Peter Malpass

This paper is a contribution to the debate about the utility of path dependence in housing. The particular focus of this paper is the problem of how to distinguish between continuity and change, and how to reconcile the idea of path dependence, as a theory of continuity, with observable change over time. Path dependence is an attractive concept in relation to housing policy where there is clear evidence of continuity over time. Equally, however, housing policies and housing systems do change, often slowly, in small, gradual and incremental ways, not usually in dramatic transformations at a given point in time. This paper reflects on these questions, drawing on the existing literature and historical evidence from the UK. It is clear both that the UK pursued a path of municipal housing provision for 60 years after 1919, and that it is now on a different path, which had previously appeared to be ruled out. What can the transition from one to the other tell us about the utility of the notion of path dependence?

This paper begins by considering the series of reviews of aspects of housing policy carried out by the Westminster government between 2004 and 2007. It then moves on to describe and evaluate the legislative changes derived from those reviews in the form of the Housing and Regeneration Act, 2008. Responsibility for funding social housing was separated from the regulatory role, after more than 30 years during which they had been combined within the Housing Corporation. The changes were intended to introduce and promote a new culture, on the one hand encouraging wider involvement of private, profit-seeking organisations in the production and management of social housing. On the other hand, the expressed intention was to develop a more consumer oriented approach to the regulation of social housing. The paper concludes by asking whether the Act marks a new era for social housing in England.

This article starts from the observation that policy making is a relatively neglected area of research in housing studies, and argues that past events

This paper is concerned with the question of how to depict the housing-welfare state relationship, with special reference to the present period. It begins with a discussion of how housing can be seen as both the wobbly pillar under the welfare state and a cornerstone. The paper then examines two different perspectives, variously giving explanatory weight to economic and cultural factors. The first, derived from the work of Michael Harloe, provides an explanation of the tendency of social housing to move towards a residual role, but has nothing to say about the growing significance of housing markets and housing wealth in relation to the contemporary welfare state. The second, originated by Jim Kemeny, is based on international correlations of homeownership rates and levels of welfare state expenditure. It is argued that this approach has limited, and diminishing, relevance in the context of the early 21st century. The paper suggests that in the present period housing, especially the housing wealth of owner occupiers, provides governments with the opportunity to pursue welfare restructuring. This idea is explored by reference to evidence from Great Britain, a country with a high level of homeownership and an active programme of public service reform.

The image of housing as the wobbly pillar under the welfare state has been widely used in recent years, and is clearly an attractive metaphor in the present period as residualisation deepens and privatisation continues. However, this paper is concerned with the early years of the postwar welfare state, when conditions for a securely founded housing service were, arguably, more conducive than they are today. Accordingly the paper focuses on policy work in the 1940s, drawing on new research on Public Record Office files, to reveal the amount of wartime planning within Whitehall for postwar housing policy, and the extent of continuity between the pre and post 1945 periods. It is shown that under the wartime coalition government there was considerably more planning for housing after the war than is acknowledged in the existing literature, and that this work shaped policy under the Labour government of 1945–51. Housing emerged as the wobbly pillar under the welfare state because of the amount of detailed wartime planning and Labour's acceptance of its analysis and prescriptions. Whereas most accounts concentrate on the size of the late 1940s building programme (and judge the government accordingly), the argument here is that to understand how housing emerged as the wobbly pillar it is necessary to look beyond quantity to the question of why a self-proclaimed socialist government failed to challenge the market dominance of housing provision.

The starting point for this article is the observation that planning for post-war housing policy has been a neglected area of study, especially in comparison with the attention given to housing during the First World War. Drawing on research in the official files, the article shows that planning for housing after the war began as early as 1941, and that a detailed and ambitious policy was in place well before the end of the war. Commitment to a very large housing programme was underpinned by the intention to use the construction industry as a way of absorbing labour and pursuing full employment. The main questions addressed by officials and ministers concerned the number of houses to be built and the agencies to be employed to build them. It became established policy that the local authorities would play a major role in the transitional period, but that, in the longer run, the majority of new building would be left to the private sector, with the local authorities reverting to their pre-war role concentrating on slum clearance and provision for the least well off. It is concluded that in terms of the quantity and quality of houses to be built the housing policy of the coalition government was more radical and ambitious than is generally recognized. But it was highly conservative in terms of its stance on systemic reform.