Chua Beng Huat, Public Subsidy / Private Accumulation: The Political Economy of Singapore’s Public Housing

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

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

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

This chapter deals with the long and enduring negotiations between the Dutch government and the European Commission on the regulation of services of social housing. At stake is the autonomy of a Member State regarding social housing. Historically the Netherlands has a major social housing market, much larger than in other countries. By means of European rules on state aid and social housing, the casus of the Netherlands versus the European Union and the consequences for social housing are clarified in the chapter. Central to the discussions were the financing arrangements/aid measures the housing associations claimed, which mayor may not under the EU ruling be considered state aid as defined by European law. The discussion on state aid between the Netherlands and Europe started in 2002, when the Dutch government of its free will submitted to the Commission the draft of a new Housing Act for notification. The draft included the existing aid measure for housing corporations. According to Minister Dekker of Housing, Communities and Integration, the government’s intention was to receive a legal decision of ‘no state aid’ from the Commission. When it became clear that no new Housing Act was forthcoming and official contacts confirmed that it anyway probably concerned existing aid, which does not need notification, the Dutch government withdrew the notification related to the Housing Act. However, at that same moment, the Commission started an investigation to see if the aid was indeed state aid in the sense of Article 107 TFEU. In July 2005 the Commission announced its preliminary position as a result of its investigation. The Commission did not accept the existing financing of housing corporations. Despite the provisional standpoint in this letter, the message hit the Dutch social housing world like a bomb. The final exemption decision announced on 15 July 2009, however, made it clear that the Commission places strict requirements on this financing. The letter of July is one of the peaks in a dispute on what social housing in a Member State of the EU can today entail, which started in 2002 and is still going on.

Public Housing in America: Lost Opportunities D. Bradford Hunt (bio) Gail Radford. Modern Housing for America: Policy Struggles in the New Deal Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. x + 273 pp. Photos, illustrations, tables, notes, and index. $45.00. Across the urban landscape of America, public housing sits neglected and often abandoned—monuments to the failures of a well-intentioned but ultimately disastrous effort to house the urban poor. The purpose of public housing has become so lost that in 1992 Nicholas Lemann, author of The Promised Land (1991), told Congress in optimistic tones and without a hint of irony that “the biggest single success story about the really distressed high-rise public housing probably involves people leaving. People leave these places constantly. They move to a better life. . . . success should be defined as enabling people, if they want to leave, to leave.” 1 Success in public housing no longer means housing the urban poor, it means getting them out. In 1995, HUD announced plans to tear down a total of 100,000 public housing units by the year 2000. In Europe, by contrast, state-sponsored housing serves large numbers without debilitating effects. Why has American public housing failed to live up to its promise? Historians have generated several answers to this question, blaming conservative opposition, poor design, insufficient funding, and racism. 2 Adding important new detail to the early history of American public housing, Gail Radford argues that public housing might have taken a far different path if only the communitarian ethos and design inspirations of a handful of progressive housing reformers had been embraced by policymakers during the 1930s. Radford skillfully builds a story of a lost opportunity in American housing policy. In the New Deal, she believes, the opportunity existed to avoid the “two-tiered” system that still divides state support for housing into nearly invisible subsidies for the suburban middle and upper classes (FHA insurance programs, mortgage interest and property tax deductions) and into stingy warehouses for the poor called public housing. In place of this two-tiered policy, Radford argues that the possibility existed in the 1930s for a new vision of state-sponsored housing, a vision she calls “Modern Housing” after [End Page 637] the title of a 1934 book by Catherine Bauer, the heroine of her story. Derived from post-World War I European models, particularly in social-democratic Vienna and union-based communities in Germany, Modern Housing envisioned a new form of urban living: well-planned, community-centered, avant-garde apartment complexes. These modern apartment complexes would have appealed, Bauer and Radford believe, to a wide range of middle-class Americans because of both their affordability (through state subsidies) and their strong communitarian bent. Modern Housing, Radford argues, offered a “universalistic” (p. 1) alternative to the two-tiered American housing policy that emerged from the New Deal. Radford is careful not to call Bauer’s vision of Modern Housing a “movement”; instead it is a “policy initiative” and a “plan” (p. 1). This restraint is significant because the number of activists for the plan were small, made up of only a handful of progressive and left-leaning East Coast planners and social critics who admired European postwar avant-garde housing. Radford constructs her story around Bauer, the most fascinating of these activists. Following her 1926 graduation from Vassar, Bauer spent a year writing about design for various magazines before joining with Lewis Mumford and his informal intellectual gathering called the Regional Planning Association of America. She traveled in Europe on various research grants and wrote Modern Housing in 1934, a manifesto for transplanting European alternatives to America. Her book ends with a call for a political movement among American workers to demand a more democratic, communitarian form of urban housing supported by state subsidies. Bauer, unlike Mumford, was not content to merely theorize; she believed only democratic political action by the working class could secure the state subsidies required for Modern Housing. The Depression and the New Deal offered the political opportunity for experimentation in American housing policy. Public housing advocates from New York City (outside of Bauer’s circles) had quietly included authorization for public housing into legislation creating the...

When natives meet immigrants in public and private housing markets

Social rental housing is one of the possible instruments which are applied to ensure the satisfaction of housing needs. However, public funds which are transferred to entities that operate within this area should be usually classified as State aid. The analysis presented in this paper concerns the following question: is it possible to consider the operation of a social rental housing program as services of general economic interest. This question seems to be a topical issue because of a new legislative initiative aiming at establishing a governmental housing program that was implemented by the Act of 10 September 2015 which amended the Act on certain forms of supporting housing construction. The aforementioned program stipulates the legal frames for refundable and preferential financing that may be granted to specific entities in order to realise investments in social rental housing. The governmental housing program complements earlier local housing policies in force. What is significant is that the Polish legislator decided to qualify support granted as services of general economic interest, as referred to in Commission Decision 2012/21/UE of 20 December 2011 on the Application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest. Applying Commission Decision 2012/21/UE to this situation raises some doubts as to the lack of clarity of a term “social housing”. Due to a certain controversy over the abovementioned issue, the authors have attempted to examine whether the application of preferential provisions of Commission Decision 2012/21/UE to the social housing program is in accordance with the relevant provisions of EU competition rules.

Social rental housing is one of the possible instruments which are applied to ensure the satisfaction of housing needs. However, public funds which are transferred to entities that operate within this area should be usually classified as State aid. The analysis presented in this paper concerns the following question: is it possible to consider the operation of a social rental housing program as services of general economic interest. This question seems to be a topical issue because of a new legislative initiative aiming at establishing a governmental housing program that was implemented by the Act of 10 September 2015 which amended the Act on certain forms of supporting housing construction. The aforementioned program stipulates the legal frames for refundable and preferential financing that may be granted to specific entities in order to realise investments in social rental housing. The governmental housing program complements earlier local housing policies in force. What is significant is that the Polish legislator decided to qualify support granted as services of general economic interest, as referred to in Commission Decision 2012/21/UE of 20 December 2011 on the Application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest. Applying Commission Decision 2012/21/UE to this situation raises some doubts as to the lack of clarity of a term “social housing”. Due to a certain controversy over the abovementioned issue, the authors have attempted to examine whether the application of preferential provisions of Commission Decision 2012/21/UE to the social housing program is in accordance with the relevant provisions of EU competition rules.

The public housing policy in Taiwan can be traced back to the Japanese Colonial Period (1895-1945). Since then, the space form of housing has been changing significantly, through Japanese Colonial Period, the end of World War II, and United States Aid until the 1960s. Reviewing the history of Taiwan's design and construction of public (national) housing, it is always connected with dominant powers which were from external. The new cultural imagine of resident was created by mixing the translation by Japanese colonialists, the introduction by technical adviser of USAID and the United Nations, and the cognition and re-interpretation by migrated technical officers from China and local architectural professions. Therefore, the practical process of modern residence in Taiwan was full of diversity and divergence. This study proposes to use new historical science, textual analysis and discourse analysis as reference methods to review the historical experience of the development of public (national) housing in Taiwan from 1910 to 2000. In doing so, this study aspires to present how a country with different regime types capitalizes on the mechanism of the operation of power such as national housing policies, monitoring and control to make decisions for, separate, renovate, and govern space. By referring to technical officers, professionals, and outsourcing consultants’ modernist housing design discourses, this study delves into the process of how a modern living knowledge system in pursuit of progress and efficiency is constructed and gradually becoming a society's collective consciousness, practice, and imagination in everyday life.

The size of the Dutch social housing sector, with a 32 per cent share of the housing stock, has prompted concerns over the ‘level playing field’ of competition between social and commercial housing providers. In 2007, this concern culminated in a complaint from the Dutch Association of Institutional Investors (IVBN) to the European Commission, with particular reference to the distorting effects of state aid to housing associations. In December 2009 the European Commission published its decision about the conditions for state aid to Dutch housing associations. The Commission agrees with the proposal of the Dutch government that housing associations allocate at least 90 per cent of their social rental dwellings to households with an income of less than EUR 33,000, if they want to remain eligible for state aid for these activities. Furthermore, housing associations may invest in real estate for public purposes. With its decision, the Commission ends a long period of uncertainty and contributes to creating a level playing field on the Dutch housing market. Nevertheless, the Commission's decision also hampers policies to increase tenure diversification and social mix in Dutch neighbourhoods.

Both Sweden and the Netherlands had housing systems that include broad models of municipal housing (Sweden) or social housing (Netherlands). These broad models, however, came under discussion due to the competition policy of the European Commission. Financial government support – state aid – for public or social housing is considered to create false competition with commercial landlords. The countries chose different ways out of this problem. The Netherlands choose to direct state aid to a specified target group and had to introduce income limits for dwellings owned by housing associations. Sweden instead chose to change the law regulating municipal housing companies and demands that these companies should act in a ‘businesslike way’ and with that aims to create a level playing field. This paper will describe why the two countries chose different options, the development during the first years, and also speculate about the consequences on the longer run and the future role of the public/social housing sector in housing and urban policy.

ABSTRACTThe Singapore political, social, economic system was fashioned in response to the existential challenges arising from sudden independence and a profoundly resource-challenged situation of a city-state seeking to ensure its viability. It eschewed the liberal democratic model promoted by Britain and the West. Instead Singapore sets out to establish a model that works for it, delivering social change and a better life for its people, albeit with constraints on liberty. Today, as the liberal democratic model of government is seriously under review for effectiveness, the Singapore model is better appreciated.

In my study, I analyze the most important characteristics of housing construction in Hungary between 1970 and 1989 by regional and seftlement types. In my investigations, I put special emphasis on two fields of housing policy: the changes of the amount of social subsidies given to private housing construction, and the conditions of getting construction loans under favourable terms.

The least popular urban districts are often dominated by social housing. In the Netherlands, the housing associations and the government reached a formal agreement in February 2007 to intervene in problem urban areas, 40 of which have been officially designated as priority neighbourhoods in need of special attention. This paper presents basic information about Dutch housing associations and the dynamics of Dutch policy on urban renewal. It sets out the proposals submitted by Aedes, the Dutch umbrella organisation of housing associations, on 2nd February, 2007. Five days later these proposals were incorporated in the Coalition Agreement of the current Cabinet of Balkenende IV. The current visions of the crucial role of social housing providers in urban renewal are explained and comments are made on the strategies of the government and the housing associations. Finally, conclusions are drawn and recommendations are offered for the Netherlands and for other EU member states where the position of the social housing sector is substantially different from the position of the social housing sector in the Netherlands. The role played by social housing providers in urban renewal in the Netherlands may serve as a source of inspiration for practitioners. In other EU countries, social housing providers (with a much smaller share of the housing market) may need more public subsidies and may resort more to selling rental properties.