The face of affordable housing in a neoliberal paradigm

Abstract

This article makes borrowed use of the ‘paradigm shift’ concept to explain the development and culmination of Israel’s neoliberal housing transformation. Using a mixed-method approach based chiefly on 60 interviews conducted with key players in Israel’s housing industry, we examine how a shift in authority over housing policy promoted two central ideas that reshaped the housing arena and urban space. We explore how these themes, specifically, construing housing in-affordability as a supply issue and defining its beneficiaries as the middle class, shaped key affordable housing mechanisms. These mechanisms include increasing the supply of general housing, small-size housing units and rentals. We also identify a parallel paradigm – a shadow paradigm – alongside the reigning neoliberal paradigm that is used as an intervention mechanism in times of crisis or during windows of opportunity. We demonstrate how the shadow paradigm addresses housing needs that cannot be met within the governing paradigm, for example, through the buyer’s price programme.

A win-win situation? Urban regeneration and the paradox of homeowner displacement

“…In general, private market renters are not eligible for compensation or relocation options. This reflects the unregulated nature of the Israeli rental market, in which most renters renegotiate their lease terms annually (Friedman and Rosen, 2020). Thus, while all owners, either occupying or holding their units for rent, received an equal share in the Regeneration Deal, the renters, who comprised half of the original community, were eventually displaced (see also Kainer Persov and Carmon, 2020).…”

“…These blocks are demolished and replaced with modern condominium towers to provide additional housing and attract new populations into regenerated areas (Kainer Persov and Carmon, 2020;Margalit and Mualam, 2020; see Figure 1). In line with broader neoliberalization trends in Israeli policy (Alfasi and Ganan, 2015;Charney, 2017;Eshel and Hananel, 2018;Friedman and Rosen, 2020), the program employs a market mechanism in which the government provides incentives and relies on the private sector for implementation.…”

The Mental Vulnerability of Affordable Housing Residents Based on Structural Equation Model: A Case Study of Fanghe Garden in Guangzhou

“…Western scholars have started their research on affordable housing earlier, mainly from the perspectives of relevant policies and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) models ( Alteneiji et al, 2020 ; Damoah et al, 2020 ). Some scholars have also used poor areas as examples to explore the financing model of affordable housing and the impact of residential segregation, reflecting the concern of humanism and economic management on the management of affordable housing ( Friedman and Rosen, 2020 ; Jones and Stead, 2020 ). Research on affordable housing in China began in the 1990s, but early research results were scarce; from 2007 to 2009, affordable housing management was listed as one of the important responsibilities of the government.…”

Affordable housing policies in a post-COVID aftermath

“…In the past decade, access to affordable housing has been subject of intense debate in New Zealand. Although there is no consensus on the cause(s) of housing unaffordability (Fingleton et al , 2019), policies to counteract it usually include (a combination of) housing subsidies, mobility programs, court-mandated set asides, inclusionary zoning (IZ), land releases or rezoning of commercial/industrial areas towards residential purposes (Johnson, 2007; Friedman and Rosen, 2019).…”