SUA-project: The privatisation of social housing
Marja Elsinga
Introduction
The shift from government to housing market is the core of the research program Housing Systems. The
focus of the project is the privatisation of social housing; a key example of the shift from government to
market. In many countries governments reduce government intervention in the housing market often as
part of the strategy to reform welfare states. The privatisation of social rental dwellings is an example of
such a policy, a policy embraced by many governments for ideological and econmic reasons. Selling off
social rental dwellings is an appropriate way to get rid of the subsidy burden of social housing. Selling of
social rental dwelling to private owners is also a way to increase the rate of home owners, a way that is
often accompanied by ideological reasons.
In different countries different ways of privatisation take place resulting in different effects in the housing
market. Selling off to private owners or turning public housing into private non-profit housing are two
ways of privatising that are elaborated on in this project.
This project explores theory and practice of privatising social housing. The time available is added tot the
research results from contract research and will be spent on literature study and writing papers and
articles. The aim is to turn empirical evidence into papers and articles that contribute to scientific debate.
Background
Theory of unitary market
After the second World War social housing played an important role in solving the severe housing
shortage. Social housing was by definition heavily regulated and subsidised. According to Harloe (1995)
this mass social rental sector built up after the Second World War will inevitably become more residual
and provide a safety net in the housing market for the most deprived households. Kemeny (1995),
describes an alternative theory suggesting that a unitary rental market is a serious alternative for the
residual model. In a unitary market, non-profit and for-profit landlords compete with each other without
specific government support for the former. The Dutch rental sector is put forward as an example of such
a model. The question posed in the project is if such a “privatised” social rental sector is viable in the long
run.
Theory on blessing of home ownership
Home ownership is encouraged by many governments in and outside Europe. In particular in Anglo Saxon
countries one can speak of an home ownership ideology (Ronald, 2008). Home ownership is a way to
build equity, to build a safety net and to build a pension (Toussaint and Elsinga, 2007). Moreover, home
ownership is supposed to have an effect on home owners. Home owners are, compared to tenants,
supposed to be involved in the neighbourhood and to be empowered citizens. There is evidence
supporting this view, but there is also evidence that shows no tenure effect. Most of the evidence was
collected in UK, USA and Australia (Kemeny, 1981; Rohe, 2001; Elsinga and Hoekstra, 2005).
In this project we elaborate on a contract research for housing associations. The central question in this
contract research is if home ownership empowers the people who buy. The aim is to transform the results
of this project into scientific articles.
Practice
Another aim is to describe current trends in the privatisation of social housing in Europe and their effects
on the housing market. There is a group of researchers from different countries in Europe who tries to
describe and analyse trends in the developments in social housing in Europe (Scanlon and Whitehead,
2007). One of the issues that is dealt with by this group is the privatisating of social housing, covering the
transfer into nonprofit housing associations as well as selling social dwellings to private owners.
Research questions
1. Is the option of a unitary rental sector viable from and economic perspective?
2. Does the sale of social housing empower those who buy?
3. To which extent, for what reason and how is social housing privatised in Western Europe?
Research phases and timing
This project is used to elaborate on previous projects and to contribute to the theoretical debate in the
housing studies. The project started in january 2007 and will finish December 2008.
In 2007 an article was written on the viability of a unitary system and in particular on the viability of the
Dutch social rental sector. In 2007/2008 a study on privatisation of social housing in UK, the netherland
and Germeny was carried out. In the second half of 2008 the results of the project on the sale of social
rental dwellings will we translated into papers/articles for scientific debate. Moreover, a joint article on the
privatisation of social housing in UK, the Netherlands and Germany will be written.
Scientific output
Elsinga, M., M. Haffner & H. van der Heijden, 2008, Threats for the Dutch unitary model. European
Journal of Housing Policy.8, 1, pp 21-37.
Elsinga, Marja & Frank Wassenberg, 2007, Social housing in the Netherlands, In: Scanlon, K. and C.M.E.
Whitehead (eds), The future of social housing in Europe, London: London School of Economics.
Elsinga, M., M. Haffner, H. van der Heijden & M. Oxley, 2007, How competitive is social rental housing in
England and the Netherlands?, ENHR 2007 International Conference ‘Sustainable Urban Areas’,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Mark Stephens, Marja Elsinga and Thomas Knor-Siedow, forthcoming, privatization of social housing;
three different pathways, London, London School of Economics
Relations to other projects and research programs
This project connects closely to different contract research projects in the Housing Systems group.
Moreover, the project on the empowerment effects of the sale of social rental dwellings in a joint project
with the research group Urban Renewal and Housing.
Scientific value and innovation
In this project we further explore the ideas of Kemeny on the rental sector which are endlessly cited, but
hardly tested or argued in the housing studies literature. We apply an economic perspective to a social
theory. The aim is to test this theory and may be adjust or reject the concept of the unitary market. This
resulted in a new project: Competition and social housing.
Finally we will contribute to an ongoing debate on the blessings of home ownership. In scientific literature
this assumption is mostly ciritised. However, among policy makers there is a strong belive that turning
rental dwellings into owner ocucpied dwellings will solve many problems. This project aims to contribute
to scientific debate from a continental European perspective and to policy discussions.
Literature
Elsinga, M & J. Hoekstra. 2005. Home ownership and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the
Built Environment (ISSN 1566-4910) 20 (4), 401-024.
Harloe, M., 1995, The People’s Home? Social Rented Housing in Europe & America, Oxford/Cambridge,
Blackwell.
Kemeny, J., 1981, The myth of home ownership, London (Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Kemeny, J., 1995, From Public Housing to the Social Market, Rental policy strategies in comparative
perspective, London/New York, Routledge.
Rohe, William M., Shannon van Zandt and George McCarthy, 2001, The social benefits and cost of
Homeownership: a critical assessment of research, Low-Income Homeownership working Paper Series,
Boston (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University).
Ronald, Richard, 2008, The Ideology of Home Ownership; Home-owner Societies and the Role of Housing,
Hampshire, Palgrave macmillan
Toussaint, J. & M. Elsinga, 2007, Home ownership as a financial resource? Household’s perceptions in
eight European countries, APNHR conference ‘Transformations in Housing, Urban Life, and Public Policy’,
Seoul, Korea