Introduction

Since Ley (1986) showed convincingly that gentrification is not simply a matter of the market, especially not in developed welfare states, showcases of state-led neighbourhood improvement have been found in many European states (Cameron, 2003; see also Hackworth and Smith, 2001). In the Netherlands, the specific history of the housing policy, based on a principle of accessible rental for everyone in an inclusive scheme, has long defined housing as part of general social policy (cf van Kempen and Priemus, 2002). It therefore comes as little surprise that there has been a strong tradition in the Netherlands of state intervention in neighbourhood improvement (see Horak and Blokland, 2011: forthcoming). On the waves of neoliberalism and a retreating welfare state since the 1990s, strategies for neighbourhood improvement have moved away from simply trying to improve the quality of life for current residents (cf Uitermark et al, 2007). Stirred by fears about ghetto formation and poverty concentration, and concerns that immigrant enclaves could hamper integration, areas classified as disadvantaged are now to be ‘improved’ through altering their demographic make-up. As a result, state-led gentrification has become a common strategy in the Netherlands for ‘improving’ deprived neighbourhoods, surrounded by a public aura of positive meanings unknown in other European countries (see, for example, Häussermann and Siebel, 1987; Slater, 2006; Holm, 2010). The positive expectations are held not only by policy makers, but are more generally shared by political actors across the right–left spectrum.

The Dutch context is particularly interesting because it stalls gentrification in various ways. First, the strong presence of state-controlled housing associations caps rent increases of the overall housing stock in most urban areas while ensuring that a certain degree of mixture will continue to exist at the neighbourhood level. Moreover, the historically broad provision of good quality social housing and high private rent levels have produced so-called scheefhuurders: residents who have grown more affluent but who still live in very cheap housing of adequate quality. They do not want to leave because, if they did, they would have to leave the area, move into a commercial, much more expensive rental, or buy – if there was anything around to buy.