Hollanda’da Konut Politikaları ve İpotekli Kredi Sistemi

Netherlands is traditionally a renter society. Due to the urgent housing need which arose after the Second World War, social housing policy was developed and implemented. This policy of huge governmental intervention in providing housing has been implemented extensively until the 1990s. Yet, after that, state began to decentralize several responsibilities to local authorities and to promote home ownership rather than renting. Although it has a well-developed and diversified mortgage system, still the country has one of the largest social stocks among Western Countries (45 % in 2002). In the Netherlands, housing has traditionally been considered as a ‘need’, supply of which must be undertaken by the state rather than an issue which could be solved within the market mechanism. The history of social housing policies in the Netherlands can be traced back to late 1800s. Yet, the primary steps could have begun in 1901 with the enactment of Housing Act. Quality was not a primary concern for the state at the time, since the urgent need was for a shelter (Aedes, 2003). To cope with this severe shortage, huge amount of subsidies were required which made government intervention inevitable. This was, fortunately, parallel with welfare state’s expansion in the post war period (Boelhouwer, 2002). Several measures were developed such as rent control, housing allowances and the building up of social rental sector in which Netherlands then became one of the preceeders compared to other West European countries (Dieleman and van Kempen, 1994). Liberalization movements during 1980s could influence Dutch housing policies only after the 1990s. Unlike other Western countries, total expenditure of government in housing kept increasing in the period 1970- 1990 (Boelhouwer and Van der Heijden, 1992). With the introduction of ‘Housing in the Nineties’ in 1989, the role of central governments was lessened via decentralization of several responsibilities to municipalities and housing associations (Dieleman and van Kempen, 1994). The ongoingconcept of merit good understanding for housing, lost its validity (Boelhouwer, 2002). It was no more necessary for the central government to play its primary role in the housing market (Vrom, 1997). Housing has become a problem of ‘quality’ rather than ‘quantity’. To put it in other words, policies implemented for almost 50 years had achieved the goal and eliminated the problem of housing shortage. The stock has almost increased 3, 5 times after the war from a total of 2,126,000 dwelling units to 6,626,900 units. Further, that policy goal in subsidizing housing made governments take heavy financial burdens which would no more be economically defended (Vrom, 1997). In the beginning of 2000s, “Housing in the 21st Century” was introduced. This housing memorandum emphasized the freedom of choice of individuals in their housing without damaging social justice. It was highly criticized by scholars who denoted that housing memorandum is not coherent in saying that “A greater say to the households is given” (Priemus (2001); Boelhouwer, 2002). These scholars believe that there is still not a tenure-neutral housing policy in the Netherlands. According to them, when the income is high, governments favour owner occupation and when the income is lower renters are over-supported. This means that rather than the choice of the households about their housing, it is the government that already makes the choice from the beginning. Yet, it can be stated that recent Dutch housing policy mainly rests on respecting the individualization of society and their changing housing preferences, promotion of owner occupation and increasing urban quality. Private entrepreneurs are supported to get more responsibilities and more attention is devoted to increase green and blue in urban areas (Heins, 2005). Dutch rent policy is mainly determined by Residential Tenancies (Rent) Act (first in 1979). According to this act, landlords can increase the rent once a year and the amount of this increase can not pass the limit determined by the government. This act also has a point value system by which the quality of the dwelling and its maximum rent are determined (Vrom, 1997). The owner occupied sector has been more or less left to market forces and the state indirectly controlled it up to last few decades. The ratio of owner occupation has been lower compared to other European countries. In 1947, home ownership ratio was only 28%. It continuously increased and 1998 is a turning point after which home ownership ratio exceeded rented. In 2002, this figure reached to 56% for Netherlands (WBO, 2002). Primary instrument in promoting owner occupation has been the tax deductibility of mortgage interest. There are also other instruments used such as guarantee fund for owner occupied dwellings and the transition subsidy for lower income households who would buy a rented dwelling. Additionally, National Mortgage Guarantee (NHG) provides a decrease in the interest rate and further, whenever the borrower could not pay the repayments, it is the guarantor of the loan (www.nhg.nl). Housing finance in the Netherlands is a well developed system. The amount of the mortgage depends on the income of the household and the value of the house. Generally, basic prerequisite in getting mortgage is to have a stabile income. It is possible to get a mortgage of 4-5 times of the annual income, on average. Mortgages in the Netherlands are so diversified that households tend to ask for assistance of advisor firms. Usually, maturity of the mortgage is 30 years within which household has right to change the terms of the contract in predetermined intervals. All interest of the mortgage can be deduced from tax. In Turkey, neither for owner occupation nor for rented sector, any succesful policy has not been developed. In terms of housing benefits, for instance, nothing has been developed. Yet, for housing finance (mortgage), there were several studies and recently Law on Housing Finance was enacted in Turkey. However, the law is far from development of a housing finance system; rather it can serve to complement several related laws. To sum up, with public housing and mortgage facilities, housing is one of the primary intervention domains of the governments in the Netherlands. The result of these policies implemented has been totally different from what was experienced in Turkey. There has not been any experience of housing benefit policy for renters. For owner occupation, mortgage law was put into effect only recently to support some related laws; which makes one to expect future modifications as the law is far from offering a housing finance .