations in force at the time of the transaction.

Changes in housing policy also require clear transitional provisions to avoid creating legal risks for buyers, developers and financial institutions.

4.3. Cash Flow Must Be Assessed Across the Entire Project Lifecycle

A low selling price does not necessarily mean low financial risk. Construction costs, infrastructure investment, borrowing expenses, legal approval timelines and capital recovery remain important variables.

Developers should conduct cash flow sensitivity analyses based on total investment costs, construction schedules and sales absorption rates. If resale regulations change, the potential impact on initial purchasing demand should be assessed using actual market data rather than assuming that tighter resale restrictions will automatically reduce market absorption.

5. Long-Term Issues That Need to Be Addressed

First, restricting eligible resale buyers does not automatically solve the pricing issue. VnExpress and Thanh Niên have reported on calls to clarify the principles for determining resale prices after five years. If eligibility is restricted without an appropriate pricing mechanism, social housing units may still become unaffordable for those who genuinely need them. Sources: VnExpress, Thanh Niên.

Second, construction costs and the value of state incentives need to be transparent. The VND 15–29 million per square metre price range cited by the Minister of Construction highlights differences in selling prices across projects. Disclosing cost components and strengthening oversight would provide a clearer basis for assessing how prices are formed and whether preferential resources are being used effectively. Source: Báo Tin tức.

Third, a buyback mechanism may be just as important as the resale mechanism. If a sufficiently capable organization could acquire, appraise and redistribute social housing units, these properties could continue to serve people with genuine housing needs. However, such a mechanism would require clear provisions on funding sources, appraisal responsibilities, repair and maintenance costs, and transaction processing times. This is an approach worth further study, rather than an established mechanism under current regulations.

Fourth, housing policy must balance social welfare objectives with property rights. Resale restrictions may help preserve the policy's intended social purpose, but they must also account for circumstances in which buyers change jobs, experience changes in family circumstances or face financial difficulties. Resale eligibility, pricing principles and transitional provisions therefore need to be designed as part of a consistent regulatory framework. Source: Tạp chí Kinh tế Tài chính.

6. Affordable Housing Development Requires a Coordinated System

In the long term, the effectiveness of housing policy should not be measured solely by the number of units constructed or sold. It should also be assessed in terms of residents’ ability to access housing, actual occupancy rates and the sustainability of housing supply relative to household incomes.

Social housing for sale could be developed alongside rental housing to serve households with different financial capacities. Under each model, developers need to manage investment costs, operating expenses, product quality and capital recovery.

Key performance indicators should include legal approval progress, total investment costs, transaction completion rates, customer affordability, actual resale prices and the occupancy status of housing units. These indicators provide a basis for evaluating policy outcomes using measurable evidence rather than expectations or subjective assessments.

Conclusion

Tightening restrictions on social housing resales after five years is part of a broader challenge: ensuring the effective use of state-subsidized resources while maintaining housing affordability and accessibility. Restricting the pool of eligible resale buyers can only achieve its intended purpose when accompanied by transparent pricing mechanisms, reliable management data and feasible arrangements for owners who need to sell.

For real estate developers, the priorities remain the alignment of legal compliance, urban planning, cost structures and genuine housing demand. A sustainable social housing market must safeguard social welfare objectives while maintaining stable, transparent and financially viable conditions for project development.