Search

The paper will argue that the meaning and definition of private renting varies from country to country, and this presents a series of challenges for comparative research. It will demonstrate a lack of equivalence between 'private rented housing sectors' in western Europe and show that this arises from variations in definitions, property rights, the role of the tenure in relation to other tenures, and differences in the characteristics of both landlords and tenants. It will show that an argument can be made that the private rental sector is a different phenomenon in different countries but that comparisons are still valuable. It will argue that between the extremes of universalism, that emphasise similarities, and particularism that emphasises differences, middle way approaches that consider contexts, apply commensurability and apply theory that is fit for purpose all have strong methodological advantages. The argument will be expanded by reference to the authors' work on applying the concept of a competitive gap between market and social renting in six European countries.

AbstractThis paper will set out the concept of a ‘gap’ between the social rented and market rented housing sector. This will be examined with respect to one aspect of competition between the two sectors in England, France, the Netherlands and Germany: substitutability. The analysis will involve an examination of the extent to which tenants can choose between the two sectors. The price-quality bundles of housing services as expressed by the characteristics of the accommodation, the property rights of the tenants, the allocation system and the housing allowances in the different countries will be compared. Competition measured in this way seems to be rather larger than smaller in the Netherlands and Germany and rather small in England. France's intermediate sector partly closes the gap between both rental tenures.

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.

ABSTRACTThis paper reviews the proposal for a new tax on the ‘windfall gains’ arising from the granting of planning permission for residential development in the UK. The theoretical foundations in the theory of economic rent are discussed and the practical problems of applying such a tax, in the form of a ‘Planning-gain Supplement’, are explored. The relationship between any new explicit taxation and implicit taxation through planning agreements is examined. The reactions to this proposal, which come from the Barker Review of Housing Supply, are considered. It is shown that much of the criticism is about implementation difficulties rather than matters of principle. The problem of measuring the site-specific value of economic rent is discussed and the resolution is seen to be in viability appraisals that determine the changes in residual value that are a consequence of planning permission. The data requirements for such an approach are set out. It is argued that a detailed taxation proposal will need to include clear relationships between other demands on the development process, especially the provision of affordable housing through planning.

The difficulties of clearly distinguishing private and social rented housing in a western European context are set out. The issues are illustrated by information for Germany and France. It is argued that comparative housing tenure data can be misleading and that distinctions in terms of ownership are of less significance for resource allocation than the specifics of the relationship between the state and the housing market. The significant production, distribution, pricing, subsidy and profit issues as they relate to rented housing are identified. The policy implications of an approach which is resource allocation rather than tenure orientated is outlined.

This article argues the case for a reconsideration of the aims and methods of comparative housing research and advocates more attention to scientific inquiry rather than accepting descriptive information as a satisfactory end product. More genuine comparative analysis is required. The examination of similarities and differences in housing systems and of the relationships between policy objectives and instruments should be done by reasoned hypothesis testing rather than the application of terminology posing as explanation. This work will involve, it is argued, more attention to the examination of data. There is a need to consider the nature and consistency of existing data and to create new data. The requirements of more basic information on housing gathered from a range of countries, improved data and taxonomies, plus hypothesis generation and testing points to the need for researchers typified as explorers, empiricists, theorists, and scientists.

The article discusses the political status of the Republican Party in the U.S. and specifically in Ohio. It states that Republicans lost in the 2006 and 2008 U.S. elections due to the anti-corruption wave in 2006 but they are ready for a comeback in the 2010 elections with the belief that Rob Portman and John Kasich will win. The article discusses the discontent of citizens with the Democratic Party.

Reports on the statement of chairman Michael Oxley regarding the mortgage reform and consumer protection laws in Ohio. Development of consensus in the Congress; Political planning of Oxley; Preservation on the protection of the rights of the consumers.