An ongoing question in capability research is how to incorporate the value of freedom into the measurement of inequality. This article proposes an approach to answering this question in the housing domain and its operationalisation. The approach places an evaluation focus to the conditions constraining or expanding housing choices in the dimensions of opportunity, security, and ability. For operationalisation, the study designed a measurement of multidimensional housing disadvantages (MHDs) using the Alkire-Foster method and data from the Netherlands. Indicators include the entitlement to housing tenure options, vulnerability in housing cost payments, and ability to plan finance for housing. The measurement outcome demonstrates that the MHDs measurement can provide information on whose housing choices are more intensely constrained, thus having a lower capability for housing, and whose current housing situation is likely a result of coerced choices. The findings indicate that adults living with housemates or family (latent households), youths, and those with precarious jobs have a significantly lower capability for housing compared to other population groups. This article also compares the freedom-oriented measure of MHDs with functioning-oriented and other conventional measures and discusses its distinguishing properties. This comparison suggests a need to revisit current policy priorities in addressing housing inequality.@en

This study empirically examines the difference of the capability
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.@en

Housing inequality is a growing concern in our society. In recent decades, this inequality has been exacerbated by the phenomenon of housing being financialized and commodified as a means for wealth accumulation. Management of financial institutions and housing markets has become the centre of attention in policy discussion. The questions of how to promote the moral values tied to housing, such as human rights, dignity and freedom, and how to better enable people to access suitable housing have been marginalized. As a way forward, the states’ re-intervention and re-distribution policies, and the human rights-based approach to housing policies are discussed, but this thesis advocates for a more ambitious paradigm shift. By extending Amartya Sen’s capability approach to housing, the thesis argues for resetting the primary goal of housing policies as expansion of people’s capabilities for housing—expanding opportunity, ability and security to lead their valued ways of residing—beyond the distribution of monetary and material resources for housing, such as housing benefits and dwelling units. This thesis presents the theoretical foundations of this argument and proposes basic principles to guide housing policies, which can serve as a normative basis of housing debates on necessary policy actions. An essential tool to guide housing policies towards this newly proposed goal is to evaluate policy outcomes and housing affairs of people—well-being, deprivation and inequality in housing—with capability considerations. The thesis suggests how this evaluation can be done and can help policies address the inequalities in what people can do to pursue their suitable housing options and how well they are actually residing. @en

When correcting policies to tackle rising housing inequality, certain principles of housing justice are necessary. Recently, the capability approach to justice has attracted the attention of housing scholars, as promising guidance to compensate for problems in conventional policy approaches. However, the practicality of its policy application remains uncertain. This article suggests how to manage the issues creating gaps between the philosophy of the capability approach and housing policy practices, along the chain of essential questions of justice theories (which ideal institutions, metrics of justice, and distributive pattern rules?). Building on this reasoning, the article proposes that housing policy be guided by the changes in unjust housing situations in terms of people’s capability for housing, instead of by absolute principles of distribution, or characteristics of welfare state/housing regimes. For evaluating housing capability, this article proposes to assess housing opportunities, housing securities and housing abilities. The article concludes with implications for the roles of comparative housing research in implementing the proposed approach.@en

Covid-19 and especially the extreme measures of the lockdown in response to the virus, have exposed existing housing inequalities. They revealed how, in the 21st century, households still live in poor and insecure housing conditions exposing them to increased physical and mental health risks. In the Netherlands, where we as authors are based, similar inequalities and injustices in the housing sector can be observed. How can the wide variety of impacts of the coronavirus be understood, and what should be done to address them? Justice theories offer a valuable framework. By spotlighting the impacts of the coronavirus crisis on four households who are differently affected, we explore different critical perspectives to analyse the current crisis more coherently.@en

Housing has played a significant role in increasing inequality. It has been financialised and losing its human and social dimensions. A critical review of housing policy directions is needed to explore a new housing approach. This article revisits the underpinning perspectives of housing policy discussions through the lens of the capability approach. The capability approach is a normative evaluative approach to understanding poverty, well-being, and justice. It argues that policy should primarily focus on expanding individuals' capabilities instead of resources and utilities. From its perspective, understanding the sources and nature of capability deprivation and inequity is central to removing existing injustice in our society, and to re-establishing ethics at the centre of policy discussions. What implications for housing studies can we draw from the capability approach? The article presents a conceptual application of the capability approach to housing policy discussions, and concludes that a capability-oriented housing policy framework has an added value.@en

The paper explores an idea for framing housing justice with the capability approach, and how the housing justice framework can guide for the inequality reduction in housing. The changes in the world – such as the growth of wealth inequality, housing financialisation, and the rise of the precariat – indicate that the traditional welfare state models and housing policy directions need to be redesigned. The factors creating inequality in housing are no longer confined to the boundary of a ‘state’. This demands us to reexamine the nation-state-based discourse on inequality. There is a growing consensus that a correction is urgently needed, but debates on guiding principles seem absent. The paper aims to open a debate about this topic and suggests that the housing justice framework with the capability approach can play a role as a guide. Three essential subjects of theories of justice are specified to form a base of the idea for housing justice: (a) the characterisation of ideal institutions; (b) metrics of justice (i.e. capabilities); and (c) distributive pattern rules. The paper concludes that the realisation-focused comparative approach to housing justice is plausible in contrast to the approach that primarily focuses on defining ideal institutions. Housing capabilities need to be compared, and the paper suggests three sub-spaces of the housing capabilities metric to make its concept more workable: opportunities, securities and abilities. The scope of housing justice should not be confined to the distribution of holdings – such as adequate housing – and the notion of redistribution of the welfare states. It concludes that the primary task is to monitor to what extent a housing policy is enhancing capabilities of individuals – real housing opportunities to enjoy, rather than to merely monitor whether a policy has reached the perfectly just distributive rule or threshold. Based on the ideas proposed, the paper draws implications for the role of housing research, particularly comparative housing research, in advancing housing justice in society. @en

In affluent countries, the precariat class is becoming a serious issue. On the other hand, in less affluent countries, a large percentage of the population is working in the informal economy. Both population groups are facing similar capability deprivations in securing a place to live. The deprivations they are facing are not limited to monetary dimension. Insecurity in employment, and lack of entitlement for various social housing services and mortgages greatly constraint their ability to secure a place to live. They often rent housing but their tenure is often vulnerable due to the lack of systems protecting tenants’ right. In addition, both in affluent and less affluent countries, housing policies have been oriented to homeownership, which results in reduced housing opportunities for the precariat and the workers in the informal economy. Their informal or insecure position often limits their voice in government housing policy. These deprivations in the capabilities relevant to housing can limit their other life opportunities. The research aims to examine the multiple capability deprivations of people in the precariat class and informal economy in relation to the housing issue. 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.@en

This research proposal is designed to examine the housing inequality that the precariat is facing, through the lens of the capability approach. The research will focus on European workers in non-standard employment amongst various precariat groups. The precariat emerged with the changing economies structure and has been facing different types of housing inequality. They are not necessarily resource-wise poor, but often have limited opportunities (capabilities) to reside in a way that they have reason to value. For understanding this challenge, the research uses the capability approach as the main theoretical framework. The core argument of the capability approach is that the primary focus of understanding poverty and well-being should be the capabilities (real opportunities) of individuals, neither resources (such as income, wealth, basic goods, and housing units) nor utility (such as desire fulfilment and housing satisfaction). The capability approach is getting attention from housing and social policy researchers as an alternative framework for understanding inequality and social justice matter. The increasing awareness of the problems of housing inequality has triggered the researchers for reviewing traditional discourses on housing and welfare policy. However, the practical applicability of the capability approach is yet in a debate. This research proposal expects to contribute to this emerging debate as well through a case study, and to test to what extent the capability approach can provide a different insight into housing inequality problems and welfare policy implications@en

This paper investigates to what extent the capability approach can contribute to housing studies and policy development. The capability approach, pioneered by economist-philosopher Amartya Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbaum, is built upon critical reviews on the norms of welfarism and utilitarianism, and argues that social policy and its evaluative approach need to move beyond them. Social policies have largely focused on material means such as income and wealth or subjective categories such as satisfaction and preferences. In contrast, the capability approach emphasises that the focus should be placed at expanding people’s opportunities and abilities to achieve the things – beings and doings – that they value, instead of limiting to resources or subjective feelings. Traditionally, housing policy studies have deeply been rooted in the norms of the welfare state, welfare economics and its philosophical foundation of utilitarianism. What implications for housing studies can we draw from the capability approach? The paper explores this topic and presents a conceptual discussion on how the capability approach can be applied to the studies on housing policy and its evaluative framework. It will critically review mainstream evaluative approaches in housing policy, and commonly used informational bases, such as the total number of dwellings supplied, housing quality, housing satisfaction and housing affordability, which have been the core indicators to assess overall housing performance. According to the capability approach perspective, the mainstream evaluative approaches tend to ignore other important aspects, such as distribution matters, diversity of human beings and values, and non-utility concerns such as moral issues, rights, and justice. The central concerns of housing policy need to include to what extent a policy expands people’s opportunities and abilities to pursue their housing process, by removing obstacles that people face in the process. In other words, it needs to examine what opportunity and ability deprivations a household has in her process towards achieving the housing – or state of well-dwelling – that she has reason to value. This may include not only the access to finance and land, but also, for instance, access to proper information, gender equality, real human rights, and opportunities for being a stakeholder in the decision-making process of residential area planning. The paper discusses missing perspectives in housing policy studies and preliminary concludes that a capability-oriented housing policy framework could have an added value. The discussion in this paper remains at a theoretical and methodological level. The paper primarily aims to provide a theoretical foundation for further research on defining specific multi-dimensional deprivations in one’s housing process, so that these can be used for evaluating the impact of housing policies. This clearly is a big challenge. However, we think there is great promise in adapting the methods that are used in other scholars’ research in different domains such as health, education, employment and multi-dimensional poverty.@en

n Viet Nam, the single-party state remains in control of all land through ownership and maintains the right to withdraw land- use rights from citizens. Citizens have few rights over how land is used, according to the laws as they are written. However, the presence of the large informal land and housing sector in Hanoi brings to light the fact that, in spite of a constrained political environment, citizens find space for independent action. The key to understanding how this function is by looking at the everyday practices used by ordinary citizens. This chapter gives an account of how citizens have largely relied on non-confrontational tactics to secure land and housing, in ways that are able to change state directions and policies. The choice of non-confrontational tactics in an authoritarian country is not surprising. What sheds light on how civil society can emerge within the Vietnamese political system is the response by the Vietnamese state to accommodate the everyday practices of ordinary citizens. While these practices do not oppose the state directly, they are perceived as apolitical by both the state and the citizens. Furthermore, this chapter argues that there is much to be learned about the everyday spatial politics in Hanoi, as these modes of political engagement are becoming increasingly important in today’s urban world.@en

This presentation summarises the research proposal for developing a model for applying the capability approach to housing studies, and testing the model through a case study in Manila. The conceptual framework of this research lies in a comparative analysis of key theoretical approaches to well-being in the field of welfarism, planning and development: i.e. utilitarian and capability approach. Welfare-housing framework has deeply been rooted in welfarism and utilitarianism. They have been dominant in analysing housing outcomes as well as designing housing policies for low-income groups and the poor. Meanwhile, in development studies, the capability approach has substantially influenced on the research of poverty and well-being, and also on policy recommendations. The capability approach, pioneered by economist-philosopher Amartya Sen, claims that social policy framework and its evaluative approach should move beyond the norms of welfarim and utilitarianism. This research proposes to examine the extent to which the housing policies/programmes in Manila are linked to or influenced by utilitarian and capability approach, and to analyse each policy or programme’s impact on households’ well-being. It first examines what dimensions of capabilities are relevant to housing. Based on the findings, it evaluates the impact of housing programmes on the capabilities identified, and thus eventually well-being of the urban poor. This research aims to examine the applicability of the capability approach and its contributing value to welfarism-oriented practices that are dominant in housing policy and planning field. The case study – a model test – plans to conduct a comparative study of three settlements in Manila, in which public housing, slum upgrading, and community-driven housing programmes have been implemented. The research expects to reveal what aspects are missing or fulfilled in different housing approaches for enhancing the urban poor’s capabilities and well-being, and thus to be able to provide a recommendation for housing policy development as well as its effectiveness evaluation.@en

There are increasing calls for housing researchers to critically review housing policy directions. Housing has played a significant role in increasing inequality in capital in the Global North. In the meantime, in the Global South, most housing programmes have benefited only middle-income groups, and failed to benefit the poor and low-income groups, The role of housing is increasingly highlighted in the global agenda, as was addressed in Habitat III and UN-Habitat’s ‘Housing at the Centre’ initiative in 2016. This agenda calls for a paradigm shift in housing policy and practices. This paper investigates to what extent the capability approach can contribute to this paradigm shift. Housing studies and policies have traditionally deeply rooted in the notions of welfare economics and its philosophical foundation of utilitarianism, of which flaws the capability approach critically diagnoses. What implications can the capability approach provide for housing policy directions? The paper explores this topic and presents a conceptual discussion on how the capability approach can be applied to the studies on housing policy. The paper discusses missing perspectives in housing policy and, for the capability approach application, it proposes a need for discussing multi-dimensional housing-relevant-capabilities rather than pre-determining housing as a single-unit and self-evident capability. The discussion remains at a theoretical level. The paper primarily aims to provide a theoretical ground for further research on specific multi-dimensional deprivations that a person may face in his or her housing process, so that these can be used for guiding housing policy directions.@en

South Korea transformed from an authoritarian regime to a democratic regime starting in 1987, when a popular movement led to the June 29 Declaration. This movement was triggered by continuous uprisings and social movements, which included alliances between antieviction groups, labor rights groups, and pro-democracy groups. However, understanding the political meaning of informal settlers’ movements in Seoul through the lens of the democratization process can lead to oversimplification: the interactions between citizens and the state were complex, leading to political gains and loss of mobilization. In fact, positions adopted by the Korean state have varied a lot over time, ranging from authoritarian to bureaucratic and finally democratic. Furthermore, the country has features of a strong developmental state. Accordingly, the attitude of the state and the Seoul government toward informal settlements has been mixed and, consequently, the strategies adopted by informal settlers for securing their housing rights have also changed dramatically. This chapter examines the interaction between informal settlers’ movements and transitional and mixed state regimes in South Korea. It analyzes how the attitude of the government differed according to the state’s position, how informal settlers reacted to such different state positions, and how the latter influenced the state’s attitude as a result. It also discusses the extent to which such struggles have achieved their claims and secured political space.@en