Social housing has been organised in three broad ways, and the differences matter more than the label.
systems house only those who qualify on low income.
Concentrating in one place produces predictable outcomes and political .
A service used only by the poor is easy to underfund, since its users have no political weight.
systems, as in Vienna, house a broad range of incomes in the same buildings.
Rents are set by cost rather than by market, and a middle-income family has no reason to leave.
The stays maintained because its residents can demand maintenance.
The third model subsidises the tenant rather than the building.
Housing are flexible and, in a tight market, are largely captured by landlords as higher rent.
Studies in several countries find a substantial share of any allowance passing straight into rents.
The choice between models is usually presented as a question of efficiency.
It is better understood as a question about who the system is for.
provision costs more upfront and survives elections.
provision costs less and is cut in the first difficult budget.
Every country that built at scale did so when housing was treated as infrastructure rather than welfare.