Housing, Homelessness and Poverty

Ronald Kneebone
{"title":"Housing, Homelessness and Poverty","authors":"Ronald Kneebone","doi":"10.11575/SPPP.V11I0.43293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2014, an estimated 137,000 people, or about one in 208 Canadians aged 18 or older, stayed in an emergency homeless shelter. While addictions and mental illness can contribute to homelessness, evidence suggests that the majority of people who resort to using homeless shelters do so because they are poor. Public policies that reduce the cost of housing for those with low income would reduce these numbers and reduce the number of Canadians who annually experience the debilitating effects of homelessness. A high proportion of rent-to-income is a key contributor to homelessness. People who find that rent eats up so much of their income that they can’t afford other necessities will often try their luck doubling up with relatives or friends or temporarily using a city’s shelter system. Anything that influences the rent-to-income ratio – from income support programs, to tax policies affecting the costs of new construction and the costs of maintaining or rehabilitating old buildings, to zoning and density restrictions – will therefore have a significant influence on the rate of homelessness. Recognizing this opens a wide range of policy options and exposes all levels of government to the responsibility for initiating useful policy reforms. Modest efforts to increase housing affordability via rent subsidies and enhanced income support have the advantage over the construction of public housing of maximizing choice and flexibility for those to whom assistance is provided. If the great majority of people experiencing homelessness do so because of poverty, it may be best to address that issue directly with increased levels of income support.","PeriodicalId":365767,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability & Economics eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability & Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11575/SPPP.V11I0.43293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In 2014, an estimated 137,000 people, or about one in 208 Canadians aged 18 or older, stayed in an emergency homeless shelter. While addictions and mental illness can contribute to homelessness, evidence suggests that the majority of people who resort to using homeless shelters do so because they are poor. Public policies that reduce the cost of housing for those with low income would reduce these numbers and reduce the number of Canadians who annually experience the debilitating effects of homelessness. A high proportion of rent-to-income is a key contributor to homelessness. People who find that rent eats up so much of their income that they can’t afford other necessities will often try their luck doubling up with relatives or friends or temporarily using a city’s shelter system. Anything that influences the rent-to-income ratio – from income support programs, to tax policies affecting the costs of new construction and the costs of maintaining or rehabilitating old buildings, to zoning and density restrictions – will therefore have a significant influence on the rate of homelessness. Recognizing this opens a wide range of policy options and exposes all levels of government to the responsibility for initiating useful policy reforms. Modest efforts to increase housing affordability via rent subsidies and enhanced income support have the advantage over the construction of public housing of maximizing choice and flexibility for those to whom assistance is provided. If the great majority of people experiencing homelessness do so because of poverty, it may be best to address that issue directly with increased levels of income support.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
住房、无家可归和贫困
2014年,估计有13.7万人,即每208名18岁及以上的加拿大人中就有一人住在紧急无家可归者收容所。虽然成瘾和精神疾病可能导致无家可归,但有证据表明,大多数求助于无家可归者收容所的人是因为他们很穷。降低低收入者住房成本的公共政策将减少这些数字,减少每年因无家可归而衰弱的加拿大人的数量。房租与收入之比过高是导致无家可归的一个关键因素。那些发现房租占了收入的很大一部分,以至于买不起其他必需品的人,往往会碰碰运气,与亲戚朋友合租,或者暂时使用城市的住房系统。因此,任何影响租金收入比的因素——从收入支持计划,到影响新建筑成本和维护或修复旧建筑成本的税收政策,再到分区和密度限制——都将对无家可归率产生重大影响。认识到这一点,就有了广泛的政策选择,并使各级政府有责任发起有益的政策改革。通过租金补贴和增加收入支助来提高住房负担能力的适度努力,比建造公共住房的优势在于为获得援助的人提供最大限度的选择和灵活性。如果绝大多数无家可归的人是因为贫穷而无家可归,那么最好通过增加收入支持水平来直接解决这个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Effects of Mutual Fund Decarbonization on Stock Prices and Carbon Emissions ESG and Sovereign Risk: What is Priced in by the Bond Market and Credit Rating Agencies? Can green defaults reduce meat consumption? Carbon Emissions, Institutional Trading, and the Liquidity of Corporate Bonds Facilitating sustainable FDI for sustainable development in a WTO Investment Facilitation Framework: four concrete proposals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1