GeoJournal

, Volume 77, Issue 2, pp 235–247 | Cite as

Creating sustainable communities through tenure-mix: the responsibilisation of marginal homeowners in Scotland

Article

Abstract

The idea that the deprived communities of the UK’s towns and cities are ‘unsustainable’ has been a central theme of government housing policy since New Labour came into power in 1997. The creation of ‘mixed-tenure communities’ has been heralded by some policy makers as a key component of creating sustainable communities by overcoming concentrations of deprivation as well as creating responsible citizens who make few demands on the state. Since devolution, support for owner-occupation has been promoted by both Scottish Labour and SNP regimes as a regeneration tool, and has been included in the Local Housing Strategy of many local authorities in Scotland. Drawing on research in Glasgow, this paper achieves three things. First, it highlights the ethopolitics associated with the identities of owner-occupiers and social rented tenants as skilled or flawed consumers; second, it explores the tools used in recent years to create mixed communities through encouraging owner-occupation; and third, it questions the continued uncritical support of the insertion of owner-occupiers into deprived areas as a regeneration and responsiblisation tool.

Keywords

Affordability Ethopolitics Governance Housing Regeneration 

References

  1. Allen, C. (2007). Housing market renewal and social class. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Arthurson, K. (2002). Creating inclusive communities through balancing social mix: A critical relationship or tenuous link? Urban Policy and Research, 20(3), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauman, Z. (1998). Work, consumerism and the new poor. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bone, J., Collins, C., Foster, J., Glynn, S., Hodkinson, S., Manley, D., Slater, T. (2007). Firm foundations? A response to the Scottish Government’s Housing Green Paper [online], Accessed 31 October. http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/sglynn/Firm_foundations_final.pdf.
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of Taste. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bramley, G., & Morgan, J. (1998). Low cost home ownership initiatives in the UK. Housing Studies, 13(4), 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bramley, G., Morgan, J., & Littlewood, M. (2007). The initial evaluation of the open market homestake pilot. Edinburgh: Communities Scotland.Google Scholar
  8. Bridge, G. (2006). Perspectives on cultural capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 43(4), 719–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CCHPR (Cambridge Centre for Housing, Planning Research). (2008). Low cost home ownership: Affordability, risks and issues. London: Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  10. CLG. (2005). Homebuy—expanding the opportunity to own. London ODPM for CLG http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/homebuyexpanding.
  11. Cole, I., & Goodchild, B. (2001). Social mix and the ‘balanced community’ in British Housing Policy—a tale of two epochs. GeoJournal, 51(4), 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DETR. (2000). Quality and choice: A decent home for all: The housing green paper. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.Google Scholar
  13. Eisenschitz, A., & Gough, J. (1993). The politics of local economic policy: The problems and possibilities of local initiative. Hampshire: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Flint, J. (2003). Housing and Ethopolitics: Constructing identities of active consumption and responsible community. Economy and Society, 32(3), 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flint, J. (2004). Reconfiguring agency and responsibility in the governance of social housing in Scotland. Urban Studies, 41(1), 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flint, J., & Rowlands, R. (2003). Commodification, normalisation and intervention: Cultural, social and symbolic capital in housing consumption and governance. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 18(3), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forrest, R. (1983). The meaning of homeownership. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1(2), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forrest, R., & Murie, A. (1998). Selling the welfare state: The privatisation of public housing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interview and other writings 1972–1977. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (2003). The subject and power. In R. Rabinow & N. Rose (Eds.), The essential foucault: Selections from essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 (pp. 126–144). London and New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  21. GCC. (2003a). Glasgow city plan. Glasgow: Glasgow City Council.Google Scholar
  22. GCC. (2003b). Glasgow’s local housing strategy 2003—2008. Glasgow: Glasgow City Council http://www.local.housingstrategy.glasgow.gov.uk/pdf/lhs_23-04-04.pdf.
  23. GCC. (2005a). Local housing strategy update 2005. Glasgow: Glasgow City Council.Google Scholar
  24. GCC. (2005b). The sustainability of publicly promoted owner occupation in Glasgow. Glasgow: Glasgow City Council.Google Scholar
  25. Goodchild, B., & Cole, I. (2001). Social balance and mixed neighbourhoods in Britain since 1979: A review of discourse and practice in social housing. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 19(1), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gurney, C. (1999a). ‘We’ve got friends who live in council houses’: Power and resistance in home ownership. In J. Hearn & S. Roseneil (Eds.), Consuming cultures: Power and resistance. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Gurney, C. (1999b). Pride and prejudice: Discourses of normalisation in public and private accounts of home ownership. Housing Studies, 14(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joseph, M. L., Chaskin, R. J., & Webber, H. S. (2007). Theoretical basis for addressing poverty through mixed-income development. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), 369–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kemeny, J. (1981). The myth of home ownership: Public versus private choices in housing tenure. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Kemeny, J. (1995). From public housing to the social market: Rental policy strategies in comparative perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levitas, R. (2000). Community, utopia and new labour. Local Economy, 15(3), 188–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McIntyre, Z. (2007). Mixing it up: Using gentrification as a tool for creating social diversity. In J. E. Klausen & P. Swianiewicz (Eds.), Cities in city regions governing the diversity. Warsaw: Unviersity of Warsaw.Google Scholar
  33. McIntyre, Z., & McKee, K. (2008). Governance and sustainability in glasgow: Connecting symbolic capital and housing consumption to regeneration. Area, 40(4), 481–490.Google Scholar
  34. McKee, K. (2009). The responsible tenant and the problem of apathy. Social policy and Society, 8(1), 25–36.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  36. Newhaven Research and the University of Glasgow. (2008). The credit crunch and the Scottish housing system. Edinburgh: CIH Scotland.Google Scholar
  37. ODPM. (2005). Planning for mixed communities: A consultation paper on a proposed change to planning policy guidance Note 3: Housing. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Google Scholar
  38. Pacione, M. (1998). Britain’s cities, geographies of division in Urban Britain. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Painter, J. (2005). Governmentality and regional economic spaces. In J. Hillier & E. Rooksby (Eds.), Habitus: A sense of place (2nd ed.). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  40. Raco, M. (2005). Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable communities. Antipode, 37(2), 324–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raco, M. (2007). Building sustainable communities spatial policy and labour mobility in post-war Britain. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ronald, R. (2008). The ideology of home ownership. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rose, N. (2000). Community, citizenship and the third way. American Behavioural Scientist, 43(9), 1395–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rowlands, R., & Gurney, C. (2000). Young peoples’ perceptions of housing tenure: A case study in the socialization of tenure prejudice. Housing Theory and Society, 17(3), 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saunders, P. (1990). A nation of home owners. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  46. SE. (2005). Homes for Scotland’s People: A Scottish housing policy statement. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.Google Scholar
  47. SEU. (2001). A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  48. SG. (2007). Firm foundations: The future of housing in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  49. SG. (2008). First time buyers. Accessed 31 January ‘09. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-environment/Housing/BuyingSelling/lift.
  50. SG. (2009). Owner occupiers with mortgage difficulties. Accessed 25 January. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/Housing/access/grants/4418.
  51. Threadgold, S. (2006). Habitus, governmentality and young people’s engagement with September 11. Conference paper presented at Australasian Political Studies Association conference, University of Newcastle 2006.Google Scholar
  52. Tunstall, R. (2003). ‘Mixed Tenure’ policy in the UK: Privatisation, pluralism or euphemism? Housing, Theory and Society, 20(3), 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.APO Policy and Strategy, South Ayrshire CouncilAYRUK

Personalised recommendations