REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN HOUSING
POLICY IN LATVIA
LIGA RASNACA
UL Faculty of Social sciences, liga.rasnaca@lu.lv
Content
•
•
•
•
Conceptual framework of Housing policy
Development of HP in Latvia
Latvia housing statistics in EU
Regional statistics of HP in Latvia
Housing policy
1. Housing is a permanent structure for human
habitation
2. Housing policy=guideline provided by government
which is aimed at meeting housing need and
demand of the people through a set of appropriate
strategies including fiscal, legal and regulatory
frameworks (Agbola, 1998)
3. Housing policy typology: G.Esping-Andersen, R.
Donnison, R.Titmus (residual or embryonic)
4. Housing policy in Latvia has been implemented via
central and local government
Economic and
finance policy
Urban
policy
Housing
policy
Public
policy
Social
policy
Housing
Shelter
Home
Housing functions
Implementation of
• Economic
• Social
• Family
• Personal needs
Most EU housing policy focus on three broad areas
(European Parliament, 1996)
• Accesibility
• Affordability
• Quality
Implementation of housing policy in Latvia
• Housing policy in Latvia has been implemented via central and
local government
• During the last 21 year since the re-gaining of independence
and six years after the accession to the European Union (EU),
the housing policy in Latvia has remarkably changed due to
various reforms:
– the processes of privatization, denationalization;
– the socio-economic changes
- building boom,
- mobility of population,
- socio-economic crisis..
• These processes have affected the implementation of housing
policy in regions in various ways
Development of privately owned dwellings in CEE
countries following the privatisation process*
Country
% dwellings
privately owned
(before
privatisation)
% dwellings
privately owned
(end of reference
period)
Reference period
Bulgaria
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Poland
Romania
92.0
43.1
84.4
50
44
90.8
98.0
83
97.7
89
58.9
97.5
1993-2001
1993-2002
1993-2002
1991-2004
1988-2006
1993-2004
*Housing Europe Review 2012, CECODHAS,Brussels, 2011.
Share of housing costs in disposable income in
the CEE and EU average*(2009)
Country
Share of income (%)
Bulgaria
19.7
Latvia
18
Lithuania
15.9
Slovakia
22
Poland
21.1
Romania
25.3
EU 27
22.9
*Housing Europe Review 2012, CECODHAS,Brussels, 2011.
Overcrowding rate
Average in EU 17.8%
Highest
• Latvia 57.7%
• Romania 55.3%
Lowest
• Cyprus 1%
• Netherlands 1.7%
Dwellings with bath/shower, hot running water and central
heating (as % of dwelling stock)
Highest
• Finland (99-97-93)
• France (98-98-93)
Lowest
• Latvia (60-61-61)
• Romania (58-57- 52)
Housing deprivation (EC Europe 2020, Eurostat, EUSILC 2010)
• An average 6% of EU population suffered from
severe housing deprivation
• Northern countries: less than 2% (Finland, Norvey,
Sweden, Denmark)
• CEE: less affected Slovakia 4.2%
• Most affected countries
– Latvia 22.7%
– Romania 28.6%
EU-SILC (Statistics on Income and Living Conditions, 2009
Share of social housing in
housing stock (EU)(%)
Highest
• Netherlands 32
• Austria 23
• Denmark 19
• Czech Republic 17
Lowest
• Latvia 0.4
• Greece 0
• Estonia 1
• Cyprus 0
Housing policy in Latvia: declared priorities
• The aim of housing policy is:
– to promote quality and availability of housing,
– providing normative base for effective administration of dwelling
houses,
– to facilitate organization of rent sector in territories of local
municipalities,
– supporting energy-saving measures in residential houses.
The accountable for housing policy is Ministry of Economics,
Department of Construction and Housing policy
The central focus from Ministry of Economics is paid to issues
of administration, environment, security and health of
individual and preservation of dwelling quality. (Low On
Dwelling administration, 2009)
During crisis (till 01, 06, 2011) central government support
housing allowances (20%)
Households that money could not afford to cover
the cost of housing (2011, EU-SILC)
• 24.0 % of all household
• 43.6 % from those in poverty risk
Households in regions that money could not afford to
cover the cost of housing (2011, EU-SILC)
Riga
Riga
district
Vidzeme
Kurzeme Zemgale
Latgale
Can not 25.3
pay for
facilities,
for credit
26.6
18.0
25.4
24.9
20.2
21.7
19.5
37.8
23.4
26.3
24.1
Can not
pay for
heating
Financial priorities
C=central government, L= local government
• Heat insulation for apartment buildings
– 44 337 186 LVL (1LVL~0,7 EURO)
• Heat insulation for social buildings 6 922 499
LVL
• Public shelters
• Municipality buildings construction (till 2013)
– Social buildings in Riga 18 000 000 LVL
– Rent buildings in Riga 27 000 000 LVL
Social housing in cities and counties L
Regional units
Number of social
apartment
buildings
Number of social Number of
flats outside social persons in social
buildings
housing
Riga
13
1140
14 152
Other cities
15
1129
284
Counties
19
1137
1537
Cities without
social housing
buildings/flats
2
1
Counties without
social housing
buildings/flats
70
47
37 without any
social housing
Total
121
3406
15 973
Debts for public facilities (L)
~ 24 000 0000 LVL
~ 29 000 000 households
The problem: if some have not paid for the
service, the operator may refuse to receive all
home residents
Housing allowances 2011 ©
(Review of housing assistance in municipalities 2011, Ministry of Economics)
Regional unit Number of
allowances
Money
Money per
one
household
(LVL)
Riga
45 316
1 585 960
215
Other cities
38 158
3 125 863
81.5
Counties
57 240
3 122 447
54.5
Total
130 604
7 834 270
52.3
Conclusions
• The main priority of Latvia central government is
support for energy-saving measures
• Social housing policy in Latvia is responsibility of
local governments
• Local governments have uneven possibilities to
implement housing policy
• Administrative arrangements do not encourage
restriction of social inequality in regional units
• Housing policy in Latvia could be characterized as
residual (embryonic)
Izmantotā literatūra
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
A Housing Policy Paper, World Bank, 1975.
Andrews D., et.al. Housing Markets and structural policies in OECD countries. Pieejams:
http:// www.oecd.org/workingpapers
Housing Europe Review 2012, CECODHAS, Brussels, 2011.
Housing policy in the EU Member States. Pieejams:
http://www.euparl.europa.eu/workingpapers/soci
European Network of Housing Research (ENHR) Pieejams: http://www.enhr.net
Housing policy in OECD countries. Pieejams: http:// www.oecd.org/eco/structural/hous
Mājokļu politika Latvijā. Informācija VRAPLM mājas lapā. Pieejams:
http://www.vramplm.gov.lv.
Mājokļu politika Latvijā. Informācija EM mājas lapā. Pieejams: http:www.em.gov.lv
Mājokļu politika un tās instrumenti. Rīga, LHZB 2006.
Pickwance C. Housing and Housing Policy. In: Social Policy (Baldock, J. et.al.), Oxford,
OUP,2007, pp.508-541.
Renaud B., International Financial institutions and housing policy transfers. ENHP, Delft
university, 2010. Pieejams: http://otb.tudelft.nl/
The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Develpment, WB, 2008.
The Cities Alliances. Pieejams: http://www.citiesalliance.org/ca/sitemap)
Tsenkova S., Turner B., The future of social housing in Eastern Europe: Reforms in Latvia
and Ukraine. Adequate & Affordable housing for all. Toronto, 2004.
UN-Habitat . Pieejams: http://www.unhabitat.org
Urbanization. WB Sector Working Paper, WB, 1972.
Yeates N., (ed.) Understanding Global Social Policy, Bristol: The Policy Press, 2008.
Thank you for attention!
Contacts:
Līga Rasnača, liga.rasnaca@llu.lv,
+371 2599188