Housing matters: A comparative study of the relationship between housing and poverty in Europe

This research will examine how the relationship between housing conditions and costs and poverty outcomes in Europe has changed over the past decade. Despite the significance of housing for the study of poverty, debates in these two fields have occurred in 'disjointed literatures' in recent decades (Stephens and van Steen, 2011). This disjuncture is increasingly problematic because housing costs are rising and now threaten to become a key driver of poverty: a recent study has found that the risk of in-work poverty has risen by one-quarter in the UK between 2004/5 and 2014/15, with this increased risk concentrated almost entirely amongst tenants in the private rented and social rented sectors (Hick and Lanau, 2017; see also Stephens et al., 2014). However, recent studies have typically been solely focussed on the UK: it is less clear whether patterns observed here are distinctive or common amongst European countries.

The aim of this research project is to examine and explain the association between housing and poverty in a comparative European context, and how this has changed over the decade between 2005 and 2017. The project objectives are: (i) to analyse, using the most robust quantitative data available, the association between housing conditions and costs and poverty outcomes in Europe, and how these have changed over time; (ii) to contribute to theory-development in terms of explaining the evolving association between housing systems and poverty outcomes; (iii) to advance debates in both housing studies and poverty analysis by bringing together and integrating insights and debates from these two 'disjointed' fields; (iv) through focussed dissemination and knowledge exchange activities, inform policy and practice so as to contribute to poverty reduction in Europe.

This research project will consist of a secondary analysis of quantitative data from the EU Study on Income and Living Conditions to examine these issues. SILC includes information about housing conditions and costs, household incomes, poverty and living conditions and contains data from more than half a million respondents from across the EU28 in each wave. Our research include analysis of the rotating panel element of SILC and the 2012 ad hoc module on housing conditions, both of which are under-utilised.

Our research will be of benefit to academics working in the fields of housing and poverty studies. It will lead to new synergies and will extend the state-of-the-art in these fields. It will generate new comparative evidence about how the housing-poverty association is evolving and, for those in the UK, will provide a different vantage point to consider this association, which is the subject of growing academic and policy scrutiny in the UK.

In terms of relevance beyond the academe, the research will be of relevance to policy-makers, staff at civil society organisations and the interested public. The nature of the expected non-academic impacts are: (1) to increase awareness about the significance of housing policy for poverty outcomes in Europe; (2) helping to frame potential policy alternatives by providing evidence about policy differences in other European countries and their impacts, and (3) by providing evidence that informs policy decisions.

The non-academic beneficiaries of this research will be policy-makers, staff at civil society organisations, and the interested public. Our primary beneficiaries are these three groups in the UK, with their equivalents in continental Europe setting representing secondary beneficiaries.

The nature of the expected impacts are: (1) increased awareness about the significance of housing policy for poverty outcomes (i.e. the extent to which housing influences poverty trends and transitions, the likely consequences of policy inaction), (2) helping to frame potential policy alternatives (by adopting a comparative perspective, by understanding how other nations arrange their housing systems and social policies differently), (3) informing policy decisions (e.g. demonstrating which policy configurations are associated with lower poverty rates, supporting such decision-making through the provision of evidence and consultation).

The first group of non-academic beneficiaries are policy-makers (i.e. politicians and senior civil servants), primarily at Westminster and in the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales. We expect each of the three types of impact (increased awareness; framing alternatives; informing decisions) to be relevant for policy-makers, with our research providing a cutting-edge evidence base which can help to inform decisions they need to make in these areas. Our comparative research will provide evidence about real, as opposed to purely hypothetical, policy alternatives. A less certain, but vitally important, benefit would be greater dialogue and co-operate across the ministries responsible for housing and social security. In existing knowledge exchange work at Westminster, Dr Hick has seen first-hand how these departmental boundaries can frustrate discussion of policy options requiring action that spans across ministries.

The second non-academic beneficiary are civil society organisations and think-tanks. For civil society organisations, we believe the nature of the benefit will be in terms of greater understanding of the issue and framing potential policy alternatives (#1 and 2 above). Dr Hick has observed a keen appetite for knowledge in relation to this topic amongst many groups, but studies in this area, especially comparative studies, remain sparse. The beneficiary groups include the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Resolution Foundation, New Policy Institute, the Institute for Public Policy Research, Policy Exchange, the Trust for London, Poverty Alliance, Citizen's Advice Bureau, the Centre for Social Justice, and others. We will hold an early engagement event in month 8 to understand their knowledge needs to a greater extent but envisage that they will benefit from the comparative perspective on what is a topic of growing interest to many of them.

We believe that the secondary continental European beneficiaries are likely to be particularly relevant in the case of civil society organisations, with many such organisations taking an interest in issues related to the present research. These organisations include the European Anti-Poverty Network, the European Social Observatory, Solidar and the European Trade Union Institute. In the Pathways to Impact statement, we outline our proportionate activities to engage with, and learn from, them.

The third group of non-academic beneficiaries are the interested public. The project touches on a matter of keen public interest and debate. We expect our research to inform members of the interested public about the distinctiveness (or otherwise) of the link between housing and poverty in the UK, and, to a lesser extent, shaping views about feasible policy alternatives and reform trajectories (#1 and 2, above). The general public will be engaged primarily through media appearances and reports and non-academic outputs such as blog posts in outlets that will reach a wide UK and European audience.