1. REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN HOUSING POLICY IN LATVIA LIGA RASNACA UL Faculty of Social sciences, liga.rasnaca@lu.lvliga.rasnaca@lu.lv

2. Content Conceptual framework of Housing policy Development of HP in Latvia Latvia housing statistics in EU Regional statistics of HP in Latvia

3. 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

4. Urban policy Public policy Economic and finance policy Social policy Housing policy

5. Housing Shelter Home

6. Housing functions Implementation of Economic Social Family Personal needs Most EU housing policy focus on three broad areas (European Parliament, 1996) Accesibility Affordability Quality

7. 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

8. 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 Bulgaria92.098.01993-2001 Latvia43.1831993-2002 Lithuania84.497.71993-2002 Slovakia50891991-2004 Poland4458.91988-2006 Romania90.897.51993-2004 * Housing Europe Review 2012, CECODHAS,Brussels, 2011.

9. Share of housing costs in disposable income in the CEE and EU average*(2009) CountryShare 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.

10. Overcrowding rate Average in EU 17.8% Highest Latvia 57.7% Romania 55.3% Lowest Cyprus 1% Netherlands 1.7%

11. 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)

12. Housing deprivation (EC Europe 2020, Eurostat, EU- SILC 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

13. 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

14. 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%)

15. 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

16. Households in regions that money could not afford to cover the cost of housing (2011, EU-SILC) RigaRiga district VidzemeKurzemeZemgaleLatgale Can not pay for facilities, for credit 25.326.618.025.424.920.2 Can not pay for heating 21.719.537.823.426.324.1

17. 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

18. Social housing in cities and counties L Regional unitsNumber of social apartment buildings Number of social flats outside social buildings Number of persons in social housing Riga 13114014 152 Other cities 151129284 Counties 1911371537 Cities without social housing buildings/flats 21 Counties without social housing buildings/flats 704737 without any social housing Total121340615 973

19. 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

20. Housing allowances 2011 © (Review of housing assistance in municipalities 2011, Ministry of Economics) Regional unitNumber of allowances MoneyMoney per one household (LVL) Riga 45 3161 585 960215 Other cities 38 1583 125 863 81.5 Counties 57 2403 122 447 54.5 Total130 6047 834 270 52.3

21. 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)

22. Izmantotā literatūra 1.A Housing Policy Paper, World Bank, 1975. 2. Andrews D., et.al. Housing Markets and structural policies in OECD countries. Pieejams: http:// www.oecd.org/workingpapers httpwww.oecd.org 3.Housing Europe Review 2012, CECODHAS, Brussels, 2011. 4.Housing policy in the EU Member States. Pieejams: http://www.euparl.europa.eu/workingpapers/soci 5. European Network of Housing Research (ENHR) Pieejams: http://www.enhr.nethttp://www.enhr.net 6. Housing policy in OECD countries. Pieejams: http:// www.oecd.org/eco/structural/houshttp 7.Mājokļu politika Latvijā. Informācija VRAPLM mājas lapā. Pieejams: http://www.vramplm.gov.lv. 8.Mājokļu politika Latvijā. Informācija EM mājas lapā. Pieejams: http:www.em.gov.lv 9.Mājokļu politika un tās instrumenti. Rīga, LHZB 2006. 10.Pickwance C. Housing and Housing Policy. In: Social Policy (Baldock, J. et.al.), Oxford, OUP,2007, pp.508-541. 11.Renaud B., International Financial institutions and housing policy transfers. ENHP, Delft university, 2010. Pieejams: http://otb.tudelft.nl/ 12.The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Develpment, WB, 2008. 13.The Cities Alliances. Pieejams: http://www.citiesalliance.org/ca/sitemap)http://www.citiesalliance.org/ca/sitemap 14.Tsenkova S., Turner B., The future of social housing in Eastern Europe: Reforms in Latvia and Ukraine. Adequate & Affordable housing for all. Toronto, 2004. 15.UN-Habitat. Pieejams: http://www.unhabitat.orghttp://www.unhabitat.org 16.Urbanization. WB Sector Working Paper, WB, 1972. 17.Yeates N., (ed.) Understanding Global Social Policy, Bristol: The Policy Press, 2008.

23. Contacts: Līga Rasnača, liga.rasnaca@llu.lv, +371 2599188 Thank you for attention!