After World War II, the population grew at a previously unknown rate, rural exodus increased, while war damage reduced the number of houses in many cities. Rents rose dramatically and the government passed a law in 1948 to block them, ending the economic benefits of investing in housing. Rents were gradually deregulated until the debate of the 1980s led to the current Rent Act of 1989, which theoretically balanced the relationship between landlords and tenants. During the winter of 1953/4, however, there was a major homelessness crisis, and the necessary laws were gradually mobilized, leading to a high level of construction almost continuously from the 1960s onwards. Social landlords have been an important source of expertise, as well as construction stakeholders with links with national and local authorities.  The construction industry was insufficient at the time, so political support was needed Minha Casa Minha Vida (“My House, My Life”), the Brazilian federal government‘s social housing program, was launched in March 2009 with a budget of 36 billion reais ($18 billion) to build one million houses.  The second phase of the programme, which is part of the National Growth Acceleration Programme (PAC, Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento), was announced in March 2010.  This phase provided for the construction of two million additional housing units. Since the early 1990s, governments have also encouraged “mixed tenure” in redevelopment areas and “new construction,” offering a range of ownership and rental options to create social harmony through the inclusion of “social housing” and “affordable housing.” A recent research report argued that the evidence base on mixing properties remains thin. Residents of social housing may be stigmatized and forced to use a separate, less comfortable wrong door than the door used by non-subsidized residents, and social housing may be less desirable.  In 1937, the first Labour government introduced a large system of public housing – it became known as “public housing” – for citizens who could not afford private rents. Most government apartments built between 1937 and the mid-1950s consisted of two- to three-bedroom country-style detached houses; only 1.5% of state houses in 1949 were part of apartment buildings, all in Auckland or Greater Wellington. After the end of World War II in 1945, most local authorities also began to provide social housing, mainly for low-income elderly people.
The goals of public housing – decommodification, social equality, and democratic control of residents – are not at the heart of affordable housing policies in the United States. Many existing programs address the need for affordable housing and often include elements of social housing, but fall far short of the ideal of truly social housing. The forms of housing projects may vary in Slovakia. In the former Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovakia), during the communist era in Czechoslovakia, the construction of large housing estates (Slovak: sídlisko, Czech: sídliště) was an important part of building plans in the former Czechoslovakia. The government wanted to provide large quantities of housing quickly and affordably and reduce costs by adopting uniform designs across the country. They also tried to promote a “collectivist nature” among people. People who live in these housing complexes can usually own or rent their apartments, usually through a private owner. In these housing projects, there is usually a mix of social classes.  Based on our interviews with housing advocates and a review of existing typologies, we define social housing models as those that seek sustainable affordability, social equality, and democratic control over residents.
These objectives are reflected, to varying degrees, in existing affordable housing programs in the United States, including public housing, rents managed by non-profit organizations, and private co-operatives with limited equity on land managed by community land trusts. But not all of these existing programmes respond equally to the three main objectives of social housing. The degree of “social” of each model depends less on ownership structures than on how it protects housing from market pressures, promotes racial and economic integration, and enables robust housing management. From 1997 to 2010, the Labour government wanted to remove social housing from local government administration. Initially, this was done through large-scale voluntary transfers (LSVT) from councils to housing associations (HAs). Not all municipal properties could be transferred, as in some municipalities their housing stock was in poor condition and had a lower capital value than the remaining debt from construction costs – in fact, the municipal stock was in negative equity.  In some municipalities, tenants rejected the transfer option.  More than two out of three Viennese live in social housing. The skyline of many Romanian cities was dominated by standardized apartment buildings under the former communist government‘s policy of building high-rise blocks. From 1974 onwards, systematization consisted largely of the demolition and reconstruction of existing villages, towns and cities, in whole or in part, with the declared aim of transforming Romania into a “multilaterally developed socialist society”. In 2012, 2.7 million apartments date back to the communist era, which represents 37% of total housing in Romania and about 70% in cities and municipalities.
After post-communist privatization, the rate of home ownership in this form of housing reached 99.9%.  New homeowners‘ associations (COAs) have been challenged internally by the cumulative effect of late dues, lack of affordability, and the established practice of occasional residence services in COAs, which has often triggered mismanagement. On the other hand, HOAs have faced ineffective mechanisms from the outside to address their internal problems, such as the lack of prompt legal proceedings against defaults, lack of financial support for socially disadvantaged households, and a private sector unprepared to take over the management of condominiums.  The reluctance of Spaniards to rent housing and cuts in public spending in the 1980s minimized rental housing in Spain. Rented hostels were relatively common during the Franco era (1939–75). With the advent of democracy and the 1978 Constitution, the management of social housing depended mainly on the autonomous regions.