Advertisement

The Policy Environment of Private Renting After 1990

  • József Hegedüs
  • Vera Horváth
  • Nóra Tosics
Chapter

Abstract

The private rental sector in many transition countries has been growing dynamically since 2000. However, this dynamic growth often remains invisible to official statistical surveys, including national censuses and Eurostat data gathering. With some important exceptions, private renting in the majority of Central and Eastern European countries is plagued by informality, and consequently many landlords conceal their rented dwellings not only from tax authorities but also from surveyors. The chapter sets out to analyse the factors reinforcing this informality, with particular attention to the legal environments and perverse financial incentives that perpetuate this informality, takes a look at market practices through the behaviour of actors on both the demand and the supply side, and discusses potential remedies for this pervasive informality.

References

  1. Baar, K. (1993). Residential landlord tenant law for privately-owned flats. (Manuscript) The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Balchin, P. (1996). Introduction to housing in transition. In P. Balchin (Ed.), Housing policy in Europe (pp. 231–243). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CECODHAS. (2012, January). Housing affordability in the EU. Current situation and recent trends. CECODHAS European Housing Observatory.Google Scholar
  4. Clapham, D., & Kintrea, K. (1996). Analyzing housing privatization. In D. Clapham, J. Hegedüs, K. Kintrea, & I. Tosics with H. Kay (Eds.), Housing privatization in Eastern Europe (pp. 1–14). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  5. Diaz, A., & Luengo-Prado, M. J. (2008). On the user cost and home-ownership. Review of Economic Dynamics, 11(3), 584–613.Google Scholar
  6. Dinse, J. R. (2016). TENLAW: Tenancy law and housing policy in multi-level Europe. Deliverable No. 4.2: Consortium Comparison. http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
  7. Drofenik, M. (2015). Intra-team comparison report for Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia. TENLAW: Tenancy Law and Housing Policy in Multi-level Europe. Deliverable number 4.1. http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
  8. Elsinga, M. (1996). Relative cost of owner-occupation and renting: A study of six Dutch neighborhoods. Netherland Journal of housing and built Environment, 11(2), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Green, R. K., & Malpezzi, S. (1999). A primer on U.S. housing markets and housing policy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  10. Haffner, M., & Heylen, K. (2011). User costs and housing expenses. Towards a more comprehensive approach to affordability. Housing Studies, 26(4), 593–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haffner, M., Hoekstra, J., Oxley, M., & Van Der Heijden, H. (2010). Universalistic, particularistic and middle way approaches to comparing the private rental sector. International Journal of Housing Policy, 10(4), 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hegedüs, J., & Horváth, V. (2015). Intra-team comparison report for Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania. TENLAW: Tenancy law and housing policy in multi-level Europe. Deliverable number 4.1. http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
  13. Hegedüs, J., & Tosics, I. (1996). Disintegration of East-European housing modell. In D. Clapham, J. Hegedüs, K. Kintrea, & I. Tosics (Eds.), Housing privatization in Eastern Europe (pp. 15–40). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  14. Hegedüs, J., Lux, M., & Teller, N. (2013). Social housing in transition countries. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Hegedüs, J., Lux, M., Sunega, P., & Teller, N. (2014). Social housing in post-socialist countries. In K. Scanlon, C. Whitehead, & M. Fernandez (Eds.), Social housing in Europe (pp. 239–253). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Howenstine, E. J. (1981). Private rental housing abroad: Dwindling supply stirs concern. Monthly Labor Review, 104(9), 38–42.Google Scholar
  17. Hulse, K. et al. (2011). Secure occupancy in rental housing: Conceptual foundations and comparative perspectives. AHURI Final Report No.170. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  18. Hussar, A. (2015). Intra-team comparison report for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. TENLAW: Tenancy law and housing policy in multi-level Europe. Deliverable number 4.1. http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
  19. Jakopič, A., & Žnidarec, M. (2014). National report for CROATIA. TENLAW: Tenancy law and housing policy in multi-level Europe. http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
  20. Kemeny, J. (1995). From public housing to the social market: Rental policy strategies in comparative perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lowe, S. (2003). The private rented sector—Evidence from Budapest and Sofia. In S. Lowe & S. Tsenkova (Eds.), Housing change in East and Central Europe: Integration or fragmentation? (pp. 63–72). London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  22. Malpass, P. (2014). Histories of social housing: A comparative approach. In K. Scanlon, C. Whitehead, M. F. Arrigoitia (Eds.), Social housing in Europe. RICS Research (pp. 259–274), London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Panek, G. (2014). National report for Poland. TENLAW: Tenancy law and housing policy in multi-level Europe. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
  24. Panek, G. (2015). Intra-team comparison report for Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia. TENLAW: Tenancy law and housing policy in multi-level Europe. Deliverable number 4.1. http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
  25. Petrović, T. (2014). National report for SLOVENIA. TENLAW: Tenancy law and housing policy in multi-level Europe. http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
  26. Podrazil, P., Jadamus, R., & Pet, P. (2014). National report for the Czech Republic. TENLAW: Tenancy law and housing policy in multi-level Europe. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
  27. Scanlon, K., Whitehead, Ch. M. E, & Arrigoitia, M. F. (Eds.). (2014). Social housing in Europe. Real Estate Issue. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Schmid, C. (2008). General report. Tenancy Law and procedure in the EU (FP7). Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Stephens, M. (2005). A critical analysis of housing finance reform in a ‘super’ home-ownership state: The case of Armenia. Urban Studies, 42(10), 1795–1815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Szolgayová, E. (2003). The prospects for social housing in Slovakia. In S. Lowe & S. Tsenkova (Eds.), Housing change in East and Central Europe: Integration or fragmentation? (pp. 95–104). London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. TENLAW National Reports. (2014). TENLAW project website. http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
  32. Whitehead, C. M. E., Monk, S., Scanlon, K., Markkanen, S., & Tang, C. (2012). The private rental sector in the new century: A comparative approach. Cambridge: Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • József Hegedüs
    • 1
  • Vera Horváth
    • 1
  • Nóra Tosics
    • 1
  1. 1.Metropolitan Research InstituteBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations