The importance of location and housing type in the privatization of rental housing: European experience and Swedish expectations

Teeland, Lawrence; Siksiö, Ola

doi:10.1007/bf02496526

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In most countries location has not been considered when valuing dwellings before sale. Yet what makes a dwelling attractive is also determined by its location and its physical form (Teeland and Siksio 1994). If location is more accessible, with better facilities, services and better socioeconomic structure of population, the demand for tenure change would be higher, which is re ected in price differentiation in the urban housing market.…”

Section: Downloaded By [Universite De Paris 1] At 02:05 27 October 2012mentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban Housing Markets in Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence, Divergence or Policy 'Collapse'

Pichler-Milanovich¹

2001

European Journal of Housing Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The focus of this paper is on the effects of housing privatization reforms in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1990s in the context of policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. The paper analyses the similarities and differences between Central and Eastern European countries in the process of housing privatization as a consequence of the specific historical 'pathdependency' process, economic and institutional development, cultural and political choice. Housing privatization is an urban phenomenon and the effects of housing reforms are mostly visible in large (capital) Central and Eastern European cities. Housing privatization reforms attempt to promote market efficiency and distributional equity objectives in the operation of (urban) housing markets. These effects are mostly visible in the form of: tenure change, differentiation in house prices, use of the housing stock, management and maintenance activities, mobility, residential differentiation, property rights regulations (i.e. zoning, rules, property register, condominium law, tax, etc.) and institution building and strengthening. It is argued that housing privatization reforms in Central and Eastern Europe did not achieve the stated objectives. The only objective that has been fulfilled is the control over budget expenditure for macroeconomic reasons, and rise in home ownership. The overall performance does not support 'convergence' towards establishment of efficient and equitable markets, but rather a 'policy collapse' with significant effects on polarization between and within urban housing markets in Central and Eastern Europe.Housing transition, Urban Housing Markets, Central And Eastern Europe, Convergence-DIVERGENCE,

show abstract

Section: Downloaded By [Universite De Paris 1] At 02:05 27 October 2012mentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban Housing Markets in Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence, Divergence or Policy 'Collapse'

Pichler-Milanovich¹

2001

European Journal of Housing Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the last two years, the company has been involved in negotiat_ions involving the sale of 29 pieces of real estate which include a total of 2319 apartments. Only six properties have actually been sold together comprising 278 apartments (Teeland and Siksi6, 1993). The number of households who have actually agreed to buy their apartments, however, is probably much lower than 278.…”

Section: Privatisation Of Rental Housing the Swedish Waymentioning

confidence: 99%