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

Abstract

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.-Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research-You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain-You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Constructing a housing precariousness measure for Europe

“…This would tend to understate the magnitude of precariousness in Europe. Similarly, the reliance on secondary data means that our approach is limited by the variables included in the survey and decisions made during data collection (Dewilde, 2015). This is notable, for example, in the inability to include broader measures of housing and location suitability in the access to services component.…”

“…An additional advantage of this approach is that the questions used are frequently available in national surveys, meaning that the measure may be derived from these surveys. Details of the EU-SILC have been described elsewhere (Arora et al, 2015;Dewilde, 2015;Iacovou et al, 2012)…”

“…Precariousness in housing is often treated as synonymous with homelessness or the risk of homelessness; however, homelessness remains a rather rare event and fails to capture the wider effects and consequences of precarious housing, such as overcrowding and poor conditions (Kennett and Iwata, 2003;Wellesley Institute, 2010). Data on housing and housing conditions are also sparse, particularly cross-nationally and over time (Dewilde, 2015). As a result, existing measures of housing precariousness are largely confined to single-country studies typically using a limited number of indicators (Bentley et al, 2015;Pendall et al, 2012;Wood et al, 2017).…”

Explaining the declined affordability of housing for low-income private renters across Western Europe

“…We use representative and cross-nationally comparable micro-level data from the European Community Household Panel (ECHP, 1994–2001) and the EU-Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC, 2004–2013) ( Dewilde, 2015 ; Haffner, 2015 ), for 12 Western European countries: Belgium (BE), Finland (FIN), France (FR), United Kingdom (UK), Ireland (IE), Austria (AT), Germany (DE), the Netherlands (NL), Spain (ES), Greece (GR), Italy (IT) and Portugal (PT). Our focus is on adults and children living in households with a reference person ≤ 60 years of age, as in most countries elderly households – who are more often in social housing or long-term protected tenancies – have remained more shielded from rent increases or income declines.…”

Longitudinal life course perspectives on housing inequality in young adulthood

“…More recently, cross‐national longitudinal data have become available via the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU‐SILC; Eurostat, ). The strengths and limitations of the ECHP and EU‐SILC for housing studies has been reviewed by Dewilde (), who concludes that they can provide unique understanding of interactions between micro‐level individual factors and macrofactors such as welfare states, housing systems, and labour market contexts. For example, Lersch and Dewilde () used EU‐SILC data to demonstrate how institutional contexts moderate the impact of economic insecurity on access to home ownership, whereas Arundel and Ronald () used the same data set to compare dynamics of returns to the parental home across Europe.…”