Huisman Carla Jacqueline
Department of Demography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
J Hous Built Environ. 2016;31(1):93-106. doi: 10.1007/s10901-015-9446-5. Epub 2015 May 6.
The traditional Dutch rental contract is permanent (i.e. time unlimited), but there are indications that in recent years the number of temporary rental contracts has increased considerably. Dutch housing policy appears to be responding to this by pursuing deregulation of the conditions under which temporary rent is permitted. It is in this regard startling that there is no reliable data available about the size or character of the temporary sector, and it has thus far not attracted any scholarly attention. Given that temporary rent can be viewed as a form of precarisation, a transfer of risk to citizens, with corresponding negative effects on the lives of those involved, it is imperative to close this knowledge gap. This paper is a first attempt to do this. Firstly, I systematically review the scarce evidence that is currently available, and secondly, I explore why the rise of temporary rent has thus far failed to stimulate any social debate; it appears to constitute a silent precarisation that contrasts with the politically sensitive issue of labour precarisation. In doing so, I will identify the research questions that must be answered if the significance of this process for both tenants and wider welfare-state restructuring is to be fully understood.
传统的荷兰租赁合同是永久性的（即时间无限制），但有迹象表明，近年来临时租赁合同的数量大幅增加。荷兰住房政策似乎正对此做出回应，推行放宽允许临时租赁的条件。在这方面令人惊讶的是，目前没有关于临时租赁部门规模或特征的可靠数据，而且迄今为止它尚未引起任何学术关注。鉴于临时租金可被视为一种不稳定化形式，即风险向公民的转移，对相关人员的生活产生相应的负面影响，填补这一知识空白势在必行。本文是对此的首次尝试。首先，我系统地回顾了目前可用的稀缺证据，其次，我探究了为何临时租金的上涨迄今未能引发任何社会辩论；它似乎构成了一种无声的不稳定化，与劳动力不稳定这一政治敏感问题形成对比。在此过程中，我将确定若要充分理解这一过程对租户以及更广泛的福利国家重组的意义，必须回答的研究问题。
