no. 28, 29/1995 Tine STANOVNIK Nekaj ekonomskih problemov v zvezi s stanovanji v Sloveniji The Economics of Housing; some relevant issues in Slovenia stanovanja Stanovanjska pditìka Reforme Slovenya Podan Je kratekprìkaz stanovaiyske politike na Slovenskem ter najpomembnejši problemi ki so danes prisotni na stanovaiyskempodrogu. Zagovaijamo tezo, daJe osnovna naloga stanovanjskege politike razvoj neproßtiiega nqjemitega sektoija. Housing Housing policy Reforms Slovenia A brief overview of the past housing policy in Slovenia is given, together with the most pressing problems facing the housing sector. Arguments in favour of Ü\e development of an economically and Jinancially viable non-proßt rental sector are presented. Uvod Stanovanjsko področje pomeni nekakšno križišče, v katerem se stikajo. prepletajo in srečujejo posamezne "podzvrsti" socialne, ekonomske in družinske politike, če seznam omejimo le na tiste vrste politike, ki so pomembne za družboslovne raziskave. Stanovanjske politike torej ni moč analizirati in vrednotiti, ne da bi upoštevali širše družbene razmere. V tem smislu se na stanovanjskem področju zrcalijo uspehi In neuspehi nacionalne ekonomske, socialne in družinske politike. Mogoče bi lahko celo uporabili izrek: Povej mi, kako imaš urejeno stanovanjsko področje, in povem ti, kdo si! V tem kratkem prispevku bomo skušali prikazati odvisnost stanovanjske politike od širšega družbe-no-ekonomskega okolja in nekaj ekonomskih izhodišč za njeno analizo. Menim, da so ta izhodišča pomembna tudi za formulacijo stanovanjske politike na Slovenskem, Osnovne ekonomske determinante stanovanjskega področja v 80. in 90. letih Za stanovanjsko področje v Sloveniji je bil do srede osemdesetih let značilen močan Intervencionizem. Iz-puščamo atribut "državni", ker bi bil verjetno izraz "samoupravni intervencionizem" bolj primeren. Dfuž- Introduction Housing represents a kind of a junction, with the intercrossing and merging of various forms of social policy, economic policy and famity policy. In this respect housing policy cannot be properly analysed without taking into account the social and economic context in which such a policy is formulated. It might even be said that housing policy reflects the successes and failures of national economic, social and family policies. Our aim in this short paper is to briefly present developments in the housing sector in Slovenia in the recent past and show how housing policy was dependent on "broader" developments - pai'ticularly regarding changes in the economic policy and changes in the socio-economic system. Finally, we present a discussion of some issues relevant for tlie fomiLilation of a national housing policy. Housing in Slovenia in tlie 80s and 90s Housing in Slovenia was - up to the mid-eighties - characterized by strong interventionism. We omit the attribute "state", since this interventionism was, unlike most com-mimist countries, based on the concept of self-managed and social ownership. The social ownership in the housing sector and also -to a large degree- private ownership, we- št. 28,29/1995 bena lastnina no stanovanjskem področju in v pomembni meri tudi zasebna lastnina se je "razvijala in širila" predvsem z različnimi oblikami prisilne akumulacije, ki je zavzemala naslednje oblike: a) Prispevki na bruto plače in dodeljevanje sredstev na osnovi samoupravno sprejete odločitve o delitvi sredstev za stanovanjski sklad po zaključnem računu. S prispevki na bruto plače se je financiral t.i. "solidarnostni sklad"; reševanje stanovanjskih problemov zaposlenih pa so omogočala izločena sredstva po zaključnem računu in del obveznih prispevkov (ki je ostal v podjetju), Iz teh sredstev so v podjetjih kupovali stanovanja na "trgu" in/aii zaposlenim dajali ugodna posojila za gradnjo ali nakup stanovanja. b) Posojila, ki so jih dajala podjetja so bila "oplemenitena" z bančnimi posojili. To "plemenitenje" oziroma multipliciranje sredstev niso omogočala samo sredstva, ki so jih podjetja deponirala v bankah, temveč tudi sredstva, ki so jih zaposleni privarčevali za nakup ali gradnjo stanovanja, tj. bančni depoziti varčevalcev, Glede na to, da je bila obrestna mera za posojila dolgo realno negativna, oziroma ni bila vezana na stopnjo inflacije, takšna oblika financiranja ne pomeni nič drugega kot transfer premoženja, ki je v pre-mo(enjski bilanci bank povzročil velike "črne luknje". Po letu 1987 so biie obrestne mere odvisne od stopnje inflacije (po formuli R+r), leta 1989 pa je bil dokončno odpravljen prispevni sistem za stanovanjsko gradnjo. Uvedbo realnih pozitivnih obrestnih mer je treba gledati v širšem smislu sprememb v ekonomski politiki tedanjega časa, ko seje Mikuličeva vlada po mnogih letih omahovanja le odločila za tržnejše vrednotenja produkcijskega faktorja - kapitala. Danes se verjetno le malokdo spominja, da je ta sprememba posredno povzročila rast cen (inflacijo ) in dolge razprave o "kokoši in jajcu". Kasnejšo ukinitev sistema prispevkov (v letu 1989) je prav tako treba gledati v širšem smislu - tokrat v re being developed tlirough varioiis foiTns of forced accumulation, i.e. explicit and implicit subsidies, eiUier to the demand side or supply side, 'rtiese were as follows: a) Levies on gross wages and part of retained fimi profits. These levies were for the financing of the so-called "solidarity housing fund" of a municipality, witli tlie levy being set by the self-managed housing association in a given mumicipality. Pail of the levy was retained by the finn: tliis part, together witli retained profits (earaiai'ked for housing was the ajnount available for solving the housing problems of finn employees. Out of Uiese funds tlie fuin could al. buy new apartments, which tlie finn employees could rent. Fonnally, tliese apai't-ments were not finn ownership but rather social ownership. a2. provide favourable housing loans to its employees for the purchase or consti'uction of a dwelling. b) I^ans, offered by fìniis could be augmented by banldng loans. This was possible by depositing tlie funis housing fumds in a given bank, as well as by savings deposits by employees. The twin source of housing finance (deposited finn loans and savings deposits) produced a suitable multiplicative effect Since the interest rate was - up to tlie mid-eighties- negative in real terais, this Idnd of financing was in effect a massive transfer of wealth, with the balance sheets of the banks paying tlie final price. It tlius comes as no sLirprise that tlie l^anks in Slovenia are in a large restixic-turing process! From 1987 tlie interest rates were tied to the inflation rate, and in 1989 the whole housing llnance system was dismantled. Both events must be viewed in the wider context of changes in the economic policy and broader systemic change. The introduction of real interest rates, preceded by long discussions on the pros and cons, mai'ked tlie beginning of serious economic refonn in no. 28. 29/1995 okviru "demontaže" sistema samoupravnega socializma. V tem smisiu izkušnje v Sloveniji potrjujejo našo trditev, da dogajanj na stanovanjskem področju praviloma ne moremo analizirati, ne da bi upoštevali tudi spremembe v relevantni socialni in ekonomski politiki, ali celo relevantnih makroekonomskih okoliščin. V tabeli 1 vidimo, da so imele opisane spremembe povsem konkretne posledice, predvsem pa so prizadele stanovanjsko gradnjo v družbenem sektorju (sedaj ga imenujemo "investitor - pravna oseba). Zasebni sektor (sedaj imenovan "investitor - fizična oseba) je - kot je razvidno iz tabele - pokazal bistveno večjo odpornost, ker je očitno tudi precej manj odvisen od "zunanjega" financiranja oziroma "zunanjih" razmer. Ob izjemno skromnem povečanju stanovanjskega fonda v obdobju tranzicije pa ne moremo mimo dejstva, da se je kvaliteta Yugoslavia. TTie dismantling of the contributory system for housing finance in 1989 also has to be observed in its viider context - i.e. as an important measure in the demolition of the socialist self-mana-ged system, with housing being one of the first casualties. In this sense the experience of Slovenia shows tliat the changes in the housing sector are - to a dominant degree - determined by broader socio-economic considerations. From table 1 we observe that both changes (in 1987 and 1989) sti'ongly affected the housing sector, particularly via housing construction. Obviously, the hai-dest hit was the social sector (now named "investor-legal person"). TTie private sector (now named "individual investor") has shown considerable resilience to changes in financial conditions. This is in no Tabela 1 : Dokončana slanovwya v Sloveniji glede na tip investii£>rja. 1980-1994 Table 1 : Apartmeiits completed in Slovenia, as regards tlie type of investor. 1980-1994 Leto / Year Skupaj / Total Individualni investitorji / Individual investors Investitorji Pravne osebe/Investors Legal persons 1980 13.672 6.673 6.999 1981 14.674 6.393 8.281 1982 13.245 6.140 7105 1983 12.344 6.710 5.634 1984 11.612 . 6.702 4.910 1985 11.252 7138 5.114 1986 12.937 8.050 4.887 1987 10.212 6.249 3.963 1988 9.799 6.115 3.684 1989 8.541 6.281 2.260 1990 7.759 5.513 2.246 1991 5.918 4.586 1.332 1992 6.492 5.143 1.349 1993 7846 7052 794 1994 5.522 4.984 538 Vir: Statistični ìetopìs Slovenije 1993, Statistične informacije 163/1994 in 258/1995 Opomba: velik porast v številu dokončanih stanovanj priindividualniti investitorjih v letu 1993 je posledica večletnega zaostanka pri poročanju iz ot>čine Koper. Ta zaostanek so nadoknadili leta 1993, ko so za občino Koper prijavili kar 2007 dokončanih stanovanj pri individualnih investitorjih. Source: Statistical Annual of Slovenia 1993, Statistical information 163/1994 and 258/ 1995 Note: The large increase in number of completed dwellings in 1993 is due to the unreporting of Koper municipality in previous years. This backlog was cleared in 1993 when the municipality of Koper reported 2007 completed dwellings by individual investors. tega fonda v preteklih letih nenehno izboljševala, ker je razvidno iz tabele 2. Oktobra 1991 je bil v skupščini Republike Slovenije sprejet nov stanovanjski zakon, ki naj bi postavil temelje za novo ureditev stanovanjskega področja. Naloga je bila seveda zastavljena nekoliko preveč velikopotezno. Z zakonom sta bili in-avgurirani dve pomembni in ireverzibilni spremembi: small part due to the fairly large reliance on non-market fonns of provision, I.e. community help, family loans etc. WliUe, on tlie one hand, we observe a large decrease in Uie number of completed dwellings, on tlie oUier hand the quality of the existing dwelling stock has been continually enhanced, as can be seen from table 2. Št. 28,29/1995 a) Odprodajo oziroma privatizacija družbenego stanovanjskega fondo Z odprodajo stanovanj naj bi "z enim nonšalantnim zamahom" odpravili družbeno lastnino na stanovanjskem področju. To se je dejansko tudi zgodilo, tako da je družbeni fond, imenovan "neprofitni najemni fond", sedaj povsem na obrobju -ne samo kvantitativno, temveč tudi kvalitativno. Posledice v kvalitativnem smislu so bile predvsem v dejstvu, da je bil odkupljen le kvalitetnejši del družbenega stanovanjskega fonda; analiza privatizacijeje podrobno prikazana v raziskavi T. Stanovnika (1994). V tabeli 3 je podanih nekaj osnovnih značilnosti stanovanjskega standarda za tri skupine gospodinjstev: 1. gospodinjstva, ki so odkupila stanovanje na osnovi stanovanjskega zakona (bodisi v enkratnem znesku bodisi obročno); 2. gospodinjstva, ki niso odkupila stanovanja, a so imela to možnost; 3. vsa gospodinjstva v Sloveniji. Tabela 2: Opremljenost stanouarya z üistalacyaim (v %). 1988 in 1993 Following the 1989 changes, which gave a mortal blow to housing finance, but in essence left the existing social sector intact, the 1991 HoLising act provided the legal frame for Uie complete transformation of the housing sector. Like so many gi'aiid schemes, chaj-acterized by comprehensiveness, only some propositions have been implemented to the full, 'llie more important are: a) The privatisation of the social housing stock Social housing, which comprised some 35 % of the total housing stock was offered for sale to the sitting tenants. Virtually no part of tliis large stock was exempt, and very lai-ge cliscoLints were offered. TIius Uie first post-socialist government inade to Uie public "an offer you could not refuse". The details of the privatisation sale are presented elsewhere (Stanovnik 1994); we observe here Uiat the results were quite predictable, with the best part of the social housing stock sold to sitting tenants. A post festum (or perhaps post mortem?) of Uie pri- Table 2: Equipment of apartn-ient with installations (in %). 1988 and 1993 1988 1993 centralno ogrevanje/central heating 61,5 70,9 plinska napeljava/gas main 9.7 11.6 tel efon/tele phone 49.3 68.2 skupna TV antena ali kabelski priključek/ joint TV aerial or cable connection 38.9 59.9 površina stanovanja (v m^)/size of apartment (in sq m) 75.2 76.1 Vir: Ankete o porabi v gospodinjstvih v letih 1988 in 1993, Urad RS za statistiko. Source: Household Expenditure Surveys in Years 1988 and 1993, Statistical Office of Slovenia no. 28, 29/1995 Podatki v tabeli 3 so zelo zgovorni: stanovanja, ki so bila odkupljeno, so bila kvalitetnejša od stanovanj, ki v stanovanjskem fondu niso bila odkupljena. Po opremljenosti so odkupljena stanovanja presegala tudi kvaliteto opremljenosti celotnega stanovanjskega fonda. Tako je npr. 79.3 % odkupljenih stanovanj imelo centralno ogrevanje (daljinsko, blokovno ali etažno), pri neodkupljenih stanovanjih je imelo centralno ogrevanje le 61.7 % stanovanj, kar je nižje od nacionalnega povprečja (v Sloveniji ima centralno ogrevanje 70.9 % vseh stanovanj), b) Ustanovitev Stanovanjskega sklada Republike Slovenije Stanovanjski zakon iz leta 199 i je za Stanovanjski sklad Republike Slovenije (SSRS) predvidel pivotalno mesto; skrbel naj bi za financiranje nacionalnega stanovanjskega programa, spodbujal pa naj bi tudi stanovanjsko gradnjo, prenovo in vzdrževanje stanovanj (člen 79). Sklad naj bi dejansko nadomestil delovanje prejšnjih državnih in paradržavnih (samoupravnih) institucij. Intervencionizem sklada naj bi se izražal predvsem s financiranjem oziroma kreditiranjem po ugodni obrestni meri. Kapitalska osnova sklada naj-bi se formirala: a) na osnovi zakonsko določenega deleža iz zbranih kupnin (20 % kupnine družbenega stanovanjskega fonda, vatisation bonanza is presented in table 3, which shows the housing standajxi for three types of households: 1. households which purchased their apartment through the provisions of the Housing act; 2. households which did not purchase their apartments, but had the opportunity to do so; 3. all households in Slovenia 'file data presented in table 3 speak for Üiemselves. Tlie housing (and household income) characteristics of group 1 are "top of the class"; the quality of the purchased dwellings by far surpasses the quality of the unpurchased part as well as the quality of the total housing stock. Tlie unsold part of the social housing stock was relegated to the nonprofit rental sector; this sector -though defined and instituted in the Housing act - is in fact still in its infant stage, with unsufilcient economic and financial backing. This is of course due to the fact that the worst and "tmsaleable" part of the social housing stock landed in its lap. Be what may, due to the Housing act the housing ownership structure has changed dramatically. From 1988 to 1993, the share of owner-occupied apartments increased from 11 % to 30 %, owner-occupied hoLises from 53 % to 57 % Tabela 3: Stanovaiysld standard in socioekonomske značilnosti za tri skupine gospodiiystev. leto 1993 Table 3: Housing standard and social-economic characteristics for three groups oj household, year 1993 Skupina 1 / Group 1 Skupina 2/ Group 2 Skupina 3/ Group 3 gospodinjstvo ima:/household has: - centralno ogrevanje/central heating - plinsko napeljavo/gas main - telefon/telephone 79.3 % 24,5 % 76.5 % 61.7 % 11.1 % 42.4 % 70.9 % 11.6 % 68.2 % starost stanovanja (v letih)/ age of apartment (in years) 25.9 36.4 34.5 število članov gospodinjstva/ number of household members 2,9 2.5 3.0 povprečna površina stanovanja (v m^)/ average size of apartment (in sq m) 57.5 48.9 76.1 letni denarni dohodek v družini (v tisočih tolarjev)/ annual family income (in thousand SIT) 1307.3 796.0 1218.2 Vir: Anketa o porabi y gospodinjstvih v letu 1993, Zavod Republike Slovenije za statistiko Source: 1993 Household Expenditure Survey, Statistical Office of Slovenia št. 28,29/1995 kije bil v lasti podjetij in občin) in b) iz subvencij iz državnega proračuna. Hitro - to je bilo tudi predvidljivo - se je pokazalo, da je kapitalska osnova, formirana iz deleža kupnin, prešibka za izrazitejšo obliko inter-vencionizma na tem področju. Razpisi za posojila pod ugodnimi pogoji (R+3) so bili večinoma omejeni na individualne prosilce, predvsem za gradnje ali nakup stanovanj. To je nekoliko presenetljivo, če upoštevamo, da ima Slovenija - zaradi množične stanovanjske privatizacije - izjemno velik lastninski fond in da bi zaradi tega morali povečati najemni fond. S tem bi se struktura lastništva bolj uravnovesila in ustvarjene bi bile okoliščine za boljšo prostorsko in socialno mobilnost. Seveda lahko rečemo, da sklad uresničuje svojo "lastno" kreditno politiko, ker ni izoblikovane neke "družbene" politike; na tem področju pa tudi niso določene "drUž-berie" prioritete. Kakorkoli že, zaradi hi-trega "presuševanja' kapitalske osnove sklada je bilo iz državnega proračuna v letu 1995 nakazanih 2,5 milijard tolarjev (kot subvencija skladu), v letu 1996 pa je predvidenih 1,5 milijard tolarjev. Niti najmanjšega dvoma ni, da je v primerjavi z drugimi evropskimi državami, takšen obseg državnega in-tervencionizma zelo skromen. Ekonomski pogled na stanovanjsko področje Iz tega kratkega prikaza je razvidno, daje stanovanjsko področje trenutno nekoliko zapostavljeno, kar pomeni, da je v primerjavi z drugimi družbenimi prioritetami nižje na lestvici, vsaj takrat, kadar so te prioritete ex post določene na osnovi alokacije sredstev iz blagajn javnih financ (tj. iz državnega proračuna). Ne moremo reči, da je nizko "uvrščanje" stanovanjskega področja na lestvici družbenih prioritet nekaj, kar bi bilo že vnaprej slabo. Zakaj? Tudi Lundquist (1990: 3) namreč dobro ugotavlja, "da na stanovanjski trg lahko gledamo kot na sistem, ki ga označuje stalni proces medsebojnega prilagajanja gospodinjstev in stanovanj - predvsem skozi stalno interakcijo med ponud- ancl tlie share of the rental sector (private or social) decreased from 36% to 13%.- b) The National Housing Fund TTie Housing act of 1991 also contained provisions regai-ding the formation of tlie National Housing Fund (NHF). It was anUcipated that this institution would be instrumental in fostering long-tenn change in the housing sector. The functions of the National Housing Fi-md were primarily in the field of housing finance and it was also hoped that a National Housing Policy would be pursued through a well-defined credit policy by the Fund. 'flius tlie prime task and mean of intervention of tlie National Housing Fund was to be through granting loans under favoLirable conditions (i.e. below-market interest rate). The initial capital of the Fund was formed mainly from the legally earmarked proceeds from the sale of the social housing stock (20 % of the sales price). Tliis capital was clearly insuflicient for more substantial intervention in the housing field. The 1995 and 1996 State budgets provided a much needed but still fairly weak injections (some 2.5 billion tolars and 1.5 billion tolars respectively). Disbursed loans were mostly for private applicants (for purchase or construction of dwelling). Hiis is somewhat SLuprising, in view of the fact tliat owner-occupied dwellings in Slovenia ali'eady represent an "indecent" share in the total housing stock. Such a policy cannot but create even greater disbalances and prove to be a serious olDstacIe for the imperative increase in social and geographical mobility. Wliile the NHF is fonnally governed by the supervisory Board of Directors, appointed by the Government of Slovenia, one could pose the question: how "autonomous" ought the NHF l^e. Can the NHF formulate -and pursue- its own credit policy, or must it pursue a credit policy within well defined boundaries and constraints set by other, perhaps more representative (and democratically elected) bodies. no. 28,29/1995 bo (tj. produkcijo) in povpraševanjem. Rezultat tega procesa variira med dvema ekstremoma: med na-čeiom "primerno stanovanje vsakemu giede na potrebe" in načelorn -"stanovanje na osnovi efektivnega povpraševanja". Verjetno ni ekonomista, ki bi trdil da je za stanovanjsko področje edino reievantno načelo efektivnega (tj. denarno podprtega) povpraševanja. Prav tako pa tudi ni ekonomista, ki bi zagovarjal tezo, da je za stanovanjsko področje edino relevantno načelo "primerno stanovanje vsakemu glede na njegove potrebe". Državni intervencionizem - ki omogoča odmik od merila efektivnega povpraševanja - opravičuje teorija: stanovanje spada v kategorijo dobrin s posebnim družbenim pomenom, "poraba" te dobrine pa ustvarja pozitivne zunanje učinke; zaradi tega je efektivno privatno povpraševanje po tej dobrini manjše od "družbenega". Skratka, če državni intervencionizem opravičuje teorija, pa seveda ne moremo nič reči o obsegu tega intervencioniz-ma, kajti tudi neekonomistom je jasno, da je skrajna oblika tega inter-vencionizma, tj. "vsakemu po potrebah" komunistično geslo ali pobožna želja. Ekonomija je veda o optimalni alokaciji omejenih sred-. stev; zavedati se moramo, da imamo tudi v skupini dobrin s posebnim družbenim pomenom, za katero je značilen ne povsem tržni sistem alokacije (tj, neupoštevanje načela efektivnega povpraševanja kot edinega merila alokacije) različne dejavnosti - šolstvo, zdravstvo itd. -, ki si prav tako "prizadevajo" za omejena razpoložljiva sredstva. "Oskrbe" s stanovanji zato nikakor ne moremo točiti od oskrbe z ostalimi dobrinami, ki so posebnega družbenega pomena; res pa je, da je od razpoložljive zmogljivosti družbe in tipa države blaginje precej odvisna kvaliteta in kvantiteta teh dejavnosti. Ta - ekonomski - pogled na stanovanjsko področje je za Slovenijo še kako pomemben. Če zagovarjamo tezo, da je zaradi upada stanovanjske gradnje v 90. letih prišlo do povečane neskladnosti med stanovanjskimi potrebami in razpoložljivo oskrbo, lahko zagovarjamo tudi In effect, one can say that the Government has simply pulled out of Uie housing sector, relegated inter-ventionism to the newly fonned NHF, bi.it witliout providing the financial means and social guidelines vi^hich are necessary for a meaningful intervention. An Economic Overview of the Housing Sector 'filiere is no doubt that tlie housing sector is cuixently quite low on the list of Government priorities - par-ticulai'ly if priorities ai-e derived ex post, by looking at the appropriation of budgetary funds. On a priori groLmds we cannot say whether this is "good" or "bad". Lundquist (1990:3) obsei-ved "Uiat tlie housing niaj-ket can be regai'ded as a system chaj-acteilzed by a perpetual process of adjusting households and dwellings to each other by Uie constant interaction between producer supply and consmner demand. The results of Uiis process vaiy between two extremes: the principle of "housing for eveiyone according to their needs", and Uiat of "housing on the basis of effective demand". Not even a hai d-core non-interven-Uonist economist would subscribe to the view that effective demand is tlie only relevant principle governing Uie housing mai'ket. The opposite exti-eme. Uiat of providing housing to everyone according to their needs, reads like a worn-out commimist slogan. We ai*e thus left in the middle ground, wiUi a rationale for state intervention, but with no "objective" criterion on the amount of this inteivention. This inteivention is justified on purely tlieoretical considerations: housing is a merit good, the consumption of which produces positive external effects. It follows Uiat- if the demand for housing rests only on effective private demand, Uie provision of liousing would be less than socially desirable. How to reach this social opUmum - whether through "rigging" demand or supply, remains uncertain: it can be ascertained only in the political process. št. 28,29/1995 tezo, da je prisilna akumulacijo za stanovanjsko gradnjo v 70. in (dei-no) 80. ietih pomenila čezmerno in neoptimaino rabo že tako skromnih sredstev. Stanovanjska gradnja je le eden od konkurentov, povpraševal-cev, za omejenimi razpoložljivimi sredstvi. Ker so v preteklosti pretežni del zasebnega varčevanja in pomemben del "prisilnega" družbenega varčevanja usmerjali v stanovanjsko gradnjo, bi lahko vsaj zagovarjali tezo, da takšna velika vlaganja v stanovanjsko področje niso zaželjena. V premoženjskem portfelju slovenskih gospodinjstev namreč prevladuje potreba po stanovanju, to pa z vidika sedanjih potreb v gospodarskem razvoju ni posebno zaželjeno; celo nujno je, da premoženjsko bilanco bolj diverzificiramo in postopno vključimo tudi druge oblike lastnine (npr. lastniški "equity' kapital, državne obveznice itd). To seveda ne pomeni, da morarno stanovanjsko področje povsem zanemariti in ga "prepustiti" trgu oz. efektivnemu povpraševanju. Pomeni le, da bi z uvajanjem interven-cionizma morali stremeti za tem, da bi se stanovanjsko področje čimbolj "odprlo" - predvsem s fiskalnimi ukrepi pa bi morali omogočiti večjo transparentnost in prehodnost, kar bi omogočilo bolj učinkovito rabo sedanjega fonda - predvsem z normalizacijo in povečevanjem ponudbe privatnega najemnega sektorja. V zvezi s povečevanjem tega fonda pa bi z intervencionizmom morali spodbujati razvoj neprofitnega najemnega sektorja, ki je za dolgoročno uravnoteženje stanovanjske strukture nujen; velik delež lastniških stanovanj ni znamenje močnega privatnega sektorja temvečje bolj značilen za nerazviti kapitalizem. dr. Tine Stanovnik, Inštitut za ekonomska raziskovanja, Ljubljana Namely, housing is not the only merit good competing for scarce resources - education and health caj-e are also strong contestants. The provision - or ratlier state inteiven-tion in Uie provision of tliese merit goods depends on the broader type ofwelfaj-e state. In other words, the provision of housing simply cannot be viewed in isolation from tlie provision of other merit goods and public goods. Why is this point emphasized? Wliile one could argue that housing construction in the 90s is insufficient witli regaixl to housing "needs", one could also argue, that the forced accumulation eannarked for housing construction, i.e. explicit and implicit subsidies for housing in the 70s and up to the micl-80s represented a large and suboptimal use ofscai'ce resources. Since in the past a major part of private savings (and large pail of firm profits) were devoted to housing, the household balance sheet is dominated by housing. For the economic development of Slovenia a diversified household portfolio is quite necessaiy, particulai-Iy if one talces into account Uie rising capital markets, witli such financial instruments available to tlie public (bonds, shai-es etc.) not available a decade ago. Fuilher increase in housing ownership can be more detrimental than helpful for the capital "deepening" of Slovenia's economy. The role of tlie state in such an envii-onment is therefore not a heads-on support for housing construction, but more in providing the necessaiy measures to enhance the transparency of the housing market, including fiscal measures aimed at a better utilization of the existing housing stock and a sustained support for the development of the non-profit rental sector. One cannot overemphasize the fact that a large owner-occupied housing sector is not a sign of a strong private sector but more a sign of weak capitalism. Dr. Tine Stanovnik, Institute for Economic Research, Ljubljana Literatura / References Lundquist. L.J. (1990). RolilngStones for tlie Resurrection of Policy as the Focus of Comparative Housing Research, paper on tlie International Housing Research Conference Housing Debates - Urtan Challenges, Paris. Stanovnik, T. (1994). The Sale of the Social Housing Stock in Slovenia: What Happened and Why, Urban Studies, vol. 31, no. 9, 1559-1570. C no. 28,29/1995 bo več velikih sosesk, sredstev za stanovanjsko gradnjo, ki bi jih zagotavljal sistem, manj bo črnih gradenj; prišlo pa bo do diverzifikacije stanovanjskega standarda, tipov zgradb in zazidalnih vzorcev. Zaenkrat bo prevladala miselnost "small is beautiful", predvsem pa bo gradbena tehnologija spet samo "dekla', ki služi arhitekturi. prof. dr. Vladimir Brezar, dipl. inž. arh., Fakulteta za arhitekturo, Ljubljana Opombe ' Zanimiv primer je bilo demonstracijsko gTžidbišče Štepanjsko naselje (CXjSN): v objektili P+4 so bili sami najemniki (večinoma z juga In pode-željžO. v stolpnicah P+12 pa sami etažni lastniki, torej premožnejši srednji sloj. večinoma domači. ^ Primer Harvard: ko je Stirling utemeljeval svoj prizidek t.i. Fogg galerije, je dejal, daje pač 'postavil še eno žival v živalski vrt... Note ' The Štepanjsko Housing Estate De-monstraüon Project (ŠHEDP) pi^sents an interesting example. The residents of tlie housing units in tlic fo\ir-storey buildings were all tenants (mostly migrants from tlie soutliem parts of tlie former Yugoslavia, and from niral areas, while apartments in tlie twelve-storey blocks were owner occupied by tlie more affluent middle class , mostly local inliabitants. ^ The Harvard example: In jusüfying Iiis extension, to Uie Fogg Gallery, Stirling said that he "only put anotlier animal in the zoo....". The result is known. There is a need to point out the legal framework in particular. The town plaiinmg inspectorate operates and saiicUons unauthorised housing construction but the building Inspectorale does not exist. The measLire of technical examination and the issuing of the operation pemiit is only rarely effected. Reconciliation of constaic-tion with Uie plan is not "secured", less still are the copyrights protected (which applies even to more legal multi-family construction). It is therefore possible to state lhat the profession is not sufficiently in touch with real events in practice. May be the profession itself is to be blamed for this since it does not want to recognise what people really want and instead it is oflering them its own view as to how Uiey ought to live. The rare attempts at new forms of organised, compacted (single family) house building can hardly succeed, especially because they are organised and, as such, access to them is financially difTicult. Apartments in blocks are also not more atti-acUve Just because they are "flexible" (since in elTect noÌDody exploits this possibility), or because the facade is beautifully painted. Recently, however, it has been possible to obsei-ve Uiat living neai" urban centres, in safe, well (;onstj-Lic-ted and insulated buildings, with pai-king space in the basement (Zupančičeva Jama and Kotnikova housing estates) is becoming more atti-active. What is happening today and what is the future of housing construction in Slovenia? We are presently at Uie stage of implementing the new housing act, although housing privatisation and tlie legalisation of unauUiorised housing have been accomplished. Nonetlieless, the most important implementation provisions (including die categorisation of housing units. Uie physical planning act. methodology for the legalisation of unauthorised housing, methodology for compacting the present dispersed building pattern) are yet to follow. With regard to islaiining documents, a number of new appro- aches is expected to be introduced over the whole country. At the same time, fresh investments are to be expected, particularly in the field of rented housing. It wiU be extremely difficult to achieve all this in the new "capitalist circumstances", since the new (old) landowners are going to emerge with quite different interests with respect to the prices of building plots, niese prices have suddenly increased, while tliere are only a few plots available. 'Hie price of land itself (rent) could put a halt to extensive tii-banisation and allow for the rational use of plots in a more profitable way, in favom- of quality instead of low price. A big plot is. Qierefore, appropriate for a "luxu-rioLis" mansion or high standard mulü-family housing olfering comfort which jusUfies the high economic rent, which also includes profit. Housing construction will, as it has always been, continue to depend on poliücs. To put it another way, politics will have to continue dealing wiUi the housing problem. It is dif-flcult to say (judging from the prevailing situation) whether the profession will have any greater influence in the future. Notwithstanding tlie foreign models (e.g. Graz) and Uie knowledge that we have acqu-iied at home in past decades (the Consù-ucUon Centre of Slovenia, Uie Ui-ban Planning InsUtute of the Republic of Slovenia and the Faculty of Ai-chitecture, Civil Engeneering and Geodesy), all of us wlfl, once again, have to study the urbanism and consti-Liction that will be suitable to Uie demands of the mai-ket economy. It is veiy likely that there will be no more big neighbourhoods, no more public funds for housing construction and less Linauthorised construction. This will lead todiversiflcaUon in housing standards, btiilding types and set-Uement patterns. For Uie Ume being, the noUon "small is beautiful" wifl dominate, while building technology will once again be a "maid" at Uie service of architecture. Dr. Vladimir Brezar, Professorand Dean of Faculty of Architecture, Ljubljana.