There are three objectives of this thesis. Firstly, It is to study experience of foreign housing policy about centralization and decentralization and also about method of subsidy in supply and demand sides for low-income household in order to give perspective to study Thai housing policy. Secondly, it is to comparatively study about effectiveness of Baan Eua-Arthorn Project and Baan Mankong Project by document analysis. Lastly, it is to understand about re-habitation of recipients related to reserve a right in housing and maintain good environment when they settle down in both public housing project. This part is conducted by in-dept interview with ten recipient samples of Bann Eua-Arthorn Bang Chalong Project and Baan Mankong Bongai Project. The result shows that both Baan Eua-Arthorn Project and Baan Mankong Project can provide a little quantity of housing for low-income urban households. With centralization approach Baan Eua-Arthorn Project has disadvantage to provide the various types of public housing desired by low-income recipient’s inhabitants. Furthermore government applies quasi-fiscal financing improper way, it causes inefficient housing production. In contrast Baan Mankong Project with decentralization approach has long process to distribute welfare so it is not able to take advantage in economies of time. For re-habitation of recipients, the study shows that Baan Mankong’s recipients can take advantage about reserve right in housing when housing co-operative is decentralized to manage credit in flexible way as much as possible to match with members’ earning income. Moreover recipients of both public housing projects try to take advantage from social capital to maintain good environment residency. Finally, this study points out that the subsidy in mortgage for low-income household is necessary to home ownership policy and there should be development in rental support simultaneously.
