What is the evidence on housing and inequality and what are the challenges for policy and practice? Isobel Anderson and Duncan Sim explain
Wilkinson and Pickett\’s (2009) book, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, is an example of research that achieved international success in promoting policy, practice and mass media debate on income inequality. But housing was not a feature in The Spirit Level analysis and the evidence on whether housing policies alleviate or contribute to social and economic inequality is complex.
This article draws on evidence from our 2011 edited volume Housing and Inequality, which sought to bring key research findings on housing and inequality to the policy and practice world. It reflects on the implications of available evidence in relation to economic and employment inequalities; neighbourhood inequalities; and unequal housing outcomes for different groups across the life course. The conclusion considers the prospects for more equality- focused housing policy and practice.
Rooted in a structural analysis of housing and inequality, the edited volume focused on the implications of housing inequalities for the whole of society, recognising the interdependency of processes of housing advantage and disadvantage. Also drawing on the broad concept of social inclusion, as opposed to simply income inequality, the contributions sought to consider the significance of housing for the overall wellbeing of individuals and for a ‘good society’ underpinned by principles of social justice and equality. That said, trends in income inequality represent an important starting point for analysis and, as the graph (left) indicates, successive UK governments since 1979 have presided over increasing and sustained high levels of income inequality.
Research evidence has indicated that while the UK fared poorly in some EU equality comparisons (for example, child welfare), it did better on housing. The UK’s social housing system was viewed as a comparative asset in terms of the welfare of poorer households, often effective in breaking the link between income poverty and housing poverty.
Economic and employment inequalities
Income and wealth inequality remain highly structured by tenure in the UK, albeit with increasing variation within home ownership and continuing erosion of the impact of housing benefit for low income renters. The utilisation of housing wealth to deliver asset-based welfare has been constrained (particularly by the post-2008 financial crisis) leading to intergenerational tensions and increasingly interdependent housing careers across the life course. Housing opportunities for low paid and workless households were also increasingly constrained by the squeeze on access to home ownership and social rented housing, with increased expectation that the private rented sector could fill the gap.
Neighbourhood inequalities
There was considerable consensus across our contributions that neighbourhood inequality was a function of wider inequality and that there were limitations to the effectiveness of tackling poverty through area renewal programmes or the development of mixed communities. However, there was some research evidence that estate regeneration had resulted in at least modest reductions in social exclusion over the medium-long term and that locally attuned interventions tended to achieve better outcomes than top-down policies. That said, area-based strategies were not a fully effective brake on socio-spatial divisions and in relation to findings of entrenched area disadvantage, programmes were described as ‘swimming against the tide’ (or increasingly against a torrent). Contributors recognised the more fundamental need to address income and wealth redistribution.
Unequal housing opportunities and outcomes
A broad review of housing patterns across the life course revealed a trend towards increasing insecurity for many households. A key area where devolution across the UK has made a difference to law and policy is in relation to homelessness. Initially, England led on homelessness prevention and a reduction in levels of statutory homelessness. In Scotland, the push towards removing the longstanding discrimination in the priority need test by the end of 2012 initially showed increased levels of statutory homelessness, followed by a policy shift towards prevention and a decline in the rate of acceptances. Wales is currently implementing a revised framework which is somewhere between the Scottish and English frameworks. Other contributions to our volume found only limited progress in improving access to suitable housing for disabled people, while new migrants often experienced the greatest degree of inequality in access to housing.
Changing politics of inequality?
Research which assessed the impact of New Labour social policy during 1997- 2010 identified beneficiaries of targeted reductions in poverty, rather than any general reduction in inequality; and during the period of high economic growth, Labour was not concerned to restrain high earnings. Research has shown that some positive housing policies did improve quality of life for residents. Regeneration programmes are cited as examples of policy success, although some studies point to mixed outcomes. Similarly, strengthened policies to tackle homelessness and increased consideration of housing rights were early success stories of New Labour. However, rental affordability declined and dependence on housing benefit increased, with resultant pressures for reform. Housing and inequality was also an indicator of the early impact of devolution with greater policy divergence than anticipated, notably in relation to homelessness reform. However, the limited impact of New Labour on income inequality was identified even before the impact of the economic crisis from 2008 that precipitated reconsideration of welfare and housing policies across all political parties.
In the post-2010 period the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition rapidly implemented its programme of austerity measures and welfare reform incorporating reform of housing benefit and the under-occupation charge, with age discrimination and regressive regulations on disability inherent in the new regulations. Divergence in housing policies across the UK continued with the introduction of fixed-term social tenancies in England. Continuing constrained access to home ownership and social renting has resulted in further pressure to expand the use of the private rented sector for lower income and more vulnerable groups and intergenerational tensions have been further fuelled in debates around pensions and welfare in older age, as well as inequality in housing assets. While the squeezed middle may be experiencing constrained quality of life, severe hardship remains concentrated among those on the lowest incomes, with limited real challenge to continuing patterns of inequality.
Challenges for policy and practice
Looking to the future, the challenges of better understanding the relationships between housing and inequality remain. Trends towards increasing insecurity across the life course and increasing housing vulnerability of disadvantaged groups also seem set to continue. Local communities continue to reflect inequality in employment opportunities and the differential impact of different housing policies across the country.
In the era of globalisation of capital, it is argued that nation states are increasingly constrained in the welfare policies they can deliver, but an alternative interpretation is that our conceptualisation of the problem of poverty associated with housing and inequality remains fundamentally flawed. While elements of rational or evidence-based policy making characterise parts of the housing landscape, debates around housing and inequality are inevitably politicised. The prospects for more egalitarian housing policies may be remote in the near future, at least until we have greater representation and involvement of disadvantaged groups in our policy debates. In the meantime a greater degree of political and policy honesty would at least better explain the differential outcomes experienced across the population.
Professor Isobel Anderson is chair in applied social science (housing studies) at the University of Stirling and Dr Duncan Sim is reader in sociology at University of West of Scotland. Material for this article is drawn from the contributions to Anderson, I. and Sim, D. (eds) (2011), Housing and Inequality, Coventry: CIH and HSA. We warmly acknowledge the contributions of our fellow researchers but responsibility for the interpretation in this article remains ours