Welfare through regulatory means: eviction and repossession policies in Singapore

Abstract

The study and provision of welfare have long been synonymous with direct social spending. The provision of welfare through-regulatory-means poses a complementary perspective to the study of social policy. In this context, this paper focuses on policies aimed at preventing mortgage borrowers' eviction and repossession in Singapore, a world leader in state-led owner occupancy but a welfare laggard in terms of social spending. The findings show a disparity between a high rate of arrears on housing credit, and a low level of eviction and repossession. We test several explanations for this disparity, and argue that it is the result of policy aiming to minimize eviction and repossessions. This policy is driven by institutional interdependencies within the state, which have tied citizens' housing credit to other aspects of their individual welfare savings. The findings shed light on the central role of regulation in welfare.

The local political economy of the regulatory state: Governing affordable housing in England

“…In doing so, we hook into a body of "regulation for welfare" scholarship, now seeking to map the wide range of mechanisms through which contemporary public policy is operationalized (e.g. Leisering & Mabbett 2011, Haber 2015, Haber 2017, Haber et al 2018. In line with this scholarship, we present the framework surrounding the S106 powers, through which local authorities have the capacity to constrain private developers' behavior, as a manifestation of regulatory governance.…”

“…Leisering & Mabbett 2011, Haber 2015, Haber 2017, Haber et al . 2018). In line with this scholarship, we present the framework surrounding the S106 powers, through which local authorities have the capacity to constrain private developers' behavior, as a manifestation of regulatory governance.…”

Economic geography and the regulatory state: Asymmetric marketization of social housing in England

“…Contributions from Leisering and Mabbett (2011) on the governance of pensions and Haber (2015, 2016) on the governance of housing also served to extend this agenda. A ‘regulation for welfare’ strand of literature has emerged, which advocates the exploration of the mechanisms that shape the relationship between states, market actors and non-market actors in the provision of welfare goods within contemporary governance networks (Haber et al., 2018; Levi-Faur, 2014). Within studies of welfare delivery through complex governance networks, we are presented with useful attempts to disaggregate ‘the market’ that both identify different modes of contracting-in and delegation used to incorporate private actors into welfare delivery, and explore the implications on quality of provision from variations in the relationship between state, service provider and service user that accompany such marketization (Pavolini and Guillen, 2013; Starke et al., 2013; Taylor-Gooby, 2013).…”

The Political Economy of Regulating for Welfare: Regulation Preventing Loss of Access to Basic Services in the UK, Sweden, the EU, and Israel

“…The study of regulatory welfare has increased in recent years, including the study of such areas as electricity, water, housing credit, rail, pension fees, public procurement, and immigration. Research has detailed the manner in which regulation is being used for social purposes in economic sectors (Haber 2011, 2015, 2018; Leisering and Mabbett 2011; Mabbett 2013; Levi-Faur 2014; Pflieger 2014; Benish, Haber, and Eliahou 2016; Haber, Kosti, and Levi-Faur 2018; Eckert 2017; Hartlapp 2020; Trein 2020). However, we still require a comprehensive view on how regulatory regimes in different countries and sectors address these issues, as well as the drivers of these types of policies.…”