Housing Inequality Is a Social Vice - Essay Example

?Housing Inequality Housing Inequality Housing inequality is a social vice that is prevalent in the urban environment worldwide. However, there is little improvements about this social inequality since housing policies and economic reforms have been predominant in the market for quite sometime. Wang and Murie (1999, p971) explain that housing inequality in countries such as China was minimal in the past since the level of consumption was very low. Housing reforms in Britain came into the picture due to intrusion of market forces which affected changes in the availability of houses and thus, changing the housing consumption levels. Housing reforms were also constant in the market as there was little dissemination of information to the public as Isobel Anderson ( 2010, p9) insinuates. In this paper, the main focus is on housing inequality in relation to the black minority ethnic group and other related groups which Harrison Malcom( 2003, 128) largely explains. This has been largely contributed by factors such as socio-economic and institution groups that are in control in the market platform. Currently market dynamics have emerged providing diverse range of housing that has increased the consumption levels. In contrast there were few choices in the previous past which limited the people from accessing housing. Huang and Clark (2002, p322) state that some housing units in countries such as China were set aside as welfare benefit especially on basis of non-monetary factors such as job rank, job seniority, marital status and household size. However, this situation is changing as privatization is taking ground in the market corridors. Public housing was previously meant for institution groups such as the political status and those working in government agencies. Individuals working in these sectors had an advantage over the migrants and farmers. They were allocated public houses that were subsidized. It did not matter if they received low incomes. On the other hand the governmental heads and the political elite accessed considerably large housing with the best facilities. This pattern is however changing as market forces are gradually gaining ground. Even though this scenario is taking effect the black minority ethnic groups and asylum seekers cannot still afford better housing (Finney & Peach, 2004, p302). Public housing was privatized through selling at subsidized prices. Privatization also led to new private housing where real estate developers were constructing a wide range of housing to create diverse preferences. Households living in public houses had an advantage over the migrants and farmers as they were able to purchase public houses sold off. They were able to obtain home ownership while the minority such as single women with children could only afford rental housing ( Harrison, 2004, p128). Those working in government and organization agencies earned low income and had retired; they were able to purchase good and large housing. This was made possible by the housing policy reforms that were in place. On the contrary the minority could only enjoy poor housing as they were excluded from accessing these benefits. Therefore they were still constrained to small and poor housing. The political status had considerably great advantages as they used their position to gain control by purchasing public housing and investing heavily in construction of rental housing. The educated and those who had occupations had access to good housing and better standards of living individuals. Housing inequality increased continually due to income inequality. Individuals at top levels such as managers and heads of governments enjoyed the top cream. They had huge incomes as compared to those at low levels. This gave them great access to a wide range of varied housing. They had an upper-hand as they could invest in rental housing and developing of real estates. Therefore, they continued to get richer as those at lower levels were subject to rental housing. This was because they received low incomes that are insufficient to purchase houses or otherwise build homes. They also lived in difficult conditions as sometimes changing housing and labor market conditions were unfavorable. Repair problems and government policy also affected them. It was rather difficult for the minority to access these facilities as most of them had no permanent source of income. These contributed to housing inequality as this group of people cannot access the same quality of housing as the top earners. The dynamic changes in the labor market and housing also made them to stretch the meager resources. Thus, it was impossible for them to save enough to house tenure. The black minority ethnic group continues to face challenges despite the advancements of socioeconomic of many households. According to Anderson (2010) minority ethnic group is prone to live in poor housing, poor environments and overcrowded places such as ghettos. In this sense ethnic inequality also increased housing inequality as Bhavnani, Mirza, and Meetoo (2005, p200) point out. It did not count either one belong to social institutions or socioeconomic status. As long as they were not part of specific group such the white, they were discriminated against certain privileges. For example in the work place, they were excluded from attaining certain positions. This denied them chance to participate in decision making processes. The legal reforms and government policies did not consider them as they were not taken into account when they were formed ( Ratcliffe, 2004, p255). The housing reforms that were in place discriminated them from accessing better and large housing as compared to their counterparts who were the whites. The black minority ethnic group studied hard to gauge themselves in a better position in attaining better employment and better housing. Though they had all done all these, it was still evident that little attention and consideration was given to them. They rather settled for the small housing as this was the only option available (Bhavnani, et al., 2005). Migrants also faced the same situations. In spite of some of them were wealthy and could afford better and large housing, the prevalent housing reforms still secluded them from enjoying these benefits. Therefore, they settled along the cities especially in bungalows that had inadequate facilities and poor environment. On the contrary the old retired and low income earners had access to good housing despite they were lowly educated. In this case social economic factors had less influence while on the other hand social institutions were prevalent. Ethnic inequality has proved that socioeconomic factor such as the level of education and occupation was not dominant. The blacks did not have opportunity to choose from diverse preferences available. In contrast the white who where less educated had these privilege as their social institutions supported them by providence of subsidized housing or granting them loans. They were also allowed to participate in the market transition. Eventually they were able to invest and buy large and better housing. This was the opposite of the blacks who were discriminated against as they lacked information on housing policy and investment (Harrison Malcom, 2003). Since the blacks could not get good jobs despite being highly educated, they were forced to live in overcrowded places. In these situations, they were prone to ill-health and also theft as the security levels of these places was compromising. On the other hand, the whites lived in good housing which had better security while their education levels were not comparable to the blacks. Another factor that favored the white was their wide exposure to information on housing while the latter were quite discouraged in that the avenues available did not give them priority access to this crucial information. Even if there was access to information, it was quite limited and the fact that avenues available did not offer them a diverse option to choose from discouraged them. Another thing that underpinned their efforts was the legal reforms that existed. These reforms were not in support of them as they only covered the rights of the majority at the times who were the whites. It discriminated against the black minority ethnic groups as their voice was not heard due to unequal presentation in the national forums and state organs. (Harrison 2003). The pattern of ethnic inequality as a housing inequality was reinforced by both gender and disability. On the basis of gender, women were disadvantaged in quite a number of ways. To start with, they had unfair representation in both the socioeconomic and social institutions in comparison to their male counterparts who enjoyed quite a number of benefits. The socioeconomic status real mattered a lot. The level of education and the type of occupation the individual had favored them largely as it empowered them and gave them a variety of choice and preferences to choose them. Since most women were not well educated, they were limited (Davis 2003, p12). Education levels enabled different classes of people to live in different housing. The highly educated were able to live in large and luxury housing as they were employed in prominent and good job sectors giving them enough financial muscle to either purchase or build any type of housing they prefer. In contrast the women did not fair well in this part and thus, many of them opted to live in rental housing or built poor quality housing. In addition to that women representation in the occupation area was also wanting. Only a few could afford the comfort of large and luxury as the male counterparts especially the single parents who had good positions in governmental agencies and reputable organizations. Many of them resided in poor housing that were in poor conditions. Social institutions such as the political status also mattered a lot when it came to housing inequality. Most women did not fair representation in this part and hence they were excluded in major decision making. This disadvantaged them a lot as their voices were not heard enough. On the contrary the male representation was huge and hard large involvement in decision making organs enabling them to act in their favor. Therefore, there drafted legal reforms that gave them an upper hand in accessing proper hosing, security and preferences for housing tenure. Income inequality also played a crucial role in housing inequality in relation to gender. Since most women had low income, they were limited to live in overcrowded places, poor housing and ill-fated environments. This did not favor them as their security was compromised and most of them were sabotaged to abuse and mistreated by their male counterparts. Disability is another factor that led to housing inequality. Most of the disabled people were secluded from major decision making state organs and few representations. There were discriminated against in the socioeconomic status and social institutions. This made them unable to access proper and good housing since most of them had no supporting systems to act in their favor. On the contrary the well able faired considerably great in accessing proper housing facilities. Since they had unfair representation, there voice was less heard and acted upon. This limited them from accessing valuable information on proper housing. In addition to that the existing labor market and housing reforms did not extensively consider them. Thus, they were with no option but to live in small housing and in unfavorable conditions (Harrison, 2003, 128). Housing inequality also increased over time due to segregation. This was a grouping of people into different classes such as the rich, the poor, disables and minority, racism and on gender basis. Influential people such as politicians and the business class bought lands in urban cities and built large luxury housing. This led to creation of classes as the black minority ethnic group and asylum seekers who moved away since they could match to these standards . They rather resided in poor housing within their means. On the contrary the super rich and most powerful had huge preferences to choose from since they had enough finances and they were well placed in accessing valuable information on housing. (Henderson and Karn, 1987, p10). Social housing has been increasing despite the socioeconomic improvements of many households. It is quite surprising to see a big gap developing in spite of the organization bodies created and legal forums put in place to fight for the rights of the less privileged in the society (Rutter, 2004, p10). This has been due to the market transitions which have become more prevalent. Individuals such as the black minority ethnic group are discriminated against on basis of socioeconomic status, social institutions, race, gender, disabilities and segregation. The prevalent dynamic market conditions and housing reforms tend to favor few people. Housing policy reforms need to be revised in order to consider the less privileged such as the women, disabled and the ethnic minority. Solutions to housing inequalities can be provided through implementing new laws that favor them in the dynamic market. This can be enhanced through subsidized housing specifically set aside for these groups. A recommendation is that further study be conducted so as to understand the patterns of housing inequality in the current modern society and possible solutions that be applied over time in line with Harrison and Davis (2001, p 131). References Anderson, I 2010, Inequality and Housing, CIH, London Bhavnani, R., Mirza, H., and Meetoo, V, 2005, Tackling the roots of racism: lessons for success, The Policy Press, Bristol Clark, Colin. and Greenfields, M 2006, Here to stay the gypsies and travellers of Britain, University of Hertfordshire Press, Hatfield Finney N. & Peach, E.2004, Attitudes Towards Asylum-Seekers, refugees and Other Immigrants: a literature review, Commission for Racial Equality, London. Henderson, J., and Karn, V, 1987, Race, Class and State Housing: Inequality in the Allocation of Public Housing, Alder shot, Gower Harrison, M., Davis, C 2001, Housing, Social Policy and Difference, Policy Press, Bristol, Huang, Y. and Clark 2009, ‘Housing tenure choices in transitional urban China: a multilevel analysis’, Urban Studies. 39, 7-32. Harrison, et al.,2006, Migrants, minorities and housing: exclusion, discrimination and anti-discrimination in 15 member states of the European Union, Retrrievvedd on 1 april 2013 from http://fra.europa.eu/fra/index.php? fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=43c54ec8e9d01 Phillips, C 2001, Ethnic Inequalities under New Labour: Progress or Retrenchment, Policy Press, Bristol Ratcliffe, P 2004, Race, ethnicity and difference : imagining the inclusive society, Open University Press, Maidenhead Rutter, J. 2009, Social Housing Allocation and Immigrant Communities, IPPR, London Wang, Y.P. and Murie 1999, Housing Policy and practice in China. MacMillan Press Ltd, New York. Read More