A place called home: The social dimensions of homeownership, by Kim R. Manturuk, Mark R. Lindblad, and Roberto G. Quercia

《A place called home: The social dimensions of homeownership, by Kim R. Manturuk, Mark R. Lindblad, and Roberto G. Quercia》

打印

作者: David P. Varady

来源: JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS,Vol.41,Issue1,P.143-145

语言: 英文

关键字

作者单位: University of Cincinnati

摘要: Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image sizeHistorically, homeownership has been considered an important mechanism for wealth creation, especially for lower income and minority families. However, lower income families who relied on subprime mortgages during the Great Recession experienced high rates of default that hurt entire communities as well as the individual families involved.The incidence of high rates of default raises the question of whether homeownership produces nonfinancial benefits such as increased civic involvement. Previous research on this point has been inconclusive because most studies have exhibited selection bias. They have not taken into account the fact that those who purchase a home may be inherently different from those who choose to rent and that these background differences, and not the actual purchase of a home, may account for differences in outcomes. A Place Called Home resolves this selection bias problem by controlling for background characteristics.The book relies on a rich data set connected to a long-term evaluation of the Ford Foundation–funded Community Advantage Program (CAP), a Durham, North Carolina–based initiative to create a secondary market outlet for Community Redevelopment Act loans. The data set includes individual-level information on borrowers (N = 3,743) and a comparable group of renters (N = 1,531) first interviewed in 2004 and then re-interviewed annually until 2009. To my knowledge, this is one of the first empirical studies of homeownership using a panel data set. Because many topics were included in only one panel, however, the book mostly reports on cross-sectional analyses.After an introduction, chapters 2 to 8 examine the social effects of homeownership controlling for differences between owners and renters. The authors go on to examine why and how these benefits occur. The book concludes by looking at the implications for public policy.Taken as a whole, the authors show that there are important social benefits of homeownership. “[When background characteristics are controlled] homeowners are [still] more likely to vote, are more likely to get involved in neighborhood groups, enjoy higher levels of both mental and physical health, and feel more control over their lives” (p. xx).Given my long-term interest in neighborhood revitalization, I was fascinated by the fact that lower income families become more civically engaged after they become homeowners. Renters who became homeowners during the study period were almost three times as likely to be members of a neighborhood group in 2007. … These findings indicate that homeownership can act as a catalyst for increased civic engagement, especially when buying and moving to a home. (p. 77)Other results demonstrate that homeownership leads to a sense of collective efficacy—that is, a sense of community and communal willingness to solve problems—which in turn leads to a perceived sense of safety. Thus, homeownership programs like CAP can be a mechanism for promoting neighborhood revitalization.Manturuk, Lindblad, and Quercia make a unique contribution to the literature by showing how homeownership affects social outcomes. Homeownership led to (a) a greater sense of control and, in turn, a reduced risk for physical and mental health problems and (b) residential stability and, in turn, greater community involvement. More research is needed, however, to explain these indirect paths between ownership and nonfinancial benefits. Why, for example, does a sense of control over one’s life or one’s home lead to better health?Surprisingly, those who had a larger financial interest in their home were not more likely to vote in local elections or to be involved in neighborhood organizations. Had the authors included a measure of perceived financial commitment rather than total housing costs (the measure actually used), the results might have been very different. This is further evidence that some of the specific results in this book need to used cautiously.Based on these findings, Manturuk and colleagues recommend expanding sustainable mortgage programs like CAP (making sure that there is a secondary market outlet for Community Redevelopment Act–type loans), requiring homeownership education and counseling for first-time homebuyers, and improving access to emergency funds to deal with employment or medical emergencies. They also see the statistical results having important implications for renters. Furthermore, they believe that renters should be provided with longer rental leases and ones that allow them more discretion in modifying their own units. Such changes would enable renters to take advantage of the social benefits of ownership (stability, control). I am unsure whether these recommendations for renters are feasible, but they are certainly worth trying.Overall, Manturuk and colleagues make a convincing case that the social benefits of homeownership ought to be considered in future debates on the subject and low-income housing policy. A Place Called Home should be required reading for participants in these debates.