Rent controls and rent setting regulation in different contexts incorporate and balance different aims, in particular when securing affordability and the effective distribution of scarce housing by incorporating market mechanisms. As rent policy is frequently discussed in terms of affordability or market functioning in broad terms, small-scale distributive socio-spatial effects are often not regarded. In this paper, three strategies under the new rent sum policy are compared against the former policy and practice for Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to observe the effects of distributive justice. The new rent policy partly decentralizes rent increase decisions from the national level to local authorities and housing associations. Using microdata on all social housing units and their tenants’ distributive justice, outcomes under the former policy and practice are observed for a 6-year period (2008–2014) and the effects of three different rent increase strategies under the new rent sum policy are forecasted for the same period, combining an ex ante and an ex post evaluation. The possibilities for housing associations to vary rent increases for different groups of tenants in order to improve distributive justice outcomes are explored. Results show that all three possible strategies decrease the observed affordability gap between new and long-term tenants. Valuing the distributions of these strategies by applying two different standards for distributive justice shows the rent sum policy may only result in modest improvements.

中文翻译：

---

租金增长策略和分配正义：阿姆斯特丹租金控制政策的社会空间效应。

在不同情况下的租金控制和租金设定法规包含并平衡了不同的目标，特别是在通过纳入市场机制确保负担能力和有效分配稀缺房屋的情况下。由于经常从可负担性或市场运作的角度广泛讨论租金政策，因此通常不考虑小规模的分配性社会空间效应。在本文中，将新租金总额政策下的三种策略与荷兰阿姆斯特丹以前的政策和实践进行了比较，以观察分配正义的效果。新的租金政策部分将国家/地区的租金上涨决定权下放给了地方政府和房屋协会。利用所有社会住房单位及其租户分配正义的微观数据，在过去的六年中（2008-2014年）观察到了旧政策和实践下的成果，并结合了事前和事后对新时期租金新政策下三种不同租金增长策略的效果进行了预测。评价。探索了住房协会改变不同租户群体租金增长以改善分配正义结果的可能性。结果表明，所有三种可能的策略均减小了新租户和长期租户之间可观察到的负担能力差距。通过应用两种不同的分配正义标准对这些策略的分配进行估值，表明租金和政策可能只会带来适度的改善。