Search

Increased affluence and individual lifestyles have widely spread across western countries in recent decades. We expect this development to coincide with the use of more qualitative and more disaggregated research methods (the so called Mode 2 research methods) because these tools enable coping with a growing diversity of housing preferences. However, the usefulness of this partial explanation remains embedded in power relationships among relevant actors; theoretically also the influence of politicians, researchers and the building industry can explain this outcome. A successful diffusion of research methods depends on the research interest of all relevant actors (science, policy, consumption or industry driven agenda) in relation to the target housing market characteristics (quantitative or qualitative perspective). An empirical investigation of two countries: Finland and the Netherlands, shows some striking parallels in this respect but also some significant differences.

The distinction between dual rental systems and unitary rental markets is refined and developed. In particular, unitary rental markets are defined as markets in which barriers to nonprofit providers competing on the rental market are removed, reserving the term ‘integrated rental markets’ for markets in which non-profit providers are sufficiently developed to be able to compete without the need for invasive regulation. The study also develops the distinction made in previous work between markets in which non-profit providers influence, lead and dominate the market. Case studies are then presented: Switzerland, where non-profit renting is weakly influencing, Sweden where it is leading, and the Netherlands where it is dominating. It is concluded that while in both the Netherlands and Sweden there is evidence of continual deregulation consistent with a tendency from unitary to integrated markets, there is no evidence of consistent change in that direction and even signs of some retrograde changes.