Popular in Social Sciences

Books

City Time: On Being Sentenced to Rikers Island

Independent Scholar David A. Campbell

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Economics

Gender and Economics

University of California Santa Barbara Shelly Lundberg

American Politics

Keeping the Republic

Boston College Marc Landy

Banks and Policy Organisations

Greening the financial sector

European Investment Bank Matteo Ferrazzi

British Politics

Entrepreneurial thinking: the politics and practice of policy impact

University of Sheffield Matthew Flinders

Culture and Society

Carceral Entrapments: Views from the Prison/Street Interface in India

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Mahuya Bandyopadhya

Housing insecurity and homelessness

View more insights in Social Sciences - Economics - Microeconomics

View more figures from University of Warwick

View the page of Thiemo Fetzer

Read the Study

Homelessness and insecure living situations are rising in the West. Thiemo Fetzer exploits quasi-exogenous volatility in rent affordability due to an April 2011 UK rent subsidy drop for low-income households.

Image courtesy of interviewee. January 22, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the impact of significant cuts to housing benefits in the UK that were implemented around 2011. Previously, housing assistance aimed to cover the median rent in areas, allowing access to about 50% of rental properties for those in need. However, cuts reduced housing benefit coverage to only the 30th percentile, making affordable housing scarce for low-income individuals and families. The paper traces the adverse effects of these cuts, including increased homelessness and financial strain on local councils that had to address the rise in involuntary homelessness.

The research indicates that these cuts resulted in rising rates of involuntary homelessness, especially among families with children and single parents. Local councils incurred additional costs as they had to provide temporary accommodation at market rates due to greater demand from those at risk of eviction. This video video situation reflects a disconnect between central government policy and local government responsibilities, leading to financial challenges for the latter.

This video video also highlights a broader trend of rising housing unaffordability across Europe and the US, characterized by insufficient construction of affordable housing amidst increasing rents. Further, it suggests a political economy dimension where cuts disproportionately affect younger populations who tend to have lower electoral participation, allowing policymakers to shift the burden without significant political backlash.

Moreover, the text discusses the emerging narratives surrounding homelessness, especially in relation to migrants, which could foster divisive political discourse. Many migrants were unaware of their rights to housing assistance, contributing to visible homelessness among these communities. This video video situation can create biased perceptions, potentially exploited by populist political actors.

In summary, the research emphasizes the need for careful consideration of the indirect consequences of policy changes in housing assistance, highlighting a cycle of cuts leading to increased pressures on local governments and vulnerable populations while questioning the effectiveness of austerity measures that address symptoms rather than root causes of housing issues.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.105 --> 00:02.285
So what we study in this paper is,

00:02.345 --> 00:05.285
we trace out carefully the impact that a large cut

00:05.665 --> 00:07.045
to housing subsidies

00:07.045 --> 00:11.565
or housing assistance has had on, sort of individuals,

00:11.665 --> 00:14.325
and sort of local council finances,

00:14.325 --> 00:16.405
across the UK in particular.

00:16.505 --> 00:19.925
In around, 2011, there were significant cuts

00:19.945 --> 00:23.085
to housing benefits, where essentially,

00:23.645 --> 00:26.845
previously housing benefits were designed to be as generous

00:26.945 --> 00:30.605
to cover about the median of the rents in an area, so

00:30.605 --> 00:33.165
that basically 50% of the properties

00:33.165 --> 00:35.725
that might be available on the rental market would be

00:35.815 --> 00:39.405
affordable for individuals who are, you know,

00:39.425 --> 00:42.805
who are benefiting from, housing, assistance

00:42.805 --> 00:46.005
because of low income, poor health, or, or whatnot.

00:46.745 --> 00:48.685
And that was significantly cut

00:48.785 --> 00:51.565
to cover only th the 30th percentile of rents,

00:51.565 --> 00:54.485
which means only one third of the properties would now be,

00:54.825 --> 00:57.765
available or sort of affordable,

00:57.915 --> 00:59.285
with the housing subsidies.

00:59.785 --> 01:02.645
And that even that was subsequently eroded,

01:02.665 --> 01:03.765
further and further.

01:04.105 --> 01:06.605
Um, which means that basically less and less

01:06.625 --> 01:07.725
and fewer properties

01:07.725 --> 01:10.205
that were offered on the private rental market were

01:10.205 --> 01:11.845
affordable for individuals

01:11.905 --> 01:15.565
or families who were benefiting from housing subsidies.

01:16.345 --> 01:18.965
And in the research, we then carefully trace out

01:19.035 --> 01:22.325
what impact this had on, you know,

01:22.325 --> 01:23.565
individual families

01:23.585 --> 01:26.085
and also the local councils in which, you know,

01:26.085 --> 01:27.765
these cuts were becoming effective.

01:28.305 --> 01:31.245
You know, the literature on housing assistance has broadly

01:31.355 --> 01:34.045
focused on looking at, for example,

01:34.105 --> 01:35.725
the administrative side of it.

01:35.795 --> 01:38.405
Like how are housing subsidy programs administered,

01:38.625 --> 01:40.925
but have typically not looked at the, sort

01:40.925 --> 01:44.885
of indirect consequences of cuts, to such schemes.

01:44.885 --> 01:46.965
We've seen, obviously, a gradual and, and,

01:46.965 --> 01:49.885
and significant expansion of housing assistance subsidies,

01:50.425 --> 01:53.965
and the fiscal shadow of those, in the public,

01:54.225 --> 01:55.885
sector, public finances.

01:56.385 --> 01:59.285
Um, you know, I think, in the uk, for example,

01:59.765 --> 02:02.965
spending on, the housing assistance,

02:03.105 --> 02:07.765
has actually reached, 23 billion by 20 16, 20 17,

02:07.825 --> 02:10.845
as the second most important item for the department,

02:10.905 --> 02:14.765
or worked in pensions, sort of spending on benefits.

02:15.305 --> 02:17.365
Um, and that obviously is due to the fact

02:17.365 --> 02:18.685
that there's been very little

02:18.745 --> 02:21.965
or hardly any home construction that is affordable

02:21.965 --> 02:25.485
and house prices have have increased significantly,

02:25.485 --> 02:28.205
which basically meant that, you know, the cost

02:28.425 --> 02:32.285
of housing assistance that was indexed to the underlying,

02:32.285 --> 02:34.765
evolution of the rent,

02:34.905 --> 02:37.085
has also grown and grown and grown.

02:37.545 --> 02:39.605
And so governments basically just went on

02:39.605 --> 02:42.365
and said, well, look, this is, seems to be growing,

02:42.415 --> 02:43.445
quite drastically.

02:43.445 --> 02:44.485
It's, it's taken up more

02:44.485 --> 02:46.605
and more of our sort of fiscal space.

02:47.305 --> 02:48.685
Um, let's just cut it.

02:48.985 --> 02:51.045
Uh, at least that was sort of the, approach

02:51.045 --> 02:54.845
that was taken in 20 10, 20 11, rather than trying

02:54.845 --> 02:56.605
to expand, housing supply.

02:57.065 --> 02:58.965
All of the results here, you know, we see,

02:58.965 --> 03:01.245
see similar developments also in different countries.

03:01.345 --> 03:04.045
Uh, and so it's a feature, that,

03:04.045 --> 03:07.445
housing has become ever more unaffordable, due

03:07.445 --> 03:09.485
to low levels of home construction,

03:09.485 --> 03:11.165
in particular in the affordable segment.

03:11.705 --> 03:14.125
Um, so we see this as a feature across all of Europe,

03:14.125 --> 03:16.885
Western Europe, and the us, as well.

03:17.465 --> 03:21.645
In terms of the institutional setup here in the uk,

03:21.955 --> 03:25.005
what we, what we have is, you know, home assistance

03:25.005 --> 03:28.245
that is offered, as a form of housing benefit

03:28.345 --> 03:29.885
by the Department of Works and Pension.

03:30.625 --> 03:33.245
Um, that, again, is sort of designed to be

03:33.245 --> 03:36.405
as local housing allowance indexed to the underlying rent.

03:36.785 --> 03:40.685
So individuals who are on low incomes,

03:40.785 --> 03:44.085
or vulnerable, you know, typically families

03:44.085 --> 03:45.805
with children, actually in most instances,

03:45.945 --> 03:49.485
or single parents who cannot basically afford,

03:49.535 --> 03:52.965
their rent can apply for housing assistance.

03:53.625 --> 03:56.085
Um, that would then ideally be linked

03:56.225 --> 03:59.845
or referenced to the area, the rental prices in the area.

04:00.185 --> 04:02.285
And essentially the policy change

04:02.285 --> 04:05.525
that was implemented in 2011 was veering

04:05.545 --> 04:09.205
or separating the link of housing benefits to the evolution

04:09.205 --> 04:10.485
of local rental prices.

04:11.145 --> 04:14.085
So that's sort of the specific context. Context.

04:14.085 --> 04:18.205
Um, what we then do in the paper is we look at how this cut

04:18.305 --> 04:21.405
to housing benefits, which was essentially more

04:21.465 --> 04:23.245
or less severe in some areas

04:24.185 --> 04:27.045
and affected them subsequently, you know,

04:27.085 --> 04:29.125
a broad range of, economic outcomes.

04:29.465 --> 04:32.325
In particular, we looked at whether individuals

04:32.465 --> 04:36.005
or in areas that were, that was a more significant cut

04:36.005 --> 04:37.845
to housing benefit,

04:38.435 --> 04:41.885
whether in these areas we see a differential increase in,

04:42.025 --> 04:45.925
people becoming effectively involuntary homeless.

04:46.265 --> 04:49.405
So these are individuals who fall behind their rents.

04:49.465 --> 04:51.645
Um, they would then be typically evicted

04:51.645 --> 04:54.965
because there's a very poor level of tenancy, protection

04:55.225 --> 04:56.925
or renter protection in the uk.

04:57.465 --> 05:00.245
Um, that's somewhat specific to the uk,

05:00.385 --> 05:01.965
but, again, sort of tenancy

05:01.965 --> 05:04.245
or renter protection is also quite limited in the us.

05:04.785 --> 05:09.405
And so that increase in involuntary homelessness,

05:09.745 --> 05:12.125
for some also resulted in a drastic,

05:12.145 --> 05:13.965
in some areas also resulted in a drastic

05:14.485 --> 05:17.365
increase in rough sleeping that's obviously quite visible,

05:17.985 --> 05:19.365
on the street.

05:20.105 --> 05:23.765
Um, we see that this increase in involuntary homelessness,

05:24.185 --> 05:26.965
that's a special status that, you know, somebody

05:26.965 --> 05:28.285
who is under the risk

05:28.345 --> 05:32.405
or at risk of becoming homeless, can, you know, apply

05:32.505 --> 05:35.485
for to their council for protection,

05:35.705 --> 05:37.325
and saying, well, look, I'm at risk

05:37.325 --> 05:38.965
of becoming involuntary homeless

05:38.965 --> 05:41.565
because I cannot afford the rent in this instance.

05:41.575 --> 05:43.805
Local councils have a statutory duty

05:44.105 --> 05:48.245
to prevent this involuntary homelessness if they can prove,

05:48.295 --> 05:50.045
prove that it is involuntary.

05:50.105 --> 05:52.325
So what does that mean? These are typically individuals

05:52.425 --> 05:55.525
who actually have an income, they have a job, it's just

05:55.525 --> 05:58.085
that their job doesn't allow them to make ends meet.

05:58.505 --> 06:00.685
Um, and they might have care duties, for example,

06:00.745 --> 06:02.925
for dependent children or relatives

06:03.025 --> 06:04.405
or people with, you know,

06:04.645 --> 06:05.885
dependents with health conditions.

06:06.265 --> 06:08.285
So in this instance, what happened is

06:08.285 --> 06:11.845
that then local councils who, you know, had

06:11.845 --> 06:16.645
to basically cough up money, to, try to,

06:16.645 --> 06:19.125
shelter, individuals

06:19.125 --> 06:21.045
who would become involuntary homeless.

06:21.505 --> 06:25.885
Um, and so this policy in particular is very much a nice

06:25.885 --> 06:28.965
example of what some call a zero sum politics.

06:29.465 --> 06:32.885
Um, because in essence, the central government here,

06:32.885 --> 06:34.965
was the one, the department works in pension,

06:34.965 --> 06:36.325
which is a national body.

06:36.735 --> 06:38.765
We're saving some money by sort

06:38.765 --> 06:41.405
of reducing the spending on local housing allowance,

06:41.545 --> 06:42.565
the housing benefit.

06:43.575 --> 06:47.155
But at the other end, local councils were, sort

06:47.155 --> 06:49.555
of responsible for housing people

06:49.735 --> 06:51.555
who are involuntary homeless

06:51.935 --> 06:54.315
or at risk of becoming involuntary homeless.

06:54.735 --> 06:57.195
Um, you know, they would then have to find

06:57.875 --> 07:00.675
temporary accommodation and surprise, surprise, they have

07:00.675 --> 07:04.715
to hire that accommodation at market rent levels,

07:04.715 --> 07:06.315
because that's what they're competing over.

07:06.615 --> 07:09.755
So it's a great example of how essentially,

07:09.945 --> 07:13.555
very narrow set of policy objectives that are not kind

07:13.555 --> 07:14.635
of carefully thought through.

07:14.995 --> 07:17.675
'cause the underlying problem is a lack of housing supply,

07:18.215 --> 07:20.315
not demand, just shifts.

07:20.315 --> 07:22.515
Then the financial burden in this case from the central

07:22.515 --> 07:24.195
government to local councils,

07:24.285 --> 07:26.635
which obviously has wider ramifications.

07:27.575 --> 07:30.955
Um, I can elaborate on these wider ramifications as well.

07:31.415 --> 07:34.475
So on the political economy, side of the,

07:34.735 --> 07:37.275
of the story here, ultimately there's a challenge

07:37.295 --> 07:39.155
or tension between central government

07:39.155 --> 07:42.395
and local governments that is playing out,

07:42.395 --> 07:45.035
central government, is, you know,

07:45.495 --> 07:48.635
in the UK has a lot of revenue raising capacities.

07:48.775 --> 07:51.675
Uh, it can raise revenues through taxation,

07:51.735 --> 07:54.235
and also has a lot of spending responsibilities in

07:54.235 --> 07:56.675
particular for, welfare state pension.

07:57.255 --> 08:00.515
Uh, and of course, you know, you know, other areas,

08:00.695 --> 08:01.955
but of course, welfare and state,

08:01.955 --> 08:04.515
the state pension in particular is, is an important one.

08:04.935 --> 08:09.235
So when the government in 2010, came to power,

08:09.245 --> 08:13.475
after the election, there was this fiscal pressure,

08:13.495 --> 08:16.275
in the wake of the global financial crisis to cut spending.

08:16.975 --> 08:19.635
And that is essentially, you know, the,

08:19.775 --> 08:21.595
the welfare system was one area

08:21.605 --> 08:25.395
where there has been a steady expansion of outlays.

08:25.465 --> 08:28.155
Part of them are demographic nature,

08:28.155 --> 08:30.715
because we, you know, there's an aging population in much

08:30.715 --> 08:32.755
of Western Europe, so there's increasing demands

08:32.755 --> 08:35.795
for state pension, which of course is, you know,

08:35.795 --> 08:37.355
something that's hard to cut

08:37.355 --> 08:39.835
because many state engineers are actually on very

08:39.835 --> 08:40.875
low incomes themselves.

08:41.615 --> 08:45.435
Um, but state engineers are, voters are more likely

08:45.455 --> 08:48.595
to engage in the political process, whereas we see that,

08:48.595 --> 08:51.515
across the age distribution, people in middle age

08:51.575 --> 08:54.675
or younger are less likely to engage in voting.

08:55.345 --> 08:56.845
And so what we look at

08:56.865 --> 09:00.085
and what we see with the, austerity cuts,

09:00.155 --> 09:02.845
post 2010, the incidents in terms

09:02.845 --> 09:05.165
of the age distribution is much more likely

09:05.225 --> 09:08.205
to be on younger people, let's say the future generation

09:08.205 --> 09:10.925
and the current working age adult population than the

09:10.925 --> 09:13.085
pensioner, population.

09:13.385 --> 09:16.085
And you see that this is matched quite closely with a,

09:16.085 --> 09:18.045
you know, a decline in turnout

09:18.065 --> 09:21.485
and electoral participation, that is following that.

09:21.825 --> 09:24.525
So at some level, you had a mandate, so to say,

09:24.625 --> 09:27.045
or it was possible for the central government

09:27.045 --> 09:30.565
to shift burdens on the non-voting public,

09:30.715 --> 09:32.365
through these welfare cuts.

09:33.025 --> 09:35.045
Um, so this is the central government story.

09:35.105 --> 09:37.885
The local government story, is, you know,

09:37.885 --> 09:39.285
the flip side,

09:39.285 --> 09:40.845
because, lots

09:40.845 --> 09:44.685
of local councils have many growing statutory obligation

09:44.995 --> 09:49.205
also owing to, the, demographic pressures such

09:49.205 --> 09:52.405
as old age care, in particular, you know,

09:52.405 --> 09:54.365
disability care services and so on.

09:54.865 --> 09:56.725
And so, you know, you had sort

09:56.725 --> 09:59.085
of these demographic pressures at the central government,

09:59.305 --> 10:01.085
and you have demographic

10:01.405 --> 10:02.445
pressures at the local government.

10:02.445 --> 10:04.805
Local governments have very limited revenue raising

10:05.245 --> 10:08.525
capacities, which means that if there's a growing need for,

10:09.105 --> 10:11.805
council services, you know,

10:11.805 --> 10:14.485
they have a hard time finding the money to fund these,

10:14.585 --> 10:15.645
fund these services.

10:16.265 --> 10:18.725
And so, that's where the combination

10:18.785 --> 10:21.325
of a central government cut to housing assistance

10:21.755 --> 10:26.645
that generates an increase in, essentially demand

10:26.665 --> 10:28.125
for temporary accommodation

10:28.125 --> 10:29.525
because of, a,

10:29.845 --> 10:31.885
a drastic rise in involuntary homelessness,

10:32.115 --> 10:34.565
essentially puts further pressure on local

10:34.565 --> 10:35.605
government budgets.

10:36.025 --> 10:37.925
Now, we can go a few steps further

10:38.025 --> 10:40.045
and look at who are the beneficiaries

10:40.145 --> 10:42.165
of these temporary accommodation providers.

10:42.745 --> 10:45.885
Um, again, this is a bit speculative,

10:45.885 --> 10:49.085
but there's a lot of private sector entities that sprung up

10:49.425 --> 10:52.645
to essentially, set up these, temp accommodations.

10:53.185 --> 10:56.085
Uh, which obviously raises the question whether there's sort

10:56.085 --> 10:58.645
of, you know, political kind of incentives,

10:58.945 --> 11:00.085
around this.

11:00.505 --> 11:03.645
Um, because ul ultimately this is just a rentier economy,

11:03.845 --> 11:06.085
a rent extraction, that now happens,

11:06.175 --> 11:09.125
which leaves everybody worse off the central government,

11:09.345 --> 11:11.765
you know, basically on paper has saved some money.

11:11.865 --> 11:15.045
But now, local councils have to have,

11:15.195 --> 11:17.685
have saw a drastic increase in the expenditure.

11:18.105 --> 11:22.255
Um, we see a lot of disruptions in the, just the sort

11:22.255 --> 11:24.655
of lives of people that were brought about.

11:25.155 --> 11:27.935
Um, because some individuals, you know, the, the process

11:28.075 --> 11:31.055
of being forced out of your accommodation, you know,

11:31.195 --> 11:32.735
can be, most likely.

11:32.935 --> 11:35.535
I mean, we see that there's auxiliary research on the mental

11:35.535 --> 11:37.055
health effects of sort

11:37.055 --> 11:39.575
of being removed potentially from your home area,

11:39.575 --> 11:42.935
your community, like there's a big shadow of burden

11:42.965 --> 11:46.695
that might arise from this policy, in the form

11:46.695 --> 11:48.495
of poor mental health distress

11:48.555 --> 11:51.015
or potential trauma among a generation of children.

11:51.735 --> 11:53.685
'cause it should be said that the biggest incident

11:54.305 --> 11:56.525
of the families of individuals

11:56.525 --> 11:59.845
that have become involuntary homeless, homeless in the wake

11:59.845 --> 12:03.085
of these cuts, were individuals, families

12:03.085 --> 12:04.365
with children, single moms.

12:04.745 --> 12:08.485
It wasn't drug addicts or, or, you know, old people.

12:08.545 --> 12:12.285
It was predominantly, you know, single,

12:12.345 --> 12:15.805
single parents or families with children, which

12:15.805 --> 12:17.165
of course highlights

12:17.165 --> 12:18.725
that there's potentially a huge dynamic

12:18.915 --> 12:20.445
cost in the short term.

12:20.585 --> 12:23.525
We also see that there's a significant increase in

12:24.365 --> 12:26.325
temporary kind of crime activity.

12:26.425 --> 12:29.685
So we see theft and burglaries shoot up in areas more

12:29.925 --> 12:32.085
affected, which highlights that there's,

12:32.155 --> 12:34.685
potentially also direct negative externality

12:34.685 --> 12:37.565
that arises from touch cuts in the short term

12:37.985 --> 12:41.165
as people essentially have to resort to criminal activities

12:41.185 --> 12:43.965
to potentially make ends meet or deal with the distress.

12:44.545 --> 12:46.925
And I think that's, something that, of course, a pure

12:47.575 --> 12:49.365
simplistic accounting framework,

12:49.365 --> 12:52.925
if you just do spreadsheet economic, economics as,

12:52.985 --> 12:56.005
was alleged some policy makers were doing around the time,

12:56.465 --> 12:58.325
might not account for

12:58.465 --> 13:02.485
or internalize that might affect, you know, our view

13:02.625 --> 13:05.365
of such types of, cuts,

13:05.395 --> 13:08.085
more comprehensively in general around much

13:08.085 --> 13:10.325
of the austerity cuts and welfare reforms.

13:10.825 --> 13:13.765
Um, there were a lot of, very optimistic assumptions

13:13.865 --> 13:17.085
or heroic assumptions that went into, into the design

13:17.085 --> 13:18.125
of some of these cuts.

13:18.665 --> 13:21.125
Uh, which, if we look at it sort

13:21.125 --> 13:23.285
of more carefully, a lot of these cuts were sort

13:23.285 --> 13:25.445
of left pocket, right pocket exercises

13:25.445 --> 13:27.645
where basically you cut here,

13:27.745 --> 13:30.485
and then sort of the expenditures just pop up elsewhere

13:30.485 --> 13:34.165
because the underlying latent problem is not being tackled.

13:34.225 --> 13:35.805
Um, a lot of the,

13:35.995 --> 13:39.445
austerity in welfare reform measures were tackling symptoms

13:39.445 --> 13:40.725
rather than root causes.

13:41.385 --> 13:43.725
Um, and, I think that

13:43.745 --> 13:46.925
to me is like the most important sort of message,

13:46.955 --> 13:50.365
that policymaking needs to sort of, you know, especially

13:51.085 --> 13:54.405
exercise that come out of the, the treasury,

13:54.505 --> 13:57.205
or ministries of finance across different countries need to

13:57.805 --> 14:02.285
consider potentially further indirect margins,

14:02.385 --> 14:04.245
of impact that the policies have.

14:04.545 --> 14:07.365
Of course, one could say maybe this was all just smart

14:07.385 --> 14:09.325
and deliberate design,

14:09.325 --> 14:13.485
because, if the interest of a policymaker is not

14:13.485 --> 14:14.885
to affect a positive outcome,

14:14.945 --> 14:19.405
but to benefit potentially one specific group of supporters

14:19.405 --> 14:22.205
that might then cash in on setting up these temporary

14:22.205 --> 14:24.405
accommodations, that would set up a different story.

14:24.405 --> 14:25.405
But I would like to think

14:25.405 --> 14:27.485
that policymakers had good intentions.

14:27.945 --> 14:30.525
It was just something that was not thought

14:30.525 --> 14:31.845
through, carefully.

14:32.425 --> 14:35.285
Uh, and of course then the financial, burden

14:35.285 --> 14:39.285
that arises from, such, the financial shadow

14:39.285 --> 14:42.525
that arises from such non-thought through cuts,

14:42.705 --> 14:44.965
can be much higher than the initial cost savings.

14:45.385 --> 14:47.965
And of course, as a society, we're all left worse off.

14:49.045 --> 14:50.885
I would like to add one more thing, which

14:50.885 --> 14:53.645
Is, is actually the detrimental effect that,

14:53.815 --> 14:56.405
these type of housing assistant cuts might have had

14:56.985 --> 14:58.525
on political discourse.

14:59.305 --> 15:01.565
Um, this is essentially what got me actually motivated

15:01.585 --> 15:02.885
to study, study this.

15:03.095 --> 15:05.965
There was an obvious increase in about, you know, in 2012,

15:06.085 --> 15:08.685
I was working in a homeless shelter in Camden, actually.

15:09.385 --> 15:11.005
And so as a volunteer,

15:11.025 --> 15:13.685
and, you know, you saw that there was a drastic increase in

15:13.685 --> 15:15.045
people who were seeking help.

15:15.585 --> 15:18.045
And it turned out that a lot of these individuals

15:18.045 --> 15:20.845
who were seeking help had a migrant migrant background.

15:21.465 --> 15:25.365
Um, and when you started talking to them, it was obvious

15:25.365 --> 15:28.885
that they were simply not aware of the access of the support

15:28.885 --> 15:31.205
that they could have received from local councils

15:31.355 --> 15:34.005
because, you know, they simply didn't know

15:34.005 --> 15:37.605
that they could apply for, sort of protection,

15:37.605 --> 15:39.645
to be classified as involuntary homeless.

15:40.105 --> 15:44.405
But this, of course, who ate visibly more rough sleeping,

15:45.115 --> 15:48.965
more, homelessness that was associated, let's say with,

15:49.465 --> 15:50.485
you know, skin colors

15:50.705 --> 15:53.725
or potential ethnic groups that were not natives.

15:54.105 --> 15:57.845
And that obviously creates the possibility, that,

15:57.845 --> 15:59.685
you know, individuals who pass by

15:59.685 --> 16:02.805
because homeless people typically are not in corners there

16:03.035 --> 16:05.685
invisibly on the street, even simply

16:05.705 --> 16:06.765
for their own protection,

16:06.765 --> 16:09.725
because they very often become the victim of, violence.

16:10.225 --> 16:12.765
So they're very visible at sort of street junctions

16:12.825 --> 16:16.005
or places where, you know, they, they, they, they're seen,

16:16.585 --> 16:19.925
but to the normal person who just walks by, they might see,

16:19.925 --> 16:22.005
there's this increase in homeless people on the street.

16:22.545 --> 16:25.365
Um, and they can't really pinpoint why this happens,

16:25.545 --> 16:28.325
but they see that a lot of them seem to be foreigners.

16:28.875 --> 16:31.965
This creates the possibility for,

16:32.715 --> 16:35.405
political entrepreneurs call them populists,

16:35.825 --> 16:38.725
to shape narratives that, you know, the immigrants are,

16:38.865 --> 16:42.045
you know, you know, causing lots of, you know, homelessness

16:42.045 --> 16:44.365
or sort of are a lot more likely to be homeless

16:44.385 --> 16:46.725
and sort of welfare grounders and whatnot.

16:47.025 --> 16:49.285
And that, of course, sets up the possibility

16:49.285 --> 16:52.685
of a toxic debate, when in fact a lot of it has to do with,

16:53.265 --> 16:54.405
you know, perceptions

16:54.465 --> 16:56.645
and biased perceptions of a phenomena

16:56.755 --> 16:58.245
that can only be explained

16:58.245 --> 17:01.205
because many, immigrants simply don't have access

17:01.345 --> 17:04.085
to the welfare system in the way that natives have.

17:04.085 --> 17:07.045
Because in the uk one of the big challenges

17:07.045 --> 17:10.685
that nobody explains the country to the people,

17:10.685 --> 17:13.565
that arrive because, well, everybody speaks English,

17:13.625 --> 17:15.525
but nobody understands the British I.

00:00 - So what we study in this paper is, we trace out carefully the impact that a large cut to housing subsidies or housing assistance has had on, sort of individuals, and sort of local council finances, across the UK in particular.

00:16 - In around, 2011, there were significant cuts to housing benefits, where essentially, previously housing benefits were designed to be as generous to cover about the median of the rents in an area, so that basically 50% of the properties that might be available on the rental market would be affordable for individuals who are, you know, who are benefiting from, housing, assistance because of low income, poor health, or, or whatnot. And that was significantly cut

00:48 - to cover only th the 30th percentile of rents, which means only one third of the properties would now be, available or sort of affordable, with the housing subsidies. And that even that was subsequently eroded, further and further. which means that basically less and less and fewer properties that were offered on the private rental market were affordable for individuals

01:11 - or families who were benefiting from housing subsidies. And in the research, we then carefully trace out what impact this had on, you know, individual families and also the local councils in which, you know, these cuts were becoming effective. You know, the literature on housing assistance has broadly focused on looking at, for example, the administrative side of it. Like how are housing subsidy programs administered,

01:38 - but have typically not looked at the, sort of indirect consequences of cuts, to such schemes. We've seen, obviously, a gradual and, and, and significant expansion of housing assistance subsidies, and the fiscal shadow of those, in the public, sector, public finances. you know, I think, in the uk, for example, spending on, the housing assistance, has actually reached, 23 billion by 20 16, 20 17, as the second most important item for the department,

02:10 - or worked in pensions, sort of spending on benefits. and that obviously is due to the fact that there's been very little or hardly any home construction that is affordable and house prices have have increased significantly, which basically meant that, you know, the cost of housing assistance that was indexed to the underlying, evolution of the rent, has also grown and grown and grown. And so governments basically just went on

02:39 - and said, well, look, this is, seems to be growing, quite drastically. It's, it's taken up more and more of our sort of fiscal space. let's just cut it. at least that was sort of the, approach that was taken in 20 10, 20 11, rather than trying to expand, housing supply. All of the results here, you know, we see, see similar developments also in different countries.

03:01 - and so it's a feature, that, housing has become ever more unaffordable, due to low levels of home construction, in particular in the affordable segment. so we see this as a feature across all of Europe, Western Europe, and the us, as well. In terms of the institutional setup here in the uk, what we, what we have is, you know, home assistance that is offered, as a form of housing benefit by the Department of Works and Pension.

03:30 - that, again, is sort of designed to be as local housing allowance indexed to the underlying rent. So individuals who are on low incomes, or vulnerable, you know, typically families with children, actually in most instances, or single parents who cannot basically afford, their rent can apply for housing assistance. that would then ideally be linked or referenced to the area, the rental prices in the area. And essentially the policy change

04:02 - that was implemented in 2011 was veering or separating the link of housing benefits to the evolution of local rental prices. So that's sort of the specific context. Context. what we then do in the paper is we look at how this cut to housing benefits, which was essentially more or less severe in some areas and affected them subsequently, you know, a broad range of, economic outcomes. In particular, we looked at whether individuals

04:32 - or in areas that were, that was a more significant cut to housing benefit, whether in these areas we see a differential increase in, people becoming effectively involuntary homeless. So these are individuals who fall behind their rents. they would then be typically evicted because there's a very poor level of tenancy, protection or renter protection in the uk. that's somewhat specific to the uk, but, again, sort of tenancy

05:01 - or renter protection is also quite limited in the us. And so that increase in involuntary homelessness, for some also resulted in a drastic, in some areas also resulted in a drastic increase in rough sleeping that's obviously quite visible, on the street. we see that this increase in involuntary homelessness, that's a special status that, you know, somebody who is under the risk or at risk of becoming homeless, can, you know, apply

05:32 - for to their council for protection, and saying, well, look, I'm at risk of becoming involuntary homeless because I cannot afford the rent in this instance. Local councils have a statutory duty to prevent this involuntary homelessness if they can prove, prove that it is involuntary. So what does that mean? These are typically individuals who actually have an income, they have a job, it's just that their job doesn't allow them to make ends meet.

05:58 - and they might have care duties, for example, for dependent children or relatives or people with, you know, dependents with health conditions. So in this instance, what happened is that then local councils who, you know, had to basically cough up money, to, try to, shelter, individuals who would become involuntary homeless. and so this policy in particular is very much a nice

06:25 - example of what some call a zero sum politics. because in essence, the central government here, was the one, the department works in pension, which is a national body. We're saving some money by sort of reducing the spending on local housing allowance, the housing benefit. But at the other end, local councils were, sort of responsible for housing people who are involuntary homeless

06:51 - or at risk of becoming involuntary homeless. you know, they would then have to find temporary accommodation and surprise, surprise, they have to hire that accommodation at market rent levels, because that's what they're competing over. So it's a great example of how essentially, very narrow set of policy objectives that are not kind of carefully thought through. 'cause the underlying problem is a lack of housing supply, not demand, just shifts.

07:20 - Then the financial burden in this case from the central government to local councils, which obviously has wider ramifications. I can elaborate on these wider ramifications as well. So on the political economy, side of the, of the story here, ultimately there's a challenge or tension between central government and local governments that is playing out, central government, is, you know, in the UK has a lot of revenue raising capacities.

07:48 - it can raise revenues through taxation, and also has a lot of spending responsibilities in particular for, welfare state pension. and of course, you know, you know, other areas, but of course, welfare and state, the state pension in particular is, is an important one. So when the government in 2010, came to power, after the election, there was this fiscal pressure, in the wake of the global financial crisis to cut spending. And that is essentially, you know, the,

08:19 - the welfare system was one area where there has been a steady expansion of outlays. Part of them are demographic nature, because we, you know, there's an aging population in much of Western Europe, so there's increasing demands for state pension, which of course is, you know, something that's hard to cut because many state engineers are actually on very low incomes themselves. but state engineers are, voters are more likely

08:45 - to engage in the political process, whereas we see that, across the age distribution, people in middle age or younger are less likely to engage in voting. And so what we look at and what we see with the, austerity cuts, post 2010, the incidents in terms of the age distribution is much more likely to be on younger people, let's say the future generation and the current working age adult population than the pensioner, population.

09:13 - And you see that this is matched quite closely with a, you know, a decline in turnout and electoral participation, that is following that. So at some level, you had a mandate, so to say, or it was possible for the central government to shift burdens on the non-voting public, through these welfare cuts. so this is the central government story. The local government story, is, you know, the flip side,

09:39 - because, lots of local councils have many growing statutory obligation also owing to, the, demographic pressures such as old age care, in particular, you know, disability care services and so on. And so, you know, you had sort of these demographic pressures at the central government, and you have demographic pressures at the local government. Local governments have very limited revenue raising

10:05 - capacities, which means that if there's a growing need for, council services, you know, they have a hard time finding the money to fund these, fund these services. And so, that's where the combination of a central government cut to housing assistance that generates an increase in, essentially demand for temporary accommodation because of, a, a drastic rise in involuntary homelessness,

10:32 - essentially puts further pressure on local government budgets. Now, we can go a few steps further and look at who are the beneficiaries of these temporary accommodation providers. again, this is a bit speculative, but there's a lot of private sector entities that sprung up to essentially, set up these, temp accommodations. which obviously raises the question whether there's sort of, you know, political kind of incentives,

10:58 - around this. because ul ultimately this is just a rentier economy, a rent extraction, that now happens, which leaves everybody worse off the central government, you know, basically on paper has saved some money. But now, local councils have to have, have saw a drastic increase in the expenditure. we see a lot of disruptions in the, just the sort of lives of people that were brought about. because some individuals, you know, the, the process

11:28 - of being forced out of your accommodation, you know, can be, most likely. I mean, we see that there's auxiliary research on the mental health effects of sort of being removed potentially from your home area, your community, like there's a big shadow of burden that might arise from this policy, in the form of poor mental health distress or potential trauma among a generation of children. 'cause it should be said that the biggest incident

11:54 - of the families of individuals that have become involuntary homeless, homeless in the wake of these cuts, were individuals, families with children, single moms. It wasn't drug addicts or, or, you know, old people. It was predominantly, you know, single, single parents or families with children, which of course highlights that there's potentially a huge dynamic cost in the short term.

12:20 - We also see that there's a significant increase in temporary kind of crime activity. So we see theft and burglaries shoot up in areas more affected, which highlights that there's, potentially also direct negative externality that arises from touch cuts in the short term as people essentially have to resort to criminal activities to potentially make ends meet or deal with the distress. And I think that's, something that, of course, a pure simplistic accounting framework,

12:49 - if you just do spreadsheet economic, economics as, was alleged some policy makers were doing around the time, might not account for or internalize that might affect, you know, our view of such types of, cuts, more comprehensively in general around much of the austerity cuts and welfare reforms. there were a lot of, very optimistic assumptions or heroic assumptions that went into, into the design of some of these cuts.

13:18 - which, if we look at it sort of more carefully, a lot of these cuts were sort of left pocket, right pocket exercises where basically you cut here, and then sort of the expenditures just pop up elsewhere because the underlying latent problem is not being tackled. a lot of the, austerity in welfare reform measures were tackling symptoms rather than root causes. and, I think that

13:43 - to me is like the most important sort of message, that policymaking needs to sort of, you know, especially exercise that come out of the, the treasury, or ministries of finance across different countries need to consider potentially further indirect margins, of impact that the policies have. Of course, one could say maybe this was all just smart and deliberate design, because, if the interest of a policymaker is not to affect a positive outcome,

14:14 - but to benefit potentially one specific group of supporters that might then cash in on setting up these temporary accommodations, that would set up a different story. But I would like to think that policymakers had good intentions. It was just something that was not thought through, carefully. and of course then the financial, burden that arises from, such, the financial shadow that arises from such non-thought through cuts,

14:42 - can be much higher than the initial cost savings. And of course, as a society, we're all left worse off. I would like to add one more thing, which Is, is actually the detrimental effect that, these type of housing assistant cuts might have had on political discourse. this is essentially what got me actually motivated to study, study this. There was an obvious increase in about, you know, in 2012, I was working in a homeless shelter in Camden, actually.

15:09 - And so as a volunteer, and, you know, you saw that there was a drastic increase in people who were seeking help. And it turned out that a lot of these individuals who were seeking help had a migrant migrant background. and when you started talking to them, it was obvious that they were simply not aware of the access of the support that they could have received from local councils because, you know, they simply didn't know that they could apply for, sort of protection,

15:37 - to be classified as involuntary homeless. But this, of course, who ate visibly more rough sleeping, more, homelessness that was associated, let's say with, you know, skin colors or potential ethnic groups that were not natives. And that obviously creates the possibility, that, you know, individuals who pass by because homeless people typically are not in corners there invisibly on the street, even simply for their own protection,

16:06 - because they very often become the victim of, violence. So they're very visible at sort of street junctions or places where, you know, they, they, they, they're seen, but to the normal person who just walks by, they might see, there's this increase in homeless people on the street. and they can't really pinpoint why this happens, but they see that a lot of them seem to be foreigners. This creates the possibility for, political entrepreneurs call them populists, to shape narratives that, you know, the immigrants are,

16:38 - you know, you know, causing lots of, you know, homelessness or sort of are a lot more likely to be homeless and sort of welfare grounders and whatnot. And that, of course, sets up the possibility of a toxic debate, when in fact a lot of it has to do with, you know, perceptions and biased perceptions of a phenomena that can only be explained because many, immigrants simply don't have access to the welfare system in the way that natives have.

17:04 - Because in the uk one of the big challenges that nobody explains the country to the people, that arrive because, well, everybody speaks English, but nobody understands the British I.

Faculti AI can make mistakes