Transcript HELPS International Conference 26. February 2013

Housing system: a determinant of supply of
housing options to elderly and people with
disabilities
Martin LUX
Institute of Sociology CAS
Jilská 1, 110 00 Prague 1, Czech Republic
[email protected]
This project is implemented through the CENTRAL EUROPE Programme co-financed by the ERDF
Socio-Economics of Housing Research Department
Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Main research question
 The main research question for our analysis is following: Has
the nature of housing system (housing tenure structure) a
significant influence on the diversity and scope of innovations
in supply of housing options to elderly and people with
disabilities?
 The research on mutual association between housing systems
and the scope of housing options available to elderly is new
and has clear policy implications: if housing system
determines or limits the supply of housing options to elderly
then it would imply that measures (practices) effective in one
housing system will probably not be effective in other housing
system.
 Due to the limited number of countries the results could not
be generalized but our sample consists of countries with very
different housing systems and, consequently, allows for partial
analysis of this kind.
2
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Housing system categorization
 DE: social market system, private renting solutions and flexible
social housing.
 AT: social democratic system (80 % of all new constructed housing
are co-financed from public sources), social housing.
 SK, SI, HU: liberal/super-homeownership system, owneroccupied housing (almost no private and social renting); especially
HU: “there is no real market for rental apartments, there is no choice
for the residents.”
 IT, CZ, PL: mixed system with increasing role of owner-occupied
housing and residualisation of private/social renting.
Tenure structure
OO
PR
P/SH/CHcla
O
AT
(2001)
53
18
22
7
CZ
(2011)
75
9
9
7
DE
(2003)
38
43
14
5
HU
(2005)
94
3
3
-
IT
(2008)
75
15
5
6
PL
(2002)
68
9
20
3
SK
(2008)
95
2
3
-
SI
93
1
5
1
 Elderly have higher homeownership rate (DE 48%; HU 97%)
3
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Supply of housing options supporting “ageing in place”
Usually more than 90% of seniors live in a „normal“ own or
rented flat BUT diversity and innovations in supply of housing
options for elderly vary:
 Developed model: wider scale of alternatives (and innovations)
both in housing affordability (housing allowances, „agreed rent“,
social rent, incentives for developers), and in housing accessibility
(allowances for technology-assisted living, ICT, architectonical
adjustments of flats; lifelong housing in new built flats, cohousing, collaborative housing): DE, AT.
 Semi-developed model: IT.
 Basic model with a renewal of social housing: more
extensive support for construction of social flats (designed also for
the elderly), otherwise basic (usually universal) offer of
allowances, limited innovations AND insufficient housing
allowance (SK), only temporary support for social housing (PL, SI,
CZ), no support for adjustments of flats (SI): SK, PL, SI, CZ
 Basic model without a renewal of social housing: HU.
4
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
GDP per capita (2011) and social protection benefits (2009)
Gross domestic product (GDP) is a measure for the economic activity. It is defined as the value of all goods and services produced
less the value of any goods or services used in their creation. The volume index of GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS)
is expressed in relation to the European Union (EU-27) average set to equal 100. If the index of a country is higher than 100, this
country's level of GDP per head is higher than the EU average and vice versa. Basic figures are expressed in PPS, i.e. a common
currency that eliminates the differences in price levels between countries allowing meaningful volume comparisons of GDP between
countries. Please note that the index, calculated from PPS figures and expressed with respect to EU-27 = 100, is intended for crosscountry comparisons rather than for temporal comparisons.
Source: Eurostat
5
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Old-age dependency ratio, 2011
Note: This indicator is defined as the number of persons aged 65 and over expressed as a
percentage of the number of persons aged between 15 and 64.
Source: Eurostat
6
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Poverty rate and income inequality, 2010
Note: At-risk-of-poverty rate of older people = the share of persons with an equivalised disposable income, before social
transfers, below the risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income (after
social transfers). Retirement and survivor's pensions are counted as income before transfers and not as social transfers.
Income inequality for older people = the ratio of total income received by the 20 % of the population with the highest income
(top quintile) to that received by the 20 % of the population with the lowest income (lowest quintile). Income must be understood
as equivalised disposable income.
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC.
7
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Housing affordability for the elderly, 2009
Average ratios of housing expenditures among the elderly in ownership and rental sector
Note: average ratios of household housing expenditures to net household incomes – households of the elderly.
Source: EU SILC 2009, own calculations.
8
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Inequalities in housing affordability
Differences in the ratios of household housing expenditures between the households of
elderly with the highest income (5th quintile) and the lowest income (1st quintile)
Source: EU SILC 2009; households of the elderly.
9
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Form of housing support – support by new construction of
affordable housing
Number of dwellings per 1,000 inhabitants
Source: Housing Statistics in the European Union 2010.
10
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Results of data analysis
 QCA is a new method used in comparative qualitative
sociology or comparative politics. QCA allows studying causal
conditions, even if the causality is very complex, involving
different combinations of causal conditions capable generating
the same outcome. QCA can be applied to research designs
involving small and intermediate size, such as on samples
between 5 and 50 cases.
 Our hypothesis has been partially confirmed by QCA.
Higher share of rental housing in the housing system of a
country leads to more developed model of supply of housing
options to elderly but only when the country has
simultaneously higher GDP, higher old-age-dependency ratio
and higher income inequality among elderly.
 Housing system has been confirmed by our analysis as
being a significant determinant (pre-condition) of
broader and more innovative supply of housing options
to elderly and people with disabilities.
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Conclusions: interpretation of results
 Cost-benefit analysis: even small „handy person“ changes can
increase importance of subjective well-being and prevention of
stress – adaptations also bring about reduced stress for family
carers – bring reduced overall costs (due to earlier leave of
hospital and later admission to institutional care)
However
 the adaptations (innovations) are cost effective when the
needs of the elderly are low or moderate (Pleace 2011), i.e.
for the „younger“ disabled older people (Heywood, Turner
2007) + when considering long-term use rather than a
short one (Lansley et al. 2004).
12
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Conclusions: interpretation of results
 Long-term use (efficiency of public expenditures) may
be better assured in rental housing: PRS (social market) is
the contract on service provision on specific period of time
with measurable outcomes (lower rent provision); SH (social
democratic) is the permanent provision of service with
measurable outcomes (lower than market rent).
 On the opposite, when grants are allocated to homeowners,
the term of use cannot be guaranteed as the public authority
cannot force the owner (or his/her heirs) to use adapted flat
for long term and to use it only by him or other eligible people
(households).
13
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Conclusions: interpretation of results
 The second problem represents the targeting of the public
help, i.e. effectiveness of public support.
 While the allocation of adapted dwellings to eligible households
can be precisely specified in contracts with private landlords in the
social market system and social landlords allocate dwellings
especially to those with low income and wealth in social
democratic system, the targeting of subsidies to homeowners in
the liberal system is much more complicated.
 There might be a large share of elderly called ‘income poor, equity
rich’ in liberal system; these people may have a high housing
wealth. The potential public subsidies would even more increase
their wealth; and, moreover, the wealth is the subject to
inheritance to their relatives.
 Consequently, in liberal system the public authorities face the
dilemma whether to support ‘wealthy’ people or not, and whether
is it fair to increase the market value of dwellings of selected
homeowners (and their heirs) by allocating them public grants.
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Recommendations
 There are clear LIMITS IN TRANSFERABILITY of best
examples (or measures) from one housing system to another
one. While social care is provided on tenure-neutral basis and
is simply targeted according to health and social needs, the
housing support takes into account also the housing tenure of
target population. More balanced housing system (with
substantial stock of rental housing) enables the existence of
more innovations and higher diversity in housing options
provided to elderly people.
 Consequently, the housing policies, especially in post-socialist
countries (having often super-homeownership/liberal housing
system nowadays) should apply more BALANCED approach
towards housing tenures and apply such measures that would
increase size of RENTAL HOUSING, security of tenants and
stability of rental housing.
15
HELPS International Conference
26. February 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Recommendations
 There is NO SUPERIOR HOUSING TENURE. The housing
standard and quality of life of elderly tenants may surpass the
housing standard of homeowners, especially when poor
elderly-homeowners (known well from post-socialist countries)
do not have enough sources to undertake modernizations and
adaptations of their own housing; and have very limited
possibility to downsize their housing consumption (due to
pressure from children, cultural barriers, lack of equity release
products or generally lower willingness to move among
homeowners than tenants).
 The policy implication is again to apply tenure-neutral housing
policy and increase tenure-neutral housing choice: POLICY
OF CHOICE.
16
Thank you for your attention!
http://seb.soc.cas.cz
This project is implemented through the CENTRAL EUROPE Programme co-financed by the ERDF
Socio-Economics of Housing Research Department
Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic