This paper is a critical analysis of recent US policy to promote low-income homeownership. It examines the ideology and assumptions buttressing this policy, evidence on the effects of low-income homeownership and the viability of homeownership as a strategy for low-income families. Evidence suggests that the prospect for sustained growth in low-income homeownership may be limited. Research does not provide uniform support for it as a tool for asset accumulation, neighbourhood economic development or other social and political goals. Alleged effects of homeownership may be artefacts of self-selection and the conflation of homeownership with unobserved characteristics coincident with buying homes. What homeownership does and why are not well understood because of difficulties disentangling what homeownership means. The elevation of low-income homeownership to its current status has deflected political attention away from alternative policies for affordable housing.
This review takes stock of contemporary social science research on homelessness. Research on homelessness in the 1980s has been prompted by the increased numbers and visibility of homeless persons including men, women, and families, as well as young people without families. Most empirical research employs a working definition of homelessness as the condition of those people who are without a permanent place to live. However, a wide range in perspectives differ over what homelessness is. In part, this reflects recognition of some the dynamics of homelessness that include intermittent movement in and out of homeless situations. But it also reflects changes in social values over what constitutes adequate housing. Research shows that the population of homeless persons is diverse, although most homeless persons are young and single. Many have severe chronic problems including mental illness, alcoholism, physical disabilities, and poor health. A significant number have criminal histories. Many were raised in foster care situations. All suffer from economic deprivation, and many have experienced long-term unemployment. Considerable disagreement exists over the number of homeless persons, in part because the scarcity of resources to address this problem politicizes the debate. There is also strong disagreement over the root causes of homelessness. Debate over the causes of homelessness is caught up in whether the focus of research should be on structural forces that permit homelessness to occur or the immediate reasons why people become homeless. Research now suggests that the extreme situation of homelessness may be more accurately portrayed as the result of the convergence of many factors that drive this phenomenon, including housing market dynamics, housing and welfare policy, economic restructuring and the labor market, and personal disabilities. Policies designed to ameliorate homelessness have been inadequate to stem the tidal forces that produce such severe destitution, and this trend is likely to continue. Future important directions include addressing the role of employment and social ties in producing homelessness, comparing the economic and social situation of homeless and non-homeless persons, evaluating programs designed to aid homeless persons, and developing international comparisons of homelessness.
Early twentieth century concerns with social problems and pathologies perceived as stemming from rural to urban migration, neighborhood transiency and an absence of spatially stable communities fueled the early study of residential mobility. Knowing why people moved, it seemed, presented a potential for fostering neighborhood stability, place oriented community and a cure for urban ills such as crime, delinquency and other forms of anomic behavior. The finding that residential mobility was neither pathological nor indicative of normlessness but was a normal process through which families improve their housing situations set the tone for later mobility research. The myriad of studies on mobility precipitants and housing adjustment processes have, today, firmly established the finding that residential shifts are driven by family compositional changes accompanying family life cycle stages. Without a problems context, it appears that residential mobility research has little obvious relevance to public policy concerns. To be relevant to public policy, we propose that mobility research change focus from looking at the precipitants of residential moves toward looking at the mechanisms that structure the patterning of residential choices within metropolitan areas. We present some new directions for mobility research dealing with factors governing housing production and its spatial distribution along with why and where people live where they do.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.