The Pros And Cons Of Housing Policy

The term housing policy denotes the actions undertaken within the housing field through government intervention; to achieve housing objectives. As housing has become a pivotal issue today, these actions comprise of both the improvement of the ‘quality of the housing stock of dwellings and dealing with homelessness’ (David Clapham: 2009). Through recent research, we are exposed to increase approaches of intervention within the housing field to achieve economic objectives. As an analyst, tackling these issues of housing through social policy, within this essay, I shall adopt a range of various theoretical perspectives leading to different conclusions about the viability and desirability of this measure. I will explore and draw upon methods
to promote well-being. I will explore the suggestions of social democrats and neo-liberals in regards to housing policy. I will further embrace the voice of one who has experienced homelessness and the dire system of state support received.

By definition, Social Democracy is ‘a political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes.’ With respect to its key values, social democrats firmly believe that the state should have an active role regarding the provision and management of housing.
A reason for this being that housing is highly viewed as a fundamental social right in the Western culture as everyone in directly affected by housing. In addition, without access to decent housing, the rest of their ‘egalitarian programme’ would possibly crumble. Furthermore, as it is evident that not all members of society have the financial capability or position to buy their own homes, social democrats view the state as potential providers of decent and reasonably priced housing for rent; which primarily responds to the essential needs of the working
class.

Correspondingly, Danish sociologist, Gosta Esping-Andersen, whose primary focus is on the welfare state and its place in capitalist economies, trusts that it is important for the state to have a significant role in the provision of housing. This is partly because the working class and the majority of the population ‘place housing high on their lists of priorities’ (Esping Andersen, 1985, pp. 179-188) respectively. Reason being, the desire to cultivate a good standard of living and quality of life and without this government provision, ‘the working class will possibly be at the mercy of private landlords’ . He describes three welfare states; liberal, conservative/corporatist and social-democratic to elucidate this.

Liberal states hold strict rules of entitlement rules that are often associated with the stigma that benefits are typically modest.
With their major programmes primarily associated using means-tested assistance, they will typically incorporate modest universal transfers or elements of modest social-insurance plans where, according to Esping-Andersen ‘benefits cater mainly to a clientele of low income’ who are typically working class state dependants. However, there also limitations of welfare as widespread poverty is common due to a minimal de-commodifying effect. On the other hand are corporatist or conservative welfare states, known to feature forms of social insurance. This is through mandated government sponsored programmes aimed at providing economic assistance to those in need. Despite this, have less emphasis on free market efficiency and commodification. Instead, there is a strong connection between the church and the state leaving welfare programmes with minimal redistribution as they are strongly committed towards preservation of traditional family structures. Lastly, are the social-democratic welfare systems which conform to a universal programme and have an effect that decommodifies as their policies are designed to specifically achieve high levels of social equality. However, looking at these theoretical perspectives reiterates the question: how do we go beyond the means of putting a roof over people’s head through housing
policy?
I ask this as, most benefits for unemployment are entitlements based on insurance contributions that would have previously been made by an individual based on their respective income levels (the Bismarck model) meaning the ideal Beveridge model in which benefits would be at a flat rate cannot be fulfilled. As a result the homeless are still isolated and thus the cycle of vulnerability pursues. Due to this, the emphasis for social insurance, a ‘government-sponsored programme...’ aimed at a particular group, funded through taxes that comprises of ‘...benefits and eligibility requirements’ (Actuarial Standards Board: 1998) and (Plamondon, P : 2002) that are placed through a trust fund at the hopes of accounting for income and expenses.