The Countries Without Homeless People
Homelessness continues to be a huge issue in much of the world. Despite this, some select countries have rates of homelessness close to zero. What are they doing differently?
Before I begin, a word of warning: this article is some 4.5k words long, and will take you upwards of 20 minutes to read. If you are interested in the main conclusions of my research, but want a less dry and in-depth analysis, have a look at the condensed version of this article here:
Introduction
For more than half a century, the west has battled homelessness. As part of this fight, countries have spent trillions on housing programs, homelessness shelters, and other services. And yet, no major progress is being made. As of 2022, there were more than half a million homeless people in the USA, more than 700,000 in the EU (at a 70% increase from 2010), and roughly 300,000 in the UK. For the most part, the billions spent in trying to end this crisis have resulted in nothing but further rises in homelessness.
There are, however, a number of countries that have little to no homelessness at all. As part of this piece, I will be focusing on four of them: Finland, Japan, Jordan, and Singapore. These countries are drastically different. Some of them are rich, others poorer. Some of them invest millions every year to provide housing for their homeless, others do absolutely nothing. Some of them have collectivist cultures, others are individualist.
![four countries without homelessness four countries without homelessness](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff7bfef18-6d0b-43df-a344-17d00b6ca91d_368x39.png)
Because of these differences in culture, economics, and social services, the best approach to examining the specific conditions that have lead to an eradication of homelessness in each of these countries is to approach them individually. Homelessness is an incredibly complex issue, with no simple and straightforward solution. Instead, the solution each country has found for the issue is unique. In this post, I will analyse not only what this solution is for each of the countries, but what takeaways there might be for other countries still struggling with this crisis.
Finland
Out of the four countries on this list, Finland is the one that continues to have the highest Homelessness rates. While as of 2021 it only had 4396 individuals without permanent and stable housing, this is comparatively still a lot, especially considering Finland’s relatively small population.
Its achievements in combatting homelessness are nonetheless impressive, chiefly as it is the only country in the European Union with falling homelessness rates. Out of the countries on the list, it is also the most individualistic, meaning that it cannot just fall back on its people to take care of their homeless family members. Whereas in some other countries on this list a collectivist culture means that a homeless person would likely be taken in by their relatives, here everyone is out for themselves - and if they cannot pay rent, they end up homeless. Despite this, Finland’s homelessness numbers are falling - and have been for 30 years. This can be attributed primarily to its seemingly straightforward Housing First policy.
Housing First
The homeless part of homelessness has long been considered a symptom of the problem, rather than its root. At first glance, this seems intuitive. It would seem like people don’t just end up on the street because of their inability to find a house. Often mental illness or drug abuse coincide with homelessness, and seem to provide reasonable explanations for why the individual has ended up homeless. In order to combat homelessness, then, countries have shied away from “just giving people homes”, instead attempting to first combat what they see as the causes of homelessness - such as mental illness or drug abuse - and only giving the homeless people permanent lodgings afterwards.
Finland has instead taken the opposite approach, and the success of its methods reveal flaws in this old mindset. As part of its Housing First policy, Ara, Finland’s housing finance and development service, first assigns homeless rental properties on a normal lease, and only second works on treating mental illness or rehabilitating drug addiction. This approach acknowledges that living with a roof over one’s head is not a privilege we get for fitting in with society - it’s a human right.
Not only is a Housing First approach to homelessness the only humane response, but it also brings many other benefits - benefits which the success of the Finnish system proves. This is first and foremost because of the countless mental health benefits a permanent residence offers. Having a place to come back to, a place where one feels safe, comfortable, and secure, does wonders for one’s mental health. But the flipside is also true - not having a house and sleeping rough can severely negatively impact mental health, creating a vicious cycle in which the homeless person struggles with mental health issues and so fails to acquire a job and house, which in turn further negatively impacts their mental health. Short term coping mechanisms for the resulting unhappiness might also be sought in drugs and alcohol, further worsening the problem. Finland’s policy breaks this cycle by just giving people houses. This helps homeless individuals improve their mental health and break their drug addictions.
In an interview with Politico, Jan Vapaavuori, Mayor of Helsinki, said the following:
“We used to think that people somehow needed to get sober in order to be able to live in a flat. But then we turned that around: You need an apartment in order to get sober.”
A further benefit can be found in the fact that owning a home makes people feel like they are part of a society, makes them feel pride in their belongings, and allows them to engage with neighbours who are much more settled members of society. He continues:
“People who haven’t had any contact with society for a long period of time, they need to regain their dignity. They need to be proud of something and have their own name on the door.”
But this approach doesn’t just offer benefits for mental health. Simply owning a home can also help people apply for jobs that require addresses as part of their application, and also gives them a place to regularly clean themselves and their clothes. This helps them seek out new job opportunities which might not have been available to them whilst homeless, thus further reintegrating them into society. Having a safe place to store one’s belongings also helps: on the street, homeless people constantly face the threat of theft, forcing them to withdraw further from the few people who might be willing to engage with them for the sake of their own safety. There is also only so much one can carry around on their person without storing it somewhere. Being able to keep things inside a lockable house helps people overcome this fear and start collecting possessions, allowing them to re-enter society.
Housing First is not limited to just giving people homes, though (as the name implies) the focus does lie there. It recognises that only giving people houses would be too simplistic, and therefore also provides support and information to the people to whom it has given houses. This support includes financial, housing-related, and mental health advice, giving people the opportunity to further climb the ladder back into society. But, unlike in other countries, none of this is obligatory. Finland realises: home ownership is a human right, and not a reward for following steps to reintegrate.
Japan
The state of the homelessness crisis in Japan is somewhat deceptive. Whilst walking through Tokyo and other Japanese cities might make it seem like there is practically no homelessness at all, and even though government statistics reaffirm this, many other organisations have reported homelessness numbers of up to 270% of the government-reported 3,824 homeless people. This is not necessarily due to any government intervention. Japanese culture is famously polite and places emphasis on personal dignity and honour, which, combined with a society that view homeless people in a very negative light, culturally discourages homeless people from appearing in public as much as they might in other countries. But even if the higher estimations are correct, Japan’s homelessness numbers are surprisingly low, and warrant closer inspection.
Culture
The first element that allows Japan to have such low homelessness rates is the aforementioned culture. The feeling of pride felt by many Japanese people, combined with the perceived shame (not only to oneself, but also to ones family) pushes people to try their very hardest to not become homeless. And while obviously homelessness is not just a choice, Japanese people tend to be much more likely to stay in abusive relationships or low paying and overworking jobs in an attempt to not become homeless (and to retain their dignity by having stable income and relationships) than their counterparts in other countries. Japanese workers also tend to stay in the same job for most of their lives, meaning that, once they are employed, they are much less likely to end up without a job.
Added to this is the fact that Japanese law is extremely strict on activities traditionally done by homeless people in other countries. Begging is absolutely illegal, preventing one of the main forms of income, the charity of others, from reaching the small homeless population. Furthermore, drugs are culturally taboo and legally strictly forbidden, preventing drug addicts from becoming homeless (as they are less common) and homeless people from becoming drug addicts. Even alcohol is consumed less here. And while Japan obviously struggles with the many downsides of an extremely strict drug policy, its cultural and legal policies have made drug usage very uncommon, though it is noteworthy that drug use is rising, potentially offering a new challenge to Japan and its homeless in the future.
Tragically, Japanese culture also tolerates suicide much more than other countries, meaning that many of those who might become homeless elsewhere simply commit suicide here. A study examined the leading motives for suicide amongst Japanese people, and found that the leading causes were mental health or physical health reasons (49%), poverty related issues (17%), household or relationship problems (15%), and work-related reasons (10%). The overlap between these and causes of homelessness is abundantly clear, with some of the leading causes of homelessness in the US being mental health, poverty, and relationship issues. Many Japanese people are therefore more likely to commit suicide than seriously consider becoming homeless, something which is also reflected in the fact that many of Japan’s homeless people have considered or attempted suicide. These statistics go to show that eradicating homelessness is not everything, and that even though homelessness might be close to eradicated in countries like Japan, this comes at a great cost, and Japan still has much work to do in fighting poverty and its suicide epidemic.
Cyber-Homelessness
Another factor preventing the levels of homelessness in Japan from rising is the availability of cheap accommodation in form of e-cafes and similar establishments. So-called Net café refugees live full-time in internet cafes, unable to find permanent housing otherwise. Internet cafes in Japan tend to be extremely cheap, significantly cheaper than hotels, rented flats, or other forms of more permanent housing, and offer the user a safe place to stay and use the internet (as the name implies). Whilst the homelessness rates in Japan continue to sink, it is estimated that in Tokyo alone there are more than 15,000 net café refugees. And while this lifestyle is certainly an upgrade from regular homelessness, with net café users being able to reap many of the benefits of housing discussed above, such as online work, cleanliness, safety and comfort, it is still an issue that needs tackling separately.
![Internet Cafe Refugess - one of the reasons for Japan's low homelessness Internet Cafe Refugess - one of the reasons for Japan's low homelessness](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F73bf114c-2158-4a59-8176-b23036ef6d99_2100x1400.jpeg)
Services
Aside from these somewhat negative causes for the low rate of homelessness in Japan, there are also some positive ones. Japan boasts a strong social system and robust network of volunteers to help the homeless. In 2002, Japan enacted its Special Act in regards to Supporting the Autonomy of the Homeless Population, giving livelihood protection to people unable to financially support themselves, support groups to women escaping domestic violence (the leading cause of female homelessness in Japan), and shelters and child welfare institutions to homeless youths. Charities such as Moyai also give out food, housing, and support to Japan’s homeless, an effort which it can do with relative ease due to Japan’s low homelessness rate. Japan’s rate of poverty is also fairly low, meaning that, aided by government financial support and strong social services, Japanese people are less likely to fall from extreme poverty to homelessness than those in other countries.
An Ending Historical Cause?
A final feature of homelessness in Japan is that the majority of Japanese homeless people are men over the age of 60. The average age of Homeless people in Japan has been rising steadily over the course of the last 20 years, and will likely continue to do so in the future. This steady rise in age indicates that, unlike other countries, Japan’s homeless population is mainly older individuals who have lived on the streets for much of their lives. There is a historical and a cultural element to this.
Historically, many of these older homeless men are the result of socio-economic trends in Japan in the sixties. With Japan’s economy growing rapidly, many young men were drawn to the country’s cities as labourers, particularly informal day-labourers who would be informally hired by job brokers for whatever manual labour each day would require. These men would therefore be living in cities without secure jobs, and, when the Japanese asset price bubble collapsed in the late eighties, were left without a way of financially providing for themselves. Many of the homeless men on Japan’s streets today are remnants of this time, having stayed homeless in the time since.
This historical problem is the further reinforced by cultural attitudes which prevent these men from leaving homelessness. Broadly speaking, Japanese culture tends to be more ageist than others, and discriminates against men over forty when they attempt to apply for jobs, especially when these men are single, as married men are seen as more reliable. This disproportionally affects the homeless population, much of which is constituted of older, single men.
This is good news, as it means that Japan’s homeless population primarily comes from a limited stock of men, whom the state has been able to rehouse over the last 15 years. It also explains why Japan’s homeless population has been falling so drastically over the last decade: there are not many new homeless people emerging.
Jordan
From 2000 to 2017, Jordan’s government reported a grand total of 16 homeless people. Fifteen of these were attributed to mental health issues, one to extreme poverty and death of the individual’s relatives, and all of them were resolved quickly and the individuals were housed. And this is the case despite the fact that the government of Jordan and NGOs have “no impact” on homelessness, with homelessness being so rare that there is “no concept in Jordanian law” for homelessness at all. Instead, Jordanian lack of homelessness can be attributed to its collectivist culture and stable economic system.
Culture
The main reason for Jordanian lack of homelessness is its collectivist culture. Collectivism is defined as “the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it”, and in practice entails Jordanians helping one another out at the expense of personal profit or comfort. This is particularly true for families, where the tribal culture prevalent throughout the country incentivises, say, one family member to offer another free accommodation in their house, or reduced rent on a separate property. Common also is giving family member jobs, meaning that potentially underqualified individuals who elsewhere would be unable to pay for their housing can start earning money quickly. More general collectivism also means that almost all Jordanians said that they would help a non-Jordanian homeless person if they were to see them on the street. Jordan thus combats homelessness culturally, rather than governmentally.
Stability
But explaining the lack of homelessness in Jordan solely based on its culture is insufficient. While most of the countries in the MENA region, in particular the Levant, are collectivist, Jordan remains the only one with such an astoundingly low homelessness rate. And whilst the United States are extremely individualistic, their homelessness rate per 10k manages to stay comparatively low.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F2c536e83-09e3-44f2-81cf-86d7cd1df0da_600x371.png)
The best explanation for why Jordan’s homeless population manages to be low while those of culturally comparable countries are so much higher is that Jordan is stable. Whereas in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon war and economic collapse have left hundreds of thousands without home and in Egypt the poverty rate is at a comparatively high 27.2 percent as of 2022, Jordan has been relatively stable when it comes to economics and conflict. Iran is the only country in the area that comes close to Jordan when it comes to homeless population, but due to its involvement in more wars, higher poverty rate, and destruction of housing, its homelessness rate is not as low as Jordan’s. Meanwhile, Jordan offers large amounts of empty housing, a stable economy, and little conflict. In this environment its collectivist culture is able to take care of its people better than most countries can, practically eradicating homelessness.
This is not to deny the prevalence of poverty throughout Jordanian culture. Many of the people living here live in substandard quality housing and get by on very little. Many people live in multi-generational shared apartments and building collapses are fairly common. Nonetheless, the simple fact that the human right of housing is fulfilled here allows the people living in this poverty to enjoy the benefits of having a house, of having a safe and comfortable environment into which one can retreat and in which one can keep their belongings.
Refugees
Jordan is also one of the countries houses one of the largest number of refugees. Millions of refugees have moved here - most of them from Palestine following the 1947-49 Palestine war, as well as the Six Day War in 1967, but also an estimated 1.3 million from Syria and some 60,000 from Iraq.
Of these, the Palestinian population is the only one that tends to get counted into homelessness statistics, as it has been (mostly) living here for over 50 years and has thus had time to integrate into society. Due to a shared cultural heritage and overall closeness, the Palestinian population has settled into Jordanian society quickly and thus does not contribute to homelessness, benefiting from the same collectivist culture that Jordanians benefit from.
Whilst the Iraqi and Syrian populations are usually not counted as part of the homelessness crisis, but instead as part of the refugee crisis (with homeless people being those who lose housing within a country, and refugees being those fleeing their original home), they too are mostly housed within Jordan. Much of this continues to be sub-standard and non-permanent, but the government of Jordan and various NGOs are making rapid progress in permanently housing the refugees as well.
In strong contrast to the other countries on this list, Jordan manages to keep its homelessness very low despite little to no governmental or charity support, and despite its high influx of refugees, relying instead primarily on its collectivist culture to house people.
Singapore
In 2019, a national count revealed the number of homeless people in Singapore to be between 921 and 1,050. For a country with a population of 5.6 million, this is an extraordinarily small number. In combatting homelessness, Singapore combines features of other countries seen above, providing extremely cheap social housing and at the same time using its collectivist culture to ensure that people help each other out with housing and jobs, pre-emptively preventing some degree of the problem.
Culture
Singapore, like Jordan, is a collectivist society, so many of the things written above apply here as well. Many families live in shared, multi-generational housing, especially when it comes to poorer families. In fact, 35% of households were found to have at least one resident aged 65 or above. Jobs are also given on a family-basis, though this is being increasingly discouraged by the government - somewhat ironically, one might add, considering that the government itself has had its fair share of nepotism scandals. In the same ways as Jordan, this collectivist culture encourages people to help one another out instead of letting a family member go homeless. Once again, one of the main reasons given for homelessness was economic struggle combined with familial strife, leading to situations where one could neither rely on one’s own finances nor on one’s family for support, and had to instead move to the streets.
Cheap Housing
But more importantly, the main reason for Singapore’s low homeless rate is its public housing. In Singapore, more than 80% of the population lives in government-provided housing. While these houses are very cheap for Singaporeans to live in, they have strict requirements, meaning that foreigners often cannot benefit from them. One particular feature of it is also that individuals looking to rent a flat are often forced to share this flat with another person. Dr. Ng Kok Hoe, who conducted the study that produced much of the homeless statistics used in this section, recommended fixing or removing the joint singles system in order to further combat homelessness. Lack of privacy and conflict with the other individual often led to people preferring to sleep in the streets over sleeping in their shared accommodation. In fact, roughly 15% of the people sleeping on the street in Singapore were found to be currently renting government flats, but had instead preferred to sleep on the street. If this issue were to be fixed, it is likely a large number of Singapore’s homeless would find accommodation once again. Singapore’s solution of government-subsidised rental housing therefore remains a significant element in keeping the number of homeless on Singapore’s streets, also preventing landlord price-hiking, a particular issue in many of the bigger cities in other countries.
Singapore therefore combines some of the traits seen in the other low-homeless countries to drastically reduce its number of homeless people. While the cheap government subsidised accommodation used by most Singaporeans continues to keep the number of homeless low, changing its exclusivity to Singaporeans and its joint singles program might help reduce homeless even further.
Conclusions
What can we learn from these four dramatically different approaches? And how might we implement their success elsewhere? The first and most obvious solution is providing people with housing. As Finland and Singapore’s approaches show, attempting to solve the issue of Homelessness cannot be done without first providing people with homes, making them feel integrated and secure in society. While this might seem expensive, especially for countries bigger than Finland or Singapore, there is actually evidence that simply giving the homeless homes might be cheaper than supporting them in other ways.
But an examination of these countries also shows that just giving people houses is not enough. It is no surprise that three of these countries are collectivist societies: to truly escape homelessness, we need to integrate the now-housed homeless into local communities. This would not only expand their support network, potentially preventing future homelessness, but would reignite their pride in their house, community, and would overall be the quickest way of reintegrating them into society. We obviously cannot change the culture of our countries to best solve the issue of homelessness. But at the same time, with loneliness on the rise in western countries and already being one of the leading causes of death, it seems that taking notes from some more collectivist societies might be useful.
In light of the unique case of homelessness in Jordan, homelessness might then be viewed as not just caused by the inability to afford housing for oneself, but also by the absence of a community, whether that community be there to enhance pride in one’s livelihood, help one get a job, or even give someone accommodation. In countries such as Finland, this community is retroactively provided by the government. In Jordan, Singapore, and to an extent Japan, this community is family, and is with someone one from the start of their life. Viewing homelessness in this way also explains why so many homeless people come from broken families, are mentally ill, or are in other ways alienated from society: those who can’t afford houses but aren’t alienated from their communities in these ways simply do not become homeless.
Obviously, ending homelessness does not fix everything. In Jordan, despite an end to homelessness, many people still live in poverty, while Japan’s low homelessness rates are in part kept low by its cultures endorsement of suicide. Nonetheless, giving people homes and reintegrating them into communities is an important step in helping out disadvantaged members of society, and one that is not only pricewise similar to current approaches, but will also help people help themselves. If more countries were to take lessons from these countries, then, who knows? Maybe there will be more countries without homelessness soon.
Thank you for reading this (quite frankly way too long) post. If you’re interested in some ways in which communities might be restarted in urban environments (where homelessness and loneliness are most rampant), I recently wrote an article on how we might do so following Amsterdam’s urban design. If that sounds like your cup of tea, please do give it a read!