The inversion of the ‘really big trade-off’:Homeownership and pensions in long-run perspective

The hypothesis of a trade-off between homeownership and welfare state provision, first proposed by Jim Kemeny around 1980, is a foundational claim in the political economy of housing. However, the evidence for this hypothesis is unclear at both macro and micro levels. This paper examines the link between welfare and homeownership at the macro level using new long-run data and a multilevel modelling approach. It shows that the negative cross-sectional correlation between homeownership and public welfare provision observed in the earliest available data disappears and becomes neutral by the 1980s and possibly positive subsequently. Within-country trajectories vary, but are significantly positive in more countries than significantly negative, suggesting that in some contexts welfare and homeownership are complements rather than competitors. The paper posits a dual ratchet effect mechanism in both pension benefits and homeownership capable of producing this inversion, and further suggests that rising public indebtedness and the debt-stabilising effects of welfare states may account for the emergence of complementarity in the pension‒homeownership relationship. The latter supports the hypothesis that some countries have avoided the trade-off by ‘buying time’ on credit markets.Abstract Literature and theory Data and methods The trade-off in the long run: descriptive findings Multivariate analysis Country trajectories: buying time? Conclusion Supplemental material Reference

Korporatism och bostadsregimer

Housing has been described as “the wobbly pillar under the welfare state”. Unlike the other three pillars - education, health and social security - housing is largely a market commodity modified by subsidies and regulation. This makes it a potentially fruitful welfare sector to examine the interplay between market interests and policymaking. This article considers the relationship between rental housing and the welfare state interms of regime theory. Rental housing systems are divided into two types: dualist (profit rental market and residual public poor housing sector) and unitary (not-for-profit integrated into the market). Taking Esping-Andersens Three Worlds of Welfare thesis as a starting point, no Nordic social democratic regime type can be identified for housing, but in relation to classic corporatist theory, unitary rental markets are clearly associated with corporatist societies. The discussion concludes with a consideration of sector regimes in general and housing regimes in particular. It is concluded that theories of power should be more widely applied to housing, and that housing can provide an invaluable empirical laboratory for refining our understanding of both sector regimes and welfare regimes.Sociologisk Forsknings digitala arkiv</p

The privatised city: critical studies in Australian housing and urban structure

Australian urban structure remains one of the more neglected topics in urban studies as far as the discipline as a whole is concerned. This is not because of any lack of research in Australia. On the contrary, since the late 1960's there has been a burgeoning literature on Australian urban structure. The early work by writers such as Troy (1967), Neutze (1971), Stilwell (1974), Stretton (1970) and Sander cock (1975) has led to the development of a very substantial body of literature analysing the whole gamut of urban phenomena (see for example, Neutze, 1977, 1978; Jay, 1978; Kilmartin and Thorns, 1978; Aungles and Szelenyi, 1979). Unfortunately, this literature has as yet made little impact on urban studies as a whole. As a country with a relatively small population, far from the main centres of urban research in Europe and North America, the distinctiveness of Australian urban structure remains largely unappreciated

Non-profit housing influencing, leading and dominating the unitary rental market

The distinction between dual rental systems and unitary rental markets is refined and developed. In particular, unitary rental markets are defined as markets in which barriers to nonprofit providers competing on the rental market are removed, reserving the term ‘integrated rental markets’ for markets in which non-profit providers are sufficiently developed to be able to compete without the need for invasive regulation. The study also develops the distinction made in previous work between markets in which non-profit providers influence, lead and dominate the market. Case studies are then presented: Switzerland, where non-profit renting is weakly influencing, Sweden where it is leading, and the Netherlands where it is dominating. It is concluded that while in both the Netherlands and Sweden there is evidence of continual deregulation consistent with a tendency from unitary to integrated markets, there is no evidence of consistent change in that direction and even signs of some retrograde changes

Non-retrenchment reasons for state withdrawal

The role of non-profit housing on the housing market and the support its gets, or not, from public policy. Comparative study of Sweden, The Netherlands, Austria, and Switzerlan