We strongly disagree with the conclusion Dr Leunig draws from our research (Inside Housing, 7 August).

First, we cannot be sure that growing up in social housing caused the outcomes we found. Second, even if it did, it was not very bad for children’s prospects. Most of the differences in adulthood between those who grew up in different tenures were due to difference in family background - it is deprivation that does the most harm.

Third, until we know more about what aspect of social housing is related to negative outcomes, we cannot know whether alternatives would be any better. Tim Leunig offers no practical ideas about how the millions of children currently in social housing might be rehoused, and no reassurance that this massive transformation wouldn’t have negative impacts of its own.

Other policies, to address health or inequality, for example, seem more likely to be successful and cost effective.

Social housing is closely associated with deprivation and social problems, and as policy makers try to deal with them housing can seem an attractive target, but social housing cannot either cause or cure social problems on its own.

Ruth Lupton and Becky Tunstall, London School of Economics

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment