"First of all, it is important to bear in mind that there is no single definition of ‘social housing’ across Europe. There is a wide diversity in terms of what is understood by social housing in each country, as well as in terms of the mechanisms and actors for its delivery. Having said that, there are a number of convergence trends. Overall, we see a shift from government control towards the reinforcements of market principles in housing provision, and greater decentralisation of provision, i.e. an emphasis on local delivery. In the field of social housing, the trend is towards privatisation of providers, a shift from supply-side to demand-side subsidies, changes in the type of demand for social housing, modernisation of the social housing actors, for example through diversification of activities they perform." 

In November last year the European Social Housing Observatory published the Housing Europe 2007 Report. What are the main differences between EU countries in the field of housing? 

"If there is one thing that characterises social housing in Europe it is diversity. This stretches from the type of providers to the institutional frameworks and mechanisms of allocation. This diversity stems mainly from different welfare traditions in different parts of Europe, which in turn have to do with different cultures and economic and political conditions. But basically, one key difference is between two different approaches in terms of criteria of allocation. As it is explained in the report Housing Europe 2007, some countries have very broad criteria for allocating social housing (e.g. the so-called ‘universalist’ approach, characteristic of Scandinavian countries, where everyone is entitled to social housing) to very targeted approaches, which focus on allocating housing to the most in need. Of course there are countries which stand in between these two extremes, and that reflects the different social protection and housing systems in every country. However, it is interesting to see how these approaches are changing due to recent political and economic reforms."

"The demand for social housing is dramatically changing. Due to demographic and social change in Europe, the ‘typical’ tenant is not the traditional family anymore, but increasingly one-person households, notably composed of retired or elderly people, lone parents and other categories of vulnerable people. This clearly reflects general social and population trends in Europe, notably the ageing society and the process of individualisation. Due to decreasing fertility, lifestyle choices and higher divorce rates, amongst others, there is a trend towards a decreasing household size which in turn results in an increase in the number of households. Hence, this is impacting the demand for housing in general, and for social housing in particular. There is the need to provide more dwellings and smaller ones. In addition, there are other types of non-traditional households, as well as extended family households particularly amongst ethnic minorities and immigrants." 

"Demand is changing. Overall, due to the smaller household size, the number of households is increasing. This is also reflected in the demand for social housing. Furthermore, if we understand social housing –as CECODHAS does- as the provision of housing for households for whom the market is not meeting their needs, we can definitively say that demand is increasing: I would like to highlight some categories, such as young households who are unable to afford their own home (neither for ownership nor for rent); key workers who are priced out from urban areas where their jobs are and have to commute long hours to work; more and more one-person households, for whom housing is relatively more expensive as they depend on only one income to find accommodation; very vulnerable households who are on waiting lists all over Europe (e.g. lone parents, unemployed or long-term incapacitated people, etc.). Supply of such housing is clearly not meeting demand across Europe."

What are the main policy developments in the field of social housing? Does policy follow the main demographic trends and demand?

"To qualify policy developments in social housing we need to look at the wider framework of housing policies. Firstly, I would like to highlight the increasing emphasis on policies encouraging higher levels of home-ownership, which we can see across Europe (e.g. UK & France). While it is a valid aspiration for every household to aim at owning their home, excessively high rates of this type of tenure are impacting very strongly on the availability and characteristics of other tenures. Firstly, a much reduced rental sector (both social and private) hinders geographical and employment mobility – which also clearly goes against key objectives of economic development supported not just by national states but by the European Union itself. Secondly, evidence shows that very high figures of mortgage borrowing are putting many households at risk, especially for those particularly vulnerable (e.g. the unemployed, single parents and young people) and are hence likely to fall behind payments and to even lose their property in the event of a crisis, as it was recently demonstrated by sub prime mortgage crisis in the US. However, evidence from our report show that many governments –particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe, where home-ownership levels are extremely high, i.e. above 80%) are concerned about the lack of rental supply to allow for mobility and for access to first homes for young people. As a response, many governments are putting in place policies aimed at increasing the supply of rental housing and fostering the creation of intermediate actors (providers) to deal with this shortage."

"There are a number of challenges for social housing provision in cities. I would like to highlight one that is most crucial in my view, namely the fight against segregation and the enhancement of labour and social integration opportunities for social housing tenants. Almost every European city faces big shortages of affordable housing, especially the most prosperous urban centres. Provision of this type of housing needs to be improved. At the same time, in order to fight the formation of ghettos, there is much debate about the relative merits of social mix policies. While this is clearly an important objective, one should bear in mind that in some cases there are well-established communities or enclaves of specific ethnic or social groups which actually do work well as they are. On the other hand, however, evidence shows that excessive concentrations of social housing tenants who are deprived and/or unemployed does not help the process of social integration. Overall, I would say there is a need to evaluate this on a case-by-case basis, and to think of social housing provision as embedded in wider urban contexts and infrastructure, with good access to transport links, services, facilities, and crucially, to jobs."

"Much in connection with my previous answer, I would advise local policy makers to address the issue of segregation and social mix on a case by case basis, using a context-sensitive approach. Action in this field should be guided by objectives and general principles, but not by pre-established one-size-fits all measures. In addition, I would bring their attention to the huge potential for improving the efficiency and the quality of policy outcomes in local areas by working in partnership with social housing providers. In many countries, social housing organisations are very resourceful and have developed an expertise and knowledge about the local communities, which are worthwhile drawing upon to successfully tackle social problems in their local areas."