Housing for whom?
Distributive justice in times of
increasing housing shortages in Amsterdam
Author: Spike Snellens Student nr.: 10432590 Track: Political Science PPG Course: Politics of Inequality Supervisor: Dr. F.J. van Hooren
2nd reader: R.J. Pistorius Date: 23 June 2017 Words: 23.999
Famous for its egalitarian housing provision and social sector Amsterdam has inspired urban justice theorists and planners throughout Europe and beyond. However, due to a list of developments for more than ten years now the depiction of Amsterdam as a ‘just city’ is criticized. In fact, even reserved authors fear that in the near future Amsterdam will lose the features that once distinguished it as an example of a just city. In this thesis Amsterdam is treated as such, i.e. as a deteriorating just city. It is treated as a city characterized increasingly by the principle cause of injustice, i.e. shortages in housing, due to insufficient supplies and too much demand and due to the housing reforms which the past twenty years on the local, national and European level have been implemented. These shortages, in turn, are interpreted through the lens of scarce goods multi-principled distributing frameworks, a concept which was borrowed from Persad, Wertheimer and Emanuel. The idea behind this conceptual framework is that multi-principled distributing frameworks highlight and downplay morally relevant considerations, i.e. both include and exclude on the basis of justice principles, which means in turn that ‘just injustice’ entails that there exist a certain un-biased balance between allocative principles. The use of this lens mirrors the idea that housing is a perennial challenge, by which is meant that distributive struggles revolve around the design of such allocating frameworks and that these can increase when shortage increases. In line with the critiques on the depiction of Amsterdam as a just city it is concluded in the end that allocation has been based one-sided on maximizing value and promoting usefulness principles first. Second, due to an imposed income limit for social housing, the underdeveloped liberalized sector, rising sales prices and the attraction of Amsterdam, it is concluded that those who benefitted most of this one-sided allocation today are the ones who are in need of prioritizing distributive principles. Third, it is concluded that the increasing shortages have created new and more entitled categories, i.e. that the multi-principled distributive framework at work became more complex. That said, fourth, in line with the larger transformation the city is undergoing the current distributing system of Amsterdam nevertheless remains biased. However as the outcome of the latter and since the social market cannot be slinked endlessly, this pressure between prioritizations has the potential as well to merge instead of collide.
1.1 Keywords
Amsterdam, just city, population growth, housing reforms, housing shortages, multi-principled distributive frameworks.
2.Foreword
Before you lies my master thesis ‘Housing for whom? Distributive justice in times of increasing housing shortages in Amsterdam’ which has been written to fulfill the graduation requirements of the political science Public Policy and Governance track at the University of Amsterdam. It is outcome of a project which was undertaken for two reasons. First, as a born Amsterdammer on a personal level it is the outcome of an urge to better understand what is happening to my city since it is changing fast. In fact, the theme of this thesis I think will be the main theme the upcoming municipal elections in 2018. Second, since housing is one of if not the biggest industry on earth and since spatial planning is connected to a large amount and wide range of societal questions it is the outcome of a desire to learn more about housing in general. In fact, in hindsight in an urbanizing world recovering from a financial crisis based on unhealthy mortgages it is quite incomprehensible that in almost four years of political science not once I had to read one article about housing or planning while it evokes large questions. The preliminary investigation for this thesis was consuming as such and mind blowing and has made me worries even more about Amsterdam than I was before. That said, I never minded doing it either since it enriched, deepened and confirmed several understandings of mine about urgent topics and about the power of the government. Moreover it allowed me write this thesis in the end and to formulate the question how to interpret the distribution of the houses of Amsterdam using a multi-principled perspective. On the other hand, this nescience structured the process too and has led to a hodgepodge of touched themes. To end, I would like to say thanks here to my supervisor Franca van Hooren for her guiding efforts. Also, I would like to say thanks to the second reader Robin Pistorius.
I hope the both of you enjoy reading this thesis,
With kind regards,
Spike Snellens
3 Table of contents
4 Glossary (in 2015 Levels) 5
5 Introduction 6
6 Literature review 11
6.1 The just city Amsterdam 11
6.2 The city as a social concept 12
6.3 The urban justice discourse 13
6.3.1 Lefebvre’s ‘Right to the city’ 14
6.3.2 Harvey’s radical depiction of urban justice 15
6.3.3 Fainstein’s ‘just city’ 17
6.4 Amsterdam place within the urban justice discourse 18
6.4.1 Amsterdam as an ideal European city 18
6.5 Dutch critique on the idealization of Amsterdam 19
6.5.1Oudenampsen’s and BAVO’s critique on urban revanchism 19
6.5.2 Uitermark’s in memoriam 22
6.6 Towards another perspective on justice 24
7 Conceptual framework 25
7.1 Multi-principled distributive frameworks 25
7.2 Persad, Wertheimer and Emanuel’s system translated 26
7.2.1 Treating households equally 26
7.2.2 Prioritarianism 27
7.2.3 Utilitarianism 28
7.2.4 Promoting and rewarding social usefulness 29 7.3 Legitimizing (the use of) multi-principle allocation systems 31
8 Research question 31
9 Data collection 31
10 Case description 32
10.1 Gentrifying student city Amsterdam (2001-2007) 33
10.2 A city which grew during a financial crisis (2008-2011) 35 10.3 The internationalization of Amsterdam and housing reforms (2012- 2017) 38
10.4 Conclusion in between 44
11 Research Results 46
11.2 The actions of the council 48
11.2.1 New constructions 48
11.2.2 The private social sector 49
11.2.3 Lobbying 50 11.2.4 Cooperation Agreements 2015-2019 50 12 Conclusions 52 13 Reflection 53 14 References 55 15 Attachments 68
4 Glossary (in 2015 levels)
Income limits: 80% of the released social dwelling are allocated to households with an incomes up to €34.911 and 10% to households with an income between €34.911-€38.000.
Rent liberalization limit: €710.68 (146 points).
Social house: <146 points
Liberalized
Low income: €0 – 34.911.
Mid-income: €34.911 - €52.367 (1.5x modal).
High income: €52.367 or higher.
Cheap rentals: €0 - €710.68. Cheap owner-occupancies: €0 - €152.000. Mid-priced rentals: €710.68 - €971. Mid-priced owner-occupancies: €152.000 - €249.000. Expensive rentals: >€971. Expensive owner-occupancies: >€249.000.
Amsterdam knows four administrative scales since 2015 (In the attachments two maps are added showing the boroughs and areas).
- 481 neighborhoods. - 99 boroughs.
- 22+1 (Westpoort) areas. - 7+1 (Westpoort) districts.
5 Introduction
Famous for its egalitarian housing provision, its large public/social housing stock, its limited spatial segregation, the achievements of the resistance movements during the 1960s-1980s and more, for about half a century the Netherlands but Amsterdam especially has inspired urban justice theorists and planners throughout Europe and beyond. Renowned scholars such as Lefebvre (1968), Fainstein (2010), Soja (1992) and Gilderbloom, Hanka and Lasley (2009) have been depicted Amsterdam as a just city, the ideal approaching city, the world’s greatest city, the city where the right to the city has been recovered, an alternative for segregated cities, the best available model of a divers, egalitarian and democratic city and as the city to gain inspiration from. In short, Amsterdam does not suffer from a lack praise.
However, for a while now and especially by Dutch ideological fellow thinkers these painted pictures are being dismissed as foregone times. Scholars such as Oudenampsen (2006), Kadi and Musterd (2015) or Uitermark (2009) argue that these depictions turn a blind eye to the neoliberal reforms since the early 1990’s in housing of The Hague and somewhat later of multiple successive councils of Amsterdam. Moreover, they argue that the city is moving away rapidly from the ideal and according to some of them Amsterdam is already no longer a ‘just city’. In other words, these critics identify a gap between the practice and the theory of the just city literature and point to the need to reconsider Amsterdam’s place in it since the ‘search for the just city’ should not cover Amsterdam’s own problems and blur this search since it is the city which is gained inspiration from (Novy & Mayer, 2009). So what is a just city? Or perhaps better said what was Amsterdam once? Just city theorists have two agendas. The first is a common search for the just city. That is, it is an academic debate in which an idealized social space is visualized which is diverse, non-competitive, locally focused, non-privatized, non-exploitative, egalitarian, democratic, anchored, decommodified and inclusive. In short, it is the search for the just city1. The second agenda in turn is externally focussed, more about what the just city is not and a critical
1 In the 1960’s-1970’s investments into inner cities discontinued because modernistic views led to the believe
that the dysfunctional city characterized by deindustrialization and unemployment had to be renewed and restructured. However, at the same time a growing number of inhabitants did not suburbanize and demanded urban renewal instead, while inflowing students started to identify with such cities and no longer accepted moreover what was being perceived as needed by governments. In short, it were the days wherein construction of identity was set against technocracy, of collective use value ideals opposing capitalism and of self-governing decentralized units (Castells, 1983). In the case of Amsterdam, it were the days of Provo and squatter protests later. It is this setting which was a precondition for the birth of the just city (Uitermark, 2009).
discourse aiming its arrows on the revanchist neoliberal answer to the left-wing achievements of the 1960’s-1980’s. In other words, it is a critique on recommodification, privatization, residualization, gentrification and polarization and on the with trickle down geography justified innovative, economic growth promoting and creative space into which the city has been reconstructed and reconceptualised by Florida (2002) and colleagues and the consequences of it such as rising inequalities, segregations, displacements, alienation, increased housing expenses, commercialization and artificial housing shortages.
The subject of this thesis is the movement of Amsterdam away from the just city ideals towards this competing other conceptualization of the city and about one consequence of it especially, namely increasing shortages in houses2. For years the city knew an one-sided shortage3, which set into motion the above critiques on the just city Amsterdam. However, since some years shortages for all but those who can afford expensive rents or high mortgages are forming, which should be understood as the outcome of a combination of local policies but national policies foremost 4 which demand some explanation first.
The document ‘Housing in the 1990s’ of Christian democrat Heerma fundamentally changed the thinking about housing in the Netherlands and led The Hague to decide to liberalize the housing market from the early 1990’s on. First, the housing associations for which it was praised internationally were privatized with a so-called ‘bruteringsoperatie’ in 1994. In line, second, the growth of owner-occupancy was promoted with the sale of the public dwellings and a loosened use of mortgage interest tax deductions5. After a large
2 It does not mean that when the just city Amsterdam reached maturity that it did not know shortage. In 1982 the
waiting time for a public house dropt to an all-time low but it was still two years. Above, in the late 1980’s due to a rent protecting point system the entire rent sector was subject to regulation while owner-occupancies in turn constituted a low share of the stock, in 1983 6% only (AFWC, 2015: 9). In other words, Amsterdam practically was decommodified (Uitermark, 2009), which means that there existed shortage but not like today shortages.
3 Hochstenbach (2017) speaks of a ‘suburbanization of poverty’, which should be seen both as the displacement
of the poorer out of the city and as the impossibility for them to access the city.
4 It is not just a phenomenon of Amsterdam only but the case throughout the Netherlands. In fact, the title of a
held congress of the TU Delft sounded ‘a new housing emergency?’ (Platform31, 2016).
5 The two actions together led both to an underdeveloped liberalized rent sector (where the new shortage lies)
and an enormous growth of the private debt/gdp ratio. Where in 1995 the ratio was 56% in 2011 it had grown to a staggering 125% (CBS, 2011), which was the highest ratio of the Eurozone and three times as high as some other countries. In the same period the housing prices rose about 270% on average as the consequence too. As the outcome after the Greeks the Dutch households today have the highest rent or mortgage costs of Europe, namely 29.5% of the disposable income in 2015, while the average is 22.5% (Eurostat figures).
amount of advisory reports6 in 2000’s, third, the past seven years adding reforms were implemented to push further this set into motion transformation to a liberalized market and to solve the problems which it had caused. In short, these later reforms7 were implemented to assure in time a more stable sales market, lower debts, a flowing market, shorter waiting list for social dwellings, the development of a mature liberalized rent sector etc. (Blok, 2013). However, although minister of Housing Blok succeeded in some of these goals, many promises have not been fulfilled so far. In fact, things have worsened and new problems arose. For example, segregation in cities increased (PBL, 2016).
More importantly, a sharp decline is visible in the number of new completed homes in the Netherlands since 2013. Put differently, shortage increased8 and the expectation is that it will increase further in the next years as well (Boelhouwer & Schiffer: 2016: 5-6) and shortage sets spirals into motion (De Rijk, 2017). For example, if the accessibility of the liberalized rent and owner-occupied sectors decrease sales prices and rents increase since the demand is high, which is problematic for the (lower) middle class who are squeezed because
6
The years before Stef Blok became the minister of Housing in 2012 the consensus among experts, advisory bodies and various stakeholders grew that there existed a need to reform the system (Boelhouwer and Priemus, 2010: 527). For example, both the VROMRaad (2007) and CSED (2010) concluded that an increase in demand reflected itself especially in price increases instead of extra supply.
7 Most important is that in 2011 the inflow to released social dwellings for 90% was constrained to certain
incomes. In line with the decline of the welfare state this institutionalized the idea of social housing instead of public housing. Moreover, it forces mid-incomes to buy or to rent in the liberalized rental market with the underling idea that this will quickly develop the market further since it raises prices. In line, the past four years minister Blok managed to implement many ‘finishing reforms’ especially, something for which he is praised and loathed. Blok implemented a new Housing Law, reintroduced apposite allocation for social dwellings based on size and income and created a connection between rents and sales prices in the point system. He implemented an income dependent rent increase for cheap skewed tenants (those who earn above the income limit but still reside in a social dwelling) and finished the legal and financial separation between social and commercial activities of corporations (respectively DAEB vs. niet-DAEB). He introduced the ‘verhuurdersheffing’, i.e. a professional landlord and corporation tax (about €200 million for the Amsterdam’s corporations), which reduces investment space in turn and forces sales and liberalizations. But he implemented as well various rent contract flexibilizations with the Law Flowing Rental Market, introduced the possibility of a mid-income category in development plans and tightened slightly the mortgage interest deduction rules. In short, this list of finishing reforms is long and has one agenda and that is to create a social and liberalized rent market. Van der Schaar (2014) of RIGO has classified it as “shock therapy”. Moreover, housing “will never be the same”.
8 The past years 50.000 houses annually were built but due to increased immigrations the amount of households
of the income limit. In turn, it means too that more capitalists could buy-to-let9 instead of invest in new constructions, which means that sales prices rise further, which means that rents rise again since less can buy etc.. Rising rents and sales prices moreover means that starters are stuck and that cheap skewed tenant cannot move, which means that starters cannot save and that the latter despite the fact that social housing stocks (still) are comparatively large in turn increase the waiting time for a social dwelling, which increased already perhaps since as well not enough of these were built, which pressures the households earning just below the income level in turn the most. In short, although it might not happen as described precisely, point is that flowing is halted due to shortage and locks the market and makes it exclusive. Back to Amsterdam. These reforms have had exacerbated outcomes on Amsterdam because of the structure of its just city housing stock, i.e. because of its very large social sector/small liberalized sector. Moreover, since it is the capital with an international service sector attracting many as the consequence of Amsterdam’s own transformation, i.e. into a creative city, these shortages despite the fact that many houses will be built are extra-large10. Rents in the liberalized sector in 2016 were the highest of the country with €22 m2 a month on average and rising, especially in the private liberalized sector as the outcome of the stock and in central boroughs (Parasius, 2016). Connected, sales prices are sky rocketing. Although prices after the financial crisis dropped in five years with about 20% to an average of €219.000 in the beginning of 2013, a house in 2016 on average costed already again €309.00011
(Daamen, 2016a). The waiting lists for social houses12 are long and growing despite the large amount of socially rented dwellings (about 56%) since most released ones are/have to be sold or liberalized. Above, despite rent subsidies social tenants saw their rents rising much quicker than their salary (RIGO, 2016), while Amsterdammers with contracts and tenant protections stay right put where they are afraid for high rent jumps. In short, the market is locked and exclusive. Moreover, already longer the case forms of (government-led) gentrification are visible within the beltway but this starts to exceed its initial aim, by which it is meant that the undivided and mixed city as an ideal is pressured and that social
9
In Amsterdam in 2016 one out of six purchases was a buy-to-let. It means that the prices per square meter on average now are 90% more expensive than in the rest of the country and are rising half as fast (ING, 2017).
10 The Primos prognosis predicts that there will exist a shortage of 24.000 dwellings in the city in 2025 despite
the construction of tens of thousands. For the Metropolitan Region Amsterdam it predicts a shortage of over 60.000 in the (MRA) (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017).
11 Note that an expensive owner-occupancy is considered to be >€249.000 by Amsterdam. 12
segregation13 is on the rise (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). While related, lastly, next to the lower incomes the mid-incomes are being chased out of Amsterdam (in three years their percentage decreased from 14% to 11%) which exacerbates segregation and threatens the social cohesion and emancipating function of the city (Moorman, 2016).
In summary, there exists problems. The housing market of Amsterdam is becoming more competitive and exclusive and many see their housing expenses rise. In the meantime, the market is polarizing and categorizing since there exist various forms of shortage since mid-incomes compete financially with higher incomes and in terms of space with lower incomes. Fact is that because the liberalized sector is small mid-incomes are pushed out and ironically that because the social sector is large low incomes are pushed out. Or, to put it differently, these groups pressure each other in search for space, and the winners are obvious. These shortages impose distributive political questions which can be addressed from various justifying angles and these angles are the subject of this thesis since the principle cause of injustice according to just city theorists is shortage (Fainstein, 2013). It is interesting to research which including and excluding legitimizations a crumbling (former) just city uses when it deals with an increase in the principle cause of injustice. Or to put it differently, it is interesting to research to what extent Amsterdam tries to be a just unjust city, by which is meant a city which tries within its powers to exclude equally. In short, it is interesting to resreach how Amsterdam adjusts its allocative and (thus) exclusive policies by adjusting the distribution of kinds of houses in both the existing housing stock and in new constructions. In order to be able to help me interpreted such processes my eyes felt on Persad, Wertheimer and Emanuel (2009) their writings about scarce goods distributing multi-principled frameworks. Their thinking about allocation as a perennial challenge resembles well I believe the idea that housing is an endless story (Ekkers & Helderman, 2010). Distinguishing four value categories and eight allocative principles which are all just and defensible but unjust since all downplay relevant considerations (a given which comes to light in times of shortage), what Persad et al. argue basically is that just allocation is based on
13 Hochstenbach recognizes four deepening cleavages: rich vs. poor, young vs. old, (entrance based on) rich
parents vs. poor parents and center vs. periphery (Couzy, 2017) I would argue there are more, namely as well allochtoon vs. autochtoon, Amsterdammer vs. newcomers, western expat vs. non-western guest worker and higher vs. lower education. A comparative study between European capitals on rising segregation on the other hand placed Amsterdam recently in the middle because still due to its social stock. In other words, Amsterdam is no London yet. Nevertheless it did warn for growing inequalities, foremost because of the fact that an larger share of the job market is being occupied by (international) skilled professionals (Musterd & Van Gent, 2016).
the basis of multiple principles since if not exclusion would be one-sided and biased. The perennial challenge in turn, is to constantly adjust the framework, since by definition it is unjust. Or to put it differently in the context of the case, if shortage increases but the multiple principled framework does not, the downplaying and highlighting of certain relevant considerations becomes extra one-sided.
The main question of this thesis, writing from an accepting perspective that Amsterdam is unjust, i.e. in view of the fact that the succes of the ‘unjust’ knowledge city is starting to bite itself in its own tail but without preaching to the choir that Amsterdam is unjust, is: how we can interpret the distributive housing policies of the current council of Amsterdam through the lense of a multi-principled framework appoach?
What follows now first is a review of the just city literature, Amsterdam’s place in it and the critiques on it, second a more in depth description of these distributive principles will be given and third an overview of the case to clarify the current context. After this the major policies of the council will be presented and interpreted with the help of this conceptual framework in turn. Lastly, its understanding will be used to reflect on the just city literature.
6 Literature review
6.1 The just city Amsterdam
Urban justice theorists have been inspired by the achievements of the urban social movements of Amsterdam in the period 1960’s-1980’s. In the 1960’s Amsterdam attracted the attention of Lefebvre. In the late-1970’s Fainstein visited the city for the first time and described it’s urban (renewal) model as an alternative for the highly segregated cities of the United States (Uitermark, 2009: 348-349). Later, in the 1990’s, Soja (1992) praised Amsterdam for fostering a tolerant culture and civic engagement by highlighting its dedication to egalitarian provisions. Fainstein (1999: 259) around the millennium portrayed Amsterdam as “the best available model of a relatively egalitarian, diverse, democratic city, with a strong commitment to environmental preservation”, and some years later even stated that Amsterdam was as a city that approached her ideal of the just city (Fainstein, 2005: 15). Gilderbloom, Hanka and Lasley (2009: 373, 389) less than a decade s wrote that “Amsterdam (…) might be the world’s greatest city” and that it was an “ideal city to gain inspiration from”. Later in 2010, although the city now diverted from her ideal city since “the principle cause of injustice - the absolute shortage of available housing” (Fainstein, 2013) affected “all
population groups, albeit not equally”, Fainstein (2010: 162-164) still presented Amsterdam as an exemplary, inclusive, committed, encouraging and aspiring model. Moreover, such expression of praise are not made by these theorist only. They are “widespread among planners and urban scholars in Europe and beyond” (Novy & Mayer, 2009: 105).
But what is it exactly what made/makes Amsterdam a just city? In the following I conceptualize ‘the city’ first and will discuss the ‘just city’ as it is known in the international literature second. After, third, I will explain Amsterdam’s position in this discourse and will give an overview of some critiques of Dutch authors on this positioning fourt.
6.2 The city as a social concept
The city, according to Park (1967: 3), is “man's most consistent and on the whole his most successful attempt to remake the world he lives in more after his heart's desire”. According to Harvey (2008: 23) man therefore cannot ignore questions such as what kind of urban people we want to be, what kinds of urban social ties we seek and what kinds of urban values we desire. In short, all can conceptualize their city. In fact, the profession of urban planning was born out of visions on the just city (Fanstein, 2009: 19).
Urban theorists their work is to visualize ideological images of a just city and to wonder in turn how a city can work towards it in practice. Planning is both a craft and a socially orientated scientific field-overlapping discipline of normative beliefs and empirical theories. It ranges from geography and applied economics to sociology, touching subjects and themes such as cohesion, segregation, aesthetics, social desirability, construction investments, the functional city, sustainability and planning processes (De Klerk & Kreukels, 2015: 9). In the Netherlands because of its social-corporate polder-model it is especially a respected and institutionalized discipline (Boelhouwer & Priemus, 2010: 528). But the questions then are still how idealized just cities look like and first in fact what a city is. Moreover, if there exist different ideas about cities, the questions are what problems and solutions are, for who, who not and why, because planning is not a-political but rather a influential and tensed activity. To understand why visualizations of a just city are political, the best way is simply to ask yourself what a city is. The word city is one of those words which everyone uses daily but which everyone will have problems with when asked to define it as a concept. It is what Gallie (1956) has called an essentially contested concept, i.e. in efforts to define it inherently always some aspects will be left out or are brought differently than others would do. What a city is, let alone what it should be, is impossible to define unambiguously. In short, all definitions imply a conceptualization of a just city since it will be based on value judgments
depending of angles of incidences stirring the questions asked.
For example, how many people need to live together in a place before we call it a city? How important is density? Should a city have certain physical characteristics? Can we talk about a city if facilities are not concentrated hierarchically? How much development should it facilitate and express and to what extent should it be a destination of (inter)national migrants, i.e. a place of opportunity and emancipation? How anonymous should a city feel? Or to put it differently, how much feelings of community can be sacrificed? Is the city in the first a place a place to live or is economic activity more important? And lastly, from which scale point on can we start to talk about a city if we are concerned with agglomeration-effects such as innovation, increased productivity and efficiency? In short, how much swarming of encountering people should there be, leading to social, economic and/or cultural exchange? Not answering even most of these questions, I define a city as a dynamic place, a human hub, a place of participation which attracts and invites, as a center of encounter and exchange and as a place where ‘it happens’. In other words, I define it as a place where a certain way of living exists, where people can meet, connect, explore and search themselves and where a plurality of ideas fertilize each other. Or to put it differently, as a relatively large so-called socio-spatial dialectic space, i.e. as a place shaped by its inhabitants into space while it in turn shapes the inhabitants through this socially constructed nature and its urban fabric (Knox & Pinch, 2010: 340). However, others might see it completely differently. Moreover, so far I did not yet gave answers to the questions what kinds of exchange cities then should facilitate, for who, how, why and at the expense of what. But others did.
6.3 The urban justice discourse
Planning was born out of conceptualizations of the just city and in theory all kind of conceptualizations of cities can be viewed as just as such. However, planning is known for its long socialistic and progressive history too and many urban justice theorists can flirt with Marxist geography, although justice remains debated of course even if theorists have similar ideological roots. Nevertheless, discussing the work of some of the founding theorist of the ‘just city’ a common thread will be visible and that is that the just city grants the ‘right to the city’, emphasizes equity, diversity and democracy, is a dialectical space, does not alienate, is free of exploitative powers, is not constrained by quantitative scarcity, works towards a demand-sided housing market logic and opposes neoliberal restructuring. In the following I discuss three of them, namely Lefebvre, Harvey and Fainstein.
6.3.1 Lefebvre’s ‘Right to the city’
A first way to look at the ‘just city’ is in terms of access and participation. That is, both in terms of access to the city as a physical place as well as in terms of access to participation in the concept, i.e. to the city seen as socio-dialectical space. This is the domain of Lefebvre (1968), who coined first the popular slogan ‘Right to the city’, which by Harvey (2003: 939) next to a right of access to what already exists is described as the “right to change ourselves by changing the city”. The right to the city in its abstract form it is the right to be part of the city and about a city devoted to the development of people and space instead of their or its destruction and exploitation (Aalbers & Gibb, 2014: 208). It is the right to belong to the city and to coproduce its space(s), or as Mitchell & Villanueva (2010: 667) have formulated it “the right not to be alienated from the spaces of everyday life”. Lefebvre (1996: 158) himself once wrote that it is a “transformed and renewed right to urban life”. In its less philosophical and politically concrete dimension, second, the ‘right to the city’ is like a “cry and demand” (Marcuse, 2012: 37), i.e. those actual claims made to access and to a city understood as it is conceptualized. Put differently, in practice it is about those who need to enter and to benefit from it durably to be able to coproduce it but as well to use it as an uplifting enlightening power, which comes more close to Fielding’s (1992) idea of the city as an ‘escalator’. The right to the city thus is not in the legal sense a positive right (Attoh, 2011: 669). Rather it is a revolutionary idea, a claim to a city conceptualized in a specific manner but timeless as well since it does not imply some idealistic end stage. In fact, although a typical product of the late 1960’s, the past years responses to neoliberal urban reforms by academics, social movements14 and supranational organizations even are framed again in terms of it (Aalbers & Gibb, 2014: 207-208). It is about putting on emphasis on the idea that excluding forces need to challenged constantly and that continuing struggle is needed to maintain local control or to create space which is less or not alienated from the people inhabiting it. Which means, in short, that it is about access under the provision that it leads to co-production. For Lefebvre (1996: 68) for social scientists the task therefore is to unravel how alienating space with a focus solely on exchange value is produced by capitalists and bureaucracies at the expense of the realization of inclusive social use value. In other words, it
14
According to The European Action Coalition for the Right to Housing and the City who organized in 2016 a protest when the housing ministers of all EU-countries met in Amsterdam to work on an EU Urban Agenda the solution of public private partnerships to curb the increasing shortage of houses for example should be seen as a “profit-driven intervention which denies people’s right to the city” and as “false solutions [which] do nothing to curb the wholesale privatization of our cities” (Bond Precaire Woonvormen, 2016).
is about researching democratic appropriation versus expropriation. The moral task is to research how privatization opposes valuable space creation diametrically and to understand how it intrinsically has the ability to exclude ‘that what is public’ (Aalbers & Gibb, 2014: 208-209). In terms of housing in short it is a critique of and ethical claim against commodification and more widely spoken the urban space, stirring the research in turn. In summary, the right to the city is the search for “cities for people, not for profit” (Brenner, Marcuse & Mayer, 2012). It is both a slogan and scientific research field characterized by conceptual flexibility and it has become something like an ‘understanding’ about a wide spectrum of right claims and ideas about the ‘just city’. In fact, it has become so big that it has become a set of sometimes competing claims of all kinds of unequally treated, discontented or deprived people and groups seeking to reframe their urban struggles into an united collective (Attoh, 2011: 675). Nevertheless, at the heart of the work done a common critique is visible always and that is that urban policies are becoming undemocratic and exclusive, prioritizing the needs of business and the rich over the majority (Wastl-Walter & Staeheli, 2005: 2).
6.3.2 Harvey’s radical depiction of urban justice
In reaction to the ‘great mega-project era’, i.e. the time when capital and states undertook massive modernizing investment programs designed to retrofit cities to the technologies and corporate preferences of the mid-20th-century (Altshuler & Luberoff, 2003: 13-21), a need grew to develop more just spatial planning programs and one of the reactionaries was Harvey. Harvey is a radical thinker who seeks ‘salvation’ in systemic change. To Harvey (1973: 98) justice is “a just distribution justly arrived at” only. However, on the other hand het describes an reliance of urbanism on production and capitalistic appropriation of social surpluses as well. In other words, some tension between practice and theory is created and he translates this is a distinction between egalitarian cities characterized by reciprocity, ranked cities characterized by redistribution and stratified cities characterized by market exchange. A just distribution justly arrived at justice can be achieved if the distribution of welfare effects are fair and equal. Capitalism on which urban life relies however according to Harvey (1975: 90-91) to ensure its reproduction demolishes “society as a process”. In other words, it demolishes the strive to create the conditions for human survival and progress, which means that urban life is locked in compulsive structures designed to calm tensions and conflict caused by the system. Therefore, the state is needed. However, the state more often is the accomplice of capital than the redistributor. In short, the tension of the state is that it both
stands for the preservation and the creation of the use-value of property and supports the promotion of exchange-value for private gains (Ibid.: 83-84, 87-88).
In practice, this means that cities have an overviewing eye, protect and create tenant rights, set quality requirements, produce themselves and finance production but that they as well are dependent of capital. In other words, according to Harvey (1975: 11-35) it is inevitable that housing infused with market logic leads to a market characterized by shortages and deteriorating quality since if it wants to function, i.e. accumulate, it will stir towards artificial scarcity always. In short, Harvey (1975: 26, 89) does not believe that an urban population in an adequate manner can be housed in a market and believes that it will lead to overpricing, i.e. the appropriation of surplus for non-egalitarian purposes, and hence to stratification as the necessary outcome. However, without systemic change this is inevitable. In summary, Harvey arguably states that if the housing market is characterized increasingly by quantitative shortages that this means that the market from a more demand-sided logic is transforming into a supply-side oriented market and that during such a process availability instead of quality for consumers becomes the decisive component of the product and that this means that people should receive protection. Vice versa, if the market instead is constrained less by quantitative shortages of houses then it will inevitably move from a supply-sided market towards a demand-side orientation wherein the quality of the product wins in importance at the expense of the mere availability of it and profits15 (EIB, 1986: 7).
15 Consider Amsterdam’s second golden age between 1850-1900 when the population of Amsterdam almost
tripled as the consequence of the attraction of its industrial revolution. At that time banks started to provide revolutionary credit mortgages from the 1870’s to finance construction processes which attracted dishonest contractors and speculators. At the end of the nineteenth century large-scale new neighborhoods were built such as the Dapperbuurt, Pijp and Staatsliedenbuurt. However, many of the houses were small and expensive, build by poorly skilled construction workers, with cheap materials and without a long-term view. Hence, some call it speculative and some revolutionary building. When many collapsed quickly it led to growing political support for stricter building regulations, municipal supervision and the Housing Act of 1901 of the liberals. It became understood that housing was “at the heart of the social question “ and that “not everything should be expected from private parties” (Sleutelaar, 1902: 41). This law commenced the start of public care for housing in the form of building regulations concerning the quality and size and legal demands to plan expansion. This in turn led to plans later such as Plan Zuid of architect Berlage and the garden cities in Noord (Smit, 2012: 83-98). Moreover, the period marked the beginning of the first housing societies. However, in the ten years after the law the ‘bad surpluses’ turned into a situation of scarcity since the imposed demands meant that constructions slowed down due to higher costs while many revolutionary ones were demolished (Bosman, 2004). In short, to create the conditions for progress the state needs to balance between interests of tenants and constructors constantly.
6.3.3 Fainstein’s ‘just city’
Lastly Fainstein, who has written extensively about the question what a just city is. Again, there are two sides to the work. As a concrete political agenda Fainstein’s (2010: 8) her work on the just city should been seen as a value laden reaction to neoliberal restructurings emphasizing competitiveness, reduced government interventions and market processes since “the principle of justice [to her are] not the same as the principle of competitiveness” (Fainstein, 2013). As an abstract search for an ideal city Fainstein’s (2010) her work should be understood is a critical assessment of the writings of philosophers such as Rawls, Gramsci, Nussbaum and Foucault. For Fainstein, three norms form the requisite preconditions for a city to act just in the end. These are: equity (i.e. impartiality and fairness), democracy (i.e. proactive and equal representation) and diversity (i.e. mutual acceptance and recognition). Importantly, these three norms together do not constitute a just city. Rather, they should be used to evaluate public decision making with since justice should be “the first evaluative criterion used in policy making (Fainstein, 2010: 6). Fainstein (2010: 17) her model of justice is a model which accepts the possibility of “non-reformist reforms”, which should be understood as an attempt to distance herself from authors who adopt all-or-nothing system transforming positions. In short, Fainstein (2010: 19) is more practical and believes that “there are many possible capitalisms with many different ways of interjecting non-capitalist principals within social and economic institutions”. According to her, the “most fruitful” approach is the “capabilities approach”, which means that the judgment of planning actions should be “based on whether their gestation was in accord with democratic norms (….), whether their distributional outcomes enhanced the capabilities of the relatively disadvantaged, and whether groups defined relationally achieved recognition from each other” (Ibid.: 55). In summary, she addresses step by step action towards a just city and tests vice versa if actions on the basis of her norms do not stir a city away from its achievements. The three evaluative principles can clash however. For example, an gentrifying renewal project can lead to more diversity in households but as well to displacement. Since such enthusiasm for democracy and diversity has not produced alternatives to inequality under pro-growth regimes legitimized with trickle down geography (Fainstein, 2005) however, when outcomes conflict equity is the norm which according her should prevail (Fainstein, 2010: 82). Equity she defines in turn as the “distribution of both material and nonmaterial benefits derived from public policy that does not favor those who are already better off at the beginning” (Fainstein, 2010: 35-37). In other words, for her it is not a requirement that each person is treated the same but rather that a just city treats each ‘appropriate’. Or as she has
argued herself, equality will “establish a target to be shot down”. In short, since it intervenes in relative deprivation equity is the first norm to evaluate distribution with.
Lastly, unlike scholars such as Smith or Harvey who focus on macro-economic levels of development, Fainstein focusses thus on the social lower-level practices within cities and puts the people so to say back into the discussion about the city. Practically focused as she is, her work should be understood as an effort to counterbalance the worldwide influence of the neoliberalist post-modern views of authors such as Florida and Healey and the consequences of their creative competitive city on people (Lupi, 2013: 69). However, for this attitude she has been criticized too. Harvey and Potter (2009: 46) for example believe that her work will not solve but only soften injustices. Moreover, although he has praised her ideas, Mitchell (2011) finds her concrete analyses as the consequence rather “superficial”, especially if they ought to “bear the normative weight [which she] wants to place on them. Which brings us to the Dutch critiques on the depiction of Amsterdam as a just city.
6.4 Amsterdam place within the urban justice discourse
Many urban theorist working on justice have described Amsterdam with superlatives. The question if Amsterdam is still just or not depends on the aim and on choices about the level of the abstraction stirring the analysis. In other words, to some Amsterdam is not just simply because it inspires still. What follows are some critiques on this depiction. However, first is outlined why Amsterdam remained idealized while the critiques rose.
6.4.1 Amsterdam as an ideal European city
Amsterdam is idealized often for idealizing purposes, i.e. because it is the most just version of the ideal type ‘European city’ to which scholars attach hopes when it comes to countering exclusion and segregation. European cities have a characteristic urban fabric, economic system, specific spatial qualities and are compact. Above, for long they were autonomous and self-governing which gave them distinguishable histories, and it is thought this provides protection against globalizing capitalistic pressures. Moreover, Amsterdam is the chosen city since it is the exponent of Dutch spatial planning, renowned for its long progressive history. Besides, for a while as the consequence of vacancy and democratic protests indeed it had a decommodified housing market. In short, the praise in the first place has the aim to create maximal contrast with the ‘American city’ ideal type and to produce alternative progressive visions for the development of such (‘doughnut’) cities. In the second place the praise indeed should be seen as a compliment, i.e. as an admiration of its resistance of neoliberal pressures
and its “nostalgic activism” against the modernist views on homogenization and segregation (Novy & Mayer, 2009: 104-108).
This said, authors do start to agree that such praise should not blind the roots of the problems since this could muddle the search for the just city. In fact, if one looks at the social housing ideals in today’s European political context and how these are being pressured by restructurings in favor of a competiveness-oriented approach, free market reforms, privatization of (social) housing and individual responsibility opposed to state solutions some even question if the use of the European city type as an ideal alternative still is functional. However, exactly because of its former achievements Amsterdam remains widely seen by urban justice theorists as just16. Or to it differently, not many would argue that “utopian Amsterdam turned dystopian overnight” (Ibid.: 109-111).
In short, although it is known that it no longer is what it once used to be, differences are described more in terms of degree than in kind, which can be illustrated with an example. According to Fainstein (2009: 32-34) Amsterdam in 2009 remained “a rough image of a desirable urban model” which “continue[d] to support a great deal of social and political equality” since just actions “flow from situations where rough social justice already exists” In short, she argued that the “achievement of the just is a circular process, whereby the preexistence of equity begets sentiments in its favor”. Dutch theorists, however, do not agree.
6.5 Dutch critique on the idealization of Amsterdam
The truly just city is a hypothetical strife worthy principle. But what if a city close to the ideal is drifting and stirring away from it? Perhaps not surprisingly it are the Dutch theorists who’s voices are “barely noticed in the scholarly realm” (Novy & Mayer, 2009: 110-112). Instead of praising Amsterdam these have their own agenda and in contrast instead try to emphasize the negative sides and to stir to a more narrow definition of justice. De Beer (2012), who tested Fainstein’s norms, for example has concluded instead that Amsterdam has lost its just city ideals since it foremost wants to become a beautiful attractive city and no longer seeks justice for justice. What follows are some of the earlier critiques and with special attention for Uitermark whom I treat separately since he reflected extensively on the just city Amsterdam.
6.5.1 Oudenampsen’s and BAVO’s critique on urban revanchism and gentrification Oudenampsen criticized Amsterdam’s direction early and in particular its ‘I Amsterdam’
16
campaign17 since it represented a treason of the municipality to some of its inhabitants in the form of a promised better city by metamorphosing it into a knowledge economy. This transformation, which was set into motion by the city in the beginning of the 2000’s on the basis of Florida’s18
(2002) idea of the ‘competitive creative era’, to Oudenampsen (2006: 38) represented a choice for an “extreme makeover” and for a “process of urban ‘rebirth’ through place branding and social cleansing”. In short, colorfully he has described the process which Amsterdam as the consequence of it underwent and is going through still.
To Oudenampsen (Ibid.: 38-39) the metamorphosis entailed that social dwellings were being pushed off in order to be able to create place for “sand blasted facades that distinguish the homes of the new middle class” with the minor side-effect that the “waiting lists for the remaining social housing [were] flooded by former occupants forced out of their homes and neighborhoods by renovation programs”. The “inflated rhetoric” of social mixing and differentiation which legitimized it19 in such he condemned. He deemed it as a “perverse logic” since “the less well-off inhabitants of the ‘backward’ neighborhoods who [were] supposed to be the beneficiaries of the policy, [were] also its main victims”. In other words, in his eyes social spaces were being alienated to make place for newcomers. Moreover, he criticized the “white marketing campaigns” in neighborhoods “where 70 out of every 100
17 I Amsterdam is a motto made up by the city with many meanings. For example, it is supposed to capture
Amsterdam as an innovative, tolerant and liberal city of opportunity. Moreover, it is a commercial marketing slogan supposed to attract businesses, investors and tourists by setting the city apart from other international capitals. Critics from the squatting scene especially have reframed the slogan into ‘I Amsterdamned’.
18 Interesting is that Florida (2017) recently published a new book in which he explains how the reversing of
decades of suburban flight and urban decline with internationalism, increased mobility and (his) ‘winner-takes-all urbanism’ has deepened inequalities, segregation, poverty and fails the middle class these days even..
19 Addressing urban spatial segregation with social mixing finds its origin in the 19th century in Europe when the
more affluent started to become concerned about the situation of the less fortunate living in slum-conditions. Although for selfish reasons too (a hoped for spillover effect was that it would prevent the lower class to organize themselves), it were the days of civilizing offensives, elevation ideals, utopian mindsets and a cooperative idea (Deben, 1989). In the Amsterdam context it were the days of Sarphati and Polak and later of Wibaut, Spakler and De Miranda. The idea of mixing in turn is the prevention of the accumulation of particular traits in an area until a concentration which is deemed problematic (never a concentration of rich). With the inflow of migrants the past decades in The Netherlands many policy makers in the 2000’s saw mixing in the form of a varying housing and tenure mix as an important tool for integration to counter segregation and to reduce the chance of prejudges (Bervoets & Loopmans, 2010). However, besides that gaps exist between the theory and empiric (Musterd & Andersson, 2005), which problematizes the legitimization of the policy, mixing should definitely not be used one-directional for too long since this can cause a suburbanization of poverty.
inhabitants [were] first or second generation immigrants”. In other words, early already he saw that set up cultural festivals can be a tool “to change the image of the area from that of a loose cohabitation of immigrants, unemployed, elderly, and other economic losers to the image of a dynamic and cultural hot spot” (Ibid.: 40) too. In short, Oudenampsen critiqued the municipal-led gentrification of ‘underpriced’ locations around the city center.
Moreover, what Oudenampsen wanted to emphasize was the ideological switch in urban thinking. That is, the switch both from ‘red-brick-socialism’20
and the time of alderman Schaefer21 towards rebranding and running the city as a business. Or to put it differently, that urban renewal entailed targeting lower classes instead of helping them and that Amsterdam tried to keep social problems at bay by moving them simply outwards. I Amsterdam therefore for Oudenampsen (2006: 40-41) was a “Trojan horse to reconquer the poor neighborhoods”, while long during vacancies after renewal were fostered consciously to guarantee a good price for the redevelopments only.
In line with this reasoning BAVO (2007: 215), a group which investigates “the political dimension of art, architecture and planning”, argued that social housing was being dismissed “as an anachronism, an untenable burden, assault even, on the finances of the state”. BAVO (2007: 216) argued as well that the “right of a person to housing regardless of wealth, occupation, standing, conviction or lifestyle” was being reversed into a “return of the repressed” and described the I Amsterdam as a campaign that granted some “more rights to the city than others” and scoffed in such that apparently “some are considered to be more creative than others”. Above, BAVO (2007: 217-218) criticized the legitimization of it by “market adepts”, since these presented the dismantling of social housing “as the ultimate favor done to the people” while it is a “fraud, a convenient lie (…) informed by neoliberal dogma” actually.
Both critiques mirror what is called sometimes ‘urban revanchism’, a concept coined by Smith (1994) who made name with his rent gap theory22 about gentrification. Although an
20 Think of the Amsterdam School and a building such as ‘Het Schip’, which reflects hope and elevation. 21 Schaefer was a born Amsterdammer, a former Secretary of Urban Renewal and a ‘man of the people’. As
Labor alderman in Amsterdam he was responsible for the renewal wave of the late 1970’s and 1980s. His policy ‘Building for the neighborhood’ focused on renewal tailored to the needs of inhabitants. In short, he was not a displacing modernist but rather the one who arranged that households could return to ‘their neighborhood’.
22 This theory attempts to explain why capital is being reinvested into inner-cities, i.e. into the upgrading of low
quality houses to produce a housing stock fitting the needs of the financially stronger suburbanized middle class. According to Smith (1979) investments into the built environment are fixed usually for a period and capital
American concept, urban revanchism23 is the idea that the political shift of the post 1960’s redistributive period towards neoliberalism in the late capitalist city is characterized by a discourse of revenge on and blaming of undeserving working classes and minorities. It points to an exclusionary reinstated societal vision therefore and tries to grasp the attempt of richer to banish those who are not part of the vision to the urban peripheries since they ‘are in the way’ (Slater, n.d.). In short, this mirrors the rhetoric of BAVO about a return of the repressed and Oudenampsen’s Trojan Horse. Moreover, it mirrors the latter’s critique on the reconquering of the (inner-)city of Amsterdam by (white) middle-class suburbanites and creative (international) elites, legitimized by a frame of countering segregation to create the attractive places to live in, to invest in and to visit as tourist24 in this competitive era.
6.5.2 Uitermark’s in memoriam Lastly, Uitermark’s (2009) in memoriam25
for the former just city Amsterdam. In this often cited paper Uitermark explains and celebrates how the just city Amsterdam came to life in the late 1970’s-1980’s but ends by mourning “its death” which he ascribes too to the neoliberal ideologies pervading the policies from the 1990’s. Uitermark criticized that renewal once favored the universalization of housing but was used now “to recommodify the housing stock, to differentiate residents into different consumer categories and to disperse lower income households”. In fact, to him Amsterdam in 2009 was not just but “just a nice city”,
therefore is unable to react to rising land values quickly. Besides, returns often are rent and not profits made on sale. The idea in turn is that disinvestment will occur and that this will cause a situation wherein the capitalized rent becomes lower than under the possible best use conditions (the potential ground rent). Therefore, if the rent gap grows sufficiently large enough to make redevelopment profitable, reinvestment can be expected to occur.
23
It is named after the Revanchists of 19th century Paris, a group of bourgeois reactionaries who fused
militarism and moralism to restore ‘public order’ and who opposed the socialist uprising of the Paris Commune.
24 Intercity competition is not just a competition between cities to attract the most bright minds. I Amsterdam is
focused on attracting tourists too. In fact, the letters throughout the city have become touristic hotspots. Fact is that in 2015 after Florence and Venice Amsterdam welcomed the most visitors per head of the population of all European cities (OIS, 2015: 16). In 2016 17 million tourists spent 138.568.375 nights, which was a staggering 94% increase compared to 2011. Moreover, the safe prognosis is that this amount will grow up to 23 million tourists in 2025. Of these extra 6 million above most will be foreign tourists, i.e. tourists who stay longer than Dutch visitors of which many are day-visitors (Amsterdam Marketing, 2016: 6-10).
25 The in memoriam is the protest slogan ‘housing is not a favor but a right’ turned into a meters long monument
across the subway station Nieuwmarkt, which thousands pass daily without noticing these days, or do, but miss its meaning. Once it represented the institutionalized promise to protect the right to the city to all and the power of residents against imposed governmental plans. However for Uitermark foremost it is an ‘in memoriam’ today.
which he blamed The Hague and global pressures for, to lesser extents the municipality, and as well Amsterdammers because of their lack of resistance26 against it (Ibid.: 348, 357-358). The depiction of Amsterdam as a just city in the international literature in such then was attacked upfront by Uitermark in an attempt to politicize the concept for Dutch purposes. To him the not attentive discourse started to describe too much a nice or good city but not necessarily a just one and he set out the task therefore to differentiate more clearly between the ideal and the practice. Mirroring the work of Harvey and Lefebvre Uitermark argued that cities should remained to be called just only if all forms of exploitation and alienation are absent. Or to put it differently, although other values should be valued and he too still described Amsterdam as a fascinating example, if a city wants to be just, according to him it can never exchange values such as prosperity for less equity or less civic engagement27. In short, researchers should find focus again on the two “essential but perhaps not sufficient” preconditions for urban justice, namely the fair distribution of scarcity and engaged civic control (Uitermark, 2009: 350).
This first precondition means a “commitment to make the city accessible to each and every person irrespective of their purchasing power”. In other words, for Uitermark a just city is not necessarily a pleasant city since “it may be the case that houses are small or ugly”. Justice to him definitely is not the same as quality but rather the commitment to distribute “limited and imperfect housing evenly across the population”. Which means in turn, to make this possible, that cities should “either create an egalitarian income distribution or (….) create institutions that prevent households and investors from translating their economically privileged position into a privileged position in land and housing markets”. Civic control, i.e. mechanisms which engage residents with the ongoing project of making the city, i.e. the socio-dialectical space, is the second precondition. About this he writes since it will be the state enforcing accessibility, which means that there exist the threat that egalitarianism implies the danger of a concentrating power defining what is just, that residents rather than
26 This lack he explains as the outcome of the past, i.e. it are the achievements of the just city ironically which
help to prevent resistance against policies seeking gentrification. For example some former activists have their ducks in a row and own a house and became interest groups in such instead. More important however is that it takes time for a liberalized stock to develop, which means that because of the size of the social sector it needs to slink, which takes times because tenants enjoy protections but also since many do not flow because of high rent jumps, which means that many released dwellings have to be liberalized or sold, which means that the access for lower incomes will decrease at least until the moment that the lower limit for the social stock will be reached.
simply receiving what is being allocated should have the right and capacity to inform and to shape the distribution of universal provisions to their needs (Ibid.: 350-351).
As Uitermark realizes himself too, these preconditions are formulated in an impossible way and logically met nowhere. There doesn’t exists an actual just city and Amsterdam never was. But what is true is that some cities come closer to the ideal than others and that we therefore should be interested in approximations. Or to put it differently, that we should be interested in approximates moving away from the ideal. For Uitermark Amsterdam should not be pragmatically treated as a concrete just example which is to be researched comparatively, but instead as a longitudinal case from an abstract strict idealized perspective . That is, as a polarizing city “degenerated from a city that aspire[d] to be just for all into a city that is nice for many” (Ibid.: 351, 358-359). In short, to him it was incomprehensible that where in an earlier era a waiting list of two years was considered a breach of the right to housing that a city with longer and longer waiting lists was still being called just.
6.6 Towards another perspective on justice
It is understood that the ‘just city’ is about the idea that the market and housing should not go together as an inseparable couplet, that it is about an search for an idealized scenario whence in practice policies can be evaluated and criticized and where planners and policy makers could stir towards, and as a political discourse that it is about combatting the neoliberal agenda dictating that ‘the market’ rather than residents needs to be freed from constraints. However, my aim is not to preach here to the choir. I fully agree with most and slowly more and more Amsterdammers in my surroundings too. It is a fact that housing since these critiques has commodified further under the eyes of minister of Housing Blok and his predecessor Donner, that further liberalizing reforms have been implemented, that (artificial) shortage has increased and has been split and polarized with an income limit and that the demand changed above. Moreover, the successes of this metamorphosis are starting to bite the city in its own tail and in the near future no significant changes have to be expected. In short we can give critique, but as Uitermark tried to persuade we should as well research from an ‘accepting position’ that housing shortages exist and try to understand what these mean within a relatively by degenerating just city. In other words, aim is to focus on the fact that scarcity implies choices which are both just and unjust.
7. Conceptual framework
A conceptual framework is the researchers own position on the problem guiding the study and is an analytical tool which helps to organize and analyze ideas and empirical material and the collection of it. Several types and purposes have been identified. For example, they can be descriptive, a practical idea, used for inductive reasoning or as an exploratory ‘working hypothesis’ based on a model used in a different study translated to the case or some kind combination (Shields & Rangarjan, 2013). The conceptual multi-principle framework presented below mirrors this. It should be understood as the outcome of a belief which grew during the literature and the to follow case description that it ‘work this way’.
7.1 Multi-principled distributive frameworks
According to Persad, Wertheimer and Emanuel (2009), who have written about the justice of allocating medicinal shortages, scarce distribution of medicines is a perennial challenge, which is an idea of which I believe that it comes close to the fact that housing is an endless story of muddling through (Ekkers & Helderman, 2010). Moreover, Persad et al. do not focus on egalitarian justice only, which is appealing and useful. Rather, they distinguish four justness categories, recognize the logic of those according to their own core ethical values, and subdivide these in turn into eight principles, two per value category (see table 1).
Equal treating Prioritarianism Utilitarianism Promoting usefulness
Lottery First-come first-served Most needy first Weakest first Benefiting the greatest Maximizing value Instrumental value Reciprocity Table 1.
Importantly, Persad et al. thus do not argue that one of these categories or principles is better than the other beforehand. Rather, the idea is that all are just and unjust due to shortage since distributive legitimizations would not be necessary in excessive times. In short, logics of justness compete and have too. This competition in turn has several imaginable existences. Imagine: if one value category ‘wins’ of the other three, competition will take place between the two internal principles only and if this too leads to an absolute victory, exclusion of the scarce good by definition will be one-sided (lottery set aside) and justified poorly. However, this is an unlikely outcome since in reality such distribution will not be accepted (endlessly) by the excluded. Rather, mirroring Uitermark, instead of simply receiving what is being allocated expected may be that households will demand a more complex allocative system. In turn, if they succeed, it means that those who were included and as the consequence are
