IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/chosxx/v36y2021i1p46-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of markets in housing policy: a comparative analysis of housing subsidy programs

Author

Listed:
  • Gregg Colburn

Abstract

Many countries use demand-side housing subsidies to support low-income households. Unlike public or social housing programs, demand-side subsidies require recipients to enter the private market to use their benefits. The focus of this study is the experiences of assisted households in the private housing market and the outcomes they achieve. Given the link between policy design and program outcomes and because all housing subsidy programs are not created equal, one might expect the experiences and outcomes of recipients to also vary. To examine this relationship, using data from national housing surveys, this study analyzes cross-national variation in housing support programs and compares the housing and neighbourhood outcomes of subsidized households in the US, the UK, and the Netherlands. The findings of this study highlight that market context and policy design are associated with housing outcomes. In particular, the strong tenant supports and favourable design of housing assistance in the Netherlands is associated with favourable outcomes for subsidized households. In the US and the UK, subsidized households, in general, underperform their unsubsidized peers. This article underscores the importance of institutional context and program design when public assistance programs require recipients to enter the private market to use a benefit.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregg Colburn, 2021. "The use of markets in housing policy: a comparative analysis of housing subsidy programs," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 46-79, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:chosxx:v:36:y:2021:i:1:p:46-79
    DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2019.1686129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02673037.2019.1686129
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02673037.2019.1686129?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:chosxx:v:36:y:2021:i:1:p:46-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/chos20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.