Skip to content

A perennial problem? On underoccupation in English council housing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-19
Number of pages19
JournalHousing Studies
Early online date2 Jul 2018
DOIs
DateAccepted/In press - 4 Jun 2018
DateE-pub ahead of print (current) - 2 Jul 2018

Abstract

Addressing the issue of underoccupation has been a prominent feature in English social housing policy since the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government was formed in 2010. A key move under the Coalition’s welfare reform agenda was the implementation of the underoccupancy penalty—the so-called ‘bedroom tax’—from April 2013. However, while this policy triggered high-profile protests, it does not represent a novel policy preoccupation. Variations on the theme have recurred in housing policy debates almost since the advent of council housing. This paper adopts a long-term perspective and presents a sociological institutionalist analysis which focuses on the mechanisms through which underoccupation has been governed. Drawing on a range of archival material, we argue that the government of underoccupation has undergone revealing transformations over the period since 1929. Not only does the broader policy context—understandings of the purpose of social housing and the role it fulfils in the housing market—differ over time, but, at the more detailed level of policy instruments, the mechanisms proposed to address underoccupation differ in ways that can be explained in terms of prevailing policy logics and institutional structures. Most significantly, the nature of the underoccupation problem has been framed differently: the rationales offered as justification for policy action draw on very different vocabularies, in ways that allow us to trace the influence of more fundamental shifts in policy discourse into the domain of housing policy.

    Research areas

  • bedroom tax, governance, institutionalism, policy instruments, Underoccupation

Documents

Documents

  • Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)

    Rights statement: This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Taylor & Francis at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02673037.2018.1487928. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Accepted author manuscript, 352 KB, PDF document

DOI

View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups