1. Public, Private and Social Housing in Post-crisis East Asia Richard Ronald r.ronald@uva.nl Urban Studies University of Amsterdam

2. Different Housing Pathways European social housing problematised, stigmatized and residualised since 1980s Transformation of housing associations into self financing, market facing social enterprises Public housing provision (of a more social nature) revitalized in East Asia since 1998 (especially after 2008) But why is policy socializing and how manifesting differently in each country?

3. The Origins of Housing Policy Colonial legacies, the presence of China and the desire to ‘catch up’ Policy goals under ‘Developmental’ States –shaped public housing policy: house workers, extend urban infrastructure, realise potential land values, sustain employment & rapid growth Housing policy in ‘Productivist’ regimes –welfare state expansion either sacrificed or focused on economic objectives (Holliday 2000; Kwon, 2005) Deep Interventions: Public housing rather than Social housing: –commodified (Private) rather than de- commodifying (Doling 1999, Groves et al 2007)

4. Examples: Singapore & Hong Kong Singapore (HDB) –Owner-occupied 29% to 92% (1970-2002) –Public sector 83%+ of all housing –CPF circuits of capital –Regulated second hand market Hong Kong (HKHA) –Public rental build & slum clearance 1970s –Keeping wages low and welfare state small through public housing (Castells et al,1990) –Shift to HOS policies in 1980s and 90s –In 2009 29% Public rental, 16% public HOS Public Housing policy as main Pillar of Welfare, Urban & Economic Policy Comparable approaches: Japan (1950s & 60s) Taiwan (70s-90s), China (90s-2000s)

5. Asian Financial Crisis! Watershed moment in East Asian socioeconomic pathway End of rapid growth, high/full employment era Undermined asset and real estate values Tested security and adequacy of welfare measures

6. The New Policy Landscape New role of developmental state in slower growth era ( Kharas & Gill 2009 ) Ongoing processes of neoliberalization Socioeconomic polarization ( kakusa shakai ) Democratization and intensified political contestation Era of in-affordability & house price volatility The state as competent housing provider

7. 2008 and the ‘Global’ Crisis! House price fluctuations

8. Taiwan – new social housing Long term promotion of home ownership (67% to 82%,1976-2000) Less than 0.8% public rental housing Two major periods of house price inflation in 1987-1990 and 2005+ Snails without Shells - The Social Housing Promotion Alliance Late-2010 New luxury tax on quick sales of 2 nd homes (Chen 2011) 5 new social rental housing projects

9. South Korea’s Hybrid social housing sector Supply focus: 10.7 million housing units constructed 1989-2007 1970s short term lets; Permanent public housing program (1989) Fixed-tenure rental (5-, 10-, 30- & 50-year) 1990 and 2000s 1998-2008 (Kim & Roh) Market reforms and one million new social housing program - shortage over but rising housing market inequalities 2008 Bogeumjari program: 1.5 million units - 53% rental 47% subsidized purchase Public rental housing <7.5% of housing 2000; 9.7% 2008, expected 12%+ by 2018

10. Housing policy plan (supply) 2009-2018

11. Social and Affordable Housing in China Post-1980 economic reform led by housing market reform (urban H.O. grows 18%-82% 1980-2004) Work Unit Housing abolished (1998) for commercial housing; affordable housing; government assisted rental Uneven public measures & house price inflation = housing market polarisation & economic instability The ‘comfortable society’ making access to quality dwelling a universal ‘basic housing right’ New housing policy implementation framework; spending 1% GDP on affordable housing by 2020

12. New Directions The end of an era and the beginning of the next Changes in Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan? Demographic and family change; New political, democratic and socioeconomic context Capacity and demand to expand public provision Building new social housing models or adapting the market to serve emerging developmentalism Lessons for Europe? tapping housing wealth; failed Asset based welfare (Doling and Ronald 2010, 2011, Ronald and Doling 2010, 2012)