regional differences in housing policy in latvia liga rasnaca ul faculty of social sciences,...
TRANSCRIPT
REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN HOUSING POLICY IN LATVIA
LIGA RASNACA
UL Faculty of Social sciences, [email protected]
Content
• Conceptual framework of Housing policy• Development of HP in Latvia • Latvia housing statistics in EU• Regional statistics of HP in Latvia
Housing policy
1. Housing is a permanent structure for human habitation
2. Housing policy=guideline provided by government which is aimed at meeting housing need and demand of the people through a set of appropriate strategies including fiscal, legal and regulatory frameworks (Agbola, 1998)
3. Housing policy typology: G.Esping-Andersen, R. Donnison, R.Titmus (residual or embryonic)
4. Housing policy in Latvia has been implemented via central and local government
Urban policy
Public policy
Economic and finance policy
Social policy
Housing policy
Housing
Shelter Home
Housing functionsImplementation of • Economic • Social• Family • Personal needsMost EU housing policy focus on three broad areas (European Parliament, 1996)• Accesibility• Affordability• Quality
Implementation of housing policy in Latvia
• Housing policy in Latvia has been implemented via central and local government
• During the last 21 year since the re-gaining of independence and six years after the accession to the European Union (EU), the housing policy in Latvia has remarkably changed due to various reforms:– the processes of privatization, denationalization;– the socio-economic changes
- building boom, - mobility of population,- socio-economic crisis..
• These processes have affected the implementation of housing policy in regions in various ways
Development of privately owned dwellings in CEE countries following the privatisation process*
Country % dwellings privately owned(before privatisation)
% dwellings privately owned(end of reference period)
Reference period
Bulgaria 92.0 98.0 1993-2001
Latvia 43.1 83 1993-2002
Lithuania 84.4 97.7 1993-2002
Slovakia 50 89 1991-2004
Poland 44 58.9 1988-2006
Romania 90.8 97.5 1993-2004
*Housing Europe Review 2012, CECODHAS,Brussels, 2011.
Share of housing costs in disposable income in the CEE and EU average*(2009)
Country Share of income (%)
Bulgaria 19.7
Latvia 18
Lithuania 15.9
Slovakia 22
Poland 21.1
Romania 25.3
EU 27 22.9
*Housing Europe Review 2012, CECODHAS,Brussels, 2011.
Overcrowding rate Average in EU 17.8%
Highest• Latvia 57.7%• Romania 55.3%
Lowest• Cyprus 1%• Netherlands 1.7%
Dwellings with bath/shower, hot running water and central heating (as % of dwelling stock)
Highest• Finland (99-97-93)• France (98-98-93)
Lowest• Latvia (60-61-61)• Romania (58-57- 52)
Housing deprivation (EC Europe 2020, Eurostat, EU-SILC 2010)
• An average 6% of EU population suffered from severe housing deprivation
• Northern countries: less than 2% (Finland, Norvey, Sweden, Denmark)
• CEE: less affected Slovakia 4.2%• Most affected countries
– Latvia 22.7%– Romania 28.6%
EU-SILC (Statistics on Income and Living Conditions, 2009
Share of social housing in housing stock (EU)(%)
Highest• Netherlands 32• Austria 23• Denmark 19• Czech Republic 17
Lowest• Latvia 0.4• Greece 0• Estonia 1• Cyprus 0
Housing policy in Latvia: declared priorities
• The aim of housing policy is:– to promote quality and availability of housing, – providing normative base for effective administration of dwelling
houses, – to facilitate organization of rent sector in territories of local
municipalities,– supporting energy-saving measures in residential houses.
The accountable for housing policy is Ministry of Economics, Department of Construction and Housing policyThe central focus from Ministry of Economics is paid to issues of administration, environment, security and health of individual and preservation of dwelling quality. (Low On Dwelling administration, 2009) During crisis (till 01, 06, 2011) central government support housing allowances (20%)
Households that money could not afford to cover the cost of housing (2011, EU-SILC)
• 24.0 % of all household• 43.6 % from those in poverty risk
Households in regions that money could not afford to cover the cost of housing (2011, EU-SILC)
Riga Riga district
Vidzeme Kurzeme Zemgale Latgale
Can not pay for facilities, for credit
25.3 26.6 18.0 25.4 24.9 20.2
Can not pay for heating
21.7 19.5 37.8 23.4 26.3 24.1
Financial prioritiesC=central government, L= local government
• Heat insulation for apartment buildings – 44 337 186 LVL (1LVL~0,7 EURO)
• Heat insulation for social buildings 6 922 499 LVL
• Public shelters • Municipality buildings construction (till 2013)
– Social buildings in Riga 18 000 000 LVL– Rent buildings in Riga 27 000 000 LVL
Social housing in cities and counties L Regional units Number of social
apartment buildings
Number of social flats outside social buildings
Number of persons in social housing
Riga 13 1140 14 152
Other cities 15 1129 284
Counties 19 1137 1537
Cities without social housing buildings/flats
2 1
Counties without social housing buildings/flats
70 47 37 without any social housing
Total 121 3406 15 973
Debts for public facilities (L)
~ 24 000 0000 LVL
~ 29 000 000 households
The problem: if some have not paid for the service, the operator may refuse to receive all home residents
Housing allowances 2011 ©(Review of housing assistance in municipalities 2011, Ministry of Economics)
Regional unit Number of allowances
Money Money per one household (LVL)
Riga 45 316 1 585 960 215
Other cities 38 158 3 125 863 81.5
Counties 57 240 3 122 447 54.5
Total 130 604 7 834 270 52.3
Conclusions
• The main priority of Latvia central government is support for energy-saving measures
• Social housing policy in Latvia is responsibility of local governments
• Local governments have uneven possibilities to implement housing policy
• Administrative arrangements do not encourage restriction of social inequality in regional units
• Housing policy in Latvia could be characterized as residual (embryonic)
Izmantotā literatūra
1. A Housing Policy Paper, World Bank, 1975.2. Andrews D., et.al. Housing Markets and structural policies in OECD countries. Pieejams:
http:// www.oecd.org/workingpapers 3. Housing Europe Review 2012, CECODHAS, Brussels, 2011.4. Housing policy in the EU Member States. Pieejams:
http://www.euparl.europa.eu/workingpapers/soci5. European Network of Housing Research (ENHR) Pieejams: http://www.enhr.net6. Housing policy in OECD countries. Pieejams: http:// www.oecd.org/eco/structural/hous7. Mājokļu politika Latvijā. Informācija VRAPLM mājas lapā. Pieejams:
http://www.vramplm.gov.lv.8. Mājokļu politika Latvijā. Informācija EM mājas lapā. Pieejams: http:www.em.gov.lv9. Mājokļu politika un tās instrumenti. Rīga, LHZB 2006.10. Pickwance C. Housing and Housing Policy. In: Social Policy (Baldock, J. et.al.), Oxford,
OUP,2007, pp.508-541.11. Renaud B., International Financial institutions and housing policy transfers. ENHP, Delft
university, 2010. Pieejams: http://otb.tudelft.nl/12. The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Develpment, WB, 2008. 13. The Cities Alliances. Pieejams: http://www.citiesalliance.org/ca/sitemap)14. Tsenkova S., Turner B., The future of social housing in Eastern Europe: Reforms in Latvia
and Ukraine. Adequate & Affordable housing for all. Toronto, 2004.15. UN-Habitat . Pieejams: http://www.unhabitat.org16. Urbanization. WB Sector Working Paper, WB, 1972.17. Yeates N., (ed.) Understanding Global Social Policy, Bristol: The Policy Press, 2008.
