Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 2 Critical Housing Analysis

Authors help

  1. 1 Dewilde C.

  2. 1 Stephens M.

Years help

  1. 1 2016

  2. 1 2015

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  housing research
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

What Have ECHP and EU-SILC to Contribute to the Comparative Study of Housing?

100%
Dewilde C.
Critical Housing Analysis
|
2015
|
vol. 2
|
issue 2
19-26
EN
This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of pan-European datasets, in particular ECHP and EU-SILC, for research in housing. Although ‘housing’ is a complex topic when studied from a European comparative perspective, I argue that there is no inherent reason why housing should be less amenable to cross-national research than other equally complex topics in comparative social science research, such as research into family change and stability, or the impact of educational systems on social stratification. Given appropriate theory, conceptualisation and contextualisation, along with strong methodologies, meaningful and informative research in housing with ECHP and EU-SILC are possible. There are however a number of limitations, which are mainly related to the fact that both datasets are geared towards the ‘production’ of a ‘system of social indicators’ informing European and national governments. Because of these limitations, ECHP and in particular EU-SILC are less attractive and less useful for academic research then they could potentially be.
2
Content available remote

Using Esping-Andersen and Kemeny’s Welfare and Housing Regimes in Comparative Housing Research

100%
Stephens M.
Critical Housing Analysis
|
2016
|
vol. 3
|
issue 1
19-29
EN
This article provides a critique of the use of Esping-Andersen and Kemeny’s typologies of welfare and housing regimes, both of which are often used as starting points for country selections in comparative housing research. We find that it is conceivable that housing systems may reflect the wider welfare system or diverge from it, so it is not possible to “read across” a housing system from Esping-Andersen’s welfare regimes. Moreover, both are dated and require revisiting to establish whether they still reflect reality. Of the two frameworks, Esping-Andersen’s use of the state-market-family triangle is more geographically mobile. Ultimately, housing systems are likely to be judged on the “housing outcomes” that they produce. However, it is suggested that current use of variables within EU-SILC in order to establish “housing outcomes” may be misleading since they do not reflect acceptable standards between countries with greatly differing general living standards and cultural norms.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.