Search

AbstractIn an attempt to promote efficiency and consumer choice, many governments in Europe have in recent years required social housing organisations to be more market-orientated and competitive. Competition, however, is being discussed and implemented without any detailed examination of what is meant by the term ‘competition’ outside a conventional ‘market’, as is the case in social housing. It is not clear what exactly is meant by competition and this paper therefore focuses on the question of how competition can be operationalised and how it can be measured in practice.This paper concentrates on social housing in England and the Netherlands: two countries where competition in social housing is an issue. These two countries also have different social housing models. For both countries, we build on an evaluative framework based on the economic concepts of rivalry, risk and choice and then analyse the data to establish whether competition can be measured in a convincing way.

AbstractThe private rental sector has been declining in many European countries. In describing the decline of the private rental sector, it is often suggested that a causal relationship exists between the decrease in private renting and rent control. The assumption is that the stricter the form of rent control, the greater the decrease in private renting levels. Or, conversely, that with fewer rent controls there are more opportunities for the private rental sector. At the same time, however, an unregulated rental market may result in insecurity for tenants.This text focuses on conflicts of interest between private landlords and tenants in the regulation of rents, from a welfare economics viewpoint. We present the results of a comparative study that involves France, England, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands. We describe the system of rent regulation in each country. We conclude that the balance achieved between landlords and tenants as a result of rent regulation may not be as clear-cut as it is often presented to be.

AbstractSocial rental housing has once again captured a strong position on the Dutch political agenda. This has happened especially since the European Commission sent a letter to the Dutch government indicating that the Dutch social rental sector was not considered EU-proof from the viewpoint of the European Union's competition policy. The letter coincided with criticisms from Dutch politicians that housing associations had not been performing well enough for some time, given their abundant resources. However, in an international context, the Dutch social rental sector is often regarded as a good system for providing affordable housing to those who need it, without the sector being marginalized and stigmatized. Jim Kemeny has classified this market as one in which the social rental sector in due course competes with the private rental sector on equal or almost equal terms as a unitary rental market.The starting point of this paper is whether the achievement of a unitary rental sector is threatened by the EU's competition policy. It will also discuss two other possible threats to the future of the Dutch unitary rental market: the threat to take surplus capital away from housing associations and have government decide on what to invest; and the attractiveness of home-ownership to households. We conclude that the character of the Dutch unitary rental sector is indeed under threat, although mostly by stealth.

ABSTRACTThis paper examines the experience of households in two adjacent countries, Germany and the Netherlands, both of which have relatively modest levels of home ownership but significantly different housing systems. Population growth is slowing down in Germany, while it is still increasing in the Netherlands. German house prices are stable while Dutch prices have been rising considerably for 25 years now.The central question is whether people in these two different contexts, which are both faced with globalization and social security reforms, have similar perceptions of the securities and insecurities of home ownership. The paper is based on institutional studies and 20 interviews among home owners and ten interviews among tenants in both countries. The central issues here are the perceptions of (in)security and equity.The paper concludes that in both countries home ownership is perceived as a nest-egg and a ‘pension in stone’. However, it is also associated with insecurity. In Germany many households saw house prices as a source of insecurity. This can be explained by strong fluctuations in house prices in Germany and the fear that the declining population might adversely affect the situation and hence the ‘pension in stone’. In the Netherlands a policy change—particularly a change in tax relief for mortgage-holders—was the main worry.

ABSTRACTHome ownership sectors in most European countries have experienced growth in recent decades and by the mid-1990s the majority of EU15 households were home owners. While a great deal of attention has been paid to the rise in home ownership per se, the extent to which households in different EU member states strategize about the positive and negative risks of home ownership, particularly in relation to other risks in their lives, has not been researched. Contemporary debate suggests that society is a riskier one than in earlier times and home owners face a number of risks associated with changes in labour markets and national social security systems. This paper draws on interviews with households across eight European member states and examines households' perceptions of the security and insecurity aspects of home ownership and their responses to perceived risk. The analysis suggests that respondents' views are shaped by a wide range of factors, including at least to some extent the institutional context. Overall, however, respondents tended not to perceive negative risks and demonstrated a strong belief in the security aspects of home ownership.

Safeguarding the affordability of, and thereby access to, housing is a key issue in housing policies across Europe. Housing allowance schemes have become a more important tool in pursuit of this aim in many countries during the past few decades. This themed issue reports on developments and dilemmas concerning housing allowance schemes in five countries.