-

ua ru en


2 (18) 2012

Demography and social economy, 2012, 2(18):85-94
doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2012.02.085

MANTSEVYCH Y.N., ZAPATRINA I.V.


DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE SUPPORT OF THE HOUSING PROGRAMS IN UKRAINE
Section: Social policy.
Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: Housing problem solving is one of the most important social priorities. This cannot be achieved without developing efficient mechanisms of state support of measures on ensuring affordable housing and housing conditions improvement. The attitude to the real estate changes step by step. The profitability of real-estate related business falls down, the risks increase and, as a result, decreases the share of entrepreneurs whos main source of income is real estate. This circumstance mainly causes the trend of considerable decrease of speculative transactions number at the housing market. The second component of formation of trend to decreasing of speculative transactions on purchase- sale of housing has become introduction of the procedure of non-cash payments when acquired, it makes almost impossible to use funds received in the shadow sector. The changes to laws have laid a fundament for housing construction division into commercial housing and housing for personal needs.
The above reasons may result in considerable decreasing of funds coming to the construction sector during the next 34 years. Preliminary calculations show that such decreasing may total 3040%.
In the article it is stipulated that the main problem that has to be solved in Ukraine today in order to change the existing trends uncertainty of forms and instruments of state support of implementation of housing rights of the citizens of Ukraine. This problem is mostly of ideological nature. The state policy in this field is based on the fact that the housing conditions of the citizens of Ukraine could be improved only by taking the housing as a property, even if the families have no financial capacity and no wish to be the property owners.
On the basis of the analysis of foreign experience the authors show the falsity of such approach and prove the necessity to concentrate state support at construction of rent and social housing. Rent housing may total 2570% of the housing fund, in the capitals of the most of the developed countries this ration varies from 40 to 90%.
The authors calculations clearly show that directing the state support in housing sector to creation of financially unsecured housing owners results in increasing of the construction costs under the current conditions in more than 2 times. At the same time budget funds are settled mostly in banking sector. Aggravating circumstance of implementation of the governmentally proposed model for housing problems solving is that the state budget expenditures for the program Affordable Housing shall constantly grow, and the scope of housing in terms of development pace will be far behind the growth in funding. In case of redirecting the budget support to socially oriented program (construction of rent and social housing) having the same level of annual expenditures from the state budget it could be constructed in 2530% more housing and the apartment cost could be decreased almost in 2 times. These funds will be used for their direct purpose for creation of socially oriented housing funds and solving of housing problem for those who actually need it.
Key words: construction, state budget, housing policy, hypothec, investments, funds, credit, social program, housing market.
References:

1. Bartik T. J., (1985), "Business Location Decisions in the United States: Estimates of the Effects of Unionization, Taxes and Other Characteristics of States," Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 3 (January): 14–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1985.10509422

2. Bartik T. J., (1988), "The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Business Location in the United States," Growth and Change (Summer): 22–44.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.1988.tb00473.x

3. Bondonio D., (2003), "Do Tax Incentives Affect Local Economic Growth? What Mean Impacts Miss in the Analysis of Enterprise Zone Policies," Center for Economic Studies, Working Papers with number 03–17.

4. Brown S., Hayes K. J., Taylor L.L., (2002), "State and local policy, factor markets and regional growth," Working Papers 02 02, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

5. Buss T. F., 2001. The Effect of State Tax Incentives on Economic Growth and Firm Location Decisions: An overview of the Literature. Economic Development Quarterly 15 (1): 90–105.
https://doi.org/10.1177/089124240101500108

6. Carlino G., Mills E. S., (1985), "Do Public Policies Affect County Growth?" Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, July-August: 3–27.

7. Carlton D., (1983), "The Location and Employment Choices of New Firms: An Econometric Model with Discrete And Continuous Endogenous Variables," Review of Economics and Statistics, 65 (August): 440–449.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1924189

8. DePaulo P., Sample size for qualitative research. The risk of missing something important, Quirk's Marketing Research Review, December 2000.

9. Grodzka D., Instrumenty wspierania dzialalnosci przedsiebiorstw przez jednostki samorzadu terytorialnego, [in:] G. Golebiowski (editor), Wybrane problemy wspierania przedsiebiorstw w Polsce, Biuro Analiz Sejmowych, Warszawa 2008.

10. Holmes T. J., (1998), "The Effect of State Policies on the Location of Manufacturing: Evidence from State Borders," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(4).

11. Mynarski S., Analiza danych rynkowych i marketingowych z wykorzystaniem programu Statistica, Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie, Krakyw 2003.

12. Papke L. E., (1991), "Interstate Business Tax Differentials and New Firm Location: Evidence From Panel Data," Journal of Public Economics 45(1): 47–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(91)90047-6

13. Sadowska T., Rola samorzadyw w stymulowaniu rozwoju przedsiebiorczosci lokalnej, Folia Universitatis Agriculture Stetinensis 232. Oeconomica 42. Akademia Rolnicza, Szczecin 2003.

14. Slominska B., Gmina w procesach stymulowania przedsiebiorczosci "Samorzad Terytorialny", No 3, 2007.

15. Szewczuk A., Czy polski system wspiera rozwyj lokalny? – [in:] A. Pomorska (editor), Kierunki reformy polskiego systemu podatkowego, UMCS, Lublin 2003.

16. T. Bauman, O mozliwosciach zastosowania metod jakosciowych w badaniach pedagogicznych, [in:] T. Pilch (editor), Zasady badan pedagogicznych, Wydawnictwo Akademickie "Zak", Warszawa 1998.



» pdf