Examining the effect of neo-liberalism on housing policy in UK since 1980s

This essay explores the impact of neo-liberalism on housing policies in the UK since the 1980s, focusing on the rise of homelessness and the shift towards market-oriented solutions. It examines the factors contributing to homelessness, the current situation in the UK, and the neoliberal ideology's influence on housing policy and practice.

Running head: HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
Housing and homelessness
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author Note

1HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
Examining the effect of neo-liberalism on housing policy in UK since 1980s
The situation of homelessness in the United Kingdom is reacted and calculated in various
ways in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England. However, this has been affecting the people
living in every sector of the countries. Different paths towards the issue of homeless have been
researched (McKee, Muir and Moore 2017). This includes personal factors like addictions and
structural factors like poverty. Besides, for young people, there are extra factors that have been
appearing to be covering. This includes the necessity to face the liabilities of independent living
prior they are ready for them. Apart from this, the rise in housing cost and growth in job insecurity
can also be indicated as an essential contributing factor.
Neo-liberalism or neo-liberalism, on the other hand in a resurgence of 20th century derived
from 19th-century ideas. This is related to economic liberalism and free market capitalism. The
concept involves various policies of economic liberalisation. This includes the reduction of
government spending, free trade, deregulation, austerity and privatisation. This is helpful to develop
the role of the private sector in society and economy. The policies and ideas comprised of a
paradigm shift away from the Keynesian consensus’ post-war (Valença 2015).
The following essay demonstrates the effect of neo-liberalism on different housing policies.
For this, the case of the United Kingdom is considered here. The overall scenario is taken since
1980.
Understanding housing and homelessness:
Housing is a mandatory and necessity of life. The lack of affordable housing is a massive
issue for various confronting communities, extending from large urban centers to a smaller and less
populated sector. This can be mitigated through promoting a permanent supportive housing. This is a

2HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
long-term supportive service and rental assistance. This is mainly targeted at families and individuals
were having substance use disorders, mental health issues, disabilities and chronic illness for people
engaged in repeated and long-term homelessness. Besides rapid re-housing is another solution. This
provides short-term rental service and assistance. Here, the aim is to obtain housing quickly, remain
housed and raise self-sufficiency (Lund 2017).
Many factors give rise to and prolong homelessness. There are aspects like sudden and
unexpected job loss. This takes place as the budget is tight. This can cause the family has otherwise
never gone through homelessness. This leads to seeing them on the street. Further, domestic
violence, drug addiction and mental illness are the factors contributing highly to those causes. This is
why they have a massive population of homelessness (Jacobs and Pawson 2015). Costly housing
having no affordable or little housing in various sectors have been cited as the cause some people
have jobs. Thus they are unable to put a roof on their heads. Here, for the homeless people, one has
the extra burden of elements of substance abuse problems and physical and mental illness. Thus
escaping from the homelessness cycle is exceptionally complicated.
The situation in the United Kingdom:
It is seen that 320,000 individuals are found in homeless in U.K. This amount is also
understood to be increasing every year by 13,000 which is a 4% of the rise. This is despite the
government pledges to control that crisis. Further, this estimation provides that one in every two
hundred people is found in homeless nationally. This involves rough sleepers and various people
within temporary accommodation. They are likely to be under the underestimation of problem. This
is because the issue has not captured people experiencing the hidden homelessness like sofa-surfers
and other people living insecurely under cars and shreds (Montgomerie and Büdenbender 2015).

3HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
The Newham in eastern London is marked as the number one hotspot of homelessness. This
has at least one in 24 individuals under housing insecurity. Further, more than 15,000 individuals are
present in temporary accommodation under the borough and besides 76 are found to be sleeping
rough. At the overall capital as a whole, 170,000 people or one in fifty are homeless. At Westminster
consists of the coarsest number of sleepers having the number of 215. It is followed by Camden with
127. At Chelsea and Kensington, which is the richest borough of UK, there are over five hundred
homeless ones. This is equivalent to 1 in every 30 residents (Forrest and Hirayama 2015). This
figure shows how housing and homelessness insecurity has spread beyond the conventional core of
London to broader Midland and south-east. Here, the effect of high rents and the welfare has cut the
ripples externally (Whitworth 2016).
The massive rate of homelessness outside the capital has been recorded in Coventry,
Peterborough, Basildon, Broxbourne, Reading, Epsom, Watford, Harlow, Milton Keynes, Dartford,
Slough, Brighton and Hove, Luton and Birmingham (Slater 2018).
Homelessness is regionally growing quickest in Humberside, Yorkshire and West Midlands.
They have seen a 12% rise that is followed by the north-west having the increase of 11% increase.
Apart from this, homelessness is felt in the south-west and north-east regions of England by 10%.
Moreover, the figures 320,000 for Scotland, Wales and England have reached by assimilating the
homelessness of government and statistics of rough-sleeping during July 2018 (Hoolachan et al.
2017). This consists of the data on homelessness and provision of social services. This is for
temporary accommodation for various families in crisis. Here, the bulk of affected about 300,000 are
in the type of temporary accommodation. This has been after accepted as homelessness by a local
authority.

4HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
View of neoliberalism on housing and homelessness:
As per the neoliberalism, the market itself is a benign and omniscient force of nature. The
workings have been facilitated by the government. This is to reward those living by the rules
inevitably. Massive transfers of corporate in the format of tax breaks, grants to corporations and
government subsidies are justified in the light of this philosophy. Further, the propaganda has been
witnessed to be undermined the previous events of the Keynesian war, the model of social
democracy that has fetched economics and not as a kind of higher power (Somerville 2016). Here
the people are a subservient and human creation. A tool is used for good or every to underpin the
stable and inclusive society.
Besides, the insidious fallout of the neoliberalism has been undermining of the democratic
system. There is the control of critical public institutions and public survives. This is provided to
unelected, private companies and profit-making. More this rise in number is the effect of voting in
national and local elections (Grimshaw and Rubery 2015). Further, this has contributed to Trump
and Brexit presidency, mainstream politics that are rejected, voters. This is seen as the co-opted and
annexed by the idea of corporatism. Further, this behoves the government in taking heed of
ineluctable fails of a market in providing elements such as utopia by the champions of neoliberals.
They should be resuming their liability to deliver the equitable, inclusive and functional state. This is
from mutual respect and co-operation instead of competition and commoditization for every citizen.
Impact of neo-liberal ideology on housing policy and practice at U.K:
Here the paradigms have been based on the idea that the realization that governments have
failed to deliver. Here nothing notable can be done to develop the development of access to facilities
and housing. This is primarily for the lower levels of society. Here the idea has shown that free
market mechanisms are competent to deliver and must be permitted with a free play by governments.

5HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
The policies subsequently and institutions like the World Bank have adopted the concept (Nowicki
2018). This is by suggesting the reforms of the housing sector. It must be reminded that the free
market system has not worked for the benefits of the poor.
Neoliberal agenda of 1980:
As per the line of the original philosophy of neoliberalism, the agenda suggested the
restructuring of the relationship between market and state. The ownership finance, role of production
and regulation has rolled back various tasks that are restricted to market-enablement. Here, the
agenda thus assigned that state in playing the role of facilitator, instead of a controller. Here, the
state has withdrawn the role of every direct activity of production and paved the way for the markets
for delivery (Stonehouse, Threlkeld and Farmer 2015). The sectoral policy and macroeconomic
reforms in this context have seen the essential pre-requisites for easy activities. Various measures
have been advocated like the eradicating the liberalization of government and price distortions. This
is done controls of process rates of exchanges, ceiling interest rates and restrictions of credits,
inaugurating market to foreign capitals, products and completion. This is done through eradicating
secured tariffs and then importing quotas.
Next, the neo-liberals witnessed the failure of importing substation and declining and
stagnant export revenues. This is also as the outcome of improper policies of states. Besides, they
proposed the replacement of introducing substitution with exporting various oriented policies. The
deregulation and additional reforms have been seen to be necessary for creating greater growths and
completions in operations of free markets. In this way, the agenda of neo-liberalism has been
referred to the strengthening of the globalization process. This is done by creating a favorable
climate that is suitable for market forces by transferring various financial functions from the state to
markets (Byrne and Norris 2018).

6HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
From this agenda and promotions by World Bank and IMF, in the late 70s and early 80s, the
countries began reinforcing the financial policies in integrating to the worldwide economy. It is seen
as the structural adjustment indicating the implementation of agenda. This also includes nations
having been changing the institutional structure like streamlining of an administrative process,
reforming supervisory structures and development of arrangement that are important for markets.
During the 1980s, for instance, the IMF and World Bank deployed financial stabilization and
structural adjustment programs (Bevir 2020). Moreover, the loan finance has been delivered to
enable the government to introduce financial reforms and decrease the payment balance deficits.
This is to curb extra deficits at for the budgets of the public sector and secure better kind of
performances. In this way, during the 80s, the institutions and countries applied elements of agenda
in their pursuit for developing financial developments.
Effect of neo-liberal agenda on housing policies for low-income groups at U.K.:
It is seen that one of the more significant effects that neo-liberalism has on this sector was
identifying the fact that housing is not the actual area of policy, that is to be developed. This is about
the evidence of necessity and principal about extending the role of the market and home ownership.
Here one of the most significant effects that the neo-liberalism ideas had on housing is identifying
the fact (Harrison and Sanders 2015). The housing is the sector of the policy to be created relating
the evidence of necessity and was fundamentally about extending the homeownership and role of the
market. There is the implication that it is not the necessity and demand that was the key to the
production of housing and consuming the free market activities. Moreover, this has been envisaged
that the liberalized forces of a market have been in the situation to provide the lesser income groups
greater than incomes. This is due to higher productivity exports, investments and savings. Since then
average national incomes have been growing because of the latest macroeconomic policies (Manzi
and Richardson 2017). It is seen that lesser households have been put below the line of poverty.

7HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
Here, the outcome has been the crowding in tenements, pavement dwellings and squatter settlements
have been decreasing.
Furthermore, they have also been relying upon positive changes, at the same time in housing
markets. In this way, it was expected that the competitive markets have been in the place of
providing access to shelter for the low-income sectors also. Due to expected positive results, the time
of the 80s is ranked as the shift in housing policy. The World Bank moved away from the reliability,
cost recovery and affordability approach from the 70s to 80s approach (Norris 2016). This is to
promote the development of institutions of self-support able to make long-term mortgage loans for
minor and moderate class households. This has also included the restructure and reduces subsidies.
These reforming elements have importance for housing including developing of economic capital
markets, curbs on the development of public expenditures, deregulation of a rate of interest and
considering the direct roles of production away from the state (Aalbers 2015). Here the government
has emphasized on the provision the housing finance mainland for rationalizing the subsidies
through decreasing and developing targets. As the policy and lending tools, they were gaining to
concentrate on projects of housing finance, putting interest rate reforms. This is to promote the
resource mobilization and develop tool designs of mortgages.
The legislative changes in the 80s restricted the subsidy systems at U.K. This consolidation
of the system of rent rebate to latest housing system formed a section of the process in 1982. There
was an effective shift from the subsidies of “brick and mortar” in individual subsidies. This is mainly
based on household incomes. The World Bank has advised the U.K. government to abandon their
previous responsibilities as house developed. They suggested leaving that on private sectors. This
indicated that the governments had fetched the transfer of the current housing stock to the private
sector. It is seen than in U.K. there was a shift of tenure the status away from the owner of a

8HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
subsidized owner. They have been providing rent to the housing in subsidized owner occupation
(Fernandez and Aalbers 2017). Hence, the rise of owner occupation and a decrease of council
housing referred to the era of the 1980s. At the East European nations, the parliamentary democracy
got established in the late 1980s.
The above study shows that housing is the state subject and the mechanisms of markets and
private ownership has been highly excluded here. However, at this time, the countries have been
unable to escape from patterns of neo-liberalism transformation. In this way, they inaugurated the
concept of privatization. Here, the formats of privatization are deployed in the nations that involve a
sale of state or restitution. This is either for the private companies or tenants. Further, the prices are
lowered for assuring fast disposals. Hence it is evident that housing policies of the 80s have moved
beyond the emphasis on project levels for a sector of housing sectors. The adjustment policies have
given rise to a severe decline in living conditions of poor related to a surge in unemployment and a
decrease in the actual minimum wage. Besides, there is the consensus that despite the transfer
strategies, the most vulnerable team has been the urban poor. They have explicitly been hard hit
because of unemployment, cuts in primary subsidies of water, currency devaluation, energy fuel and
shelter and transport. This is because of cuts in the expenditure of public. Hence, rather than an
anticipated decline, the overall squatter population developed. Besides, the home ownership among
the poor also decreased due to the decline in incomes, costs of inflated building and the vast rate of
interest on loans of housing. It can be concluded by saying that considering the impact of the policy
on lesser income teams in the 80s, the housing policy of the World Bank has been moving on. This
is from the emphasis on privatization and finance for further encompassing the overall developments
of housing sectors. This can be explained by the seven-point agenda in 1992.

9HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
References:
Aalbers, M.B., 2015. The great moderation, the great excess and the global housing crisis.
International Journal of Housing Policy, 15(1), pp.43-60.
Bevir, M. ed., 2020. Governmentality after neoliberalism. Routledge.
Byrne, M. and Norris, M., 2018. Procyclical social housing and the crisis of Irish housing policy:
Marketization, social housing, and the property boom and bust. Housing Policy Debate, 28(1),
pp.50-63.
Fernandez, R. and Aalbers, M.B., 2017. Housing and capital in the twenty-first century: Realigning
housing studies and political economy. Housing, Theory and Society, 34(2), pp.151-158.
Forrest, R. and Hirayama, Y., 2015. The financialisation of the social project: Embedded liberalism,
neoliberalism and home ownership. Urban Studies, 52(2), pp.233-244.
Grimshaw, D. and Rubery, J., 2015. Neoliberalism 2.0: crisis and austerity in the UK. Edited by,
p.209.
Harrison, M. and Sanders, T. eds., 2015. Social policies and social control: New perspectives on
the'not-so-big society'. Policy Press.
Hoolachan, J., McKee, K., Moore, T. and Soaita, A.M., 2017. ‘Generation rent’and the ability to
‘settle down’: economic and geographical variation in young people’s housing transitions. Journal of
Youth Studies, 20(1), pp.63-78.
Jacobs, K. and Pawson, H., 2015. Introduction to the special edition:‘The politics of housing policy’.
Lund, B., 2017. Understanding housing policy. Policy Press.

10HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
Manzi, T. and Richardson, J., 2017. Rethinking professional practice: the logic of competition and
the crisis of identity in housing practice. Housing Studies, 32(2), pp.209-224.
McKee, K., Muir, J. and Moore, T., 2017. Housing policy in the UK: The importance of spatial
nuance. Housing Studies, 32(1), pp.60-72.
Montgomerie, J. and Büdenbender, M., 2015. Round the houses: Homeownership and failures of
asset-based welfare in the United Kingdom. New Political Economy, 20(3), pp.386-405.
Norris, M., 2016. Introduction. In Property, Family and the Irish Welfare State (pp. 1-19). Palgrave
Macmillan, Cham.
Nowicki, M., 2018. A Britain that everyone is proud to call home? The bedroom tax, political
rhetoric and home unmaking in UK housing policy. Social & Cultural Geography, 19(5), pp.647-
667.
Slater, T., 2018. The invention of the ‘sink estate’: Consequential categorisation and the UK housing
crisis. The Sociological Review, 66(4), pp.877-897.
Somerville, P., 2016. Coalition housing policy in England. The Coalition Government and Social
Policy: Restructuring the Welfare State, pp.153-177.
Stonehouse, D., Threlkeld, G. and Farmer, J., 2015. ‘Housing risk’and the neoliberal discourse of
responsibilisation in Victoria. Critical Social Policy, 35(3), pp.393-413.
Valença, M.M., 2015. Social rental housing in HK and the UK: Neoliberal policy divergence or the
market in the making?. Habitat International, 49, pp.107-114.
Whitworth, A., 2016. Neoliberal paternalism and paradoxical subjects: Confusion and contradiction
in UK activation policy. Critical Social Policy, 36(3), pp.412-431.