ABSTRACT
Economists hold different views on the question of how much funding developing countries should allocate to shelter or habitat. Supporters of the basic needs approach set less store by the debate on the categorization of funds spent on habitat; concentrating instead on the other effects of habitat investments. Attention is given to the sectors in which directly or indirectly employment could be created. In large, middle-income countries where formal sectors import a relatively small portion of their materials, however, the indirect employment created by more expensive habitat projects may be considerable. To assess the direct employment impacts of habitat investments; one has to consider the production function. Moreover, to know what kind of materials is used is vital to the assessment of indirect employment impacts. The habitat situation in rural areas differs quantitatively and qualitatively from that in urban areas.
