首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >Housing system reform: the opinion of advisory boards versus political reality in the Netherlands
【2h】

Housing system reform: the opinion of advisory boards versus political reality in the Netherlands

机译:住房制度改革:咨询委员会的观点与荷兰的政治现实

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This paper describes to what extent a more or less collective feeling of urgency to reform the Dutch housing market is addressed in the political arena. By doing that, it sheds some light on the effectiveness and influence of academic research and recommendations on the political decision making process. We conclude that the suggestion of several advisory bodies to start a serious reform of the housing system in the Netherlands is, due to coalition considerations, almost fully neglected by the Dutch Government. Although there is a common understanding among experts and interest organisations in the Netherlands that the current housing systems needs radical changes, coalition politics in the Netherlands are apparently more important to explain current housing policies. We conclude that the effectiveness and influence of academic research and recommendations on the political decision making process was quite modest in the last couple of years and try to explain the gap between academic research and political decision-making on Dutch housing policy.
机译:本文描述了政治领域在多大程度上或多或少的集体迫切需要解决荷兰住房市场的紧迫感。通过这样做,它为学术研究的有效性和影响以及对政治决策过程的建议提供了一些启示。我们得出的结论是,由于联盟的考虑,荷兰政府几乎完全忽略了几个咨询机构提出的对荷兰住房制度进行认真改革的建议。尽管荷兰的专家和利益组织对当前的住房体系需要进行根本的改变达成了共识,但荷兰的联合政治显然对解释当前的住房政策更为重要。我们得出结论,在过去的几年中,学术研究和建议对政治决策过程的有效性和影响相当有限,并试图解释学术研究与荷兰住房政策的政治决策之间的差距。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号