An exploration of the extent to which social tenants
now constitute members of a ‘precariat class’
Guy Daly, Coventry University
and Chair of the Human City Institute
[email protected]
Kevin Gulliver, Director of Human City Institute
[email protected]
www.humancityinstitute.wordpress.com
Content
▪ Backdrop
▪ Structure and approach
▪ The precariat reviewed
▪ Social housing and the precariat
▪ Income and benefits
▪ Economic activity
▪ Financial exclusion
▪ Welfare reform
▪ Standard of living and quality of life
▪ Debt
▪ Utility of thinking of social housing tenants as a precariat class
Backdrop
▪ Austerity discourse of social housing tenants
▪ ‘skivers’
▪ ’shirkers’
▪ Dependency culture
▪ [undeserving/less deserving] subsidised housing
▪ Bedroom tax an emblematic political act
▪ Other policy moves:
▪ Affordable rents
▪ Reinvigorated/resuscitated ‘right to buy’
▪ Result: social housing tenants lives are more precarious
Aim of paper and data sources
▪Is there a close fit
between the
characteristics of the
precariat and the social
tenant group?
▪HCI field work over the
last decade in particular
➢range of surveys by
interview with more than
6,500 social tenants
➢30 focus groups with
around 300+ social
tenants
A New Deal for Tenants
Scoping a Precariat Charter for Social Housing
Hannah Fearn and Kevin Gulliver
Foreword by David Orr, Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation
The Precariat:
the precarious proletariat
Guy Standing (2011, 2014) definitional framework
▪ poverty
▪ economic uncertainty
▪ high and long-term unemployment
▪ disadvantage and inequality
▪ financial exclusion and debt
▪ Insecure housing
▪ standard of living and quality of life
▪ distinct (Weberian) socio-economic position
▪ class, status, power
▪ excluded
Are social tenants
part of the precariat?
▪ Social housing tenants are not a homogenous group
▪ Suggest that there is a large overlap between Standing’s precariat
typology and social tenants’ ‘characteristics’
▪ And some in private rented sector may share these, too
▪ Social tenants face a precarious existence
▪ Low incomes
▪ Reliant on benefits
▪ Few assets
▪ Dependent upon high cost lenders and loans
▪ Less likely to be able to call on family and friends’ resources
▪ Less likely to have access to mainstream financial services
▪ Less access to IT
Comparing the Characteristics
of the Precariat and Social Tenants
Characteristics of the Precariat
Low incomes and reliance upon benefits
Low levels of economic activity
Long-term unemployment
Financial exclusion
Debt and reliance upon high-cost lenders
Welfare reforms
Characteristics of Social Tenants
Generally low net household incomes with
high benefit reliance, plus stagnating
incomes/rising relative living costs
Over half economically inactive. Minority in
f/t
employment.
Temporary
working
widespread
The long-term unemployment rate is high.
Only one third are short-term unemployed.
Low access to affordable finance,
mainstream banking services, and ICT
High relative debt and relatively elevated
use of high-cost lenders (both legal and
illegal)
Significant
effects
on
living
standards/quality of life and key driver of
precarious lives
Incomes and benefits (1)
▪ 43% of social tenants have household incomes below
£5,200 (£99 per week)
▪ median income £7,900.
▪ 80% have net household incomes below £10,400
(£199 per week)
▪ only 4% have incomes above national median wage of
approximately £26,000 (also the benefit cap)
▪ 77% of tenants are eligible for housing benefit
Income and benefits (2)
▪ social tenants real terms incomes decreased by 20%
▪ minimal rise in income
▪ higher levels of inflation for household essentials
▪ CPI has recorded a 19% rise since international
financial crisis unfolded.
▪ food risen 32%
▪ fuel 47 per cent,
▪ travel and transport 37%
▪ items that take-up bulk of social tenants’ budgets
▪ (see Gulliver et. al., 2014 and Gulliver, 2015)
Economic activity
▪ 55% of social tenants are economically inactive
▪ majority of these are fully retired, long-term sick or disabled
▪ only about 10% registered as unemployed
▪ Of 45% of economically active tenants
▪ 24% are employed full-time
▪ 14% cent employed part-time
▪ 7% in education or training.
▪ Of working tenants
▪ 35% in short-term work and/or working under zero hours contracts
▪ 33% of unemployed tenants are short-term unemployed of less than one year
▪ 9% per cent less than 3 months
▪ 11% 4-6 months
▪ Long-term unemployment
▪ 17% unemployed between 1 and 2 years
▪ 38% between 2 and 5 years
▪ 52% more than 5 years
Financial Exclusion (1)
Social tenants disproportionately affected by financial exclusion and debt (NHF, 2013 and 2014).
▪ 60% of all financially excluded people (yet only 18% cent of the population).
▪ c16% social tenants have no bank account (double general population)
▪ 81% no savings account
▪ 91% no insurance cover
▪ 33% don’t have access to ICT.
▪ 34% say that their financial circumstances are poor or very poor
▪ 4 per cent describe them as very good.
Savings:
▪ 69% have no savings.
▪ 46% of savers have less than £1,000
▪ 73% have less than £3,000
▪ 19% have over £5,000 (7 per cent of total tenants).
▪ 11% say their savings are high or very high
Financial Exclusion (2)
IT
▪ 40% working age social tenants no internet access
▪ Majority not confident making online benefit application
Benefits
▪ 95% currently have Housing Benefit paid directly to landlord
▪ 90% say would prefer benefits to be paid directly to their landlord
rather than their own accounts
▪ 16% say they know about change to Universal Credit
▪ 34% say they have never heard about change to Universal Credit
Welfare Reform
Key welfare reforms:
▪ Benefit Cap
▪ Bedroom Tax
▪ Changes to Council Tax benefits
▪ Universal Credit
▪ Capping benefits associated with rents and services charges
Consequences:
▪ rent default
▪ family separation
▪ demand for smaller properties (but insufficient supply)
▪ cut back on essentials
Standard of Living and
Quality of Life
standard of living
▪ 31% said had worsened
▪ 49% said had stood still
▪ 20% said improved
quality of life
“Nobody is better off. I’ve cut back on fuel and food. Do less
shopping so that you can’t spend any money. Can’t afford to
eat much meat. Being careful and monitoring everything
including water – don’t just let it go down the drain. Never fill
the kettle - only just enough for a cup of tea. Get up later
and go to bed earlier. Wear extra woollens and drink hot
soups.”
▪
Debt (1)
Generally, tenants’ debts are not high in cash terms on average due to
inaccessibility of loans
▪ 55% say they don’t currently have any debts
Those with debts:
▪ 20% owe less than £300
▪ 40% less £1,000
▪ 27% between £1,000 and £3,000
▪ 13% debts £3,000 to £9,000
▪ 14 % debts > £10,000
▪ average (median) debt calculated at c£1,500
▪ median debt to income is 1:5
A New Deal for Tenants: Scoping a Precariat Charter for Social Housing
Rainbow Rising? LGBT Communities, Social Housing, Equality and Austerity
Rainbow Rising? LGBT Communities, Social Housing, Equality and Austerity
Chart (2) - Tenants' Experience of Debt
[Source: HCI Survey (2014)]
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Have problems with
debt repayments
Always
Often
Feel harassed by
lenders
Sometimes
Never
Do without necessities Have trouble making
to meet debt
ends meet at the end
repayments
of the week
Debt (2)
Perceptions of debt:
▪ 10% said their debt was ‘high’
▪ 21% said had ‘some’ debt
▪ 15% said ‘not much’
Just about managing:
▪ Repayment of debt is third greatest expenditure item after food and fuel
▪ 18% said ‘always’ or ‘often’ have problems making ends meet
▪ 48% ‘sometimes’ have problems making ends meet
▪ c20% had used a high-cost lender in last six months,
▪ ‘few’ had borrowed from illegal money lenders
▪ 34% say that stretching their income is ‘never’ a problem
Are Social Tenants
a Precariat Class? (1)
Precariat
▪ Precarious lives (!)
▪ Uncertainty
▪ Work
▪ Life planning and life chances
▪ few assets
▪ reliant upon high-cost credit and benefits
▪ low and varying incomes
▪ work in part-time, temporary and often zeros hours
employment
Are Social Tenants
a Precariat Class? (2)
Social tenants
▪ low incomes
▪ high and precarious unemployment
▪ paucity of assets on which to rely in crises
▪ (some) dependency on debt to make ends
meet
▪ not all social tenants have all these
characteristics.
▪ estimate that at least 66% of tenants exhibit at
least 3 of these characteristics
Health warning: defining social tenant
group as a precariat class has dangers
Utility:
▪ underscores the continuing residualisation of social
housing sector
▪ reinforces social housing as welfare housing for those
with little choice rather than a tenure of aspiration
▪ reinforces stereotypes of social tenants as marked by
dependency
But need to take care
▪ Social tenants are the shirkers?
▪ [Aspirant] home owners are the strivers?
References
Cox. J., Gulliver K. and Morris J. (2011) On the Margins: Debt, Financial Exclusion and Low Income Households. Compass. London
Fearn H. and Gulliver K. (2015) A New Deal for Tenants: Scoping a Precariat Charter for Social Housing. HCI. Birmingham
Gulliver K. (2011) Living on the Edge: Financial Exclusion and Social Housing. HCI. Birmingham
Gulliver K., Trevitt V. and Cox J. (2014) Beyond the Margins: Debt, Financial Exclusion and Social Housing. HCI. Birmingham
Gulliver K. (2015) Costing a Living: The Experience of B3 Living’s Broxbourne Tenants. HCI. Birmingham
Lister R. (1999) Charles Murray and the Underclass: The Developing Debate (Choice in Welfare Book 33). Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil
Society
Murie A. (2016) The Right to Buy? Selling Off Public and Social Housing. Policy Press Shorts.
NHF (2014) Welfare Reform Impact Assessment. London
NHF (2015) Welfare Reform Impact assessment: Final report. London
Standing G. (2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. Bloomsbury. London
Standing G. (2014) A Precariat Charter: From Denizens to Citizens. Bloomsbury. London
Weber M. (1922) Economy and Society. Berkeley. California