‘An opportunity to grow, to exist, to be’: how social and affordable housing providers operationalise the right to housing by enhancing capabilities

Rapid and deep changes in society, the economy and policy over the last decades are having an increasing impact on the delivery of social housing in North Western Europe. These changes are transforming the way in which social housing providers perform their task and are reshaping their relationships with the State, communities and with other market actors. The combination of continued State withdrawal from service provision, the deep and persistent effects of the global financial crisis that begun in 2008 and profound changes in the type of demand for social housing across North Western Europe call for a reflection on the implications of these phenomena for social housing providers. Several studies indicate that social housing providers in Europe have begun to adopt new (social) entrepreneurial strategies and are becoming more innovative as a response to these challenges. These strategies imply tackling the tensions between (at times) conflicting drivers, notably those arising from the State, the market and communities. However, research in this topic so far is fragmented, focussing on one country or on specific sub-areas such as asset management and non- housing activities and rarely connects with the relevant wider literature on the third sector and social enterprise. Within this context, this PhD research has sought to widen this discussion by providing new insights through a comparative study of the ways in which individual social housing providers are relating to (i.e. responding to and influencing) these contextual changes. More specifically, the research sought to better understand the complex process of decision-making these companies undergo to manage their responses to competing drivers. Companies operating in two countries (England and The Netherlands) were studied in-depth. In both countries, the social rental sector has played a prominent role in their respective welfare states for decades. While both are amongst countries with the highest share of social rental housing in Europe, each represents a different type of welfare state and of social housing provision - following Kemeny’s classification, a unitary system (the Netherlands) and a dualist system (England). The broad aim of this PhD was to deepen the understanding of the ways in which contextual drivers impact on the mission, values and activities of social housing organisations. Furthermore, the study sought to understand how these organisations are positioning themselves vis-à-vis the State, market and community. The above aims translate into three research questions: (1) How are contextual developments impacting on the missions, values and activities of social housing organisations? (2) How do these organisations position themselves vis-à-vis the State, the market and community? and (3) How are competing values enacted in the decision-making process exercised by these organisations vis-à-vis these contextual drivers? The universe for this PhD research consists of social purpose organisations, not owned by the State, which operate on a non-profit distribution basis. Together they are part of a wide range of ‘third sector’ actors providing social and affordable housing across most of North Western Europe. The PhD adopted a pluralistic epistemological approach with an interpretivist emphasis, with significant use of qualitative research methods. This approach was deemed useful to give a voice to the subject(s) of study. The research design included a mixed methods approach and a longitudinal, international and inter-organisational case study research design, involving two company-cases. The companies were studied over a four-year period, starting in March 2008. The research design and data analysis draws on elements of grounded theory, and on the work of Eisenhardt on ‘building theory from cases’. Following this approach, a series of ‘theoretical propositions’ were devised from the study’s findings in order to answer each of the three research questions. In relation to the first research question, the study found that contextual developments and the missions, values and activities of social housing organisations are in a two-way relationship. From an initial assumption of unidirectional causality, in the process of the research it became clear that the relationship between contextual developments and organisational change is more often than not one of mutual causality. We qualified this relationship through six propositions. First, we posited that market and State drivers have a relatively stronger impact on social housing organisations as compared to community drivers. Second, we postulated that both market and State drivers have a knock-on effect on community drivers. Third, we established that State drivers pose continuous exogenous shocks to social housing providers by means of constant policy changes. Our fourth proposition stated that in a context of economic crisis the relationship between market drivers and social housing organisations is marked by volatility. Our fifth proposition established that all three types of contextual drivers are reinforcing the long-term trend of deepening residualisation of the social housing sector. The sixth proposition emphasizes the long-term mutually shaping relationship between context and social housing organisations. Findings on the second research question led us to describe the positioning of social housing organisations vis-à-vis their environment as a ‘dynamic balancing act’. In order to understand the way(s) in which social housing organisations position themselves in relation to changes in their environment we drew on theories of social enterprise and hybridity to unpack three ideal-typical strategic orientations that may be at play in this process: State, market and community. We adopted a triangular model to illustrate these orientations and developed a classification model to understand the ‘strategic position’ that these organisations adopt vis-à-vis their environment. We looked at three different dimensions of this strategic position, namely mission, values and activities, each captured by a different type of variables in the classification: ‘descriptor’ (to capture the formal characteristics of the organisation), ‘motivator’ (as related to the organisation’s mission), and ‘behaviour’ (referring to the organisation’s activities). Upon applying this classification to our case studies, our findings resulted in three propositions. First, it became clear that while descriptor variables confirmed the hybrid formal characteristics of social housing organisations, they do not account on their own for their position in relation to State, market and community. Our second proposition stated that social housing organisations are constantly balancing pressures to (re)define their mission. Our study found that in this process, each company is faced with trade-offs when considering their organisational mission in relation to a changing mandate from the State domain, while at the same time weighing demands from the market and community domain. Third, we posited that social housing organisations exert different degrees of agency in their positioning vis-à-vis the State, market and community. We identified a continuum of actions that these organisations have put in place to respond to key contextual changes, ranging from ‘reactive’ to ‘proactive’ and ‘strategic’. Hence, social housing organisations would have the capacity to shape their environment and / or at least, their position in relation to this environment. On our third research question, we found that enacting competing values in social housing organisations implies multiple rationalities at play in decision-making. The PhD research used the study of a critical incident in each company to describe the ways in which competing values are enacted in the decision-making process of these organisations in relation to the three types of contextual drivers. In each case, a critical incident was chosen in conjunction with the companies to be studied over a prolonged period of time. Both incidents turned out to be of regulatory nature (i.e. State-driven); in the English case, it was the Comprehensive spending review (CSR) announced in October 2010 and a series of major welfare reforms implemented by the coalition government. In the Netherlands, the Dutch government ruling on the issue of State aid by housing associations implemented in January 2011. The companies’ responses to these critical incidents, respectively, were operationalised through a ‘strategic decision’ made by each of them vis-à-vis these events, defined as a decision recognised as having significant implications for the structure, direction or purpose of an organisation. The English company defined their strategic decision as the impact on the company’s vision, direction, strategy and financial capacity of the October CSR and the shake-up in the welfare benefit system. More specifically, the company’s bid to the HCA for the four-year development programme in the first half of 2011 formed the basis for the study of this critical incident. The strategic decision of the Dutch company was whether to follow the Dutch government’s ruling on income ceilings or not. Furthermore, the company had to decide how to re-organize its financing in order to comply with the required administrative split between activities classified as ‘Services of General Economic Interest’ (SGEI) and ‘non SGEI’. The study of these critical incidents looked at the decision-making process from both a formal and content perspective, distinguishing motivator and behaviour variables in the process. In terms of form, we found that different modes of decision-making co-exist in the process. Participants in each company use a variety of ‘political tactics’ to influence the decision-making process. Taken all together, the existence of these tactics confirms the presence of institutional entrepreneurial behaviour amongst company executives taking part in the process. Realizing that these tactics exist is important because it shows the ways in which different participants and their (departmental) agendas try to influence the outcome of the decision. In terms of content, a first proposition established that social housing organisations operate with multiple rationalities; non-rational factors such as politics, intuition and past experience played a key role alongside technical considerations. In our fourth proposition we identified a number of ‘dilemmas of hybridity’ that these organisations have to deal with to stay true to their mission while tackling pressures from different State, market and community. Second, we discussed the ambivalent relationship that social housing providers have with risk. A number of questions were raised on what (if any) risk attitude lies closer to third sector service providers in relation to what is expected from commercial enterprises or even from the State. This is relevant in particular given the more general trend to transfer risk from the State to third sector organisations in service provision overall in European societies. Last, our research found that social housing organisations are consistent with stated core values but are constantly making choices on how to enact these values. While contextual drivers may appear not to affect the mission and values of these social housing organisations, the former do impact on the companies’ strategies and activities. This means that there can be significant gaps between espoused and enacted values. Policy and practice implications emerging from the findings to all three research questions included: First, we raised the question as to whether the aggregate impact of the regulatory changes at sector level in each country - such as the ones portrayed by the respective critical incidents - would be the convergence of both countries’ housing association sectors in terms of their role and scope. Second, the study coincides with views in both countries pointing to the lack of a ‘single voice’ or unified strategic action fields. In addition, in both cases, although to different extents, the perceived ‘policy confusion’ – namely, the view that government was sending conflicting signals to social housing organisations - raised tensions between the redefined mandate and the organisational missions of the individual companies. Third, findings suggest a trend towards increasing differentiation within the housing association sector in each country as a result of growing tensions between mandate (social housing as a public service obligation as defined by the State) and mission (social housing as ‘core business’ as define by each organisation). Fourth, the question emerges as to whether the identity of a social housing provider operating along the wide spectrum between the two ‘pure’ types is defined by its activities (behaviour variables) or by their organisational form/legal status (descriptor variables). The concept of hybridity proved useful to gauge this complexity, as illustrated in the ‘dilemmas’ companies have to face when making strategic decisions. Fifth, findings showed that community drivers tend to stay constant or change slightly over the long term, except for those resulting from the combined impacts of the economic crisis and the resulting political and regulatory changes. This leads to the recommendation for social housing enterprises to consider longer-term political (and market) trends as well, to anticipate on going (neoliberal) trends and possibly fundamental changes in housing preferences. Sixth, while values tend to stay constant, mission is permanently redefined in relation to pressures from the environment (including changes in mandate) and activities change accordingly. In order to stay true to this identity, social housing providers ought to be able to anticipate conflicting logics and put mechanisms in place to adjust their policies and activities to respond to these challenges while keeping its core values intact. This PhD has contributed to science both from a theoretical and methodological perspective. Through a series of theoretical propositions, we have added to a developing body of knowledge, specifically on the nature of the relationship between contextual drivers and organisational changes in social housing organisations. Our classification of social enterprise in housing allows comparisons between organisations operating in diverse contexts, which share a similar core task. This can be useful for scientific, political and practical purposes. From a scientific perspective, it can be used as a basis for identifying similarities and differences between social housing organisations within and between countries at a much deeper level than traditional comparisons on the basis of tenure or other formal organisational characteristics. Policy makers can also use this information to understand the factors leading to different types of behaviours by social housing providers. For professionals, this model may be useful to assess to what extent their organisation is being consistent with regards to espoused vs. enacted values. From a societal perspective, findings of this PhD can help us reflect on the future role of social housing in the context of changing social contracts and social cohesion and welfare models in each country. Furthermore, the research helped participating practitioners to reflect about a number of organisational dilemmas they face, as illustrated in our findings.

Social Housing Organisations in England and The Netherlands: Between the State, Market and Community

Social Housing Organisations in England and The Netherlands: Between the State, Market and Community

Social Housing Organisations in England and The Netherlands: Between the State, Market and Community

This introduction to the special issue on ‘market concepts, coordination mechanisms and new actors in social housing’ makes the case for multi-disciplinary and multi-level studies of the impacts of market-oriented policies aimed at social housing. The authors suggest that privatisation, tenant purchase programmes, market oriented policy shifts, increased regulation, changing household needs and lingering problems with stigmatisation have combined to create a challenging operating environment for social housing providers and that the phenomenon of ‘marketisation’ of social housing has four distinct strands. These are: 1) problematising, 2) bypassing, 3) replacing and 4) transforming social housing, and the focus of the articles in the special issue is on the fourth strand. Transforming social housing encompasses policies aimed at increasing the interaction between social and private housing providers, encouraging managerialist approaches to housing provision and introducing regulations and/or incentives to increase competition among social housing providers as well as between social and private landlords. The editorial concludes with suggested directions for research into the marketisation of social housing and recommends that researchers continue to pursue the connections that can be made among different disciplines in the study of organisational change in this sector.

Proefwonen voor mensen met een verstandelijke beperking en/of psychiatrische problemen

Rapid and deep changes in society, the economy and policy over the last decades are having an increasing impact on the delivery of social housing in North Western Europe. These changes are transforming the way in which social housing providers perform their task and are reshaping their relationships with the State, communities and with other market actors. The combination of continued State withdrawal from service provision, the deep and persistent effects of the global financial crisis that begun in 2008 and profound changes in the type of demand for social housing across North Western Europe call for a reflection on the implications of these phenomena for social housing providers. Several studies indicate that social housing providers in Europe have begun to adopt new (social) entrepreneurial strategies and are becoming more innovative as a response to these challenges. These strategies imply tackling the tensions between (at times) conflicting drivers, notably those arising from the State, the market and communities. However, research in this topic so far is fragmented, focussing on one country or on specific sub-areas such as asset management and non-housing activities and rarely connects with the relevant wider literature on the third sector and social enterprise. Within this context, this PhD research has sought to widen this discussion by providing new insights through a comparative study of the ways in which individual social housing providers are relating to (i.e. responding to and influencing) these contextual changes. More specifically, the research sought to better understand the complex process of decision-making these companies undergo to manage their responses to competing drivers. Companies operating in two countries (England and The Netherlands) were studied in-depth. In both countries, the social rental sector has played a prominent role in their respective welfare states for decades. While both are amongst countries with the highest share of social rental housing in Europe, each represents a different type of welfare state and of social housing provision - following Kemeny’s classification, a unitary system (the Netherlands) and a dualist system (England).

In the second half of the 1990s, Dutch urban housing policy shifted from urban renewal to urban restructuring and the creation of more socially mixed neighbourhoods. Motives for restructuring stem from the ongoing debates on concentration, segregation and social mix. Here, we focus on the main instruments of urban restructuring, that is, the demolition of social housing and the construction of more expensive rental and owner-occupied housing. Continued restructuring may eventually lead to a shortage of social rented dwellings for low-income households, the target group of social housing. An important political question is therefore whether the dwindling supply of social housing still matches the potential demand in the target group. We addressed this question with an analysis of three Dutch cities: Rotterdam, The Hague and Breda. The results indicate that, although demolition has brought about substantial changes, the share of social rented housing remains high in most restructuring neighbourhoods and restructuring has not resulted in concentrations of social rented housing in other, non-restructuring neighbourhoods in any of the three cities. In Rotterdam, which had a very large social housing stock at the beginning of the restructuring operation, there are still sufficient affordable homes for lower income households. However, in The Hague and Breda, restructuring has tightened the supply of social rental housing. The municipal authority in The Hague has attempted to remedy the situation by entering regional agreements to secure sufficient levels of affordable housing.

The provision and management of social housing for those who are unable to access the housing market is essential to the maintenance of the fabric of society. The social housing industry is vast and still growing. There are very few countries in the world where some form of subsidised housing does not exist, and the total number of social homes is likely to grow worldwide, as are the challenges of the sector.Paul Reeves takes a people-centred approach to the subject, describing the themes that have run through provision of social housing from the first philanthropic industrialists in the 19th Century though to the increasingly complex mixture of ownerships and tenures in the present day. The management of housing forms a key part of the book, with an emphasis on the practical aspects of tenant participation and multi-agency working.The book is ideal for students of housing and social policy, and for housing professionals aiming to obtain qualifications and wanting a broad understanding of the social housing sector.

The effective and appropriate provision of social housing, as an integral part of the housing continuum, is increasingly difficult in light of current fiscal constraints and changing and increasing housing need. In 2016, there were around 400,000 households living in social housing in Australia, with around 200,000 on social housing wait lists (Productivity Commission 2016). It is vital that an economically and socially sustainable framework for the provision of social housing is achieved. To meet this challenge, many innovative models are being explored both in Australia and internationally, including partnerships and financing arrangements involving a mix of public, private and not for profit agencies. Contextualisation of the need for better access to social housing is critical in addressing this demand. Given current fiscal limitations on governments across Australia, it is unlikely that significant funds will become available to address the considerable waiting lists for social housing. It is most likely then that government provision of social housing will continue to be targeted at those in severe need, while at the same time, further avenues for affordable housing will be addressed.

This study utilizes panel data from 283 Chinese cities between 2009 and 2017 and employs a fixed-effects model to analyze the effects of commercial housing prices and social housing supply on birth rates, considering the interaction between the housing market and social housing policies. The findings indicate that a 1% increase in housing prices results in a 0.063% decrease in the birth rate, while a 1% increase in social housing supply leads to a 0.075% increase in the birth rate. However, although increasing the supply of social housing can positively influence birth rates, its substitutability with commercial housing may reduce the availability of commercial properties, driving up housing prices and potentially lowering fertility rates. Therefore, an unlimited social housing supply policy may not effectively resolve the issue of low birth rates. To be more inclusive, local governments should adopt a demand-oriented social housing policy that addresses the diverse needs of families, rather than focusing solely on supply-side measures. Highlights Social housing supply in areas with lower housing prices positively affects birth rates. Social housing supply in areas with higher housing prices negatively affects birth rates. Among social housing types, economic and comfortable housing (ECH) has a greater impact on fertility rates than public rental housing (PRH). A demand-driven social housing supply policy is necessary for low-income households.

This paper aims to make a contribution to the debate about the meaning of competition as applied to social housing and the usefulness of a competitive paradigm as a comparative analytical tool. Social housing providers have been asked to become more competitive and more market orientated in Europe. But what exactly do these terms mean and what are the defining features of competitiveness? And how can concepts of competition be applied to social housing, given that social housing is not allocated by price and market demand? Starting in mainstream economic analysis the meaning of competition and governments’ roles in relation to competition are examined. The paper then applies key features of competition to social housing in order to explore the meaning of competition within social housing and between social housing and market housing. It then considers competition as a framework for examining the performance of social housing systems and the relationships between social and market rental housing. The possible implications of (more) competition within social housing and between social housing and market housing are discussed. Finally, the paper suggests that the competitive paradigm can be useful in comparative analysis because it can potentially supply a graded taxonomy that identifies and compares degrees of competitiveness.

In advanced capitalistcountries, the term ‘social housing’ normallyrefers to social rented housing, and itsprovision can be examined within the context ofthe type of housing welfare regime that hasevolved within the country under consideration.However, in large parts of Latin America –because of minimal affordability and limitedinvestment – ‘social housing’ is very much amarginalised tenure and – apart from a smallsocial-rented sector – comprises illegalshelter in shantytowns, assisted self-buildhousing, and low-cost owner-occupation. Itwould therefore be unproductive to examinesocial housing in Latin America within thecontext of any of the welfare regimes thatprevail in the developed world. Within the region, large-scale migration intothe major urban areas created a substantial andgrowing housing deficit among the poor in thelatter half of the twentieth century. At first,there was an attempt to satisfy housing needsby the provision of social rented housing, butit was soon recognised that such accommodationwas unaffordable to the majority of the poor,while municipal governments were constrained bybudgetary considerations from increasing oreven maintaining its supply. At the same time,it was realised that informal housing could beupgraded more cost-effectively, and that forits future development the ‘legalisation’ oftenure was essential; while self-build formalhousing could be constructed through theprocess of community funding. By the 1990s,even the middle-income segment wasdisadvantaged in the housing market asunemployment and interest rates rose and realwages fell, and therefore – through theintroduction of means-tested demand-sidesubsidies – the term ‘social housing’ wasextended to the conventional owner-occupiedsector. Clearly, welfare regimes in Latin America areat a rudimentary stage in their development,although there is a tendency for governments toembrace neo-liberal housing policies. But at atime of fiscal constraint, it is a cause forconcern that macroeconomic priorities mightmake it more difficult for a large proportionof the population of the region to satisfy itshousing needs.

ABSTRACTChina has implemented the dual housing supply system consisting of commercial housing provided by the private sector and social housing provided by the public sector. Since commercial housing and social housing are mediated by the land finance of local governments, however, an increase in the supply of commercial housing contributes to the income of the land finance, which may, in turn, increase the public expenditure on the supply of social housing. Though the supply of commercial housing has increased and the size of the land finance has expanded in the process of rapid urbanization in China, however, statistics do not support that the supply of social housing has increased in proportion to the supply of commercial housing. The purpose of this paper is to empirically analyse the relationship among commercial housing supply, social housing supply, and the land finance in order to verify whether the two housing types are in the indirect, complementary relationship mediated by the land finance or in the direct, substitutive relationship. The cross-sectional data is used across 274 cities in China, based on the annual average values between 2009 and 2014 regarding each city's size of land finance and the amount of land supplied for construction purposes, which includes commercial housing and economic comfortable housing. By the path analysis results that commercial housing and ECH are not in the complementary relationship mediated by the land finance, but in the substitutive relationship as they have to compete each other to secure the limited land resources.

Introduction: In recent years, a weak interest in this segment a of the property market has been noticeable among social housing providers. The demand from practice and the existing gap in the Polish literature create a wide field for scientific research of a cognitive and applied nature. Considerations and research in the field of investing in social housing are justified, among others, by the fact that the validity of investing in the social housing market has already been confirmed in highly developed countries, for example in Austria. In Poland, however, this segment is still in the growth phase. Therefore, the potential of the housing and financial markets has not been fully exploited yet. A review of foreign experiences in creating a housing offer for social housing, as well as a detailed analysis of model and innovative solutions, will allow the identification of key success factors for this type of investment project. Aim of the paper: The aim of the work is to present the Viennese model of social construction and housing, its role in the functional and spatial structure of the city, the administrative and organizational environment, and to assess the housing conditions and quality of life that this model offers. Materials and methods: The article uses a structured literature review of social housing, including those from publications of the Statistisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Wien. The study has an overview character. Results and conclusions: The city of Vienna, as a model example of social housing with specific conditions that are difficult to find in other cities and being a city-land that can create its own tax policy, which largely financed social housing, has created a unique ability to meet housing needs through appropriate activities of organizational and administrative structures. and units responsible for construction and social housing management. The Vienna model is not fully adaptable to Polish conditions, due to differences resulting from administrative, legal and financial regulations, as well as a different model of approach to social housing in Austria and Poland (in Austria it is addressed to every citizen, in Poland only to the people).