Natural capital, referring to the stock of environmental assets.

Transcription

1 SRNA MANDIČ HOUSING RENOVATION AND DEFICIT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL INTRODUCTION Housing renovation and upkeep are among significant issues recently debated, particularly in relation to troubled neighborhoods and to post-war estates (see RESTATE; Murie, Knorr- Siedow and Van Kempen, 2003). In recent literature on urban renewal and community development in Western societies, an increasing emphasis is placed on social capital as one of the important developmental factors. Social capital is seen as a specific factor that can activate potential for renewal and enable wider participation and cooperation of residents and other actors (Gittel and Vidal, 1998; Atkinson and Cope 1997). In this paper the question is raised in the Slovenian context and is limited to the issue of upkeep and renovation in multi-dwelling buildings. The focus of the paper is on the question of whether the deficit of social capital is among reasons why some multi-dwelling buildings in Slovenia are less successfully maintained and renovated than the others. For this purpose the data from The Housing Survey in Slovenia 2005 are examined. SOCIAL CAPITAL AND NEIGHBORHOODS - CONCEPTUAL ISSUES The notion of social capital was primarily popularized by the World Bank (1997). In its Four Capital Approach to defining components of national wealth and developmental capacities, four distinctive forms of the capital were defined: Natural capital, referring to the stock of environmental assets. Man-made capital, denoting the stock of machinery, buildings, infrastructure etc. Human capital, referring to people s productive capacities such as skills, education etc. 78

2 Social capital, implying social networks, associations and institutions tied by common norms and trustful relationships that facilitate co-operation (World Bank 1997, cited after Berger-Schmidt and Noll 2000:23). In literature dealing with general developmental issues, the social capital of a society is understood as including the institutions, the relationships, the attitudes and values that govern interactions among people and contribute to the economic and social development of a society. Because of the ties among actors the social and economic system as a whole is understood to function better. There are yet other somewhat different understandings of social capital and its scope. Putnam (1993:36), one of the most prominent authors on the issue, defines social capital as horizontal associations between people, features of social organization, such as networks, norms and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. He distinguishes between two types of social capital; the bonding capital that brings together people who already know each other; and the second, the bridging capital, bringing together individuals and groups who previously did not know each other. The main elements of social capital for Putnam are trust and cooperation. Such understanding of social capital presumes that the more dense connections among people are, the stronger is mutual trust among them and the better off they are individually and collectively (Briggs, 1998). The scope of social capital is not restricted to interpersonal relations, but may include intermediary organizations as well as macro level societal institutions, implying also public policies. However, the notion of social capital was applied also to specific segments of societies, most notably to community development (see Gitell and Vidal, 1998; Temkin and Rohe,1998; Hogget 1997; Gilchrist 2004), with strong relation to issues of urban renewal. Temkin and Rohe (1998) in their study focus on the role social capital plays in fostering community development in Pittsburg, U.S.A. They defined social capital as consisting of two main components, the two being similar to Putnam s distinction between the bonding and the bridging capital. The first component is the socio-cultural milieu and it describes the overall sense of attachment and loyalty among neighborhood. The second component is the institutional infrastructure, measuring the organizational ability of the neighborhood to act on their common interest. While the first component measures residents commitment to the neighborhood, the second component captures the ability to turn this commitment into effective collective action. It is the combination of both components the socio-cultural milieu and the institutional infrastructure that is found to be crucial. Temkin and Rohe established that social capital was a key determinant in predicting neighborhood stability and that neighborhoods with large amounts of social capital were less likely to decline. 79

3 Keyes et al. (1996), as summarized by Gitell and Vidal (1998) discusses social capital in relation to the non-profit low income housing developers and observed how their functioning was affected by social capital. In their notion of social capital, four elements were included: long-term relationships of trust and reciprocity, shared vision, mutual interest and a new element - financial nexus. Financial nexus includes connections that are based only on financial interest and rational choice. Gitell and Vidal (1998) discuss the issue of building social capital as a community development strategy, emphasizing the potential for community residents to act on collective commitments, interest and objectives (p.25). They evaluate the case of a specific organization (LISC), that was established in the U.S.A. to serve community development by instituting processes to increase social capital bonds and bridges. They establish that what may be required to foster community development in areas that have lacked formative efforts are new associations and actors with broader social interests than self-interested groups and individual s practices PROBLEMS OF HOUSING RENOVATION AND UP-KEEP IN LARGE POST-WAR HOUSING ESTATES In the EU, problems of renovation and maintenance of housing are currently discussed particularly in relation to large post-war housing estates, which are recognized as problematic and amongst the most striking examples for the mismanagement of knowledge in recent European urban development (Knorr-Siedov and Tosics, 2005). No matter how important is the problem of troubled housing estates in Western countries, it is much more severe and manifest among the new member states. Whereas large-housing estates in the West are an important part of the housing stock, not exceeding 10 per cent, they are the dominant form of urban housing in the East, reaching between 20 and 35 per cent of the population (Murie, Knorr-Siedow and Van Kempen, 2003:12). Yet, in Eastern countries the social capital in general is found to be much lower than in Western countries and recognized in general as a developmental drawback in the region (Adam and Rončevič 2004; Iglič 2005). The mounting problems in managing and maintenance in East and Central European housing estates and in multi-dwelling buildings after privatization have been frequently pointed out (see Turner, Hegedus and Tosics 1996; Clapham et. al. 1996; Struyk 1996; Hegedus, Mayo and Tosics 1996; Černič-Mali, Sendi et. al. 2003). The main problems in Slovenian multidwelling housing are best summarized by findings in RESTATE project: With privatization of the housing stock, management and maintenance o large hosing estates has become a significant problem the burden of all expenses relating to dwellings was 80

4 placed on private owners, who were often not aware of these costs Some simply refuse to pay the common expenses Still others cannot meet their financial obligations because they are too high (..29). With regard to management, the problem of coordination of so many different owners is significant. In accordance with the law, flat owners in each building select a building manager or they can manage the building by themselves... The participation of owners is rather low and only few of them actively participate, whilst others are passive and do not even know their rights.the search for appropriate legal provisions and organizational forms is ongoing. The mentality of residents is changing only slowly (Ploštajner, Černič-Mali and Sendi 2004:p.29-31). The difficulties described were found in case of housing estate of Fužine in Ljubljana, but can be generalized to some extent to all multi-dwelling buildings. However, housing estates as well as multi- dwelling buildings y vary considerably in how they manage to solve these problems and how the association of flat owners and Committee of flat owners work. In some buildings, maintenance and upkeep is much better than in others, yet the general legal, policy and economic context is the same. Because legal requirements regarding organization of management and the necessary level of renovation are rather loose, the actual decisions and actions taken in individual buildings largely depend on specific agreement that owners arrive at. Thus, a challenging question emerges, to what extent can inadequate upkeep and renovation in a multi-dwelling building be attributed to deficit in the ability of owners to cooperate in defining and achieving common goals in upkeep and renovation. Trust and cooperation among residents, or socio-cultural milieu and institutional infrastructure, the basic features of social capital, can be supposed as relevant not only at community or estates levels, but also on the level of multi-dwelling buildings and affecting the residents involvement in housing upkeep and renovation. SOCIAL CAPITAL AND DIVERSE MODES OF RENOVATION IN MULTI-DWELLING BUILDINGS IN SLOVENIA: FINDINGS FROM THE HOUSING SURVEY 2005 The key issue in this analysis is the difference in the quality of upkeep and renovation among multi-dwelling buildings in Slovenia and the factors, that make the difference. There are many reasons why some multi-dwelling buildings are better renovated than others - such as the age and condition of buildings, the cost of renovation and the ability of owners to pay the cost. The owners may thus meet many obstacles to carry out renovation. How significant among these obstacles is the ability of owners to cooperate and define common problems and their solutions in renovation and to mobilize to achieve them? In opinion of interviewees in the Housing Survey about the key obstacles to efficient renovation in a multi-dwelling building, the top reason was lack of finances with 42%; the second was the inability of owners to come to agreement with 17,5%; all other reasons being significantly less important. Thus, residents themselves do recognize the lack of cooperative norms among them as an important factor. 81

5 In this paper, the mode of renovation is examined and distinction between the prompt and the blocked mode of renovation is made. Distinction is based on the renovation activity in the building that interviewees reported. Three items counted: the roof, the façade, and the installations. The situation, that at least one of these items have been repaired or changed during previous five years and that none of these items needed a repair or change during next five years, was considered to signify prompt renovation. The other situation where no items have been repaired in last 5 years, but at least one of them needs to be repaired, is considered as blocked mode of renovation; it signifies that some obstacles exist, preventing the renovation activities starting in time. Cases meeting neither of the described criteria were classified as other mode. The data are from the Housing Survey carried out in early 2005 in Slovenia, carried out by the Faculty for Social Sciences in Ljubljana and commissioned by The Housing Fund of Slovenia. The representative survey sample included 4009 households. In this analysis only those households are included that live in buildings that were built before the year 1970 and have thus entered the age when renovation has been required. Firstly let us examine the situation in diverse types of buildings, as illustrated in Table 1. Table 1: Mode of renovation in diverse types of buildings Type of building BLOCKED OTHER MODE PROMPT Total High-rise or new block with 5 or more floors 44 30,1% 57 39,0% 45 30,8% ,0% Block with up to 4 floors ,2% ,0% 81 22,8% ,0% Family house with single dwelling ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% Family house With 2 do 4 dwellings 25,3% 47,4% 27,3% 100,0% Other multi-dwelling building 75 36,4% ,0% 26 12,6% ,0% Other 3 50,0% 1 16,7% 2 33,3% 6 100,0% Total Sig.= ,1% 46,9% 24,1% 100,0% Source: Housing Survey in Slovenia,

6 There are important, statistically significant differences in mode of renovation among diverse types of buildings. As shown in Table 1, in family housing the incidence of blocked renovation is least pronounced, yet it is still a significant problem covering 25% of cases. Family houses with up to 4 dwellings, because of specific relational among individual owners, would require specific analysis and will not be examined here. Further analysis will focus only on multi-dwelling buildings with 5 or more dwellings. This covers 712 cases, of which 246 cases (or 34,6 %) are classified as having the blocked renovation, 154 cases (or 21,6%) as having prompt renovation and 312 cases (43,8%) as having other, intermediary modes of renovation. First let us examine those characteristics of multi-dwelling buildings that indicate different forms of capital, besides social capital: the physical, human and financial capital to use somewhat adapted World Bank terminology. It can be expected that late renovation would correlate with worse physical conditions and lower quality of housing in that building. The figures are reported in Table 2. Table 2: Indicators of physical capital (quality of dwellings) of buildings with diverse modes of renovation BLOCKED N=246 OTHER N=312 PROMPT N=154 TOTAL N=712 SIG- % damp 11,3 12,8 2,6 10, ** % inadequate installations % dissatisfied with dwelling 16,4 18,6 7,8 15, ** 17,1 14,7 3,9 13, ** Source: Housing Survey in Slovenia, 2005 As shown in Table 2, in buildings with blocked renovation, deficient dwellings are more frequent than in other buildings. The difference is statistically significant on all three indicators of housing quality 83

7 Characteristics related to human and financial capital are examined next and reported in Table 3. Table 3: Indicators of human and financial capital of residents of buildings with diverse modes of renovation BLOCKED N=246 OTHER N=312 PROMPT N=154 TOTAL N=712 SIG. % Aged 36 do 65 63,0 61,2 53,6 60, % with higher degree of education 27,2 34,9 33,1 31, % with difficulties in making ends meet % with no savings in year-time 27,1 22,4 15,6 22,5 46,2 45,5 42,7 45, ** % living in larger towns 46,7 61,7 61,7 56, ** Source: Housing Survey in Slovenia, 2005 As shown in Table 3, in buildings with blocked renovation, the middle aged residents are over-represented. Slightly overrepresented also are residents with lower means in the sense that they do not have any savings during a year-time; more strongly overrepresented are those with difficulties in making ends meet. People with higher levels of education are slightly underrepresented. However, among modes of renovation, only two factors make a statistically significant difference: having difficulties in making ends meet and the size of the town. The last one is only partly and indicator of human capital, but is a synthetic indicator of a number of advantages that the inhabitants of larger towns have in relation to resources related to knowledge, skills and financial means. The next indicators to be examined are those related to social capital. Three components of social capital will be observed: the institutional infrastructure, socio-cultural milieu and level of trust. 84

8 Institutional infrastructure is about the formal organizational features related to management of the building. It is measured by four indicators, presented in table 4. Table 4: Indicators of institutional infrastructure in buildings with diverse mode of renovation BLOCKED N=246 OTHER N=312 PROMPT N=154 TOTAL N=712 SIG. % Have manager 67,8 69,7 81,0 71, * % have Funds for maintenance 63,5 64,5 73,8 66, % Easily obtain agreement on renovation issues % with case of non payment for common expenses % with cases of residents seizing common space 32,6 46,5 64,4 45, ** 36,7 36,8 33,7 36, ,6 27,8 11,4 24, ** Source: Housing Survey in Slovenia, 2005 Both formal indicators - the existence of a manager and of a common fund for renovation - are found more frequently in promptly renovated buildings. Yet the difference is not as substantial as expected; the fund for renovation did not even turn out to be a statistically significant factor distinguishing between blocked and promptly carried out renovation. The other three indicators show how efficient is the operation of the formal institutional infrastructure in the building and what are their outcomes. It shows the organizational ability of residents to collectively act. Two of these indicators turn out to be highly significant. First is an easy arrival at agreement about renovation issues in the building. Second is the presence of a case whereby one of residents has illegally occupied a space in the building that otherwise belongs to all and keeps it for his own personal use. This seems to best embody 85

9 the organizational inability of residents to act and enact the rules against individual will. Non payment for common expenses was also found to slightly differ, yet not significantly. The next dimension of social capital is the socio-cultural milieu in the building. It is about the bonds between residents, their neighborly relations and their sense of attachment. As reported in Table 5, seven indicators were considered. Table 5: Indicators of socio-cultural milieu among residents of buildings with diverse mode of renovation BLOCKED N=246 OTHER N=312 PROMPT N=154 TOTAL N=712 SIG. Weak bonds % Knows majority of neighbours % occasionally Talks to neighbours 76,0 79,8 74,7 77, ,7 99,0 92,1 96, ** Close bonds % has a friend among neighbours % attached to neighbourhood % residents often change % Socially more mixed structure % has problems with neighbours 64,1 56,4 57,6 59, ,1 58,0 56,9 53, * 31,6 31,6 30,5 31, ,6 67,5 62,4 67, ,1 8,0 1,9 6, * Source: Housing Survey in Slovenia, 2005 The weak bonds with three indicators: knowing a majority of the neighbours, occasionally talking to them or having friends and acquaintances among neighbours - are not significantly more frequent in promptly renovated buildings; in contrast to what was expected, weak bonds are thus not a factor related to better cooperation and renovation. Even more contrary, occasional talking to neighbours is yet more frequent in buildings with blocked renovation. 86

10 Two indicators of closer bonds are found in diverse relationships to the mode of renovation. The first - having friends or acquaintances among neighbours is not a significant factor in making difference, but is more frequent in buildings with weaker renovation. Thus, more frequent friendly attachment to a resident in the buildings does not make any difference to renovation. However, the other indicator of close bonds the attachment to the neighborhood - does. However, there is some ambiguity in this indicator, involving not only close neighbours, but also characteristics of the location. It could be hypothesized, that more cohesive settings, where residents are more long-standing and of similar social backgrounds, represent a socio-cultural milieu which makes decisions about renovation easier. However, according to the survey results, the social structure of residents and their turnover are not significant factors. Among all indicators of socio-cultural milieu, the strongest statistically significant factor is the estimated quality of the relationship with neighbours. Having problems with neighbours is significantly more frequent in buildings with blocked renovation The last dimension of social capital is trust. Trust, a significant component of social capital and of developmental efficiency, was measured both as the generalized trust and as the specific trust, related to particular actors which are relevant in the housing sphere. Table 6: Trust, stated by residents of buildings with diverse modes of renovation Trust in: BLOCKED N=246 OTHER N=312 PROMPT N=154 TOTAL =712 SIG. % most people in general 13,8 18,6 18,2 16, % housing manager % other residents in building % lawyer 37,6 30,6 37,3 34, ,1 45,9 43,1 43, ,2 33,0 35,9 35, % notary 31,8 32,9 31,3 32,

11 % state/local housing administration % real-estate agency % courts 16,5 24,1 19,7 20, * 12,9 15,7 13,7 14, ,3 21,7 22,3 21, % banks 46,3 46,8 63,8 50, ** % family and relatives % neighbours 91,0 86,9 89,0 88, ,5 42,6 44,2 43, Source: Housing Survey in Slovenia, 2005 As shown in Table 6, in the examined sub-sample of 712 cases, a low level - 16,9% - of general trust was found. This figure closely corresponds to the figure in the total survey sample of 4009 of the Housing survey, and also to the national figure reported elsewhere (see Iglič 2005). Also other basic proportions are the same: very high trust in family and relatives, in proximity to 90%; middle trust in proximity to 40% in neighbours and other residents in the building; lower trust to given institutions, with exception of banks being highly trusted and with real-estate agents with the lowest trust. The same proportions are repeated also among residents within all three modes of renovation. However, there are two statistically significant differences between them. Banks as well as the state and local housing administration are significantly more trusted in promptly renovated buildings, than where renovation is refrained. Trust in these institutions may certainly encourage residents to seek their services and eventually make good use of them. CONCLUSIONS A number of indicators were analyzed and examined for their relationship with the mode of renovation in multi-dwelling buildings. As expected, the physical condition of the building and the general financial situation of residents were found to be factors that make significant difference between the buildings, where renovation is in time, and those, where it is in delay 88

12 or lacking. The age and the level of education as indicators of human capital were found to slightly differ, yet were not statistically significant. Three dimensions of social capital were observed. The institutional infrastructure, measuring the organizational ability of residents to collectively act on their common interest, was found to be very important. Three out of five indicators significantly correlated with the mode of renovation. Having a manager, easily getting to agree on renovation issues and not having cases of arbitrary personal occupation of common space proved to facilitate prompt renovation. The last indicator signifies a weak institutional infrastructure and an inability of owners to enact the formal rules in relation to an individual who disobeys them. In examining the socio-cultural dimension of social capital, three indicators were found significant; in promptly renovated buildings fewer residents occasionally talk to neighbors, fewer declare difficult relations with them and more residents declare that they are attached to the neighborhood. Trust - the last component of social capital - was found to differ significantly among diverse modes of renovation only in relation to two subjects: banks and housing administration on State and local level. Residents of promptly renovated buildings express significantly higher trust than those where renovation is delayed. However, although people trust neighbours much less than their family and relatives, they trust most institutions even much less. Among residents of buildings, where renovation is blocked, as a contrast to buildings where renovation is carried out promptly, a higher yet not statistically significant- incidence of stronger personal bonds with neighbours and a greater trust in family and relatives was found. Both these characteristics might be very helpful for renovation in family housing where closely related persons may provide a helping hand; yet these two characteristics are not of much help in larger multi-dwelling buildings; what counts here more is the ability to make use of resources in formal organizations, embodied in State/local housing administration and banks. As a conclusion, let us tackle some of the policy implications of these findings about factors that do make a difference in renovation. First of all, and as no surprise, lack of finances is among the important drawbacks in renovation, and facilitating the access to it remains a policy target. Secondly, different components of social capital were also found important. A relatively high commitment and attachment among residents was found but this factor is not directly helpful for renovation. It does not compensate for the lack of cooperative norms, which is a problem that both residents and analysts recognize. Is it necessary to wait for the norms to change? According to Putnam, change in norms and in culture is the only way to build social capital, yet it is very lengthy: Establishment of trust and norms of cooperation requires people to be 89

13 in contact with each other over a long period of time and to experience firsthand the benefits of social capital. Only with success and continued practice can trust and cooperation be embedded in local culture (Putnam 1993, as summarized by Gittell and Vidal 1998: 22). However, other authors and practices (Gittel and Vidal 1998) suggest other ways of building social capital in neighborhoods and strengthening the institutional infrastructure. This implies strengthening of the organizational ability of residents to collectively come and act on their common interest and to pursue effective collective action. The findings suggest that the problem of renovation emerges when the institutional infrastructure in particular buildings is too weak to handle the specific lack of individual co-operative norms; thus in such settings, cases of individual non-cooperation can too easily block collective action. It seems though that it is the balance between the informal norms and the formal institutional infrastructure that is crucial. Policies aiming to improve housing renovation should target both components. Introducing appropriate knowledge management schemes and deliberative democratic practices into housing management imply both components and might be a challenge. REFERENCES Adam, F. in Rončevič, B,.(2004): Razvojni potencial socialnega kapitala: Slovenija v evropskem kontekstu; Družboslovne razprave, let. XX, št.46/47, str Atkinson, R. and Cope, S.(1997): Community participation and urban regeneration in Britain, in Hogget, P.(ed.) Contested communities, Bristol, The Policy Press. Briggs,X. (1998): Brown kids in white suburbs: Housing mobility and the multiple faces of social capital; Housing policy debate 9 (1). Černič-Mali, B., Sendi R. et al.(2003): Large Housing Estates in Slovenia Overview of developments and problems in Ljubljana and Koper; Restate report 2g; Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht. Gilchrist, A.(2004): The Well-Connected community; The Policy Press, Gitell, R. In Vidal, A.(1998): Community organizing. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Hegedus, J., Mayo, S. and Tosics,I. (1996) Transition of the housing sector in the East-Central European Countries. Budapest:MRI. Hegedüs, J. and Tosics, I. (1996) Disintegration of the East-European housing model, in: D. Clapham, D., Hegedüs, J, Kintrea K. and Tosics I. (Eds) (1996) Housing Privatisation in Eastern Europe. London: Greenwood Press. Hogget, P.(1997): Contested communities, Bristol, The Policy Press. Iglič, H.(2004) Dejavniki nizke stopnje zaupanja v Sloveniji; Družboslovne razprave, let. XX, št.46/47, str

14 Keyes, L. et al. (1996): Networks and nonprofits: Opportunities and challenges in an era of federal devolution; Housing policy debate 7(2): Knorr-Siedow, T. and Tosics, I.(2005): Knowledge management and policy application in urban management and housing; Paper at the RESTATE Conference in Ljubljana, 2005 Lowe, S. and Tsenkova, S.(2003): Housing Change in East and Central Europe; Aldershot: Ashgate. Murie, A., Knorr-Siedow and van Kempen, R.(2003): Large-scale housing estates in Europe; RESTATE, report 1, Utrecht 2003, Ploštajner, Z. Černič-Mali, B., Sendi R. et al.(2004): Large Housing Estates in Slovenia Policies and practices; Restate report 3g; Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht. Putnam, R.(1993): Making democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Struyk, R.(1996): Economic Restructuring of the Former Soviet Block The Case of Housing; Washington: The Urban Institute Press. Temkin, K. and Rohe, W. (1998) Social capital and neighborhood stability; Housing Policy Debate (9):1. Turner, B, Hegedüs J. and Tosics I. (Eds) (1992) The Reform of Housing in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. London: Routledge. 91