The US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) HOPE VI program is one of the most comprehensive policies that have been developed with respect to public and social housing regeneration (Turner et al. 2008, Cisneros and Engdahl 2009). In the Netherlands, the Grotestedenbeleid (Big Cities Policy, BCP) focuses on deprived neighbourhoods, recently aided by the Krachtwijken Aanpak (Action Plan for Strong Neighbourhoods) (Planbureau 2000, Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal 2001, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht 2002, BZK 2004, VROM 2007a, 2007b). Policymakers who deal with questions of how to house the poor and how to improve the quality of public housing neighbourhoods face a difficult task, since there is little available knowledge about specific successful approaches. American and European academics have established a dialogue regarding these issues, but there has yet to be any coherent comparative approach (for an exception, see Beider 2007, 2008).

To contribute to the academic debate, we provide a systematic and comprehensive comparison of neighbourhood regeneration strategies in the United States and the Netherlands. We are not presenting original research material, but instead we are evaluating and comparing published2 research with a focus on the transferability of experiences between the two countries and the issues emerging from this cross-country comparison. Needless to say, it is rather difficult to identify a one-and-only policy approach in each country, since policies tend to develop over time and are perceived differently by each policy group. In each country, the approaches towards public housing regeneration are based on a certain set of ideas, notions and understandings of policymakers and academic researchers about the causes of the problems and solutions to deal with them.