MAKING THE HOUSING
TENURE CHOICE TO BECOME
A HOME OWNER AFTER THE
FINANCIAL CRISIS IN 2008
A Sample Study of the “Why” Conducted in the
Amsterdam Metropolitan Area
Author: Claire Vos
Student Number: 10542353 Course: Bachelor Thesis Study: Planning Mentor: Richard Ronald
1
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 2 2. Theoretic Framework ... 3 3. Conceptual Model ... 7 4. Methodology ... 8 5. Results ... 156. Conclusion and Discussion ... 28
7. Reflection ... 31
8. Literature ... 32
2
1. Introduction
In many western countries there is a lot of support for people to buy their own houses. This is a common phenomenon in the United States, the United Kingdom and also in the Netherlands. It is seen that owning your own home can bring certain economic and social benefits (Bratt, 2012; Schiffer, 2016). Since 1956 there is a prominent discourse in the Netherlands to promote homeownership (Schiffer, 2016). Different aspects where a part of this discourse. Examples are that home owners were more confident and that home ownership would contribute to more personal freedom (Schiffer, 2016). Also it was supposed to help with the improvement of neighbourhoods and it would be a part of the pension when people were to retire (Schiffer, 2016). The mortgage market crisis and the following financial crisis in 2008 has on the contrary also shown that home ownership has a lot of dangerous sides as well (Bratt, 2012; Elsinga et al., 2008). Due to risky loans and lack of oversight on the mortgage market a housing bubble was created which exploded in 2008 in the United States and spread all around the world (Bratt, 2012; Elsinga et al., 2008). The house prices dropped drastically and this led to a lot of financial problems for many home owners (Elsinga et al., 2008; Bratt, 2012). This lead to many restrictions on the mortgage market. In short it got a lot harder to buy your own house in the Netherlands (Schiffer, 2016). In the United States the home ownership discourse prevailed despite the financial crisis (Bratt, 2016). In the Netherlands we can identify the same trend, different measures were taken to still promote home ownership (Pas, 2012). For instance the transition tax on houses was decreased to two percent instead of five (Pas, 2012). Even though the mortgage market crisis and the following global financial crisis has exposed the dangers of home ownership, the home ownership promotion is still remaining.
But the above mentioned processes do not provide insights in which factors households take into account when they make the housing tenure choice to buy an house after 2008. The central question of this thesis is therefore: “Why do households make the housing tenure choice to become a home owner after the mortgage market crisis in 2008?”. This question will be answered by conducting a sample study in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area. Important to note is that the financial crisis in 2008 is not a central theme in this research it is merely a time reference point in analysis the housing tenure choices of households that choose to become a home owner after the financial crisis in 2008.
In the second chapter a theoretic framework is constructed. Chapter three displays that conceptual model and chapter four discusses al methodological considerations. In chapter five the research results are presented and chapter six contains the concluding remarks, where chapter 7 reflects on the research process.
3
2. Theoretic Framework
2.1 Macro Perspective
In the past home ownership was not a normal concept and considered something for the upper classes (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012). The growth of the home ownership tenure is not even for all countries, there are considerable differences but in a broad sense it is clear that the tenure became way more dominant over the last fifty years (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012). In the Netherlands the home ownership tenure got dominant a little later that in the United Kingdom and the United States. After the Second World War the focus was on social housing (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012). This started to change slowly and in 1990 the home ownership rate was 45 percent, raising to 56 percent in 2006 (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012). Along with this increased home ownership rate is the increased mortgage debt in the Netherlands. The mortgage debt in ratio to GDP increased from 61 to 100 percent between 1998 and 2008 (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012). The home ownership tenure grew mostly because governments subsidized the tenure instead of focusing on social housing provision (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012). Home ownership was seen as a way to improve neighbourhoods, the value of property and the economic conditions of the poor. Buying a house in some countries was seen as almost a fundamental right (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012; Thorns, 2012). The idea also was that home owners would make better citizens (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012; Bratt, 2012, Thorns, 2012). It was also a way for governments to undo themselves of responsibility for the maintenance and provision of housing (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012).
In the present home ownership has taken a more central role in society and is related to different social, economic and welfare affairs (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012). Governments have increasingly chosen to
promote home ownership as a form of tenure instead of social housing provisions or private renting (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012). Borrowing conditions were improved by governments and also housing prices were increasing worldwide. Aalbers (2008) argues that home ownership is becoming more and more financialised. This in respect to mortgages and to the fact that buying a home becomes more focused on it being an investment than it being a roof above the head. This together lead to a housing boom and a global mortgage market crisis (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012). The mortgage market crises was the trigger for the global financial crisis in 2008 (Bratt, 2012). Because of risky mortgage constructions and the lenient lending for “everybody” even poorer households for who it was not sensible to lend that much (Bratt, 2012). The risks in the system were exposed and it had consequences for the whole global economy (Bratt, 2012). Government started with lending restrictions and other measures to prevent other crises in the future (Bratt, 2012). It got harder to buy a house (Bratt, 2012). The literature above presents a view of the macro development of home ownership, but it does not provide an insight in how at a micro level individual households make the housing tenure choice to become a home owner. About the micro level housing tenure choices of households to buy a house is much already written. An overview of the different theories will be presented below.
4
2.2 Micro Perspective
2.2.1 Economic Factors
2.2.1.1 Rational Choice Theory and Economic Benefits
Literature on rational choice theory is focused on economic benefits. Mills (1990) identifies different economic variables that influence housing tenure choice. Different forms of taxes are of influence, the cost of the house, the mortgage and also the cost of renting a house as alternative. In short the theory states that households make housing tenure choices by looking at what the best economic option is for them (Mills, 1990). Aalbers (2008) adds to this that households tend to see buying a house as an investment and economic considerations become more important when considering housing tenure choices.
2.2.1.2 Housing aspirations and Housing Ladder
Related to the economic housing tenure theory of Mills (1990) are the theories concerning housing aspirations and the theory concerning the housing ladder. The housing ladder basically means that households want to get as high on the housing ladder as possible. Or in other words they want to
improve their living situation as much as possible (Morrow-Jones & Wenning, 2005). To do this they need resources and they acquire these resources of their life course. They resources are determined by factors like age, income and marital status (Morrow-Jones & Wenning, 2005). Housing aspirations are generally based on social class and the political economy (Crawford & Mckee, 2016). In short this means that these two broader concepts shape the housing aspirations of household. They provide opportunities and constraints for households in their housing aspirations. Not having enough money is a constraint where getting a cheap loan with help from the government is an opportunity (Mckee et al., 2015). It is also possible to make a division of subjective and objective factors for households that shape the housing aspirations. Subjective factors are for example: life style choice, age, household composition etc.
(Crawford & Mckee, 2016). Objective factors are the economic resources and the available opportunities on the local housing market (these are strongly influenced by public policy and the wider economy or in other words the political economy) (Crawford & Mckee, 2016). It is important to note the housing aspirations theory also has a social component. The subjective factors can be seen as social factors or in other words social determined facts (characteristics) of households. The housing ladder theory has a similar angle, the social determined factors of households are of influence on the economic resources that households are able to acquire and influence the position household can reach on the housing ladder (Morrow-Jones& Wenning, 2005). The theory of the housing aspirations and the housing ladder have similarities with the results of the research processes of Augustyniak et al. (2013) and Coolen et al. (2002). The factors that are according to Augustyniak et al. (2013) off influence on the housing tenure choices of households are: housing availability, consumption, household savings/income and housing policy. These factors can be seen as economic constraints or opportunities. Coolen et al. (2002) state that age, current tenure, income and household composition are responsible for a considerable influence on the housing tenure choice.
5
2.2.1.3 Pension and Old Age Care
Another economic factor can be found in the theory of Toussaint and Elsinga (2010).
Toussaint and Elisinga (2010) look at if Dutch households see their house as way to pay for things at a later age. They ask the question if people buy a house with keeping in mind their pensions and old age needs (Toussaint and Elsinga, 2010). They conclude that there are some households who think about housing in relation to pensions and old age care facilities, but that the general trend is that households are not focused on this aspect when making housing tenure choices, this is especially the case for younger households (Toussaint and Elsinga, 2010).
2.2.2 Social Factors
2.2.2.1 Social Herding
A common critique on economic theories and especially on the rational choice theory is that humans have a bounded rationality (Baddeley, 2011). Households will make housing tenure choices based on the information that they have, but they can never have a full overview due to the uncertainty on the housing market and the bounded rationality of the human race (Baddeley, 2011). As a consequence households also make housing tenure choices based on social herding, this means that household will make choices based on the behaviour of others (Baddeley, 2011).
2.2.2.2 Normalisation of Homeownership
The theory of Baddeley (2011) relates to normalisation of home ownership. Gurney (1999) shows that normalisation of homeownership is the case in Great Britain. Gurney has looked at different policy documents concerned with home ownership and has identified normalisation patterns associated with home ownership. In the interviews that Gurney (1999) has held he checks if households agree with the views presented in the policy documents and the normalisation of home ownership. Important is the function of language and words in relation to home ownership. People have different reasons why the see home ownership as the norm related to housing tenure. Gurney (1999) shows that many households in Great Britain prefer home ownership and see owning a house as goal in life and a status symbol. Also Gurney (1999) shows that feeling at home is more associated with home ownership than with renting. Renting is seen as something that is only suited for certain groups in society like students or starters (Gurney, 1999). Home owners are also seen as good citizens. Owning a home leads to more personal freedom and more enhancement in society (Gurney, 1999). Home ownership is perceived as being natural and a natural human desire (Gurney, 1999). It must be noted that these ideas are normative, there are and will always be people who have different ideas about home ownership and will question the norm (Gurney, 1999). Coolen et al. (2002) also mention the social factor status in line with Gurney (1999). In addition Coolen et al. (2002) mention family values and harmonious family life as being associated with home ownership, this corresponds with the theory of Gurney (1999) as well.
6
2.2.2.3 Forced Step Due To Familial Changes
Wind and Dewilde (2016) present in their paper that divorce has an important impact on the housing tenure of household. Divorces especially woman face difficulties in entering home ownership. The paper also shows that divorce is a factor that influences housing tenure choices (Wind and Dewilde, 2016). A divorce is a social factor that can force households to make a change in housing tenure. Of course other social events like marriage or a partner passing away can also influence housing tenure choices of household. These social factors are basically changes in housing composition (but not family addition in the form of a child), a factor that has been mentioned as a factor in the previous sections. In short social event can lead to a forced change of housing tenure, the housing tenure choice becomes forced for a part.
2.3 Relationship Economic and Social Factors
It is undisputable that economic and social factors overlap and are closely related to each other. This is clearly visible in the section regarding the housing aspirations and the housing ladder theories. Social factors like age, household composition etc. influence the economic situation of households. Economic factors also influence the social position of households. It is important to be aware of this fact and the shortcomings of making a distinction between factors. But for practical and structural purposes there is chosen in this research to work with a distinction. When necessary notes will be made to point out when
7
3. Conceptual Model
3.1 Qualitative Approach
The literature in the theoretic framework is focussed on the modelling of the factors (economic and social) that influence housing tenure choices of households to buy a house. In this thesis it is the aim to look in a more qualitative way at the relationship that is displayed in the model below. There is no statistical measurement of how much which factor contributes to the decision making and the eventual choice, but the focus is on which factors play a role in the household choice making and how these factors are related to each other. Instead of looking in a quantitative way at which factors have a statistical significance on the housing tenure choice to become a home owner, a more qualitative approach is used.
3.2 Relationship Focus
The focus of this research is discovering which economic and social factors play a role in the housing tenure choice and on which factors have the most weight in the housing tenure choice. The relationship in the model below between the economic and social factors and the housing tenure choice is therefore the relationship that is central in this research. The theoretic framework presents an overview off factors that are off influence on housing tenure choices according to the already existing literature. Some factors that influence housing tenure choices will not be included in this research process. In this research the influence of age, location of the house and year of buying after 2008 will not be given attention, due to methodological choices and considerations.
3.3 Buying a New House
The buying of a new house is an form of housing tenure choice. The focus in this research is on the housing tenure choice of buying, because of the relation of buying a house to the financial crisis which was caused by a mortgage market crisis and had a lot of impact on the housing market. In addition it is scientifically relevant to look at why households buy, in light of the promotion of home ownership that still survived after the crisis and has been the trend for decades.
Economic Factors
8
4. Methodology
4.1 Type of Research
This research tries to provide insights in the housing tenure choices of households to become home owners after 2008. This is done in a mainly qualitative way, the research mainly focus on the views and opinions of household and is at first focused on words and not on numbers (Bryman, 2012). The focus is on getting clear which social and economic factors are involved, but also on which factors have the most weight in the housing tenure choices. The weight of the factors is determined by letting households rank factors that influence their housing tenure choices. First there is focus on a descriptive analysis of the factors involved and then the focus is on exploring the weight of the factors. The ranking has
quantitative elements as well, because number are used and there is looked at the weight of factors (Bryman, 2012). But this is based on views and options of people and the numbers that come out of the research process are not statistical significant. In short is the research mainly qualitative with a
combination of descriptive and explorative elements (Bryman, 2012). Another typology of research is either inductive theory or deductive theory acquiring (Bryman, 2012, p.24). Deductive theory is the more traditional form, the researcher forms a hypothesis on the basis of what is already known about the research subject and then check by executing the research if the hypothesis is correct (Bryman, 2012). Inductive theory means that the researches has observations and findings and forms theory on the basis of this (Bryman, 2012). This research process has elements of both, this will be illustrated in sub
questions and operationalisation section (4.5.1-4.5.3).
4.2 Epistemology
Epistemology in short means a choice in which type of knowledge is acceptable for a research process (Bryman, 2012, p.27). The epistemology that is appropriate for this research is interpretivism.
Interpretivism states mainly that the natural order is different than the social order (Bryman, 2012, p.28-29). Social sciences is focused on human behaviour and the analysis of this behaviour (Bryman, 2012, p.28-29). Interpretivism states that human behaviour cannot be studied the same way as the natural order. Human behaviour is more complex. Human behaviour is open for interpretation of the researcher and the researcher should always be aware of this fact (Bryman, 2012, p.28-29).
4.3 Ontology
Ontology is concerned with how is looked at the nature of social entities. The ontology that is associated with qualitative research and this research process is constructivism. Constructivism means that the social world is not static and is in motion all the time. The social world is formed by social actors and changed by social actors. Social constructivism denies a concept of fixed knowledge and emphasizes the importance of language, views and opinions of social entities and individuals (Shaughan & Graham, 2011; St. Pierre Hirtle, 1996). “In other words, the researchers always presents a specific version of social
reality, rather than one that can be regarded as definitive” (Bryman, 2012, p. 33). The results of this
research process should be seen in the light of this statements and the adjusting epistemology. They present a specific version of social reality, they are a subject of change and are open to interpretation (Bryman, 2012; Shaughan & Graham, 2011; St. Pierre Hirtle, 1996). This corresponds with the aim of this
9
thesis, that is providing a qualitative perspective into the reasons (factors) why people make the housing tenure choices to become a home owner after 2008.
4.4 Research Design
The study that is conducted cannot be placed in a traditional research design that is provided by Bryman (2012). However the study resembles the case study research design to a certain extent. But Bryman (2012) and Yin (2014) emphasize that the term case study should not be over used. Although this research is focused on a specific geographical area, the Amsterdam Metropolitan, it is not a traditional case study. The focus is not on the context and details of the geographical, but on the households that made the housing tenure choice to buy in this specific area after 2008. Therefore the unit of analysis are households that have bought a house after the financial crisis in 2008. More important than the
geographical area is the time reference point of 2008 (the financial crisis). Due to these elements the study that is conducted is not a case study, but a sample study. The goal of a sample study is to provide insights in trends of a specific phenomenon. In this study these are the housing tenure choices of households that became home owners. Similar to a case study a sample study has limitations to generalisation. Needless to say it is not possible to make statistical generalisations, but by using the literature and being aware of differences between geographical areas it is possible to identify trends in the housing tenure choices of households that became home owners after 2008.
4.5 Sub Questions and Operationalisation
To answer the central question of this research it is necessary to first answer sub questions. The sub questions are listed below:
1: Which economic factors influence the housing tenure choice to become a home owner? 2: Which social factors influence the housing tenure choice to become a home owner? 3: How do households rank the different factors?
4: How does the ranking of the statements relate to the literature in the theoretic framework?
To provide answers to these sub questions it is first necessary to operationalise the core concepts in the sub questions. Operationalisation in general means making concepts clear and make clear how they are measured in the specific research process (Bryman, 2012; Yin, 2014). Below the operationalisation of the core concepts is displayed. In the next sections the attention will be on which methods are used to answer the sub questions (4.5.1-4.5.3).
Housing Tenure Choice: This is the choice that household make in what kind of house the want to live. Tenure is mostly concerned with either buying or renting (Baddeley, 2011). Tenure is the way people have the right to live in their houses. This can be by buying the home or by renting or another
construction related to ownership. A housing tenure choice therefore usually means that people decide to buy or to rent (either private or social).
10
Households: The people who have bought a house, this can be a single person household or a multiple person household.
Home Owner: In this research we see households who have bought a house, so with a mortgage or without a mortgage, as home owners.
Economic Factors: The economic factors mentioned in the theoretic framework; different forms of taxes are of influence, the cost of the house, the mortgage and also the cost of renting a house as alternative (Mills, 1990). Mckee et al. (2015) and Crawford and Mckee (2016) state that by housing tenure choices the main importance is that household have economic constraint and opportunities. Toussant and Elsinga (2010) state that households in their housing tenure choices might consider buying a house in relation to their pension or care that is needed at a later age. But to the economic factors mentioned in the literature there has to be added the economic factors that are mentioned by interviewees in the research process. So basically it comes down to all factors that have a certain economic value.
Social Factors: The social factors mentioned in the theoretic framework; Social herding (Baddeley, 2011) and the normalisation of home ownership factors (Gurney, 1999). In addition social factors that are mentioned by the interviewees. So in short are factors that play a role in the housing tenure choices of households that are not associated with an economic gain or loss.
Ranking: In this research ranking refers to the ranking of the 22 statements in the Q-sorting matrix (Robbins and Krueger, 2000).
Literature: This refers to the presented literature overview that is presented in the theoretic framework (chapter 2).
In order to provide a solid scientific answer to the central question it is necessary to make clear which scientific methods are used to answer the different sub questions. For each sub questions there will be given a detailed description of the used methods and the strengths and weaknesses of these methods.
4.5.1 Sub Question 1 & Sub Question 2
4.5.1.1 In Depth Interviews (Pilot Interviews)
The first two sub questions are basically the same question with a different type of factors. The method for answering the questions is therefore the same. That is why they are discussed in the same section. There were held three in depth pilot interviews with three households. In the pilot interviews there was used a theme list based on the topics in the literature in the theoretic framework. Furthermore were the interviews very open and the households got the chance to really talk in depth about the factors
involved in their housing tenure choice. This approach is a combination of an inductive and deductive approach. In depth interviews usually are inductive, but because there is used a pilot list on the basis of the literature there is also an deductive element. The pilot interviews were documented and
thematically analysed on the basis of the theoretic framework. Useful quotes for the answering of the first two sub questions were selected, the focus was on similarities, differences and missing elements in relation to the literature.
4.5.1.2 Weaknesses of the Method
Important to note is that this method is very open to interpretation. The researcher has to interprets the answers of the interviewees. It is a danger that the researcher only looks for the answers that suit the
11
research and that there is created a bias in the research (Bryman, 2012). As long as the researcher is aware of this fact the bias will be limited, but it is impossible to totally avoid it. The research only can try to diminish it as much as possible (Bryman, 2012). This was done by letting the interviewees at the end of the interviews state what was really the most important for them in their housing tenure choices. Another good tool to manage bias is calling back interviewees and let them check if they see their views and opinions back in the research results (Bryman, 2012). Unfortunately due to practical reasons (time of the researcher, but also the time of the respondents) this was not possible in this case.
Another weakness of the method is related to the sampling that is used by the interviews in this
research. To find responds the snowball sampling technique is used. This technique has a highly selective nature (Bryman, 2012). Snowball sampling in short that respondents are found through networking and by contacts of the researcher (Bryman, 2012). The low amount of respondents (3) in the pilot interviews in combination with the sample technique have the consequences that the results cannot be
generalised. The results have a bias, because the results only represent the view of three respondents in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area. To still make the results as valuable as possible it is important to create variation in the sample (Bryman, 2012). The sample consist of two females of 45 and 62 years old and one male of 28 years old. All three respondents are a one person household. The variation regarding age and gender is there, but unfortunately there is not a multiple person household in the sample. Due to the scheduling of the interviews with the respondents this was not possible and otherwise maybe the age or gender division would be the element that was not enough variated. It is important to be aware of the weaknesses of a research method to be able to interpret the research results correctly. Of course the methods has its strengths and compatibilities with this research. This will be the topic of the next
section.
4.5.1.3 Strengths of the Method
The aim of the first two sub questions to give an qualitative overview of the economic and social factors that influence the housing tenure choices of households that became a home owner. The goal is not to give an overview of the exact statistical influence of these factors on the housing tenure choices of households that become home owners. By using in depth pilot interviews it is possible to really get a detailed in depth view of the factors that influence the housing tenure choices of household that became home owners. The results are presented in the results section (). The results are the views and opinions of the households in relation to the literature. This a contrast to quantitative studies were the results are mainly numbers (Bryan, 2012). An important critique of quantitative research is that the meaning of the statistical numbers is not clear or vague and other question is if the statistical number really represent views and opinions of the respondents (Bryman, 2012). The strength of qualitative in depth interviews is therefore really presenting the views and opinions of the respondents. In other words the ecological validity is high (Bryman, 2012).
4.5.2 Sub Question 3
4.5.2.1 Q-sorting
The goal of this sub question is to structure the results of the first two sub questions and provide an insight in which factors influence the housing tenure choices of household that chose to become a home owner the most and the least. The research method that is used is Q-sorting. The Q-sorting method is an approach for the scientific study of subjectivity or in other words values, opinions and meanings of
12
individuals (Robbins and Krueger, 2000). The aim of Q-sorting is to study subjectivity as a person’s point of view. Following the O-sorting theory a person’s subjectivity is only revealed when he or she expresses a point of view about something concrete like a statement (Robbins and Krueger, 2000).
4.5.2.2 Weaknesses of the Method
When respondents are provided with a certain concrete starting point like a statement the influence of the researcher is a concern. Because the researcher forms the statements it is possible that the own views and opinions influence the formation. This dangers the objectivity of the researcher and the validity of the research results (Robbins & Krueger, 2000). It is difficult to completely eliminate this problem. But as long as there is awareness of this fact and the researcher minimalizes this phenomenon, than Q-sorting can be a useful method to look at the subjectivity of individuals or in other words the views and opinions of respondents (Robbins and Krueger, 2000). To minimalize the bias effect of the researcher the statements were formed on the basis of the pilot interviews in combination with existing theories around housing tenure choices. In addition there was the opportunity for all respondents at the end of every ranking interview to mention possible forgotten factors that had played a role in their housing tenure choice (Bracken & Fischel, 2006).
4.5.2.3 Strengths of the Method
One of the strengths of the Q-sorting method is that it forces respondents to really make a choice in which statements they give the highest value. This contrary to R-methods like surveys and likers scales, where it is possible to give statement the same value (Robbins and Krueger, 2000; Ten Klooster et al., 2008). In the previous section problems with the bias of the researcher were pointed out in other words this means that the research results can be rather subjective. The subjectivity of research results is a common critique of qualitative research (Bryman, 2012; Yin, 2014). Q-sorting is a method that tries to bring structure into qualitative research (Bracken & Fischel, 2006; Ten Klooster et al., 2008). Q-sorting is used in this research to provide a structured overview of the factors that influence housing tenure choices of household that have become a home owner. Q-sorting add another element, Q-sorting is also focussed on providing insights in which factors are ranked higher than others. These two elements are the reasons why the Q-sorting method Is used and not only in depth interviewing. On the basis of only in depth interviews it is hard to say anything about the weight of factors in the housing tenure choices in this research. The Q-sorting in this research process is testing the pilot interviews and the literature and tries to provide another perspective in addition to just in depth interviews, this can be seen as the deductive aspect of the research.
4.5.2.4 The Formation of the Statements
To be able to use the Q-sorting method it is necessary to create statement to rank for the respondents. The creation of the statements is based on the answers of the first two sub questions. In creating the statements the bias of the pilot interviews has to be considered. Choices about which factors to include in the statements had to be made. Important is to argument why these specific choices were made and which consequences they have. In this research 22 statements were formed. In the result section 5.3.1 the formation of the statements will be discussed in more detail.
13
4.5.2.5 The Ranking Interviews
22 statements were produced to be ranked by households in a Q-sorting matrix (see figure 1). Ten households have ranked the statements in the matrix. The households ranked the statements to importance. The highest ranked statements are on the right (+3) and the lowest on the left (-3). Figure 1: Q-sorting Matrix
Source: Robbins and Krueger, 2000; Adapted by the Author, 2016.
The respondents of the ranking interviews were found by the use of snowball sampling as well. In the previous section (4.5.1) the weaknesses off this method are already discussed there. Ten ranking interviews were held therefore the ranking interviews are less biased than the pilot interviews. But of course the variation in the sample still has to be considered. In table 1 the core characteristics of the sample are presented to provide an insight in the variation of the sample.
The respondents differ in age, household composition and they differ in which year they have bought a house. Multiple authors in the theoretic framework point out that age, household composition and lifestyle choices are of influence on housing tenure choices (Mckee et al., 2015; Crawford & Mckee, 2016; Augustyniak et al., 2013; Coolen et al., 2002). These factors are not the focus of this research, with the exception of changes in household composition. It is necessary to be aware of that these factors or in other words characteristics of the households influence the housing tenure choices of these household. In table 3 there is presented an overview of the characteristics of the sample. In this table the year of buying of the house is also included. This because in every year economic
14
In the results section there will be more attention for the influence of the characteristics of the sample on the research results and the focus will be on for which statements this can have important
consequences. Not for every statement there will be a discussion of the influence of the mentioned factors and their influence, because this is not possible to do because the lack of information on this and for practical reasons. But some examples will be given in the results section where it is very likely that age, household composition, life style choices and the year of buying play a vital role.
Table 3: Characteristics of the Sample
Age 18-35 4 35-45 2 45-50 1 50-60 2 60+ 1 Year of Buying 2008 0 2009 1 2010 1 2011 3 2012 0 2013 0 2014 0 2015 3 2016 2 Household Composition Single 3 Multiple 2
Multiple with kids 5
Source: Author, 2017.
4.5.3 Sub Question 4
This question is mainly a preparation towards the conclusion of the research. The ranking results that are presented in the next chapter are put in perspective with the literature in the theoretic framework. The focus is on similarities and remarkable differences.
15
5. Results
In this chapter the research results are documented. This will be done per sub question.
5.1 Results Sub Question 1
In the methods section we mentioned that the first step in the empiric research process was doing three pilot interviews to analyse the different factors involved in the housing tenure choice of households to buy a house. In this section the economic factors that are playing a role in the housing tenure choices of households are displayed. The focus is on if the economic factors correspond with the literature or that additions are necessary. To structure the result the same division as in the theoretic framework is used, this a logical structure because the results and the relation with the literature are a central focus point. To show the exact views and opinions of the respondents important quotes are displayed.
5.1.1 Rational Choice Theory and Economic Benefits
The first economic factor that was mentioned in the pilot interviews was the low interest rate. The respondents stated that because of the low interest rate buying was financially more attractive than renting. The mortgage tax deduction was an tax advantage for the respondents, all three mentioned it as being a stimulant to buy. “The interest rate was very low when I bought a house and this made it
financially more attractive to buy a house than to rent again. Also the mortgage tax reduction made it tax wise more attractive” (Theun, 28 years old). These result can be related to the theory of Mills (1990),
the respondents based their housing tenure choice to become a home owner on what was the most beneficial economic option. Aalbers (2008) states that buying a house becomes more and more
associated with the economic benefits owning your own home can provide. Buying a house is seen as an investment, the focus is less on the social perspective of having a roof over your head and a sense of home. In short housing has become more economic (Aalbers, 2008). During the pilot interviews the interviewees did not mention that they saw buying a house as an investment. When I asked about this they all stated that they did not consider this when they bought their houses, but Christine (45 years old) stated that: “she could imagine that this could be an important reason for other households to buy”. These results show a weakening of the dominant economic view on buying a house that is presented by Aalbers (2008).
5.1.2 Housing Aspirations and Housing Ladder
The housing aspirations theory is mainly about constraints and opportunities that households face when making a housing tenure choice (Mckee et al., 2015; Crawford & Mckee, 2016). Different expressions of the respondents can be fit into this theory. Income is an important economic factor in the literature related to housing tenure choices. From the pilot interviews income is mostly related to the social
16
housing sector. All three pilot interviewees stated that their income was too high to access social renting.
My income is too high to be able to live in a social renting home so I was forced to look at other possibilities (Christine, 45 years old). This basically means that this a constraint on social housing. The
interviewees are forced to look at other living options and this leads to looking at the private rental sector or the buying sector. Renting in the private sector was financially less attractive than buying a house. Another constraint was the lack of supply of affordable (private) rental homes. “In the region
where I want to live, Amsterdam and surrounding cities, there is not that much rental supply. I am not able to get a social rental home and there are not that much private rented houses on the market and when there is some supply it is more expensive than buying a house” (Theun, 28 years old). “I needed to move, because of my divorce and social renting was not an option so I had to look at other options and soon it became clear that there was way more supply in the buying sector than there was private rental supply” (Christine, 45 years old).
For one of the pilot respondents the need for more living space was a prominent reason to buy a house.
“When you live in a small rental home you eventually start thinking about that it would be nice to have a little more space” (Theun, 28 years old). The need for more space can be seen as improving the living
situation. This is in line with the housing ladder theory, households want to improve their living situation but are dependable upon their resources that are influences by social factors like age and marital status (Morrow-Jones & Wenning, 2005). Another respondent stated that moving had made her living situation better and called her new home a “step up”: “I am very happy with my new home and I think it is a step
up in relation to my previous living situation” (Vivian, 62 years old). This quote resembles the previous
mentioned housing ladder theory.
5.1.3 Current Tenure/Previous Living Situation
Coolen et al (2002) state that current tenure or in other words the previous living situation influences the housing tenure choices of households. In the pilot interviews is this influence also discussed.
Christine and Vivian stated that in their previous living situation they owned their home and that this was an impulse to buy again. “My home before this was a house I bought as well for me it was a logical
step to buy again” (Vivian, 62 years old). Remarkable is the fact that in the pilot interviews the current
tenure is home ownership. Out of the pilot interviews it does not become distinctively clear how other tenures influence the housing tenure choices of households that became home owners.
5.1.4 Pension and Old Age Care
Toussaint and Elsinga (2010) has researched the role of home ownership in relation to pensions and old age care needs. On this topic point the importance of age is clearly visible and this corresponds with the results presented by Toussaint and Elsinga (2010). Theun (28 years old) stated: “that he did not think
about buying a house in relation to a pension. I am way too young to already thinks about those things”. “I can certainly imagine I can use my home as a part of my pension, I can imagine moving back to rental home and use the money that becomes free by selling my home to satisfy my needs at older age”
(Christine, 45 years old). But all three interviewees stated that the home would never be the primary part of their pension and they all had other arrangements for this as well. This could be associated with the relatively good pensions in the Netherlands (Trouw, 2015; Alessie & Kapteyn, 2001).
17
5.1.5 Bad Mortgage Terms
A factor that was not mentioned in the theoretic framework, but came up in the pilot interviews is concerned with bad mortgage terms.
A very important reason was the fact that my previous mortgage had bad terms. It was a so called “Woekerpolis” and I wanted to get rid of those terms so I decided to buy a new house with a new mortgage” (Vivian, 62 years old). It is imaginable that bad mortgage terms can be a good reason for
people to buy a new home. Especially for the people who have bought their houses in the times when a lot of more risky mortgages were introduced (Bratt, 2012).
5.1.6 Interpreting the Results
It has to be kept in mind that there is of course a lot of bias in the pilot interviews due to the low amount of interviewees and highly selective nature of snowball sampling. In addition the subjectivity of the researcher has to be kept in mind as well. As already seen economic considerations play an important role. But it already becomes clear that economic considerations are almost never purely economic, social considerations play almost always a role as well. As an example we saw that divorce can lead to the situation that buying a house is the only economic option in the eyes of the respondent. And therefore it becomes clear that people do not make decision based on only rational economic choice. Social reasons are just as important as will be shown in the next section.
5.2 Sub Question 2
In the previous section the economic factors that play a role in the housing tenure choices of households to become a home owner were displayed and at the end it became clear that social considerations are already important we look at economic factors. But social factors are important on their own deserve consideration as well. Just as by considering the economic factors the structure of the social factors in the theoretic framework is used to put the results in perspective with the literature. Important quotes are used to show the views and opinions of the respondents.
5.2.1 Social Herding
Baddeley (2011) mainly focusses on the term social herding. This means that the housing tenure decisions of household are strongly influenced by their environments, family and friends. At first the interviewees said that there decisions were not based on the influence of their environment, friends and family. But after some more time spend on the matter they all stated that they could imagine that it might have played a role unconsciously. This suggest that it might prove problematic for respondents themselves to really provide an insight how much their surroundings influenced their housing tenure choices.
5.2.2 Normalisation of Home Ownership
Gurney (1999) discusses different elements of the normalisation of home ownership. The sub sections below illustrate different elements of the normalisation.
5.2.2.1 Normalisation of Home Ownership: Status
Gurney (1999) mentions that people see the owning of a home as a status symbol. Coolen et al. (2002) come to the same finding, status can be a reason for households to buy a house. All three interviews strongly expressed that they did not buy a house because they thought I would give them more status in
18
the eyes of others. But one responded said that he could imagine that other people could see it this way:
“I do not think that owning my home means that I will have more status in the eyes of others, but I can imagine that some people would think this way” (Theun, 28 years old). Another respondent stated: “I do not think that owning your own home brings you more status than when you are a renter” (Vivian, 65
years old). This a weakening of the view that Gurney (1999) shows, it seems that it might be the case that owning your own home is less associated with status in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and in the Netherlands.
5.2.2.2 Normalisation of Home Ownership: Personal Freedom
A prominent statement in the pilot interviews was that owning your own home meant you had more freedom to do with the home what you want. This was strongly expressed by all the three respondents.
“When you own your own home you get the opportunity to do with it what you want and make it your own. This is less the case when you rent” (Theun, 28 years old). This vision is related to the personal
freedom argument of Gurney (1999). He stated that the normalisation trend is that owning your own home brings people more personal freedom in life. In the pilot interviews this only expressed in relation to the house and not to other things in life. So there is a similarity with Gurney (1999) but also a clear difference.
5.2.2.3 Normalisation of Home Ownership: Renting Suitable for a Certain Period in Life
The norm in Great Britain according to Gurney (1999) is: renting is something that is only suitable for a certain period in life when you are a student or a starter. The views of the interviews regarding this view differed. Vivian (65 years old) stated that see did not agree with this at all: “I have rented the biggest
amount of my life and I would not say that it is not suitable for other periods in life, renting has also a lot of advantages and is for some households more appropriate”. Theun (28 years old): “I do not agree with this statement in general, because I think this is different for everyone on the basis of your life choices. But for me it is true, I bought a home because I felt that renting was no longer the most suitable living arrangement for me”. It seems that this norm is shared in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and in the
Netherlands on some level, but that there are contractionary views.
5.2.2.4 Normalisation of Home Ownership: Goal in Life
Gurney (1999) shows that in Great Britain buying a house is a life goal and considered to be the normal choice to make eventually. Vivian (65 years old) and Theun (28 years old) said that they did not agree with this view and that this was not associated with their housing tenure choices. On the other hand: Christine (45 years old) stated: “I think most people want to buy a house in the end, I hope that my
children still are able to buy a house in the future”. Striking is that buying a house as a life goal is viewed
more negative than that renting is only suitable for a certain starting period in life. This seems contrasting.
5.2.2.5 Normalisation of Home Ownership: Attachment to the Neighbourhood/Place
Another norm that Gurney (1999) presents is: when people own their own home they will have more attachment to the neighbourhood/place/area where the house is located. The thought on this topic were divided. Vivian (62, years old) did not agree with this view: “I have rented for a long period in my
life and I do not feel more attached to the place where I live now that I live in a house that I own”. On the
other hand, another respondent commented: “I agree with this view I think that when you buy a house it
is more permanent and this automatically leads to more attachment to where your house is located”
19
social rental housing. I myself see a clear difference in how people threat their house and their living environment. In my eyes people who live in social housing do not care as much about their
neighbourhood as people who own their houses” (Christine, 45 years old). From these results it becomes
clear that the norm can be detected in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and in the Netherlands, but again there are important contrary voices.
5.2.2.6 Normalisation of Home Ownership: Family Life
People tend to buy a home when they start a family and that owner occupied housing is seen as more suitable for family life than renting is a norm in Great Britain (Gurney, 1999). From the pilot interviews can been seen that this was not the view of the respondents and that this was not something they agreed with or was a reason to buy a house for them. “I do not think that owner occupied housing is
more suitable for families. I think my children would be just as happy in a rental home as in the house I have bought” (Christine, 45 years old). In addition the question was if the interviewees had bought their
houses because of a family addition in the form of children. This was not the case for the three interviewees, but they stated that they could imagine that I could be an important reason to want to move and buy a house.
5.2.3 Forced Step Due to Familial Changes
Christine (45 years old) was forced to move due to a divorce. This shows that social events in life can have a forced impact on housing tenure choices. Wind and Dewilde (2016) show in their paper that divorce influences housing tenure choices and especially those of woman. A lot of woman face
difficulties in finding affordable housing and have trouble to enter home ownership. But of course there are other familial changes that can influence the housing tenure choice to buy, these are already mentioned in section 2.2.2.3.
5.2.4 Change of Living Situation/Environment/Location
Something stood out in the pilot interviews that was not a central and specific topic in the literature. Vivian (65 years old) and Theun (28 years old) stated strongly that their main reason to move was the need for another living situation, living environment and living location. “For me the main reason to
move was that I was ready for a new living situation” (Theun, 28 years old). “I wanted to move, because I wanted to live closer to work and facilities and I wanted a change of environment” (Vivian, 65 years old).
This suggest that when households made the housing tenure choices they first had an impulse that they wanted change and then started to look at other economic and social factors. The impulse at first is a social impulse and actually a logical one. Households who make the decision to make changes, it is not logical to move when you do not want to move (expect maybe in cases where the moves are forced as discussed in section 5.2.2.7).
5.3 Sub question 3
While the analysis above has provided some insight into which economic and social factors play a role in the housing tenure choices of households, it is important to wonder which factors have more weight than others. Sub question 3 is concerned with how households rank the different economic and social factors that derived from the first two sub questions. In the methods section (4.5.2.1) has been payed attention to the research method that is used to do this, Q-sorting. First some more attention is payed to the formation of the statements as promised in section 4.5.2.4. After that the value that is asserted to the statements by the ranking of the households, is presented.
20
5.3.1 Formation of the Statements
On the basis of the literature in the theoretic framework and the pilot interviews 22 statements were created. The formation of the statements was a process of making choices. In table 1 the 22 statements are presented. Basically all the core factors from the first two sub questions and the theoretic framework are included. Only the family life assumption has not been included in the statements, because in the pilot interviews this was seen as strongly not agreeable for all three respondents. Some statements have an overlap, this is due to the fact that some statements can be related to each other. For instance a family addition can lead to wanting a bigger house.
Table 1: Statements
1. The low interest rate was a reason to buy a house. 2. Buying a house is relatively cheaper than renting. 3. Owning of a home gives status.
4. The mortgage tax deduction makes buying your home more financially attractive than renting. 5. Owning your own house gives you more freedom to do with your house what you want. 6. Renting is suitable for a certain (starting) period in life.
7. Buying a house is a goal in life
8. The fact that many households in my environment own their own home, has stimulated me to buy a house as well.
9. The need for more space was a reason to buy a house.
10. In my previous living situation I owned my home, so this was a reason for me to buy again. 11. My income is too high to qualify for a social rental home.
12. My previous mortgage had bad terms and therefore I wanted to buy again with an new mortgage.
13. There is more owner occupied housing supply than renting supply on the housing market (private and social renting).
14. Buying a house was a forced step due to a family situation (for instance divorce). 15. I bought my house with in mind my pension or old age care.
16. The buying of the house gives me the step up to improve my living situation now and in the future.
17. Buying a house provides more personal freedom.
18. When you buy a house you have more attachment with the neighbourhood/environment/place where your house is located. 19. I find it desirable to eventually buy a house in life.
20. I have bought a house, because I was ready for another living situation/ living environment/living location.
21. I bought a house as an investment.
22. I bought a house because of a family addition (children).
Source: Autor, 2016. * Due to the fact that all the interviews spoke Dutch were the statements originally made in Dutch.
21
5.3.2 Valuation of the Statements
The ten interviewees ranked the 22 statements in the Q-sorting matrix that is shown in figure 1.The value +3 means that the statement was a factor that was the most important in the housing tenure choice decision making process and the value -3 means that a factor was not applicable to their case or the least important. Because of the fact that there are 22 statements and 22 places in the matrix were they can be placed it can be the case that statements that are not applicable for households are also placed under -2 due to the fact that there is not another about and the interviewees had to make a choice. The interviewees had the change to add factors they missed at the end of valuation (see section 4.5.2.2), but all respondents stated that they did not miss anything. This is strengthens the statement formation and the validity of the research results.
Figure 2: Q-sorting Matrix
Source: Robbins and Krueger, 2000; Adapted by the Author, 2016.
The ranking of the statements meant that every statement gets a value. The assumption is that the higher this value is, the more weight it has in the housing tenure choices of households. The overview of the ranking results is presented in table 2. In appendix 1 there is displayed a graphic overview as well. The ranking of the statement makes it possible to say something about which factors are more important than other. The pilot interviews and qualitative in depth interviews in general do not pos es this quality (Bryman, 2012).
Table 2: Value of the Statements
20. I have bought a house, because I was ready for another living situation/ living environment/living location.
19 13. There is more owner occupied housing supply than renting supply on the
housing market (private and social renting).
14 16. The buying of the house gives me the step up to improve my living situation
now and in the future.
13 5. Owning your own house gives you more freedom to do with your house what 10
22 you want.
2. Buying a house is relatively cheaper than renting. 9
1. The low interest rate was a reason to buy a house. 8
9. The need for more space was a reason to buy a house. 7
17. Buying a house provides more personal freedom. 6
19. I find it desirable to eventually buy a house in life. 4
21. I bought a house as an investment. 4
11. My income is too high to qualify for a social rental home. 3 22. I bought a house because of a family addition (children). 3
7. Buying a house is a goal in life. -2
18. When you buy a house you have more attachment with the neighbourhood/environment/place where your house is located
-2 4. The mortgage tax deduction makes buying your home more financially
attractive than renting.
-5 6. Renting is suitable for a certain (starting) period in life. -7 8. The fact that many households in my environment own their own home, has
stimulated me to buy a house as well.
-7 15. I bought my house with in mind my pension or old age care. -7 14. Buying a house was a forced step due to a family situation (for instance
divorce).
-10 10. In my previous living situation I owned my home, so this was a reason for me
to buy again.
-13
3. Owning of a home gives status. -15
12. My previous mortgage had bad terms and therefore I wanted to buy again with an new mortgage.
-18
Source: Autor, 2016.*The number of the statements do not have any meaning, there are purely used
for the structure of the analysis.
5.3.3 Positive Factors
The most highly rated statement in general is the statement concerning the fact that people have bought a house, because the wanted another living situation/environment/location. After this with a value of 14 and 13 are the statement concerning the lack of renting supply on the housing market and the statement about the housing ladder and the improvement of the living situation now and in the future. The statement about the freedom to with your house what you want is also ranked relatively high in general with a value of 10.
The low interest rate and the fact that buying is more financially attractive than renting have a value of 8 and 9. Next is the statement about the need for more space with the value of 7. And the personal freedom statement has a value of 6. Then there are the lower ranked statements, but these still have a positive value. These are the investment statement, the family addition statement, the income is too high to qualify for social renting statement and the desirable to buy a house even tually in life statement. These statements are all ranked with al value of 3 or 4.
5.3.4 Negative Factors
The factors that has the lowest value is the statement concerning the bad mortgages terms, with a value of -18. Following are the statements concerning status (-15), previous living situation (-13) and the forced step due to a family situation (-10).
23
Then there are negative statements, but with a higher value. The statements concerning attachment to the neighbourhood/environment/place and buying as a goal in life have the value of -2. The mortgage tax deduction statement has the value of -5. The following statements have a value of -7: the renting is only suitable for a certain period in life statement, the influence of the surrounding statement and the pension statement.
5.3.5 Influence of the Characteristic of the Sample
In the ranking interview section (4.5.2.5) the influence of the sample is mentioned. In this section some examples of the influence of the characteristics will be displayed.
Age is an factor for instance with the pension and family addition statement. When people get older they tend to think more about their pensions and old age care. Family additions are subjected to age as well, usually family additions are bounded to a certain time period in life.
The year of buying is related to the statements that are about economic factors like the interest rate, supply on the housing market, income etc. These economic circumstances can change rapidly and it is safe to say that the economic circumstances right after the crisis were very different from the
circumstances nowadays (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012).
Lifestyle choices are for example important in relation to the status, goal in life and renting as suitable for a starting period in life statement. Households with a more free lifestyle choice, for example households who have to move a lot due to work can have a whole different view on buying a house than households who are attached to a certain place.
Now that an overview of the research results has been presented, is it necessary to relate these results to the literature presented in the theoretic framework. By doing this it becomes possible to in the end be able to present results that really contributes to the scientific discussion regarding the housing tenure decisions of households that became home owners.
5.4 Sub question 4
The focus of this sub question is relating the ranking results to the literature in the theoretic framework (chapter 2). First the results will be put in perspective with the micro perspective literature and after this attention will be payed to the macro perspective literature.
5.4.1 Positive Factors and Micro Perspective Literature
5.4.1.1 Change of Living Situation/Environment/Location
The highest ranked statement is the statement that states that households move because they want a change of living situation/living environment/living location. This statement cannot be found explicit in the theoretic framework. It implies that people first have the impulse that they want to change their current living situation and then tend to look at other social and economic factors that influence their housing tenure choice. It can be argued that the statement has some similarity with the housing aspirations theory presented by Mckee et al. (2015) and Crawford and Mckee (2016). Households have certain housing aspirations (in this case change of living environment) and there are economic
24
constraints and opportunities (influenced by social factors) in realising these housing aspirations. But still the explicit focus on the wanting of change is something that is missing in the housing aspirations theory.
5.4.1.2 Lack of Rental Supply
The statement concerning the lack of rental supply on the housing market (14) can be put in the framework of the theories of Mckee et al. (2015) and Crawford and Mckee (2016). The lack of rental supply on the housing market is a constraint, there is more buying supply therefore people are pushed in to the home ownership section. Augustyniak at al. (2013) mention housing market supply as a key factor of housing tenure choices. The lack of rental supply suggest that households do not necessarily buy because they prefer to buy, but that is strongly related to the lack of other options available on the housing market.
5.4.1.3 Housing Ladder
The housing ladder statement (13) is an expression of the fact that people inherently always want to improve their living situation and buy a house to accomplish this. In doing this they find constraints and opportunities (Crawford & Mckee, 2016; Mckee et al., (2015). The need for more space statement is an economic factor and is in agreement with the housing aspirations theory (Mckee et al., 2015; Crawford & Mckee, 2016). People have certain housing aspirations (they want to live bigger) and they face
opportunities and constraints in realising this.
5.4.1.4 Freedom of Decoration and Personal Freedom
The statement concerning that owning your own home means you have more freedom to do with it what you want has a ranking of 10. This has some connection with Gurney (1999), he states that that owning your own home brings more personal freedom in relation to the house but also in general. But the personal freedom statement is only ranked with a value of 6. This suggest that the influence of the freedom to do with your house what you want is of a stronger influence on the housing tenure choices of the ranking respondents than personal freedom in general. The ranking results therefore show a weakening of the personal freedom statement of Gurney (1999).
5.4.1.5 Economic Benefits & Investment
The economic related statements concerning the low interest rate and the financially relative attraction of buying versus renting with a value of 8 and 9 correspond with the theory of Mills (1990). But what is it is remarkable that these are ranked not as high as maybe would be expected according to the theory of Mills (1990) according to this theory economic factors are of a high influence on the basis of the rational choice theory. The expectation would be that these factors are the first concerns for households when making housing tenure choices, but this not case in the ranking interviews. The ranking results show that the factors are relatively important (with a value of 8 and 9), but not the most important in the housing tenure choices of households in this research. The investment can be related to the theory of Mills (1990) and Aalbers (2008). Households buy a house because it is rational and economic the choice the provides the most economic benefit and because housing has become more and more and economic good or in other words an investment, but again the investment does not relatively rank high. It only got a value of 4. This suggest that households do not make the housing tenure choice to buy purely on the basis of economic rational choice, but that there are first other social/economic factors involved. In addition it also suggest that people do not see a house as an investment alone, but also still as a home.
25
5.4.1.6 Renting as Desirable Outcome in Life
The statement concerning the buying a house as a desirable outcome in life is ranked with the value of 4. Gurney (1999) states strongly that in Great Britain the owning of a home is seen as socially desirable and a goal in life. This ranking suggest that in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and in the Netherlands this is less the case.
5.4.1.7 Family Addition
The family addition statement (3) is not highly ranked in the results. In the theoretic framework different authors mentioned that household composition and changes in this composition influence housing tenure choices (Mckee et al., 2015; Crawford & Mckee, 2016; Augustyniak et al., 2013; Coolen et al., 2002). But of course is the family addition only one form of household composition change and family addition in the form of children will be something that is depended on the age off the household. In this case it is highly likely that characteristics of the sample here influence the ranking. A family addition can certain a reason for people to move, but this is of course not applicable to everyone.
5.4.1.8 Income and Social Housing
In addition to the lack of rental supply in the previous section is the statement concerning income and social housing (3) If the income is too high to access social this is constraint on the housing tenure choices (Mckee et al., 2015; Crawford & Mckee, 2016). This forces households to either rent in the private sector or buy. The private sector is often relatively more expensive and therefore buying becomes the logical choices for many households, this trend is clearly visible in the ranking results (Ronald & Elsinga, 2012).
5.4.2 Negative Factors and Micro Perspective Literature
5.4.2.1 Bad Mortgage Terms
The statement about bad mortgage terms is not explicitly found in the literature on housing tenure choices, this logical because the literature in the theoretic framework is about all housing tenure choices and not just about buying a house. The ranking of this statement is -18 and the lowest of all. This
suggests this factor has little to none influence in this study.
5.4.2.2 Status
The status statement is ranked very negative (-15), this means that the housing of tenure choices of the households in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area were barely influenced by this element. In the
normalisation theory of Gurney (1999) this is a strong component. Status in Great Britain is an important element when buying a house. It seems to be that this is not the case in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and in the Netherlands.
5.4.2.3 Home ownership as Previous Tenure
The previous living statement is ranked -13. In the literature current tenure is mentioned by Augustyniak et al. (2013) and by Coolen et al. (2002). It can also be put in line with the housing aspirations literature. People have a current tenure and they want to change this and face constraints and opportunities (Mckee et al., 2015; Crawford & Mckee, 2016). In this research the statement is only focused on the previous living situation being homeownership, because this was mentioned explicit in the pilot
