佛兰德社会住房的未来外文翻译-中英文论文对照翻译

中文2890本科毕业设计（论文）外文翻原文：ThefutureofFlemishsocialhousing1.AbstractBelgiansocialhousinghasahistoryofmorethan100years.Since1980housingpolicybelongstheresponsibilitiesoftheregions.InthiswelookatsocialhousingFlanders，thelargestthethreeBelgianregions.ComparedtoEuropeancountriestheshareofsocialhousinginhousingstock(5.6%)inFlandersislimited.Socialhousingissuppliedmainlyprivateorganizations，whichworkwithinarathertightregulatorysystem.InvestmentsarelargelysubsidisedbytheFlemishgovernment.Thesocialhousingsupplyismainlytargetedtowardslowerincomehouseholds，whichpayincome-dependentrents.ThisstartswithadescriptionofdefinitionsandmodelsthethesocialhousingsectorischaracterizeduntilnowbriefhistoricalofsocialhousinginBelgiumFlandersisgiven，thecurrentdebateonsocialinFlandersisbrieflydescribed

andrecentfiguresontheprofileofFlemishsocialhousingarepresented.InanextsectiontheFlemishsocialrentedsectorispositionedinternationalcontext.Thearticleendswithdiscussionofoptions.ThiscontributionislargelybasedonaresearchcarriedoutfortheFlemishgovernmentfirstof2005.ThereasonbehindthestudywasintentionoftheMinisterofHousingreformregulatoryframeworkofFlemishsocialhousing.TheresearcherswereaskedtoadvisetheMinisterconcerningdemarcationofthegroupthesystem，rentsettinganddegreeautonomyregardingrentsettingandallocation.CompleteresultsofthestudyareavailableinWintersetal.(2007).2.ModelsofsocialhousingThe„socialhousing

coversawiderangeofinitiativeswithinEuropeaimedatgoodquality，affordablehousing.Muchhasbeenwrittenintheliteratureabouttheneedanddefinitionofsocialhousing.Maclennanand(1997)claimthatsocialhousingneededwhenthesociallydesiredneedsforhousingexceedtheeffectivelydesireddemandforhousing.Ingeneral，itagreedthatthismeansaffordablehousingforvulnerablegroups.Afurthersearchoftheliteratureproducesvariousdefinitionsofsocialhousing(see，for，Oxley2000).Whatnoticeableisthat

viewsarefarfromunanimous.Thus，example，socialhousingcanrefertobothrentingandpurchasing.unchangeablerealitythecity-stateareneverthelessitslimitationsofonly700squarekilometres,asaresultofwhichthepublichousingshigh-densityhigh-riseislikelytoberetained.Yet,thisformissustainablegivenitsinherentpopularityandestablishedfamiliarity.Theownerofhomesbeaorprivateownerandbelookingtomakeaprofitinhisbusiness，ornot.Moreover，theaffordabilityhousingcanarrangedbysupplysubsidiesaswelldemandsubsidies.Intheremainderofthisarticlethefollowingdefinition:allrentaldwellingsallocatedneednotbymarketmechanisms.Socialhousinghasdifferentshapesindifferentcountries；socialhousingasauniversalisticandasafetynetmodelaredistinguishedforexample.Withintheuniversalisticmodeladifferencebebetweensocialhousingasforandhousingall(Czischke；Whitehead2007).Ghekie`re(2007)providesaforsocialhousinginEurope.Hedistinguishesthreeconcept.Theistheresidualconceptstrivingtocopewithaclearlyoutlinedsocialdemandthatisrestrictedtothemostdisadvantagedpersonswhogenerallyfromhousingmarketcharacterizedbyastrongpredominanceofhomeowner

occupationandregulatedrentalmarket.Theisthegeneralistconcept.Globalisationhasfurtheraffectedthesentimentsgovernmentstowardstheglobalmarketandinducedthemtomoderniseinstitutionalarrangementsinordertobeabletocompeteintheglobaleconomicenvironment.Thisimpliestargetingasocialdemandbuttoalargerextentofpublicinterventionconceptimpactthehousingnamelyintermsofpriceandquality.Thelastconcepttheuniversalone.Thisconceptintendedtothehousingsupplytheentirepopulationwithbothacomplementaryofferwhatthemarketprovidestheregulationofentirehousingmarket.3.TheFlemishSocialRentedSectorInanInternationalPerspectiveHowtheFlemishsocialrentalsectorcomparetosocialrentinginothercountries?ThissectiondescribesFlandersinaninternationalperspectivebycomparingitwithfiveothercountriessomeofthemwithsmallsocialrentalsectors(Ireland，SpainandGermany)，otherswithlargersectorandNetherlands)(seeWintersetal.2007).Theaimdescribedifferentofsocialrentalinthese，searchingthedifferencessignsofandunitarymodels.

IntheNetherlandsandtheUKsocialrentedsectoroccupiesalargermarketshare，and20%ofthehousingasshowninTable1.Inboth，weseetrendtowardsadeclineinsocialdwellingsthegovernment.IntheNetherlands，themunicipalhousinghavevirtuallydisappeared，inUK，thenumberofRSLs(registeredlandlords)isgraduallyincreasing.Thesecurrentlymanage6%theUKhousingstock.OnedifferencebetweentheUKandNetherlandsisthatthesocialrentedsectorsafetyfunctionintheformercase，inlatter，itaccessibletotargetgroups.InSpainGermanyandIrelandasFlandersthesocialrentedsectorismodestin，varyingbetweenand9%.Howevermajordifferencesexistbetweenthesocialrentedsectorsinthesecountries.InGermanyandSpain，dynamicrentedexists，ismanagedprivatelandlords.Dwellingsarebuiltwithasubsidykeptaffordableforacertainperiodandtheyarealsosubjectofdwellingallocationrules.Attheendofthis，thesedwellingsarefree.InIrelandthesocialrentedsectorfunctionofasocialsafetynetandthesectorisownedbylocalauthorities.ThesocialrentedinNetherlandshasan

unclear；onhandamaximumincomecriterionappliesontheotherhandpriorityrulesapplytoweakgroups.4.HousingpolicyTheformationhousingfromthediscussiondocumentsofNationalHousingForumof1992throughtorecentBills，showsaconsistentfromaholisticapproachthemanyneedsofpreviouslymarginalisedofcountrytoarigidandbureaucraticsetofframeworks.TheRDPsuggestsanintegratedvisionforupliftmentofpeoplewhereasHousingWhitePaperofwhich，itincludesreferencetothesemanyfactors，environmental，servicing，jobcreation，educationotherfacilities),essentiallyfocusesonsinglemeasurableobjectiveofprovidingonemillionhousesinfiveyears.Questionablethisisthemeasureof"house"，givenprovisohousingdeliverybeincremental，andthat:"OnlyaStatesubsidycontributiontowardsthecostofahouseispossible"(DepartmentofHousing1994:20).ItisdebatablewhethertheshiftinpolicyfromRDPtheHousingWhitePaperreflectsdifferencesinpolicyoveralldirectiontakenbygovernmentandbytheDepartment，orwhetherthelogisticsoftheRDPweresubsequentlyreviewedlightoffiscalrestraint.Whicheverinterpretation

isaccuratetheconsequencesmustseenasunrealisableofexpectations，bothbeneficiariesandtheemploymentsectors.5．MarketMarketisregardedasoldestco-ordinationmechanism.Itcreatescompetitionamongproducerstousetheresourcesinefficientinordertoproducethecheapestgoodsofthesamestandards.Italsoarguedmarketmechanismcanachieveequityamongdifferentbuyersandsellers.“Themarketisanimpersonallikeakinaneconomicwithwinnersandlosers，whoseoutcomebegoodorbad，butneverjustunjust”(Barrp.46).InVeljanovskisthejusticeofthemarketshouldrefertotheopportunitynotofoutcomes.“Inmarketisofferedtheopportunitiestoachievehisorobjectives，notmeanthateveryoneshouldbeguaranteedasuccessinachievinghisorgoals”(Veljanovski，1987).Itisbelievedthatthemostimportantadvantagesofmarketmechanismliethevirtuescompetitionandanidealisedpatternofexchangeandincentives(Peters，1996).Thedifficultiestheand1980sforcedpeopletorelationshipmarket.Itacceleratedaradicalmoveinterventionisttackletheproblemswhichwerebelievedtobyover-intervention

thestate.Marketsagaincametobeseenasthemostefficientmeansoforganisingsocieties.Stateinterventionwasthoughtdothangood(Boyer，1996).Thisledtoasurgeofreformsalltheworldinbothdevelopedanddevelopingcountries，marketplannedeconomies.Globalisationfurtheraffectedsentimentsoftheglobalmarketandinducedthemtomoderniseinstitutionalarrangementsinordertobeabletocompeteintheglobaleconomicenvironment.Thesecombinedfactorsledtotheintrendsinhousinggovernancearoundworldin1990sandonwards.6.DiscussionFlemishhousingtodaycannotbesimplypigeon-holedintooneofthemodels.TheresultpresentedprovidesupportforclassificationGhekie`re(2007):theFlemishsocialrentalsectorisstillamodelbutcurrentdevelopmentscanbeseenasashifttowardstheresidualmodel.Workunitshousingonthemarketatmarketthensellittheiremployeesatdiscountprices.Thisgeneratesgreatincentivesforemployeestobuycommercialhousingtheirworkunits.Workunitspaythepricebetweenmarketvalueanddiscountpricegapalsorepresentsanadditionalemployeesatexpenseoftheunits.involvementofworkunitsasmediatorsalso

drivesdeveloperstobuildhigh-standardhousing.Thepriorityrulingforweaktenantspointinthisdirectionthecentralsupervisionallocationandtheprioritytohomeownershiparesignsforsuchmodel.Ontheotherhandthereareclearsignsofbeaunitaryorgeneralmodel.Thesurveyresultsthesocialrentalsectorisrelativelygoodqualityappreciatedbythetenants，evenbetterthentheprivaterentalsector.FinallytheFlemishsocialsectorisnotasafetynettargetingprimarilythemostvulnerablepeople.7.EpilogItwouldappearfromaboveresearch，thatareasneedofthemostimmediateattentionareforaintegratedapproachtodualimperativesofshelter，andsustainablejobcreationandempowermentinbuildingindustry.Thisneedstobereflectedbothshapingandimplementationofpolicyatalllevelsofgovernment，andthroughafeedbacksystemwhichacknowledgestheexperienceandperceptionsofotherkeyrole-players.Thesupportthecommitmentofsuchprivatesectororganisationsinfulfillingthebroaderobjectivesofthereconstructionprogrammeshouldgreaternurturingbypolicymakersiftheirinvaluablecontributiontobecontinued.

Likewisegreaterexchangeofexperienceandtechniquesbetweenprivatesectorrole-playerspolicymakers，academicsandbeneficiariesshouldbeencouragedthroughthefacilitationofpublicationdiscussionshouldbegiventhesupportandpublicitythatgiveshighprofileaccessibilitytovariousareasofdebateiftheproblemsarenotto，ashascharacterisedthesefieldsoverthelast25yearsandmore.Source:SIENandWINTERS,OPENACCESS:ThefutureofFlemishsocialhousing(2008)23:215–译文佛兰社会房的来1.简介比利时的社会保障住房建设已经超过一百年的历史，它引领了80年代以来的房屋政策改革。在这篇文章中，我们将领略作为比利时三个人口最多的城市之一的佛兰德，所带给我们的社会保障性住房的未来。相对于许多欧洲国家，社会保障性住房的存量在佛兰德是有限的（5.6％）。社会住房供给主要由私人在相当严格的监管制度组织。投资方主要是佛兰德政府。社会住房供应对象主要是低收入家庭，和生活在低价廉租房的居民。

本文首先描述了不同定义下社会保障住房模式，以及比利时和佛兰德社会住房政策的历史回顾，给出当前在佛兰德社会住房现状的简要说明。文章结尾的进行了政策选择的讨论。文章研究的背景原因是该地区的房屋部长的意图改革佛拉德社会住房的监管架构，研究人员要求划分，确定分配制度，以及有关廉租房租金的确认。完成的研究结果由温特斯等人提供。2.社会住房模型社会福利性住房一词涵盖了在欧洲范围内普遍的住房保障举措，目的是提供良好品质，负担得起的住房。也就是很多人在文献中提到的经济适用房。麦克伦南多（1997）声称，社会住房是必要的，特别是房屋的需求超过了社会需要的有效需求预期。一般来说，社会住房意味着是弱势群体可以负担得起的住房。对文献进一步找时（见各种定义，例如，奥克斯利2000年）尤为引注目的是，许多人的观点奇的一致。例如，可以参照社会住房租赁和购买两种。这些业主房子可以是公共或人业主，如果寻求的是房屋的投资管理，这样是错误的做法。此外，居民的住房支付能力，政府可以安排提供购房补贴。在本文的其余部分我们认以下定义：所有出租住房的分配和需要不能由市场机制进行分配）。

为社会住房在不同国家有不同的类型，作为一个普遍性的社会住房和安全网模型都是杰出的例子。但在普遍性模型上也是有差别的，歌特2007年在欧洲为社会供了一个住房类型。区分了三种概念。首先是取剩余的供给以应付社会的需求，他清楚地说明这是仅限于最弱势的群体之间。其二，以社会需求为目标，并在一个更大的公共干预的程度把握

房屋的价格和质量。这个概念的目的是保证提供既具有互补性，为整个住房市场供应完善的保障体系，并对整个房地产进行市场调控。3.佛拉德社会廉租房的国际视野如何比较佛拉德社会出租业比较其他国家的社会租房？本节描述在国际视野比较5孩子佛兰德斯其他国家，其中一些小型社会（爱尔兰，西班牙和德国租赁业多），较大的部（英国和荷兰）（见温特等人2007年等。这样做的目的是描述在这些国家的社会租房部门不同的特点，为搜索差异和双和单一模式迹象提供解读。在荷兰和英国会出租行业中占有较大的市场份额即％和20％的住房是社会出租房。在这两个国家，我们看到了的趋势，在社会出租住房由政府拥有的降。在荷兰，市政住公司已经基本上消失了，在英国，数的的RSL（注册社会地主）正在逐步增加。目前这些管理英国房屋6％的股份英和荷兰房屋租之间的一个区别是前者是社部门在履行安全网功能，后者社会部门是沟通众多目标群体的桥梁。在西班牙，德国和爱尔兰，在佛兰德，社会出租行业是温和范围，不同的3％和。不过，主要的社会之间存在分歧租用这些国家的部门。在德国和西班牙一个充满活力的社会租业存在，这是由私人业管理。住房是建立并保持与补贴一段时间，他们也负担得起的住房的分配规则的主体。在这一时期结束时，这些住宅都是免费的。在爱尔兰满足了社会出租业社会安全网和国有部门的职能是由地方当局。社会租用荷兰部门不明确性；一方面最大收入标准适用，另一方面优先权则适用于弱势群体。

4.房屋政策解读从年“国家房屋论坛”的讨论文件到最近的法案，房屋政策的形成过程显示出：针对之前处在次要地位的国家房屋的全面解决方案和僵化的、官僚的现框架模式，政策都作了快速持续的改善。“重与发展项目（RDP）”提出要为了振奋人心的综