 |
| Łukownica, Poland |
PS: Napisałam najlepiej ze wszystkich 70 studentów na roku. Tutor był zachwycony. I am so proud:) Here is the assessment: Remember! All right reserved meeting the policy on plagiarism!
Compare
and contrast the ways in which housing inequalities are discussed from the
perspectives of social policy and criminology, and economics.
It[A1] [A2] is known that housing inequalities
affect people’s lives. Many similarities
and differences are seen while discussing accommodation problems from the
perspective of social policy and criminology, and economics. Trying to proof
the thesis it is meaningful to understand the meaning of housing inequalities
first. According to ‘Housing: does
housing status matter?’ (the Open University, 2016), there are three main
categories of housing status: owner-occupiers, private renters and social
housing residents. No wonder that the
division dependent on housing accessibility and availability, produces
inequalities, which result in impact on life chances, educational attainment, health,
wealth and long-lasting social differences with higher or lower crime rates. There
have been always problems for people to live in suitable housing. Social policy
studies help to understand the needs of supply-and-demand by gathering
qualitative and quantitative data by empirical and field researches. It is
stated in the block 2 introduction (Investigating housing social policy and
crime, the Open University, 2016) that the research indicates the ways in which
the authorities and private investors create and redistribute housing. Both
social policy and criminology, and economics use evidence and analysis as keys
to a better life[A3] .
Comparing the
two sciences efforts to improve the quality of life, they face the same problem
against their vision. Instead of reducing housing inequalities, the examination
sometimes shows the opposite effect. It is unintended growth in housing
inequalities. As far as the economics is concerned, the rich become richer and
the poor become poorer. According to the wealth distribution table research
made twice in 2000 and 2005 years in Great Britain (Investigating the Social
World, the Open University, 2016, p. 96), it is noticeable that the gap between
home-owners and people with no housing wealth rapidly grew. It was due to
economic changes in house prices compared with other goods’ prices. Home-owners were made wealthier because they
had housing wealth, while ‘25 per cent of the population in both years had
negative financial wealth, with more debts than assets’ (Discussion, the Open
University, 2016, p.97). They might not have a house on their own or didn’t
have mortgages secured against it. This proves unequal distribution of wealth
making one small group of people extremely wealthy and the rest poorer[A4] .
Very alike
situation can be seen while implementing social housing policy. The government
policy is particularly concentrated on ensuring that everyone has a safe place
to live by providing more housing availability, but the gap between the rich
and the poor is increased by this due to inequality of wealth distribution even
in this social science field regulated strictly by the law. Why is that? There
are cheap multi-occupancy buildings, often called as tenement housing in
unpopular bad reputation areas. They have been built for those who are unable
to buy a house or even to rent it. Living there make the poor people even poorer
by causing additional problems. These include social stigma and ‘postcode
prejudice’ (Housing, crime and criminology, the Open University, 2016). It is
often difficult for a person to find a good job as he lives in unpopular
district among other trouble-making families. Therefore his poverty increases.
Having not enough money can lead to health problems and then it is even more
difficult to change the accommodation for him. All the above is the easiest way
to categorize him as a problematic person. In table 3.1 about tenure
preferences by current tenure (Home-ownership: investment, wealth and
inequality, the Open University, 2016) there is evidence that people living in
social housing are far less likely to buy a house on their own in the two or
ten years’ time than the groups of people owning houses or renting privately or
living with relatives at the time of the survey. In conclusion about the similarity
between social policy and criminology, and economics, in both fields of science
it is seen that the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. Within the
Lupton survey on gathered evidence between years 1948-2000 (Chapter 2, the Open
University, 2016, p. 51-54[A5] ), it has been proofed that disadvantage
of living in social housing, compared with owner-occupied house, persisted even
for four generations. To make it short: higher income/wealth leads to
home-ownership and further to better social outcomes, while lower income/wealth
leads to rented home [or social housing] which results in worse social outcomes
(A social motive? Ownership and social outcomes revisited, the Open University,
2016). It is obvious that better social outcomes create better prosperity rate,
while worse social outcomes result in higher poverty rate. All the above
resulted in the principal transformation of the distribution of wealth in the
twentieth century forming a strong middle class home-owners and widening the
gap between them and lower income households (Piketty, Chapter 3, the Open
University, 2016).
Of course, there
is the most obvious and sought for evidence that social policy and criminology,
and economics, are the key sciences to secure the people’s need of living in a
nice safe shelter that is called home. However, in their search for the methods
of providing the demand, they differ much. One of the contrasting ways in which
housing inequalities are discussed from the perspectives of social policy and
criminology, and economics, is a different aim of building a house by points of
view of the two sciences. On one side economics is focused on profit and seeing
housing as future investment and asset in its pure form. On the other hand
social policy and criminology is concentrated on reducing housing inequalities
as well as reducing problems caused by them such as crime rate, unemployment,
health issues, stigmatization of poorer areas. Social housing is associated
with state-run schemes, encouraging the growth of non-profit housing (Introduction
to Chapter 3, the Open University, 2016). It is in opposition to the private
housing market which is rather associated with economics (Social policy and
housing, the Open University, 2016).
Final conclusion[A6] leads to the statement that social
policy and criminology is strongly dependent on economics and vice versa. The
two couldn’t exist without each other because they have a lot in common and they
differ much at the same time by experiencing social and economic issues. In
times of good economic, housing become more affordable making people more
self-sufficient without relying on housing benefits and not facing the fear of
homelessness. Thus economic growth makes better opportunities for boosting
production and employment chances. Nevertheless sociologists are aware that
rapid economic growth results both in social advantages and disadvantages. The
shift from renting to home-ownership isn’t the only positive state of
increasing wealth but it can derive negative consequences with highlighted housing
inequalities. Increasing gap between the rich and the poor was the most visible
sign of the newly transformed distribution of wealth in the last 20th century. However
in the 21st century the proportion of the home owners has tendency to decline
by the increased households at the same time. The fact is due to migration,
natural increase and people tendency in living on their own (Problems of arising
from ‘housing as investment, the Open University, 2016). The future will show what
comparisons and contrasting from the perspective of social policy and
criminology, and economics may be discussed over that issue[A7] .
Words:
1200
Reference:
1.
Housing: does housing status matter (Investigating the Social World, the Open
University, 2016, p. 50)
- Investigating
housing social policy and crime (the Open University, 2016), DD103-16J,
available at URL https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=842080
, accessed 27/11/2016
- Housing and the distribution of
wealth (Investigating
the Social World 1, Chapter 3, the Open University, 2016, p. 96)
- Discussion (Investigating the Social World
1, Chapter 3, the Open University, 2016, p. 97)
- Housing, crime and criminology (Investigating the Social
World 1, Chapter 2, the Open University, 2016, p. 65)
- Home-ownership: investment,
wealth and inequality (Investigating the Social World 1, Chapter 3 , the Open
University, 2016, p. 80)
- Lupton (Investigating the Social World
1, Chapter 2, the Open University, 2016, p. 51-54)
- Piketty (Investigating the Social
World 1, Chapter 3, the Open University, 2016)
- Introduction to Chapter 3 (Investigating the Social
World 1, the Open University, 2016)
- A social motive? Ownership and
social outcomes revisited (Investigating the Social World 1, the Open University, 2016)
- Problems of arising from
‘housing as investment (Investigating the Social World 1, the Open University, 2016[A8] )
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz