How do multi-level governance conditions
determine policies addressing scheefwoners in
Amsterdam and which meaning to housing justice
do these policies institutionalise?
Denise Winters
11258489
Supervisor: Dhr. Dr. F. (Federico) Savini Second reader: Dhr. Dr. H.J. (Herman) Kok Wordcount: 12180
“Decent affordable housing should be a basic right for everybody.
The reason is simple: without stable shelter, everything else falls
Abstract / Acknowledgements
AbstractThe Amsterdam housing market is under a lot of pressure, everybody wants to live in the city. The municipality has to make policy that decides who gets to live where and who is unfortunately not able to live in the city. This research explores the influence of multi-level governance on the
institutionalisation of housing justice in the policy of Amsterdam and the approach the municipality takes on scheefwoners. By analysing policy documents created by the state as well as the
municipality of Amsterdam, an understanding of the institutionalisation of housing justice was reached. This study also provided indicators of multi-level governance in policy of both government levels. To understand the effects multi-level governance truly has, expert interviews were held. These interviews provided insights in the policy making process of the previously analysed
documents. Leading to the conclusion that multi-level governance provides both opportunities and restrictions for Amsterdam when creating housing policy.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express gratitude towards my thesis supervisor Dr. Federico Savini, for showing guiding me through this research. His feedback and expertise have been extremely valuable and helpful. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my interviewees for their valuable input in this research, specifically, Jan-Jaap Visser (Province of Noord-Holland), Wienke Bodewes (Amvest), and Koos van Zanen (Municipality of Amsterdam). Furthermore I would like to thank my former
classmate Kylie, given that English is not my native language, her help by proofreading this thesis was indispensable. I have had an amazing time learning about Amsterdam housing policy and hope to learn more about this in the future.
Table of contents and figures
Table of contents and figures ... 3
1. Introduction ... 4
2. Theoretical Framework ... 5
2.1 Scheefwonen ... 5
2.1.1 Just or unjust ... 5
2.2 Multi-level governance ... 6
2.2.1 Types of Multi-Level Governance ... 7
2.3 Governance in the Netherlands ... 8
2.4 Housing Justice ... 9 2.5 Conceptual Framework ... 11 3. Methodology ... 12 3.1 Problem Statement ... 12 3.2 Research Question ... 12 3.3 Research Design ... 12 3.3.1 Interview Questions ... 13 3.3.2 Interviewees ... 14 4. Results ... 15
4.1 Housing and scheefwoners in the Netherlands ... 15
4.2 Housing and scheefwoners in Amsterdam ... 16
4.2.1 Amsterdam policies on scheefwonen in the context of multi-level governance ... 19
4.3 Interviews ... 20
5. Conclusion ... 23
5.1 Reflection... 25
6. Bibliography ... 26
Figure 1 Income segments and housing market segments compared. Source: Gemeente Amsterdam (2008, p. 27). ... 6
Figure 2 Multi-level governance. Source: (Jänicke, 2015, p.5789) ... 7
Figure 3 Types of multi-level governance (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p23) ... 8
Figure 4 Conceptual framework. Source: (Author, 2019) ... 11
Figure 5 Housing stock per segment as of 2017. Source: Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018, p.310 ... 12
Figure 6 Housing stock (Musterd, 2014, p.4) ... 16
Figure 7 Social housing owned by housing corporations as of 2017. Source: Municipality of Amsterdam Interactive Map. ... 19
1. Introduction
There is a shortage in the Amsterdam housing market. The demand is higher than the supply, causing an increase in rent prices in the private sector while the waiting list for social housing keeps growing longer and longer. Currently, the estimated waiting period in Amsterdam is 14 years for social housing (VNG, 2018).
One link in the chain of the Amsterdam housing market is scheefwoners. Scheefwoners are people that are living in social housing while their income does not match the criteria set by the national government. Scheefwoners are perceived as a problem in the housing market since they occupy social housing that is meant for people with a set income. In Amsterdam 28,9% of people living in social housing are classified as a scheefwoner (VNG, 2018). It can be argued that it is not
scheefwoners that are the problem, but the market as a whole is not functioning as desired. Many scheefwoners have no alternative other than their social housing, forcing them to stay put in housing that is meant for others and obstructing the flow on the housing market. Municipalities struggle with solving this problem since they are restricted by legislation from other governmental bodies. The national government decides on the criteria for social housing and what the allowed rent increases or decreases are for the Netherlands. These criteria are the same for all regions and municipalities despite the major differences, for example, between Groningen and Amsterdam. Municipalities have to create their own policy and definitions of just housing within the framework laid out by the state. This legislation that is created by the national government and then applied by municipalities is part of multi-level governance. Multi-level governance is defined in this thesis by: the explicit or implicit sharing of policy making authority, responsibility, development and implementation at different administrative and territorial levels. In this research a multi-level governance perspective is chosen to study what institutionalisation of housing justice has formed in Amsterdam. Housing justice in general means: a just housing situation creates equal opportunities for all parties, this can mean providing more services to some parties to create the same chances. Within the framework of the state it poses the question, how does Amsterdam decide who gets to live where and why? This institutionalisation of housing justice shapes the specific approach the municipality of Amsterdam takes when addressing the scheefwonen situation.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Scheefwonen
Scheefwonen is the phenomenon of people living in housing that does not cohere with their income level. This is a very broad definition, the government of the Netherlands has tried to narrow it down to two different groups: expensive and non-expensive scheefwonen. Expensive scheefwonen means that the household pays more rent than they can afford which leads to them receiving a higher rent allowance from the government. Non-expensive scheefwonen is the group of households that pay less rent than appropriate according to their income. They live in social housing even though their income is not below the set income bar of social housing (Rijksoverheid, 2019). The result of people earning a higher income but still living in social housing has created a long waiting list for social housing in general, currently the waiting list is 14 years in Amsterdam (VNG, 2018).
As of 2009, 790.000 households were living in housing with rent that was less than the bar set for social housing while their income was higher (an income higher than €35,739) (Ministerie van
binnenlandse zaken , 2013). In 2014 a large research conducted on the social housing market showed that nationally 1 in 3 people renting from a corporation is a “scheefwoner”, paying either too much or too little rent (VNG, 2018).
In attempts to improve the flow of the housing market and to shorten the waiting list for social housing, a lot of new policies, visions and laws have been created over the past years. None of these have resulted in discernible change in the current situation. For example, in 2016 minster Stef Blok introduced an income dependable rent increase in social housing. Meaning that if you earn more money than the set national bar, the housing corporation is allowed to increase the rent more than if you have an income below the bar. In an evaluation of this policy by ING bank in 2017 it became clear that 84% percent of the questioned renters with a higher income did not consider the higher rent as a reason to move out of social housing (ING, 2017). Another policy that did not achieve its purpose is the Woningwet (housing law) from 2015. According to (Minke, 2018) the law does not leave enough room for municipalities to deliver customised policy and plans to their area. The law sets new rules for corporations and leaves municipalities with little room to work together with these corporations in creating a suitable housing policy for the municipal area (Minke, 2018).
2.1.1 Just or unjust
Scheefwonen is seen as undesirable in the housing market since most of the scheefwoners are occupying social housing when they no longer “have the right” to live there according to the boundaries set by the national government. This means that people with a lower income cannot make use of these housing facilities and often have to pay more than they can afford, forcing them to become scheefwoners as well but the expensive kind (Gemeenteraad Amsterdam, 2017).
Scheefwoners spark the debate about housing justice and introduces the question of who deserves to live in social housing? Are scheefwoners unjust to the system or is the system unjust to
scheefwoners? Looking at the rules scheefwoners have no right to live in social housing since their income does not match the criteria. This is very black and white and some people would say the end of the discussion. However, scheefwonen is a problem created by the government during the 1990’s, when deregulation of the housing market really began. Social housing belonged to all income groups, all housing was allocated through the municipality, and rents were regulated via a point system. During the 1990s neoliberal ideology started questioning state subsidies to social housing and the government started promoting privatisation of the housing stock. One of the core thoughts in the new policy was: “All income groups should have their own segment of the housing market” (354). Suddenly only low income households had a right to social housing, because of this, the government claimed that there was more than enough social housing in comparison to the target group as shown
in Figure 1 Income segments and housing market segments compared. Source: Gemeente Amsterdam (2008, p. 27). To create a balanced housing stock, the government allowed housing corporations and private owners to sell housing that was previously in the regulated sector, reducing the amount of social housing. This was the turning point where scheefwoners became a problem. With the government reducing the social housing stock to meet the target group, households that were outside this group were now occupying housing that was meant for poorer households, putting the blame on them (Uitermark, 2009).
2.2 Multi-level governance
Politics today is marked by uncertainties over boundaries between levels of government. To deal with these uncertainties, new forms of governance have emerged, one of these forms is multi-level governance (Smith, 2003). Multi-level governance is a term first brought to life by Marks in 1993, recognising the importance of subnational-levels of decision making he suggested: “multi-level governance – ‘a system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers’ as a result of ‘a broad process of institutional creation and decisional reallocation that had pulled some previously centralized functions of the state’ up and down” (Marks, 1993). This first emergence was soon followed by other scholars’ explorations of multi-level governance as an alternative to traditional state-centric forms of government. (Stephenson, 2013) Over the past twenty years the literature concerning multi-level governance has grown in many different directions, with scholars each leaving their own mark on the theory. (Stephenson, 2013) Another definition, that is perhaps a simplified version of what can be read above, is the following: multi-level governance is an integrated approach that emerges when responsibilities are shared between levels of government and actors (Tasan-Kok & Vranken, 2011). “The multilevel institutional ties between diverse organisational bodies (EU, nation states, regions, and local governments) contain no clear hierarchy” (Tasan-Kok & Vranken, 2011). Smith (2003) phrases the concept even more simplified: multi-level governance is political activity that crosses the traditional jurisdictional boundaries, and it is a form of sharing power across various government levels.
According to Hooghe & Marks, the common element across these literatures is that the dispersion of governance across multiple jurisdictions is both more efficient than and normatively superior to a central state monopoly (2001). Dispersing decision making away from the central state across multiple authorities creates a more flexible process. Jurisdictions can be custom designed and the scales of governance can be adjusted to reflect heterogeneity, some decisions are better made locally.
In this thesis, the ideas put forth by Charbit (2011) will be leading as the definition of multi-level governance. Charbit argues that following the last economic crisis, there has been a growing need for governments to adapt and change. To effectively implement change it is a prerequisite to identify stakeholders and map their roles and responsibilities. Charbit argues that “sub-national governments and “sub-national
governments are mutually dependent” (2011, p. 5). Sub-national governments depend on national governments for financial support and policy guidelines, whereas the national government depends on the sub-national governments’ effectiveness to provide public goods and services, and their information
concerning local conditions. According to Charbit, there are three different natures of interdependencies.
- Institutional, when the allocation of responsibilities is not exclusive. - Financial, when different levels are co-funders of public spending. - Socio-economic, when policy at one level influences other levels.
Full separations between the three cannot be fully achieved, and thus multi-level governance is always required to manage public policy. Charbit then defines multi-level governance in this context as: “The explicit or implicit sharing of policy making authority, responsibility, development and
implementation at different administrative and territorial levels” (2011, p. 13). This definition will be
used in this thesis with the addition that the focus in this thesis will be limited to interaction between public authorities. Figure 2 illustrates the negotiations between different governmental layers, as well as negotiation amongst different bodies within the same layer.
Kearns & Paddison (2000), state that “urban governance is a multi-level activity” (p. 848). Healy et al (1995), elaborate on this by explaining that, urban governments operate within a web of relations involving both higher and lower tiers of governments which shape, and are being shaped by, each other. Urban governance’s goal is to operate for its citizens; this is often experienced at city level. The city, however, is not always the scene where ‘solutions’ can be found, although it is often the place where solutions ought to be implemented. Cities rely on regional and national governments to define and provide certain frameworks, who in turn rely on cities to define the needs and demands of those frameworks. Next up, however, there is a shift from national to international governance due to the formation of new supranational institutions as a response to globalisation forces, which creates another layer of governance that influences and is influenced by the others (Kearns & Paddison, 2000).
2.2.1 Types of Multi-Level Governance
Multi-level governance is a complex and broad concept, it can take on many different forms. However, Hooghe and Marks (2003) do detect two contrasting visions of multi-level governance, they call them type 1 and type 2. Type 1 is rooted in federalism, a political system through which two or more governments have shared authority over the same geographical area. With type 1 multi-level governance there are multiple multi-levels of governments, but they are limited by number. These jurisdictions have non-intersecting memberships and do not overlap. The jurisdictions are all similar
in structure and are created for the long term (Hooghe & Marks, 2003). Type 2 multi-level governance is influenced by public choice theory and has unlimited jurisdictions that are all task specific. These jurisdictions operate on numerous territorial scales and are flexible rather than durable (Hooghe & Marks, 2003). They do argue that both types can co-exist depending on the specific situation, this co-existing would then lean more towards the way that Schmitter (2004) attempts to define multi-level governance. He explains the following: “Multi-level governance can be defined as an arrangement of making binding decisions that engage a multiplicity of politically independent but otherwise interdependent actors – private and public- at different levels of territorial aggregation in more or less continuous negotiation and that does not assign exclusively policy competence or assert a stable hierarchy of political authority to any levels” (Schmitter, 2004).
Multi-level urban
governance
Multi-level governance challenges
Multi-level governance is a complex process that involves many different actors and operates in a political environment that continues to change, and therefore, faces many challenges. The multitude of stakeholders brings forth a management problem, posing how can we make sure that the
communication, spreading or information and negotiating between many parties, goes smoothly? Part of this problem is also the coordination of policy spill over into other jurisdictions. Another challenge is the changing role of politicians and civil servants. If policies are made as compromises between different levels and jurisdictions, what becomes their role? These challenges arise in different forms and multitudes, there are no concrete answers to these problems and the solution depends entirely on the circumstances.
Multi-level governance conditions
As seen above, multi-level governance is a broad form of governance that is present in many cases. How do we recognise multi-level governance in decision making processes? There are several indicators of multi-level governance that can be used as tools to discover the presence of multi-level governance in a process.
Basic indicators are:
- Multi-level governance involves more than one governmental layer/body. - Multi-level governance involves decision making via negotiation.
- Multi-level governance involves interdisciplinary topics. - Multi-level governance does not contain a (clear) hierarchy.
When these indicators are present it can be assumed there is some form of multi-level governance at play.
2.3 Governance in the Netherlands
According to the constitution, the Netherlands is a decentralised unitary state with 3 different governmental layers with equal levels of jurisdiction. The central government, the regional governments and the municipalities. Next to these three layers there are also water boards, these
are an official part of the system but not a separate layer. There is also talk of “Europe” as an unofficial fourth layer of the system but this is not registered in the constitution.
Multi-level governance in the Netherlands
The constitution states that all three government layers have equal levels of jurisdiction; however, in reality there is a clear hierarchy instead of equal jurisdiction, the central government determines the framework in which the lower layers execute their policy and plans (Bestuurlijke Indeling, 2002). The governance in the Netherlands is undergoing a change with decentralisation and
internationalisation are taking place at the same time. The dynamics between the state and municipalities are changing with more and more responsibility moving to the municipalities. There has been some debate about the end responsibility. The past few years municipalities have been executing bodies where the state would still be end responsible for the outcome. This is changing and municipalities are becoming more autonomous governing bodies that are responsible for the outcome. This has caused some tensions. For example, with regard to the refugee situation, the state decided how many refugees are taken in and how many which municipality has to provide for, but the municipalities are responsible in the end. Decentralisation is a confusing process, not just concerning responsibility but also budget wise. Changing a governing process is expensive and the burden of the cost is not always clear. There is also the concern of matters that used to be the states responsibility but are now moved to the municipalities. There is not much room in the municipal budget to cover this. Will there be subsidies from the state or a different form of payment? (Raad voor het Openbare Bestuur, 2016).
As of 2020 there will be a new planning act in the Netherlands, do omgevingswet. The new planning act is also focused on decentralisation and collaboration between different jurisdictions and
government layers. The new act combines 26 previous laws into one act to provide more clarity and passes more responsibility on towards the municipalities. This new planning act promotes
collaboration beyond jurisdictional boundaries because decisions previously made by one party now all fall under this law. Even though there is more responsibility for the local government, the law still takes into account the international agreements made in the EU (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken & Koninkrijksrelaties, 2019).
It is difficult to define the type and form of multi-level governance in the Netherlands, looking back at the previous paragraph regarding types of multi-level governance, the first type is most applicable to describe the Dutch system. However, elements of type 2 can also be found. Where type 1 contains jurisdictions that are limited in number but general, the Netherlands does also have water boards which are more task specific jurisdictions like the ones in type 2. It was previously mentioned that some scholars consider multi-level governance a governance form without hierarchy, whereas there is a clear difference in power between the Dutch government levels.
2.4 Housing Justice
Housing justice is a complex term that poses two distinct thoughts. Firstly, The UN Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, – including housing” (1948, Article 25). Examining this declared right to housing shows that this right is often unclear and undefined. Secondly, while cities are popular places to live, there is a limited supply of housing stock available which poses questions of who gets to live where and why.
Exploring the first statement of what a right to housing means, a right is often seen as being entitled to something while paying a low or no cost. Building upon that definition, there is no universal right to housing anywhere in the world because housing comes with an expectation of paying for it (Bengtsson, 2002). According to Turner & Elsinga (2005), the goal of housing policy is to safeguard
affordability of housing which can be interpreted as the right to a reasonable standard of housing at a cost that represents a tolerable part of the household income (103). There are several tools available to safeguard this affordability, but this requires a shift in the role of the government in the housing market (Turner & Elsinga, 2005). Housing is at the same time an individual commodity as well as a public good that is regulated by market led distribution. Housing policy is therefore best described as the state providing correctives to the housing market (Bengtsson, 2002).
Compared to other welfare sectors, housing is the wobbly pillar under the welfare state. Other sectors have concrete rules and regulations concerning the responsibilities and actions of
institutions. Given that housing is seen as not only a part of citizen welfare but above all as a market good, it is not possible for housing policy to create such a tight framework (Bengtsson, 2002). Harloe describes this as follows: “Housing, unlike other spheres of provision for human needs, provides printable opportunities for capitalism. Leading to a strong resistance of change and regulation” (1995, p. 2-3). The complex relation between housing as a market good and policy makes it
impossible to give a universal definition of the term right to housing. To understand right to housing in specific situations it is necessary to look into the national housing policy and the underlying policy theory (Bengtsson, 2002).
The second statement, concerning who gets to live in what location, is equally difficult to address. There is limited space in cities, if the allocation of housing in cities would go completely via the market, the rich would live in the city and people with a lower income would be cast out of the city. To prevent this, housing policy determines who gets to live where and who has access to which parts of the housing market. The important question is, how do policy makers decide who has a right to which housing? There are different views and theories about housing allocation, gentrification and segregation. As Uitermark says, what differentiates a nice city from a just city are mechanisms that guarantee an equitable allocation of scarce resources (2009, p. 350). This says nothing about size or quality, “I still think a city could be legitimately called just (though not necessarily pleasant) if it provides its limited or imperfect housing evenly across the population” (Uitermark, 2009, p. 350). According to Manuel, the public narrative of gentrification in the United States says “people don’t have a right to live in any particular place, nor do they have standing in a neighbourhood simply because they have always lived there. You only get to live in a place because your efforts (getting an education and job) afford you the right to be there. And if you get priced out, so the logic goes, it is your responsibility to move to a place more consistent with your budget and work ethic” (Manuel, 2018, p.1). She explains that there is an understanding of the problems that low-income households face when it comes to the housing market. There is a “what about me” mentality, where people do not recognise the challenges that low income families face as unique, but rather as something everybody is trying to deal with. “Why focus more attention on the poor when all of us are feeling trapped by an increasingly fragmented social safety net, economic pressures to keep our families afloat, and a government that feels like it is in full-fledged free fall?” (Manuel, 2018, p.1). Neither of the statements can be universally addressed, as it depends on the situation and
circumstances. So then how is housing justice defined in this thesis? One of the definitions of justice in the oxford online dictionary reads as follows: “The quality of being fair and reasonable". Applying this to housing, it means fair and equal chances in the process of finding adequate housing. A just housing situation creates equal opportunities for all parties, and this can mean providing more services to some parties to create the same chances.
2.5 Conceptual Framework
Having built upon the literature review, the central theme to this thesis is the influence of multi-level governance on the housing policy of Amsterdam. Multi-level governance conditions influences the way that social housing justice is institutionalised in the policy of Amsterdam. Making multi-level governance the independent variable in this research. The institutionalisation of housing policy is one of the independent variables. The institutionalisation of housing justice in Amsterdam influences the way that city officials approach the phenomenon of scheefwonen. Policy addressing scheefwonen is therefore a dependent variable as well. The conceptual framework is visualised in figure 4.
3. Methodology
3.1 Problem Statement
The Amsterdam housing market is overflowing, there are long waiting lists for social housing and housing on the free market is becoming more and more expensive. The amount of scheefwoners is growing due to limited options outside their current social housing situation. The housing market is a broad system that is not limited to on jurisdiction or governmental level, making it hard to create appropriate policy to solve situations such as scheefwoners.
3.2 Research Question
The main objective of this research is to answer the following question:
How do multi-level governance conditions determine policies addressing scheefwoners in Amsterdam and which meaning to housing justice do these policies institutionalise?? To answer this question, there are four sub-questions that need answering first, the sub-questions read as follows:
1. What is multi-level governance and is it applicable to the Netherlands? 2. How does the Dutch government frame scheefwonen?
3. What is the current approach of Amsterdam attempting to tackle scheefwonen? 4. What references to justice are found in policies constructed by multi-level governance?
3.3 Research Design
The research design for this study follows a testing method using Amsterdam as a case study. Amsterdam was chosen due to its high amount of social housing and leading role in the Dutch development of subsidised housing. As of 2017 52% of the Amsterdam housing stock was social housing, the division of housing is show in figure 5 below.
The case study was analysed by means of a discourse analysis to determine how multi-level governance conditions institutionalise housing justice in Amsterdam and determine policies addressing scheefwonen. The dependent variable in this research is multi-level governance, the independent variables are housing justice and Amsterdam policy addressing scheefwonen. The first step in this research was a literature review, to define the three main concepts of this research through an in-depth literature examination. This step helped in answering the first sub question.
Many different documents were reviewed and definitions were drawn from them, this eventually led to three concrete definitions that were leading in the remainder of the research.
Multi-level governance: “The explicit or implicit sharing of policy making authority, responsibility, development and implementation at different administrative and territorial levels” (Charbit, 2011, p. 13).
Housing Justice: A just housing situation creates equal opportunities for all parties, this can mean providing more services to some parties to create the same chances.
Scheefwoner: A person living in social housing while not meeting the income criteria set by the government.
The next step was policy analysis. Once the definitions were established, they could be used to understand the policy documents of Amsterdam. To create a broad understanding, first the history of housing in the Netherlands was analysed to look for important turning points in policy or
governance. After this, the national housing policy was examined through a multi-level governance perspective followed by the policy of the municipality of Amsterdam. Looking at both the national and local policy over the same period of time can show if there is a correlation between the two levels when it comes to housing policy. The analysis was done from 1901, the first housing act, to the present. Unfortunately up until the most recent years (2005-present), documentation of the policy making process was hard to find, only the actual policy documents were available, making it hard to draw any strong conclusions. For the later years there was some documentation on the process and this helped me draw some conclusions on the influence of multi-level governance on policy. This document analysis helped answer the second and third sub questions.
The third step were semi-structured interviews, document analysis may show a correlation between multi-level governance, housing justice, and scheefwoners, but does not establish causality without being expressly stated in the document. Interviews were necessary for the causal component of the research to be able to draw actual conclusions. This was done by interviewing people that are involved in the policy making process, these professionals gave insights in the choices behind policy making and how different government levels worked together behind the scenes. The interviews helped answer the fourth sub question.
3.3.1 Interview Questions
In the interviews all interviewees were asked three main questions. These question will form the base line throughout all the interviews. There were more questions that were asked in the interviews and these questions were altered depending on the interviewee. When interviewing someone from the regional government questions would be more focused on their role in the process, for example. The 3 main questions read as follows:
1. Does Amsterdam have a just housing policy and why?
2. What could be changed in the way Amsterdam creates its housing policy to make it more justified when it comes to scheefwonen?
3. How does the collaboration between the municipality of Amsterdam and other governmental bodies/layers influence the way that housing policy is created?
These questions were designed to figure out what the interviewee defined as just housing policy by asking them about their opinion on the situation in Amsterdam. The questions also discover what alternatives to the current situation could create better policy for scheefwoners. The last question is the most important one, this question helps understand the relations between the different policy documents that were analysed in this research.
Further questions that were asked in some of the interviews are:
There is not enough room in the city for everyone so someone will end up not being able to live there. How do you decide who does and doesn’t get to live there?
How does the provincie ensure that they can serve all the different municipalities within their service area as good as possible with their policy?
Which government layer can influence the housing situation in Amsterdam the most?
3.3.2 Interviewees
Interviews were held with the following people:
Wienke Bodewes, Wienke is an urban planner with a lot of work experience. After a master of urban and regional planning at the Technical University of Delft, he went on to work for the municipality of Rotterdam, housing corporation Ymere in Amsterdam, and private developer Amvest in Amsterdam to name a few. These jobs gave him a lot of experience with the housing market from different perspectives and made him valuable to this research.
Jan-Jaap Visser, Jan-Jaap is a social geographer with a lot of experience concerning policy. Currently, he is working as senior policy housing advisor for the provincie of Noord-Holland. He is the
connection when it comes to housing policy between the municipality of Amsterdam and the provincie of Noord-Holland, from this point of view he contributed to this research.
Koos van Zanen, Koos is a head urban-planner at the municipality of Amsterdam. He helped create the long term vision of the municipality and is currently working on adjusting this vision to suit the new planning act when it will be implemented. This vision also contains housing and this combined with his years of experience as an urban planner made him very important to this research.
4. Results
4.1 Housing and scheefwoners in the Netherlands
Throughout history, public housing in the Netherlands has undergone a large transformation. It started with the housing act in 1901. This is when the state started financing municipal housing and association housing to fight the bad health conditions in the existing housing stock (Werf, 2013). The first few years of the housing act, very few public housing was built due to a shortage in material after and during the First World War. This made it nearly impossible for housing associations to build good quality housing that could be rented out for a reasonable price. The state started to intervene more in the form of financial aid and subsidies from 1914 onwards. An example of this is the emergency housing law from 1918 where the state subsidised 90% of the buildings costs of housing that met the health and quality requirements. This led to an increase in public housing (Werf, 2013). During the Second World War the increase abruptly stopped, there was shortage in materials and money. After the war the rent price was frozen by the national government due to low incomes, but in 1947 this started to displease people as the incomes were rising again except for people who relied on renting their house as an income source (Werf, 2013). In 1947 a new housing allocation law was written that gave municipalities the power to decide on their own allocation system. And in 1950 a rent law passed that protected tenants from rent increase. This law allowed rent to be increased again but only 15% for housing that was built before 1940. This was an incentive for developers to start building again, which led to a growth in the housing stock. Slowly this increase grew bigger due to the establishment of the modern welfare state. The welfare state brought subsidies along that enabled the construction of good-quality public housing and also led to individual rent-subsidies. This combined with the post-war baby boom that created a shortage on the housing market, led to more public housing (Werf, 2013). At the end of the 1960s a rent control and allocation system was developed that was not restricted to low income groups but instead targeted skilled labourers. In 1981, there was a shift in building usage leading to many vacant buildings. To prevent vacancy a vacancy act passed forcing owners of vacant buildings to report this to the municipality so together they could look for alternative uses of the building. This included vacant housing or finding housing as an alternative use for empty buildings (Werf, 2013). At this point 35% of the total housing stock in the Netherlands was public housing. This amount kept growing until 1990 when a system change occurred. Too many people were too dependent on and accustomed to receiving from the system. There was a shift from a social welfare state to a neo-liberal state which led to a decrease in
government spending and thus a decrease in public housing. This was the point where the question was asked: “for whom should public housing still be required?” It was in 1992 when the housing allocation act was altered that municipalities were then obligated to provide a legal document in which they decide the amount of housing which goes to which income group. Aside from that they also created a license that tenants are required to have before moving in to public/social housing in which the criteria to receive this license was determined by the municipality. In 1995 a new urban planning act was published that helped determining new locations for housing projects that were often outside of the city centre. These projects could only contain 30% affordable housing since one of the goals was to decrease scheefwonen by attracting rich scheefwoners to these new projects (Musterd, 2014).
Neo-liberalism put housing associations in a position where they had to get more independent from the state but were still controlled by the state in terms of objectives. A more entrepreneurial attitude was adopted by housing associations (Musterd, 2014). Due to the continued increase in value of housing, they did not sell their stock but only continued building with help from local authorities. After the 2008 economic and housing crisis, not all associations could afford this business model since they could no longer sell their assets with financial gain. This caused them to stop building new public housing stock (Musterd, 2014). At the same time the government allowed higher rent levels in public housing and continued to support the owner-occupied section. This led to a further decline of
the public sector and an increase of poorer households in the public sector with segregation as a result. The reasoning behind these policies that decrease the public housing sector were the unbalanced supply and demand. The state defines the demand by creating a target group based on yearly taxable income that households have to be part of in order to apply for public housing. According to the state, which said that supply was higher than the demand and thus they implemented the right to sell and allowed associations to raise the rent above the liberalisation boundary (Werf, 2013). These agreements were all written down in the housing act of 2015 which defined the role of housing associations. In 2020 a new planning act will come into effect, the planning act combines 26 previous laws into one new act to provide clearer legislation. The law concerns everything in the living environment, including housing (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken & Koninkrijksrelaties, 2019).
Housing allocation in the Netherlands
According to the housing allocation law from 1992, municipalities have the right to decide who gets to live where and who has a right to housing (Werf, 2013). To do this they use the guidelines given in the national housing agenda and a so called allocation system. The system consists of three parts:
1) Admission, who can participate in the allocation?
2) Allocation, who can go in which house? Who goes in first? And who has absolute priority? 3) Implementation, which model will be used to implement the choices made in the first two
parts?
Housing association houses are allocated via the system, and private houses that fall under the liberalisation boundary can be rented directly to the tenant as long as they qualify for a license. This license is issued by the municipality based on several criteria that can be found in the housing regulations of that municipality (Werf, 2013). A problem with this system is that tenants only go through the allocation system or need to acquire the license when they move in. After that they can keep living there until they decide to move out. Over time this leads to people living in social housing that no longer meet the criteria set by the municipality, creating scheefwoners (Werf, 2013).
4.2 Housing and scheefwoners in Amsterdam
1901 is seen as the year that brought public housing to the Netherlands and changed the housing market for years to come (Werf, 2013). Amsterdam was one of the Dutch pioneer cities when it comes to public and subsidized housing. In the early 20th century the city followed the rest of Europe
in the movement for more hygienic housing and took big steps in transforming the housing situation towards a more modern situation. They attempted to establish a norm for quality housing that would be subsidized by the government. (Stieber, 1998).
This sparked a debate, at what level should these newly established norms of housing be legislated? And on what level, individual, group, city, or nation? This debate revealed the underlying
phenomenon that were new to the city and part of the urban reform movement. These were the four main components being discussed:
- The protection of individual property rights - The rise of living standards
- The protection of public interest - Freedom of expression
Despite these modern movements, like the rest of the Netherlands, the housing act of 1901 did not take off as well as planned in Amsterdam. In 1914 a housing authority was instated to oversee construction as well as an alderman and advisory committee for housing. The first housing alderman was F.M. Wibaut, who is still known in Amsterdam to this day. Even though the government was strongly supporting the housing reform, the First World War caused a shortage of materials which led to a drop in private building. In the period between 1914 and 1922 there were more government built housing projects than private ones. It was only after the war that the national government started subsidizing the private sector in Amsterdam but by then the public sector had established its regulatory power (Stieber, 1998).
In 1934 the unemployment support was lowered which led to the deterioration of working class housing blocks. The start of the Second World War increased the deterioration of Amsterdam housing, which was followed by the hunger winter of 1944-1945, when lots of houses were demolished for firewood. Because of this rapid building was required after the war, this led to completely new districts in Amsterdam such as Bijlmermeer. (Stieber, 1998).
As mentioned earlier, one of the criteria set by Uitermark for a just city is a mechanism that guarantees equitable allocation of scarce resources. In his article he further discusses that this is impossible to achieve but some cities come closer than others. According to Uitermark, at some point in time Amsterdam was the closest city in the world to being just; however, he later states “Amsterdam, I argue, has degenerated from a city that aspires to be just for all into a city that is nice for many” (Uitermark, 2009, p. 351).
During the 1970s protestors took to the street in Amsterdam, they were protesting the demolition of entire blocks of housing to build a highway, offices and the east-metro line. Long periods of
protesting led to the government deciding to build new social housing on top of the metro, in place of the ones they would destroy in the building process. The metro would still be built, but the highway was gone as well as the offices. This protest caused a change in the Amsterdam housing market, and throughout the 1970s multiple steps towards a decommodified market were taken (Uitermark, 2009).
A point system was put in place that regulated the rent based on the use value of a house. This point system worked for social housing as well as privately owned housing. This made renting in the whole of Amsterdam more affordable and less prone to capitalism. Another step was the centralizing of housing allocation, and owners had to sign up their property at the municipality. The municipality would then allocate all housing, social and private together. This allocation was based on the waiting time of households as well as urgency. Throughout the 1980s, the access group to the regulated market was growing. Before that time it was mainly aimed at married couples over 26, but from then on also singles and people that were 18 and older had access to the market. Finally, to find more appropriate housing for everybody, housing composition rather than income defined the type of
housing that households were allocated to. These steps, altogether, made sure that social or
regulated housing was available to everybody, not only low income and would match the households (Uitermark, 2009).
In the late 1980s the national policies started to change, and neo-liberal ideology questioned the state subsidies for social housing and housing construction. Politics no longer spoke of a quantitative shortage but rather a qualitative one too, stating there was enough housing for everybody but just not the type of housing they might want. To fix this qualitative shortage the government started promoting privatization of the housing market. Large scale selling of social and regulated housing occurred and a new core thought in policy immerged. “All income groups should have their own segment of the market” (Uitermark, 2009, p. 354). This meant that, as seen in figure 1 on page 5, they researched the amount of housing in a certain income group as well as the amount of
households in that income group to base their policy on the match or mismatch between the two. It was then that the shortage of social housing was declared solved, there was then more than enough social housing for the amount of households in the target group for social housing (Uitermark, 2009). The spread of neo-liberalism was delayed in Amsterdam and other urban regions causing their public housing stock to keep increasing until well into the next century. Until 2013 in Amsterdam, every new residential project had to contain at least 30% public housing (Musterd, 2014). The municipality of Amsterdam protested against the national policies to privatise the housing market, but after a while they still began to adopt some of the policies. Policy found a new group to target,
scheefwoners. Scheefwoners were not a problem until new policy allowed housing corporations and owners of regulated housing, to sell their stock on the market. This was allowed because according to the numbers there was enough social housing. However, even though on paper there was enough social housing to meet the needs of the amount of people in the target group, a lot of these dwellings were occupied by people from a different target group, the scheefwoners. Instead of calling out the real problem on the market, decreasing the amount of social housing, scheefwoners were named as the problem (Uitermark, 2009).
May 25th 2019 the municipality of Amsterdam created a new housing allocation act, this act sharpened and altered the previous allocation rules. The act differentiates rules for two types of housing, social housing and middle-segment housing subsidized by the municipality. For social housing the following rules were added or altered:
- Priority to young adults that have a bond to the city. (They grew up there)
- Priority to young adults in protected housing programs, they will receive a short-term contract. (5 years)
- Households that are labelled “Urgent” will receive more suitable housing to their situation rather than basic housing.
For the middle-segment housing subsidized by the municipality the following rules were added or altered:
- Priority to families with a minimum of one young kid and one adult.
- Allocation based on income, the lower middle incomes have priority up until housing with a rent of €850 per month.
- Priority to people leaving social housing, to improve the flow on the market.
Lastly, there will be priority for workers in healthcare and education for both social housing as well as middle-segment housing, as long as they work in the city of Amsterdam, have no property within a 20km radius of the city and have a contract for 20 hours a week for at least 1 year (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019).
At the beginning of 2019, the municipality of Amsterdam held a questionnaire among the inhabitants titled: Who does social housing belong to? Interestingly, there were a lot of the outcomes correlating with the new adjustments of the housing allocation act. Only a small part of the inhabitants (21%) agreed with the system of allocation based on the amount of time you are registered at the
woningnet. Alternatives that people voted for are, a point system (33%), based on the active search time instead of registered time (20%), and a lottery. (6%) When it comes to prioritizing groups, 66% agrees that families of recently divorced parents should have priority to housing, also young adults living at home in a troublesome situation have 40% of the votes (Gemeente Amsterdam, Resultaten enquête Woonruimteverdeling, 2019).
As of 2020 a new planning act will become official, the Omgevingswet. This new act combines 26 old acts into one, among which includes a housing act. The Omgevingswet is a so called “framework” law that sets a structure for governance, which rules and plans need to be made, but does not go into the content of those needed plans and rules. (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken & Koninkrijksrelaties, 2019). According to the law, the state has to create a set of general rules about the “living
environment,” and municipalities then make their own visions and rules within the framework of rules set by the state. The mind-set about these state rules is also different in the new law. Instead of specifically stating what is or is not allowed, they create a set of rules that are broad, and open and everything that fall within these rules is allowed without having to request a licence. This will make the housing situation possibly a lot more flexible in the future; however, the general state rules on housing have not yet been published, so unfortunately, no conclusions can be drawn from this (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken & Koninkrijksrelaties, 2019).
4.2.1 Amsterdam policies on scheefwonen in the context of multi-level governance
Amsterdam has a current population of 821,752 inhabitants, and 42% of housing in Amsterdam is social housing (Lammertink, 2018). 28.9% of people living in social housing in Amsterdam is a scheefwoner, 15.8% of renters live in overpriced housing, and 13.1% in under-priced housing (VNG, 2018). The spread of social housing can be seen in figure 7, all coloured areas are owned by the different housing corporations in Amsterdam.
Amsterdam has chosen the approach of getting scheefwoners out of social housing to make them available for new tenants by increasing the rent in case of a higher income and creating more middle segment housing for people to move to from social housing (Gemeenteraad Amsterdam, 2017). In their new agenda for 2025 they aim for a housing division of 40-40-20. Meaning 40% regulated rent, 40% middle segment rent or buy, and 20% higher segment rent or buy. (Gemeenteraad Amsterdam, 2017).
Another approach of the municipality is building more middle-segment housing, in so called
bestemmingsplannen. In this plan the municipality can decide what is allowed on which location. In these plans more and more locations are allocated for middle-segment housing projects. To create more middle segment housing, the national government is promoting the selling of social-housing to use these as middle-segment (Uitermark, 2009). This is happening in Amsterdam on a very small scale, Amsterdam still has a very high percentage of social housing in comparison to other cities and this will most likely remain this way. A third approach the municipality has recently taken on is the allocation of middle-segment housing with priority to households that leave social housing. This is intended to motivate scheefwoners to leave since there are more options to finding alternative housing (Gemeente Amsterdam, Leeswijzer wijzigingen in de Huisvestingsverordening 2020, 2019).
4.3 Interviews
Multi-level governance is an ambiguous term that leaves room for individuals to attach their own meaning, there is no clear framework saying what is and is not multi-level governance (Daniell & Kay, 2017). There are some indicators to multi-level governance and the most important one being that with multi-level governance there is not one individual government that has all the power, rather it involves more layers of governance. Dispersion of power across horizontal government bodies or vertical bodies is a clear sign (Charbit, 2011). In the Netherlands this decentralisation of power has been happening since the 1900s, and there has been an ongoing fluctuation between less and more state control when it comes to housing (Werf, 2013). Dutch governance is spread across three main layers, state, regions and municipalities. The EU acts as an unofficial fourth layer (Bestuurlijke Indeling, 2002). Multi-level governance in the Netherlands mainly takes form in the national government creating policy frameworks and passing the power to enforce this on to municipalities. Municipalities are free to create their own policy discourse within the rules set by the state, and regional governments act as a gateway between the two governmental layers. According to Jan-Jaap Visser from the Provinice of Noord-Holland, the provincie takes a different approach than the national government as they do not create strict rules but rather help municipalities make the rules themselves. “For some topics we stated that they have to be put in the regional action programs,
these topics are very broad. And we want the regions to work this out themselves, we help them with this but it is up to them to make the regulations. So we tell them what topics to make regulations about instead of telling them what the regulations are” (Visser, 2019, Interview). Next to that, the
Provincie also brings wishes and demands from municipalities to the state.
The regional action programs that Visser refers to, are a demand set by the Provincie. They divided their service up into different regions that have connections to each other. Amsterdam is one of those regions. Amsterdam is also part of the Metropolitan area together with Zaandam and
Haarlemmermeer (Visser, 2019). These regional collaborations are a form of multi-level governance where the power is dispersed horizontally. According to Koos van Zanen, these regional negotiations are very important for Amsterdam. The city is growing very fast and cannot keep up with the
demand, so if there are enough services and alternatives to housing, this relieves some pressure off the city (Zanen, 2019).
The regulations from the national government, together with the regional programs and
requirements from the Provincie, shape a large part of the Amsterdam housing policy and create very little room left for alterations. This is something that has come back in all the interviews when asked about the justice of Amsterdam housing policy. “They are trying their best to cater to as many
different groups as they can. However, they are not entirely free to do as they please due to restrictions from national law and rules. Especially when it comes to income boundaries for social housing” (Visser, 2019, Interview). “Because in national policy social housing is treated the same in Amsterdam as in Groningen, this is not accurate for the situation due to the popularity and therefore higher demand in Amsterdam, maximum rents should be different because of the difference in values” (Zanen, 2019, Interview). “National policy is very straight forward, the municipality of Amsterdam might not agree with it but they have to work with the framework” (Bodewes, 2019,
Interview). Historically, the national government also had a big hand in shaping the current situation. During the 80s and 90s Amsterdam’s housing situation was thriving, corporation stock as well as private stock was all regulated, regulated housing was available to everybody, and the waiting list was down to only two years. When the national policy started to change due to neo-liberal
influences, social housing was made available only to the poor. Regulated housing was sold on a large scale and eventually the point system became only applicable to social housing, leaving the privately owned stock to the free market (Uitermark, 2009).
A just housing policy was earlier defined as a situation that creates equal opportunities for all parties. Uitermark describes it as mechanisms that guarantees an equitable allocation of scarce resources (2009). Creating such a system is complicated, and Amsterdam came pretty close in the 80s when social housing was available to everybody. In the current situation social housing is only available to households with an income lower than €35,739 (Rijksoverheid, 2019). If your income is higher you have to rent on the free market. Since Amsterdam is getting more and more popular these prices are rising incredibly fast, making it hard to afford housing on the free market if your income is just above the social housing boundary. “Ideally, everybody has the same chances but not everybody has the right to live in the best spots. You can have a different opinion about this but some places are more popular than others, and then it is socially accepted that those places are a little more expensive than others. At the same time it is desirable that within the city and even within neighbourhoods there is a place and an option for every different group” (Visser, 2019, Interview).
When asked if he considered Amsterdam’s housing policy just, Koos van Zanen explained that the two ways to get housing in Amsterdam are, firstly, to wait on the list for social housing, or secondly, to bring a lot of money. If you have time to wait or have enough money to afford a free market house, then yes for you the housing market is just. However, the municipality does have a
responsibility towards those that do not fit these two groups, to make the market available to them as well (Zanen, 2019). He says: “We try our best to regulate rent prices. We as a municipality have a very good position to do this as we own 85% of the land in the city. This means that we can decide what is allowed on our land and what is not. We try to appoint locations where middle-segment is regulated. This is a big investment on our side, if you look at the prices that buildings are sold in the city centre, we could become incredibly rich off our land prices. However, we decided not to do this, but rather invest in the housing market. Right now our policy states that 40% of new housing projects have to be social housing, 40% have to be middle segment and the other 20% can go to the free market. The difference in prices between free market and social/middle segment is what the municipality is willing to spend on trying to make our housing market more just” (Zanen, 2019, Interview). Whereas the national government promotes selling social housing to create more middle-segment housing, the municipality does not follow this discourse.
Bodewes says that Amsterdam seemingly has a just housing policy; however, he explains that when you look closer there are some problems with the way they make policy. Their policy is very one-sided, and in their policy they focus on the new housing stock while this is only 2% of the entire stock. The existing housing is mostly ignored in the policy because it is static, and therefore, harder to change (Bodewes, 2019). Therein lies the real challenge that could make a difference in the housing situation. The demand in Amsterdam is higher than the supply and this won’t be changed by just building new housing. “They have to look into what they have and how to use this in a smart way” (Bodewes, 2019, Interview). Visser agrees that there is a lot of potential in the existing housing stock but also explains that is it very difficult to change this situation. “The municipality is trying to do this, with corporations, for example, it is easier to make agreements than with private owners. Trying to change the agreements that have previously been made, when private owners received their license to rent the place, is hard because it will often lead to less income for the private owner. This can be motivated with subsidies but this is a very expensive operation for the government” (Visser, 2019, Interview).
Changing a system or phenomenon that has been in place for a long time is difficult, and
scheefwoners are the living proof of this. They have lived in their house for a while and since there were no rules for eviction based on income, it is hard to solve this problem when it occurs. The national policy states that social housing is only for those with a low income, and if your income rises while you live in social housing you are expected to move somewhere else (Rijksoverheid, 2019). In reality this hardly happens due to the pressure on the housing market, and that there are not enough alternatives. Scheefwonen is a delicate topic. According to the system, scheefwoners are a problem, on the other side, these people also have a right to housing somewhere and if there are no
alternatives, who can blame them for not leaving? Bodewes says that there is more that should and could be done about scheefwoners. “Reducing the amount of scheefwoners creates a more available housing situation for households who need it. The possibility, for instance, is to raise the rents of scheefwoners significantly. This is a much debated topic but the fact is there is always someone that will have to live outside the city” (Bodewes, 2019, Interview). Visser is less outspoken about this topic, as mentioned earlier this is not part of the current policy of the Provincie, personally he does have an opinion about this. “You can always ask yourself what actually is scheefwonen? Some households are barely above the income level meaning it is incredibly hard for them to find a house in Amsterdam. So to what extent are you then a scheefwoner? It is true; however, that there is simply not enough space for everyone, not everyone can live in the city centre” (Visser, 2019, Interview).
Amsterdam’s policy on scheefwonen is limited, the rents are allowed to be increased more if a household’s income is above the maximum income level. Next to that, the municipality is promoting middle-segment housing to provide more alternatives to social housing. Finally, the new housing allocation act of 2019 provides priority when allocating middle-segment housing to households that leave behind social housing, so that it will be easier for them to find housing. The questions remain, should the municipality do more to prevent scheefwonen, or do these people have a right to live there too? Zanen explains his point of view as follows: “The goal of social housing is to provide affordable housing to the poorest people. You can go live there, find a good job and become a millionaire, no problem, no one will kick you out. Of course, you still have the right to live in the city, but not in that kind of housing. Social housing is there to help those who need help and if you are not that person you are supposed to fend for yourself on the housing market” (Zanen, 2019, Interview).
5. Conclusion
Drawing conclusions from the literature study in this research, the first sub question can be answered. Multi-level governance is “The explicit or implicit sharing of policy making authority, responsibility, development and implementation at different administrative and territorial levels” (Charbit, 2011, p. 13). In The Netherlands multi-level governance can be found in various forms. Firstly, decentralisation of state power to lower governmental layers. Over the past few years more and more power and responsibility has been passed to municipalities, the idea behind this is to create a more fitted policy on a local level. The state creates policy frameworks within which municipalities and provinces can work on their own policy course. Negotiations between
municipalities, provinces and the state take place to talk about wishes in the policy framework. In reality this does not always lead to the best policy on local levels since all areas are treated the same in national policy, creating restrictions for some municipalities. Power is also dispersed upwards towards the EU, agreements made on EU level work all the way down to Dutch municipalities. Another form or multi-level governance is the collaboration between regions. The province requires regions to make regional action programs, which results in Amsterdam working with Haarlem for instance. Another example is the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area, this organisation works with the municipality of Amsterdam, the provinces of Noord-Holland and Flevoland, the Vervoerregio (transport department), and 32 other municipalities. The Metropolitan Area was created because of the impact Amsterdam has on other municipalities, Schiphol airport for example lays in a different municipality but does deal with all the tourists coming to Amsterdam. It is therefore important that there are agreements between all different parties involved.
Looking back on the two types of multi-level governance presented in the theoretical framework, type 1 would be most fitted for the Netherlands, there are limited numbers of jurisdiction that are created for the long term and have similar structures. Although the Netherlands does shows
characteristics of type 2 as well, there are some intersecting memberships. This shows how complex multi-level governance truly is, it is a concept that can be applied to many different situations and can help to better understand different forms of governance.
Through investigating the national policy on housing allocation, the second sub question could be answered. The definition of a scheefwoner is very clear in the Netherlands, if you live in social housing while your income does not meet the target of social housing, you are a scheefwoner. Scheefwonen is often framed as a problem and has a negative image. Although it is certainly an undesirable situation, the complexity of it should not be forgotten when creating policy for scheefwonen.
Scheefwonen was originally created by the government changing their policy course very rigorously, at first everybody was entitled to social housing, but then they changed it to the lowest income group only, leaving people stuck in the system. Over time the housing market in Amsterdam has been getting harder and harder to navigate, when people live in social housing there are hardly any alternatives, leaving them stuck in social housing. The blame is often put on the scheefwoners themselves, however, most of these people do want to leave social housing but don’t have the means to. As Zanen described scheefwonen during his interview “Of course you still have right to live in the city, but not in that kind of housing.” (Zanen, 2019, Interview) The general consensus on scheefwonen is that these people deserve to live in the city, but not in social housing.
Examining the Amsterdam housing policy on scheefwoners, answers the third subquestion. To make sure that social housing stays available to those who have a low income, scheefwoners need to leave social housing. There are currently two approaches the municipality uses to battle scheefwonen. The first approach is to make their current living situation less appealing. Since the law changed in 2013, the maximum rent is allowed to be raised by 5.4% per year instead of the standard 1% in social housing. The idea behind this is that the higher rent will make it less appealing to stay in social housing when you have a higher income. The second approach is to create better alternatives to social housing. The municipality is promoting new middle-segment housing projects by appointing locations for them in the bestemmingsplan. Next to that, the new housing allocation act provides priority in middle-segment regulated housing to people that leave behind social housing. The national government is promoting the selling of social housing to turn them into middle-segment housing in order to help this sector grow. Amsterdam is not taking the same approach as the national government in this situation.
The most important question to answer is how policies produced by multi-level governance, deal with housing justice, as asked in sub question four. The idea behind justice is providing an equal situation for everybody. On a national level the government created the maximum income and maximum rent in the social sector to provide a chance for low income groups on the housing market. This policy works down to the local government who handles the same income and rent barriers. Beside these boundaries municipalities are free to divide their housing stock the way they please. The municipality of Amsterdam has decided to divide the new housing projects 40-40-20. 40% social housing, 40% middle-segment, and 20% higher income. The way multi-level governance most influences the definition of housing justice in policy is the lack of differentiation between the different municipalities. Since there is a lot of power dispersed to the municipalities, the state only creates a framework within which the municipalities operate. This gives a lot of implementation power to the municipalities but also limits the role of the state, cause them to create more general rules. The way the national framework is valid for all municipalities causes problems, more location specific rules could improve the situation immensely. What is just in Maastricht is not necessarily just in Amsterdam, but the current policy approach makes it seem like it is. In Amsterdam, prices are higher on average than in the rest of the country, creating an extra difficult situation for
scheefwoners trying to leave their social housing, yet the same standards of income and maximum rent apply.
Based on the answers of the four sub questions, the main research question can be answered. Multi- level governance conditions shape the policy making process, more implementation power is given to municipalities and the state only provides a general regulatory framework. This leaves all municipalities with the possibility to define a just housing policy for themselves, within this
framework. This does not always work well on a local level. Due to the popularity of Amsterdam, the housing prices are much higher there than in the rest of the Netherlands. The framework created by the state therefore causes a tough situation. The maximum rent for social housing is €720,42 per month, housing on the free market is rented out for much higher prices. According to Koos van Zanen, apartments are rented out for €2000 a month easily (2019). This leaves a big gap between the two segments, middle segments in Amsterdam are underrepresented as a result of the national framework. This huge gap also results in more scheefwoners, there are hardly any alternatives to social housing, causing people to stay in their social dwelling. The middle- and low income groups are disadvantaged in the current situation due to the form of governance that is currently operating in
