Long Term Consequences Of Residualisation Social Policy Essay

Long Term Consequences Of Residualisation Social indemnity tasteFor those in need of hold in the UK, many low-income and discriminate lot and families film turned to the political science for assistance in the form of in the strongity eye(predicate) lodging. However, at that place has been any number of ch on the wholeenges in charge of providing the right measuring and, most importantly, caliber of overt lodging to meet the unavoidably of different UK communities. In the Thatcher era of the eighties, the presidency decided that quietusisation of council hold would be the crush solution, in that respectby shifting the responsibility to go forth needs and services by from the res macrocosma and onto the individual and family.In order to further frameigate the causes and semipermanent consequences of the residualisation insurance form _or_ organisation of government of the 1980s, the context for council caparison leave alone initiatory be examined in o rder to shoot down the stairsstand the need for this type of public lodging, including its sociable novelspaper and why a shift toward residualisation occurred. It is too important to examine whatsoever of the economic, political, and accessible forces that may have withal lead to this shift, including globoseisation and industrialisation, the youthful anti- raise ideology of Thatcherism, the policies that were drawd during this time such as the caparison Act 1980, and the increment problems in spite of appearance the UK that led to the reliance on council accommodate.Lastly, in spirit at the long-term consequences of residualisation, it would seem that this shift only led to greater problems alternatively than solutions. Various consequences result be explored, including the increase in poor house business, neighbourhood im eternal rest, greater in alludeity between the classes, and the poor perception of council admit. However, unrivaled long-term conseque nce that screw be seen as positive is the boilersuit increase in planetary house ownership during the 1980s and beyond, which has provided a new way for many individuals and families to free-base a cave in economic stature.The condition for ResidualisationIn order to founder understand the causes of residualisation, it is important to first secure the context for this shift. At one time, the public house sphere was the instantaneous growing aspect of the UK house system and was favoured by the Labour organization as a way to house individuals and families afterwards realism war II. In 1945, Aneurin Bevam, the Minister of Health, told the House of CommonsWe shall ask the local anaesthetic authorities to be the main instruments for the housing programme. It is a principle of the first importance that the local authorities must be looked as the organizations and the bloodline for the building of the main bulk of the housing programme. The local authorities be admirabl e suite for this purpose. (House of Commons 1945 1).This was seen as a way to better service everyone inside parliamentary law and create a more(prenominal) than equal playing field between classes. It was seen as a way of housing figure outing people, disregardless of their income, and on that point was no stigma of failure machine-accessible to those that did choose this option during its early geezerhood (Cowan and Maclennan 2008 11). Council housing was viewed as an investing structure that would allow the UK to offer affordable housing, and this system was found to be capable of sustaining new building programmes on cost balanced rents, salubrious within the affordability of people on average incomes (Ready 2007 2).In analysing council housing during this period, the tactual sensation was that the emphasis was on breaking down the barriers and distinctions between groups in lodge, chess opening up public services to all on the basis of need, without investigating of ability to pay (Malpass, 1990 74). This time period was known as eudaemonia Capitalism, focusing on the common good and e part through the nurture of public services and social protection (Scanlon and Whitehead 2008 17). The term, working classes was plane removed from the 1949 housing Act as a way to establish council housing as a new miscellaneous community that skint new ground on removing the class and income barriers that had previously existed. This meant higher flavor standards for council housing, thereby producing a positive viewpoint on council housing up until the 1980s.At that point, there was a definitive shift in how council housing was viewed with a rapidly depleted housing stock that only offered small-scale flats for the neediest groups. The public housing area stock essentially headed at 6.5 million in 1979 further, by December 1986, the figure had fallen to under 5.9 million (CIPFA, 1986 1). As of 2007, the council housing stock has fallen to 3.8 mi llion ( house and addiction Working mathematical group 2008 14). Figure 1.1 also shows the decline in council housing from a peak of 31.7 per cent in the late 1970s to 26.7 per cent in 1986, illustrating how the residualisation form _or_ system of government altered the availability of quality council housing. The latter partition testament discuss the causes of the decline of council housing.Causes Shifting Policies, Political Ideologies, and EconomicsIn the early 1970s, Titmuss linked the residual model of social welfare to the whim and beliefs of right-wing economists, such as Hayek, Friedman, and followers of the Institute of Economic Affairs, who were to reach so influential with the government a decade later (For comfort and Williams, 1984 1165). The residual model of social welfare is based on the view that the grocery place and the family should be the main provider of all needs and services.This was part of the Post-Industrial perspective, which was a reaction by the Governments after the 1970s because they feared that they would be unable to deal their national economies in the face of globalisation (Scanlon and Whitehead 2008 17). As such, the bow has a minimal role to play in direct provision, supply only for those who truly have proved that they cannot support themselves. This approach measures a persons welfare against their position in the beat back market so that the fix would be sure to only complement the market kind of than to grapple with it. GlobalisationWithin the realm of globalisation, the UK housing market has reach corporate into the global flow of financial markets where money moves freely and rapidly through countries and uses (Waters, 1995 64), changing how the country has viewed its housing stock. To participate in the global markets, the British economy was consequently restructured in an strain to better handle their labour markets, taxation policies and public expenditures in a way that would keep tighter tone down over what was doled out to its citizens in the form of public assistance.The result was then to reconsider where the country would invest its money in terms of programmes for public assistance, thereby shifting the focus away from council housing and onto investing in personal housing that could be financed through the global market system. The policy has shifted to right to buy in public rented housing, leading to a dearth of investment funds for public housing and influencing the stock transfer to housing associations that use clubby borrowing to stretch what public money is veritable (Forrest and Murie 1988 131).Political factorsWhen the conservative party won the 1979 general election, it considered that its housing policies, including the reform to Buy dodge that became part of the Housing Act 1980, had contributed to its electoral success, so the political movement was geared toward the concept of central office ownership for as many citizens as possible. This philosophy was inherent in the politics of the twenty dollar bill-four hours that was geared toward a capitalist approach to society in which there would be an expanded access to capital as rotarys beyond undecomposed what was supplied on a public assistance basis.The political movement during the Thatcher administration believed that the state would be freer to divine service the country become more competitive in terms of its industries and financial prowess if it no longer had to be lumbered with the alkali that is multiform in operating a welfare state. The British new respectables welfare policies absolve the Government of victorious any responsibility in terms of adhering to a authoritative standard of nutriment for all, thereby choosing to spread income from the poor to the rich (Smith 1995 189). This would mean that those that exist at the bottom of society must be disciplined and wrenched from its dependence on social welfare (Wheelan 1999 5). Hence, the idea of residualisation was led by the political forces during that time period. form _or_ system of government changesPolicy changes, including the slump to Buy scheme under the Housing Act 1980, were also one of the primary causes of residualisation. During this time, there was more of a concern near area novelty rather than public assistance (Stephens and Lynch 2005 6), so providing for home ownership was one way in which area renewal could take place without a study investment by the Government. Michael Heseltine set out specific objectives to increase the opportunities for home ownership, improve housing quality, provide greater value for money and more proceedingively use resources where the needs are more mischievous. The solutions were seen in privatising the housing market, which meant reducing the existence of council housing stock, restricting capital investments by local authorities, and changing the terms of tenants letting rights (Stephens et al., 2005 4).Those within council houses were then given the right to buy at a discount up to a maximum of 50 per cent after twenty years and would receive a mortgage from their local authority, taking away incentives for staying in council houses except for those that could not financially purchase a home or take out a mortgage (Stephens et al. 2005 4). As the figure below indicates, 1980-1984 sales of council homes exceeded new building by private developers, indicating that residualisation was well underway.Thatcher believed that establishing a Right to Buy programme that would replace the state- momentd council housing was a way to free many in society from what she sawing machine as the deadening grip of municipal landlordism and a way to create a new cadre of housing consumers (Houghton 2009 2). And, this plan did work outstandingly well for those that had the nitty-gritty to participate whilst the rest were left-hand(a) to compete for a diminishing pool of subsidised homes whilst the worst of the council homes-mostly those ugly block buildings of the mid-sixties and 1970s-were deserted or left to decay with no funding for renovation (Houghton 2009 2).Stock transferStock transfer was one of the primary slipway that residualisation was enacted because this policy severely reduced the council housing stock. Stock transfer had a much more significant impact than the Right to Buy policy with the government permitting the transfer of some 200,000 council houses per annum under stock as compared to 50,000 Right to Buy sales in 1999 (Stone 2003 10).During this time, there were numerous measures that facilitated the transfer of the public stock to alternative landlords through the Tenants Choice and Housing Action Trust. The large-scale Voluntary Stock Transfer (LSVT) also played a bring out role in which LSVTs were involved the sale of the local authoritys entire stock of rented houses and the transfer of its staff to a newly-formed housing association set up for the purpose (St one 2003 11). By April 1997, 54 councils had divested themselves of their housing stock via an LSVT, leading to more than one quarter of a million homes being transferred (Stone 2003 11). Overall, it has been estimated that this aspect of residualisation led to over fifty per cent growth in the owner-occupied sector (Stone 2003 11).Long-Term Consequences of ResidualisationDue to these various factors, the causes of residualisation have led to some long-term consequences. Some of these consequences relate to what is now viewed as persistent market unbalance in terms of housing prices since the low-cost rented sector that was at its peak before the residualisation process of the 1980s has now all but disappeared whilst there has also been more significant changes in the UKs social structure as mentioned below (Ready 2007 4).Depletion of quality housing stock and homelessnessThe Right to Buy scheme and the large-scale stock transfer to housing associations meant that most of the qualit y housing was now sold, leaving available council housing for the needy that was in disrepair and in desperate need of modernisation (Cantle, 1986 58). The prices of available homes grew at a major faster pace than wages and there were very few rental options available (Cowans and Maclennan 2008 11). Despite the fact that most of the structures were built prior to origination War II and were traditionally constructed to a higher standard, the 1980s saw these structures begin to disintegrate with estimates of 19 billion to make repairs and modernise them (Cantle, 1986 61). Since the Government was unwilling or unable to make these repairs, the existing stock of council housing disintegrated further, further marring the reputation of council housing (Cantle, 1986 62).This depletion of council housing stock and the inability of certain groups to either qualify for what is available or wait on a list has led the numbers of homeless in the UK to rise, illustrating that the residualisati on process has created new problems rather than solving old ones (Smith 1995 196). Despite the increasing homelessness problem, the brisk Right in Britain continues to view increased public housing as a mean to continue creating dependency on a welfare state amongst the poor and unemployed (Smith 1995 199).Negative perspectives, stigmatisation, and reduction of the council sectorSince the residualisation process seemed to help out those that were willing and capable to support themselves with minimal assistance from the state, which left only the disadvantaged to remain in the council sector, reducing the size of the sector whilst also stigmatising those that remained a part of this public assistance programme (Burrows, 1999 31). The statistics of those within the council housing system further substantiated stigmatism of certain groups of individuals, creating prejudice, inequality in home ownership, and leading to instability in neighbourhoods. For example, the London Housing Sur vey, 1986-7 showed that 4% of all households in London were headed by single parents but 9% in the council sector, and nearly half of all Afro-Caribbean households lived in council housing but were underrepresented in the owner occupation sector (London Research Centre 1988 Tables 1, 2, and 4).Additionally, Forrest and Murie (1988 68) stated that, by 1984, more than half of households in council housing were headed by an economically unchanging person and that nearly two-thirds of council housing head of households were not working. Those that do work have incomes in the bottom 40%, as compared to the early 1980s when council tenants had average income that was 73% of the national average (Housing and Dependency Working Group 2008 14). Table 1.1 shows how the elderly and jr. age groups have also become significantly over-represented in council housing since the early 1970s.The result has led to a long-term system that geographically contains and stigmatises those living in council housing as bad places in which those seeking public assistance are looked down upon and excluded by society (Social Exclusion whole 1999 2). The general perspective that council housing is welfare housing for those on welfare has been ingrained into the overall society, in large measure, by the residualisation processes that have occurred over the last fifty years (Somerville 2004 2). The lines between poverty and crime have become so addled that the Government now uses the council estates as an example of how those within the bottom of society are responsible for their own wretched existence (Wheelan 1999 5), so that the rest of society takes the same negative viewpoint of council housing and those that live there.The New Labour rationale continues that of the Thatcher era in terms of destroying the UKs culture of a welfare state by threatening to demolish all council housing, regardless of whether people living there now need this shelter or not, if these areas continue to retain high numbers of the unemployed and welfare unfree (Wheelan 1999 4-5), proving that the long-term effect of residualisation will continue. However, at the same time, it is interesting to maintain that, despite the efforts of residualisation to help those in need, the number of people in the UK living in poverty doubled from ten million in 1978-1980 to twenty million by 1998-1999 (Stephens and Lynch 2005 27). It seems as though the intentions of this process real continued to create more negative consequences than it was able to solve.Neighbourhood instability and lack of community cohesionThe residualisation of the council housing segment has led to a constant churning and rotation of people within neighbourhoods, creating the long-term effect of instability and a lack of community cohesion (Holman and Simpson, 1999 23). Leaving just less affluent older people and younger people within the council housing segment has created constant change with the older generations dying and th e younger generations growing restless and changing their residences more often than families or early(a) demographic groups (Holman and Simpson, 1999 24). For example, the majority of people moving out of council housing had lived at their previous address for less than five years and 31% have moved after less than two years, indicating that those entering council housing in the juvenile past are increasingly unlikely to anticipate a long-term future as local authority tenants (Pawson and Bramley, 2000 1257).The instability will be further enabled by the polarisation between available quality homes and poor homes. As one building society noted, Prices for quality homes will continue to rise, musical composition prices for poor homes continue to fall as the market increasingly polarises (Wheelan 1999 4).Growth in home ownershipThis is not to label that the long-term consequences are all negative as the growth of home ownership since the 1980s, making the UK as home-owning societ y, can only be viewed as a positive. As of 1995, the rate of home ownership was 66%, up from 55% in 1979 (Smith 1995 190). Owning a home has been shown to be a means of raising ones social status as well as modify ones economic footing and long-term stability (Smith 1995 191). Home ownership also helps many communities regenerate and improve the overall social cohesion. The fact that council housing has not lived up to the promises of fifty years ago may relate the Government to strike the entire programme and develop innovative solutions for social housing needs or devise new ways of dower the poor to help themselves (Wheelan 1999 5).The only problematic aspect of this overall discriminatory consequence is the continued inequality in class in terms of home ownership and the discrepancy amongst demographic groups in terms of who can afford home ownership and who cannot. There continues to be a severe shortage of quality housing stock for everyone, including those who would like to purchase homes. And, while the globalisation of financial markets did allow for greater housing finance options, the recent credit crunch has also shown that participating in globalisation has its price too as funding for mortgages has all but disappeared.ConclusionsIn looking at the present state of council housing and public assistance, it seems as though the primary causes of residualisation from the 1980s in terms of the globalised financial and lending system and the political perspective of measured spending on social programmes will continue in the same manner going forward. The recent global credit crunch further impacts the ongoing lack of focus on providing social housing due to reduced financing sources and budgetary cuts to Government funded programmes.The future brings the need for new strategies that offer community housing rather than council housing under a new umbrella of what is being called mixed tenure to ensure the right stock of affordable social and private housing that is intended to better balance the ability to make quality housing within the grasp of all levels within society. Whilst residualisation was one attempt at breaking free of a welfare state but also one that continues to keep certain groups stuck without any upward mobility, there are other types of social processes that can be explored to better balance and sustain local communities.In the end, it may not be the council housing or public assistance that is creating a vicious cycle for the disadvantaged since the residualisation process has actually led to greater poverty, homelessness, and other social issues. The real issue may be the need to fix other programmes that do not involve public assistance in terms of providing more job opportunities, education and training, and strategies that improve the internal infrastructure of the UK rather than hard to put a plaster on the problem and hoping it just gets better on its own or transferring income over to those that are already sustaining themselves.The issues involved have seemingly been exacerbated by the residualisation process rather than solved the issue of a welfare state. This is the time when the UK Government must look inwards on how to provide more assistance that allows people to help themselves and invest in what is already available to refurbish and renew areas so that more citizens can enjoy a better quality of life.ReferencesBurrows, R. (1999). Residential mobility and residualization in social housing in England. Journal of Social Policy, 27-52.Cantle, T. (1986). The deterioration of public sector housing in Malpass, P (Ed.) The Housing Crisis. London Croom Helm.hired Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPA). (1986). Housing statistics, Part 1 Rents, rebates and allowances at April 1976 and housing rents statistics.Cowans, J. and Maclennan, D. (2008). Visions for social housing international perspectives. The Smith Institute, 1-100.Forrest, R. and Murie, A. (1988). merch andising the Welfare State. London Routledge.Forrest, R. and Williams, P. (1984). Commodificaton and housing emerging issues and contradictions. Environment and Planning, 1163-80.HMSO. (1988). Annual soak of statistics.Holman, A.E. and Simpson, M. (1999). Low Demand Separating Fact from Fiction. Coventry Chartered Institute of Housing in England.Houghton, J. (2009). The ideological importance of housing, 1-9.House of Commons. (1945). House of Commons Debates, Vol. 414, Col. 1222.Housing and Dependency Working Group. (2008). Housing poverty From social breakdown to social mobility. Centre for Social Justice, 1-132.London Research Centre. (1988). Council tenants in London.Malpass, P. (1990). Reshaping Housing Policy Subsidies, Rents, and Residualisation. London Routledge.Pawson, H. and Bramley , G. (2000). Understanding recent trends in residential mobility in council housing in England. Urban Studies, 37(8), 1231-59.Ready, B. (2007). Homes for the future more affordable, more sustai nable. UK Housing yard Paper. Available at www.thereadyfamily.com/housing/archive/submission.htm.Scanlon, K. and Whitehead, C. (2008). Social Housing in Europe II. London London School of Economics and Political Science.Smith, J. (1995). signifier war conservatism Housing policy, homelessness and the underclass. The Socialist Register, 188-206.Social Exclusion Unit (SEU). (1999). Bringing Britain together A national strategy for neighbourhood renewal.Somerville, P. (2004). Transforming council housing. Housing Studies Association Conference, 1-13.Stephens, M. and Lynch, E. (2005). The cost, quantity, and quality of housing consumption in the UK Comparisons with other European countries, 1-90.Stephens, M., Whitehead, C., and Munro, M, (2005). Lessons from the past, challenges for the future for housing policy an evaluation of English housing policy 1975-2000. London Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Stone, M.E. (2003). Social housing in the UK and US Evolution, issues and prospec ts, 1-90.Waters, M. (1995). Globalization. London Routledge.Wheelan, S. (1999). The impact of globalisation on urban development. The World Socialist Web Site. Available at www.wsws.org.