Current issue

The Recovery and Resilience Plans that were launched in response to the COVID-19 crisis mark a shift in the European Union’s approach to crisis management that involves expanding the use of community funds to address housing challenges through an integrated and multidimensional framework. In Portugal, the 1st Right – Housing Access Support Programme serves as the primary mechanism for tackling housing precarity, making it the main recipient of this funding. This article examines the programme’s implementation through three core dimensions: progress towards quantitative targets, equity in territorial funding distribution, and institutional capacity. It analyses how housing precarity is defined in housing policies, how resources are distributed across municipalities, and what challenges hinder the programme’s effectiveness. The findings highlight the need for process optimisation, strategic planning, and stronger support for disadvantaged regions to ensure that the programme meets its goals of social and territorial cohesion. By drawing lessons from the Portuguese case, this study provides insights for other EU Member States, highlighting the importance of policy frameworks that combine shared objectives with locally responsive implementations.

This study examines the impact of Poland’s ‘2% Safe Mortgage’ policy on dwelling price inflation in both the primary and secondary markets. Using quarterly data from Q2 2011 to Q4 2024 for the seven largest cities in Poland and a VAR model with forecast scenarios, the analysis finds that the policy had a measurable effect on price dynamics. In the primary market, the credit shock led to an additional increase in dwelling price inflation of approximately 6.7 percentage points by the third quarter. In the secondary market, the effect was stronger, reaching around 7.4 percentage points compared to a no-policy scenario. A significant share of price growth was also driven by indirect factors, including expectations of further increases. The analysis shows the importance of well-designed government policy in shaping housing market outcomes and mitigating unintended price pressures.

Austria has several elaborate instruments for financing the construction and the management of affordable housing, both public and private. The main public instrument that supports the delivery of both new affordable housing and finance renovations is the Wohnbauförderung der Länder, where funding is provided via the nine regional authorities in Austria. While this instrument has proved to be a relatively stable source of funding for affordable housing providers over many decades, recent developments in the housing market have presented a number of challenges to the effectiveness of this funding instrument. This paper takes stock of the system of public housing finance in Austria by looking at continuities and discontinuities between the 1990s and 2023, both in terms of public spending and in terms of the delivery of new affordable housing. The paper does this by drawing on public data on affordable housing finance and on data gathered and published by the Austrian Federation of Limited-Profit Housing Associations (GBV). The paper critically assesses this system and draws lessons of relevance for Austrian and EU housing policymaking.

Throughout the European Union governments have reduced their investment in social housing, a trend that has also affected the Netherlands. Providers of social rental housing have faced policy changes that have challenged the dominant role in the unique Dutch unitary rental market regime. This paper examines the extent to which a revival of this dominant role can be attributed to the government’s recent interventions. It contextualises the subsequent challenges facing the housing market currently and in the future based on a review of relevant literature, policy documents, and input from interviewed experts. The largely qualitative interpretation shows that recent government interventions have given providers of social rental housing back some of the previous autonomy they had lost in terms of financing and regulation. We argue that providers of social rental housing are regaining a more important role in providing housing for low- and medium-income groups.

For three decades, Private Rented Sector (PRS) growth has been driven by part-time, small-scale, profit-seeking landlords in several Western nations. While the characteristics and motivations of these landlords have been examined in some geographies, far less is known about their investment decision-making, particularly their reasons for choosing the PRS over alternative investment options. This matters because these decisions shape the sector’s growth and tenant welfare. The study begins to address this gap by exploring the role of asset tangibility in landlord investment decisions, drawing on research from other investment domains. A mixed methods study was conducted, comprising an online survey of 1,033 Scottish landlords and follow-up interviews with 33 landlords and PRS professionals. Findings suggest that some landlords exhibit a bias towards the ‘bricks and mortar’ tangibility of PRS investment, which shapes risk perceptions and aspects of their investment decision-making. The findings have several implications. For landlords, there are concerns around investment efficacy; for policymakers, questions about landlord financial literacy; and for tenants, risks to their welfare from landlord decision-making. While the findings are not directly transferable, they are likely to have salience in other nations with established PRSs, including Australia, Canada, the United States, and parts of Europe.