Exploring the 'middle ground' between state and market: the example of China

Studies of housing systems lying in the 'middle ground' between state and market are subject to three important shortcomings. First, the widely used Esping-Andersen (EA) approach assesses only a subset of the key housing outcomes and may be less helpful for describing changes in housing po...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Housing studies 2017-01, Vol.32 (1), p.73-94
Main Authors: Miao, Julie Tian, Maclennan, Duncan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
China
Housing
Housing policy
housing regimes
indicators
Lying
Markets
Policies
Policy making
Public policy
Spatial discrimination
Tenure
Updating
Welfare
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Studies of housing systems lying in the 'middle ground' between state and market are subject to three important shortcomings. First, the widely used Esping-Andersen (EA) approach assesses only a subset of the key housing outcomes and may be less helpful for describing changes in housing policy regimes. Second, there is too much emphasis on tenure transitions, and an assumed close correspondence between tenure labels and effective system functioning may not be valid. Third, due attention has not been given to the spatial dimensions in which housing systems operate, in particular when housing policies have a significant devolved or localised emphasis. Updating EA's framework, we suggest a preliminary list of housing system indicators in order to capture the nature of the housing systems being developed and devolved. We verified the applicability of this indicator system with the case of China. This illustrates clearly the need for a more nuanced and systematic basis for categorising differences and changes in welfare and housing policies.
ISSN:0267-3037
1466-1810
DOI:10.1080/02673037.2016.1181723