Speculative development is signi cant as a way of providing new owner occupied housing inEurope. Yet because this sector of supply is developed under very different policy conditions, the relationships between new build output, housing markets and the wider economy can vary considerably. Previous research, which has sought to understand the determinants of speculative housing development, has largely failed to recognize the contribution that can result from a comparative European study. In this paper, the UK is compared with the Netherlands, where speculative housing sectors operate under different land and planning systems. Supply or 'cost' based theoretical frameworks are contrasted with quantity 'signal' approaches in an investigation of the relationship between macroeconomy, existing housing, and new build market. It is shown, via an analysis of the period 1975-1997, that both UK and Dutch speculative housing sectors respond to a signi cant extent to changes in housing market indicators such as the level of turnover and house prices; however, Dutch speculative housing output has been more responsive to changes in the wider economy. This is explained not only in terms of the system of municipal land supply, but also in terms of a tenure neutral new build housing policy. It is argued that although there will be some convergence with respect to the long run land-house price relationship, development industries will continue to operate very differently, particularly in dealing with public sector bodies.

This article investigates the relationship between housing production in the private sector and profitability in three European countries: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany. The relationship between private sector production and profitability is suggested by Ambrose and Barlow (1987)

No abstract

This article examines the relationship between land supply and housing development in Britain and The Netherlands, two countries conventionally perceived to be very different in this respect. The article forwards a dual approach to analysis. The first is focused on fundamental differences. These are elaborated in terms of demographic factors, political process and physical land conditions. The second approach expands on a framework devised by Needham & Lie (1994), which is adapted here for the analysis of land policy over time. The article examines the complex nature of land policy in both countries. It thereby highlights the difficulties in providing a robust analytical framework capable of bridging comparison over time and of concluding on the extent of policy convergence.

No abstract