Radical
Statistics
Social exclusion and housing: arelationship in need of elaboration
Alex Marsh
New Labour has established 'social exclusion' as the principal social ill against which domestic policy is directed. For a concept which the government itself reckons to be little more than a convenient shorthand, and which initially gained currency in European policy circles because its vagueness allowed anti-poverty policy to progress without having to mention the 'p' word, this ascension to the heart of policy is striking. Whether or not it is - or was initially intended to be - a coherent analytical concept, the advent of the social exclusion debate has once again got people talking seriously about how to address social problems and inequalities. For that alone it can be welcomed.
Yet, there are clearly difficulties with the concept which render 'combating social exclusion' a problematic policy goal. Much analysis of social exclusion has been directed at exploring the differing interpretations of the concept, the extent to which it is being used as a structural or behavioural explanation of disadvantage, and how it differs from or relates to other analytical or ideological frameworks. Debates about whether social exclusion is equivalent to or other than labour market inclusion or poverty are central concerns (Levitas, 1999). A considerable amount of work has been done to tease out some of the subtleties in the way the social exclusion concept is used. It is clear that the policy discourse is being shaped around 'social exclusion as labour market exclusion', which implies a particular suite of policy responses. In contrast, commentators seek to maintain alternative, more far-reaching conceptualisations of exclusion which imply a greater emphasis upon redistribution. The contested process of social construction is perhaps even more evident for the concept of social exclusion than it was in previous debates over poverty or the underclass.
To one side of these main debates around social exclusion are those which attempt to work through the implications of 'social exclusion' within particular policy fields. In this paper I want to reflect upon the way in which thinking on the relationship between social exclusion, housing and housing policy has developed over the late 1990s. Housing has not featured particularly prominently in the 'headline' discussions of social exclusion, although, with its Rough Sleeping report, the Social Exclusion Unit chose to target the absence of housing as one of its early concerns (SEU, 1998). In contrast there has been an active debate on social exclusion within the housing world.
Anderson has recently observed that '[f]ollowing the 1997 election... the housing profession rapidly embraced the language of exclusion and inclusion' (2000, pp 17-18). This is undoubtedly correct. But it is hardly surprising when the government signalled its intention to bring all action against disadvantage under the banner of social exclusion. To fail to buy into the social exclusion discourse would be, in policy terms, to leave oneself open to irrelevance. While it is understandable that the language of social exclusion was readily adopted in housing policy and practice, it does not carry with it the implication that the housing system and housing policy play an active and important role in processes of social exclusion. Much of the debate in housing circles has, perhaps not surprisingly, progressed from the founding assumption that housing policy and housing organisations almost by definition have a role to play in combating social exclusion. While not wishing to deny this, it is interesting that much of what is suggested - such as the need to build social capital in disadvantaged neighbourhoods - is not really about housing at all. Clearly social housing landlords - in particular Registered Social Landlords - are professional organisations with a local presence, and hence it makes good sense for them to carry out community development work where needed. But the fact that they are housing organisations is of limited significance.
Academic concerns with social exclusion and the ways in which the housing system and housing policy may be implicated in processes of exclusion predate the arrival of the Blair administration. Lee et al (1995) review the debate and argue that housing plays a key role in creating or ameliorating social division. They take as their starting position the need to locate the housing market and housing policy change within the broader context of economic and labour market change, changes in welfare policy, and changes in household composition. Only by adopting such a comprehensive approach are we likely to be able to gain any sensible measure of the role played by housing. Restricting the focus to housing markets, organisations, and processes too early in the analysis tends, I believe, to lead to an overstatement of the role of the housing system in causing disadvantage and, more importantly, to overestimate the impact that changes in housing policy can have upon addressing the problem.
Lee et al (1995) identify several housing problems that are a cause for concern: homelessness; high social housing rents causing poverty and benefit traps; poor physical conditions and overcrowding in parts of the stock; constraints on mobility barring households from improving their circumstances by relocating; and children living above the ground floor in flats. They discuss processes of residualisation, affordability issues and problems with the management of social housing. These have led to the poorest households having little choice but to live in adverse conditions. The policy responses advocated relate to housing finance and rent levels; investment strategies; tenants' services, rights and security; and the need to co-ordinate housing policy with investment in education, training, transport, child care, and other services.
One characteristic of the report by Lee et al (1995) is its focus on social housing. This preoccupation with social - particularly council - housing is a recurrent theme of government thinking. In subsequent work Lee has offered a valuable corrective to this position by highlighting the fact that it runs the risk of ignoring the (possibly greater) problems of those not living in council housing. It is also indirectly discriminatory because in some localities the council sector accommodates predominantly white households (Lee and Murie, 1997; Lee, 1998).
The work of Lee and collaborators provided a catalyst for further debate. It identified many of the issues which subsequent authors have returned to in more detail. It is, however, noticeable that for the bulk of their report Lee et al (1995) refer to situations of housing disadvantage, rather than to social exclusion. Indeed, the overall impression gained from the report is that there is some ambivalence regarding the relevance of social exclusion to the topics being addressed. We might agree that there are problems of disadvantage that policy should address, but that does not commit us to the further step of labelling this social exclusion.
Take the examples of housing conditions and homelessness. A minority of the population experience poor housing conditions, as measured by any plausible relative or absolute standard. This disadvantaged position carries implications for mental and physical health and well being (Marsh et al, 1999). Undoubtedly, therefore there is need for policy intervention. But do poor housing conditions represent, in themselves, social exclusion? Some treat it as if that were the case. Yet, it is by no means beyond question. If we start to develop the argument by pointing to the fact that experiencing poor housing conditions in childhood can lead to ill health, poor educational performance and hence impaired social participation and achievement in later life then the implications of the housing disadvantage are spelt out. The link to some broader notion of social exclusion becomes clearer. But equally the account becomes more specific: it isn't poor housing conditions per se, but poor housing conditions in childhood. We would need to identify comparable implications for older age groups if we are to sustain the conclusion that poor housing conditions by definition represent social exclusion. In the housing literature, these sort of connections are sometimes left implicit, whereas the explanations would be sharper and more subtle if they were elaborated.
Similarly, homelessness is certainly a disadvantaged housing position, but does it, in and of itself, constitute social exclusion? Much of the discussion here focuses upon rough sleeping, for which it could be argued that social exclusion usefully captures important dimensions of the problem (see eg. Pleace, 1998). Yet, as Somerville (1998) reminds us, homelessness refers to range of housing circumstances and for some households - such as women leaving a violent relationship - becoming homeless may represent the first step to a more satisfactory housing position. However, whether, for example, a woman leaving a violent relationship who enters social housing as a homeless household in priority need experiences a satisfactory housing position, or a reduction in social exclusion as a result, can be debated. Hence, greater elaboration allows for a more nuanced understanding.
Without this work of elaboration - laying out clearly an account of how specific elements of housing markets and housing policy can be related to a clear conception of social exclusion - there is a tendency for debates on housing and social exclusion to degenerate into general accounts of the range of problems that afflict the housing system and policy. Any problem we care to identify becomes an instance of, or contributes in some unspecified way towards, 'social exclusion'.
A definition of the role of housing in social exclusion that is beginning to be picked up by subsequent authors is that offered by Somerville:
Social exclusion through housing happens if the effect of housing processes is to deny certain social groups control over their daily lives, or to impair enjoyment of wider citizenship rights. (1998, 772)
He then proceeds to develop a theoretical framework which seeks to relate housing processes to the notion of a dual labour market.
Pitched as it is at a relatively high level of abstraction, this definition has the advantage of referring to issues of control, which in turn suggest issues of power and empowerment. It also signals the link to more well established social scientific debates through its reference to citizenship rights. The link to citizenship rights is clearly a promising route to developing an account of what precisely it is that 'social exclusion' signals a lack of. While Somerville (1998) does not engage with the notion of citizenship rights further, other housing academics who have made this link (eg. Lee, 1998) have structured their discussion with reference to Marshall's triad of civil, political and social rights (Marshall, 1950). The focus is upon inadequate housing as a deficiency in the social rights of citizenship. While linking social exclusion with broader conceptual frameworks is the way forward, it is essential that the link to the broader framework provides a firm base from which to explore the housing and social exclusion relationship more fully. Marshall's work is seminal and perhaps the obvious place to start if we are linking to citizenship, but it is likely that employing a more sophisticated view of citizenship would be more appropriate to the current context (see Delanty, 2000, for a recent review).
The question of what it is that people are socially excluded from is central to combating the problem of social exclusion, or at least to knowing when it has been combated. As is well recognised, it implies some form of mainstream into which the excluded are included/inserted. The problematic notion of the 'mainstream' is something which has yet to be fully explored in a housing context. If we assume for a moment that social exclusion refers to some deficiency in housing circumstances then what would it mean to be included? Standard housing policy formulations of the form 'a decent home for all' beg the question as to what is meant by 'decent'. Harrison has argued persuasively, with respect to minority communities, that there needs to be greater concern for needs and preferences and for recognising 'difference within difference' (Harrison and Law, 1997; Harrison, 1998) in the supply of housing. The point is clearly of wider applicability: we need to reflect further on its implications for the development of appropriate responses to disadvantage.
Examination of the role of structure and agency - and choice and constraint - has been a central feature of broader debates on social exclusion. Yet, in the housing literature this issue barely receives an airing. The premise of much of the discussion is that structure takes precedence. However, Ratcliffe (1998), for example, injects a note of dissent when he discusses the possibility of members of minority ethnic communities excluding themselves from adequate housing (ie. social housing), as a strategy for avoiding racial harassment and residing with members their own community. This discussion is reminiscent of Jordan's (1996) individualist theoretical account of processes of exclusion. While Jordan's work has been discussed in the housing literature, we are yet to engage fully with the challenge it presents.
A dimension to social exclusion that requires further theoretical and empirical development is the extent to which subjectivity is involved (see Burchardt et al, 1999 for a brief discussion). Is it important that people identify themselves as socially excluded, or can the term 'socially excluded' be applied to them as a result of their social location and regardless of their own views? In the housing sphere, a concern with subjective evaluations and 'objective realities' is central to the work by Burrows and Rhodes (2000) on the 'geography of misery'. They use area dissatisfaction as an indicator of disadvantage but acknowledge that it as an imperfect measure. They present a case for its value with reference to its correlation to other more 'objective' measures of deprivation. The question which is perhaps less often raised is whether there are areas or households who do not consider themselves as socially excluded but would be classed as such by an objective measure. The implication is that if we consider social exclusion to be defined without reference to subjective states then it could increase the extent of social exclusion. As Burchardt et al (1999) observe, the size of this group of the 'unaware' socially excluded may be small enough to ignore in practice. But a coherent conceptualisation of exclusion should at least adopt a clear position on the issue.
An example of the lack of clarity involved in current debates is the role of tenure in social exclusion. Are renters, by the very fact that they are renters, socially excluded? If we are thinking about inclusion in the mainstream then, given that owner occupation is the majority tenure and that to which most people aspire, then one might draw this conclusion. Yet, some of those in the most precarious positions or poorest housing conditions - if we take these as appropriate indicators of social exclusion - live in the owner occupied sector. We can be led to the conclusion that tenure position may or may not indicate social exclusion, depending on how we conceive of social exclusion.
We might therefore be cautious about the merits of policy with a simplistic focus on tenure. Yet, recent policy emphasises the need to create more balanced communities on or near social housing estates by introducing more owner occupiers (DETR/DSS, 2000). In their recent study of low cost home ownership, Atkinson and Kintrea (2000) demonstrate that it is difficult to identify clearly the benefits of this type of policy to those living in social housing. Similarly, Forrest (2000) provides a longer term perspective on the use of tenure in attempts to balance communities. His observations regarding potentially destabilizing effects of introducing owner occupation to areas of social renting demand wider debate.
In this paper, my aim has been to point up some of the issues that remain outstanding in our understanding of housing and social exclusion. By way of conclusion it seems appropriate to reiterate the questions that I posed three years ago:
Are housing policy and the housing system always and everywhere implicated as an active element in processes of exclusion? If not, in what circumstances does [housing] play an important role? What is the scope for housing policy to combat exclusion, particularly when the roots of such exclusion may lie in other spheres? (Marsh and Mullins, 1998, p.755)
Developments in the literature have clarified some of the issues and given pointers towards the shape of a richer and more subtle understanding of the role played by housing in creating disadvantage. They have also, in my view, directly or indirectly raised further questions regarding the wisdom of continuing to follow the social exclusion avenue (or, indeed, moving to a focus on social inclusion).
Whether further advances are best made under the rubric of social exclusion seems to me a moot point. Following Blanc (1998), it is clear that sticking with the dominant discourse means that the academic community has a more direct channel of communication with policy and public debate. But there must be a concern that in order to achieve this we wrestle with a problematic concept and impede progress towards more rigorous conceptualisations of the link between housing and disadvantage. There is a pressing need for greater elaboration of the relationship between housing and social exclusion. And a willingness to leave the concept of social exclusion behind if we feel that it is not an adequate tool for understanding and combating disadvantage.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Patricia Kennett and Paul Higate for their thoughts on a draft of this paper. The views expressed are, of course, my own.
REFERENCES
Anderson, I. (2000) 'Housing and social exclusion: the changing debate', in I. Anderson and D. Sim (eds.).
Anderson, and D. Sim (eds.) (2000), Social exclusion and housing: context and challenges , Coventry: CIH.
Atkinson, R. and Kintrea, K. (2000) 'Owner-occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts', Policy and Politics, vol 28, no 1: 93-108.
Blanc, M. (1998) 'Social integration and exclusion in France: Some introductory remarks from a social transaction perspective', Housing Studies, vol 13, no. 6: 781-792.
Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J. and Piachaud, D. (1999) 'Social exclusion in Britain 1991-1995', Social Policy and Administration, vol 33, no 3: 227-244.
Burrows, R. and Rhodes, D. (2000) 'Hitting the target? Area disadvantage, social exclusion and the geography of misery in England', in I. Anderson and D. Sim (eds).
Delanty, G. (2000) Citizenship in a global age: society, culture and politics, Buckingham: Open University Press.
DETR/DSS (2000) Quality and Choice: A decent home for all, The Housing Green Paper, London: DETR.
Forrest, R. (2000) 'What constitutes a 'balanced' community?' In I. Anderson, and D. Sim (eds.) (2000), Social exclusion and housing: context and challenges, Coventry: CIH.
Harrison, M. and Law, I. (1997) 'Needs and empowerment in minority ethnic housing: some issues of definition and local strategy', Policy and Politics, vol 25, no. 3: 285-298.
Harrison, M. (1998) 'Theorising exclusion and difference: specificity, structure and minority ethnic housing issues', Housing Studies, vol 13, no. 4: 793-806.
Jordan, B. (1996) A theory of poverty and social exclusion, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lee, P. (1998) 'Housing policy, citizenship and social exclusion', in A. Marsh and D. Mullins (eds.) Housing and Public Policy, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lee, P. and Murie, A. (1997) Poverty, housing tenure and social exclusion, Bristol: The Policy Press.
Lee, P., Murie, A., Marsh, A. and Riseborough, M. (1995) The price of social exclusion, London: NFHA.
Levitas, R. (1999) The inclusive society, London: Macmillan.
Marsh, A., Gordon, D., Pantazis, C. and Heslop, P. (1999) Home Sweet Home? Bristol: Policy Press
Marsh, A. and Mullins, D. (1998) 'The social exclusion perspective and housing studies: origins, applications and limitations', Housing Studies, vol 13, no 4: 749-760
Marshall, T. H. (1950) Citizenship and social class and other essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pleace, N. (1998) 'Single homelessness as social exclusion: the unique and the extreme', Social Policy and Administration, vol 32, no 1: 46-59.
Ratcliffe, P. (1998) ''Race', housing and social exclusion', Housing Studies, vol 13, no 6: 807-818.
Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Rough Sleeping - Report by the Social Exclusion Unit, London: The Stationery Office.
Somerville, P. (1998) 'Explanations of social exclusion: where does housing fit in?' Housing Studies, vol 13, no 4: 761-780.
Alex Marsh
School for Policy Studies
University of Bristol
8 Priory Road
Bristol
BS8 1TZ
Tel: (0117) 954 5584
E-mail: alex.marsh:bristol.ac.uk
