Homeownership rates differ widely across European countries. We document that part of this variation is driven by differences in the fraction of adults co-residing with their parents. Comparing Germany and Italy, we show that in contrast to homeownership rates per household, homeownership rates per individual are very similar during the first part of the life cycle. To understand these patterns, we build an overlapping-generations model where individuals face uninsurable income risk and make consumption-saving and housing tenure decisions. We embed an explicit intergenerational link between children and parents to capture the three-way trade-off between owning, renting, and co-residing. Calibrating the model to Germany we explore the role of income profiles, housing policies, and the taste for independence and show that a combination of these factors goes a long way in explaining the differential life-cycle patterns of living arrangements between the two countries.

This article analyses the interaction between two policy areas affecting young people in England – housing and student funding. It is the first of its kind exploring a range of dynamics in the relationship between housing and student loan debt. Young people today are far less likely to own their home and are more likely to live with their parents than earlier generations. In parallel, higher education tuition fee increases have led to a growing share of students taking out loans and graduating with higher debt, which they will be repaying for most of their working lives. This research examines the relationship between student loans – having borrowed for higher education and attitudes towards debt – and housing tenure at age 25, using the Next Steps dataset. We find that young graduates who did not borrow for higher education are more likely to own their home and less likely to rent or live with their parents than graduates who borrowed for their studies or young people who never attended higher education. These results suggest that higher education funding policies and student loan debt play important roles in structuring young people’s housing in England.

In this article, we analyse the social distribution of residential property in Norway post-1945 in light of the concept of social citizenship. Drawing on data from censuses and tax registers, we examine the social stratification of owner-occupation and housing wealth in a Nordic nation of homeowners. Our study shows that residential property and housing wealth is very unevenly distributed, and that the share of low-income homeowners decreased markedly after 1990. The implications of these findings are discussed with reference to three different conceptions of citizenship: the socio-liberal, the republican and the libertarian. Our main argument is that the falling rate of low-income owner-occupation constitutes an erosion of social citizenship viewed from the socio-liberal and republican conception of citizenship. This follows from theoretical arguments and empirical studies linking homeownership to positive welfare outcomes, such as civic engagement and social integration. The latter is arguably particularly true in some high-homeownership countries, such as Norway, where owner-occupation is the cultural norm and rental housing is associated with low quality and insecurity.

Comparative welfare and production regime literature has so far neglected the considerable cross-country differences in the sphere of housing. The United States became a country of homeowners living in cities of single-family houses in the twentieth century. Its housing policy was focused on supporting private mortgage indebtedness with only residual public housing. Germany, on the contrary, remained a tenant-dominated country with cities of multi-unit buildings. Its housing policy has been focused on construction subsidies to non-profit housing associations and incentives for savings earmarked for financing housing. The article claims that these differences are the outcome of different housing institutions that had already emerged in the nineteenth century. Germany developed non-profit housing associations and financed housing through mortgage banks, both privileging the construction of rental apartments. In the United States, savings and loan associations favored mortgages for owner-occupied, single-family house construction. When governments intervened during housing crises in the 1920/1930s, they aimed their subsidies at these existing institutions. Thus, US housing policy became finance-biased in favor of savings and loan associations, while Germany supported the housing cooperatives.

Although several targeted welfare programs across the world have made owner-occupied housing exempt from the means test, relatively little is known about the impact of such exemption on portfolio choice and consumption. We study the Australian age pension scheme and argue that current uncapped exemption may lead to distortionary incentives for high levels of housing wealth to be sheltered from the means test. We set up a life-cycle model with explicit housing choice and borrowing constraints to match some key features of the Australian economy. We find that abolishing the exemption of owner-occupied housing in the assets test increases aggregate output, capital accumulation, and welfare, but decreases housing investment and homeownership. However, removing such distortions does not necessarily imply that all households would be better off. Lowering taxes to maintain fiscal balance would result in wealthy households experiencing a large welfare loss, whereas the majority of the population would benefit.

The previous administration introduced several measures to prevent mortgage possessions, some of which were modestly effective. However, these hastily introduced initiatives were insufficient to bridge the gap between a fragmented policy framework and borrowers’ circumstances and experiences of managing mortgage debt. The present restructuring of welfare and regulation represents a unique window to address these long-standing policy omissions in relation to sustainable homeownership in the UK. However, in the context of weakening state support, it is uncertain how or indeed whether, the opportunity to reform mortgage safety nets will be grasped. This article reflects upon the continuing misalignment of policy with borrowers’ circumstances and experiences of mortgage arrears using new evidence from this downturn.

This paper constructs a quantitative general equilibrium life-cycle model with uninsurable labor income to account for the differences in wealth accumulation and homeownership between Korea and the United States. The model incorporates different structures in the housing market in the two countries, namely, the mortgage market and the rental arrangements. The results from the calibrated model quantitatively explain some empirical findings in the aggregate and life-cycle profiles of wealth and homeownership. Quantitative policy experiments show that the mortgage market alone can account for more than 40% of the differences in the aggregate homeownership ratios. When coupled with the rental arrangements, both institutions can account for approximately 52% of the differences in the cross-country homeownership ratios.