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.

During the last ten years, the private rental sector in the Netherlands has experienced a rapid growth. In the larger cities, this sector grew with 30 percent, mainly as a result of the large amount of private persons operating as small scale landlords (buy-to-let). This article reflects on the findings of a recent report on the nature of the buy-to-let sector in the Netherlands, carried out by Manuel Aalbers, Jelke Bosma, Rodrigo Fernandez and Cody Hochstenbach. This takes their findings as a starting point, and positions the Dutch private rental sector in an internationally comparative perspective. Furthermore, this article explains the rise of the buy-to-let sector not just from a housing market point of view, but from a welfare state perspective. In different European countries, the private rental sector plays a different role in the housing market, which impacts on the availability and affordability of housing in urban areas. Moreover, rental income for buy-to-let or small-scale private landlords can be seen as part of the provision of welfare. For some it is a pension arrangement, for others a speculative investment. This article reflects on the policy recommendations that Aalbers cum suis propose in their report. To what extent are their proposals able to increase the availability and affordability of housing, without undermining the livelihood of landlords for whom the rental incomes function as social security arrangement?

Over the past three years buy-to-let purchases have become a substantial presence in the Dutch housing market. Private investors buy existing homes in order to rent out. Rental yields have become attractive to a large group of individuals due to low interest rates and high rents. Though buy-to-let helps to increase the stock of rental homes (a broadly recognized need in the Netherlands) there are concerns about negative effects for instance on affordability for regular house seekers. A new group of buyers enters the market and this poses new or potentially aggrevated risks for the Dutch housing market, in particular regarding overall house price stability.

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.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.
Systematic research on societal responses to profit in healthcare is scarce. It is a highly complex topic, with many tensions in the public and political debate. In a recent Dutch publication on profit, authors use a ‘lifeworld’ perspective to assess profit in their research, while their assessment could have been different using a ‘system’ perspective. Both perspectives have their merit, and debate on the role of profit in health care should separate the two perspectives. We describe both perspectives and use them to clarify whether making a profit is different from paying that profit to shareholders. We conclude that in healthcare, the general tension between the perspectives can be summarized as ‘profit for one actor may feel – but isn’t always – someone else’s loss’. Recognizing these tensions and searching for a strategy to align interests in which everyone gains may help the current stagnated debate on this issue in the Netherlands.