- P.J. Patterson inherited a fragile economy still under IMF conditions.
- The FINSAC financial crisis of the late 1990s devastated mortgage lending.
- Diaspora remittances became the primary driver of rural home construction.
- Private housing developers began to target Jamaica’s emerging middle class.
- NHT mortgage programmes expanded as the fund’s accumulated capital grew.
- Garrison violence persisted even as the political system began to reform.
Dollars from Abroad, Crisis at Home: Jamaica’s Housing Market in the 1990s
The 1990s were a decade of paradox for Jamaican housing. The island was more connected to the global economy than it had ever been — diaspora dollars funding homes in the parishes, private developers constructing suburban communities for the growing middle class, the NHT deploying its accumulated capital into mortgages across the country. And yet the financial system that underpinned formal housing finance nearly collapsed in the late 1990s, taking savings, mortgages, and housing companies with it. Jamaica built and lost in the same decade.
P.J. Patterson and the Business of Governance
When P.J. Patterson succeeded Michael Manley as Prime Minister in March 1992, he inherited a government that had already, in Manley’s second term, accepted the essential logic of the international financial institutions. The Jamaica of the 1990s would not repeat the democratic socialist experiment of the 1970s; it would pursue economic liberalisation, free trade, and the attraction of foreign investment, operating within the framework that the IMF and World Bank prescribed rather than against it. Patterson won three successive general elections — in 1993, 1997, and 2002 — making him the longest-serving prime minister in Jamaican history by the time he retired in 2006. His tenure encompassed a decade of genuine economic growth in some sectors, significant expansion of the middle class, and a housing market that reflected both the new prosperity and its limits.
The liberalisation of the early 1990s opened the Jamaican economy to new flows of capital and transformed several sectors, including the financial sector and the property market. The deregulation of financial institutions in the early part of the decade allowed a proliferation of building societies, merchant banks, and finance houses that expanded the availability of mortgage and development finance beyond the traditional network of established building societies. This expansion fuelled a real estate boom in the middle years of the decade, with new residential developments appearing in St Andrew, St Catherine, and the parish towns across the island. For a generation of middle-class Jamaicans who had spent the 1980s watching their savings eroded by inflation and devaluation, the opportunity to invest in property — finally more accessible through the expanded mortgage market — was seized with enthusiasm.
The NHT Comes of Age
The National Housing Trust, established in 1976, had spent its first decade building its contribution base and accumulating capital during the difficult years of the 1980s. By the early 1990s, the NHT had become a substantial institution with real resources to deploy. Its contribution fund — fed by the mandatory deductions from formal sector workers’ wages and their employers’ matching contributions — had grown through the decade of austerity into a significant pool of housing capital. The 1990s saw the NHT move decisively into mortgage lending, both for homes in NHT-developed schemes and for properties in the private market.
The NHT’s mortgage terms — below-market interest rates, longer repayment periods than the commercial banks typically offered, and access criteria based on contribution history rather than purely on creditworthiness in the conventional sense — made home ownership accessible to a segment of the Jamaican formal-sector workforce that had previously been unable to access mortgage finance. Civil servants, teachers, nurses, factory workers, and others who contributed to the NHT and had accumulated a sufficient contribution history could apply for loans that, combined with their own savings, made the purchase or construction of a home a realistic rather than an aspirational goal.
The NHT also developed new housing schemes directly — acquiring land, installing infrastructure, building houses, and selling them to contributors at subsidised prices through its own loan products. In Kingston and the greater St Andrew metropolitan area, in the parish capitals, and in new suburban communities in St Catherine and Portmore, NHT-developed housing schemes added to the formal supply of homes. Portmore, the large planned residential community across Kingston Harbour in St Catherine, which had begun developing in the 1970s and 1980s, continued to expand substantially in the 1990s with NHT participation. By the mid-1990s, Portmore had become one of the largest urban communities in Jamaica, housing tens of thousands of families who had been priced out of the Kingston and St Andrew market.
Private Development and the New Suburban Jamaica
Alongside the NHT, the 1990s saw the emergence of a more assertive private housing development sector. Local developers, many of them benefiting from the liberalised financial environment and the growing demand from the expanding middle class, began to produce housing in volumes and at standards that had not previously characterised the Jamaican private market. Gated residential communities — a new typology in the Jamaican market, importing a concept that had been developing in the United States and the wider Caribbean — began to appear in the St Andrew hills and in new communities to the east and west of Kingston.
The gated community represented a significant departure from the open residential character of older uptown Jamaica. Where the colonial and post-colonial suburbs of Cherry Gardens, Norbrook, and Barbican had been characterised by detached homes on individual lots with access from public roads, the new gated communities placed security — controlled entry, perimeter walls, private internal roads — at the centre of their value proposition. The demand for this form of residential security was not irrational; it reflected the real conditions of Jamaican urban life in the 1990s, in which the crime rate was high, the garrison communities had demonstrated that territorial violence could be sustained over decades, and the capacity of the police service to protect uptown residents from the threat of crime was widely doubted. The gated community was, among other things, a privatised response to the failure of the public security sector.
This development pattern exacerbated the geographic segmentation of Jamaican society. The uptown-downtown divide that had been a feature of Kingston’s social geography since the nineteenth century was now materialising in new forms of physical infrastructure — walls, gates, guard posts, and private internal road networks — that made the separation between the world of the housing scheme and the world of the garrison community more literal and more durable than it had ever been.
The FINSAC Crisis: When the Banks Fell
The boom of the early and middle 1990s ended in financial catastrophe. The deregulation of the financial sector in the early part of the decade had allowed an expansion of credit and financial activity that was not accompanied by adequate supervision. Indigenous Jamaican financial institutions — banks, building societies, insurance companies, and merchant banks — had grown rapidly, taken on significant risk, and in some cases engaged in practices that would not have survived proper regulatory scrutiny. When the bubble began to deflate in the mid-1990s, the government was faced with a systemic financial crisis that threatened to bring down much of the formal financial sector.
The Financial Sector Adjustment Company — FINSAC — was established in 1997 to manage the government’s intervention in the collapsing financial system. Through FINSAC, the government acquired the non-performing loan portfolios and distressed assets of the failing institutions, recapitalised others, and attempted to prevent a complete collapse of the financial system. The cost was extraordinary: estimates placed the total cost of the FINSAC intervention at approximately 40 per cent of GDP, a fiscal burden that would weigh on Jamaica’s public finances for years and that required a renewed engagement with the IMF under conditions that again required public expenditure restraint.
For Jamaican housing, the FINSAC crisis had direct and devastating consequences. Many of the mortgages that had been extended in the boom years of the early 1990s were held by institutions that subsequently failed; when FINSAC acquired these portfolios, thousands of Jamaicans found themselves with mortgages owed to a government asset management company rather than to a functioning financial institution. The terms on which these mortgages were renegotiated or enforced varied; many borrowers faced difficulty meeting obligations that had become harder to service as the economic recession that accompanied the crisis deepened. Foreclosures occurred; properties were lost; families who had achieved the aspiration of home ownership through the brief window of the early 1990s found themselves displaced when the system that had funded their purchases collapsed.
The FINSAC crisis also froze the private housing development sector. Developers who had been financing new communities through the liberalised banking system found their credit lines cut; new projects stalled; and the pipeline of private sector housing supply that had been building through the early years of the decade was sharply reduced. The NHT, insulated from the crisis by its different funding model, continued to lend; but the private market contracted significantly in the second half of the decade.
The Remittance Economy: Homes Built at a Distance
While the formal housing finance system was being built and then dismantled through the decade, a different and more durable housing economy was operating in the rural parishes. The Jamaican diaspora — by the 1990s numbering more than a million people, with major concentrations in New York, Miami, Toronto, and the United Kingdom — had become the most significant source of housing investment in the rural communities from which many of them had migrated or whose roots they maintained.
Remittance flows into Jamaica grew substantially through the 1990s as the diaspora consolidated and as money transfer services made the process of sending funds more efficient and less expensive than it had been in earlier decades. A significant proportion of these remittances went directly into housing. The remittance house — typically built incrementally, in concrete block, larger than the income of those living in it would have suggested, and often unfinished for years as cash flows permitted partial construction — became the defining architectural form of rural Jamaica in the 1990s.
The patterns were geographically varied but economically consistent. In parishes with strong migration connections to particular destinations — Westmoreland to England, St Mary to New York, Clarendon to the United States and Canada — the remittance house was visible in almost every community. The size and quality of these homes reflected the economic circumstances of the migrant funding them: a factory worker in the Bronx might fund a two-bedroom concrete block home with a covered veranda; a nurse in London might fund a more ambitious three-bedroom structure with a separate bathroom and a tile floor. But the aspiration was common across the income spectrum: to build something that would outlast the migration, that would provide a place to return to, that would demonstrate to the community of origin that the hardships of migration had been worth enduring.
The remittance economy created a distinct form of housing dependency. Communities in which most of the good housing was funded by remittances were communities in which the local economy had proved unable to generate the income required for home construction from local sources. The paradox was not lost on those who studied rural Jamaica in this period: the island’s most beautiful villages, with their new concrete houses and satellite dishes and tiled floors, were also its most economically hollow, their resident populations ageing, their productive-age adults in the diaspora, their economy sustained by the generosity of people who were no longer there.
Kingston’s Inner City: Persistent Crisis, Partial Reform
The garrison communities of Kingston did not improve substantially in the 1990s. The political violence that had defined the 1980s became, in some respects, more complicated in the 1990s as the relationship between the political parties and the garrison dons evolved in ways that were not simply reducible to the old JLP-PNP binary. The drug economy — by the 1990s involving cocaine transit as well as cannabis production — had created a class of community leaders whose economic power derived from the drug trade rather than, or in addition to, political patronage. The relationship between these figures and the political parties was increasingly transactional on both sides.
Urban renewal attempts were made in some of Kingston’s most deteriorated inner-city communities during the Patterson years. The rehabilitation of Trench Town — announced with considerable political fanfare and associated with both the community’s musical heritage and with genuine housing need — produced some physical improvements: new community centres, upgraded standpipes, some housing rehabilitation. But the fundamental social and economic conditions of the garrison communities were not addressed by physical rehabilitation alone. The housing question in these communities was inseparable from the questions of employment, public safety, political patronage, and the allocation of land tenure that had structured the garrisons since their formation in the 1960s.
The pace of migration from the inner city continued. Families who could leave the garrison communities — through access to NHT mortgages, through remittances, through the savings of formal employment — did leave, relocating to Portmore, to new housing schemes in St Catherine, or to whatever other option became available. Those who remained were disproportionately those for whom no alternative existed: the elderly, the very poor, and those whose social networks were so deeply embedded in the garrison community that relocation was inconceivable. The garrison communities were becoming, in addition to everything else they had always been, communities of those whom the formal housing system had failed to reach.
The End of the Century: What the Decade Had Built and What It Had Lost
By the end of the 1990s, Jamaica’s housing landscape was both richer and more fragile than it had been at the decade’s beginning. The NHT had grown into a significant institution with a genuine impact on housing access for the formal-sector workforce. Private development had produced new communities, though the financial crisis had exposed the fragility of the boom on which that development had depended. The remittance economy had built homes in the rural parishes that local income could never have funded. And the FINSAC crisis had demonstrated, with brutal clarity, that the gains of liberalisation were not secured and that the formal financial architecture that supported the housing market could collapse under the weight of its own expansion.
The housing deficit remained. The informal settlements had not shrunk. The garrison communities had not been dismantled. The family land system continued to hold rural land in legally uncertain tenures that prevented the investment and development that formalisation might have enabled. And the population of Jamaica was now smaller than it had been a decade earlier — not because of mortality, but because of emigration. The people were leaving. And when they sent money back, much of it went into houses: a defiant declaration, in concrete and zinc and tile, that wherever they were, home was still here.
Follow Jamaica Homes on Youtube @jamaicahomes and Instagram @jamaica_homes and on Facebook @jamaicahomesnews Send us a message or email us at onlinefeedback@jamaica-homes.com or editor@jamaica-homes.com
Visit our YouTube Community ↗