Full download test bank at ebook textbookfull.

com

Private Rental Housing in

Transition Countries: An
Alternative to Owner Occupation?

CLICK LINK TO DOWLOAD

https://textbookfull.com/product/private-
rental-housing-in-transition-countries-an-
alternative-to-owner-occupation-1st-edition-
jozsef-hegedus/

textbookfull
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

ARK Survival Evolved private hosting server rental

selection 1st Edition Margarita Fisher

https://textbookfull.com/product/ark-survival-evolved-private-
hosting-server-rental-selection-1st-edition-margarita-fisher/

An Elementary Transition to Abstract Mathematics

(Textbooks in Mathematics) 1st Edition Gove Effinger

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-elementary-transition-to-
abstract-mathematics-textbooks-in-mathematics-1st-edition-gove-
effinger/

The Role of Changing Housing Policies in Housing

Affordability and Accessibility in Developing
Countries: The Case of Kenya 2nd Edition Msc. Collins
Ouma Agayi
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-role-of-changing-housing-
policies-in-housing-affordability-and-accessibility-in-
developing-countries-the-case-of-kenya-2nd-edition-msc-collins-
ouma-agayi/

An Elementary Transition to Abstract Mathematics 1st

Edition Gove Effinger (Author)

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-elementary-transition-to-
abstract-mathematics-1st-edition-gove-effinger-author/
A Transition to Proof An Introduction to Advanced
Mathematics Textbooks in Mathematics 1st Edition Neil
R. Nicholson

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-transition-to-proof-an-
introduction-to-advanced-mathematics-textbooks-in-
mathematics-1st-edition-neil-r-nicholson/

Private Lending in China: Practice, Law, and Regulation

of Shadow Banking and Alternative Finance 1st Edition
Lerong Lu

https://textbookfull.com/product/private-lending-in-china-
practice-law-and-regulation-of-shadow-banking-and-alternative-
finance-1st-edition-lerong-lu/

Women's Writing in Colombia: An Alternative History 1st

Edition Cherilyn Elston (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/womens-writing-in-colombia-an-
alternative-history-1st-edition-cherilyn-elston-auth/

Private Security: An Introduction to Principles and

Practice 1st Edition Charles P. Nemeth

https://textbookfull.com/product/private-security-an-
introduction-to-principles-and-practice-1st-edition-charles-p-
nemeth/

Housing Estates in the Baltic Countries: The Legacy of

Central Planning in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
Daniel Baldwin Hess

https://textbookfull.com/product/housing-estates-in-the-baltic-
countries-the-legacy-of-central-planning-in-estonia-latvia-and-
lithuania-daniel-baldwin-hess/
 P R I VAT E

RENTAL

HOUSING IN

TRANSITION
COUNTRIES

An alternative to
owner occupation?

EDITED BY
JÓZSEF HEGEDÜS
MARTIN LUX
VERA H O RVÁT H
Private Rental Housing in Transition Countries
 József Hegedüs • Martin Lux
Vera Horváth
Editors

Private Rental
Housing in Transition
Countries
An Alternative to Owner Occupation?
Editors
József Hegedüs Martin Lux
Metropolitan Research Institute Institute of Sociology of the
Budapest, Hungary Czech Academy of Sciences
Prague, Czech Republic
Vera Horváth
Metropolitan Research Institute
Budapest, Hungary

ISBN 978-1-137-50709-9    ISBN 978-1-137-50710-5 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-50710-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017946083

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Darren_russell/gettyimages

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom
 Preface and Acknowledgements

Three principal considerations were behind the creation of this book.

First, while the emergence and importance of private residential renting
was more or less taken for granted in most post-socialist countries after
1989, the sector either stagnated in much of the region or developed at
a slow pace, even though political and economic transition entailed mar-
ket liberalisation and the reinforcement of private property rights. The
region is not, however, homogeneous. While private renting in East
Germany was able to pick up quickly in the reunification process, some
Central and East European (CEE) countries also saw an important diver-
sification of housing tenures, particularly the Czech Republic, but to
some extent also Estonia, Poland, and Russia. The fact that the private
rental sector (PRS) has remained informal in most CEE countries is note-
worthy, but there are also significant differences in the legality and profes-
sionalisation of the sector. Since the majority of CEE countries have a
policy environment that does not substantially support tenure forms
other than homeownership, which often results in weak and small formal
rental sectors and, in some cases, ‘super homeownership’ societies, the
continued development of informal private renting in an environment
unsupportive of renting indicates that there is a social and economic need
for this flexible form of tenure in the former socialist societies. The impor-
tance of a diversified tenure structure and the benefits of a tenure-neutral
housing policy have also been gaining ground in the wider European
v
vi Preface and Acknowledgements

public discourse. This issue should therefore not only be explored and
understood by housing researchers and professionals, but also by
policy-makers.
The authors of this volume focus on the factors that have been shaping
these developments and the different trends among the post-socialist
states. Across the region a claim can be made for great policy potential
that lies in private renting: despite a longstanding pro-ownership policy
bias, the massive predominance of owner-occupation in much of CEE is
unaffordable for lower-income households, and the stock of social rental
housing has been decreasing and is particularly small in former socialist
countries. On a more theoretical level, in the CEE context the develop-
ment of niches and sub-markets for the private rented sectors reflects the
development of the overall housing regime.
Private renting began a long nosedive in the post-war period in both
Western and Eastern Europe. In the former, heavy state subsidies in social
housing coincided with rising incomes and the growing popularity and
accessibility of homeownership. In socialist countries, the housing sectors
were firmly in the grip of the state which had little tolerance for private
leases. By the late twentieth century, the PRS was a minority form of
tenure in most—although not all—European countries. Nonetheless,
external shocks to the housing and housing-finance sectors, like the
Global Financial Crisis of the late 2000s, revealed how a well-functioning
market-based rental sector can serve as a good source of housing for per-
sons who do not have the resources to access homeownership and at the
same time are not eligible for public housing.
The present volume takes a look at some of the key phenomena that
shaped the sector in European transition countries in a set of thematic
chapters and country case studies. The thematic chapters present an over-
view of the development of the PRS in West European countries (see
chapter “The Private Rental Sector in Western Europe”) and transition
countries before 1990 (see chapter “The Private Rental Sector Under
Socialism”), then look at the role restitution played in the development of
private renting in transition countries after 1990 (see chapter “Property
Restitution After 1990”), the legal and financial context of the PRS in
transition countries (see chapter “The Policy Environment of Private
Renting After 1990”), and the role the PRS can play in accommodating
 Preface and Acknowledgements
   vii

poor and marginalised social groups (see chapter “Poor and Vulnerable
Households in Private Renting”). They also compare how the PRS is uti-
lised for welfare purposes in Western Europe, and the potential for CEE
to follow suit in this (see chapters “Private Renting in Social Provision:
Social Rental Agencies in Western Europe” and “Private Renting in Social
Provision: Initiatives in Transition Countries”). The information gathered
in the preparation of the volume is synthesised in the concluding chapter
(see chapter “Central and East European Housing Regimes in the Light
of Private Renting”). The country case studies (see chapters “Croatia:
Towards Formalisation”, “Czech Republic: Growth and
Professionalisation”, “East Germany: Integration to a Well-Established
Environment”, “Estonia: Prospects for Steady Improvement”, “Hungary:
The Growing Role of a Hidden Sector”, “Poland: Gradual Growth Across
Barriers”, “Russia: A Long Road to Institutionalisation”, and “Slovenia:
Untapped Potential”) offer a detailed description of the sector’s develop-
ment in selected transition countries: Croatia, the Czech Republic, the
former East Germany, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, the Russian Federation,
and Slovenia. East Germany may appear to be the odd one out on this
list, but it was included in this volume precisely because it followed a
completely different path, despite its housing sector being similar to other
CEE countries at the start of the transformation. The specific example of
East Germany demonstrates that there could have been an alternative
policy route to the prevailing policy focus of most CEE governments on
increasing homeownership through the giveaway sale of public housing,
a route in which private renting could have played a significant role.
Regarding the methods used, for a number of historical, legal, and finan-
cial reasons, many PRS actors prefer to conceal their tenancies and rent
revenues, which also means they are hidden from surveys like censuses. It is
the broad consensus of statisticians and housing policy researchers in CEE
countries that official statistics systematically underestimate the size of the
rental sector. As a result, the statistical data that do exist had to be supple-
mented in the research undertaken while writing the chapters with field
experience and qualitative data collection. An important source of infor-
mation for this volume was the results of the project ‘TENLAW –
Tenancy Law and Housing Policy in Multi-level Europe’, a three-year
research project conducted under the European Union’s FP7 Research
viii Preface and Acknowledgements

and Innovation Fund between 2012 and 2015, which provided detailed
comparative analysis of the tenancy regulations and policies of 32 European
countries and regions. The research, editorial work, and preparation of the
book were also supported by a grant from the Czech Science Foundation
(grant number 16-06335S). The country case study chapter on Poland was
co-financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education from
financial resources for science in the years 2012–2015 awarded for the pur-
pose of conducting a co-financed international project. A number of expert
collaborators provided invaluable input for many of the issues discussed in
the thematic chapters of this volume. While some of them also authored or
co-authored the chapters in this volume, we would also like to express our
gratitude to Anna Zsófia Bajomi, Gojko Bežovan, Robin Cassling, Maša
Filipovič Hrast, Anneli Kährik, Stefan Kofner, Alina Muzioł-Węcławowicz,
Alexander Puzanov, Richard Sendi, and the support of Metropolitan
Research Institute. As mentioned above, reliable statistical data on the PRS
is scarce in many CEE countries. Consequently, without the insights and
hands-on knowledge of national experts, meaningful analysis of private
renting across the region would not have been possible.

Budapest, Hungary József Hegedüs

Prague, Czech Republic  Martin Lux
 Contents

Part I Private Renting in Transition Countries: Historical

Perspectives and Structural Changes   1

1 The Private Rental Sector in Western Europe  3

Marietta Haffner, József Hegedüs, and Thomas
Knorr-Siedow

2 The Private Rental Sector Under Socialism 41

József Hegedüs and Alexander Puzanov

3 Property Restitution After 1990 71

Martin Lux, Andreja Cirman, Anneli Kährik, and
Katarzyna Miaskowska-Daszkiewicz

4 The Policy Environment of Private Renting After 1990 97

József Hegedüs, Vera Horváth, and Nóra Tosics

5 Poor and Vulnerable Households in Private Renting121

Martin Lux, Nóra Teller, and Petr Sunega

ix
x Contents

Part II Country Case Studies: History, Current Status,

and Future Prospects 147

6 Croatia: Towards Formalisation149

Gojko Bežovan

7 Czech Republic: Growth and Professionalisation167

Martin Lux and Petr Sunega

8 East Germany: Integration to a Well-Established

Environment189
Stefan Kofner

9 Estonia: Prospects for Steady Improvement211

Ave Hussar

10 Hungary: The Growing Role of a Hidden Sector235

József Hegedüs and Vera Horváth

11 Poland: Gradual Growth Across Barriers261

Alina Muzioł-Węcławowicz and Magdalena Habdas

12 Russia: A Long Road to Institutionalisation287

Alexander Puzanov

13 Slovenia: Untapped Potential311

Richard Sendi
 Contents
   xi

Part III Conclusion: Private Renting—A Viable Alternative? 331

14 Private Renting in Social Provision: Social Rental

Agencies in Western Europe333
Pascal De Decker, Jana Verstraete, Isabelle Pannecoucke,
and Ruth Owen

15 Private Renting in Social Provision: Initiatives

in Transition Countries361
József Hegedüs, Vera Horváth, and Eszter Somogyi

16 Central and East European Housing Regimes in the

Light of Private Renting387
József Hegedüs, Vera Horváth, and Martin Lux

Index413
 List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 A description of the EEHM and its different versions  52

Fig. 4.1 Share of the private and public rental sector in selected
European countries around 2010–16 98
Fig. 7.1 Maximum controlled rents (CZK/m2/month), 1990–2006
(Category I quality). 175
Fig. 7.2 Average hypothetical market rent-to-income ratio in 14
regions of the Czech Republic (2000–2012) 183
Fig. 8.1 Housing completions in East Germany 1949–2014 (since
2005 incl. West Berlin) 196
Fig. 8.2 Vacancy rates in East and West Germany 1994–2013 198
Fig. 8.3 Average net cold rents (NCR) in East and West Germany
1991–2014204
Fig. 10.1 Share of private rental housing by average population (%),
2015240
Fig. 10.2 Share of population in private and public rental dwellings
by income decile (%), 2015 251
Fig. 12.1 The share of households able to purchase a standard
housing unit using their own resources and mortgage
loan (%) 292
Fig. 12.2 The dynamics of real incomes and real housing prices
per m2 in the primary and secondary markets
(%, 2004 = 100%) 294

xiii
xiv List of Figures

Fig. 12.3 The structure of supply and demand for private rental
housing in Moscow (in per cent from total demand and
total supply, December 2015)300
Fig. 12.4 The trend in average rent levels of economy-class flats in
Moscow (thousand RUB)302
Fig. 14.1 Basic functioning of an SRA 340
Fig. 14.2 Overview of the partnership between an SRA and a landlord 340
Fig. 14.3 Overview of the relationship between an SRA and its tenants 341
Fig. 14.4 Flanders—growth in the number of SRA dwellings 349
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 A typology of the rental sector by landlord, allocation,

and subsisides 7
Table 1.2 Private rental sector development in some selected
European countries (%) 17
Table 1.3 Rent regulation in seven European countries
around 2012 22
Table 5.1 Share of population living in market rental
housing (2013) 124
Table 5.2 PRS serving poor people in selected CEE countries 129
Appendix 5.1 Market rental housing versus other tenures 134
Appendix 5.2 Market rental housing versus other tenures 138
Table 6.1 Housing tenure structure in Croatia, 2001 153
Table 6.2 Tax revenue from the private rental housing sector
in Croatia, in HRK 156
Table 6.3 Housing tenure structure in Croatia, 2011 161
Table 6.4 Number of decisions of tax offices issued for the
taxation of income from rent, 2009–2014 162
Table 7.1 Price-to-rent ratio in regional capitals of the Czech
Republic (2000–2013) 180
Table 7.2 Rental yields in regional capitals of the Czech Republic
(2000–2013)181
Table 8.1 Stylised patterns of population change in 132 East
German cities and their distribution 199

xv
xvi List of Tables

Table 9.1 Dynamics of total, urban and rural population,

1881–2015 in Estonia 212
Table 9.2 Dwelling construction dynamics, 1950–2014 in
Estonia214
Table 9.3 Dynamics of tenure structure in Estonia (percentage
of non-vacant conventional dwellings, PHC 2000,
PHC 2011) 220
Table 9.4 Percentage share of population by tenure status in
major cities (PHC 2011) 221
Table 9.5 Share of population with housing cost overburden
by tenure status (compared to EU-27) 224
Table 9.6 Price-to-rent in regional centres of Estonia, 2000–2013
(two-room dwellings per m2)225
Table 9.7 Tenure type and living conditions by ethnic group 226
Table 9.8 Preference for housing after graduating, per current
tenure (per cent) 227
Table 10.1 Housing solution after moving: 1996–2003 and
2005–2015236
Table 10.2 Selected housing market indicators (real values),
1989, 1999, 2008, 2013 246
Table 10.3 Types of landlords on the supply side of the PRS 248
Table 11.1 Households by tenure type (National Census 2011) 276
Table 12.1 Rental yields and price-to-rent ratio for cities with
a population above one million of inhabitants
(January 2015) 302
Table 12.2 Affordability of the PRS in Moscow 303
Table 13.1 Tenure structure within occupied dwelling stock 323
Table 13.2 Dwelling size categories 325
Table 13.3 Rent amount by square metre 326
Table 14.1 Flanders, subsidies to SRAs, and rent subsidies,
2010–2015342
Table 14.2 SRA Flanders, weight of the allocation criteria 343
Table 15.1 Distribution of population by tenure status in selected
European countries—share of tenants renting at
market price, 2015 363
Table 15.2 The share of vacant housing and overcrowding in
Central and Eastern European countries, 2011 367
Table 16.1 Social rental housing stock, compared to ‘reduced
price or rent free’ rentals and market rate rentals
(2012)—percentage of the housing stock 389
 Part I
Private Renting in Transition
Countries: Historical Perspectives
and Structural Changes
 1
The Private Rental Sector in
Western Europe
Marietta Haffner, József Hegedüs,
and Thomas Knorr-Siedow

Introduction
Across Western Europe, private renting is viewed from very different per-
spectives. In some countries, especially the UK and Southern Europe, the
reputation of this sector of the housing market has often been linked to
insecure housing of questionable quality for the less privileged. By con-
trast, in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, private rental housing has
become a widely accepted and secure form of tenure for a wide variety of
people; it is a solid part of housing policy and is often considered a cor-
nerstone of market stability during economic crises.

M. Haffner (*)
TU Delft/RMIT University, Delft, South Holland, Netherlands
J. Hegedüs (*)
Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary
T. Knorr-Siedow
UrbanPlus Droste & Partner, Berlin, Germany

© The Author(s) 2018 3

J. Hegedüs et al. (eds.), Private Rental Housing in Transition Countries,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-50710-5_1
4 M. Haffner et al.

The Private Rental Sector (PRS) currently plays a relatively limited

but stable role in European housing markets, as in many countries its
decline in market share has stabilised (Peppercorn and Taffin 2013; Ball
2010; Gilbert 2003; Scanlon and Whitehead 2011). According to
Eurostat data, 19 per cent of the housing stock in the 28 countries of
the European Union (EU) was rented at a market price in 2014. Home-
ownership is the dominant tenure form in European countries, except
in Germany and Switzerland, where private rentals have been supported
by the housing system since the early twentieth century. As the share of
the PRS is relatively high in both of these countries and renters’ rights
are secure, many mainstream households see the sector as a competitive
part of the general housing market. Private rental housing plays differ-
ent roles on housing markets when it provides housing solutions for
low-income and marginalised households, as well as for higher-income
groups, as is the case in the Netherlands (Haffner et al. 2009). The PRS
has also increasingly become attractive to affluent groups in a number
of countries. On the demand side, upmarket private rentals fit the
dynamic lifestyle of the new creative class, as well as the mobile work-
force. On the supply side, the upper-middle class may see a benefit
from a financial investment in the PRS as a way of supplementing their
retirement income.
The potential role of the PRS in offering alternative housing options
may be important in Central and Eastern European countries, where
home-ownership has become predominant as a result of the post-­transition
privatisation wave. Furthermore, the expansion of affordable housing
options could include private renting options based on (temporary) state
support. Therefore, the PRS may play a key role in the future of post-
socialist countries’ housing regimes (Hegedüs et al. 2014). The aim of this
chapter, therefore, is to provide a historical overview of the development
of the PRS in Western European countries and offer insight into key fac-
tors that may influence its development in transition countries.
To provide a context for the analysis of the PRS in the post-socialist
countries, the chapter clarifies the term ‘private rental’ in the section
titled ‘Tenure Types and Landlord Types’ and explains its different mean-
ings. This section presents an overview of the various forms of private
rental tenure. It draws attention to the legal-economic relationship of the
 1 The Private Rental Sector in Western Europe 5

actors in the PRS and the sociological/legal meaning of the PRS in the
context of national housing regimes. In the section titled ‘The Historical
Development of the Private Rental Sector in Western Europe’, we describe
the four dominant housing policy approaches of the last century that
have impacted the changing position of the PRS, but not necessarily in
the same way. The section titled ‘Rent Regulation and the Subsidisation
of Private Renting’ focuses on key areas of housing policy intervention in
the PRS that could help explain the development of the sector. The sec-
tion ‘The State of Private Renting in Europe’ summarises the develop-
ment of the PRS in the countries, especially in those where either a large
PRS has been preserved in this century or where its market share has
significantly increased in this century. The final section ‘A Future for
Private Renting’ sets out the authors’ insights regarding various aspects of
the sector’s future development.

Tenure Types and Landlord Types

Tenure structure is a key and dynamic characteristic of European housing
systems. It reflects the social, cultural, economic, and legal use of housing
as a consumer good as well as an asset. It defines the opportunities for the
types of landlords that operate in a country.

Tenure Types

Tenure structure reflects a wide variety of property rights, ranging from

full legal and actual ownership (as in owner-occupancy) to partial rights
(as in cooperative-owned housing or shared ownership) and various
grades of distinction between ownership and use (as in leases and rentals).
However, the meanings of the various forms of rental tenure in general
and of private rental housing in particular have evolved over time and
across countries and are thus embedded in a sociological, economic, and
cultural context (Kemp 2010; Mandic and Clapham 1996; Hegedüs and
Teller 2007). This is why defining the PRS is not straightforward (Crook
and Kemp 2014a, p. 5).
6 M. Haffner et al.

A two-step approach is taken to defining tenure here. First, the owner

and the tenant are different roles; that is, the housing is not owner-­
occupied, but could be cooperatively owned. Second, private rentals are
distinguished from social rentals according to the way in which the dwell-
ings are allocated. ‘Social’ housing is allocated to households administra-
tively on the basis of a level of need defined by society (Haffner et al.
2010). ‘Private’ rental represents an agreement between resident and
landlord, which is typically based on market, or more precisely a regu-
lated, market relation, though the agreement could be based on princi-
ples like family relations or employee–employer. The definition and the
typology are based on the type of allocation of the dwelling and type of
the institution and the subsidy involved in the transaction. Subsidy could
be continuous rent allowance or capital grant, but, as in the case of the
rental cooperatives or municipal housing, accumulated capital grant
makes possible (and according to regulation forces of some countries) to
set rent under market price. Ownership of the dwelling implies that the
terms ‘social’ or ‘private’ are used according to the fact of whether an
allocation system with subsidy is implemented as a distinctive criterion
on the basis of which rental tenure can be compared across countries
(Hantrais 2009). Rental housing owned by private actors can play a social
role as well (Table 1.1).
Moreover, if we look at specific behavioural and cultural factors, we
find that tenure forms have different social connotations depending on
the socio-economic context. The most widespread tenure forms—private
or market or commercial rentals; public or social or non-profit rentals;
and owner-occupation, which are often considered the three ‘basic’ ten-
ure forms—have very different meanings in different historical and
national contexts. Tenure forms ‘are not fixed or immutable sets of social
relations around the ownership, occupation and pricing of the accom-
modation. […] As the wider economy and society change, so too do the
social relations embodied in housing tenures’ (Kemp 2010, p. 122). This
is demonstrated in the next chapter of this volume, which deals with
tenure forms in the PRS in the socialist housing systems. While in
Western Europe the vast majority of rental contracts are formally concluded
in writing, in some post-socialist countries as much as 10–20 per cent
 1 The Private Rental Sector in Western Europe 7

Table 1.1 A typology of the rental sector by landlord, allocation, and subsidies
Social rental Private rental
Landlord Rental State, Institutional Private person,
type cooperative, municipal, accidental, or
NGO (Church, or municipal non-institutional
etc.) company professional
Control of Rules set by the Based on Market based Typically market
allocation institution government- based, but
rules consistence defined rules other principles
with the law or with reference influence the
housing policy social need agreement, no
specific rule
Subsidy Accumulated (mortgage free) Typically not subsidised, but
capital, and/or different specific programmes may be
subsidy scheme. Though the involved, both on the supply
conditions are in the process side and on the demand side
of change

of the urban and rural housing stock may be comprised of informal forms
of tenure. Furthermore, tenure forms in European countries are often
barely compatible with their Third World ‘counterparts’ in spite of some
similarity, because of their different social, economic, and historic envi-
ronment (Hoffman et al. 1991; Mandic and Clapham 1996), making
cross-country and cross-continental comparison problematic.

Landlord Types

Three landlord types of the PRS seem to be important to differentiate.

The first type consists of small-scale landlords, the majority of whom
are individuals who are often more interested in building up wealth and
securing a safe medium-term return on investment than they are in maxi-
mising profit. These individuals may also be professional, non-­
institutional landlords. The individual letting of inherited flats is
increasingly occurring as the demographic structure and mobility pat-
terns are changing, and the next generations choose not to live in the
inherited property (O’Dwyer 1999).
8 M. Haffner et al.

In countries with a more significant PRS, the diverse composition of

small landlords may be reflected in the renters’ profiles. In Germany, for
example, owners and renters are often from similar social strata, whether
in the better-off or the less privileged segments. In the case of small lease-
holds, landlord-tenant relations are often not only structured by rent laws
but also by personal proximity—with all the associated advantages and
disadvantages of this. The introduction of management companies can
be considered a relatively recent development, which could be an impor-
tant factor in the post-socialist countries. They bundle up small proper-
ties for professional private asset management, improving profitability on
the one hand, but depersonalising relations and thus changing the sector
on the other.
The second major landlord type, which generally (still) forms a small
share of the market, consists of market-oriented institutional investors.
They are playing an increasingly important role in large, new, or refur-
bished developments in attractive locations. The PRS has proved to be an
attractive market segment since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), as the
appeal of traditional forms of relatively safe financial investment in life
insurance or public bonds has decreased owing to the risks and/or persis-
tently low interest rates that have accompanied those investments for
more than a decade (Oxley et al. 2015). The demand for rental accom-
modation in the PRS is also on the rise as a growing share of the popula-
tion has become ineligible for mortgage finance, in part because incomes
have gone down and become insecure, and in part because of demo-
graphic changes, emerging new lifestyles, and higher mobility due to job
flexibility.
There is a wide variety of institutional landlords, from wealth and asset
management companies focusing on long-term goals to private enter-
prises that engage in short-term profiteering—for example, from former
public social housing that has been privatised; this is especially the case in
Germany and Austria (Elsinga et al. 2014). Some of this housing was in
the past well managed by municipal owners and is still subject to some
rent control and access regulations, while other housing was turned into
highly speculative investment. In some parts of Germany, mostly those
regions in economic decline, the privatisation of public housing has
resulted in the growing neglect of the maintenance of the privatised
 1 The Private Rental Sector in Western Europe 9

­ ousing stock (‘scrap properties’), which may undermine social cohesion

h
(Enquetekommission NRW 2013).
The third major type of landlord is represented by the various versions
of non-profit housing enterprises that exist and that may have enjoyed
state subsidies for a (limited) period in the past. In Berlin, for instance,
more than 10 per cent of the housing stock can be classified as a rental
cooperative (Böttcher 2013). Non-profit organisations, such as coopera-
tives and public-private partnerships, operate in France, Germany, the
Netherlands, and the UK. In the Netherlands and the UK, such non-­
profit social organisations (housing associations) have the capacity and
are allowed to offer some housing at market rents (Haffner 2013; Haffner
et al. 2014; Oxley et al. 2010), occasionally through a subsidiary that has
been specially created for this purpose.
The PRS may form an integral part of the system that through an allo-
cation system provides dwellings to households targeted by policy. This
means that all types of landlords can be incentivised to offer ‘social’ rent-
als, while those landlords that typically do provide ‘social’ housing (like
public or non-profit landlords) can also offer ‘non-social’ rental housing
(market or private rental housing). In Germany, municipal housing com-
panies are considered private organisations, even though the shares in
these companies are owned by municipalities and they (like housing
cooperatives) provide de jure and de facto social housing (also through an
allocation system, see above) as well as private/market rental dwellings
(Droste and Knorr-Siedow 2014).
In sum, private landlords can provide both private rental housing and
social (subsidised) housing (see Table 1.1), where private renting is inte-
grated in the affordable housing provision, which is specifically the case
in Germany, Switzerland, and France (Haffner et al. 2008; Hoekstra et al.
2012; Oxley et al. 2010; Scanlon and Kochan 2011; Hegedüs et al.
2014). Social landlords can also provide private rental housing. However,
both types of hybridisation of landlords may be affected by the EU’s state
aid regulations that aim to create a level playing field on markets, also the
rental market (Elsinga and Lind 2013).
There are, therefore, significant differences to be identified between the
interests and behaviours of various landlord types, where the long-term
goal of asset preservation is more typical of small- to medium-hold lessors
10 M. Haffner et al.

and housing associations and cooperatives, while a more directly profit-­

oriented approach is more characteristic of professional institutional
landlords. There are also a number of actors that represent a mixed model,
either between private and social renting, or between renting and partial
ownership (like German housing cooperatives).
Regardless of the nuances of landlord type, at present most private
rental housing in Europe is provided by ‘private person’ landlords (Crook
and Kemp 2014a; Haffner et al. 2008; Scanlon and Kochan 2011;
Whitehead et al. 2012). Now that the actors are introduced, the history
of the PRS in Western Europe follows in the next section.

 he Historical Development of the Private

T
Rental Sector in Western Europe2
A variety of pathways for private rental markets have developed across
Europe that reflect specific national and regional traditions, laws, hous-
ing policies, and practices. Whether countries tend to lean towards a free-­
market orientation in their private rental housing or opt for a more or less
regulated private market depends on a wide variety of housing customs
and cultures and on legal traditions and power relations between housing
providers and renters as customers. This complex amalgam of housing
and regulatory traditions, cultures, and the economy of the sector also
affects the user of private rental housing. The question of what social,
economic, and political factors determined the development of national
housing systems (in Western Europe) is examined on two levels.
First, housing systems change in interaction with general economic and
social processes and these are increasingly connected to global economic
changes. Thus, the first level of analysis involves a short description of the
development of the political and economic systems in Europe and how
they may have impacted housing policy. The aim is to provide an overview
of policy changes in Europe in relation to the housing system in line with
‘system embedded research’ (Stephens 2011), taking into account policy
transfers in the global economy and the role of international organisa-
tions. These approaches can be interpreted as the main underlying policy
principles that have become integrated into national housing systems in
 1 The Private Rental Sector in Western Europe 11

very different ways depending on national factors. Therefore, this is a

comparative analysis across Western Europe that focuses on the broad
contextual changes and their turning points and looks for the ways in
which national states try to react to them (Boelhouwer and Heijden
1992), covering the history of the past century and a half.
Second, housing policy cannot be explained solely on the basis of the
general global (capitalist) trends, as the effects of national political forces
and demographic and economic factors are embedded in the development
of the housing systems. Owing to the effects of globalisation, national fac-
tors have lost some of their importance, but they are nevertheless the main
factors that translate into policies and any analysis must take them into
consideration. This overview starts out with the ‘tenure-­focused’ approach
of mainstream housing sociology and then applies the ‘structure of hous-
ing provision’ approach of Harloe and Martens (1987) and Ball and Harloe
(1992) combined with the institutional approach of Lundquist (1990).3
Based on these theoretical approaches, four time periods in the devel-
opment of housing systems and policies are identified according to the
mainstream paradigms that define them. Even though the four paradigms
are tied to different periods in the development of capitalist societies,
there will not necessarily be a direct correspondence between the para-
digms and periods, as in some countries certain elements of housing
policy emerged earlier than in other countries.
The following main periods are distinguished: before World War I
(WWI); from WWI to the 1970s (which includes a transitionary period
between WWI and WWII); from 1970 to 2008; and from 2008 onwards.
This periodisation is similar to the period pattern used, for example, by
Malpass (2014), Power (1993), and Harloe (1995). Also referred to will
be Boelhouwer and Van der Heijden (1992), who distinguish four peri-
ods in housing policy after WWII up to the 1990s.
Mainstream paradigms represent the dominant way of managing and
interpreting the role of housing in different stages of the development of
capitalism. The first paradigm is the liberal approach to the housing mar-
ket, the second the emergence of the welfare state, the third is the World
Bank’s proposed enabling approach, and the fourth is the regulated
­market approach. While many countries have faced similar challenges,
they have responded differently to them.
12 M. Haffner et al.

Industrialisation, Urbanisation, and Liberal Capitalism

Private rental contracts were probably the earliest form of agreement

regarding the temporary use of dwellings. During the nineteenth century,
the expansion of private renting became the counterpart to massive pri-
vately financed urbanisation and urban housing construction across
Europe triggered by industrialisation. The working classes lived in so-­
called tenement barracks in notoriously poor socio-economic conditions
and were dependent on investors such as builders and on the ‘rentiers’
who made a living and profit from the letting of dwellings. These very
precarious private-renting relations were a regular source of social and
political conflict, as evidenced by the many rent-riots that used to break
out in European cities (Gauldie 1974; Geist and Kürvers 1980;
Zimmerman 2011). It was only towards the end of the nineteenth cen-
tury that some legal and quality standards were established, with the
cooperative movement and small-scale philanthropic initiatives setting
examples for more sustainable arrangements. However, before the turn of
the twentieth century, private renting was also partly taken up by mem-
bers of the upper classes. Engineers, officers, and civil servants and their
families, who often needed to move for employment reasons, began the
practice of renting luxury flats from private landlords in bourgeois neigh-
bourhoods in multi-storey ‘rent-palaces’ which meant larger, good-­quality
tenement houses located in bourgeois neighbourhoods. But lease condi-
tions remained generally short term, and annual or even half yearly rent
rises made privately rented dwellings an unpredictable affair.
Privately rented housing became the dominant tenure form in the
European cities of the nineteenth century, as the housing needs generated
by massive industrialisation and urbanisation were met with large-scale
development of private rental accommodations. Although exact data on
what share of urban housing was made up of private rentals are rare, it
was often around 90 per cent in London, Paris, Berlin, Budapest, and
Vienna (Gyáni 1992; Power 1993; Zimmermann 2011; Wolman 1985;
Thompson 1990 quoted in Power 1993; Munjee 2003).
The basic approach to housing policy (in Western Europe) can be
described as a liberal capitalist approach, which determined policy interven-
tions until the end of WWI. Housing was basically a marketable good,
 1 The Private Rental Sector in Western Europe 13

where demand was triggered by industrialisation (the influx of the rural

population into urban areas), and supply was provided by entrepreneurs,
partly through bank financing and equity. The role of the state was limited
to the regulation of building standards and enforcing minimal public
health requirements (Kemp 1984; Burns and Grebler 1977; Zimmerman
2011, Lévy-Vroeland et al. 2014). The private capital flowing into residen-
tial construction was insufficient to satisfy the level of demand, so private
and state-owned enterprises also had to invest in residential real estate,
especially in areas where the necessary infrastructure did not exist (mining
communities, railroad-company housing). The state also embarked on new
residential construction even before WWI, albeit sporadically, in order to
alleviate extreme housing deprivation rather than to provide a systematic
solution. The rental contract was strictly considered a private agreement in
which the state played little regulatory role; the details of the document
were left entirely to the contracting parties, and any regulation of its con-
tent was generally considered an intrusive disruption of the free market.
Rent levels, which typically amounted to 20 or 25 per cent of tenants’
incomes, were considered high; rent hikes were frequent. Tenants crammed
into overcrowded apartments to offset high rents. The risk defaulting on
rent was also high, which led to acute conflicts. Settling landlord-tenant
disputes was a central political issue, and there were many attempts to
arrive at general ways of resolving such disputes (e.g. rent strikes, concilia-
tion, and mediation committees). State intervention during WWI marked
the end of the liberal-­capitalist approach to housing/housing policy.

Expansion of the Welfare State

As private renting represented the only form of housing for all non-­owners,
increased attention to the lack of affordable rents for ‘the war heroes’ during
and after WWI led to enhanced rent security, and rent controls were estab-
lished across the countries that had been at war, culminating in many coun-
tries in rent freezes that were to last well into the 1920s and in some cases far
beyond that (Donner 2000). Rent controls/regulations in the UK, accord-
ing to Munjee (2003, p. 17) ‘made [an] impact as far away as India’. WWI
thus marked the start of a shift as stricter regulation improved renters’ rights,
14 M. Haffner et al.

rent controls and, usually, freezes were brought in, and rent clearing courts
were introduced/established (see first point in the section titled ‘Rent
Regulation and the Subsidisation of Private Renting’). Private renting nev-
ertheless remained the standard form of tenure until public and cooperative
building programmes gradually took off in the interwar period to offset
public unrest, and then more intensively after WWII in response to the
post-war economic upswing. However, for decades to come, private residen-
tial renting remained a sphere of constant political conflict, which from the
late nineteenth century to the 1980s occasionally led to rent strikes (Weitz
2007).
The first fundamental turn in the status of private renting occurred
during the 1920s following the introduction of public housing pro-
grammes and the emergence of a social rental sector. Special taxes were
often imposed upon private landlords to co-fund public rental projects,
as was the case in Germany and Austria (Hauszinssteuer), reducing the
profitability of private rental housing and thus investors’ interest (Geist
and Kürvers 1980; Schmid et al. 2016). Private renting came under even
more pressure when, after WWII, Keynesian public building programmes
and the states’ co-financing of non-profit social housing resulted in a real
choice for a growing group of tenants. As investment in private renting
was comparatively discouraged, the quality of older private rental dwell-
ings was often lower than that of social housing, and in turn it became
more difficult to find tenants—partly leading to a downward spiral (for
instance, in France, Denmark, or Italy). Where most social housing was
public housing, policy makers ceased to pay attention to the PRS, even
though in some countries (like in Germany) private landlords were con-
tinuously integrated into social housing programmes from the early post-­
war years onwards.
While during the 1960s the proportion of private rented dwellings in
the housing stock of some Western European countries had reached 40
(the Netherlands) to 60 per cent—or even more (West Germany)—and
a general shift occurred in the proportion of tenure categories over the
following decades. In the following decades, the PRS declined sharply in
the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK; was halved in France; and decreased
to less than half in Sweden. The reasons were manifold. Private rental
housing was bought up by public builders from the mid-1970s to the late
 1 The Private Rental Sector in Western Europe 15

1980s in the course of massive urban renewal. This aimed at replacing old
and often run-down privately owned tenements with new public social
housing blocks (for instance, in Germany, France, the UK, and the
Netherlands; Hoekstra et al. 2012). As many countries strongly encour-
aged owner-occupation (UK, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, and to a
lesser degree France), many privately rented dwellings were also sold to
their tenants after government policies (like the right to buy in Ireland
and England) were introduced (Haffner et al. 2009). This often coin-
cided with a weakening of the financial motivations of owners-landlords
to invest in rental housing, as new forms of investment seemed more
profitable and easier to manage (e.g. Denmark; Juul-Sandberg 2015).
Household wealth increased during the 1960s and 1970s in all industri-
alised western countries. At the same time, as the virtues of private home-­
ownership and the singe-family house were extolled and the undeniable
drawbacks of social housing—especially in the large estates of the 1950s
to 1980s—were highlighted, there was a downturn in the status of rental
housing in general and of private renting in particular.
In many countries, the housing policies of this period can be charac-
terised as a reaction to the housing shortage caused by the two great wars
and the subsequent economic crises (Boelhouwer and Van der Heijden
1992), and resulted in the emergence of welfare capitalism. State inter-
vention turned permanent the various temporary forms of rent control
that were put in place after WWI. Private investment in rental housing
dried up in many Western European countries. Not only did landlord-­
investors withdraw from the market and decreased in numbers, but
financing institutions also changed their strategy, as rental market inter-
ventions also often led to construction loan defaults. The drop in housing
construction compelled states to boost construction for o­ wner-­occupation,
which required, among other things, the condominium to be codified as
a legal form of housing/tenure and the creation of various tax incentives.
In many countries, state intervention was indispensable in the post-war
housing shortage, and the further development of the interwar period’s
organisational and financing designs led to residential construction
booms all over Europe. National construction setups differed, as did the
scale of investment, but construction booms were the result (Donnison
and Ungerson 1982).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 (Saari häviää ja tupa on edelleen öisessä pimeydessä. Äiti nousee
äkisti vuoteelta, herättää Ainikin, joka jää säikähtyneen näköisenä
istumaan vuoteelle.)

ÄITI:

Kuulitko kuherrusääntä miniämme mielitietyn, sekä kauno

Kaukomielen?

AINIKKI (hätkähtäen):

Enkä kuullut: painajainen lie vain painellut pahasti sinua

sydänalasta, unet tuoden kummalliset vanhan mielehen
höperön.

Peloittelet, säikyttelet sydänyöllä tyttäresi henkiheitoksi

tilalle, kuoliaaksi vuotehelle.

ÄITI:

Tämä ei unennäköä, höperrystä, heikkoutta! Kotona on

poika kohta kera nuoren morsionsa.

(Menee avaamaan akkunan, josta tulvii päivä sisälle.

Kuuluu lintujen laulua):

Jo on päivä korkealla, aamu kirkas koittanunna,

herännynnä heinikkokin, kukka nurmen nukkumasta.
(Itsekseen.) Kovinpa nukuinkin kauan unen uutimien alla, kun
en kuullut ensimäistä kukerikuun kieuntata.

(Menee ovelle, aukasee sen seljälleen, jolloin aamn-anringon valo

virtaa huoneeseen.)
 Toivehikas onnen päivä, Ukon itsensä jakama, mittapuulla
mittelemä ikuisuuden ilmennestä, rannattomasta merestä,
ihmislapsien iloksi, auvoksi on angervoisten!

Ennen maille laskuansa tuo se pieneen pirttihimme riemun,

jommoista ei ennen nämät nähneet seinähirret, kuulleet
kuusihonka orret!

(Kuuntelee ovelta.)

Tällä kertaa vanha korva pettänyt ei kuulijaansa. (Iloisena.)

Tuttu on kavion kopse, tuttu ensi kuulemalta polven poljenta
orihin, varsan astusta vakava.

(Aisukille):

Toimi kuntohon tupamme, lavitsamme laadullensa vallas-

vierahia varten!

AINIKKI (siistien vuodetta ja häärien lieden totona. Itsekseen):

Jo lie mennynnä piloille äiti vanha vanhuuttansa, — —

höpertynnä heikkouttansa — —

(Menee ovesta ulos, juoksee kohta takaisin hämmästyneenä.)

Tosia unia nähnyt lienet ehkä valveillasi! Kotona jo,

kynnyksellä, vartomasi, vuottamasi…!

(Kaukomieli ja Kyllikki astuvat onnellisen näköisinä tupaan.

Kyllikki muuttuu äkkiä nurpean näköiseksi.)

ÄITI (Kaukomielelle):
 Viikon viivyit poikaseni, viikon mailla vierahilla…

58

KYLLIKKI (puoleksi itsekseen):

Ompa tässäkin tupanen nälkäraunion näköinen, hovi

hornalle sopiva. — —

KAUKOMIELI (Kyllikille):

Ellös sä sure tuvista, huokaele huonehista! Tuvat toiset

tehtänehe honkanummen hirsiköstä, parahasta parsikosla.

(Äidilleen):

Oi emoni, kantajani, äitini, ylentäjäni, mitä läksin, senpä

sainkin, kuta pyysin, sen tapasin. Pane patjasi parahat,
pehmoisimmat päänaluiset, maatani omalla maalla nuoren
neiteni keralla.

ÄITI (kohottaen katseensa ylös):

Ole kiitetty jumala, ylistetty Luoja yksin, kun sa toit miniän

mulle, toit hyvän tulen puhujan, oivan kankahan kutojan,
aivan kenstin kehreäjän. (Kaukomielelle.) Itse kiitä onneasi!
Hyvän sait, hyvän tapasit, hyvän Luojasi lupasi, hyvän antoi
armollinen.

(Kyllikkiä hyväillen ja katsellen Kaukomieleen päin.)

Puhdas pulmunen lumella, puhtahampi puolisosi; valkea

merellä vaahti, valkeampi vallassasi: sorea merellä sorsa,
 soreampi suojassasi; kirkas tähti taivahalla, kirkkahampi
kihlattusi…

Laadi lattiat laveat, hanki ikkunat isommat, seisottele seinät

uudet, tee koko tupa parempi: kynnykset oven etehen, ukset
uudet kynnyksille, nuoren neidon saatuasi, kaunihin
katottuasi…

(Esirippi laskee.)

2:nen kuvaelma.'

Pimentoian "kivikko mäki".

Näyttämön etualalla katsomoon päin avonainen, puoliympyrän

muotoinen, maanalainen luola, jonka molemmilla sivuilla olevat
kiviröykkiöt ja mäki kohoavat näyttämön taustaan päin. Luolan
takaseinän ulkopuolella, oven kohdalla makaa Pimentoian koira,
"Hurtta", vahtina.

Taustalla aution näköistä metsäseutua kulonpoltramine

puunrunkeineen, yhtyen taampana pilviseen, öiseen, taivaanrantaan,
josta välistä sukeltaa esiin kuun-käyrä.

Luolan seinät välkkyvät kiteistä, jotka antavat luolalle valaistuksen.

Molemmin puolin sivustoilla kiertää tukeva kivipenkki. Taustalla
keskellä ovi, varustettu vaskilangoilla, joista riippuu suuret vaskiset
lukot. Penkeillä istuu kolme Tietäjää, yksi ovesta oikealle, Louhen
vierellä, ja kaksi oven vasemmalla puolella, valkoisissa puvuissa,
tiara päässä, tulta säihkyvät kiehkurat sekä rinnalla, että otsassa,
korkeat silmikkoristillä varustetut riimusauvat kädessä.

Tietäjien edessä, selin katsomoon, istuu lattialla "kuulijoita", jalat

ristiasennossa, avojaloin, paljain käsivarsin ja kirjava talja
vyötäröillään.

Louhi, hopeahapsinen, hopealta välkkyvässä puvussa, istuen

lähinnä luolan ovea, nojaa oikealla kädellään lukkotankoon.

LOUHI (puhuen kiihkeästi Tietäjille ja "kuulijoille"):

Moinen mahtava perintö, aarre kallis arvaamatoin,

ihmismitoin mittaamatoin. kätketty on kalliohon, uhmattu
maan uumenihin. Tietäjien silmän alle, valvontansa
valppahimman, sitä kun ei ihmisille, hyödyn halvan palvojille
uskalleta tarjoella.

Aivan aikojen alussa, aamu-puhteessa pyhässä, kehityksen

kylvö-kuussa, jätti taatto taivahinen lahjanansa lapsillensa
Sammon suuren, kirjokannen, tiedon lippahan tilavan,
survomahan, sullomahan aine ankea ja piinen, järeäksi
jähmettynyt, suurukseksi syötäväksi, mieltä myöten
myötäväksi. taikka talle-tarpehiksi.

-Eipä ehtinyt inehmo saada auki silmiänsä yltä kyllin

ymmärtämään lahjan suurta kantavuutta kehitykselle elämän.

Hänpä käytti sen omien tarkoitustensa avuksi, kytkemällä

orjan töihin himon hihnapiiskan alla: halvan vasken
hankintahan. kultasuonten keksintähän, muuttamahan maan
metallit, hopean ja rautaruosteen miekoiksi ja miekanteriks',
joilla lyödä kuoliaaksi elonitu jok'ikinen, mi ei mielin
taipuvaisna himon orjaksi alennut.

Näin ei kestänyt koneisto, ratas hieno rikkumatta Vipusessa

Sammon kannen, ihmiskunnan kämmenissä, rautasormien
välissä…

Säpäleiksi särkyi Sampo, kappaleiksi kirjokansi, kunnes

Seppo Ilmarinen, takojista taivon oivin kokosi sen sirpalehet
joutsenen kynän nenästä, maholehmän maitosesta, ohran
pienestä jyvästä, kesäuuhen untuvasta, toisen Sammon
tarpehiksi.

Ta'onnasta Ilmarisen syntyi Sampo uutukainen uuden aian

ihmisille.

Nyt.ei aarrettamme ennen tarjoella, tyrkytellä, Suomen

suurelle suvulle, lapsille Kalevan kansan, kunnes on suku
parannut, kansa uudeksi ehonnut, miehiseksi miehistynvnnä
tiedot, taiat tuntemahan, oppimahan ongelmaiset syyt ja
synnyt ilmiöiden.

Siihen saakka seison tässä tiedon pirtin vartiana, aarrettani

antamatta mielelläni milloinkana arvottomihin käsihin.

Kevähäiset pitkät päivät, talvet päätö päivättömät, vuottelen

väsähtymättä aamua vapahdushetken — — milloin saapuva
on urho Suomen suuresta suvusta, Kalevalan kansan poika,
— kosijaksi Pohjan neidon.

Hälle tääll' on talletettu aito aarre arkkusemme,

huomenlahjaksi hyväksi myyni myötäjäisiksensä.
 1:NEN TIETÄJÄ (puhuen "kuulijoille"):

Kevätkiima ja kuherrus, vietti, lemmen lapsipuoli, lempi,

lapsi rakkauden, keinoina käsissä meillä, päitsiksi ja
ohjaksiksi, talutella ihmiskuntaa tielle tiedon, rakkauden.

Eikä voimaa valtavampaa löydy ilman kannen alla, kuin on

luomisvoiman tenho kiehtomahan ihmismieltä onnen, auvon,
etsintähän.

Siksi häilyy maailmassa miehet, kypsynehet naiset, pyhät

piiat, nuorukaiset, tavotellen toisiansa lailla heinän
heilimöivän, tähkän tuulta täyteläisen, nurmen nuokkuvan
tavalla, etsien elinikänsä vietin suuren viihdykettä lemmen
tuulten leyhkinässä.

Mutta ei evästys lemmen sielun leiväksi levene, eikä

nautinnoiden neste, kostukkeeksi korventavan katumuksen,
kalvavaisen.

Nälkä ja jano se tuima poistuu vasta Pohjolassa, lähtehellä

taian, tiedon, minne heistä pyrkii harvat: yksi yhdestä sadasta,
tuhannesta tuskin toinen.

LOUHI:

Siksi taian ma tekasin, houkutuksen hurmaavaisen.

kiehtomahan miesten mielet urotöihin uskaltamaan. Nostin
heille noita, keinoin utupiian, harha neidon, linnunradan
liepehelle, taivon keskikaartumalle, Neitsyt-tähtisikermähän.
 Ken sen kerran sattumalta näkemähän on osunut, —
kultakangasta kutovan kultaisella sukkulalla, — sille sieluhun
samonnut tuska tulta polttavampi, hehku ahjon heltehinen,
polttaen paja-poroksi, tulin tuhkaksi tuhoten, mielen vanhat
mittasauvat, maljat, joilla nautinnoiden oli määrää mittaeltu.

Sen on tenhosta varissut mieli miehevimmän päästä: niinpä

vanha Väinämöinen, kerran maita kierrellessä loihe katsehen
katolle, maan, tään oivan, laatimansa, nähden siellä neitsyeni
Vaa'an vierellä vakavan, Jalopeura vartiona; vaikka Aino
vastakuollut vielä hällä mielessänsä, unhoitti hän empimättä
maisen lemmen lauhan juoman; sanoihin hän lämpeneikse,
rukouksihin rupeikse, saada sievonen omaksi.

Syvemmälle vielä syöksyi itse Seppo Ilmarinen, sillä neidon

nähtyänsä sai hän intohon isohon takomahan kirjokantta
neidon pään on päästimiksi.

Eipä taika taivonkaaren, tyttö tähtien takainen luotu miesten

miehuksille lauhduttajaksi likaisen lemmen, kiihkon
kiehtovaisen, vaan on syötiksi valettu miesten miehen
nähtäville auttamahan, nostamahan miestä, miehien veroista,
lemmen pauloista pahoista, syvänteistä kiiman, vietin,
kukkulalle korkealle lemmen harhan tuollapuolen, mistä katse
kannattaapi yli hornan laidunmaiden, viettelysten viljapellon.

1:NEN TIETÄJÄ:

Tiedotpa ylen totiset, entisaikaiset, vakavat, lausut vaimo

valkohapsi, hallitsiatar hämärän.
 Muistan eilispäivän lailla, hetken äsken häipynehen,
tapahtuman taannottaisen, vuosisatojen takaisen, jolloin
taivo-neidon taika näytti nuorelle minulle, loisti ylväsmieliselle,
ettei sieluni salista sisimmästä mun sydämein himo ollut
hälvennynnä, haihtununna lemmen löyhkä, vietti ilkeä imetty.

Vielä kerran leimahteli lihan mahti liekkihinsä, kiemaellen

kiihotellen nautintojen nouantahan aivan uusilta aloilta.

Vietti vieri valloillensa, irroillensa Hiiden hirvi, — kunnes

sen avulla Luojan kytkin tiedon kaulaimella, kokemuksen
kuolaimella, pilttuhunsa piehtaroimaan olemukseni
onkaloissa.

Se ei ollut leikin tehty laiskotellen laadittava.

2:NEN TIETÄJÄ (vasemmalla):

Sitä tietä tänne saimme kaikki, pääsimme perille,

matkattuamme mäkinen, kivikkoinen, kannokkoinen,
orjantappurainen taival, viekkahana viittanamme soihtu
Neitsyen sikermän loihtu-lyhdystä leviten.

Kun oli tutuksi tullut, sielulle jo selviöksi tuon valon tosi

olemus, ymmärsi sen yllykkeeksi tehtävähän tenhoisampaan:
suistamahan Hiiden ruuna, järjen juoksija hevonen, kulia
täytyy kuolaimina olla hillintä himojen, oivallisna ohjaksina
aivotusten varma juoksu.

Ruuna tuo ei ruuninkarva astu arki katsannalle nelistellen

nähtäville, ennenkuin on mielen oikut alistettu tiedon alle.

3:MAS TIETÄJÄ (oikealla Louhea vieressä):

 Vasta vanhalla ijällä, matkan päähän päätyneellä, käkesi
sokea silmä leluseksi lemmen taian, lasten leikkikaluseksi.

Muistan kuinka häipyi huntu kiilto kultakutriloilta tuon on

neidon noitumasi. Lempi harhaksi hajosi, muuttui
mullankokkareksi, hiertyi hiekkasen jyväksi, maailmahan
mahtuvaksi oppimattoman opiksi. Katso, kasvoi jo sijalla uusi
taimi taivahinen tiedon voima vartenansa, nupussansa nuori
nukka uskaltavan uhrauksen.

Kun sen näimme kukkahansa puhkeavan parhaillansa,

yhtyi maa ja yhtyi taivas rauha sointuun rakkauden.

Tietäjät tuhatväkiset, manailijät maahisien, teidän, joilla

tehtävänä opastella oppilaita, tiedon tielle pyrkijöitä, neuvoilla
avittavilla, ompi kohta neuvottava karkulaista Kaukomieltä,
joka vaimonsa valitun jättämällä jälkehensä tänne tiensä
tarkkoaapi taika-neidon tahdontahan.

Lujat hälle ehdot laadin, vaadinnat tavanmukaiset,

arvoituksien asussa, mulla kun ei oikeutta kynnysvartian
virassa sisällystä selvitellä kysyjälle kellekänä, — sydämiä
enhän tunne tiedon temppeliin tulijain.

KAIKKI TIETÄJÄT (vannomalla):

Huolimalla huostahamme Kaukomielen kasvatuksen

vannomme myös vastuullemme turmiolliset tulokset.

(Näyttämön taustalla näkyy Kaukomieli, puettuna rautapaitaan,

miekka vyöllä, jousi ja viini selässä, ja keihäs kädessä. Huomaa
luolan oven ja alkaa pyrkiä kiviröykkiöiden yli vaivaloisesti sitä
kohden.)

1:NEN TIETÄJÄ:

Eipä pienet erhetykset, Kyllikin kylällä käynti, kisan, leikin,

tanssin into, siksi painanut pahasti Ahdin poian pohkehissa,
ett' ois' mahtinsa masennut jättämähän neitosensa.

Me näemme syyt syvällä salakammioissa sielun, joista vielä

Kauko itse ei lie täysin tietoisena.

Kauko kerranpa kesällä, syksy-yönä synkeänä, viipyihe

vesillä kauan muikunpyynti matkoillansa, eikä kiirettä pitänyt
kalansaaliista hyvästä yöksi yöpyä kotihin.

— — — Rannalla oli rovio syönyt tuhkaksi tulensa, yöhyt

vaippansa tiheän viskannut jo viidakoille. — —

Loikoeli Kauko kaunis valkosammal vuotehella silmät

selkoseljällänsä, ilman pientä aavistusta, että koittanut jo
kausi, jolloin eestä sielun silmän kaihi kaikonnut ijäksi
kajastamaan katsantansa taakse vahvan ainevaipan.

Syttyi soihdut taivahalle. tulet pilvien takaiset: loihe kuuhut

loistamahan, revon liekit riehumahan, tähti lyhdyt
tuikkimahan, iltaisen ilon pitohon.

Siellä siivin liiteleikse mieli Kauonkin mukana, kohousi

korkealle, taivon kannelle samoten, tietämättä, tuntematta,
vaaroja, mi vaani siellä, tavoitellen tappamahan kolhoa
kokematointa.
 (Kaukomieli ou saapunut luolan edustalle, näkee Pimentolan
koiran,
Joka nostaa päätänsä.)

KAUKOMIELI (hätkähtäen):

Sulje Hiisi haukun suuta, Lempo koiran leukaluuta, laita

sulku suun etehen, haitta hammasten välihin, ettei ennen
ääntä päästä miehen mentyä sivuitse.

1:NEN TIETÄJÄ (jatkaen):

Katse kauas kantavainen kuvitteli Kauollemme tyttäremme,

tähtitarhan usvaisen utu-kuvasen, ilmeiseksi ihmiseksi,
miesten mieliteltäväksi.

Mieli kohta miekkosella myrtyi taiasta mykäksi: heitti

herkeästi hekuman maisen lemmen maistannassa oman
onnensa nojahan, mielin siihen mieltymättä mielellänsä
milloinkana.

Kun hän, tullen tuntoihinsa, koitui aamulla kotihin, kuuli

siskon kielittelyn Kyllikin kylänkulusta, niin hän laski
lankeemuksen vaa'alle vivuttomalle, löytämättä kunnon puolla
punnuksia painavia, jotka vastaisi vikoja, tasoittaisi puuttehia
entisen hyvän emännän — pienemmiksi, siettäviksi.

Siitä syöksihe sotahan, saihe teille taisteluiden, vastoin

vanhan vaatimusta, varoitusta vaimon, siskon.

KAUKOMIELI (joka sillä aikaa on saapuuut luolaa ovelle ja

tarkastellut ovea joka puolelta):
 Jo mä joutunut johonkin, ihmehesen ennättännä, pahan
päässyt pälkähästä, vaaroista ja vastuksista matkan varrella
vakavan, milloin auttajana multa vuorenpeikot voimillensa,
vesi-hiidet hirmuillensa, Mahun aikuiset urohot, milloin
miekkani tulinen, jolla voitin velhot, noidat, kaadoin maahisten
katehet pääni päältä, viereltäni, kupehelta kummaltakin, —
mutta estettä en moista, mokomata, kohdannunna koko
pitkällä polulla, kuin nyt vasta ensi kerran tuommoisen tupa
pahasen, Pimentolan pirtin eessä. (Yhä tutkien ovea.) Näe en
käden sijoa, kynnystä, en pihtipieltä, vemmeltä, mitä vetäistä,
ripoa, mun riivaistaksi uksi kumma umpinainen auki,
selkoseljällensä.

Kun ei tässä tiedot auta, taidotpa tavallisimmat, raahdin

muuksi muutellaita, tohdin toisiksi ruveta.

(Tekee keihäällään ristia (X) merkin oven edessä, lausuu hiljaa

taikasanan, jolloin kuuluu ukkosen jylinää, kuun valo peittyy,
näyttämö pimenee ja Kaukomieli häviää näkyvistä. Kun valaistus
hetkisen kuluttua tulee ennalleen, on Kaukomieli ilmestynyt luolan
sisäpuolelle aivan Louhen eleen.)

LOUHI (nousten asemiltaan, astuu äkkiä askeleen Kaukomieltä

kohden):

Oli tässä ennen koira, rakki raudan karvallinen, lihan syöjä,

luun purija, veren uudelta vetäjä; mikä lienet miehiäsi ku ollet
urohiasi. kun tulit tähän tupahan, sait sisähän salvoksehen
ilman koiran kuulematta, haukkujan havaitsematta.

KAUKOMIELI (ylpeasgi):
 En mä tänne tullutkana taioittani, tieoittani, mahittani,
maltittani, ilman innotta isoni, varuksitta vanhempani koiriesi
syötäväksi, haukkujen hakattavaksi. Pesipä emo minua, pesi
piennä hutjukkana kolmasti kesäisnä yönä, yhdeksästi
syyshämärin joka tielle tietäjäksi, joka maalle malttajaksi,
kotonani laulajaksi, ulkona osoajaksi.

(Astua äkkäi, aivaa kuin säikähtäen, askeleeen taaksepäin.)

Ensikerran einehenäin tunnen nyt pelon tutinan huulilleni

hiiveksivän, — — kammona jo kasvoillani, painajaisena
povella — —!

En ole elämässäni sinä ilmoisna ikänä nähnyt virran

välkynnässä, kesikalvossa vesien, kuvastinta kummempata,
kuin on kuulakka pukusi, peili rinnan riehtiläsi, heilunta
hameesi helman. Siinä on oma kuvani kuvastunut nähtäville
aivan uudessa asussa: tuotu silminnähtäviksi muodot silmiltä
salatut, aikehet ja aivoitukset, joit' ei ilmoille ikinä vielä oltu
veisteltynä. (Kauhulla.) Sieltäpä nyt kiilusilmin puvun
poimujen lomista, pimeästä pilkistävät, ivasuulla irvistävät
elämäni erhetykset, rikkehet rivakan luonnon, ilkeästi
ilkkuellen, että on sopiva hetki minua nyt muistutella töistäni
tuhollisista, tilintekemättömistä.

En mä tänne tuota varten tullunna, en tahtonubna, matkan

vaaroja varonut, tulinpahan tutkimahan, tosissani
tiedustamaan parahinta piioistasi, lemmetärtä linnunradan, —
mutta tunnen ja tajuan, näen huultesi hymystä, olennasta
otsapeilin, että tiedot jo sinulla laadusta minun latuni.

LOUHI:
 Tapa ompi Tietäjien tietojen, salissa tässä pyytämättä
pyrkijöille perinpohjin paljastella heidän sielujensa sintsi, jotta
silmät selveäisi tarkasti tajuamahan, mikä mieletöin on haave
tähystellä tähti-neittä, ennenkuin on velka vanha suunnillensa
suoritettu.

(Tinkimättömästi.)

En mä pistä piikojani, enkä työnnä tyttöjäni, en parasta, en

pahinta, en pisintä, en lyhintä, — — (syyttäen) — — sull' on
ennen naitu nainen ennen juohettu emäntä!

KAUKOMIELI (hämillään):

Kytken Kyllikin kylähän, kylän kynnysportahille, veräjille

vierahille. — — Täältä nain paremman naisen — —!

(Rukoillen)

Tuo nyt mulle tyttäresi, impiparvesta ihanin, öisten unteni

unelma, päivieni pälvi kirkas…!

LOUHI (tylysti keskeyttäen):

En ma anna tyttöjäni miehelle mitättömälle, uroholle

joutavalle.

(Kaukomieli lysähtää masentuneena hervottomaksi.)

1:NEN TIETÄJÄ (suopeasti):

Jos on sulla taito tarkka tajuamaan tarjousta, kuulet siinä

kuivan kiellon, epäyksen ehdottoman, — — — mutta mielin
 miettimällä lupauksen siinä löydät, myönnytyksen
myötäkäyvän, ehdonalaisen asian.

KAUKOMIELI (elpyen):

Lausu, ehdot kuulla tahdon tässä oitis — — —!

1:NEN TIETÄJÄ:

— — — Muistatkohan kosintata Kyllikkisi, kuinka silloin

punnittihin, mittarilla mittelöitiin, ulkomuotosi asua: vakavuutta
vartalosi, voimaa pohjejäntereidén, käsivarsien väkeä?

Avut oivat ulkonaiset, uljas ryhti ruumihin on kyllä pohjana

parasna etsinnässä Pohjan neidon vastuksia voittamahan
tiellä tänne tullessasi.

Täällä vasta valmistuupi tosi ottelu etehen, missä miestä

miehevintä Vaa'an päällä punnitahan aivan toisella tavalla:
(voimakkaasti.) onko sielusi osannut, puhtahaksi puhdistua,
jalommaksi jännittyä, katumuksen kalvavassa ahjossa ylen
kovassa.

Jos on painonsa havaittu painoiseksi punnuksien, joita

Leijona lakien Jalopeura tähtitarhan laskenut on lautaselle
puntariksi painamahan, sielunsa hyve satoa, silloin vasta
pyynnöllensä huomiota annetahan.

LOUHI (Tietäjille kuin kysyen):

Kysyjälle rohkealle
ehtoni kai annettava?
(Tietäjät tekevät myöntävän liikkeen.)
 (Kaukomielelle):
Sitten tyttöäin anele
kukkapäätä kuulustele,
kun sä hiihdät Hiiden hirven
Hiiden peltojen periltä.

KAUKOMIELI:

Enpä ennen oo otusta kuullut moista mainittavan! Minne

eksynyt elukka, heimoltansa häijy, herja?

1:NEN TIETÄJÄ:

Hyyskänsä on hylkiöllä sielun rappio-rajaisen raihnaisilla

rahkasoilla, — — einehenä lemmen laiho, laidunna himon
hekuma.

KAUKOMIELI (hämmästyen);

Tuotapa en ennen tiennyt!

1:NEN TIETÄJÄ:

Sinne sen sinun luvalla Hiidet raivoten rakensi, — —

Juuttahat sen juurruttivat, kuten rannat raitasensa, lammin
silmät lumpehensa. — —

Sinun äsken siittyneenä sikiönä soudellessa luonnon

kohdussa pyhässä, juoksivat sydänveresi, mahlat tunne
maailmasi, kostuttamaan kosteaksi, pehmittämään
pehmeäksi, sielusi sakeat mullat kevätkylvölle jumalan.
Hänpä sinne siemeniksi heitteli hyvän ja huonon, viskoi
 oikean ja väärän, sallien sinun valita, kumman jäädä
vaalijaksi.

Kun ei ennalta itua ilkeäksi ilmoitettu, etkä yksin

ymmärtänyt kasvin laatua lähemmin, paha jäikin juurtumahan,
kasvamahan, versomahan, hyvän siemenen sivulle, orahana
oottavaisen.

Pahan ruohoa rajua, vihreätä veitikkata, söi sun sielusi

sokea, sekä sammutti janonsa nestehellä heinän häijyn.

Siitä kasvoi sieluparka elukaksi ilkeäksi, Hiiden hirvi

hirviöksi, sai se sarvet kulmillensa, vihan vimman viirustamat,
neste ärtyi äiteläksi kiiman kiihkoksi verihin.

Luo'os silmäsi sisemmä oman sielusi saloille, sieltä löydät

hiiden hirven, otuksen, tutun elukan, nelinjaloin juoksevaisen.
Se on siellä suitsettava, hillittävä, hallittava, tuotava tuliaisiksi,
kihlajaisiksi hyviksi mahtavalle morsiolle.

KAUKOMIELI (Louhelle):

Jos mä onnistun otuksen suitsemalla suitsiloihin tuomaan

sulle tuomisiksi, onko palkaksi varattu minun onneni osalle
Pimentolan piika pieni?

LOUHI:

Vasta annan vaapukkani, neidon, naisen, naitavaksi, kun sä

suistat suuren ruunan Hiiden ruskean hevoisen, Hiiden
varsan vaahtoleuan, Hiiden peltojen periltä.

KAUKOMIELI:
 Etköhän emäntä oiva mua pilkkana pitäne…? Enkö tässä
ensikerran kuulle korvin kerrottavan valjahikon vaatimasi?

2:NEN TIETÄJÄ:

Mitä lienet miehiäsi vento vierahia vielä, kun sukuasi et

tunne, oman laumasi opasta?

Jo on aika miehen nousta, Kaukomielenkin kavuta,

korkealle kukkulalle, vihannalle vainiolle aatemaailman aloilla.

Sieltä iskeös itähän silmäs' päivän nousun puolle, mistä

viisaus valuvi, valo koittaa ihmisille, niin sa nähnet hietikolla,
kuloharjan kuusikolla, jonka tukka tulta tuiskii, harja suihkivi
savua.

Oletko näkyä tuota unissa, tai valveillasi sattunut sa

sattumalta — — —

KAUKOMIELI (katkaisten kiihkeästi Tietäjän jatkeen):

näkemähän näykkivätä —
Hiiden hirmuista hepoa?
(Kummastellen.)
Milloinka inehmon mieli
moista tahtoisi tajuta?

LOUHI (varoittaen):

Koita kuuroin korvinesi kuulla kitsastelematta opastusta

antamaamme!

2:NEN TiETÄJÄ:
 Mikäli pyhäinen pyyde, halu polttavan palava, täyttää rinnan
ihmislapsen Tietohon takertumahan ajatustensa avulla,
ajopelin aivojensa, — — — sikäli lähellä hetki matkan päähän
pääsemähän, näkemähän on näkyä, jossa ratsu raudankarva
valmihina vuottelevi päästä vallas valjahisin korjan kestävän
etehen.

Ellös tulta tunnustellen säkeniä säikähtele, tukastansa mi

tulevi, silmän yltä sinkoavat, jouhista hevosen harjan. Tulta
tutkios visusti vakavasti vaaliellen, kohta sen tutuksi tunnet
omaksesi arvaelet.

Muistat mustan menneisyyden hetket herkästi hävinneet,

jolloin laskit valloillensa järjen, aatosten hevosen, varsan
vauhkon, huimapäisen, suitsematta suitsiloilla, päitsemättä
päitsilöillä keskitetyn mietiskelyn; ilman kättä ohjaksissa
tiedon, taidon, viisauden, jumaluuden julkihyvän, olemuksesi
isännän.

Järki pääsi päitsemättä karkuteille karjamailta, laittomille

laidunmaille, tiedon pellon pientarille, rikkaruohon
riuhdontahan.

Siellä söi se ohdakkeita mali heinän heikaleita, mataroita

malkioita, joista juopui ihmisjärki katkeraksi, kirpeäksi,
pistäväksi, polttavaksi, tuskan tuiman tuottavaksi itsellensä,
kuin myös muille.

KAUKCMIELI (miettiväisenä):

Sanoit sauhun tupruavan harjasta eto otuksen.