A major change in the low‐income housing sector across nations has been the introduction of housing allowances (or vouchers/benefits) typically used on private rental markets. This change is a fundamental shift from post‐war housing policy when government was a main provider through publicly owned housing. This “privatization” is usually associated with the New Public Management. This article addresses this policy change and discusses the implications for the accountability of governments in Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta. This article argues that the policy shift from in‐kind to in‐cash has not eroded accountability due to the distinctiveness of housing assistance, compared to other social programs. Actors involved in the housing community continue to challenge governments with regard to consumption subsidies, emphasizing their flaws and imperfections. The argument is empirically probed through a comparative analysis over 50 years, drawing on government archival records and housing advocates’ publications.
According to many scholars, policy targeting is the product of conservative and/or neoliberal politics. Targeting is perceived as a reduction of social welfare or a form of exclusion, usually resulting in no “winners” but only “losers.” Based on the study of housing assistance in Canadian provinces, this article argues that alternative views are possible. I emphasize the historic low coverage of housing assistance, that I term the housing “exceptionalism,” which refers to the small number of households who benefit from government support. The “exceptionalism” sets the stage to understanding why the vulnerable citizen winners have gained over the moderate-income losers.
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.