Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:21:25.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Housing policy and the changing tenure mix

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Christine Whitehead
Christine Whitehead*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics, Emeritus Professor of Housing Economics
*
E-mail: C.M.E.Whitehead@lse.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper discusses the many reasons why housing policy can appear to be both incoherent and ineffective - with too many Departments involved each with different objectives and a plethora of policies pulling in different directions. Drawing on earlier research findings the paper discusses three examples which have impacted on tenure mix – the growth in the private rented sector where policy initiatives – except for unintended side effects – have been limited and market and macroeconomic pressures have dominated; a range of tax anomalies which provide inconsistent incentives and generate considerable costs to the economy; and the impact of specific policies which concentrate on supporting owner-occupation through new build initiatives. The paper concludes by asking whether housing policy is inherently unable to withstand the pressures placed on it by both politics and macroeconomic realities.

Keywords

housing policyprivate rented sectorhousing taxationnew buildowner-occupationH11H24H31H44
Type
Research Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 245 , August 2018 , pp. R34 - R39
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bovaird, E., Harloe, M. and Whitehead, C.M.E. (1985), ‘Private rented housing: its current role’, Journal of Social Policy, (14), pp. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Property Federation (2017), Unlocking Benefits and Potential of Build-to-Rent, London: BPF.Google Scholar
Department of Communities and Local Government (2007), Homes for the future: More Affordable, More Sustainable, Cm. 7191, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Communities and Local Government (2017), Fixing our Broken Housing Market, Cm. 9352, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of the Environment (1977), The Housing Policy Review, Cmnd 6851, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
DETR (2000), Quality and Choice, a Decent Home for All, London: DETR.Google Scholar
Finlay, S., Ipsos, Mori, Williams, P. and Whitehead, C. (2016), Evaluation of the Help to Buy Equity Loan Scheme, London: Department of Communites and Local Government.Google Scholar
Henry, K., Harmer, J., Piggott, J., Ridout, H. and Smith, G. (2010), Australia's Future Tax System, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
HM Government (2011), Laying the Foundations, A Housing Strategy for England, London: HM Government.Google Scholar
Ipsos Mori (2018), Ipsos Mori Issues Index, March, available at https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2018-04/issues_index_march18_v1_internal_use_only.pdf.Google Scholar
Letwin, O. (2018), Independent Review of Build Out : draft analysis, London: MHCLG, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-build-out-draft-analysis.Google Scholar
Mirrlees, J.A.et al. (2010), Reforming the Tax System for the 21st Century: The Mirrlees Review, Vol. 1, Adam, S., Besley, T., Blundell, R., Bond, S., Chote, R., Gammie, M., Johnson, P., Myles, G. and Poterba, J.M., Dimensions of Tax Design, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Montague, A. (2012), Review of the Barriers to Institutional Investment in Private Rented Homes, London: Department of Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Rugg, J. and Rhodes, D. (2008), The Private Rented Sector: its contribution and potential, York: Centre for Housing Policy.Google Scholar
Scanlon, K., Whitehead, C.M.E. and Blanc, F. (2017), A Taxing Question: is Stamp Duty Land Tax Suffocating the English Housing Market? Epsom: Family Building Society.Google Scholar
Scanlon, K., Whitehead, C.M.E. and Williams, P. (2016), Taking stock: understanding the effects of recent policy measures on the private rented sector and Buy-to-Let, London: LSE.Google Scholar
Udagawa, C., Scanlon, K. and Whitehead, C. (2018), The Future Size and Composition of the Private Rented Sector, an LSE London project for Shelter, London: LSE London.Google Scholar
Whitehead, C.M.E. and Kleinman, M. (1986), Private Rented Housing in the 1980s and 1990s, Cambridge: Granta Publications.Google Scholar
Whitehead, C.M.E., Scanlon, K., Monk, S., Tang, C., with Haffner, M., Lunde, J., Anderson, M. and Voigtländer, M. (2016), Understanding the Role of Private Renting: A Four Country Case Study, Copenhagen: Knowledge Centre for Housing Economics.Google Scholar
Whitehead, C. and Williams, P. (2017), ‘Changes in the regulation and control of mortgage markets and access to owner-occupation among younger households’, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 196, Paris: OECD Publishing, available at https://doi.org/10.1787/e16ab00e-en.Google Scholar