Housing in the European Countryside

Rural Pressure and Policy in Western Europe

Nick Gallent, Mark Shucksmith, Mark Tewdwr-Jones

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Print ISBN: 9780415288439
• eBook ISBN: 9781134442430
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

Housing in the European Countryside provides an overview of the housing pressures and policy challenges facing Europe, while highlighting critical differences. By drawing on contemporary research work of leading authors in the fields of housing studies, rural geography and planning, the book provides an introduction to housing issues across the European countryside for those who have hitherto been unexposed to such concerns, and who wish to gain some basic insight.
This in-depth review of housing pressure in the European countryside reveals both the form, nature and variety of problems now being experienced in different parts of Europe, in addition to outlining policy solutions that are being provided by member states and other agencies in meeting the rural housing challenge at this time and in the years ahead.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Nick Gallent, Mark Shucksmith and Mark Tewdwr-Jones

A substantial amount of literature has been devoted to the subject of European housing policy and practice over the last twenty years (see for example, Winn, 1984; Barlow and Duncan, 1994; McCrone and Stephens, 1995; Balchin, 1996; Oxley and Smith, 1996; Golland, 1998; Gallent and Tewdwr-Jones, 2000). The majority of past studies have negotiated a careful path around the question of what – in practical and more theoretical terms – can be learned from other countries. A further body of work has focused specifically on Eastern Europe (see, for example, Turner et al., 1992; Struyk, 1995; Clapham et al., 1996), examining the housing aspects of a post-communist political and economic transition. All these studies (and others looking at Europe and beyond: for example, Kemeny 1981, 1992; Harloe et al., 1988; van Vliet, 1990; or Doling, 1997), however careful they might be to avoid simple comparison, have established a clear sense of a shared European experience of housing, in terms of its production, regulation and consumption. In practice circles too, there is often a strong desire to draw on overseas experiences as a means of demonstrating to policy makers how home-grown approaches are flawed and might be improved. A recent study of European housing finance, for example (Stephens et al., 2002), has suggested that British social landlords bear a greater cost for private finance than many of their European neighbours. Unsurprisingly, this particular study has generated significant practice interest.

The focus of this book is Western Europe, and more specifically, member states of the European Union, as represented by ten national case studies. It is an edited text drawing together contributions from writers across the European territory: it aims to be both a comprehensive review of issues stretching from the nature of housing pressure to the success of housing policy, and an examination of how housing policy itself is an expression of different values and conditions. At the end of this introductory chapter, we suggest that the ten countries are representative of three broad underlying cultures, and hence three different ways of responding to and managing a range of housing pressures. In other words, we propose a pattern of shared experience across a three-part rather than a one-Europe model. However, the whole of Western Europe, including some countries that found themselves labelled Eastern European after the Second World War, is bound together, to a large extent, by a common sense of history and also by a tradition of sharing ideas. This has been the case for centuries although in terms of political ideology and policy approaches, it was especially true during the latter half of the twentieth century with the arrival of the European Union. It is easy to forget therefore, that economically and socially, these countries may bear limited resemblance. They may sometimes appear to take outwardly similar approaches to a variety of social and economic challenges (Kemeny, 1992), but it is almost invariably the case that the conditions and processes underpinning these challenges are significantly different.

The two key aims noted above can also be thought of as two analytical levels. At the first level, we are providing a comprehensive country-by-country review with individual chapters all following a broadly similar structure. They all have as their starting point the range and type of housing pressure being experienced, and they all end with a review of current policy approaches. At the second level, we use the information provided by the contributors to consider how the strategies and policies they discuss in the latter parts of their chapters are expressions of the values and conditions suggested when they address questions of rural pressure and the relationship between town and country in the earlier parts of their chapters. This second level of analysis is presented in Chapter 13. And understanding how policy links back to national peculiarities enables us to extract broad themes: these form the content of a concluding chapter (Chapter 14). This structure is explained more fully towards the end of this introduction, but Figure 1.1 summarises our general approach.

Much of the remainder of this opening chapter is concerned with the particular issues addressed within the ten case studies, though we also highlight how these issues build into our bigger picture. A brief summary of how this linkage is made is provided in the next section.

Dealing with the detail

The contributing authors commence each of their chapters with an appraisal of the form that housing pressure takes – or rather, what is interpreted as ‘pressure’. The rationale here is that policy can only be understood in the light of the pressure or problem that it seeks to address. Some of the authors reveal that such pressure is gauged in terms of the condition or quantity of rural housing: others emphasise the social consequences of wider economic changes affecting the countryside, the impacts these bring to communities, the way in which different consumer interests may clash and the consequent conflicts that can arise.

1.1 Levels of analysis.

In presenting separate case studies based around a standard framework, the aim is to create a series of anchors for later comparison. For instance, contributors were asked to consider the relationship between national policy and policy approaches within more peripheral locations, away from built-up areas. In Chapter 13, this is used to establish the degree of division between town and country within political discourse, and also at a deeper cultural level. Likewise, a focus on definitional issues – what constitutes ‘rural’ or housing ‘pressure’ – also helps to create a picture of cultural and political contrast or similarity. These front-end issues addressed within each of the case studies lead into questions of strategy and policy and more particularly, who is responding to rural housing pressure and what exactly they are doing. With answers to these types of question, it becomes possible to focus on where ‘power’ lies (for example, with either the state or private interests) within particular countries and how it is used. So the aim of developing a common structure for the case studies – which is followed to a varying degree by each of the contributors – is to provide a basis for comparison that hopefully moves some way beyond drawing a universal lesson from cursory observation.

One of the simple messages that this book emphasises is that comparisons are both useful and possible. But these often have to be accompanied by heavy caveats and an acceptance that the processes and practices of one country are a product of specific local conditions. Understanding these conditions is a prerequisite to understanding policy that, after all, is merely the expression of deeper social beliefs and attitudes. Allen (Chapter 2) provides an overview of recent thinking in the area of comparative housing studies, pointing out some of the many pitfalls that the unwary researcher faces in this type of analysis.

The remainder of this introduction is divided into three parts. The first is a short note on the original funded research that provided the catalyst for the book. The second runs through the main points of focus within the case studies, giving a brief introduction to each of the issues or key topics discussed by the contributing authors. The third part sets out the structure of the book, explaining how the chapters have been divided and giving a flavour of some of the later content.

The research context

This book is an evolved version of a comparative study of rural housing policy undertaken in 2000–2001. The original study – which was intended to be a review of ‘international housing pressure’ – was sponsored by Scottish Homes, a government agency in Scotland responsible for housing strategy, policy and the distribution of grant funding to the providers and managers of social housing. This study began life as a tightly structured analysis of ‘housing pressure’ and responses to housing pressure across a sample of European Union member states (this transect from pressure to policy is retained in this volume), and was intended to inform Scottish Homes’ own approach to housing in the countryside. The timescale for the work (just three months) meant that, by the end of the summer 2000, five European case studies had been commissioned and completed; but only two of these were from the European mainland (Spain and the Netherlands) with the remainder representing the Republic of Ireland (ROI), Scotland and Wales. An early contribution from Allen (now expanded and forming Chapter 2 of this volume) was used to frame an analysis of the five national reviews and this revealed what were considered to be critical differences: specifically, a more relaxed approach to regulating housing production in Spain and Ireland, a blurring of urban–rural differences (and hence policy) in the Netherlands and a sharply focused urban–rural debate in both Scotland and Wales. These differences – and the loosely defined associations between particular countries – suggested a potential value in revisiting the work on a bigger scale. Besides addressing the lack of current text books on rural housing issues in Europe, expansion also afforded the opportunity to develop a clearer perspective on rural housing pressure and policy in a comparative sense. The early studies had pointed to clear regulatory differences grounded in the clarity of urban–rural divisions and a cultural resistance to strong state intervention (for example, through land use planning). An obvious question therefore was whether these patterns would hold true on a larger scale, and whether or not a sharper perspective would emerge from an extended study.

The expansion was not intended to simply reinforce a pre-determined view; its aim was to elaborate on earlier findings and provide a more comprehensive text on housing pressure and policy. Hence new parts of Europe were brought into the study: Sweden and Norway from a hitherto absent Scandinavia; England (the missing part of the British jigsaw); France; and Italy. The selection of countries for the expanded study was driven both by geography and, admittedly, by perceptions of possible differences. Norway and Sweden were to provide the northern European examples, but were also known to reflect particular views towards private interests within the housing market and to have adopted certain regulatory approaches to second homes (Allen et al., 1999; Gallent and Tewdwr-Jones, 2000, 2001). Italy was to join Spain in representing southern Europe and perhaps a less centrally-driven and less coherent approach to housing policy generally and planning regulation more specifically (Alberdí and Levenfeld, 1996; Padovani, 1996). France, together with the Netherlands, would occupy the geographical mid-point, and would also share political similarities. In the Netherlands, we had the blurring of urban–rural differences resulting in a more uniform policy approach. In France, a strong socialist tradition was perceived to have created a similar situation, marked by a history of central planning. And England was considered to be the missing component in the British studies and perhaps the epicentre – particularly within the English South East region – of divisive urban–rural debates, especially in relation to future housing production. The objective of this expansion, therefore, was to provide both a wider geographical coverage and also to test our assumptions regarding a three-Europe model: based on tighter regulation (particularly of private interest and housing consumption), a more informal approach (to the regulation of housing production) and perhaps a more combative approach to negotiating urban–rural divisions within certain countries as a result of prevailing cultural and political conditions.

In the next section, we outline how each of the ten case studies is structured and how their structuring, and the particular questions asked of the contributing authors, is used to inform later analysis along the lines described above.

Case studies: points of focus

The inclusion of the key topics shown in Figure 1.2 (within each of the case studies) was partly driven by the need to gain a comprehensive and logical picture of policy and practice (and hence produce a comprehensive text), and partly to elicit more fundamental information on wider cultural and political conditions. Within the chapters themselves, these topics are frequently broken down into further sub-headings by the contributing authors. Broadly, however, they fit into the three categories shown.

1.2 Structure of case studies.

Rural issues within a national picture

Recognising the relationship between the urban and rural in policy terms is an important step towards appreciating more fundamental divisions within (a) society as a whole and (b) prevailing political discourse/debate. The idea that a natural divide exists between the urban and rural is very much a British perspective enshrined in legislation (e.g. the ‘Town and Country Planning Acts’) and in the geographical breakdown in UK party politics. But it is of course wrong to assume that the same division exists elsewhere in Western Europe (or further afield). For this reason, most of the case study chapters begin by considering how easy or difficult it is to separate rural from national concerns in terms of policy approaches towards housing. What weight, for example, is assigned to rural housing policy tools within national frameworks, and how much specific attention is devoted to rural issues overall? The reader will find that in some of the chapters, it is extremely difficult to detach rural from more general policy concerns. This might be viewed as a policy failure (but perhaps only from a British viewpoint), a result of unsophisticated data aggregation (making it difficult to distinguish urban from rural patterns, as some of the authors suggest) or, on the other hand, proof that some countries deal with urban and rural matters in a more integrated and strategic way than in the UK. It is also probable that a lack of clear dividing lines between town and country in this respect is a product and reflection of particular cultural conditions. Without wishing to give too much away at this stage, the lack of division might be viewed as a measure of greater social coherency, reflecting stronger ties between those living in rural and those living in urban areas (a indication perhaps of the lateness and degree of urbanisation in particular countries). In contrast, a stronger policy division may be the product of a more divided urban–rural culture. These issues are reflected upon in Chapter 13 and the organisation of case study chapters centres upon these key national differences.

Defining ‘housing pressure’

The case study chapters are all concerned with defining ‘housing pressure’, whether in physical, social or economic terms. The definitions offered point to significant variations in attitudes towards rural areas and rural society, the relationship between urban and rural (in cultural, political and policy terms) and, in some instances, the balance between private interest and the needs of local communities. This focus gives some insight into the values that underpin particular policy responses and offers some useful distinctions when considering how countries might be rearranged into broad cultural groupings.

In Britain, it is often assumed that the countryside faces a range of different pressures. These can be economic: the decline of traditional industries and the pressure this exerts on the labour market (manifest in unemployment or rural depopulation of an unskilled workforce). They can also be environmental: the pressure of physical and economic development places a strain on the environment and creates a risk of environmental degradation through unsustainable development practices. The acceptance that this is the case was a driving force behind the creation of the modern British land use planning system. And third, the pressure can also be social: the push and pull of economic forces may cause migration and drive people to or from the countryside and this can take the form of a social exchange where an affluent and skilled population ‘hijack’ the countryside from a largely unskilled and relatively deprived indigenous population. This is a simplified view of the processes which ultimately contribute to housing pressure: the imperative of environmental protection results in fewer houses being built; a collapsing economy creates a vacuum drawing people from the countryside and leaving only a retired or unemployed population. These processes, alongside changing urban tastes or a desire to abandon urban living (at least for short periods), conspire to create housing pressure that is expressed, in its most basic form, as an inability of local households to compete in the housing market with higher income newcomers. This view of housing pressure in the countryside is broadly accepted as having currency, although its detail is frequently challenged and it is often argued that processes on the ground are far more complex (see Chapter 10 by Hoggart, and Chapter 11 by Shucksmith and Conway).

The interpretation of the processes as ‘urban threat’ and ‘social exchange’ may also be an expression of certain values. Only where there are strong divisions between town and country do we see this type of analysis, hence rural housing ‘pressure’ in Britain is often an ‘urban pressure’: people moving from towns and cities to the countryside, ‘urban sprawl’ or an ‘urban economy’ against which a rural economy cannot compete. A key question is whether this particular interpretation of pressure suggests a divisive urban–rural culture, linking forward to a certain type of regulatory approach. We return to this issue later in this chapter and again in Chapter 13. How pressure is defined is a critical indicator of more fundamental social differences. It may also suggest particular political processes and priorities. In the Netherlands for example (Heins, Chapter 5), there is little sense that a rural society is at threat from urban newcomers, and the whole issue of housing pressure is couched in terms of natural constraints inhibiting the growth of cities. The Dutch example perhaps suggests a weaker division between town and country and an environmental and growth debate that relegates rural community considerations behind more general policy objectives. But this certainly is not the case in Wales (Edwards, Chapter 12), where housing and migration pressure are synonymous. Indeed, here the divisions between town and country are frequently dressed in cultural and Welsh language terms, and issues regarding social equity and individual (housing) rights are prioritised. Strong divisions between town and country (or English and Welsh) emerge in Wales as they do, but in slightly different forms, in both Scotland (Shucksmith and Conway) and England (Hoggart). However, in Sweden, the idea that an urban population threatens intrinsically rural communities has far less currency. Folkesdotter (Chapter 4) points to the lateness of urbanisation in Scandinavia, traditional work and commuting patterns, and strong urban–rural family ties as just some of the factors resulting in a far weaker divide between town and country. This suggests a more coherent and less divided culture and has resulted in policy responses that address issues of social equity that are not based on containing an urban population. That said, parts of Sweden are experiencing certain housing consumption pressures, particularly the west coast peninsulas which have attracted a relatively large number of foreign second home buyers during the last decade (see Folkesdotter, Chapter 4).

In many ways, the first two topics are closely linked and the perceived nature of housing pressure determines how national and rural policy might be either decoupled or treated as one. But coverage of these issues by the case study authors enables us to place particular policies within their proper context. Why this is necessary and how it is achieved are topics examined in Chapters 2 and 13.

The focus and nature of strategy and policy

An objective of the original project was to relate strategy and policies (at particular levels – national, perhaps regional and local) to different types of housing pressure and therefore arrive at some evaluation of the possibility of lifting policy ideas from one country and applying them elsewhere. If, for instance, the Netherlands had a particular means of sourcing additional low-cost housing in some rural communities, could this be replicated in Scotland? Our current objective is not to identify policy lessons, though these may emerge in later analysis. Rather, our concern is with the way in which strategy and policy links back to the cultural and political conditions identified by the authors in the earlier sections of their case study chapters: these links are subsequently used to distinguish policy regimes. At this strategy and policy level, a number of different issues are addressed including the level at w...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1
• Chapter 2
• Part One: Cohesive Cultures, Regulatory Regimes
• Part Two: Atomistic Cultures, Laissez-Faire Regimes
• Part Three: Divisive Cultures, Unstable Regimes
• References