Regionalne zróżnicowanie polityki mieszkaniowej. Przykład programu „Rodzina na swoim”

Celem niniejszego artykułu jest odpowiedź na pytanie, jakie było zróżnicowanie regionalne pomocy państwa udzielonej w formie dopłat do kredytów hipotecznych w ramach programu „Rodzina na swoim”. Analiza prowadzona jest na poziomie województoraz miast wojewódzkich. W świetle uzyskanych wyników stwierdzić można, że efekty programu „Rodzina na swoim” wykazują istotne zróżnicowanie regionalne. Zauważalna jest przy tym prawidłowość, że pomoc państwa była większa w dużych miastach oraz regionach o wyższym poziomie rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego. Wyniki przeczą obiegowej opinii, jakoby mieszkańcy największych miast w niewielkim stopniu skorzystali z dopłat ze względu na niedostosowanie limitów cenowych do poziomu cen rynkowych. Przeciwnie, to właśnie miasta wojewódzkie, a zwłaszcza Warszawa, Wrocław, Kraków, Poznań i Gdańsk, okazały się największymi beneficjentami tej polityki.

Although the housing market in Poland has developed very dynamically since the fall of socialism, the overall housing situation still remains rather unsatisfactory. In 2006 the government initiated a new policy of mortgage loan subsidies. The popular name of this policy is "Family's own home” (pol. „Rodzina na swoim”). The name comes from the fact that initially only families (i.e. married couples or lone parents) were eligible to receive support, however this limitation was later raised. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the regional differentiation of the outcomes of the "Family's own home” policy. We look at the distribution of subsidized mortgage loans in 16 regions (voivodships) and 18 regional capital cities. Both the number and value of loans are considered, and the temporal coverage is from 2007 to 2012. Results lead to the conclusion that regional capital cities benefited more from public support than other areas, and regions located in the western and northern part of Poland received more subsidies than these located in east and south. In other words, there was in general a positive correlation between the level of socio-economic development, and the amount of public funds received by particular cities or regions. That relationship might be interpreted in different ways. On the one hand, one could argue that a major part of government support was utilized where it was mostly needed, since housing markets in cities are characterized by higher turnover rates, and mortgage loans tend to be a more popular way of housing financing in cities than in rural areas. On the other hand, the "Family's own home” program did not substantially improve the housing situation of those mostly in need. Rather, the main beneficiaries were households somewhat above the average income.