The social benefits of homeownership: Empirical evidence from national surveys

Abstract

Claims that homeownership is beneficial to both owners and society have not been examined empirically. This article explores evidence from the General Social Survey and the National Survey of Families and Households, supplemented by data from the American National Election Studies and several small but highly relevant researches, to determine whether owners and renters differ in a variety of ways.Strong differences in demographics were found. Small differences were found in some respects: Owners tended to be higher in life satisfaction and selfesteem and more likely to be members of community improvement groups. On a wide variety of social issues-from political partisanship to ethnocentric views-owners and renters were essentially alike. Thus, it appears that the claims for some social and individual benefits from homeownership are supported, but only weakly. Recognizing that the exploratory analyses presented are not definitive, several strategies for more definitive future research are recommended.

Low-income Homeownership: American Dream or Delusion?

“…To the contrary, they found just the opposite-that owners experienced less and shorter unemployment and received higher wages compared with renters. Rossi and Weber (1996) address the effects of homeownership on social characteristics. They examined a wide range of characteristics including household composition, well-being, sociability, marriage and the family, confidence in major American institutions, attitudes towards neighbourhoods, levels of political engagement and views on various public issues.…”

“…These effects of homeownership, however, may be confounded by the simultaneous effects of income, education, length of residence and family life cycle (Rossi and Weber, 1996;Rohe and Stegman, 1994b;Blum and Kingston, 1984;DiPasquale and Glaeser, 1999). This is because homeownership may coincide with, or be a product of, being at the stage in the family life cycle when owning one's home is feasible and/or desirable.…”

Būsto karjera ir jos trajektorijos demografinio gyvenimo ciklo pradžioje: Lietuvoje jaunimo apsirūpinimo būstu situacija

“…Minėtais empiriniais tyrimais siekiama atskleisti, kaip kinta būsto parametrai, ir tai, kad namų ūkių keičiamas būstas yra kompleksinis procesas, susijęs kitais reikšmingais namų ūkių pokyčiais ilguoju laikotarpiu. Taigi gyvenimo ciklas yra susijęs su įvairiomis laiko atžvilgiu kaičiomis būsto pozicijomis (Rossi, Shlay 1982;Rossi, Weber 1996).…”

“…Sekant minėta tendencija, demografiniu požiūriu namų ūkio karjeros pokyčiai ir šeimos rezidencinio mobilumo motyvai aiškinami kaip namų ūkio būsto keitimas, keičiantis jo būsto poreikiams konkrečiame gyvenimo ciklo etape (Beer et al 2016;Davies Whithers et al 2008;De Jong et al 2008;Lennartz et al 2016;Lersch, De Wilde 2014;Rossi, Weber 1996). Namų ūkio mobilumo priežastys, keičiant būsto karjeras privačiame būsto sektoriuje, gali būti įvairios, bet išskiriami trys pagrindiniai rezidencinio mobilumo tipai priklausomai nuo mobilumo motyvų: 1) priverstinis kraustymasis, kai, namų ūkis, prarasdamas būstą, priverstas ieškoti naujos rezidencijos; 2) sužadintasis kraustymasis, kuris atsiranda dėl namų 1 Atrodytų, šis apibendrinimas nėra tinkamas esant vienišam namų ūkiui, t. y. namų ūkiui, kurį sudaro vienas asmuo.…”

Home ownership and support for government redistribution

“…Home owners are assumed to be better caretakers, more strongly involved in their neighbourhoods, more socially and politically active, and are hence portrayed as 'better' citizens. Although these findings are only weakly supported (Rossi and Weber, 1996;DiPasquale and Glaeser, 1999;McCarthy et al, 2001), policymakers nevertheless encourage home ownership in order to achieve positive outcomes such as neighbourhood renewal and upward mobility (Gurney, 1999;VROM-raad, 2000).…”