Overview of the Study
This academic paper, published in Housing Studies in November 2005, is authored by Jim Kemeny (Institute for Housing & Urban Research, Uppsala University, Sweden), Jan Kersloot (OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands) and Philippe Thalmann (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland). It investigates how non‑profit housing providers influence, lead or dominate rental markets in three European unitary rental systems – Switzerland, Sweden and the Netherlands – and assesses progress towards integrated rental markets.
Defining Unitary versus Integrated Markets
The authors refine the distinction between “unitary” rental markets (no regulatory barriers to competition between profit and non‑profit landlords) and “integrated” markets (where non‑profit providers have sufficient market share, solidity and coverage to compete on price and quality without special regulation). They introduce the concept of “solidity” – the proportion of reserves to total housing‑association value – as a key indicator of sector maturity. 🇨🇭 Switzerland: Weak Influence In Switzerland, non‑profit housing accounts for roughly 14 % of the rental stock (13.8 % in 2000, down from 16.5 % in 1950). The sector is fragmented: co‑operatives (7.9 %), public landlords (3.4 %) and foundations (2.5 %). Historic rent‑control measures and limited state aid have kept non‑profit rents 10‑30 % below profit‑sector levels, but the small market share limits overall impact. Recent policy cuts have further reduced public housing aid, suggesting little growth in non‑profit supply. 🇸🇪 Sweden: Leading Role Swedish non‑profit housing makes up about 22 % of total housing stock and over half of the rental market. Most non‑profit units are owned by local authorities, with very limited private co‑operatives. The sector benefits from uniform rent regulation, identical tax treatment for profit and non‑profit landlords, and a nationwide housing‑allowance system. Solidity rose from 5‑8 % (1990‑1994) to around 15 % in larger cities by the mid‑1990s, reflecting maturing balance sheets. However, political actions such as the “Right to Buy” programme (1998‑2002) reduced non‑profit share in Stockholm from about 20 % to 5 %, showing vulnerability to local policy shifts. 🇳🇱 Netherlands: Dominating Share In the Netherlands, non‑profit housing associations dominate the rental market, controlling roughly 75 % of the stock (35 % of total housing in 2003). The average solidity was 16.9 % at the end of 1995, indicating a relatively strong financial base. Although regulatory barriers are low, non‑profit providers are still required to prioritise low‑income households, giving profit landlords an advantage in higher‑income segments. Recent policy encouraging sales of non‑profit stock to tenants has begun to shrink the sector from 41 % of housing in 1975 to 35 % in 2003, suggesting a gradual decline despite its dominant position.
Progress Towards Integrated Markets
All three countries exhibit unitary characteristics—few formal barriers to competition—but differ in how close they are to integration. The Netherlands is the most advanced, with high market share and solidity, yet faces a long‑term reduction in stock due to sales incentives. Sweden shows moderate progress; solid financial positions and substantial market coverage enable competition, though local political changes can reverse gains. Switzerland lags behind, with limited non‑profit presence and low solidity, restricting its ability to influence rent levels or market dynamics.
Key Findings for Sustainable Housing
- Non‑profit housing provides cheaper rent options, contributing to affordability and social sustainability.
- Higher solidity correlates with greater capacity to invest in energy‑efficient upgrades and maintain long‑term housing quality.
- Policy stability is crucial: incentives that sell non‑profit stock can undermine sector maturity and reduce the sustainable housing supply.
- Integrated markets, where non‑profit providers compete on equal terms, can dampen rent inflation and promote equitable access to sustainable rental housing across Europe.
Implications for Pan‑European Audiences
For stakeholders interested in sustainable housing, the study highlights the importance of fostering financially robust, well‑distributed non‑profit housing sectors. Encouraging integrated rental markets can enhance affordability, support long‑term investment in energy‑efficient building stock and reduce reliance on profit‑driven rent escalation, aligning with broader European sustainability objectives.