No abstract

With continued economic growth and expanding mortgage markets, until recently the pattern across advanced economies was of growing homeownership sectors. The Great Financial Crisis (GFC) has however, undercut this growth resulting in the contraction of homeownership access in many countries and the revival of private renting. This paper argues that these tenure changes are not solely a consequence of the GFC, and therefore, reversible once long-term growth returns. Rather, they are the consequences of more fundamental changes especially in labour markets. The very financialisation that fuelled the growth of homeownership has also led to a hollowing out of well-paid, secure jobs—exactly those that fit best with the taking of housing loans. We examine longer-term declines in labour market security across Europe from before the GFC, identifying an underlying correlation between deteriorated labour market conditions and homeownership access for young adults. While variations exist across European countries, there is evidence of common trends. We argue that the GFC both accelerated pre-existing labour insecurity dynamics and brought an end to offsetting such dynamics through the expansion of credit access with the likelihood of a return to an era of widespread homeownership growth starkly decreased.

Notwithstanding current market volatility, there has been exceptional expansion in owner-occupied housing sectors and increases in house prices across European countries in recent decades. In the EU, individual wealth held in housing equity, especially among older people, has been considered a substantial reserve that could be tapped into to meet future pension needs as the ageing of the population becomes a greater stress on European welfare states. This paper seeks to take the notion of 'property-based welfare' further by examining, in principle at least, how home ownership may function as a pension across EU states. This firstly involves very approximate estimates of the types of, and rates of, income homeowners could hypothetically generate from their homes, including forms of income in kind. Secondly, criteria are identified to estimate how 'adequate' such potential incomes are in relation to working incomes and in bringing retired households above poverty levels. Thirdly, different circumstances across EU member states with regard to existing housing and pension arrangements are examined. Broad national groupings appear evident, with housing income having least impact in older member states in central and northern Europe. The paper concludes that while the potential outcome of housing wealth is country specific, in many cases, greater dependency on home ownership in welfare provision, particularly if it is used as a substitute rather than a complement to existing arrangements, may have adverse consequences for many.

A BSTRACT This pape r locates the housing policies of the little tiger countriesÐ H ong K ong, Singapore, So uth Korea and Ta iw anÐ in the policy regimes approach found in the literature de aling w ith other industrialised coun tries. It begins by establishing three regime type sÐ liberal, com m unist and corporatistÐ de scribing different balances of m arket and state in the development, construction and consum ption phases of housing provision. Bu ilding on a discussion of the ge neral approach in the little tiger countries to econo m ic and social policy, and particularly of the nature and extent of state intervention in their housing policies, it proposes that toge ther the y represent a fourth regime type , one that can be characterised as corporatist in production and liberal in consum ption.

In recent years, one driver behind the promotion of home ownership in Western countries has been the belief that owner-occupied housing assets provide a means to build up individual welfare security, potentially offsetting pension shortfalls in retirement. In contrast, many developed East Asian societies have both long focussed on advancing 'asset' or 'property-based welfare' systems as well as experienced the late-1990s Asian Financial Crisis which forced changes in housing and welfare practices. This paper examines how home ownership and asset-based welfare fared in these contexts and the lessons to be learned. It begins by considering the role of owneroccupied housing assets in different welfare regimes before empirically examining how asset-based welfare systems have been realized. It then considers how East Asian home ownership and assetbased welfare systems have stood-up to economic crises. The final section considers what the East Asian experiences contribute to an understanding of the housing assets -welfare relationship.

No abstract

In the welfare systems of East Asian countries, the income, care and other needs of older people have traditionally been met less by state social protection measures and more by the family, supported by what might be termed the first homeownership strategy: widening access to home ownership as a physical, emotional and financial basis of family wellbeing. Recent political, economic and demographic developments, however, have undermined this model. Examining policy responses in the three most advanced East Asian economies, Japan, Singapore and South Korea, but also with reference to Taiwan, the paper identifies common tendencies in the ways in which the ability to use home ownership has been strengthened. As a second strategy, home ownership has been used to reduce geographical constraints on family support, while, as a third strategy, governments have introduced mechanisms through which older people are able to realise some or all of the equity they have built up through the housing market. These mechanisms include, moving down market or even converting to a rental solution, as well as forms of reverse-mortgage products, some available through private financial institutions and some involving state-organised and state-operated devices.

Formally, the European Union (EU) should not, and does not, formulate housing policy, this being a function lodged with the individual member states. Against the background of the Lisbon objectives and the Kok report, however, the present paper argues that the EU has actually appeared to promote a housing strategy for the member states based on increasing home ownership rates. Drawing on a range of evidence, the paper examines what might be referred to as a stealth housing policy. It does so from the points of view of both whether the housing system objectives are likely to be achieved and, if they are, what they might mean for some aspects of the EU's wider economic and social objectives. Finally, the paper considers whether a more explicit EU interest in housing policy would be desirable.European Union, home ownership, housing, Lisbon agenda,