The immobility of social tenants: is it true? Does it matter?

ARTICLE

The immobility of social tenants: is it true? Does itmatter?

Youngha Cho • Christine Whitehead

Received: 6 October 2011 / Accepted: 22 December 2012� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract The low level of residential mobility in England, particularly in the social

sector, has been a continuing topic both in the literature and among policy makers. The

period 1995–2007 was one of relatively rapid tenure change as well as sustained economic

growth which could be expected to have increased mobility across tenures but also the

costs of immobility in both the labour and housing markets. It was also a period where

allocations to the social sector were increasingly concentrated among more vulnerable

households. Given these trends does social housing continue to stand out as particularly

immobile? If so is the relative immobility an outcome of who lives in social housing rather

than how the sector is managed? And do low levels of mobility have significant negative

impacts generating labour market inefficiencies and poor use of social housing? This paper

uses Survey of English Housing data for the decade of growth from the mid 1990s to

examine the drivers of mobility across tenures and how these have changed over the

period, with particular emphasis on outcomes in the social sector. These drivers are

described and modelled for the study period and suggest that social sector tenants with

similar characteristics are much less mobile than households in other tenures but that the

costs of this immobility, while difficult to quantify may well be quite limited.

Keywords Residential mobility � Housing tenure � Social rented sector � Labour mobility

Y. Cho (&)Department of Real Estate and Construction, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Oxford OX30BP, UKe-mail: [email protected]

C. WhiteheadDepartment of Economics, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UKe-mail: [email protected]

C. WhiteheadDepartment of Land Economy, Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research, University ofCambridge, 19 Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK

123

J Hous and the Built EnvironDOI 10.1007/s10901-012-9331-4

1 The research questions

The low level of residential mobility in the social rented sector in England has been the

subject of political and academic analysis for many decades, mainly in the context of its

impact on the labour market. At the time of the debates of the early 1980s the social sector

accounted for over 30 % of the housing stock in England and acted as a generalist pro-

vider, accommodating large numbers of lower income employed households. Differences

in residential mobility between those in the market and the administered sector associated

with unemployment and non-participation rates were thus prima facie evidence that social

housing imposed labour market costs (Hughes and McCormick 1981, 1985, 1987).

Social housing in England is mainly provided by local authorities and not for profit

housing associations (HAs) at below market rents and with the help of government sub-

sidy. Since the 1980s the size of the sector has declined from over 30 % to under 20 % of

the total stock as a result both of transfers to the private sector, particularly through the

Right to Buy and of the increased concentration of housing investment in the owner-

occupied sector. Government policy has also changed markedly as allocation priorities

were shifted towards helping homeless and more vulnerable households, resulting in higher

proportions of non-participant households of working age being accommodated in the

sector. In this context, relative immobility among social tenants was seen as evidence of

administrative failure in the Hills Report (Hills 2007) for two distinct reasons (1) that it

continued to limit employment opportunities and thus generated labour market costs and

was not effectively supporting vulnerable households into work; and (2) that the sector was

not providing the high levels of satisfaction among social tenants that might be expected

given the objective of ensuring adequate affordable housing. Under the current Coalition’s

policy, traditional concerns about high levels of non-participation and unemployment in

the social rented sector remain but emphasis has also shifted more to housing management

issues, particularly the extent to which immobility concurrently generates both under-

occupation and overcrowding among immobile tenants.

To help clarify the potential benefits arising from increased mobility among social

tenants it is important to understand both the extent to which social housing is the direct

reason for this immobility and how increased mobility might generate the expected ben-

eficial outcomes. To this end we examine two core questions:

1. Is the social housing sector of itself a major source of immobility, or is it rather that

social housing accommodates concentrations of household groups who are inherently

less mobile; and

2. is there evidence that greater mobility among social tenants would reduce labour

market rigidities and the inefficient use of social sector housing?

The starting point for our analysis is the changes in tenure structure and mobility that

took place during the long period of economic growth that began in the mid-1990s. During

the 1980s and early 1990s there was some considerable increase in re-let rates in the local

authority sector. There were also more moves to other tenures over the same period,

perhaps as a result of improved affordability in the owner-occupied sector and increased

availability in the private rented sector, but also as a result of greater mobility from local

authority to social housing provided by Housing Associations (Pawson 1998/9; Burrows

1999).

From the middle of the 1990s, there were continuing large scale increases in both

employment and the availability of private renting but also rapid house price rises. Resi-

dential mobility is generally seen to be positively related to job mobility (Gordon 1990;

Y. Cho, C. Whitehead

123

Gordon and Molho 1998) so this environment could be expected to increase social tenants’

incentives and capacities to find work, while at the same time increasing the costs of

administrative constraints on mobility. In this context Battu et al. (2008) found that, based

on longitudinal data, unemployed social sector tenants are less likely to move both job and

home together than equivalent households in the private rented sector—implying a higher

cost to accommodating those out of work in social housing at a time when employment is

more readily available. At the same time, worsening affordability associated with growing

demand for housing as incomes rose, could be expected to have reduced access to owner-

occupation and movement out from social housing. This in turn would further increase the

costs of constraints within the social sector—both in terms of the impact on the labour

market and managing the available social sector stock. For these reasons our analysis

concentrates on the period from 1995 to 2007, i.e. the period of growth and high

employment prior to the financial crisis which has reduced mobility in all sectors.

To examine the first question, whether mobility is actually lower in the social rented

sector once household characteristics are taken into account, we review the existing evi-

dence on residential mobility overall and relative mobility between tenures. We then

examine the statistical evidence on whether tenure, and particularly social renting, remains

an important factor in determining mobility, independent of other characteristics.

Turning to the second question, whether this lower mobility matters in labour market

and housing management contexts, we first clarify the extent to which the attributes of

social tenants are concentrated among household types who could be expected to benefit

from job related mobility. We then look at whether mobility has improved the use of the

social housing stock through more effective housing management. Finally, we note some

implications for policy particularly in the context of improving housing opportunities for

social tenants.

2 Are social tenants less mobile than similar households in other tenures?

2.1 Why mobility might differ

There are obvious reasons to expect mobility to differ both between types of households

and between tenures. Fundamentally, households, whether owners or tenants, when

deciding to move or not weigh the expected change in future benefits against the costs of

the move, including the other opportunities available. Benefits of moving to the individual

may include better housing and neighbourhood; a more suitable location; and improved

employment opportunities as well as freedom to change the mix of expenditure on housing

and other goods and services. The value of these benefits will vary between different

household types and circumstances. For instance older households are often both more

attached to their current home and care less about job opportunities so may have fewer

reasons to move. Young people, on the other hand, may be looking to leave home and/or to

move home to obtain the job they want. Thus the potential to increase benefits from

mobility depends on household circumstances; on relative housing costs for different

attributes, locations and indeed tenures; and relative labour market conditions in different

areas.

If people are operating in the market, these benefits and costs can be directly priced and

help determine whether moving will increase utility. But in the social sector these factors

are mediated by below market pricing; administratively determined allocation rules which

favour vulnerable households and those facing poor housing conditions; the rights and

The immobility of social tenants

123

responsibilities associated with a social tenancy; and available supply. The household’s

decision is likely to concentrate particularly on the property rights associated with already

being located in social renting, on the attributes of specific dwellings, and the constraints

on moving into and within the sector arising from shortages and government determined

allocation rules (Munro et al. 2005; DCLG 2002).

As a result of these additional constraints and its large social sector, mobility in England

has been regarded as particularly limited, with adverse effects on the labour market

(Hughes and McCormick 2000; Boyle and Shen 1997; Dohmen 2005). A review of the

literature for the Department of Trade and Industry in the mid-2000s stressed the

continuing importance of low mobility not only in the local authority but also among

owner-occupiers and indeed private tenants as compared to the USA (DTZ Consulting &

Research 2006). Later work, concentrating specifically on longer distance job related

moves, using the British Household Panel Survey, suggested that public housing reduced

the probability of gaining employment in more distant labour markets (Battu et al. 2008).

A substantial number of studies have analysed residential mobility in England, focusing

particularly on the drivers of that mobility. The evidence across all tenures suggests that

housing and personal factors, rather than job related reasons, provide the chief motives for

both long and short-distance moves (Clark and Dieleman 1996; Cho and Whitehead

2005a). Owen and Green (1992), Flowerdew and Halfacre (1994) for instance, found that

age, household size, marital status, social class and employment status as well as housing

tenure were among the most important determining factors. More recent studies confirmed

that demographic variables, particularly age and stage in the life cycle, are core drivers of

mobility (Pawson and Bramley 2000; Dieleman 2001).

Residential mobility patterns also vary in response to broader housing and labour

market factors (Helderman et al. 2004). Long distance mobility in particular is thought to

be strongly related to the buoyancy of the economy, because opportunities are greater and

risks of moving lower (Gordon and Molho 1998). A number of studies have concentrated

on labour market drivers, notably on the impact of wage differentials and employment

opportunities, again particularly in the context of longer distance moves (Champion et al.

1998; Gordon 1990; Gordon and Molho 1998; Meen and Andrews 1998). In addition to

labour market opportunities, income growth can also be expected to increase housing

related mobility because demand for housing is generally income elastic—so as incomes

rise people want more housing and may well have to move to obtain what they want

(Gordon 1990; Whitehead 1999). The impact of house price inflation is less clear-cut—

expectations of higher capital gains increase the incentive for owners to move but problems

of affordability for both owners and tenants may make moving more difficult (Barker

2004). These findings generally point to mobility will generally be pro-cyclical in all

tenures.

One implication of the findings in the literature is that social housing tenants because of

the household characteristics and low income will find it less worthwhile to move for job

related reasons than higher income households who operate in regional, national or

international job markets. They are also less likely to be able to make the costly com-

mitment to move and to bear the associated risks. At the extreme, households containing no

workers or potential workers will take little or no account of employment factors but move

only for personal, housing and location related reasons. Their incentives to move are also

less likely to be responsive to cyclical factors.

Using this basic maximising utility model, variations in mobility across tenures can be

expected to relate to information and transactions costs; to differential property rights; to

the different objectives of individuals and society; and to the economic and financial


123

environment (Gardner et al. 2001; Helderman et al. 2004). Other things being equal,

homeowners can be expected to move less often than tenants because of the higher direct

costs of moving; greater involvement with their existing home (and thus consumer surplus)

because of ownership and control; and higher costs related to taxation on purchase and sale

(e.g. stamp duty and/or capital gains) (Hughes and McCormick 2000; Oswald 1996, 1998).

On the other hand many owner-occupiers are professional or skilled workers who can

benefit more from movement in the labour market, and may have to move longer distances

to achieve these gains—suggesting that they will place some importance on job related

moves.

Private tenants tend to have far fewer property rights invested in their existing dwelling

as well as lower transactions costs. They also tend to be younger and more likely to change

their household structure. One would therefore expect higher mobility among private

tenants, in particular those at the beginning of their employment career (notably students)

and those moving for job reasons. In addition, segments of the private rented sector are of

poor quality in poor neighbourhoods—providing an increased incentive to move when

household circumstances improve (Ball 2004).

Finally, social tenants are thought to be relatively immobile not only because of age,

relative poverty and poorer job opportunities, but also because they benefit from the

property rights associated with sub-market rents and the quality of housing and manage-

ment provided by social landlords—factors which are relevant as much to intra-sector

moves as to movement out of the sector because rights vary considerably between prop-

erties and tend to favour longer term tenancies (Hughes and McCormick 2000; Hills 2007;

Lui and Suen 2011). Social tenants also face administratively determined allocation rules

which emphasise personal and housing circumstances, rather than economic opportunity.

Thus for instance Cho and Whitehead (2005b) show that long distance moves are more

likely to enable older households to live near their families than to support working age

households to make job related moves. These differences in cost and ease of moving are

likely to mean that households, when they are able to, self-select into the tenure which best

meets their expected mobility requirements. In particular younger, more potentially mobile

households will tend to be private tenants, while poorer households with little reason to

move can be expected to benefit from social renting. If consumer choice dominates then

household characteristics alone might determine differences in mobility between tenures.

In reality it is more likely that both the social sector offer and its administrative constraints

with respect to rents, allocations and property rights will have an independent effect on

who is able to move. The initial question is therefore whether social renting has acted as an

independent variable in determining mobility and whether its importance has been mod-

ified over a decade of growth and policy change.

2.2 Differences in mobility between tenures: the evidence

In this section we first describe how the tenure structure in England evolved from the

mid1990s to the mid-2000s. Secondly we examine whether the increases in mobility

observed in the previous decade were maintained during the period from 1995 to the mid-

2000s as might have been expected, given continuing economic growth. Finally we clarify

how patterns of change have differed between tenures.

Looking at the data from 1995, Table 1 shows how the overall tenure structure has

changed in three distinct ways: first, owner-occupation initially continued to rise, as it had

done since the 1950s but only until the early 2000s. Thereafter, the rate began to fall.

Second, the private rented sector grew by over 70 %, again mainly after the turn of the


123

century. Third, while social renting fell in both absolute and proportional terms, within that

total the housing association (HA) sector more than doubled both because of the con-

centration of new build in that sub-sector and large scale transfers from local authorities.

The impact of these changes in tenure structure on mobility is not easy to predict: there

are pressures in both directions. As we have seen the general assumption is that economic

growth generates greater mobility for both housing and labour market reasons—so

mobility rates in general might be expected to rise. Equally the growth in private renting,

with its much lower transactions costs than other tenures should, other things being equal,

be related to higher mobility. Further housing associations have more capacity to enable

mobility than local authorities—so constraints might be fewer. All these factors point to a

continued growth in mobility. On the other hand, increasing house prices and their adverse

impact on affordability reduce the capacity to move and are thought to be the main reason

for declining owner-occupation rates in the 2000s (Whitehead 2010). Equally, while much

of the growth in the private rented sector has come from younger and potentially more

mobile households, some has arisen because larger numbers of ‘social sector’ style

households, with their expected lower mobility rates, have become private tenants. Finally,

the transfer of ownership of local authority housing, which has traditionally accommodated

less mobile household, into the HA sector could be expected to reduce mobility rates

among HA tenants.

Table 2 clarifies how mobility rates, defined as the proportion of households who

moved in the previous year, both overall and by tenure changed over the decade. Year by

year estimates vary considerably because of sample size. Even so, there are some important

trends. Overall, mobility on average continued to increase during the 1990s as the economy

improved. However this trend was reversed after the turn of the century, resulting in lower

overall mobility rates even though the economy continued to grow.

Over the period, mobility declined across social housing and particularly within the HA

sector. But it also declined in the private sector. Among homeowners mobility increased in

the late 1990s as predicted but thereafter fell quite rapidly. There was also some limited

reduction in mobility among private rented tenants during the 2000s. Overall, therefore, the

shift towards tenures that might be expected to have higher mobility rates has not been

associated with increased movement as might have been expected were tenure (as opposed

to social renting) to be an important independent driver of mobility.

Table 1 Housing tenure

Source: English housing survey

1995 2000 2005 2007

Homeowners 13,503,03067.8 %

14,437,03069.9 %

14,555,34669.6 %

14,374,18968.9 %

Private tenants 1,795,3839.0 %

1,798,7408.7 %

2,270,44910.9 %

2,349,12811.3 %

Local authoritytenants

3,493,62417.5 %

2,941,19014.2 %

2,244,31110.7 %

2,229,52410.7 %

HA tenants 910,2994.6 %

1,279,1156.2 %

1,619,7527.7 %

1,708,3328.2 %

Living withfamily/friends

215,8341.1 %

204,4161.0 %

226,5671.1 %

198,0020.9 %

All tenures 19,918,170100 %

20,660,491100 %

20,916,425100 %

22,268,840100 %


123

In the context of labour market constraints it is mobility among working age households

that matters (Table 3). Mobility among this group is some thirty per cent higher than for all

households taken together. Interestingly, mobility among working aged households has

been relatively stable among owner occupiers, where affordability has been seen to be an

issue, but has fallen quite rapidly among tenants of all types but especially among HA

tenants.

Thus the descriptive statistics show mobility rates growing in the 1990s but falling after

the turn of the century even though economic growth was maintained. Importantly, the

expansion of the private rented sector has not been associated with greater mobility

overall—as most commentators and policy makers would have predicted. Even so, social

tenants remain far less mobile than private tenants both overall and among those of

working age. Moreover, mobility among social tenants, especially HA tenants, has

declined significantly over the period. This suggests that additional constraints, notably

administrative rules and favourable property rights, continue independently to generate

lower levels of mobility in the social sector, with associated costs to both the individual

and society. To examine this hypothesis we next model the relationships between mobility,

household attributes and tenure over the period 1995–2007.

Table 2 Mobility trends by tenure

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Homeowners 6.2 5.8 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.6 6.5 6.8 6.1 6.3 4.4 5.7 6.3

Privatetenants

41.9 41.5 41.3 41.9 40.7 42.4 43.3 40.8 41.6 41.3 38.8 37.7 39.2

Localauthoritytenants

10.9 12.1 11.9 11.0 12.1 10.2 9.6 8.6 10.1 9.5 8.0 8.8 8.3

HA tenants 18.1 16.4 13.9 14.9 20.4 13.8 13.4 12.3 11.2 11.4 10.4 10.4 10.9


17.6 16.8 27.5 23.1 18.2 19.0 21.6 17.0 22.2 27.3 18.1 17.8 19.3

All tenures 10.7 10.4 11.1 11.1 11.2 10.6 10.7 10.6 10.4 10.7 8.6 9.8 10.4

Source: Survey of English housing

Table 3 Mobility trends by tenure—working age household only (%)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Homeowners 7.6 7.4 8.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 7.9 8.0 7.3 7.4 5.5 7.3 7.9

Privatetenants

47.9 47.4 47.3 47.7 46.4 46.7 45.5 43.7 44.1 43.1 41.0 41.2 42.0

Localauthoritytenants

15.3 16.9 16.6 14.9 16.9 13.5 12.9 11.9 12.9 11.8 10.9 11.8 12.8

HA tenants 23.9 22.0 18.7 21.6 23.5 17.7 17.1 15.2 13.5 13.6 11.3 12.3 12.8


28.7 25.3 38.1 37.0 21.9 28.2 28.8 23.8 32.2 37.2 26.1 25.2 30.9

All tenures 13.6 13.6 14.1 14.0 13.9 13.3 13.0 12.7 12.4 12.4 11.0 12.6 13.5

Source: Survey of English housing


123

3 Modelling the attributes of mobile households

The core objective of the modelling is to identify the main attributes of movers as com-

pared to non-movers and thus to clarify both the major drivers of mobility and whether

tenure acts as an independent variable in determining that mobility. In addition the

modelling tells us whether and how the drivers of mobility differ between social tenants as

compared to all movers. To address these issues we use data from the Survey of English

Housing which gives details of current household and housing circumstances. The data set,

although large, does not provide enough detail year by year to provide robust answers once

broken down by both type of move and tenure. We therefore concentrate on two three-year

periods a decade apart—1995–1997 when the period of continued growth was just

beginning and 2005–2007 when there had been a decade of growth but before the financial

crisis hit the market. Further we split moves into short (less than 5 miles) and longer

distance moves (5 ? miles). We look first at all moves into all types of tenure and then

concentrate on social housing moves. Mover households are defined as those who had

moved in the previous 12 months.

We include, as potential independent variables driving mobility, demographic and

economic characteristics of households, notably household type, age, sex, marital status,

ethnicity and social and economic status of household head. These attributes are neces-

sarily those after the move. We also include a location specific variable (region) to reflect

housing market dynamics.

To identify the significant determinants of residential movement, we constructed

logistic regression models—a form of regression normally used when the dependent

variable is categorical. The modelling approach used enables two main types of analysis:

1. clarifying the order of importance of those variables which are significant drivers of

mobility;

2. calculating odds ratios which provide evidence of the relative mobility of different

categories in relation to each determinant.

The variables included in each estimated equation are those that are significant at the

one percent level. Other variables such as income and house prices that might have been

expected to be of relevance were found to be not significant, perhaps because employment,

social status and tenure have relatively greater impact. All of the variables included, except

tenure and region therefore reflect household attributes.

Table 4 Clarifies the relative importance of the determining variables. Age and tenure

dominate, with age the more important for short distance moves and tenure for longer

distance moves. Region is more relevant for long distance than for short distance moves

suggesting, as expected, that economic opportunities have more impact on longer distance

moves. Even so, the economic status of the individual household representative, while

significant, comes way down the list, especially for long distance moves. Household

variables, including household type, marital and social status, are all relevant.

The results also suggest that the relative importance of the different variables has

generally remained constant over the decade. The only big shift has been in the increasing

importance of ethnicity with respect to short distance moves. It remains the least important

variable for longer distance moves.

Turning to the relative probability of moving in relation to each independent variable,

there are particularly large differences with respect to age. The youngest households are by

far the most likely to move and that propensity falls steeply with age (Table 5). Moreover,

the relative likelihood of mobility among those in their twenties has grown over the


123

decade, perhaps because there are more students and more difficulty in finding the

accommodation they want.

The differences are smaller with respect to tenure but are consistent with our expec-

tations, especially for short distance moves. Homeowners who, as we have noted, have

higher moving costs, are very much less likely to move short distances than tenants, even

those in the local authority sector. One unexpected finding is that HA tenants were the most

likely to move in the mid-1990s, perhaps reflecting the extent to which new building

provided moving opportunities. By the mid-2000s HA tenants were no longer much more

likely to move than local authority tenants and very much less likely to move than private

tenants. Private tenants in the mid-2000s were almost 3.5 times more likely to move short

distances than owner-occupiers and almost twice as likely to move as HA tenants.

Longer distance moves were much more heavily concentrated in the private rented

sector. However, these relativities declined over the decade as mobility in general went

down. In overall terms long distance moves made up 37 %of all moves in the mid-2000s,

and 42 % of these moves were to the private rented sector. HA tenants, however, stood out

as having an increased propensity to move long distances over the decade. Longer distance

mobility was also higher in the southern, more economically buoyant, regions, especially

to the South West. Short distance moves on the other hand were more evenly spread across

the country with, if anything, more in the north where housing pressures were less. In both

cases there was little difference over the decade, suggesting that these are structural

relationships rather than a reflection of the economic cycle.

Turning to household characteristics, one person and couple households appeared

increasingly prepared to move as compared to other household types over the decade,

while married households remained relatively immobile.

From the point of view of labour market variables, it is social and employment status

which are the most important determinants. With respect to social status, professional,

managerial and higher skilled workers were generally more likely to move long distances.

Moreover the extent of the differentiation between those groups and less skilled workers

increased over the decade. Yet, with respect to economic status, it was generally those who

were unemployed after the move who were most likely to have moved long distances,

suggesting that labour market adjustment is risky and takes time. However the differen-

tiation between groups was quite small as compared to either age or tenure.

The most important findings with respect to mobility in general are therefore:

Table 4 Order of importance among movers: all tenures

1995–1997 2005–2007

Short distance Long distance Short distance Long distance

Age Tenure Age Tenure

Tenure Age Tenure Age

Marital status Social status Marital status Household type

Social status Household type Household type Region

Household type Marital status Ethnic group Social status

Economic status Region Social status Marital status

Region Economic status Economic status Economic status

Ethnic group Ethnic group Region Ethnic group


123

Table 5 Mover households: all tenures

1995–1997 2005–2007

Odds ratios Odds ratios Odds ratios Odds ratiosShort distance Long distance Short distance Long distance

Household head age

0–29 6.274* 6.173* 9.155* 7.133*

30–39 4.164* 4.473* 4.537* 3.705*

40–49 2.189* 2.482* 2.249* 2.376*

50–59? 1.497* 1.615* 1.728* 1.378*

Over 60 1 1 1 1

Tenure

Living with family/friends 1.680* 2.359* 1.838* 1.658*

HA tenants 3.098* 1.041* 1.902* 1.622*

Local authoritytenants 2.216* .932* 1.600* .951*

Private tenants 2.459* 3.985* 3.496* 3.466*

Homeowners 1 1 1 1

Household type

One-person household .774* 1.196* 1.177* 1.912*

Couple household .953* 1.368* 1.264* 1.741*

Lone-parent household .732* .688* .871* .738*

Multi-adult household .606* .795* .848* 1.026*

Two parents household 1 1 1 1

Social status

Professional/managerial .919* 1.689* .834* 1.410*

Other white colour job .943* 1.331* .947* 1.234*

High technical/skilled .719* .827* .965* 1.347*

Semi skilled .843* .796* .943* .907*

Unskilled 1 1 1 1

Marital status

Single 1.336* 1.025* 1.325* .923*

Cohabiting 1.655* 1.568* 1.570* 1.167*

Widowed 1.149* 1.028* 1.420* .791*

Divorced/separated 1.828* 1.453* 1.677* 1.375*

Married 1 1 1 1

Ethnicity

White 1.080* 1.518* .940* 1.049*

Mixed 1.072* 1.231* 1.029* 1.405*

Asian 1.245* 1.300* 1.245* .834*

Black 1 1 1 1

Economic status

Full-time .752* .802* 1.043* .899*

Part-time .731* .723* 1.106* .821*

Economically inactive .713* .702* .907* 1.116*

Retired .709* .927* .783* .694*

Unemployed 1 1 1 1


123

1. age and tenure are the two most important factors determining mobility;

2. age is more important for short distance moves but tenure tends to dominate for long

distance mobility, in part reflecting tenure self-selection among those with the greatest

benefits from long distance moves but also tenure specific constraints;

3. economically inactive and lower skilled workers as well as single parent households

are, as expected, relatively immobile. What is more surprising is that the group most

likely to have moved is the unemployed—perhaps suggesting that it takes significant

time to adjust;

4. younger households have become relatively more mobile over the decade—partly

perhaps because of the growing importance of higher education; and

5. differences in mobility between tenures have if anything declined but social housing

still stands out as very different from other tenures.

Overall, the modelling suggests that the drivers of mobility have been stable over the

period—with the main emphasis on household characteristics and how these differ between

tenures. The make-up of the social sector is partly the outcome of allocation rules which

favour groups with low mobility rates. But, in addition, the results strongly suggest that

being a social tenant is of itself an independent source of immobility, especially for longer

distance moves.

3.1 Do social tenants behave differently?

To examine this further we look specifically at the drivers of mobility in the social sector

(Table 6). The propensities of social tenants to move with respect to household charac-

teristics turn out to be generally quite similar to other tenures. The main differences as

compared to all movers (Table 5) are in the context of short distance moves, where age

differentials have been rather less important among social tenants, reflecting the general

immobility found in the sector. Even so the age differential among social tenant movers

grew over the decade. At the same time one person households have become increasingly

likely to move. This suggests that there has been some reduction in the constraints faced by

younger and smaller households in the social sector. Thus while administrative rules may

favour particular groups, this does not result in significantly differential behaviour relating

Table 5 continued

1995–1997 2005–2007


Region

London/South East .992* 1.468* .945* 1.249*

South West .978* 1.620* .998 1.695*

East .772* 1.420* .922* 1.341*

Midlands .895* 1.178* .987* 1.204*

North 1 1 1 1

Constant .049 .010 .012 .006

-2 log likelihood 58,752 58,752 49,665 49,665

Model v2 4,813,540* 3,443,770* 3,923,153* 2,824,156*

* Significant at 0.01 level


123

Table 6 Mover households: social tenants

1995–1997 2005–2007


Household head age

0–29 3.947* 5.806* 4.368* 5.139*

30–39 2.373* 3.616* 1.659* 2.062*

40–49 1.262* 2.265* 1.223* 1.255*

50–59? 1.005* 1.948* 1.080* .889*

Over 60 1 1 1 1

Household type

One-person household .904* 1.668* 2.011* 1.577*

Couple household .735* 1.126* 1.185* 1.580*

Lone-parent household .873* 1.086* 1.111* .721*

Multi-adult household .433* .503* .702* .758*

Two parents household 1 1 1 1

Social status

Professional/managerial .865* 1.227* .984 1.890*

Other white collar job 1.049* 1.188* .839* 1.573*

High technical/skilled .736* .738* 1.087* 1.116*

Semi skilled .883* .870* 1.032* 1.045*

Unskilled 1 1 1 1

Marital status

Single .966* .493* .998 .881*

Cohabiting 1.326* 1.717* 1.546* .797*

Widowed .780* .602* .823* 1.078*

Divorced/separated 1.185* .758* .969* 1.660*

Married 1 1 1 1

Ethnicity

White .941* 1.211* 1.020* 1.110*

Mixed .850* 1.555* 1.234* 2.041*

Asian 1.211* 1.736* 1.400* 1.018

Black 1 1 1 1

Economic status

Full-time .643* .596* .921* .940*

Part-time .567* .689* .746* .671*

Economically inactive .619* .706* 1.038* .836*

Retired .553* .889* .532* .415*

Unemployed 1 1 1 1

Region

London/South East .847* 1.196* .831* .854*

South West .899* 2.110* .867* 1.698*

East .760* 1.177* 1.066* 1.150*

Midlands .907* 1.087* .835* .831*

North 1 1 1 1


123

to household characteristics. Rather they have a more general effect on all those that gain

access to the sector.

Both descriptive and modelling1 results also point to important differences between

local authority and HA tenants in terms of the proportions of employed households that

move. In the mid-1990s across the whole sector full time workers were among the least

likely to move. By the mid-2000s this pattern had reversed among HA but not among local

authority tenants. Full and part time employed households were considerably more likely

to move longer distances into HA accommodation than those who were unemployed,

retired or economically inactive—in stark contrast to those moving to and within the local

authority sector, which were far more likely to be unemployed or retired.

These differences between social tenants and those in other tenures and within the social

sector are also reflected in evidence on reasons for moving. Looking first at short distance

moves, we find that among social sector tenants in the 1990s the most important reasons for

moving were management based, particularly size of dwelling and personal reasons

(Table 7-1). This compared with the private sector where housing and neighbourhood were

very much more important, and even in the private rented sector job related reasons

accounted for less than 5 % of moves. By the mid-2000s wanting to buy a house and

independent living as well as the size of the dwelling had become more important in the

HA sector in particular. ‘Other’ reasons had also increased in importance, probably

reflecting administrative priorities. Job related reasons were almost totally irrelevant, but

that was also true for owner-occupiers and indeed for the vast majority of private tenants.

Turning to longer distance moves (Table 7-2), in the mid-1990s among HA tenants, job

related reasons were relevant to only one in eight moves as compared to one in four among

private tenants. By the mid-2000s the proportions of job related moves had declined across

all tenures, although the reduction was least among HA tenants. At the same time the

importance of personal and other reasons had increased, and were dominant everywhere

except in the private rented sector.

Overall therefore the evidence suggests that social tenants do behave differently par-

ticularly with respect to the emphasis on management reasons for moving and in the

relatively low priority given to job related moves. Even so, there has been some increase in

longer distance mobility among working households in the HA sector—while in the local

authority sector the emphasis remained on unemployed households.

Table 6 continued

1995–1997 2005–2007


Constant .283 .022 .043 .011

-2 log likelihood 12,144 12,144 8,792 8,792

Model v2 967,031* 290,964* 374,798* 149,442*

* Significant at 0.01 level

1 Results reported here come from additional modelling of the HA and local authority sectors separately.


123

Table 7 Reasons for moving (1) Short distance moves (2) Long distance moves

Homeowner(%)

Privatetenants(%)

Localauthoritytenants(%)

HAtenants(%)

Temporary(%)

(1)

1995–1997

Neighbour/area related 15.5 18.3 16.5 8.6 8.7

Job related 1.4 4.6 4.4

House/too large/small 39.1 31.4 37.9 41.7 21.9

Want to buy a house/independent life 24.6 9.6 7.1 6.6 13.3

Divorce/family/personal reason 12.5 12.8 19.5 19.3 38.1

Affordability reason 1.7 3.7 3.0 6.3

Other reason 5.2 19.5 16.0 17.6 13.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2005–2007


Job related 1.0 6.6 1.7

House/too large/small 30.7 32.2 23.5 33.9

Want to buy a house/independent life 30.1 12.8 5.8 25.2


Affordability reason .8 2.7 1.8

Other reason 8.0 12.7 30.5 17.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(2)

1995–1997


Job related 11.0 27.4 6.7 12.2 8.6




Affordability reason .2 1.4 3.4

Other reason 4.5 12.4 13.4 9.5 7.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2005–2007


Job related 9.2 23.7 4.9 11.9 10.3




Affordability reason .3 3.3 3.8 3.0 4.5

Other reason 8.5 12.3 21.1 18.1 9.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


123

4 Does differential mobility matter?

Up to now our analysis has shown first that being in social housing does reduce mobility

especially in terms of longer distance moves; second that this is mainly a generalised

impact not specific to some particular groups.

The second question we address is does this matter—in terms of the labour market and

the management of scarce housing resources? In other words is there evidence that

immobility among social tenants is a major source of labour market rigidities and of the

inefficient use of social sector housing?

4.1 Would increasing job related mobility help social sector households?

To address the question of the impact on the labour market we re-examine who live in the

social rented sector and ask about their employment potential. Among social tenants there

are proportionately many fewer couples and two parent households but far higher, and

increasing, proportions of lone parents and younger single adults than across all tenures

(Table 8). The first two groups are the ones who are generally most likely to be in

employment, whatever tenure they are in; lone parents are the least likely among those of

working age—so on this basis household characteristics point to lower levels of

employment and participation in the social sector. This is likely to be reinforced by

allocation rules as a major objective of social housing is to accommodate the most vul-

nerable in society.

Even so, there are proportionately more households of working age than in owner-

occupation as well as a concentration of young people and of single adults. Even accepting

that they will have been allocated social housing because of vulnerability, there is a large

pool of social tenants who could potentially be relatively mobile and interested in job

related moves.

In this context, it has been suggested e.g. by Hills (2007) that one objective of the social

sector should be to be a springboard for opportunity. The evidence suggests that this has

not been the case as high levels of unemployment and inactivity (at around 30 %) con-

tinued over the decade of growth from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. Indeed, among

younger households (39 years and younger) the proportions of unemployed were three

times the national average over the whole period, while economic inactivity jumped from

28 to 43 % over the decade (Table 9).

Equally, among this younger group the proportion of semi and unskilled workers

increased from 39 to 68 %—suggesting that those being accommodated were increasingly

coming from those lower qualified groups with fewer job opportunities (Table 9). Whether

increasing mobility among these groups could make a significant positive labour market

impact, especially given the higher propensity for social tenants to be unemployed after

moving longer distances, is unclear. Greater emphasis on increasing skill levels and

helping people into local jobs would seem more relevant.

Overall therefore the evidence suggests that there is a major and increasing problem of

economic inactivity especially among younger social tenants. Constraints on mobility

would however seem to be a very small part of any solution.

4.2 Does mobility improve housing management?

A final question relates to the effectiveness of housing management in the social sector. A

core objective of social housing provision is to enable those in housing need to achieve


123

adequate standards but a second is to use what is available as efficiently as possible. The

evidence from the English Housing Survey suggests that those moving into social housing

do obtain adequate space standards at around 1 person per bedroom. Moreover, movers

across tenures appear to achieve somewhat higher space standards than non-movers except

that there has been a slight decline in allocated space among those moving into HA housing

over the period (Table 10).

A second aspect, stressed by Hills (2007), relates to the level of tenant satisfaction with

their housing. Here the evidence from Survey of English Housing show that those who

moved into social housing in 2005–2007 were considerably more satisfied with their homes

and particularly their areas than a decade before—and generally more satisfied than those

who did not move. The only exception was the small number of local authority tenants who

moved long distances, who were less happy with their area than those who had not moved.

The evidence that among movers the local area has become increasingly important both as

a reason for moving and a source of satisfaction suggest that the mixed community

approach is working (Crook et al. 2011).

As important from the point of view of housing management is whether tenant mobility

frees up social housing for others. Here there are significant differences between the impact

of those moving short distances and those moving further from their original home and a

considerable decline in the capacity to accommodate additional households as a result of

tenants moving to other tenures (Table 11).

Table 8 Household characteristics

All tenure Social tenants

1995–2007 (%) 2005–2007 (%) 1995–2007 (%) 2005–2007 (%)

Household type

One-adult household 26.0 26.3 36.1 34.7

Couple household 29.2 31.0 19.3 20.1

Lone-parent household 6.6 7.2 13.7 15.1

Multi-adult household 13.8 12.7 13.1 13.1

Two parents household 24.4 22.7 17.9 17.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Age

Younger than 29 11.4 8.8 20.4 21.3

30–39 20.0 17.6 20.2 21.5

40–49 18.9 20.7 13.6 17.6

50–59 16.0 18.3 11.1 12.8

Over 60 33.7 34.7 34.7 26.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Economic status

Full-time 52.0 51.1 32.8 38.9

Part-time 5.6 8.2 7.2 9.3

Unemployed 4.6 2.3 10.2 5.6

Retired 28.8 28.1 30.6 22.1

Economically inactive 9.0 10.2 19.2 24.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


123

In the mid-1990s some 15 % of local authority short distance movers moved into the

private sector, two thirds of these to owner-occupation. In the HA sector the proportions

were almost twice as high—28 and 20 % respectively. But by the mid-2000s across the

sector there was no big change in the proportions of movers going to the private rented

sector but the proportions going to owner-occupation had halved.

The proportions of longer distance movers moving out of the social sector has generally been

much higher. In the mid-1990s, nearly one third of long distance movers among local authority

tenants and 40 % among HA tenants left the sector. In the mid-2000s it was still around 34 %.

Table 9 Household characteristics of younger households (39 years old or younger)

All tenure Social tenants

1995–1997 (%) 2005–2007 (%) 1995–1997 (%) 2005–2007 (%)

Household type

One-adult household 21.7 21.1 18.7 22.7

Couple household 20.7 24.9 6.2 7.2

Lone-parent household 13.3 13.0 37.2 37.7

Multi-adult household 6.8 8.1 3.5 3.3

Two parents household 37.5 32.8 34.8 29.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Economic status

Full-time 75.5 71.8 38.1 28.9

Part-time 5.9 8.5 12.2 14.2

Unemployed 7.9 4.3 21.9 13.7

Retired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Economically inactive 10.7 15.4 27.9 43.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Skill class

Professional/managerial 26.5 21.6 5.9 3.4

Other white collar job 30.5 18.1 29.2 10.6

High technical/skilled 19.8 24.9 25.7 10.6

Semi skilled 13.2 21.7 23.8 41.9

Unskilled 10.0 13.7 15.3 26.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 10 Persons per bedroomby tenure

1995–1997 2005–2007

Non-mover

Mover Non-mover

Mover

Homeowner .91 .91 .92 .91

Private tenants .97 1.03 .91 .93

Local authority tenants 1.01 1.09 .92 .95

HA tenants 1.05 1.08 .92 .90

Living with friends/family

.90 1.06 .88 .94

Total .94 1.00 .92 .92


123

Thus, overall, the extent to which mobility frees up social housing has declined over the

decade under examination. However it is more likely to do so when households are moving

longer distances—local housing and personal related moves are far more likely to happen

within the social sector based on landlord priorities.

Table 11 Tenure change among movers

Period Previoustenure

Current tenure

Living withfriends/family(%)

HAtenants(%)

Localauthoritytenants(%)

Privatetenants(%)

Homeowner(%)

Total(%)

1995–1997

Shortdistance

Living withfriends/family

1.3 9.6 27.4 19.1 42.6 100.0

HA tenants .5 50.0 21.1 8.1 20.4 100.0


.7 14.5 69.4 5.2 10.3 100.0

Private tenants 2.1 5.9 13.8 42.7 35.5 100.0

Homeowner 1.5 2.6 5.6 7.6 82.7 100.0

Total 1.4 9.1 24.3 18.8 46.3 100.0

Longdistance


2.3 11.0 19.8 27.9 39.0 100.0

HA tenants 1.1 36.3 23.2 17.9 21.6 100.0


1.2 17.1 49.9 14.4 17.5 100.0

Private tenants 2.1 3.9 6.6 46.9 40.5 100.0

Homeowner 1.2 1.4 3.0 13.3 81.1 100.0

Total 1.5 5.6 10.7 24.8 57.4 100.0

2005–2007

Shortdistance


2.8 12.3 20.3 28.6 35.9 100.0

HA tenants 1.4 59.8 15.3 12.8 10.7 100.0


.8 21.2 64.6 7.6 5.8 100.0

Private tenants 1.9 7.8 6.1 53.4 30.8 100.0

Homeowner 1.0 3.1 3.2 9.6 83.1 100.0

Total 1.5 11.3 13.4 26.5 47.3 100.0

Longdistance


3.1 6.4 10.7 42.8 37.1 100.0

HA tenants 50.0 15.3 22.8 11.9 100.0


1.6 21.0 44.4 24.2 8.7 100.0

Private tenants 2.4 5.6 5.0 52.0 34.9 100.0

Homeowner 1.4 1.6 1.6 12.1 83.4 100.0

Total 1.8 6.5 6.5 28.5 56.7 100.0

The bold fonts indicate moves where the household remains in the same tenure. The Italic sections indicatethe proportion of LA and HA tenants’ movement to the private sector


123

The evidence available on the relationship between mobility and the more effective use

of the social sector stock is limited. What there is suggests that, if anything, the capacity to

match household requirements to available stock has declined. The capacity to move out of

the sector, an important aspect of mobility if social housing is to address unmet needs, has

also declined. But this is not so much an outcome of social sector management as of

worsening affordability and fewer opportunities in the private market.

5 Conclusions and policy implications

This paper set out to address two main questions: first, whether social housing remains an

independent source of immobility, or is it rather that social housing accommodates con-

centrations of household groups who are inherently less mobile; and, second whether, if so,

does such relative immobility generate a significant cost to the economy either in terms of

labour market inefficiencies or the ineffective use of scarce social sector housing

resources?

Part of the approach to answering these questions involved an examination of how

mobility across tenures had changed over the period of analysis from the mid-1990s to the

mid-2000s. The period was chosen because it was one of consistent growth when mobility

in general might be expected to increase and the costs of such immobility would be higher.

The evidence suggests that there was a clear decline in mobility trends overall during

the early 2000s, even though economic growth continued and employment continued to

rise. The most obvious reason for this decline was worsening affordability in the private

sector exacerbated by low levels of output across all tenures. The evidence on whether

being in social housing has an independent and negative effect on mobility is clear cut.

Social tenants are less mobile whatever their household characteristics—and local

authority tenants are less mobile than HA tenants. Moreover, although households (notably

lone parents) who have lower propensities to move are indeed concentrated in the sector,

there are also large groups of younger, often single person, households in the sector who

might be expected to be more mobile.

There are two possible reasons for the observed relative, and generally increasing,

immobility in the sector over the period. It may be the outcome of increasing positive

discrimination in allocation policy towards more vulnerable households within each

household group in a way that is not already captured by other identified determinants-

including income, socio-economic group and employment status. This is difficult to evi-

dence. In particular past experience with respect to housing, health and employment cannot

be identified using the English Housing Survey. Alternatively, or in addition, it may be the

outcome of administrative constraint. The first is clearly consistent with policy on social

housing provision which prioritise homeless households, those with disabilities and suf-

fering other forms of deprivation as well as poor housing conditions (DCLG 2012). The

second is clearly undesirable.

With respect to the second question: does the lower mobility matter in labour market

and housing management context, there are clearly large groups of social tenants who are

of working age and who might in principle be expected to work. In particular, the pro-

portion of younger households in the social sector who were outside the labour market

increased over the decade even though employment opportunities improved throughout the

period. While these groups are likely to be particularly vulnerable when they move in, they

do not have always to remain so. It is these groups where administrative constraint on

mobility could potentially impact both on individual opportunity and on the efficiency of


123

the labour market. Even so, job related mobility is only relevant to a minority of mainly

longer distance moves across tenures. Moreover most of these involve skilled or profes-

sional workers—while most social tenants are unskilled or at best semi-skilled. Over the

decade such moves have become more important among HA tenants—but mobility of

itself is not a panacea for ensuring greater labour market participation and unemployment

is a more usual immediate outcome for social tenants moving long distances than it is for

those who do not move. Moreover, the attributes of many social tenants suggest that

individually they will gain little from moving to a different labour market. While

encouraging longer distance moves directly for employment reasons may well be desirable,

the biggest challenge is to improve labour market participation within the local labour

market.

Increased mobility could in principle also generate a better use of the housing stock. In

practice, however, there is little evidence of increased efficiency in the use of the social

housing stock as a result of mobility. If anything the reverse is true, especially because

fewer households have been able to move out of the sector.

The findings here suggest that increasing mobility alone is unlikely to have large

positive impacts either on labour market participation or on the effective use of the stock.

Rather, tenants need opportunities to improve their skills and greater incentives to work as

well as opportunity to match their housing to their particular circumstances.

There remains a continuing tension between ensuring that the most vulnerable house-

holds are able to live in reasonable housing and the costs of administrative constraints

which limit choice and mobility. Yet, mobility—or rather its lack—is more a symptom of

wider problems around flexibility and choice than particularly a problem in its own right.

Few social tenants will gain jobs simply because they move. What they might gain is a

more acceptable dwelling and therefore greater satisfaction. The evidence that mobile

households, especially those able to move longer distances, are generally more satisfied is

therefore a positive sign.

This analysis of mobility in the English social sector has resonance with concerns about

the role of social housing across countries (Whitehead and Scanlon 2008). Countries with

relatively large social rented sectors must still make trade-offs between concentrating on

more vulnerable households and playing a full role in supporting the economy. Those with

small sectors have little choice but to concentrate on the most vulnerable and therefore

almost to cut the sector off from mainstream housing. The English system lies some way

along this spectrum, still providing both for employed households and those outside the

labour force. Over the last three decades political decisions have concentrated on helping

the most vulnerable without much concern about whether providing adequate housing

limits employment and other opportunities. Into the future the political pressures are likely

to move towards greater emphasis on bringing younger social tenants into the local labour

market and on integrating social and private rented sectors. This will give less protection

but perhaps more opportunities for a subset of tenants—and bring England more in line

with many other European countries.

References

Ball, M. (2004). The future of private renting in the UK. London: Social Market Foundation.Barker, K. (2004). Review of housing supply: Delivering stability: Securing our future housing needs.

London: HM Treasury.


123

Battu, H., Ma, A., & Phimister, E. (2008). Housing tenure, job mobility and unemployment in the UK.Economic Journal, 118, 311–328.

Boyle, P., & Shen, J. (1997). Public housing and migration: A multilevel modelling approach. InternationalJournal of Population Geography, 3, 227–242.

Burrows, R. (1999). Residential mobility and residualisation in social housing in England. Journal of SocialPolicy, 28(1), 27–52.

Champion, A., Rees, P., Boyle, P., & Stillwell, J. (1998). The determinants of migration flows in England: Areview of existing data and evidence. Report prepared for the Department of Environment, Transportand Regions, Department of Geography. Leeds: University of Leeds.

Cho, Y., & Whitehead, C. (2005a). People and places: Mobility aspirations among London households.Open House International, 30(3), 45–53.

Cho, Y., & Whitehead, C. (2005b). Residential mobility of social tenants and households entering Low CostHome Ownership (LCHO): A comparison of London and the Northern Regions. Data spring DiscussionPaper 10, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge.

Clark, W. A. V., & Dieleman, F. M. (1996). Households and housing: Choice and outcomes in the housingmarket. Rutgers: Centre for Urban Policy Research, State University of New Jersey.

Crook, A., Whitehead, C., Jones, M., Monk, S., Tang, C., Tunstall, B., et al. (2011). New Affordable Home:What, for whom and where have registered providers been building between 1989–2009?. London:Homes and Communities Agency.

DCLG. (2002). Allocation of accommodation: Guidance for local authorities in England. London: DCLG.DCLG. (2012). Allocation of accommodation: Guidance for local housing authorities in England. London:

DCLG.Dieleman, F. M. (2001). Modelling residential mobility: A review of recent trends in research. Journal of

Housing and the Built Environment, 16, 249–265.Dohmen, T. J. (2005). Housing, mobility and unemployment. Regional Science & Urban Economics, 35,

305–325.DTZ Consulting & Research. (2006). Housing, economic development and productivity: Literature review.

Reading: DTZ Consulting & Research.Flowerdew, R., & Halfacre, K. H. (1994). Logit modelling of migration. In J. C. H. Stillwell & P. Congdon

(Eds.), Migration models: Macro and micro approaches (pp. 92–112). London: Belhaven.Gardner, J., Pierre, G., & Oswald, A. J. (2001). Moving for Job Reasons. UK: Department of Economics,

University of Warwick.Gordon, I. R. (1990). Housing and Labour market constraints on migration across the North-South divide. In

J. Ermisch (Ed.), Housing and the national economy. London: Avebury-Gower.Gordon, I. R., & Molho, I. I. (1998). A multi-stream analysis of the changing pattern of inter-regional

migration in Great Britain, 1960–91. Regional Studies, 32, 309–323.Helderman, A. C., Mulder, C. H., & Ham, M. V. (2004). The changing effect of home ownership on

residential mobility in the Netherlands, 1980–1998. Housing Studies, 19(4), 601–616.Hills, J. (2007). Ends and means: The future roles of social housing in England. CASE report: ESRC

Research Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion. 34.Hughes, G., & McCormick, B. (1981). Do council house policies reduce migration between regions.

Economic Journal, 91, 919–937.Hughes, G., & McCormick, B. (1985). Migration intentions in the UK: Which households want to migrate

and which succeed? Economic Journal, 95, 113–123.Hughes, G., & McCormick, B. (1987). Housing markets, unemployment and labour market flexibility in the

UK. European Economic Review, 31, 83–113.Hughes, G., & McCormick, B. (2000). Housing policy and labour market performance: A review of existing

data and evidence. Report prepared for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, University ofEdinburgh.

Lui, H., & Suen, W. (2011). The effects of public housing on internal mobility in Hong Kong. Journal ofHousing Economics, 20(1), 15–29.

Meen, G., & Andrews, M. (1998). Modelling regional house prices: A review of literature. Report preparedfor the Department of Environment, Transport and Regions, Centre for Spatial and Real Estate Eco-nomics, University of Reading.

Munro, M., Pawson, H., & Monk, S. (2005). Evaluation of English housing policy 1975–2000: Theme 4:Widening choice. London: Office of Deputy Prime Minister.

Oswald, A. (1996). A conjecture on the explanation for high unemployment in the industrialised nations:Part 1. University of Warwick Economic Research Paper 475.

Oswald, A. (1998). The missing piece of the unemployment puzzle. Paper presented at CEPR/ESRCworkshop on Unemployment Dynamics, London, 4 November.


123

Owen, D., & Green, A. E. (1992). Migration patterns and trends. In T. Champion & T. Fielding (Eds.),Migration processes and patterns, 1: Research progress and prospects (pp. 17–38). London: Belhaven.

Pawson, H. (1998). Gravity defied: Local authority lettings and stock turnover in the 1990s. In S. Wilcox(Ed.), Housing finance review 1998/99. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Pawson, H., & Bramley, G. (2000). Understanding recent trends in residential mobility in council housing inEngland. Urban Studies, 37(8), 1231–1259.

Whitehead, C. M. E. (1999). Urban housing markets: Theory and policy. In E. S. Miles & P. Cheshire (Eds.),Handbook of regional and urban economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Whitehead, C. M. E. (2010). International trends in owner-occupation in the light of the financial crisis.Housing Finance International, (Winter), 6–12.

Whitehead, C., & Scanlon, K. (2008). Social housing in Europe. London: LSE London.


123

Date post:	13-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	christine-whitehead
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times

The immobility of social tenants: is it true? Does it matter?

Documents