Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T10:28:21.700Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Redesigning Housing Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Kate Barker*
Affiliation:
Taylor Wimpey plc; Man Group plc.

Executive summary

Discussion of the UK's housing crisis is of long date, and tends to focus on a simple story about a mismatch in housing supply and demand and the consequent need to build more homes. Yet the reality is more complex with multiple sub-plots including social housing, stress in the private rented sector, benefits, subsidies and ultimately taxation of home ownership.

At the bottom of the market, the crisis is real and acute, as manifested in a sharp increase in homelessness and rough sleeping. The inescapable answer is to increase the depleted stock of social housing and widen eligibility criteria. An increase of 100,000 social units a year in England would help address this problem, as well as alleviate the financial squeeze on tenants of the private rented sector, whose number has grown sharply in the past 15 years in tandem with a steep rise in the housing benefit bill. Recent efforts to curb housing benefit have further increased distress, so it will be necessary to consider increasing benefits again alongside regulatory interventions with private landlords.

In the home ownership market, recent government intervention has taken the form of the much-criticised Help-to-Buy Equity Loan scheme. This market policy to support new-build homes should be wound down and replaced by a scheme to endow all young people with a capital sum that they could use for second-hand homes as well. More generally, a more sophisticated approach to planning home-building is needed, both for assessing overall numbers and their regional distribution and in financing the supporting infrastructure.

But none of these measures is a panacea for a housing crisis that is in large part a symptom of problems in the wider economy, such as low relative wages for young people, a lack of clarity about environmental issues, and failing places. A successful policy package to address the distorted structure of the housing market must also grasp the most difficult nettle of all – namely the way the tax benefits of owner-occupation incentivise overconsumption of housing and a widening wealth gap between renters and home owners, and between owners in different parts of the country. If we spend more to help those who struggle to afford decent housing, then it is only just to raise more taxation from those who benefit from restrictions on housing supply – whether through reform to council tax, a wider wealth tax or a limited form of Capital Gains Tax on principal residences.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

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.)

Footnotes

This paper has benefited from significant and substantive comments from Paul Cheshire (LSE). Disclaimer: The views, judgements and policy proposals expressed in this chapter are those of the author, but not necessarily those of the critical commentator, Gatehouse Advisory Partners, Llewellyn Consulting, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

References

Affordable Housing Commission (2019), Defining and Measuring Housing Affordability – an alternative approach, June.Google Scholar
Aubrey, T. (2018), ‘How land reform can help deliver the government target of 300,000 homes a year’, Centre for Progressive Policy.Google Scholar
Bangham, G. (2019), Game of Homes: The Rise of Multiple Property Ownership in the UK, Resolution Foundation, June.Google Scholar
Barker, K. (2015), ‘How many houses should we plan for?’, Journal of Planning and Environment Law, Occasional Papers No. 43.Google Scholar
Bayoumi, T. and Barkema, J. (2019), Stranded! How Rising Inequality Suppressed US Migration and Hurt Those ‘Left Behind’, IMF WP/19/122, June.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bramley, G. (2018), Housing Supply Requirements across Great Britain: for low-income households and homeless people, London: Crisis and National Housing Federation.Google Scholar
Cheshire, P.et al. (2014), Urban Economics and Urban Policy, Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D. (2017), ‘Universal basic services are more important than income’, Financial Times, 4 April.Google Scholar
Hall, P. (1973), The Containment of Urban England, George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Hliber, C. and Vermeulen, W. (2014), ‘The impact of supply constraints on house prices in England’, Economic Journal, March.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, L. (2019), Moving Matters: housing costs and labour market mobility, Resolution Foundation, June.Google Scholar
Kynaston, D. (2007), Austerity Britain 1945–51, Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Martin, R.et al. (2016), ‘Spatially rebalancing the UK economy: towards a new policy model, Regional Studies, 50, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meen, G. (2018), How Should Housing Affordability be Measured? UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence.Google Scholar
National Infrastructure Commission (2018), National Infrastructure Assessment.Google Scholar
Tunstall, R. (2015), ‘Relative housing space inequality in England and Wales, and its recent rapid resurgence’, International Journal of Housing Policy, 15, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar