Suchergebnisse

Comparative studies of social policy in general, and housing is no exception, are always fraught with difficulties. There are very few attempts which entirely manage to escape both of the major traps. On the one hand is the danger of drifting into an abstract empiricism which can end up concentrating on such factors as the details of subsidy systems or the precise percentages of income which people pay for housing in various countries. At best this becomes numbingly boring and at worst (for example where payment or subsidy figures are described in local currency terms without indicating exchange rates) incomprehensible.

Although local authorities in Britain set great store by 'housing lists' it is well known that these lists are inadequate in many ways, and they only provide a very imperfect measure of housing need. For instance housing lists may exaggerate the real demand for public housing because they will include some people who have no immediate desire for accommodation – and indeed some with no real intention of ever occupying council property, but who are merely using the list as an 'insurance policy'. This is particularly likely to occur in a city like Hull which maintains an 'open' list that is one to which entry is not restricted by income, existing tenure, residence or other limitations.
Also, housing lists may underestimate the needs of some even though the needs of others are inflated. Clearly those local authorities who refuse places on the list to single people below retirement age, working couples without children, and owner-occupiers may be excluding many with genuine housing needs. Even local authorities like Hull with open lists must assess which proportion of the people in need do actually apply for council accommodation.