Home-ownership as a social norm and positional good: Subjective wellbeing evidence from panel data

Chris Foye, David Clapham and Tommaso Gabrieli
Additional contact information
Chris Foye: University of Reading, UK
David Clapham: University of Reading, UK

Urban Studies, 2018, vol. 55, issue 6, 1290-1312

Abstract: Much attention has been devoted to examining the absolute benefits of home-ownership (e.g. security and autonomy). This paper, by contrast, is concerned with conceptualising and testing the relative benefits of home-ownership; those benefits that depend on an individual’s status in society. Home-ownership has previously been analysed as a social norm, implying that the relative benefits (costs) associated with being an owner (renter) are positively related to relevant others’ home-ownership values. The theoretical contribution of this paper is to additionally conceptualise home-ownership as a positional good, implying that the status of both home-owners and renters is negatively related to relevant others’ home-ownership consumption. The empirical contribution of this paper is to quantitatively test for these relative benefits in terms of subjective wellbeing. We run fixed effects regressions on three waves of the British Household Panel Study. We find that (1) a strengthening of relevant others’ home-ownership values is associated with increases (decreases) in the subjective wellbeing of home-owners (renters), and (2) an increase in relevant others’ home-ownership consumption decreases the life satisfaction of owners but has no effect for renters. Overall our findings suggest that (1) the relative benefits of home-ownership are both statistically significant and of a meaningful magnitude, and (2) home-ownership is likely to be both a social norm and a positional good. Without explicitly recognising these relative benefits, policymakers risk overestimating the contribution of home-ownership to societal wellbeing.

Keywords: home-ownership; housing tenure; positional good; social norm; subjective wellbeing; ä½ æˆ¿æ‰€æœ‰æ ƒã€; ä½ æˆ¿ä½¿ç”¨æ ƒã€; åœ°ä½ ä¼˜åŠ¿ã€; 社会规范ã€; ä¸»è§‚å¹¸ç¦ æ„Ÿ (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (18)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098017695478 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:55:y:2018:i:6:p:1290-1312

DOI: 10.1177/0042098017695478

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Urban Studies from Urban Studies Journal Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().