Housing in the Keynesian and Neoliberal Welfare State<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\nDespite the long-standing dominance of the private real estate sector in the Western world, <\/span>fluctuations have been observed in the housing policy welfare mix across different historical <\/span>periods. The most emblematic development that can be reported is the shift from Keynesian social <\/span>housing policies to emergency housing services, which has been systematically implemented since <\/span>the 1980s (Forrest and Murie, 1988). These developments are a consequence of the restructuring <\/span>caused by the transition from the Keynesian to the neoliberal welfare state.<\/span><\/p>\nThe shifting of priorities from the value of Keynesian social cohesion to extreme poverty <\/span>management in the neoliberal era (Hennigan, 2016) has had a negative impact across the <\/span>range of social policy areas, including housing (Rolnik, 2013). The emergence of the concept <\/span>of social exclusion was a dichotomous construct between insiders and outsiders. The focus of <\/span>the dominant discourse on the underclass essentially implied that the rest of the social body is <\/span>cohesive; it does not contain significant social inequalities and, therefore, no social intervention <\/span>is needed to confront them (Levitas, 1996). Against the backdrop of social spending cuts, the <\/span>management of extreme poverty has been a key goal of social policies since the 1980s.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0The sharp wave of privatizations that accompanied the rise of neoliberalism from the late <\/span>1970s onwards did not leave the housing sector unaffected (Redmond, 2001). The principle of <\/span>social housing was dismantled in two ways: first, through the encouragement of home ownership, <\/span>mainly by granting housing mortgages to those citizens who could afford them. Second, through <\/span>the creation of homelessness services for those citizens who were unable to maintain affordable <\/span>housing (Aalbers, 2008).<\/span><\/p>\nFor example, in countries with a tradition of social housing, such as the United Kingdom, <\/span>Thatcher\u2019s \u201cRight to Buy\u201d policy resulted in extensive privatizations (Atkinson and Durden, 1990). <\/span>In fact, the transfer of responsibility for housing benefits to the private market was accompanied <\/span>by the qualification of home ownership as a more appropriate solution through the granting of <\/span>housing mortgages (Rolnik, 2013). The stipulation of mortgages as the main vehicle for home <\/span>ownership has had at least three negative effects. First, it led to the over-indebtedness of a large <\/span>proportion of households that were unable to afford to repay their loan (Garcia-Lamarca and Kaika, <\/span>2016). Second, due to high demand, it boosted property prices. As a result, their value made it <\/span>impossible to buy a house without a mortgage. Third, the mortgage market has become a means <\/span>of social and housing segregation, depending on the amount of bank lending (Aalbers, 2016).<\/span><\/p>\nThe establishment of emergency housing services was intended to provide for those citizens <\/span>who were not able to access affordable housing (Forrest and Murie, 1988). These services are <\/span>usually accompanied by the provision of basic material assistance (soup kitchens, blankets, <\/span>emergency supplies) with a strong charitable orientation (Wacquant, 2010). In other words, <\/span>the safety net was lowered from the protection of the home to the management of the extreme <\/span>symptoms of its loss. The dominance of emergency services contributes neither to preventing <\/span>nor to tackling housing problems (Arapoglou and Gounis, 2017). Instead, it traps the homeless <\/span>in an abeyance mechanism (Hopper and Baumohl, 1994). This pattern was systematically <\/span>reproduced in many European welfare states until (and after) the Great Recession of 2008 (for <\/span>example Drilling et al., 2020), under the strong influence of neoliberal ideology.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Housing and the Great Recession of 2008<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\nThe Great Recession of 2008 had an adverse effect on modern European societies (McBride et <\/span>al., 2015; Papadopoulos and Roumpakis, 2018). Housing insecurity has intensified, making it <\/span>difficult for large sections of the population to access affordable housing (Rolnik, 2013; Scanlon <\/span>et al., 2015). At the same time, the policies being developed are limited to the most extreme <\/span>and publicly visible symptoms of housing problems. This has therefore been an economic <\/span>recession with inherent paradoxes. The most important of these is the strengthening, instead <\/span>of undermining, of the dominant ideology that caused it (Papatheodorou, 2014).<\/span><\/p>\nA fundamental effect of the economic crisis is the increasing trend in housing costs borne by <\/span>households. This has led to an increase in the inability to maintain affordable housing, an increase <\/span>in homelessness and an increase in housing insecurity among the weaker socio-economic strata <\/span>(Wetzstein, 2017). At the same time, phenomena of gentrification and touristification drive up <\/span>rental prices by indirectly expelling the lower social classes (Wachsmuth and Weisler, 2018). <\/span>Therefore, the increase in housing costs is evolving faster than the increase in incomes which, <\/span>in contrast, in many cases remain stagnant and\/or diminished.<\/span><\/p>\nThe effects of deteriorating housing conditions are reflected in a variety of ways. Many of these <\/span>people are forced to live in overcrowded conditions, to return to their parental home, or search <\/span>for forced cohabitation. Other people end up living in poor housing conditions (for example, <\/span>old buildings without safety standards) or in inadequate housing (for example, houses without <\/span>heating or even without electricity). In other cases, housing costs are such a burden on incomes <\/span>that significant cuts to other day-to-day spending must to be made. In fact, these reductions are <\/span>often made in vital areas, such as the quality of food, clothing and many other products that <\/span>are intended to satisfy basic human needs. Especially for young people, the level of housing <\/span>costs can be a deterrent to completing their studies or even starting a family (Wetzstein, 2017).<\/span><\/p>\nThe most obvious manifestation of extreme inequality is the increase in the number of people <\/span>losing their homes due to financial problems and the lack of adequate preventive social services. <\/span>The phenomenon of neo-homelessness has witnessed a significant rise since the years of the Great <\/span>Recession (Scanlon et al., 2015). In fact, the diverse and heterogeneous aspect of this important <\/span>social problem has become even more varified. In the years of the Great Recession, homelessness <\/span>is on the rise, including asylum seekers and refugees (Kourachanis, 2018), homeless families <\/span>(Baptista et al., 2017), and other socially vulnerable groups whose poor housing conditions put <\/span>them on the brink of homelessness.<\/span><\/p>\nIn addition to the effects of the Great Recession, housing insecurity is exacerbated by other <\/span>parameters. One of the most important is the spread of short-term rental practices (Airbnb). <\/span>Through this practice, a significant percentage of apartments are removed from the private <\/span>long-term rental real estate market to be channeled into the short-term rental market. These <\/span>developments result in an increase in the demand for the remaining properties for rent and, by <\/span>extension, a clear increase in their rental price (Balampanides et al., 2019).<\/span><\/p>\nDevelopments over the last decade up to the Covid-19 pandemic, combined with the policy <\/span>management framework of European and national institutions, have had a negative impact on <\/span>the access of the lower and middle classes to housing (Scanlon et al., 2015). The new model <\/span>favors an even greater removal of state intervention from the housing sector. As in other areas <\/span>of the welfare state, housing has been affected by the mass dismantling of key social policy <\/span>institutions and the mobilization of a range of policies aimed at expanding market discipline, <\/span>competition and re-commodification (Rolnik, 2013).<\/span><\/p>\nHousing and Covid-19: Social Policy Challenges<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\nThe Covid-19 pandemic has emerged as a health crisis within a landscape of pre-existing crises <\/span>and austerity policies (Dimoulas, 2020; Kapsalis et al., 2021). The model for managing the <\/span>pandemic that has been adopted internationally makes access to housing a prerequisite for the <\/span>protection of citizens (Rogers and Power, 2020). In other words, neoliberal governments explicitly <\/span>state that they are not prepared to protect those citizens who cannot protect themselves if they <\/span>do not have a home (Silva and Smith, 2020).<\/span><\/p>\nThe prevailing formula for pandemic management focuses on the dimensions of responsibility, <\/span>social distancing and staying at home, instead of adopting policies to stimulate public health, <\/span>education, public transport (Horton, 2020) and, of course, social housing for those experiencing <\/span>housing precariousness. The pandemic management framework focuses on the responsibility <\/span>of citizens so as to maintain the trend for minimizing social protection systems and for the <\/span>commodification of social goods (Kourachanis, 2020).<\/span><\/p>\nHowever, this particular way of managing the pandemic has negative consequences even for <\/span>those who have a home. Quarantine and enforced incarceration result in major changes in daily <\/span>habits, rhythms and interpersonal relationships in situations of cohabitation. During a period of <\/span>economic downturn, psychological oppression, and lockdown, the effects of domestic violence <\/span>or overcrowding making the house an unsafe form of protection (Rogers and Power, 2020). At <\/span>the same time, many people who have suffered a loss in income will not be able to afford their <\/span>housing costs (Judge, 2020; Goodman and Magder, 2020). Evictions are expected to increase <\/span>the risk of infection during the Covid-19 pandemic and an adequate protection framework is <\/span>needed (Benfer et al., 2020). These conditions are exacerbated and the long-term shortcomings <\/span>and inadequacies of housing systems worldwide become more evident.<\/span><\/p>\nThe negative effects of pandemic management through the spirit of self-isolation at home are <\/span>more pronounced for poor households. Despite the widespread perception that the virus does <\/span>not discriminate, recent research shows that the most vulnerable are the poor and marginalized <\/span>populations. This claim is supported by the stress and comorbidities related to poverty and <\/span>job insecurity as well as the exclusion from access to health services, due to economic factors. <\/span>Particularly from the perspective of housing inequalities, aspects such as poor housing conditions, <\/span>limited access to personal space, and the phenomenon of housing overcrowding reduce the <\/span>possibility of social distancing (Patel et al., 2020).<\/span><\/p>\nInadequate housing conditions for poor households are associated with deteriorating health <\/span>indicators and the spread of infectious diseases (Buckle et al., 2020). This seems to be the case <\/span>with the current pandemic, as research findings show that countries with higher rates of poor <\/span>housing have higher COVID-19-related mortality rates (Ahmad et al., 2020). COVID-19 has <\/span>also exacerbated vulnerabilities such as poor housing quality and location, housing affordability, <\/span>energy poverty, and a range of social, mental and physical health conditions (Horne et al., 2020). <\/span><\/p>\nParticularly for extreme forms of homelessness, such as homeless people living on the streets, <\/span>this particular model of pandemic crisis management that focuses on housing self-isolation at <\/span>home and social distancing measures puts them at greater risk due to the lack of both adequate <\/span>housing and health conditions, as well as the difficulties of social distancing (Tsai and Wilson, <\/span>2020; Perri et al., 2020). As expected, similar risks threaten asylum seekers, refugees and <\/span>immigrants (Ralli et al., 2020), Roma (Holt, 2020), people with mental health issues (Amerio <\/span>et al., 2020; Lima et al., 2020), as well as people with HIV (Rosenberg et al., 2020). Of course, <\/span>this concern relates also to many other vulnerable groups.<\/span><\/p>\nStructure of this Special Issue<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\nWith these initial thoughts in mind, the contributions in this special issue are dedicated to housing <\/span>inequalities and social policies in the European welfare states with a special focus on the Greek <\/span>case. The first part elaborates aspects of Social Policy and Housing in European Welfare States. <\/span>Professor Eoin O\u2019Sullivan underlines that the way in which we collect data on homelessness and <\/span>how that data is presented has significant implications for the framing of homelessness, with the <\/span>majority of countries measuring homelessness at a point-in-time, which provide little information <\/span>on the dynamics of homelessness. Using the example of the Republic of Ireland, we can see <\/span>that the stock and flow data on homelessness show very different patterns of the experience <\/span>of homelessness. In the second article, Professor Matthias Drilling and his colleagues Semhar <\/span>Negash and Berihun Wagaw argue that the concept of the social investment state is currently the <\/span>guiding concept for transforming the European welfare states. Underlining the role of housing and <\/span>neighbourhood, Drilling et al. claim that the social investment approach does not play an extensive <\/span>role in positioning this policy field and, as such, it does not attach any importance to housing.<\/span><\/p>\nEva Betavatzi and \u00c9ric Toussaint note that the increase in mortgage lending in European <\/span>countries since the 1990s is symptomatic of a political determination to push households into <\/span>buying rather than renting on the housing market. Banks benefit from this as it allows them <\/span>not only to increase their loan portfolios but also to use loans as securities and sell them on the <\/span>secondary market. Thus, the increase in private and public debts, and the principle that they <\/span>must be repaid whatever the cost, have an impact on the right to housing. Isabel Baptista and\u00a0 <\/span>Miguel Coelho aim to provide a critical overview of homelessness service provision in Portugal <\/span>\u2013 framed by EU-level developments with a particular focus on Southern European countries \u2013 <\/span>within national policy dynamics, which in recent years have evolved towards the adoption of a <\/span>national strategic approach to resolving homelessness. This topic has received little research <\/span>and policy attention so far, which may partly be explained by the fragmented nature of the sector <\/span>itself and by the very recent emergence of homelessness on the Portuguese political agenda. <\/span>In the last article of the first part of our special issue, Ana Vilenica, Tonia Katerini and Ma\u0161a <\/span>Filipovi\u010d Hrast describe commodification patterns in Slovenia, Serbia and Greece by considering <\/span>the diversity existing in the semiperiphery. In their paper, they show that Balkan semiperipheral <\/span>territories must not be regarded as a passive background but as a landscape in which active <\/span>agents participate in creating and transforming commodification patterns.<\/span><\/p>\nThe second part of this special issue is dedicated to social policy and housing in Greece. <\/span>Professor Thomas Maloutas notes that sovereign debt crisis in the early 2010s led to a standstill <\/span>in the housing market due to the lack of demand. Problems of access to affordable housing <\/span>re-emerged when the crisis retreated, and tourism boosted new demand for housing. The <\/span>pandemic again stopped this process by radically reducing tourist flows. The question now is <\/span>