Comparative Housing Research: A ‘System-Embedded’ Approach

Abstract

This paper seeks to rebuild and strengthen the case for policy-related comparative housing research as an academic activity. Critiques that have discouraged the practice of international research have undermined its legitimacy whilst eroding the evidence base, and have devalued its function through the use of value-laden language and unevidenced assertions. While 'glocalisation' presents a challenge to cross-national research we argue that nation states are still policy resource rich, and that the existence of distinctive national institutions through which common international pressures are mediated strengthens the case for it. Building on an examination of the distinctive qualities of housing compared to the main 'pillars' of the welfare state, we make the case for what we call 'system-embedded research'. This marks a development from existing 'middle ways', being founded on the principle that policy is conceived within wider housing systems and housing systems themselves operate within wider social and economic structures. Through contrasting case studies we show that if founded on the principle of being system-embedded, policy-related comparative housing research can reap high rewards; but if it does not it carries grave risks.

Supporting affordable housing supply: inclusionary planning in new and renewing communities

“…More widely, whenever drawing on comparative cases and international practice, it is important to recognise the significant differences between countries in terms of historically evolved systems of government, law, settlement, housing provision and development (Quilgars, Elsinga et al 2009). In designing the method for case study data collection and comparative analysis, and in interpreting implications of US/UK policy for Australian policy and practice, this study was guided by insights and methodologies of comparative housing research (Kemeny 1999;Stephens 2011). This is discussed further in section 2 of this report.…”

“…Comparative housing research methodologies provide a basis for learning from the experience of other countries by identifying and considering the housing system contextual factors that affect implementation (Stephens 2011). To ensure that comparisons between countries are valid, contextual differences become an explicit part of the analysis, calibrated for 'conceptual equivalence' (Quilgars, Elsinga et al 2009).…”

Inquiry into the future of the private rental sector

“…Comparing countries' housing systems is not an easy task and there has been robust debate about the conceptual and methodological approaches (Kemeny and Lowe 1998;Haffner, Hoekstra et al 2010;Stephens 2011;Aalbers 2016). Comparative research for the Inquiry adopted a 'system-embedded' approach (Stephens 2011: 353) to international comparative analysis, which considers the particular PRS policy settings and institutions of the reference countries in the context of their housing and wider socio-economic systems.…”

What Have ECHP and EU-SILC to Contribute to the Comparative Study of Housing?

“…Put differently, comparative research on housing (and in general) should strive for 'systemembeddedness', i.e. take account of wider social and economic structures (Stephens, 2011). Pan-European datasets certainly allow for academic research on housing to evolve further in this direction.…”

“…4 November 2015. 2 I agree that comparative housing researchers, whether they use qualitative or quantitative methods, should be aware of the fact that tenure categories such as 'owner-occupation', 'private renting' and 'social renting' have different meanings and uses in different housing regimes/housing systems, and that these meanings and uses result from the different ways in which these tenure categories are produced, allocated and consumed within the context of a particular housing regime/housing system(Horsewood, 2011;Kemeny & Lowe, 1998;Stephens, 2011). All…”