Explaining the unique Dutch housing 'solution'
Julie Lawson
Introduction
This short paper covers three themes. Firstly, a selection of intellectual movements and outlined. They offer provocative conceptual stimuli, for explaining the Dutch 'solution'. The second theme concerns progress and directions and Dutch housing studies. It is clear that a distinctly different path has been taken. Again, the intellectual movements are summarised, and a number of examples provided. A number of reasons for the divergence between international and Dutch housing studies are offered in the final section.
International developments in explanatory housing studies
In a short article, we cannot do justice to the many different intellectual traditions and developments in explanatory housing studies, informed by a variety disciplines in social science. The following paragraphs merely provide a taste of what's on offer, from the smorgasbord of ideas, concepts and theories in social science. Towards the end of our selection, the implications of these schools of thought for Dutch housing studies are put forward.
The influence of agents upon housing provision
Over the past three decades, a particular school has emerged, promoting the use of corporate and managerial theories to explain the allocation of power across complex relationships between state and other interests (labour unions, big business, the church), in a range of policy areas including housing provision (Saunders, 1983). Local government officers, urban planners, housing managers, and real estate agents have been scrutinised for their ability to influence the distribution of resources across society (Pahl, 1975, Simmie, 1981).
The influence of tenure in social structures
Not only have researchers examined particular agents in the housing process, but they have also debated the importance of housing tenure, perceived as the bundle of rights and responsibilities, determining one's class position in social structures (Rex and Moore, 1967, Saunders, 1982, Winter, 1994). Marxists, of course, argue that housing outcomes are merely the perpetuation of inequalities grounded in labour relations (Forrest, 1983). Further, tenure rights and responsibilities are differently defined across countries, with owners and renters holding a variety of positions and powers (Barlow and Duncan, 1988, Marcuse, 1994).
Housing and the role of the state
Broadly conceived as the political organisation of society (government, military, judiciary, church, media etc.), the role of the state has been debated for over century of sociological and political thought. Within housing studies, there has been a tendency to perceive the state normatively, as a benevolent (or meddling) agent independent of the relations of capitalism. However, alternative perspectives offer more complex explanations, emphasising the embeddedness of the state within a dynamic of social relations (Marcuse, Kemeny, Lunqvist, Ball, Harloe, Saunders).
Housing and the political-economy of the state, capital and civil society
Continuing this theme, political economists have tended to focus upon the circuits of savings and investment in the provision of housing, distribution of capital accumulation and exchange, and the exploitation of land rent and labour relations. Housing, per se, is perceived as embedded in these economic relations of provision, and indeed in the wider process of urbanisation and social development (Berry, 1983, 1994, 2000, Ball, 1983,1986, 1998)
The contested relationship between social structure and individual agency
Giddens' extensive work on the theory of 'structuration' (1976,1982, 1984) demands a reassessment of both structural and behavioural approaches. Structure is defined as the rules and resources, which influence relations in society, whilst agency is the power to act outside these constraints. Each defines the other, with neither structure nor agency having law like dominance. Following this approach, housing researchers try to appreciate the everyday frames of meaning experienced the object of study over time and space, rather than impose universal laws of explanation (sf. Jyrkämä, 2000, and Winter, 1994).
Risk and explanation of housing choices
Across many different fields of social science, from accounting and finance to sociology and geography, the concept of risk has stimulated new ways of explanatory thinking. In housing studies, this process has only just begun. Perry 6 (1998) uses concept of risk to analyse developments in British housing policy. Allen (2000) provides a critical perspective of the consequences of Beck, Giddens and Lash's (1994) 'risk society' for Council tents, whilst Lawson (2001) uses risk as a window to analyse key housing relationships.
The importance of space in explaining difference
Explanation for different housing 'solutions' demands recognition of the importance of space. The radical geography movement tries to reveal the generative mechanisms leading to spatial differentiation and change (Gregory and Urry, 1985). Rather than focus upon national models of housing provision, researchers seek explanations for local differences, in the mediation of global, national and local influences (Elander, 1991, Dickens, Duncan, Goodwin, Gray, 1985, Sayer, 1985, 1991, Winter and Bryson, 1999, Terhorst and Van de Ven, 1997).
Differences in modes of social regulation and capital accumulation over time and space
Continuing the 'uneven geography' theme, French regulation theory concerns the different types of mediation, which can occur between modes of capital accumulation and the regulation of society, which make their mark over time and space (Painter and Goodwin, 1995, Goodwin, 2000). Regulation theorists tend to examine forms of housing provision as embedded in the space-time logic of the urban development process (Goodwin, 2000, Berry, 2000, Florida and Feldman 1988).
Welfare theory and housing provision
Developments in welfare theories force housing researchers to consider the role housing policy plays in the reproduction of labour power. A good example is the work of Castles (1997, 1997a) who considers the role home ownership plays in providing horizontal, life cycle social security, and influencing national systems of welfare. Closely related is the many-faceted cross-national debate concerning the convergence of welfare systems, including forms of housing provision. As countries progress through similar phases of economic development certain forms of housing provision tend to dominate.
Gender relations and housing explanation
The dynamic of gender relations between men and women, the state and economy, partly defines and is defined by the organisation of paid work and the separation of home from the workplace. Thus, analysing gender relations can enlighten our understanding of homes in their physical and social environments. Key proponents include Watson, Hayden, Allport, and Fincher.
Critique of dominant sociological approaches and housing studies
Finally, the post modernist critique challenges dominant assumptions in social science by arguing that there is no one world or singular truth, but rather multiple realities and meanings. Proponents deconstruct multiple and shifting symbols and meanings in social life, including housing phenomena. Relevant examples include Soja (1989), Watson and Gibson (1995), Miachael and Pile (1993).
Implications of international developments in social science for Dutch housing studies
So what do all these ideas, concepts and theories imply when trying to explain the Dutch housing solution and the Housing Act? In short, they commonly demand that:
- Critical attention be given to the dynamic social structures underlying Dutch housing provision, with specific attention to the role of the state, economy and civil society (how have these relations been defined across the Netherlands over time?);
- Careful consideration be given to the basic unit of analysis (household, tenure, class gender, faction of capital etc.) within Dutch housing provision and recognition that these units are not static entities, but change over time and space;
- The research strategy be sensitive to the influence of agency and contingency, which mediate the outcomes of housing provision;
- Consideration be given to shifting perceptions of risk and trust over time and space, influencing interactions, decision-making and institution building within different realms of Dutch housing provision.
Clearly expressed and justified, a theoretical perspective can avoid wading aimlessly through empirical detail and provides an explicit strategic, explicit entry to the field of housing studies.
Progress in explanations of the Dutch housing 'solution'
This section considers the contribution of three decades of Dutch housing studies, which have emerged in parallel with the different currents in social science outlined above. It should be noted that there is not one, but many different pathways in the Dutch housing explanation, although several hold the spotlight.
Housing explanation as the normative critique of policy manoeuvres
It is widely recognized that a strong tradition of empiricism and muted positivism dominates Dutch housing studies. Empirical research places great emphasis upon careful, objective observation of housing events. Event selection is not explicitly guided by concepts or theories drawn from social science, but from the observable shifts and manoeuvres in politics and policymaking. Priemus follows this long tradition, charting the policy contours of housing history (many of which he has played an influential role), with commentary and policy recommendations. Van der Schaar, also a significant player in policy research and development, provides a detailed body of historical work for analysis.
Predictive models of housing consumption
Another important tradition has been market analysis and prognosis. Towards this end, the disciplines of demography and welfare economics have played an important role, predicting and forecasting trends in housing consumption. This mode of research is fully institutionalised in the policy process and plays an integral role in a housing system where government wishes maintain stable levels of housing production through various subsidy schemes, thus minimizing market risks and housing shortages. Dieleman, Clark, Van Fulpen provide many good examples of the predictive modelling approach.
Housing as a history of ideas and organisations
Thematic exploratory studies attempt to analyse particular housing influences, contributing towards the Dutch housing system. Examples include Grinburg (1977) who emphasises the various concepts, traditions and ideologies affecting architectural practice, in relation to shifts in administrative and economic power and reformist ideas. Steiber (1999) offers a similar perspective, with an emphasis upon the Amsterdam school of architecture and urban design, stressing the importance of various supervisory committees, which governed the built environment during the early 20th century.
Organisational histories also provide a relevant body of empirical research. A good example is the work of De Ruijter (1987), on the Dutch Institute for Planning and Housing (NIROV), which also examines related developments in housing and planning between 1850 and 1940. Other official administrative histories typically review government indicators, programs and legislation, emphasizing individual civil servants and politicians (for examples, see Kooiman, 1943, CDWV, 1952, Van der Schaar et al,1994).
Contrastive explanatory studies
The comparative approach to housing research has become more prominent in recent years, fostered by the establishment of various international agencies and research networks (European Commission, ENHR, CECODHAS). These include both theoretically structured comparative studies primarily undertaken by non-Dutch housing researchers (Harloe, 1995, Lunqvist, 1991, Barlow and Duncan, 1994, Kemeny, 1995) and more descriptive, explorative studies focusing on various policy trends (Boelhouwer and van der Heijden,1992, Heijden and Haffner, 2000, Boelhouwer, 2000, Papa, 1992, Priemus and Smith, 1996),
Consumption oriented explanations – civilization and pacification
Moving from descriptive, explorative and contrastive historical studies, we now move to those offering theories of explanation. First, studies focusing upon the consumption dimensions of housing provision. Following the ideas of sociologist Norbert Elias, Deben's historical study (1982) of housing consumption of the period 1850 focuses on the control aspects of Dutch housing provision, particularly to civilize, discipline and supervise the working class according to the standards of housing reformers, landlords and management professionals. De Regt (1984), also applies Elias' theory, examining the system of early working class housing provision, with specific attention to its role in reinforcing certain gender relations.
State orientated studies – pillarization and the Christian democratic welfare state
Although outside of mainstream housing studies, a number of political scientists have conceptualised the state in a variety of explicit ways, which have important implications. Stuurman (1983) builds critically upon Lijphart's (1968) theory of pillarization and it's influence on the development of the Dutch welfare state from 1750-1920. From a substantial body of concrete research and abstraction, Kersbergen argues that Dutch Christian democracy has led to the development of a passive welfare state, lacking explicit commitment to collective services and full employment, which tends to characterize more social democratic welfare states (1992:193).
Institutions and the rules of the game
Salet (1999) applies an institutional approach to examine regime shifts in Dutch housing policy since the 1980s. He highlights the private nature of Dutch housing associations, which nevertheless, function in a highly regulated environment. This relationship has sheltered associations from both the demands of consumers and competition from alternative providers. Salet's attributes recent policy shifts, to changes in the various institutions, norms and rules governing housing policy, resulting in a move away from direct intervention towards a new balance in public-private relations that places more emphasis on self regulation and entrepreneurship.
Explaining differences in forms of housing provision at the local level
Moving from 'meta' theories examining the Dutch nation state, the following studies demonstrate that small-scale research can provide theoretically rigorous explanations.
Jurriens (1981) examines the role housing has played in producing a system of social control amongst mine workers in the Southern province of Limburg. Local catholic housing association prevented the development of large concentrations of workers and the formation of an organised proletariat, isolating workers into small colonies and retaining the familiar village form. Terhorst and Van de Ven (1997) develop an explanation for divergence in the urban 'trajectories' of Amsterdam and Brussels. Abstracting from extensive concrete research, they argue that this can be plausibly explained by the cumulative effect of different packages of rules governing the exploitation of property rights.
Why are Dutch housing studies so different
As outlined above, the dominant field of housing studies in the Netherlands differs markedly from its Anglo-European counterpart. At international conferences, Dutch research stands out for its practical, policy focus, and constrained theoretical contribution. Why is this so? The following points provide a partial explanation.
- Housing is widely perceived as a 'technical' rather than 'scientific' field of study. It emerged from engineering and architecture as self constrained field, to professionalize the large housing association sector.
- Housing research has taken a more pragmatic course, responding to the housing shortage and later, the demands of urban renewal. Independent form European intellectual movements, Dutch housing studies have given prominence to the functional concerns of the state and become firmly embedded in policy studies.
- Thus, analysis tends to focus upon various government subsidies and other forms of intervention, which maintain stable rates of supply and minimise risks for the private housing market.
- This power-sharing model of corporatist governance, between academia, housing associations and the central state has facilitated a more constructive, consensual dialogue in the policymaking process.
- Nevertheless, specific explanatory concepts have emerged from Dutch social science, such as pillarization and the civilizing process, yet these have not found pride of place in mainstream housing studies.
There is however, new work on the horizon, with the imminent completion of PhD research by Helderman (forthcoming, 2001) and Brandsen (forthcoming, 2001) and the continuing research of Lawson (2001), all working towards explanations of the uniquely Dutch housing 'solution'.
Conclusion
Have we reached a stage of knowing why Dutch housing history unfolded as it did? It has been argued above that empiricism and positivism currently dominate Dutch housing studies. However, a substantial body of empirical work does exist and careful abstraction could promote the development of more comprehensive theories of explanation. Stronger engagement with developments in social science can only improve this process.
However, there is still much explanatory progress to be made. It is hoped, in this centenary year of the Dutch Housing Act, there will be room for more critical, explanatory reflection.
|
