租金上涨策略与分配正义:阿姆斯特丹租金管制政策的社会空间效应。

Arend Jonkman, Leonie Janssen-Jansen, Frans Schilder
{"title":"租金上涨策略与分配正义:阿姆斯特丹租金管制政策的社会空间效应。","authors":"Arend Jonkman,&nbsp;Leonie Janssen-Jansen,&nbsp;Frans Schilder","doi":"10.1007/s10901-017-9573-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rent controls and rent setting regulation in different contexts incorporate and balance different aims, in particular when securing affordability and the effective distribution of scarce housing by incorporating market mechanisms. As rent policy is frequently discussed in terms of affordability or market functioning in broad terms, small-scale distributive socio-spatial effects are often not regarded. In this paper, three strategies under the new rent sum policy are compared against the former policy and practice for Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to observe the effects of distributive justice. The new rent policy partly decentralizes rent increase decisions from the national level to local authorities and housing associations. Using microdata on all social housing units and their tenants' distributive justice, outcomes under the former policy and practice are observed for a 6-year period (2008-2014) and the effects of three different rent increase strategies under the new rent sum policy are forecasted for the same period, combining an ex ante and an ex post evaluation. The possibilities for housing associations to vary rent increases for different groups of tenants in order to improve distributive justice outcomes are explored. Results show that all three possible strategies decrease the observed affordability gap between new and long-term tenants. Valuing the distributions of these strategies by applying two different standards for distributive justice shows the rent sum policy may only result in modest improvements.</p>","PeriodicalId":73781,"journal":{"name":"Journal of housing and the built environment : HBE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10901-017-9573-2","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rent increase strategies and distributive justice: the socio-spatial effects of rent control policy in Amsterdam.\",\"authors\":\"Arend Jonkman,&nbsp;Leonie Janssen-Jansen,&nbsp;Frans Schilder\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10901-017-9573-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Rent controls and rent setting regulation in different contexts incorporate and balance different aims, in particular when securing affordability and the effective distribution of scarce housing by incorporating market mechanisms. As rent policy is frequently discussed in terms of affordability or market functioning in broad terms, small-scale distributive socio-spatial effects are often not regarded. In this paper, three strategies under the new rent sum policy are compared against the former policy and practice for Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to observe the effects of distributive justice. The new rent policy partly decentralizes rent increase decisions from the national level to local authorities and housing associations. Using microdata on all social housing units and their tenants' distributive justice, outcomes under the former policy and practice are observed for a 6-year period (2008-2014) and the effects of three different rent increase strategies under the new rent sum policy are forecasted for the same period, combining an ex ante and an ex post evaluation. The possibilities for housing associations to vary rent increases for different groups of tenants in order to improve distributive justice outcomes are explored. Results show that all three possible strategies decrease the observed affordability gap between new and long-term tenants. Valuing the distributions of these strategies by applying two different standards for distributive justice shows the rent sum policy may only result in modest improvements.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73781,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of housing and the built environment : HBE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10901-017-9573-2\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of housing and the built environment : HBE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-017-9573-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/10/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of housing and the built environment : HBE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-017-9573-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

在不同的情况下,租金管制和租金设定条例纳入并平衡了不同的目标,特别是在通过纳入市场机制确保负担能力和有效分配稀缺住房时。由于租金政策经常从可负担性或广义的市场功能的角度来讨论,因此往往没有考虑到小规模的分配性社会空间影响。本文将新租金政策下的三种策略与荷兰阿姆斯特丹的旧政策和实践进行比较,观察分配正义的效果。新的租金政策部分地将租金上涨决策权从国家层面下放到地方当局和住房协会。利用所有社会住房单位及其租户分配公正的微观数据,观察了6年期间(2008-2014年)前政策和实践下的结果,并结合事前和事后评估,预测了新租金总额政策下三种不同的租金上涨策略在同一时期的影响。探讨了住房协会为不同租户群体调整租金涨幅的可能性,以改善分配正义的结果。结果表明,所有三种可能的策略都缩小了新租户和长期租户之间的可负担性差距。通过应用两种不同的分配公平标准来评估这些策略的分布,可以发现租金总额政策可能只会带来适度的改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rent increase strategies and distributive justice: the socio-spatial effects of rent control policy in Amsterdam.

Rent controls and rent setting regulation in different contexts incorporate and balance different aims, in particular when securing affordability and the effective distribution of scarce housing by incorporating market mechanisms. As rent policy is frequently discussed in terms of affordability or market functioning in broad terms, small-scale distributive socio-spatial effects are often not regarded. In this paper, three strategies under the new rent sum policy are compared against the former policy and practice for Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to observe the effects of distributive justice. The new rent policy partly decentralizes rent increase decisions from the national level to local authorities and housing associations. Using microdata on all social housing units and their tenants' distributive justice, outcomes under the former policy and practice are observed for a 6-year period (2008-2014) and the effects of three different rent increase strategies under the new rent sum policy are forecasted for the same period, combining an ex ante and an ex post evaluation. The possibilities for housing associations to vary rent increases for different groups of tenants in order to improve distributive justice outcomes are explored. Results show that all three possible strategies decrease the observed affordability gap between new and long-term tenants. Valuing the distributions of these strategies by applying two different standards for distributive justice shows the rent sum policy may only result in modest improvements.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sales prices, social rigidity and the second home property market. Correlates of dormitory satisfaction and differences involving social density and room locations. Private renters in shared housing: investigating housing conditions and mental well-being in Australia during COVID-19. Effects of housing layout and perceived behavioral control over social distancing in relation between social isolation and psychological distress during pandemic of COVID-19. Do COVID-19 pandemic-related policy shocks flatten the bid-rent curve? Evidence from real estate markets in Shanghai.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1