BOOK REVIEW Marietta Haffner, Joris Hoekstra, Michael Oxley and Harry van der Heijden: Bridging the gap between social and market rented housing in six European countries? Delft University Press, 2009, p. 306 Julie Rugg Received: 15 November 2010 / Accepted: 17 November 2010 / Published online: 7 December 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 This text reflects a growing interest in the private or market rented sector across Europe. Increasing policy attention has been paid to the possible social roles that market rented housing might play at a time of diminishing commitment to social housing expenditure. The book recognises the difficulties that are encountered in any attempt to arrive at definitive definitions of social and market renting, particularly when viewing housing systems across a number of countries. However, as a theoretical framework, the book aims to recognise the extent of similarity and difference—here defined as the ‘gap’—between social and rented housing. On recognising the existence of smaller or larger gaps in different countries, the book then relates the gap to the degree of competition between tenures. Where the gap is small, then competition between social and market renting becomes more marked; where the tenures are markedly dissimilar and the gap is large, then the level of competition will be smaller. Any framework which encourages exploration of the hugely varied nature of market renting is welcome, but it is not certain whether this particular approach brings fruitful reward. The theoretical constructs—interesting as they are—contribute a rather rigid and reductive framework which leaves very many questions unanswered. The problem is that the notion of ‘gap’ rather than the more neutral concept of ‘difference’ presupposes the need to ‘bridge the gap’. The text becomes distracted by consideration of policy inter- ventions to homogenise the rental sector. It is not entirely sure why this is necessary. Difficulties with definition aside, it is clear that market renting and social renting carry some distinctive functions: as the authors indicate, social renting is geared to address housing need; market renting can more readily adapt to the fluctuation of sometimes short- term demand. The authors also give a great deal of consideration to the idea of competition between sectors. Competition does exist in parts of the rental market: in the market sector certainly, market conditions dictate when and where landlords and tenants may effectively compete to supply or secure favourable tenancies. It may be possible to recognise competition between social housing providers, perhaps in areas of very low demand where tenants with J. Rugg (&) Centre for Housing Policy, University of York, York, England e-mail: jr10@york.ac.uk 123 J Hous and the Built Environ (2011) 26:99–101 DOI 10.1007/s10901-010-9206-5