Social Progress in Ireland 2017 New perspectives for peer learning

Transcription

1 Social Progress in Ireland 2017 New perspectives for peer learning Social Progress in Ireland 2017 New perspectives for peer learning 1

2 Table of contents 1. Introduction 3 2. About the Social Progress Index Social Progress Index Results 6 4. Affordable Housing: A perspective Appendix Footnotes 23 2

3 Introduction Since 2013, Deloitte and the Social Progress Imperative have been working together to gain a global view of people s quality of life and the wellbeing of society. The Social Progress Index () measures what really matters to citizens -health care, infrastructure, civil liberties all key foundations for sustainable societies. The 2017 and four years of results tell us the world is generally improving. 113 countries, out of the 128 countries ranked, showed progress. This is principally being driven by improvements in access to information, communications and advanced education. There has also been some upward convergence in nutrition and basic medical care, primary and secondary school enrolments, literacy, and water and sanitation. Trends over the last four years point to improvements Ireland has made in the fields of wellbeing and education. Ireland has also jumped a spot to 2 nd place in tolerance and inclusion, our strongest area in the rankings. Social Progress in Ireland While Ireland ranks 11 th in 2017, up from 12 th in 2016 and down from 9 th position in 2014, our overall score has remained stable in the last four years. Ireland s changes in rankings therefore reflect changes in the performance of other countries. Ireland remains in the top tier of ranked countries with a very high level of social progress. Trends over the last four years point to improvements Ireland has made in the fields of wellbeing and education. Ireland has also jumped a spot to 2 nd place in tolerance and inclusion, our strongest area in the rankings. The four year trends also highlight persistent challenges around water and sanitation and protection of biodiversity. Ireland s drop from 15 th place in 2014 to 55 th place today in the s affordable housing ranking is particularly striking. The launch of the first full in 2014 coincided with Ireland s first expansionary budget in seven years. State investments in Ireland s key areas of weakness, such as in water and sanitation and housing, have ramped up in more recent years but have yet to bear fruit. However, investments over the longer term, such as supports for participation in higher education, have served as drivers for our high overall ranking in the. Ireland s drop from 15 th place in 2014 to 55 th place today in the s affordable housing ranking is particularly striking. 3 Continued on page 4

4 Introduction Continued from page 3 and Affordable Housing opportunities for peer learning As state funding for crucial infrastructure and services is made available, Irish policy-makers are defining the best means to deliver within the budgets available to them. This year s report provides a short overview of a number of countries within the OECD which have demonstrated either sustained strong performance or a similar decline to Ireland in the area of housing affordability. The report takes a brief look at what s shaping supply and demand in these locations and at related government responses to support affordability. We believe there is scope for an exchange of views between Irish stakeholders and their counterparts on innovations and best practices in areas from planning, financing and delivery of new housing, to rental market and social interventions. Ireland s lessons learned A clear benefit of any index is that the data it measures become more valuable over time, providing new opportunities to look outward, enrich our perspectives and inform decision-making. The also offers policy-makers an opportunity to identify our own areas of strength along with persistent challenges. Taking the time to understand what has driven Ireland s high performance in areas such as tolerance and inclusion or advanced education, serves to help protect these strengths and may provide valuable lessons Ireland can share with others. Shane Mohan Partner and Public Sector Lead Deloitte and the Social Progress Imperative Deloitte believes that business, along with government and civil society, has the power and the imperative to address the challenges society faces. Deloitte has partnered with the Social Progress Imperative since Our collaboration on the Social Progress Index helps us to obtain a global view of people s quality of life, independent of wealth. The key questions that the index attempts to answer are: Does a country provide for its people s most essential needs? Are the building blocks in place for people to improve their lives? Is there opportunity for people to improve their position in society? The data and framework revolutionise social problemsolving by enabling leaders to systematically identify and prioritise societal issues. 4

5 About the Social Progress Index Looking beyond GDP to measure what matters Background to the Index Annual global index first launched in 2013 by the Social Progress Imperative The aims to complement economic indicators (e.g. GDP) to measure what matters most to people The incorporates 4 key design principles: 1. Focuses exclusively on social and environmental indicators 2. Focuses on outcomes not inputs 3. Is holistic and relevant to all countries 4. Is actionable The Index can be used to helpfully inform: Public policy choices Corporate investment decisions Corporate social responsibility programmes Social Entrepreneurship ventures Social Progress Index indicator-level framework Basic Human Needs Nutrition and Basic Medical Care Undernourishment Depth of food deficit Maternal mortality rate Child mortality rate Deaths from infectious diseases Water and Sanitation Access to piped water Rural access to improved water source Access to improved sanitation facilities Shelter Availability of affordable housing Access to electricity Quality of electricity supply Household air pollution attributable deaths Personal Safety Homicide rate Level of violent crime Perceived criminality Political terror Traffic deaths Foundations of Wellbeing Access to Basic Knowledge Adult literacy rate Primary school enrollment Secondary school enrollment Gender parity in secondary enrollment Access to Information and Communications Mobile telephone subscriptions Internet users Press Freedom Index Health and Wellness Life expectancy at 60 Premature deaths from noncommunicable diseases Suicide rate Environmental Quality Outdoor air pollution attributable deaths Wastewater treatment Biodiversity and habitat Greenhouse gas emissions Opportunity Personal Rights Political rights Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly Private property rights Personal Freedom and Choice Freedom over life choices Freedom of religion Early marriage Satisfied demand for contraception Corruption Tolerance and Inclusion Tolerance for immigrants Tolerance for homosexuals Discrimination and violence against minorities Religious tolerance Community safety net Access to Advanced Education Years of tertiary schooling Women s average years in school Inequality in the attainment of education Globally ranked universities Structure: The 2017 Social Progress Index is structured around 12 components and 50 distinct indicators. The framework not only provides an aggregate country score and ranking, but also allows benchmarking on specific areas of strength and weakness. The Social Progress Index score and its corresponding rank define a country s overall level of social progress and how it compares to all 128 countries ranked. The overall Social Progress Index score is a simple average of the three dimensions: Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing and Opportunity. Each dimension, in turn, is the simple average of its four components. Each component of the framework comprises between three and five specific outcome indicators. Data Sources: data sources range from very large institutions like the United Nations, to nongovernmental organisations such as Transparency International. They also include data collected via global surveys, such as Gallup s World Poll. 1 Percentage of tertiary students enrolled in globally ranked universities 5 Source: Social Progress Imperative

6 2017 Social Progress Index Results Denmark is the world s top performer in 2017 with Ireland ranking in 11 th place The 2017 Index measures and ranks social progress in 128 countries (see Appendix for full rankings). Denmark is the world s top performer on the Social Progress Index in 2017, closely followed by a combination of the remaining Nordic countries, as well as countries much larger in size and more diverse in population, including Canada, Netherlands, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Germany. its score in the field of Basic Human Needs was offset by incremental improvements in the areas of Foundations of Wellbeing and Opportunity. Social progress and GDP per capita * Note on GDP vs. GNI - the divergence in Ireland s reported Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Income (GNI) has been well documented. As the GNI measure discounts foreign profits from multinationals, it is typically regarded as a more representative measure of Ireland s economic growth. In general most of Ireland s peers do not experience this divergence. Based on GDP, Ireland performance at an average level on the (it sits on the trendline above). Were GNI used as a benchmark, Ireland would therefore demonstrate a stronger performance relative to economic output (and would move further above the trendline shown here) Among the bottom performers on the Social Progress Index are some of the world s poorest countries, including Central African Republic (ranked lowest), Afghanistan, Chad, Angola, and Niger. Ireland ranks 11 th globally, classed as a country with very high levels of social progress. Ireland s overall score has changed only marginally (-0.01%) since A small drop in 6 There is a positive and strong relationship between social progress and GDP* per capita However, the relationship between economic development and social progress is not linear. At lower income levels, small differences in GDP per capita are associated with large improvements in social progress. However as countries reach high levels of income, the rate of change slows social progress can therefore only be explained in part by economic development. Source: Social Progress Imperative

7 2017 Social Progress Index Ireland s Scorecard SCORE 2017 Social Progress Index /128 GDP PPP per capita $61,378 3/128 SCORE/ VALUE RANK Basic Human Needs Nutrition and Basic Medical Care Undernourishment (% of pop.; 5 signifies 5) Depth of food deficit (calories/undernourished person; 8 signifies 8) Maternal mortality rate (deaths/100,000 live births) Child mortality rate (deaths/1,000 live births) Deaths from infectious diseases (deaths/100,000) Water and Sanitation Access to piped water (% of pop.) Rural access to improved water source (% of pop.) Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of pop.) Shelter Availability of affordable housing (% satisfied) Access to electricity (% of pop.) Quality of electricity supply (1=low; 7=high) Household air pollution attributable deaths (deaths/100,000) Personal Safety Homicide rate (deaths/100,000) Level of violent crime (1=low; 5=high) Perceived criminality (1=low; 5=high) Political terror (1=low; 5=high) Traffic deaths (deaths/100,000) STRENGTH/ WEAKNESS RANK SCORE/ VALUE RANK Foundations of Wellbeing Access to Basic Knowledge Adult literacy rate (% of pop. aged 15+) Strengths and weaknesses Oveperforming and underperforming are relative to 15 countries of similar GDP per capita: Saudi Arabia, United States, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Australia, Canada, Belgium, Iceland, Finland, United Kingdom, France STRENGTH/ WEAKNESS Primary school enrollment (% of children) Secondary school enrollment (% of children) Gender parity in secondary enrollment (distance from parity) Access to Information and Communications Mobile telephone subscriptions (subscriptions/100 people) Internet users (% of pop.) Press Freedom Index (0=most free; 100=least free) Health and Wellness Life expectancy at 60 (years) Premature deaths from non-communicable diseases (deaths/100,000) Suicide rate (deaths/100,000) Environmental Quality Outdoor air pollution attributable deaths (deaths/100,000) Wastewater treatment (% of wastewater) Biodiversity and habitat (0=no protection; 100=high protection) Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalents per GDP) STRENGTH/ WEAKNESS Overperforming by 1 or more pts. Overperforming by less than 1 pt. Performing within the expected range Underperforming by less than 1 pt. Underperforming by 1 or more pts. No data available IRELAND SCORE/ VALUE RANK Opportunity Personal Rights Political rights (0=no rights; 40=full rights) Freedom of expression (0=no freedom; 16=full freedom) Freedom of assembly (0=no freedom; 1=full freedom) Private property rights (0=none; 100=full) Personal Freedom and Choice Freedom over life choices (% satisfied) Freedom of religion (1=low; 4=high) Early marriage (% of women aged 15-19) Satisfied demand for contraception (% of women) Corruption (0=high; 100=low) Tolerance and Inclusion Tolerance for immigrants (0=low; 100=high) Tolerance for homosexuals (0=low; 100=high) Discrimination and violence against minorities (0=low; 10=high) Religious tolerance (1=low; 4=high) Community safety net (0=low; 100=high) Access to Advanced Education Years of tertiary schooling Women s average years in school Inequality in the attainment of education (0=low; 1=high) Number of globally ranked universities (0=none; 10=most highly ranked) Percent of tertiary students enrolled in globally ranked universities (0=none; 6=highest enrollment) STRENGTH/ WEAKNESS About the Social Progress Index scorecard Social Progress Index country scorecards provide a strengths and weakness analysis relative to a group of comparator countries with similar resources (measured in terms of GDP per capita). See key below for details of Ireland s GDP comparator group. Alongside the relative strengths and weaknesses Ireland displays within its peer groups, due attention should be given to Ireland s absolute rankings. In certain areas, such as basic medical care, affordable housing, and health and wellness, Ireland ranks poorly in absolute terms but within the expected range for its peer group. However, the peer group performs poorly in absolute terms in these areas. This serves to highlight visible areas where economic progress does not necessarily translate to social progress. 7

8 Ireland s Social Progress over Time Ireland s social progress score has remained stable since 2014 (first year of the Index s publication), although Ireland s overall rank has dropped from 9 th to 11 th position reflecting changes in the performance of other countries Social Progress Index Change Basic Human Needs Foundations of Wellbeing Opportunity Nutrition and Basic Medical Care Water and Sanitation Shelter Personal Safety Access to Basic Knowledge Access to Information and Communications Health and Wellness Environmental Quality Personal Rights Personal Freedom and Choice Tolerance and Inclusion Access to Advanced Education Basic Human Needs Foundations of Opportunity Wellbeing Year Social Progress Index Score (%) 100

9 Ireland s strengths, weaknesses, and changes from 2014 Basic Human Needs Foundations of Wellbeing Opportunity (Ireland 2017 Rank:20) (Ireland 2017 Rank:16) (Ireland 2017 Rank:4) 2017 Performance Ireland holds rankings of 1st place (jointly with a number of countries) on measures related to nutrition and on some safety metrics such as levels of perceived criminality and political terror. Ireland ranks 25 th on maternal mortality rates and 45 th on deaths from infectious diseases. On average, Ireland s GDP peers rank poorly here. Water and Sanitation is a clear weakness for Ireland. Ireland ranks 41 st on this measure. Only 50% of Ireland s population are satisfied with the availability of affordable housing, meaning that Ireland ranks 55 th on this indicator Performance Ireland does relatively well on the Access to Basic Knowledge metric, with a particularly strong ranking of 1st (joint position with other countries) in secondary school enrolments Ireland displays mixed results on Access to Information, ranking 1 st place on mobile subscriptions (jointly with a number of countries). However, Ireland ranks 21 st on internet use, as 20% of the population remain off-line. Environmental quality remains an issue for Ireland with protections around biodiversity an ongoing weakness. Ireland s suicide rate remains high and it ranks 57 th on this metric Performance Tolerance and Inclusion is a significant strength, with Ireland ranking in 2 nd place globally. This is driven by strong performance on indicators related to respect for minorities. The exception here is Ireland s ranking in the field of religious tolerance, which remains low (rank of 54). Access to Advanced Education is also a strength, with Ireland ranking 6 th. This is attributable to a high numbers of completed years in tertiary education amongst those over 25 years of age, high rates of female enrolment at primary, secondary and tertiary levels, and high numbers of the population enrolled in globally ranked universities. Inequality in educational attainment and the number of ranked universities are, however, challenges for Ireland Trends Ireland has dropped incrementally in its Basic Human Needs score since This drop results in particular from a decline in satisification with the availability of affordable housing (drop from 15 th place to 55 th, with a 13% decrease in satisfaction among Ireland s population). Water and Sanitation remains a persistent weakness - only limited progress has been recorded in this field since Trends There has been an incremental increase in Ireland s Foundations of Wellbeing score since The most significant areas of progress here have been in the field of Health and Wellness, reflecting a drop in suicide rates, premature deaths from non-communicable diseases, and an overall improvement in life expectancy. However, Environmental Quality indicators, a key weakness for Ireland, showed deterioration in the same period, due to declining coverage in wastewater treatment Trends Ireland s score on Opportunity has improved somewhat over the period since An increase in Ireland s score under Access to Advanced Education, highlights increases in both the overall numbers of the population and an increase in the average number of years in education (primary to third level) for women. Ireland s score in the field of Tolerance and Inclusion has dropped somewhat. Declining levels of religious tolerance were recorded between 2014 and However respect for minorities has improved in general over the same period. 9

10 Affordable Housing: A perspective 10

11 Affordable Housing: A Perspective Identifying pockets of excellence and emerging approaches Introduction An important benefit of the as it evolves over time is the opportunity to track Ireland against its peers, and to identify relevant patterns and drivers of social progress. One of the trends highlighted this year is Ireland s substantial drop, from 15 th place in 2014 to 55 th place in 2017, in the s housing affordability ranking. This section looks at challenges to housing affordability in Ireland and identifies trends from peers in a range of OECD countries. The housing affordability indicator in the is sourced from Gallup s Worldpoll. Housing affordability is one of the indicators which is more vulnerable to fluctuation in the. Housing markets typically respond slowly to price changes: the complexity of the sector means that supply capacity often lags behind demand. Similarly, it is difficult to reduce real estate supply quickly in response to price slumps. Direct government interventions (e.g. provision of social and affordable housing) and indirect measures (e.g. tax incentives to boost supply or credit restrictions on the cooling side) are often adopted to address these fluctuations and buffer citizens from future shocks. 11 While housing markets differ, with supply and demand driven by multiple factors, learnings for Ireland may arise through identification of pockets of excellence in housing policy or innovative responses to common challenges it faces with others. The Irish Context In 2014, 63% of the population were recorded as satisfied with access to affordable housing in Ireland. In 2017 only 50% were recorded as satisfied. Ireland s housing shortage, the related rise in property and rental prices, and increases in homelessness figures make headlines on a daily basis. Factors contributing to the supply constraint include: Output from Ireland s construction sector, whilst gathering pace, continues to recover from the economic crisis. Limited access to development sites, access to -and high cost of- capital and poor enabling infrastructure have been identified as key inhibitors to development. Social housing policy has also failed to keep pace with demand, with over-reliance on the private sector to supply rental housing to those qualifying for social housing support. An unequal distribution of investment with much of the demand focused on Dublin, where prices were 31% higher than the national average in 2016 (see figure 1). Government is taking measures primarily on the supply side to directly boost public housing stock. An investment programme of 5.85bn to deliver 50,000 social housing units by 2021 has been announced. Of this total, 33,500 are to be newly built social homes. In addition, a EUR 275 million Local Infrastructure Housing Activation Fund has been created to unlock new building sites via delivery of infrastructure. Market support measures have also been developed to incentivise supply from the private sector. These include the promotion of Build-to-Rent projects and government-backed development funds. 2 Peer Experience As Government policy continues to evolve, it is worth considering why some of Ireland s peers have been successful in the provision of affordable housing. It is also worthwhile examining locations where challenges are evident, in order to monitor and learn from responses in real-time. Owing to the political and economic diversity of the 128 countries ranked within the, this study uses the OECD group as a comparator for Ireland (like Ireland, most of the OECD s members are high income countries, describing themselves as committed to democratic and market economy principles). While housing markets differ, with supply and demand driven by multiple factors, learnings for Ireland may arise through identification of pockets of excellence in housing policy or innovative responses to common challenges it faces with others % 96% 131% Dublin Cork Figure 1: Comparison of property prices in Irish cities to the country average (=100%), 2016 Source: Deloitte Property Index, 2017 Galway

12 Affordable Housing Global Overview Improvements seen globally since 2014 Top 20 Ranked Countries on Affordable Housing Global Rank Country Affordable housing (% satisfied) 1 Thailand Uzbekistan Myanmar Nepal Bangladesh Cambodia Denmark Japan Indonesia Bulgaria Finland Albania Belgium Tajikistan India Estonia Georgia Czech Republic Philippines Azerbaijan Global (Population Weighted) Score 56 Background to the affordable housing indicator: The s affordable housing indicator is a perceptions-based metric sourced from Gallup s World Poll. The metric covers the percentage of respondents answering satisfied to the question, In your city or area where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the availability of good, affordable housing?. It does not measure perceptions based on fixed quality criteria perceptions of what constitutes good housing will therefore vary by location. Globally, the top 20 scoring countries represent a wide range of geographies, and are at varying stages of economic development Global performance on the Satisfaction with Affordable Housing metric has improved. Based on a population weighted score, 56.00% of the world s population was satisfied with the availability of affordable housing in 2017, up from in

13 Affordable Housing OECD Overview OECD countries showed a decrease in recorded levels of satisfaction since 2014 OECD* 2017 Rank Country 2014 Affordable Housing (% Satisfied) 2017 Affordable Housing (% Satisfied) Change from 2014 Score 1 Denmark Japan Finland Belgium Estonia Czech Republic Netherlands Switzerland Austria Germany Hungary Turkey Norway Ireland Canada Greece Italy Australia Spain Mexico France Sweden Portugal OECD* 2017 Rank Country 2014 Affordable Housing (% Satisfied) 2017 Affordable Housing (% Satisfied) Change from 2014 Score 24 Iceland Slovenia New Zealand Latvia Luxembourg Chile Israel Poland OECD (Population Weighted) Score The OECD Population weighted score for 2017 was 53.68, dropping from in 2014, and below the global score of 56.00, indicating that economic advancement does not necessarily equate to high levels of progress according to this metric. Within the OECD, Ireland is near the median ranking 14 th out of 31 countries * Note: only 31 of 35 OECD countries are ranked on the affordable housing metric. 13

14 Affordable Housing OECD Overview OECD countries showed a decrease in recorded levels of satisfaction since Housing related expenditure, OECD average The overall decline in satisfaction with affordability within more advanced economies may reflect findings from the OECD itself on housing related expenditure. Since 2000 housing related expenditure as a portion of total consumer spending in the OECD has increased, albeit slowly, from 20.3% in 2000 to 22.9% in Figure 2 - Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels, % of final household consumption expenditure, OECD average, ; Source: OECD,

15 Affordable Housing High Performers A number of OECD countries have sustained strong performance in the affordable housing ranking since 2014 Among OECD countries, Finland, Denmark and Japan have demonstrated the strongest performance on the s housing affordability metric since Ranked at #7 globally, Denmark scores the highest within the OECD group with 76.42% of the population satisfied with the availability of affordable housing. Although overall rankings for Japan and Denmark have dropped, satisfaction with access to affordable housing has increased between 2014 and It is important to bear in mind that economic growth in these countries has been relatively flat in recent years, (see figure 3) which will have affected housing demand. Nonetheless, all three countries face strong urban population growth and, based on residential permit data, housing output appears to be healthier in Finland and Denmark than in Ireland (see figure 4) % Growth rate Finland Affordability Rank 2014:14 (63.19% of population satisfied) Affordability Rank 2017: 11 (71.28% of population satisfied) What s driving this ranking? Housing prices have been broadly flat in Finland for more than a decade. In addition, Finland has the lowest rate of severe housing deprivation in the EU, having brought about a significant decrease in homelessness through its Housing First Approach. 3 Output of residential units appears to be keeping pace with demand, which is shifting towards apartments in Finland s main cities. Housing construction boomed in 2016 and is set to be strong in also, but growth is set to peak. The number of completed apartments is still rising, which helps to cool down housing prices and rents, according to Danske Bank. 4 Rank 3 places Satisfaction 8% What policy levers have helped? Finland s Housing First policy, introduced in 2007 has been highly significant, with the focus being on ending homelessness instead of managing it. This included the acquisition of private residential housing and building new social housing blocks. Notably the policy also provided for existing shelters and hostels to be transformed into housing with social support services (e.g. providing interventions to tackle addiction and improve social and economic inclusion). Finland s Government is currently trying to address demand for affordable housing through state supports, including a 40 year interest rate subsidy for building and renovation of affordable housing. 5 Figure 3: GDP growth rates in selected countries Source: OECD Canada Denmark Finland France Ireland Japan Sweden OECD - Average 15

16 Japan Affordability Rank 2014:2 (73.75% of population satisfied) Affordability Rank 2017:8 (75.68% of population satisfied) Rank 6 places Satisfaction 2% What s driving this ranking? Japanese house prices have been relatively flat for the last decade and Japan s housing is ranked as the most undervalued against long-term averages within the OECD (based on price to income and price to rental ratios). 6 Nonetheless, prices in urban centres such as Tokyo are rising sharply. Japan has experienced significant urbanisation in recent times population concentration in urban centres increased by 4% 7 between 2010 and 2016 the highest of any of the countries profiled in this report [Japan s famed population decrease represented only.001% in the same period]. Developers are responding to this shift with an overall decrease in the size of new apartments. What policy levers have helped? Japan s Government continues to take measures to facilitate private sector development: Introduction of the Urban Renaissance law in 2002 was a response to rising property prices starting in the 1980s. Government recognised that land use restrictions were limiting stock and passed a law stripping municipalities of the ability to control private property. As a result, owners can build a variety of uses on their land, making it highly flexible in responding to social and economic change. 8 In response to urbanisation, the current Government is launching plans to marry high density housing with existing infrastructure/brownfield sites. The aim here is to reduce reliance on new enabling infrastructure and amenities necessary for greenfield housing developments. 16

17 Residential Building Permits Granted: Change on 2010 levels (2010 = 100) 500 Denmark 400 Rank 2014:4 (71.38% of population satisfied) Rank 2017:7 (76.42% of population satisfied) Rank 3 places Satisfaction 5% Figure 4: Residential Building Permit Index, , selected EU countries Source: Eurostat Euro area (19 countries) Ireland Denmark Finland What s driving this ranking? Of the Nordic countries, Denmark s housing market experienced the biggest dip in prices after the financial crisis and continues to recover. Like all the countries profiled in this report, Denmark is also experiencing urbanisation, but, according to the Danish Nationalbank, large scale construction in Copenhagen is underway in response to growth requirements. 9 What policy levers have helped? Denmark was the birthplace of cooperative housing in the 1960s. There is a high level of cooperative housing in municipalities with large urban centres, such as Copenhagen and Frederiksberg. This means that the property is not sold freely on the market, which reduces opportunities for speculative price growth. However extensive regulations around housing mean that meeting new demand through these cooperative means will be difficult. 9 In addition, government controls over the rental market, via rate caps and decreases, have played a significant role in curbing prices. In terms of fuelling construction and new housing supply more generally, significant new infrastructure projects funded by government are playing a role in facilitating development

18 Affordable Housing - Weakening Affordability Canada, France and Sweden have experienced a similar drop in affordability to Ireland Similar to Ireland, Canada, France and Sweden have shown a marked decline in perceived housing affordability in recent years. Common issues facing Ireland and each of these countries include increasing demands for city accommodation, demographic pressure, and attractiveness to foreign investors. Ireland shares challenges around homelessness with France, whilst both France and Sweden are experiencing familiar challenges in stimulating output in the construction sector. Alongside looking to best in class examples, Ireland and these countries can likely share wisdom on innovative responses to recent challenges (for example new methods of social housing delivery and methods to manage speculative investment flows). Canada Affordability Rank 2014:16 (61.67% of population satisfied) Affordability Rank 2017:56 (49.78% of population satisfied) What s driving this ranking? Strong demand for residential property, particularly in the cities of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, is being driven by increased foreign and speculative investment, low interest rates and substantial immigration flows (Canada s population increased by over 5% from vs. an average of 2.7% in high income countries globally). 11 Rank 40 places Satisfaction 12% What policy responses have been taken? A range of cooling measures on the demand side such as tightening lending requirements mortgages and interest rate increases. At a provincial level British Columbia and Ontario (home regions of Vancouver and Toronto) have introduced property taxes for nonresidents. In addition, the provinces have taken action to improve security for renters as well as conditions for first time buyers. For example, Ontario has expanded rent control to all private rental units. British Columbia s authorities are helping first-time home buyers by contributing to the amount they have already saved for a down payment with a loan that is interest-free and payment-free for the first five years. 18

19 Affordable Housing - Weakening Affordability Canada, France and Sweden have experienced a similar drop in affordability to Ireland France Sweden Affordability Rank 2014:11 (64.71% of population satisfied) Affordability Rank 2017:66 (46.93% of population satisfied) Rank 55 places Satisfaction 18% Rank 2014:30 (55.85% of population satisfied) Rank 2017:72 (44.85% of population satisfied) Rank 42 places Satisfaction 11% What s driving this ranking? Access to affordable housing is particularly challenging for low income earners in France. Despite a sluggish economic climate, property prices remain high. This is due, in part, to low interest rates, positive demographic trends (population growth of over 2% between ) and foreign investment flows, with Paris being one of the most attractive cities globally for foreign investors. In growing urban areas there is a critical shortage of housing supply, including social housing. While social housing makes up around 18% of france s total housing stock, around 1.7 million people are on social housing waiting lists, including nearly 500,000 people in Paris/Ile-de-France. Homelessness levels are high and rising. 141,000 people were recorded as homeless in a 50% increase since What policy responses have been taken? France has been undertaking measures to increase social housing construction in recent years saw 130,000 units constructed. To boost public housing stock, Government has released publicly owned land for construction and provides financial incentives to mayors who increase housing stock and expedite planning processes. To combat homelessness, France s recently elected Government has adopted its own Housing First Plan modelled on the scheme pioneered in Finland. A principle aim is to allow those in need to bypass or move from emergency accommodation, such as hotel rooms, to permanent and, in some cases, supported housing as quickly as possible. To promote private sector supply, the Government is embarking of a range of reforms such as simplifying building regulations and providing tax incentives to landowners to sell sites. What s driving this ranking? On the demand side, low interest rates, generous credit terms and substantial population increases (4% from ). As with France, Ireland and Canada, Sweden s cities are under the most pressure. Stockholm, in particularly, is viewed as an attractive proposition for foreign investors. Construction is lagging despite a continued rise in housing prices, due to rising construction costs and lengthy processes for land acquisition and planning amongst other challenges. According to the European Commission, while supply has picked up in recent years, current levels remain insufficient to meet the anticipated demand. What policy responses have been taken? In 2016, Sweden s Government adopted a 22 point plan to address a range of supply and demand side issues. On the supply side, measures are outlined to increase the amount of land available for development and reduce construction costs by streamlining building and planning processes. On the demand side a range of macro prudential measures have been introduced in recent years, such as a ban on interest only mortgages and caps on loan to income ratios. 19

20 Appendix 20

21 2017 Social Progress Index Overall ranking (1/2) rank score Country rank score Country rank score Country Denmark United States Lithuania Albania rank score Country Finland France Croatia Georgia Iceland Portugal Hungary Montenegro Norway Slovenia Argentina Ecuador Switzerland Czech Republic Mauritius Jordan Canada Estonia Panama Saudi Arabia Netherlands Italy Bulgaria Macedonia Sweden Chile Kuwait Armenia Australia Korea, Republic of Brazil Paraguay New Zealand Cyprus Romania Turkey Ireland Costa Rica Serbia Thailand United Kingdom Israel Jamaica Dominican Republic Germany Slovakia Peru Ukraine Austria Uruguay Mexico Belarus Belgium Poland Colombia South Africa Spain Greece Malaysia Russia Japan Latvia Tunisia Philippines Bolivia Mongolia Lesotho Sierra Leone El Salvador Namibia Benin Ethiopia Lebanon Iran Pakistan Yemen Moldova Honduras Côte d Ivoire Guinea Sri Lanka Ghana Tanzania Niger Kazakhstan Nepal Zimbabwe Angola Algeria Tajikistan Nigeria Chad Azerbaijan India Burkina Faso Afghanistan Kyrgyzstan Senegal Uganda Central African Republic Social Progress categorisation: rank 01 14: very high rank 15 38: high rank 39 69: upper middle rank 70 94: lower middle rank : low rank : very low 21

22 2017 Social Progress Index Overall ranking (2/2) rank score Country rank score Country rank score Country rank score Country Morocco Kenya Liberia Sierra Leone Indonesia Myanmar Mauritania Ethiopia Botswana Bangladesh Congo, Republic of Yemen Nicaragua Cambodia Togo Guinea Egypt Laos Mozambique Niger China Malawi Cameroon Angola Guatemala Rwanda Mali Chad Uzbekistan Swaziland Madagascar Afghanistan Central African Republic 22

23 Footnotes 1. Underlying data and indicators can be downloaded from www. socialprogressimperative.org Housing Europe, State of Housing in the EU Danske Bank, Nordic Outlook, October Deloitte UK 2014 Where is Housing Affordable. 7. Growth in Urbanisation calculations taken from UN World Development Indicators th%20quarter% pdf 10. Deloitte Real Estate, Denmark 11. Deloitte Real Estate, Canada quinquennal_lda_v2.pdf pdf

24 Contacts Brendan Jennings Managing Partner E: T: Shane Mohan Partner and Public Sector Lead, E: smohan@deloitte.ie T: Dublin Deloitte & Touche House Earlsfort Terrace Dublin 2 T: F: Cork No.6 Lapp s Quay Cork T: F: Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee ( DTTL ), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as Deloitte Global ) does not provide services to clients. Please see for a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms. At Deloitte, we make an impact that matters for our clients, our people, our profession, and in the wider society by delivering the solutions and insights they need to address their most complex business challenges. As the largest global professional services and consulting network, with approximately 263,900 professionals in more than 150 countries, we bring world-class capabilities and high-quality services to our clients. In Ireland, Deloitte has nearly 3,000 people providing audit, tax, consulting, a corporate finance services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. Our people have the leadership capabilities, experience and insight to collaborate with clients so they can move forward with confidence. This communication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or their related entities (collectively, the Deloitte Network ) is, by means of this communication, rendering professional advice or services. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. No entity in the Deloitte Network shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this communication Deloitte. All rights reserved 24 Sinead Smith Director, Consulting E: ssmith@deloitte.ie T: Katie Kent Manager, Consulting E: kakent@deloitte.ie T: Limerick Deloitte & Touche House Charlotte Quay Limerick T: F: Galway Galway Financial Services Centre Moneenageisha Road Galway T: F: Belfast 19 Bedford Street BT2 7EJ Belfast, Northern Ireland T: +44 (0) F: +44 (0) deloitte.ie