Shared Ownership and Housing Policy

  • Dave Cowan
  • Helen Carr
  • Alison Wallace
Part of the Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies book series (PSLS)


This chapter presents a study of housing policy from the periphery. As we develop below, it is not its numerical significance as a tenure that makes shared ownership so important; rather, it is its totemic significance in housing policy and its location as a social housing low-cost homeownership “product” which make it an object of study. Our argument is that, in the very way in which it is discussed and represented in policy and by policy-makers, shared ownership appears as a very simple “product”, albeit one which has gone through a series of different iterations. And, most of all, shared ownership is constructed as ownership. That very simple ownership product, at heart, is how shared ownership came to be represented and translated by a range of others, including buyers—to adopt the metaphor widely used in policy documents, enabling people to “get a foot on the ladder” of “homeownership”. And, of course, these are very legal translations.


  1. Birmingham Mail (1975), ‘Half and Half Homes Plan Is Launched’, Birmingham Mail, 17th September 1975.Google Scholar
  2. Battye, F., Bishop, B., Harris, P., Murie, A., Rowlands, R. and Tice, A. (2006), Evaluation of Key Worker Living: Final Report, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
  3. Bramley, G., Dunmore, K., Durrant, C. and Smart, G. (1995), Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership: An Evaluation, London: Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  4. Bramley, G. and Dunmore, K. (1996), ‘Shared Ownership: Short-Term Expedient or Long-Term Major Tenure?’, 11(1), Housing Studies: 105–31.Google Scholar
  5. Bramley, G. and Morgan, J. (1998), ‘Low Cost Home Ownership Initiatives in the UK’, 13(4), Housing Studies: 567–86.Google Scholar
  6. Bramley, G., Morgan, J., Cousins, L., Dunmore, K., Three Dragons Consultancy and MORI Social Research (2002), Evaluation of the Low Cost Home Ownership Programme, London: ODPM.Google Scholar
  7. Burgess, G., Crook, T. and Monk, S. (2013), The Changing Delivery of Planning Gain through Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, Cambridge: Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, D. (2015), ‘This Is a Government that Delivers’, 7th December,
  9. Campbell Working Group (1976), New Forms of Social Ownership and Tenure, Unpublished.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, A. (2010), ‘Shared Ownership: Does It Satisfy Government and Household Objectives?’, in S. Monk and C. Whitehead (eds), Making Housing More Affordable: The Role of Intermediate Tenures, Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Conservatives (2015), The Conservative Party Manifesto, London: The Conservative Party.Google Scholar
  12. Cousins, L., Ledward, C., Howe, K., Rock, G. and Taylor, G. (1993), An Appraisal of Shared Ownership, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. Crook, T. and Whitehead, C. (2010), ‘Intermediate Housing and the Planning System’, in S. Monk and C. Whitehead (eds), Making Housing More Affordable: The Role of Intermediate Tenures, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Crook, T., Bibby, P., Ferrari, E., Monk, S., Tang, C. and Whitehead, C. (2016), ‘New Housing Association Development and Its Potential to Reduce Concentrations of Deprivation: An English Case Study’, 53(16), Urban Studies: 3388–404.Google Scholar
  15. De Santos, R. (2013), Homes for Forgotten Families: Towards a Mainstream Shared Ownership Market, London: Shelter.Google Scholar
  16. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2007), Homes for the Future: More Affordable, More Sustainable, Cm 7191, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
  17. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2010), The Coalition: Our Programme for Government on Communities and Local Government, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
  18. Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2017), Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
  19. Department of the Environment (DoE) (1977), Housing Policy—A Consultative Document, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  20. ECOTEC (2008), Evaluation of the HomeBuy Agents in the Delivery of the National Affordable Housing Programme 2006/08, London: ECOTEC.Google Scholar
  21. Forrest, R., Lansley, S. and Murie, A. (1984), A Foot on the Ladder? An Evaluation of Low Cost Home Ownership Initiatives, Working Paper No 41, Bristol: School for Advanced Urban Studies, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  22. Heywood, A. (2016), From the Margins to the Mainstream: A Study of the Prospects for Shared Home Ownership in the North West, London: The Smith Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Hills, S. and Lomax, A. (2007), Whose House Is It Anyway? Housing Associations and Home Ownership, London: Housing Corporation/Coventry: CIH.Google Scholar
  24. Holmes, C. (2005), The Other Notting Hill, Studley: Brewin Books.Google Scholar
  25. Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) (2011), Affordable Homes Programme 2011 to 2015: Guidance and Allocations, London: HCA.Google Scholar
  26. Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) (2016a), Shared Ownership and Affordable Homes Programme 201621: Prospectus, London: HCA.Google Scholar
  27. Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) (2016b), Capital Funding Guide, London: HCA.Google Scholar
  28. Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) (2016c), 2015 Global Accounts of Housing Providers, London: HCA.Google Scholar
  29. Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) (2017a), Shared Ownership and Affordable Homes Programme 201621: Addendum to the Prospectus, London: HCA.Google Scholar
  30. Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) (2017b), 2016 Global Accounts of Housing Providers, London: HCA.Google Scholar
  31. Jacobs, K. and Manzi, T. (2017), ‘“The Party’s Over”: Critical Junctures, Crises and the Politics of Housing Policy’, 32(1), Housing Studies: 17–34.Google Scholar
  32. Kingdon, J. (2011), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Boston: Longman.Google Scholar
  33. Law, J. (2002), Aircraft Stories: Decentring the Object in Technoscience, Durham: Duke UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Low Cost Home Ownership Task Force (2003), A Home of My Own, The Report of the Government’s Low Cost Home Ownership Task Force, London: Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  35. Lowe, S. (2004), Housing Policy Analysis: British Housing in Comparative and Cultural Context, Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Malpass, P. (2000a), ‘The Discontinuous History of Housing Associations in England’, 15(2), Housing Studies: 195–212.Google Scholar
  37. Malpass, P. (2000b), Housing Associations and Housing Policy: A Historical Perspective, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Malpass, P. (2005), Housing and the Welfare State: The Development of Housing Policy in Britain, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. McDermont, M. (2010), Governing, Independence, and Expertise: The Business of Housing Associations, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Murie, A. (1975), The Sale of Council Houses: A Study in Social Policy, CURS Occasional Paper No 35, Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  41. Murie, A. (2016), The Right to Buy: Selling off Public and Social Housing, Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. National Audit Office (2006), A Foot on the Ladder: Low Cost Home Ownership Assistance, HC 1048 Session 2005–2006, London: NAO.Google Scholar
  43. National Federation of Housing Associations (NFHA) (1978), A Handbook for Community Leasehold, London: NFHA.Google Scholar
  44. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005), HomeBuy—Expanding the Opportunity to Own, Consultation Paper, London: ODPM.Google Scholar
  45. Osman, A. (1975), ‘A New Kind of Owner-Occupier’, The Times, 18th September.Google Scholar
  46. Page, D. (1993), Building for Communities, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  47. Pharaoh, R., Holland, J. and Wooton, J. (2015), A Fair Share? Understanding Residents’ Experiences of Shared Ownership, London: Viridian Housing.Google Scholar
  48. Resolution Foundation (2013), One Foot on the Ladder: How Shared Ownership Can Bring Owning a Home into Reach, London: Resolution Foundation.Google Scholar
  49. Shelter (2010), The Forgotten Households—Is Intermediate Housing Meeting Affordable Housing Needs?, London: Shelter.Google Scholar
  50. Sinn, C. and Davies, S. (2014), Shared Ownership 2.0: Towards a Fourth Mainstream Tenure, London: Orbit Group; Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.Google Scholar
  51. Spenceley, J. (2008), Trends in Housing Association Stock in 2007, A Dataspring Briefing Paper on Behalf of the Housing Corporation, Cambridge: Dataspring.Google Scholar
  52. Stanley, J. (1974), Shared Purchase: A New Route to Home-Ownership, London: Conservative Political Centre.Google Scholar
  53. Wallace, A. (2008b), Achieving Mobility in the Intermediate Housing Market: Moving Up and Moving On?, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  54. Whitehead, C., Spenceley, J. and Kiddle, C. (2005), The Role of Housing Associations in the Intermediate Market, London: Housing Corporation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dave Cowan
    • 1
  • Helen Carr
    • 2
  • Alison Wallace
    • 3
  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Kent Law SchoolUniversity of KentCanterburyUK
  3. 3.Centre for Housing PolicyUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations