Pub Date : 2020-10-12DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1814404
M. Stephens
ABSTRACT This article critiques Kemeny’s theory of housing regimes to explain housing systems change. Power balances mediated through institutional structures are underlying causes of housing regimes in Kemeny’s schema in which the design of cost-rental sectors defines whole housing systems. However, the distinctive “unitary” systems Kemeny identified in Germany and Sweden are breaking down as economic failure prompted reforms to wider welfare systems, whilst mature cost-rental sectors were unable to maintain supply without subsidies. These mis-specifications in the theory have been exacerbated by the rise in unorthodox monetary policy. As poverty rates have risen, so the boundaries of possibility have shrunk, rendering “housing for all” approaches problematic and heralding more acute policy trade-offs. Nonetheless, policy choice and institutional differences counterbalance forces of convergence. Understanding system change requires theories of the middle range to be extended upwards to capture high-level forces of convergence and downwards to capture institutional detail that explains the difference.
{"title":"How Housing Systems are Changing and Why: A Critique of Kemeny’s Theory of Housing Regimes","authors":"M. Stephens","doi":"10.1080/14036096.2020.1814404","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1814404","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article critiques Kemeny’s theory of housing regimes to explain housing systems change. Power balances mediated through institutional structures are underlying causes of housing regimes in Kemeny’s schema in which the design of cost-rental sectors defines whole housing systems. However, the distinctive “unitary” systems Kemeny identified in Germany and Sweden are breaking down as economic failure prompted reforms to wider welfare systems, whilst mature cost-rental sectors were unable to maintain supply without subsidies. These mis-specifications in the theory have been exacerbated by the rise in unorthodox monetary policy. As poverty rates have risen, so the boundaries of possibility have shrunk, rendering “housing for all” approaches problematic and heralding more acute policy trade-offs. Nonetheless, policy choice and institutional differences counterbalance forces of convergence. Understanding system change requires theories of the middle range to be extended upwards to capture high-level forces of convergence and downwards to capture institutional detail that explains the difference.","PeriodicalId":47433,"journal":{"name":"Housing Theory & Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"521 - 547"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2020-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14036096.2020.1814404","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45214844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-12DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1816571
S. McNelis
ABSTRACT This article is a comment on Mark Stephen’s article, “How housing systems are changing and why: a critique of Kemeny’s theory of housing regimes”, in this issue of Housing, Theory and Society. It distinguishes between three types of linked explanations – an explanatory definition of a housing system; an historical explanation of how a housing system develops; and, a critical explanation which critiques the use and abuse of power. These distinctions are necessary if we are develop an adequate understanding of how housing systems work. The article then expands on first type of explanation as one which seeks to develop an integrated comprehensive heuristic and notes that the theory of housing-welfare regimes focuses on one particular technological aspect (tenure) of the housing system. Finally, in response to Mark Stephen’s note that “one of the most enduring challenges in housing studies” is to understand “how housing systems function and change”, the article concludes by summarily expanding this single challenge into eight enduring challenges in housing studies by distinguishing different stages in both research and implementation.
{"title":"The Eight Enduring Challenges in Housing Studies – on Explanations, an Integrated Comprehensive Heuristic and, Implementation: Some Comments on Mark Stephen’s Article","authors":"S. McNelis","doi":"10.1080/14036096.2020.1816571","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816571","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article is a comment on Mark Stephen’s article, “How housing systems are changing and why: a critique of Kemeny’s theory of housing regimes”, in this issue of Housing, Theory and Society. It distinguishes between three types of linked explanations – an explanatory definition of a housing system; an historical explanation of how a housing system develops; and, a critical explanation which critiques the use and abuse of power. These distinctions are necessary if we are develop an adequate understanding of how housing systems work. The article then expands on first type of explanation as one which seeks to develop an integrated comprehensive heuristic and notes that the theory of housing-welfare regimes focuses on one particular technological aspect (tenure) of the housing system. Finally, in response to Mark Stephen’s note that “one of the most enduring challenges in housing studies” is to understand “how housing systems function and change”, the article concludes by summarily expanding this single challenge into eight enduring challenges in housing studies by distinguishing different stages in both research and implementation.","PeriodicalId":47433,"journal":{"name":"Housing Theory & Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"578 - 583"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2020-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816571","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42383401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-12DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1816575
M. Norris
This article employs case studies of Britain, Germany and Sweden to assess the ability of Jim Kemeny’s theory of housing regimes to explain housing systems change. Surprisingly, in view of the omni...
{"title":"Commentary on Stephens’ “How Housing Systems Are Changing and Why: A Critique of Kemeny’s Theory of Housing Regimes”","authors":"M. Norris","doi":"10.1080/14036096.2020.1816575","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816575","url":null,"abstract":"This article employs case studies of Britain, Germany and Sweden to assess the ability of Jim Kemeny’s theory of housing regimes to explain housing systems change. Surprisingly, in view of the omni...","PeriodicalId":47433,"journal":{"name":"Housing Theory & Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"552 - 556"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2020-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816575","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45627973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-12DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1816574
C. Whitehead
ABSTRACT This paper reflects on Mark Stephens commentary on Kemeny’s theory of housing systems, both as a starting point for other researchers’ contributions to understanding housing and welfare systems and as an important update on the current economic and policy environment. This note argues that, as a typology, Kemeny’s approach provided a valuable description of the period in which he worked and one that can be used to compare systems in the much changed housing environment of the twenty first century. It also reviews the three country case studies that Stephens uses to illustrate both his critique of the Kemeny model and his own extension to understanding housing systems which lays greater stress on the political and economic environment in which housing polices are being developed. Of particular relevance is the increasing importance of income related housing assistance in a world where inequalities are increasing.
{"title":"How Housing Systems are Changing and Why: A Critique of Kemeny’s Theory of Housing Regimes; Mark Stephens: A Commentary","authors":"C. Whitehead","doi":"10.1080/14036096.2020.1816574","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816574","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper reflects on Mark Stephens commentary on Kemeny’s theory of housing systems, both as a starting point for other researchers’ contributions to understanding housing and welfare systems and as an important update on the current economic and policy environment. This note argues that, as a typology, Kemeny’s approach provided a valuable description of the period in which he worked and one that can be used to compare systems in the much changed housing environment of the twenty first century. It also reviews the three country case studies that Stephens uses to illustrate both his critique of the Kemeny model and his own extension to understanding housing systems which lays greater stress on the political and economic environment in which housing polices are being developed. Of particular relevance is the increasing importance of income related housing assistance in a world where inequalities are increasing.","PeriodicalId":47433,"journal":{"name":"Housing Theory & Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"573 - 577"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2020-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816574","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47286668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-12DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1816570
Walter Matznetter
ABSTRACT According to Stephens, Kemeny’s integrated rental markets have all disappeared on the level of nation-states. In his reply, the author draws attention to sub-national housing markets where cost rental principles continue to dominate within a city or region. Where local majorities and coalitions allow, the legal and institutional preconditions for integrated rental markets can be safeguarded and renewed. This includes various forms of land policy and rent control, and a large and experienced sector of cost-rental housing providers - public, non-profit and benevolent landlords alike. Urban/regional support for such housing policies seems to be on the rise, as a reaction to the massive increase in housing costs and affordability issues brought about by the ongoing financialization of housing.
{"title":"How and Where Non-profit Rental Markets Survive – A Reply to Stephens","authors":"Walter Matznetter","doi":"10.1080/14036096.2020.1816570","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816570","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT According to Stephens, Kemeny’s integrated rental markets have all disappeared on the level of nation-states. In his reply, the author draws attention to sub-national housing markets where cost rental principles continue to dominate within a city or region. Where local majorities and coalitions allow, the legal and institutional preconditions for integrated rental markets can be safeguarded and renewed. This includes various forms of land policy and rent control, and a large and experienced sector of cost-rental housing providers - public, non-profit and benevolent landlords alike. Urban/regional support for such housing policies seems to be on the rise, as a reaction to the massive increase in housing costs and affordability issues brought about by the ongoing financialization of housing.","PeriodicalId":47433,"journal":{"name":"Housing Theory & Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"562 - 566"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2020-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816570","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44529911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-05DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1820373
M. Flåto
ABSTRACT This paper explores the formation of the discourse that structures policies aimed at reducing homelessness in Norway. It discusses how experts interacting within epistemic communities contribute to the shaping of discourse, and how research is used to constitute the interpretation of the situation as homeless. The findings indicate that the discourse of homelessness has developed within an epistemic community, acknowledging a naturalistic definition and a structural explanation of homelessness, a community in which both researchers and policy makers have participated. The discourse is also marked by the dominant influence of international research on homelessness, rather than a focus on the local situation of people experiencing homelessness in Norway. This raises the question of whether research has mainly been used symbolically in the formative period of the policy field, strengthening the position of housing in social policies, rather than investigating the challenges of persons experiencing homelessness.
{"title":"Constructing a Policy Field Aimed at Homelessness: How Epistemic Communities Shape Discourse","authors":"M. Flåto","doi":"10.1080/14036096.2020.1820373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1820373","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper explores the formation of the discourse that structures policies aimed at reducing homelessness in Norway. It discusses how experts interacting within epistemic communities contribute to the shaping of discourse, and how research is used to constitute the interpretation of the situation as homeless. The findings indicate that the discourse of homelessness has developed within an epistemic community, acknowledging a naturalistic definition and a structural explanation of homelessness, a community in which both researchers and policy makers have participated. The discourse is also marked by the dominant influence of international research on homelessness, rather than a focus on the local situation of people experiencing homelessness in Norway. This raises the question of whether research has mainly been used symbolically in the formative period of the policy field, strengthening the position of housing in social policies, rather than investigating the challenges of persons experiencing homelessness.","PeriodicalId":47433,"journal":{"name":"Housing Theory & Society","volume":"39 1","pages":"66 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14036096.2020.1820373","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44912481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-27DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1816714
E. Buitelaar
When I received this book on my doormat – we had just entered the era of corona, which made the editor send it to my home address instead of my university pigeonhole – I braced myself. The book tit...
{"title":"Rethinking the Economics of Land and Housing","authors":"E. Buitelaar","doi":"10.1080/14036096.2020.1816714","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816714","url":null,"abstract":"When I received this book on my doormat – we had just entered the era of corona, which made the editor send it to my home address instead of my university pigeonhole – I braced myself. The book tit...","PeriodicalId":47433,"journal":{"name":"Housing Theory & Society","volume":"39 1","pages":"116 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816714","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43908067","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-24DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1824446
O. Celik
Urban warfare refers to combat occurring in a built environment of some significant size. It is sometimes referred to as Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT) or as Fighting in Built Up Areas (FIBUA). It is widely considered to be particularly challenging. Partly this is because of the inherent complexity of the built environment, which taxes the ability of commanders to apprehend the battlespace, to lead their own forces effectively, and to judge the location and intent of enemy forces accurately. Partly it is because of the presence of civilians and sensitive civilian infrastructure (i.e., places of worship, hospitals, museums, etc.) in the battlespace, which limits the choice of tactics and weapons available to commanders for fear of violating laws of armed conflict. Partly it is because cities are nodes in global networks of trade and communications, as a result of which the consequences of tactical decisions may propagate widely and quickly to significant strategic effect. Sun Tzu advised fighting in cities only if “absolutely necessary, as a last resort,” a rule to which statesmen and commanders have tried to adhere to this day. However, on account of long-term trends in demographics, urbanization, and connectedness the major armed forces of the world have been preoccupied with a postulated unavoidability of urban warfare. Military doctrines and strategies often now start from the assumption that the future of land operations will increasingly be centered on urban terrain. The literature on urban warfare is quite segmented by discipline, normative outlook, particular areas of concern, and some fundamental points of disagreement. Researchers in urban studies detect in the growing military focus on operating in cities a “new military urbanism” that is by nature neo-colonialist, xenophobic, and “anti-urban.” The job of activist scholarship, in this view, is to expose and confront this development. In war and strategic studies, by contrast, scholars are interested in solving the challenges of urban warfare, including through the use of theories derived from disciplines like urban studies, anthropology, geography, and informatics. There is a further division between analysts who see urban warfare as an essentially modern phenomenon whose meaningful history stretches not much further back than the Second World War, and those who see war and the city as interlinked with relevant lessons going back as far as the origins of both.
{"title":"Urban Warfare","authors":"O. Celik","doi":"10.1080/14036096.2020.1824446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1824446","url":null,"abstract":"Urban warfare refers to combat occurring in a built environment of some significant size. It is sometimes referred to as Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT) or as Fighting in Built Up Areas (FIBUA). It is widely considered to be particularly challenging. Partly this is because of the inherent complexity of the built environment, which taxes the ability of commanders to apprehend the battlespace, to lead their own forces effectively, and to judge the location and intent of enemy forces accurately. Partly it is because of the presence of civilians and sensitive civilian infrastructure (i.e., places of worship, hospitals, museums, etc.) in the battlespace, which limits the choice of tactics and weapons available to commanders for fear of violating laws of armed conflict. Partly it is because cities are nodes in global networks of trade and communications, as a result of which the consequences of tactical decisions may propagate widely and quickly to significant strategic effect. Sun Tzu advised fighting in cities only if “absolutely necessary, as a last resort,” a rule to which statesmen and commanders have tried to adhere to this day. However, on account of long-term trends in demographics, urbanization, and connectedness the major armed forces of the world have been preoccupied with a postulated unavoidability of urban warfare. Military doctrines and strategies often now start from the assumption that the future of land operations will increasingly be centered on urban terrain. The literature on urban warfare is quite segmented by discipline, normative outlook, particular areas of concern, and some fundamental points of disagreement. Researchers in urban studies detect in the growing military focus on operating in cities a “new military urbanism” that is by nature neo-colonialist, xenophobic, and “anti-urban.” The job of activist scholarship, in this view, is to expose and confront this development. In war and strategic studies, by contrast, scholars are interested in solving the challenges of urban warfare, including through the use of theories derived from disciplines like urban studies, anthropology, geography, and informatics. There is a further division between analysts who see urban warfare as an essentially modern phenomenon whose meaningful history stretches not much further back than the Second World War, and those who see war and the city as interlinked with relevant lessons going back as far as the origins of both.","PeriodicalId":47433,"journal":{"name":"Housing Theory & Society","volume":"38 1","pages":"381 - 383"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14036096.2020.1824446","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45462628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-10DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1816728
A. Soaita
This impressive collection of stimulating theorization and descriptions of a multitude of other-than-capitalist economic practices could not have been published at a more pertinent time. Engulfing ...
{"title":"The Handbook of Diverse Economies","authors":"A. Soaita","doi":"10.1080/14036096.2020.1816728","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816728","url":null,"abstract":"This impressive collection of stimulating theorization and descriptions of a multitude of other-than-capitalist economic practices could not have been published at a more pertinent time. Engulfing ...","PeriodicalId":47433,"journal":{"name":"Housing Theory & Society","volume":"39 1","pages":"118 - 120"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14036096.2020.1816728","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46152188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-08DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1813803
T. Gorter, K. Jacobs
ABSTRACT The political economy of housing in Australia is in flux; households increasingly engage in the housing market as a way to manage social and financial risks. Addressing a lack of empirical research on household decision-making, we interviewed 40 owners and renter households in Melbourne. Participants understood the role of housing as a financial asset; this was enacted through their adoption of the position of a neoliberal investor subject engaged in speculative investment and rational calculation of risks and rewards. Renters were conscious of living in their landlord's investment. However, some participants also articulated active resistance to speculative investment in the housing market, and their commitment to the use value of housing and other meanings of home. This examination of the feelings and practices of participants within the housing market provided new insights into the ways that neoliberal ideology and financialization processes are currently shaping Australia.
{"title":"Investor Subjectivities in Melbourne’s High Cost Housing Market","authors":"T. Gorter, K. Jacobs","doi":"10.1080/14036096.2020.1813803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1813803","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The political economy of housing in Australia is in flux; households increasingly engage in the housing market as a way to manage social and financial risks. Addressing a lack of empirical research on household decision-making, we interviewed 40 owners and renter households in Melbourne. Participants understood the role of housing as a financial asset; this was enacted through their adoption of the position of a neoliberal investor subject engaged in speculative investment and rational calculation of risks and rewards. Renters were conscious of living in their landlord's investment. However, some participants also articulated active resistance to speculative investment in the housing market, and their commitment to the use value of housing and other meanings of home. This examination of the feelings and practices of participants within the housing market provided new insights into the ways that neoliberal ideology and financialization processes are currently shaping Australia.","PeriodicalId":47433,"journal":{"name":"Housing Theory & Society","volume":"39 1","pages":"21 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14036096.2020.1813803","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46615896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：