URBANI IZZIV Richard SENDI Koliko je socialen predlagani Nacionalni stanovanjski program Republike Slovenije How Social is the Proposed National Housing Programme of the Republic of Slovenia Stanovanjska oskrba sodi med tiste dejavnosti. ki odločilno vplivajo na kvaliteto življenja prebivalcev. Obli­kovanje ustrezne stanovanjske po­litike je zato v razvitih zahodnoev­ropskih državah ena od pomemb­nejših nalog vsake vlade. s stanovanjskim zakonom iz leta 1991 je bila pri nas predvidena pri­prava nacionalnega stanovanjske­ga programa, ki naj bi opredelil naj­pomembnejše smeri v razvoju sta­novanjskega področja do leta 2000. 13. julija 1995 je Vlada Republike Slovenije določila besedilo stano­vanjskega programa in ga poslala Državnemu zboru v prvo branje. Pri prvi obravnavi Nacionalnega stanovanjskega programa v Držav­nem zboru RS (oktobra 1995) so nekateri razpravljalci, med drugim, tudi menili. da je predlagani pro­gram .preveč socialno usmerjen. Trdili so, da bi se morala vloga drža­ve glede neposrednega financira­nja stanovanjske ·oskrbe močno zmanjšati. stanovanjsko politik·o pa bi morali spremeniti in prilagoditi no­vim tržnim razme-ram. Podobna stališča lahko zasledimo tako v strokovnih krogih kakor tudi pri drugih avtorjih, ki pišejo o tem vprašanju (npr, Božena Križnik, Delo 15.9.1995). Splošno mnenje v teh krogih je, da naš stanovanjski program ni samo zelo sociafno us­merjen, temveč tudi nestvaren ozi­roma neuresničljiv, There are few things that strongly affect the people's qllalilyoflife as is the case with hOllsing. In the more developed countries, the develop­ment of an appropriate housing po­licy is. therefore. one of the most important tasks every government has to lackie, In Slovenia, the 1991 Hallsing Act stiplllated the preparation of a na­tional hOllsing programme which wOllld detennine the most impor­tant gllidelines for development in the hallsing field to U,e year 2000. In Jllly 1995. a draft National HOllS­ing Programme was p..'1ssed by the govenlment and slIbmitted to par­liament [or debate, and eventllal ap­proval. During the first reading of the Na­tional HOllsing' Programme. some members o[ parliament expressed the opinion that the proposecl pro­graullne was too socially orientecl. They contendecl that Ule govem­ment's role. WiUl respect to the cli­recl financing of hOlLsing provision, ought to be consic1erably reclucecl. Housing policy. ti"ley [elt, should be changed and aclapted to Ule new market circu11lst:ances. Similar views have been ex"Pressed arriong professional circles as well as by other writers on the sl-Ibjecf (e.g, Božena Križnik. DELO, 15. 9. 1995), The _general contention in these circles 'iS. that the housing programme is not only strongly so- I št, 28, 29/1995 Stanovanja Stanovw-yska politiJCa Socialna stwlOvanja Neprofitna sta­1l0vc.u-ya Slovenija Odkar je vlada Republike Slovenije določila besedilo Nacionalnega sta­novcu-yskegaprograma in ga[XJslala Državnemu zbont IJ prvo brW1je, je bilo slišali različna TTU1enjaza inproti predlagani stailOvanjski [XJli1iki. Ti­sti. ki te) politiki nasprotlyejo. med dnlgim, trdijo, da predlagwle rešitve niso povsem IJ skladu z načelL ki so polrebnaza uspešno uvajanje in uve­ljavijw1fe tržnega gospodarstva na stanoval-yskem podroijLL Ta prispe­vek poskuša ugotoviti nekatere vzro­ke. Idkažejo naupravičenostdOTTU1ev o pretirani socialnosti predlaganega nacionalnega stanovmyskega pro­grama. Hmtsing Housing policy Social hous­ing Non-projit housing Slovenia Since thegovernment oJlheReptiblic oj Slovenia submitted Ule Draft Na­tional Hotlsing ProgranuTle to Parlia­menIJor debate and eventu"l adop­ Hon, dilJerent view~ have been ex­ . pressed Jor and against, the propo­sed hmtsing[XJlicy. Among the obser­valions made by those opposing the housing programi-ne, both in parlia­ment and wiUlinprojessional circles. are accrLSaliolls lhat the proposed policyputs too much emphasis on the social housing sedor. 771is, theyjeeZ, is not in accordance with the require­menis Jor the introduclion and pro­motion q[a market economy, one oj the major aspects ojthe transiUonal process. in the wuntry. This paper ines to identify some ojthe reasons why Uleproposed housing prqjram­me rnay. indeed. be overly socig1ly orientated. CTIJBD nO. 28, 29/1995 S tem prispevkom poskušamo ugo­toviti vzroke oziroma argumente, ki so lahko osnova za trditve o preti­rani "socialnosti" predlaganega na­cionalnega stanovanjskega pro­grama. V njegovem uvodu je namreč za­pisano: "Nacionalni stanovanjski program opredeljuje najpomembnejše smeri razvoja stanovanjskega področja do leta 2000, ki izražajo javni interes na stanovanjskem področju. Glavni namen Nacionalnega stanovanj-' skega programa je vsakemu držav­ ljanu Re-publike Slovenije ob njego­ vem lastnem prizadevanju postop­ nq omogočiti pridobitev primerne­ ga stanovanja za njegove potrebe in za življenje njegove družine. " V uvodu je tudi ugotovljeno, da: "Zelo majhen del državljanov zmore razrešiti svoje stanovanjsko vpraša­ nje sam znotraj čisto tržnih odnosov, Večina državljanov pa lahko rešuje svoj stanovanjski problem le ob ak­tivni vlogi -države pri omogočanju neprofitnega stanovanjskega sek­torja, zagotavljanju socialnih stano­vanj in ugodnih kreditovza nakup ali izgradnjo lastnega stanovanja, Zato bo v obdobju do leta 2000 potrebno prednostno obravnavati neprofitni najemni stanovanjski sek­ tor.' Nacionalni stanovanjski program nadaijuje z določanjem ukrepov v zvezi z njegovo realizacijo ter z ana­lizo stanja skupaj z oceno stano­ vanjskih potreb do leta 2000. Takoje predvideno, da bibilo treba do leta 2000 zgraditi približno 10.000 sta­ novanjskih enot letno, in sicer v nas­ lednjih razmerjih: -2000 stanovanjskih enot oz. so-cialnih najemnih stanovanj, -2000 -2500 stanovanjskih enot oz, neprofitnih najemnih stano­vanj, -5000 stanovanjskih enot oz. las1­nih stanovanj ter 500 stanovanjskih enot profitnih stanovanj. dally oriented but alsa unreal and impossible to realise. Ihe purpose of illis paper is, there­ fore, an altempt to establish the reasons and arguments which may provide support to the accusations that the proposed housing progra­ mme is strongly socially oriented. As stated in its introduction: "'TIle national HOLlSing Programme detennines UJe trost imporiant de­ velopment guidelilles in the housing seclor to the year 2000. These repre­sent public' interest in the housing sector. TIle mam aim ojthe National HotlSing Programme is. through in­ dividual elfart, lo gradually enable every ciLizen oj lhe Repllblic oj Slo­venia secure appropnate housingJor his needs and Jor UJe being oj his Jwnily." lbe introduction lo the housingpro­ gramme continlles that: "Only a verysmallpartoJlhepopula­ tion is capable ojsolving their hotlS­iIlg problem on their own on the open market. TIle majorily of-the popula­·lion can only secure housing with tl1e activerole oJlhestate, inenabling the operation oj the non-profIt _housing sector and by providing social hOtlS­ iIlg andJavourable tenn loans Jor the purchasiIlg ar consinlction oj their own housing. It will tJUlS be-necessary. in the pe­ riod lo Ule year 2000, lo givepriority aiteniion to-the non-profit rented sec­ . tor," TIle National Housing Programme Ulen goes op to set the measures for its realisation. presents a brief ana­ lysis of the stale of the arts and offers an estim'ate of housing needs unUl2000. It is thus estimated that it will be necessaJY to build ap­proximately 10,000 housing units every year in the fol!owing propor­ tions: -20 % (2000 housing units) in the social rented seclor, -25 % ( between 2000 and 2500 housing unils) ln the non-profit rented Sector, -50 % (5000 housing lmits) in the 6wner occupied sector and 5 % (500 housing units) in the "profitable" sector, URBANI IZZIV Načini. kako bomo te cilje lahko uresničili (vprašanje. ki bi ga morali obravnavati tudi ob kakšni drugi p riložnosti), niso tema našega raz­m~ljanja v tem prispevku. Bolj nas zanima. kaj predvidene strukture stanovanjskega fonda pomenijo v smislu uvajanja in izvajanja tržnega gospodarstva na stanovanjskem področju. Za lažje razumevanje argumentov v tem prispevku moramo naš stano­vanjski program najprej primerjali s stanovanjskimi sistemi v drugih ev­ropskih državah. In glede nato. da smo v procesu konsolidiranja tržnega sistema. je tudi koristneje. da to primerjavo naredimo z drža­vami. ki imajo daljšo tradicijo tržne- Tabela 1: Struktura lastništva sta­novanJ v nekaterih dr.žavah evrop­ ske unije How to achieve these goals (a topic worUl discussing on anolher occa­sion) is not the theme ofour dJscus­sion here. We are rather interested ln what the struclure of houslng tenure as proposed by the Housing Programme means wiili respecl to the inlroduction and consoUciation ofa market economy in the housing field. For abelter understanding of the arguments presented heret il is ne­cessary first ofall to putour houslng programme in perspective with the housing systems ofoLher European counlries. And qearing in mind Ulat we are in Ule process of consolidat­mg the operation of a market sys­tem. it is a1sa more useful to make Table 1: TI,e stn/dure oj hal/sing tenlIre in some European Union cOlInines • Velika Britanijal Great Britain NizozemskalNetherlands -lastniška stanovanja! 68.2% -lastniška stanovanja! 46 % owner-occupied owner-occupied -privatna najemna! 7.5% -privatna najemna! 17 % private rented private rented -socialna/social 24.3% ...: soda/na/social 36 % (podatki za lela 1989/ -ostalolother 1 % data lar 1989) (P9datki za lela 19921 dala tor 1992) Francija/France -lastniška stanovanja! 54% DanskalDenmark owner-occupied -lastniška stanovanja! 55 % -privatna najemna! 20.% owner-occupied private rented -privatna najemna! 18 % -socialna/sociaJ 17% private rented -ostal%ther 9% -neprofitna/non-profit 17 % (podatki za lela 19881 data lar 1988) -zadružna:!cooperative -neznano/unknown 7 % 6 % (podalki za lela 19881 Avstrija/Austria dala tor 1988) -lastniška stanovanja 50% owner-occupied Švedskal Sweden -privatna najemna 18% -laslniška stanovanja! 43 % private rented owner-occupied -socialna/social 21 % -privatna najemna! 21 % -ostal%ther 11% private rented (podatki za leto 1990/ data for 1990) -socialna/social -zadružna/cooperative 21 % 15 % (podatki za leto 19901 Nemčija/Germany dala tor 1990) -lastniška stanovanjal 38% owner-occupied Norveška/Norway -privatna najemna! 42% - lastniška stanovanja J 60 % private rented owner-occupied -socialna/social 20% - privatna najemna! 18 % (podatki za leto 19871 data for 1987) private rented -socialna/social -zadružna/cooperative 4 % 18 % 8elgijal8elgium (podalki za lela 1988/ -lastniška stanovanja! 65% data for 1988) owner-occupied -privatna najemna! 28% private rented -neprofitna/non-profit -neznano/unknown 6% 1% Vir: CEC, Sratistics on Housing in the European Community, 1993./ . (podalki za lela 19911 Source: CEC, Statistics on Housing in the dala for 1991) Europsan Community, 1993. no. 28. 29/1995 • ga gospodarstva. Predlagamo to­ rej, da si na hitro ogledamo krajšo analizo strukture lastništva oziroma kategorij uporabe stanovanj (hous­ing tenures) v nekaterih državah Ev­ ropske unije (Emms P.. 1990; Popa O .. 1992; Balchin P .. 1995; Boel­houwer P .. and van der Heijden H.. 1992; Harsman B .. and Quigley J. M. (eds). 1991). Iz tabele 1 je mogoče razbrati tri pome_mbne karakteristike stano­vanjskih fondov v omenjenih drža­vah. ki so pomembne tudi za naše razmišljanje v tem prispevku: l. Vse države identificirajo katego­ rije lastn ih, privatnih najemnih in socialnih/neprofitnih stanovanj. Tetri kategorije veljajo kot najbolj pomembni stanovanjski sektorji v vseh državah. Druge kategorije. ki se pojavljajo samo v nekaterih državah so, zadružna, neznano oz. ostalo. V nobeni državi ne raz­likujejo posebej med socialnimi in neprofitnimi kategorijami. 2. Lastniško kategorija zavzema gle­de na delež celotnega stano­ vanjskega fonda prvo mesto v vseh državah. razen v Nemčiji. kjer ima privatno najemništvo naj­ ViŠji odstotek. Razen v Veliki Bri­ taniji. Avstriji in na Nizozemskem (na Švedskem pa enak odstotek socialne in privatne najemne ka­ tegorije). privatna najemna kate­ gorija zavzema drugo mesto. so­ cialna kategorija pa šele tretje. 3. Najvišji odstotek v socialni kate­goriji ima Nizozemska. znaša pa 36 % celotnega stanovanjskega fonda. Preden pogledamo. kaj predstavlje­ ne strukture pomenijo v primerjavi z opredelitvami našega nacionalne­ ga stanovanjskega programa. mo­ ramo opomniti. da so razlike v obse­gu med vsemi temi stanovanjskimi sektorji v različnih državah delno rezultat zgodovinskih in družbeno­ ekonomskih razmer. predvse m pa so po?ledica zavestne stanovanjske politike. Kaj lahko ugotovimo. če primer­ jamo lastniške strukture v Nocional­ the comparison with countrles with alonger tradition of market eco­nomy. We suggest. therefore. that we take a brief look at the houslng tenure structures in some of the . European UnIon countrles (Emms P .. 1990; Papa O .. 1992; Balchln P .. 1995; Boelhouwer P. and van der HeUden H .. 1992; Harsman B. and Quigley'J.M. (eds). 1991). The table 1 above indlcates the fol­lowing three important charaete­ nstics of th~ housing stock in the countries consldered: l. Three major ten ure categories are identifiable in all countries. Le.. owner-occupied. private rented and social/non-profit housing. These three are alsa the most important tenure categones in all the examples presented. The oU1er calegones which appear ln some countries and not ln others are: cooperative. unknown and ­other. There are no separate ca­tegories of social and n~)fi-pro­ fit housing in any of these co­ untries. 2. WIUl the excepUon of Cennany (where U1e proporlion of privale renled hOllsing is highes!) U1e biggest part of the houslng stock is to be found in the owner-oc­ cllpled sector. And apart from. Britain. Austria and the Nether­ lands. the pIi vale renled sector takes second place in U1e maJorily of these cotmtries. while the so­ cial seetor takes third place. The proportion of privale and social renled hOlIsIng is exacUy the sa­ me in Sweden. 3. With 36 % of the total housing stock. the Netherlands has the highest percentage of social hOlIsing an10ng all the European Union countries analysed. Before we by to find Ollt what these tenure structures mean in compa­ lison wilh the proposals putforward by the National Housing Program­me, it is important to point out that the differences ln the sizes between all the housing tenures in the va­rious countries presented above. are partJy the resu!tofhlstorical and socio-economic circumstances. but above all the result of consciOllS hOllsing policy. 112 URBANI IZZIV nem stanov(;mjskem programu z ugotovljenimi značilnostmi v drža­vah Evropske unije? 1. Najprej to, da se predviden delež lastniške kategorije več ali manj ujema s podatki v državah Ev­ropske unije 1, 2. Nacionalni stanovanjski p rogram izrecno razlikuje med socialnim in neprofitnim stanovanjskim sektor­jem. Take delitve ni mogoče zas" rediti v nobeni posamezni državi Evropske unije. 3. Nacionalni stanovanjski program opredeljuje kategorijo' "profitnih stanovanj'". Po opisu kategorije v stanovanjskem programu je mo­goče sklepati, da je to glede na kategorizacije -v državah Evrop­ske unije zasebni najemniški sek­tor. Gledano z vidika uveljavljenja trž­nega gospodarstva na stanovanj­skem področju, je razdelitev med socialnim in neprOfitnim stanovanj­skim sektorjem eden od največjih problemov Nacionalnega stano­vanjskega programa. Ta delitev ne povzroča težav samo pri določanju jasnih razmejitvenih meril med obe­ma kategorijama, temveč tudi in­tenzivira posredovanje države na stanovanjskem trgu, obenem pa zmanjšuje vlogo zasebnega sektorja pri zagotavljanju stanovanj. Ta ugo, tovitev je še posebej umestna, če upoštevamo dejstvo, da sredstva za izgradnjo neprofitnih stanovanj da­nes (neposredno ali posredno s Sta­novanjskim skladom Republike Slo­venije) zagotavlja država. Če torej seštejemo odstotke v obeh kate­gorijah, socialnemu stanovanjske­mu sektorju pripada dejansko 45 % celotnega fonda. Tako velikega odstotka socialnih stanovanj pa nima nobena od zgoraj omenjenih držav. Med državami Evropske unije ima najmanjši privatni najemni sektor, le 17 %, Nizozemska (če ne upo­števamo Velike Britanije, kjer se je ta sektor zaradi politike omejevanja najemnin močno skrčil), Naš Na­cionalni stanovanjski program pa predvideva, da bi imel privatni na- How, then. does the housing tenure structure of ollr National HOllsing Programme compare with that of European Union countries presen­ted above? There are three major points ofobseIVation: L First of all, we may obseIve that the proposed propolt1on of ow­ner-occupied hOllsing is more or less simHar to the average in the European Union countrles. l 2. The National Housing Program­me expliciUy dlstinglllshes be­tween the social and non-profit housing sector. This. as we have discovered above. is a distinction which. in compariso~ WiUl Euro-. pean Union countries, is unique to Slovenla. . 3. The National Hallsing Program­me includes a category referred to as profitahi. housing. Judging from Lhe deftniUon given on this categOlY. tt is possible to dedlIce that iL con'esponds to private rented tenlll'e in the examples above. From -Ule premJse of the operation of U,e hOllsing marke~ the clisUnc­Uon between the social and non­profi t hOl1sing sectors poses one of Ule greatest problems ofthe NaUon­al HOllsing Programme. Not only does this disLinction create pro­blems in deLenllining precise boun­daries between the two sectors (for example when considertng applica­tions for state ald), bulitalso inlen­silles' state intervention on the hOl1sing market. l1lis is especia11y so, lf we consider the fact U,at the construcUon of non-profit hOl1sirig Is presently funded (clirecUy or otherwise, through the HOllsing Ftlnd of the Republic ofSlovenia -a govenllI1ent institution) by the state, Ifwe thus add up the percentages of social and non-profit housing pro­posed by the housing programme, we get aloLal of 45 % of the whole stock. None of the countries above has s uch a high percentage of so­clal/non-profit housing. Wilh only 17 %, U,e Netllerlands have the lowest percentage ln the private rented sector (ifwe set asJde Great Brttain (7,5 %) where this sec­ št. 28, 29/1995 , cmBD 00.28,29/1995 , jamni sektor Cv naši-terminologiji profitni sektor) samo S-odstotni de­ lež.' Glede ocenjevanja potreb po ne­ profitnih stanovanjih Nacionalni sta­ novanjski program ugotavlja: ~Neprofitna najemna stanovanja so namenjena državVanom spovpreč­nimi in nekoliko nadpovprečnimi dohodki. ti pa zanesljivo pred­ stavljajo večino vsega prebivalstva. Kakorje razvidno jz analiz vprilog;' je za reševanje stanovanjskega vpra­ šanja te skupine državljanov potreb­ na pridobitev od 2000-2500 stano­ vanj letno." Težko je torej razumeti. zakaj sta­novanjski program predvideva pri­bližno enak odstotek potreb po sta­novanjih (po 2000 oz. 2000-2500). tako v socialni kot neprofitni kate­ goriji. čeje bilo ugotovljeno. da spa­da večina prebivalcev v neprofitno kategorijo. Stanovanjski program nadalje oce­ njuje. da: "" .bi ob nadomestitvi primanjkljaja in ob rednem zagotavljanju social-· nih stanovanj po navedeni dina­ miki bila povprečna čakalna doba upravičencev za pridobitev social· nega stanovanja sedem let." (za­ temnil avtor prispevka) Ta ugotovitev ima dve osnovni po­ manjkljivosti. Prvič. predpostavlja prostorsko, pa tudi socioekonom­sko statičnost iskalcev stanovanj. Glede na zahtevnost pogojev za pri­dobitev pravic do dodelitve social­nega stanovanja je verjetno nesmi­selno pričakovati. da bodo vsi pro­silci po sedmih letih še vedno iz­ polnjevali potrebne pogoje. Povzetek Pri naštevanju potrebnih ukrepov pri izvajanju Nacionalnega stano­vanjskega programa je med drugim zapisano, da: "... bi marofa državo z ustreznimi ul5­ repi vplivati na trg denarja. namen­jenega za kreditiranje stanovanjske tor has been steadUy shrinklng ·ln !he last decades due to restrlettve rent control measures and pIiva­ UsaUon polieies). In eomparJson, our housing programme proposes a 5 % share ofto ta! housing eonslrue­Uon in !he "profitable" (private ren­ted) seetor'> , ExplaJnlng !he need for non-profit housing, !he National Houslng Pro­gramme states: "Nm-profit renIed housing is inten­dedJor that prui q[ the popu/ation WiOl aveTage and above average in­ rome. TI1ese. no cloubt. represent the majority oj the total population. As evident Jrom the appended analy­seso it will be necessary to provicle 2000-2500 housing unils per year, in order to satisjy the housing needs ojtllis population group. 2" Having made !hat observatlan. It Is then diffieult to eomprehend why the housing programme proposes an approximately equal proporUon ofhol1sing consirllction in the social and non-profit seetors; 2000 and 2000-2500. respeeUvely. The Housing Progrrunme continues to observe that: "... after cnmpensating Jor the pre­sent housing deficit and with a ron­stant supply ojsocial housing at the proposed.rate. the average waiting period Jor secwing social housing would IJe seven years." (bold print byauthor). In our opinion, there are two ~un­ damenta! miscaIeulatlons in this statement First of all. it assumes spatial and socio-economic bruno­ biliiy of those looklng for housing. Seeondiy, eonsidering !he speeiJ1e eriterla (e.g.1 low hleome, young fa­milies. single parent famllles, the elderly, the dlsabled, etc.), whieh have to be satisfied in order to qua­ Iify for social houslng a1locaUon. It Is unrealistle to expeet that all present applicants will stili meet the same requirements. seven years on. URBANI IZZIV gradnje ter na trg nepremičnin. Pri tem bo spodbujala konkrenčnost in razvoj tržišča, povečanje ponudbe in zmanjševanje povprašBvanjo. Z ukrepi davčne politike, predvsem na področju obdavčevanja nepre­mičnin, bo država postopoma vpli­vala tudi na bolj racionalno izrabo obstoječih stanovanjskih površin N. Menimo. da ima naša država naj­več problemov prav pri uvajanju us­treznih mehanizmov stanovanjske­ga trga. To priznavajo tudi sami pri­pravljavci Nacionalnega stanovanj­skega programa: -Ta čas v Sloveniji tudi ni nobene specializirane finančne institucije, ki bi omogočala uspešno stanovanj­sko varčevanje prebivalstva in bi privarčevana in s finančnimi posli oplemenitena sredstva posojata za nakup ali gradnjo stanovanj". Dokler ne bomo pri nas uvedli in uveljavili delovanja stanovanjskega trga z vsemi ustreznimi mehanizmi ter inštitucijami. ki so potrebne za njegovo normalno funkcioniranje, bo moral biti naš stanovanjski pro­gram še nekaj časa socialno usmer­jen. Posledica vrzeli. ki danes pri nas obstajajo na tem področju. je loče­na kategorizacija med socialnim in neprofitnim stanovanjskim sektor­jem. Diskretna podvojitev socialne­ga sektorja pa državi nalaga dvojno odgovornost pri razreševanju stano­vanjske problematike. S postopki. s katerimi danes ugo­tavljamo. ali prosilci izpolnjujejo po­trebne pogoje za dodelitev državne finančne pomoči oziroma stano­vanja, pa še nismo uspeli doseči (glede na Nacionalni stanovanjski program predividene): •...debirokratizacije stanovanjskega področja 'in zamenjave administra­tivnega dodeljevanja s tanovanj s postopki za organiziranje stano­vanjskega tržišča ter s podporo za­sebnim pobudam". Prepričani smo. da bl bil -če bi ustrezno deloval stanovanjski trg ­brez neposredne državne interven­cije sposoben samostojno rešiti svo­je stanovanjske potrebe večji od­stotek iskalcev stanovanj v neprofit­nem sektorju. V našem stanovanj­ Conc\usion Describing the measures which need to be !aken in order to realise the National Housing Programme it is stated, that: ", .. the govenlment should t1u-ough the application ojappropriate mea­ sures, irifluence the money markeis inlendedJor provi11ing loons Jar ho­ using construction. and !hus make interventions on Ull! real estate mar­ ket. These interoentions will. encou­ rage competitiveness and bring about improvernents in the market. whidl will lead to increased sllpply and reduce demand. By o§erillg tax incentives, partictllarl. WiUl respect to real estate taxatioTl, Ule govenl­ ment will be able to gradl/ally aelIieve more rational use ojUle ex­ isling housing stock... We [eel Ulat tile govemment's big­gest problem al lhe moment is lhe provision of Ule conclitions Oega!. organisational, institutional. finan­cing). ne~essary for the nOITI1al ope­ration of a hOllsing market. TIlree years after hOl1sing pIivaUsation and [ouryearsa1ler Ule int.roduction of a market economy. the majOlity ofhollsing transactions in the coun­try are sliU conlrolled and execLlted by government institutions (local aulhorities and the HOllsing Fund and its affiliates), As regarcls financ­ing. one of the principle elemenls in the sllccess[ul operation ofa hOlls­ing market. Ule HOllsing Program­me made the following admlsslon: "Presenl1y U,ere is no specialisedfi­ nancial inslilution in Slqvenia which oou/d altow SlU:;cessfid saving Jor housing purposes.fi-om which loans c;olLld be o1fe1'edJor' house pw'Chase or bUilding. Our hOllsing programme will COI1­tinue to be sociaJly oIiented unlil the introducion and implementation of all the mechanlsms necessruy for the smoolh operation of a hOLlsing market Meanwhile, the presentdls­Unction between the social and nOI1­profit hOllsing categories. inclicated in the hOllsing programme, is only a consequence of the current "va­culim" in the hOllsing market. The discreet dup1ication of the social nO. 28, 29/1995 Uteratura lUterature BAI..CHIN. P .. (1995) Housmg Policy: an Introduction. London: Routledge. BOELHOUWER. P .. van der HEIJDEN. H. (1992) Housing Systems in Europe: part l. A Comparatlve Study ofI-Iousing Policy. Delft: Delft University Press. CI..APHAM, O .. KEMP. P .. SMffii. S. J . (1 990) Housmg and Social Policy. Lon­don : Macmillan COLE. I.. FURBEY. R. . (1994) The Eclipse ofCou ncil Housing. London : Routledge DlACON. D. (199 1) DeteriornLion of the PubUc SeetOr Housing Stock. A1dershot : Avcbury DOU NG. J .. DAVI ES. M. (1984) Public Control of Pr1vately Rcn1:ed Housing. AI­dershot ; Oowcr Publishing Company Ud. EMMS. P. (1990) Soctal Houstng. A Euro­ pean Dllemma., Bristol : School for Ad­vanced Urban Stud1cs. FORREST,R.. MURlE,A. (1990) Mov!ng the Houstng Market. Council Estates, Social Change and Privatisation. Akler­shat : Avebury FORREST. R.. MURlE. A. (eds) (1991) Selling the Welfare State. TIle Privatisa­tlan of PublJe Housing. London : Rout­ ledge HARSMAN. B .. gUIGLEY. J. M. (eds) (1991).Housing Markets and Housing Institutions: An International Compari­san. Massachusetts: Ktuwer Academic Publishers -PAPA. O. (1992) Housmg Systems tn Eu­rope: Part II. A comparative Study of Houslng Flnanee. Delft: Delft University Press . SENDI. R. (1995) Houstng Reform and Housing Conlliet: the Ptivatisation and Dcnatioi1a1Jsation of Public Housing in the Republie of Slovenk'l in Practisc. (ln­t.ematfonaIJoW11al oJUrban and Regional Research) 19.3. 435-446. UNCHS (HABITAl1 (1990) Renta1 Hous­ ing. Proceecl1ngs of an Expert Group Meetin~ Narrobt: Habimt skem sistemu še nismo povsem us­peli nadomestiti načela zagotavlja­nja z načelomomogočanja. dr. Richard Sendi, dipl. inž. arh ., zunanji sodelavec Ul RS Opombl 1 Delež lastniških stanovanj po reali­zaciji stanovanjskega z...'lkon.:. iz leta 1991 znaša danes približno 88 %. 2 Danes s ploh nimamo natančnih po­datkov o tem, kakšen je odstotek pri­vatnih najemnih st...'1OovanJ v celotnem stanovanjskem fondu. housing·seclor, on the other hand. mulUplies the role of the state ln solving the housing problem. Nor have the procedures presenUy being followed ln detennlning whe­the.r an applicant satisfies the con­ditlons for aUocatlon ofstate finan­cIal aid or hOllsing, brought us anywhere near lhe: ".. , "un-bureaucratisation" oj the housing sector and replacement oj adminisl:raiive housing a110cati0n. by measures necesswyJor the intro­duction oj a housing marke~ and oJJering support toprtuate initialive.oo. We feel that the maJorlly of people looking for houslng in the "non­profit" calegOlY would be able to salve thetr hallsing problem wIthout direct state intervention, Ifthe hou­sing market was allowed to operate nOlmally. Our hOllsIng system has not yet sllcceeded ln replacing the provlding approach with the ena­bllng approach, one oflhe prlnclple aims of the National Houslng Pro­gramme. *n~~H~M:mmrr.mWj~W~m:lilil