The study showed that for people who were born in 1958 and 1970, living in social housing was associated with negative outcomes later in life. This correlation allows Leunig to state that children should be kept out of social housing ‘at almost any cost’.
The study, led by the London School of Economics’ Ruth Lupton and Becky Tunstall, was based on the British cohort study which so far has studied the lives of people born in 1946,1958,1970 and 2000. It is important for readers to note that different people are interviewed for each phase of the research as this is not a longitudinal study of family outcomes.
There is also a massive amount of background noise in the data. Since the study started, for example, major factors have impacted upon the social sector and the people who live in it. This includes globalisation of the economy, polarisation in the labour market, slum clearance and rebuilding, right to buy and residualisation, the promotion of homeownership and the shrinking of the low value private rented sector.
Additionally, particularily since 1970, benefit changes have allowed a poorer clientele to access social housing and legislation has also meant that non-white groups secured equal access, thereby incorporating the discrimmination they face into the data for social housing in the cohort study.
The future use of the social stock is likely to be the subject of intense debate as the supply reduces and the population increases.
The study has presented a challenge to providers, academics and residents to be more precise about the benefits this tenure makes to society and the economy. However, it provides no conclusive evidence upon which policy can be developed and therefore the comments made by Leunig had no substance.
Brendan Nevin, visiting professor, institute of political and economic governance, University of Manchester
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (7)
Brian Capaloff | 14/08/2009 9:46 am
Absolutely! And this only reinforces my surprise at Mr Leunig being referred to as 'an academic', as his article was one of the most unacademic pieces I have read in a long while. No doubt the scouts at the Daily Mail and The Sun are competing to get his signature on the dotted line!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
worried well | 14/08/2009 7:04 pm
His PHd was on 19th century railways wasn't it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 18/08/2009 0:07 am
Well Tim's at the LSE and according to your website:
http://www.nevinleather.co.uk/page_1174683412906.html
you are
"a Visiting Professor at Salford University's Housing and Urban Studies Unit"
Salford Uni vs The London School of Economics. Tough choice eh?
and
"one of the four architects of the Housing Market Renewal Programme. "
So how's that going for you these days?
The defence rests.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Capaloff | 18/08/2009 11:00 am
As well as the academic illiteracy demonstrated by Mr Leunig we now have the classist snobbery of ILAG, in which the LSE, purely because it is the LSE, must be better than some northern place like Salford! Before implicitly questioning Mr Nevin's comments as being lesser than Mr Leunig's, because of where they might lecture, have a look at the report and you will see what a nonsense his conclusions are.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 19/08/2009 11:35 am
And as someone has said elsewhere today "ILAG" was a german concerntration camp for civilians.
"Ilag is an abbreviation of the German word Internierungslager. They were Internment camps established by the German Army in World War II to hold Allied civilians, caught in areas that were occupied by the German Army"
While im all for the freedom to hide behind a pseudonym as a right when one person does who constantly seeks to criticise any opponent rather than their views it becomes a tiresome game and stifles any debate and the "Internierungslager" reference becomes apt. To then have this lower the tone protagonist argue on academic matters is highly amusing and ironic.
Tim Leunig - an economist - tries to promote very false argument concerning housing, such as increasing CBL increases choice. It cant and he for one fails to accept that u can only increase choice by increasing supply - surely a given for any economic thought or logic.
Then he loses any academic credibility by the highly erroneous polemic above that just seeks to pander to his well known right wing bias. And rather than Tim Leunig getting involved in any academic discussion on here he is lefft with the ILAGs of this world to defend his opinion and (in)credibility.
19th century railways? Couldnt the old carriages - along with the containers proposed last week - be used to house these 'spongers' or is the latest academic jargon 'scroungers?' as a disincentive to breed so copiously. A clear visual lesson to this underclass (that one still used?) - how about no life chances for life chancers! Now theres even a Daily Mail headline for you ILAG!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 20/08/2009 8:17 am
All you have to do is click on where it says ILAG to see my profile and see what this stands for. Or haven't you figured that out yet? You just make silly comparisons with Nazism as it's same tired old label that dinosaur extreme lefties trot out to close down an argument that challenges their rigid ideology. Re Tim "just seeks to pander to his well known right wing bias". But it's OK to pander to left wing biases then?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 20/08/2009 11:37 am
Its ok to pander to any bias. What isnt ok is to deliberately hide that bias and pretend its an academic view that is subject to academic rigour, or a balanced view of a so-called expert discussing the matter with any objectivity.
To propose a polemicised view in the name of objectivity or academe is tantamount to fraud in such circumstances of overtly hiding his known bias.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment