A note of concept-decomposing on housing regime: for Housing Studies students
Highlight 6 main ideas on Jim Kemeny's concept of the
housing regime and describe 2 main claims of it in terms of Toulmin's model of
arguments
Jim Kemeny's housing regime
concept analyzes housing systems through their rental market structures and
links to broader welfare and power dynamics. It contrasts dualist and unitary
models to explain divergent housing policies across nations.
Main Ideas
·
Housing regimes form the social, political, and economic systems
governing housing supply, distribution, and consumption in a specific period
and place.
·
Key distinction lies in rental markets: dualist regimes separate
profit-driven private renting (unregulated) from subsidized non-profit renting
(heavily regulated), marginalizing the latter.
·
Unitary regimes integrate profit and non-profit renting under shared
regulations, allowing competition that makes renting viable across income
levels.
·
Regimes emerge from power balances in corporatist
systems—employer-union-government negotiations—shaping policy paths toward
homeownership dominance or rental strength.
·
Housing embeds deeply in welfare regimes as a "fourth pillar,"
where non-decisions favoring ownership reinforce privatist cultures, while
strong renting supports decommodification.
·
Divergence, not convergence, characterizes regimes; they are strategic
social constructions influenced by historical trajectories like subsidy
maturation in non-profit sectors.
Toulmin Claims
Claim 1: Dualist Regimes
Promote Homeownership Dominance
·
Claim:
Societies with dualist rental markets foster homeownership over competitive
renting.
·
Grounds: Profit renting remains unregulated while non-profit is residualized as
"poorhouse" housing for the marginalized.
·
Warrant: This separation stems from liberal policies prioritizing markets,
insulating sectors and weakening rental alternatives.
Claim 2: Corporatism Drives
Unitary Regimes
·
Claim:
Corporatist power balances produce unitary rental markets competitive with
ownership.
·
Grounds: Non-profit sectors influence, lead, or dominate under shared rules,
retaining middle-class tenants (e.g., Germany, Sweden).
·
Warrant: Tripartite negotiations enable subsidy retention and market
integration, countering ownership bias.
Try to illustrate the 6 ideas with reference to the
Housing Studies research theme of "An analysis of the housing regime of
Hong Kong, notably on the governance of its housing supply over the past 20
years".
Hong
Kong's housing regime over the past 20 years (2006–2026) exemplifies a dualist
structure dominated by private market forces and public rental residualization,
amid chronic supply shortages and governance challenges like land auctions and
developer influence. This aligns with Kemeny's framework, promoting
homeownership aspirations while marginalizing rental options.
Idea 1:
Housing Regimes as Systems
Hong
Kong's regime integrates governance via land sales auctions (generating major
revenue), public rental housing (PRH) for ~30% of population, and private
developer-led supply. Over 20 years, policies like Long Term Housing Strategy
(LTHS, 2014) targeted 440,000 units (2025/26–2034/35) with 70:30 public-private
split, but chronic shortfalls persist due to land scarcity.
Idea 2: Dualist Rental Markets
Private
profit renting thrives unregulated, while PRH is heavily
subsidized/residualized for low-income (waiting time ~5.3–6 years, 116,400
applicants). Subdivided units (SDUs, ~100,900 units housing 226,300 people)
serve as unregulated "poorhouse" for overflow, with recent tenancy
controls (2022) and Basic Housing Units regime (2026) attempting regulation without
integration.
Idea 3: Unitary Rental Markets
No
unitary model in Hong Kong; PRH/non-profit remains segregated from private
market, lacking shared regulations for competition. Private sector dominates
(~1.66M units), with small "nano-flats" rising (3.6% of 2017–2021
completions), blocking middle-class rental viability.
Idea
4: Power Balances in Corporatism
Absent
tripartite corporatism; governance relies on bureaucratic decisions and
developer lobbying ("land monopoly") rather than employer-union
negotiations. Policies like Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) suspensions (e.g.,
2003–2014) and LTHS reflect state-private alliances favoring ownership
subsidies over rental strength.
Idea
5: Embedding in Welfare Regimes
Housing
as "fourth pillar" is privatized; high home purchase affordability
index (74% in 2021) and falling ownership (48.6% in 2021 from 52.1% in 2011)
show ownership bias, with PRH as welfare safety net amid inequality. Supply
volatility (e.g., 173,900 completions 2017–2021 but PRH decline) reinforces commodification.
Idea
6: Divergence and Historical Trajectories
Regime
diverges toward liberal dualism, not converging to unitary; post-2003 HOS halt
and 70:30 split prioritized private supply, entrenching developer dominance
despite efforts like Northern Metropolis. 20-year governance shows
"non-decisions" like land auction reliance perpetuating shortages.
References
Kemeny, J. (2006) 'Corporatism and housing regimes', Housing, Theory and Society, 23(1), pp. 1–16.
doi:10.1080/14036090500476543.
Forrest, R. and Murie, A.
(1990) Selling the welfare state: The privatisation of council housing, London: Routledge.
Note:
These are core theoretical works; for Hong Kong-specific, see Chan, E.Y.Y. and Chan,
J.K.L. (2004) 'From intervention to privatization: The changing public housing
policy in Hong Kong', International Journal of
Construction Management, 4(1), pp. 57–73.
e-resource support: https://www.perplexity.ai/
No comments:
Post a Comment