Abstract
Social policy scholarship assumes that left-wing governments favour a stronger public provision of services, while right-wing politics promote privatization, largely as a matter of ideology. Yet the findings on Canadian provinces’ market-based housing instruments suggest that alternative views are possible. Left-leaning governments introduced private delivery mechanisms for economic as well as non-economic reasons. The archival research and thematic analysis of interview responses with key actors (n = 56) suggest that the introduction of housing allowances in the policy toolbox largely results from bureaucratic initiatives, regardless of the party in power. Rather than political forces or advocacy by power interests, this policy change is mostly driven by considerations of equity and efficiency on the part of officials ‘muddling through’. The concept is revisited in the final discussion, where important strands of the privatization literature are challenged, as well as the political assumptions associated with the notion of users’ freedom.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Godwin (2001, 972) highlights that Savas served as an Assistant Secretary of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development under Reagan’s leadership.
Rent-geared-to-income scales have evolved in each province, but now they range from 25 to 30% of tenants’ gross income.
Yet some non-profit organizations are owned by municipalities.
A study conducted in Montreal with 143 families in public housing units and 100 families benefiting from the private landlord rent supplement program concluded: ‘‘In fact, the respondents in rent supplement units more favourably assess the physical environment in which their housing unit is situated, and particularly its location. They also more favourably assess the vicinity and social environment of their unit. Lastly, the sense of security that they feel in their unit is also greater’’ (Leloup and Morin 2012, 11).
The context is different for housing providers wishing to build and operate new units, such as third sector organizations and the public local housing authorities. In virtually all cases, both of these providers absolutely need government subsidies and, therefore, are willing to submit their application through a competitive tendering process.
Yet one of the few advantages for landlords is that this part of their revenue stream is secure, given that the government subsidizes the balance of the rent, preventing tenants’ payment shortfalls.
It must be said that market-oriented policy instruments, including housing allowances, do have (many) flaws. A study on provincial programs emphasizes that they do not create additional housing stock to rental markets; they do not affect the ‘characteristics’ of dwellings, such as providing specific amenities to people with special needs; many potential claimants do not enrol for several reasons, including the lack of advertising; and programs can be dismantled easily (see Bendaoud 2019, 325). To which we can add that such programs do not offer security of tenure and that large and/or multi-problem families may find it quasi-impossible to find accommodation on the private market, even if they benefit from a housing allowance.
For the purpose of this article, it should be noted that 2 respondents in British Columbia and 1 in Alberta were excluded because they provided no answer to the questionnaire’s specific question (see Appendix 2) pertaining to market-based instruments. Hence, the results are based on an unequal number of respondents: 15 in British Colombia, 19 in Alberta and 19 in Quebec.
While other methods could have been used to present the data, the diagram is more ‘eye-catching’ than many, in addition to allowing the author to group the data logically and incorporating the three provinces all together.
This point is discussed further in the report: ‘‘[I]t is not always desirable to force a senior citizen to move to a different neighborhood. It had been discovered that many senior citizens were moving into public/non-profit housing projects as a matter of last resort, and really would have preferred to stay in their existing accommodation if they could have afforded to do so.’’ (Interprovincial Task Force on Shelter Allowances and Rent Scales, 1978: 17).
Yet Logirente included low-income homeowners as well.
It is the only program which has seen a growth, although quite moderate, in the decade of the 1990s, of approximately 190 new rent supplements per year (AMHC, 1990, 8; Alberta Municipal Affairs 1999, 28). Presumably, this is explained by the conservative ideology of Premier Ralph Klein’s governance, but capital funding resumed around 2000 when he was still in office (he remained until 2006) to produce new affordable housing projects.
That is, the gap between 25 or 30% of a household’s pre-tax income and real shelter costs.
In contrast to construction programs that used to be financed in large part by the federal government, the introduction of housing allowances by provincial governments suggests that those governments must have been strongly convinced of their importance and low cost, given they were funding all the costs.
Premier Klein took the hard line on social housing. Although the private landlord rent supplement program was enlarged, as mentioned in a previous footnote, Klein stopped capital funding for new builds when he entered office. ‘‘Klein’s conservative approach in the 1990s was the following: neither private nor public housing, no new unit period’’ (Bendaoud 2018, 179). This proves that ideology does matter a great deal for major decisions in the policy area. Yet the present analysis suggests that it has a rather shallow influence on specific elements such as the permanent addition of market-based instruments in the policy toolkit of multiple governments.
References
Alberta Affordable Housing Task Force (AAHTF). (2007). Housing First An Investment with Return in Prosperity. Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Alberta Housing and Urban Affairs (HUA). (2011). Recording HUA’s Housing History: A Comprehensive Historical Record of Alberta Housing Policies and Programs. HUA.
Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation (AMHC). (1990). 1989/90 Annual Report. AMHC.
Alberta Municipal Affairs. (1999). Annual Report 1998–1999. Municipal Affairs.
Alberta. Legislative Assembly. (2010). Alberta Hansard. February 17th. Issue 7.
Bendaoud, M. (2013). ‘La situation difficile des locataires à faible revenu.’ In M. Fahmy (Ed.), L’état du Québec 2013–2014. (pp. 273–280). Montreal.
Bendaoud, M. (2018). Public Versus Non-profit Housing in Canadian Provinces: Learning, History and Cost-Benefit Analysis. In C. Dunlop, C. Radaelli, & P. Trein (Eds.), Learning in Public Policy: Analysis, Modes and Outcomes. (pp. 167–189). Palgrave Macmillan.
Bendaoud, M. (2019). ‘The privatization of housing assistance: Are housing allowances eroding government accountability?’ Canadian Public Administration, 62(2), 312–332
Bernard, P., & Saint-Arnaud, S. (2004). ‘Du pareil au même ? La position des quatre principales provinces canadiennes dans l’univers des régimes providentiels.’ Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29(2), 209–239
Blomqvist, P. (2004). ‘The choice revolution: privatization of Swedish welfare services in the 1990s.’ Social Policy & Administration, 38(2), 139–155
Brandon, J., & Hajer, J. (2019). Making Space for Change: The Story of Manitoba’s Rent Assist Benefit. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
British Columbia. (2006). Housing Matters BC. Victoria: Government of British Columbia.
Busemeyer, Marius R. 2015. Skills and Inequality. Partisan Politics and the Political Economy of Education Reforms in Western Welfare States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). (2011). Canadian Housing Observer. CMHC.
den Berg, V., Axel, C. P., Raïq, H., Proulx, C., & Faustmann, S. (2017). Combating Poverty: Quebec’s Pursuit of a Distinctive Welfare State. University of Toronto Press.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. (Expanded). Routledge.
Donahue, J. D., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). Collaborative Governance: Private Roles for Public Goals in Turbulent Times. Princeton University Press.
Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content Analysis. Oxford University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity Press.
Interprovincial Task Force on Shelter Allowances and Rent Scales (1978). Report of the Interprovincial Task Force on Shelter Allowances and Rent Scales for Senior Citizens. Chaired and report prepared by Andrew Armitage.
Frederickson, H. G. (2015). Social Equity and Public Administration: Origins, Developments, and Applications. Routledge.
Fredriksson, M. (2013). Is patient choice democratizing Swedish primary care? Health Policy, 111, 95–98
Garay, C. (2016). Social Policy Expansion in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
Gingrich, J. R. (2011). Making Markets in the Welfare State: The Politics of Varying Market Reforms. Cambridge University Press.
Godwin, Kenneth. (2001). Book review. Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships. By E. S. Savas. Journal of Politics 63 (3): 972–4.
Le Grand, J. (2007). The Other Invisible Hand: Delivering Public Services through Choice and Competition. Princeton University Press.
Greene, J. D. (1996). How Much Privatization? A Research Note Examining the Use of Privatization by Cities in 1982 and 1992. Policy Studies Journal, 24(4), 632–640
Greener, I. (2008). Choice and voice—a review. Social Policy & Society, 7(2), 255–265
Haddow, R. (2016). The politics of Tax States in the Canadian Provinces after the Golden age. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 63–88
Hausermann, S. (2010). The Politics of the Welfare State Reform in Continental Europe: Modernization in Hard Times. Cambridge University Press.
Heclo, H. (1974). Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance. Yale University Press.
Huber, E., & Stephens, J. (2015). Postindustrial social policy. In P. Beramendi, S. Hausermann, H. Kitschelt, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Politics of Advanced Capitalism. (pp. 259–281). Cambridge University Press.
Hulchanski, J. D., & Shapcott, M. (Eds.). (2004). Finding Room. Policy Options for a Canadian Rental Housing Strategy. University of Toronto Press.
Kemp, P. A. (2016). Housing programs. In D. Brady & L. M. Burton (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Poverty. (pp. 820–842). Oxford University Press.
Kettl, D. F. (2005). The Global Public Management Revolution. (2nd ed.). Brookings Institution.
Kothari, Miloon. (2009). Report of the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living, and on the Right to Nondiscrimination in this Context, Miloon Kothari. Addendum, Mission to Canada (9 to 22 October 2007). United Nations.
Leloup, Xavier & Paul Morin. (2012). Les modes d’allocation du logement social ont-ils un effet sur le bien-être et la santé des familles? Une comparaison des programmes d’habitation à loyer modique (HLM) et de supplément au loyer (PSL) à Montréal. Report submitted to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Ottawa: CMHC.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of “Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88
Morgan, K. J., & Campbell, A. L. (2011). The Delegated Welfare State: Medicare, Markets, and the Governance of Social Policy. Oxford University Press.
Olsen, E. O., & Ludwig, J. (2013). The performance and legacy of housing policies In M. Bailey & S. Danziger (Eds.), The Legacies of the War on Poverty. (pp. 206–234). Russell Sage Foundation.
British Columbia Housing Management Commission (BC Housing). (2001). Premier Announces More Options for Affordable Housing. News release, March 19. Available from https://chodarr.org/sites/default/files/chodarr0071.pdf, accessed November 8 2018.
Priemus, H. (1984). Housing allowances in the Netherlands: product of a conservative or progressive ideology? Delft University Press.
Quebec. (1984). Se loger au Québec. Government of Quebec.
Quebec. Assemblée nationale. 1984. Journal des débats (Hansard). June 19th. Vol. 27 - No 109.
Savas, E. (2000). Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships. Chatham House.
Schwartz, A. (2015). Public Housing and Vouchers. In D. Béland, C. Howard, & K. J. Morgan (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of US Social Policy. (pp. 413–430). Oxford University Press.
Seawright, J. (2016). Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools. Cambridge University Press.
Sewell, J. (1994). Houses and Homes: Housing for Canadians. James Lorimer & Co.
Skocpol, T. (1997). Boomerang: Health care reform and the turn against government. WW Norton & Company.
Société d’habitation du Québec. (1988). Rapport annuel 1987. SHQ.
Statistics Canada. (2020). ‘First results from the Canadian Housing Survey, 2018. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/191122/dq191122c-eng.htm
Steele, M. (2007). Canadian housing allowances. In P. A. Kemp (Ed.), Housing Allowances in Comparative Perspective. (pp. 61–85). Policy Press.
Suttor, G. (2016). Still Renovating. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Trudel, Rémy, Quebec Minister responsible for housing. 1996. Vers une réforme de l’aide gouvernementale en habitation. Memorandum to Cabinet. July, 11.
Tutin, C. (2008). Social housing and private markets: from public economics to local housing markets. In K. Scanlon & C. Whitehead (Eds.), Social Housing in Europe II: A review of policies and outcomes. (pp. 47–61). London School of Economics and Political Science.
Whitehead, C. (2017). Social housing models: past and future. Critical Housing Analysis, 4(1), 11–20
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jane Jenson, Peter Graefe, Steve Pomeroy, Paul Pierson, Jacob Hacker, Chris Ansell, Christine Whitehead, Nicholas Barr, Julian Le Grand, Kathleen Thelen and John Myles for their helpful suggestions throughout the writing of this manuscript based on his PhD dissertation. Sabrina Bendaoud is also thanked for her editing assistance. This is to acknowledge that I have no financial interest or benefit that has arisen from the direct applications of this research. The opinions expressed in the text are those of the author and not of the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.
Funding
This research has been supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec—société et culture.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bendaoud, M. Privatization of Canadian housing assistance: how bureaucrats on a budget added market-based progams to the toolbox. Policy Sci 54, 423–440 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09421-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09421-7