Why housing policy is a mirror of economic development
In short: Housing isn't just about bricks and mortar; it is a physical manifestation of a nation's economic era. From the rise of industrial mass production to the shift toward market-led privatization, your home reflects the prevailing political economy of its time.
Michael Harloe, a social scientist and former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Salford, refined a framework for understanding how housing systems evolve. Building on the work of David Donnison, Harloe argued that housing policy is not static but reflects distinct phases of economic development. He specifically linked the rise of 'Fordism'—the era of industrial mass production—to a shift in government behavior. During this period, states moved away from indifference toward actively mimicking industrial methods to produce public housing for workers. His mentor, David Donnison, originally identified three distinct housing regime types in his 1967 book. These categories ranged from embryonic to comprehensive systems. He initially suggested that an elite consensus among civil servants would drive state intervention toward equality.
The transition out of these eras often mirrors broader economic shifts. For instance, Harloe noted that the arrival of deindustrialisation led many policies to revert to a faith in the market, frequently manifesting as the privatisation of public housing. This suggests that political economy is the primary engine driving how housing systems are formed and subsequently transformed over decades. This shift is evident in how different regions adapt to economic pressures. For example, the Western model of mortgage finance failed in some formerly communist countries due to cultural resistance to debt. This highlights why a one-size-fits-all approach can lead to policy failure when it ignores local social contexts.
Modern scholarship often connects these housing regimes to broader 'welfare regimes,' such as those identified by Gøsta Esping-Andersen. While some researchers argue that housing can be 'read across' from welfare states, others like Jim Kemeny suggest it is a distinct 'sector regime.' This debate highlights the complexity of how governments balance social needs with market forces, whether they aim for a 'unitary' market where social and private sectors compete equally or a 'dualist' system that creates a residualised social sector. Kemeny observed that many nations stop building social housing once shortages are resolved. At this stage, governments might allow social landlords to keep rental surpluses to compete with private markets. Alternatively, they could choose to tax those surpluses or force discounted sales to owner-occupiers.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: Comparative housing research – learning the right lessons? - UK Collaborative Centre For Housing Evidence
- Also: Michael Harloe
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/history-michael-harloe.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Born on this day · More in History · Latest · A–Z · All topics
