佛蘭德社會(huì)住房的未來(lái)外文翻譯-其他專業(yè)-展示頁(yè)
2025-01-31 07:24本頁(yè)面
【正文】 perspective by paring it with five other countries； some of them with small social rental sectors (Ireland， Spain and Germany)， others with larger sector (UK and Netherlands) (see Winters et ).The aim is to describe different features of the social rental sector in these countries， searching for the differences and signs of dual and unitary models. In the Netherlands and the UK， the social rented sector occupies a larger market share， % and 20% of the housing stock， as shown in Table both countries，we see a trend towards a decline in social rented dwellings owned by the the Netherlands， the municipal housing panies have virtually disappeared and， in the UK， the number of RSLs (registered social landlords) is gradually currently manage 6% of the UK housing difference between the UK and the Netherlands is that the social rented sector fulfils a safety function in the former case and， in the latter， it is accessible to many target groups. In Spain， Germany and Ireland， as in Flanders， the social rented sector is modest in scope， varying between 3% and 9%.However， major differences exist between the social rented sectors in these Germany and Spain， a dynamic social rented sector exists， which is managed by private are built with a subsidy and kept affordable for a certain period and they are also the subject of dwelling allocation the end of this period， these dwellings are Ireland，the social rented sector fulfils the function of a social safety and the sector is owned by local social rented sector in the Netherlands has an unclear character； on the one hand a maximum ine criterion applies， on the other hand priority rules apply to weak groups. policy The formation of housing policy， from the discussion documents of the National Housing Forum of 1992 through to recent Bills， shows a rapid and consistent shift from a holistic approach to the many needs of the previously marginalised of the country to a more rigid and bureaucratic set of RDP suggests an integrated vision for the upliftment of people， whereas the Housing White Paper of 1994 which， while it includes reference to these many factors (eg financial，environmental， servicing， job creation， education and other facilities),essentially focuses on the single measurable objective of providing one million houses in five in this objective is the measure ofhouse， given the proviso that housing delivery must be incremental， and that:Only a limited State subsidy contribution towards the cost of a house is possible (Department of Housing 1994:20).It is debatable whether the shift in policy from the RDP to the Housing White Paper reflects differences in policy between the overall direction taken by government and by the Department of Housing， or whether the logistics of meeting the RDP ideals were subsequently reviewed in the light of fiscal interpretation is accurate， the consequences must be seen as an unrealisable raising of expectations， f
黨政相關(guān)相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1