What house sharing can show us about the need to challenge traditional understandings of home

~ mariemhoughton ~ Leave a comment

In Britain, the traditional of home is that it is a private space that is shared with family. Within these traditional ideas it would seem impossible for a house share (where a person is living with friends or perhaps even strangers) to be seen as a home. For example:

  • Home is private, but house shares can blur the line between public and private space
    A person living in a house share may be living with people they do not know well (or at all), meaning they may not feel comfortable or able to completely relax and be themself where they are living.
  • Home is a space you control, but it is impossible to have total control over your living environment in a house share
    When you live in a house share you cannot control what your housemates do in shared areas, how messy they are, or who they invite over. There is also no guarantee you will be able to use shared rooms, such as the bathroom or kitchen, when you want.
  • Home implies permanence, but house shares are often temporary and transient
    Many house sharers experience a lack of stability in their housing due to short-term rental contracts. However, even if someone is able to stay in the same house share for a long period, it is highly likely that who they are living with will change – someone will decide to move out and a new housemate will move in. Various people I have interviewed about their experiences of sharing have spoken about how people tend to “come and go” in house shares.
  • Home is a refuge and a place of safety, but living with housemates (especially strangers) comes with risks
    It can be very difficult to know what a potential house share or housemate will be like before you move in. This introduces risk and, in the worst cases, can lead to someone unwittingly moving in with a housemate whose behaviour is inappropriate or frightening. I have interviewed participants who have been sexually harassed, bullied, intimidated, or had things stolen by former housemates.

However, despite this, house shares can become homes. In my research, I have interviewed quite a few people who have felt at home in at least one house share they have lived in. For example, one participant, Bob*, said:

“I’ve ended up in a place that’s good, that is a home and is friendly and I am happy here. And, you know, if I get down, my flatmates will come and knock on the door and ask if I’m alright. (…) I have a community here.”

If a house share can become a home, this suggests we need to question the traditional association of family and home. Perhaps we need to change how we think about home or about family. Indeed, what do we actually mean by family? What makes a family?

This seems like a simple question, but many definitions of family that we might think of can exclude people or situations that we would want to include. For example, any definition of family based solely on blood relationships would exclude adoption and also married couples. Adoption and marriage are of course legal bonds; however, defining family based on legal bonds would exclude, for example, cohabiting couples.

Family of choice is a term I have heard used to describe people who are not related to each other but who care for and support each other. In my research, I have found that, in some house shares, housemates can form families of choice. For example, one participant, Hannah*, said of her housemates:

“They are my family and they’ve become really important people to me. I see them every day and we eat together, we cook meals together, we shop together.”

The house shares where interview participants have described feeling at home were the house shares where they had experienced a strong sense of community, of family even, where housemates provided an important source of support to each other.

Feeling safe, comfortable, and supported by those you live with does therefore seem to be important for feeling at home. We are often told that these feelings can best be found within the nuclear family; however, they can be found elsewhere – and indeed are not found within some families.

There are in fact a number of ways in which nuclear family homes often do not meet the ideal standards or the traditional ideas of home. For example:

  • We can never really have total control over our homes
    If you are living with family, you are still sharing space with people and compromise will be needed. Unexpected things still happen, and you will probably still have to wait for the bathroom sometimes. Also, I would argue that, whoever we live with, we never really control our houses – things break, uninvited guests (spiders, mice, other creepy crawlies) find their way in, and dust is only ever temporarily banished.
  • Living with family rarely means you will live in one place permanently
    Many families are today living in privately rented accommodation, meaning they experience the same insecurity and short-term contracts as house sharers. However, even among homeowners, it is not uncommon for families to choose to (or to need to) sell their house and move. (Indeed, the idea of moving onwards and upwards is inherent in the phrase the ‘housing ladder’.) Also, the composition of family households may undergo many changes over time (whether due to new additions, kids growing up and moving out, divorce, new partners, step-families…)
  • Some family homes do not provide a safe environment
    Domestic violence and abuse mean that, far from being a refuge or place of safety, some family homes are very dangerous places.

Being able to feel at home is important for well-being. However, there is no need to tie home to family. Houses that are shared by people who are not related by blood or legal bond can become homes, and family homes often do not match what we think of when we imagine home.

The idealised image of the nuclear family home does not tell us the whole story or represent the only way that one can be a family or create a home.

*Pseudonyms have been used for all participants.

This post is based on a talk I originally gave at the Housing Studies Association 2021 annual conference. If you are interested in housing research or policy, do check out the HSA website: www.housing-studies-association.org

Over 30? Live in a house share? I want to hear your story!

~ mariemhoughton ~ Leave a comment

I am currently studying for my PhD at Birkbeck, University of London. My research is focused on housing, and in particular the experiences of people aged 30 and over who are living in house shares.

In recent years, the number of people in the UK who are living in house shares has increased rapidly, with the sharpest increases being seen amongst those over 30. However, almost no research has examined the experiences of those who are over 30 and are living in house shares.

As part of my PhD I will be conducting interviews with people aged 30 or over who are living in house shares to understand more about their stories, including what led them to house sharing, their experiences of house sharing and how they feel about it, and what their hopes (and fears) for the future are.

The study is open to anyone aged 30 or over who is living in a house share (whether as a tenant or live-in landlord) as well as anyone who has lodgers living with them or anyone who is a lodger.

(All interviews will be done over video call for the foreseeable future.)

If you would like to find out more or would potentially be interested in participating please do drop me an email me at mhough01@mail.bbk.ac.uk

Thank you!

 – Marie Houghton, PhD student, Birkbeck

 

P.s. For anyone who is potentially interested in taking part in the study but who wants a few more details first, here are the answers to a few questions you might have.

What will participation involve?

If you choose to participate in the study you will take part in a one-on-one interview with the researcher. In the interview you will be asked to share your story of how you came to be living in a house share. The interview will explore your current housing situation, your housing history, your experiences of house sharing, your future goals, and your conceptions of adulthood.

You will only be asked to share as much as you feel comfortable to, and will always have the right to refuse to answer any particular questions.

 

Who can take part?

The study is open to anyone aged 30 or over who is living in a house share (whether as a tenant or live-in landlord) as well as anyone who has lodgers living with them or anyone who is a lodger.

For the purposes of this study, you are considered to be living in a house share if you are living in a house or a flat where you share communal space, such as the kitchen and/or living room, with at least one other adult, who may be a friend, sibling, housemate, or lodger. If you live with your partner and/or child(ren) but share rooms such as the kitchen with other people in the property, this counts as a house share. If you live with family members, such as your parents, but also have one or more lodgers then for the purpose of this study this will also be considered as house sharing.

 

Will my data be safe?

At the start of the interview you will be asked to select a pseudonym (code name) and this is how all data that is collected will be identified. When the research is written up, each participant will be identified only by the pseudonym they have chosen and any information that could potentially be used by someone else to identify a participant will be removed or disguised.

Home in the Time of Coronavirus

~ mariemhoughton ~ Leave a comment

Home. It seems so simple, right? It’s home. We all know what that means.

‘I can’t wait to get home.’

‘This place really feels like home.’ Or maybe ‘It’s where I live, but it’s not home.’

 ‘Are you going home for Christmas?’

However, as these examples suggest, ‘home’ can mean different things (at different times, in different situations, to different people). ‘Home’ also doesn’t always refer to where we are living at that particular time.

Often when we talk about home, we mean some idea or ideal of home. Hence why we can say that somewhere we are living (or just visiting) does or doesn’t feel like home.

Somerville (1992) outlined multiple different aspects of what we mean when we talk about home:

  • Home as a shelter that keeps us physically safe
  • Home as a place of comfort where we can relax
  • Home as a place of support and love (‘home is where the heart is’)
  • Home as a place that we can control, where we have privacy
  • Home as somewhere we have our roots, somewhere that feeds into our sense of identity

(Note these are all positive – we’ll come back to that.)

At the heart of all of these is the idea that home provides a sense of security, which researchers have found to be important for well-being (Dupuis & Thorns, 1998; Hiscock, Kearns, Macintyre & Ellaway, 2001; Saunders, 1984, 1989).

This has typically been seen in terms of mental and emotional well-being, but as large numbers of people self-isolate, home is increasingly being portrayed as a sanctuary from disease as well.

However, for many people, this also means that things that previously belonged to the outside world (work, school, gym…) are having to be done at home. The separation between public and private, the balance between work and life seems harder to maintain when meetings with colleague and clients are having to be done via skype calls from the kitchen table. In other words, the outside world is coming in.

Of course there are lots of people who were already working from home, generally by choice, before the current outbreak, but the mass roll-out of home working to many people who would rather keep their work at work is something new.

Furthermore, an increasing number of countries are going beyond recommending people stay at home for their own safety, to requiring large swathes of the population to stay at home to protect others.

We can see then how home can also become as much somewhere people potentially want to escape from as it is a sanctuary.

(And I haven’t even mentioned that of course transmission of infectious diseases can, and frequently does, happen at home and/or between family members.)

Now, this is not new – there has always been a dark side of home. Home is a place of violence, abuse, unhappiness for many. And, as Craig Gurney has pointed out (his TEDx talk on this is definitely worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WRcK9FY7fs) – it is the privacy that we so prize in home that enables many of these harmful behaviours to take place.

Nor has home always offered equal security to everyone. Renters, for example, have less security than owners and also experience reduced well-being compared to owners (Easthope, 2014; Hoolachan et al., 2016; McKee & Soaita, 2018; MHCLG, 2018; Vanhoutte et al., 2017).

So far the UK government has only promised protections for mortgage payers experiencing difficulties, not renters; yet the position of many renters, especially those working in hospitality or who cannot work from home, looks precarious.

So, what does this all mean?

  • Some people are going to find staying at home very stressful – home is not a sanctuary to everyone
  • If you can find some way to re-assert some barrier between work and the rest of your home life, whether through having a specific place in the house where you work or by making sure you have set working times and sticking to them, do that
  • Home is not just about physical shelter, it is about people as well. Staying at home without visits from family or friends may be difficult and lonely for older people who live alone – isolation may protect their physical health but we need to be aware and work to prevent the loneliness it may cause as well
  • Keep washing your hands

 
Stay safe everyone and if you have any thoughts about the meaning of home, whether in the current times we are living in or more generally, I would love to hear them in the comments section below!

 

References

Dupuis, A., & Thorns, D. (1998). Home, home ownership and the search for ontological security. Sociological Review, 46, 24-47.

Easthope, H. (2014). Making a rental property home. Housing Studies, 29, 579-596.

Hiscock, R., Kearns, A., Macintyre, S., & Ellaway, A. (2001). Ontological security and psych-social benefits from the home: Qualitative evidence on issues of tenure. Housing, Theory & Society, 18, 50-66.

Hoolachan, J., McKee, K., Moore, T., & Soaita, A. M. (2017). ‘Generation rent’ and the ability to ‘settle down’: Economic and geographical variation in young people’s housing transitions. Journal of Youth Studies, 20, 63-78.

McKee, K., & Soaita, A. M. (2018). The ‘frustrated’ housing aspirations of generation rent. Glasgow, UK: UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence. Retrieved from https://housingevidence.ac.uk/publications/the-frustrated-housing-aspirations-of-generation-rent/

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government [MHCLG]. (2018). English Housing Survey 2016 to 2017: headline report. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2016-to-2017-headline-report

Saunders, P. (1984). Beyond housing classes: The sociological significance of private property rights in means of consumption. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 8, 202-225.

Saunders, P. (1989). The meaning of ‘home’ in contemporary English culture. Housing Studies, 4, 177-192.

Somerville, P. (1992). Homelessness and the meaning of home: Rooflessness or rootlessness? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16, 529-539.

Vanhoutte, B., Wahrendorf, M., & Nazroo, J. Y. (2017). Duration, timing and order: How housing histories relate to later life wellbeing. Longitudinal and Life course Studies, 8, 227-244.

Distinguishing between life course theory and the bioecological model of development

~ mariemhoughton ~ Leave a comment

I’m writing this post because when I first started reading about life course theory (e.g. Elder, 1998) and the bioecological model (e.g. Bronfenbrenner, 1994) I found it difficult to differentiate between the two in any meaningful way. They just seemed very similar. Allen and Henderson (2017) note that Elder and Bronfenbrenner were colleagues at Cornell and each influenced the other’s thinking about development, a fact that perhaps explains why, at first glance at least, the two theories seem to have so much in common. Both theories, for example, explore the impact of context, historical time, and relationships between people on development. Furthermore, Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) adopt Elder’s four principles of life course theory as part of the bioecological model.

Assuming there must be a difference and Elder and Bronfenbrenner were not just calling the same thing by different names, I read textbooks and searched google trying to find an answer as to what distinguishes the two theories but couldn’t find one anywhere. (The textbooks just left me more confused if anything, as the way they presented the two theories made them sound closer than ever!) I therefore realised that the only way for me to find the answer was to work it out for myself by getting to know Messrs. Elder and Bronfenbrenner (or at least their works) very well indeed. This post is the result of that process. I’m posting it in case anyone else out there is wondering/ has wondered/ will wonder about the same question. This is the conclusion I’ve come to but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts as well – do comment below or drop me a message.

*********************

One of the most famous aspects of Bronfenbrenner’s work is his description of the various environments that a person exists in as a series of nested systems which all impact their development, for example microsystems (e.g. immediate family), macrosystems (e.g. wider society), chronosystems (e.g. change over time). (Bronfenbrenner (1994) provides a good, short description of these systems for anyone not familiar with them.) These systems provide a really useful way to think about different ways that a person’s context can impact their development and this element of the bioecological model is very much compatible with life course theory.

However, while these systems were a central part of Bronfenbrenner’s theory as he first developed it in the 1970s, over time he came to emphasise different aspects of the bioecological model, over and above contextual systems. In particular, since the mid-1990s, the bioecological model has focused on the role of ‘proximal processes’ in development. Indeed, Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) describe proximal processes as “the primary mechanisms producing human development” (p. 795).

Proximal processes are: “processes of progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment. To be effective, the interaction must occur on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 797). Some examples of such processes which Bronfenbrenner and Morris provide are: “feeding or comforting a baby, playing with a young child, child-child activities, group or solitary play, reading, learning new skills” (p. 797). (These examples highlight that while the bioecological model is in theory applicable to development in adulthood, it has tended to focus on child development, in contrast to the view of development as a lifelong process in life course theory.)

While the bioecological model sees context (both social and historical) as having an impact on development, the way it sees this happening is through contextual factors influencing the form, content and direction of proximal processes. For example, the historical period a child grows up in will have an impact on the proximal processes they experience due to factors such as beliefs about child rearing at that time, how available parents are due to working, or the level of chaos and instability in society at that time.

Because of its focus on proximal processes that happen over an extended period, the bioecological model has less to say about how specific events, such as being made redundant or being involved in an accident that leaves you disabled, can radically and very rapidly alter one’s developmental trajectory. Recession in one country can lead to financial crisis and rising unemployment in another; the individual has no control over such events but their developmental pathway can still be affected as the financial crisis alters or limits the opportunities available to them, perhaps impacting their employment, their housing, their investments, or their pension. The bioecological model cannot easily account for the potentially direct developmental impact of events such as war or recession on an individual’s development, or how that impact might vary depending on individual circumstances and stage in life, for example whether one is a recent graduate or retired, a homeowner or a renter. In contrast, life course theory is very well placed to enable a researcher to consider the direct impact of time, place and context on development, and how this impact might vary depending on individual characteristics. Indeed, life course theory was developed off the back of Elder’s involvement in longitudinal studies which showed, for example, that the different experiences children born at the beginning of the 1920s and children born at the end of the 1920s had of the Great Depression, due to their difference in age and stage of life at the time of the Depression, led to lifelong differences in developmental outcomes between these two groups (Elder, 1999).

The bioecological model provides an excellent framework for trying to understand how differences in proximal processes may impact one’s ability to deal with misfortune or to overcome obstacles. However, historical circumstance means some cohorts experience more hardship and less opportunity purely because of where and when they are born and structural inequalities limit the life chances and opportunities available to certain groups. Life course theory can more easily and more fully account for such factors and how people’s lives are determined by a mixture of human agency, social context, and structural constraint.

*********************

I think these represent the major differences between life course theory and the bioecological model. I hope this has been helpful for some of you out there! I think both approaches have something important to offer and which is more useful will depend on the research question you are planning to study. For example, if you want to explore the impact of parent-child relationships on development and how context (such as social class, family structure, or historical time) might impact those relationships I would definitely suggest that the bioecological model could provide a really useful framework for your research. However, if you want to study, for example, how transitions from adolescence to adulthood are different in 2018 compared to 1988 then the life course theory (which enables you to consider how a broad range of social, economic, cultural and historical factors can drive changes in development over time) is likely to prove more useful.

 

References

Allen, K. R., & Henderson, A. C. (2017). Family theories: Foundations and applications. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husén, & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643-1647). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner, & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793-828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1-12.

Elder, G. H., Jr. (1999). Children of the Great Depression: Social change in life experience (25th anniversary ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Is renting making us sad?

~ mariemhoughton ~ 2 Comments

The recently renamed Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government released the headline report for the 2016-17 installment of their annual English Housing Survey (EHS) a few days ago and, because I’m the kind of person who enjoys this kind of thing, I decided to spend my Sunday morning reading it. (Yes, I really am that cool!)

In amongst the statistics showing that levels of homeownership are continuing their slow but steady decline, and that this trend is particularly apparent amongst 25-44 year olds, I came across an intriguing statistic: on average, renters are less satisfied with their lives than owner occupiers.

  • The average life satisfaction score (out of 10) for all those surveyed was 7.7
  • The average owner occupier had a life satisfaction score of 7.9. (Those who own their house outright are the most satisfied with an average score of 8.0, whereas those who have a mortgage are slightly less satisfied but still above average with a score of 7.8.)
  • In comparison, the average private renter had a life satisfaction score of 7.4

Life satisfaction by housing tenure
Original data and image from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2016-to-2017-headline-report

I looked back over the comparable figures in the EHS since 2013-14 (which was the first year they included questions on life satisfaction in the survey) and the same trend is visible every year: the most satisfied are those who own their houses outright, followed by mortgagors, followed by private renters.

The average level of life satisfaction has increased slightly from 2013-14 to 2016-17 (which is nice) but the trend remains the same: renters have below average life satisfaction.

So what is going on? Is renting making us sad?

In line with previous years, the 2016-17 EHS shows that owner occupiers are, on average, older and wealthier than private renters. This could be important because research suggests that older adults generally experience higher levels of life satisfaction (Charles & Carstensen, 2010; Charles, Reynolds & Gatz, 2001). Furthermore, the 2013-14 EHS, which includes more detail on life satisfaction among different groups as well as a regression model exploring the contribution of different factors to levels of life satisfaction, found that personal characteristics, such as income, health, relationship status, and economic status (e.g. whether you are working or not) were all predictors of life satisfaction – for example, those with a higher income generally have higher life satisfaction. However, property type and housing tenure remained a predictor of life satisfaction even when everything else was controlled for.

Those who were privately renting a flat had the lowest life satisfaction across all property types and housing tenures and those who owned a detached or semi-detached house outright (e.g. they have paid off the mortgage) had the highest satisfaction. Controlling for everything else, someone who owns a detached house outright will have a life satisfaction score than is on average 0.4 higher than someone privately renting a flat.

The relationship between where you live and how happy you are is not totally linear. For example, while someone who has a bought a flat with a mortgage will generally be more satisfied with their life than someone privately renting a flat, mortgagors with detached or semi-detached houses were no happier than those renting a flat. The 2013-14 EHS Headline Report suggests this may be due to the anxiety caused by a big mortgage.

This highlights that other factors do need to be considered, and buying a house you cannot afford is unlikely to bring you happiness. However, renters are more likely than owner occupiers to be dissatisfied with their housing situation (e.g. the 2015-16 EHS found that 21% of private renters were dissatisfied with their housing tenure compared to 1% of owner occupiers), and studies have found that housing satisfaction and life satisfaction are related, with homeowners being generally more satisfied with their lives than renters (Elsinga & Hoekstra, 2005; Peck & Stewart, 1985; Rohe & Stegman, 1994).

Homeownership is not guaranteed to increase happiness. For example, Bucchianeri (2011) found that homeowners reported having less time to spend with friends or on leisure activities than renters and, once factors such as income had been controlled for, were no happier than renters. However, it seems likely that wanting to buy a house and being unable to, especially in a culture that places a lot of importance on homeownership, is likely to cause some people to feel less satisfied with their lives.


References:

English Housing Survey 2016 to 2017: headline report. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2016-to-2017-headline-report

English Housing Survey 2015 to 2016: headline report. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2015-to-2016-headline-report

English Housing Survey 2015 to 2016: private rented sector. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2015-to-2016-private-rented-sector

English Housing Survey 2014 to 2015: headline report. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2014-to-2015-headline-report

English Housing Survey 2013 to 2014: headline report. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2013-to-2014-headline-report

Bucchianeri, G. W. (2011). The American Dream or the American Delusion? The Private and External Benefits of Homeownership for Women. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1877163

Charles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2010). Social and emotional aging. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 383-409.

Charles, S. T., Reynolds, C. A., & Gatz, M. (2001). Age-related differences and change in positive and negative affect over 23 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 136-151.

Elsinga, M., & Hoekstra, J. (2005). Homeownership and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20, 401-424.

Peck, C., & Stewart, K. K. (1985). Satisfaction with housing and quality of life. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 13, 363-372.

Rohe, W. M., & Stegman, M. A. (1994). The effects of homeownership: on the self-esteem, perceived control and life satisfaction of low-income people. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60, 173-184.

Why are rates of house sharing increasing?

~ mariemhoughton ~ 2 Comments

As I discussed in my previous post, rates of house sharing in the UK are increasing. In this post I am going to explore some of the economic and social factors contributing to this. (For this post I will be focusing on the UK but similar trends are visible in other Western countries as well.)

So, why are more people living in house shares?

  • It has become more difficult (and, for some, basically impossible) to buy a house
    Over the last 15-20 years buying a house has become less affordable. Whereas the median house price in England and Wales increased by 90% between 2002 and 2015, the median salary increased by only 30% over the same period. This has meant that while the ratio of median house price to median salary in England was 6:1 in 2002, by 2015 it had increased to 9:1. For some areas, particularly in London, this ratio is even higher and reached 23:1 in Westminster, the least affordable place to buy a house in England and Wales in 2015. (ONS, 2016a)

    In addition to high house prices, stricter mortgage lending controls since the financial crisis of 2007 have increased the size of the deposit a person needs to raise to buy their first house. In 2016, the average deposit paid by first time buyers in the UK was equal to 62% of the average salary of first time buyers (or 131% of the average salary of first time buyers in London). This is compared to an average deposit of around 15% of income for first time buyers in the UK throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s. (LGA, 2016; ONS, 2013a; ONS, 2016b)

  • It has also become more expensive to rent
    It is therefore very difficult for first time buyers to buy a property. However, increased rental prices mean people may also struggle to rent independently. For example, rental prices in Great Britain increased by 15% between January 2011 and October 2017. As prices increase, splitting the cost of a property with housemates may be the only feasible option for some people. (ONS, 2017a)

  • Wages have not increased (in real terms) while renting and buying have become more expensive
    While the average rent rose by 15%, average total pay in the UK fell slightly in real terms between January 2011 and October 2017 (from £491.00 per week to £489.60 per week). Furthermore, average total pay in the UK remains well below its February 2008 peak of £522.50 a week. This means that people have less money to spend on rent or to save for a deposit, even as prices increase. (ONS, 2017b)

    The English Housing Survey 2015-16 found that 1.9 million adults in England would like to buy or rent independent accommodation but are living with family or in shared households because they cannot afford to live alone. Of these, 67% were working full-time. (DCLG, 2017a)

  • Government policy means many young people claiming housing benefit have no choice but to share
    Various government policies, such as the introduction of ‘Right to Buy’ and the adoption of a policy of austerity since the financial crisis of 2007, have meant that since 1980 the percentage of households living in social housing has almost halved, from 31% of households in 1980 compared to 17% in 2016. In addition, changes to Local Housing Allowance mean that since January 2012 those who are single, childless and under 35 can only get housing benefit based on the cost of a room in a shared house not a self-contained flat (prior to January 2012 this rule only applied to those aged 25 and under). Changes to welfare and social housing provision therefore mean that an increased number of single people who would previously have been able to access social housing or a self-contained, privately-rented flat via the support of housing benefit are now having to rent rooms in shared houses instead. (DCLG, 2017b; DWP, 2014; Kennett, Forrest & Marsh, 2013; ONS, 2013a)

    Rental costs and availability of state support have been shown to impact levels of house sharing. For example, Arundel and Ronald (2016) compared the housing status of 18-34 year olds across 14 European countries and found that countries with less affordable rental markets had higher rates of house sharing; however the welfare regime in the country also had an impact. For example, of all 14 countries they studied, rates of sharing were highest in the UK, a fact they saw as due to unaffordable rents but also to the fact that while young people in the UK generally leave the family home at a relatively young age they face unstable and insecure job opportunities and do not receive the state support experienced by young people in Scandinavia, for example.

  • More people are remaining single and/or childless for longer (or for life)
    In England and Wales, since the early 1970s, there has been a decline in the number of people who are getting married. In 1972 there were 426,241 weddings in England and Wales and the marriage rate (that is the number of marriages that took place that year per 1,000 people who were over 16 and unmarried) stood at 78 for men and 61 for women. By 2013 the number of weddings had fallen to 240,854 and the marriage rate was 23 for men and 20 for women. In 2016, 35% of people aged 16 and over in England and Wales had never been married (up from 30% in 2002). Some of this increase reflected an increase in cohabiting, however the proportion of adults who had never been married and were not cohabiting also increased from 23% to 25% in the same period, reflecting the fact that more people are living as single adults. Furthermore, for those who do get married, this is happening at later ages. For example, in England and Wales the average age at marriage for men increased from 29 years in 1974 to 37 years in 2014 and for women from 26 to 35 years in the same period. (ONS, 2016c; ONS, 2017c; ONS, 2017d)

    In addition to marriage being postponed, the average age of parents at the birth of their first child has also increased. In England and Wales, since 1980, fertility rates for women under 30 have declined whereas fertility rates for women over 30 have increased and since 2015 women over 40 have had a higher rate of fertility than those under 20. Increasing number of people are also remaining childless. For example, in England and Wales, 11% of women born in 1940 did not have children, compared to 19% of women born in 1967. (ONS, 2013b; ONS, 2017e)

    More people are therefore spending longer periods of their life living as single, childless adults, a fact that may lead to an increase in house sharing in a few different ways. For example, this shift has economic implications for those living as single adults. Couples are able to split housing costs, meaning that in England in 2016 couples spent on average 25-28% of household income on housing, compared to single person households who spent 40% of their income on housing. These economic disadvantages of being single are reflected in the fact that in England 74% of first time buyers were couples in 2016, a figure that has gone up from 66% in 2006, likely due to increasing house prices and deposit requirements meaning that two incomes are now often needed when buying a house (DCLG, 2017c; DCLG, 2017d). The combination of increased housing prices (for both buying and renting) and the increase in the number of people living as single adults is therefore highly likely to have increased the number of people who are unable to buy or rent independently and may have to share instead.

    Single adults may also choose to share because they want companionship. For example, the majority of participants in Heath and Kenyon (2001), Kenyon and Heath (2001), and McNamara and Connell (2007) would have been able to afford to live independently, however many participants in all three studies spoke of choosing to share, at least in part, because they did not want to live alone and preferred to live with other people.

  • Times (and social norms) have changed
    The increasing acceptance of diverse life paths (for example, people marrying and having children later or not at all) reflects significant changes to social norms that have taken place since the 1960s. A far wider range of lifestyles are possible and acceptable now than was the case even a few decades ago. Freed from the obligations of family formation, some people have discovered that group living represents their preferred way of living. For example, 22% of McNamara and Connell’s (2007) sample saw house sharing as something they planned to do long term, although they wanted to be sharing a house they (part-)owned rather than still be renting in 10 years’ time. While this group represented a minority of house sharers, changes to social norms mean that those who wish to continue sharing into their thirties and beyond can do so.

  • What hasn’t changed
    One thing that the increase in house sharing does not appear to be driven by is a big shift away from people wanting to buy. Although buying a property seems to have lost some of its appeal over the last decade, the majority of people still want to own their own property. In the UK in 2016 71% of those who are not homeowners and are renting privately want to own within the next 10 years (down from 79% in 2010). It seems that the financial crisis of 2007 may have dented confidence in the idea that buying a house is a sound investment, with the amount of people in the UK who list this as one of the benefits of ownership declining from 2010 to 2016. However, the majority of people in the UK continue to aspire to home ownership. (Pannell, 2016)

Having reviewed these facts, one thing is clear – the increase in house sharing cannot be seen as surprising. Compared to 10 years ago, the average person is earning less (in real terms) and is more likely to be single and therefore not have a partner to split housing costs with, while at the same time the cost of buying a property or even renting independently has increased considerably. For many people, sharing therefore represents the only feasible option. Unless there is significant change in government policy or market conditions this seems unlikely to change any time soon either.

 

References (for those so inclined):

Arundel, R., & Ronald, R. (2016). Parental co-residence, shared living and emerging adulthood in Europe: Semi-dependent housing across welfare regime and housing system contexts. Journal of Youth Studies, 19, 885-905.

Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG]. (2017a). English Housing Survey 2015 to 2016: future home owners. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2015-to-2016-future-home-owners

Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG]. (2017b). English Housing Survey 2015 to 2016: headline report. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2015-to-2016-headline-report

Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG]. (2017c). English Housing Survey 2015 to 2016: housing costs and affordability. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2015-to-2016-housing-costs-and-affordability

Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG]. (2017d). English Housing Survey 2015 to 2016: first time buyers. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2015-to-2016-first-time-buyers

Department for Work and Pensions [DWP]. (2014). The impact of recent reforms to Local Housing Allowances: Summary of key findings. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329902/rr874-lha-impact-of-recent-reforms-summary.pdf

Heath, S., & Kenyon, L. (2001). Single young professionals and shared household living. Journal of Youth Studies, 4, 83-100.

Kennett, P., Forrest, R., & Marsh, A. (2013). The global economic crisis and the reshaping of housing opportunities. Housing, Theory and Society, 30, 10-28.

Kenyon, E., & Heath, S. (2001). Choosing this life: Narratives of choice amongst house sharers. Housing Studies, 16, 619-635.

Local Government Association. (2016). The LGA housing commission final report: Building our homes, communities and future. Retrieved from https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/building-our-homes-commun-740.pdf

McNamara, S., & Connell, J. (2007). Homeward bound? Searching for home in Inner Sydney’s share houses. Australian Geographer, 38, 71-91.

Office for National Statistics [ONS]. (2013a, April 19). A century of home ownership and renting in England and Wales. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160107120359/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/a-century-of-home-ownership-and-renting-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-housing.html

Office for National Statistics [ONS]. (2013b, December 5). Cohort fertility: 2012. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/bulletins/cohortfertility/2013-12-05

Office for National Statistics [ONS]. (2016a, October 7). Housing summary measures analysis: 2015. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/housingsummarymeasuresanalysis/2015

Office for National Statistics [ONS]. (2016b, May 25). UK Perspectives 2016: Housing and home ownership in the UK. Retrieved from https://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-housing-and-home-ownership-in-the-uk/

Office for National Statistics [ONS]. (2016c, April 27). Marriages in England and Wales: 2013. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/bulletins/marriagesinenglandandwalesprovisional/2013#fewer-marriages-in-2013

Office for National Statistics [ONS]. (2017a, November 14). Index of private housing rental prices, Great Britain: October 2017. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/indexofprivatehousingrentalprices/october2017

Office for National Statistics [ONS]. (2017b, December 13). UK labour market: December 2017. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/latest#average-weekly-earnings

Office for National Statistics [ONS]. (2017c, July 13). Population estimates by marital status and living arrangements, England and Wales: 2002 to 2016. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationestimatesbymaritalstatusandlivingarrangements/2002to2016

Office for National Statistics [ONS]. (2017d, March 14). Marriages in England and Wales: 2014. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/bulletins/marriagesinenglandandwalesprovisional/2014#at-what-age-are-couples-getting-married

Office for National Statistics [ONS]. (2017e, July 19). Births in England and Wales: 2016. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2016#fertility-rates-for-women-aged-30-and-over-continue-their-long-term-rise

Pannell, B. (2016). Home-ownership or bust?: Consumer research into tenure aspirations. Council of Mortgage Lenders. Retrieved from https://www.cml.org.uk/news/cml-research/home-ownership-or-bust-consumer-research-into/

And so it begins…

~ mariemhoughton ~ 1 Comment

Hi, welcome to my blog!

I am currently a few months in to a four year (at least!) journey of studying part-time for my PhD in psychology and this seems as good a time as any to start a blog!

You don’t have to look very far in the media to see references to ‘generation rent’ and the fact that many of us who are under 35 are doomed to live out our later years in house shares and rented accommodation, never having managed to get our foot on the sacred ladder of homeownership.

The statistics are clear – within the UK, since the early 2000s, the number of people who own a property has fallen while the number of people renting has increased and these changes have hit younger generations hardest:

  • in England, 63% of households owned the property they lived in in 2016, compared to 71% of households in 2003
  • between 2001 and 2016 the percentage of households privately renting in England doubled from 10% to 20%
  • in England, rates of renting increased across all age groups between 2006 and 2016 but the biggest increase was among those households headed by someone aged 25-34 of whom 46% lived in the private rented sector in 2016, up from 24% in 2006
  • in the UK, between 1991 and 2014, rates of homeownership fell from 67% to 36% for 25-34 year olds, and from 78% to 59% for 35-44 year olds. In comparison, rates of homeownership declined only slightly from 76% in 1991 to 72% in 2014 for those aged 45-64 and actually increased over the same period for those over 65.

In addition, in the UK, increasing numbers of those who are renting are not doing so independently but rather are renting a room in a house share. Furthermore, while sharing was once thought of as the preserve of students, the number of people sharing in their thirties, forties and beyond is growing rapidly:

  • between 2009 and 2014 there was a 186% increase in the number of sharers aged 35 to 44, while the number of people aged 45 to 54 living in house shares grew by 300% in the same period.

There is therefore a growing group of people aged thirty and over living in house shares in the UK. However, there is almost no research examining their experiences. For my PhD I therefore plan to look at questions such as:

  • What is leading to this increase in house sharing? To what extent is this something people are choosing vs. doing it out of economic necessity?
  • What does it mean to be over 30 and living in a house share? What are the good and the bad aspects of sharing?

I plan for this blog to be somewhere where I can share interesting findings, discuss relevant news and events, and maybe occasionally also share some thoughts on what it’s like doing a PhD part-time while still working in the world outside academia as well!

I’d love to hear your thoughts, comments and ideas. Feel free to comment here or you can also email me at mhough01@mail.bbk.ac.uk or you can find me on twitter at @MarieHoughton.

Looking forward to interesting future discussions!

 

*****************************************************************************

The statistics used in this post can be found, along with lots of other interesting (scary) facts on the UK housing market, in the following articles: