【正文】 ighamenity residential environments, businesses follow close behind. As human capital is a major resource for modern business, this turns the residential environment into a relevant economic location factor. Specifically, it gives more weight to the residential preferences of those whose opinion matters when firms move. As skilled workers and professionals seek to minimize their muting time, firms located nearby have an advantage in attracting and retaining a qualified workforce. Where housing petes with other policy fields for limited resources, housing officials are often called upon to demonstrate the benefits of investment in housing. At present, local authorities seem to be preoccupied with the task of revitalizing and restructuring the local economy. They have less interest in the provision of public goods and investments that serve consumption。然而 ,通過擴展上述的爭論 —— 促進中小企業(yè)的股權 以刺激 當?shù)氐慕?jīng)濟 — 看起來這筆錢是花 在住房投資 上 了 ,甚至 社會住房 也會產(chǎn)生 強大的 經(jīng)濟效益。通過購買和租賃手段對房屋進行投資，需要很大份額的居民消費。對于他們而言 ,地方政府很想認識這種挑戰(zhàn)提供 的 所有 獎勵 。住房政策和經(jīng)濟循環(huán)的任何聯(lián)系都在住房項目中得以改善，以跟上國民經(jīng)濟條件的變化。但是 Feddes 和Dieleman（ 1996）研究認為： 不管國家規(guī)定采用何種不同的福利研究模型， 目前 房屋已成為重要政策中的主要成分。西歐目前 60%的房屋建于 1945 年 以后，對于這些房屋的存在 形式 來說，大多數(shù)住房屬于補貼性 住房。很顯然，對改革后的住房的推動力主要來源于關于國家預算的政策決定。 此類激勵方法涵蓋范 圍很廣， 而且也越變越多，因為大家都了解到 當?shù)氐氖找媾c產(chǎn)出 是 直接相關 的 。住房包括許多其他實質性的成本，創(chuàng)造巨大的經(jīng)濟乘數(shù) : 保養(yǎng)、稅收、公用事業(yè)、家具和許多其他費用。 舊的城市區(qū)域成功適應新經(jīng)濟這個現(xiàn)實似乎由兩個世界組成。 instead, they feel that ensuring municipal revenues has to take precedence over spending. Yet, by extension of the argument presented above– that the promotion of equity stimulates the local economy – it seems that money spent on housing investment, even social housing, would generate economic benefits. The old urban regions that have adapted themselves successfully to new economic realities seem to consist of two worlds. They are the workplaces and the playgrounds of the newly affluent, with their lifestyles of conspicuous consumption. At the same time, these places are characterized by decaying neighborhoods, concentrations of disadvantaged ethnic groups, and homeless people on the streets. In terms of the ideology of the welfare state that spawned the large social housing programs of the past, such contrasts cry out for sharing the benefits of the economic transformation. But the ideal of the redistributive welfare state has lost out to the liberal notion of ‘betting on the strong’. Yet, there is no particular need to reinstate the social housing programs of the past. Other, less ambitious solutions can diminish social inequality in an area. But these must be designed to fuel the flow of investment. Good housing in attractive neighborhoods can prompt investment by the private sector. Poor housing conditions, in contrast, are a strong indicator of social exclusion and of conflict. They must be avoided, as they tra