The Egalitarian city: The restructuring of Amsterdam

Since the mid‐1970s, urban policy makers have responded to the pressures of fiscal crisis and unemployment by reducing expenditures and subsidizing business for the purpose of stimulating economic growth. The behaviour of urban governments largely corresponded with the argument of Paul Peterson that cities were forced to pursue economic growth at the expense of redistribution. Nevertheless, the response to economic forces, while generally in a market‐oriented direction, was not uniform within western cities. In particular, the Amsterdam municipality remains notable for its egalitarian policies when compared with London or New York. Housing policy has been a major instrument in maintaining the quality of life for the city's lower‐income population. Because subsidized housing units, as well as recipients of individual housing benefits, are scattered throughout the city, housing policy has sharply restricted spatial inequality of households by income. Moreover, the very large public subsidy involved in housing construction, by keeping rent levels low and thereby raising disposable income, has contributed substantially to popular welfare, mitigating class differentiation and thereby weakening resistance to residential integration of different income groups. This paper examines policies for physical and economic development in Amsterdam and their effect on social and spatial inequality. The conclusion briefly compares Amsterdam's trajectory with that of London and New York, then finally attempts to explain the continuing differences.