Promoting home ownership in a social‐rented city: policies,practices and pitfalls

Amsterdam's housing market is dominated by the social‐rented sector. It comprises 56 per cent of the total housing stock, while home ownership comprises only 19 per cent, lower than anywhere else in the Netherlands, and among the lowest in the world. Central government policy is currently seeking to increase the share of home ownership in the Netherlands from 53 per cent (2001) to 65 per cent in 2010. This paper will summarise recent national and local (Amsterdam) housing policy developments, focusing on the recent practice of selling social housing in Amsterdam. Unlike the Right to Buy scheme in Britain, the Netherlands employs an ‘offer to buy’ strategy. Sales, however, have been disappointing so far. Two factors were found to be crucial in this regard: (1) the sluggish change in ‘policy mentality’ and bureaucracy and (2) the high prices in the home ownership market. By way of conclusion, the paper reflects on the desirability of shifting the tenure structure from tenancy to ownership and on the risks that an (over‐) emphasis on home ownership may bring.     

Social housing—past,present and future

Over the past decade in Western Europe there has been a growth of unmet low‐income housing needs. There are now as many as 3–5 million homeless people in the EC countries and many more who are paying more than they can afford for poor quality accommodation (Quilliot, 1992, p. 12). In the 1970s it seemed as if the acute post‐war shortages of low‐income housing had finally been overcome and mass programmes of social rented housing had played a key role in bringing this about. In addition, rising prosperity had opened up private market housing opportunities for broad sections of the population. However, the profound economic, social and political changes since the mid‐1970s have destroyed this optimistic scenario. Now we face, on the one hand, the re‐emergence of a large scale problem of housing availability and affordability and, on the other hand, the reluctance or inability of most governments and societies to respond to this problem. In particular, no government now seems likely to support large scale programmes of social rented housing construction to help meet the rising tide of low‐income housing needs. Indeed, large parts of the existing stock of social rented housing are beset with social, economic and physical problems. Also, in some countries, Great Britain and Germany for example, the size of this sector is rapidly diminishing as privatisation takes place. The purpose of this policy review is first to place the current circumstances of social rented housing in a longer‐term historical perspective, and second to compare the current situation of social rented housing in several Western European countries. Finally, the review will reflect on the prospects for social rented housing.     

The present and future of income‐related housing support: debates in Britain and the Netherlands

This paper examines income‐related housing support in Britain and the Netherlands. It considers the main issues that are at stake in current policy discussions, compares the arguments that are put forward in the two countries and draw conclusions about the future of income‐related housing support. In both Britain and the Netherlands political discussions about the possible introduction of housing vouchers are observed. The most complicated issues are the poverty trap and unemployment trap, and housing consumption incentives. Moral hazard concerns can result in complicated anti‐fraud measures that may add to the burden of administering income‐related support. It is expected that the way in which income‐related housing support schemes in both countries are designed and administered may come under closer scrutiny. Politicians want these schemes to be in tune with the need for labour and housing market mobility, wage flexibility, and the need to bring the public budget under control.     

The different faces of private rented housing

The relation between public policy and the private rented sector is usually unclear. The private rented sector often suffers from public policy, although private landlords mostly enjoy fiscal advantages as well. In many European countries, private renting housing has been losing ground. Nevertheless, private rented housing fulfils a number of useful functions in the housing market: as a tenure for urban starters; for the elderly; and for a mobile, well-to-do segment of the population engaged in flexible labour markets. The main lines of seven country profiles are sketched here: (West) Germany, England, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Canada and the United States. In his comparative contribution at the end of this special issue, Maclennan points out that the private rented sector has indeed declined in many European countries. But he also shows that in countries like the USA, Germany and Sweden the sector has had a broadly constant share since about 1980. In the future, private rented housing will remain an attractive sector, at least for those who are unable to afford owner-occupied housing and those unable to gain access to social housing. Hugo Priemus holds the chair in housing at Delft University of Technology and he is managing director of OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies. Duncan Maclennan is McTaggart professor at the Centre for Housing Research and Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, Great Britain.     

Meeting housing needs through the market: An assessment of housing policies and the supply/demand balance in France and Great Britain

In both Britain and France, for the last 15 years or so, housing policy has become more market‐orientated. This paper examines what this has meant for the balance between supply and demand and for progress in meeting housing needs. Current projections for how housing needs and the demand/supply balance will develop in the 1990s are also analysed. For each country, the determinants of housing demand, both demographic and economic, and the supply position in both the private and public sectors, are examined. Several common issues are identified: the existence of unmet housing needs, problems of indebtedness, the limits to the expansion of owner occupation, problems of social housing finance, and concerns about the decline of the private rented sector. There are also important differences between the two countries: housing output remains at a higher level in France than in Britain; deregulation of housing finance has gone further in Britain than in France; and in France there remains a greater recognition by government that housing is a national responsibility. But in both countries, the ‘marketisation’ of housing policy has meant that housing outcomes have become more dependent on factors external to the housing system.     

The Effect of EU-Legislation on Rental Systems in Sweden and the Netherlands

Both Sweden and the Netherlands had housing systems that include broad models of municipal housing (Sweden) or social housing (Netherlands). These broad models, however, came under discussion due to the competition policy of the European Commission. Financial government support – state aid – for public or social housing is considered to create false competition with commercial landlords. The countries chose different ways out of this problem. The Netherlands choose to direct state aid to a specified target group and had to introduce income limits for dwellings owned by housing associations. Sweden instead chose to change the law regulating municipal housing companies and demands that these companies should act in a ‘businesslike way’ and with that aims to create a level playing field. This paper will describe why the two countries chose different options, the development during the first years, and also speculate about the consequences on the longer run and the future role of the public/social housing sector in housing and urban policy.     

European Competition Policy and National Housing Policies: International Implications of the Dutch Case

This contribution explores the relationship between housing policy, which is the responsibility of national governments, and competition policy, including the decision on the legitimacy of state support, which is the responsibility of the European Commission (EC). The paper paints a general picture of EU policy on competition and state support and describes the Dutch social housing system. Attention then turns to the recent intervention by the European Commission in the governance of Dutch social housing and it is asked whether the factors that prompted the intervention exist in other EU member states as well. The analysis shows that this is indeed the case. It is concluded that the intervention of the EC in the Netherlands could become a precedent for other European countries, particularly for those countries that opt against a residualised social rented sector and for a competitive role of social housing providers on the housing market.     

The social use of market processes in British and Hungarian housing policies

The switch of state subsidies away from support for public housing investment and towards an intensification of market processes is no longer the prerogative of Western countries, but, in the 1980s, has also become a feature of some state socialist societies. However, given the contrasting social, political and economic character of these societies, does the apparently similar process of privatisation in fact have the same characteristics, meaning and social consequences?

In this paper Britain and Hungary have been chosen as countries representative of the two social systems and in which market processes have intensified. The comparison begins by examining the social meaning of'owning’ and ‘renting’, the historical context of the development of housing policy, the allocation systems, rents, and subsidies. Focusing on the social housing sector the paper contrasts current housing issues. Particular attention is given to the “Right to Buy” policy which is a common feature in the 1980s of housing policy in both countries.

As a result of their mainly empirical comparison the authors conclude that privatisation in Britain and Hungary occurred in housing systems which have been similar in their tenure structure but very different in historical context. Because the broad social‐political context of privatisation is different, particularly the economic and institutional interests rooted within this issue, it is not inevitable that the regressive social consequences of measures which promote the privatisation process (which are common to both countries) are automatically negative in terms of the general sociological assessment.Thus comparison can help in the preparation of policy options and the assessment of new possibilities, but only as background. Strategies should be evaluated primarily against the social‐political context of each country and against the current policy objectives.     

The construction industry in the economy of Trinidad & Tobago

The construction sector is generally one of the larger and more important sectors of a nation's economy. If economic policy is to achieve its desired objectives, it is necessary to have some understanding of how the economy will react to various changes that can be effected. Because the construction sector is large and responsive, it is a key sector for manipulating the economy and, hence, it is important to know what the role of the construction sector is in the economy. Some of the key issues here are the effect of changes in GDP on construction output and employment, as well as the effects of changes in money supply, inflation, expenditure on the public sector investment programme and the rate of approval of building plans. This paper sets out to see if there are relationships between these factors that justify further investigation and, as such, helps establish a research agenda for the industry, particularly in comparing developed and less‐developed countries.     

Social housing investment: Housing policy and finance in the UK and the Netherlands, 1970–1992

Levels of social housing investment in the UK and the Netherlands are considered for the period 1970–1992. The changing housing policies and the developing structures of social housing finance are analysed. These factors have contributed to the decline in social housing construction in the UK and the Netherlands. In particular, the desire of governments in both countries to cut public capital expenditure on housing and increase the role of private, capital in new construction reduced the output during the 1980s. In the UK, a tight monetarist policy was adopted with the aim of keeping inflation down. This can be seen as a major cause of declining levels of public expenditure on housing production. In the Netherlands, a more significant role, compared to the UK, seems to have been played by developments on the housing market, especially the real estate crisis in 1978–1982. In both countries, the outlook for investment in social housing is gloomy Hugo Priemus hold the chair in housing at Delft Unviersity of Technology, and he is managing director of OTB Research Institute for Policy and Technology Jacqueline Smith is research assistant at the School of the Built Environment, De Montfort University, Leicester, (UK). Both cooperate in the Centre for Comparative Housing Research, a joint venture between the School of the Built Environment and OTB.     

Land supply and housing development: A comparative analysis of Britain and the Netherlands 1970–95

This article examines the relationship between land supply and housing development in Britain and The Netherlands, two countries conventionally perceived to be very different in this respect. The article forwards a dual approach to analysis. The first is focused on fundamental differences. These are elaborated in terms of demographic factors, political process and physical land conditions. The second approach expands on a framework devised by Needham & Lie (1994), which is adapted here for the analysis of land policy over time. The article examines the complex nature of land policy in both countries. It thereby highlights the difficulties in providing a robust analytical framework capable of bridging comparison over time and of concluding on the extent of policy convergence.     

Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: A review of recent literature

British and Dutch urban policies have advocated housing diversification and social mix in neighbourhoods subject to urban renewal. Question marks have been placed against the evidence base for the assumed social effects of diversification. This paper provides a review of research into the actual consequences of diversification in Great Britain and the Netherlands. After a brief policy discussion, the paper identifies five issues for which evidence is reviewed: housing quality and area reputation, neighbourhood-based social interactions, residential attitudes towards social mix, the role-model effect, and problem dilution. The review shows ambivalent results that necessitate modest expectations, especially with regard to area reputation, cross-tenure social interaction and residential attitudes. This ambivalence is partly due to unclear policy goals and policy terms as well as vagueness about the relevant spatial level. Moreover, the influence of tenure mix is often superseded by other, more important factors in residential satisfaction, such as lifestyle. The paper also argues that positive role-model effects in neighbourhoods have not yet been adequately studied and therefore remain based on conviction.     

Hidden from History? Housing Studies,the Perpetual Present and the Case of Social Housing in Britain

This paper examines the use and abuse of historical method in the field of housing studies, with specific reference to predictions about the future shape of social housing in Britain. It reflects on the debates about council housing in the early 1990s and sets these against subsequent policy developments. The paper suggests that this exercise reveals some shortcomings in dominant paradigms within housing studies, such as the misreading and misrepresentation of tenants' responses and reactions; the over-emphasis on consumption in assessing processes of housing sector change; the neglect of increasing spatial differentiation in housing markets across Britain; and the failure to appreciate the causes behind increasing volatility in some local housing markets. The paper argues for a more nuanced historical sensibility and a more adventurous methodology when forecasting the future direction of housing policies and the future characteristics of housing systems.     

Impacts of contrasting housing policies on low-income households in Australia and the Netherlands

This paper aims to contribute to the debate in comparative housing studies about the significance of national housing policies by considering what can be learnt from analysing the consequences of different policy paths. In particular, the paper looks at the evidence of the long-run impacts of different housing strategies adopted to assist lower-income households in Australia and the Netherlands, using housing affordability as a measure of their impact. Australia is an example of a country that has promoted mass home ownership across the income distribution supplemented by a very small public housing system. In contrast, the Netherlands has relied more on a large and diversified social housing sector. The comparative analysis shows that there are many similarities in the patterns of affordability among low-income households in the two countries despite the use of different policy means. In the past, both countries had good success providing secure and affordable housing for poorer households. Now, lower-income households are experiencing greater affordability problems that are linked to societal changes and the retrenchment of government housing assistance in both cases. However, the study also finds that affordability problems among lower-income households are worse in Australia because of the greater reliance on private housing in that country.     

Demise of the Dutch social housing tradition: impact of budget cuts and political changes

At the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008, the Dutch housing associations were in the position to perform a kind of anti-cyclical housing production that could save, at least partially, the total housing production in the Netherlands. In this contribution, we give insight into the way the housing associations managed to fulfil this specific task and more in general if the associations managed to strengthen their position since the economic crisis. After presenting the development and the main characteristics of the Dutch social rented sector, we give an overview of the general economy of the Netherlands since 2008, which suffers from the global credit crunch, followed by the debt crisis and the Euro crisis. Because of the strong international relations and the big size of the Dutch banking sector, the Netherlands appears to be very vulnerable for international financial problems. In the aftermath of the credit crunch, the Dutch government decided to give priority to a sound public budget and announced in 2010 and 2012 huge budget cuts. The rented sector was already faced with drastic reforms and huge budget cuts by the start of the Rutte I Cabinet in 2010. These policies are described and analysed. The increased impopularity of housing associations explains that these social housing providers were extremely hit by additional budget cuts. For the housing associations, the situation is threatening. The Rutte I and Rutte II Cabinets seem not to be aware of the rich tradition of the Dutch social housing sector and want to reduce the size of the social rented sector (now: 31 %) substantially. This contribution argues that there is the danger now that the austerity measures of the current government (Rutte II) will lead to the demise of the Dutch social housing tradition, although the housing associations could be a part of the solution for alleviating the current problems on the housing and construction market.     

Predicting construction firm performance: an empirical assessment of the differential impact between industry‐ and firm‐specific factors

It is obvious that the performance of firms hinges upon the dynamics of both industry‐ and firm‐specific factors. A less obvious, and perhaps a more important, line of inquiry is that to the extent that they have a bearing on firm performance, how much do these two groups of factors respectively predict firm performance? To date, performance differences among construction firms that stem from industry‐ and firm‐specific differential effect has remained largely unexplored. Using a dataset comprising 526 firms across various construction‐related sectors, the sector‐by‐sector firm performance variation that is attributable to the heterogeneity of both industry‐ and firm‐specific characteristics was empirically examined. That statistically significant results of different effect sizes are found indicates that although these factors are often assumed to be intertwined it is possible to study their respective impact on firm performance. Future studies could usefully replicate and extend this study to construction firms in other countries to further investigate what drives firm performance under different national, industry and firm contexts.     

Home ownership in recession

Since 1989, the home ownership sector in Britain has experienced a number of changes which would have been dismissed in advance as unlikely. Falling levels of transactions, falling house prices and falling new construction have been accompanied by rising mortgage arrears, rising repossessions and the emergence of home owners with negative equity. The impact of these changes on the wider economy has also contributed to a reassessment of home ownership. This paper outlines the key changes which have affected the home ownership sector in Britain and considers whether these changes are affecting attitudes to home ownership and state intervention to sustain the tenure. It also argues that the changes have been of sufficient duration to be regarded as more than a short‐term ‘blip’ and demonstrate the need to review some accounts of the tenure.     

High‐rise housing reconsidered: Some research and policy‐implications

High‐rise housing estates are generally seen as a problem. High‐rise blocks in the social sector on the edge of the city are implicitly written off. Although in the Netherlands high‐rise blocks are overrepresented among ‘problem’ blocks, high‐rise housing itself can not be classified as problematic. Evidence suggests that even in the case of nearly identical blocks, located in the same neighbourhood or housing market area, performance and social conditions differ. This article focuses on the ‘well functioning’ high‐rise blocks in the social sector, not on the ‘ill functioning’. Research providing a comparison of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ high‐rise blocks in two middle‐sized towns in the Netherlands is used to consider what can be learnt about the prospects and potential of social high‐rise housing in the near future.     

The significance of Swedish rental policy: Cost renting: Command economy versus the social market in comparative perspective

Recent literature on the Swedish rental system has missed the central significance of the Swedish system for international comparative purposes by neglecting the rent‐setting system and by unwittingly adopting an Anglo‐Saxon perspective. In this paper I attempt to rectify this by developing a comparative conceptual framework for the analysis of rental systems. I outline the post‐war history of the Swedish rent‐setting system, and argue that this constitutes an example of a unitary social rental market in the making, whereby public and private renting are integrated and public renting expands to become market leader for rent‐setting purposes. According to this model, public renting is allowed to compete with private renting such that its cost structure increasingly determines the rent levels on the rental market as a whole. This ‘market strategy’ constrasts to the Anglo‐Saxon model in which public renting is segregated from private renting, its growth suppressed (or even reversed through discounted sales) to prevent public renting competing with private renting and owner occupation. The ‘command policy’ uses the principles of the command economy to achieve the goal of sheltering both owner occupation and private renting from competition from a non‐profit form of rental housing. Other countries where a market policy has been adopted, such as Germany and the Netherlands, are also discussed.     

Fiscal policy,taxation incentives and inner‐city housing development

This paper considers the risk and uncertainty attached to inner‐city environments and analyses the use of taxation incentives as a policy instrument in generating demand‐led residential development in such localities. Initially an international perspective is outlined; however, particular attention is focused on Dublin, Ireland, where taxation breaks specifically orientated at both owner and occupiers and investors have been a prime influence in stimulating private sector residential development on a major scale within the central core of the city. The case is presented for the imaginative use of tax incentives in achieving effective urban regeneration. Whilst it is recognised that housing policy and mechanisms cannot simply be replicated from one situation to another, there is need for policy‐makers, especially in Britain, to consider more innovative approaches to inner city housing renewal by integrating macro‐economic, fiscal and housing policy objectives.