REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN HOUSING POLICY IN LATVIA LIGA

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 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 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 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 (1 LVL~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 LVL – Rent buildings in Riga 27 000 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 0000 LVL ~ 29 000 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 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