Advertisement

Poor and Vulnerable Households in Private Renting

  • Martin Lux
  • Nóra Teller
  • Petr Sunega
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter demonstrates that market (private) tenants differ from the rest of the population in almost all former post-socialist EU member states by their lower age and higher odds of being unemployed. However, in most countries in the sample, the majority of most poor and vulnerable households tend to be homeowners or public tenants rather than tenants in private rental housing. When dwellings are offered by the private sector as rentable housing for the poor, they are often of substandard quality and located in segregated areas. Informality, very low tenure security, short-term tenure, spatial segregation, and sometimes overpricing are significant barriers to the wider use of the private rental sector to house vulnerable households in post-socialist countries.

References

  1. Amnesty International. (2015, May 18). Hungary: Supreme Court finds forced evictions in Miskolc to be unlawful. Public Statement AI Index: EUR 27/1672/2015. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/EUR2716722015ENGLISH.pdf.
  2. Dübel, H.-J., Brzeski, J., Hamilton, E. (2006). Rental choice and housing policy realignment in transition: Post-privatization challenges in the Europe and Central Asia Region. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3884. World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Enyedi, G. (Ed.). (1998). Social change and urban restructuring in Central Europe. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  4. Gorczynska, M. (2014). Unique or universal? Mechanism and processes of social change in post-socialist Warsaw. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 63(3), 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hegedüs, J., & Teller, N. (2006). Managing risks in the new housing regimes of the transition countries—The case of Hungary. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hegedüs, J., & Teller, N. (2007). Escape into home ownership. In M. Elsinga, P. De Decker, N. Teller, & J. Toussaint (Eds.), Home ownership beyond asset security. Perceptions of housing related security and insecurity in eight European countries (pp. 133–172). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hegedüs, J., Horvath, V., & Tosics, N. (2014). Economic and legal conflicts between landlords and tenants in the Hungarian private rental sector. International Journal of Housing Policy, 14, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kovács, K. (2015). Pécs-Somogy Bányatelep és a keleti városrész rehabilitációja. Presentation given at the World Bank Handbook Launch in April, 2015 at the EC Premises in Budapest.Google Scholar
  9. Kovacs, Z. (2014). New post-socialist urban landscapes: The emergence of gated communities in East Central Europe. Cities, 36, 179–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ladányi, J., & Szelényi, I. (1999). Szuburbanizáció és gettósodás [Suburbanisation and Ghettoisation]. In F. Glatz (Ed.), A cigányok Magyarországon (pp. 185–206). Budapest: MTA.Google Scholar
  11. Lengyel, G. (2009). Szilánkos mennyország. Beszélő, 14(7).Google Scholar
  12. Lowe, S., & Tsenkova, S. (Eds.). (2003). Housing change in East and Central Europe. Integration or fragmentation? London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  13. Lux, M. (Ed.). (2003). Housing policy—An end or a new beginning. Budapest: LGI/OSI.Google Scholar
  14. Lux, M., & Puzanov, A. (2013). Rent regulation and housing allowances. In J. Hegedüs, M. Lux, & N. Teller (Eds.), Social housing in transition countries (pp. 65–80). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Lux, M., & Sunega, P. (2014). Public housing in the post-socialist states of Central and Eastern Europe: Decline and an open future. Housing Studies, 29(4), 501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marcińczak, S. (2012). The evolution of spatial patterns of residential segregation in Central European Cities. Cities, 29, 300–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marcińczak, S., Gentile, M., Chelcea, L., & Rufat, S. (2014). Urban geographies of hesitant transition: Tracing socio-economic segregation in post-Ceauşescu Bucharest. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(4), 1399–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mikeszová, M., & Lux, M. (2013). Faktory úspěšné reintegrace bezdomovců a nástroje bytové politiky pro řešení bezdomovství v ČR (Factors of successful reintegration of homeless people and housing policy measures to tackle homelessness in the CR). Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 49(1), 29–52.Google Scholar
  19. Pichler-Milanovic, N. (2001). Urban housing markets in Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence, divergence or policy “collapse”? European Journal of Housing Policy, 1, 145–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sýkora, L. (2009). New socio-spatial formations. Places of residential segregation and separation in Czechia. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 100(4), 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Teller, N. (2009). Vulnerable groups and the effects of selected local government service delivery policies in three Hungarian Cities. In K. Pallai (Ed.), Who decides? Development, planning, services, and vulnerable groups (pp. 181–246). Budapest: OSI/LGI.Google Scholar
  22. Tsenkova, S. (2009). Housing policy reforms in post socialist Europe. Lost in transition. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. UNDP. (2012). The situation of Roma in 11 EU member states. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/153872420/The-situation-of-Roma-in-11-EU-Member-States.
  24. Vobecká, J., Kostelecký, T., & Lux, M. (2014). Rental housing for young households in the Czech Republic: Perceptions, priorities, and possible solutions. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 50(3), 365–390.Google Scholar
  25. Weclawowicz, G. (1998). Social polarization in post-socialist cities: Budapest, Prague and Warszaw. In G. Enyedi (Ed.), Social change and urban restructuring in Central Europe (pp. 55–66). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  26. World Bank. (2015). The handbook for improving the living conditions of Roma. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/426791468030548664/pdf/923950WP0P14390C00Handbook0complete.pdf.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Lux
    • 1
  • Nóra Teller
    • 2
  • Petr Sunega
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Metropolitan Research InstituteBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations