Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:45:15.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From need to choice, welfarism to advanced liberalism? Problematics of social housing allocation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Dave Cowan  and
Alex Marsh
Dave Cowan
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Alex Marsh
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on studies in governmentality, this paper considers the ways in which the selection and allocation of households for social housing have been conceptualised and treated as problematic. The paper urgues that the notion of ‘need’ emerged relatively slowly over the course of the twentieth century as the organising criterion of social housing. Yet ‘need’ became established as a powerful tool used to place those seeking social housing in hierarchies, and around which considerable expertise developed. While the principle of allocation on the basis of need has come to occupy a hegemonic position, it has operated it continual tension with competing criteria based on notions of suitability. As a consequence, this paper identifies risk management as a recurrent theme of housing management practices. By the 1960s need-based allocation was proving problematic in terms of who was being prioritised; it was also unuble to resist the challenge ofdeviant behaviour by tenunts and the apparent unpopularity of the social rented sector. We argue that the tramition to advanced liberalism prefaced a shift to new forms of letting accommodation bused on household choice, which have been portrayed as addressing core problems with the bureaucratically-driven system. We conclude by reflecting on the tensions inherent in seeking to foster choice, while continuing to adhere to the notion of need.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 22 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. G Deleuze ‘The rise of the social’ at p xvii, foreword to J Donzelot The Policing of Families (trans R Hurley) (London: Hutchinson, 1979).

2. Although governmentality studies are not evaluative, the identification of failure, linked to attempts to devise or propose programmes to govern better, is a central element in such analyses: P Miller and N Rose ‘Governing economic life’ (1989) Economy and Society 1, 4.

3. Rose, N and Miller, P Political power beyond the state: problematics of government’ (1992) 43 British Journal of Sociology 173, l90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. (1992) 43 British Journal of Sociology 173, 191.

5. Cowan, for example, has posed the question, ‘what is social about social housing?’ - a question to which there it was suggested that there are no easy answers: D Cowan Housing Law and Policy (Basingstoke: MacMillan, 1999) ch 6. For those working within Foucauldian understandings, the ‘social’ is denoted as a ‘terrain’ of government (Rose and Miller, above n 3).

6. See N Rose Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge: CUP, 1999) (hereafter ‘Rose’) ch 3.

7. M Foucault ‘Governmentality’ in G Burchell, C Gordon and P Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).

8. The term ‘advanced liberal’ appears in Rose, above n 6, ch 4, to reflect a ‘new diagram of the relation between government, expertise and subjectivity’ built around economic lines and dependent on ‘the universal human faculty of choice’ (at p 141).

9. See eg Burchell, G, ‘Liberal government and techniques of the self’ (1993) 22 Economy and Society 267, 214–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. C Gordon ‘Governmental rationality: an introduction’ in G Burchell, C Gordon and P Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991) p 2.

11. Above n 7, at p 99.

12. Ewald, F Norms, discipline and the law’ (1990) 30 Representations 138, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. I Hacking ‘How should we do a history of statistics?’ in G Burchell, C Gordon and P Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).

14. Technologies of rule are the techniques of government, often mundane, through which governmental programmes are implemented - see Miller and Rose, above n 2, pp 183–184.

15. Miller and Rose, above n 2, p 179.

16. Rose, N Government, authority and expertise in advanced liberalism’ (1993) 22 Economy and Society 283, 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. See, for discussion, E Gauldie Cruel Habitations (London: Allen & Unwin, 1974) esp ch 8.

18. Rose at p 118;see also Walters' analysis of the factory legislation as mutating from the moral to the social during the nineteenth century: Unemployment and Government (Cambridge: CUP, 2000) pp 15–17.

19. Walters, above n 18, p 51.

20. See eg T Osborne ‘Security and vitality: drains liberalism and power in the nineteenth century’ in A Barry, N Rose and T Osborne (eds) Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government (London: UCL, 1996).

21. See Osborne, T and Rose, N, ‘Governing cities: notes on the spatialisation of virtue’ (1999) 17 Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 737, 745. The various publications on the state and condition of housing are key factors - ‘a long succession of works whose literary merit and statistical accuracy may have varied, but whose cumulative influence was considerable’: E Gauldie, above n 17, at p .CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. M Bowley, Housing and the State: 1919–1945 (London: Allen & Unwin, 1945) p 2.

23. See the dialogue between police inspectors responsible for lodging houses and the Commissioners: The Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, Vol II: Minutes of Evidence, C-4402–1(London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1885)pp 135–142.

24. Rose p 123.

25. Above n 23, p 297.

26. G Procacci, ‘Social economy and the government of poverty’ in G Burchell, C Gordon and P Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991) p 160.

27. The relationship between social housing and the welfare state is not symmetrical, and the histories differ significantly at different points. There is insufficient space in this article to discuss this (contested) relationship: see P Malpass ‘The wobbly pillar? Housing and the British postwar welfare state’ (2003) 32 JSP 589; P Malpass, ‘Fifty years of British housing policy: leaving or leading the welfare state?’, (2004) 4 European Journal of Housing Policy 209; cf I Cole and R Furbey The Eclipse of Council Housing (London: Routledge, 1994).

28. Rose and Miller, op cit n 3, at p 192.

29. Rose, N, ‘Government, authority and expertise in advanced liberalism’ (1993) 22 Economy and Society 283, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Above n 18, at 67.

31. W Beveridge, Social Insurunce and Allied Services (London: HMSO, 1944) pp 67.

32. Above n 31, at p 12.

33. A Power Property, before People: The Management of Twentieth Century Council Housing (London: Allen & Unwin, 1987) p 66.

34. Above n 18, p 76.

35. We take the term normative need from the influential discussion in J Bradshaw ‘The concept of social need’ (1972) 30 New Society 640. Bradshaw identifies four types of need: normative, felt, expressed and comparative.

36. See Cowan, D, Gilroy, R and Pantazis, C Risking housing need’ (1999) 26 JLS 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Spicker, Cf P Concepts of need in housing allocation’ (1987) 15 Policy and Politics 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. See E Laurie The Enduring Appeal of Reasonable Preference (Unpublished Phd thesis, University of Southampton, 2002).

39. Ministry of Health Housing (London: HMSO, 1920) p 2.

40. P Kemp and P Williams, ‘Housing management: an historical perspective’ in D Hughes and S Lowe (eds), A New Century for Municipal Housing (Leicester: University of Leicester Press, 1991) p 128.

41. Kemp and Williams, above n 40, p 129; see also J Burnett A Social History of Housing 1915–1985 (London: Methuen, 1986) p 238, who refers to social surveys of London County Council tenants which categorised tenants across their employment status and standing; A Holmans Housing Policy in Britain (London: Croom Helm, 1987) pp 175 et seq contains evidence about family incomes of these council tenants. This ‘disastrous and inequitable consequence’ was doubly so because ‘they got them … with the assistance of a subvention from the other members of the community’: Bowley, above n 22, p 130.

42. Burnett, above n 41, p 42.

43. Ministry of Health 11th Annual Report 1929–30 Cmd 3667 (London: HMSO, 1930).A differential rents scheme required better off households to pay more to subsidise those less well off.

44. Ministry of Health 12th Annual Report 1930–31 Cmd 3937 (London: HMSO, 1931) p 97.

45. Report ofthe Committee on Locul Expenditure (England and Wales), Cmd 4200 (London: HMSO, 1932).

46. Few local authorities had conducted surveys of their tenants' incomes by 1933 - those who had found that ‘a very small number of tenants were in a position to pay a higher rent’: Ministry of Health 14th Annual report 1932–1933, Cmd 4372 (London: HMSO, 1933.

47. At para 95.

48. Ministry of Health, 15th Annual Report 1933–1934 Cmd 4664 (London: HMSO, 1934) p 160.

49. Effected by alterations to the subsidy system introduced in the Housing Act 1930 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1933.

50. Ministry of Health, above n 48, p 161.

51. Holmans, above n 41, p 178.

52. S Schifferes ‘Council tenants and housing policy in the 1930s: the contradictions of’ state intervention’ in M Edwards, F Gray, S Merrett and J Swann (eds) Housing and Class in Britain (London: Russell Press, 1976) p 66.

53. Kemp and Williams, at p 130.

54. See eg the Tudor Walters Report, Cd 9191 (London: HMSO, 1918).

55. Section 24.

56. Ministry of Health The Management of Municipal Housing Estates Report of the House Management and Housing Associations Sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee (London: HMSO, 1938) p 10 (emphasis added).

57. Ibid, p 19, in the context of whether women should be employed by councils as housing managers as advocated by Hill.

58. Ibid, p 20.

59. F Gray ‘The management of local authority housing’, in M Edwards, F Gray, S Merrett and J Swann (eds) Housing and Class in Britain (London: Russell Press, 1976)p 84.

60. C Bedale ‘Property relations and housing policy: Oldham in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries’ in J Melling, Housing, Social Policy and the State (London: Croom Helm, 1980) p 67.

61. Donzelot, above n 1, p 40.

62. Above n 56, p 19.

63. S Darner ‘A note on housing allocation’ in M Edwards, F Gray, S Merrett and J Swann (eds) Housing and Class in Britain (London: Russell Press, 1976) p 73.

64. S Darner and R Madigan ‘The housing investigator’ (1974) New Society, 25 July, p 226.

65. J Macey and C Baker Housing Management (London: Estates Gazette, 1965) p 215, cited in Power, above n 33, p 97.

66. Third Report of the Housing Management Sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, Selection of Tenants and Transfers and Exchanges (London: HMSO, 1949) paras 7 and 15–24.

67. Ibid, para 32.

68. Ibid, paras 30–35.

69. Ibid, para 36.

70. Third Report, above n 66, paras 38–39.

71. Holmans, above n 41, p 181.

72. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Councils and their Houses: Management of Estates, Eighth report of the Housing Management Sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee (London: HMSO, 1959) para 7 (original emphasis).

73. Central Housing Advisory Committee, Council Housing: Purposes, Procedures, Priorities (London: HMSO, 1969) para 91.

74. Ibid, para 61.

75. Central Housing Advisory Committee, above n 73, p 196.

76. See Murie, A The social rented sector, housing and the welfare state in the Uk’ (1997) 12 Housing Studies 437, 449 for discussion.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77. See eg ch 9.

78. Smith, S and Mallinson, S, ‘The problem with social housing: discretion, accountability and the welfare ideal’, (1996) 24 Policy and Politics 339, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79. Cf R Sainsbury ‘Administrative justice: Discretion and procedure in social security decision-making’ in K Hawkins (ed) The Uses of Discretion (Oxford: OUP, 1989).

80. See the classic J Henderson and V Karn Race, Class and State Housing: Inequality and the Allocation of Public Housing in Britain (Aldershot: Cower, 1987).

81. S Smith The Politics of ‘Race’ and Residence (Cambridge: Polity, 1989) p 36.

82. Jeffers, S and Hoggett, P Like counting deckchairs on the Titanic: a study of institutional racism and housing allocations in Haringey and Lambeth’ (1995) 10 Housing Studies 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83. M Jones ‘Utopia and reality: the utopia of public housing and its reality at Broadwater Farm’ in N Teymur, T Markus and T Woolley (eds) Rehumanizing Housing (London: Butterworths, 1988) p 98.

84. See, in particular, Clapham, D and Kintrea, K, ‘Rationing, choice and constraint: the allocation of public housing in Glasgow’ (1986) 15 Journal of Social Policy 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

85. Pawson, H and Kintrea, K Part of the problem or part of the solution? Social housing allocation policies and social exclusion in Britain’ (2002) 31 Journal of Social Policy 643, 648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86. Although, see J Cullingworth Problems of an Urban Society, Vol 2: the Content of Planning (London: Allen & Unwin, 1973) p 51: ‘Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that local authorities, like sound business enterprises, tend to reject “poor risk” applicants: and, incredibly, social work departments often acquiesce in this.’.

87. F Gray, ‘Consumption: council house management’ in S Merrett State Housing in Britain (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979) p 207.

88. D Cowan, Homelessness:The (In-)Appropriate Applicant (Aldershot:Dartmouth, 1997).

89. See Cowan, D, Gilroy, R and Pantazis, C, ‘Risking housing need’ (1999) 26 JLS 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. Baker, T Insuring morality’ (2000) 29 Economy and Society 559, 570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91. The classic study is Damer, S Wine Alley: the sociology of a dreadful enclosure’ (1974) 22 Sociological Review 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

92. See generally, A Bottoms and P Wiles, ‘Environmental criminology’, in R Morgan and R Reiner (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (Oxford: OUP, 1997).

93. A Bottoms and P Wiles, ‘Housing tenure and residential community crime careers in Britain’ in A Reiss and M Tonry (eds) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research - Communities and Crime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986) p 103.

94. Eg A Coleman Utopia on Trial: Vision and Reality in Planned Housing (London: Hilary Shipman, 1985).

95. See the discussion in I Cole and R Furbey The Eclipse of Council Housing (London: Routledge, 1994) pp 213–215.

96. L Johnston and C Shearing, Governing Security: Explorations in Policing and Justice (London: Routledge, 2003) p 70.

97. Rose p 139.

98. Rose p 84.

99. Rose p 150.

100. The shift, in other words, is from ‘socialized actuarialism to privatised actuarialism’, a new prudentialism - see O'Malley, P Risk, power and crime prevention’ (1992) 21 Economy and Society 252, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

101. See Garland, D The limits of the sovereign state: strategies of crime control in contemporary society’ (1996) 36 BJC 445.Google Scholar

102. For discussion, see Valverde, M Despotism” and ethical liberal governance’ (1996) 25 Economy and Society 357; M Dean ‘Liberal government and authoritarianism’ (2002) 31 Economy and Society 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

103. K Stenson ‘Crime control, governmentality and sovereignty’ in R Smandych (ed) Governable Places: Reudings on Governmentality and Crime Control (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1999).

104. Franklin, B and Clapham, D The social construction of housing management’ (1997) 12 Housing Studies 7, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

105. See O'Malley, P Violent and contradictory punishment’ (1999) 3 Theoretical Criminology 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

106. See Audit Commission Managing the Crisis in Council Housing (London: HMSO, 1986); Centre for Housing Research The Nature and Effectiveness of Housing Management in England (London: HMSO, 1989); W Bines, P Kemp, N Pleace and C Radley Managing Social Housing (London: HMSO, 1993).

107. See M Power, The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification (Oxford: OUP, 1997).

108. See E Ferlie, L Ashburner, L Fitzgerald and A Pettigrew, The New Public Management in Action (Oxford: OUP, 1996) and its translation in the housing context in R Walker ‘New public management and housing associations: from comfort to competition’ (1998) 26 Policy and Politics 71; R Walker ‘The changing management of social housing: The impact of externalisation and managerialisation’ (2000) 15 Housing Studies 281.

109. The notion of a social housing product was first mooted in DoE, More Choice in the Social Rented Sector (London: DoE, 1995); although used subsequently, the term was only partially adopted.

110. O'Malley, P and Palmer, D, ‘Post-Keynesian policing’, (1996) 25 Economy and Society 137, 141.Google Scholar

111. M Dean Governmentality Powers of Rule in Modern Society (London: Sage, 1999)p 169.

112. M Griffiths, J Parker, R Smith, T Stirling and T Trott Community Lettings: Local Allocations Policies in Practice (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1996) p 1.

113. Rose, N, ‘Government and control’, (2000) 40 BJC 321, 331.Google Scholar

114. These types of expertise are the direct result of the work of academics and social scientists - eg A Power Property before People (London: Allen & Unwin, 1987); D Page Building for Communities (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1993); A Coleman Utopia on Trial: Vision and Reality in Planned Housing (London: Hilary Shipman, 1985). Cf A Murie ‘The social rented sector, housing and the welfare state in the UK’ (1997) 22 Housing Studies 437, who argues (at 438) that these accounts ‘fail[] to identify and order other contingent and contextual factors and, because of this, to address which factors have been most significant’.

115. See W Walters Unemployment and government: Genealogies of the Social (Cambridge: CUP, 2000) ch 6.

116. See Hill, M, Dillane, J, Bannister, J and Scott, S, ‘Everybody needs good neighbours: an evaluation of an intensive project for families facing eviction’ (2002) 7 Child and Family Social Work 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

117. DoE Anti-Social Behaviour on Council Estates: A Consultation Paper on Probationaty Tenancies (London: DOE, 1995.

118. Discussed in Cowan, D and Marsh, A New Labour, same old Tory housing policy’ (2001) 64 MLR 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

119. See generally the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.

120. See D Cowan and S Halliday with C Hunter, P Maginn and L Naylor The Appeal of Internal Review (Oxford: Hart, 2003) ch 3.

121. Johnston and Shearing, above n 96, p 108 (original emphasis).

122. Hunter, C and Nixon, J Taking the blame and losing the home: women and antisocial behaviour’ (2001) 23 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

123. See DETR/DSS Qualiiy and Choice: A Decent Home for All—The housing green paper (London: DETWDSS, 2000); cf J Kullberg, ‘Consumers’ responses to choicebased letting mechanisms' (2002) 17 Housing Studies 549.

124. See A Marsh, D Cowan, A Cameron, M Jones, C Kiddle and C Whitehead Piloting Choice Based Lettings: An Evaluation (London: ODPM, 2004).

125. Rose p 87.

126. DETR/DSS, above n 123, para 9.6. In the subsequent White Paper, these claims were modified to the belief that choice will’ help to create sustainablecommunities' and would enable ‘better use of the national housing stock’: DETR Quality and Choice: A Decent Homefor All, The Way Forward for Housing (London: DETR, 2001) para 6.4.

127. Above n 123, at para 9.16.

128. See the Homelessness Act 2002 and the Code of Guidance, ODPM, Allocation of Accommodation: Code of Guidance for Local Housing Authorities (London: ODPM, 2002).

129. Above n 123, para 9.33.

130. Pawson and Kintrea, above n 85, p 661.

131. See Eg J Cullingworth Problems of an Urban Society, Vol2:the Content of Planning (London: Allen & Unwin, 1973) p 54, referring to LAC 41/67 in which the Ministry of Housing and Local Government suggested that tenants should’ sofar as possible be offered a choice of accommodation at varying rent levels'.

132. D Page, above n 114; cf I Cole, G Gidley, C Ritchie, D Simpson and B Wishart, Creating Communities or Welfare Housing? A Study of New Housing Association Developments in Yorkshire and Humberside (Coventry: CIH, 1996).

133. The Green Paper, above n 123, para 9.29, acknowledged this interaction: ‘Labels could therefore be used to impose restrictions on access to a property under a local lettings policy, for example in order to correct a significant social imbalance such as an excessive child density on certain estates.’.

134. Loveland, I, ‘Square pegs, round holes: the “right” to council housing in the postwar era’ (1992) 19 JLS 339, 345–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

135. Fitzpatrick, P, ‘Governmentality and the force of law’ [2000] European Yearbook in rhe Sociology of Law 3, p 17.Google Scholar

136. [20002] HLR (57) 998.

137. [2002] HLR (57) 998, para 38.

138. Cowan, D and Marsh, A From need to choice’ (2004) 67 MLR 478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

139. Marsh et al, above n 124, para 15.33.