“高档化制度”的改变:卢森堡杜德兰格市购买出租高档化的财政根源

IF 4.2 1区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Mădălina Mezaroş, Antoine Paccoud, Loretta Lees
{"title":"“高档化制度”的改变:卢森堡杜德兰格市购买出租高档化的财政根源","authors":"Mădălina Mezaroş, Antoine Paccoud, Loretta Lees","doi":"10.1177/00420980241303626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article introduces the notion of the ‘gentrification regime’, which we believe is better able to capture the diversity of gentrification trajectories than the more macro-level notions of gentrification ‘waves’ or ‘stages’. We define a ‘gentrification regime’ as a specific set of relations between producers and consumers of housing made possible by a particular policy and financial context. Empirically, this article tracks the shift from a gentrification regime in which social upscaling is linked to increases in ownership to one that foregrounds the development of the private rental sector. To evidence this shift, we use the full set of property transactions linked to the production and the sale of apartments in the city of Dudelange in Luxembourg between 1970 and 2019 to reconstruct the trajectories of residential projects. We observe the replacement of local developers, responsible for a construction boom in the early 1990s, by national-level developers focusing on locally supported flagship projects targeting investor demand, itself stimulated by national fiscal policies. We witness an investor interest for both new and existing housing, signalling an increased pressure on the housing market, which seems to lead to an incipient (cross-border) exclusionary displacement. The article thus shows that national-level fiscal policy, and not only the deregulation of the private rental sector, can create value gaps that trigger a shift to buy-to-let gentrification. The notion of ‘gentrification regime’ is thus shown to provide a new way to understand the locally and temporally specific processes underlying the diversity of gentrification dynamics we see today.","PeriodicalId":51350,"journal":{"name":"Urban Studies","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A ‘gentrification regime’ change: The fiscal roots of buy-to-let gentrification in Dudelange, Luxembourg\",\"authors\":\"Mădălina Mezaroş, Antoine Paccoud, Loretta Lees\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00420980241303626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article introduces the notion of the ‘gentrification regime’, which we believe is better able to capture the diversity of gentrification trajectories than the more macro-level notions of gentrification ‘waves’ or ‘stages’. We define a ‘gentrification regime’ as a specific set of relations between producers and consumers of housing made possible by a particular policy and financial context. Empirically, this article tracks the shift from a gentrification regime in which social upscaling is linked to increases in ownership to one that foregrounds the development of the private rental sector. To evidence this shift, we use the full set of property transactions linked to the production and the sale of apartments in the city of Dudelange in Luxembourg between 1970 and 2019 to reconstruct the trajectories of residential projects. We observe the replacement of local developers, responsible for a construction boom in the early 1990s, by national-level developers focusing on locally supported flagship projects targeting investor demand, itself stimulated by national fiscal policies. We witness an investor interest for both new and existing housing, signalling an increased pressure on the housing market, which seems to lead to an incipient (cross-border) exclusionary displacement. The article thus shows that national-level fiscal policy, and not only the deregulation of the private rental sector, can create value gaps that trigger a shift to buy-to-let gentrification. The notion of ‘gentrification regime’ is thus shown to provide a new way to understand the locally and temporally specific processes underlying the diversity of gentrification dynamics we see today.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Studies\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urban Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241303626\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241303626","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文介绍了“士绅化制度”的概念,我们认为这比宏观层面的士绅化“浪潮”或“阶段”的概念更能捕捉到士绅化轨迹的多样性。我们将“士绅化制度”定义为住房生产者和消费者之间的一组特定关系,这些关系是由特定的政策和金融环境实现的。从经验上看,本文追踪了从中产阶级化制度的转变,在这种制度下,社会升级与所有权的增加有关,而私人租赁部门的发展则是一个前景。为了证明这一转变,我们使用了1970年至2019年期间卢森堡杜德朗市与公寓生产和销售相关的全套房地产交易来重建住宅项目的轨迹。我们观察到,造成上世纪90年代初建筑热潮的地方开发商被国家级开发商取代,国家级开发商专注于地方支持的旗舰项目,目标是投资者需求,而投资者需求本身受到国家财政政策的刺激。我们看到投资者对新房和现房都很感兴趣,这表明房地产市场的压力越来越大,这似乎导致了早期的(跨境)排他性流离失所。因此,这篇文章表明,国家层面的财政政策,而不仅仅是对私人租赁部门的放松管制,可能会造成价值差距,从而引发向购买出租的中产阶级化转变。因此,“士绅化制度”的概念提供了一种新的方式来理解我们今天看到的士绅化动态多样性背后的地方和时间特定过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A ‘gentrification regime’ change: The fiscal roots of buy-to-let gentrification in Dudelange, Luxembourg
This article introduces the notion of the ‘gentrification regime’, which we believe is better able to capture the diversity of gentrification trajectories than the more macro-level notions of gentrification ‘waves’ or ‘stages’. We define a ‘gentrification regime’ as a specific set of relations between producers and consumers of housing made possible by a particular policy and financial context. Empirically, this article tracks the shift from a gentrification regime in which social upscaling is linked to increases in ownership to one that foregrounds the development of the private rental sector. To evidence this shift, we use the full set of property transactions linked to the production and the sale of apartments in the city of Dudelange in Luxembourg between 1970 and 2019 to reconstruct the trajectories of residential projects. We observe the replacement of local developers, responsible for a construction boom in the early 1990s, by national-level developers focusing on locally supported flagship projects targeting investor demand, itself stimulated by national fiscal policies. We witness an investor interest for both new and existing housing, signalling an increased pressure on the housing market, which seems to lead to an incipient (cross-border) exclusionary displacement. The article thus shows that national-level fiscal policy, and not only the deregulation of the private rental sector, can create value gaps that trigger a shift to buy-to-let gentrification. The notion of ‘gentrification regime’ is thus shown to provide a new way to understand the locally and temporally specific processes underlying the diversity of gentrification dynamics we see today.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urban Studies
Urban Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
8.50%
发文量
150
期刊介绍: Urban Studies was first published in 1964 to provide an international forum of social and economic contributions to the fields of urban and regional planning. Since then, the Journal has expanded to encompass the increasing range of disciplines and approaches that have been brought to bear on urban and regional problems. Contents include original articles, notes and comments, and a comprehensive book review section. Regular contributions are drawn from the fields of economics, planning, political science, statistics, geography, sociology, population studies and public administration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信