How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna

Abstract

This article examines the effect of two different social housing systems on housing-market characteristics and affordability using a case study of Berlin and Vienna. Despite comparable framework conditions, both cities pursued very different social housing policies. While both cities are currently challenged by growing populations and rising house prices, we show that Vienna is more successful in providing affordable housing as it has created effective institutions to attract and retain private actors in this sector. In Berlin, in contrast, the current crisis reveals the lack of institutional capacity to actively pursue housing policy. We argue that different housing market outcomes can be attributed to fundamental differences in the organisation of social housing provision reflecting divergent state-market relations. While in Berlin social housing has been seen as a provisional measure to correct temporary market imbalances, Vienna's continuous state participation in the housing market has created a framework of balanced rights and responsibilities for social and private actors to achieve social policy goals. Differences in funding arrangements and institutional embeddedness influence not only housing outcomes but also feedback on the state's capacity to intervene successfully in housing markets.

Variations in housing affordability and health relationships by measurement and sub-population assessment

“…In nations with dual housing systems, access to social housing is limited to the poorest, leading to both resentment and negligible impact on overall housing affordability (Norris & Byrne, 2018; Van Duijne & Ronald, 2018). The cost advantage for providing demand-side subsidies to keep rents stable has waned in many cases, with a limited number of people receiving the support (Marquardt & Glaser, 2020; Apgar Jr., 2004). Restricted access and the limited subsidies on social housing protect the private industry from government competition (Norris & Byrne, 2018; Van Duijne & Ronald, 2018).…”

“…In Ireland, social housing consists of 8.9% of total housing compared to 22% in Austria (Norris & Byrne, 2018). While Ireland restricted availability to low-income households, Austria allowed people of all income levels to utilize it (Marquardt & Glaser, 2020; Norris & Byrne, 2018; Van Duijne & Ronald, 2018). Furthermore, the private and public, non-profit rental sectors compete directly against each other, resulting in more stability (Amann, 2005; Norris & Byrne, 2018; Van Duijne & Ronald, 2018).…”

“…In addition to stabilizing the market, unitary housing systems promote lower costs (Marquardt & Glaser, 2020; Mundt & Amann, 2009; Van Duijne & Ronald, 2018). In the UK, tenants spend greater than 30% of their income on rent (Rottier, 2018).…”

“…Unitary housing systems have been effective at creating affordable housing (Deutsch, 2009), such as in the city of Vienna, Austria (Marquardt & Glaser, 2020). The government of Vienna has spent decades purchasing land and constructing housing projects in order to bestow residents with affordable, public alternatives to the private market (Marquardt & Glaser, 2020). Over forty percent of households in Vienna live in social housing (Marquardt & Glaser, 2020).…”

“…The government of Vienna has spent decades purchasing land and constructing housing projects in order to bestow residents with affordable, public alternatives to the private market (Marquardt & Glaser, 2020). Over forty percent of households in Vienna live in social housing (Marquardt & Glaser, 2020). In contrast, less than one percent of US households live in public housing (HUD, 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, 2021).…”