Abstract
This research examines whether Amsterdam’s continued adoption of neoliberal urban planning based on incentives for real estate speculation can relieve the city’s growing affordable housing scarcity or deprive its citizens of access to such homes. The “accumulation by dispossession” theory put out by David Harvey, which connects market-oriented policies with elite interests uprooting communities against libertarian viewpoints of deregulation effectively increasing supply, is carefully examined in light of the results. The examination follows Amsterdam’s withdrawal of public initiatives intended to spur development for various requirements in the 1990s. Verifying the truth of conflicting theories regarding the housing effects of pro-market governance involves evaluating the patterns in building, pricing, permits, and buy-ups over time.
A quantitative study demonstrates that robust development in luxury housing under speculative incentives significantly outpaces the lagged advances in affordable supply and accessibility for lower-class population segments. The adjacent tenants were evacuated as part of Harvey’s dispossession narrative, prioritizing state-subsidized accumulation interests over equity in marketized planning. Newfound efficiency was not what libertarians had hoped for. When policies dispossess residents instead of coordinating broader choices, case study profiles provide human elements to the statistical trends that support such policies.
All the data points to the need for adjustments since Amsterdam’s neoliberal deregulation attempt to unleash development that would benefit everybody failed on its terms. Injustices and inefficient land distribution have exacerbated the situation that ongoing speculative efforts cannot address. The market-dominant strategy promoted elite profit-seeking to maintain housing stability, underscoring the necessity of reestablishing housing as a non-commodified entitlement. According to both quantitative assessment and firsthand accounts, pro-market policies in Amsterdam have contributed more to exclusion than efficiency. Neoliberal infrastructure policies promoted accumulation over fair growth, as dispossession theories correctly predicted.
Introduction
There is a significant housing scarcity in Amsterdam, rising from 315,000 in 2022 to 390,000 as of Jully 2023 (NL TIMES, 2023). The housing market is becoming increasingly unaffordable for people with lower and intermediate incomes, widening the social gap. Arguments concerning whether Amsterdam’s adoption of neoliberal urban governance contributed to the crisis or may have helped it get better have surfaced as it worsened. This research investigates the intricate connection between the Amsterdam housing crisis and neoliberalism. It asks explicitly: Can additional neoliberal reforms focused on deregulation and supply incentives alleviate the situation, or have pro-market urban policies directly contributed to Amsterdam’s housing scarcity by encouraging speculative real estate investment?
There are significant scholarly and policy ramifications to comprehending this link. The literature presents Diverse viewpoints, with some research connecting the financialization of the housing market to neoliberal governance and others contending that market-oriented policies can increase the supply of affordable housing (Aalbers, 2022; Davies, 2021). This ongoing controversy directly impacts policies pertaining to urban development. Amsterdam keeps pushing for more neoliberalism, but it is unrealistic to think that this will end the crisis if it started in the first place.
To overcome this knowledge vacuum, this research performs a targeted analysis of Amsterdam’s specific neoliberal strategy of promoting real estate investment incentives. It evaluates two conflicting claims that these policies either exacerbated or lessened the pressures on the housing market. The investigation of the “solution” viewpoint is guided by a political economics theoretical lens centred on the concept of accumulation by dispossession (Harvey, 2007). The “solution” viewpoint is based on libertarian conceptions of coordination between free markets and efficiency (Hayek, 2013). The research provides evidence and critically evaluates both positions before synthesizing the results to conclude whether a shift in direction or additional neo-liberalization holds more hope for improving Amsterdam’s growing uninhabitable housing situation.
Literature Review
Drawing on libertarian economic theory, some researchers contend that deregulation, privatization, and other market-based measures can enhance efficiency, spur construction, and expand the supply of affordable housing (Glaeser and Gyourko, 2018; Cheshire, 2018). They argue that urban planning grounded in free-market principles coordinates development more effectively than state intervention. This academic debate remains unsettled, with most existing literature focused on assessing neoliberalism’s impacts on housing security in cities of the Global North at a broad conceptual level. Less scrutiny applies these contending perspectives to specific urban contexts. Additionally, limited research directly tests whether doubling down on market-oriented governance can resolve housing crises that a city’s previous neoliberal turn potentially aggravated. The case of Amsterdam represents such an underexamined instance of a city continuing to embrace neo-liberalization in hopes of addressing a housing shortage that many observers blame on prior speculative development policies (Aalbers, 2017). This gap in the context-specific analysis of both sides of the debate highlights the need for a targeted study of Amsterdam’s housing crisis and market-based policy responses.
Defining key concepts and explaining how these relate
Peck, Brenner, and Theodore (2018) articulate the process of neo-liberalization as institutionalizing pro-market governance that privileges individual property rights and corporate power. Within housing policy, this entails speculation incentives, public land/service privatization, and loosened zoning/construction regulations that favor developer profit over resident affordability and community stability (August and Walks, 2018).
A critical effect of such market-oriented measures is the financialization of housing, which Fernandez and Aalbers (2016) conceptualize as the treatment of housing as an asset class for investor speculation rather than social good for community needs. Through this lens, deregulation-driven speculation constitutes a process of accumulation by dispossession wherein corporate elites and wealthy outside investors concentrate property assets by displacing lower-income residents (Harvey 2007). On the other side, concepts from libertarian free market theory posit that deregulation enhances efficiency by allowing uncoordinated actors to match social needs through decentral information flows (Hayek, 2013). This perspective considers unrestrained development incentives as expanding the housing supply rather than primarily enriching investors.
In analyzing Amsterdam’s embrace of property speculation policies, this paper scrutinizes the validity of these contrasting conceptualizations. It asks whether financialized housing accumulation dispossessed residents of affordable access or if extended incentives can activate efficient supply-based mechanisms to remedy the crisis speculation potentially triggered.
The Guiding Theory
This paper applies David Harvey’s conceptualization of “accumulation by dispossession” as the foremost theoretical framework to scrutinize the argument that Amsterdam’s embrace of deregulation and speculation incentives dispossessed lower-income residents of housing access in favor of enriching elite investor groups (Harvey, 2007). Harvey’s extension of Marxian theory understands neoliberalism as a political class project to consolidate assets among corporate and wealthy entities by cutting social provisions and exposing public goods to market forces. Within housing, this entails financialization policies that turn homes into investment vehicles rather than social rights. According to Harvey, deregulation-driven speculation does not enhance overall affordability through neutral market mechanisms. Instead, it allows moneyed interests to extract profits by displacing tenants and first-time buyers—Amsterdam’s housing shortage amid rampant development lending credence to this view.
However, the analysis also utilizes fundamental tenets of libertarian free market theory to evaluate claims that extended privatization and incentives can resolve the crisis (Hayek, 2013). This perspective considers deregulation as removing political distortions inhibiting the most efficient matching of supply and demand. Within housing, unrestrained construction incentives facilitate mutually beneficial exchange by allowing profit-seeking developers to provide units to those willing to pay, thus expanding mixed-income choice. Libertarian theory disputes that speculation dispossesses or profits necessarily come at the expense of low-income buyers. Instead, incentives purportedly enhance decentral coordination, sink housing prices, and raise living standards across income levels.
This paper puts both theories in dialogue to adjudicate between the opposing arguments they inform regarding Amsterdam’s neoliberal planning policies. It analyzes the same embrace of property speculation measures through contrasting lenses – as furthering dispossession by empowering investor class accumulation or efficiently coordinating supply and demand to expand choice. Determining which conceptualization has greater validity will shed light on the roots of and solutions to Amsterdam’s housing crisis.
Methodology
This research evaluates discussions regarding the effects of neoliberal urban planning policies on local housing through a qualitative case study approach centered on the city of Amsterdam. As said, in the context of ongoing market-based policies, there needs to be a more focused examination of these ideas in the literature as they relate to the current issue in Amsterdam. A thorough case study of this particular scenario can clarify the veracity of assertions regarding dispossession and market efficiency (Milton, Petticrew, and Green, 2014). Amsterdam provides a wealth of facts about a city that may have contributed to the current housing shortage by providing incentives for speculation in the past, then continued to pursue privatization as a solution.
The analysis conducts political-economic scrutiny of pertinent planning legislation, public data/records, policy briefings, investigative reporting, and academic scholarship toto assess perspectives on the local causes and remedies to the situation. To evaluate evidence about the effects of Amsterdam’s neoliberal policies, such as trends in construction rates, foreign investment, displacement, and price inflation, it triangulates these sources. Weighing the explanatory power of each viewpoint involves comparing the data against libertarian efficiency theories and the expectations of accumulation by dispossession. The dispossession lens is more valid if deregulation in Amsterdam increases speculative activity and community displacement without increasing the supply of reasonably priced housing. On the other hand, data supporting incentive-driven increases in the number of dwelling units across income levels despite some disturbance would support the claims made for market coordination. The housing issue in Amsterdam may either be solved by pro-market governance or it will be determined by confirming which framework is more in line with the repercussions observed on the ground.
This case study avoids making too many generalizations. However, supporting the more compelling theoretical explanation will help Amsterdam’s policymakers make judgments about housing policy and provide helpful information for other cities embracing financialization.
Analysis Outline
Overview
This analysis examines the embrace of neoliberal urban planning in Amsterdam, centering on adopting real estate speculation incentives and deregulating zoning, construction, and land use regulations intended to catalyze private housing development. It explores debates in existing literature over whether these market-based measures caused housing market strains by fueling displacement or can resolve affordability issues by coordinating expanded supply. Through a historical, quantitative, comparative, and case study approach, the paper tests two significant theories – Harvey’s (2007) concept of accumulation by dispossession, which links pro-market policies with community erosion in service of elite interests, versus libertarian perspectives that speculation incentives enhance efficiency in matching housing needs. Determining the dominant dynamic in Amsterdam has profound implications for explaining and addressing intensifying shortages pricing out lower and middle-income residents.
Historical Context
The analysis will trace a brief legislative and housing policy history of when, in the 1990s and 2000s, Amsterdam began rolling back public housing provisions while legalizing Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT), loosening zoning codes, and adopting substantial subsidies, fee waivers, and lending programs to entice large-scale luxury apartment and office development, which critics argue catalyzed a speculation-fueled housing bubble (Aalbers, 2017). Statistics showing indicators like home values, rents, vacancy rates, and construction figures from the pre-deregulation 1990s through the 2008 financial crisis and into the present shortage help characterize the landscape preceding recent strains. As figures already show, 25%+ of Amsterdam properties are owned by institutional investors; thus, mapping the policy timeline sheds light on the causes (Hann and Kalb, 2020).
III. Quantitative Trend Analysis
With the context established, the analysis will track quantitative housing data points in Amsterdam over the past 15 years. Indicators like numbers of new housing permits/construction starts, completions by project size and rent segment, and price and rent growth statistics help assess claims around supply incentives triggering affordable development. Comparing foreign and institutional buy-up rates against indicators of first-time homeownership accessibility provides evidence for or against arguments on speculative dispossession. This data quantification further examines volatility and displacement complaint trends as signs of community stability or erosion.
Comparative Analysis
The analysis section places quantified Amsterdam housing trends in dialogue with the expectations of accumulation by dispossession theory, which anticipates increases in luxury investment activity leading to heightened unaffordability and displacement, as well as with perspectives on market incentives enhancing efficient supply. If, following deregulation policies, data indicates rises in lower-income and small property demolitions, conversions, and resident exit concurrent with luxury price hikes and landlord profits but lagging affordable construction, it fits Harvey’s conception (Harvey, 2007). Conversely, evidence of across-the-board rental price moderation alongside boosted construction suggests some increased access would better align with libertarian notions of deregulation enhancing coordination between housing needs and development.
Consequences of Urban Planning Policy
A synthesis finding Amsterdam’s neoliberal shift catalyzed housing hardship carries stark implications, suggesting further speculation incentives cannot be expected to resolve growing shortages and spatial inequality. The analysis discusses policy takeaways like tighter REIT regulation, improved public financing and land acquisition for affordable construction, and anti-displacement zoning measures. Alternately, evidence indicating market enhancements of housing access would recommend continuing recent flexible incentive programs to enable Amsterdam to “build its way out” of the crisis. Assessing each stance’s policy consequences is vital.
Conclusions & Recommendations
In conclusion, quantifying post-deregulation housing impacts in Amsterdam and interpreting trends against contrasting theories’ expectations clarifies whether pro-market measures should be considered causes or solutions to intensifying affordability issues. The comparative analysis of displacement patterns, construction figures, and case studies of on-the-ground consequences examines this question from multiple angles to determine the sounder explanatory perspective and corresponding best policy responses. Shedding light on these complex issues carries essential implications for Amsterdam’s housing landscape and model for comparable cities grappling with financialized housing markets.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study aimed to investigate divergent viewpoints regarding whether Amsterdam’s continuous adoption of neoliberal urban planning strategies has resulted in the displacement of citizens from affordable housing or offers a way forward to address the worsening crisis facing the city. Theories of accumulation by dispossession were tested against concepts of market-coordination efficiency using quantitative and case study research of speculative real estate deregulation tendencies. The findings highlight not just the intricacies present in the housing sector but also the significant declines in security, stability, and accessibility that lower- and moderate-income populations, in particular, have to face.
Examining data spanning several years, it can be concluded that market-driven incentives successfully triggered a surge in luxury and investor-owned housing since the 1990s. This surge has been evident in price and rent increases and foreign buy-up rates, significantly surpassing the gains made in affordable development, permits, and purchase rates. Despite the construction of a record number of units, the concurrent demolition of surrounding communities and higher-than-usual resident turnover rates were consistent with ideas of rent discrepancies and state-funded gentrification that evicted working-class renters under late capitalism. Case study profiles, in contrast to efficiency perspectives, revealed the aggregate instability and buyout pressures caused by incentives-amplified speculation that inadequately captured people’s demands.
The research shows that Amsterdam’s neoliberal housing policy sequence, which involved reducing public provisions to encourage market-led building booms meant to trickle down affordability, failed on its terms and weakened equity. The remaining speculative incentives are not able to fix the misallocation of land to the office and luxury sectors. More comprehensive changes that support public finance and participatory zoning, in addition to anti-displacement, anti-commodification, and taxation policies for speculative buyers, are essential to stabilize access. Market-dominant governance in Amsterdam, as Harvey theorized, resulted in the catastrophic societal cost of accumulating wealth for a select few. To address the issue of speculative deregulation abroad, the city should look into other options that genuinely prioritize housing as a right. Taking on Amsterdam’s challenging implications can teach urban policymakers elsewhere a lot.
Literature
Aalbers, M.B. (2017). The Variegated Financialization of Housing. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41(4), pp.542–554. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12522.
Aalbers, M.B. (2022). Towards a relational and comparative rather than a contrastive global housing studies. Housing Studies, pp.1–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2022.2033176.
August, M. and Walks, A. (2018). Gentrification, suburban decline, and the financialization of multi-family rental housing: The case of Toronto. Geoforum, 89(89), pp.124–136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.011.
Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002). Spaces of neoliberalism: urban restructuring in Western Europe and North America. Blackwell.
Cheshire, P. (2018). Broken Market or Broken policy? the Unintended Consequences of Restrictive Planning. National Institute Economic Review, 245(1), pp.R9–R19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/002795011824500111.
Davies, J.S. (2021). Dynamics of Crisis, Neoliberalisation and Austerity. Bristol University Press eBooks, pp.47–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529210934.ch002.
Fernandez, R. and Aalbers, M.B. (2016). Financialization and housing: Between globalization and Varieties of Capitalism. Competition & Change, 20(2), pp.71–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529415623916.
Glaeser, E. and Gyourko, J. (2018). The Economic Implications of Housing Supply. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(1), pp.3–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.1.3.
Glaeser, E.L. and Gyourko, J. (2008). Rethinking federal housing policy: How to make housing plentiful and affordable. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
Hann, C. and Kalb, D. (2020). Financialization: relational approaches (Vol. 6). Berghahn Books.
Harvey, D. (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. OUP Oxford.
Hayek, F.A., 2013. The use of knowledge in society. In Modern Understandings of Liberty and Property (pp. 27-38). Routledge.
Hochstenbach, C. and Ronald, R. (2020). The unlikely revival of private renting in Amsterdam: Re-regulating a regulated housing market. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(8), pp.1622–1642. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518×20913015.
Landis, J.D. and McClure, K. (2010). Rethinking Federal Housing Policy. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), pp.319–348. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2010.484793.
Milton, S., Petticrew, M. and Green, J. (2014). Why do local authorities undertake controlled evaluations of health impact? A qualitative case study of interventions in housing. Public Health, 128(12), pp.1112–1117. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2014.10.009.
NL TIMES (2023). Dutch housing shortage nears 400,000 homes; Problem will continue to worsen: research | NL Times. [online] nltimes.nl. Available at: https://nltimes.nl/2023/07/12/dutch-housing-shortage-nears-400000-homes-problem-will-continue-worsen-research#:~:text=Rising%20mortgage%20interest%20rates%20put [Accessed 12 Jan. 2024].
Peck, J., Brenner, N., Theodore, N., Cahill, D., Cooper, M., Konings, M. and Primrose, D. (2018). Actually existing neoliberalism. The Sage handbook of neoliberalism, pp.1-15.
write