In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.
Mounting concerns exist that small private investors exacerbate the urban housing crisis, by purchasing dwellings to rent out so-called ‘buy-to-let’ purchases. By buying up property, they may drive up house prices and exclude regular house-seekers. In this paper, we show that buy-to-let purchases constitute an increasing share of all purchases on the Dutch housing market, and especially so in larger cities and university cities. We argue these local trends do not emerge out of thin air and are not a ‘natural’ market process but should be considered the product of both global economic developments and national policies supporting these changes. Global developments include the increased mobility and ample availability of capital, exemplified by a prolonged low interest environment and a growing scarcity of high quality collateral and investment opportunities, making housing attractive for storing capital. Dutch housing policies have increasingly restricted access to social rent to low-income groups, while blowing up house prices fuelled with mortgage debts. As a consequence, a growing number of households falls in-between these two tenures: they have to resort to private rent. Private investors respond to and accommodate this demand through buy-to-let investments. Furthermore, the Dutch national government has made steps to relax regulation on the private-rental market and weakened tenant rights. In so doing, it sets the scene for amplifying social and spatial inequalities between the property rich and the property poor.

In the last few years, platform work and the so-called ‘gig economy’ have been growing across countries. While policy makers are debating the gig economy, there is no single agreed definition of this new type of work and systematic academic reviews are missing. This literature review provides main findings of relevant papers on working in the gig economy. The article shows that the growth of the gig economy fits well into the increasing hybridisation of work, which raises some political questions.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.
We calculate and describe profits obtained by health organizations in The Netherlands in the years 2014 and 2015. We distinguish between profit and not-for-profit organizations. We find that on average net profits amount to about 2 percent on turnover with a peak of more than 3 percent for mental-healthcare organizations. If we take the size of organizations into account, we find that for-profit organizations with a turnover of less than 1 million euro tend to have on average net profit rates of 4 percent to more than 5 percent with peaks amounting to more than 50 percent. We are not yet able to come up with explanations for these excessively high profit rates in parts of the Dutch health care sector. On the other hand, the highest losses can be found in small-sized organizations as well. We delved deeper into the financial accounts of a few for-profit organizations and found indications of misreporting of turnover or number of treatments. On the other hand, bad management and unhealthy cost structures might explain why some organizations incur excessive big losses. The sector does not appear to be well monitored by the government.