Housing in Context - Assignment Example

SECTION 2 1. Why was this paper commissioned and in what year was it published? This paper was published in the year 2010 by Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF). The paper was commissioned to contribute ideas on the foundation’s housing market taskforce. This was a programme running for two years and its work was to aim at achieving long term stability in the housing market for vulnerable household (p. 1). The paper has reviewed various existing evidence on public attitudes towards housing policies. It is selective because of the project’s scope of nature, but it has facilitated various discussions by highlighting the view of the public to a variety of key housing issues under debate at the moment (p.3). According to the paper, there a number of factors influencing the housing policy and how it is perceived and consumed. Although the availability and supply of new homes have been blamed of lagging behind housing demand, it has been considered as an important pressure on housing choices (p. 3). Cultural factors also make critical decisions on how people should live and display their identity and belonging. The paper argues that there are strong demographic pressures on demand as increment in longevity and patterns of solo living leads to high rates of household growth as compared to the rate of population growth. Other major determinants of housing choice are represented by access to various sources of housing finance through the mortgage market, support from the families and housing benefits. Residential property has been viewed as an investment instead of consumption good (p. 3). This has contributed to households’ financial planning’s. The various risks of different neighborhoods and households coming up from the wider economy and labour market overlay the factors discussed above according to the arguments of this paper. According to the argument presented, tenure patterns have been changing to reflect the complex issues related to changing household structures, which have consequently led to increased mobility for employment, affordability and inward migration (p.25). Some of these factors prompt many households to move between home ownership as well as social and private renting and vice versa. This suggests a reconsideration of the common assumed housing pathways (p. 25). Housing system is more complex as compared to a hierarchy of tenure. People tend to have different pathways through the housing system. For instance, most households tend to move from home ownership to private renting as well as the reverse direction (p. 25). This outdoes the assumption that households move only in the opposite direction. Likewise, most households move from home ownership to social renting than actually moving from social renting to home ownership. 2. What was the % of home ownership in 2003 and 2008? In 2003, the % of home ownership was 68.3% while the home ownership in 2008 was 81% (p.7). The number of home-owners households has continued to decline and reduce from 70.9% in 2003 to 68.3% in 2008. This is an indication that the tenure is undergoing reforms. Though it is not clear how these changes will profoundly change the current trend, research has shown that most households would continue being home-owners to the end (p.7). The number of people who were aspiring to be home owners in the 1990s came down due to the last housing market recession that regained momentum with the resilience of the market to attain high levels in the mid 2000s. 3. A ‘recent poll’ indicated that a percentage of young people under 25 years old would like to be home owners. What is that percentage? The percentage of young people under 25 years old who would like to be home owners is 37% (p.8). The declining trend among those preferring home ownership among the under 25 year old was swift while the recovery was slow. Moreover, there was a long term downward trend among individuals aged 25-34 years old (p.8). Nevertheless, this group of individuals recovered more strongly in the current years. Support for home ownership has continued growing among households who are 55 years and over. This is an illustration of a cohort outcome as households enter and remain in home ownership more especially from 1980s to the present. Today’s housing market slump had led to the depression of tenure preferences for home ownership (p.8). The reduced young people’s relative incomes have led to the decline in the housing market since early 1990s. However, deposit and affordability constraints have been the major influences as the market rises. Furthermore, the delayed entry into the labor market as a result of greater time spent in education, delayed marriages and family formation has shaped the tenure preferences of young people. 4. What are the 3 negative perceptions of social housing suggested in the CLG, 2009a) reference? The first negative perception of social housing suggested in the CLG, 2009a reference is that the study has used statistically representative samples. This has made the analysis purely descriptive. No study reporting aspirations or satisfaction has controlled the influential variables. Hence, relative strength of the associations between housing histories and socio-demographic factors like attitudes toward tenure and housing cannot be distinguished (p. 5). Second, longitudinal data is lacking in the study. Longitudinal data is significant in the identification of the changes and continuities of attitudes toward housing of a specific population cohort. This type of study can improve the knowledge foundation by underlining changes through time between cohorts and expose the most important influences on attitudes as well as show how they are likely to differ from intentions and actual actions within the housing market. Some of the examples that do not include questions about moving expectations and preferred tenure include; the British Household Panel Survey and The Survey of Housing (SEH) (p.5). Third, the evidence presented in the study extremely predates the worldwide financial crisis. In addition, even the most recent researches represent only a cross-section of opinion in a fluid and uncertain market within a political context. Although the full extent f the ramifications of the crisis are not yet apparent, evidence underlines the current trends which can be used to inform current discussions about housing policies as times move on (p.5). 5. What percentage of respondents thought that social tenants should be allowed to stay in their own home as long as they wanted? What percentage disagreed? The percentage of respondents who thought that social tenants should be allowed to stay in their own homes as long as they wanted is 41%. The percentage that disagreed that tenants should not be allowed to stay in their homes as long as they wanted is 37% (p. 15). A stamp duty, which dangled property purchases below £175,000 from September 2008 to December 2009 led to about a third of home purchasers and 84% of the first time buyers benefited. This action took a temporal response to the housing market downturn and drew public support (p. 25). Doing away with stamp duty on properties below £250,000 was the most famous achievement to conquer housing affordability constraints on homeownership which was supported by about 30% of poll participants. Just three and six percent of respondents respectively concurred with the increment of council tax or stamp duty on second home ownership to raise funds to conquer housing affordability shortcomings. Economists noted that stamp duty is a tax in mobility that the meaning of slab structure is not the same as income tax. Instead it is viewed as a slight rise of property value meaning that the whole property value is taxed at higher rates instead of being taxed a portion above the higher threshold (p. 25). Some economists suggested that a graduated tax with higher thresholds which have been periodically viewed over time for the house growth rates. In 2010, a new threshold of £250,000 was introduced for first time buyer till 2012 despite the fact that the property was not attracting tax liability. Reference Wallace, A 2010, Public attitudes to housing, New York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. SECTION 3 A reference for the five documents referred to in Appendix A. (located at the back of this workbook) The references are as follows; 1. Mullins, D & Murie, A 2006, Housing Policy in the UK, 1st ed., London, Palgrave Macmillan. 2. Mullins, D, Murie, A, Leathet, P, Lee, P, Riseborough, M, & Walker, P 2005, Housing Policy in the UK, (Public Policy and Politics) 1st ed., London, Palgrave Macmillan. 3. Percy-Smith, J 2000, Policy Responses to Social Exclusion, Philadelphia, Open University Press. 4. Spicker, P 1998, Housing and Social Exclusion, Scotland, Scottish Campaign for Homeless People. 5. Wallace, A 2010, Public attitudes to housing, New York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. SECTION 4 Essay Plan The relationship between housing and social exclusion is complex and requires a range of policy interventions to minimize detrimental effects. Introduction Mullins, D & Murie, A 2006, Housing Policy in the UK, 1st ed., London, Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 2: Social Exclusion, Housing and Neighborhood Renewal comprehensively assess the UK housing policy from the early 20th century up to the present times. The chapter has also offered some food for thought on future developments. The chapter has encompassed a great deal of theoretical and historical material proving to be the most valuable as an introductory center reading for a social policy course with housing policy at the center. Percy-Smith, J 2000, Policy Responses to Social Exclusion, Philadelphia, Open University Press provides a context for the discussion of policy responses to social exclusion. The book begins with an overview of the basis and development of social exclusion before deriving a series of dimensions of social exclusion related to the subject matter of subsequent chapters. The final section of the book has begun the discussion of policy responses to social exclusion by drawing out the cross cutting themes and issues, which illustrate and inform the policy scheme discussed in later chapters of the book. Main arguments The main arguments in both books include; Introduction: the contours of social exclusion Labour market exclusion and inclusion Poverty Education and training Social exclusion and health Housing and social exclusion Access to services Political exclusion Urban policy and social exclusion Responding to socially excluded groups Evaluating initiatives to address social exclusion Index Community responses to social exclusion Conclusion Both books have come into a conclusion that the academic community has more opportunities to access policy and public debate on housing and social exclusion. Nevertheless, there is needed to be a concern of achieving the wrestle with the problematic concept and obstructive progress toward more rigorous conceptualizations of the interconnection housing and the disadvantage. There is a dire need to elaborate the relationship between housing and social exclusion. In addition, there has to be willingness to leave the concept of social exclusion behind if we consider it an inappropriate tool for understanding and combating the disadvantage. (Number of words, 330) References Mullins, D & Murie, A 2006, Housing Policy in the UK, 1st ed., London, Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 2: Social Exclusion, Housing and Neighborhood Renewal. Percy-Smith, J 2000, Policy Responses to Social Exclusion, Philadelphia, Open University Press. SECTION 6 Summary of chapter 4 of Mullins, D & Murie, A 2006, Housing Policy in the UK, 1st ed., London, Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter four of Mullins, D & Murie, A 2006, Housing Policy in the UK, 1st ed., London, Palgrave Macmillan is entitled Housing under labour, 1997-2004. The chapter has discussed the following subtopics (Mullins & Murie 2006); A new housing policy Alternatives to housing policy The return of housing policy A new comprehensive housing policy Conclusion The chapter is concerned with the UK housing and UK’s housing policies. It has made reference to the long historical development of policy that focuses on fast changes that have been occurring over time since 1997-2004 (Mullins & Murie 2006). During this period, there have been alternative housing policies, which have cropped up. For instance, the privatization of houses improved the dominance of owner occupation. Both private and social rented sectors have been undergoing major changes like various patterns of governance, radically viewed housing finances, both regional and local inequalities as well as changing patterns of demand for housing being acknowledged in the policy process among other changes (Mullins & Murie 2006). The chapter argues that housing in the UK has a number of unique features which make housing policy in the region different as compared to other public policies. Mullins and Murie argue that housing is as highly durable and flexible product with a fixed location and a high cost relative to the present income (Mullins & Murie 2006). In addition, housing has a long life and its key elements reflect investment patterns of more than 50 years to come. Although dwellings can be modified to fit the modern situation, the legacy of the previous policy periods remains very strong. New additions to the housing stock add up to around 1% annually. As a result, the nature of housing problems and services becomes slow to change and is much determined by the previous rather than the social services like health, education and, social security among others (Brilman et al., 2007). Dramatic change is more feasible in a short period of time in these social services as compared to housing problems. According to this chapter, housing tenure explains the legal status and the rights associated with various forms of housing ownership and occupancy. Tenure is regarded as an important indicator of people’s position in the housing market as well as the whole community (Brilman et al., 2007). Tenure system has had a great impact in terms of building form and design of housing in urban centres and the overall development of the welfare state. The chapter has described the four major types of tenure in the UK to be; council renting, owner occupation, private renting and housing association renting. These are important convenient labels assuming great significance in political debates on housing, but lack analytical evidence. The chapter has concluded by suggesting a new comprehensive housing policy with a more specific notion of modernization. The policy is referred to as modernization of tenure as a consistent theme in UK policy. According to the new policy, house modernization in the UK involves the termination of private landlordism (Brilman et al., 2007). The chapter views modernization as a continuous process, which requires adjustments and adaptations of the housing systems to external changes like economic growth and changes in societal politics. Although durability, high cost and long life of housing stock normally make gradual adjustments, there are past records indicating a rapid economic growth and urbanization as an accommodation that subdivided property and crammed people into he various existing housing stock. (Number of words, 540) References Mullins, D & Murie, A 2006, Housing Policy in the UK, 1st ed., London, Palgrave Macmillan Brilman, J, Kranendonk, J, Schaap, M, & Wijnja J 2007, Facility Management, Real Estate Development, Groningen, Hanze University. References Brilman, J, Kranendonk, J, Schaap, M, & Wijnja J 2007, Facility Management, Real Estate Development, Groningen, Hanze University. Mullins, D & Murie, A 2006, Housing Policy in the UK, 1st ed., London, Palgrave Macmillan Percy-Smith, J 2000, Policy Responses to Social Exclusion, Philadelphia, Open University Press. Wallace, A 2010, Public attitudes to housing, New York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Read More