佛兰德社会住房的未来外文翻译.doc

本科毕业设计（论文）外 文 翻 译原文：The future of Flemish social housing1 .AbstractBelgian social housing has a history of more than 100 years.Since 1980 housing policy belongs to the responsibilities of the regions.In this article，we look at social housing in Flanders，the largest of the three Belgian regions.Compared to many European countries，the share of social housing in the housing stock(5.6%) in Flanders is limited.Social housing is supplied mainly by private organizations，which work within a rather tight regulatory system.Investments are largely subsidised by the Flemish government.The social housing supply is mainly targeted towards lower income households，which pay income-dependent rents.This article starts with a description of different definitions and models of social housing and the way the Flemish social housing sector is characterized until now Next a brief historical overview of social housing policy in Belgium and Flanders is given，the current debate on social housing in Flanders is briefly described and recent figures on the profile of Flemish social housing are presented.In a next section the Flemish social rented sector is positioned in the international context.The article ends with a discussion of policy options.This contribution is largely based on a research carried out for the Flemish government first half of 2005.The reason behind the study was the intention of the Minister of Housing to reform the regulatory framework of Flemish social housing.The researchers were asked to advise the Minister concerning demarcation of the target group，the allocation system，rent setting and the degree of local autonomy regarding rent setting and allocation.Complete results of the study are available in Winters et al.(2007).2.Models of social housingThe termsocial housingcovers a wide range of initiatives within Europe，aimed at good quality，affordable housing.Much has been written in the literature about the need and definition of social housing.Maclennan and More (1997) claim that social housing is needed when the socially desired needs for housing exceed the effectively desired demand for housing.In general，it is agreed that this means affordable housing for vulnerable groups.A further search of the literature produces various definitions of social housing (see，for example，Oxley 2000).What is noticeable is that views are far from unanimous.Thus，for example，social housing can refer to both renting and purchasing. The unchangeable reality of the city-state are nevertheless its land limitations of only 700 square kilometres, as a result of which the public housings high-density and high-rise form is likely to be retained. Yet, this form is sustainable given its inherent popularity and established familiarity.The owner of those homes can be a public or private owner and can be looking to make a profit in his business management，or not.Moreover，the affordability of housing can be arranged by supply subsidies as well as demand subsidies.In the remainder of this article we hold the following definition:all rental dwellings allocated by need and not by market mechanisms.Social housing has different shapes in different countries；social housing as a universalistic and a safety net model are distinguished for example.Within the universalistic model a difference can be made between social housing as for employees and housing for all (Czischke 2005；Whitehead 2007).Ghekiere (2007) provides a typology for social housing in Europe.He distinguishes three concept.The first is the residual concept striving to cope with a clearly outlined social demand that is restricted to the most disadvantaged persons who are generally excluded from a housing market characterized by a strong predominance of home owner occupation and a non regulated private rental market.The second is the generalist concept. Globalisation has further affected the sentiments of governments towards the global market and induced them to modernise their institutional arrangements in order to be able to compete in the global economic environment. This implies targeting a social demand but to a larger extent of public intervention，this concept has an impact on the housing supply namely in terms of price and quality.The last concept is the universal one.This concept is intended to guarantee the housing supply for the entire population with both a complementary offer to what the market provides and the regulation of the entire housing market.3.The Flemish Social Rented Sector In an International PerspectiveHow does the Flemish social rental sector compare to social renting in other countries?This section describes Flanders in an international perspective by comparing it with five other countries；some of them with small social rental sectors (Ireland，Spain and Germany)，others with larger sector (UK and Netherlands) (see Winters et al.2007).The aim is to describe different features of the social rental sector in these countries，searching for the differences and signs of dual and unitary models.In the Netherlands and the UK，the social rented sector occupies a larger market share，i.e.35% and 20% of the housing stock，as shown in Table 1.In both countries，we see a trend towards a decline in social rented dwellings owned by the government.In the Netherlands，the municipal housing companies have virtually disappeared and，in the UK，the number of RSLs (registered social landlords) is gradually increasing.These currently manage 6% of the UK housing stock.One difference between the UK and the Netherlands is that the social rented sector fulfils a safety net function in the former case and，in the latter，it is accessible to many target groups.In Spain，Germany and Ireland，as in Flanders，the social rented sector is modest inscope，varying between 3% and 9%.However，major differences exist between the social rented sectors in these countries.In Germany and Spain，a dynamic social rented sector exists，which is managed by private landlords.Dwellings are built with a subsidy and kept affordable for a certain period and they are also the subject of dwelling allocation rules.At the end of this period，these dwellings are free.In Ireland，the social rented sector fulfils the function of a social safety net and the sector is owned by local authorities.The social rented sector in the Netherlands has an unclear character； on the one hand a maximum income criterion applies，on the other hand priority rules apply to weak groups.4.Housing policyThe formation of housing policy，from the discussion documents of the National Housing Forum of 1992 through to recent Bills，shows a rapid and consistent shift from a holistic approach to the many needs of the previously marginalised of the country to a more rigid and bureaucratic set of frameworks.The RDP suggests an integrated vision for the upliftment of people，whereas the Housing White Paper of 1994 which，while it includes reference to these many factors (eg financial，environmental，servicing，job creation，education and other facilities),essentially focuses on the single measurable objective of providing one million houses in five years.Questionable in this objective is the measure ofhouse，given the proviso that housing delivery must be incremental，and that:Only a limited State subsidy contribution towards the cost of a house is possible (Department of Housing 1994:20).It is debatable whether the shift in policy from the RDP to the Housing White Paper reflects differences in policy between the overall direction taken by government and by the Department of Housing，or whether the logistics of meeting the RDP ideals were subsequently reviewed in the light of fiscal restraint.Whichever interpretation is accurate，the consequences must be seen as an unrealisable raising of expectations，for both beneficiaries and the employment sectors.5MarketMarket is regarded as the oldest co-ordination mechanism.It creates competition among producers to use the resources in the most efficient way in order to produce the cheapest goods of the same standards.It is also argued that the market mechanism can achieve equity among different buyers and sellers.“The market is an impersonal force like Nature，akin to an economic game with winners and losers，whose outcome can be good or bad，but never just or unjust” (Barr，1987，p.46).In Veljanovskis words，the justice of the market should refer to the equality of opportunity and not of outcomes.“In the market everyone is offered the same opportunities to achieve his or her objectives，but it does not mean that everyone should be guaranteed a success in achieving his or her goals” (Veljanovski，1987).It is believed that the most important advantages of the market mechanism lie in the virtues of competition and an idealised pattern of exchange and incentives (Peters，1996).The economic difficulties in the 1970s and 1980s forced people to rethink the relationship between state and market.It accelerated a radical move away from interventionist marketism to tackle the problems，which were believed to be caused by over-intervention of the state.Markets again came to be seen as the most efficient means of organising modern societies.State intervention was thought to do more harm than good (Boyer，1996).This led to a surge of reforms all over the world in both developed and developing countries，market and planned economies.Globalisation has further affected the sentiments of governments towards the global market and induced them to modernise their institutional arrangements in order to be able to compete in the global economic environment.These combined factors have led to the similarity in trends in housing governance around the world in the 1990s and onwards.6.DiscussionFlemish social housing today cannot be simply pigeon-holed into one of the models.The result presented here provide most support for classification of Ghekiere (2007):the Flemish social rental sector is still a general model but current developments can be seen as a shift towards the residual model. Work units buy housing on the market at market values and then sell it to their employees at discount prices. This generates great incentives for employees to buy commercial housing from their work units. Work units pay the price gap between market value and discount prices. This price gap also represents an additional gain for employees at the expense of the work units. The involvement of work units as mediators also drives developers to build high-standard housing. The priority ruling for weak tenants point in this direction，the central supervision of allocation and the priority given to home ownership are signs for such a model.On the other hand，there are clear signs of what could be called a unitary or a general model.The survey results show that the social rental sector is of relatively good quality and appreciated by the tenants，even better then the private rental sector.Finally，the Flemish social sector is not a safety net targeting primarily the most vulnerable people.7.EpilogIt would appear from the above research，that the areas in need of themost immediate attention are for a more integrated approach to the dual imperatives of shelter provision，and sustainable job creation and empowerment in the building industry.This needs to be reflected in both the shaping and implementation of policy at all levels of government，and through a feedback system which acknowledges the experience and perceptions of other key role-players.The support of the commitment of such private sector organisations in fulfilling the broader objectives of the reconstruction programme should see greater nurturing by policy makers if their invaluable contribution is to be continued.Likewise，greater exchange of experience and techniques between private sector role-players，policy makers，academics and beneficiaries should be encouraged through the facilitation of publication and discussion fora.These should be given the support and publicity that gives high profile accessibility to the various areas of debate if the problems are not to stagnate，as has characterised these fields over the last 25 years and more.Source:SIEN and WINTERS ,OPEN ACCESS:The future of Flemish social housing(2008) 23:215230译文：佛兰德社会住房的未来1.简介比利时的社会保障住房建设已经超过一百年的历史，它引领了80年代以来的房屋政策改革。在这篇文章中，我们将领略作为比利时三个人口最多的城市之一的佛兰德，所带给我们的社会保障性住房的未来。相对于许多欧洲国家，社会保障性住房的存量在佛兰德是有限的（5.6）。社会住房供给主要由私人在相当严格的监管制度组织。投资方主要是佛兰德政府。社会住房供应对象主要是低收入家庭，和生活在低价廉租房的居民。本文首先描述了不同定义下社会保障住房模式，以及比利时和佛兰德社会住房政策的历史回顾，给出当前在佛兰德社会住房现状的简要说明。文章结尾的进行了政策选择的讨论。文章研究的背景原因是该地区的房屋部长的意图改革佛拉德社会住房的监管架构，研究人员要求划分，确定分配制度，以及有关廉租房租金的确认。完成的研究结果由温特斯等人提供。2.社会住房模型 社会福利性住房一词涵盖了在欧洲范围内普遍的住房保障举措，目的是提供良好品质，负担得起的住房。也就是很多人在文献中提到的经济适用房。麦克伦南多（1997）声称，社会住房是必要的，特别是房屋的需求超过了社会需要的有效需求预期。一般来说，社会住房意味着是弱势群体可以负担得起的住房。对文献进一步查找时（见各种定义，例如，奥克斯利2000年），尤为引人注目的是，许多人的观点出奇的一致。例如，可以参照社会住房租赁和购买两种。这些业主房子可以是公共或私人业主，如果寻求的是房屋的投资管理，这样是错误的做法。此外，居民的住房支付能力，政府可以安排提供购房补贴。在本文的其余部分我们认为以下定义：所有出租住房的分配和需要不能由市场机制进行分配）。 社会住房在不同国家有不同的类型，作为一个普遍性的社会住房和安全网模型都是杰出的例子。但在普遍性模型上也是有差别的，歌特2007年在欧洲为社会提供了一个住房类型。他区分了三种概念。首先是争取剩余的供给以应付社会的需求，他清楚地说明这是仅限于最弱势的群体之间。其二，以社会需求为目标，并在一个更大的公共干预的程度上把握房屋的价格和质量。这个概念的目的是保证提供既具有互补性，为整个住房市场供应完善的保障体系，并对整个房地产进行市场调控。3.佛拉德社会廉租房的国际视野如何比较佛拉德社会出租业比较其他国家的社会租房？本节描述在国际视野比较5个孩子佛兰德斯其他国家，其中一些小型社会（爱尔兰，西班牙和德国租赁业，多），较大的部门（英国和荷兰）（见温特斯等人。2007年）等。这样做的目的是描述在这些国家的社会租房部门不同的特点，为搜索差异和双和单一模式的迹象提供解读。在荷兰和英国，社会出租行业中占有较大的市场份额，即35和20的住房是社会出租房。在这两个国家，我们看到了的趋势，在社会出租住房由政府拥有的下降。在荷兰，市政住房公司已经基本上消失了，并在英国，数的的RSL（注册社会地主）正在逐步增加。目前这些管理英国房屋6的股份。英国和荷兰房屋租用之间的一个区别是，前者是社会部门在履行安全网功能，后者社会部门是沟通众多目标群体的桥梁。在西班牙，德国和爱尔兰，在佛兰德，社会出租行业是温和范围，不同的3和9。不过，主要的社会之间存在分歧租用这些国家的部门。在德国和西班牙，一个充满活力的社会出租业存在，这是由私人业主管理。住房是建立并保持与补贴一段时间，他们也负担得起的住房的分配规则的主体。在这一时期结束时，这些住宅都是免费的。在爱尔兰，满足了社会出租业社会安全网和国有部门的职能是由地方当局。社会租用荷兰部门不明确性；一方面最大收入标准适用，另一方面优先权规则适用于弱势群体。4.房屋政策解读从1992年“国家房屋论坛”的讨论文件到最近的法案，房屋政策的形成过程显示出：针对之前处在次要地位的国家房屋的全面解决方案和僵化的、官僚的现行框架模式，政策都作出了快速持续的改善。“重建与发展项目（RDP）”提出要为了振奋人心的综合构想。然而，1994年“房屋白皮书”发布，其中包括很多因素（比如财政、环境、服务、工作创造、教育和其他设备），主要是注重在五年之内提供一百万套住房这个单一的可预期目标。然而，在这个目标中还是存在一些疑问，就是在住房交付必须要得到增加的情况下和在所谓的“只有有限的国家津贴可以解决房屋的价格问题”这两个限制性条件下，对“房屋”的衡量。可争辩的东西还是存在的，不管是“重建与发展项目（RDP）”或“房屋白皮书”在政策方面的变动反应出的政府和房屋署的政策，还是在“重建与发展项（RDP）”完成的目标数据被随后的财政制约所审核。无论哪个解释比较准确，对于受益人和工作部门来说，结果必须被看成是期望的不可实现的提升。5市场市场被认为是最古老的协调机制。它创造生产者之间的竞争使用资源，以最为有效的方式以生产最便宜的货物。另外，市场机制可以实现股权在不同的买主和卖主之间转化。“市场是一个客观的力量，类似于一个经济游戏不再分优等生和劣等生，其成果可是好是坏，但请不要或不公正”(巴尔，1987，p46例)。在维尔伽科斯的话，司法的市场须参阅机会均等。“在转会市场上，每个人都提供了同样的机会，以取得他或她的目标，但这并不意味着每个人都应保证成功实现他或她的目标”(维尔伽科斯，1987)。据说最重要的优点在于市场机制的竞争的优点，正如模式的交流和刺激(彼得斯，1996)。经济困境的在70和80年代使得人们重新考虑国家和市场之间的关系。经过加速了一个激进的干预市场来解决问题，这被认为是由于过度干预的国家。市场从来就被看作是现代社会组织最有效的方法。国家干预被认为是弊多于利(博耶，1996)。这导致了一阵改革，世界各地发生了国家、市场和计划经济的清除。全球化进一步影响政府对市场的投放，使他们将现代化进程的制度安排为了能够适应全球竞争的经济环境。这些组合因素导致了在世界各地的住房治理发生了类似的趋势，并在上世纪90年代和以后为主。6.讨论弗拉得社会住房今天不能简单地对号入座。这样的举措在不同地方应采取不同的方法。弗拉德社会廉租房仍然是一个典型的模型，但目前的事态发展可以作为一个模式转变作为参考和例子。在这点上可见弱势群体的分配上，中央采取了优先供给的模式。另一方面，有什么可称为明显标志并且是单一且通用模型？调查结果表明，社会廉租房有相对良好的质量，在居民中也有很好的口碑。最后，弗拉得社会保障部门是不是一个安全网，主要是看其针对最脆弱的人采取的是什么样的社会保障措施。7.结语从上述研究可以看到“最直接需求领域”是针对住所供