Is Privatization the Answer for Social Housing? A Comparative Study of China and the United Kingdom

Bibliographic Data

ID13101893
AuthorsNannan Wang (0000-0002-5184-4444, corresponding author), R M W Horner
Year2012
Volume39
Issue1
Pages99-124
Publication date2012-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueHousing and Society (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2376-0923 • E-ISSN: 0888-2746
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/08882746.2012.11430602
OpenAlexW1421454150
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited6

Since the end of the 1970s, both China and the United Kingdom experienced significant privatization processes in their social housing systems. The reasons for and main policies during the privatization process in the two countries are reviewed and compared in this paper. The privatization processes are separated into two stages: the first stage began in the 1980s, when both countries intended to improve the living standard of those households in social housing The second stage began in the 1990s when more complex goals, such as private financing, were established by the central governments of the two countries. The pros and cons of privatization in the experiences of the two countries are analyzed. It is recommended that the Chinese government should concentrate on regulating the tenure structure and rental market, protecting low-rincome families, and introducing property taxes on private households. For the United Kingdom, it is recommended that the financing policies should be regulated and the management efficiency should be improved of privately financed housing projects

Business · China · Economic growth · Economic policy · Economics · Government (linguistics · Political science · Rental housing · Renting · Housing Market and Economics · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Urbanization and City Planning

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub