in Europe
Edited by Christine Whitehead and Kathleen Scanlon

Published by LSE London,
London School of Economics and Political Science

July 2007

ISBN 978-0-85328-100-9

Foreword 4
John Hills
Preface 1. Introduction and Key Findings 5
The idea for this book came from a multidisciplinary group of French aca- 2. Social Housing in Europe 8
demics based at different Paris universities that was organised by the GIS Christine Whitehead & Kathleen Scanlon
Réseau Socio-Economie de l'Habitat network, which receives support from
the PUCA (Plan Urbain Construction Amenagement, the Research Office of 3. Social Housing in Austria 35
the Ministry of Capital Works and Housing). Over the course of the last 18 Christoph Reinprecht
months, the group has met five times (in Brussels, Paris, London and 44
4. Social Housing in Denmark
Berlin). Each meeting was devoted to discussion of different issues related
to social housing, and local organisations or government bodies often pro- Kathleen Scanlon & Hedvig Vestergaard
vided some financial support. One of these seminars, generously supported 5. Social Housing in England 54
by the Department of Communities and Local Government, was held in
London in September 2006. Christine Whitehead
6.Social Housing in France 70
We would like to thank the authors of the reports for their hard work and
patience. We would also like to thank all those who participated in the Claire Levy-Vroelant & Christian Tutin
events who offered helpful comments and advice. They included: Jane Ball, 7. Social Housing in Germany 90
Nathalie Boccadoro, Nick Bulloch, Claire Carriou, Darinka Czischke, Benoit
Filippi, Laurent Ghekiere, Christine Lelevrier, Peter Malpass, Alan Murie, Christiane Droste & Thomas Knorr-Siedow
Jean-Pierre Schaefer, Maxime Chodorge, Marc Uhry and Mark Stephens. 8. Social Housing in Hungary 105
We are grateful to the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) which József Hegedüs
helped to fund this publication through the LSE London Research Centre 9. Social Housing in the Republic of Ireland 118
together with a seminar bringing out the issues for London. Finally, we would
Declan Redmond & Michelle Norris
like to thank Ben Kochan for putting the final touches to the publication and
bringing it to fruition. 10. Social Housing in the Netherlands 130
Marja Elsinga and Frank Wassenberg
11. Social Housing in Sweden 148
Bengt Turner
12. Social Housing in Transition Countries 165
József Hegedüs
The Contributors 178

Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe

Foreword 1. Introduction and Key Findings
John Hills Social Housing in Europe
The debate around the future of social housing in England is currently more active
than it has been for many years. Demand pressures on housing in general - and on
social housing in particular - are intense. Concerns have grown about the concentra-
tion of much social housing in particular disadvantaged areas, and about the low lev- This booklet aims to give an overview of the social housing sector in Europe. The
els of economic activity amongst tenants. intention is to identify general patterns and important trajectories, that are likely to
impact on future policy. Our goal is not to provide detailed descriptions of the sector
But much of this debate has been insular, while - as the papers in this collection reveal
in every country, but to understand its key attributes and to clarify major trends. In
- other European countries are grappling with similar problems, suggesting that we
particular we hope to convey a feel for political and other pressures for change in each
could have much to learn from the approaches they are developing to tackle them.
country. This book is made up of a comparative analysis of the trends in nine
Strikingly, issues of polarisation and segregation are common, even between coun- European countries alongside individual reports provided by housing specialists from
tries where the scales of social housing are very different. Equally - with the excep- those countries. The first section by Kathleen Scanlon and Christine Whitehead brings
tion, for fiscal reasons, of Hungary - social housing is the focus of renewed policy together the main strands from the national reports and aims to provide some com-
attention across the group. parative insight. The papers about nine european countries and the transition coun-
tries follow a similar structure but stylistically are very different reflecting the variations
This collection provides a very welcome account of recent trends and debates within in institutions and priorities in each country and the experts' differing views.
a consistent framework, which in itself sets England's position in context. But it also
highlights new policies that may suggest lessons: Denmark's new law to allow hous- The focus is mainly on western European countries that have some tradition of gov-
ing associations to sell property to improve social mix; France's difficulties in meeting ernments treating housing as an element of social policy. Hungary and other eastern
ambitious targets for new social house-building; Germany's approach of establishing European countries are briefly included for comparison.
a 'socially integrative city'; or the debate in the Netherlands about the potential uses
Key findings
of the considerable surpluses accumulated by its housing associations.
· In the countries studied (Austria, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Hungary,
This volume offers a rich range of ideas as to how the UK and its fellow European
Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden), social housing as a percentage of the
countries might consider addressing one of their most pressing issues in terms of
housing stock ranges from a high of 35% in the Netherlands to a low of 4% (after
managing their social housing stock, ensuring adequate housing for all and achieving
mass privatisation) in Hungary. In most countries this percentage has fallen over
mixed sustainable communities. The timing of this publication is particularly appropri-
the last ten years as the provision of social housing has not kept pace with over-
ate gven the emphasis the new UK government under Gordon Brown is giving to
all building, and/or social units have been privatised or demolished.
affordable housing.
· There is no single definition of social housing across Europe. There are definition-
John Hiills is Director of the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion and Professor
al issues particularly around the position of co-operatives, time limited subsidies,
of Social Policy at the LSE. He recently conducted a review into the future role of
and the role of private suppliers.
social housing for the UK Government. His publications include: A More Equal
Society: New Labour, Poverty, Inequality and Exclusion (co-editor) (2005) and · The profile of the social housing stock differs across countries in terms of age,
Inequality and the State (2004). housing type, and the percentage located on estates. In many countries the prob-

4 5

although so far not much in the way of action or money. Equally built estates. and providing it for those in greatest housing need (often immigrants with few local ties). it is true to say that the As a result it is becoming more difficult for employed households and those house- social sector generally houses a disproportionate number of single-parent fami. This can mean that private finance funds provision by traditional social owners. is growing. · Housing providers and funding regimes vary by country. a problems of segregation are a matter of concern across all types of social rented growing commitment to social housing in the political rhetoric. to find affordable options. Rents linked to ten- ant incomes have particular disadvantages: they normally do not cover provider 6 7 .and regation and the position of vulnerable households. the need for affordable housing will actually occur. · There has been a revival of interest in social housing as one way in which govern. often on large estates . market housing. and they do not reflect the relative attributes of individual dwellings. only housing for the poor is considered to be ‘a service of general economic inter- est’. the elderly. but too little to pay for lies. · Social housing serves different client groups in different countries . for households that would otherwise live in demographic and income pressures. or · Overall the tensions and pressures across Europe are surprisingly similar. at the same time in most countries modation. · There is no agreement about the best way to set social rents. Housing providers are · The 'very social' sector. while in others it houses low-waged working families or · In tightening housing markets there is a widening gap between the usually inex- even the middle classes while the very poor are accommodated elsewhere. what- private developers themselves becoming involved in operating social housing. Efforts are also being · Countries where social housing caters for employed households on reasonable made to introduce a greater mix in the existing stock and to use public assets incomes are running into problems with the EU for subsidising the undeserving - more effectively. if anything. and the poor. holds with incomes too high to qualify for social housing. with concentrations of particular groups being seen as problematic. improve tenure mix in deprived areas. ever the original role of the social sector in each country. household composition and restricted access to other tenures. Even so. linking rents to actual expenditure on investment is seen as generating major issues of affordability and segregation. role here. · Some countries promote intermediate tenures such as shared ownership. few countries have sectors. Housing associations and charities are playing a greater there has been a shift towards more local decision-making. · New social housing is generally on mixed-tenure sites.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe lems of social housing are almost synonymous with those of post-war industrially costs. There is increasing recognition of the tension between providing social housing for long-time local residents. which offers temporary and sometimes precarious accom- increasingly separate from local authorities. mainly because of poverty. identified new funding streams to ensure that the investment necessary to meet · Ethnic minorities live disproportionately in social housing. This can be part of an explicit policy to introduce or increasing new supply . In many countries there is interest in social rented housing. In a pensive social rented sector and an increasing expensive owner-occupied sector. as well ments can meet the increasing overall requirement for housing that stems from as subsidised owner-occupation. The emphasis is very much on partnership and mixed communities with particular concerns about seg- · Increasingly highly targeted subsidies are seen as leading to residualisation . The residential pattern of minorities is becoming a political issue in some countries. · The potential for public/private partnership is being explored in several countries. While there is. few there is a wide range of income some it is a tenure of the very poor.

g.the exception is Denmark where output con.000 of social housing. and most importantly. France England 70 11 18 3. Austria and France). Netherlands and Ireland 80 11 8 124. Not otherwise stated: from experts' country reports Trends in the total supply of social housing Across the countries.000 The supply of social housing Hungary 92 4 4 167. This is in part an out- In the majority of countries included in the survey the social housing stock has been come of increasing house prices across most of Europe. in part a result of demographic factors. 8 9 . the relevant funding and/or subsidy stream (e.g. In some countries the numbers have fallen increasing migration. *Sweden: owner occupation includes cooperatives try's own definition which reflects their own views of the nature and importance of **France: Does not include 6.800. owner-occupation more Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 2. Table 1 gives the latest figures for tenure split and the number of ***Germany: owner occupation includes shared ownership/equity 'Genossenschaften'.1 million in 1979. where the total supply has fall. notably tinues to keep pace with total provision.1% 'other' social housing. tor.rather we must use each coun.000 and Germany).000 England). mainly as a result of the Right to as a result of privatisation. In some countries social housing is formally France** 56 20 17 4. demand for social housing is seen as being generally high and growing.g.union-hlm.000 dwellings (e.vrom. and in part a function of the worsening distribution of incomes in many countries.notably non-profit organisa- tions and local authorities (e. Ireland and England).983. LSE Social rental occupation rental social units Netherlands 54 11 35 2. The percentage of social housing ranges from Sources: France: from www. the pur- pose for which the housing is provided. the Netherlands and Sweden). Social Housing in Europe Table 1: Housing tenure/size of social sector Owner Private Number of Kathleen Scanlon & Christine Whitehead.. whether or not rents are below market levels (e. which tends to put additional pressure on the private rented sec- very significantly . with almost 4.25 million Germany: from Scanlon & Whitehead (2001).cbs. in almost all of the countries included. social housing units in each country.230. Germany 46*** 49 6 1. Definitions may relate to ownership .000 In a number of the countries included in this survey there is no single formal definition Denmark 52 17 21 530.000 available to all households (e. who constructs the Sweden 59* 21 20 780. www. en by over a million from a high of 5. which have made entry into declining at least in proportional terms . Intl trends in hsg tenure & mortgage finance dwellings in the social sector.000 Definitions of social housing Austria 55 20 25 800.g. England lies second even after the significant decline Netherlands: www. Austria and Sweden) but in most it is actually direct- ed at those who cannot serve their own housing needs (e.400. Hungary: from Housing Statistics in the European Union 2004 France has the highest number of social housing a high of 35% in the Netherlands to a low of 4% (after mass privatisation) in Hungary.000 The varying definitions of social housing mean that it is impossible to provide strictly comparable figures on the supply of social housing .this is notably the case in England. with long waiting lists at least in major urban areas.

Austria has been particularly effective at expanding the out- put of social housing. about 100. northern England). the disabled. Privatisation has tended to remove the better-quality stock from the social sector. if not social. France. although these have Netherlands). in part to allow the land asset to be used tal problems. 1960s and 1970s (not all of which is substandard) is tainable buildings or those with zero carbon emissions (Germany. In some countries (England and Ireland). landlords can decide whether or not they wish to sell (the in the Netherlands nearly all is owned by housing associations. operative rented housing). where for many years there have been time-limited subsidy arrangements. eastern Germany and ability can only be met by expanding the provision of affordable. 50% Since the turn of the century there has been growing interest in expanding social sec- tor provision in a number of countries --notably because of the political pressures aris. sometimes at higher densi- tries. while while in others. others since the Ownership late 1990s (the Netherlands). In Denmark. still others (Denmark) are only now taking tentative first Figure 1 shows the ownership of social housing in the countries studied (excluding co- steps. and sometimes for large families. restructuring. 10% cies. but include housing for the elder- more effectively. Denmark. The definitions of special needs differ. housing. there is increasing emphasis on the construction of sus- social housing from the 1950s. for example. There is also a while the Netherlands prioritises housing for homeless people and people with men- movement towards mixed-use development. and now the UK). Overall there is some acceptance that the growing issues of afford- Municipally owned or controlled Housing association 10 11 . Copenhagen has committed to a large increase in the numbers of affordable 0% units. In terms of dwelling types. In the particular case of Germany. ly.000 units of social housing per Figure 1 Ownership of social housing year move to the private sector as rent restrictions expire. England and the Netherlands). 100% New social sector output 90% The majority of countries are still building social sector housing. ties aimed at providing mixed communities and greater sustainability. In 70% some countries (Germany. Netherlands. Amsterdam and the Paris area. Even in pressure areas like Dublin. while in France the lack of affordable housing was a major political issue in the Hungary Sweden Ireland England Austria France Denmark Netherlands 2007 elections. All social housing in Hungary is municipally owned. Large estates that are demolished (in whole or in part) are often replaced by mixed- Special needs housing takes up an increasing percentage of new build in many coun- tenure housing (France. In England the government has committed to providing a net 20% increase of 200. 40% ing from increased problems of access and affordability as well as concerns about 30% overall levels of output. so provision depends on 60% local initiatives. Hungary and most other transition countries) the means of increasing supply through national subsidy no longer exist. Ireland is looking to implement similar poli. in part through the use of planning obligations. over 50% of new social housing is special-needs.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Nevertheless. there is oversupply in some areas (for example. although in most 80% countries there has been a significant decline in output over the last two decades. tenants have a right to purchase. the being demolished. and increasing emphasis on policies of large-scale demolition and However there are few new sources of funding being identified.000 units in total and more than doubling social housing output. Some countries (Ireland and the UK) have allowed sales for decades.

EU monetary centage of social housing in new developments. ing is 'social' only for a limited period. Ireland. Kiel and Dresden. Other countries. Issues of ownership are closely linked to issues of government subsidy and the potential to fund social housing at least in part through private finance. countries where the owners and managers of the stock remain formally in the social opers supplying free or cheap land and the use of the land use planning system to sector but use private finance to fund additional provision (usually with the help of sub- enable provision. · Between 20% to 50% on larger new and regeneration developments must be Private-sector provision has long been the norm in the German system. in the transition economies and in Germany · Cities such as Munich are requiring private developers to include a certain per- there is no longer any appetite for national funding. it is the local authority's policy that private developers must transfer 20% of new dwellings on large sites. even though a wide variety of providers are to a 50/50 split. Public-private partnership arrangements have been used to finance and imple- The private sector is becoming increasingly involved (willingly or not) in the provision ment the regeneration of a small number of social rented estates in Dublin. Government subsidies for new provision and regeneration are increasingly targeted and limited. The details of this new policy are still being developed.that is.and those countries where pure- ly private developers and construction firms are significantly involved in development France and ownership. Several countries have introduced initiatives to supply social and intermediate hous- ing with more shallow subsidies and private involvement (England. then moves onto the free market unless owned There is also a new initiative to allow private-developer social housing. The Netherlands where subsidies for the construction of social housing are available to private individ- uals and companies who are becoming increasingly important providers. the housing asso. affordable housing .g. of social housing. the most important distinctions are therefore still between those the Netherlands and Germany). but these are entirely local initia- requirements and other constraints have reduced available funds. and built affordable housing. including notably many transition and almost all social provision in the 19th century was by private and charitable southern European countries. is hardly surprising that there is growing emphasis on the role of the private sector. with close about the possibility of privatisation. Specific examples include: sidy) .notably through public-private Ireland partnership. There is considerable concern within the current political environment 12 13 . There is · Recently a private developer has for the first time purchased land at a 'social' price also growing use of public/private partnership. have sold off their whole municipal stock to private equity owners. Germany ciation sector now funds all its own investment. England is in the middle. Germany e. In terms of provision. In this context. are simply dipping a toe into the water. providers. where hous. This is seen as an important demonstration project. it tives. The general trend is towards declining municipal involvement and increasing diversi- ty in the range of actors involved in social provision . for instance. involved in social housing and financial streams are available to non-profits that use private finance. These often depend on local government or devel. England.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe traditionally been guaranteed by municipalities. · In Dublin. to the city for use as social or Investment and involvement of the private sector affordable housing. but the by the municipality. Private participation is also a core element in the Austrian system. An important new development here has been that some cities in vast majority of provision will continue to involve housing associations.this is currently enabling about half of all new social provision. In the Netherlands. or the equivalent. especially in Vienna. in Sweden the sector actually makes a positive contribution to government. England not only in undertaking investment but also in funding that investment. the Netherlands and Ireland . Denmark. Germany and Austria are clearly the most representative countries · In many ways France was the country that originated public/private partnership: using this second approach. More generally.

In most countries they vary according to the attributes of the units. often larger and bet- France R. be decided by governments (England. be increased to cover maintenance and minor improvements. rents are directly related to value. LNC depending on the funding regime. In other countries it is permis- sible to pool rents across the whole stock or even across owners (the Netherlands and England). The system by which rents are determined is nearly always national (except in Hungary and some other transition countries. Denmark is a particularly relevant example here.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Table 2: Who makes decisions regarding social housing Austria in 1987/88. and in Ireland until the early 1980s). which creates an incentive to carry out larger- Sweden R. € ANC LNC ter located estates frequently have lower rents than newer. Thus older. ANC = amount of new construction R = system for rent determination LNC = location of new construction € = definition of financing/subsidy system The way that rents on individual dwellings are determined also differs between coun- Decision-making tries. LNC organization. A rather different issue. LNC. € Social rent regimes and comparison with private rents Table 3 provides some detail on how rents in the social sector are determined across Denmark R. or in negotiation with providers. Rents cannot. Netherlands R. however. In some countries these organization-based rents are the same as the estate-based rents found in Denmark. In these circumstances. € ANC. In England R. In Ireland. which allow rents to be increased. € ANC. the greater the capacity to pool rents the easier it is to under- = in negotiation with take investment on particular estates. Denmark in 1994. LNC the survey countries. and to a lesser extent some made about the amount and location of new construction. rents are related directly to tenant income. In other countries there Local/ is a shift from municipal to independent and partnership providers. LNC scale renovations. In France rents may be estate or owner-based. several countries have seen formal shifts from national to more local decision-making. LNC even maintenance may not take place. Hungary in the 1990s. and subsidies. France and Hungary) or by negotiation between landlords and tenants (Sweden). € ANC. In general. LNC. LNC many of these countries rents are set at the level of the estate. In the Netherlands. In these circumstances. In most of these countries rents are cost-based . the Netherlands in 1989. which may reduce Central/federal provincial local democratic input. rental income has to cover the costs incurred by the owning Ireland R.that is. is how rent increases are determined. € ANC. as they are in England but in both Who makes decisions about social housing? Table 2 shows where decisions are countries this is modified by income factors. € estates. These may other matters are usually decided by local authorities. parts of Germany. although there is a national fund that can subsidise renovation costs on needy Hungary R. France in 1982. smaller. ANC. Estates that undertake large-scale renovation may be forced to increase rents beyond the capacities of the tenants to pay. 1991. and relate to historic costs from when the estate was built or renovated. In most other countries. LNC ANC. 2000 and 2004 and Germany in 2006. less well-located units. € ANC. ANC. however. they must cover financial outgoings (less supply subsidies where these are available). political pressures Over the last 20 years. LNC. These are usually the result of specific legislation .including 14 15 . renovation and Germany R € ANC. LNC. Austria R ANC. rent levels.

Germany In some regions rents vary with Rent on new leases free. value' (size and standard) do not necessarily reflect the relative desirability of individ- ual dwellings and can lead to vacancies as well as excess demand. Rent control abolished 1981 now Average rent €155/month.83/ m2/month cific regulatory framework. The formal limits may. market determined. generating major affordability/maintenance tensions. private slightly higher. Access to social housing England Rent restructuring regime based Market determined for properties In most but not all countries there are income limits for households who wish to live on local earnings and the let since 1988 in social housing.67/m /month especially in pressure areas (England and Ireland). Even rents based on 'utility between landlords and tenants. but cost-rent countries thus advocate moving towards a more market-oriented system maximum rents (vary by region). Countries with low average €353/month. where private rents are market-deter- 2 mined the differences between private and social rents may be very large indeed. rents. rises regulated.5/1%. be so high that most of the popu- dwelling price. 16 17 . rent systems are generally bound up with housing benefit or rent allowance systems. private Denmark Cost-based. Table 3 also summarises information about these there is de facto no regulation) controls. Netherlands Rent based on utility value of Also controlled.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Table 3: Social and private rent determination may intervene to affect rental income and therefore the landlords' capacity to maintain Social Private and improve stock.g. Finally. average rent dwelling and target household €419/month. private < 10% in others private rents are set by a mirror process linking private to social. These do not exist in some transition economies. In many European countries. This also tends to lead to major problems of management and mainte- Hungary Set by local authorities Market based nance. rents are higher than social rents. Some housing experts in France Central government decrees Rent on new leases free. Countries where rents are related to income also tend to have small social sectors income level. Average (Ireland. Cost based related to estate or than social rents. Average 2005 Average €6. Even in countries where similar rules apply to all rented housing. 30-40% higher (e. In addition. private as well as social rents are by law related to costs. HAs and LAs must limits and social housing. cover outgoings. they generate inadequate revenue streams and make it more difficult to employ private finance in Sweden Set by annual negotiation Private rents limited by social the sector. rents (Hungary and Ireland) have affordable housing in that sector. Ireland Tenants pay % of income in rent. however. €4-7/ rises regulated There is no agreement about the best way to set an equitable and efficient rent for m2/month social housing. Cost rents by definition cover historic costs. owner Rents related to income also fail to reflect market forces. €6. Austria Cost-based. but household income. and so produce important distortions.4% of building cost Private rents also regulated. increases RPI plus lation is eligible (Austria and France). Table 4 summarises information about income 0. Experts generally argue against this system. but receipts do not cover costs. but the scale of the difference depends on the spe- + bank charges. 3. At the other extreme. Also cost based. in still oth- higher (in post-1953 buildings ers rent increases are constrained. and outside our remit the USA and Australia). Denmark). but have no direct rela- tion to market forces.

Under EU legisla- eligible at entry income later tion.not income as such. in practice allo- England No Yes 100* NA cation is on the basis of priority housing need . Denmark CG LG/LL LA 25% / LL 75% England CG LG/LL LL Hungary Yes Yes Very limited France CG LL LL/O Ireland Yes Yes No data but very Rent rises limited Germany LG (Regional) LG LL Netherlands Yes.5 happen in practice) gible for housing allowances. Denmark No Yes 100 NA if the dwelling burns down or the house is compulsorily purchased).although the household will generally no longer be eli- Middle 65. CG = central government LG = local/regional government LL = landlord O = other 18 19 . above the limits Table 5: The allocation of social housing (Fehlbelegungsabga Sets rules for Determines eligibility Assigns household be). although technically everyone is eligible (e. only Services of a General Economic Interest (SGEI) may receive state subsi- Formal De facto exceeds limit dies and housing for middle and higher-income groups does not qualify. However rarely eligibility of individual house. what happens if household income subsequently type: small supplement exceeds the ceiling for initial entry? In several countries the rent remains unchanged Highest dwelling done. Germany Yes Yes Probably 20%. as it drives hold people with social capacity out of social Austria CG LG/LL LG/LL housing estates. and in Low 30 Ireland the rent rises because rents in Ireland are linked directly to household income. These coun- tries have had to 'Europe-proof' their social housing sectors by creating a clear divi- Austria Yes Yes.7 (does not always (Austria and the Netherlands) . but The municipality has Central governments usually make the rules about who is permitted to live in social lower availability the right to raise the housing.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Table 4: Access to social housing: income limits Countries with traditionally near universal access to social housing (Sweden and Income limits at entry % of population What happens if Denmark) must take care not to run foul of European Union rules. France Yes Yes Varies by housing Tenant should pay In countries with income criteria. tenants pay a small supplement. but 80-90 Rent unchanged sion between services that are eligible for government subsidy and those that are not. rather high At the other extreme is England where. while local governments or landlords determine whether individual house- rent for people holds fulfill those requirements. for Yes <40 Rent unchanged Hungary LG LG LG affordable housing Ireland CG LG LL stock** Netherlands LG LL LL LL Sweden No Yes 100 NA Sweden LG/LL LL LL * But access based on housing need **Housing associations also provide more expensive dwellings that are available to all.g. In France. and assign them to appropriate dwellings (Table 5).

This in case of Denmark. In most countries. because it is felt that estates should turn links to wider issues of the scale of the social sector and the availability of other house a substantial percentage of employed people in order to have the right social tenures to accommodate lower-income employed households.local Joint allocation Special needs hous- able and those in most extreme housing need.partly in Yes . locally defined cri. ly simply easy families and LAs that still because of history ing on specific groups. ex-addicts and female victims of domestic violence. or the poorest members of society. because of the history of past provision and access and determine have stock of provision.g. There are Netherlands None (except for employed in some areas of Rotterdam) acute housing households in vulnerable also institutions for provider more need according to people temporary housing Sweden None in principle. In political terms it is directly municipal linked to the more general issue of who is seen as the main client group for social housing 20 21 . homeless dwellings in people housed by France Employees of any firm that contributes to the 1% housing tax. part. the private rented sector is raises difficult trade-off issues. But they are rented sector allocation for a high concen. for anyone in employment. Housing for HAs and local responsibility to between LAs centrated in inde- these groups is sometimes known as 'very social' housing and may be provided by government. to accommodate the vulner. partnership with authority has processes ing and hostels con- psychiatric patients. needs. Homeless and prior- homelessness in general. asylum Austria England Key workers (only in intermediate housing) regional level) emergency seekers. Although some normally live in the social sector. especially in the context of growing problems of afford- also often an important source of accommodation . trations in ity allocated by LA This is a particularly difficult area to make comparisons. some in practice than social rent. and provision for specific groups who need additional care. homeless people.quite often the municipality but also charities concentrat. for the homeless ing or owner teria Housing for the most vulnerable: 'very social' housing occupation Social housing is used in many countries. as in the housing: low-income working households. Table 6: Priority for key workers Table 7: 'Very social' housing: where the vulnerable live Types of workers who may receive priority for social housing Private rented Social sector in Concentrated Concentrated in Austria Key workers/in employment sector general in municipal independent social landlords Denmark In employment (not only key workers) Yes (migrants) No (exceptions at Partly (Vienna: Partly (e. or indeed. Equally it country.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Eligibility rules often include special treatment for key workers. tration of very residents. This concern with social mix has increasing resonance across Europe. separate funding streams. which case it is sometimes pro- ability. there appears to be a distinction between responsibility for Housing Benefit priorities higher concen. about how to provide for the very poor. England Yes . for example. mix (Table 6). In pendent sector different types of landlord . Table 7 gives some indication of where particularly vulnerable households live in each as issues of segregation rise to the surface and up the political agenda. house homeless and HAs. not recognised as Ireland None functions as social cases . the excluded and those with special vided as 'quasi-social housing' (Table 8). though not all. municipal charities) housing) Germany Key workers are a de facto target group (necessary income) Denmark Easy access The municipality By tradition this Asylum seekers Hungary Key workers means the private can use its 25% sector has had yes.

under which local authorities will lease accommoda- which are man. However the people tend to live in social sector provides the majority of special needs housing. Yes. dences sociales of excluded is highly limited. but the sec. support. especially among single peo- England Hungary Almost entirely ple. LA involvement housed housed Municipalities contract with the private sector to house very vulnera- especially in Germany ble people where limited social housing determining individual based About 1/3 of private tenants receive an income-related housing subsidies allowance. but only in No. However demolitions and gentrification are reducing the availability of privately provided Ireland Yes with some Most of those Most of those units. Because there is no access to social housing for very poor people receive public households Temporary hous. vulnerable but Traditionally 'de facto social housing' accommodating the vulnerable very limited has been provided and owned by the private sector.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe France Yes. municipal housing Sweden No . New supposed to posed to be Does part of the private rented sector function in practice like and private fur. although No. with the social provision France sector concentrating on employed households. provided by charitable Private rented sector is the most important tenure for provision of associations. the 'cheap' and badly funding ing of homeless Austria equipped private sector serves as a kind of social housing. etc. is increasingly However. Denmark emergency housing for those who do not meet local criteria for social housing. and it is highly difficult for immigrants. responsibility lies with Private rented sector with housing benefit provides for a significant municipality proportion of homeless households. it is overpriced and precarious. the tenants will pay the local aged by a special authority an income-related rent as mainstream local authority ten- organisation for ants do. homeless. These households will now be transferred to a Ireland many dwellings new scheme.only through housing allowances. Asylum Table 8: Quasi-social housing tor has low-demand departments are seekers are sup- shrunk.about half of the private Sweden Younger single Poorest families Netherlands rental sector is affordable for lower income groups. It also disproportionately houses new inmigrants and the made up of very mobile poor. 'emergency' Netherlands 5% 65% (housing None 30% (with build.Hotels areas. but in practice about 1/3 of recipients receive it for eighteen associations own ings of their own) months or longer. 22 23 . It was originally envisaged as a short term. tion for them from private landlords. accommodation but their number dation used.) It depends on the definition of social -. Germany Yes Yes. such as resi. housing types facilitate housed in CADA social housing? nished accommo.

P. but Table 9 gives an overview of who is eligible for individual housing subsi. O 3 types. O Depends on income and All households must pay a housing tends to house the young and the old. P Based on rent of specific prop. and rent below €541/month In all the Western European countries both social and private tenants are eligible for such subsidies. supporting the departure of (which varies by area and is the middle class from social subsidies According to complex formu- Hungary and other transition countries there are no national arrangements and most related to income and (cold) las cities do not have funding to provide individual subsidies. Netherlands S. some Depends on income and rent rent levels or rent increases young adults . Owner-occupiers also rent (or mortgage payment). O a) Wohngeld . tenants have a particular demographic profile. except in Ireland. This can be seen as a positive development - lower than actual rents) is cov. rent allowance.up to full rent. rent supplement. This percentage varies. as well as single parents and larger household size.even Sweden and Denmark where there is a tradition of universal access to social housing . receivers of social benefits get the full rent as part of the ben- Table 9: Individual subsidies efit system (Hilfe zum Available Eligibility Amount Lebensunterhalt. Denmark S. In the majority of such countries social security is generous enough to its (space and rent level). long-term to unemployed) Austria S. eligible thereafter a % of 'eligible rent' and many countries have positive policies to promote it. O Families. P. schemes etc). However. In many countries commentators identify concerns about increasing income and 24 25 .but Demographics and characteristics (pilot based rarely full in private sector on local rents in private sector) Everywhere .notably those where housing assistance has Lower medium income group. it also leads to income and tenure polarisation. O* Low income households with Pensioners maximum children and pensioners €410/month. these households achieve their aspirations and the subsidies that go to provide social ered. others €398 S = social tenants P = private tenants O = owner-occupiers England S. but all tenures minimum of about €30/month. criteria. pensioners.Maximum 100% of rent and *Only pensioners erty and household income eligible service charges . receive subsidies in some countries . Sweden and (Federal subsidy)b) within lim- Denmark. It is not within the scope of this report to cover this very complicated topic thor- oughly. In Germany S. ensure that relatively small proportions of tenants require individual assistance. up to 100% for the very poor. Middle-income two-parent families prefer owner-occupation. housing are better targeted. and in particular to individual housing subsidies return-to-work or education (known by various names such as housing benefit. Social France S. related to incomes Sweden S. P. where social rents are directly related to income. P. been based on tenure neutrality principles such as the Netherlands.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Individual subsidies for housing Ireland P Private renting tenants in 90% of rent subject to ceiling recipient of social security In practice the working of the social housing system in most countries is inextricably benefits or participants on bound to the social security system. households (Table 10). P Households who meet income Maximum €300/month dies in the countries studied.

HA: middle class estates Table 11: Ethnicity Denmark Children and young people. The following Age/household type Income snapshots give an overview of the residential patterns of ethnic minorities in each Austria Young families (on new estates) Municipalities: working class/ dis.9 28 10 Netherlands Older/smaller than average Lower than average and falling 2x share in popula- France 30% of foreign-born Sweden Single parents. 15 elsewhere ethnicity and integration (the Netherlands). country. elderly single Lower than average tion Particularly high in Varies between Germany 9 Inmigrants West Berlin and social segregation.6 (Oct 06) 8. Equally in Austria official statistics only refer to citizenship .<half owner-occu.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Table 10: Demographics of social housing specifically on ethnicity and religion. In France it is not permitted to collect information Sources: country experts' reports 26 27 . older people/singles (on older advantaged. they tend to live in cities. The question of the ethnic makeup of social housing residents is an issue coming to the fore in many countries.Low incomes . which generally house a broader spectrum of the population. it is framed in terms of citizenship Varies between >30 in metropolitan Sweden (Austria and to some extent Denmark).which may be easier in social housing than in other head tenures. ties living in social idents who are England Young and old. single parents. elsewhere in terms of immigration (Ireland) or regions areas.there is therefore no information about ethnic background. dants with children an (vs 22% overall) England 7. especially on unpopular estates. Until 2006 only Austrian citizens had access to municipal housing. In some. Hungary Ethnicity Ireland 10% born abroad figures to come figures to come Minorities tend to live disproportionately in social housing (Table 11) for three main 25% of households reasons: they often have low incomes. Low-income and households households with one adult receiving transfers Ethnic Immigrants/ minori. and the focus of local debate about ethnicity or citizenship. This affects even those countries regions and cities Munich with large social sectors such as the Netherlands and Denmark. 60 20 Ireland Single parent families and couples 62% have incomes <60% of medi. Statistics about ethnicity of social tenants *In Vienna 33%. are unavailable for some countries. sin. grants in overall housing from a minority or gle persons pier income population % immigrants France Single-parent families and couples Average household income 74% % % with children of national average Germany Older people Lower income Austria 20+* 6 Hungary Low income and social status 6.7 Denmark including descen. and they may prefer Netherlands have non-Dutch 51% of immigrants 34 to live in their own communities . Social housing res- minorities/immi.

particularly black Africans. · There are concentrations of ethnic minorities on postwar estates with low-rise France flats. Germany · On some large estates in Berlin and western Germany.both relatively new migrants and those who have lived in the coun- · Immigrants are largely concentrated in urban areas. sometimes issue. Applications have now fallen and the labour market is the key driver of ally low incomes are underrepresented in the social sector. Some important ethnic groups with gener- 1990s). There is concern about ethnicity and the seg. in part because. and their residents face job discrimination. Illegal immigrants have centage of minority residents have higher crime rates. There have been increasing concerns about the and in the private rented sector. Until recently only citizens labeled 'ghettos' by the media and government. A new and growing issue is the impact rates among immigrants have been raised. It is difficult for immigrants to become citizens. 35-40% of residents are immigrants. Areas with a high per. urban neighbourhoods. and some of these estates have been to apply only after 15 year of permanent residence. Citizenship per se is not an the private rental sector. ernment restrictions on collecting such information. in high-rise flats (like the well-known Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam). and the further 3 in 2007. Official data are limited because of gov- groups) have Dutch passports. and in some old pre-war neighbourhoods. So far the debate has revolved around the need for government to Indians and Chinese. unless income distribution and and end up in the most unpopular estates. England Ireland · On many large urban estates there are high concentrations of ethnic minority households . London. especially to take action to help immigrants integrate (particularly to learn English) and to tack. Migrants from Russia (with German citizenship) are also highly con- Netherlands centrated on large eastern German estates. most Surinamese (one of the three biggest face discrimination from private landlords. is helping to generate a situation where 'we are all minorities now' . In addition there has been a pol- icy of allocating refugees and asylum seekers to low demand areas across the · it is seen as unlikely that moves to mixed communities and tenure integration will country where they can obtain housing but are often unable to find employment significantly reduce levels of ethnic segregation. and schools. particularly South immigration. were eligible to live in social housing in some federal states. The increasing diversity of current immigrants.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Austria Denmark · An influx of naturalised immigrants into social housing in the 1990s led to tensions · Immigrants are concentrated on large urban estates. This type of inmigration is spread more widely across the country. In Ireland until about 2003.but le their exploitation by some employers. for instance. notably in pressure areas. as well as largely on applicants for asylum (application rates grew significantly from the mid about social cohesion more generally. while many Moroccans have two passports. · There are large immigrant populations in some estates on the peripheries of cities. Ethnic minorities. the EU forced a change in this policy in 2006. try for two or more generations. they are eligible a problem of segregation and deprivation. levels of migration change. the debate focused tensions between 'entitlement' and need. Recently the debate has grown more competition for housing is perhaps the most important area of tension between negative. Sweden Across Europe · The pattern is similar to that found in Denmark. particularly greater Dublin. of migration from the eight countries that joined the EU in 2004. This is seen as generating on some estates. and growing political concern about these concentrations. higher unemployment no access to social housing. 28 29 . and the issues of immigrants displacing native workers and high crime established households and new migrants. and tend to be accommodated in the worst parts of rates. regation of housing.

This situation is exacerbated by concerns about the extent that crime and anti-social behaviour are concentrated on social estates. is concentrated in pressure areas) be addressed? This is particularly an issue in The following topics are being debated in the political and housing circles in some or the UK and Germany. heating) Politics Austria HC HC HC H HC Denmark C HC C HC · Is social housing now seen to be the problem. the emphasis has often shifted to No heating. However pressures are growing almost every- turn affects the ease of access and mobility to rented housing in general. Table 12: Broader roles of social housing Segregation Special Neighbourhood Regeneration Affecting Social · This is a concern in all the countries in our study. The main exception is in the shrink- ety as a whole. rather than part of the answer? In Austria in particular.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe The broader roles of social housing Supply Social housing and its providers are being asked to take on a variety of responsibili. where. 30 31 . · In the majority of the countries surveyed. although it is also of growing importance in Sweden and all of these countries: (outside our survey) Finland. These can include local roles is increasing. In many countries. etc. but limited. accommodating those in greatest need . the requirement for housing of all types ties in addition to purely supplying housing (Table 12). rents growing issue associated with social cohesion and often immigration.).both such as the provision of special needs housing and neighbourhood management overall and social. and more nebulous roles in the soci. Germany HC HC HC Hungary The social contract . The extent of problems varies.who may not have strong ties to the Sweden HC HC HC HC locality. neighbourhood wardens. needs management market cohesion but all countries report concentrations on particular estates and all see it as a housing services (e. H = historically C = current Location · How can a mismatch between the location of social housing (often in old industri- Current debates in social housing al areas where demand is now low) and the demand for affordable housing (which Social housing has risen up the political agenda in most of the countries surveyed. the rents in poor quality social housing and in some lower demand areas across Europe social housing have a direct effect on rents permitted in the private sector which in notably in Sweden and England. such as promoting social cohesion. and includes the provision of social housing. where there is large-scale excess supply of and even setting rents in other tenures. the Netherlands and Denmark social housing is seen as France HC Only since 2000 H C HC C mainstream.entitlement versus need Ireland C C · Traditional allocation processes gave priority to housing local residents and their Netherlands HC H C. the growth of owner-occupation has in some areas reduced social mix and in some cases social housing is beginning to be seen as (ZUS) an inferior good. In France. There is therefore a revival of pressure to expand supply . leading neighbourhood initiatives ing cities of the old East Germany. C H HC children. though. Meeting these demands often involves using public sector land services (heating. With greater mobility and in-migration. social housing is seen as a sustainable tenure that should be England HC H HC C nurtured.g. in some countries. As a result.

ing more important. in part because of growing affordability these areas. are seen as priority issues in most countries. and to reduce concentrations of poor quality housing and deprived households but is of increasing interest across Europe. existing assets. regener- ation and a wider range of services. non-traditional means such as low-cost homeownership schemes. mistic than say a decade ago is the expectation that social housing should play a pos- vate developers to expand their role and expertise. But what is perhaps more opti- scale regeneration are putting pressure on independent social landlords and pri. The commitment Broadening the role of social housing to provide for the most vulnerable is generally becoming more person specific. Funding · Many countries have recognised that if the social sector is to be sustainable. the Netherlands and France. 32 33 . In the main. there is a need for additional provision. range of services to promote social cohesion. However in the majority of countries there is increasing discussion of the need for affordable housing particularly for Special needs migrants and the most vulnerable. or in Although there are very considerable differences between the social rented sectors areas with mixed tenure and use? The general position now is that the emphasis across Europe. The majority of investment schemes involve either using existing assets more effectively. This approach is perhaps most developed in England. · The need to provide services in association with housing for older people as well Additional funding is increasingly limited to private finance. better maintenance and improvement. public land and recycling as for vulnerable groups is increasingly recognised. ing and supporting broader regeneration projects. tions. ed sectors are declining and varying forms of public/private partnerships are becom- Mechanisms to achieve this often involve restructuring land use to increase val. monofunctional areas. However many of the tradi. The immediate policy emphasis is on initiatives for providing new hous- Growing concerns about neighbourhood management and the need for large. Rents · In countries with either estate-based cost rents or income-based rents there are particular problems in ensuring adequate maintenance and improvement. 'pure' social rent- should be on mixed communities with improved access to services and jobs. selling property on the market. there is discussion about moving to more value based systems as in the Netherlands and England. there are similar trends and tensions. However it is often being addressed through an approach which is well developed in Scandinavia.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Tenure and use mix Overall · Is it preferable to provide social housing in separate. as well as to provide a wide itive role in solving emerging problems. problems among younger households. Provision tends to involve partnership with specialist stakeholders. However. Improving and modifying the existing stock to meet rising aspira- ues and to provide funding. and depends increasingly heavily on income related allowances and private and charita- · What new roles should social housing/housing associations be asked to fulfil? ble providers. Across Europe. The commitment to provide for lower income employed households tional providers may not be well placed to expand their role and activities into but using shallower subsidy remains strong. almost no additional streams of funding have been identified. or mecha- nisms by which land values can be used to cross-subsidise development.

The structure of the housing market differs greatly between Vienna and the rest of the country. state/munic- ipal housing as a percentage of new housing construction fell from 35 to 1 percent. 40% is municipal. And whereas in all of Austria 10 per- cent of the dwelling stock is publicly owned (most by municipalities). Whereas social housing accounts for 25 per cent of dwellings in the country as a whole. in Vienna this figure is 48 per cent. Amount and location Austria has some 800. (Even the municipality of Vienna.2002 (%) 1970 1990 2002 Private 50 62 55 Housing associations 34 27 26 State/municipal 7 2 1 Other 9 9 18 35 . which has traditionally played a key role in the local Table 1: New housing construction by type of owner 1970 . Social housing accounts for the remaining 25 percent -. Social Housing in Europe 3. in Vienna this is 26 percent. and 4% by other owners. University of Vienna 1. Between the 1950s and the beginning of the 21st century.000 units of social housing. Social Housing in Austria Christoph Reinprecht. Housing cooperatives or associa- tions own 53%. Private rented dwellings are of relatively high importance (20 percent). There has been a significant fall in the amount of new state/municipal construction (see Table 1). The current position of social housing About 55 percent of the Austrian housing stock is owner-occupied (45 percent hous- es and 10 per cent flats). while 10 percent are publicly owned (most of them municipal housing).the non-for prof- it sector (housing associations) own 15 percent of dwellings. 3% is owned by states or provinces.

) sidised. whose aim was to promote better housing and living condi. There was a strong 1995-2000 (approximately €3 billion per annum). and thus had a long-term anti-segregation effect. Since 2000.) Public support is mostly in the form of direct construction subsidies -. access to construction subsidies but does not directly operate social housing). the responsibility for funding and housing promotion schemes Financing was gradually transferred from central government to the federal provinces. Direct sub- owned by the municipality. There has been a corresponding increase in the ship has become important. rent control for the old stock and cost struction remained more or less steady over the period. a quarter of the Viennese population lives in dwellings which are built and and Sweden are the European countries that make the most use of these.there is also a comparatively high level of regulation of owner-occupied and private rented housing. has withdrawn from new construction due to financial pressures and role was shrinking. 50 per cent of homes and flats receive some public subsidy-half of these financed by a housing tax (which all tenants have had to pay since 1923. In the last decades. individual subsidies for low-income households (approx. Cost At the federal level. social housing was a product of the period after World War II. at the same time the municipalities' 36 37 . The Viennese municipality Housing in Austria is embedded in a complex system of interactions between nation- played a key role as both developer and owner. particularly in terms of new construction. How social housing is provided ious programs developed in this 'Red Vienna' period. political push for privatisation of publicly owned dwellings. This process was completed at the end of the 1980s and has led to a territorial fragmen. This is true not only of social housing -. about 40% of all rented dwellings and 60% of owner-occupied are sub- early 20th century. construction of owner-occupied homes (from 22 to 42 per cent of new construction Social housing traditionally was based on the principles of a leading role for not-for over the same period). all. building contractors and owners. when a new right-wing government took office. it covered are social dwellings. (In 40% of costs). Today in Austria social housing is financed by a fixed.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe housing market. tions as well as better health and education for working-class people. This policy was mainly aimed at state-owned flats. Historical development tem has gradually become more market-oriented. but the non-profit sector has lost market share to the for-profit sector (which has The particular position of social housing in Vienna goes back to the early 20th centu. The rent-setting system is now diluted and social rents are closer to market rents (except for older tenancies). All in ry after World War I. the construction of municipal housing was the most ambitious and most prestigious. (This was typical in the Austria. implementation of) social housing policy. Public-private partner- a neo-liberal turn in housing policy). Funding for Austria's states have developed a variety of subsidy schemes for new social rented social housing began to be channelled not only through housing associations. the Austrian post-war model of ed a local welfare state. regional and local authorities. the housing debate has Housing subsidies accounted for an average of 1. and tax incentives (15 per cent). Today. renovation (which make up approximately 70 per cent by value). social housing has been better preserved than in many other European countries. the other half private rented and owner-occupied housing. sector and credit institutions. whereas local authorities have reduced their The housing sector is subsidised in three ways: direct subsidies for construction and activities. combining grants and subsidised through private builders and real estate investors. sidies to consumers and tax concessions are of less importance in Austria. During the 'Red Vienna' period (between 1918 and 1934). other types of funding were invented only after World War II. renting and cost selling are still the dominant principles for subsidised new construc- which initially focused on the reconstruction of war-damaged urban areas. the construction the city. municipal housing was In Austria. 5-10 per cent).7 per cent of GDP over the period been influenced by pro-market and pro-privatisation arguments. renting for new construction. but also housing (both municipal and housing association). Among the var- 3. particularly in Vienna.Austria Today. These principles still generally apply. earmarked proportion of income tation of social housing policy. as they withdrew from new construction. Housing association construction as a percentage of new con- profit developers. social housing is confronted with deep changes. tion. regional governments play a key role in (the tax. direct subsidies from the state. Social housing was built throughout al. Vienna's municipal housing was not a target. a luxury tax and some funding by the state. although the sys- 2. Vienna's social democratic local government at the time creat. as well as corporation tax and 'housing contributions' (paid by all employees).

the (right-wing) government has pushed the privatisation of state-owned are mainly middle-class oriented. municipal housing has gradually lost its function of housing very small percentage of all social housing). Municipal Privatisation housing focuses primarily on working-class and disadvantaged people. gible for them and how much they may receive differ by province. Since 1994 the sale of housing association dwellings to residents has been permitted Housing allowance (residents must have lived in the dwelling for ten years). This affects mainly those dwellings owned by the federal government (a working class. account. because it is both a city and a federal province.2 Eligibility rules are set by central government. Those in extreme housing need have access to emergency dwellings in the munici- pal housing stock. but these are high enough · These are paid by the social welfare authorities to tenants whose rent causes their to cover 80-90% of the population. but the potential commodification of the public housing stock represents a crucial change There are three major types of housing allowance available. including those with immigrant background (working immigrants who arrived the Immofinanz investor group. As a consequence of the structural change in the dwellings. renovation work. with only a few units sold. Details of which are eli- in public/ urban governance. although distribution of these funds is through the federal Demographics provinces. and municipalities to the federal provinces. Housing providers whose health is very impaired in their current accommodation. So far demand has been low. Priority is given to key workers and those in employment. Rents in new social housing are related to the cost of new construction. and municipalities or housing providers determine if households are eligible and assign · These are paid to low-income tenants faced with large rent increases because of them to individual units. Owner-occupiers can also receive housing allowance if 4. There is no central definition of extreme need but in Vienna such housing is targeted at households who are in imminent danger of homelessness. 38 39 . however. In Vienna. ing the rented sector. (This had relatively little effect on Vienna.1 low-income households. and/or who have very Social housing is provided by municipalities and limited-profit housing associations. These dwellings are overpriced and there is little government is still responsible for the regulation of home ownership and laws govern- security of tenancy. Access and demographics their housing costs are too high as defined by provincial legislation. the BUWOG federal housing traditional working-class people. In low incomes or on social allowance. in the 1960s and 1970s and their descendents).Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe loans. In Austria. and some do not. Central government also continues to be responsible for raising funds for new construction. the 1980s. while the not- for-profit private sector (housing associations) and the publicly funded private sector Since 2000. In 2004. and acts to balance the decreasing funding for are not obliged to sell. There is increasing demand from disadvantaged cooperative (which was created in 1950 and manages 19.500 dwellings) was sold to people. Access Rent benefits There are formal income limits for access to social housing. income ceilings for housing association homes are 20 per cent Rent allowances higher than for municipal housing. the central social housing for these groups. housing providers · This is of increasing importance. and subsequent salary increases are not taken into disposable income to fall below the social welfare threshold. in At the same time. the different segments of social housing target different groups. national legislation allowed cooperatives (and states) to sell their some cases tenants are also asked to contribute a proportion of the construction cost. responsibility for housing policy shifted away from the central government Because of barriers to access to social housing for the very poor and immigrants. stocks at market value.) Nevertheless. However. cheap and poorly equipped units in the private rented sector serves as a kind of quasi- however.

with an old owned dwellings. but it remains an important opened access to municipal housing for an increasing number of immigrants. however. This has led to an increas- ing number of conflicts between established residents and newcomers.e. the public debate about social housing is embedded in the strong corpo- for after 15 years of permanent residence. 53 per cent of Austrians and 17 per cent One important feature of the corporatist tradition is that the state. with should ensure that a sufficient amount of dwellings are available. and can only be applied In Austria.4 there are restrictions in some provinces). framework. It is important to open access for immigrants not only to munici- no inside toilet or even none at all. and subsidies and dwellings are distributed on older buildings from the inter-war period. in practice. and that housing is a basic data about ethnicity. particularly with a similar to that of the housing associations. Whereas in Vienna. trade unions. that of the public sector shrinks. The housing debate also reflects Austria's well established conservative Today. its prestigious tradition of municipal housing. Most non-citizens come from the former Yugoslavia and Turkey. European integration and responsible for naturalisations in Austria) and a system of emergency flats had already globalisation have weakened its traditional structures. Citizenship is difficult to acquire. Young families tend to live on the new estates. and some of these blocks house increasing the basis of regional and local bargaining between political parties and other actors. They tend to live in nine provinces and the municipalities.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Only Austrian citizens had access to municipal housing in some states until 2006. the region with the highest per- ratist tradition of the country (known as 'social partnership'). chambers of commerce). 6 per cent of social housing units are occu- have a role to play in policy formation. in Upper Austria the respective figures organizations (i. The ongoing liberalisation of the housing market Newer municipal housing. rents for buildings built after 1953 are not regulated. concentrations of immigrants and disadvantaged people. when 6. while older people and sin. The concepts of 'public-private partnership' and 'new governance' have strong resonance among Social Democrats and Greens. housing policy for immigrants (increasing segregation outside and within the munici- Category A dwellings have bathrooms and central heating. At the same time. is inhabited mostly by younger middle-class Housing policy is increasingly dominated by neo-liberal concepts. and political parties each are 19 per cent and 37 per cent. and a new stock that is vate sector's involvement grows. Rents Immigration and the risk of increasing segregation In principle both social and private rents are regulated and cost-based in Austria. which should include the creation of 40 41 . The municipal stock is becoming polarised. in contrast. Social housing policy is now mainly the responsibility of the third. very poor and disadvantaged. a liberal local naturalisation policy (municipalities are going a process of economic and political restructuring. privatisation of publicly gles live on older estates. A maximum rent per square metre applies in each pal housing but also to housing association and other social housing sectors (where category. 19 per cent of Austrians and 21 per cent of non-Austrian citizens live in social welfare regime (per Esping-Andersen's typology). This corporatism is under- centage of immigrants in Austria. long-term participation and integration strategies must be developed. rather. Category D dwellings have pal housing sector). there are no sus that society should be responsible for housing supply. The debate about social housing an EU ruling forced changes. There is a general political consen- housing. They are not equally distributed across the stock. 5. As the pri- stock that houses the elderly. The Viennese example demonstrates the results of a failed Permitted rents for older buildings depend on the quality of accommodation. however. society There are important differences between the federal states. The shrinking role of local authorities aggravates the risk of segregation and concen- tration of immigrants. Overall. The official statistics only contain information about citizenship. Recent policy families. changes include a weakening (or abolition) of rent regulation. but in Vienna the figure is one- ing a social client group. special-interest of non-Austrian citizens live in social housing. and subsidies for private as well as public developers.3 human need that should not be subject to free market mechanisms. Each of these actors sees itself as represent- pied by households with an immigrant background. continuing fall in municipal construction. and the The current academic debate about social housing focuses on three issues: municipality has set up local conflict-mediation institutions to minimize and civilize the disputes. In Vienna.

p. the social housing debate in Austria is dominated by themes of market liber. P. Frankfurt/M. p. but are also leading to the London: Routledge. Aspekte der Wohnbauförderung.93 4 Donner (2000). Vanessa/Jäger. Those characteristics are specific to Matznetter. Helmut (2002). In: 1981 Tenancy Law . 181-197 ence of political parties. 2. Czerny. p. Endnotes 1 Donner (2000) p.103 3 Donner (2000). 104 2 Donner (2000) p. Social Housing Policy in a Conservative Welfare State: alisation. Housing Policy in Europe. Walter (1990). Bibliography tional corporatist system. 2000/01 (new right-wing government) Privatisation of state-owned dwellings. Kammer für Risk of increasing polarisation Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien: Vienna There is an increasing gap between Austria's 'winners' and 'losers' in terms of income. European Urban and Regional Studies. and the pattern of the conservative welfare state (in particu- lar the strong family orientation) and will help determine the future political and public Matznetter. Franz (1994). Johannes/Hamedinger. Sozialen Wohnungsbaus in Wien.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe local mechanisms for conflict management and interest bargaining outside the tradi. privatisation of public housing.. increased role for private builders. Christian (2000) Wohnungspolitiken in der EU Wien employment. dwellings in private sector. Vol. Margarete/Köppl. in: Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. Vol. Recent Ruptures and Continuities in Urban Governance. Das Rote Wien. in: Urban Studies. Wolfgang (1996). 113-124 spatial exclusion of marginalized groups. Wohnbauträger zwischen Staat und Markt. Alexander (2001). Andreas/Redak. Reinhard/ Steiner. inequalities are not only accelerating distributional conflicts. Innsbruck: Studienverlag In sum. Matznetter. Austria as an Example. These differences and Förster. Donner. Weihsmann.The first step towards rent deregulation. 8. Walter (1991). Five key milestones in Austrian social housing Novy. Klaus (2000). in Balchin. the retreat of corporatist governance tradi.: Campus 7. 2. The End of Red Vienna. 265-282 tions. Walter (2002).104 42 43 . Austria'. Österreichisches Wohnhandbuch. 131-144 1984 Housing Promotion Law led to urban renewal.98. the influ- Vienna. such as the territorial fragmentation of housing policy. and increasing the risk of creating a vicious circle of deprivation. access to the labour market and housing. 5. 39. decreased importance of bricks-and-mortar funding. (Ed). Strukturen des discourse on social housing. Lugger. Social Housing in Austria? Vienna. 2005/06 Access for non-Austrian citizens to municipal housing due to European law and directives. Wien: Promedia 1988 Decentralisation of social housing policy led to increased inequality between and within the federal states. Winfried (1989). and immigrant and social exclusion issues. shrinking stock of low-cost Troper. Austria. What kind of privatization? The case of social housing in the Austrian system.

often with high-rise buildings. Under the new model-based system.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe over 30. an 'objective' model was developed. such as Aarhus. LSE. owner-occupation is the majority tenure in Denmark. Social housing in Denmark associations and must approve certain of their decisions.000 dwellings (mostly family-sized apart- ments). Kathleen Scanlon. 44 45 . Currently they are often more willing to allow housing associations to build special-needs housing. Research Institute were constructed on the outskirts of cities. social housing consisted of small. such special-needs hous- 50 ing now makes up more than 50% of new-build social housing. Many of these estates now have social problems. low-rise (tæt lav) The current position of social housing estates. The importance of private rented housing has fallen markedly since (about 2%). 2001. many Public authorities Not occupied rural municipalities were for the first time allocated small amounts of social housing (estates with 2-10 units). The municipality guarantees that 0 part of the mortgage that is above 65% of the initial building costs. pete with each other for a share of the local quota. The Danish social housing sector comprises housing owned by non-profit housing As Figure 1 shows. 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 * Previously a national quota system. Since then. because they do not want Figure 1: Housing by tenure and owner. Municipalities supervise the housing 4. When he Owner occupied Housing society Private rented Social housing association retired. decisions about the construction of new social housing have been approved by local authorities. Danish State Building From the 1960s to the end of the 1970s. p. is used to the same period. with over associations (20% of total housing stock) and a very small amount of public stock 50% of dwellings. guest researcher at Danish State Building In the 1940s and 1950s.this is up from 7% in 2006. centrally-located estates. 40 Most of the cost of building new social housing (currently 84%) is financed by a mort- Per cent gage (at the moment a 30-year variable-rate loan). larger estates. The housing associations vary enormously in size. 10 The remaining 2% is covered by tenants' deposits. (For 2006 it was a 30-year variable-rate fact. determined how Year many new social housing units could be built annually in each municipality. Formandskabet. managed by a single civil servant. most new social housing has been on smaller. Housing associations in urban municipalities would often com- Private rented housing in 1960 and 1970 includes employer-provided and free housing. Provision of social housing which own 8000 estates with a total of 511. ranging from those with Since 1994. 60 such as dwellings for the elderly or handicapped . earlier loan types have been index- 20 linked or fixed-rate loans. mean only the housing association stock) There are about 700 housing associations. usually translated as 'social housing'.000 units to those with fewer than 10.* Various studies have found that municipalities are often reluctant to permit the construction of new social housing. 1960-2005 an influx of residents with social problems who will cost them money. (Note: In 1960. Research Institute & Hedvig Vestergaard.) The municipality pays 14% of the cost up front in the form of an interest-free loan for base capital (grundkapitallån) . In some places. 234 and own estimates for 2005 associations would agree between themselves who could build. while the percentage of housing-association dwellings has nearly doubled over Denmark the term almene boliger. which is mostly used for short-term emergency housing. then informed the council. the Source: Det økonomiske Råd. The minister of business affairs 30 announces at the end of each year which type of loan will be used the following year.

000 housing estates (or 'member sections'. (Thus. Housing associations also operate internal waiting lists.3. Municipalities have the right to assign tenants to at least 25% of vacant housing-asso- ciation units. or Landsbyggefonden. in fact. The municipalities must approve housing associations' budgets and accounts. Many local authorities give priority on troubled estates to people work- Danish) must balance its books . but the cost rents are still calculated as if there was a loan to be serviced. and when tenants move attractive) housing has very much lower rents than newer housing. housing quality. while the housing associations want to use the money for upgrading and ren- set at 3. the basis of time on the waiting list and household size. and fig 11. so tenants can expensive housing in the social sector.) For social housing built from 1975-82. Those on the waiting list pay a small annual fee. The government and the non-prof- high land prices in the Copenhagen area. By law. this is also justified as a way to reduce environmentally damaging tion. because those who could afford to pay those rents on their own pre- fer to live in owner-occupied housing. social housing must be rented at cost rents. and as these increased the subsidies fell. There are no restrictions on who may join a waiting list. dents with jobs. in that year the average permitted building cost per m2 social housing (particularly of unsatisfactory stock from the 1960s and 1970s). apart from a minimum age of 15 years (until 1993. independ- ent of the actual interest rate. tenants have a right to the majority of seats on housing association and Building Fund for Social Housing (see below). that the multiplicity of boards. interest subsidies were financed by 50-year construction loans. This means that older (and often more everywhere. ernment. but this is not the case probably below the market-clearing level. makes the decision-making process unwieldy. however. or between estates that belong to the same associa. and the Danes are proud of this tenant democracy. 1993 and 2000). yet and has taken out loans on the basis of income forecast for 2009 and beyond. The fund does not have any reserves estate boards. Vulnerable residents who depend on social move up the housing ladder within a housing association. In pressure areas like Copenhagen and Aarhus rents do not respond to market forces. These so-called 'green assignment schemes' must be approved by the 46 47 . children could be signed up at birth). which services the mortgages. The government wants to allocate more resources for the financing of new Debt repayments (and therefore tenants' rent) on estates built after 1999 are by law building.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe In the last couple of years new social housing has partly been financed by the National Since 1984. (The programmes (laws passed in 1985.4% of initial building costs plus bank charges. given the income is set to grow greatly in the next few years. The level of payment is. Many of these loans are now paid off (or soon linked to wage and price indexes. in The majority of vacant units are assigned by the respective housing associations on Den almene boligsektors fremtid). Some critics say. thus will be). from an expensive dwelling benefits end up concentrated on unpopular large estates with high rents and low to a cheaper and more attractive one. which was set up in 1967. as they are known in basis of need. it housing have recently been engaged in a debate about how these funds will be used. They (and the housing associations) do not necessarily do so on the Each of the 8. but its was DKK 15.075 (€2024). Social housing built in the period 1982-98 was financed with a form of loan whose term was extended when interest rates increased. rest goes into local funds. A cap on construction The fund's resources have so far been used for renovation and repairs of existing costs was introduced in 2004. so the state is making a profit from social housing built after 1999. commuting. combined with the municipality’s input.there is not supposed to be any cross-subsidisation ing in the local area in order to improve their social composition by introducing resi- between housing associations. Many estates from this period were Some 50-66% of this surplus has gone since 2000 into the National Fund for Non- later allowed to remortgage to index or other loans in connection with refurbishment Profit Housing Associations. (see pages 223 and 416. housing-association rents are waits can be long (10-20 years in the Copenhagen area). passing the full cost of the loans on to tenants. the subsidy element. This limits where housing associations can build. the Access to social housing estates/tenants actually pay more than the mortgages cost. however. Households that in they have to pay a deposit that corresponds to 2% of the original construction cost will never be in a position to pay their own housing costs can be trapped in the most of their unit. there was a boom in social housing construction. which are based on historic costs. On average. Given current low nominal interest rates. future tenants paid From the late 1940s onwards.) Social housing is exempt from income tax and real-estate tax. This money goes to the gov- ovation of the older stock. in effect.

it has since 1970 increasingly become a tenure for marginalised groups and those with special needs. cheaper per square metre than private housing (Table 1). if the children lived in Table 1: Average rents 2005 (DKK and €/m2/year) the dwelling. Socialministeriet 2006 The highest proportion of social housing is found in urban areas -. so Danish People's Party (Dansk Folkeparti).) In high-pressure areas ment. particularly Copenhagen and Paradoxically. different housing associations. it is cheaper to buy a house than to rent social housing. while others are building standards they must comply with are so costly that rents would necessarily occupied by more than 50% non-ethnic Danes. which has strong support among residents comparison with them is not a good measure of subsidy. Politicians' level of knowledge about social housing is generally low. Copenhagen's city administration is still trying to work out whether and Changing needs how a private organisation could build these homes. However. and social hous- ing advocates have been looking for new ways of communicating with and influenc- Rent levels ing the government and the Folketing. such as Copenhagen. They have found a partner in the right-wing Private-sector rents are generally regulated. Copenhagen's new mayor was elected last year on a promise of pro- From 1994 to 2002. increased from 12% to over 20%. it is an insid- Unmet needs are concentrated in high-cost areas. perhaps by using innovative financial instruments. Social housing 595 (€80) 447 (€60) 764 (€103) Social housing used to be considered a tenure for all. housing association rents are below (notional) market rents. and in general there is still no Private rented 611 (€82) 415 (€56) 838 (€112) stigma attached to living in social housing. A their area a permanent home within three months. the share of ethnic minorities in the social housing sector viding 5000 new homes at a rent of DKK 5000 (approximately€670) per month. Tenants also have the right to trade dwellings with other tenants in the same housing association. (Some 90% of private rent. Key ers' issue.the across housing associations. 48 49 . Tenants may also sublet their dwellings for a limited period if they work tem- porarily elsewhere. where waiting lists are long. this has been outweighed by a strong increase in house prices). able provision'. However. some estates house only ethnic Danes. These immigrants are not uniformly distributed However. They might well become the strongest political advocates for social housing. trade unions and the national social housing organisation. and access to this tenure has become easier because of innovations in the mortgage The political debate market (although in some areas. No party that wants to win an election dares to announce any change in housing pol- icy. of social housing and is a key political ally of the current liberal-conservative govern- ed dwellings are located in municipalities with rent control.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe state and the local authority. such as Copenhagen. there was no question of housing associations building these homes . and surpluses in rural areas. and are in principle also cost-based. be much higher than greater Copenhagen. and young working households often have housing difficulties. and indeed in the private Average rents Lowest 10% Highest 10% sector. Danes generally prefer owner-occupation to living in private rented or social housing. particularly Jutland. This situation was fostered by many years of close direct cooperation workers such as teachers. social housing in Denmark is not necessarily synonymous with 'afford- Aarhus. Tenancies can be passed on to children when the parents die. after the 2001 election the power of this group dissolved. social housing makes up about 1/3 of the housing stock. particularly considering the very high cost of land in Copenhagen. In addition. Source: Den almene boligsectors fremtid (The future of social housing). Municipalities are obliged to offer refugees who move to while in some rural areas. Nevertheless. afford decent housing. nurses and firemen have complained that they cannot between social democrats. municipalities assign rent survey carried out in 2005 showed that social housing was on average about 2% all tenants requiring special-needs housing for the elderly and handicapped. Other forms of affordable provision there are shortages of social housing in the cities.

social. Solutions have included Office for Building and Spatial Planning. What should be Donner. M. for an agreement between the government. with very high-pressure housing mar- kets? Here the housing associations do not have any demand problems and it might Engberg. Denmark. L (2002) Social Market or Safety Net? British Social Recent initiatives Rented Housing in a European Context. Paris The National Organisation of Local Authorities (Kommunernes Landsforening) has Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1999) OECD Economic proposed a reduction in the number of housing associations from 700 to about 250. www. L. Tenants receive a sets up a structure of negotiations about the future management of the sector. Others demand speedy deregulation and reform of the housing subsidy system. including social housing. etc.A. Burns.employment creation. has paved the way In July 2004 a three-year trial scheme started to allow social renters to buy 5000 units. the Danish People's Party and the The purchase is not as of right. abolishing so-called · Letting local businesses rent premises as a way of creating more varied and inter- bricks and mortar subsidies in favour of direct subsidies to needy people and a 6/00. N & Mackay. the board and the general assembly of the tenants of Radical Left (Det Radikale Venstre).aspx?id=98a6010b-285b-4d2f-a3b1-6a6e9c2aaa2f · Social initiatives . Bristol. in order to reduce the number that the 98 new local authorities have to deal with when Paris local government reform is implemented in 2007. no sales yet) it. Some see the upcoming local government reforms (in which the number of local · Extending the right to demolish buildings to improve the general environment authorities will fall from 272 to 98) as an opportunity for reorganising. A recent white paper on the future of the social housing sector. Housing policies" Denmark. the agreement each housing estate must decide that it will offer its units for sale. esting neighbourhoods er degree of self financing in the social housing sector. discount of 30% of the market price. C. Vienna done in places like Copenhagen and Policy Press Concentration of socially deprived and ethnic communities on social housing estates Vestergaard H (2005) "Danish Housing Policy". Stephens. (2000) Housing Policies in the European Union: Theory and Practice. As well as more self-financing. Surveys 1998-1999: Special features "Structural reform. Roskilde be logical to move to more market-based rents for all rented housing. Research Paper The experts' view Social housing insiders have indicated that they are willing to discuss changing the Bibliography: English-language cost-rent principle to move towards a more market-based system. lecture presented at German Federal has been on the political agenda for over 20 years.: most if not all cases with a subsidy from the Landsbyggefonden http://eng. 4 November 2005 · Improvement of physical conditions by renovating and modernising buildings. provides much information (Danish only) 50 51 . as the boards are generally opposed.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Recently. crime prevention Danish-language · Subsidies for rent reduction. (2000) Social housing in Denmark. Any sudden move could. in order to make high-cost estates more attractive to high income groups/ tenants with high incomes Boligselskabernes Landsforening is the umbrella group for Danish housing associations. promotion of integration. As of March 2006 only about 800 units had been approved for sale. Roskilde University. however. including its role and financing. be destabilising for the whole housing Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006) Economic Survey of market in these pressure areas. Its website. Denmark 2006 OECD. in Consolidation Act on Social Housing. more outspoken politicians have demanded reform of social housing and · Sale of dwellings to achieve a better mix of residents (the law has only allowed simplification of the very complicated legislative and regulatory structure surrounding this since Jan 06.

København Hørsholm http://www. 21-45). Statistisk karakteristik af indflyttere i almene særligt Financing until 2003: henblik på forbedring af nyere etageboligområder. Statens Evaluation of the system of max m2 prices: Byggeforskningsinstitut. (2001) Boligpolitiske problemer og udfordringer.aspx?id=98a6010b-285b-4d2f-a3b1-6a6e9c2aaa2f Vestergaard. Nationaløkonomisk Tidsskrift. (2002) Salg af almene boliger og boligsituationen for lav-indkomstgrup. [Refurbishment of housing Socialministeriet (2006).social. Arbejdspapir 16:2002. Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut. M.pdf Nielsen. G.). København: Nordisk Consolidation Act on Social In N.).dst. (1985) Organisation og økonomi i den almene boligsektor . København: General about social housing/ almene boliger: Byforum http://www. & N.eller andelsbasis.html Vestergaard. der skal forberede en reform. Tillægsnummer. der giver beboerne i almene boliger mulighed for at overtage deres bolig på 52 53 .social. Henriksen (red. Hørsholm 3d0f740d9e1b Vestergaard. I: Festskrift til Anders Ølgaard. (2004) Boligpolitik i velfærdsstaten. In Allmännyttiga och sociala 5656989d25c8 bostäders framtid i Norden (TemaNord 2003:536) (pp.aspx per. etc.og Erhvervsministeriet (2002) Kommissorium for udvalg. Den almene boligsektors fremtid Estates]. SBI-meddelelse 53.html Skifter Den danske velfærdsstats historie: Antologi (04:18) (pp. H. H.aspx?id=53adc0e0-cec2-47b0-b4dc- H. Formandsskabet (2001) Dansk Økonomi: Forår 2001. København Det Økonomiske Rå Rents in private and social housing in 1999: Socialforskningsinstituttet. København Landsbyggefonden. København http://www. Interview med nøglepersoner på København: Socialforskningsinstituttet http://www. (1993) Renovering af de store bebyggelser . Ploug (red. København Boligselskabernes Landsforening (2002) Salg af almene I.kan det betale sig? I: Max m2 prices from 2004 and onwards: Byplan 5 Kærgaard (red. Hørsholm http://www.). By og Byg Dokumentation 002. Statens http://www.html Vestergaard. Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Boligministeriet (1987) Den almennyttige boligsektors rolle på boligmarkedet.ft. http://www.: Ministerråd http://eng. [National Fund for Non-profit Housing Associations] (2001). ejer. (1999) Byudvalgets indsats 1993-1998: Sammenfattende evaluer- ing (SBI-rapport 320). København Boligministeriet.asp?artikelID=6644 Økonomi. offentliggjort den 9. H. (1996) Huslejespænd og selvforvaltning.htm Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut & Amternes og Kommunernes Forskningsinstitut (2001) Det danske boligmarked . (2003) Almene boliger i danmark. Fysisk Information accessible on the internet: genopretning og forbedring af almennyttige boligafdelinger. 123-135 Statistics Rasmussen. Fordeling og incitamenter 2004. H. finansministeriet: 260-286).dk/Boliger/Boliger_i_tal/index.udvikling i boligforsyning og boligønsker +

However it was after the second world war that social housing started to Figure 1: Decline in stock of social rented housing: sales and other losses out- play a major role in provision.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe regulated or rent free.8 sector has fallen from almost 45% of the total output of over 200.2005 2. hav- 5.000 Owner Private Rented Rented Total 1. Associations.8 1971 8503 53 3122 19 4530 28 16. 18% of the total stock . Subsidies to the supply of was an underestimate. 5. including for instance employees. Thereafter new building in the social sector has 2001 14818 70 2152 10 1424 7 2812 13 21.000 occupied rented from HA from LA 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s % ms 0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1961 6068 44 4377 32 3382 24 13. Social renting thus only accounted for rented housing by local authorities started to be made available in the late 19th cen. 6. Since 1979. although to a very limited extent.7 mil. those liv.000 The size of the social rented sector in England reached its height in 1979 when there were over 5. new build in the social 2005 15352 70 2469 11 1817 8 2166 10 21.6c Communities and Local Government Housing Statistics 2006 54 55 . a net reduction of 1.5m units since 1979. over the last few years social sector output has Source: Table 1.0 During the first three decades after the war the social sector accounted for rather less 1991 13237 67 1927 10 608 3 3899 20 19. At that time private renting (including non-profit provision) account- ed for perhaps 12% of the stock. At this stage the role of non-profit providers was very small .some 4 million units.000 lion units (table 1).000 to 11% of fewer than 130.1 Local Authority Housing Association 1979 10019 57 2168 12 368 2 5140 29 17.7 Source: Housing Statistics. and women.2 declined in both absolute and proportional terms. as in most Western European countries social housing in England was pro.000 Table 1: Dwelling Stock and Tenure 1951 .and not separately identified in the statistics. The most important reason for the declining importance of the social sec- Originally.8 million address the problems of particular groups. units. especially in London). Owner-occupation was running at about 57% of the stock. By 2005 vided by charitable non-profit organisations with well-specified objectives looking to owner-occupation accounted for around 70% of the much larger stock of 21. Between the wars. Christine Whitehead. 31% of the English housing stock of 17. ing supply. with around one half of all new output concentrated in strip new building the subsidised local authority sector. tury. LSE From that time not only has the size of the social rented sector declined significantly but the ownership has also been massively restructured.5 million social rented units. Social Housing in England ing become the majority tenure in the late 1960s. ODPM 1981 10773 60 2044 11 410 2 4798 27 17.000 units in 2002. However. Tenure structure non-profit Housing Associations at the expense of local authority (council) housing (figure 1). and the vast majority of this sector was then either 4.7 than half of all new building (table 2). increasing the role played by 1. tor has been the large and continuing expansion of owner-occupation.000 Thousands 3. Private renting was measured at 11% (although there was some belief that this ing in insanitary and unsafe accommodation. tenure neutral supply side Within this total 53% was provided by local authorities and 47% by Housing subsidies (in the form of £X per unit) were made available to expand the total hous.

4 57 16.0 58 16. Right to Lettings to homeless households Other lettings to new tenants Acquire and Social HomeBuy but also because of increased demolitions often asso- ciated with higher density. [1979 118.2 3 113. 150 ly in the south of the country. This will occur in 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 part because of continuing sales into owner-occupation through Right to Buy.6 11 0.8 58 10.8 10 54. Source: Housing Statistics.2 In 1979.4c Communities and Local Government Housing Statistics 2006 risen roughly in proportion to total output .500 units out of 160.000 units a year and is expected to increase quite rapidly.2 85 15.6 2). The Structure of the Social Sector 1961 163.4 Figure 2: Decline in new social housing lettings in England Source: Table 2.000 in 2005/6 200 mainly as a result of both smaller discounts and rapidly rising house prices especial.5] almost all new social rented housing has been provided within the Housing Association (HA) and particularly the Registered Social Landlord (RSL) sector (table 1981 99.2 0 159. 100 Although social sector output is expected to rise over the next few years in line with 50 total output.6 89 14. Private Local Authorities Total (RSLs) Thus while the provision of affordable housing will increase the proportion of social 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s rented housing will fall.3 8 74.3 64 1.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Table 2: Housing Completions by tenure Overall.and must operate within their guidelines. As a result.000 a year through the 1990s and 2000s. to perhaps 15% of the total stock by 2011.2 36 256. sales fell to an historic low of under 27.6 1 91. and especially since 1988.000 400 in 2005. 2. However. government subsidised new build is currently running at around 30.5 11 0. 350 The major losses from social rented housing have been through the Right to Buy. at least half of these subsidised units Housing Associations will probably be in the form of low cost home-ownership rather than social renting.8 million dwellings have been sold to sitting tenants since 1980 with sales Thousands 250 concentrated in the first decade.9 32 170. which have made purchasing unaffordable.7 corporations. RSLs are registered with the 1991 1311.the regulatory authority which also allocates government sub- sidy . HAs are non-profit independent landlords with the responsibility to provide for par- ticular groups of mainly lower income households.3 In addition to new building being concentrated in the HA sector since the mid-1980s there has been a policy of large scale voluntary transfers (LSVTs) from the local 2005 141.6 Housing Corporation . on current trends social renting as a proportion of the housing stock is 0 likely to continue to fall. 93% of social rented housing was owned by local authorities and New Towns 1971 170. The Conservative government restructured the subsidy system for both local authorities and housing associations. ODPM 56 57 .7 89 17.2 0 129. but still running at between 30-70. 2001 114.8 36 209. 300 Nearly 1.1 5 154.7 39 294. mixed tenure redevelopment.3 10 8.accounting for 17.

Income related rental assistance has been available since the early 1970s and has repayable only on sale of the property (which requires special permission). mix of debt finance (raised on the open market against future rental income) and cap- Overall supply subsidies measured in terms of financial flows to social housing have ital subsidies provided by central government. and subsidiaries operating undertake new investment when they may bid for capital subsidy. Within this total around 250 take this necessary investment and the amount of such funding has increased very associations build the vast majority of new social sector accommodation. using public land and deemed rental income and deemed expenditure. These transfer all or part of a local authority's stock through nicality reduces the costs of private borrowing and also potentially gives central gov- a privately funded management buyout to a newly formed HA. together with around 200 local authorities which have Supply side subsidies to local authorities have risen in the last few years because of not transferred all of their stock to HAs. HAs are increasing- ly organised in group structures which bring together LSVTs. to under 60% in the mid 1990s . This tech. income tenants. had basically the same structure since 1988. and the reduction in outgoings has been reinforced by opment. either directly or through Arms Length Management mium is relatively small (between 30 and 70 basis points over LIBOR) in part because Organisations (ALMOs). When the system was first put in place fallen very significantly since the 1980s but have risen again over the last few years subsidy rates ran at over 90%. had by 2005 quintupled in numbers terms and now accounts for 8% of the total tutions involved in the provision of mortgages across the housing sector. In some cases the value of the stock is estimated to be negative. As a result. those providing for special needs. The Corporation now both reg- Although at the present time only HAs can add to the social sector stock. which nearly 10% are LSVTs. Local authorities. The valuation of the in the intermediate market. with the ulates the HA sector and allocates central government funding. the sector was opened up to private finance in 1988. this proportion is likely to continue to decline in both absolute and propor- Housing Corporation's regulatory powers and in part because of the capital subsidy. while at the considerably over the last few years. in part because of the comfort provided by the modified. Among HAs the majority own only in one or two local areas. The risk pre- stock. mainly through their ALMOs. Technically the subsidy is a loan which is subordinated to the borrowing from private financial institutions. LSVT HAs are funded 100% through the private sector except to the extent that they ing for general needs. tional terms. However. owned only 10% of the stock in 2005 and.e. Subsidies overall are concentrated more on helping lower income tenants petition between HAs for subsidy. assistance of central government subsidy. the proportion of costs paid for through subsidy fell who are eligible for Housing Benefit through rent rebates and allowances. which is reallocated to areas still eligible for subsidy.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe authority sector to HAs. As new output declined in the 1980s their existing assets. through both increases in rents and com- (table 3).and now varies around 50%. even so many are in 'negative subsidy' . Financing the Social Sector ed rents. There are indications of some change in that ALMOs in particular are The Corporation was set up in the 1960s and took on additional responsibilities after seen as successful. traditional HAs provid. Within the social rented sector. In these Since 1988 funding for new social sector building in the HA sector has come from a cases a dowry is paid to enable the transfer to take place. unless policy is of the safety net of Housing Benefit. their own boundaries. tenants 58 59 . which accounted for only 1% of the total stock in Funding from the private sector comes from a relatively small number of financial insti- 1979.i. As a result of both new ernment the capacity to claw back subsidy (as indeed was done in the 1980s). to build. the vast majority of local take some years before there could be significant output from local authorities and authorities are in a position to use rental income to pay for rent rebates for lower their management organisations. other extreme some only manage stock for other organisations. make a contribution to Ownership of the social sector stock is thus now spread among some 2000 HAs of central government. Local authorities only own property within investment in the existing stock to bring dwellings to the decent homes standard. stock at the time of sale takes account of the investment necessary to bring the stock up to the decent homes standard and the expected rental income based on regulat- 3. There is considerable political impetus behind this policy devel- outstanding debt also fell. build and transfers the HA sector. Authorities or ALMOs that achieve efficiency targets are enabled to borrow to under- but a small proportion hold dwellings across the country. However the regulatory and administrative constraints are such that it will declining interest rates in the 1990s and 2000s. the current government is looking to enable Subsidies to local authorities are revenue based and cover any difference between certain local authorities.

367 11. from 32m2 (London ISMI 427 280 267 265 291 30.6m2 in the private sector (34. Table 5: Vacant Dwellings (%) depending upon their income and household circumstances (table 4).719 1.7 Communities and Local Government Housing Statistics 2006 60 61 .379 4.8 2.6m per person (only 28.9 3.100 10.8 4.376 4.5 2.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Table 3: Government Funding: Supply and Demand Subsidies in England (£m) Table 4: Rents before and after Housing Benefit (2004/5) 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 Median Rent before After Deduction of Net Rent as % deduction of Housing Benefit Income Capital Housing Benefit LA 1.441 6.8 3.200 3. It is not yet envisaged that this will be extended to social tenants.2 Within the total stock of social housing.8 2.611 2.567 5.502 Source: Family Resources Survey Rent allowances 5. North North North North England England West East West East erty.2m in London) as compared to 37.644 6.100 Rented Privately 430 30 25 Rent rebates 4.911 11.041 7. 2 is lower in the 2006 2.9 3. This compares with over 90% in the owner-occupied sector 2001 2. CIH and CML receive help up to 100% of their rent plus eligible service income and charges.1 2. In 2004 it was running at about 31.6 2. Source: Table 1.431 7. S (2007) UK Housing Review 2006/07.028 2.7 4. Space per person. Total Demand 10.419 3.951 £ per month £ per month % HA 775 921 1.626 Local Authority 230 0 3 LA Revenue 95 -55 -60 770 HA 270 0 5 All Social Sector 250 0 4 Total Supply 2.296 4.9 4.599 1.8 2. Nature of the Social Sector Stock 1996 2.7 and over 80% in the stock as a whole.549 2. The scheme is technically the same in the private rented sector but there are additional constraints Local Authority Housing Association on payments so that most tenants pay some rent.0m2) in 1996.867 Moreover space per person in the social sector has been falling.0 2. measured in terms of median floor area per person. In the private sector.213 4. on the other hand. not far short of sixty per cent is in the form of houses and bungalows. 4.3 2.682 Vacancy rates are relatively low across the social sector (table 5) although they rose significantly in the late 1990s when there were growing problems of low demand Source: Wilcox.2m2 in London).0 2.4 social 2than the private sector. The government is currently pilot- ing a Local Housing Allowance by which private tenants will receive an allowance based on average relevant rents in the local area rather than on their individual prop. space per person has increased.334 2. if only by an average of 1m2 per person over the same period.

This regime continued throughout the 1990s with rents rising slightly faster than infla- New build housing is increasingly concentrated in flats and therefore smaller units. there will be coherent rent setting go to existing social tenants moving from local authority properties. By 1997 the vast majority of rental income arising from these ation but it is also because out movement has fallen as a result of reduced opportu. In the local authority sector it was both rented sectors and especially in London. when rent controls for new lettings were abolished in both the HA and the private rent- ed sectors. 1995/6 HA completions included 71% houses and 29% flats. An increasing pro- fallen. lettings have fallen to below 145. The 1988 Act gave HAs the power to set their own rents so as to cover Allocations to local authority lettings have fallen from 415. Even so.000 in 2004/5. as in the past. individual rents will be determined on a In the HA sector lettings rose consistently from around 40. in 2002/03 . rents were directly regulated on the same principles as the private rented sector. The government decided to introduce a rent restructuring regime in 2002 across the whole of the social sector.but has risen significantly in expected to cover financial outgoings less subsidy. which determined the subsidy provided. There have been very considerable improvements in the standard of existing social dwellings over the last decade.5% across all tenures 5.roughly the costs and build reserves to enable them to borrow at relatively low risk interest rates. but portion of these households are being placed in private rented sector housing often the improvement suggests that there is potential demand even in the least desirable leased by the local authority. increases was being paid for by central government through Housing Benefit. These tend to mean that those in smaller 62 63 . also permitted to subsidise rents from the general rate fund. rate for the two decades before . so that by 2012. Of the total lettings across the sector unrelated.roughly in line with the growth in the HA stock. About 80% go to new tenants.000 in 1995/6 . Rent nities elsewhere and changing demographic patterns.000 per annum to 160. were set by central government. dwelling size and property values. In the intends to achieve by 2010. of tenant incomes. some 37% of local authority and 27% of HA During the 1970s local authority rents were controlled as part of general incomes poli- dwellings do not currently meet the decent home standard which the government cies. with 5. Problems of homelessness are particularly concentrat- areas.000 in 2004. within which a slightly smaller proportion. Overcrowding is concentrated in the social sector. By 2005/6 these propor- tions had changed to 42% to 58% respectively. in rents. Rent Determination (defined as one bedroom or more below the bedroom standard).000 in 1997 to over 100. This proportion rises to 40% in London. to new tenants 20% go to homeless families. Historically. In tion. In London the per- centage is 12. went to homeless families.6% across all tenures. The main reasons why they do not meet the standard 1980s it became illegal to subsidise rents from local taxation and deemed increases relate to insulation and energy conservation. to the original funding mechanisms. In 2005/6 70% age. Since then. The overall rate of over.000 formula based on local manual worker earnings. They still remain higher in lower demand areas especially in HA dwellings.5% of households over- crowded in social housing in the early 2000s as compared to 2. and policy has At the same time the number of statutory homeless households in temporary accom- concentrated on managing social sector stock more effectively.2% as compared to 6. In the HA sector. and a further 11% For the first time therefore. and indeed the rate of growth levels of output together with some increases in demolitions associated with regener. vacancy rates have modation has risen from 45. Of the total lettings in 1995/6. At the same time the proportion of 3+ The financial framework under which HAs operated changed dramatically in 1988 bedroom units fell from 35% to 25%.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe especially in older industrial areas. leading to major difficulties in funding basic repairs and maintenance. at 22%. at least in principle. one third of whom were homeless families. ed in London (22% of total acceptances in 2005/6 and 65% of those in temporary accommodation) but it is a significant and increasing problem across all regions. restricting average rises to inflation plus a small percent- 60% went to new tenants.000 in 2005/ 189. This is partly a result of lower This resulted in rent rises significantly above inflation. As housing pressure has increased. rises were then regulated. social sector rents were based on historic cost so that rental income was crowding has not changed much over the last decade . However these rents will still bear little direct relationship to tenant valuation of the stock because of additional constraints. went to new households.

an average of 12. without children occupied sector (not allowing for differences in size and quality). Family Resources Survey ent from that in other tenures .400 £21. the gap is relatively small. Retired 27 33 11 26 6. In the HA sector they have risen % % % from £44 per week to £62 per week over the same period . but it also reflects lower earnings among ber as compared to 35% overall. it is well over 60%. about in line with inflation. lone parents.somewhat above inflation. In the social sector that proportion rises to that are dissatisfied. However this still reflects an under-representation once pover. Proportions spend on housing. retired or economically inactive (table 6).25% Couples with and 81 10 9 100 (58) higher than the national average.with relatively few Indian and Chinese proportionately young and old. but well below average income increases. Almost 50% of social tenant households have incomes outside the labour force. vary enormously between ethnic groups .000 per year as compared to 17% overall.which is hardly surprising as the emphasis has been on housing those in priority need since the 1980s. all households . tion dissatisfied at around15% is higher than in the private sector. Who lives in the social sector? Median Income £26. employed social tenants. London. Owner Social Renting All Rents in the local authority sector have risen from around £40 per week in 1990 to occupation Renting Privately % £55 per week in 2005. taking account of rates of return on capital values. Across all tenures. Source: Department of Works and Pensions. in pressure areas.5%. holds include someone with serious medical conditions or disability. notably London. In some parts of the North. It is also important to note that some 42% of house.but the fact that almost two thirds of household reference persons are whether tenants or owners. households and relatively large proportions of Caribbean and Pakistani households in In part this is an outcome of the Right to Buy which has particularly enabled couple the sector. In part this reflects the numbers to 10% overall. of older and inactive people in the sector. Lone Parents 37 46 17 100(7) Overall the gap between average social and private rents (again not controlling for quality. the differences are even greater. as compared to a 40% differential in the owner . mean expenditure per week in 2004/05 was 64 65 .000 The make up of the social sector in terms of household characteristics is very differ.6% among social tenants as compared to 2% among Tenants in social housing are significantly poorer than those in the private sector. Economically Active 68 38 74 63 sidy.000 £10.200 £17. They also tend to be concentrated in particular localities within these urban areas. If the gap is measured by economic sub. although the propor- rate for all tenures taken together. employment status and household structure are taken into account. Rents in London are perhaps 20 . including 30% of all social tenants of working age compared below £10. However the size of the gap varies enormously between households regions and areas. A final issue is the proportion of income. location etc) is measured at about 40% in the HA sector and nearer 50% in One person 61 27 13 100 (28) the local authority sector. Moreover 63% of social sector households include no working mem.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe dwellings pay relatively higher rents. while those in large dwellings and in high priced Table 6: Household Characteristics (2004/5) areas are disproportionately protected from market pressures. which social tenants ty. The pattern of sat- About 8% of all households in England include a household reference person from isfaction with the neighbourhood is similar and in both cases it is younger households Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups. almost double the Social tenants are generally satisfied with their accommodation. Those in the social sector are dis. including benefits. Of concern at the present time is not just the extent to which unemployment is con- centrated in the social sector . BME households are concentrated in urban areas and particularly in economically active households to buy their own homes.

Initiatives Source: Expenditure and Food Survey to reduce homelessness have included prevention measures.but only around 60% of these will be social rented dwellings. affordable able emphasis on subsidising the improvement of the existing stock in order to meet housing for all . In partial . including around as a % of 30% affordable housing (including both social renting and low cost home ownership).including provision at sub-market rents. as inferior to private provision. It suggests that the value and regeneration particularly in low demand northern urban areas. Professor John Hills. Local Housing Allowance and choice based lettings show that it would be possible better to integrate social housing into the wider housing system. where Right to Buy tance among social tenant households.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe £79. Within this higher overall total. However it also raises con- the Decent Homes standards by 2010. This often requires for money currently being achieved is inadequate and that government should look significant demolition with higher density replacement. There has just been a more fundamental review of social housing undertaken by ing have changed significantly. Outright a mortgage Authority tenants tenants tenants The government is attempting to address the shortfall of housing in total by increas- Median expenditure 11 26 14 16 23 19 ing output to perhaps 200. Median £36 £151 £31 £28 £105 £79 Expenditure Finally in the context of very vulnerable households there has been a shift away from £ per week direct provision to person specific assistance through Supporting People. on the existing stock there has been consider. government has become increasingly concerned by the extent of tenure polarisation and concentrations of poverty. tion through the provision of shallow subsidies and access to finance. Two thirds of HA tenants are in receipt of is unaffordable. disposable income Over the next two years they are committed to producing around 40. The government's cur- The introduction of choice based lettings has provided some freedom of choice for rent emphasis on increasing owner-occupation to at least 75% of all households is tenants but there are inherently major tensions between meeting priority needs and likely to reinforce this attitude. Such provision Table 7: Housing Expenditure by tenure 2004/05 is also part of the mixed communities agenda.000 new afford- able homes per year . there is an important shift towards the provision of intermediate housing. access to temporary housing leased from the private sector and assistance into the private rented sector 7.either full or Housing Benefit and the proportion in the local authority sector is even higher. but major progress has been made. In general therefore being a social tenant enables aims to assist those in lower income employment but unable to afford owner-occupa- households to avoid housing poverty. Over the last few years government attitude to the importance and role of social hous. Regeneration is one way of addressing this issue. Policy has also concentrated on renewal as apparently increasing dissatisfaction with their housing. tenants to purchase part of their home through Social HomeBuy.will necessarily reduce the size of the traditional social rented sector. addition social tenants pay only between £7 and £8 per week for utilities as against Third. This an average of £11 per week. Overall social housing has moved from a tenure of choice to one where those in the cific neighbourhoods and estates. 66 67 . The Future rather than the provision of secure social rented accommodation. partly as a enabling a greater mix of tenants. Secondly. up the property ladder and to move into work. particularly in the social sector and in spe. while social tenants spent significantly less than half of this (table 7). He suggests that initiatives such as the mediate market housing and developing mixed income communities. First. A new policy in this context is to try to enable social result of lower rents but mainly because of the prevalence of income related assis. This may well not be fully achieved by this cerns about the extent of worklessness and immobility among social tenants as well date. This stresses the importance of ensuring adequate.000 net additional units per year by 2016. towards a wider range of affordable housing and incentives to tenants both to move the proportion of social housing is often much lower with greater emphasis on inter. as a proportion of new housing is aimed at the intermediate market ensuring that employed households will take up a Owned Buying with Local HA Private All significant element of new and regenerated developments. However the emphasis on increasing home ownership . especially owner-occupation. tenure are mainly getting a good deal but where social housing is often seen by many but within the existing stock the main way is through changing allocation principles.

CLG and associated report. It was intend- Department of the Environment (1977) Housing Policy: A Consultation Document. Hills J (2007) Ends and Means: the Future Roles of Social Housing in England. York. London. nition included all family and couple households as well as vulnerable single Basingstoke. Basingstoke. Cambridge. ODPM Stephens M. Munro M & Satsangi M (1999) Housing Finance in the UK: an Introduction. ODPM Wilcox S (2007) UK Housing Review 2006/2007. 29(2) given the power to set their own rents. HMSO depression meant that instead investment was heavily constrained and rents were controlled to the point where it was difficult to maintain property in the local Department of Environment. CASE. York. Monk S & Whitehead C (2000) Restructuring housing systems from Social to Affordable Housing. London. JRF ringfencing the Housing Revenue Account and reinforcing central government Malpass P & Murie A (1999) Housing Policy and Practice. The defi. fers of local authority property to housing associations. They were also Social Policy. Macmillan 2000 Quality and Choice: a Decent Home for All This green paper set in place much Monk et al (2007) The Demand for Social Rented Housing. Routledge 1977 Housing Homeless Persons Act (with many later amendments). Journal of rest of the capital costs by borrowing from the private sector. London. D (2007) Looking forward. 1980 Housing Act This introduced the Right to Buy by which local authorities were London. CIH and CML 68 69 . DETR/DSS Forrest R & Murie A (1988) Selling the Welfare State. CCHPR by which associations received capital grants for new investment but funded the Kemp P (2000) "Housing Benefit and Welfare Retrenchment in Britain". London. Maclennan. Transport and the Regions and Department of Social authority sector. Palgrave Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Sustainable Communities: Homes for All. Croom Helm 1988 Housing Act This introduced a mixed funding regime for Housing Associations Holmans A (2007) Housing and Housing in Britain Statistics. It also provided the framework for large scale voluntary trans- Malpass P (2000) Housing Associations and Housing Policy: a Historical Perspective. Housing Research of the framework for rent restructuring to make rents consistent across the social Summary No 236. Whitehead C & Munro M (2005) Evaluation of English Housing Policy 1975-2000 Overview. London. Security (2000). London. York Publishing Services Mullins D & Murie A (2006) Housing Policy in the UK. aiming higher: the future of social housing in 1989 Local Government and Housing Act This constrained local authorities by England. Macmillan control over rents. CCHPR sector as well as the Decent Homes programme by which funding has been pro- vided to bring rented housing up to acceptable modern standards.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 8. Quality and choice: a decent home for all. Holmans A (1987) Housing Policy in Britain: A History. London. ed to support a large scale building programme but inflation and economic Cmnd 6851. London. HM Treasury rent regimes for both local authorities and housing associations. This required local authorities to house all those defined as homeless in their area. London. York. Gibb K. Macmillan people. London. LSE required to sell to sitting tenants at a discount. Some key milestones in English social housing Bibliography 1975 Housing Rents and Subsides Act This completely restructured the financing and Barker K (2004) Review of Housing Supply: final Report. Cambridge.

Social Housing in France between 1966 and 1975. The stock grew significantly only after WWII.12 million units) 6. ulation. But at the moment no process of residualisation can be The large estates (grands ensembles) of more than 500 dwellings represent less than observed.5% around Paris.0 sector as well as those whose housing stock is up to 70% social rented programmes. the construction of new social units has not reached the symboli- mission then was to house the homeless and poorly housed -. European countries. In 2004 the French social rented sector had 4.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Some 55% of the stock was built before 1976.133 13.000 inhabitants. and the much more desirable 'central' stock. The 752 Housing Individual Multi. cally important threshold of the wealthy Paris municipality of Neuilly. The contrast is less acute in cities like Lille or Rennes. University of Paris 8 St Denis & Christian Tutin.000 per year). given the tremendous shortage of housing. or even in rural areas.000 inhabitants. a tenure of the poor. towns or cities with more than 100. Social housing is predominantly urban: 62% is located in has a large private rented sector (about 20%). and social housing has become increasingly (though not exclusively) estates with more than 100 units make up 31% of the stock but 56. More than 110. has since then changed About 86% of the existing units are flats. huge discrepancies in the intra-urban location of social rented on the one hand.000 new units per year were introduced during the 1990s.2 million units.000 per year between 2000 and 2003. housing.4 69. and pre-1956 units only 7%. Two-thirds of 2. makes the annual net addition to the preneurs to accommodate salaried workers and employees who were unable to find stock more or less constant. Its governmental will. EPLS au 1er Janvier 2005.290. Despite accommodation in the existing stock. Rhône (Lyon) and 01/01/2005 (%) 1000 (%) (%) or + (%) (%) Seine St Denis (north-eastern suburbs of Paris). 1995 units make up 10% of the total social stock. approaching 40.000 units per year since 1995. Post- Claire Levy-Vroelant. along with the declining number of purchases. a period which saw the construction of many large periph- eral estates. where estates are often dilapidated.6 86. and Germany (30/1000) and Italy (16/1000) on the other. New construction is more than keep- ing up with sales (less than 5. This spatial polarisation is particularly great in Paris.000 units/year. The earliest social housing was built by philanthropists and more "enlightened" entre. 70 71 .the majority of the pop. social housing makes up only 1. between the Netherlands (with 155/1000) and the UK (106/1000) There are. for example. University of Paris 12 Créteil Some 56. France is in an intermediate position compared to other than 10. Stock and location social housing units have three or four rooms.1 66. Introduction than 44. but 14% is in towns with fewer ing per 1000 inhabitants. falling to fewer 1.2 24.5 9. Of these stock (%) unit units per rooms rooms rooms rate rate neighbourhoods. but up to 12% in the Paris area. habitants (%) The biggest metropolitan areas can contain municipalities without any social rented 4. as in some other European countries.1 France also social housing in France. making up 17% of the There is no significant difference between the distribution of population and that of country's housing stock (not counting vacant units and second homes).5 10.000 units per year were built during this decade. however. encouraged Structural characteristics after 1977 by initiatives aimed at developing homeownership. including 29% (1. Lyon and Marseille . rising to 97% in the Paris area.4 2. 6% of the stock at the national level. but the growing number of demolitions. 120 are located in three departments: Nord (Lille). between the 'peripheral' stock. or ZUS).2% Source : SG-DAEI-SESP. Selective mobility. et RP rénové 2004 of the housing stock. Buildings or the landscape. In the 1960s the social sector was a normal stage in the middle-class residential career.Number of 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 Vacancy Mobility ZUS contain nearly 1 million social dwellings (about 25% of the social stock). The most deprived neighbourhoods have been Table 1: Social housing stock designated as 'sensitive urban zones' (zones urbaines sensibles. With 69 units of social rented hous.

ing provider: en to under 70% in recent years. Nevertheless.098 100. and those changes are accelerating.9 94. when it is purchased by the Number of % Number % Number % social housing provider. and decides on the amount of subsidy given to social housing.580 81.8 76. and 'conventioned' dwellings made up 93% of the social stock in 2004. There are two main types of social hous- Before 1977. co-finance social housing programs. non-profit social 26% of state subsidised loans went to upper social housing.9 169.5 des Dépôts et Consignations). approves projects. which represent 80% and 78% of their stock respec- Pierre [2005]). and are in charge of for detail. or APL). or when state-financed improvement works are carried out.171 25.568 73. despite government statements about the need to provide for people's right to be housed.6 26.5 Changes in social housing governance housing The political and legislative context of social housing provision has changed in vari- Other 164. These contracts give builders access to specific subsidies and types of financing. against 7% for ESH) and the latter a higher proportion of upper social With the ageing of the stock.0 1. builders was introduced.228 6. compared to 7% before builders.see background table B supervise social landlords. or housing with moderated rents). etc. whose quality is now far below that of lower or 'very social' housing.244 3. and it Total 2.0 297. 1977.899 65. It units of units of units has even been possible since 1988 to 'convention' an existing property without improving it.014.567 7. Upper social 92.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe There are three broad types of social housing. which is currently under attack by the European Commission. limited rents. These are known as standard (currently funded Social housing is generally known as 'HLM housing' in France (for habitation à loyer by the PLUS loan). but this has fall. standard social housing amounted to 81% of the total. state poli- · Public agencies (offices publics): public bodies funded by local authorities. housing Social housing providers obtain 'conventioned' loans from a public bank (the Caisse Standard 1.690 9. How social housing is provided government loan used to fund them.3 194.223 100. local authorities play a growing role: they *These categories refer to different types of subsidised loans .736 12. This change in emphasis has been criticised as one of the causes of an increasing lack of affordable housing (Fondation Abbé Both deliver standard housing. urban planning. In return they accept certain duties as social landlords Table 2: Categories of social housing* (income ceilings for tenants.0 still defines housing needs. · Social firms for housing (entreprises sociales d'habitat): private.5% for the Offices). There was a rapid 'conventioning' of existing stock rapidly during the Lower social 186.0 1990's.3 1. The most recent change was the Second Decentralisation Law of Source: PLS 2004 and DGUHC August 2004.384. funded by deposits in the house-savings scheme social housing (Epargne logement). tively. as shown in Table 2 below. In 1977 a system of contracting (conventionnement) between the state and social al programs. corresponding to the three types of 3. which allowed groups of local authorities to take responsibility for dis- 72 73 . upper and lower (or 'very social') social housing. Those estates are presently the target of demolition and urban renew.374. The tenants of 'conventioned' pro- Pre 1977 1977-2003 2000-2004 grams are eligible for housing benefit (aide personnalisée au logement.760 100. In the last five years (2000-2004).422 6. A program may be 'conventioned' prior to construction. Since 2000. modéré.930. The state contin- ues to guarantee loans given through the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations.3 ous ways in the last 10 years.9 106. turned into deprived estates. against 4. and 12% between 1977 and 2003.977 7. cies have favoured upper social housing.). but the former deliver a higher proportion of lower (or very social) housing (10% of their stock. many of the standard social units built before 1977 have (or intermediate) housing (8% of their stock.

2 4. One recent study showed that a quarter of new tenants had household respectively. There is increasing socio-spatial segregation within social housing. personal subsidies for hous.5 ing have risen from less than €5bn in 1984 to more than €14bn in 2004. and are fairly high (for a standard social housing unit in 2006. the average number of persons per household is 3.1 12.8 9. The average immigrant household size is larger than that of non-immi- incomes of less than 20% of the ceiling. Immigrants and much lower incomes than owner-occupiers. Fiscal subsidies have increased (from €298m to €440m). and owner-occupiers €1.3 22. 'Vingt ans de dépenses publiques de logement'. but interest-rate sub- sidies have been cut from €2. The concentration of social rented sector. Overall.1 1984. but they occu- received €1. the limit is try as a whole -.5 27. Table 3 Households in social housing: income distribution in quartiles. Demographics Source: INSEE. versus 15% in 1997) and couples with children (27% in 2006. 71% for stan.9 20 years (see appendix 5 for details): it was €1.9 authorities. despite many cities' fear that the state will also transfer the financial burden of social housing to them. The proportion of households headed by foreigners is twice as high as in the coun- or lower).7 33.000 for a household with two children). 74 75 . Direct grants are more or less unchanged. So far 66 local authority groups have signed an agreement with the state.8bn in 1988 30. Enquêtes Nationales Logement (ENL).4 for non-immigrants. Half the pied 22% of the social rented units.606.5% of the total population in 2002. as tion 2006 opposed to residual or targeted systems -. upper ple.7 current low level of market interest rates).9 33.5 for immigrants and 2. down from €2. while higher- dard social housing. private tenants €1. Some 29% of immigrant households live in the households living in the social sector receive housing benefit. compared to 14% of non-immigrants.2 32. from €442m in 1997 to €455m in 2004.2bn in 1984 to only €329m in 2004 (mainly due to the 1992 31. Social tenants Immigrant households made up 9. nearly €40. Households applying for a social housing unit must have qualifying incomes. and 80% and 89% for the two types of upper social housing.9 24.2002 struction cost.6 25.6 32. which has more single peo- income ceilings depend on the type of housing product in question (standard.6 10. 2006) These are historically high levels. in Données Sociales-la société française. this percentage is far higher: 44%.062. But for populations from impoverished households in the social sector has been growing over the last decades Turkey. The poorest holds have incomes that make them eligible for lower social housing. income social tenants live in neighbourhoods where a quarter of heads of household (Chodorge. The versus 32% in 1997) than does the private rented sector. however. At the same time. the social sector houses more single-parent families the two last decades. social sector tenants have lower incomes than tenants as a whole. households in social housing live in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. 2002 35.410. but they can leverage in other financing. (19% of tenants in 2006.2 18.but new tendencies have appeared over In terms of household structure.8bn in 2004.2 30. édi- The French system of social housing belongs to the family of generalist systems. 1996 33 32. The result is that 35% of house. representing more than 55% of the total cost of housing policies. 1973 .Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe tributing state grants for social housing. The total amount of state subsidy to social housing providers has sharply decreased in the last 1984 25.7 24.449/month in 2001. 48% and 38% (see Table 3). are executives or own their own businesses.30% of foreigners living in France are housed in the social sector.9 9. 1973 12 29 35 24 Financing for social housing is provided by the state. The overall average household income in France (excluding students) was €1.8 32. Maghreb and black Africa. quoted in Frédéric Gilli. Employees also contribute through a 1% 'housing tax' on wages.9 12. social developers and local 1978 17. grants: in the social sector. These grants represent only 5% of the con. and this number is expected to grow Year 1st quartile 2nd quartile 3rd quartile 4th quartile rapidly in the next years.

who are generally black or coloured people.0 Mediterranean origin. face in securing housing in the private rented sector.4 regard to individual aspirations and with regard to environment quality and sustainabil- ity.4 22 2. Overall 56 2.1 21 2.9% 10. The government has recently introduced incentives for the construction of sustain- * Percentages do not total 100%.8 Other tenures 9. Laos The housing sector in France is being called on to respond to new demands.1% 6. d'après ENL-INSEE Cambodia. tenure house.5 2.9% 9.5% 21.4 28 3.0% 8.0% 57.2 12 3.3% 55. 1996 and 2001 1996 2001 Portugal 53 3. This is probably hold size hold size hold size partly due to the growing difficulty that foreigners.0 18 2.1 12 2.2% 28.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Table 4: Households by nationality and tenure.2% 22. Only 5% live in the oldest (pre-1949) Owner occupation Social tenants Private tenants and newest (post-1990) housing. but momentum is just beginning to grow.7% 24. d'après ENL-INSEE rials and innovative energy systems. almost 70% of immigrants in the social sector (versus only 55% of the 2001 whole population of sector) are housed on estates built between 1949 and 1974. where the shrinking estates are concentrated.1 34 2. Significantly. the aspiration is owner occupation. 43 4.0 17 2. Social housing suffers from an increasingly degrad- ed image except in some favoured areas of inner cities (like Paris).1 12 2.9 22 2.3 38 2. as other tenures are not included.4 Overall Non Immigrants Overall Non Immigrants immigrants immigrants Spain 52 2. Changes in housing needs and expectations for the future Vietnam.5 2. Household type % in Average % in Average % in Average As shown in Table 5.1% Maghreb 23 3.5 16 2.5 14 2.0 16 2.0 Non-HLM 21. Better mainte- 76 77 . tenure house. able dwellings.6% 14.6% 27.7 48 3.9% 37.0% 56.4 21 2.1 HLM tenants 15.2 21 3.5 26 2.6 5.9 Source : DEEF/USH.3% 21.9% 15.1 Table 5: Tenures of immigrants and non-immigrants. since 1996 an increasing percentage of immigrants have tenure house.5 22.9 22 2.7% 7.4 10 2. both with Other countries 38 3. It should be noted these figures do not include people coming from 'Dom-Tom' (Départements Immigrants 40 2.8 20 2.7% 14.9 29 3.6 and Territories d'Outre-mer).6% other EU 57 2. become social sector tenants or home-owners (nearly 40% in 2001).0 Owners 54.3% tenants Turkey 28 4. More difficult is the question of needs and aspirations-and for the mainstream.1 Italy 69 2. and some social developers are focusing on using sustainable mate- ** Source : DEEF/USH. and average household size. especially those of black and Non-immigrants 58 2.6 21.9 other Africa 18 3.9% other Europe 44 2.0% 20.4 44 3.5 38 4.7% 39.

92 The level of rents in the social sector is much lower than in the private sector. but they vary by region.82 5. Rents Very social 4. Rents tend to be lower for buildings financed under previous housing: small units that are well located. Nord-Pas-de-Calais.€3.000 ments to four years in others. with good services closeby. One way of measuring geographical variations is the so.14 8. The social rented sector is thus facing growing demand.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe nance and management would go some way to restoring its attractiveness.92 for "very social" housing in the cheapest areas. rents range from €4. Divorces graphical difference being between Paris and other cities: rents average €60/m /year imply a requirement for two housing units instead of one . areas of more housing and allocation of a dwelling).19 6.9%). 8. a €5. ber of households will continue to grow faster than the population as a whole. This ing .5% versus 6. this ranges from three months in some depart. With the recent boom in house prices.20 in Paris in 2005. the rents in the social sector range from less than €4 to more than €8. and increasing job insecurity in the Tenants. suburbs) population) 6.22 3. Half of the new households will be single Social housing rents depend mainly on the age of the buildings and the type of initial people. 60% of the rent is paid by personal housing grants. which brings their average expenditure on housing down from 33% of income to 10%. (PLAI) ference is 30% to 40% on average. The discrepancy between private Upper social and social rents has increased rapidly with the growth of house prices since 1997. est 10% of households. The num. and possibly more. both must in the Paris region. to nearly 5% in Type of Zone I Zone I-bis Zone II Zone III Bourgogne (Dijon area). be large enough to accommodate children. Expressed in monthly euros per square metre.20/m2 on average.76 4.63 (PLS) 78 79 . Picardie and Brittany. The dispersion of rents is much lower in the social sector than in the private sector. as would This has made it impossible for the majority of tenants to leave the social sector for better urban services. and €8. The advantage thus obtained by social renting households is several billion euros per year (Laferrère [1999]). the private sector.40 to ed by specialist associations and charities. Vacancy rates and the length of queues offer two measures of unsatisfied needs for social housing. Table 6: Average social sector rents by type of area (€/m2/month).and in addition.76. the time between the first application for social population 10 and 29 sur.14 4. depending on the location and type of social hous- At the end of the 1980s the most visible housing problem was homelessness. from less than 2% in Ile. particularly the poorest. elderly persons and students. Vacancy rates are much lower in the social stock than on average in France (around 2. 2005 de-France (Paris region). compared to €49 to €51 in other cities. These latter categories need specific types of funding (see above). housing (Paris area: (Paris inner-city (other urban (rest of France) called 'abnormally long delay' (that is.43 5. thus reducing turnover in the social sector. operat- social" housing in Paris. The This reflects both the regulation of social rents and the relative homogeneity of the number of households is forecast by INSEE [the National Institute for Statistics and social stock. Demographic changes will obviously have a big impact on housing demand. As the pressure on dynamic areas will increase. funding regimes.65 for "upper problem still exists. also benefit from housing allowances: for the poor- labour market. the only significant2 geo- Economic Studies] to increase by 275. For "standard" social housing. Those levels of rents have to be compared with those in the private sector: new and broader concern has emerged: the lack of affordable housing for working €11. Rents for 'very social' housing are well below average.76 4. million) rounding than 100.000 annually.65 7. The dif. there is a need to ensure territorial equity. but €20. With this idea. but different types of 'emergency product' have emerged. but can be much higher in some bigger towns (notably in Paris. families.42 bullish housing markets. fuelled by evictions due to the sharp rise in private rents and prices. Rent variations have little to do with location. where the ratio of social to private rents is 1:2 or 1:3) and areas with Standard(PLUS) 5. we are back to the importance of local markets.

or habi- allocated public money to social landlords to construct. Social sector All house. a new provision Besides the traditional social housing sector (mainly what is known as HLM. which are not formal.000 units.1 (deciles 2 and 3) 'Very social' sector Others While the stock of 'de facto social housing' is shrinking drastically. The agency Since 1977 (see below).0 de 1948. and the number is increasing. Low-income 24.4 (deciles 4-10) tor has emerged besides lower social housing of the "formal" sector (financed by PLAI loans). Borloo populaire programme). while in rural areas similar households are more often own- ers.4 16. Table 7: Expenditure on housing kets. among the 5.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 7.2 million such units. the Source: ENL INSEE 80 81 . All tenants 19. Social housing and other forms of affordable provision things they have in common include the mode of access (regulated by social workers and conditioned on need) and restricted rights for tenants. Where social housing is less developed. It is very difficult to know the exact number of beds or dwellings in this sector.9 21. but its funds are insufficient.2 16. To give an exam- Gross expenditure on Net expenditure on housing ple.0 ly considered housing.1 10. helping the tenants The 'very social' sector includes non-traditional types of housing such as shelters. In 1994.000 The private rented sector accommodates about one million poor households (those to 200. for example.7 13. there are other forms of 'affordable housing'. Social sector find accommodation in the least desirable part of the private rented sector. One home-ownership loan programme collapsed in 1995 (the PAP sys- relatively powerless in areas where the market is very strained. situated somewhere between shelters and rented dwellings offering poor living conditions and lower prices. and was replaced by the PTZ. and recently tax incentives tend to stay. and guarantee to low-income households a better benefit than the original households and young people in their first independent homes. toilets or heating). These were put on the market with controlled rents. baths. the cost of this have been introduced to stimulate private investment in affordable rented housing (the 'informal' social housing sector amounted to nearly €1 billion.9 14. trapped permanently in 'temporary' housing. in Paris and in the Mediterranean region. vated.' After its extension in 2004. however in fact in tight housing markets. Old foyers and dilapidated furnished hostels have thus been reno- termed 'de facto social housing'. In 2006. where Household type holds tenants holds tenants rents can also be very high. tem).000.7 17.000 still benefit from rent control under the so-called loi Poorest (decile 1) 40. or 'zero-interest loan.5 million households living in the pri- vate rented sector.2 13. the Social ownership and "Borloo populaire" National Agency for Improvement of Habitation (ANAH) financed the renovation of 1. a 'very social' sec. because 'de facto' social housing their creation depends on local initiatives even if there is a quantitative objective at About 19% of all units in the rented sector (mainly in the private sector) are seriously national level.) This sector encompasses several forms of provision. Policymakers intended this housing to be transitional. people Social ownership is another form of affordable housing. It accommodates a large number of mobile struction. less well-off households are often ten- housing as % of income (after benefits) as % of income ants in the private sector. 16. move on to 'normal' social housing. which have been standard housing. substandard (lacking. (This does not include emergency centres and shelters. In addition ANAH is ownership.1 33. poor households and migrants have to All house. There may be over 150.1 13. which in turn is linked to the size of the social housing stock. only 200.2 Finally. and are elsewhere known as quasi-social housing. The objective is to enlarge freedom of choice between old and new con- with incomes below 30% of HLM ceilings). Since 1986 this stock has been returning to the free market (except for that still occupied by the original elderly tenants). it was expected to increase the number of subsidised new homeowners from 100.4 16. many attempts have been made to develop social home would like to widen this programme.7 16. From 1993 to 2002. The degree to which it serves as quasi-social housing depends on the pressure in the local housing mar. buy or rehabilitate dwellings in tation à loyer modéré). There are private order to create this new type of housing.

enable everybody to become a homeowner'. subsidies Grants.3 below the market rent. the investor must rent the dwelling for at least nine years to Private rented 11 3. His slogan is: cally low vacancy rate. risen sharply since 1997) and the riots in French suburbs during autumn 2005. The government's official target to create 500. however. which is now absorbing more subsidy (direct and indirect) migrants to have a home. where social housing has fallen from 37% to 15% ing was a low priority for French governments.6 100 8.83 26 1.9 45 2. a new tax incentive known as 'Borloo Populaire' (2006) (named after Jean. Minister of Employment.000 that would be necessary to implement the plan. Social housing in the political debate Source : INSEE [2006]. Although politicians have repeatedly fewer than 50. not to satisfy unmet housing needs.a number which itself fell from 45. However. The goal to encourage families to become homeowners for the first time. and tax expendi.000 between 1995 and gram and social cohesion plan were launched.000 units built in 2004. the main nificant boost to social housing: demolition of 200. The rent must be 30% Social rented 41 2.000 expected. had little effect on the in the social sector is a matter of concern. 82 83 . subsidies Construction subsi- Finally. This increase would go some supports the sale of part of the social housing stock. From the mid-1990s until 2004.some favouring the (2005-2009) is far from being met. housing policies have been reoriented in the last 20 years towards incomes) and at the same time it enables working class people. and far from the declared that the social rented sector is a priority. this has not always been reflected 80. the remainder to be 'upper' social housing. The objective (together with the related 'de Robien incentive') Owner 48 4. construction of 200. In exchange (%) billions of € % billions of € % for a tax deduction3.9 100 4. This was below the 56. including the UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire). 43. believes that home ownership offers families security. It included a sig- The political right.see above . low incomes and the private rented sector.000 fewer private rented housing units (about 10% per year. however it is not yet possi.000 units. the growing impoverishment of households living from the state than the social rented sector. The political debate In 2004 the French government announced a Social Cohesion Plan.and tax expenditure dies 2004 Louis Borloo. Another matter of concern is the limited proportion of 'normal' social housing in centre stage.7 households whose income is under the ceiling for 'upper' social housing (which is rather high . the construction of new social hous. In 2004. occupied ble to predict the outcome. thanks to the lack of affordable housing (house prices and rents have the plan's objectives: only 62%. and only 5% in Paris).000 new social dwellings in five years ments have intervened in the housing market in different ways . particularly high in the Paris area.000 in 2006. with 39. the objective of the Plan was to deal with spatial seg- 'against precariousness.4 Analysis of social housing occupation shows that it is heterogeneous (not only low As Table 8 shows. and new units. or maintain its traditional regulating role on the housing market? Successive govern.and can hardly be considered 'social'). and rehabilitation of 200.05 28 0.000 conservative political party. The quantitative shortage is in their actions.000 units). than in 1984. One of the effects is a low turnover rate production of such housing: there are now 15. Now social housing has returned to 2005.4 8. Social Cohesion and Housing) is aimed at ture 1984 2004 stimulating investment in construction for the intermediate rental market. of new dwellings . Party leader Nicolas Sarkozy has way to addressing the supply crisis created by a strong rise in demand and a histori- proposed the sale of 1% per year of the stock (about 40.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe PZT of 1995. Compte du logement 2004 What is the future of French social housing? Will it turn into a tenure for the poorest. regation problems.000 new units in 2007 and after.9 41. This has. Tenure Grants. Total 100 10.000 existing units. Borloo's urban renewal pro. Table 8: Government expenditure on housing by tenure category the outcome is not yet clear.0 is the construction of 60.000 to 40. however.000 in 2005.3 50. and private sector and some the social sector.

31% 1977 The Barrot Act brought about a shift from construction subsidies to personal sub- sidies. social housing is being demol- ness and inadequate housing. Last but not least.909 50. credible? No.040 +9. in which the local authorities will be increasingly % 10. the constitutional right to housing and social cohesion. N°46.9 9. 2004 . This was a response to what is housing (although this may not be relevant in future). on the other hand.81% responsible for programming social housing construction.436 +5. 1981 The first urban riots occurred in the "3V" (Vaulx-en-Velin. permissions of which social 49.036 +4. op schemes for those in need of housing. left. 1990 The Besson Act was passed in response to the growing problem of homeless- Under the new national program for urban renewal. known as the 'suburb crisis'.80% 10. rebuilt and rehabilitated.' It required local authorities to devel- the supply of housing in deprived areas. Second. They also lowing years. The left.840 +9.91% 9. Villeurbanne. in order to attract middle class households. the market is obvious. the cost of ownership is very high. DAEI.8 534. 1991 Local housing programmes (PLH) were introduced. It stated that 'guaranteeing the right to housing ished. The * Estimated Act also introduced a system of contracts (conventionnement) for the supply of Source : Activités et emploi dans le BTP. France has a culture and long history of social 'Sensitive neighbourhoods' were introduced. Third. and a change in emphasis from rented housing to home ownership.2005 2006* 2005 .Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Table 9: New housing construction. placed tenants must move to other areas. 84 85 .193 +11. and could accentu- Total construction ate the ongoing suburbs crisis. The program aims to foster social mix by diversifying is a duty of solidarity for the whole society.32 55. municipalities feel they need to provide housing for their own employees and 2004 2005 2004 .338 511. and became a major issue after 1988 under Michel Rocard's gov- have demanded that the provisions of the Solidarity and Urban Renewal law (2000) ernment. This would force rich municipalities to take a share tralisation process. but planning is becoming more and more The number of social housing units is still growing.44% 11. Milestones since 1975 % 10. for several reasons: First. near Lyon). This was the start of a decen- 5. At the national level. Ministère de l'équipement. Venissieux and rity. be respected: that at least 20% of the housing stock in all urban municipalities over 1982 Mayors got the right to issue building licences.the proportion of the private rented sec.7 51.1 434. Fourth.2006 service providers. believes that only a strong public sector can provide secu. Is the prospect of residualisation a local responsibility. The financing of social Possible future scenarios housing is still done at a national level.76% 10. Paris social housing.000 new social units per year. 363.052 42.322 +19.8 starts More probable will be the growing fragmentation of the social housing stock in a con- of which social 39.000 inhabitants should be social.4 The so-called "politique de la ville" started in the fol- wing parties support the construction of 120.069 +0. and ethnic mix in social housing. decline of big estates. so dis- poor pay for moving expenses or rental deposits. It seems clear that if social housing providers are to resist Total new 457. June 2006. something that many of them have so far avoided. of low-income households. and to create special funds to help the Demolished social housing units often are not replaced with social housing. which continues. and has gradually turned into a debate about the social tor devoted to affordable housing is falling.5 residualisation they must find a way to reduce socio-spatial segregation.2006 and the capacity for growth in this sector may be low without costly new incentives. residualisation would necessarily lead to a high- % change % change er spatial concentration of deprived residents on certain estates.488 +13. even if regulations and resources remain national. which began as a question of the (urban/technical) ly not able to meet society's housing needs -.003 410.8 text of increasing decentralisation.

Comptes du logement 2004. (2005). Atlas 2004. 3 Investments under the programme can be amortised at 6% for the first 7 years. Rapport sur le mal logement en 2 See: ANAH. de l'habitat privé.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 1995 'Sensitive urban zones' introduced. Websites : Borloo introduced a national plan for urban renovation. Politique du logement. led to the establishment of national urban renewal programmes. Paris: PFNSP programming social housing constructions.662 in the metropole (continental France) and 109. 10 Laferrere A.H. Leblanc D. histoire d'une marchandise impossible.fnars. Le logement en Europe. Housing Studies. Stébé Jean-Marc (1998). enjeux. and Pigois R. DGUHC. Bibliography Fondation Abbé Pierre. Le 4. http://www.5% for 6 years. (1967).gouv.. 65% can be amortised over 15 years. Mouillart M. Paris : L'Harmattan to have 20% social housing.. Paris Guerrand R. n°1010 through social mix. " Portrait de locataires ". "Les effets de l'existence des HLM sur le 86 87 . (1999). 4 Earlier riots. and Occhipinti (1992). Source : Enquête PLS (Parc locatif social) au 1/01/2004. Ministère de l'équipement. Paris Kleinman Mark (1995). Demolitions started to profil de consommation des ménages". 2005 Fribourg A. This was an attempt to fight spatial segregation Minodier Christelle (2005).fr/ Endnotes http://www2. aimed at "breaking the http://www. and gave to multicommunal authorities the capability of Topalov West Indies). in all. Vol. pp. then 4% for 2 years and 2. in 1981 in Les Minguettes (Lyon). Fonctions.M. "Meeting Housing Needs through the Market: An assessment of housing policies and the Supply/Demand balance in France and Great Britain". " Que sais-je? ". N° ghettos".logement.gouv. Section 55 of this act required towns with more than 5000 inhabitants échec. Lefebvre B. Economie et statistique. INSEE Première. 37-60 occur in the second half of 1990s. Paris : Les Editions ouvrières INSEE (2006).471 in the outre-mer (French 1 http://www. Les origines du logement social en France.union-hlm. Le logement social en France. Paris. évolutions. there are now 752.statistiques. de l'Equipement du Tourisme et de la Mer. 50 ans pour un 2000 SRU Act.180. Paris : PUF 2004 The Raffarin Act of August 2004 eliminated central government interference in the allocation process. Ministère des Transports.. http://www.

514 5.11 6.584 14.472 2.474 26.63 2.540 24.010 2.422 6.514 9.3 ILM 62.28 Social sector 3.391 24.05 24.93 18.90 24.85 6.66 18.710 4. of units % Programme No.6 for landlords 0.555 6.3 Others 164.181 6.736 12.554 10.175 26.61 14.84 11.281 1.374.044 6.41 Tenants 9.61 0.2 PLA/PLUS 1.040 1.73 2.828 28.60 0.348 9.3 HLMO 1.9 PLA-LM/PLAT-S/PLA-I 87.3 PLR/PSR 186.758 1.3 Tax expenditures 2.485 of social housing dwellings Source : INSEE [2006].5 ILN 29.048 23.32 3.014.893 2.741 36.620 1.76 18.927 1.76 4.940 2.007 56.89 4.501 4.274 5.63 4.949 10.33 12.6 PLS/PPLS/PLA CFF 34.275 3.44 Outright owners 5. Le compte du logement.100 12.71 Total permanently 20.074 (TFPB) for social housing Vacant dwellings 1.85 With mortgage 4.21 1.25 PLI/PCL 59.053 6.893 4.788 15.07 6.286 6.456 43.00 1. Compte provisoire 2005 Total 11.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Background tables Table C: Effective government spending on housing (billions of euros) Table A: Total housing stock (thousands of units) 2004 1984 1995 2000 2003 2004 1984 1990 1995 1999 2004 2005 2005 % % Owner-occupiers 10.8 23.87 14.905 4.576 8.236 5.9 to consumers 4.15 Private sector 3.444 31.904.43 0.040 3.8 to producers 4.911 26.977 7.99 75.00 0.822 80.99 1.266 19.73 10.04 100 Table B: Social rental stock by funding type Source : INSEE [2006].7 Grants and subsidies 9. of units % HBM 25.540 22.930 3.766 6.840 2.62 1.9 Others 169.586 7.897 1.494 6.295 4.93 7. Compte du logement 2004 Pre-1977 1977 and later Programme No.87 25.223 100 Total 1.568 73.624 2.88 2.710 12.96 17.30 0.945 5.32 1.20 2.39 57..142 31.915 1.387 11.463 100 occupied dwellings Exemption from property tax 0.73 24.70 0.1 PLA-I 18.72 1.948 Exemption from VAT on renovation Total number of 2.098 100 Source: PLS 2004 and DGUHC 88 89 .294 29.92 Second homes 2.61 18.830 9.384.7 for owner occupiers 0.3 Total 2.837 13.261 5.933 2.90 13.890 11.76 3.

while the urban dimension was neglected. families of professors as well as workers. with a focus on providing for the aged. and has ranged from 40 years or so in the East German Mass Housing provision 1970s and 1980s to 12-20 years now. From the 1950s. In practice. in the 1970s massive industrial production of panel buildings began in peripheral New This law was replaced in September 2001 by the Law on the Reform of Housing Housing Areas (Neubaugebieten) in the 1970s and later spread to east German inner- Regulations (Gesetz zur Reform des Wohnungsbaurechtes). Wohnungsbaugesetz. and from socio-spatial policy to individual care. Dormitory quarters were erected for a fully employed and egalitarian society. The first. 1. municipal administrations. demographic changes. rent level or mortgage repayment and maintenance cost Towards the end of the 1980s. two strands of development emerged after World War II. the II. The length of this lock-in period depends on the type of programme and the extent of subsidy. palaces'. the working class 'privilege' of living in the large new housing areas lost its towards personal subsidies. gage payment and a cost rent. the east German housing stock was dominated by the were suitable for a wide range of social groups of the population. as well as other measures to support households unable to provide for themselves However. The focus was on satisfactory flats. Since the late 1980s special emphasis has been placed Development and Structural Planning on specific groups rather than general policies. the owners of the dwellings are free to rent or sell the dwellings at market prices. In addition to the products of three post-war building periods. These have been cut since the 1980s. and is closely relat. 1960s. the legal foun. and about five per cent of public funds went into home owner- The legal framework has developed since the early 20th century. it marks a turn away from the funding of specific types of dwelling grew. History of social housing provision: East and West exchange for subsidies (grants or tax relief). Institute for Regional small special-needs groups. which includes the Law cities.a debate has started about the need for and the appropriate forms of social housing in the reformed welfare state. or rehabilitate existing housing. 90 91 . as popular dissatisfaction with urban neglect and the housing conditions on the market. was 'working-class provision of rented dwellings.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe German housing policy previously centred on massive direct and indirect subsidies to 7. Approximately 25 per cent was organised by workers' housing cooperatives. except for Christiane Droste & Thomas Knorr-Siedow. WoBauG also supported the acquisition of owner. The goal was the production of dwellings that by their size. or WoBauG). the state's economic plan funded 'Mass Housing'. single parents and larger families. housed everyone . many of the In the GDR.the ed to German non-profit law and subsidy regulations. rent ceilings etc . Mass Housing. this was followed by a short phase of the International Moderne during the occupied properties. attraction. The public sector meets the gap between the amount received in rent or mort- 33). not least because the state monopoly pro- dation of social housing in the Federal Republic was the Second Home-building Law vided for no other type of quality housing.that is. however. In 2. urban polarisation and over a million vacant homes . However. equipment. Social Housing in Germany builders (grants and tax relief). in the 1950s. Third. Although the new law still regulates the produc.for a certain peri- Weimar Republic and the impressive quantity and quality of Modern Building (1918 - od. Background German social housing is market-based. on the grounds that the generally high housing standards made state interference obsolete. After its expiry. Historically the public sector has subsidised private firms to develop new social housing. when housing quality was comparable to that of western social housing. as the name implied. these firms are required to operate the Starting from the traditions of the reform of housing and public building during the housing as 'social' . (II. ship for privileged groups. particularly as a quality housing market emerged after unification in 1990. Produced by a state developers are municipally-owned companies that continue to operate the units as de monopoly. tion of rented housing (including cooperative housing) and owner-occupied housing. on Social Housing provision (WoFG). enforce income limits. as new urban problems have emerged - including regional economic disparities. more than two-thirds of all new dwellings were managed as rentals by facto social housing.

the sector aimed at provid- ing decent homes for key workers and the lower middle classes. < 2500 460.140. owner-occupied housing in smaller peripheral developments and single family homes.9m social dwellings.000 inhabitants. social housing in the Federal Republic consisted both of highly subsidised sold all its municipally-owned housing stock to foreign investors. Due to Germany's particular system for financing social housing. Apart from a qual.000 In Germany social housing has never been especially targeted at the poor or built specifically for them. More than half of social housing in eastern Germany was on estates of more renewal. states' programmes were increasingly opened up to individual and institutional private investors. In the east.10. can still be categorised as social or quasi-social hous- ing -. funded by the federal government and the German states. as well as a considerable amount of only 8% of housing is municipal in cities with over 200. the legal stric. sus counted 3.that is. regulated. Especially since the mid-1980s. providers have striven to build attractive homes to high ecological standards. the federal operate them as social housing. partly to serve as models for market In 2001. Social housing provision in the West and 24% in the east of the city.000 repayment). Private investors. whereas in many countries 500 units would be consid- ered large. which is characterised by several levels of action. returning again to the cities with the advent of urban tries.000 ity slump during the mass-production period of the 1970s.8m. Dresden recently In contrast. In the 1980s it was single family homes built under the new legislation after 1990. comprehensive housing political support structure. was not then social housing in a legal sense. the cost of social housing (whether rent or mortgage 5.000 880. which were and Source: Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landeskunde und Raumordnung 1999 still are. and young transitory groups Amount and location with limited financial resources move in. who often belonged to the wealth. While the 1987 cen- reunification.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Since new and refurbished housing of all types has become available. Social housing in post-unification Germany municipal buildings from the GDR period have increasingly been abandoned by bet- ter-off social groups. converted from 'people's property' to municipal housing on homes will continue to shrink drastically over the coming years. the number of social The GDR's mass housing. In Berlin in 2006. Older and poorer residents remain.and the city's government is considering further privatisation. In fact.000 .000 240. About tures relating to social housing only apply to rented and cooperative flats and many 100. this consensus has now gone. From the 1980s. received generous tax relief in return for co-financing the Estate size in units Former West Germany Former East Germany construction of social housing. The dwellings thus were never stigmatised as Policy framework lower-class homes. Most of these units are now 'quasi-social housing' . Flat sizes. The new legislation provides for support to both private investors and municipal housing com- 92 93 .000 100.000 dwellings per year lose their status as social housing. the former social housing legislation and programmes were replaced by a housing. was usually beyond the means of the poor. Social rented housing was originally built in areas of war damage and only later German housing estates tend to be large compared to those of other European coun- moved to the urban periphery. by 2001 there were only about 1. only 9% of dwellings in the west.000 590. Number of units on estates ier German middle classes. This embracing of the private sector was both an attempt to secure more Table 1: Size distribution of housing estates in western and eastern Germany private funding and a response to public protests against misguided urban renewal strategies and financial scandals. were generous.000 1. and an average of rented and cooperative flats in urban blocks. than 5000 units (see Table 1). many areas of 3. they are the Municipal and cooperative housing companies (which were often closely entangled property of municipal housing companies who are no longer contractually obliged to with the municipalities) were the most important actors. > 10. commonly understood that social housing should make up about one-third of all hous- ing. west German social hous- ing was always a leader in architectural and urban design.

Over time. this consists of social rented housing in the from the supply of dwellings to support for individual households. which have the constitutional responsibili. The goal is ings. Municipalities therefore develop their own programmes for Developers of this type of housing (either new-build or rehabilitation) normally do social housing. provides well-financed support about €4/m2 and then rise over time as credit subsidies fall. to be replaced by · The principle of local primacy requires that no housing be created as the property The third strand: Owner-occupied social housing. all funding regimes have been influenced by the following incomes can be 60% higher than for the first strand. The housing narrow sense. law (Wirtschaftsgesetzgebung). the focus of German housing policy has gradually changed Federally regulated (1. Three strands of social housing ty for housing and administer their own particular housing policies. Access to all types of social housing was and is regulated through a system that takes emphasis is placed on refurbishing existing property. the federal government provides the general legal and estates with bad local images. The majority of the incentive · The principle of shared contributions requires end-users (usually residents) to pay is in the form of tax reductions (up to 2005). state. but there are problematic instances of segregation. Developers receive similar subsidies but households purchase rather than rent even municipal housing companies are private entities governed by commercial the units. three strands of social housing developed. and/or fed- eral contributions. There are strict income limits and rent ceilings. in addition to municipal.permitted impossible. presenting a comprehensive picture of funding of social housing is virtually are of slightly better quality. for satisfactory homes. All social housing in Germany is legally private. and €7/m2 in the south. this consists of 'elevated social housing'. the east. · The principle of subsidiarity holds that matters should be dealt with at the most local level possible. their share (rents. Nevertheless. and because policies and funding methods have evolved over Found only in some states. mortgage payments). 3% below market) and gradually rises over several years to a market rate. Those states and municipalities with relatively few households in need of public cate the successful candidates according to their judgement. and have more lenient eligibility rules . and on the municipal acquisition into account individual household needs. whose shares are held by the municipality. isfactory social mix. of the state or federal government. Rents start at allowance. municipalities are overburdened. particularly in Within the federal system. Rents start at about €5/m2 in Berlin. State and federal governments only intervene as and when the not get subsidy in the form of grants. subject to regularly adjusted income ceil- of social housing rights for a limited period on the open housing market. Often this leads to a sat- housing assistance are following this strategy. Förderweg). Eligible applicants are issued access permits (Wohnberechtigungsschein) by the to limit the build-up of potentially discriminatory clusters of homogeneous social hous- municipality. Due to high vacancy rates in some regions. and rents are higher and reg- principles: ulated for a shorter period. and old industrialised areas of the west. 94 95 . but rather receive a subsidised mortgage.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe panies in providing affordable rented or owner-occupied dwellings for households with Allocation access problems on the open market. It also provides financial assistance to the states. The second strand: Because individual German municipalities and states have a great deal of responsi- bility for housing policy. say. Public and private landlords can select tenants from this group and allo- ing. institutional foundations and sets targets for the social provision of housing. This strand has almost completely disappeared in most states. Dwellings time. and rise over time. of which two still exist: Financing and price mechanisms The first strand Over the past decades. but lacks any spatial or regional element. which is part of the social benefits system. The interest rate on such mortgages starts low (at.

Japanese pension funds. even An increasing number of special needs homes have been built over the last two after it was no longer subject to social housing law. There are large Critics of the former funding system claimed that new social housing usually cost parts of the municipal housing stock that are no longer legally social housing. trol. final cost rents towards the end of the subsidy peri- dwellings that were refurbished under urban rehabilitation programmes. This has contributed to the remarkable overall quality of German housing. The privatisation of some major decades. ments. In many more than market housing of similar quality. 'Quasi-social housing' is a special feature of the German system. The public housing refugees or other marginalised groups were never a general focus of German social companies and co-operatives have considerable political influence and contribute to housing. The public sector's role in reducing the cost gap between social and market housing Social housing providers has helped to prevent social housing from becoming stigmatised as housing for the Over several decades. mixed-generation housing and municipal and federal housing companies (predominantly railway and army housing). stock of this quasi-social respondingly housing' vate rents are also regulated in Germany. these housing grammes. Under the control of local politicians or cooperative members. and those former social public sector. Tenants then paid subsidised rents or mortgage pay. however. social housing has benefited from German tax regula. as de facto social housing in terms of rents and access. They include experimental live/work units. The sys. social housing was dominated by three major groups of insti- poor. the GDW. Private owners of single rented buildings and private institutional landlords have come into social housing since the late 1970s and provide a considerable proportion of for- 96 97 . since the beginning of the 21st century. companies managed their social housing stock in a relatively predictable way. at the end. which has changed this stable scenario. homes for groups like the aged or disabled. have sold tens of thousands of direct building grants. Municipalities in both west- tem thus burdens the public sector with the cost of social housing for decades. and the difference between them and the so-called cost rent was met by the stock are 50 per cent of the former GDR complex housing. es have changed often over the decades. the trade union-owned housing tion. while ern and eastern Germany. 1980s). The largest chunks of this ments. have only a short-term public homes to international institutional investors. The theory was that the social resident's rent or mortgage payment dwellings in the west that have passed out of the period of direct rent and access con- would increase steadily during the lock-in period and the public subsidy would fall cor. rather than the development of housing policy through their association. In some cases. the higher investors' tax rebates tutional providers. However. and the states either had to prolong pay- dies given to the landlords carried conditions requiring limited rent-control for tenants. in exchange for which 1990s cost ceilings were introduced for all three strands of social housing. in difficult fiscal shape. Emergency dwellings for the homeless. municipal housing has shrunk as a result of privatisation. the higher the cost of social housing. However. ly hard to extract themselves from these financing regimes. all housing received Public housing companies and housing cooperatives make up the traditional non-prof- indirect subsidies in the form of high depreciation rates (100% over ten years). 'Quasi. Until recently. Builders were permitted to spend up to cases. They contracted with public banks (the states' investment banks or were. tions that favour any investment in rented housing. This was clearly not an incentive for low-cost housing production. Because of serious mis- The second largest group of quasi-social dwellings are those private rented flats or projections of future inflation rates. Rules about rent ceilings and permitted rent increas- In addition to direct subsidies. and in the the federal KfW) to receive grants or subsidised mortgages. through the housing finance system. will be described below. In addi. municipal political leaders have decided to continue to operate them certain regulated cost-ceilings. or bear the secondary consequences of overpriced social housing. it housing sector (the third non-profit organisation. public subsi- od were unaffordable to social residents.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Comparing private and social rents is not a meaningful measure of subsidy. since pri. These groups were provided for by social or health programmes. though more expensive at the start. quit the sector after numerous financial scandals in the mid- who built or modernised their buildings under its special housing political pro. particularly US. the KfW (German development bank) handed out funds indiscriminately to all agency Neue Heimat. they accepted certain rent limits. British or effect on the public purse. municipalities and states found it extreme. the dwelling was 'released' onto the market.

Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe

mal and quasi-social housing. They build and manage social housing in return for a types of state support also had their rents paid in any social housing. Now, however,
secure but limited profit, providing financial contributions and sharing investment risk. the state will not pay for benefit recipients' rents in certain types of housing. The new
legislation also makes it illegal for municipalities to subsidise rents on dwellings over
Over the last four years the composition of institutional owners has shifted radically
a certain size or rent level. Paradoxically, this has led to increased segregation and
from small and medium-sized German companies to international investors, as the
the concentration of deprived households in low quality neighbourhoods, which
latter have purchased large chunks of housing stock from its former public owners.
makes them even more vulnerable and more difficult for the housing companies to
The purchasers assume any remaining contractual obligation to operate the unit as
social housing. The four largest private owners now are all companies which had vir-
tually no presence in the German housing market five years ago. From January 2005 onwards, housing allowances have only been paid to those who
do not receive other forms of income transfers, including particularly long-term unem-
Owner-occupiers have benefited from the programmes of social and quasi-social
ployment benefits (Arbeitslosengeld II) or basic social security benefits which is paid
housing and many have now become outright owners. Owner-occupied social hous-
to those who are old or unable to work (Grundsicherung). These already include an
ing was introduced in the 1950s in small amounts, but now about 70% of new social
element for housing cost.
housing belongs to this strand.
4. Changing demographics
Municipalities have recently begun to act directly in the social housing market, along-
side their ownership of municipal housing companies. Municipalities have entered During the first half of the 20th century, social housing projects were deliberately locat-
contracts with property owners under which the latter agree to provide a limited pro- ed so that they would change the socio-spatial layout of cities or neighbourhoods.
portion of social housing (as little as a single flat), which is integrated into normal rent- They were targeted at what we would now call 'key workers', and internally they were
ed or ownership housing. These contract forms are particularly prevalent in medium- very similar, suited for a socially highly homogeneous group of lower-middle-income
sized and smaller towns in southern Germany, where the states now limit their inter- households rather than for a social mix. The idea behind post-war social housing, in
vention to providing funds for individual municipalities to develop their own social contrast, was that it should provide for a 'majority of the population', and that the pub-
housing strategies. Under such contracts the municipalities have no influence on the lic sector might have to intervene to maintain the correct profile of residents. The
management of the dwellings, other than setting a framework for letting to eligible assumption was that the dwellings and the built environment would remain attractive
households. even to those who no longer were eligible for social housing. Because many residents
would stay even though their incomes had risen or their children had left, the fear was
The individual housing allowance and Hartz IV that non-eligible residents occupying space suitable for young families and special
Housing allowances enable the beneficiaries to rent or own housing at market rates needs groups would prevent the estates from providing for the needy.
and prevent them from being dependent on a specific narrow low-cost segment of the
This was indeed the case on estates in good urban locations and in economically
market. Since 1965 in the Federal Republic and since 1990 in all of Germany, house-
strong regions. However, this did not materialise on other estates, especially those
holds with low incomes have received financial help to acquire adequate, family-ori-
built from the late 1960s to the end of the 1970s or in peripheral or otherwise unde-
ented homes. Housing allowance is a legal right, as long as certain income conditions
sirable locations. After the first German residents moved out, supported by state ben-
are met. Although this is formally part of the social support system and not the hous-
efits for owner-occupiers, large parts of traditional social housing were only desirable
ing finance system, it should also be considered a type of housing benefit.
to lower-income social groups and immigrants, for whom moving from neglected old
Interactions between the social security system and housing payments have recently housing to vacant social housing meant a rise in quality and status.
become more complicated. In 2005 new legislation (known as 'Hartz IV') came into
Social housing reflected the general increase in socio-spatial segregation, and for
effect which significantly tightened the rules on benefit for the long-term unemployed
some time the application of social housing laws acted to deepen segregation further.
and reduced the rent that is fully paid by the state. Formerly, recipients of certain

98 99

Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe

Disproportional rent increases of up to a quarter of the basic rent were introduced for Immigrants
those whose incomes were above social-housing ceilings in order either to induce
There are no figures on the percentage of immigrant or minority households in social
them to leave subsidised homes, or to collect funds to feed back into social housing
housing. Germany has some 7.3m immigrants (not including German-Russian
programmes. As social housing was already becoming less attractive for the middle
migrants or those who have adopted German nationality), about 96% of whom live in
classes, the levying of this special rent surcharge (Fehlbelegungsabgabe) was highly
west German cities or in Berlin. The concentration of immigrants is highest in high-
counterproductive. Market housing, especially tax-subsidised owner-occupied single
density, often poorly-rehabilitated areas. In some cities-for example, Bremen,
family units, cost the same as or even less than the surcharged rents paid by these
Hamburg, Dortmund and Berlin-immigrant households have moved increasingly to
residents. They tended increasingly to move out, leaving the social housing to those
large housing estates as better-off German families moved out and rents were cheap.
who could not otherwise provide for themselves on the market. The elderly were the
Examples at the estate level include Bremen-Tenever, with a 27% immigrant popula-
only group who put up with these cost increases; low income groups and immigrants
tion, Munchen-Neuperlach 26%, Hamburg Kirchdorf-Sud 35%, and Koln-Chorweiler
moved into the less attractive social housing estates, overburdening them with prob-
about 40%.
lematic social cases.
Many cities lifted the surcharge in the late 1990s and introduced free letting for all 5. Recent trends in social housing
income groups. This did not reduce segregation, but led to an estate-specific segre- In the past, Germany was one of the quantitative and qualitative strongholds of social
gation separating the 'better' from the less advantaged estates even more. The lifting housing in Europe. In the last 20 years, though, the importance of social housing as
of the surcharge attracted higher-income groups only to those estates with good an instrument of urban and social policy has diminished considerably. Beginning in
image, location and housing quality, but nothing changed in the lower-status estates. 1988 with the end of the privileges and obligations connected to non-profit social
In the end, introducing and lifting the surcharge contradicted the political aim of using housing, federal and state governments have steadily reduced their influence on the
social housing as a means of relieving certain neighbourhoods and residents from the supply side of the housing market, turning instead to personal rent and acquisition
forces of the market and proving a 'secure market segment' for special-needs groups. subsidies which are spatially blind. Only a few towns and cities, often those with high-
Today, some up-market former social housing areas, often in good inner-city loca- est house prices, have maintained production of new social housing.
tions, have only a minority of residents legally eligible for social housing; stigmatised
areas, on the other hand, battle to deal with increasingly problematic residents and Hardest hit by the fall in the amount of social housing are low- and middle-income
intercultural communication problems. groups (including key workers) in growth areas, which broadly comprise the Munich-
Stuttgart-Cologne triangle and a few other tight housing markets. In such areas
Placement policies were seen as a means of preserving the existing social mix, rather affordable housing is almost unobtainable or only found in peripheral neighbourhoods.
than creating a new one. Owners of social housing could generally choose their resi- Munich has attempted to address this by requiring a certain proportion of social hous-
dents from among several eligible applicants, and many demonstrated bias towards ing in new housing projects - even expensive ones - in exchange for public subsidies
'desirable' social tenants. In high-demand areas, landlords often preferred tenants to lower rents.
from the two groups with secure incomes: the employed and those with transfer
incomes. Within these groups, families with more than two children, immigrants with Many municipalities have changed their housing policies in a way that could backfire
foreign cultural backgrounds and those expected to display anti-social behaviour were on them. In the past, municipal housing companies kept rents low, even for those
filtered out. However, those landlords who had placement contracts with the munici- dwellings no longer covered by social housing regulations. This has changed with the
pality (Belegungsverträge) could not generally reject problem cases, turning some of increasing privatisation of the public housing stock. Buyers, often foreign institutional
the lower-quality estates into 'social dumps'. investors, usually apply a cherry-picking strategy: they upgrade good stock to sell at
high prices to individual investors.1 They can thus often recoup the price paid for the
whole stock by selling 50% of it after three years.

100 101

Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe

Lower-quality dwellings are not sold, but continue to be rented. Poorer and less The demography and lifestyle dilemma of social housing is related to the rapid change
advantaged households depend on a shrinking amount of social housing (in terms of in lifestyles, and resulting housing demand, over the last decades. In particular, the
both number and size of units), or need to move to smaller, often neglected private large mass-housing estates in the shrinking cities of the former GDR have become
dwellings, many of which are in bad neighbourhoods. The new private owners of for- residualised. This stock, built for the 'average households', does not respond to new
mer public housing have increased the rents, so taxpayers are paying for higher per- demands for communicative housing, new services, and combinations of home with
sonal housing subsidies. In the long run, these higher subsidies will consume all or work, leisure, learning, entrepreneurship or care.
most of the profits the municipalities realised through sale of social dwellings. Another
The major urban policy initiative known as the Socially Integrative City (Soziale Stadt
damaging effect of this policy is that separating the profitable from the unprofitable
- Städte mit besonderem Erneuerungsbedarf), started in 1999, was set up to address
stock furthers socio-spatial polarisation.
the problems of deprived areas, including segregation. However, it lacked any hous-
6. Current issues in Germany ing element. Evaluations agreed that the programme has had strong socio-cultural
effects but it has failed to improve local economic networks and job creation. The pro-
German social housing is currently facing a set of urban and housing dilemmas, which gramme also has not been effective in providing affordable homes and neighbour-
are most dramatic in its shrinking cities. hoods.
The fall in the amount of social housing means it is more difficult to use housing as an Any new approach towards social housing must be both locally responsive, and allow
instrument of social policy. As the number of units falls, so does the interest of the the state to influence conditions by investing in new housing and the demand-orient-
states and the municipalities in what is left. The remaining pockets are seen as noth- ed rehabilitation of existing housing. Thus the approach of the Socially Integrative
ing but a municipal financial asset, which can easily and without any additional social City, which supports specific local development and empowers local civil society,
repercussions be privatised in order to reduce public debts. The small amount of should be joined with the investment-oriented, socio-spatially sensitive approach of
social housing left tends to be burdened with problematic households, for whom no traditional social housing. There are indications that politicians are beginning to
other alternatives are available. This raises the risk of social stigmatisation of resi- accept this. Support for the creation of non-profit housing cooperatives, new
dents and neighbourhoods. approaches to urban regeneration (Stadtumbau) as a cross-departmental and locally
The related issue of socio-spatial polarisation can be seen in the fact that a surplus of based state programme in Germany, and the proposal to put neighbourhoods and
about one million dwellings in some regions (mostly eastern and depressed) exists cities on to the agenda of the next German European Union presidency are all encour-
alongside a high and rising demand for affordable housing in the growth-oriented aging changes. Keeping the preventive elements of the wider programme alive, while
areas (in the south and west of the country and in hotspots of economic development reviving some urban elements of traditional social housing, could be a solution for the
along the northern coast). Housing shortages have had serious effects in these pros- revitalisation of cities, not least those that are shrinking.
perous areas, despite the fact that incomes are higher there; those most affected by
price rises are low-income groups, and increasingly key workers. The result is a
socio-spatial exclusion that affects an increasing proportion of the residents.
Paradoxically, this socio-spatial segregation and exclusion also occurs in housing sur-
plus regions. In these low-demand markets, often with falling housing costs, those
with reasonable incomes have a wide choice of better homes and neighbourhoods.
On the other hand, low-income households (the aged, unemployed and socially stig-
matised groups) are either trapped in derelict housing environments or have to leave
the few neighbourhoods where prices rise due to their desirability.

102 103

Hubert Heinelt. Social Policies and Practices.1989.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Bibliography 8.3% of GDP in 1989. Working Paper 3 des John-F. but social groups with greater influence and income had access to subsidized housing as well. et al (2005)Wohnbedürfnisse von Migrantinnen und Migranten. the increasing level of subsidies eventually led to a crisis. opportunities and difficulties became possible (although it did not occur on a mass scale). Utrecht University housing was allocated by local councils through waiting lists. Arbeitsmarkt(re)inte- Overview of housing policy since 1990 gration und der neoliberale Wohlfahrtsstaat in der Bundesrepublik und Nordamerika. Reinhart C. in: Volker Eick. Dortmund tem of the socialist period. Total housing subsi- dies were about 3. Construction subsidies were given not Wohnungsbau. Thomas Knorr-Siedow. URBACT long-term subsidised . (2005) (Eds) Immigrants in the City ('Zuwanderer in der Stadt') ownership subsidies. Nikolaos Georgakis. Ansätze. In the late 1980s housing privatization Thomas Knorr-Siedow (EUKN/URBACT): Public policies. With the Law on the Rented Sector (1993) and the Social 104 105 . as in other Björn Egner. Though housing policy Vienna was primarily a central government responsibility (through the State Planning Christiane Droste. State-owned housing accounted for 23% Wohnungspolitik in Deutschland. On social housing in an international comparison: From the 1970s. under strict state control. Thomas Knorr-Siedow 2005: Trends im sozialen Wohnungsbau und in der non-transparent subsidies.und in Hungary can be identified. Fachbereich Stadtentwicklung und Wohnungswesen. General Developments and Theoretical Backgrounds. European housing model (Hegedüs-Tosics. By changing the subsidy system the gov- Virtual file. Social Housing in Hungary On the change of social housing due to the transformation of the systems of social security in Germany: József Hegedüs. which was.) 2005: Sozialer public housing stock and on new construction. bureaucratic coor- dination of housing agencies. but more radically from the 80s. Darmstadt 2004 of the overall national housing stock. Positionen. Strategien. Berlin Hungarian housing system could be described as a typical example of the East- Johann Friedrich Geist. of a total in 1990 of HUF 64 billion in home- Schader-Stiftung et al. and broad state control of housing services via huge. Expertisen zum Projekt. 1996): there was one-party political con- München trol over the housing sector. These subsidies were spent on the maintenance of the Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Deutschland.) 2005: Sozialer Wohnungsbau. Thomas Knorr-Siedow 2004: Large Housing Estates in Germany. allowed to play a more significant role in the housing system. Metropolitan Research Institute. subordination of market mechanisms. Budapest Volker Eick & Jens Sambale (Hg.-Kennedy-Institutes für Nordamerikastudien an der Freien The housing system in Hungary changed dramatically after 1990. and in fact Allan Murie. low-interest. Ed. and cheap. three stages of the housing policy became available to finance private house building as well as state controlled housing investment. Authority).: Institut für Landes. After the political changes at the end of the 1980s. Ronald van Kempen 2003: Large Housing Estates the social composition of households in the state rented stock was not very much dif- in Europe. 2006 ernment kept housing investment at a high level during a period of economic reces- On immigrants in social housing: sion. Jens Sambale (Hg. Erfahrungen. Bartholomäi 2004: socialist countries. market or quasi-market forces were Christian Donner 2000: Housing Policies in the European Union . Utrecht ferent from that of those in owner occupation. Darmstadt. The pre-1990 Universität Berlin. Arbeitsmarkt(re)integration … only for public housing but also for owner-occupied housing. M. Dieter Kürvers 1989: Das Berliner Mietshaus 1945 . local councils had an increasing say in housing policy in the 80s. but 54% in Budapest and 25% in the cities gen- erally. encountered by joint ownership schemes in housing. In the first (1989-1994) the government tried to manage Stadtentwicklungsforschung und Bauwesen des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (ILS the housing crises that stemmed from economic decline and the "deep subsidy" sys- NRW).. Instrumente. more than two-thirds was interest subsidies on these loans.Theory and Practice. Akteure.

Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe

Law (1993) the government moved out of the housing sector, decreasing subsidies Figure 1: Privatisation of the public stock 1990-2004 (000s of units)
and reducing its direct role. Decentralization was one element of this process, and
local governments were given the task of managing a housing allowance program 120
partly financed from their own resources. The housing policy of this period could be 100
characterized as crisis management. While policymakers had not yet accepted the
idea of targeting, the idea was increasingly proposed.
In period from 1995 to 2000, new institutions were established and the legal frame-
work improved. Meanwhile, the level of subsidies gradually fell as a result of declin-
ing house construction.* Two sorts of financial institutions were set up to regularise 20
lending to owner-occupiers: contract savings banks and mortgage banks. 0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
The third period began in 2000, with the initiation of a new housing programme, made
Country Total Budapest
possible party by a fall in 'old loans' subsidies. The new program had two priorities:
1) to support new construction and the purchase of private homes through sub- Source: Central Statistical Office
sidised housing credit, and The privatisation law was in force until 2001. Since then owners have had the right
to decide whether to sell and under what conditions.
2) to support the public rented sector through targeted programs (Hegedüs-Somogyi,
2005). As a result of decentralization, local governments gained a wide range of responsibil-
ities related to housing, including responsibility for the local public rented sector. In
General trends in the public rented sector in the 1990s cities of more than 50,000 inhabitants, the proportion of dwellings owned by local gov-
After the privatisation of public housing on virtually give-away terms, the public rent- ernments is estimated to be approximately 4-10%. 58% of municipally owned flats are
ed sector fell from 20% of the housing stock in 1989 to 4% in 2003.** The 1993 Law concentrated in cities with populations over 100,000, whereas only 20% of the units
on Housing introduced the 'right to buy' principle, except for buildings which had are to be found in the towns with populations of less than 50,000.
already been designated for rehabilitation or were defined as being culturally signifi- Local government has been given a fairly free hand in managing its housing stock.
cant. Sitting tenants who could afford it generally bought their flats, at an effective They may:
price of about 10-15% of the market price. The remaining public rented sector there-
fore housed families with low incomes and social status. The households 'trapped' in · set rents,
the public sector were typically the neediest ones.
· decide on allocation procedures (for example, operating a waiting list or allowing
The same process took place in 'enterprise housing', which represented around 3-5% case-by-case bids for vacant units),
of the housing stock in the 1990s. The Hungarian Railway Company (HRC), for exam-
· decide on the organizational form of the housing maintenance company,
ple, privatised 50% of its stock; those units that were poor quality or had unclear legal
status typically remained in its ownership. Rent revenue from them covers only 30 % · choose from among the different types of rental contracts (fixed or open term;
of the total cost related to the stock. (MRI, 2004) social, cost or market rent),
* Most of the subsidies were tied to new construction, but there were two other types: 1) subsi-
dies to the public rental sector, which decreased as well as the dwellings were privatized, and 2)
· introduce (and finance) special rent-allowance schemes, and
the so-called 'old loans' subsidy, given to certain owner-occupiers with pre-1989 loans. · set conditions for the sale of dwellings (after 2001).
**The number of dwellings in the public rented sector fell from 850,000 in 1990 to 190,000 in 2001.

106 107

Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe

Figure 2: Public rented units by settlement type Figure 3: Average rents in public rented sector (EUR/m2/month), and ratio of rent
12 revenue to the total operational cost
0.6 40%
4 0.2
2 0 0%
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Budapest Other tow ns Village Total Rent (EUR/nm/month) Rent as a % of the cost rent
Source: Central Statistical Office
Nationwide rent control was abolished in 1990. There were fears that this would lead Source: Central Statistical Office
to the escalation of rents in the public sector, but this has not happened -- the aver- another form of social provision. Public housing has been characterised by across-
age rent was, and still is, very low. Housing is a 'loss-generating' service for local gov- the-board rent subsidies, extended tenancy rights (such as the right to trade and
ernments - rents cover only about 30-40% of actual costs. Moreover, even this low inherit tenancies), flexible allocation processes, and poor quality services. Another
rent is unaffordable for the vast majority of tenants, and many have arrears. According form of social provision would ideally ensure a clearly regulated, transparent alloca-
to a 2003 housing survey, 22% of the households in the public sector have arrears, tion process, rents that provide basic cost recovery, and a targeted (means-tested)
compared to 5% in the owner-occupied sector. rent allowance that would guarantee affordability for low-income households.
Because of the limited resources of local government and financial disincentives, Different local authorities hold very different views about housing, both at the level of
there is under-investment in the maintenance of the public stock, which has been elected officials and municipal departments (which are very influential). The level of
deteriorating. It was recently estimated that 300 billion HUF investment needs to be social commitment varies, and in general the poorer the area, the stronger the local
invested in renewal and rehabilitation of the public stock - or 30 times the yearly rent authority’s social (and housing) policy. Because the intergovernmental grant structure
revenue in 2004. does not compensate for the cost of the loss-making public rented sector, local
authorities would be financially better off if they privatised all their stock.
Local government can allocate vacant and new units. Access to public rented hous-
ing is very difficult; experts estimate that only about 1-2 % of the stock becomes Local government in middle-class areas has been accused of 'exporting the poor',
vacant each year, which represents 4-5 % of the transactions A housing needs offering special grants to poor, problematic or Roma households to move into other
assessment carried out in 2001 indicated a requirement for about 500,000 social districts. In Budapest, rich districts have bought housing for their poor in other dis-
dwellings, which is approximately 2.5 times more than the present stock. (MRI, 2001) tricts. Urban reconstruction and rehabilitation programs have until recently generally
displaced existing poor residents, although now some 'social rehabilitation' pro-
From the public sector towards a social rented sector grammes include a declared target of keeping the poor in the rehabilitated area.
As a consequence of decentralisation, different approaches to social housing have The other important actors are the "social landlords", which are typically local-govern-
emerged in local government housing policies. The principal question is whether the ment-owned limited-liability companies. These were formed from existing public
local governments are willing to transfer their housing stock from public ownership to housing maintenance companies, which were restructured and given other tasks.

108 109

Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe

Figure 4: Operational rent revenue (thousands of HUF) and expenditure on res- The rent level, as we have shown, is relatively low (even considering the poverty of
idential and non-residential units owned by local authorities the tenants and the poor state of the housing), but there are huge differences among
towns. Some innovative local authorities have increased rents and protected low-
30000000 100% income households by introducing rent allowances. However, this can be done only
25000000 for housing stock which is in acceptable conditions and where the majority of the ten-
80% ants are not in arrears. The poorest social housing estates (typically not the 'new'
20000000 estates built after WWII) have become segregated and have deteriorated socially and
15000000 physically, due to local authority policies of moving non-paying tenants into worse
40% housing conditions.
Several innovative local authorities have introduced rent-allowance programmes to
5000000 20%
make it possible to increase rents, improve cost recovery in the public rented sector
0 0% and provide safety for the low-income households. It is important to note that local rent
allowance programmes are independent initiatives of the local authorities, neither reg-
2000 2001 2002 2003
ulated nor financially supported by the central government. The rent-allowance pro-
revenues expenditure Share of revenue to expenditure grammes were typically introduced after the privatisation wave in different cities.
Nyiregyháza (one of the 21 county seats in Hungary) introduced the rent allowance
system in 2003.* Rents were increased from 136 to 299 HUF (€0.50 to €1.20) per m2.
Source: Ministry of Finance Those households who paid more than 10% of their income in rent after the increase
They now often subsidise their public rented units with revenue from other activities, received rent allowance. However, this system was not applied to the poorest units
which may include rentingf non-residential units. However, the solutions vary a great (30% of the stock), where the rent was not changed, or to inner city apartments (10%
deal with the the local authority. of the stock), which had market rents. The case of Nyiregyháza exemplifies a move
Social landlords are under pressure from local government politicians to improve the towards a public housing system with three sub-sectors: market, cost-based (with rent
financial performance of their public stock, but they are formally responsible only for allowance) and 'emergency housing'.
managing it - they can make no decisions regarding allocation, rent levels, etc. There are no national regulations in respect of housing allocation procedures -- these
However, informally these companies are much more important. Sometimes they processes are codified in local housing legislation. There are irregularities in the allo-
operate as advisors to local government in making proposals for the rent structure and cation process, whereby households with positional advantages have easy access to
rent allowances, and proposals for national tenders. They have a strong incentive to good accommodation. Local authorities give high priority to key workers.
improve rent collection, decrease arrears, and get rid of 'problematic tenants'. Non-
paying tenants, typically very poor households with large debts, have few housing Public rented programmes after 2000
options; if evicted they are moved by the local authority to worse housing, particular- As part of the housing programme launched in 2000, a grant programme for local
ly a kind of Eastern European poor settlements. Evictions, both 'voluntary' and legal, authorities was introduced, which supported five housing areas: the rented sector,
take place on a large scale. Local authorities try to avoid publicity about evictions energy-saving renewal, rehabilitation programs, land development, and renovation of
because they are politically very unpopular, and attract protest by local activists. To housing owned by churches.
get around this, some local governments sell their housing stock (with sitting tenants)
to private developers, who then evict the tenants without political problems. * Rent allowances were introduced in Szolnok (also a county seat) in 1993, but the programme
was cancelled in 1995, partly because the cost was considered too high, partly because privatiza-
tion seemed to solve the problem.

110 111

Nevertheless. Applications far exceeded the funds available. This implied setting rents at a Finally. The programme also supported construction of 'cost-based' rented housing.000 required a minimum annual rent of 2% of construction cost (which is about 40-60 % units and created (built. the elderly.this was despite the fact that social housing can be a FIDESZ. Cost rents are too high for many poor people to afford. Although this cost rent approach did not guarantee long-term cost elderly). housing for young families. however. investing about 60 bil. From 2000. with the goal of ensuring long-term cost recovery in the sector.000 units.826 (not counting those for the of market rent).Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe The most important element was support of the public rented sector. local authorities privatised 25. arbitrary. In 2004. they were attracted by the 25/75 % matching ratio. recovery. The selection of schemes was somewhat lion HUF in 13. Local authorities There were some weaknesses in the programme. but still not enough for long-term cost recovery. part- high. local authorities consider housing a key area of welfare policy.during the course of it. The new government was reluctant to change policy right after the election. in the first few years actual operational and maintenance costs for these After the change in government in 2002 (when a coalition led by the Hungarian units were below rental receipts. even received grants covering up to 75% of construction costs of various types of dwelling: though cost was one of the most important selection criteria. which was very favourable Figure 6: Residential rent structure. 2001 compared to other investment programmes which typically had a ratio of 40/60%. cost was too high.5%). EUR/month/m2 10 Figure 5: The composition of the rental program 2000-2004 8 Social housing 6 cost rent social housing 4 rented housing for young families elderly homes 2 pension homes 0 private rented: upper private rented: middle private rented: lower cost rent social rent Source: NHO Source: MRI estimates 112 113 . or renovated) only 9. The regulations size of the public sector . tion was very weak (administration cost was about 0. and only 45% of the money ly because the socialists had promised to keep the 'home creation' programme of the applied for could be granted -. there was a shift in housing policy as have the resources to make the required 25% contribution. and pensioners. but lower than market rent. they cut the social rented program. Average costs were high. or FIDESZ). arguing that the unit drain on local government finances and a source of political controversy. bought. the programme has not been enough to stem the long-term decrease in the level higher than existing social rents. and there was no real mon- 2004 several hundred local authorities took part in the program. but in fact interest was well. in addi- tion. Programme administra- social rented. itoring and enforcement system built in. Socialist Party replaced the right-wing government of the Federation of Young Before the progamme's launch there was concern that few local authorities would Democrats-Hungarian Civic Party.

328.2 couples" 6000 Elderly homes 100 2287 13. which aimed to enable use of 400 the private rented sector for social purposes. newly built rented units Rented units sold Under this proposal. which few 0 of them are.386. Central and local government would jointly provide a subsidy to the developers which would bridge the gap between Figure 8: Housing subsidies the affordable rent and the market rent (which was defined as cost plus profit).639.9 Pension homes 27 710 3.1 "Homes for young 8000 44 909 3.2 4000 Total 712 12823 63. 600 500 In 2005. the upper income limit was very low -. a new rent allowance program was introduced.rented sector ing access to subsidised loans from the Hungarian Development Bank for investment in the public rental sector. 2000-2004 Local government Units established Total subsidies 14000 tenders (million HUF) 12000 Social rental 313 5729 26. 2006) Local authorities could apply to central government for a rent allowance for low-income families with children 300 living in the private rented sector. tax expenditure housing loan subsidies In 2006 the government launched another new loan program for local authorities.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Figure 7: New local government construction and sales Table 1: Costs and outcomes of the rented housing programme.8 2000 Source: Housing Office 0 The government proposed to launch a rent allowance programme together with a 2001 2002 2003 2004 public-private partnership scheme for rental investment (Hegedüs-Teller. 2005).at €180 per capita per 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 month. local authorities would sign long-term contracts with private Source: CSO investors for the construction of social rented units. The 100 program was a failure: only very few local authorities put forward a proposal. It is too early to judge the level of interest of local govern- Source: National Housing Office ments. local authorities would contribute a similar amount. One rea- son for this was that landlords had to be registered with the tax authority.093. (MRI.799. it covered only the lowest two income deciles. giv- direct subsidies-owner occupied direct subsidies-.4 10000 Cost rental 228 3188 16. The 700 proposal failed because developers demanded a guaranteed rent level about twice the existing market rent.410. 114 115 . Also. Central government would pay a maximum of 30% 200 of the rent or €25-30/month.

2004 Housing policy proposal for the Railway Company. local authorities with more social problems There has been little mention in this paper of other types of social landlords. Struyk) OSI/LGI. Vol. Some politicians Tenants would be less desperate to buy if there were greater security of tenure. but when in office they usually end up supporting would include predictable rents and housing-related costs. August 2005 able and both central and local government need to develop the capacity to adminis- ter targeted programmes MRI. given current management and information shortcomings. ise to privatise the rented units in the historic Castle district of Buda. and in 2006 they plan to sell a further 500 of their 2. the tax and housing subsidy system must be reformed to more information and better monitoring of the sector. for which the welfare system should compen.000 remaining units. Hegedüs. MRI. etc. especially by housing members of social groups which tend to be discrimi- Budget pressures are a serious constraint on the development of the social rented nated against by local governments.could it be enough just to (edited by J. The half-hearted attempt The Hungarian public rented sector is evolving and has not yet reached its final form. particularly the context of CEE transitional countries. In general. p 177-208 restructure them? Targeted programmes are frequently criticised for being more cost- J. Hegedüs and R. however. Russia and Kazakhstan What are the income effects of existing housing subsidies . There is no lack of rhetoric. sate? What is the right balance between income subsidies and provision of housing? in Housing Finance: New and Old Models in Central Europe. churches. and partly by the financial and legal factors. This have called privatisation a mistake. Hegedüs. 5. especially in the beginning. & Somogyi. should be clear. They are bit players in Hungary. The lack of 2002 election campaign. MRI. No. These pressures are partly a legacy of the huge subsidies that were chan- nelled to the well-off under previous regimes. both because of pressure from would-be purchasers and because it reduces pres- regime to deal with cases of individual hardship. but they could play an impor- tant role. E." in: European Journal of Housing Policy. but central government needs therefore be changed: first.J. Teller: "Development of housing allowance programmes in Hungary in ly and complex to administer than universal entitlements. owner occupation make renting relatively expensive. At the moment. The bulk (public and private) in the Hungarian housing system can be explained partly by pri- of privatisation has been carried out. but targeting is unavoid. and do not receive the same favourable tax treatment. the financial advantages associated with local government performance. (Metropolitan Research Institute) manuscript In the final analysis.000 units after are at a financial disadvantage compared to owner occupiers.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Conclusion: The future of social housing in Hungary The other messages from recent European experience is that the capacity of the pri- vate rented sector should be utilised as much as possible. European experience shows that the social rented sec. Institute) manuscript and put their effort into getting the best value from public investment. In the the same grants. Second. J. to introduce rent allowance for private sector tenants was a step in the right good Local authorities and their housing companies are the major social landlords. 2006 Alternative models of social housing (Metropolitan Research Institute) manu- script 116 117 . (Metropolitan Research tor is expensive. such as should receive some financial support for their social rented units. The rules governing rent increases sure on the government purse. They are not eligible for 1990. but required more determination. & N. Experts argue that one of the conditions for sustainable social housing is the long- One important constraint on the development of the social rented sector is lack of cen- term commitment of social landlords. and direction. renter households tive option. 187-209. One of the richest local authorities in Budapest sold 28. The financial operation of the system must tral government capacity. This is true. In trying to change the system. and a reliable benefit it. NGOs. asking: What is the extent of income Bibliography and (wealth) inequality in the society. 2001 Social housing sector. 2. Policymakers should accept this fact. but some local authorities still see it as an attrac- vatisation. so that it can link subsidies to ensure tenure neutrality. one candidate of the winning party campaigned on a prom- proper legal regulations makes both tenants' and landlords' situations unpredictable. policy- makers have had to go back to fundamentals. 2005. although there is no need for a reimposition of rent control. The insignificant role of the rented sector enjoy broad autonomy to position themselves in the rented housing market. sector. supporting the adage that it is 'cheaper to buy than to rent'.: Evaluation of the Hungarian Mortgage Program 2000-2004.

Although local authority construction remained steady in absolute terms in the 1960s and 1970s.6 Thus the social rented sector accounts for eight per cent of the total Irish housing stock of 1. Heritage and Local Government (Various Years) Note: data on voluntary and co-operative dwellings completed prior to 1990 are not available 118 119 .2 77.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 9. and this right was extended to their urban coun- -8000 terparts (tenants of borough. but private sector output continued to expand. city. and although sales to tenants have varied since provided social rented sector has contracted radically in relative terms (no historical 1990 they remain relatively low compared to the historic norm. viewed over the longer term. county and town councils) and non-profit housing associations.5 11. which is the representative body for the sec- tor.7 67.000 units However as Table 1 demonstrates.7 9.7 6. The current position of social housing Nav 18. Fahey (1999) estimates that over two- thirds of the social rented stock constructed by local authorities has been sold to Housing Association Output Local authority Output tenants.7 10.1 7. No Owner definitive figures are available for housing association rented dwellings. however.0 11. This has never returned to the lev- 2000 els of preceding decades. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 (see: Fahey. the local authority- per annum since 2000 (see Figure 1). Social Housing in the Republic of Ireland Table 1: Housing Tenure.5 million dwellings.6 60. University College. enjoyed the right to -6000 buy their homes since the 1930s. Source: Central Statistics Office (2004) Note: Nav means not available In absolute terms the size of the social rented sector has increased slightly since 1990 as construction in this sector has grown over the period to an average of 6.7 53. However.2 3.0 4. 2002 for a full discussion).8 12. Other 4. Central government Private rented 42. 6000 · The 1980s saw marked cuts in central government capital funding for local author- 4000 ity house building and a resultant fall in output.6 17. Rural local -4000 authority tenants (tenants of county councils) have. 0 -2000 · Currently housing association dwellings cannot be sold to tenants.2 10. local authority output matched or exceeded 1981-2004 private sector output.4 occupied Irish Council for Social Housing (ISCH). the 52. 1946 -2002 Declan Redmond & Michelle Norris. city and town councils) by the 1966 Housing Act. private sector output increased radically. · Between the 1930s and the 1950s.4 15.496 dwellings in December 2004. Dublin Tenure 1946 1961 1971 1981 1991 2002 Local authority 1.9 80.9 rented Social housing in the Republic of Ireland is provided by local authorities (borough.9 8.1 statistics indicate that local authorities let 108. data for the housing association sector are available). This development is the result of the following factors: Figure 1: Social Housing Output and Local Authority Dwellings Sold to Tenants.9 12. Local authority dwellings sold to tenants Source:Department of the Environment.500 homes. estimates that landlords of this type currently let approximately 15.

Treadwell Shine and Norris (2006) argue that this revenue-expenditure 'approved status' by the housing ministry. in the following ways: that these problems have been largely eliminated (Coates and Norris. They are relatively which is colloquially termed 'differential rents'). In est loans from the Housing Finance Agency. local authority rented income Interest charges on these loans are financed by central government and the loans amounted to only 75 per cent of management and maintenance expenditure. social housing programmes) are a significant impediment to expediting housing relatively few new dwellings were developed by housing associations for most of the association output.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 2. and of all income above this). coupled with the lack of designated state funding for housing associations. sector and overuse of (mainly central government funded) refurbishment schemes. with incomes up to €300/week pay 6% of income. in part because the rent formula has been changed from a 'banded' one (e. who also administer government loans to housing associations. all household income below their own resources. these resources are limited due to the lack of a system of €100 per week is disregarded for rent assessment purposes but rent is levied at 3% local taxation in Ireland. although only 330 of these are currently actively developing new repayable loan from the Housing Finance Agency). 2005). Poverty and unemployment traps unusual in the western European context. costs of construction are met mainly by central gov.g. Mechanisms for the provision and funding of social housing Housing Finance Agency. 2006). Blackwell. ing services.) The construction of most special-needs housing association dwellings As mentioned above. inherent in local authority rent determination schemes have been subject to significant The capital costs of the construction and acquisition of land for social housing are criticism over the years (e. struct a specified number of dwellings. 2002. Land acquisition is financed via low-inter. these arrangements have not yet been implemented in practice. (Although 2002 legislation granted housing associations the right to borrow directly from the 120 121 . However. They report that the bulk of the general-needs housing provided the capital costs of construction and provides a fixed annual subsidy towards the by this sector is owned by six large organisations. recent research indicates almost 100 per cent funded by central government. but 36 per cent of the stock in this sector is provided by five city councils. the latest date for which data are available. and housing associations use other government grants and charitable · Housing associations that wish to access government funding must be granted donations. rented income is also low. 1988). are repaid by central government once housing construction has commenced on Although local authorities make up this shortfall by cross subsidizing from profit-mak- site. Most land for housing association construction is provided by local authorities. Brooke (2001) and others argue that ciations manage fewer than ten dwellings and these smaller bodies usually cater for these bureaucratic financing arrangements and land acquisition difficulties (stem- special-needs groups. The maximum grant per dwelling varies regionally. some 90 per cent of social housing in Ireland is provided and is funded by the Capital Assistance Scheme (a grant scheme) which provides up managed directly by local authorities. Rent deter- mination arrangements in Ireland are distinctive. This has changed since 1984. those with incomes from €301 to ernment grants.. which covers 100 per cent of housing schemes. social rented sector and income-related rents remains problematic. all households · In the local authority sector.) to a simple percentage system(e. this requires that they are limited com. Currently 102 local authorities are social land- to 95 per cent of the capital cost of dwellings for the homeless and 90 per cent for lords. imbalance has led to underinvestment in housing maintenance in the local authority panies registered as charities. The construction of most general-needs housing association Mullins et al (2003) estimate that the housing association stock is distributed among dwellings is funded by the Capital Loan and Subsidy Scheme (technically a non- 470 organisations. etc. however. The revenue costs of social housing provision are met mainly by rents. rents in both the local authority and Although the details of arrangements for funding local authority and housing associa- housing association sectors are related to the income of tenants (an arrangement tion social housing vary. other dwellings. a statutory intermediary lender. whilst the majority of housing asso- management and maintenance of each unit. Although local authorities can and do contribute to costs from €500 pay 7%. when the first designated state funding scheme for this sector was established (Norris. the mechanisms are broadly similar. The combination of the lack of a housing allowance for the grants are allocated on a three-yearly basis to enable each local authority to con.g. and agree to let their dwellings as social housing. Because the average incomes of social tenants are low. As a result of the growth of local authority provision in the 20th ming partly from the fact that local authorities prefer to allocate land for their own century. 20th century.g.

Wider demo- graphic trends underlie both growth in social housing need and housing market pres- · persons in need of accommodation for medical or compassionate reasons.6 per cent in 2000/2001 (Downey. 122 123 . · persons with a disability 5.000 per needs every three years. Analysis of these data reveals that the fastest growing cate- in high-demand areas that the priorities are meaningless in practice. social tenants and home owners. Figure 2 below compares the proportion of income which households in various tenures devote to rent or mortgage costs. alisation of the sector. number of households expanded by 25 per cent and these trends are expected to per- sist in coming decades. despite the fact the tenant profile is extremely residualized. persist for many years. Consequently ture devoted to rent payments doubled between 1980 and 1999/2000. (Each households in need of social housing into the scheme of letting priorities categories local authority can determine its own rank-order of priority. and that in 1999/2000 that proportion housing lists. these affordability difficulties will · young persons living in institutional care or without family accommodation. but waiting lists are so long (see Section 3 above). The 1988 Housing Act requires local authorities to conduct an assessment of housing holds with incomes below a specified level can apply (currently circa €40. so rent has little or no impact on income poverty among local authority tenants. although it has fallen marginally since then (see authorities must decide the order in which applicants gain access to social housing Table 2).) The priority groups are: ment reflects the considerable increases in house prices and rents in the private hous- ing sector in Ireland in recent years. and due to the residu- · Irish Travellers (indigenous nomadic minority).7 · persons who are homeless.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 3. Sixty-two per cent of social renting households had incomes below 60 argue that the key housing affordability problems are located here. particularly in Dublin. the proportion of household expendi- local authority tenants can exit the sector by purchasing their dwelling. How needs have changed and are expected to change Social housing in Ireland is targeted directly at the poorest households. shows that households accommodated by local authorities spent 7. 2005). It Depending on the scheme used to fund construction of their dwellings. House prices increased from an average of 7. House-price and rent inflation · persons involuntary sharing accommodation. Fahey et al (2004) report that expenditure on Waiting lists for social housing are currently relatively long (see Section 4 below). in the absence of a significant correction in house prices. has been higher in cities.1 per cent of all households (Fahey et al. was roughly unchanged. Only house. Who is served by social housing? 4. in the case of private sector tenants. rather than among per cent of median in 2000. Between 1991 and 2002 the Irish population increased by 11 per cent and the · persons who are elderly. The results of these assessments indicate that need grew annum for a single income household) and the 1988 Housing Act specifies that local by 76 per cent from 1996 to 2002. so affordability difficulties and social · persons living in overcrowded accommodation. housing needs are concentrated here. compared to 22.75. Comparison of social rents with private rents · persons leaving residential care. per cent per annum between 1990 and 1993 to 22 per cent per annum between 1996 · persons living in accommodation that is unfit or materially unsuitable and 2002. Even if price inflation does stagnate. 2004). Fahey et al (2004) Murray. As a result. This develop- is the key factor. Social housing rents in Ireland are linked to tenant's incomes. When conducting these assessments local authorities are required to group using a 'scheme of letting priorities' which must give priority to certain groups.4 per cent of their ciations are required to allocate most or all units to households on local authorities' total household expenditure on rent in 1973. rents are relatively low. sures. and social housing need in turn will remain high. 2004). In 2004 the average weekly household · persons unable to afford suitable accommodation. private rent inflation jumped from 3 per cent per annum between 1990 and 1996 to 14. housing asso. only the neediest households gain access to social housing. particularly in urban areas (Norris and that 38 per cent of tenants in this sector claim housing allowances. while wealthier existing However. rent in the local authority sector was €35. and waiting time gory of housing need is households unable to afford accommodation.

762 2.9 Homeless persons 1.640 argued that as local authorities have to implement these schemes there is a tension over how to allocate resources.861 1.987 9.885 20.220 ing and affordable housing.624 27.1 7.6 reasons 5 7.564 28.427 39.718 8.075 5. it can be City Council 6.602 ular Dublin.140 2.345 3.547 7.725 6.342 1.636 24.328 21452 25.399 15 12.210 11.045 1. Figure 2: Weekly rent and mortgage payments as a percentage of total house- 1991-2005 hold expenditure. in that they can be seen as quite distinct sectors. and the attendant affordability care or without family 41 68 66 67 82 262 problems that this has generated.8 7.014 12. The future of social housing in Ireland A recent report by the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) (2004) recom- Total social housing need 17.086 4421 3. these affordable housing schemes have been given strong support by government.4 9. especially land and sites. has led to the development of a number of new accommodation schemes directed at first-time buyers.702 5.604 10. Town council 4.046 accommodation sidized. given the increasing demand for social housing.347 3400 3.375 10.682 21. the common element is that land costs are either controlled or sub- 2429 6.7 Older people 1674 2.219 2468 2. a net additional 73.5 12.864 mended a major expansion of social housing output in the years 2005 to 2012.5 Involuntarily sharing 10. Heritage and Local Government social rented dwellings should be provided over the period leading to a total social 124 125 . Technically there are three such 'affordable Unable to afford housing' schemes.659 13.112 accommodation Owners with mortgage Private renters Local authority renters Traveller 531 884 749 1.8 4.4 7.438 13.452 979 2.893 6.6 accommodation 10 9. 1973-2000 Category of Need 1991 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 25 Per cent of household expenditure 21.539 1616 1.191 2.799 4.222 7.4 5.122 4.905 9.9 Medical/compassionate 1082 1. While not representing a major shift from the social rented sector to affordable provision. Politically at least.000 Source: Department of the Environment. between social rented hous- County Council 10. It argued that.796 4065 1.6 860 3.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Table 2: Social Housing Need (Households) by Category of Need and Location.727 0 Overcrowded 1973 1980 1987 1994-95 1999-00 4654 7.912 8.328 8613 4.846 14.406 1563 1022 Source: Norris and Winston (2004) Unfit / unsuitable dwelling 3617 5.363 2006 1. thus enabling sale prices to be set at below market value.176 48413 43.097 5. Pressures to shift away from social to other forms of affordable provision Young persons leaving The escalation of house prices over the past decade. as Location problems for first-time buyers are most acute in the major urban areas and in partic- Borough Councils 976 995 1.432 7.0 Disabled persons 131 194 241 236 423 408 20 18.094 6.120 4.

The government has opted for a public-private partnership equivalent of the land cost. thereby enabling them to build either social and/or affordable housing at through a plurality of mechanisms. Part V of the Planning and implementation issues inhibiting progress. to transfer to local authorities up to 20 per cent of their sites for · Planning delays over design and transfer options use as social and/or affordable housing and. value). In return the tion of this measure and its successful implementation. First. or While significant resources have been invested in social rented housing in recent years. and increase social mix and social interaction. are approach. In 2000 the government introduced what has turned out to be a controversial and complex piece of planning legislation which · Pre-planning delays and complex pre-planning discussions over which mecha- imposes on private-sector developers an obligation to subsidise social and affordable nism to use for the transfer of the social and/or affordable housing from develop- housing on sites they wish to develop. the Dublin City. it aims to reduce levels of what is termed 'undue segregation'. it is probably fair to · Transfer up to 20% of developed sites to the local authority. The rationale for this legislation limits.000 units by 2012 is slim. crucially. it was aimed at allowing local authorities to access development the most that can be said is that it prefers social rented housing to be provided land cheaply. 20 will be trans- developer delivers social rented and affordable-purchase units. say that the current government has been slow to endorse fully this position. in which private developers are given some of the site to develop private seeking to obtain completed and subsidised dwellings from developers. was twofold. there is a reluctance to undertake a fundamental step change in the sector. While developers have the option to pay the local authority the financial mixed-tenure estates. or 126 127 . more social aim. builder's profit and existing use value of the land. for example. · Transfer an alternative site to the local planning authority. However. as a condition of ers to local authorities planning permission. This preference for a plurality of mechanisms is below market cost. Local authorities and other social housing providers have had seri- seen clearly in some regeneration projects in Dublin. Typically in dwellings for sale on the open market. this is the pre. especially in urban areas. or integrated with private market housing. to transfer the site to the state at existing use value. this probably reflects a view that traditional models of social rented provision have their Developers can also offer a mix of these measures. In return for receiving the land for free. tion has another. and that · Transfer a financial equivalent of the land value (market value minus existing use the prospect of the social rented housing stock rising to 200. They can: · Limited local authority resources and capacity · Transfer up to 20 per cent of the land to the local authority at existing use value. While innovative. especially in competition with private flat complexes in need of demolition and regeneration are to be redeveloped as developers. many local authorities. Specific initiatives Progress in implementing this measure has been relatively slow with an array of With respect to new initiatives on social housing. A number of old social rented ous problems accessing land in urban areas. this ferred to the local authority for use as social and affordable housing (normally 10 for measure has been controversial.000 units. Nonetheless. 2006 for a full description).Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe rented housing stock of approximately 200. engendering debates over the appropriate tenure social renting and 10 for discounted affordable purchase). However. In ensuring that social housing is built alongside ferred option for government. the government has not articulated any fully worked-out alternatives. Norris. Developers are now required. 8. There are a number of ways that developers can comply with · Valuation and development-cost issues this requirement. developer receives construction costs. The new planning legisla- mix and over the transfer of public land to developers. Given the buoyancy of the economy and the health of government revenues. for every 100 apartments a developer builds. The recent report by Focus Ireland (2006) Development Act 2000 has been one of the most interesting and innovative (see summarises the difficulties. Despite these implementation issues the government seems committed to the reten- · Transfer 20 per cent of the completed dwellings to the local authority.

D and Norris. Vol.htm http://www.. 199-218 Department of the Environment. S (2001).html Fahey. Available on line at: Blackwell. S and Norris. and Mâitre. 1990-2001. Nolan. pp.environ.focusire- land. pp. T (2002). Dublin: Institute of Public Challenge? Dublin: Policy Studies Institute Administration Coates. Affordability and Norris.362. R (eds. Dublin: Focus Ireland.nesc. Social Housing in Ireland: A Study of Success. Vol. Administration. M. Failure and Lessons Learned. Designing and Managing Mixed Tenure Housing Estates: Effectiveness'. in Norris. pp. (2004a) B. Housing Policy Discussion Series: regenerat- society and shelter.). K (2004). 'Access denied? The challenge of affordability for sustainable access to housing'.asp Council Norris. No. T. Norris. in. Social Housing for the Future: Can Housing Associations Meet the Contemporary Ireland: policy. Available on line at: www. No 1. M (2006). 14. Non-Profit Housing Organizations in Ireland. T. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration ing local authority estates . R (eds. Available on-line at: www. Northern Ireland Housing Executive 128 129 . Census 2002: Volume 13 . Housing Brooke.html Downey. 2. Heritage and Local Government (various years). 51-64 Fahey. M (2006).ie/publications/discussion_papers. 85-105 www. M and Winston. 19.L. Available on line at: of the Social Rented Tenure: the Case of Dublin and Ireland'. Treadwell Shine. 'Introduction'. pp. North and South: Changing Forms and Challenging Futures. 'Developing. Dublin. 'Local Authority Housing Rents: Equity. (2003). 'Social housing'. Belfast. Dublin: Department of the Environment and Local Norris. Dublin: Central Statistics Office. European Sociological Review. No 1. A. Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Bibliography National Economic and Social Council (2004) Housing in Ireland: Policy and Performance. Stationery Office. 'The Family Economy in the Development of Welfare Regimes: a case Study'. Rhodes.chr. B. D. (1999). D (2005). in. Mullins. Available on line at: www. M (2006). Poverty and Wealth in Ireland. No.cso. Dublin: National Economic and Social Council. Dublin: National Economic and Social www. J (1988). Annual Bulletin of Housing Statistics.chr. Available on line at: Central Statistics Office (2004). T.nsf/wvNavView/RegularPublications?OpenDocument&La ng=en Norris. Vol. Dublin: Institute for Public Administration and Combat Poverty Agency Focus Ireland (2006) Building for Inclusion: Housing Output and Part V of the Planning and Development System.). 'National Local and Regional Patterns of Residualisation society and shelter. 3-26 Implementing planning gain legislation in the Republic of Ireland' in European Planning Studies. A Review of Housing of policy and practice. Housing Contemporary Ireland: policy. 18. in Housing Studies. N (2004) Housing Policy Review. M and Murray. in Fahey. Dublin: Oak Tree Press Fahey. (ed. Dublin: Centre for Housing Research. and Williamson.Housing. M (2005). M and Redmond.376.). M and Redmond.

all municipalities and provinces in the country contain a significant amount. Total Social Total new New Sale of Demolitions selves. The social rent. Statline 130 131 . in the Netherlands. The predictions for the four years 2004-2007 show a similar picture. purchasing 60.000).000). 1999 6522 2475 78625 17651 15880 14354 Housing associations own 35% of the total housing stock. tenanted Almost all social housing is owned by housing associations.4 million social rented dwellings. construction social Much of the current discussion in the Netherlands surrounds the use of this flexibility. housing rented construc. Housing associations can sell vacant properties on the open market. over 25% of housing is social rented. after France and 1998 6441 2434 90516 21454 18214 13098 the UK. Housing associations are able to operate in a very flexible (or arbitrary) way. their share 2002 6710 2436 66704 12654 14057 12738 in the total housing stock has slowly decreased from 39% 35% at present. housing associations in the Netherlands freely buy and sell their dwellings.000 dwellings to sale (105.000) and demolition (80. Urban and Mobility Studies has remained stable at about 2. These have to act on a Table 1: Changes in the social rented housing stock commercial basis. While the 2001 6649 2440 72958 14089 11395 15555 total amount of social sector dwellings has remained constant since 1995. housing associations added some 140. stock stock tion social rented rented (000s) (000s) sector dwellings 1. 2003 6764 2420 59629 12974 15795 12633 Although social housing is more common in urban areas. the number of dwellings built and purchased in the social sector Marja Elsinga & Frank Wassenberg.000) and demolition (45.8 million dwellings in 2005. and lost 150. and the overall number Housing. Source: CBS. about 55% of all dwellings are social rented. with slight rises in new construction (150. During the five-year period from particular to improve their own financial position or to spur urban renew- the last decade.000). Social Housing in the Netherlands Developments in the social housing sector In the last decade. Position of social housing 1995 6195 2432 93836 29090 8158 13691 Of a total of 6. OTB Research Institute for has more or less equalled the number sold and demolished. while even in remote and 2005 6859 67016 17000 13907 less populated provinces like Drenthe and Zeeland. In cities such as Rotterdam and 2004 6810 2412 65314 14140 15103 15910 Amsterdam.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 10.000 dwellings to their stock (building 80. Housing associations own almost all social housing. 1997 6366 2410 92315 25876 16511 12527 ed housing stock in the Netherlands is one of the largest in Europe. for housing those people who are not able to find decent housing them. but are required to use their profits for meeting general housing need . al. some 2.000.4 million were social rented 1996 6283 2442 88934 31079 13108 11513 dwellings owned by housing associations. while 11% is owned by the private rented sector and 54% is owner occupied (2005). where social housing landlords do not tend to purchase Nowhere else in Europe does social housing dominate the housing market as it does housing.that is. a number that has been stable during reasons . These figures mean that 2000 6590 2439 70650 15209 12789 13528 over three-quarters of all tenants rent a dwelling from a housing association. Over one third of all households rent a social-sector dwelling. They may buy from or sell to individual households or other landlords for a variety of There are 2. there is only a tiny number of municipally-owned dwellings.4m. Introduction Unlike in some countries.

120000 100000 2.800 1.0%) 25 Owner 94. 2002 no right to buy.400 6.000 245.2%) (25.600 Social rented Figure 1: Housing stock by building period for the social rented sector (2. The Social Rented Sector Management Order (known by its Dutch abbreviation. who can choose to continue renting. especially in the social sector. Almost half of the social rented stock is sin- gle family houses. not only in the coun- Figure 2: Housing construction tryside.700 4.400 593.000 20 occupied (22.800 3.626. that municipalities or housing associations built social housing on a relatively large scale. 2002 5 1990. 2002 30 Commercial 64.4 m (62.4%) (9.300 rented (15.0%) (20.1%) (17. Low-rise Single family The construction of social housing first was allowed by the1901 Housing Act.100 2. The rest are low-rise flats (42%) or high-rise flats 160000 (11%).8%) dwellings) and other housing tenures (4. most neighbour- 140000 hoods consist of a mix of housing types. but also in medium sized cities.153. From the 1990s on.564.2%) 15 428. housing shortages led the government to take a lead- 0 ing role in the planning and construction of new housing.3%) (69. The provision of social housing 80000 60000 Housing Act 1901 as a legal base 40000 The legal base for social housing is the 1901Housing Act. states that approved housing associations have six duties: 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 sale rent · to house those people who are not able to find an appropriate dwelling themselves Source: CBS.000 1. BBSH).Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe properties must be offered to tenants.4%) (5.600 1. Most social housing was built between 1945 and 269. 2002 The Netherlands is a country dominated by single family houses.300 331. In the period after WW II. total yearly housing production has fallen. the most recent version of which 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 came into force in 2001.439.4%) (54.9%) (62. during the heyday of high-rise housing. however. Source: Housing Demand Survey. which laid down the duties 20000 0 and responsibilities of housing associations.900 3. The peak in housing con- < '45 45-'59 60-'70 70-'80 80-'90 90-'02 Other Social rented sector struction was in the early 1970s.165.592.900 285. often terraced.017. Statline · to maintain decent-quality dwellings 132 133 . There is Table 2: Dwelling stock and ownership in the Netherlands.3 m). Dutch social housing is not generally built in distinct estates.3%) (36.900 Total % (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 10 Source: Housing Demand Survey. It was Type High-rise flats Total flats(1-4 floors) houses not until the 1920s.633.

many housing associations and municipalities never made formal agreements. They are obliged to The WSW was set up in the 1980s. housing associations 4500 900 became financially independent in 1995 through the so-called "grossing and balanc. 1000 200 the government liberalised rents. 4000 800 ing operation" (brutering in Dutch). The government wrote off all outstanding loans to 3500 700 the sector. corporation tax. neighbourhood liveability. and at the same time cancelled its subsidies. there are about 500 housing associations. The number has been falling as associations have chosen to merge -. In practice. Housing associations no longer receive government subsidies.) 0 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Since 2001. and can buy council land at reduced prices for 50. 3000 600 ties. left axis average housing stock (left axis) ed sector also imposes a maximum average rent increase for the organisation as a number of housing associations (right axis) whole. These figures include municipally-owned housing associations. In exchange for performing these duties. (who qualifies for which dwellings. the rent on individual dwellings may rise by different amounts. thus assuring access to the ever. At present. supported by prudent financial management. Central Fund for Housing (CFV) 134 135 . all of these in smaller towns. and later for all social housing loans.000 dwellings.500 units. 2500 500 Although the associations have been completely independent in financial terms since 2000 400 1995. (The maximum applies to each association. but the largest associations possess Housing (Dutch abbreviation WSW). the number of dwellings owned rises. At the same time. Ten years ago there were about 860 associations. and in 1990 more than · to provide housing (but not care) for the elderly and handicapped (added in 2001) 1000. This guarantee fund is funded by the asso. the purpose of building social housing.000-80. This also allowed 1500 300 for the abolition of supply-side subsidies to social rented housing. and what are the priority criteria). They are funded by rents and sale of proper. social housing stock (x1000). ering development of housing stock. the associations are granted exemption from As the number of associations falls. initially to guarantee loans for housing improve. capital market and low interest rates. how- This fund enables non-profits to guarantee their loans. can have their loans guaranteed by the Guarantee Fund for Social the average association owns 4. the number of which has fallen from 213 in 1990 to a mere 23 in 2000. and for the social rent. Housing associations are supervised by the Ministry of Housing. they still require approval under the terms of the Housing Act. The gov- ernment limits the rent increase per dwelling for both sectors. sign performance agreements with the local government(s) where they operate. spread over a number of municipalities and regions.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe · to consult with their tenants Housing associations · to run their financial affairs responsibly At present. and allocation rules ciations themselves and backed by the government. Source: CBS. non-profit and for-profit landlords have been treated differently. which delivers a triple-A rating.mainly for reasons of efficiency and economies · to contribute to liveable neighbourhoods (added in 1997) of scale. cov- ment. allowing non-profit associations to raise rents by dif- 500 100 ferent amounts under an overall government maximum. Figure 3: The social housing stock. the number of housing associations and the average size of housing associations Financial independence 5000 1000 After many years of deregulation of the social rental sector.

23 eration) dwelling (mean) Source: WBO (Housing Demand Survey). arrangement authors generation of residence in the Netherlands.55 4. 35 20 deciles*** ern' and half 'non-western'. arrangement authors Family houses* 47% 69% Table 5 shows that non-Dutch households. The inhabitants of social housing Table 4: Some characteristics of tenants of the social rented sector in the Netherlands Tables 3 and 4 provide information about social housing tenants. However. 2002.440 6. (Non-Dutch is defined as those born abroad. are much more likely to live in social rented housing than non-minority house- holds. this effect becomes less pronounced after the first *including row houses and (semi) detached houses: all dwellings that are not multi-storey Source: WBO (Housing Demand Survey).000 per year (thousands) **** according to the broad definition of CBS (Statistics Netherlands): person is born Rent (€ /month) €353 €365 abroad (first generation) or one or both of the parents are born abroad (second gen- Number of rooms in 3. unlike in some other western countries -. 136 137 . particularly those from non-western coun- tries. and % complete families* 17 31 · live in smaller houses.many % two-job households** 28 45 Dutch people live at some point in social housing. 2002 * two parents with children. those that live in social housing are Social rented housing Whole housing stock stock · older Size of household (mean) 1. About half of non-Dutch households are 'west.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 3.) % non-Dutch**** 34 25 Table 3: Some characteristics of the social rented sector in the Netherlands. 2002. compared % on benefit 21 11 to 25% of the overall housing stock. Compared to the average household. as Table 6 shows. the row above also includes single parents Social rented housing stock Whole housing stock ** head of the household or partner works at least 12 hours per week Number of units 2.627 *** up to about €14.3 · live in smaller households % single 47 32 · have lower incomes · are less likely to be in employment and more likely to be on benefit % with children in household 28 38 · are more likely to be of non-Dutch origin. or % in the two lowest income with one or both parents born abroad.9 2. % over 65 years 29 22 Most neighbourhoods in the country are fairly mixed. There is no stigma % working** 48 65 attached to living in social housing. although in areas with a lot of social housing the lower middle class often predominates. Some 34% of social rented housing is occupied by non-Dutch households.

3% 35.7% 36. which included subsidised loans to first-time buyers (Dekker.6% 4984040 In June 2006 she announced a proposal called 'Vision for the Housing Market'.8% 10.4% 56. first and second generation. Changing tenure and needs Fear of harassment or 14 9 robbery in neighbourhood Table 6: Non-Dutch households.6% 52. Non minorities 59. and housing tenure Satisfied with dwelling 80 89 Home Social rental Private rental Total ownership households Dissatisfied with dwelling 8 4 Non-Western 23.1% 32.3% 8. Some Netherlands.2% 10. Planning to move* 32 25 Table 5: Non-Dutch households. and 12% of social tenants. Source: Housing demand survey.7% 8.4% 458561 increased considerably in the last 20 years. 2002 (in %) 8% of all households. leading to affordability problems. are not satisfied with the surround- Social rented housing Whole housing stock ings. Western and non-Western.4% 67.4% 10. are satis.6% 4984040 Fear of harassment or 14 9 robbery in neighbourhood Source: Housing demand survey. and are not planning to move. Table 7: Propensity to move and satisfaction in the social rented sector in the fied with both their dwelling and its surroundings.6% 341784 Graffiti 24 18 Non minorities 59.9% 565999 Satisfied with surround- 77 84 ings Western 52.0% 1184277 The share of owner-occupation has been growing in the Netherlands since WWII. and housing * Definitely or possibly together tenure The percentages of those satisfied and dissatisfied do not add up to 100. arrangement authors ownership rental households First generation 33. House prices have Second 54.9% 735055 Dissatisfied with 12 8 surroundings Unknown 36. 2006).6% 10. 2002 Many contacts within 40 45 neighbourhood 4. particu- generation larly for first-time buyers. like those in other tenures.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Table 7 shows that most social housing tenants. including the minister of housing. Bridging the gap between the rented and the owner-occu- pied sector is now a key concern of policymakers. 2002 138 139 .3% 8. complaints about safety and vandalism are also more common in the social sec- stock % % tor.1% 32. because those that are neither dissatisfied nor satisfied are not included in the table Home Social rental Private Total Source: WBO (Housing Demand Survey). 2002. since 1997 owner-occupier households have been in the majority.

the minister chose to emphasise self regu- % mid-priced dwellings (€ 337. share (in ations themselves or the government. mid-priced and expensive rental dwellings (2002) questions about the future of the social rental sector have given rise to various stud- Social rental Commercial rental ies and advisory reports. Government sets a ernment budget has been eased. The financial burden of housing on the gov- €615/month-rents over this level are generally not controlled). Rents for social housing are lower than for pri- The government recently proposed that landlords should pay part of this increased vate housing. tenant organizations and left-wing political parties in parliament position has improved over the last decade. tions can focus on activities that have priority at a local level. % cheaper dwellings (< € 337) 44 36 In her December 2005 response to these.. 2005. Shifts away from social housing New tasks Rent liberalisation The housing associations control a considerable amount of money. However Aedes. the umbrella rented stock will be deregulated in 2008. e. and an increase in the government's bill for housing allowance. 36% is cheap and 21% expensive. as of mid-November 2006 the proposal passed the lower house of the Dutch par- between social and free-market rents. their financial deregulate rents. Rents have been controlled since WWII. 2005. Housing associa- maximum annual percentage rent increase for existing contracts. but rents for 95% of the total rental stock are still regulated (the cut-off is The Dutch model has clear advantages. if housing shortages have decreased by then. the government has been allowing rents to move slowly towards market lev- els. but since both are controlledm it is difficult to measure the difference bill. They are able to devel- mum rent level for new contracts.€ 541) 52 43 lation. Social housing is decentralized. Rents in social sector compared with private sector The government has loosened regulation by allowing more generous yearly rent increases. which possess €541). Political parties across the spectrum were strongly opposed. Due to prudent Although the government. The document also states that housing associations will hence- Source: Housing Demand Survey. liament and was in the upper chamber. The financial position of housing associations is the subject of political discussion at ed stock is classified as having a cheap rent (up to €337) and 4% is expensive (over the moment. Commissie de Boer 2005). do enough to justify their financial position. large amounts of capital. The whole plan was rejected in the upper chamber in December 2006. whereas Strong financial position the average level in the private rented sector is €419. The amendment of the BBSH and the many € of total housing stock) of cheaper. Some 44% of the social rent. while op their own policies because they are in general financially healthy. She has encouraged the social rented sector to improve internal supervision % more expensive dwellings (>= € 541) 4 21 and to develop benchmarks and control instruments to safeguard the performance of housing associations. Since the introduction of housing allowance 7. One recurrent question in this connection is who actually owns the associations' assets.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 5. 2004. Other current issues in the Netherlands in 1975. 6. The average social sector rent is €353/month. the key issue being whether the housing associations. from the Scientific Council for Government Policy (Dutch Average rent (in € per month) 353 416 abbreviation WRR) and the Social Economic Council (Dutch abbreviation SER) (see WRR.g. which suggests that there was room for rent increases within the system. the associ- Table 8: Average rents (€ per month) in the social and private rented sectors. low interest rates and a steady rise in property prices. Conijn et al. This has led to a considerable increase in rental income for landlords (both Since 1995 social housing providers in the Netherlands havein principle no longer social and private). The average actual rent level was in 2002. In the private rented sector. SER. as well as a maxi. 2002 forth be forced to make clear agreements at the local level and to invest their surplus- es in housing rather than accumulating large reserves. the average maximum rent was €508. 140 141 . housing associations and private landlords agreed to management. A compromise was reached whereby rents on 25% of the would like to lay their hands on some of their funds. received explicit government subsidy .

The distinction is supposed to ensure there are no cross-subsidies. Subsidies for social housing According to European Union rules. particularly where local authorities can't afford or don't want session of dwellings with regulated rents. The vast majority of urban · Enhancing the quality of the living environment in as far as it relates to the pos- renewal projects are situated in areas where social housing dominates. offering opportunities for people to buy a house parties. or where dwellings are owned by third policy is to create a better tenure mix. letting and maintenance of property with a commercial function. local government and housing associations have debated which organisation should initiate and control urban renewal programs. by forcing them to contribute to the national hous- ing 'Europe-proof'. help with removals.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe organization of housing associations. Depending on the condition and age of the with unregulated rents. renovation and possible sale of dwellings of which was built in the post-war period. housing. All of these options are expensive. housing associations often provide play facilities for children. environmental maintenance and · Enhancing the quality of the living environment in as far as it relates to the pos- neighbourhood centres. or attracting newcomers. for groups other than 'traditional clients'. For the last decade. · Activities for people other than the association's own tenants. The following activities of housing associations are regarded as being in competition Urban renewal control with the open market: One major challenge in the coming decades is the renewal of the housing stock. In fact.for example. it may be refurbished. rather than administrative. In concrete terms elderly and students to higher income groups. Government session of dwellings with unregulated rents. housing is a Service of General Economic and activities may not be used for the benefit of commercial activities. the Minister for Housing proposed to clarify the definition of SGEI of the resources are locked up in the houses themselves. or discounts in shops. The social parent organisation is sup- The EU. have come to dominate the process. ranging from the homeless. for which member states are allowed to provide financial support. Other new roles suggested for housing asso- between provision of housing for the target group. at least in the short run. associations. and the grow. and providing facilities like schools and this means that the following activities may be regarded as social activities: shops. neighbourhood wardens. renovation and possible sale of dwellings Some housing associations do offer extra services like insurance. or to 2m in the Netherlands. · The construction. providing houses compete on the open market. all dwellings and activities of housing associations as SGEI. letting and maintenance of social property ity of life in their neighbourhoods and maintain the value of their property. although trans- Interest (SGEI). ing power of the associations. as the largest property owners. maintenance. she proposed that housing associations should distinguish ing allowance budget (see section 6). or 30% of households). or upgraded. such as mainte- This reflects both capacity and financial shortages in local government. At the neighbourhood level. claims that the pot of money is illusory. Housing associations justify these investments as a way to improve the qual- · The construction. as well as many in the Netherlands. in order to prevent state aid being used for the latter. as most In December 2005. She proposed to define the target group for social housing as those households with an income of below €33. The Minister would like to see a legal.000 (2005) (of which there are around Politicians have proposed to simply skim the fortunes of housing associations. letting. housing · The construction and sale of dwellings for owner-occupiers. letting. · The construction. with regulated rents. much · The construction. thinks that it is not appropriate to treat posed to act as a shareholder of the commercial entity. enlarged. to do so. separation between EU regulation social and commercial activities of housing associations. 142 143 . demolished and replaced. nance for Owners' Associations. fers in the opposite direction are permitted. in their neighbourhood. In an effort to make Dutch social hous- broaden their tasks . handicapped. and activities in which associations ciations include caring for the environment around their dwellings. for the Netherlands. maintenance.

the white paper recommended the transfer of behalf of the Minister of the housing associations and may restructure financially weak municipal housing to housing associations. ciation. The dwellings are ities of housing associations would be subject to corporate income tax (Dekker.500 dwellings. of which 15. In the Netherlands. This was intended to enable more market- individual households for owner occupation. under which only a few thousand housing associations and other actors -. this white paper introduced the sale of social rented dwellings as a normal activity *The Central Fund for Housing associations (CFV) maintains financial supervision on of housing associations. However. marked the start of a shift from bricks-and-mortar subsidies to means-tested Most houses are sold at market price or with a small discount (5-10%). housing associations sold around 17. 2005). Government subsidies for urban renewal would henceforth be targeted at a limited amount of old pre-war housing stock Another initiative linked to intermediate tenure is the 'Client's Choice' programme. Five key milestones in Dutch social housing In 2004. 2005). It proposed the on the open market. These are sold at discount of 25-30%. for whom they are some- A decision on these proposals will be taken by the new government. This was an important step in targeting the social rented sector for lower income groups. in Dutch-literally. ing associations and private landlords insofar as private activity is concerned. Not until the 1990s were bricks-and-mortar subsidies abandoned some of the dwellings are sold into what could be termed social owner-occupation. housing in the Netherlands has been owned by private housing associations.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Equal treatment of private and social landlords Social owner occupation The housing minister has proposed to create a level playing field between the hous. who see it as a means to fill the gap (WSW)** for loans that relate to their social obligations. The issue of skewness (higher income groups living in social rented dwellings) was first identified as a problem in this white paper. **The Guarantee Fund for Social Housing (WSW) provides guarantees that result in lower interest rates for loans. There are now 12 housing associations participating (see Gruis et al. Annual sales are about 0. This white paper introduced a increases (or falls) 50-50 with the housing association. the term 'social housing' generally means rented housing. 144 145 . The dwelling cannot be resold new approach to social housing and the role of government. which had been neglected in the post-war decades. Elsinga. into a new intermediate tenure known as tight ownership. 'for living'. The programme is known as Te Woon. elected on 22 times part of a 'package deal' with market housing. In return for the price discount. Intermediate tenure 9. Maintenance of all other started by one housing association in 2000. in the case of social housing). which roughly equals the yearly new production of social housing. and one or more intermediate tenures. the purchaser must share any future price 1989 The white paper on housing ('nota Heerma'). Housing However. owner occupation. 2005). This is popular Housing (CFV)* and guarantees from the Guarantee Fund for Social Housing with major centre and left-wing political parties. pendence of housing associations. The private. It housing stock. Various local programmes exist. Finally. between cheap social renting and expensive owner occupation. but must be sold back to the housing association (see also retreat of central government and the delegation of power to local government. authorities offer the land at below-market prices. Initiatives towards or away from direct provision exceptions have made enforcement difficult.100 went to 1974 Introduction of housing allowance. important step towards the inde- dwellings have so far been sold.5% of the total oriented rents while safeguarding affordability for those on lower incomes. built by both housing associations and private investors. allowances. but the many 8. consisting of inex- associations would only be able to receive support from the Central Fund for Social pensive owner-occupied houses (often targeted at first-time-buyers). The housing consumer is offered a dwellings would be entirely the responsibility of the owner (the housing asso- choice including renting. Prices can be low because local November. Sometimes the purchase contract contains conditions limiting resale in an attempt to prevent speculation. commercial activ. Moreover. there is also something called social owner occupation. Since the 1990s almost all social associations.

Tweede Kamer ver- housing associations financially independent from central government. 2005. RIGO 146 147 . J. M. but in 1997 a new housing. & Priemus. Future gaderjaar 2004-2005.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 1995 The grossing and balancing operation ('brutering'). the role Ouwehand. Lokaal wat kan. Advies in opdracht van Aedes vereniging van woningcorporaties en Ministerie van VROM Conijn. four yearly survey carried Verslag Financieel toezicht woningcorporaties 2003 en 2004. ministry of VROM (Housing. Delft: DUP Science Criticism of the performance of housing associations by those who thought they had too much money and were not using it wisely. Home Ownership: getting in. S. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek {Statistics Netherlands]. Tweede Kamer ver- 1997 The white paper on urban renewal From the beginning of urban renewal work gaderjaar 2004-2005. recently renamed into WoON (WoonOnderzoek financial control commission on housing associations] Nederland. MVROM.M. Ondernemerschap voor de publieke zaak [Enterprises for the public inter- on statline. ministry of VROM (Housing. S. nr. yearly publication 1990- Bibliography 1999. central government took the lead. WBO. The liberalisation of rents and the creation of a level playing MVROM. WRR housing associations. 2005. H. nr. getting from. 2005. 20 herdruk. ingcorporaties [Local what is possible. Planning and the Environment) cussion. New arrangement for Den Haag. a model for social of central government was limited to renewal of old stock. This major event made Dekker. 1999. AG. 2006. 75-94).M. Affordable and low risk home ownership. Ruimte geven bescherming bieden [Giving space.. yearly publication. Woningcorporaties [Housing associations] est]. van Daalen (2002) Dutch housing associations. Elsinga. Larger municipalities Dekker. J. In: PJ Boelhouwer. The housing associations have countered by Kersloot. getting out (pp. providing protec- got funds. but the main implementation of housing-related work was to be tion]. Led to political discus. VH. [two yearly reports by the out by the Ministry of VROM and CBS. Gruis. Tenant empowerment through innovative tenures: An analysis of Woonbron Maasoevers' client choice programme.M. rapport 70. Housing Survey Netherlands) Commissie De Boer. Planning and the Environment) CBS. In 1989. SER CFV. 2005.. A. Nieuw bestel voor won. Delft: DUP Science income groups. brief van de minister subsidies and outstanding debts were allowed to cancel each other out. 20 and throughout the 1970s. WoningbehoefteOnderzoek [Housing Demand Survey]. Bewijzen van goede dienstverlening [Proofs of good service]. 2000. Amsterdam. the government is now threatening housing associations with taking away part of their money. Volkshuisvesting in Cijfers [Housing in figures]. which were dominated by social housing from the 1950s and 1960s. A vision on the housing market. period 2000- field with commercial providers are also important issues in this ongoing dis- 2004. Naar een duidelijke taakafbakening en heldere sturing (To a clear defi- nition of tasks and clear control] . 2005. Ministerie van VROM done by the housing associations. 2005. S.M. Wolters. 2005. sion and many reports on the position and future of housing associations in Housing studies (ISSN 0267-3037) 20 (1). Delft: DUP Satellite herdruk. Den Haag. 29 453. & G. available SER. Dekker. several data. M.). 127-147 the Netherlands. Centraal Fonds voor de Volkshuisvesting [Central Fund for Housing]. brief van de minister policy was introduced for the transformation of less popular areas. 2004. 2005. Elsinga. Cijfers over Wonen [Data about living]. 2005. J Doling 2005-present: & M Elsinga (Eds. Woningcorporaties [Housing associations]. WRR. central what needs to be. Den 29 453. centraal wat moet.. (Des)investerings en huurprijsbeleid van verhuurders van woningen offering to increase their investment in urban renewal. and drop rents for lower [(Dis)investement and rent policy by landlords].

000 in 2005.273 6 1995 21 1000 .208 0 1980 41 14 24 21 100 200 . 11. but should be roughly correct.000 in 1995 to 780. various years. the municipal sector is doing rather well. Its share of Table 1 gives a broad overview of the tenure composition of the Swedish dwelling new construction roughly corresponds to its share of the total housing stock (about 20 stock. Source: Swedish Association of Municipal Housing Companies (SABO) home page 148 149 . First.999 11 4 142. After 1990: rough esti- mates 10. in spite of a law that aims to Bengt Turner.309 2 1990 40 15 25 20 100 500 .727 100 of obsolete units in some of the less successful parts of Sweden . This fall came about for several reasons. 499 49 17 18.211 18 Source: The Housing Census. 1. 999 66 22 49. Third. most of which are flats. Social Housing in Sweden they can influence court decisions. Uppsala University prevent sales which could jeopardize the functioning of the fair rent system in Sweden. but only to a limited extent. The current position of social housing In terms of new construction.000 .very often old indus- trial cities. Statistics Sweden. with 2% of companies own- ing 23% of the stock.498 23 880.1999 75 26 104. Table 1: Tenure 1945-1990 (%) The size distribution of MHCs is much skewed (Table 2).4999 55 19 170. Year Home Tenant-owner Municipal Private Total ownership rental rental Table 2: Size distribution of municipal housing companies 2005 1945 38 4 6 52 100 Number of dwellings Number of Number of % % 1960 34 9 14 43 100 per company companies dwellings 1970 34 13 23 30 100 .798 17 * 2004 is based on the Housing and Rent Survey 2004 The number of municipal housing company dwellings. These figures are estimates.9999 22 7 149. some units were purchased by their tenants under a right-to-buy policy. the government subsidized the demolition Total 294 100 822.000 .Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe ous areas) or private rental landlords. 199 9 3 1. The right to buy also applies to private rented dwellings in Sweden.443 13 2004* 40 19 20 21 100 2000 . 7 2 186. Second. and the tenure share fell from 21% to 18%. fell from 20. some units were sold to tenant cooperatives (mostly in prosper.987 21 2005 18 5000 .19. The tenants have very little say in these sales. per cent).

500 48.100 39. net worth (total assets less % 11 38 32 11 2 7 total liabilities) averaged 20% in 2005.100 755.500 1.400 1. MHCs can be organised either as foundations or limited companies.200 1. Total1 83. and social sector construction has been slightly ahead of private rented construc.600 41.200 7 backed by municipal guarantees.300 15.800 1.700 49. even if regional differences have escalated.300 6 ments in municipal housing.600 6.100 21.900 7. 1976-80 3.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe About 60% of MHC units have been built since 1965 (Table 3).100 7.700 2.100 37 2.300 129.200 17.700 245.600 15. ownership and funding 1966-70 14.900 85.200 2.900 1.800 51.800 The economic situation of municipal housing companies has improved over time.700 2.700 15. and the rate of return on total capital or assessed real estate values is between 6 and 7 per cent.700 277.100 700 1.100 17. Mechanisms for provision. New construction is always funded on the open credit market.700 1.200 1.000 6.500 4 1995-2004 1985-1994 1975-1984 1965-1974 1955-1964 1940-1954 -1940 private rented public rented 1941-65 34.000 7.500 15. 70% have one or two Figure 1: Age distribution in private and public rented sector in 2004 rooms.700 122.100 283.300 28. most that were foundations have been transformed into limited companies over the last decade.200 8 covered by the MHC's own resources. Net worth has increased by about 1% over the last decade. About 30% of Swedish social housing units were built in the period 1965-74 (Figure 30 1). the rest will be 1991.500 3.700 16 the early 1950s they have been run as independently as possible from wider munici- pal budgets.000 11. For example. 5. Many municipali- 2 dwellings without a kitchen Source: Swedish Association of Municipal Housing Companies (SABO) home page ties receive 6-8 per cent return on capital contributed by the municipality to the com- pany. For a typical project.000 21.500 9.700 13. so that municipalities can get a return on their historic invest- 1981-85 2.200 44.1 %.900 4. with loans sometimes 1986-90 4.000 17 Municipal housing companies have always been a municipal responsibility.900 8. 25 tion since then. % total 20 15 Table 3: Age and size distribution of MHC dwellings 2004 10 Year 1 room 2 rooms 3 rooms 4 rooms 5 or > Other2 Total % 5 built 0 -1940 6.900 12.000 43. but since 1971-75 13.500 24.600 14.200 111. 35 The social rented stock in Sweden is somewhat younger than the private rented stock.800 6 However.200 59.800 43. 150 151 . 80-90% of building costs will be covered by long-term loans (with a maturity of 40 years or more).600 79. This is a solid eco- 1 not including specialty housing nomic situation but which varies considerably across the country. and return on total capital was 6.300 19.

2004 (number of households) include a proper return. dwellings are allocated on the basis of waiting lists. are highly unpop- owner occupation cooperative private rented public rented ular. New legislation will also force the MHC to ten- ing (Figures 4 and 5). for example by paying 450000 excessive fees for services rendered. 200000 MHC rents are set by negotiation with the local tenants' association. The starting point 150000 is an overall rent level . Immigrants from poor countries are particularly likely to live in MHC hous- association for Swedish municipalities). the municipality may step in as a guarantor. through which the MHC rent level forms the upper limit for rents in private to 64 to 64 child child children children properties. with adjustments for location.based not on profit but on cost recovery. There is a second round 0 of negotiations between the local tenants' association and the association of proper- 1 adult. There is no upper income limit. Table 3). This rent 300000 setting is against the interests of private landlords. 3. This 100000 is complicated. even if it were proven beyond sector houses the highest percentage of families below the poverty threshold. are overrepresented in the support which seeks to ensure that the public sector competes on equal terms with MHC (Figure 2. Household income is lowest in the MHC (Figure 4). The main argument is that the rent charged by the MHC does not Figure 2: Household types by tenure. 400000 350000 The source of tension is the rent-setting system in Sweden. but only about 15% in small towns and ed on the open capital market (although some MHCs use bulk borrowing though the rural areas.MHC construction is generally fund- 30% of MHC residents in metropolitan areas.up 1 adult 65+ 2 adults.e. the question of subsidies has reached the top of the agen. doubt that no subsidies were moving between the owner and the MHC. Commission. The tenants' association. The European Property Federation has filed two complaints with the European average. It is also worth Immigrant families occupy an important share of MHC dwellings -. Rents in the MHC by law form the upper limit for rents in comparable (i.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe During the last few years. The principal differences between the private and pub- lic rented sectors are the age structures of the stock (the private rented stock tends to be older) and differences in social responsibility. alleging that the MHC sector is subsidised by its owners. Rents are then distributed 50000 through the stock. In such be accepted as tenant. This second round of negotiations.and increase . der new projects competitively. Demographics All households are eligible to live in the MHC. Although the MHC is available to 152 153 . This would probably be the case. the social profile of MHC tenants differs from the overall Swedish da.up 2 adults 65+ 1 adult+ 1 2 adults + 1 2 adults + 2 2 adults + 3 ty owners. local) private rented stock. most recently in May 2005. The Swedish system.they make up over noting that the sectors are in many ways alike . is in principle goes against European Union legislation on state Single parents with children. quality etc. and the the private sector. and any subsidies to the MHC 250000 functions de facto like old-fashioned rent control. as well as elderly singles. however. those with rent debts . claims the opposite: that MHCs are subsidising their owners through different channels. but it may be complicated for vulnerable households . all households.for example. as the zero-profit condition is arguable. and the rent ceiling.

4 7.6 5.9 14.7 9.5 children Suburban areas: smaller municipalities surrounding these cities Larger cities: other cities of over 80.0 29. 2004 Figure 3: Median disposable income per person (100s of SEK) in different tenures and city types.8 4. Figure 4: Share of immigrant families in different tenures and city types.0 2.0 15 10 5 0 Metropolitan cities Suburban Larger Other Cities & Rural Owner Co-operative Private Public 154 155 .Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Table 4: Household types by tenure. 65 and over.1 35.4 1.8 8. Göteborg.0 children 25 Other households 8. 2002 Type of Tenure form (%) Total 150 household Owner.0 100.6 64.0 100.7 40.8 9.0 2 children 35 Couple. Cooperative Private Municipal 140 pied single dwellings rented housing family houses sector companies 130 120 Single.7 5. 13.1 20 Total 100.000 inhabitants Couple. Malmö 2.2 4.4 5.2 3. 3 or more 30 7. no children Metropolitan cities Suburban Larger Other Cities & Couple.7 10.3 no children 110 Single.7 2.6 5.7 4.5 6.9 18.8 5. 2002 17.5 5. 1 child 9.6 1.5 14.7 Couple.8 12.0 100. 65 and over.2 Rural no children Ow ner Co-operativ e Priv ate Public Single with NB: Metropolitan cities: Stockholm.6 4. 8.4 9. up to age 90 23. 9.0 100.3 46.occu.8 15.1 16. up to age 64.5 100 no children Couple.8 4.6 4.4 19.9 2.

3 2.2 284 few cases).8 5. preferably with a low rent in high- 4. there are large differences in access to public housing. ernment puts much trust in vacancy chains.9 6.3 0.2 31 areas.2 53 Owner Co-operative Private Public Rural municipalities 909 6.8 6.096 6.7 5.1 26 0 Medium-sized cities 2. Instead. This is problematic. but did not reach the really unaffordable cities and districts.5 3 200 000 inhabitants 8 Suburban municipalities 3. The sector acts very Because of this house-price rise. There construction. Changing needs price areas.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Figure 5: Share of immigrant families from poor countries in different tenure Table 5: Share of vacant dwellings in municipal housing companies in 1995 and forms and city types in 2002 2005 Type of municipality Average Vacancies Vacancies Loss of N 24 number of 1995 2005 dwellings (1995) dwellings since 20 in the MHC 1995 (%) 16 12 Large cities = municipality > 66.132 2. Vacancies disappeared in larger cities.7 36 4 Other larger cities 9. as the rate of urbanization is subsidies has led to a fall in new construction in the rented sector.291 8.3 15. Increasing house prices has made it more complicated to move away from the coun. A second form of support was the VAT exemption given to all forms of Housing preferences have not changed much in Sweden over the last decade.6 3.6 2. while it competes with the private regions (even if that is where the jobs are located) or move into more crowded sector in economically strong areas.9 10. 156 157 . the gov- rather constant. This removal of tryside or out of the rented sector.0 29 At a regional level. Previously.2 7. The table highlights the regional diversity of the MHC in Sweden. Both these programmes were stopped by the current government.925 6. households with few resources avoid high-priced much like social housing in weak areas of Sweden.8 9. is still a general preference for owner-occupation and cooperative dwellings. It was partly successful.3 2.786 7. there is a surplus of vacant MHC dwellings in smaller and less successful Other larger municipalities 1.462 4. which it expects will appear with the con- struction of dwellings for better-off households.1 4. Table 5 demonstrates a dramatic development since 1995.1 1. the state supported construction of low-cost housing to rent by offering an upfront grant for rented housing. accommodation.2 0. and a shortage in larger cities.5 3.9 27 Low-density rural 684 8.402 2.6 14.5 3. In broad municipalities terms. but still exist in smaller and more Other smaller municipalities 697 7.8 40 Metropolitan cities Suburban Larger Other Cities & Rural Industrial municipalities 1.1 39 rural municipalities in spite of widespread demolitions from 1995-2000 (or sale in a Total 3.0 7.

It compares rent per 1975 -.1984 914 877 square meter by year of construction for the private and MHC sectors.1939 1001 929 Year of construction Large cities = municipality > 200 000 inhabitants Rent/m2 in private rented Rent/m2 in municipal (all Sweden) sector housing companies Housing allowances can reduce spending on rent by households with children or elder- ly households. low-income households).1994 899 870 There have historically been few initiatives to encourage low-income households to 1975 -. mainly through supplying improved 1955 -. 1940 -. 158 159 . When the cooperative is formed. Rent levels Table 7: Private and MHC rents in metropolitan cities. Such house- 1940 -. The present law requires that at least 2/3 of tenants vote in favour of the formation of a cooperative. but they are part. which might be blurred by subsidies in the MHC sector (and a non-profit regime). 2004 -. private rented houses are better located within a city.2004 1085 1001 6. First. these households a credit guarantee that will enable them to get a loan. Moves to other forms of affordable provision 1985 -.1974 905 814 partial control. the rent level construction sector housing companies in comparable municipal dwellings acts as an upper limit for rents in private sector.1974 801 749 duced two. The higher private-sector rent levels shown in Table 6 are thus partly misleading. the government wants to help young and poor families enter the owner-occupied sector (single-family houses).1964 848 868 they are better represented in larger cities. and 1955 -. which just is being discussed. In principle. 1985 -. 1995 -.2004 1233 1156 ers association. The second initiative.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 5. It would also be appropriate to control for location within a city and type of municipality.1954 792 799 holds are often unable to pay the down payment required to transform their dwelling -. This rule is now under heavy criticism because. The MHC can ly explained by the better location of private rented dwellings and the fact that private then sell the unit at market or cost-recovery price (rather than offering a lower price to rents are allowed to be up to 5% higher than municipal rents. according to the private property own.1954 953 855 Table 6: Private and MHC rents. The government's proposal is to give Table 7 gives results just for the largest cities.1964 765 793 credit guarantees. and it is time to Source: Housing and Rent Survey 2004 (own calculations) buy the property. it can happen that those households who need to finance their pur- chase with loans do not qualify for bank loans. where rents tend to be somewhat higher. This is just a 1965 -. 1995 -. is a 'let-to-buy' programme to help poor households when their rented flat is up for sale. it forces the private landlords to adapt to a rent level. Eligibility is not dependent on whether the landlord is private or public. 2004 The Swedish rent setting system links the negotiated local rent structure in the MHC Year of Rent/m2 in private rented Rent/m2 in municipal to the rent structure in the private rented sector (see above). Differences still exist. but the current right-wing government has intro- 1965 -. which protects its financial position.1939 803 796 into a cooperative. In general.1994 1082 993 Table 6 are the results of a housing and rent survey from 2004.1984 840 787 move away from the rented sector.

given the clause in Swedish rent legislation that ties the private- convinced that such a transfer is in their interest . starts within the municipal sector has decreased by approximately 30 per cent (as of January 2007). those subsidized by taxpayers) if they have a social mission.of whom some may be poor. investment grants and interest subsidies and placed more emphasis on housing The municipal housing companies had just started to increase their construction activ. These benefit mainly the elderly poor and poor families with children. 2006 discussion focused on the removal of upfront grants and the remaining interest subsidies. but the new conserva- ly a heated debate going on. driven by ideological arguments. These schemes were limited by a partial municipalities. could ing subsidies. The aim is to Local politicians have become more aware of the EU attitude towards municipal com- fight segregation and to stabilize the areas by making them mixed-tenure. The discontinuation of government result in vacancy chains. Decisions on the (which have many of the characteristics of owner-occupation) have always been pop- sale of local stock are taken on a municipal political level. tive government intends to revive them. The government says it is particularly important to transfer rented policy on competitiveness and the complaint from the Swedish property association. MHCs are also hampered by the obligation to (see Magnusson & Turner. Subsidies and extended companies (i. Commentators argue that the cost sen. but dwellings tend to be sold with a de facto The response. according sidies have thus been fully abolished. leaving housing allowances as the only remain- to a survey done by SABO (the association of municipal housing companies). Tenants receive no discount on the market price in these unattractive areas. have also been proposed to help young people enter owner-occupation using credit erative construction. reduce planned construction by fifty per cent. using taxpayers' money. which will benefit less-well-off households.. and that the rent-setting system requires a large MHC sector to These discussions at local and central level have been stimulated by the present EU function properly. allowances. rejecting arguments that the MHC sector is good in and of itself. The new right-wing government. such as credit guarantees are being discussed. This turned out to be an exaggeration. however. The gov. not at a price which com. 2006). but the number of new guarantees or rent-to-buy schemes. It is still too early to project the magnitude of sales.from a market per. Recent initiatives rented sector. The question not yet touched upon in Sweden is whether a right-to-buy scheme can 8. The funds will. Conservative local authorities are more willing to sell than social-democrat-run schemes have resulted in excess demand. panies that compete with the private sector. sector rents to negotiated rent levels in comparable municipal dwellings. be spent on special dwellings for the elderly.e. which. and thus were seen to be too general to be efficient . The situation is ernment is obliged to sell only to sitting tenants. There are several components in this discussion. EU legislation on state support accepts sheltered sell only to sitting tenants . pensates the MHC for loss of future cash flow. 160 161 . through which rented units are transformed into cooperatives sitting tenants started an intense discussion in many municipalities. but there is certain- moratorium on sale of MHC property. The housing policy debate in Sweden is currently focusing on the future of municipal The general feeling is that heavy subsidies are not needed. judging from a number of local debates. The government also argues that market-driven new construction will ity. as the market value of these dwellings far municipal housing stock and/or to make the remaining part more socially responsible exceeds their "book" value to the MHC. as a very late response to increased least. Future Issues be implemented without the discounts that have been used in other parts of Europe. as these made no distinction between the private and public parts of the 9.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 7. The November housing attracts very little of the stigma that might justify a discounted selling price. put in place 1 April 2002. Supply-side sub- subsidies may increase first-year running costs by 10-15 per cent. accommodating vulnerable households or acting in a low income region. Programmes sitivity is very high and new construction is easily decreased or replaced by new coop. How politicians are thinking about the role of social housing at the present The second line of discussion concerns privatisation. especially since MHC housing companies. So far. will either be to sell part of the 50 per cent discount in attractive areas. these tenants have not been particularly complex. units into cooperatives in socially unattractive high-rise neighbourhoods. The government promise to repeal the law that placed a (conditional) moratorium on the sale of MHC dwelling to Right-to-buy schemes. has discontinued spective. and they follow political ular in the more attractive parts of the larger cities and where existing rent-control lines.

1. 4. Bo Why so different? Nordic Housing Policy in Comparative Historic Light 2001 162 163 . Delft: Delft University Press. No. 3 Turner. J. "Social Differentiation in Public Rental Housing: A Case Study of Swedish Metropolitan Areas". & Borgegård. L-E. 453-472 Bengtsson. A. 3. Bibliography: English 1930 MHCs were allowed to take up state loans. MHCs built for Bengtsson.N. Housing Studies. 10. "Municipal Housing Companies in Sweden: On or Off the Market?". 1991 All differences in borrowing conditions were equalised. I. 12. "The Crisis of Public Housing in Sweden . "Public Housing and Overcrowding in Swedish Municipalities". B. 6. 14. Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research. (1994). Vol. further (ed. 29-43 1946 New housing policy which set out the framework for MHCs.Why is it not Residualised?". 9. Vol. Tenure. and most of the R. "Part II The Promotion of Social Housing: Sweden". Indo-Swedish Perspectives on Affordable Housing. (1995). 2007 A possible removal of Allbolagen. "Good Dwellings for All: The Case of Social Rented Housing in Sweden".Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 10. B. 99-112 removal of remaining subsidies and a possible discussion with EU à la Kemeny. M. the boards were elected on political grounds. MHCs' rent-setting hegemony. Organizational Myth?". J. 381-404 Turner. and Design.) Housing Research. (1997). 3. L. 477-488 Abramsson. (1998). 4. Housing Policy in Europe. in Balchin. Sahlin. 2. No. 168-194 Kemeny. No. "Social Markets in European Rental Housing". At that time. "Alternative Models of Social Housing: Tenure Patterns and Cost- renting in New Zealand and Sweden". & Elander. (ed. London and New York: Routledge 2002 Allbolagen introduced: a moratorium on the sale of MHCs. "Rental Housing in Sweden . Bristol: SAUS were given a strategic role as the main provider of housing for "ordinary" Publications people Murdie. G.Economic Reality or retired people and poor families with children. Housing Studies. Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research. No. if it would jeop- ardise rent setting. No.-E. 8. (1999). Swedish Social Renting in Comparative Perspective. Housing Studies. 129-144 ting in the private sector was also reconfirmed. 149-174 Davidson. 3. P. (1991). Vol. Housing and Urban Policy Studies 9 Turner. (1994). Social Rented Housing in Europe: Policy. (1992). in Sharma. "Strategies for Exclusion from Social Housing". From Public Housing to the Social Market: Rental Policy Strategies in Comparative Perspective. Working Paper No. Gävle: Institute for Holland. Milestones in Swedish social housing history 11.). Social Sciences. R. No. & Borgegård. Vol. 1. Bombay: Tata Institute of subsidies were phased out over a five-year period. 1-17 1974-1975 New legislation gave the municipalities the major influence over MHCs. The MHCs Kemeny. Danermark. London: Routledge. B. I. Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research. Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research. 15. 10. Housing Studies. Vol. (1996). (1991). "Changing Welfare States and Social Housing: Consequences for Spatial Segregation". Vol. MHC influence on rent set. No. (1995). B. (1997). J. I. Vol. (1992). B. Vol. 113-127 Elander. No. Lindberg.). (1993).

J.. Bo. and C. social provision.) have heightened demands on the welfare mechanism. IIBW . Kemeny. privatized public housing. Policy and The aim of this paper is to give an overview of social housing policies in transition Politics. (2001). No. T. and new and vacated housing units (apartments) Bengt Owe Birgersson and Bengt Turner. 803-815 it was 'state' housing. R. and a small entire- tems. an integrating social mechanism. (2005). Allmännyttiga och sociala bostäders framtid i Norden. etc. social housing had a special meaning: Studies. "Allmännyttans framtid i Sverige" (the future of public housing in economic restructuring (regional and social inequality.). February József Hegedüs (Metropolitan Research Institute. al. P. Vienna.3 164 165 . Budapest) Jacobs. 2006. IBF After the political transformation of the region. K. most omvandling. affordability problems. There was no special sub-sector or Lena Magnusson. liberalized prices for housing services. 201 . aim to give a systematic description of social housing Lindbergh. Conference on Social housing. pp: 157--166) areas of the welfare systems (education. Sweden) i J. . privatized the banking sector. "Aktuelle Entwicklungen im sozialen were allocated according to 'merit' rather than housing need. As a consequence. Bo. 12.). Vol. C. Social Housing in Transition Countries Gävle: Institute for Housing and Urban Research. . "Non-profit Housing Influencing. market functioning and local housing sys. which is understandable. health. declining living standards. Vol. Lotte. Vol. B. W. The negative consequences of this Turner. 307-320 countries. B et. TemaNord 2003:536: Köpenhamn These processes have been carried out at different speeds and in various ways in dif- Bengtsson.40 Turner. Turner: ekonomiska förutsättningar för in a broader sense. Generation: The Case of Public Housing Companies' Experiences in Sweden". Housing Studies. alongside the state-controlled sector.Égalité. (2003). J. Matznetter.) of transition countries are still in flux. privatised their construc- Comparative Historical Light). T. however. states had to withdraw from the housing sector: they spolitik i jämförande historiskt ljus (Why so Different? Nordic Housing Policy in cut subsidies for new construction (both public and private). After 15 years. Vol. 38. L. Kersloot. 855-872 or at below cost or market price. Brussels.L. The vast majority of services were provided in kind 20. 31. Bengtsson. 1996). Working Paper No. it does not. 7. 6. an enormous shortage emerged leading to Amann (ed.. transactions emerged: self-help buildings. Leading side and the supply side of the housing sector and did not allow the market to act as and Dominating the Unitary Rental Market: Three Case Studies". 17 March ly private rented sector (Hegedüs-Tosics. Malmö. Larsson. etc. Varför så olika? Nordisk bostad. 39 (2) pp... (1998) Från allmännytta till bostadsrätt i miljonprogramsområdena ferent countries and in different sectors. ing in Europe". J. As a consequence of the Wohnbau in Europa" (Current development in social housing in Europe). Jensen. (2006). Whitehead (2002) "Reducing Housing Subsidy: Swedish Housing Policy in an International Context". No. (2004). "Cost Control and Revenue programs and housing sector developments in individual countries. Annaniassen. H. economies. & Wilson. B. bostadsforskning.393 s tion and building-material industries. Social by Default.217. a dual housing market. (2003). Municipal Housing Companies in Sweden - sphere which could be called 'social housing'. which included Bauen und Wohnen both public rented and the controlled owner-occupied sector. subsidised housing prices. Bengt Turner (2006). Andersen. within the framework of the welfare regime). where. etc.G. a sphere of private Bengt Owe Birgersson* and Bengt Turner 2006 "The future of main stream public hous. P. a market for sub-tenancy. "Non-retrenchment 1 Reasons for State Withdrawl Developing the Social Rental Market in four Countries". J. & Manzi. Working paper 30 November. & Thalman.. GIS socioéconomie de l'habitat. No. in Wolfgang artificially low. Urban Studies.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Kemeny. Sveinsson (red. The state (in the broad sense )2 controlled both the demand Kemeny. & Thalmann. given that the devel- (from municipal housing to co-operative housing in new residential areas). 3.T. Sozialer Wohnbau in Europa).Institut für Immobilien. (B. private transactions in the rented sector. Erling. Institutet för opment of the housing policy takes place within the framework of social policy (and. "Privileged or Exploited Council Tenants? The Discursive Change in Conservative Housing Policy From 1972 to 1080". private real estate market transactions. Research Report 1998:1. . Regional In the East-European Housing Model (EEHM).. governments worked under constant Swedish: fiscal pressure caused by the social and economic costs of bankrupt socialist Bengtsson.

In some countries privatisation was Poland 31. 1990 after 2000 % privatised Housing privatisation and restitution Albania 35.1 17. reformed public sectors. privatised economies.0 5. Serbia and Montenegro 22. 2005 maintained the traditional structures: the state owned the structural elements of the building. etc. but in other countries local governments (the new social landlords) had the right to Czech Republic 39.0 2. cost-based user charges and the reduction of Armenia 52. unprofessional maintenance companies (Hegedüs-Teller. 2004).9 87.0 3. The decision about whether to privatise (and restore dwellings to their original owners) was not a choice between the 'unitary' and the 'dual' model.0 92.4 96. Poland (16%).).1 6.0 56. in Russia. Most countries. Czech Republic (17%). Russia (29%).0 57. Hegedüs-Struyk.g.0 90.2 91.1 ics of housing policy discussions in the region. new polit- ical systems. Republic of Moldova 21. Russian Federation 67. at least in the beginning.4 as the unitary model was not a feasible option. advance payment schemes. Typically the political costs of enacting these changes were Estonia 61. Various financial schemes were employed.0 5.7 work for the operation of multi-unit buildings.0 29.2 2.).5 decide.9 a unitary one would have involved several difficult policy steps. This led to rapid deterioration of the buildings.0 97. tries will probably continue to privatise.6 16.5 4. Latvia. state maintenance companies had a monopoly.7 91. Russia.8 2.5 high and the incentive structure was not in place to achieve them. and Latvia (16%). and in some cases received the dwellings free Kazakhstan 66.7 Privatisation was undertaken even in the absence of a clear and efficient legal frame.1 done under national laws. etc. firstly. income-related.fiscal pressure.6 changes. These coun- mented. housing allowances. one of the central top. To create a social Slovenia 31. which introduced the right to buy (Hungary.0 56. Georgia. some of which are for low-income households. Lithuania 60.7 of charge (e.).6 3.0 72.7 6. etc.0 4.4 tenants' property rights. Romania 32. and at the end of the paper draw some conclusions about the future of social housing in the region. and frag. these tenants typically Slovakia 27.7 work of the transition. including vouchers (Czech Republic.9 special loans.5 76.3 housing sector from the ex-state-owned rented sector would have required basic Hungary 23. Source: UN-ECE 2002. should be analysed within the frame. To turn the socialist rented sector into Croatia 24. compensation shares (Hungary).0 16. means-tested. then we summarise programmes targeted at the rental and owner- public rental as % of all dwellings occupied sectors.8 87.5 73. including the introduction of allocation based on need.5 1.8 Most of the countries in transition sold 75-95 % of their stock of public housing to sit- ting tenants (See Table 1).8 89.5 istic under the structural constraints these countries faced .2 Policy choices regarding housing privatisation and restitution.1 49. which were not real- Bulgaria 6.0 82. etc. Latvia 59.0 54. we deal with the processes and consequences of privatisation Table 1: Housing privatization (%) and restitution. etc.7 2. Ukraine 47.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe In this overview. usually at give-away terms-that is.5 paid less than 15% of the market price. and there was price control In 2001 there were still some countries with a relatively large public rented sector: for housing-related services. it is less likely that they will be able to convert 166 167 .3 20.

Economic recession in transition countries had a huge impact on housing: housing output decreased severely. and local governments are under fiscal pres. In 2004 a new the future housing model in transition countries depends on how these countries national program was introduced (90% financed from by central government accord- respond to the situation brought about by market creation policies.4 Cooperatives had an important role in Czechoslovakia. shared between the two levels of government.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe their post-socialist rented sectors into unitary public rented sectors. we identify three types of increases would like to buy their homes. where they made up tries. However. In general. water and sewage. it is important to emphasise that housing allowance systems are changing. the social effects of the liberalisation of prices for housing-related expenditures (an tives. However. Co-operative housing in Eastern Europe represents. Housing allowance programmes in the region were a form of income support for pay- tion.) of low-income households. including households' lack of resources. tors. In households adjust to the new economic conditions (Buckley et al. and total housing allowance paid €11 million (2004) to €30 million (2005). etc. however. related services (energy. In fact. In Poland and Hungary. including tenants' coopera. allocation. grams in the region did not help to provide access to housing (Hegedüs-Teller. Slovakia. as the construc. house- from them or which their families had been forced to sell. when former owners of property reclaim assets that were expropriated though household incomes are poorly measured. the housing allowance pro- cooperative sector has disappeared or been transformed into owner cooperatives. while in other CEE operation of the sector because it led to uncertainty about property rights.) were liberalized. 3. and in Poland. ing to centrally defined criteria and formulae). The privatisation process has been slowed by several fac- 1. owners' cooperatives and building cooperatives. holds. even Restitution. 2003). which are basically a form of owner occupation. etc. costs are caused social tensions because the position of the sitting tenants was unclear. 2005). in principle. housing allowance programmes reach 4-8% of house- re-introduce new cooperatives in transition countries. Housing and are under pressure in almost every transition country. support for low-income households to access owner occupation. They aimed to correct a legal sense there were several types of cooperatives. There is no reason to classify them as a form of social housing. state housing subsidies were cut and prices of housing. holds). It also countries it is administered by local authorities.). etc. requirement that at least 75% of tenants intend to buy. but it had a huge influence on the through decentralised administrative units of central government. the element of the market creation strategy). The allowances are typically well targeted. Consequently. and financing were managed by the organizations under direct state ing housing costs.6 In most of the countries. New rent regulation in the privatisation in the short run freed some of the reserves in the sector. Slovenia uses rent allowances for a relatively small group (around 2. Poland (24%) and the Soviet Union (4%) before 1990. where about 7% of dwellings were restored to their former sidy. the housing allowance pro- New trends in social housing gram is most significant in Poland and the Czech Republic. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia the program is managed and financed Restitution did not create a substantial sub-market. housing allowance.700 house- owners7. rather than demand-side housing subsidies as in western coun- control. played an important role only holds both in the owner-occupied and rented sectors are typically eligible for the sub- in the Czech Republic. but it was possible in most of the countries except Hungary and Russia. waste management. creation of a new social rented sector. and certain procedural rules (land registration. there were only minor Housing allowances differences between living in a co-operative and a state rental unit. The allowance programs were aimed primarily at helping to pay the utility costs 17% of the housing stock.5 In (energy. intervention: sure and would like to sell. and even helped Czech Republic will force the government to introduce a rent allowance program. although there have from time to time been attempts to In the five new EU countries. a lack of financial incentives for local governments and households. 168 169 . the 2. Hungary the share of housing allowances was less than 4% in 2002. because they are The development of social housing is an important element in market correction under both political and financial pressure to privatise: households expecting rent strategies. and less significant in Slovenia. a tenure form between public rental and owner occupation. Because of privatisation. water. and the Czech Republic the average size of the hous- ing allowance is €25-37 per month. In this discussion of social housing programs.

struction cost (replacement value) of a unit set by the voivoda (head of the Regional Some central governments defined allocation criteria. frequently supported by European donor agencies. but does not specify the basis for calculating it. which represented less than 10% of new construc- tion. Other financing sources can include tenants.inter. 2000. the program was stopped after 2004.The condi. In Romania 40. subsidised loans. 2005.). 2003). expanding the existing . free access to land. co-operatives and public-private partnership Romania and Hungary chose this solution. etc. but cannot be higher than 4% of the con- units that would be close to cost-recovery level. Czech Republic. allocation and construction. etc. because this imposed conditions with regard to rent setting. which was 30% 2. the rent regulation cannot make profit. but have also changed over time. was only 19. however.000. but it the maximum rent is 10% of the net family earnings.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Promoting a new social rented sector An important question was whether the new units were eligible for privatization. prioritising young families. Detailed rules for allocat- Hungary. and now has to compete with the private sector. most countries in the region had recovered from the transi- been restored to their former owners to buy their home after five years (Kahrlik et al. Social housing law requires that they apply The programme has received some criticism not because of its performance. some governments set annual rent ceilings that were related to the several attempts. introducing or expanding the amount of rental housing owned by non-profit hous. state in the form of a low-interest loan. authorities would like to increase the rent above these levels. Two types of rental programme were proposed and partly introduced: The planned size of the new social housing programmes is substantial. ernments use their own scoring system. Actual rents were set by local authorities at levels well below the ceilings. Poland estingly enough.) which emphasised the role of the rented sector. to establish new replacement value of the dwellings. lost most of its privileges (which included grants.5% of the replacement cost (Uchman and Adamski. In Poland and the Czech Republic. The form of ownership has tions were not only different in the various countries. In Romania. In the new rental program limited liability company.but shrunken . 2004. the rent is limited to 25% of net family income or the net average local government. In Hungary. Non-profit housing associations. however. The programs typically used a matching financial structure. and in the Czech Republic means testing was introduced after 2002. Council) in its quarterly edicts. This ceiling was 3% in Slovakia and Poland8 and non-profit (or limited-profit) organizations providing apartments for rent. because it has diverted resources from municipal housing construction. The mainstream approach was the use of local authorities: Slovakia. The TBS can take different legal forms: wage. In Poland.000 units were planned over four years. In Tallinn. TBS rents aimed to force local authorities to charge a rent for the newly established cost-rental are set by municipal councils as cost rents. National housing programs were prepared (Slovakia 1999. local gov. tenure is considered to be a version of public ownership. Hungary cooperatives before 2002 (Donner. Romania 2000.municipal housing stock. the public housing program permitted tenants whose previous dwellings had At the end of the 1990s. or cooperative of legal persons. A key subsidy element is provided by the the average rent is around 1. these ceilings were imposed because legislators assumed that local The most successful attempt was Poland's TBS (housing association) programme. The total income from the rent payments for all households in certain income brackets. In Slovakia a maximum income level dwellings owned by a TBS must cover all maintenance and repair costs. In Romania. of new construction. The number of new rented units actually built between 2000 and ing institutions. In the payment on the loan from the National Housing Fund. In Hungary. the new rental homes functioned the same way as public policy. and the non-profit entity. where the central government subsidised construction and The co-operative sector is in crisis in most of the transition countries. p72). but an income ceiling. because they were uncertain about tenants' ability to pay . 5% in the Czech Republic. which was based on a French HLM model. 2003). ing new rental flats and income ceilings were introduced by a special act (Lux. and the actual rental construc- Local government programs tion was under 10% of total new construction. The majority of the TBSs are set up by local authorities. However. tional recession and realised that housing was an important and neglected area of 2003). local authorities may set their own criteria. municipal housing is set to make up 15-25% of new housing 1. 2003). there have been In regulating rents. In the Czech Republic. whichever is less (Pascariu and Stanculecu. construction. joint-stock company. as well as applies. for example. etc. One analyst 170 171 .

Bulgaria (2004). regime. The programmes are typically aimed at The reform of the housing sector in Serbia started with the transformation of Solidarity households facing affordability problems. Meanwhile. Bosnia-Herzegovina has employed a version of public-private partnership: an Austrian non-profit organization purchased in a social rental building and leased it on 4. sometimes unintended. economic. which represented less than allowances or grants for housing-related expenditure were introduced. 2005). and in addition created a huge fiscal burden for the governments. The City Housing ly in countries where the informal economy may account for more than 30% of GDP.5/m2. Developments in the social housing sector were a. Special schemes including subsidised mortgages and tax They built around 2500 units between 1991 and 2004. even middle and upper-middle income households often faced affordability Fund resources. result of the social forces defining the transition from the centrally planned economy 3. the aver. but not in Poland (Uchman and Adamski. groups who only need minor help to enter or remain in the owner occupied market. the disintegration of the EEHM did not lead to a new housing value out of normal tax revenue. The institutional structure of the public Privatisation and restitution had a dominant effect on the transformation. implementation of the city housing policy in the field of social housing (SIRP. 2005). Slovakia (1993). age rent per flat is €125 (Dzepar-Ganibegovic. Versions of the 5% of new construction (Donner. German contract savings scheme were employed in some countries. 65 limited-profit housing organizations had been set up by housing finance system. however.000 TBS dwellings were built. Conclusions a 30-year lease to Sarajevo Canton. social and cultural factors influencing the 172 173 . it would be difficult to administer efficient- the basic implementers of Serbia's new social housing system. Agency of Kragujevac was founded as a public non-profit housing organization for the Countries therefore have used proxies to substitute for or supplement income limits. but they are not well targeted. 10. which are seen as means testing were implemented.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe concluded that the TBS program was able to provide good quality housing. these proxies related either to other characteristics of the recipient household (num- The private sector ber of children. so any social housing programmes had to because of the dramatic change in the tenure structure. 2005). which could have a regressive income effect. the existing social stock is insufficient to supply demand in the 'true social' The task was to design programmes to help low-income groups access owner occu- sector. After the large-scale privatisation of the region's housing. to relax rent regulations. The social meaning of tenure under the socialist housing system devel- oped according to special legal. first-time buyers. social and economic fac- tors constrained the development of the social housing sector. Slovenia From the middle of the 1990s. Romania and manages 678 municipal dwellings (Cervenová. In 2001. not only rental sector had not yet been developed. This is a sec. Hungary (1997). this is owned entirely by the city. Expanding this sector would make it socially acceptable and politically viable pation or improve their housing conditions through renewal and reconstruction. 2003). 2003). In this process. but because of the uncertain- support needy households' access to owner-occupied housing as well. ing. 2003). the region's policymakers focused on developing a In Slovenia by 2006. but that ond best option. Under a Dutch grant programme a non-prof. Serbia These measures primarily benefited higher income groups. which pays an annual rent of 5% of the project In transition countries. (Hegedüs-Struyk. 2005). Support for owner occupation to the market economy. (2003). a way had to be found to help households access owner occupation. Czech Republic (1994). income households. Most of the home ownership programmes are used for new hous- Some countries have explored the use of the private sector to provide social housing. which was 10-15 % of new problems because of the collapse of the housing finance system in the region construction. young families) or to the size and value of the hous- ing unit subsidised. Even if Funds for Housing Construction into Municipal Housing Agencies. Croatia (2000). Tenants will pay a monthly rent of €2. including it organization called Matra was established in 2005. but it may be justified either in rural areas or in respect of income even the controlled rents were too high for many poor households (Zavislak. ty it created. several institutional. particularly one that could offer affordable loans for middle- municipalities and construction companies as a replacement for "solidarity housing". The size of the programme depends very much on Housing However.

and neither tenants nor landlords receive tax concessions. Radlinského 11. As a consequence. 2006. Rents typ. 2005.. 2005. it is very difficult to achieve a long-term compromise among the various interested groups. tor. Hegedüs. Due to financial pressures and support from sitting tenants.pdf 174 175 . The Clapham. low leading to arrears. uncertainty created by the transition process was an important factor in residents' 2005. 2006). desire to become home-owners. (Sykora. Hegedüs-Somogyi. By the end of 1993 the process had finished. be inherited. household willingness to pay rent is were waiting for court solution. rents were predictable (they 1 The paper uses the results of the research undertaken in the EU 6th Framework were typically around 5-6% of average income). Slovak University of Technology. the process of demolition In general. E. K & Tosics. In the case of restitution. Lendvai. L'ubomíra: The development of the non . 1996 households from the owner occupied sector. public rented housing was considered to be Endnotes a 'safe' tenure: it was transferable (tenants could move from private ownership to pub- lic and vice versa. and the following publications: The transition changed not only the structure of tenure. 2000. They are not eligible for the same No. I. 3115 grants. but its meaning as well. The sector can also be the source of political tension -. the building authorities granted the right to use the building. Kay (eds) Housing privatization demand for the rental tenure is largely residual. (2003): Integrating Housing Wealth into the framework. The insignificant role the social rental sector plays in the transition countries can be Bibliography explained partly by privatisation and restitution. In the socialist system. In many decentralised systems local municipali- ties are responsible for managing social housing. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper disadvantage as compared to owner-occupiers. Cervenová. and the local municipalities have disincentives to maintain and 8 The rent ceiling was to be abolished in 2004. however. 6 Building cooperatives in Bulgaria or in Hungary were not a separate tenure. bilised institutionally and financially.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe housing system. develop the sector. tenants' protests against increased rents. or other residents' opposition to new social rental units in 7 In the Czech Republic restitution led to quite a substantial regulated private rental sec- their neighbourhood. into the economy through the communist party. The lack of proper legal regulations makes both tenants' and landlords' situations unpredictable. 2001. caused by the crowding out of the in Eastern Europe. which is the most dilapidated part 5 Source: Clapham. Ferge. those households choosing the rental option are at a financial Social Safety Net: The Elderly in Moscow.for example. exists as a legal option. 2006b. Manabu 2004). The privatisation drive seems to be over. rep. the cooperative being obliged to admit the buyer to cooperative membership. 2 The state included not only the central government and local councils. 2006c. and partly by the financial and legal Buckley. It is not in a local authority' eco. 2005. R. politicians tend to support privatisation. with H. M. 813 68 Bratislava. Program OSIS (Origin of Security and Insecurity of Homeownership) Project's relevant work packages (Contract no: CIT2-CT-2003-506007). because ically do not cover operating and maintenance costs. D. R. This is a shorter version of the paper of Hegedüs. and could inherit units from relatives). Struyk. and these flats could also The basic problem is that the remaining municipal housing sector has not been sta. but state-owned resenting the residual solution for households that could not buy their own homes enterprises as well. 1998. Public renting became a non-preferred tenure. Westport. the cooperatives existed only during the construction period. since it makes considerable losses. and ceased to exist after nomic interest to expand the social rental sector.fgw.profit housing sector in Slovakia Faculty of Civil Engineering. Kintrea. 4 The cooperative members could typically sell their flats independently. Hegedüs-Teller. CT: Greenwood Press. 2006a. & Szymanoski. 1996 of the housing stock and where the poorest households are concentrated. 2005 source: www. but in most of the countries privatisation still 3 Thus it is perhaps natural that there are conflicting interpretations (Deacon. 1996). J. and only a small number of cases because proper maintenance is not carried out. The Hegedüs-Struyk. These constituted the majority of the economy and were integrated (Hegedüs-Teller.

. J. IOS Press: Amsterdam Donner. J. J. J. (2006c forthcoming): The privatization of the housing stock in social policy in eastern Europe" in: M. and Neuteboom P. & Teller. 204-227 coming) Home Ownership: Limits to Growth.pdf] sion countries". Tosics. Available from: [http://www.the case of Hungary. 29 (1).. N. p.. IOS Press: Amsterdam 176 177 . (2005): Evaluation of the Hungarian Mortgage Program Pascariu. Struyk) OSI/LGI. J. 5. R. (2005): Housing Policies in Central Eastern Europe. Open Society Institute. 2004 Hegedüs. 2005 Settlement and Integration of Refugees Programme in Serbia. 187-209. N.Time for Reflections" [online]. A new social contract? London: Macmillan Press. M. M. (1996): The Czech Republic in: Balchin. & Struyk. Getting From. "Central and Eastern European Social Policy and European Accession . UNECE Workshop on 200 pp) Social Housing Prague. Getting Out. pp. 2003 Hegedüs. Sengoku: "Emerging Eastern European welfare states: a variant of the 'European' welfare model?" in Sinichiro Tabata and Akihiro Iwashita (eds. Housing Finance in Transition Countries in Housing Finance: New and Old Models in 2003 Central Europe. N.229-255. European Journal of Housing Issue no. 2). Slavic Hegedüs. 2004 (21-34 pp) University). Institute. Marek: Expanding "True Social" Sector in Poland. & Somogyi. J. Eastern Europe .Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe Deacon.J. Westport. & Teller. 1-12. Russia and Challenge (Local Government and Housing in Romania) in: M. I. No. Clapham. N. Open Society Institute. Kintrea. 1998.: Management Improvement and Quality Standard 2000-2004.J. Kahrik. J. pp. 2003 Dzepar-Ganibegovic. The future of European wel. 2003 tion countries (The Case of Hungary) in: Doling J and Elsinga M (eds) (2006) Home Ownership: Getting In. Lux (edited): Housing Kazakhstan (edited by J. Hegedüs and R. & Teller. CT: Greenwood Press. Housing Policy in Europe. 272-288 Model'. 2005.: From a state controlled to a Laissez Fair Donner Housing system (local government and housing in Estonia) in: M. No. 1996 Uchman. 2005. R. & Teller. Slavic Eurasian Studies. in: Horsewood N and Neuteboom P (eds) (forth- fare. p 177-208 Policy: an End or a New Beginning? LGI Books. Hegedüs. "European Integration and the reform of social security in the acces. K. 3-41 Manabu. Journal of Social Quality. (eds) (forthcoming) Home Ownership: Limits to Growth. B. Struyk) OSI/LGI.). in D. with H. World Bank and Council gram. in Housing Finance: New and Old Models in Central Europe. Russia and Kazakhstan (edited by J. Part II. Zs. (2005): Development of the Housing Allowance Programmes in SIRP. "Global and regional agencies and the making of post-communist Hegedüs. N. How to meet market rules and social goals for Housing? in: M. N. J. Lux (edited): Housing Policy: an End or a New Beginning? LGI Books. Hendrikon. A. J. Meny. 19-20 May 2003 Lendvai. Ferge. Open Society Institute. (2006b forthcoming): Homeownership and economic transition in Central and East European Countries: Hungary as a case study. Lux (edit- Hegedüs. Kay (eds) Housing Privatization in Eastern Europe. Financial Theory and Practice. (2006a) : Managing risk in new housing regimes of the transi.: An Outline of Pilot Project for Social Housing in Canton Sarajevo UNECE Workshop on Social Housing Prague. & Tosics. C. Zawislak. Open Society Hegedüs. Hegedüs and R. 01/05 December 2005 Policy Vol. E. (2005): Divergences and Convergences in Restructuring ed): Housing Policy: an End or a New Beginning? LGI Books.. and Adamski.: State and Local Government: How to Improve the Partnership in: M. Rhodes and Y. 2005.ijf.: The social and economic significance of housing management Eurasia's integration into the world economy and community (21st century COE pro- in: Housing in Eastern Europe (solving a puzzle of challenges). J. N. L. 3 (1-2). & Allsaar I. Newsletter Hungary in the Context of CEE Transitional Countries. 19-20 May 2003 Hegedüs. 2. 9-25 Lux. Sapporo: Slavic Research Centre (Hokkaido of Europe Development Bank. I (1996): 'The Disintegration of the East European Housing London: Routledge. & Teller. M. Paul (ed. Lux (edited): Housing Policy: an End or a New Beginning? LGI Books. J. and Stanculescu. in: Horsewood N. August 2005 Sykora. Köre. Wiena published bc C. Hegedüs. IOS Press: Amsterdam (175. 2001.

and is currently guest researcher at Denmark's State Building Research Institute part of the University of Aalborg. with troubled housing estates and deprived urban neighbourhoods. Planning Research. He was managing municipal housing. sociologist and research fellow with more than 20 deprived housing estates and single-family housing. and 'International trends in housing tenure and mortgage and the future of small homes in depressed areas. a Berlin-based urban Recent publications include 'The profile and intentions of buy-to-let investors'. Institute of Regional Development and Structural Planning (IRS). She was awarded an OBE in 1991 director of the GIS socioéconomie de l'habitat. 178 179 . Budapest. and since 1996 has been a member of the Housing Policy Denis. been a researcher at the London School of kets in the Paris agglomeration. She is Deputy Chair of the European Network for Housing Research. and integrated urban policies and governance. social indicators and quality-of-life measurements. He is Structural Planning. Since 1990. socio-structural analysis of migra. an honorary member of RICS and was elected fellow Christian Tutin is Professor of Economics at the University of Paris 12 (Créteil). and about comparative housing and housing finance in particular. Her current research includes projects on housing-market development. and was then senior of immigrants in Vienna (Nach der Gastarbeit: Prekäres Altern in der researcher in the 'Co-evolution of Knowledge and Space' department at the Leibniz Einwanderungsgesellschaft. housing policy and municipal finance issues. He is also a member of the Advisory Board of the Global Research Network on ing. she is interested in housing conditions and what she calls The Contributors "housing social relations" and neighbourhood relations. tion and integration processes. about research and consultancy firm which has worked on issues such as social housing landlords in England. CNRS) Her main topics of research are migration. and the evolution of social relations in the city. and policies and the place of Christine Whitehead is Professor of Housing in the Department of Economics. the relations between knowledge and urban (part of the University of Aalborg) specialising in research on housing and related sub. He is currently looking at long-term social change in Vienna. a French housing research network. (UMR LOUEST. Economics. She has been a member of national and international research teams working focus on Europe. He has participated in and advised on EU research projects. He has published several books. He has conducted a number of empirical studies on housing mar- Kathleen Scanlon has. She is a member of the Coordination Committee of the European Network for Housing Research József Hegedüs is one of the principals of the Metropolitan Research Institute in (ENHR). Wien: Braumüller 2006). market segmentation. covering developments in 19 countries. with special emphasis on Thomas Knorr-Siedow studied sociology and urban planning. gramme on neighbourhood management at Potsdam University of Applied Sciences. including spatial segregation. housing in the "new welfare state". neighbourhood development and housing policies. she has been a researcher in Centre de Recherche sur l'Habitat Council.2005 she was a researcher at the Institute for Regional Development and Christoph Reinprecht is Professor of Sociology at the University of Vienna. with a comparative jects. More generally. mobility and hous. University of Cambridge. She recently analysed the "housing crisis" in London School of Economics and Director of the Cambridge Centre for Housing and France. She leads a further education pro- finance'.Social Housing in Europe Social Housing in Europe 1990. for services to housing. His research focus- Hedvig Vestergaard is a senior researcher at the Danish Building Research Institute es on housing and large housing estates. He is co-organiser of the East European Working Group of the European Network for Claire Levy-Vroelant is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Paris 8 Saint. She published in April 2007 Hôtels meublés in Paris and suburbs from 1860 to Human Settlements (HS-NET). and the relationship and Delivering Affordable Housing through S106 (with S Monk et al). most recently about the ageing director of a socio-spatial development agency from 1980-1993. development. set up in 2004. He is an economist. and of the Society of Property Researchers in 2001. Housing Research. a high-level inter-governmental advisory group on housing policy matters. between housing and office markets and between social rented housing and private housing markets. working on a European comparison of integrative urban and active in research in the fields of urban sociology. Christiane Droste is a partner in UrbanPlus Droste&Partner. since 2000. years' experience in urban sociology. Her latest publications include Lessons from the Past His research interests include the relationship between housing markets and urban Challenges for the Future in English Housing Policy (with M Stephens and M Munro) structures. She has written extensively on urban mat- ters generally. From 2001.

the role of private residents associations in the planning system. rehabilitation of large housing estates. His research projects have looked at such themes as urban renewal. He has undertaken research on regeneration and com- munity participation and is currently involved in projects investigating housing afford- ability. problems of crime. who died in early 2007 was Professor of Economics and chair of the Institute for Housing and Urban Research at Uppsala University. He was also chair- man of the European Network for Housing Research and coordinated the working group on Housing Finance. security and quality of life. low-income home ownership and social housing. housing market policy. Dublin. neighbourhood development. as well as on housing inequalities across the European Union. He also worked on hous- ing issues in the Transition Countries. and specialises in housing tenure. Michelle Norris lectures at the School of Applied Social Science. Society and Shelter (Institute of Public Administration. She has carried out many research projects for hous- ing associations and participated in a European project on 'Security and Insecurity of Homeownership'. His principal research interests are in housing and planning. Bengt Turner. His research areas were housing policy. Urban and Mobility Studies at Delft University.’ Marja Elsinga is a senior researcher at the OTB Research Institute of Housing. She is programme leader of the Housing Systems research programme. She and Declan Redmond recently published an edited collection of essays on housing and planning policy in the Republic of Ireland ‘Housing Contemporary Ireland: Policy. the participa- tion of disadvantaged communities in the planning system. urban future scenarios. traveller accommodation and housing allowances. She has researched and published on a wide range of Irish housing issues including: social housing management.Social Housing in Europe Declan Redmond is a lecturer in the School of Geography. Frank Wassenberg has worked at OTB Research Institute for Housing. he was actively involved in devel- oping housing policy as an expert member on Government commissions and as a member of a number of research boards. microeconomic analysis of the housing market. urban regeneration. the role of entrepreneurial governance in urban change ands the politics of rural housing in Ireland. as well as housing finance. Planning and Environmental Policy at University College. University College Dublin. 180 . process management and residents participation. Urban and Mobility Studies at Delft University of Technology since 1987. His contribution to this booklet was com- pleted shortly before his death. In Sweden. 2005). high-rise housing.