B. Kim
Please Note
16 records found
1
Measuring Housing Inequality with the Value of Freedom in the Capability Approach
Proposal and Demonstration
Housing Justice as Expansion of People's Capabilities for Housing
Proposal for Principles of Housing Policy and Evaluation of Housing Inequality
A Capability Approach to Evaluating well-being and Equality in Housing
Clear Conceptual Difference but Unclear Practical Difference?
approach to evaluating well-being and equality in housing, with
data from the Netherlands. Conventionally, well-being/inequality in
housing have been evaluated by measures of economic/material
means for housing or satisfaction. In theory, these evaluation
approaches overlook some important normative concerns, and
applying the capability approach – evaluating the capabilities to
reside in ways a person values – can compensate for such weakness.
However, its practical difference appears as yet contested. This
study reviews the sources of such contesting views, and clarifies
them by comparing the capability-oriented and conventional measures
of housing deprivation in terms of their identification of
deprived groups that welfare policies are supposed to address.
The results showed that the overlap between the deprived groups
was rather limited, revealing blind spots in the current welfare
policies for housing and the informational benefits of capabilityoriented
evaluation. This study adds implications for measurement
methods. ...
approach to evaluating well-being and equality in housing, with
data from the Netherlands. Conventionally, well-being/inequality in
housing have been evaluated by measures of economic/material
means for housing or satisfaction. In theory, these evaluation
approaches overlook some important normative concerns, and
applying the capability approach – evaluating the capabilities to
reside in ways a person values – can compensate for such weakness.
However, its practical difference appears as yet contested. This
study reviews the sources of such contesting views, and clarifies
them by comparing the capability-oriented and conventional measures
of housing deprivation in terms of their identification of
deprived groups that welfare policies are supposed to address.
The results showed that the overlap between the deprived groups
was rather limited, revealing blind spots in the current welfare
policies for housing and the informational benefits of capabilityoriented
evaluation. This study adds implications for measurement
methods.
The research first defines the precariat in both affluent and less affluent countries. The term ‘precariat’ is used in affluent countries and the discussion has been emerging particularly in the European context. The definition of its concept is yet contingent, but it has many common aspects with informal sector workers in terms of capability deprivations. The research will analyse these common features, define the concept of the precariat and discuss both groups under the same term of the precariat.
The second phase of the research selects countries and compares the number of precariat population having capability deprivations in relation to housing. The research will compare the result with the target population of housing policy interventions, which is largely measured by the income threshold and some additional variables related to specific conditions of marginalised groups. Income or consumption measurement has been the main dimension to define the social policy target groups, and housing policy is no exception to this. A comparison of the target population number of a social/public housing programme according to a monetary indicator and non-monetary indicator(s) may provide a different picture. Currently, the key informational basis for defining the target population of social/public housing programmes is the household income level. However, the population in the precariat may have income above the threshold of the programmes but not stable enough to take a long-term mortgage or rent a house in a private market. In the context of less affluent countries, many low-income people and the poor are working in the informal economy, who are in high need for adequate housing. However, they are often not eligible for government housing programmes: they cannot prove their income and governments cannot trace their income level.
The third phase compares policy interventions. Private (informal) rental sector has played a certain role to provide the precariat with affordable place to live. The research will examine the housing systems related to the private rental sector in terms of tenants’ tenure vulnerability. Besides the comparison of relevant regulations, the research can also compare the number of private rental housing units under the rent control regulation, for instance. An additional case study is to compare the population eligible for housing finance programmes (mortgages). Research on the extent of opportunities that people have for using formal housing finance programmes may broaden the informational basis of housing policy, instead of merely focusing on, for instance, the number of housing units supplied, or to which extent housing supply meets housing demand. This may indicate to what extent a housing policy has contributed to removing the obstacles of people to have capabilities to secure a place to live, and to invest in other functionings to enhance their well-being. This research may be combined with qualitative research about how those not eligible for formal housing finance programmes handle their housing issue in order to draw more detail implications for necessary policy actions. ...
The research first defines the precariat in both affluent and less affluent countries. The term ‘precariat’ is used in affluent countries and the discussion has been emerging particularly in the European context. The definition of its concept is yet contingent, but it has many common aspects with informal sector workers in terms of capability deprivations. The research will analyse these common features, define the concept of the precariat and discuss both groups under the same term of the precariat.
The second phase of the research selects countries and compares the number of precariat population having capability deprivations in relation to housing. The research will compare the result with the target population of housing policy interventions, which is largely measured by the income threshold and some additional variables related to specific conditions of marginalised groups. Income or consumption measurement has been the main dimension to define the social policy target groups, and housing policy is no exception to this. A comparison of the target population number of a social/public housing programme according to a monetary indicator and non-monetary indicator(s) may provide a different picture. Currently, the key informational basis for defining the target population of social/public housing programmes is the household income level. However, the population in the precariat may have income above the threshold of the programmes but not stable enough to take a long-term mortgage or rent a house in a private market. In the context of less affluent countries, many low-income people and the poor are working in the informal economy, who are in high need for adequate housing. However, they are often not eligible for government housing programmes: they cannot prove their income and governments cannot trace their income level.
The third phase compares policy interventions. Private (informal) rental sector has played a certain role to provide the precariat with affordable place to live. The research will examine the housing systems related to the private rental sector in terms of tenants’ tenure vulnerability. Besides the comparison of relevant regulations, the research can also compare the number of private rental housing units under the rent control regulation, for instance. An additional case study is to compare the population eligible for housing finance programmes (mortgages). Research on the extent of opportunities that people have for using formal housing finance programmes may broaden the informational basis of housing policy, instead of merely focusing on, for instance, the number of housing units supplied, or to which extent housing supply meets housing demand. This may indicate to what extent a housing policy has contributed to removing the obstacles of people to have capabilities to secure a place to live, and to invest in other functionings to enhance their well-being. This research may be combined with qualitative research about how those not eligible for formal housing finance programmes handle their housing issue in order to draw more detail implications for necessary policy actions.
How to apply the capability approach to housing policy?
Concepts, theories and challenges
Seoul
The evolution of informal settlers’ political gains in changing state regimes in Seoul
Hanoi
A study of informally developed housing and its role in the political arena of a post-reform communist city
A critical review on the notions of housing policy
Toward a capability-oriented-housing policy