Suchergebnisse

Dutch government adopts an active policy to revitalize cities in general and to renew particular problematic housing areas in particular. In the majority of large cities the share of social housing is very large, mostly more than 50%. As a result we observe an increasing concentration of low-income households in the city and selective migration by middle and high income households from the city to the suburb. Official national housing and urban renewal policy is aiming at a redifferentiation of the urban housing stock: more owner-occupation, larger homes with a higher quality and a larger share of houses with a garden. This means: demolishing social housing estates, selling social housing or renovating social housing. The dominant actor in Dutch social housing is the housing association, which has a market share of 36% of the housing stock nationwide. Their position in the regeneration of Dutch urban districts is peculiar. They are supposed to take initiative and to invest in urban renewal and in the same time they are urged to reduce their market share. How are housing associations coping with this contradictory challenge? In this paper we will provide an overview of practices in Dutch cities and we will try to explain what we observe.

This article deals with the vulnerability of the Dutch housing allowance scheme. This scheme can be compared with the British housing benefit. The vulnerability of the scheme has been augmented by the current less favourable economic conditions (stagnating household incomes, increasing unemployment) and the Dutch government's announcement that it plans to reduce housing allowance expenditure. Two scenarios are outlined, which may serve to resolve the danger of exploding housing allowances expenditure in the coming years. If a market‐led scenario is chosen, whereby housing associations strive to achieve market rents, the housing allowance will be transformed into a form of housing voucher, the value of which is not directly related to the actual rental price of the property. In this American‐style model, the value of the vouchers would be linked to a 'virtual' rent, say 40% of the average rental price in the region. The housing associations would then lose their special semi‐public status. Under the social housing model, the housing associations would retain their special status provided they aimed to achieve rents somewhat lower than the market level. The housing allowance would remain directly linked to the actual rental price. However, some marked changes would be required to render this system sustainable. The Netherlands cannot avoid having to make this choice.Cet article porte sur la vulnérabilité du régime hollandais d'aide au logement. Celui‐ci est comparable aux prestations britanniques. La fragilité du régime a été accrue par les conditions économiques actuelles moins favorables (stagnation du revenu des ménages, augmentation du chômage) et par l'annonce du gouvernement néderlandais relative à la réduction prévue des dépenses d'allocation‐logement. Sont présentés deux scénarios susceptibles de limiter le risque d'explosion des dépenses d'allocations dans les années à venir. Si l'option choisie est un scénario de marché où les associations pour le logement luttent pour atteindre les loyers du marché, l'allocation‐logement se transformera en 'bon' dont la valeur ne sera pas directement liée au montant réel du loyer. Selon ce modèle de type américain, la valeur des 'bons' sera fonction d'un loyer 'virtuel', soit environ 40% du prix moyen dans la région; les associations perdraient alors leur statut particulier semi‐public. Selon le modèle de logement social, elles conserveraient leur statut, à condition qu'elles cherchent à atteindre des loyers légèrement inférieurs au niveau du marché; l'allocation‐logement serait alors directement liée au montant réel du loyer. Toutefois, pour que le régime subsiste, il faudrait procéder à d'importants changements. Les Pays‐Bas ne peuvent s'épargner ce choix.

The Netherlands has a certain reputation in the areas of spatial policy, infrastructure policy, and urban policy. In the 1980s the national governments of many countries became less directly involved, with the consequence that spatial policy and urban policy were left more to the marketplace. In that period, this trend could also be observed in the Netherlands. Since the mid-1990s, however, in the Netherlands there has been a new public commitment to infrastructure policy and urban policy, and also to spatial policy. In this paper I account for this marked change of course by the extra profits which the Netherlands has received, particularly since the 1990s, from excise duty on natural gas and government income from the privatization of government services. Privatization and the export of natural gas have enabled the Dutch government to put more public investment into the development of traffic infrastructure and the regeneration of cities.