Arts, Faculty of
Geography, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Pratt, Geraldine J.
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
The incorporation thesis, which links homeownership and conservative political values, was examined. A dearth of empirical work, as well as the complexity of the argument, which integrates economic, political and social factors, necessitated a complex research design. This included a consideration of the material advantages of homeownership in the Vancouver, British Columbia housing market to establish that homeownership has been a significant source of revenue for the homeowner, through both house price inflation and government subsidisation. Claims concerning the association between homeownership and conservative political attitudes were then evaluated by means of an urban national sample of roughly 2000 publicly available interviews, collected in 1979 as part of the Social Change in Canada study. Housing class, discriminating between renters, mortgaged homeowners and outright homeowners, was consistently associated with political behaviours and attitudes, which ranged from objective measures such as political party affiliation to subjective indicators including attitudes towards planning life ahead. The independent significance of housing class in relation to attitudes was established by controlling for class, SES, household income, education and life-cycle. A striking outcome of this analysis was the finding that the association between housing tenure and political attitudes or behaviour was indeed evident, but only within particular social classes, household income groups and stages of life-cycle. A social profile was developed of those for whom housing class was especially associated with attitudes: low income household heads in skilled nonmanual occupational categories, whose family obligations had perhaps forced them into a marginal homeownership position. In contrast, no association between housing class and political orientation was noted for skilled manual workers. This contrast was taken into a sample of 100 in depth interviews with homeowners and renters in an outer Vancouver suburb in order to understand the processes lying behind the associations. The patterns of association noted for the larger data set were confirmed and linked to institutional memberships. Additional insight from the qualitative depth interviews include an understanding of the links between self-employment and rental status, as well as family life-style choices and housing tenure. The findings of this study throw into question the line of causal imputation advanced by incorporation theorists, while supporting the consumption sector approach to urban politics.
AN APPRAISAL OF THE INCORPORATION THESIS -HOUSING TENURE AND POLITICAL VALUES IN URBAN CANADA By G e r a l d i n e J . P r a t t B . S c , The U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1977 M . A . , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Co lumbia , 1980 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Geography We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d s t andard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May 1984 © G e r a l d i n e J . P r a t t , 1984 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publi c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Geography The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 i i ABSTRACT The i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s , which l i n k s homeownership and c o n s e r v a t i v e p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s , was examined. A d e a r t h of e m p i r i c a l work, as w e l l as the c o m p l e x i t y of the argument, which i n t e g r a t e s economic , p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l f a c t o r s , n e c e s s i t a t e d a complex r e s e a r c h d e s i g n . T h i s i n c l u d e d a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the m a t e r i a l advantages of homeownership i n the Vancouver , B r i t i s h Columbia hous ing market to e s t a b l i s h t h a t homeownership has been a s i g n i f i c a n t source of revenue f o r the homeowner, through both house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n and government s u b s i d i s a t i o n . C l a ims c o n c e r n i n g the a s s o c i a t i o n between homeownership and c o n s e r v a t i v e p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s were then e v a l u a t e d by means of an urban n a t i o n a l sample of r o u g h l y 2000 p u b l i c l y a v a i l a b l e i n t e r v i e w s , c o l l e c t e d i n 1979 as pa r t of the S o c i a l Change i n Canada s t u d y . Housing c l a s s , d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between r e n t e r s , mortgaged homeowners and out -r i g h t homeowners, was c o n s i s t e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p o l i t i c a l behav iour s and a t t i t u d e s , which ranged from o b j e c t i v e measures such as p o l i t i c a l p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n to s u b j e c t i v e i n d i c a t o r s i n c l u d i n g a t t i t u d e s towards p l a n n i n g l i f e ahead. The independent s i g n i f i c a n c e of hous ing c l a s s i n r e l a t i o n to a t t i -tudes was e s t a b l i s h e d by c o n t r o l l i n g for c l a s s , SES, household income, e d u c a t i o n and l i f e - c y c l e . A s t r i k i n g outcome of t h i s a n a l y s i s was the f i n d i n g tha t the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing tenure and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s or behav iour was indeed e v i -dent , but o n l y w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l c l a s s e s , household income groups and s tages of l i f e - c y c l e . A s o c i a l p r o f i l e was deve loped of those for whom hous ing c l a s s was e s p e c i a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t t i t u d e s : low income household heads i n s k i l l e d nonmanual o c c u p a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , whose f a m i l y o b l i -g a t i o n s had perhaps f o r c e d them i n t o a m a r g i n a l homeownership p o s i t i o n . In c o n t r a s t , no a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n was noted for s k i l l e d manual worker s . T h i s c o n t r a s t was taken i n t o a sample of 100 i n depth i n t e r v i e w s w i t h homeowners and r e n t e r s i n an outer Vancouver suburb i n order to unders tand the p roce s se s l y i n g behind the a s s o c i a t i o n s . The p a t t e r n s of a s s o c i a t i o n noted for the l a r g e r data set were conf i rmed and l i n k e d to i n s t i t u t i o n a l memberships. A d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t from the q u a l i t a t i v e depth i n t e r v i e w s i n c l u d e an under s t and ing of the l i n k s between s e l f -employment and r e n t a l s t a t u s , as w e l l as f a m i l y l i f e - s t y l e c h o i c e s and hous ing t e n u r e . The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study throw i n t o q u e s t i o n the l i n e of c a u s a l i m p u t a t i o n advanced by i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s , w h i l e s u p p o r t i n g the consumption s e c t o r approach to urban p o l i t i c s . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES xx LIST OF MAPS x x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xx i i CHAPTER 1 THE INCORPORATION THESIS AS A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL PROBLEM 1 The Ideo logy of Homeownership as an I n c o r p o r a t i v e D e v i c e - A M a r x i s t P e r -s p e c t i v e 6 P r o c e s s e s of I n c o r p o r a t i o n : Housing Cos t s 12 Weberian C r i t i q u e of the I n c o r p o r a t i o n 29 T h e s i s - The Importance of the House as an Investment Ideo logy and I n c o r p o r a t i o n - Unexamined 42 E f f e c t s as Causes , Causes as Reasons Research Prolegmenon 45 CHAPTER 2 THE OBJECTIVE BASE FOR HOUSING TENURE FORMS 48 AS CONSUMPTION SECTORS House P r i c e I n f l a t i o n A c r o s s Housing 50 Submarkets Weal th Accumulaton Through Homeownership as 64 Compared to Other C o n v e n t i o n a l Forms of Investment Government S u b s i d i s a t i o n by Tenure 71 1. F e d e r a l Government I n i t i a t i v e s 73 2. P r o v i n c i a l Government S u b s i d i s a t i o n 83 Mortgage Rates and G e n e r a l P r i c e I n f l a t i o n 87 The Quest ion of Need - Hous ing and R e n t a l 88 Cos t s L i m i t a t i o n s to G e n e r a l i s a t i o n s w i t h i n 92 Tenure C a t e g o r i e s 1 . Time of House Purchase 92 2. Mortgage Rates 94 3. C o n t r o l l e d and D e c o n t r o l l e d R e n t a l 110 Submarkets V T h e o r e t i c a l and P o l i t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s of 116 the C o n t r a s t between the Economic S i t u a -t i o n s of Tenants and Homeowners CHAPTER 3 SOCIAL CHANGE IN CANADA DATA SET 123 The Survey Data Set 125 P a r t i t i o n i n g of the Sample 131 1. F i v e Measures of S t r a t i f i c a t i o n - 131 c l a s s , SES, e d u c a t i o n , household income and l i f e - c y c l e 2. Housing C l a s s and Hous ing Cos t s 143 A n a l y t i c Method 150 C o r r e l a t i o n s Amongst S t r a t i f i c a t i o n 153 Measures and Hous ing V a r i a b l e s 1. A s s o c i a t i o n s Amongst S t r a t i f i c a t i o n 153 Measures 2. A s s o c i a t i o n s Between S t r a t i f i c a t i o n 157 V a r i a b l e s and Hous ing Measures 3. A s s o c i a t i o n s Between Hous ing C l a s s and 164 D i f f e r e n t C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s , Household Income C o n t r o l l e d 4. A s s o c i a t i o n s Between Hous ing C l a s s and 171 S p a t i a l V a r i a b l e s 5. Summary of R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between S t r a - 171 t i f i c a t i o n and Hous ing Measures CHAPTER 4 HOUSING CLASS, EMPLOYMENT STABILITY AND 175 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES - THE SOCIAL CHANGE IN CANADA DATA SET Hous ing C l a s s and Employment 176 1. Job M o b i l i t y 176 2. Union Membership, A t t e n d a n c e , and 181 O f f i c i a l Involvement 3. Employment of Spouse 183 Community Attachment 187 P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t y 190 P r o v i n c i a l and F e d e r a l P a r t y A f f i l i a t i o n 202 C l a s s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 210 A t t i t u d e s Towards the L e g i t i m a c y of V a r i o u s 215 Types of P r o t e s t v i CHAPTER 5 HOUSING CLASS AND BROAD ATTITUDINAL PER-SPECTIVES - THE SOCIAL CHANGE IN CANADA DATA SET 226 A t t i t u d e s Towards Economic I n e q u a l i t i e s and 227 R e d i s t r i b u t i o n Summary of R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Hous ing 248 and P o l i t i c a l A t t i t u d e s A t t i t u d e s Towards P e r s o n a l P l a n n i n g and 251 C o n t r o l Summarising G e n e r a l i s a t i o n s A c r o s s A l l 255 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items CHAPTER 6 THE INTERVIEW CONTEXT AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 276 S u r r e y , B r i t i s h Columbia - The G e o g r a p h i c a l 276 Context Method of Assembl ing Surrey Sample 294 CHAPTER 7 A PROFILE OF RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS Demographic Sketch of Surrey Sample Hous ing Tenure and Work H i s t o r y 301 302 31 1 Hous ing Tenure and Women's P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n 326 the Workforce CHAPTER 8 THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND 335 POLITICAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOUR IN SURREY, BRITISH COLUMBIA Formal P o l i t i c a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n 336 The Manual/Nonmanual D i s t i n c t i o n - Hous ing 353 as an E l e c t o r a l Issue S k i l l e d Manual and Nonmanual Workers - 361 L e g i t i m a c y of P r o t e s t around Hous ing I s sues S k i l l e d Manual and Nonmanual Workers - A 363 D i f f e r e n c e i n World View and the I n s t i t u t i o n a l L i n k Homeownership and I d e n t i t y - C o n t r a s t 369 Between S k i l l e d Manual and Nonmanual Workers v i i Renter s and P o l i t i c i s a t i o n Around Hous ing 377 I s sues 1. Renter B i a s Towards Homeownership 378 Programmes 2. Homeowner and Renter Support for 393 Government Involvement i n Hous ing I s sues Support for S o c i a l Wel fa re Programmes 398 Summary 404 CHAPTER 9 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE EMPIRICAL 407 STUDY Summary of Research Des ign and E m p i r i c a l 408 F i n d i n g s T h e o r e t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s 412 1. Homeownership as a Causa l F a c t o r i n 412 the Suppre s s ion of Working C l a s s Consc iousness 2. Meaning and S o c i a l I d e n t i t y as Aspec t s 414 of a Complete E x p l a n a t i o n 3. T h e o r e t i c a l S p e c i f i c i t y Through 418 E m p i r i c a l Study 4. Consumption S e c t o r s 422 5. A g a i n s t R e d u c t i o n i s m : The Means of 425 Consumption as an Independent Mode of S o c i a l S t r u c t u r a t i o n 6. M a r x i s t and Weberian Approaches - 430 T h e o r e t i c a l and M e t h o d o l o g i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s 7. F l u i d i t y of T h e o r e t i c a l C a t e g o r i e s 435 BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX I APPENDIX II CALCULATION OF HOUSING COSTS AND THE GAINS FROM ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS OPERATIONALISING MARXIST AND WEBERIAN CLASS DEFINITIONS 437 456 459 M a r x i s t C l a s s D e f i n i t i o n 459 Weberian S o c i a l C l a s s D e f i n i t i o n A p p l i e d 471 v i i i APPENDIX III EXACT WORDING OF SOCIAL CHANGE IN CANADA 476 QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS APPENDIX IV PATTERNS OF CONFOUNDING BETWEEN HOUSING 479 CLASS AND CONTROL VARIABLES APPENDIX V FOUR-WAY CROSS-TABULATIONS FOR SOCIAL 494 CHANGE IN CANADA DATA SET APPENDIX VI LETTER OF CONTACT AND QUESTIONNAIRE FOR 506 SURREY INTERVIEWS L e t t e r of Contac t 506 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 507 i x LIST OF TABLES TABLES PAGE 1.1 Owner-occupat ion r a t e s and aggregate i n d i c e s of 24 the w e l f a r e s t a t e : s e l e c t e d c a p i t a l i s t c o u n t r i e s . 2.1 Y e a r l y d i f f e r e n c e s in p r i c e i n d i c e s for hous ing in 56 d i f f e r e n t va lue c l a s s e s i n Vancouver , 1949-63. 2.2 Neighbourhood rank ings and s t andard s core s by 58 house p r i c e s for s e l e c t e d Vancouver ne ighbourhoods , 1965-1977. 2.3 Increa se s i n Vancouver house p r i c e s by a r e a , 1975- 63 1 983. 2.4 Annual hous ing and r e n t a l c o s t s for f i v e GVRD a r e a s . 67 2.5 The annua l d i f f e r e n c e between r e n t i n g and owning 68 p l u s the downpayment r e i n v e s t e d i n a l t e r n a t i v e forms of investment on an annual b a s i s , e a r n i n g s as of y e a r - e n d 1982($) . 2.6 Percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of f a m i l i e s and una t tached 69 i n d i v i d u a l s by tenure and s i z e of net worth or wea l th group , 1970 and 1977. 2.7 Percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of f a m i l i e s by s i z e of net 70 worth and income group , s p r i n g 1977. 2.8 F e d e r a l hous ing s u b s i d i e s , 1970-81. 75 2.9 F i s c a l year impact of mortgage and p r o p e r t y tax 78 c r e d i t proposed by P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e P a r t y , December 1979. 2.10 Summary of major f e d e r a l hous ing e x p e n d i t u r e s (1979) . 79 2.11 B r i t i s h Columbia hous ing s u b s i d i e s , 1976-1981. 86 2.12 S e l e c t e d i n t e r e s t r a t e s , 1971-1983. 89 2.13 The e f f e c t s of h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s at mortgage 98 r e n e w a l : Borrowers w i t h f i v e - y e a r - t e r m mortgages . 2.14 Unemployment t rends for B r i t i s h Columbia and 104 Vancouver CMA, 1971-1983. 2.15 R e n t a l i n c r e a s e s for Vancouver and s e l e c t e d 105 s u r r o u n d i n g m u n i c i p a l i t i e s (3 bedroom a p a r t m e n t s ) , 1976-1982. 2.16 Mortgage debt by income (averaged ac ro s s a s e l e c t i o n of Canadian c i t i e s ) , 1971-1978. 2.17 Mortgage debt by age of household head (averaged a c r o s s a s e l e c t i o n of Canadian c i t i e s ) , 1971-1976. 2.18 Rent l e v e l s for c o n t r o l l e d and d e c o n t r o l l e d 2 and 3 bedroom apartments in s e l e c t e d l o c a l areas of Vancouver and a d j o i n i n g m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , May 1982. 3.1 Percent change i n house p r i c e s by urban a r e a , 1971-76. 3.2 Percent change i n house p r i c e s by urban a rea (or s p e c i f i c urban ne ighbourhood) , August 1976 - June 1 979. 3.3 Percentage household heads male and spouses female . 3.4 Spouses ' c l a s s s t a n d i n g , c l a s s i f i e d by own o c c u p a t i o n s , in r e l a t i o n to household heads ' c l a s s s t a n d i n g . 3.5 Spouse ' s SES c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , by own o c c u p a t i o n , i n r e l a t i o n to SES c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of household head . 3.6 House p r i c e s and annual p r o p e r t y taxes i n s e l e c t e d urban ne ighbourhoods , June 1979. 3.7 Hous ing c l a s s by hous ing v a l u e . 3.8 Hous ing c l a s s by hous ing c o s t s as a p r o p o r t i o n of househo ld income. 3.9 Urban sample d i s t r i b u t i o n a c r o s s s t r a t i f i c a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s . 3.10 C l a s s by household income. 3.11 SES by househo ld income. 3.12 C l a s s and SES by e d u c a t i o n - head of households o n l y . 3.13 Hous ing c l a s s by household income. 3.14 Hous ing c o s t s by household income. 3.15 Hous ing c l a s s by l i f e - c y c l e . x i TABLE PAGE 3.16 Hous ing c o s t s by l i f e - c y c l e . 161 3.17 Hous ing c l a s s by c l a s s . 161 3.18 Hous ing c l a s s by SES. 162 3.19 Hous ing c l a s s by e d u c a t i o n . 163 3.20 Sy s temat i c b i a s e s i n terms of l i f e - c y c l e a c r o s s 165 hous ing c l a s s e s when househo ld income i s c o n t r o l l e d (household heads o n l y ) . 3.21 Sys temat i c b i a se s in terms of c l a s s a c r o s s hous ing 166 c l a s s e s when household income i s c o n t r o l l e d (household heads o n l y ) . 3.22 Sys temat i c b i a s e s in terms of SES ac ro s s hous ing 167 c l a s s e s when household income i s c o n t r o l l e d (head of households o n l y ) . 3.23 Sys temat ic confounding of hous ing c l a s s and 168 e d u c a t i o n when household income i s c o n t r o l l e d (head of households o n l y ) . 3.24 Sys temat i c b i a se s in terms of e t h n i c i t y a c r o s s 169 hous ing c l a s s e s wi th household income c o n t r o l l e d (household heads o n l y ) . 3.25 Hous ing c l a s s by house t y p e . 172 3.26 Housing c l a s s by house type by c i t y / s u b u r b 172 d i s t i n c t i o n . 3.27 S t r e n g t h of a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and 173 a l t e r n a t i v e c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . 4.1 S t r e n g t h of a s s o c i a t i o n between c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s 177 and year s wi th p re sen t employer as w e l l as yea r s i n p r e s e n t j o b . 4.2 Average responses for yea r s wi th pre sent employer 179 by hous ing c l a s s , c o n t r o l l i n g for c l a s s , SES, r e s p o n d e n t ' s age, l i f e - c y c l e , household income and educat i o n . 4.3 Rate of union membership and percent h o l d i n g 182 union o f f i c e ( responses of those w i t h un ion where work) . 4.4 Percentage of spouses working by c l a s s and SES, 183 househo ld heads o n l y . x i i TABLE PAGE 4.5 P r o p o r t i o n spouses working by hous ing c l a s s , 184 c o n t r o l l i n g for c l a s s , SES, r e s p o n d e n t ' s age, l i f e -c y c l e and household income. 4.6 Percentage of spouses working by hous ing c o s t s and 186 hous ing t e n u r e . 4.7 R e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y by t e n u r e . 188 4.8 P r o p o r t i o n of respondents by hous ing c l a s s who 189 c o n s i d e r themselves p a r t of t h e i r ne ighbourhood , number of year s l i v e d i n neighbourhood c o n t r o l l e d . 4.9 P r o p o r t i o n of respondents knowing 6-10 f a m i l i e s 189 l i v i n g c l o s e s t , c o n t r o l l i n g fo r yea r s l i v e d i n ne ighbourhood . 4.10 A s s o c i a t i o n s between number of t imes v o l u n t e e r e d 191 to work i n p o l i t i c a l campaigns i n l a s t f i v e yea r s and c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . 4.11 A s s o c i a t i o n s between c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s and number 192 of t imes i n v o l v e d i n community problem s o l v i n g i n l a s t f i v e y e a r s . 4.12 S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s between 193 hous ing c l a s s and v a r i o u s c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s fo r number of t imes i n v o l v e d i n community problem s o l v i n g i n l a s t 5 y e a r s . 4.13 S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s between 194 hous ing c l a s s and v a r i o u s c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s for number of t imes w r i t t e n or spoken to an e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l i n l a s t 5 y e a r s . 4.14 A s s o c i a t i o n s between c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s and 196 a t tendance at p r o t e s t meet ings . 4.15 Attendance at p r o t e s t meetings by hous ing c l a s s , 197 c o n t r o l l e d by r e s p o n d e n t ' s age . 4.16 A s s o c i a t i o n between f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l p a r t y 205 support and c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . 4.17 A s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and p a r t y 206 s u p p o r t , c o n t r o l l i n g for c l a s s , SES, l i f e - c y c l e , household income and e d u c a t i o n . 4.18 P r o p o r t i o n v o t i n g P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e or 208 S o c i a l C r e d i t p r o v i n c i a l l y by hous ing c l a s s , c l a s s and SES c o n t r o l l e d . x i i i TABLE PAGE 4.19 A s s o c i a t i o n s between c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and 212 c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . 4.20 S i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and 213 c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h SES, c l a s s , l i f e - c y c l e , e d u c a t i o n and household income c o n t r o l l e d . 4.21 A s s o c i a t i o n s between c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s and 216 a t t i t u d e s towards the l e g i t i m a c y of t h r e e types of p r o t e s t . 4.22 Average responses c o n c e r n i n g the l e g i t i m a c y of 217 v a r i o u s types of p r o t e s t by hous ing c l a s s . 4.23 K e n d a l l ' s t au and gamma measures of a s s o c i a t i o n 220 between hous ing c l a s s and q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the l e g i t i m a c y of d i f f e r e n t types of p r o t e s t , w i t h c l a s s , SES, l i f e - c y c l e and household income c o n t r o l l e d . 5.1 Average responses a c r o s s hous ing c l a s s e s for 229 q u e s t i o n s p r o b i n g a t t i t u d e s toward income i n e q u a l i t i e s and r e d i s t r i b u t i v e p o l i c i e s . 5.2 A s s o c i a t i o n s between c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s and 230 a t t i t u d e s towards three s o c i a l we l fa re programmes. 5.3 A s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s 232 towards the statement tha t there i s too much d i f f e r e n c e between r i c h and poor i n Canada, a c r o s s c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . 5.4 A s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s 236 towards h e l p i n g the p o o r , a c r o s s c o n t r o l var i a b l e s . 5.5 Average responses for h e l p i n g the poor by hous ing c l a s s , househo ld income and e t h n i c i t y c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . 5 .6 Average responses for h e l p i n g the poor by hous ing c l a s s , SES and e t h n i c i t y c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . 5.7 Average responses for a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed by hous ing c l a s s and h o u s i n g c o s t s , c o n t r o l l i n g fo r househo ld income. 5.8 Average responses for government a s s i s t a n c e to the 244 unemployed by hous ing c l a s s and hous ing c o s t s , c l a s s c o n t r o l l e d . 239 240 242 x i v TABLE PAGE 5.9 Average responses for government a s s i s t a n c e to the 245 unemployed by hous ing c l a s s and hous ing c o s t s , SES c o n t r o l l e d . 5.10 Average responses for government a s s i s t a n c e to the 246 unemployed by hous ing c l a s s and hous ing c o s t s , l i f e - c y c l e c o n t r o l l e d . 5.11 Average responses for government a s s i s t a n c e to the 247 unemployed by hous ing c l a s s , e d u c a t i o n c o n t r o l l e d . 5.12 Percent a g r e e i n g that i t i s b e t t e r to p l a n l i f e 253 ahead, c l a s s , SES, l i f e - c y c l e , e d u c a t i o n and household income c o n t r o l l e d . 5.13 A s s o c i a t i o n s between a t t i t u d e s towards p l a n n i n g 254 l i f e ahead and hous ing c l a s s , w i t h c l a s s , SES, l i f e - c y c l e , household income and e d u c a t i o n c o n t r o l l e d . 5.14 Rankings of a s s o c i a t i o n s between q u e s t i o n n a i r e 256 items and c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s (household heads o n l y ) . 5.15 Summary of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s 261 (at .05) between hous ing c l a s s and q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , w i t h i n SES g roups . 5.16 Summary of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s 265 (at .05) between hous ing c l a s s and q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , w i t h i n c l a s s e s . 5.17 Summary of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s 267 (at .05) between hous ing c l a s s and q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , w i t h i n household income c a t e g o r i e s . 5.18 Summary of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s 269 (at .05) between hous ing c l a s s and q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , w i t h i n s tages of l i f e - c y c l e . 5.19 Summary of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s 271 (at .05) between hous ing c l a s s and q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , w i t h i n e d u c a t i o n g r o u p i n g s . 6.1 R e s i d e n t i a l d e n s i t i e s i n S u r r e y , by s u b - a r e a s . 280 6.2 Hous ing u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d i n Surrey and the 284 G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t 1976-1981, by house t y p e . 6.3 Hous ing and r e n t a l c o s t s a c r o s s a s e l e c t i o n of 289 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the Vancouver CMA, 1981. XV TABLE PAGE 6.4 Average and median 1980 census f a m i l y incomes 289 a c r o s s a s e l e c t i o n of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s in the Vancouver CMA. 6.5 Average household s i z e by house type and sub-area 290 w i t h i n S u r r e y , 1981. 6.6 P r o p o r t i o n households by house type and hous ing 292 tenure for S u r r e y , C i t y of Vancouver and Vancouver CMA, 1981. 7.1 The Surrey sample: Number of c h i l d r e n and age of 303 e l d e s t c h i l d by hous ing tenure and SES. 7.2 The Surrey sample: Net household income by hous ing 304 tenure and SES. 7.3 The Surrey sample: E d u c a t i o n by hous ing tenure and 305 SES. 7.4 The Sur rey sample: Age of respondents by hous ing 305 tenure and SES. 7.5 The Surrey sample: Median age when purchases f i r s t 306 house, by age cohor t and SES ( c u r r e n t homeowners o n l y ) . 7.6 The Surrey sample: Length of t enure in pre sent 307 d w e l l i n g , number of u n i t s i n h a b i t e d s i n c e marr iage and number of year s m a r r i e d , b y hous ing tenure and SES. 7.7 The Surrey sample: Hous ing c o s t s as a percentage 309 of household income, by hous ing tenure and SES. 7.8 The Surrey sample: Year purchases f i r s t and 310 pre sent house by SES. 7.9 The Surrey sample: O c c u p a t i o n a l l i s t i n g s by 312 hous ing tenure and SES. 7.10 The Surrey sample: Time spent s u p e r v i s i n g o t h e r s ' 312 work by hous ing tenure and SES. 7.11 The Sur rey sample: Number of s e l f - e m p l o y e d and 315 commiss ioned salesmen by hous ing tenure and SES. 7.12 The S u r r e y sample: Number of year s w i t h p re sen t 317 employer and average number of y e a r s in the workforce by hous ing t e n u r e , SES and employment s t a t u s . x v i TABLE PAGE 7.13 The Surrey sample: What i s c o n s i d e r e d to be most 320 important i n terms of a job by hous ing tenure and SES. 7.14 The Surrey sample: Job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of employed 329 spouses by hous ing tenure and SES. 7.15 The Surrey sample: Age of youngest c h i l d by 330 hous ing tenure and SES. 8.1 The Surrey sample: Number p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n v a r i o u s 339 p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s by hous ing tenure and SES. 8.2 The Surrey sample: Number i n v o l v e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t 340 types of community a c t i v i t i e s by hous ing tenure and SES. 8.3 The Sur rey sample: Number a t t e n d i n g p r o t e s t 341 meet ings c l a s s i f i e d by i s s u e and hous ing t e n u r e . 8.4 The Surrey sample: Number of p e t i t i o n s s i gned by 342 t o p i c , hous ing tenure and SES. 8.5 The Surrey sample: O p p o s i t i o n to d e n s i t y i n c r e a s e s 345 and c o o p e r a t i v e hous ing i n neighbourhood by hous ing tenure and SES. 8.6 The Surrey sample: P r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l p a r t y 355 a f f i l i a t i o n by hous ing tenure and SES. 8.7 The Surrey sample: Number whose vote would be 356 swayed by a hous ing programme by hous ing c o s t s , hous ing tenure and SES. 8.8 The Sur rey sample: Reasons for not v o t i n g i n terms 358 of hous ing programmes by hous ing tenure and SES. 8.9 The Surrey sample: P o l i t i c a l c y n i c i s m broken down 359 by whether o n e ' s vote c o u l d be swayed by a hous ing programme, hous ing tenure and SES. 8.10 The Sur rey sample: Support for v a r i o u s forms of 362 p r o t e s t around hous ing i s sue s by hous ing tenure and SES. 8.11 The Sur rey sample: A t t r i b u t i o n of causes for h i g h 365 i n t e r e s t r a t e s by hous ing t e n u r e , SES and employment s t a t u s . 8.12 The Surrey sample: A s s o c i a t i o n between union 366 membership and a t t r i b u t i n g h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s to bank p r o f i t s by SES. x v i i TABLE PAGE 8.13 The Surrey sample: Number a g r e e i n g w i t h v a r i o u s 373 s t e r e o t y p e s c o n c e r n i n g homeowners and r e n t e r s , by hous ing tenure and SES. 8.14 The Sur rey sample: Support fo r v a r i o u s hous ing 380 programmes by hous ing t e n u r e , SES and employment s t a t u s . 8.15 The Sur rey sample: A t t i t u d e s towards whether 383 hous ing tenures shou ld be e q u a l l y s u b s i d i s e d , by hous ing tenure and SES. 8.16 The Sur rey sample: A p p r o v a l of d i r e c t a s s i s t a n c e 385 to homeowners and r e n t e r s by hous ing t e n u r e , SES and employment s t a t u s . 8.17 The Surrey sample: Average responses c o n c e r n i n g 394 amount of e f f o r t government s h o u l d put i n t o v a r i o u s programmes by hous ing t e n u r e , SES and employment s t a t u s . 8.18 The Surrey sample: Types of hous ing a s s i s t a n c e 394 which had been r e c e i v e d by homeowners. 8.19 The Surrey sample: Government programmes r e c e i v i n g 395 the most support from each i n d i v i d u a l , by hous ing tenure and SES. 8.20 Comparison of average responses c o n c e r n i n g amount 400 of e f f o r t government shou ld d i r e c t towards two s o c i a l we l f a re programmes a c r o s s Surrey and S o c i a l Change i n Canada data s e t s . 8.21 The Sur rey sample: A t t i t u d e s towards o p t i n g out of 403 p u b l i c in surance programmes by hous ing tenure and SES. AI I . 1 C r i t e r i a for c l a s s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . 468 A l l . 2 Number who s u p e r v i s e o t h e r s ' l a b o u r , by c l a s s . 470 A l l . 3 Percentage time spent s u p e r v i s i n g o t h e r s ' l a b o u r 470 by c l a s s AIV.1 Sys temat i c b i a se s i n terms of household income 480 a c r o s s hous ing c l a s s e s when c l a s s and SES c o n t r o l l e d , household heads o n l y . A I V . 2 Sys temat i c b i a se s i n terms of e t h n i c i t y a c r o s s 482 hous ing c l a s s e s when SES i s c o n t r o l l e d , househo ld heads o n l y . x v i i i TABLE PAGE A I V . 3 Sys temat ic b i a s e s i n terms of l i f e - c y c l e a c r o s s 485 hous ing c l a s s e s when c l a s s and SES c o n t r o l l e d , household heads o n l y . A I V . 4 Sys temat ic confounding of hous ing c l a s s and 487 e d u c a t i o n when c l a s s and SES c o n t r o l l e d , household heads o n l y . A I V . 5 Sys temat ic b i a s e s i n terms of household income 490 a c r o s s hous ing c l a s s e s when l i f e - c y c l e i s c o n t r o l l e d , househo ld heads o n l y . A I V . 6 Sys temat ic confounding of e d u c a t i o n and hous ing 492 c l a s s e s wi th l i f e - c y c l e c o n t r o l l e d , household heads o n l y . AV.1 P a t t e r n s of a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and 494 number of t imes spoken or w r i t t e n to an e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , w i t h SES, e d u c a t i o n and l i f e - c y c l e c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h househo ld income. AV.2 P a t t e r n of a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and 495 c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , SES and e d u c a t i o n c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y wi th household income. AV.3 A s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and c l a s s 496 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , w i t h SES and e d u c a t i o n c o n t r o l l e d . AV.4 A s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and f e l t j u s t i - 497 f i c a t i o n of s t r i k e s and i l l e g a l p r o t e s t , w i t h SES and c l a s s c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y wi th l i f e - c y c l e . A V . 5 A s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and f e l t 499 j u s t i f i c a t i o n of s t r i k e s and i l l e g a l , v i o l e n t p r o t e s t , household income c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h c l a s s , SES, l i f e - c y c l e and educat i o n . A V . 6 A s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and statement 502 tha t there i s too much d i f f e r e n c e between r i c h and poor i n Canada, c o n t r o l l i n g for c l a s s , SES, l i f e -c y c l e and e d u c a t i o n s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h househo ld income. AV.7 A s s o c i a t i o n s between a t t i t u d e s towards h e l p i n g the 503 poor and hous ing c l a s s , SES c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h l i f e - c y c l e and e d u c a t i o n . AV.8 A s s o c i a t i o n s between a t t i t u d e s towards h e l p i n g the 504 poor and hous ing c l a s s , household income c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h c l a s s , SES, l i f e -c y c l e and e d u c a t i o n . X I X TABLE PAGE A V . 9 A t t i t u d e s towards p l a n n i n g c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s . l i f e ahead, four-way 505 XX LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 2.1 House p r i c e i n f l a t i o n i n G r e a t e r Vancouver , 52 1965-1981. 2.2 House d e s c r i p t i o n for e s t imate s of the Roya l 61 T r u s t Survey of Canadian House P r i c e s . 2.3 D r a m a t i s a t i o n of homeowners' p l i g h t by the media 100 in 1981. 2.4 Rent l e v e l s of c o n t r o l l e d and d e c o n t r o l l e d u n i t s 114 by area for 1 bedroom apar tments . 3.1 Monthly hous ing c o s t s for n a t i o n a l urban sample, 145 1979 4.1 Number of t imes i n v o l v e d i n a v a r i e t y of p o l i t i c a l 200 a c t i v i t i e s , shown by hous ing c l a s s for each SES group . 5.1 Support for s o c i a l we l f a re q u e s t i o n s , shown for 258 each SES group (household heads o n l y ) . 6.1 The p o p u l a t i o n of the m u n i c i p a l i t y of S u r r e y , 282 1921-1981. 6.2 P o p u l a t i o n growth i n Surrey as a percentage of 282 G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t growth, 1931-1981. xx i LIST OF MAPS MAP PAGE 2.1 M u n i c i p a l boundar ie s w i t h i n the G r e a t e r Vancouver 60 R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t . 6.1 The m u n c i p a l i t y of Surrey i n the r e g i o n . 277 6.2 Surrey subarea b o u n d a r i e s . 279 6.3 R e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n of Surrey sample. 296 8.1 V o t e r turnout and homeownership r a t e s w i t h i n the 344 C i t y of Vancouver , 1982. xx i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Most p a r t i c u l a r l y I would l i k e to thank D a v i d L e y , who p r o v i d e d i n i t i a l encouragement and guidance and s u s t a i n e d the time consuming r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e s i s s u p e r v i s i o n w i t h much a p p r e c i a t e d thoroughness and remarkable good humour, r i g h t up to c o m p l e t i o n . C h r i s Hamnett, R i c h a r d H a r r i s and Marwyn Samuels p r o v i d e d h e l p f u l a d v i s e i n the p r e l i m i n a r y s tages of c o n c e p t u a l i s i n g the t h e s i s . Thanks a l s o to Donald B l a k e , J im Duncan, Shlomo Hasson and T e r r y McGee who, as members of the s u p e r v i s o r y commit tee , gave g e n e r o u s l y of t h e i r v a l u a b l e time to c r i t i c a l l y a p p r a i s e the t h e s i s . There a r e , as w e l l , a number of more s p e c i f i c ' t h a n k s ' to be ex tended . Raymon T o r c h i n s k y gave i n v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e w i t h the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s and John Radke a l s o came to my a i d i n my c o n f r o n t a t i o n s w i t h the computer . Thanks a l s o to the data l i b r a r i a n s who were e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y h e l p f u l i n i n t e r -p r e t i n g the S o c i a l Change i n Canada data s e t . M i c h a e l O r n s t e i n g e n e r o u s l y shared the d e t a i l s of h i s o p e r a t i o n a l i s a -t i o n of m a r x i s t c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s u s i n g the S o c i a l Change i n Canada s t u d y . Pe te r Larmour of the Renta l sman ' s O f f i c e was most h e l p f u l i n making a v a i l a b l e d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n on r e n t s , as was Jonathon Mark i n d i r e c t i n g me towards house p r i c e d a t a . C a r o l e R u t t l e , Kay Anderson and Paul K a r i y a o f f e r e d h e l p f u l sugges t ions at the p o i n t of q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . E l s p e t h and V i v i a n made the Surrey i n t e r v i e w s a p o s s i b i l i t y . Thanks a l s o to the people i n Surrey who a l l o w e d x x i i i me i n t o t h e i r homes and l i v e s fo r what was o f t en an e n t i r e e v e n i n g . Sue Grimmond he lped w i t h many of the t e c h n i c a l d e t a i l s of t h e s i s p r o d u c t i o n and a p p l i e d her ' e d i t o r ' s eye ' to a f i n a l d r a f t . For the c r i t i c a l s c r u t i n y of c h a p t e r two from 'Commerce' and ' P l a n n i n g ' p e r s p e c t i v e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , thanks to S y l v i a Gardner and Kaye M e l l i s h i p . As w e l l , many thanks for moral support and h e l p f u l a d v i s e at v a r i o u s s tages to those i n ' b l o c k 2 1 0 ' , to Mark, and , most e s p e c i a l l y , to Tohmm. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s and Humani t ie s Research C o u n c i l , as w e l l as the K i l l a m F o u n d a t i o n , for f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e throughout the p r o d u c t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s . 1 CHAPTER 1 THE INCORPORATION THESIS AS A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL PROBLEM The p o o r e s t man may i n h i s c o t t a g e b i d d e f i a n c e to a l l the fo rce of the Crown. - W i l l i a m P i t t , 1790 The idea that homeownership has a s i g n i f i c a n t p o l i t i c a l impact has been a popular idea shared by r a d i c a l s and c o n s e r v -a t i v e s a l i k e over a c o n s i d e r a b l e l e n g t h of t i m e . Thus Enge l s argued i n 1871, i n r e a c t i o n to s o c i a l i s t s and p h i l a n t h r o p i s t s who advocated widespread homeownership, that homeownership would have a d e l e t e r i o u s impact on the g e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n of the working c l a s s i n the sense that i t would " c h a i n " the worker g e o g r a p h i c a l l y , reduce job m o b i l i t y , thus r e s t r i c t the a b i l i t y of workers to a g i t a t e i n the workp lace , and u l t i m a t e l y l e a d to a f a l l i n wages 1 . " G i v e them t h e i r own houses , c h a i n them once aga in to the s o i l and you break t h e i r power of 2 r e s i s t a n c e t o the wage c u t t i n g of the f a c t o r y owner s . " T h i s a n a l y s i s has been taken up, from a l e s s c r i t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , by r e a l e s t a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and mortgage l e n d e r s who have had an i n t e r e s t i n encourag ing homeownership, and a l s o by p o l i t i c i a n s promot ing owner-occupancy for i t s p o l i t i c a l l y F . E n g e l s , The Hous ing Quest ion (New Y o r k : I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1935 e d n . ) . 2 I b i d . , p . 50. 2 i n t e g r a t i v e e f f e c t s . For i n s t a n c e , the P r o g r e s s i v e Conserva-t i v e P a r t y of Canada o u t l i n e d the f o l l o w i n g s o c i a l b e n e f i t s of homeownership d u r i n g t h e i r 1979 e l e c t i o n campaign: "Peop le who Examples are abundant . For i n s t a n c e , i n the Vancouver c o n t e x t , D. Holdsworth quotes a statement made by a r e p r e s e n t -a t i v e of the Vancouver Rea l E s t a t e Exchange in 1921: "The man who has a s take i n the c o u n t r y w i l l uphold i t s laws and defend i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s , because i t i s i n h i s v i t a l i n t e r e s t s to do so . I f owners are to be safe from anarchy and r e v o l u t i o n as w e l l as to h e l p b u i l d up the c o u n t r y , then as many as p o s s i b l e must be owners. Hence the n e c e s s i t y of encourag ing the a c q u i s -i t i o n of p r o p e r t y on the par t of poor p e o p l e . Make i t easy for them to get i t and easy for them to keep i t . " ( c i t e d i n "House and Home i n Vancouver : Images of West Coast Urban i sm, 1880-1929," i n The Canadian C i t y : Es says i n Urban H i s t o r y , e d . G . A . S t e l t e r and A . F . J . A r t i b u s e ( T o r o n t o : M c C l e l l a n d and S tewar t , 1977), pp. 186-211.) S i m i l a r s o r t s of s tatements can be found from those w i t h bus ines s i n t e r e s t s i n homeownership i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s (B. Checkoway, "Large b u i l d e r s , f e d e r a l hous ing programmes, and postwar s u b u r b a n i z a t i o n , " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 4 (1980) , 21-45; D . P . H a n d l i n , The American Home: A r c h i t e c t u r e and S o c i e t y , 1815- 1915 (Bos ton : L i t t l e , Brown and C o . , 1979); D. Hayden, T h e ' Grand Domestic R e v o l u t i o n : A H i s t o r y of F e m i n i s t Des igns for American Homes, Neighbourhoods , and C i t i e s (Cambridge: The MIT P r e s s , 1981); . C . P e r i n , E v e r y t h i n g i n i t s p l a c e : s o c i a l order and l a n d use i n America ( P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1977); G . W r i g h t , M o r a l i s m and the Model Home: Domestic A r c h i t e c t u r e and C u l t u r a l C o n f l i c t i n C h i c a g o , 1873-1913 ( C h i c a g o : The U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1980)) and B r i t a i n (Community Development P r o j e c t , P r o f i t Aga in s t Houses (Nott ingham: R u s s e l l P r e s s , 19767"! P^ 42) . A s t r i k i n g example of the e f f e c t s of homeownership a n t i c i p a t e d by p o l i t i c i a n s i s c i t e d by C . P e r i n ( E v e r y t h i n g i n i t s p l a c e , p . 6 1 . ) . In 1971, the Nixon government convened a "Working Conference on the B e h a v i o r a l E f f e c t s of New O p p o r t u n i t i e s i n Extended P r o p e r t y Ownership" to determine "whether , b e s i d e s the b e h a v i o r a l a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h be ing a r e n t e r , those a n t i c i p a t e d w i t h b e i n g poor might be expected to change upon becoming an owner . " For more examples of American p o l i t i c i a n s ' views on homeownership see J . P . Dean, Homeownership: Is I t Sound? (New Y o r k : Harper and Row, 1945); The Sabre F o u n d a t i o n , Expanded Ownership (Ford du L a c , W i s e , 1972). For s tatements made by A u s t r a l i a n p o l i t i c i a n s see J . Kemeny, "A P o l i t i c a l S o c i o l o g y of Home Ownership i n A u s t r a l i a , " A u s t r a l i a n and New Zealand J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y 13 (1977) , 47-52. 3 own homes f e e l a g r e a t e r s take i n the community and the c o u n t r y i n which they l i v e . " , "A s o c i e t y i n which a major p r o p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n owns i t s own homes i s l i k e l y to be a more s t a b l e , s e t t l e d and p r o d u c t i v e s o c i e t y . " , "Peop le who own homes have a r e a l i n c e n t i v e to ensure that they earn enough to pay for i t - an i n c e n t i v e to work f i v e days a week." * T h i s common p l a c e view of the p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of homeownership has a l s o found i t s way i n t o the academic l i t e r a -t u r e - as a common p l a c e assumption once a g a i n . For i n s t a n c e , Duncan w r i t e s : " C e r t a i n l y home ownership does l e a d to a c e r -t a i n c o n s e r v a t i s m and no doubt has p l a y e d a p a r t i n suppres s -5 ing r e v o l u t i o n a r y a c t i v i t y . " With r e f e r e n c e to B r i t a i n , Boddy w r i t e s t h a t : "The p o l i t i c a l and i d e o l o g i c a l impact of i n c r e a s -ing home-ownership i s thus g e n e r a l l y acknowledged from a v a r i e t y of s t a n d p o i n t s but the p r e c i s e nature of i t s l o n g - t e r m e f f e c t s on B r i t a i n ' s soc io -economic and p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e i s a matter of d e b a t e . " ^ C o n s i d e r i n g another n a t i o n a l c o n t e x t , Thorns w r i t e s t h a t : C o n s e r v a t i v e P a r t y of Canada, "Homeowners and buyers deserve a b r e a k . . . E c o n o m i c r e c o v e r y through s t i m u l u s , " 1979, p . 3. 5 N . G . Duncan, "Home Ownership and S o c i a l T h e o r y , " i n Housing and I d e n t i t y : C r o s s - c u l t u r a l P e r s p e c t i v e s , e d . J . S . Duncan (London: Croom Helm, 1981), p^ 107. 6 M. Boddy, B u i l d i n g S o c i e t i e s (London: M a c M i l l a n , 1980), p . 26. 4 " In New Z e a l a n d , however, the long p e r i o d of owner-o c c u p a t i o n as the dominant form of tenure s t a t u s has r e s u l t e d i n hous ing c l a s s e s o b s c u r i n g the l a b o u r -market produced d i v i s i o n s and t h i s i s one of the important f a c t o r s i n e x p l a i n i n g the l a c k of over t c l a s s awareness tha t i s e x h i b i t e d . " 7 And even more g e n e r a l l y , B e l l has w r i t t e n t h a t : " . . . hous ing P has been the c e n t r a l source of i n t e g r a t i o n i n urban a r e a s " . G i v e n the r a t h e r l a r g e c l a i m s c o n c e r n i n g the impact of homeownership i n shap ing p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s and s t r u c t u r i n g p o l i t i c a l a l i g n m e n t s , t h e r e i s remarkably l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l ev idence to s u b s t a n t i a t e these c l a i m s . A very b a s i c q u e s t i o n which has r a r e l y been c o n s i d e r e d w i t h the d e t a i l i t deserves i s , does homeownership a c t u a l l y have the p o l i t i c a l e f f e c t s p o p u l a r l y a t t r i b u t e d to i t ? Moreover , what i s the exact nature of the d i s t i n c t i o n s i n p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and a c t i o n s between owners and non-owners of hous ing? F u r t h e r , what, s p e c i f i c a l l y , i s i t about homeownership which causes the noted d i s t i n c t i o n s ? As H a r r i s , L e v i n e and Osborne remark a f t e r r e c o u n t i n g the u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d o b s e r v a t i o n s of two Canadian s o c i a l commentators , made i n the 1880's and 1890 ' s : "Both these remarks i n d i c a t e tha t home-ownership, or the l ack t h e r e o f , was a p o l i t i c a l l y s e n s i t i v e i s sue but they r e v e a l no i n s i g h t i n t o the causes and wider i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s s i t u a -D . C . T h o r n s , " O w n e r - O c c u p a t i o n : I t s s i g n i f i c a n c e for wea l th t r a n s f e r and c l a s s f o r m a t i o n , " The S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 29 (1981 ) , p . 710. C . B e l l , "On Hous ing C l a s s e s , " A u s t r a l i a n and New Zea land J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y 13 (1977) , p . 40. 5 t i o n . Research to date has o f f e r e d l i t t l e more . " One reason for the u n c r i t i c a l acceptance of popu la r n o t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the p o l i t i c a l l y i n t e g r a t i v e e f f e c t s of homeownership w i t h i n the academic l i t e r a t u r e h inges on the assumptions which have l a i n behind a t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t i n homeownership. A t h e o r e t i c a l s t a r t i n g p o i n t has been tha t ' t h e working c l a s s ' has become fragmented a t t i t u d i n a l l y throughout t h i s c e n t u r y , tha t a degree of c l a s s c o n s c i o u s n e s s which was e v i d e n t or expected towards the end of the n i n e -t e e n t h c e n t u r y has been i n t e r c e p t e d or d i s i n t e g r a t e d by some i n t e r v e n i n g p r o c e s s . Thus the assumption i s tha t a l a r g e r c l a s s c o n s c i o u s n e s s shou ld have d e v e l o p e d , and the q u e s t i o n becomes, why d i d i t not? In t h i s sense , the s o c i a l e f f e c t of ownership has been assumed. The q u e s t i o n of c a u s a t i o n , tha t i s , what i t i s about homeownership that has some impact on p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and a c t i o n s , has been opened up to more s c r u t i n y , but most ly of a t h e o r e t i c a l n a t u r e . A l i g n e d wi th an academic debate about c a u s a t i o n has been a p o l i t i c a l concern of how to i n t e r p r e t homeowners as a c o l l e c t i v i t y i n o r d e r to unders tand how hous ing groups shou ld be c o n c e p t u a l i s e d i n r e l a t i o n to wider s o c i a l c l a s s d i v i s i o n s and p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i s a t i o n . These t h e o r e t i c a l debates c o n c e r n i n g c a u s a l i t y and the t h e o r e t i c a l s t a t u s of hous ing groups w i l l be taken up p r e s e n t l y - as noted R. H a r r i s , G . L e v i n e and B . S . Osborne, "Hous ing tenure and s o c i a l c l a s s e s in K i n g s t o n O n t a r i o , 1881-1901," J o u r n a l of H i s t o r i c a l Geography 7 (1981) , p . 277. 6 above, t h e o r e t i c a l frameworks have a power fu l impact on whether and how e m p i r i c a l q u e s t i o n s are framed. A d i s c u s s i o n of the t h e o r e t i c a l debates w i l l be examined w i t h i n a marx i s t l i t e r a t u r e , as a r t i c u l a t e d through what has been termed the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s . The i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s has been an important focus of debate ; i n a h i s t o r i c a l sense , the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s framed the p o l i t i c a l impact of home-ownership as a s i g n i f i c a n t e m p i r i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e . A r e a l s t r e n g t h of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s i s that hous ing tenure i s p l a c e d w i t h i n a broader s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l and economic c o n t e x t . Concepts of c l a s s , c o n f l i c t and power, however p a r t -i a l l y c o n c e i v e d , are r e a l i s s u e s w i t h i n the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s and have tended to remain of c e n t r a l importance i n v a r i o u s marxian and weberian t h e o r e t i c a l r e v i s i o n s . The Ideology of Homeownership as an I n c o r p o r a t i v e Dev ice - A M a r x i s t P e r s p e c t i v e 1 1 There are t h r e e threads to what i s termed the i n c o r p o r a -t i o n t h e s i s . F i r s t l y , i t i s assumed tha t homeownership func-From a p h i l o s o p h i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , R. Keat and J . U r r y review the r a d i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g for e m p i r i c i s t t r a d i t i o n s . ( S o c i a l Theory as S c i e n c e (London: Rout ledge and Kegan Paul"! 1 975 ) ) . 1 1 In what f o l l o w s , the term i d e o l o g y w i l l be used very l o o s e l y i n a n o n - t e c h n i c a l sense to i n d i c a t e w o r l d - v i e w . I t has been used i n t h i s l oose sense by i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s , a l t h o u g h the g e n e r a l p e r s p e c t i v e has suggested a c l o s e l i n k between f a l s e c o n s c i o u s n e s s and i d e o l o g y . For an e x c e l l e n t d i s c u s s i o n of the way i n which t h i s term has been u t i l i s e d i n t h i s l i t e r a t u r e see C . R u t t l e , "The home and hegemony i n everyday l i f e . " M . A . T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1981 . 7 t i o n s to s t a b i l i s e the c a p i t a l i s t s o c i a l o rder and i t i s o f t e n suggested tha t widespread homeownership has been e x p l i c i t l y encouraged by bus ines s i n t e r e s t s and the s t a t e to o b t a i n such 1 2 ends . L u n a v i v i d l y p r e s e n t s t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e when he w r i t e s t h a t : " . . . c a p i t a l i s t s face the dua l (and o f t e n c o n t r a d i c t o r y ) task of a ccumula t ing c l a i m s on wea l th and of r e p r o d u c i n g t h e i r a b i l i t y to do so . . .Homeowner sh ip has been a c r u c i a l p a r t of the answer to t h i s dua l t a s k . I t s worker-ownership aspect l e g i t i m a t e s c a p i t a l i s t p r o p e r t y r e l a t i o n s , and i t s r e l a t i v e p e c u n i a r y i n f e r i o r i t y as an a s se t makes i t a u n i q u e l y i n e x p e n s i v e source of tha t l e g i t imat i o n . " 1 3 A l t h o u g h t h i s l i n e of a rgumentat ion has been c r i t i c i s e d for c o n f u s i n g cause and e f f e c t , i n the sense of a t t r i b u t i n g the 1 4 e f f e c t s of homeownership as t h e i r causes , g e n e r a l l y the p o s i t e d e f f e c t s have been u n q u e s t i o n e d . A second aspect of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s i s tha t q u i t e g e n e r a l a t t i t u d i n a l e f f e c t s are p o s i t e d . Not o n l y i s home-ownership thought to l e g i t i m a t e the i n s t i t u t i o n of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y , but i t i s t h o u g h t ' t o encourage a s p e c i f i c mode of N . G . Duncan ("Home Ownership and S o c i a l T h e o r y " ) has noted tha t not a l l of these threads are l o g i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t . For i n s t a n c e , she i n t e r p r e t s the s t r u c t u r a l f u n c t i o n a l i s m i m p l i c i t i n the emphasis on homeownership f u l f i l l i n g the needs of c a p i t a l and c a p i t a l i s m as be ing i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the i m p l i e d c o n s p i r a c y , o r g a n i s e d by p o l i t i c i a n s and b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s , w h i c h , i t i s a rgued , draws the working c l a s s i n t o homeownership a g a i n s t t h e i r own i n t e r e s t . That i s , she argues tha t h o l i s t i c and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c e x p l a n a t i o n s are i n d i s c r i m i -n a t e l y mixed . 1 3 D. L u n a , " S u b u r b a n i s a t i o n , Homeownership and Working C l a s s C o n s c i o u s n e s s , " D i s s . Massachuset t s 1976, p . 121. P . Saunders , Urban P o l i t i c s : A S o c i o l o g i c a l Approach (London: H u t c h i n s o n , 1979). 8 s o c i a l r e l a t i o n . P r e s e n t i n g t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , C a s t e l l s main-t a i n s tha t the suburban development programme i n i t i a t e d i n France i n 1928 was: " . . . i n p e r f e c t accordance w i t h the i d e o l o g y of i n t e g r a t i o n which wished to b r i n g c l a s s s t r u g g l e to an end by making each worker an owner - o u t s i d e h i s work of c o u r s e . . . " The " i d e o l o g y of p a v i l i o n e x a l t s good c i t i z e n s h i p , s e c u r i t y , the f e e l i n g of be ing at home, p r i v a c y and the f e e l i n g tha t one i s away from i t a l l " . ^ Homeownership not o n l y encourages these p r i v a t i s t i c v a l u e s , but the p r i v a t i s t i c o r i e n t a t i o n i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h consumerism as w e l l . L u r i a w r i t e s t h a t : " . . . b o t h s u b u r b a n i z a t i o n and homeowning reduced the u t i l i t y of c o l l e c t i v e l y - c o n s u m e d commodi t ie s , thus s t i m u l a t i n g demand for consumer goods" F u r t h e r , homeownership fragments the working c l a s s by a promo-t i o n of p r i v a t i s m at an i n d i v i d u a l and community l e v e l ; home-owners assume bourgeo i s v a l u e s and t r a n s f e r t h e i r a l l e g i a n c e from c l a s s to ne ighbourhood . Dav id Harvey sums up t h i s v iew-p o i n t : "Extended i n d i v i d u a l i s e d homeownership i s , t h e r e f o r e , seen as advantageous to the c a p i t a l i s t c l a s s because i t promotes : the a l l e g i a n c e of at l e a s t a segment of the working c l a s s to the p r i n c i p l e of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y , an e t h i c of ' p o s s e s s i v e i n d i v i d u a l i s m ' , and a f r agmenta t ion of the working c l a s s i n t o ' h o u s i n g c l a s s e s ' of home-owners and t e n a n t s . T h i s g i v e s the c a p i t a l i s t c l a s s a handy i d e o l o g i c a l l e v e r to use a g a i n s t M. C a s t e l l s , The Urban Q u e s t i o n : A M a r x i s t Approach (London: Edward A r n o l d , 1977), pp . 161-168. D. L u r i a , D i s s . , p . 116. 9 p u b l i c ownership and n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n demands be-cause i t i s easy to make these p r o p o s a l s sound as i f t h e i r i n t e n t were to take workers ' p r i v a t e l y owned houses away from t h e m . " 1 7 John Agnew a l s o p r e s e n t s the f r agmenta t ion t h e s i s when he w r i t e s t h a t : " In a hous ing contex t one c o u l d s u b s t i t u t e the terms l a n d l o r d and tenant for c a p i t a l and l abor r e s p e c t i v e l y . However, more r e c e n t l y these c a t e g o r i e s have become l e s s easy to d e f i n e . In p a r t i c u l a r , l a b o r i s f ragmented. T h i s i s impor-t a n t , for c a p i t a l , though d i v i d e d by s p e c i f i c g o a l s , i s s t i l l u n i t e d i n ' p r i n c i p l e ' beh ind the ethos of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y and ' p o s s e s s i v e i n d i v i -d u a l i s m ' . L a b o r , however, i s d i v i d e d i n t o a v a r -i e t y of ' h o u s i n g c l a s s e s - most g e n e r a l l y , home-owners and r e n t e r s - one of w h i c h , homeowners, has become a ' c l a s s of owners' . " ^ F i n a l l y , homeownership i s thought to be important o n l y i n terms of i d e o l o g y , tha t i s , the d i s t i n c t i o n s between owners and non-owners of hous ing are c o n s i d e r e d to be p e r c e i v e d s t a t u s d i s t i n c t i o n s o n l y . T h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g deve lops from a marx i s t c o n c e p t i o n of c l a s s and the f a c t that the ownership of domest ic p r o p e r t y i s c o n s i d e r e d to be i r r e l e v a n t to c l a s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . The l a n d l o r d - tenant r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not one of c l a s s e x p l o i t a t i o n because i t i s not a r e l a t i o n s h i p through D. Harvey , " L a b o r , C a p i t a l , and C l a s s S t r u g g l e Around the B u i l t Environment i n Advanced C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t i e s , " in U r b a n i z a t i o n and C o n f l i c t i n Market S o c i e t i e s , e d . K . R . Cox ( C h i c a g o : Maaroufa , 1978) , p~. T5~. 1 8 J . Agnew, "Market R e l a t i o n s and L o c a t i o n a l C o n f l i c t , " in U r b a n i z a t i o n and C o n f l i c t i n Market S o c i e t i e s , e d . K . R . Cox, p . 131. Agnew's a n a l y s i s a c t u a l l y d e p a r t s from the s t a n -dard M a r x i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the l a n d l o r d - t e n a n t r e l a t i o n -s h i p , d e s c r i b e d below, i n which the l a n d l o r d / t e n a n t r e l a t i o n -s h i p i s not c o n s i d e r e d to be a c l a s s r e l a t i o n s h i p . 10 which s u r p l u s va lue i s produced and a p p r o p r i a t e d . E n g e l s notes that r e n t i n g i s : " . . . a siraple commodity s a l e ; i t i s not an o p e r a t i o n between p r o l e t a r i a n and b o u r g e o i s , be t -ween worker and c a p i t a l i s t . . . . N o matter how much the l a n d l o r d may o v e r r e a c h the tenant i t i s s t i l l o n l y a t r a n s f e r of a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g , p r e v i o u s l y produced v a l u e , and the t o t a l sum of v a l u e s pos se s sed by the l a n d l o r d and the tenant toge ther remains the same a f t e r as i t was b e f o r e . " 1 C , F u r t h e r , Enge l s s t r e s s e s tha t ownership of hous ing i s i r r e l e -vant to the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of economic c l a s s r e l a t i o n s because i t f a i l s to p r o v i d e workers w i t h acces s to the means of p r o -d u c t i o n as the owner of a house i s s t i l l dependent upon wages fo r h i s s u r v i v a l . 2 ^ M a r x i s t s w r i t i n g today have g e n e r a l l y m a i n t a i n e d t h i s . . 21 p o s i t i o n , tha t homeownership i s important o n l y at the i d e o -l o g i c a l l e v e l i n f ragment ing the working c l a s s movement and s t r e n g t h e n i n g c a p i t a l i s t c o n t r o l . Homeowners are s a i d to have f a l s e c o n s c i o u s n e s s i n so far as they are o b l i g e d to adopt the bourgeo i s or " p o s s e s s i v e i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c " v a l u e s of p r i v a t i s m and t h r i f t and to the ex tent tha t they endorse s t a t u s d i s t i n c -t i o n s between types of tenancy and ignore t h e i r common o b j e c -t i v e i n t e r e s t s wi th t enant s as mutual consumers of hous ing i n F . E n g e l s , The Hous ing Q u e s t i o n , p . 24. 2 0 I b i d . , p . 11. 2 1 For a review of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e see P. Saunders , Urban P o l i t i c s , p . 80. 11 22 c o n f l i c t w i t h hous ing s u p p l i e r s . They are s a i d to be oper-a t i n g w i t h i n the realm of f a l s e c o n s c i o u s n e s s because the ownership of domest ic p r o p e r t y does not p l a c e one i n an o b j e c -t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t economic p o s i t i o n ; one i s s t i l l dependent upon wages for o n e ' s l i v e l i h o o d . Because of t h i s L u r i a c l a i m s 23 tha t " . . . h o m e o w n e r s h i p i s the reward of the d e f e a t e d " . I t i s s t a n d a r d to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r marx i s t p e r s p e c t i v e tha t home-owners have been l u r e d i n t o q u i e s c e n c e for a t r i f l e , an i n -t a n g i b l e l a c k i n g a m a t e r i a l base . The i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s has been c r i t i c i s e d and m o d i f i e d from a number of d i r e c t i o n s . Three such m o d i f i c a t i o n s w i l l be taken up h e r e . F i r s t , i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s have been r a t h e r vague about the a c t u a l p roces se s which c o n t r i b u t e to the outcomes they i d e n t i f y . Second, a c r i t i c i s m from a more p o i n t e d l y weberian p e r s p e c t i v e has been that inadequate a t t e n -t i o n has been g iven to the p o t e n t i a l for a r e a l a c c u m u l a t i o n of wea l th through homeownership and the p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s . T h i r d , as o r i g i n a l l y framed, an i n s t r u m e n t a l i s t c o n c e p t i o n of i d e o l o g y was assumed, tha t i s , i d e o l o g y was seen to be implanted from above and to serve the i n t e r e s t s of the ' r u l i n g c l a s s ' . Each of these o b j e c t i o n s w i l l be taken up i n t u r n and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s in terms of e m p i r i c a l s tudy For example, see : C . B e l l , "On Hous ing C l a s s e s " ; M. C a s t e l l s , The Urban Q u e s t i o n ; Community Development P r o j e c t , P r o f i t A g a i n s t Houses ; C . F l e t c h e r , "The r e l e v a n c e of domest ic p r o p e r t y to s o c i o l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g , " S o c i o l o g y 10 (1976) , pp . 451-469. D. L u r i a , D i s s . , p . 98. 12 c o n s i d e r e d . Proces se s of I n c o r p o r a t i o n : Housing Cos t s I r o n i c a l l y , the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s has been s u s c e p t i b l e to much the same c r i t i c i s m that Dunleavy , i n d e f e n d i n g an e x t e n s i o n of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s , l e v e l s a g a i n s t e m p i r i -c i s t e l e c t o r a l a n a l y s i s . Dunleavy c r i t i c i s e s a model of i n t e r -p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e which p o s i t s a t r a n s f e r of p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s through proce s se s of s o c i a l i s a t i o n and s o c i a l i n t e r a c -t i o n because i t does not a c t u a l l y e x p l a i n the s p e c i f i c c a u s a l 24 mechanisms tha t a f f e c t p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s and a c t i o n s . So t o o , w i t h the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s there i s l i t t l e under-s t a n d i n g of what s p e c i f i c a l l y i t i s about homeownership tha t l eads to an o v e r a l l c o n s e r v a t i v e i d e o l o g y . Duncan has l i n k e d t h i s weakness in terms of c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n to the s t r u c t u r a l form of argument adopted by many i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s , n o t i n g t h a t , w h i l e the d e s c r i p t i o n of the e f f e c t s of homeownership appears to be a c c u r a t e , there i s an e v a s i v e q u a l i t y to the c a u s a l a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t e d . "Such sentences as 'urban development i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s has been accompl i shed through promot- ing i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n of the consumption of c o m m o d i t i e s ' . . . e v e n when taken i n contex t have no c l e a r a c t i v e s u b j e c t . Who or what p r o m o t e s ? . . . I f t h e r e are s t r u c t u r a l c ause s , such as the p o l i t i c a l f r agmenta t ion of l o c a l government, there s h o u l d be some c l e a r l y s t a t e d assumptions as to the r e l a t i o n 24 . . . P. D u n l e a v y , "The Urban B a s i s of P o l i t i c a l A l i g n m e n t : S o c i a l C l a s s , Domestic P r o p e r t y Ownership , and S t a t e I n t e r v e n -t i o n i n Consumption P r o c e s s e s , " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e 9 (1979) , 409-443. 1 3 between these s t r u c t u r e s and human a c t i v i t y . Such d i sembodied p h r a s i n g does not c o n s t i t u t e s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n . However, w h i l e there i s a tendency for i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s to be q u i t e vague about s p e c i f i c c a u s a l mechanisms, i t would be i n a c c u r a t e to suggest t h a t they have been a l t o g e -ther s i l e n t on t h i s i s s u e . A p a r t i c u l a r - and f a m i l i a r -problem has been that they have been amiss in a s s e s s i n g t h e i r c a u s a l hypotheses a g a i n s t e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e . M a r x i s t s c h o l a r s , amongst o t h e r s , have been a c t i v e p a r t i -c i p a n t s in the c r i t i q u e of ' e m p i r i c i s m ' , that i s , a n a i v e appea l to ' t h e f a c t s ' i n a s s e s s i n g t h e o r y . The c r i t i c i s m has been two pronged . F i r s t , a r i g i d dichotomy between obse rva-t i o n a l terms, assumed to be theory n e u t r a l , and t h e o r e t i c a l terms has been d i s c r e d i t e d i n the l a s t twenty y e a r s and i t i s now w i d e l y a c c e p t e d that o b s e r v a t i o n s (or f a c t s ) a r e , to some 2 6 e x t e n t , theory l a d e n . O b s e r v a t i o n i s not j u s t a matter of r e c o r d i n g the f a c t s ; the a c t s of d e s c r i b i n g and c o n c e p t u a l i -s i n g these f a c t s must a l s o be e v a l u a t e d . Because f a c t s are n e c e s s a r i l y i n t e r p r e t e d , some have assumed that an appea l to 27 the f a c t s to e v a l u a t e theory i s pr ima f a c i e a b s u r d . On the 25 N . G . Duncan, "Home Ownership and S o c i a l T h e o r y " , p . 105. 2 6 A R. Keat and J . U r r y , S o c i a l Theory as S c i e n c e (London: Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1975TI • 27 B. Hindes s and P. H i r s t , Mode of P r o d u c t i o n and S o c i a l Format ion (London: M a c M i l l a n , 1977); P. H i r s t , "The n e c e s s i t y of t h e o r y , " Economy and S o c i e t y 8 (1979) , pp. 417-445. 1 4 whole, however, the argument c o n c e r n i n g the t h e o r y - l a d e n nature of f a c t s as a r e f u t a t i o n of the a b i l i t y to t e s t theory seems to have been over ex tended . In a r g u i n g t h i s p o s i t i o n a d i s t i n c t i o n has been drawn between the c o n t e n t i o n tha t f a c t s are t h e o r y - l a d e n and the n o t i o n that they are t h e o r y - d e t e r -2 8 mined . I t i s one t h i n g to suggest tha t the f a c t s are i n -f l u e n c e d by t h e o r y , but q u i t e another to assume that they are c o m p l e t e l y determined by t h e o r y . I t i s argued that any theory has h i g h e r and lower l e v e l concept s and that there i s l i k e l y to be a f a i r degree of agreement a c r o s s t h e o r i e s at the lower l e v e l of c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n . S e c o n d l y , a r e c o g n i t i o n that f a c t s are i n t e r p r e t e d does not l e a d i n v a r i a b l y to the p o s i t i o n that theory i s i n p e n e t r a b l e to e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e . The a rgu-ment that the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the f a c t s i s r e l a t i v e to a t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e was o r i g i n a l l y a r t i c u l a t e d as a c r i t i -c i sm of the p o s i t i o n that ' t h e f a c t s ' can d i s c r i m i n a t e between 29 t h e o r i e s . However, a theory can be c o n t r a d i c t e d by obse rva-30 t i o n s made i n i t s own terms . 2 8 A . Sayer , "Theory and E m p i r i c a l Research i n Urban and R e g i o n a l P o l i t i c a l Economy: A Sympathet ic C r i t i q u e , " Working Paper 14: Urban and R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of Sussex, 1 979. 29 . . P . K . Feyerabend , " E x p l a n a t i o n , r e d u c t i o n and e m p i r i -c i s m , " i n Minnesota S t u d i e s , III e d . H . F e i g l and G . Maxwell ( M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota P r e s s , 1962), pp . 28-97; N.R . Hanson, P a t t e r n s of D i s c o v e r y (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i -v e r s i t y P r e s s " 1958); T . S . Kuhn, The S t r u c t u r e of S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n s ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1962). 30 P . K . Feyerabend , " C o n s o l a t i o n s for the s p e c i a l i s t , " i n C r i t i c i s m and the Growth of Knowledge e d . I . L a k a t o s and A . Musgrave (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1970). 1 5 F u r t h e r i t i s sometimes i n t i m a t e d that there i s something s p e c i a l about marxian concepts that makes the idea of evalua-t i n g them i n terms of e m p i r i c a l evidence l u d i c r o u s . "The r e s u l t i s l i k e t e l l i n g p s y c h o a n a l y s i s that i t s concepts are about to be t e s t e d ( o b j e c t i v e l y , of course) in the l a b o r a t o r y 3 1 . . of P r o f e s s o r Eysenck." T h i s i s based on a second l i n e of c r i t i c i s m of 'empiricism' which poses a g r e a t e r c h a l l e n g e to the l o g i c a l t e s t a b i l i t y of theory. T h i s c r i t i c i s m hinges on the d i f f i c u l t y of p r e d i c t i o n i n non-closed, non-experimental systems, where contingent c o n d i t i o n s can i n t e r v e n e between a c a u s a l mechanism and i t s e f f e c t . Causal s t r u c t u r e s are not g e n e r a l l y evident i n events because s o c i a l systems are open systems, with a number of c r o s s - i n f l u e n c e s and i n t e r v e n i n g p r o c e s s e s . Consequently, e m p i r i c a l analyses of s o c i e t i e s cannot r e l y p u r e l y on or i n v a l i d a t e the t h e o r e t i c a l concepts and p o s i t e d c a u s a l mechanisms developed at an a b s t r a c t theore-t i c a l l e v e l . Developed more r e c e n t l y through a r e a l i s t c o n ception of s o c i a l s c i e n c e , t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between essence (or a b s t r a c t theory) and phenomena (the e m p i r i c a l s i t u a t i o n ) 32 i s a d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the marxist method. Because 3 1 P. H i r s t , "The n e c e s s i t y of theory," p. 424. 3 2 R. Bhaskar, The P o s s i b i l i t y of N a t u r a l i s m (New J e r s e y : Humanities Press, 1979); Andrew Sayer, "Theory and E m p i r i c a l Research i n Urban and Regional P o l i t i c a l Economy: A Sympathe-t i c C r i t i q u e " ; Derek Sayer, Marx's Method: Ideology, Science and C r i t i q u e in ' C a p i t a l ' (Sussex: Ha r v e s t e r , 1979). S c e p t i c a l a l l u s i o n s are f r e q u e n t l y made concerning 'surface appearances' by geographic s t r u c t u r a l i s t m a r x i s t s : i . e . , K. Cox, " C a p i t a l i s m and c o n f l i c t around the communal l i v i n g 1 6 of t h i s , i t i s argued t h a t marx i s t theory cannot and shou ld not be t e s t e d through any s imple n o t i o n of e m p i r i c a l f a l s i f i -c a t i o n . G r a n t i n g the r e j e c t i o n of a s imple n o t i o n of e m p i r i c a l f a l s i f i c a t i o n , i t can none the le s s be argued tha t t h e r e i s a need for m a r x i s t theory to be a c c o u n t a b l e to e m p i r i c a l e v i -dence through a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d c o n c e p t i o n of t e s t a b i l i t y . In p a r t i c u l a r , there seems a need to be more s p e c i f i c about 33 the c o n t i n g e n t c o n d i t i o n s l i m i t i n g the c a u s a l mechanisms. Thus , i f i t i s found tha t homeownership i s not a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o n s e r v a t i v e v a l u e s , i n a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n , i t seems neces sary to be c l e a r e r about the c o n d i t i o n s under which one would expect to f i n d an a s s o c i a t i o n between homeownership and c o n s e r v a t i s m and more s p e c i f i c about the nature of the c r o s s -i n f l u e n c e s . Agnew's attempt to survey the ev idence of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between homeownership and p r i v a t i s t i c and c o m p e t i t i v e s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s in the U . S . and B r i t a i n , though flawed i n i t s c o n c l u s i v e n e s s because the e m p i r i c a l ev idence i s s c a t t e r e d and of unequal q u a l i t y , i s an e x c e l l e n t example of s p a c e , " i n U r b a n i z a t i o n and Urban P l a n n i n g i n C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t y , ed s . M. Dear and A . S c o t t , (New York : Methuen, 1981), pp . 431-55; D. Harvey , "Labour , c a p i t a l and c l a s s s t r u g g l e around the b u i l d environment in advanced c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t i e s , " i n U r b a n i z a t i o n and C o n f l i c t i n Market S o c i e t i e s , e d . K . R . Cox ( C h i c a g o : Maaroufa , 1978), pp. 9-37; R . A . Walker , "The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of urban s t r u c t u r e i n the n i n e t e e n t h century and the b e g i n n i n g of s u b u r b a n i z a t i o n " , i n U r b a n i z a t i o n and C o n f l i c t in Market S o c i e t i e s , e d . K . R . Cox ( C h i c a g o : Maaroufa , 1978), pp. 165-212. P. Saunders , S o c i a l Theory and the Urban Quest ion (London: H u t c h i n s o n , 1981). 17 3 4 t h i s a p p r o a c h . Agnew conc ludes t h a t the ex tent to which homeownership i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p r i v a t i s t i c a t t i t u d e s depends on whether there are competing commitments such as a s t r o n g working c l a s s movement. However, an i n t e r e s t i n g a spect of Agnew's t reatment of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n theory i s t h a t , a l t h o u g h he f i n d s i t does not match events i n B r i t a i n , he c o n s i d e r s that the model shou ld be m a i n t a i n e d and employed d i a l e c t i c a l l y . He c l a i m s to f o l l o w A v i n e r i who p o s i t s the f o l l o w i n g use of models : S ince a l l h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t y i s always i n a p roce s s of becoming, the model i s e i t h e r a c r i t -e r i o n for a r e a l i t y d e v e l o p i n g towards i t - o r , i f adequacy between model and r e a l i t y i s maximised , i n t e r n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s have g i v e n r i s e to a r e a l i t y tha t has over taken the model and moved f a r t h e r and f a r t h e r away from i t . 3 5 T h i s c o n c e p t i o n of the use of models i n s o c i a l s c i e n c e l eads to the q u e s t i o n , under what c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o u l d one conc lude that a model i s s imply wrong or not u s e f u l ? That i s , how c o u l d one dec ide that i t m i s r e p r e s e n t s r a t h e r than c l a r i f i e s s o c i a l r e a l i t y ? As U r r y , a j o i n t author of a very i n f l u e n t i a l s t a t e -ment on r e a l i s m and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to marxism, S o c i a l Theory as S c i e n c e , has r e c e n t l y commented, r e a l i s m has e s s en-t i a l l y evaded the i s s u e of i n d u c t i o n and v e r i f i c a t i o n and J . Agnew, "Home Ownership and I d e n t i t y i n C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t i e s , " i n Hous ing and I d e n t i t y : C r o s s - c u l t u r a l P e r s p e c - t i v e s , e d . J . S . Duncan (London: Croom Helm, 1981 ) , pp . 60-97. I b i d . , p . 88. 18 3 6 t h i s i s a s e r i o u s prob lem. Saunders has a l s o n o t e d : "To be taken s e r i o u s l y " marx i s t approaches must c o n f r o n t the i s sue of t e s t a b i l i t y i n g e n u o u s l y , " f o r i f they do not they are l i k e l y 3 7 to r e p r e s e n t l i t t l e more than a s s e r t i o n s of f a i t h " . Duncan and Ley have argued a g a i n s t the tendency for geographic s t r u c -t u r a l m a r x i s t s to r e t a i n t h e o r e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s , i r r e s p e c t i v e of the e m p i r i c a l ev idence a n d , q u o t i n g Habermas, have suggest-ed that i t i s "pure t h e o r y , wanting to d e r i v e e v e r y t h i n g from i t s e l f , tha t succumbs to unacknowledged e x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s 3 8 and becomes i d e o l o g i c a l " . What hypotheses a r i s i n g from the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s s h o u l d be e v a l u a t e d e m p i r i c a l l y ? Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , g iven the view that the homeowner does not improve h i s m a t e r i a l s i t u a -t i o n through the ownership of domest ic p r o p e r t y , when more s p e c i f i c c a u s a l arguments have been p o s i t e d , these arguments have focused on hous ing c o s t s . E n g e l s , as noted above, empha-s i s e d the r o l e of mortgage debt i n r e d u c i n g the c a p a c i t y of 39 workers to a g i t a t e i n the w o r k p l a c e . T h i s l a r g e l y hypothe-3 6 J . U r r y , The Anatomy of C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t i e s : The Economy, C i v i l SocTety and the S ta te (London: M a c M i l l a n P r e s s , 1981). 37 P. Saunders , S o c i a l Theory and the Urban Q u e s t i o n , p . 284. 3 8 J . Duncan and D. L e y , " S t r u c t u r a l Marxism and Human Geography: A C r i t i c a l A s s e s s m e n t , " Annal s of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers 72 (1982) , 30-59. 39 The importance of mortgage debt i s emphasised a l s o by C a s t e l l s (The Urban Q u e s t i o n , p . 185) and Dav id Harvey ( "Labour , c a p i t a l and c l a s s s t r u g g l e around the b u i l t environment i n advanced c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t i e s , " P o l i t i c s and 19 t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between mortgage debt and workplace c o n s e r -v a t i s m has met w i t h two c r i t i c i s m s . F i r s t , the r e l e v a n c e of t h i s argument ac ro s s time has 40 been q u e s t i o n e d . I t has been argued by E d e l t h a t improve-ments i n commuter t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , as w e l l as the d i v e r s i f i c a -t i o n of the employment base of l a r g e r m e t r o p o l i t a n c e n t r e s , have i n c r e a s e d a w o r k e r ' s employment p o s s i b i l i t i e s (hence d i v o r c i n g mortgage debt from labour conserva t i sm) and more deve loped mortgage and r e s a l e markets have reduced the p o s s i -b i l i t y that a worker w i l l be unable to s e l l h i s house . Whi le r e v i s i o n s on the b a s i s of h i s t o r i c a l ev idence are 41 c e r t a i n l y welcome to marx i s t theory , i t i s c u r i o u s tha t the sense of a c o l l e c t i v i t y i s so t o t a l l y i gnored by E d e l , a marx i s t p o l i t i c a l economis t , i n f o r m u l a t i n g these c r i t i c i s m s . Enge l s c l e a r l y had some n o t i o n of c l a s s i n mind when he wrote : S o c i e t y 6 (1976) , pp. 272-73. 40 M. E d e l , "Homeownership and working c l a s s u n i t y , " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research 6 (1982), 205-221. 4 1 The need for a s e n s i t i v i t y to h i s t o r i c a l change on the par t of marx i s t t h e o r i s t s , touched upon above, has been taken up from a number of p o s i t i o n s . For example: E . P . Thompson, The Pover ty of Theory and o ther e s says (New Y o r k : Monthly Review P r e s s , 1978), whose po lemic a g a i n s t s t r u c t u r a l marxism and i t s d i s r e g a r d for e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e e x c i t e d a l i v e l y debate i n the j o u r n a l , H i s t o r y Workshop, one example be ing the essay by R. Johnson, "Edward Thompson, Eugene Genovese , and s o c i a l i s t - h u m a n i s t h i s t o r y , " H i s t o r y Workshop 6 (1978) , 79-100. Other m a r x i s t s who have spoken out on t h i s p o i n t i n c l u d e : H . L e f e b v r e , The S u r v i v a l of C a p i t a l i s m : R e p r o d u c t i o n of the R e l a t i o n s of P r o d u c t i o n (London: A l l i s o n and Busby, 1976); S .S . Duncan, "Hous ing p o l i c y , the methodology of l e v e l s , and urban r e s e a r c h : the case of C a s t e l l s , " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research 5 (1981) , 231-254. 20 " G i v e them t h e i r own houses , c h a i n them once aga in to the s o i l and you break t h e i r power of r e s i s t a n c e to the wage c u t t i n g of the f a c t o r y owners. The i n d i v i d u a l worker might be a b l e to s e l l h i s house on o c c a s i o n , but d u r i n g a b i g s t r i k e or a g e n e r a l i n d u s t r i a l c r i s i s a l l the houses b e l o n g i n g to the a f f e c t e d workers would have to come i n t o the market for s a l e and would t h e r e f o r e f i n d no p u r c h a s e r s or be s o l d o f f for below t h e i r co s t p r i c e . " ^ So t o o , the r o l e of mortgage debt i n r e s t r i c t i n g l abour m i l i -tancy i n an economic contex t of h i g h unemployment (when job m o b i l i t y i s e f f e c t i v e l y r e s t r i c t e d ) seems very c u r r e n t indeed . Thus in the c o n t e x t of a r ecent vote a g a i n s t a n a t i o n a l s t r i k e amongst B r i t i s h c o a l m i n e r s , i t i s r e p o r t e d t h a t : " I n t e r v i e w s w i t h r a n k - a n d - f i l e miners t h i s week r e v e a l e d what was on t h e i r minds : mortgage payments, p e r s o n a l spending p l a n s , the uncer -43 t a i n t y of t h e i r employment f u t u r e . " G r a n t i n g the v a l i d i t y of E d e l ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s , i n s i t u a t i o n s i n which job m o b i l i t y i s e f f e c t i v e l y r e s t r i c t e d the h y p o t h e s i s e d a s s o c i a t i o n between mortgage debt and job s t a b i l i t y seems a v a l u a b l e one to c o n -s i d e r i n more d e t a i l . A second l i n e of c r i t i c i s m r e v o l v e s around the uniqueness of mortgage debt i n c o n t r i b u t i n g to a c o n s e r v a t i v e i d e o l o g y . For i n s t a n c e , i t i s not c l e a r to Kemeny why mortgaged home-owners are any more i n t e g r a t e d i n t o c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s than 42 . . F . E n g e l s , The Hous ing Q u e s t i o n , p . 50. 43 C . Young, " B r i t i s h miners u n w i l l i n g to gamble , " The Vancouver Sun, 11 March 1983, Sec . A . , p . 4. 21 r e n t e r s wi th h i g h r e n t a l c o s t s . That i s , i t i s not obv ious tha t there i s a n y t h i n g s p e c i f i c to homeownership tha t i s p e c u l i a r l y c o n d u c i v e to c o n s e r v a t i v e v a l u e s ; f o r example, F o r r e s t notes t h a t " the n o t i o n that mortgage payments have a p o l i t i c a l l y s t a b i l i s i n g i n f l u e n c e and make people more committed to a p a r t i c u l a r job has l i t t l e to do w i t h any m y s t i -c a l q u a l i t i e s i n h e r e n t i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of a d w e l l i n g . 4 5 C r e d i t based consumption w i l l g e n e r a l l y have t h i s e f f e c t . " However, a counter-argument might h inge on the e q u i t y that a homeowner s tands to l o se i f he d e f a u l t s on h i s mortgage - a l -though t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between e q u i t y , mortgage debt and c o n s e r v a t i v e v a l u e s has not been documented. Homeownership i s c l e a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t because i t f i g u r e s as such a l a r g e p r o p o r -t i o n of consumer d e b t : in 1981 mortgage debt c o n s t i t u t e d 42.2% of a l l Canadian consumer d e b t . 4 ^ F o r r e s t a l s o i gnore s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t mortgage debt c o u l d have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t meaning to homeowners than o ther forms of c r e d i t , because of i t s s i z e and l i n k s to the sent iments of home, and hence exer t a s t r o n g e r i n f l u e n c e on p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n . Perhaps a more c o n v i n c i n g r e f u t a t i o n , or at l e a s t q u a l i -f i c a t i o n , of E n g e l s ' t h e s i s can be argued on the grounds tha t J . Kemeny, "Home ownership and p r i v a t i z a t i o n , " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research 4 (1980) , 372-387. 45 R. F o r r e s t , "The meaning of homeownership , " E n v i r o n - ment and P l a n n i n g D: S o c i e t y and Space 1 (1983), p . 210. Bank of Canada Review (Ottawa: n . p . , March 1982). 22 modern ' c a p i t a l ' does not opera te as an i n d i v i s i b l e whole , that there are important f r a c t i o n s w i t h i n ' c a p i t a l ' . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , homeowners' c a p a c i t y to r e s i s t mortgage r a t e s through p o p u l a r p r o t e s t , f o r i n s t a n c e , may not immediate ly endanger t h e i r job s i t u a t i o n . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to unders tand how mortgage debt w i l l l e a d a u t o m a t i c a l l y to g e n e r a l p o l i t i c a l c o n s e r v a t i s m on the par t of indebted homeowners. T h i s i s a theme which w i l l be taken up i n more d e t a i l be low. The main p o i n t to draw out at p r e s e n t i s t h a t mortgage debt has been p o s i t e d as an important f a c t o r i n i n f l u e n c i n g p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s . However, i t s r o l e i n do ing so has not been c o n c e p t u a l i s e d p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l and there i s l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l ev idence e x p l o r i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In the same way, another p o s t u l a t e d cause of a more ' p r i v a t i s t i c ' o r i e n t a t i o n amongst homeowners i s e q u a l l y without e m p i r i c a l f o u n d i n g . Kemeny has argued tha t homeowners and tenants have d i f f e r e n t l i f e - c y c l e s of r e l a t i v e pover ty and that these v a r y i n g l i f e - c y c l e s i n f l u e n c e t h e i r r e l a t i v e 47 commitment towards s o c i a l we l f a re measures . T e n a n t s , on the one hand, e x p e r i e n c e c o n s t a n t hous ing c o s t s as a p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r househo ld income u n t i l they r e t i r e and/or beg in to l i v e on a f i x e d income, at which p o i n t c o n t i n u a l l y i n f l a t i n g r e n t s assume a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r household income. Tenants thus e x p e r i e n c e t h e i r most extreme p o v e r t y in o l d age and are J . Kemeny, "Homeownership and p r i v a t i z a t i o n " ; The Myth of Home Ownership (London: Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1981). 23 l i a b l e to need s o c i a l s e c u r i t y p r o v i s i o n s . On the o ther hand, homeowners r e d i s t r i b u t e t h e i r hous ing c o s t s from o l d age to t h e i r younger y e a r s . In g e n e r a l , homeowners e x p e r i e n c e h i g h e s t hous ing c o s t s when they assume t h e i r f i r s t mortgage. I f incomes i n f l a t e and mortgage payments remain r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t over t i m e , the p r o p o r t i o n of income to hous ing c o s t s w i l l decrease for homeowners. When the mortgage i s r e p a i d , hous ing c o s t s , in the form of p r o p e r t y taxes and maintenance c o s t s , are r e l a t i v e l y s l i g h t . Homeownership a c t s l i k e a p r i -vate in surance scheme, r e d u c i n g the c a p a c i t y and d e s i r e of homeowners to pay i n t o s o c i a l w e l f a r e schemes i n t h e i r younger year s when they wish to r e t a i n c o n t r o l over the f a m i l y budget d u r i n g the p e r i o d of h i g h hous ing c o s t s , and r e d u c i n g a l s o t h e i r need for s o c i a l s e c u r i t y measures i n t h e i r o l d age. As i n t e r e s t i n g as t h i s argument may be, there i s l i t t l e i n the way of e m p i r i c a l support for i t . Kemeny has drawn c r o s s -n a t i o n a l compari sons between l e v e l s of homeownership and a v e r -age percentage of household income p a i d i n d i r e c t t axe s , for i n s t a n c e ( t a b l e 1.1) , but l i n k s to i n d i v i d u a l i n t e n t i o n a l i t y have not been made. These more s p e c i f i c arguments r e l a t i n g hous ing c o s t s to p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s suggest that homeowners and t enant s may d i f f e r a l o n g more c i r c u m s c r i b e d l i n e s than have been more g e n e r a l l y suggested by those d e s c r i b i n g homeowners i n such sweeping terms as ' p o s s e s s i v e i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c ' or ' p r i v a t i s -t i c ' . In c o n c e p t u a l i s i n g the p o l i t i c a l impact of homeowner-24 TABLE 1.1 Owner-occupation and aggregate i n d i c e s of the w e l f a r e s t a t e : s e l e c t e d c a p i t a l i s t c o u n t r i e s C o u n t r y Owner O c c u p a t i o n Rates C u r r e n t T o t a l % of income 1950 1973 government expendi t u r e t a x a t ion ( i n c l u d -p a i d i n d i r e c i n d i r e c t as ' 4 of ing s o c i a l taxes a f t e r GNP ( 1976) s e c u r i ty) as % of GNP ( 1968-70) dec 1arat i on ( 1978) Sweden 45 40 49. .8 43 .0 34 . 4 West Germany 42 35 4 1 , . 7 34 .0 27 .8 The N e t h e r l a n d s 30 33 52 . 2 39 . 7 n. a . UK 26 52 41 .5 36.6 2 1.5 France 35 45 40 .0 36 . 3 19.8 USA 50 62 33 . .0 27 .9 19.3 Canada 60 60 36 . 4 30. 2 20. 1 A u s t r a l 1a 45 66 28 . .6 24 . 4 15.9 Source: J . Kemeny, "Home Ownership and P r i v a t i z a t i o n , " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research 4 (1980), p. 382. (Edward A r n o l d Pub.) Assembled from the f o l l o w i n g s o u r c e s : OECD Observer no. 91, March 1978, pp. 20-21; OECD Obse r v e r no. 61, December 1972, p. 17"; Royal Commission on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Income and Wealth 1977: The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Income i n E i g h t C o u n t r i e s (by Thomas S t a r k ) . Background Paper no. 4, London: Her M a j e s t y ' s S t a t i o n a r y O f f i c e . 25 s h i p there has been l i t t l e a p p r e c i a t i o n and hence no i n v e s t i -g a t i o n of the c o n s i s t e n c y of the d i f f e r e n c e s between home-owners and t enant s a c ro s s d i f f e r e n t d imens ions of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . Y e t , amongst r e s e a r c h e r s of p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , t h e r e seems some agreement t h a t p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n cannot be unders tood as o n e - d i m e n s i o n a l even though there i s no agreement c o n c e r n i n g the s t a b i l i t y of the a c t i v i t y dimen-48 s i o n s . O r n s t e i n , Stevenson and W i l l i a m s i d e n t i f y three ' l a y e r s ' of p o l i t i c a l c u l t u r e in Canada, l a y e r s of v a r y i n g 49 degrees of s p e c i f i c i t y . At the most s p e c i f i c are a t t i t u d e s towards p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s and governmental i n s t i t u t i o n s , which a f f e c t v o t i n g c h o i c e s and . s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h v a r i o u s l e v e l s of government. More g e n e r a l are a t t i t u d e s towards the ' s y s t e m ' of government, a t t i t u d e s towards the e f f i c a c y of p o l i t i c a l p a r t i -c i p a t i o n , for i n s t a n c e . Even more g e n e r a l are b r o a d l y norma-t i v e b e l i e f s - f o r example, c o n c e r n i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e d i s t r i -b u t i o n of p o l i t i c a l power and w e a l t h . The r e l e v a n c e of these Verba and Nie i d e n t i f y four d i s c r e t e d imens ions of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y : v o t i n g , campaign a c t i v i t y , communal a c t i -v i t y and c o n t a c t i n g (S. Verba and N . H . N i e , P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n A m e r i c a : P o l i t i c a l democracy and s o c i a l e q u i t y (New Y o r k : Harper and Row, 1972). W i n k l e r , Judd and Kelman i d e n t i f y t h r e e : g e n e r a l a c t i v i t y , v o t i n g and d i s c u s s i o n ( J . D . W i n k l e r , C M . Judd and H . C . Kelman, "Determinant s of P o l i t i c a l P a r t i c i -p a t i o n i n a Canadian and a U n i t e d S t a t e s C i t y , " P o l i t i c a l P sycho logy 3 (1981-1982), 140-161. M. O r n s t e i n , A . M . Stevenson and P. W i l l i a m s , " R e g i o n , C l a s s and P o l i t i c a l C u l t u r e i n C a n a d a , " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e 13 (1980) , 227-271. 26 d i s t i n c t i o n s i s suggested by the f i n d i n g that i n Canada r e g i o n a l i s m i s c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t t i t u d e s towards p o l i -t i c a l p a r t i e s w h i l e soc io-economic measures are more c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d wi th broader normat ive a t t i t u d e s or a ' l e f t - r i g h t ' o r i e n t a t i o n . The types of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and a c t i v i t i e s most i n f l u e n c e d by homeownership, and the l i m i t s to the g e n e r a l i s a -t i o n l i n k i n g hous ing tenure to p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , have not been s p e c i f i e d w i t h any c l a r i t y . Cox and McCarthy have p r e -sented ev idence of an a s s o c i a t i o n between neighbourhood a c t i -v i sm and hous ing tenure i n one U . S . c i t y , tha t of Columbus, Ohio - o ther d imens ions of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y and p o l i t i c a l 50 a t t i t u d e s were not i n v e s t i g a t e d . In the B r i t i s h n a t i o n a l c o n t e x t , Saunders found tha t the r e l a t i v e l y prosperous home-owners i n the London Borough of Croydon had a s t r o n g c o l l e c -t i v e c o n s c i o u s n e s s as regards the impact of l o c a l hous ing and 51 l a n d use p o l i c i e s on t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . There i s a l s o ev idence through the 1960's and 1970's of a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between homeownership and v o t e r tu rnout as w e l l as a C o n s e r v a t i v e vote i n B r i t i s h n a t i o n a l e l e c -K. Cox and J . J . McCar thy , "Neighbourhood A c t i v i s m as a P o l i t i c s of T u r f : A C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s , " i n C o n f l i c t , P o l i t i c s and the Urban Scene, e d . K. Cox and R . J . Johnson (London: Longman, 1981). 51 P. Saunders , Urban P o l i t i c s : A S o c i o l o g i c a l I n t e r p r e t a -t i o n . 27 t i o n s . However, D u n l e a v y ' s ev idence tha t the combined e f f e c t s of hous ing tenure and car ownership are comparable to the i n f l u e n c e of s o c i a l grade on v o t i n g p a t t e r n s has r e c e n t l y 53 been c h a l l e n g e d on e m p i r i c a l g rounds . I t i s argued tha t the s t r o n g a s s o c i a t i o n s between homeownership and a c o n s e r v a t i v e vo te w i t h i n s o c i a l grades may r e f l e c t the i n f l u e n c e of income and age, which are i n a d e q u a t e l y c o n t r o l l e d i n D u n l e a v y ' s a n a l y s i s , r a t h e r than hous ing t e n u r e . In any c a s e , t h e r e have been no i n t e g r a t e d examinat ions of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n d imens ions by hous ing t e n u r e . One f u r t h e r argument l i n k i n g hous ing c o s t s and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m , which has not been e x p l i c i t l y framed i n terms of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s , w i l l be r ev iewed , p a r t i a l l y because i t r e i n f o r c e s the p o i n t that there i s a t e n s i o n between the g l o b a l i d e o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s of homeownership c l a i m e d by some t h e o r i s t s and the more p r a g m a t i c , s p e c i f i c l i n k s between homeownership and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m o u t l i n e d by o t h e r s . Cox and McCarthy have argued that homeowners are more l i k e l y to become i n v o l v e d i n l o c a l p o l i t i c s or w i t h neighbourhood p r o b -P. B u t l e r and D. S tokes , P o l i t i c a l Change i n B r i t a i n , 2nd e d . (London: M a c M i l l a n , 1975); P . P . Dav i s and K. Newton, "An Aggregate Data A n a l y s i s of Turnout and P a r t y V o t i n g i n L o c a l E l e c t i o n s , " S o c i o l o g y 8 (1974) , 213-231; P. D u n l e a v y , "The Urban B a s i s of P o l i t i c a l A l i g n m e n t : S o c i a l C l a s s , Domes-t i c P r o p e r t y Ownership , and S ta te I n t e r v e n t i o n i n Consumption P r o c e s s e s , " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l Sc i ence 9 (1979) , 409-443. M. H a r r o p , "The Urban B a s i s of P o l i t i c a l A l i g n m e n t : A Comment," B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l Sc ience 10 (1980) ,388-98. 28 lems because of the h i g h ' t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s ' of r e l o c a t i o n . S imply p u t , i t i s a c o s t l y venture fo r homeowners to r e l o c a t e - one g e n e r a l l y c a r r i e s out minor r e p a i r s be fore p l a c i n g o n e ' s house on the market , has to commit t ime to showing o n e ' s house and n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h p r o s p e c t i v e buyers and then pay r e a l e s t a t e f e e s . I f r e l o c a t i n g to another owned house , f i n a n c i n g g e n e r a l l y must be r ea r ranged and fees p a i d to a s s e s s o r s , i n s p e c t o r s and , a g a i n , r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t s . In compar i son , the t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s are much l e s s for the r e n t e r . I t i s argued t h a t the r e s u l t of these unequal t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s i n terms of l o c a l p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y i s t h a t , when a problem a r i s e s i n the ne ighbourhood , homeowners may tend to become i n v o l v e d p o l i t i -c a l l y in o rder to r e s o l v e the problem w h i l e r e n t e r s may s imply r e l o c a t e . Thus , wi thout assuming a broad i d e o l o g i c a l r i f t between r e n t e r s and homeowners, because of v a r y i n g c o n s t r a i n t s 55 w i t h i n the hous ing market as p r e s e n t l y s t r u c t u r e d , home-owners may show d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s at the l o c a l p o l i t i -c a l l e v e l . Another i n t e r e s t i n g a spec t of Cox and M c C a r t h y ' s work i s t h e i r i n t e g r a t e d d i s c u s s i o n of both the c o s t s and investment p o t e n t i a l of homeownership i n shaping l o c a l p o l i t i c a l K. Cox and J . J . McCar thy , "Neighbourhood A c t i v i s m as a P o l i t i c s of T u r f " . 55 I t i s w e l l to keep i n mind tha t there i s n o t h i n g ' n a t u r a l ' about any of these p r o c e s s e s . T r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s would be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t fo r the tenant i f l e g a l r i g h t s to s e c u r i t y were more e s t a b l i s h e d or i n the case of very low vacancy r a t e s . 29 a c t i v i t y , a d m i t t e d l y an i n t e g r a t i o n a c h i e v e d from t h e i r l a r g e l y e m p i r i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n to the i s s u e . In c o n t r a s t , because of the t h e o r e t i c a l s t a r t i n g p o i n t , tha t s p l i t s between homeowners and tenant s are merely i d e o l o g i c a l , m a r x i s t s w r i t i n g about the p o l i t i c a l l y i n t e g r a t i v e e f f e c t s of home-ownership have tended to be b l i n d to or minimise the impor-tance of the house as an inves tment . Weberian C r i t i q u e of the I n c o r p o r a t i o n T h e s i s - The Importance of the House as an Investment F o c u s i n g on the shortcomings of c o n v e n t i o n a l marx i an , as w e l l as w e b e r i a n , t rea tments of the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i -cance of h o u s i n g t e n u r e , i t has been argued by Saunders that homeownership i s a c r i t i c a l m a t e r i a l r e source which g i v e s r i s e to o b j e c t i v e i n t e r e s t s which c r o s s - c u t c l a s s i n t e r e s t s a r i s i n g out of the s o c i a l o r g a n i s a t i o n of p r o d u c t i o n . ^ Homeownership i s thus viewed as a d i s t i n c t b a s i s for p o l i t i c a l a l ignment both l o c a l l y , i n terms of c o n f l i c t s over l a n d use , and n a t i o n a l l y , in terms of hous ing p o l i c y and f i n a n c e , i n the sense tha t t h e r e are m a t e r i a l and not s imply s t a t u s d i s t i n c -t i o n s between tenure c a t e g o r i e s . G . P r a t t , " C l a s s a n a l y s i s and urban domest ic p r o p e r t y : a c r i t i c a l r e e x a m i n a t i o n , " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research 6 (1982) , 481-502; P. Saunders , "Domest ic P r o p e r t y and S o c i a l C l a s s , " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research 2 (1978) , 233-51; Urban P o l i t i c s : A S o c i o - l o g i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; "Beyond Hous ing C l a s s e s : The S o c i o l o g i -c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e of P r i v a t e P r o p e r t y R i g h t s in Means of Con-s u m p t i o n , " Working Paper 33: Urban and R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of Sussex , 1982. 30 C r i t i c a l to t h i s argument i s the c l a i m t h a t homeownership i t s e l f l eads to weal th a c c u m u l a t i o n and hence i s not merely an index of o n e ' s p o s i t i o n i n terms of p r o d u c t i o n . Four f a c t o r s have been c i t e d as be ing c r i t i c a l to the p roce s s of r e a l a c c u m u l a t i o n through homeownership: f i r s t , house p r i c e s have i n c r e a s e d , at l e a s t s i n c e the war, at a r a te f a s t e r than the g e n e r a l r a te of i n f l a t i o n i n many advanced c a p i t a l i s t c o u n t r i e s and thus the house as an investment has o f f e r e d r e t u r n s which far ou t reach any o ther form of c o n v e n t i o n a l 57 investment i n these c o u n t r i e s ; second, mortgage r a t e s have not approached the r a te of i n f l a t i o n and the e f f e c t has been that house-buyers have been a b l e to borrow money at reduced 5 8 r a t e s of i n t e r e s t ; t h i r d , the homeowner has had access to s u b s i d i e s i n the form of tax a l lowances which have g e n e r a l l y For a summary of U . S . data see : L . G r e b l e r and F . G . M i t t e l b a c h , The i n f l a t i o n of house p r i c e s : I t s e x t e n t , causes and consequences ( L e x i n g t o n , M a s s . : L e x i n g t o n Books, 197 9 ) ; J . T u c c i l l o , Hous ing and investment i n an i n f l a t i o n a r y w o r l d : Theory and ev idence (Washington, D . C . : The Urban I n s t i t u t e , 1980). For a summary of B r i t i s h ev idence see Saunders , "Domes-t i c P r o p e r t y and S o c i a l C l a s s " . For Canadian ev idence see : S . M . McFayden and R . J . H o b a r t , " I n f l a t i o n and urban home o w n e r s h i p , " i n Urban Housing M a r k e t s : Recent d i r e c t i o n s in r e - s ea rch and p o l i c y e d . L . S . Bourne and J . R . H i t c h c o c k ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1978); D . T . Scheffman, "Some ev idence on the recent boom i n l a n d and house p r i c e s , " i n Urban Hous ing M a r k e t s : Recent d i r e c t i o n s i n r e s e a r c h and p o l i c y . C Q J . T u c i l l o , Housing and investment i n an i n f l a t i o n a r y wor ld for American e v i d e n c e ; for B r i t i s h ev idence see : D. P i a c h a u d , " I n f l a t i o n and Income D i s t r i b u t i o n , " i n The P o l i t i - c a l Economy of I n f l a t i o n (London: M a r t i n Robertson"! 1978); P"7 Saunders , "Domest ic p r o p e r t y and s o c i a l c l a s s . " 31 exceeded those a v a i l a b l e to tenants ; and f o u r t h , the home-owner can i n c r e a s e the va lue of h i s house through h i s own l a b o u r . ^ The i m p l i c a t i o n of these t r e n d s i s t h a t homeowners have a very r e a l i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g and ex tend ing t h e i r p r i v i l e g e d market p o s i t i o n through p o l i t i c a l a l ignment and m o b i l i s a t i o n around i s s u e s of l a n d use p o l i c y , i n so far as they might a f f e c t p r o p e r t y v a l u e s , and government h o u s i n g , f i s c a l and monetary p o l i c i e s , which impact on mortgage r a t e s and forms of i n d i r e c t and d i r e c t s u b s i d i s a t i o n . Even so , the impact of an investment o r i e n t a t i o n on p o l i t i c a l m o b i l i s a t i o n has not been c o n c l u s i v e l y demonst ra ted . As noted above, Saunders ' s tudy of the London Borough of Croydon i n d i c a t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l awareness amongst prosperous homeowners of the impact of l o c a l hous ing and l a n d use p o l i -c i e s on r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . Agnew has c i t e d i n v e s t -ment o r i e n t a t i o n as an important f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g a t t i t u d e s towards l a n d use change, s p e c i f i c a l l y , t o l e r a n c e towards the For a summary of U . S . e v i d e n c e : H . T . A a r o n , S h e l t e r and S u b s i d i e s - Who B e n e f i t s from F e d e r a l Hous ing P o l i c i e s ? (Washington, D . C . : Brook ings I n s t . , 1972); N . G l a z e r , "The B ia s of American Hous ing P o l i c y , " i n Hous ing Urban America e d . J . Pynoos, R. Schafer and C.W. Hartman ( C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , f973) , pp. 405-22; T u c i l l o , Hous ing and Investment i n an i n f l a - t i o n a r y w o r l d . For B r i t i s h e v i d e n c e , ,P. D u n l e a v y , Urban p o l i - t i c a l a n a l y s i s : The p o l i t i c s of c o l l e c t i v e consumption (London: M a c M i l l a n , 1980); Saunders , "Domest ic p r o p e r t y and s o c i a l c l a s s " . For Canadian e v i d e n c e , J . P a t t e r s o n , " D i s t r i -b u t i o n a l and s o c i a l impacts of Canadian n a t i o n a l hous ing p o l i c y : L e a v i n g i t to the m a r k e t , " i n Urban Hous ing M a r k e t s : Recent d i r e c t i o n s i n r e s e a r c h and p o l i c y . 6 0 J . P a t t e r s o n , " D i s t r i b u t i o n a l and s o c i a l impacts of Canadian n a t i o n a l hous ing p o l i c y " ; P. Saunders , "Domest ic p r o p e r t y and s o c i a l c l a s s " . 32 mix ing of p r i v a t e and p u b l i c h o u s i n g . Comparing a B r i t i s h sample of homeowners in L e i c e s t e r and an American sample of homeowners l i v i n g i n Dayton , O h i o , Agnew found t h a t the American sample showed more concern for p r o f i t i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r house . As w e l l , the American sample was c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s t o l e r a n t than the B r i t i s h sample of mixed p r i v a t e and p u b l i c h o u s i n g : 78.6 p e r c e n t of the American sample opposed mixed hous ing i n compari son to 38.8 percent i n the B r i t i s h c a s e . Of those who opposed the mixed h o u s i n g , 34.5 percent of the American sample c i t e d a concern for p r o p e r t y v a l u e s as the pr imary reason for o p p o s i t i o n w h i l e 8.6 percent of the L e i c e s t e r sample c i t e d t h i s r e a s o n . However, u s i n g e x a c t l y the same q u e s t i o n as Agnew to e x p l o r e a t t i t u d e s towards the home as an inves tment , Cox and McCarthy found t h e r e to be no r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighbourhood a c t i v i s m and an investment 6 2 o r i e n t a t i o n amongst a Columbus, Ohio sample of homeowners. In f a c t , i n s i t u a t i o n s i n which a neighbourhood problem was p e r c e i v e d by homeowners, those w i t h an investment o r i e n t a t i o n were more l i k e l y to s imply move. Cox and McCarthy c o n c l u d e : " In Agnew's s tudy an attempt was made to i n f e r from a r e l a t i o n between investment o r i e n t a -t i o n and a t t i t u d e s towards mix ing p u b l i c and p r i -va te hous ing to a r e l a t i o n w i t h o r g a n i z e d o p p o s i -J . Agnew, "Market R e l a t i o n s and L o c a t i o n a l C o n f l i c t i n C r o s s - N a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e , " i n U r b a n i z a t i o n and C o n f l i c t In Market S o c i e t i e s . K . R . Cox and J . M c C a r t h y , "Neighbourhood A c t i v i s m i n the American C i t y : B e h a v i o u r a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s and E v a l u a t i o n , " Urban Geography 1 (1980), 22-38. 33 t i o n on the par t of homeowners. Our data must c a l l tha t i n f e r e n c e s e r i o u s l y i n t o q u e s t i o n . " g ^ What Agnew does not c o n s i d e r i n enough d e t a i l i s the d i s t i n c t i o n between a t t i t u d e s towards l and use p o l i c i e s and p o l i t i c a l ac t ion to i n f l u e n c e these p o l i c i e s . A g a i n , a d i s -t i n c t i o n between types of p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s has not been c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d . Nor has enough c o n s i d e r a t i o n been g i v e n to the ways in which d i f f e r e n t c a u s a l f a c t o r s (mortgage d e b t , hous ing c o s t s and investment o r i e n t a t i o n , for i n s t a n c e ) i n t e r a c t . Agnew has suggested the a s s o c i a t i o n be t -ween mortgage debt and investment o r i e n t a t i o n but there ° i s 64 l i t t l e ev idence to support t h i s c o n t e n t i o n . Even l e s s w e l l c o n s i d e r e d i s the r e l e v a n c e of ga ins through d i r e c t s u b s i d i s a t i o n , and monetary and f i s c a l p o l i c y to p o l i t i c a l a l ignment and m o b i l i s a t i o n . E v i d e n c e of t h i s s o r t i s absent but at the same time fundamental to the p e r -s p e c t i v e that p o l i t i c a l and a t t i t u d i n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between homeowners and tenant s are based on r e a l m a t e r i a l d i s t i n c t i o n s and not merely p e r c e p t i o n s of s t a t u s . The ex tent to which i t i s fundamental to p r o v i d e such ev idence can be seen from r e v i e w i n g one of the most c o n s i s t e n t c r i t i c i s m s of t h i s p e r -s p e c t i v e , the v i e w p o i n t that homeownership does not a c t u a l l y p r o v i d e an important source of w e a l t h . 6 3 I b i d . , p . 27 ( o r i g i n a l emphas i s ) . 64 J . Agnew, "Market R e l a t i o n s and L o c a t i o n a l C o n f l i c t i n C r o s s - N a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e , " p . 131. 34 A major c r i t i c i s m of the view tha t d i s t i n c t i o n s between hous ing t e n u r e s , i n terms of p o l i t i c a l a l ignment and m o b i l i s a -t i o n , are founded on d i s t i n c t m a t e r i a l i n t e r e s t s d e v e l o p i n g out of the p o t e n t i a l to accumulate wea l th through homeowner-s h i p , has been that the r a t e of i n f l a t i o n of urban house p r i c e s d u r i n g the 1970's in Canada, the U . S . and B r i t a i n was e x c e p t i o n a l . The shor t term nature of t h i s extreme house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n i s argued on the b a s i s of h i s t o r i c t rends the more c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n of h i g h e r mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s and d e c l i n i n g or s teady house p r i c e s ^ and, i n a more t h e o r e -t i c a l v e i n , p r o f i t - e q u a l i s i n g t e n d e n c i e s i n the b u i l d i n g 6 7 i n d u s t r y over an extended p e r i o d of t i m e . R e b u t t a l s to these p o i n t s have come from two d i r e c t i o n s ; f i r s t , i n t r o d u c i n g arguments as to why house p r i c e s shou ld c o n t i n u e to i n f l a t e r e l a t i v e to o t h e r a s s e t s (because of l a n d 6 8 shortages fo r i n s t a n c e ) and , second , r e f o c u s i n g a c o n s i d e r a -t i o n of the m a t e r i a l b e n e f i t s of homeownership away from house 69 p r i c e s to forms of government s u b s i d i s a t i o n . I t i s argued 6 5 M. E d e l , "Home ownership and working c l a s s u n i t y " . 6 6 M . A . G o l d b e r g , The Hous ing Problem: A Rea l C r i s i s ? (Vancouver : U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia P r e s s , 1983); P. W i l l i a m s , " P r o p e r t y , power and p o l i t i c s : Home ownership and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s , " Annual Conference of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographer s , San A n t o n i o , 1982. 6 7 M. E d e l , "Home ownership and working c l a s s u n i t y " ; M . A . G o l d b e r g , The Housing Prob lem: A Rea l C r i s i s ? . 68 P. Saunders , "Domest ic p r o p e r t y and s o c i a l c l a s s " . 6 9 G . P r a t t , " C l a s s a n a l y s i s and urban domest ic p r o p e r t y : 35 t h a t a major source of i n e q u i t y between homeowners and r e n t e r s l i e s i n the p a t t e r n of government s u b s i d i s a t i o n , bo th d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t ( through tax exempt ions ) , of each of these tenure g roup ings (an a s s e r t i o n which g e n e r a l l y has not been backed by 70 d e t a i l e d e m p i r i c a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s ) . F u r t h e r , i t has been argued that hous ing i n t e r e s t groups may become important at p r o v i n c i a l and n a t i o n a l l e v e l s i n a t tempts to dominate the p a t t e r n of s u b s i d i s a t i o n . As of y e t , t h i s l i n e of argumenta-t i o n has not been f o l l o w e d up w i t h much i n the way of e m p i r i -c a l s t u d y . As W i l l i a m s has n o t e d : " A n a l y s e s of e l e c t i o n m a t e r i a l c e r t a i n l y show that tenure i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c e r t a i n forms of behaviour but such r e s e a r c h cannot answer the ques-7 1 t i o n as to whether i t causes i t . " In the B r i t i s h c o n t e x t , Harrop has p re sen ted data from a 1977 B r i t i s h Market Research Bureau survey on hous ing showing tha t there i s l i t t l e v a r i a -t i o n by tenure for support of d i f f e r i n g hous ing p o l i c i e s . On the b a s i s of t h i s ev idence he argues t h a t : " w h i l e t h i s agree-a c r i t i c a l r e e x a m i n a t i o n " ; Saunders , "Beyond Housing C l a s s e s : The s o c i o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y r i g h t s i n means of c o n s u m p t i o n " . 70 P a r t i a l a n a l y s e s do e x i s t . For Canadian e v i d e n c e : R . G . Dowler , "Hous ing R e l a t e d Tax E x p e n d i t u r e s : An Overview and E v a l u a t i o n , " Major Report No. 22, Centre for Urban and Community S t u d i e s ( T o r o n t o , U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1983); L . B . S m i t h , "Hous ing A s s i s t a n c e : A R e - e v a l u a t i o n , " Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y 7 (1981) , 454-463. For U . S . e v i d e n c e : M . J . White and L . J . W h i t e , "The tax subs idy to owner-occupied h o u s i n g : Who b e n e f i t s , " J o u r n a l of P u b l i c Economics 7 (1977) , 111-126; R . J . S t ruyk Should Government Encourage Homeownership? (Washington, D . C . : The Urban I n s t i t u t e , 1977). P. W i l l i a m s , "The Home Ownership Debate : Theory and R e s e a r c h , " U n p u b l i s h e d paper , 1983. 36 ment on p r i n c i p l e s of p o l i c y does not p r e c l u d e disagreement over the a p p l i c a t i o n of these p r i n c i p l e s to p a r t i c u l a r cases a f f e c t i n g the re spondent s ' own i n t e r e s t s , on the b a s i s of t h i s ev idence i t does seem u n l i k e l y t h a t a t t i t u d e s to hous ing p o l i c y can account for more than a f r a c t i o n of the t o t a l 72 v a r i a t i o n i n p a r t i s a n s u p p o r t . " Dunleavy c o u n t e r s t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , q u e s t i o n i n g the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l adequacy of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e employed, which tends to induce consensus , and a l s o H a r r o p ' s n e g l e c t to a n a l y s e items which do s tand out as be ing c o n t e n t i o u s ac ros s tenure groups . "Yet the s i x items which show a homeowner/counci l tenant d i f f e r e n c e of 1 or m o r e . . . e i t h e r r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to r e l a t i v e s u b s i d i e s to tenure groups or to s t a t e i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . P r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d , t h e n , the BMRB data do not l i c e n s e any of 73 the c o n c l u s i o n s which Harrop seeks to draw i n h i s comment." C l e a r l y more e m p i r i c a l ev idence i s needed. A c o n s i d e r a t i o n that homeowners may a c t i v e l y pursue t h e i r m a t e r i a l i n t e r e s t s through p o l i t i c a l behav iour c a s t s a d i f f e r -ent l i g h t on p o l i t i c a l a l ignment than does the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s . Rather than r e p r e s e n t i n g a broad i d e o l o g i c a l i n c o r -p o r a t i o n i n t o a c o n s e r v a t i v e wor ld v iew, p o l i t i c a l a l ignment may r e f l e c t a more pragmatic and a c t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n towards i n t e r e s t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h i s need not imply an o v e r l y be-72 M. H a r r o p , "The Urban B a s i s of P o l i t i c a l A l i g n m e n t : A Comment," p . 396. 73 . . . P. D u n l e a v y , "The Urban B a s i s of P o l i t i c a l A l i g n m e n t : A R e j o i n d e r to H a r r o p , " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l Sc ience 10 (1980) , p . 401. 37 h a v i o u r a l p e r s p e c t i v e w h i c h , based on the p r i n c i p l e of method-o l o g i c a l i n d i v i d u a l i s m , tends to l e a d to a n e g l e c t of the s o c i a l i s e d c h a r a c t e r of i n d i v i d u a l s and the s t r u c t u r a l c o n -74 t r a i n t s w i t h i n which they o p e r a t e . To a v o i d t h i s , an under-s t a n d i n g of homeowners' i n t e r e s t s must be c o n c e p t u a l i s e d w i t h i n the s o c i a l and economic contex t w i t h i n which they a r i s e . For i n s t a n c e , one reason why homeowners have p r o s p e r e d r e l a t i v e to r e n t e r s has been because homeownership has a l s o been l i n k e d to the s t i m u l a t i o n of the economy. That i s , postwar hous ing p o l i c i e s , which i n e f f e c t f avoured homeowners, were p r i m a r i l y d i r e c t e d towards the p r o d u c t i o n of new hous ing u n i t s and the s t a b i l i s a t i o n of the economy, w h i l e the concerns 7 5 of hous ing consumers have been of secondary c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h i s does not negate the f ac t tha t these p o l i c i e s have indeed M e t h o d o l o g i c a l i n d i v i d u a l i s m suggests that a l l s o c i a l e x p l a n a t i o n can and must be framed i n terms of i n d i v i d u a l s ' a t t i t u d e s , mot ive s and d e s i r e s . ( J . O ' N e i l l , Modes of I n d i v i d u a l i s m and C o l l e c t i v i s m (London: Heinemann, 1973)) . 75 For B r i t i s h e v i d e n c e : A . M u r i e , P. N m e r and C . Watson, Hous ing P o l i c y and the Hous ing System (London: George A l l e n and Unwin, 1976). For Amerian e v i d e n c e : B. Checkoway, "Large b u i l d e r s , f e d e r a l hous ing programmes, and postwar s u b u r b a n i z a -t i o n " ; D. H a r v e y , "Government p o l i c i e s , f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and ne ighbourhood change i n the U n i t e d S t a te s c i t i e s , " i n C a p t i v e C i t i e s : S t u d i e s i n the p o l i t i c a l economy of c i t i e s and r e g i o n s ed . M~ H a r l o e ( C h i c h e s t e r : John W i l e y , 1977), pp. 123-39; P. Marcuse , "The Myth of the Benevolent S t a t e : Towards a theory of h o u s i n g , " Paper i n P l a n n i n g 8, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Graduate S c h o o l of A r c h i t e c t u r e and P l a n n i n g , 1978. For Canadian e v i d e n c e : H . C a r v e r , Compassionate Landscape ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1975); M. Dennis and S. F i s h , Programs i n Search of a p o l i c y : low income hous ing i n Canada ( T o r o n t o : H a k k e r t , 1972); A . F i n k e l , " O r i g i n s of the we l f a re s t a t e i n C a na da , " i n The Canadian S t a t e : P o l i t i c a l Economy and P o l i t i c a l Power ecL L~. P a n i t c h ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1977), p . 360; A . Rose, Canadian Hous ing P o l i c i e s , (1935-1980) ( T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h , 1980). 38 b e n e f i t e d homeowners, nor does i t seem l i k e l y t h a t the r e l e -vant economic p re s sure s w i l l d i s a p p e a r . In u n d e r s t a n d i n g how homeowners, r e l a t i v e to t e n a n t s , may become a l i g n e d p o l i t i -c a l l y around hous ing i s s u e s , i t i s important to keep i n mind that t h e i r i n t e r e s t s have been d i f f e r e n t i a l l y s t r u c t u r e d - i t i s a rguab le tha t there has been much more encouragement of homeowners to view t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n terms of h o u s i n g . In t h i s l i g h t , i t seems p o s s i b l e to suggest a h y p o t h e s i s c o n -c e r n i n g the p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of hous ing t enure q u i t e at odds wi th the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s . Homeowners may be more i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the formal p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s . Whether they are i d e o l o g i c a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the c a p i t a l i s t s o c i a l order i s another q u e s t i o n . I f homeowners p e r c e i v e t h a t they have c e r t a i n r i g h t s that are not a t t a i n a b l e at some p o i n t i n t i m e , homeownership c o u l d be a p o t e n t i a l l y r a d i c a l i s i n g f a c t o r as w e l l . The p o l i t i c a l nature of the s t r u c t u r i n g of t enure d i v i -s i o n s has been taken up most c l e a r l y in t h e o r e t i c a l d i s -c u s s i o n s of consumption s e c t o r s . Prominent d i s c u s s i o n s of consumption s e c t o r s as l i n e s of p o l i t i c a l c l eavage separa te from those generated through p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s are those of 7 6 Dunleavy and Saunders . D u n l e a v y ' s p o s i t i o n i s tha t c o n -P. Dunleavy , "The urban b a s i s of p o l i t i c a l a l i g n m e n t : s o c i a l c l a s s , domestic p r o p e r t y ownersh ip , and s t a t e i n t e r v e n -t i o n i n consumption p r o c e s s e s " ; Urban P o l i t i c a l A n a l y s i s : the p o l i t i c s of c o l l e c t i v e consumpt ion ; P. Saunders , "Beyond Housing C l a s s e s . " 39 sumption p r o c e s s e s in advanced c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t i e s are d i -v i d e d between i n d i v i d u a l i s e d or p r i v a t e types and c o l l e c t i v e or p u b l i c l y sponsored types of consumpt ion . In the case of h o u s i n g , the p r i v a t e / p u b l i c d ichotomy separa te s p r i v a t e home-ownership and r e n t a l accomodat ion from p u b l i c h o u s i n g . Con-sumption s e c t o r s become s i g n i f i c a n t as the o v e r t l y p o l i t i c a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e i r p r o v i s i o n i s r e c o g n i s e d . Where there i s a h i g h degree of f r agmenta t ion between p r i v a t e - i n d i v i d u a l i s e d and p u b l i c - c o l l e c t i v e modes of consumpt ion , Dunleavy p r e d i c t s tha t t h e r e w i l l be p o l i t i c a l c l e a v a g e s a long these l i n e s -v o t e r s i n v o l v e d i n c o l l e c t i v e modes of consumption a l i g n e d on the l e f t and those i n v o l v e d i n i n d i v i d u a l i s e d modes a l i g n e d to the r i g h t . Consumption ' l o c a t i o n s ' , tha t i s whether c o n -sumption i s p r i v a t e or p u b l i c , cannot be reduced to or a s s i m i -l a t e d to o c c u p a t i o n a l c l a s s fo r the s imple reason that many 7 7 persons i n the working or ' l o w e r ' c l a s s e s are homeowners. In t h i s sense , i t i s argued tha t s y s t e m a t i c n o n - c l a s s c l e a v -ages d e v e l o p . With i t s emphasis on the dichotomy between p r i v a t e and p u b l i c modes of consumpt ion , D u n l e a v y ' s consump-t i o n s e c t o r approach suggests t h a t hous ing would not be a s i g n i f i c a n t b a s i s for p o l i t i c a l a l i gnment i n Canada where the major d i s t i n c t i o n ( q u a n t i t a t i v e l y ) i s between p r i v a t e owner-For i n s t a n c e , 1974 G a l l o p p o l l data i n d i c a t e s tha t at l e a s t h a l f of s k i l l e d manual workers are homeowners and 49.6 percent of homeowners are manual workers i n B r i t a i n . (P. D u n l e a v y , Urban P o l i t i c a l A n a l y s i s : the p o l i t i c s of c o l l e c t i v e consumpt ion , p"! 71.) 40 s h i p and p r i v a t e r e n t a l . Saunders ' l a t e s t r e f o r m u l a t i o n of the consumption s e c t o r approach , l a r g e l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h my 7 8 own a n a l y s i s of domest ic p r o p e r t y c l a s s e s , l a y s emphasis on the d i s t i n c t i o n between p r i v a t i s e d ownership and non-ownership and i s c l e a r l y more r e l e v a n t . L a b e l l e d as domest ic p r o p e r t y c l a s s e s o r , l e s s c o n t e n t i o u s l y , consumption s e c t o r s , the important p o i n t i s that d i v i s i o n s a r i s i n g out of consumption r e l a t i o n s are thought to c r e a t e l i n e s of s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l c l eavage which are p a r t i a l l y separa te from those genera ted through the s o c i a l o r g a n i s a t i o n of p r o d u c t i o n and tha t the ' s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s of consumpt ion ' are s t r u c t u r e d by government f i s c a l , monetary and hous ing p o l i c y . R e l a t i v e l y s t r o n g arguments c o n c e r n i n g the independence of consumption s e c t o r s from p r o d u c t i o n - b a s e d c l a s s e s have been made. N e v e r t h e l e s s , at t h i s p o i n t , c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of how consumption s e c t o r s and s o c i a l c l a s s e s i n t e r a c t i n e f f e c t i n g p o l i t i c a l a l ignment i s not c l e a r l y u n d e r s t o o d . As W i l l i a m s has G . P r a t t , " C l a s s a n a l y s i s and urban domest ic p r o p e r t y " . Saunders r e j e c t s the domest ic p r o p e r t y c l a s s l a b e l on the f o l l o w i n g grounds : " C l a s s r e l a t i o n s are c o n s t i t u t e d o n l y i n the sphere of p r o d u c t i o n . I t i s s imply c o n f u s i n g and m i s l e a d -ing t o use the same t h e o r e t i c a l and c o n c e p t u a l t o o l s to a n a l y s e r e l a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d i n the sphere of p r o d u c t i o n around ownership and c o n t r o l of the means of p r o d u c t i o n , and r e l a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d through the p roce s s of consumption (even where, as i n the case of owner-occupied h o u s i n g , p r i v a t e ownership of the means of consumption may f u n c t i o n as a source of r e v e n u e . " ("Beyond Housing C l a s s e s , p . 13). Such t e r m i n o -l o g i c a l c o n c e s s i o n s serve the h e l p f u l purpose of d i f f u s i n g d e f i n i t i o n a l d i s p u t e s and would seem to a l l o w for more f r u i t -f u l d i s c u s s i o n s between marx i s t and weberian t h e o r i s t s . 41 r e c e n t l y noted: "there i s c e r t a i n l y much work to be done to e s t a b l i s h the nature of the l i n k s between the spheres, t h e i r 79 degree of separateness and i n t e r p e n e t r a t i o n . . . " In summarising the weberian c r i t i q u e of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s , the poin t of divergence r e s t s l a r g e l y on the m a t e r i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t r i b u t e d to consumption s e c t o r s by weberian t h e o r i s t s . T h e o r i s t s with a weberian o r i e n t a t i o n tend to emphasise that owners of domestic p r o p e r t y have had access to wealth, through house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n and government s u b s i d i -s a t i o n , that has been u n a v a i l a b l e to tenants. M a r x i s t theor-i s t s t y p i c a l l y view the d i s t i n c t i o n between homeowners and tenants as being of i d e o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o n l y . T h i s d i s -crepancy between weberian and marxist views i s c a r r i e d i n t o the d i s c u s s i o n of consumption s e c t o r s , with Dunleavy p r e s e n t -ing the marxist p o s i t i o n that consumption s e c t o r s are groups d i v i d e d only along i d e o l o g i c a l and p o l i t i c a l l i n e s and Saunders r e p r e s e n t i n g the weberian p o s i t i o n that consumption s e c t o r s have a m a t e r i a l base. As a f i n a l c r i t i c i s m of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s , the i n s t r u m e n t a l i s t conception of ideo-logy i m p l i c i t i n the c o n t e n t i o n that d i v i s i o n s c r e a t e d through consumption r e l a t i o n s are l a r g e l y s t a t u s d i s t i n c t i o n s w i l l be b r i e f l y c o n s i d e r e d . P. W i l l i a m s , "The Home Ownership Debate: Theory and Research", p. 6. 42 Ideology and I n c o r p o r a t i o n - Unexamined E f f e c t s as Causes , Causes as Reasons In g e n e r a l , i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s have c o n s i d e r e d home-ownership and a concern w i t h hous ing i s s u e s to be something t h r u s t upon the working c l a s s and have not c o n s i d e r e d the r e a l m a t e r i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l advantages of homeownership. For i n s t a n c e , Dunleavy w r i t e s t h a t : " i d e o l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r a t i o n of these s e c t o r a l consumption c l e a v a g e s fundamenta l ly r e f l e c t s the i n t e r e s t s of dominant s o c i a l groups and h i g h e r s o c i a l 8 0 g r a d e s . . . " In m i n i m i s i n g some of the f i n a n c i a l and psycho-l o g i c a l advantages of homeownership the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r -i s t s have perhaps fundamenta l ly mi sunder s tood the grounds of the p o l i t i c a l d i v i s i o n s a l o n g tenure l i n e s . There are d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h the view that homeownership has been f o r c e d onto the working c l a s s . For i n s t a n c e , Rose argues that government and b u s i n e s s propaganda of the 1930's cannot e x p l a i n the demand for homeownership i n B r i t a i n . Home-ownership must be seen as something tha t was a l r e a d y d e s i r e d i n the l a t e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y by working c l a s s persons a s , amongst o ther m o t i v e s , a badge of r e s p e c t a b i l i t y . T h i s badge of r e s p e c t a b i l i t y served a very pragmat ic purpose , as job s e c u r i t y was dependent upon the demons t ra t ion of r e s p e c t -P. D u n l e a v y , "The Urban B a s i s of P o l i t i c a l A l i g n m e n t : S o c i a l C l a s s , Domestic P r o p e r t y Ownership , and S ta te I n t e r v e n -t i o n i n Consumption P r o c e s s e s , " p . 429. 43 8 1 a b i l i t y and f a m i l y s t a b i l i t y . In l e s s economic terms , o ther w r i t e r s have d i s c u s s e d the v a r i e t y of meanings that home-8 2 ownership h o l d s , and some have argued that the home o f f e r s genuine s a t i s f a c t i o n s which may have been l o s t from the work 83 s i t u a t i o n . Thus Saunders w r i t e s : " the f a c t ( p e r s i s t e n t l y r e f e r r e d to i n the l i t e r a t u r e ) that home ownership appears to be a c o n s e r v a t i s i n g i n f l u e n c e must s u r e l y l e a d us to conc lude t h a t t h i s i s so p r e c i s e l y because i t ( to some e x t e n t ) compen-84 sa te s f e l t human needs" . I t i s argued t h a t , as i n d i v i d u a l s have tended to l o s e c o n t r o l over the work p r o c e s s , they have 8 1 D. Rose, "Towards a R e - e v a l u a t i o n of the P o l i t i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e of Home-Ownership i n B r i t a i n , " H o u s i n g , C o n s t r u c - t i o n and the S ta te (London: Conference of S o c i a l i s t Economis t s Hous ing Workshop, 1980). 82 J . Agnew, "Home Ownership and I d e n t i t y i n C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t i e s " ; R . M . Rakof f , " Ideo logy i n everyday l i f e : the mean-ing of the h o u s e , " P o l i t i c s and S o c i e t y 7 (1977), 85-104; C . R u t t l e , "The home and hegemony i n everyday l i f e , " M . A . T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1981. 8 3 H . A r e n d t , The Human C o n d i t i o n ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1958); A . B r i t t a n , The P r i v a t i s e d World (London: Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1978); H . Gans, The L e v i t - towners : Ways of L i f e and P o l i t i c s i n a New Suburban Community (New Y o r k : Random House, 1967) ; J . H . G o l d t h o r p e , D~! Lockwood, F . B e c h h o f e r , J . P i a t t , The a f f l u e n t worker i n the c l a s s s t r u c t u r e (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969); D. H a n d l i n , The American Home; D. H o l d s w o r t h , "Bread and Roses : The S t r u g g l e fo r Home i n Vancouver and Cape B r e t o n , " U n p u b l i s h e d paper , Dept . of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1980; K. M a c k i e , 'An E x p l o r a t i o n of the Idea of Home i n Human G e o g r a p h y , " M . A . Research Paper , Department of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1981; P. Saunders , "Beyond Hous ing C l a s s e s " ; R. S e n n e t t , The F a l l of P u b l i c Man: On the S o c i a l P sycho logy of C a p i t a l i s m (New Y o r k : V i n t a g e Books, 1974); P. W i l l m o t t and M. Young, The Symmetr ica l F a m i l y (New Y o r k : Pantheon Books, 1973). 84 P. Saunder s , "Beyond Housing C l a s s e s " , p . 39. 44 sought e m o t i o n a l compensat ions at and through the home. At an e x i s t e n t i a l l e v e l , the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the home as a symbol ic and s e n t i m e n t a l c e n t r e i s a l s o s t r e s s e d , a s i g n i f i -es c cance which i s thought to be q u i t e b a s i c to be ing human. Thus Mackie w r i t e s t h a t : "Home i s the source of su s tenance , a focus of i n t i m a c y and p l e a s u r e , a c o n t a i n e r of memories of the past and the symbol of c o n t i n u i t y of l i f e on e a r t h . Home a l l o w s 'man' to o r i e n t h i m s e l f in the w o r l d , to make a p l a c e on e a r t h and to secure an element of harmony and order w i t h i n 8 7 the cosmos . " If homeownership a f f o r d s a degree of s t a b i l -i t y , p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l , s e c u r i t y and an avenue fo r c r e a t i n g a p l a c e through care and home-improvements, t h i s i s not i n s i g n i -f i c a n t . But note D i g g i n s ' d i s c u s s i o n of the tendency of m a r x i s t i n s p i r e d s o c i a l t h e o r i s t s to reduce s i g n i f i c a n t human exper-ience to w o r k - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s . ( J . P . D i g g i n s , " T h o r e a u , Marx and the ' R i d d l e ' of A l i e n a t i o n , " S o c i a l Research 39 (1972), 571-598.) 8 6 G. B a c h e l a r d , The P o e t i c s of Space (Bos ton : Beacon P r e s s , 1958); C . Cooper Marcus , "The House as Symbol of the S e l f , " i n D e s i g n i n g fo r Human Behav ior ed . J . Lang , C . B u r n e t t e , W. M o l e s k i and D. Vachon ( S t r o u d s b e r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and Ross , 1974), pp . 130-46; K. Dovey, "Home: An O r d e r i n g P r i n c i p l e i n S p a c e , " Landscape 22 (1978) , 27-30; M. H e i d e g g e r , " B u i l d i n g D w e l l i n g T h i n k i n g , " B a s i c W r i t i n g s e d . D . F . K r e l l (New Y o r k : Harper and Row, 1976), pp . 319-339; J . D . P o r t e o u s , "Home: The T e r r i t o r i a l C o r e , " G e o g r a p h i c a l Review 66 (1976), 383-390; T . R e l p h , P l a c e and P l a c e l e s s n e s s (London: P i o n , 1976); Y . - F . Tuan, " P l a c e : An E x p e r i e n t i a l P e r s p e c t i v e , " G e o g r a p h i c a l Review 65 (1975) , 151-165; Y . - F . Tuan , Space and P l a c e : The P e r s p e c t i v e of E x p e r i e n c e ( M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of M i n n e a p o l i s P r e s s , 1977); S. W e i l , The Need For Roots (New Y o r k : Harper and Row, 1949) . K. M a c k i e , "An E x p l o r a t i o n of the Idea of Home i n Human Geography , " p . 101. 45 Thus , t h e r e i s a s u b t l e i n t e r p l a y between i n t e n t i o n a l i t y and s t r u c t u r a t i o n and an attempt to grasp some of the s u b t l e t y w i l l be an o b j e c t i v e of t h i s e m p i r i c a l s tudy . I f a p a t t e r n of g r e a t e r c o n s e r v a t i s m i s found amongst homeowners, q u e s t i o n s of c a u s a t i o n w i l l i n c l u d e the e f f e c t s of mortgage debt as an o v e r t c o n s t r a i n t but a l s o the meaning of that d e b t , what i t i s about homeownership for which i n d i v i d u a l s are w i l l i n g to be-come i n d e b t e d . I f p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m i s seen to vary w i t h hous ing t e n u r e , the q u e s t i o n of t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s w i l l be pursued but a l s o the q u e s t i o n of f e l t c i t i z e n r i g h t s . To what extent do r e n t e r s themselves endorse the n e g a t i v e s t e r e o t y p e s 8 8 of r e n t e r s as s h i f t l e s s and homeowners as s t a b l e and how does t h i s impact on p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m ? Research Prolegmenon A review of the t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and e m p i r i c a l study of the p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of homeownership through a c r i t i q u e of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s i n d i c a t e s the extent to which c o n c e p t u a l development has l i m i t e d the e m p i r i c a l ques-t i o n s a sked . C r i t i c i s m of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s from a weberian p e r s p e c t i v e r a i s e s new se t s of e m p i r i c a l q u e s t i o n s ; one c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n concerns the r e l e v a n c e of the ownership of domest ic p r o p e r t y for wea l th a c c u m u l a t i o n . A c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the m a t e r i a l b a s i s f o r consumption s e c t o r s p r o v i d e s the C . P e r i n , E v e r y t h i n g In I t s P l a c e . 46 focus of chapter 2. In a d d i t i o n , chapter 2 p r o v i d e s a d e s c r i p t i v e contex t of the Vancouver hous ing market which ' s e t s the s t age ' for the study of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s which f o l l o w s . On the whole , t h e o r e t i c a l debate c o n c e r n i n g the p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of homeownership has dominated r a t h e r unevenly over e m p i r i c a l s t u d y . At i t s most b a s i c , there i s l i t t l e ev idence of the r o l e hous ing tenure p l a y s , e i t h e r as a b a s i s for p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n over hous ing i s sue s or i n shaping p o l i t i -c a l responses to broader i s sues beyond hous ing p o l i c y . Quite s i m p l y , and even a s i d e from the i s s u e of c a u s a l i t y , the a c t u a l a s s o c i a t i o n between homeownership and a p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n i s i n a d e q u a t e l y documented i n the l i t e r a t u r e - and not documented at a l l for the Canadian s i t u a t i o n . In p a r t i -c u l a r , l i t t l e concern has been shown to d i s c r i m i n a t e between d i f f e r e n t types of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o u r s and the impact of hous ing tenure on each . A b a s i c q u e s t i o n l y i n g at the hear t of the debate between i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s and those s t r e s s i n g the m a t e r i a l b e n e f i t s of homeownership i s , how g e n e r a l i s the a t t i t u d i n a l r i f t between homeowners and tenant s ? Are homeowners g e n e r a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d or more s p e c i -f i c a l l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o s o c i e t y through m a t e r i a l b e n e f i t s ? P a t t e r n s of a s s o c i a t i o n between v a r i o u s p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and a c t i v i t i e s are o u t l i n e d i n c h a p t e r s 3, 4 and 5 fo r a n a t i o n a l sample of Canadian urban r e s i d e n t s . At the l e v e l of c a u s a t i o n , more s p e c i f i c hypotheses c o n c e r n i n g the r o l e of hous ing c o s t s and mortgage debt i n i n f l u e n c i n g p o l i t i c a l a t t i -47 tudes a r e a l s o c o n s i d e r e d . The i s s u e of c a u s a l i t y i s t h e n p u r s u e d more f u l l y i n a ca se s t u d y of homeowners and r e n t e r s w h i c h f o l l o w s i n c h a p t e r s 6 , 7 and 8 . The r o l e of h o u s i n g t e n u r e i n a c t u a l l y s h a p i n g p o l i t i c a l r e s p o n s e i s examined more c l o s e l y , as a r e c a u s e s of t h i s t y p e of impac t of h o u s i n g t e n u r e on p o l i t i c a l r e s p o n s e . In a s s e s s i n g t h e s e c a u s a l p r o c e s s e s , t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n between c o n s u m p t i o n and p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s i s g i v e n p r o m i n e n c e , i n t h e sense t h a t a d i f f e r e n t i a l impac t of h o u s i n g t e n u r e a c r o s s s o c i a l c l a s s e s o f f e r s c l u e s t o t h e c a u s a l p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d . F i n a l l y , the t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of the e m p i r i c a l s t u d y a r e c o n s i d e r e d i n c h a p t e r 9 . 4 8 CHAPTER 2 THE OBJECTIVE BASE FOR HOUSING TENURE FORMS AS CONSUMPTION SECTORS "One need o n l y examine the v a r i e t y of f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l programs and p o l i c i e s to a p p r e c i a t e the f a c t tha t i t i s the ownership s e c t o r that i s g i v e n the impor tance , not the r e n t a l s e c t o r . . . U n d e r c u r r e n t p o l i c i e s , the emphasis on ownership i s at the expense of the r e n t a l s e c t o r and c r e a t e s i n c r e d -i b l e d i s t o r t i o n s i n the o p e r a t i o n s of these two s u b m a r k e t s . " 1 " . . . t e n a n t s at a l l income l e v e l s c o n t i n u e to be the v i c t i m s of government hous ing p r o g r a m s . " -The purpose of t h i s chap te r i s t w o f o l d . F i r s t , i t serves as a d e s c r i p t i v e b a c k c l o t h for the s tudy of p o l i t i c a l a t t i -tudes and behav iour which f o l l o w s . An examinat ion of the r e l e v a n c e of t enure d i v i s i o n s to i s s u e s of p o l i t i c s and va lue s forms the p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e , not i n the sense tha t p o l i t i c s and v a l u e s can be or shou ld be reduced to economic terms, but to the extent tha t homeowners and t enant s have been i n s i t u a -t i o n s w i t h d i f f e r e n t economic c o n s t r a i n t s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s . These c e r t a i n l y cannot be i g n o r e d i n r e l a t i o n to p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s and community va lue s for they perhaps p r o v i d e some guide to the a c t u a l p roce s se s i n v o l v e d i n the f o r m a t i o n of a t t i t u d e s . T h e r e f o r e , i n an attempt to p r o v i d e a v i t a l c o n -S.W. H a m i l t o n , Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . Quoted in The Hous ing C r i s i s : Causes , E f f e c t s , S o l u t i o n s (Vancouver : Gordon Soule s Economic and M a r k e t i n g R e s e a r c h , 1976), pp . 153-155. 2 . . . . D. B a x t e r , Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . Quoted i n The Hous ing C r i s i s : Causes , E f f e c t s , S o l u t i o n s , p . 165. 49 t ex t to an examinat ion of the s o c i a l impact of tenure d i v i -s i o n s , the o b j e c t i v e s i t u a t i o n of homeowners and r e n t e r s i n terms of the Vancouver hous ing market d u r i n g the 1970's and e a r l y 1980's w i l l be r ev iewed . The p a t t e r n of house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n i s e v a l u a t e d , as i s government s u b s i d i s a t i o n of each hous ing t e n u r e . The q u e s t i o n of need i s then approached through a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the r e l a t i v e c o s t s of r e n t i n g and buying a house . P a t t e r n s of v a r i a t i o n i n f i n a n c i a l c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s amongst homeowners are then e v a l u a t e d ; f a c t o r s c o n -s i d e r e d i n c l u d e time of house purchase and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mortgage d e b t . In a d d i t i o n to p r o v i d i n g a d e s c r i p t i v e contex t to the study of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s , t h i s chapter p r o v i d e s a much more d i r e c t e d t h e o r e t i c a l p u r p o s e . In a sense , the arguments p r o v i d e d here are the on ly ones which r e f l e c t on the m a r x i s t / weberian c o n t r o v e r s y c o n c e r n i n g domest ic p r o p e r t y c l a s s e s or consumption s e c t o r s . Whi le acknowledging the s i g n i f i c a n c e of hous ing tenure d i v i s i o n s to p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , marx i s t t h e o r i s t s have tended to emphasise that these d i v i s i o n s are p u r e l y of i d e o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n s o f a r as d i v i s i o n s be t -ween r e n t e r s and homeowners o n l y r e p r e s e n t s t a t u s d i s -t i n c t i o n s . Weberian t h e o r i s t s have emphasised the o b j e c t i v e base for domest ic p r o p e r t y c l a s s e s , or consumption s e c t o r s , and hence the r a t i o n a l i t y of homeowners who pursue t h e i r p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s in terms of h o u s i n g . As noted i n chapter one, from the weberian p e r s p e c t i v e (amongst o t h e r s ) the case has been made tha t homeownership, i n 50 the U n i t e d S t a t e s , B r i t a i n , Canada and A u s t r a l i a , has o f f e r e d economic b e n e f i t s i n the post-war p e r i o d that have been un-a v a i l a b l e to t e n a n t s . Thus homeowners have been p l a c e d i n a d i s t i n c t l y s u p e r i o r economic p o s i t i o n r e l a t i v e to t enant s because of t h e i r ownership of domest ic p r o p e r t y . As noted above, the argument h inges on a number of f a c t o r s . F i r s t , house p r i c e s have i n c r e a s e d i n the post-war p e r i o d at a r a te f a s t e r than the g e n e r a l r a t e of i n f l a t i o n , and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , f a s t e r than o t h e r c o n v e n t i o n a l forms of inves tment . Second, the home-buyer has had acces s to government s u b s i d i e s , both d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t . T h i r d , mortgage r a t e s have not approach-ed the r a t e of g e n e r a l p r i c e i n f l a t i o n and the e f f e c t has been tha t home-buyers have been ab le to borrow money at low r e a l r a t e s of i n t e r e s t . F o u r t h , the homeowner can i n c r e a s e the va lue of h i s house through h i s own l a b o u r . We w i l l c o n s i d e r the v a l i d i t y of the f i r s t three arguments i n the c o n t e x t of the Vancouver hous ing market . House P r i c e I n f l a t i o n A c r o s s Hous ing Submarkets The p a t t e r n of house p r i c e i n c r e a s e s i n Vancouver between 1965 and 1978 has been d e s c r i b e d as one of "modera te ly r i s i n g " a c t i v i t y between 1965 and 1968, " n o r m a l " a c t i v i t y between 1968 and 1971, a "boom" i n house p r i c e s between 1971 and 1974, and 3 a " c o o l i n g o f f " p e r i o d between 1975 and 1978. For i n s t a n c e , 3 Hous ing and Urban Development A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada (HUDAC), "The F i l t e r i n g Proces s i n H o u s i n g : A Vancouver Case S tudy , 1965-1977", U n p u b l i s h e d r e p o r t , 1978. 51 between 1971 and 1976, i n c l u s i v e , the d o l l a r v a l u e of M u l t i p l e L i s t i n g S e r v i c e (MLS) t r a n s a c t i o n s i n Vancouver rose from a s t andard index of 100.00 to 259.00 (compared to the n a t i o n a l Consumer P r i c e Index which rose to 148 .9 ) . ^ Between 1979 and e a r l y 1981 Vancouver e x p e r i e n c e d another "boom" i n house p r i c e s w i t h at l e a s t a d o u b l i n g of average house p r i c e s , as shown in F i g u r e 2 . 1 . From mid-1981 to mid-1982 house p r i c e s 5 f e l l back s h a r p l y , w i t h a slow r e c o v e r y of p r i c e s to d a t e . The a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of homeownership as an investment i n Vancouver w i l l be examined wi th c o n s i d e r a t i o n g i v e n to the v a r i a t i o n of house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n a c r o s s hous ing submarkets d e f i n e d by hous ing v a l u e . The investment p o t e n t i a l of home-ownership i s c o n s i d e r e d i n r e l a t i o n to hous ing v a l u e because i t has been argued tha t the aggregate nature of the house p r i c e s t a t i s t i c s g e n e r a l l y used to support the view that homeowners have been i n an advantageous p o s i t i o n r e l a t i v e to t enant s c l o u d s the d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t e s of house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n a c r o s s owner-occupa t ion submarkets . T h i s argument was f i r s t p r e s e n t e d i n the c o n t e x t of the domest ic p r o p e r t y c l a s s debate by D . C . Thorns who argued that midd le c l a s s homeowners i n C h r i s t c h u r c h , New Zea land b e n e f i t e d from house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n 4 J . P a t t e r s o n , " D i s t r i b u t i o n a l and s o c i a l impacts of Canadian n a t i o n a l hous ing p o l i c y : L e a v i n g i t to the m a r k e t " . 5 Royal T r u s t , Roya l T r u s t Survey of Canadian House P r i c e s , ( n . p . : n . p . ) . P u b l i s h e d 3 or 4 t imes a n n u a l l y from 1 973. 52 F i g u r e 2.1 House P r i c e I n f l a t i o n i n G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r , 1965-1 981 AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL SELLING PRICE IN GREATER VANCOUVER (1965-1981) PRICE (1000$D 160--150--140--38 1 ^69 19I0 1971 1J72 19I3 1J74 1975 1976 19^ 77 19^8 19I9 1980 l i t YEAR .qni)Rr,F:The Vancouver Sun, 2 January 1982, p. C1.' 53 w h i l e lower c l a s s homeowners d i d n o t , a l t h o u g h the data he p r e s e n t s to support t h i s argument c o u l d be taken to i n d i c a t e a s e q u e n t i a l p a t t e r n of p r i c e i n c r e a s e s from medium p r i c e d to lower p r i c e d hous ing submarkets r a t h e r than p r o v i d i n g ev idence for the c o n c l u s i o n that " g a i n s from the job and hous ing markets are i n f a c t q u i t e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d and to some extent m u t u a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g " . ^ A more l e g i t i m a t e c l a i m for v a r i a -t i o n s i n house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n by hous ing submarket comes from r e s e a r c h which has focused on the f i n a n c i a l d i s advantage s of 7 homeownership i n d e c l i n i n g inner c i t y submarkets , a l t h o u g h the t h e o r e t i c a l r e p e r c u s s i o n s of these s t u d i e s has been to o v e r - g e n e r a l i s e the s i g n i f i c a n c e of these pocket s of inner c i t y d e c l i n e and , i n e f f e c t , ' throw out the baby' a long w i t h p ' t h e bath w a t e r ' . A note shou ld a l s o be made tha t there i s D . C . T h o r n s , "The i m p l i c a t i o n s of d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t e s of c a p i t a l g a i n from owner o c c u p a t i o n for the fo rmat ion and development of hous ing c l a s s e s , " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research 5 (1981) , 205-217. Hamnett has r e c e n t l y c r i t i c i s e d T h o r n s ' e x t e n s i o n of t h i s argument to the B r i t i s h s i t u a t i o n a long the same l i n e s ; T h o r n s ' fundamental m i s r e a d i n g of the e m p i r i c a l s i t u a t i o n r e s t s on an a tempora l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n ac ro s s r e g i o n a l hous ing submarkets . ( D . C . T h o r n s , " I n d u s t r i a l r e s t r u c t u r i n g and change i n the l abour and p r o p e r t y markets in B r i t a i n , " Environment and P l a n n i n g A 14 (1982) , 745-763; C . Hamnett, "The Post-war r e s t r u c t u r i n g of the B r i t i s h hous ing and l abour market s : A c r i t i c a l comment on T h o r n s , " Environment and P l a n n i n g A . In p r e s s . 7 D. Harvey and L . C h a t t e r j e e , " A b s o l u t e rent and the s t r u c t u r i n g of space by governmental and f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u -t i o n s , " A n t i p o d e 6 (1974) , 22-36; P . W i l l i a m s " P r o p e r t y , power and p o l i t i c s : Home ownership and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . " Paper p re sented at the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers ' annual c o n f e r e n c e , San A n t o n i o , Texas ( A p r i l , 1982). Q P. W i l l i a m s , " P r o p e r t y , power and p o l i t i c s : Home 54 perhaps l e s s bath water i n the C a n a d i a n , and p a r t i c u l a r l y the Vancouver , s i t u a t i o n where inner c i t y d e c l i n e has not tended to occur on the same ra te or s c a l e as i n s e v e r a l B r i t i s h and g U . S . i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s . In f a c t , q u i t e the o p p o s i t e p roce s s of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n tends to be more p r e v a l e n t i n Vancouver . 1 ^ N e v e r t h e l e s s , an examinat ion of house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n a c r o s s hous ing submarkets d e f i n e d by hous ing va lue i s pursued because the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s which Thorns and o t h e r s r a i s e have c o n s i d -e r a b l e t h e o r e t i c a l impor tance . T h i s s i g n i f i c a n c e r e s t s on the f ac t that a b i a s a g a i n s t lower c l a s s homeowners in terms of the p o t e n t i a l for c a p i t a l ga ins through homeownership would r e s t r i c t the g e n e r a l r e l e v a n c e of tenure d i v i s i o n s to o b j e c -t i v e economic s i t u a t i o n . With re spec t to the e f f e c t of home-ownership on va lue s and p o l i t i c a l b e h a v i o u r , i t c o u l d then be argued t h a t lower c l a s s homeowners are s u f f e r i n g from a d e l u -s i o n or ' f a l s e c o n s c i o u s n e s s ' i n a l l y i n g themselves wi th o ther homeowners and emphas i s ing what would then be p u r e l y a s t a t u s ownership and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s " ; F . G r a y , "Owner-Occupat ion and S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s , " i n Owner Occupa t ion i n B r i t a i n , e d . S. M e r r e t t (London: Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1982), pp . 267-375. 9 . J . M e r c e r , "On C o n t i n e n t a l i s m , D i s t i n c t i v e n e s s , and Comparat ive Urban Geography: Canadian and American C i t i e s , " The Canadian Geographer 23 (1979), 119-139; P . J . Smith and L . D . McCann, " R e s i d e n t i a l Land Use Change i n Inner Edmonton, " Anna l s of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers 71 (1981) , 536-551. 1 ^ HUDAC, "The F i l t e r i n g Proces s i n H o u s i n g : A Vancouver Case S tudy , 1965-1977"; D. L e y , " I n n e r - C i t y R e v i t a l i z a t i o n i n Canada: A Vancouver Case S t u d y , " The Canadian Geographer 25 (1981) , 124-148. 55 d i s t i n c t i o n , o ther t h i n g s b e i n g e q u a l , between themselves and r e n t e r s . On the ba lance of the ev idence a v a i l a b l e fo r the Vancouver hous ing market , homeownership seems to have o f f e r e d acce s s to c a p i t a l ga ins to owners of both h i g h e r and lower p r i c e d hous ing and thus T h o r n s ' s p e c u l a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the c o r r e l a t i o n between hous ing and job markets are not s u p p o r t e d . H a m i l t o n , f o r i n s t a n c e , sampled a l l of the r e a l p r o p e r t y t r a n s a c t i o n s of s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s l o c a t e d i n the f o u r -teen c i t i e s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver for the year s 1949 to 1963, a v a i l a b l e through the l a n d r e g i s t r y r e c o r d s . 1 1 He d i v i d e d the sample of 7838 cases i n t o three house va lue c a t e g o r i e s , houses r ang ing from $0-$6000, from $6000-$10,000 and those v a l u e d over $10,000, u s i n g 1949 as the base y e a r . As i s shown i n t a b l e 2 . 1 , the lowest va lue range d i s p l a y s a much g rea te r r a t e , a l t h o u g h more e r r a t i c p a t t e r n , of growth than the index for the h i g h e r v a l u e d h o u s i n g . A s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n can be drawn from a study which examined house p r i c e s in 68 neighbourhoods i n the C i t y of Vancouver , N o r t h Vancouver C i t y and D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t y and West Vancouver at three year i n t e r v a l s between 1965 and 1977 1 2 i n c l u s i v e . The focus of t h i s s tudy was the p roce s s of 1 1 S.W. H a m i l t o n , "Measur ing Changes i n House P r i c e s , " i n Recent P e r s p e c t i v e s i n Urban Land Economics : Essays i n Honour of R i c h a r d U . R a t c l i f f and Pau l F . Wendt e d . M . A . Go ldberg (Vancouver : The Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1976). 12 HUDAC, "The F i l t e r i n g Proces s in H o u s i n g : A Vancouver Case S tudy , 1965-1977. 56 TABLE 2.1 Y e a r l y D i f f e r e n c e s in P r i c e I n d i c e s for Housing i n D i f f e r e n t Value C l a s s e s i n Vancouver , 1949-63 Year Low ($0-$6000) Ranges i n Va lue C l a s s Medium High ($6000-$l0 ,000) ($10,000 and over) 1950 1 951 1 952 1 953 1 954 1 955 1 956 1 957 1958 1959 1 960 1 961 1 962 1963 33.65 9.10 •13.17 21 .45 -40.62 33.41 89.88 43.80 14.52 1 1 .89 1 8.84 -35.71 1 3.48 6.22 14.10 7.29 1 1 .73 8.76 1 5. 27 24.52 15.45 29.07 3.00 10.62 13.31 -13.20 6.26 4.83 11.30 6.22 7.53 7.16 12.57 21 .50 15.11 24.08 1 .27 11.34 1 4.95 -18.38 18.24 - . 4 8 1949-1963 306.74 251.01 232.41 $value 1963 $0-18,500 $ 18,500-$25,000 $25,000 and over S o u r c e : Adapted from S.W. H a m i l t o n . "Measur ing Changes i n House P r i c e s . " In Recent P e r s p e c t i v e s i n Urban Land Economics , E d . M . A . G o l d b e r g . V a n c o u v e r : The Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Co lumbia , 1976, p . 76. a 1949 v a l u e . 57 f i l t e r i n g , as measured by the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s of ne ighbour-hoods i n terms of hous ing va lue through t i m e . A l t h o u g h the a n a l y s i s i s based on a c t u a l house s a l e p r i c e s o b t a i n e d from the T e e l a books for the C i t i e s of Vancouver , and North and 1 3 West Vancouver , on ly s t andard scores are p r e s e n t e d in the completed a n a l y s i s . S tandard score s i n d i c a t e the average v a l u e of houses i n a g i v e n neighbourhood i n r e l a t i o n to o ther ne ighbourhoods , but have the d i sadvantage of b e i n g ' d i m e n s i o n -l e s s ' . Thus w h i l e one can compare s t andard s c o r e s a c ro s s areas at one p o i n t in t ime i t i s meaningles s to compare the s t andard score for one area a c r o s s time for a c l u e to p r i c e i n c r e a s e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the spread between s t a n d a r d s core s of d i f f e r e n t areas at d i f f e r e n t t imes can be compared to gauge whether houses in p a r t i c u l a r areas are i n f l a t i n g i n p r i c e more q u i c k l y than i n o t h e r s . The s t andard score s fo r ten n e i g h -bourhoods w i t h v a r y i n g average house p r i c e s (note ne ighbour-hood ranking) are shown i n t a b l e 2 . 2 . I t does not appear tha t t h e r e i s a t r e n d for h i g h e r p r i c e d hous ing to i n f l a t e more q u i c k l y than lower p r i c e d . For i n s t a n c e , the spread between the s t andard s core s for Shaughnessy and Dunbar i s 1.7029 i n 1965, 2.1456 i n 1968, 1.5394 i n 1971, 1.8068 i n 1974 and 1.7190 i n 1977. In a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n , the spread between the s t andard score s of South G r a n v i l l e and Main i s 2.1373 in 1965, 2.0474 i n 1968, 1.8318 i n 1971, 1.9710 i n 1974 and 1.6459 i n 1 3 T e e l a Market Surveys r e l a t e a l l t r a n s a c t i o n s in the hous ing market , i n c l u d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d to p r i c e , name and l o c a t i o n of vender and purchaser and sometimes assessment f i g u r e s for l a n d and improvements . 58 TABLE 2.2 Neighbourhood Rankings and Standard Scores by House P r i c e Neighbourhood Standard Scores and Neighbourhood Rankings 1 965 1 968 1 971 1 974 1 977 Rank Score R S R S R S R S Shaughnessy 1 1 .80 1 2.12 3 1 .57 3 2.07 3 1 .77 South G r a n v i l i e 2 1 .44 4 1.17 5 1.13 6 1 .08 5 .88 Upper L e v e l s (West V a n . ) 4 1 .37 5 .89 1 2.37 1 2.85 2 1 .83 P o i n t Grey 1 2 .57 1 5 .39 1 3 .43 1 7 .42 1 4 .40 K i t s i l a n o 20 .22 1 7 . 34 21 .08 23 . 1 5 20 . 1 1 Dunbar 22 . 1 0 23 - . 0 3 23 .03 20 .26 22 .05 Upper Lons-d a l e (North Vancouver) 28 - . 1 6 28 - . 1 6 31 - . 18 24 .22 24 - . 0 8 Grandview 38 - . 62 40 - . 6 6 45 - .72 42 - . 77 45 - . 7 4 F r a s e r 39 - . 6 3 47 - . 8 9 40 - . 6 3 44 - . 8 3 36 - . 4 3 Ma i n 44 - . 6 9 46 - . 8 7 44 -.71 46 - . 9 0 47 - . 7 6 Source : Adapted from HUDAC, "The F i l t e r i n g Proce s s in H o u s i n g : A Vancouver Case S tudy , 1965-1977." U n p u b l i s h e d r e p o r t , 1978. 59 1977. The author c o n c l u d e s that much of the hous ing i n the neighbourhoods on the west , more e x p e n s i v e , s ide of the C i t y of Vancouver a p p r e c i a t e d more s l o w l y than d i d the hous ing i n Vancouver as a whole and , i n g e n e r a l , the hous ing s tock v a l u e s i n l e s s expens ive neighbourhoods i n Vancouver and Nor th Van-couver e x p e r i e n c e d f a s t e r than average r a te s of a p p r e c i a t i o n . For a more recent assessment of house p r i c e a p p r e c i a t i o n by neighbourhood va lue c l a s s , the average house p r i c e s i n f i v e r e a l e s t a t e areas ( four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and one C i t y of Van-couver a r e a : see Map 2.1) were compared us ing p r i c e e s t imate s compi l ed by a major n a t i o n a l r e a l e s t a t e company, Roya l T r u s t . The p r i c e e s t i m a t e s are based on ' e x p e r t ' judgements , namely the judgements of r e a l e s t a t e agents working i n each of the 14 . . d e s i g n a t e d a r e a s . T h i s i s no doubt a l e s s exact way of a r r i v i n g at an average e s t imate than would be o b t a i n e d us ing the l and r e g i s t r y r e c o r d s of a c t u a l s a l e s t r a n s a c t i o n s but i s c o n s i d e r a b l y s i m p l e r to assemble and for the pre sent purposes a rough e s t i m a t e i s adequate . As w e l l , the Royal T r u s t data has the advantage of c o n t r o l l i n g , r e l a t i v e l y , house s i z e and s t y l e a c r o s s ne ighbourhoods . A p r i c e e s t imate i s a v a i l a b l e fo r houses d e s c r i b e d i n F i g u r e 2 . 2 ; the detached bungalow i s 1 4 The p roce s s of a s sembl ing the house p r i c e s i s the same a c r o s s a l l Roya l T r u s t o f f i c e s r e q u i r e d to prepare the p r o f i l e . The manager breaks the r e a l e s t a t e agents i n t o groups of t h r e e or f o u r . Each group prepares an e s t imate and then the e s t i m a t e s are compared, d i s c u s s e d and r e f i n e d by the manager of the o f f i c e (pe r sona l communicat ion w i t h the manager of the West Vancouver o f f i c e ) . Roya l T r u s t e e L t d . ranked as the second l a r g e s t r e a l e s t a t e f i r m i n Canada i n 1980 and 1981, w i t h a 1981 s a l e s f o r c e average of 4071 ( A . S h o r t e l l , " R i d i n g the r o l l e r c o a s t e r , " F i n a n c i a l Post 500, June 1982, p . 130) . 60 Map 2 . 1 M u n i c i p a l B o u n d a r i e s W i t h i n t h e G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t 61 F i g u r e 2.2 House D e s c r i p t i o n s F o r E s t i m a t e s o f t h e R o y a l T r u s t S u r v e y o f C a n a d i a n House P r i c e s Detached Bungalow This i s a detached 3-bedroom bungalow constructed p a r t i a l l y of b r i c k with wood, aluminum or stucco. It i s f i v e to eight years old and has 1% bathrooms, a 1-car garage, a f u l l basement but no recreation room, f i r e p l a c e or appliances. Using outside dimensions (excluding garage), _| the t o t a l area of the house i s 1,200 square feet (111.48 sq. metres) and i s situated on a f u l l y serviced 5,500 square foot (510.95 sq. metre) l o t . Detached Two Storey This a detached 2-storey, four-bedroom house comprising br i c k construction on the main l e v e l and wood, aluminum or stucco on the upper l e v e l . It i s f i v e to eight years old and has 2^ bathrooms, main f l o o r family room, 1 f i r e p l a c e and a 2-car attached garage. There i s a f u l l basement but not recreation room and no appliances. Using the outside dimensions (excluding the garage), the t o t a l area of the house i s 2,000 square feet (185.8 sq. metres), and i t i s situated on a f u l l y serviced 6,500 square foot (603.85 sq. metre) l o t . S o u r c e : R o y a l T r u s t S u r v e y o f C a n a d i a n House P r i c e s 62 s a i d to be l o c a t e d i n an ' a v e r a g e ' ne ighbourhood i n the d e s i g -nated area w h i l e the detached two s t o r e y house i s i n a ' p r i m e ' ne ighbourhood . The f i v e areas c o n s i d e r e d are those for which i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e from 1973, the f i r s t year for which the p r i c e e s t i m a t e s are a v a i l a b l e for any a r e a s , or from 1974, at which t ime Roya l T r u s t i n c l u d e d a d d i t i o n a l neighbourhoods to t h e i r a n a l y s i s . These areas i n c l u d e two of the most expen-s i v e r e s i d e n t i a l areas i n the G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t (GVRD), West Vancouver and K e r r i s d a l e , the more mod-e r a t e l y p r i c e d areas of Nor th Vancouver and Richmond and one the l e a s t expens ive suburbs , S u r r e y . I t i s wor thwhi le p a y i n g some a t t e n t i o n to the d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s c o n c e r n i n g the Surrey hous ing market , f o r Surrey w i l l f i g u r e most p r o m i n e n t l y i n the e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s which f o l l o w s . As can be seen i n T a b l e 2 . 3 , there i s no c o n s i s t e n t t r e n d for h i g h e r p r i c e d hous ing to i n f l a t e more q u i c k l y than lower p r i c e d hous ing ( c o n s i d e r for example the i n f l a t i o n of Richmond compared to Nor th Vancouver) and hence advantage w e a l t h i e r homeowners r e l a t i v e to lower income homeowners. A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s a c o r r e l a t i o n of .40 between house p r i c e and p r i c e i n c r e a s e for the detached bungalows a c r o s s d i s t r i c t s between 1975 and 1982, there i s no such r e l a t i o n for the de tached two s t o r e y houses ( r = - . 0 5 ) . As w e l l , t h e r e was no c o n s i s t e n t tendency for houses i n the ' p r i m e ' ne ighbourhoods of an area to i n f l a t e i n r e l a t i v e p r i c e more q u i c k l y than those i n the ' a v e r a g e ' ne ighbourhoods . Thus , one can conc lude on the b a s i s of t h i s e v i d e n c e , and that c o n s i d e r e d above, tha t i t i s not a TABLE 2.3 I n c r e a s e s i n House P r i c e s by Area, 1975-1983 Ne i ghbourhoods Surrey Richmond North Vancouver West Vancouver K e r r i s d a l e Bung. 2-Storey Bung. 2-Storey Bung. 2-Storey Bung. 2-Storey Bung. 2-Storey ACTUAL PRICE Dec. 1975 ($1000) 52 72 60 86 71 92 74 112 87 150 % i n c r e a s e Dec. ' 75 -'76 1.9 -2.8 0 0 1.3 3.3 1.3 2.7 6.9 0 Dec.'76 -Oct.'77 .9 0 5.0 4.7 1.1 -.5 3.3 4.3 1.1 1.3 Oct.'77 • -'78 .9 0 4.7 0 2.3 .5 3.2 2.1 3.2 2.9 Oct . ' 78 -'79 9.2 12.9 19.7 31.1 18.8 34.2 37.5 28.2 25.8 18.6 Oct.'79 -'80 39.0 51.9 41.8 56.8 41.2 48.2 29.5 46.5 51.6 48.7 Oct. '80 -'81 34.2 31.7 33.9 24.3 19.2 5.3 37.5 29.6 10.3 10.9 Oct.'81 -'82 -31.0 -31.1 -30.0 -39.2 -26.2 -29.7 -23.5 -32.9 -21.6 -8.2 Oct.'82 -'83 11.5 11.9 23.8 25.0 16.4 17.9 15.3 12.5 18.1 16.7 Dec. '75 -Oct . '83 67.3 74.5 116.6 103.0 80.3 79.3 133.8 100.9 117.2 86.6 A c t u a l Pr i ce Oct. 83 ($1000) 87 122 130 175 128 165 173 225 189 280 CO Source: Adapted from Royal T r u s t Survey of Canadian House P r i c e s 64 d i s t o r t i o n i n the case of the Vancouver hous ing market to suggest tha t homeowners as a whole have had acces s to p o t e n -t i a l c a p i t a l g a in s through the ownership of domest ic p r o p e r t y . A l t h o u g h the a b s o l u t e ga in i s g e n e r a l l y g r e a t e r for h i g h e r p r i c e d h o u s i n g , the argument of i n t e r e s t concerns r e l a t i v e ga in s i n terms of i n i t i a l inve s tment , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n to a l t e r n a t i v e forms of c o n v e n t i o n a l inve s tment . T h i s w i l l be taken up n e x t . Wealth A c c u m u l a t i o n Through Homeownership as Compared to Other Forms of C o n v e n t i o n a l Investments Has the p o t e n t i a l for c a p i t a l ga ins through house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n exceeded other forms of c o n v e n t i o n a l inves tment? T h i s q u e s t i o n r e f l e c t s on the r e l a t i v e advantage of homeowners as i n v e s t o r s i n comparison to r e n t e r s . I f hous ing has indeed out reached o ther c o n v e n t i o n a l types of inves tment , r e n t e r s c o u l d not have accumulated an e q u i v a l e n t amount of wea l th even i f they had i n v e s t e d a comparable amount of money in non-hous ing i n v e s t m e n t s . An answer to t h i s q u e s t i o n was a p p r o x i -mated by f i r s t c a l c u l a t i n g the annua l hous ing c o s t s fo r a homeowner of a detached bungalow i n each of the f i v e d i s t r i c t s o u t l i n e d above, assuming tha t the homeowner purchased the house i n 1976. In a d d i t i o n , a s i m i l a r e x e r c i s e was conducted assuming the purchase of a Richmond house i n 1973 and a Surrey house in 1974 (data for Sur rey not be ing a v a i l a b l e for 1973). These c a l c u l a t i o n s demonstrate the impact of t ime of purchase on hous ing c o s t s . As w e l l as a d d r e s s i n g the g e n e r a l t h e o r e t i -65 c a l argument, t h i s a n a l y s i s i s r e l e v a n t to the e m p i r i c a l study of Surrey homeowners which f o l l o w s i n c h a p t e r s 6, 7 and 8. The time frame e x p l o r e d i n the pre sent a n a l y s i s i s r e l e v a n t to the l a t t e r as the median date of f i r s t house purchase for the Surrey homeowners i n t e r v i e w e d l ay between 1971 and 1975. The c a l c u l a t i o n of the annual homeowners' c o s t s i n c l u d e d mortgage payments, maintenance c o s t s and p r o p e r t y t a x e s , as 19 shown i n Appendix I . A p r o v i n c i a l Home Owner Grant for p r o p e r t y taxes was s u b t r a c t e d from the annual c o s t s of home-ownersh ip , a l t h o u g h a d d i t i o n a l government s u b s i d i e s and tax advantages have not been i n c l u d e d , nor were expenses such as r e a l e s t a t e t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s which are o f t e n i n c l u d e d i n such 20 e s t i m a t e s . These omi s s ions from an a n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i v e c o s t s of homeownership and r e n t i n g l e n d , i f a n y t h i n g , a c o n -s e r v a t i v e b i a s to the a n a l y s i s . T r a n s f e r c o s t s are e s t i m a t e d 2 1 to be .07 of the s a l e p r i c e of a house , w h i l e government s u b s i d i e s and tax advantages i n most cases more than counter The mortg ge paym nt schedule wa c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g average house p r i c e s p u b l i s h e d i n the Royal T r u s t Survey of Canadian Hous ing P r i c e s . The f o l l o w i n g assumptions were made: a 10 percent downpayment, and a 25 year a m o r t i s a t i o n p e r i o d , r e n e g o t i a t e d every 2 year s a t the c u r r e n t i n t e r e s t r a t e s (Bank of Canada Review - c o n v e n t i o n a l mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s ) . The maintenance c o s t s were assumed to be .01 of the c u r r e n t house p r i c e and t h i s assumption i s a t y p i c a l one ( S .M. McFayden and R . J . H o b a r t , " I n f l a t i o n and urban home owner-s h i p " ) . 20 . M . S . Johnson, "A Cash Flow Model of R a t i o n a l Hous ing Tenure C h o i c e , " AREUEA J o u r n a l 9 (1981), 1-17; S . M . McFayden and R . J . H o b a r t , " I n f l a t i o n and urban home o w n e r s h i p " . S . M . McFayden and R . J . H o b a r t , " I n f l a t i o n and urban home o w n e r s h i p " . 66 t h i s homeownership c o s t . Government p o l i c i e s , which have tended to favour homeowners, w i l l be d i s c u s s e d more f u l l y below. To c a l c u l a t e the economic advantage of homeownership i n r e l a t i o n to t enancy , the average annua l rent for a three bedroom house i n the same area was then s u b t r a c t e d from the annua l homeownership c o s t s , wi th the under s t and ing that r e n t a l c o s t s r e p r e s e n t the minimum which everyone must pay for s h e l t e r . The annual hous ing and r e n t a l c o s t s for a three bedroom house i n each of the f i v e areas are shown i n t a b l e 2 . 4 . The downpayment p l u s the amount p a i d over and above these r e n t a l c o s t s each year were then h y p o t h e t i c a l l y i n v e s t e d i n v a r i o u s types of bonds and common shares to compare the y i e l d for these inves tments to the r e t u r n through homeowner-s h i p . As shown i n t a b l e 2 . 5 , homeownership compares ex t remely f a v o u r a b l y to these a l t e r n a t i v e inve s tment s , exceed ing the next best investment by as much as 163.02%. T h i s i s the case even though house p r i c e s have f a l l e n c o n s i d e r a b l y through 1981 and 1982 - between A p r i l 1981 and A p r i l 1982 by 25.5% i n K e r r i s d a l e , 21.2% i n Richmond, 20.0% i n North Vancouver , 16.3% i n West Vancouver and 17.4% in S u r r e y . A l e s s h y p o t h e t i c a l a p p r e c i a t i o n of the r e l a t i v e net worth of homeowners and t enant s i s g leaned from t a b l e 2.6 which p r o v i d e s n a t i o n a l ev idence of the f ac t t h a t , in g e n e r a l , homeowners a t t a i n much h i g h e r net worth p o s i t i o n s than t e n a n t s . S i x t y - n i n e p e r c e n t of r e n t e r s had l e s s than $5000 of s av ings or e q u i t y i n 1977 w h i l e o n l y 3.9% of a l l homeowners TABLE 2.4 Annual Housing and Rental C o s t s f o r F i v e GVRD Areas a Housing C o s t s ($) Rental C o s t s ($) by Year Purchased and Area by Area 1973 1974 1976 Year Richmond S u r r e y S u r r e y R i c h -mond North West Van. Van. Ke r r i s-d a l e S u r r e y R i c h -mond North Van. West Van. K e r r i s d a l e 1973 5152 3240 3240 1974 5152 6252 n. a . n. a i. 1975 58 18 6343 3540 3540 1976 5938 6499 6962 7868 9555 10189 12353 3181 3570 4476 4292 4848 1977 5699 6639 7097 8000 9773 10234 12362 3352 4088 4591 5481 5004 1978 5699 5900 6409 7322 897 1 9406 1 1504 3661 4440 4591 5475 5 184 1979 5929 6015 6524 7306 8939 9381 1 1639 3831 4499 4865 569 1 5365 1980 6299 7001 7655 88 1 1 10613 1 1059 13997 4247 4999 506 1 565 1 5553 198 1 9342 757 1 8226 9626 1 1364 12264 15042 4774 5602 5658 6631 5864 1982 9037 8827 9727 1 1 135 13180 14 180 17382 5762 8400 6694 9600 7244 9600 8153 10200 9205 9000 b a. H ousing c o s t s c a l c u l a t e d assuming the f o l l o w i n g : 10% downpayment, 25 year a m o r t i s a t i o n p e r i o d , r e n e g o t i a t e d e v e r y two y e a r s at c u r r e n t i n t e r e s t r a t e s (Bank of Canada Review). Housing c o s t s i n c l u d e mortgage payment + maintenance + p r o p e r t y taxes - Home Owner g r a n t . House P r i c e s and P r o p e r t y taxes o b t a i n e d from the Royal T r u s t Survey of Canadian House Pr i c e s . Maintenance c o s t s assumed to be .01 of c u r r e n t house p r i c e . 1973- 1975 r e n t a l c o s t s o b t a i n e d from Real E s t a t e Trends i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, Real E s t a t e Board of G r e a t e r Vancouver. Rents from 1976-1982 o b t a i n e d from Rentalsman's o f f i c e l i s t i n g s f o r 3 bedroom houses. The e x c e p t i o n to t h i s i s K e r r i s d a l e , f o r which data on r e n t s i s not a v a i l a b l e u n t i l 1980. K e r r i s d a l e r e n t s from 1976-1979 are e s t i m a t e d assuming 3.5% i n c r e a s e per annum, as i s the case from 1/80-12/80 and 12/80-8/81. b. Royal T r u s t Survey of Canadian House P r i c e s based on t h e i r r e n t a l h o l d i n g s . T h i s p r o b a b l y a more a c c u r a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of r e n t s because the Rentalsman's o f f i c e e s t i m a t e t h a t t h e i r f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t o n l y 20% of the r e n t a l market i n houses and u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t r e n t s . TABLE 2.5 The Annual D i f f e r e n c e Between R e n t i n g and Owning P l u s the Downpayment R e i n v e s t e d i n A l t e r n a t i v e Forms of Investment on an Annual B a s i s , E a r n i n g s as of Year-end 1982($) 1973 1974 Area and Purchase Date 1976 Richmond Surrey Surrey Richmond North Van. West Van. K e r r i s-da 1 e Form of Investment Canadian Government Bonds-Average Y i e l d (5-10 y e a r s ) P r o v i n c i a l s (McLeod, Young and Weir) Average Bond Y i e l d - weighted long term T o r o n t o Stock Exchange I n d u s t r i a l s (common s h a r e s ) T o r o n t o Stock Exchange Base M e t a l s (common sh a r e s ) House P r i c e s 45,546 54,918 46,962 51,884 70,693 70,722 105.815 49,425 58,781 49,213 54,370 73,923 73,996 110,422 20,839 28,890 30,508 33,581 45.394 45,439 67,265 19,676 25,598 24,826 26.942 37,466 37,427 56,288 130,000 95,000 95,000 130,000 140,000 180,000 190,000 00 a. S t a t i s t i c s f o r the f i r s t f o u r investments from Bank of Canada Review (dan. 1975, Feb. 1978. March 1982, Jan. 1984). For the l a s t . Royal T r u s t Survey of Canadian House P r i c e s , up to Apr i1 1982. 69 TABLE 2.6 Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of F a m i l i e s and Unat tached I n d i v i d u a l s by Tenure and S i z e of Net Worth or Weal th Group , 1970 and 1977 A l l o t h e r s Net worth group ( s p r i n g 1970) Homeowners T o t a l Renters Other s Negat i ve Zero Under $1000 $1-4,999 $5-9,999 $10-14,999 $15-24,999 $25-49,999 $50-99,999 $100,000 + 1.8 1 , 9, 15, 16, 25, 21 , 6, 1 , 26, 6 27, 23, 7, 2 3 1 0 0 28, 3, 26, 24, 8, 2, 3 2 0 0 16.8 21 .2 32.8 19, 3, 1 , 2, 1 , 0 Average net worth $23,476 $3,623 $3,623 $2,040 Net wea l th group ( s p r i n g 1977) Nega t ive Zero Under $1000 $1-4,999 $5-9,999 $10-14,999 $15-29,999 $30-49,999 $50-99,999 $100,000 + 1 .4 0, 2 5, 5, 17, 22 28 17 20, 3, 22, 23, 6, 2, 1 , 1 , 11.0 5.3 20, 3, 21 , 24, 7, 3, 1 , 1 , 11.7 5.8 23.6 8.0 29.6 20 7 2 4 2 1 1 Average wea l th $71,644 $8,905 $9,547 $5,173 Source : Adapted from D. F r a z e r and J . M c C l a i n , C r e d i t : A M o r t - gage fo r L i f e , p . 42. a . I n c l u d e s roomers , l o d g e r s and f a m i l i e s who r e c e i v e f r ee l o d g i n g or who r e s i d e w i t h e m p l o y e r s . b . The d e f i n i t i o n of wea l th group extends the concept of net worth to i n c l u d e b u s i n e s s e q u i t y . Wealth group c a t e g o r i e s have been extended upwards. TABLE 2.7 P e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n of f a m i l i e s by s i z e of net worth and income group, s p r i n g 1977 Net worth group Under $3000- $4000- $5000-( s p r i n g 1977) $3000 $3999 $4999 $5999 % % % % Income group (197G) $6000- $7000- $10000- $15000- $25,000 T o t a l Aver-$6999 $9999 $14999 $24999 and over age Income % % % % % % $ Negat i ve 8 .5 10 1 9 . 8 1 1 . .3 13. .7 1 1 , .3 12 . 6 6 . 2 2 .0 7 , 5 13.314 Zero 8 . 8 2 . 7 1 . 3 2 . 1 2 . 2 0. 7 0. . 1 0. . 2 0 .0 0. 6 6.271 Under $1000 17 . 8 19 . 9 20. 9 14 . 0 13. , 2 9 . 1 6. 4 2 . 3 0. . 4 5. 2 9.454 $1000-$1999 4 .9 2 . 9 5, .5 4 .0 3 .8 3. . 1 3. .9 2 .0 0 . 4 2 .4 12,671 $2000-$4999 4 . 7 6 . 1 8 . 2 7 . 4 5 . 5 8 . 4 8 .6 5 .6 1 . 7 5 . 7 14.179 $5000-$9999 6 .0 3 . 5 6 . 6 7 . 2 7 . 4 5 . , 2 7 . 2 9. . 1 3 .8 6. ,8 17,748 $ 10000-$14999 7 . 7 5 , 3 3. .6 6 . 7 3 . 4 7 . , 7 6 . 7 7 . , 5 3 . 7 6 . 2 16.336 $15000-$24999 5 .6 9 . 3 5 . 2 12 . 7 6 . 5 9. .5 10, .2 1 1 , 4 6 . 4 9 . 4 17.058 $25000-$49999 10 . 7 12 . 4 18 . 7 19 .6 21 . 2 17 . 5 21 . 1 25. .2 23 . 1 22 . 2 18.895 $50000-$99999 12 . 7 18 . 2 14 . 2 10 . 2 15 .4 15 .9 15 .0 20. , 7 31 . 1 20, , 6 21 , 124 $100000-149999 5 .5 3 .9 2. .7 2 .4 5 .5 8 . 1 4 , . 1 6 . 1 12 .4 7 . 1 23.526 $150000-$299999 4 . 6 3 .0 3, , 2 1 . 8 1 . 3 2 , .4 2 , .8 3 .0 8 . 3 4 .0 29,259 $300000 and over 2 . 5 2 . 7 0, , 1 0 . 5 0 .8 1 . 2 1 , . 2 0 . 7 6 . 5 2 . 2 50,954 o Average net worth ($) 42.368 40,845 29,009 27,273 33,376 40,447 37,485 43.869 110.644 56,122 Median net worth ($) 9,440 14.521 8.262 13.001 16.074 19,834 19,389 30,664 63.356 31,941 Source: Adapted from D. F r a z e r and J . M c C l a i n , C r e d i t : A Mortgage For L i f e , p. 40. 71 were i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n . The d i f f e r e n c e s between home-owners and t enant s in terms of a s s e t s do not merely r e f l e c t income d i f f e r e n t i a l s . As can be seen from t a b l e 2 . 7 , 61.5% of those w i t h incomes between $6000 and $6999, 67.5% of those w i t h incomes between $7000 and $9999 and 68.3% of those w i t h incomes between $10,000 and $14,999 had a s s e t s i n excess of $5000 i n 1977, compared to 31.3% of r e n t e r s i n a l l income c a t e g o r i e s . C r i t i c s of the t h e s i s tha t homeownership p r o v i d e s acces s to c o n s i d e r a b l e wea l th which has r e p e r c u s s i o n s for s o c i e t a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n have p o i n t e d out that homeownership merely e n f o r c e s s av ing and thus does not a c t u a l l y c r e a t e 22 w e a l t h . Whi le t h i s may be p a r t i a l l y t r u e , F r a z e r and M c C l a i n suggest that a compari son of 1970 and 1976 f i g u r e s , shown in t a b l e 2 . 6 , r e f l e c t s the impact of i n f l a t e d house 23 p r i c e s on net wor th . Almost h a l f of the homeowners i n 1977 (45%) had a net worth i n excess of $50,000, compared to 8.4% in 1970. Government S u b s i d i s a t i o n by Tenure Most r ecent c l a i m s for e n d u r i n g o b j e c t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s between homeowners and r e n t e r s have focused a t t e n t i o n on the S. C l a r k e and N . G i n s b u r g , "The p o l i t i c a l economy of h o u s i n g " i n P o l i t i c a l Economy and the Housing Q u e s t i o n , C o n f e r -ence of S o c i a l i s t Economist s Housing Workshop (London: P o l i t i c a l Economy of Housing Workshop, 1975), pp . 3-33. D. F r a z e r and J . M c C l a i n , C r e d i t : A Mortgage for L i f e (Ottawa: Canadian C o u n c i l on S o c i a l Development, 1981), p . 4 2 . 72 r o l e of government hous ing and f i s c a l p o l i c i e s i n m a i n t a i n i n g these d i f f e r e n c e s . T h i s r e s u l t s p a r t i a l l y from the r e a l i s a -t i o n that house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n i t s e l f r e f l e c t s government p o l i c y . Baxter has argued w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the Canadian s i t u a t i o n t h a t : "The r a p i d p r i c e a p p r e c i a t i o n for owner-o c c u p i e d h o u s i n g r e f l e c t s not o n l y consumer p r e f e r e n c e and r a p i d l y r i s i n g incomes, but a l s o government s u b s i d i s a t i o n 24 ( e x p l i c i t and i m p l i c i t ) i n favor of t h i s form of t e n u r e . " As w e l l , t h i s re-emphas i s i n t h e o r e t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s from the widespread f a l l i n house p r i c e s i n the e a r l y 1980's , a l t h o u g h i n Vancouver at l e a s t , there has been a s t a b i l i s a t i o n i n the hous ing market f o l l o w e d by an i n c r e a s e i n house p r i c e s through 1983, as shown i n t a b l e 2 . 2 . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n the shor t term at l e a s t there are a number of f a c t o r s which suggest that the extreme house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n of the 1970's may not be soon r e p e a t e d . One f a c t o r s imply i n v o l v e s consumer a t t i t u d e s towards c r e d i t . R e l y i n g on a j o u r n a l i s t i c a c c o u n t : " l e n d e r s observe that houseowners are p a y i n g mortgages down (or o f f ) at every p o s s i b l e o p p o r t u n i t y . And i n many c a s e s , t h e y ' r e s h o r t e n i n g a m o r t i z a t i o n p e r i o d s , which can mean c o n s i d e r a b l e s a v i n g s . Says B i l l C l a r k s o n , v i c e p r e s i d e n t , mortgages , Toronto Dominion B a n k : ' I n about 40% - 50% of our mortgages , there i s some form of prepayment at the t ime of r enewal . We d i d n ' t keep s t a t i s t i c s a few y e a r s ago, but I would guess that maybe i t was i n the neighbourhood of 10%-15%.''' D. Baxter quoted by G. Sou le s in The Hous ing C r i s i s : Causes , E f f e c t s , S o l u t i o n s , p . 34. 25 C . Green, "Many mixes i n mortgage market" The F i n a n c i a l P o s t , 9 J u l y 1983, p . 2. 73 As w e l l , the head of r e t a i l l e n d i n g and mortgage s e r v i c e s f o r the Royal Bank of Canada noted that a "tremendous number of people are p u t t i n g in 30%-40% downpayments on a house purchase 2 6 vs. a measly 10% a few years ago". Regardless of the ques-t i o n of the long term tendency towards lower l e v e l s of i n f l a -t i o n i n the housing market, a s h i f t of t h e o r e t i c a l a t t e n t i o n away from immediate house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n has been accompanied by a concern f o r the importance of government s u b s i d i e s i n s t r u c t u r i n g consumption s e c t o r s , in t h i s case o b j e c t i v e housing tenure groups. F e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l government p o l i c i e s a f f e c t i n g housing tenure c o n d i t i o n s w i l l thus be b r i e f l y o u t l i n e d . 1. F e d e r a l Government I n i t i a t i v e s D i s e n t a n g l i n g the p a t t e r n s of i n d i r e c t and d i r e c t housing s u b s i d i e s i s c e r t a i n l y not a c l e a r - c u t t a s k : there i s con-s i d e r a b l e room f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s p u t e . For i n s t a n c e , i t i s u nclear whether the p o r t i o n of the guaranteed income supplement a l l o c a t e d to housing i s an income or housing sub-s i d y . Are the funds d i r e c t e d towards the home i n s u l a t i o n programme an aspect of housing or n a t i o n a l energy p o l i c y ? Do r e n t e r s b e n e f i t i n any d i r e c t sense from s u p p l y - s i d e r e n t a l programmes such as the A s s i s t e d R e n t a l Program? Noting the I b i d . , p. 1. 74 ambigu i ty i n any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and the g e n e r a l nature of t h i s a n a l y s i s as a b a c k c l o t h fo r the e m p i r i c a l study which f o l l o w s , the major N a t i o n a l Hous ing Act d i r e c t t r a n s f e r s are o u t l i n e d i n t a b l e 2.8 and supplemented w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n on tax exemptions and income t r a n s f e r s where a v a i l a b l e . By far the l a r g e s t subs idy r e s u l t e d from exemptions from the tax on c a p i t a l ga ins for homeowners. T h i s exemption was a l l o w e d i n 1971; the 1971 amendments to the Income Tax Act c o n t a i n e d a number of p r o v i s i o n s which were ex t remely impor-tant i n enhancing the investment a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of homeowner-s h i p and d e c r e a s i n g that of investment i n r e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s / They i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : 1) tax f ree c a p i t a l ga ins on a p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e (owner-occupied) w h i l e u s u a l l y o n e - h a l f of c a p i t a l ga ins on other a s s e t s , i n c l u d i n g those on r e n t a l r e s -i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t i e s , are t a x a b l e , 2) the owner of r e n t a l p r o -p e r t y i s not p e r m i t t e d to w r i t e o f f d e p r e c i a t i o n l o s s e s from the p r o p e r t y a g a i n s t o ther income, 3) the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of separa te c a p i t a l co s t a l l owance accounts for each a s se t worth more than $50,000, w i t h the consequence that any s a l e may immediate ly a t t r a c t income tax on the recovery of c a p i t a l co s t a l l o w a n c e s . Notab le fo r i t s omi s s ion i s the f a i l u r e to tax imputed rent on owner-occupied houses (the ' r e n t ' an owner-o c c u p i e r would pay h i m s e l f as l a n d l o r d ) , the second 27 l a r g e s t form of subs idy r e c o r d e d i n t a b l e 2 . 8 . 27 Arguments c o n c e r n i n g the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h i s exemption as a tax e x p e n d i t u r e are p re sented by R . G . Dowler , "Hous ing R e l a t e d Tax E x p e n d i t u r e s : An Overview and E v a l u a t i o n , " pp. 56-57. T A B L E 2 . 8 F e d e r a l H o u s i n g S u b s i d i e s (mi 11 i o n s , $ ) F o r m o f S u b s i d y Y e a r 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 HOMEOWNERSHIP N a t i o n a l H o u s i n g A c t T r a n s f e r s a AHOP RRAP Home I n s u l a t i o n I n t e r e s t a n d L o a n L o s s e s 5 . 0 10 .1 2 1 . 7 2 9 . 3 3 4 . 8 3 2 . 3 2 9 . 0 17.1 n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . 2 0 . 0 n . a . 43 4 47 3 77 g 2 1 2 . 9 1 4 3 . 8 n . a . n . a . n . a . n.a. n . a . n . a . 8 . 7 n . a . T a x E x p e n d i t u r e s C a p i t a l G a i n s N o n - t a x a t i o n o f I m p u t e d R e n t RHOSP P R I V A T E R E N T A L N a t i o n a l H o u s i n g A c t T r a n s f e r s a P r i v a t e R e n t a l RRAP ARP I n t e r e s t a n d L o a n L o s s e s n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . 3 1 5 0 3 1 0 0 2 9 5 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 n . a . n . a . n . a . .2 1203 105 1236 94 n . a . 2 . 6 1466 1 7 5 0 2 1 8 8 92 95 9 5 n . a . n . a . n . a . 9 . 9 n . a . 1 7 . 7 n . a . 1 5 . 5 n . a . 1 9 . 5 2 4 . 9 2 9 . 7 n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . 7 . 5 n . a . T a x ' S h e l t e r s f o r I n v e s t m e n t c M u r b , CCA A c c e l -e r a t e d D e p r e c i a -t i o n , S o f t C o s t s D e d u c t a b i 1 i t y 6 0 221 2 7 0 T A B L E 2 . 8 C O N T I N U E D Y e a r F o r m o f S u b s i d y 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 S O C I A L AND N O N -P R O F I T H O U S I N G a R R A P - R u r a l a n d N a t i v e n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . 4 9 . 2 n . a . - N o n p r o f i t a n d C o - o p n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . 1 8 . 9 n . a . N o n p r o f i t + C o - o p 6 . 4 1 3 . 2 2 1 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 6 . 9 1 5 . 5 3 4 . 7 7 3 . 4 P u b l i c H o u s i n g 9 . 4 1 7 . 1 3 0 . 0 4 6 . 2 6 3 . 4 8 7 . 0 1 1 7 . 2 1 4 1 . 1 1 7 9 . 0 2 6 5 . 0 2 6 2 . 6 3 2 0 . 3 I n t e r e s t a n d L o a n L o s s e s n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . n . a . 1 8 . 9 n . a . d INCOME S U B S I D I E S G e n e r a l A s s i s t a n c e u n d e r C a n a d a A s s i s t a n c e P l a n ( i n c l u d i n g p r o v i n c i a l s h a r e ) 7 0 0 O l d A g e P e n s i o n 1000 G u a r a n t e e d I n c o m e S u p p l e m e n t 3 0 0 F a m i l y A l l o w a n c e 5 0 0 a . C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n , A n n u a l R e p o r t ( O t t a w a , 1 9 8 1 ) . b . C a n a d a , D e p a r t m e n t o f F i n a n c e , G o v e r n m e n t o f C a n a d a T a x E x p e n d i t u r e s A c c o u n t ( O t t a w a , D e c . 1 9 8 0 ) , p . 2 2 . c . C l a y t o n R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t e s . T a x E x p e n d i t u r e s - H o u s i n g ( O t t a w a : CMHC, 1 9 8 1 ) . p . v . ( E s t i m a t e s a s s u m e a f e d e r a l m a r g i n a l t a x r a t e o f 3 6 % ) . d . A . M c A f e e , C i t y o f V a n c o u v e r H o u s i n g P l a n n e r , m i m e o . n . d . n . a . = n o t a v a i l a b l e 77 Another tax subs idy for homeowners, the R e g i s t e r e d Home Ownership Sav ings P lan (RHOSP), was i n t r o d u c e d i n 1974. D e p o s i t s i n t o the p l an are a l l o w e d as annual income tax deduc-t i o n s and the removal of funds from the p l a n are untaxed p r o v i d e d t h a t they are used to purchase hous ing or house f u r n i s h i n g s w i t h i n 20 y e a r s . Of c o u r s e , c o u n t e r v a i l i n g t h i s i s the R e g i s t e r e d Ret i rement Sav ings P lan and v a r i o u s a d d i -t i o n a l tax c o n c e s s i o n s on i n v e s t m e n t s . The p o i n t i s tha t these l a t t e r measures do not d i s c r i m i n a t e a long l i n e s of hous ing t e n u r e , w h i l e the tax exemption of c a p i t a l ga ins from homeownership and tax e x p e n d i t u r e s through RHOSP c l e a r l y do . A f i n a l tax exemption which would have had a tremendous impact on the r e l a t i v e f i n a n c i a l b e n e f i t s of homeownership, had i t been passed i n l e g i s l a t u r e in 1980, was the mortgage i n t e r e s t and p r o p e r t y tax c r e d i t i n t r o d u c e d by the P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y i n the December 11, 1979 budget speech . T h i s budget speech l e d to a vote of nonconf idence and the t e r m i n a t i o n of the C o n s e r v a t i v e government, on the grounds of the energy p o l i c y c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n the budget speech . The magnitude of the e s t i m a t e s fo r the f i s c a l year impact of the mortgage i n t e r e s t and p r o p e r t y tax c r e d i t , seemingly to be i n t r o d u c e d wi thout a b o l i s h i n g the c a p i t a l g a in s tax exemption for homeowners, are shown i n t a b l e 2 . 9 . 78 TABLE 2.9 F i s c a l Year Impact of Mortgage and P r o p e r t y Tax C r e d i t proposed by P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e P a r t y , December 1979 F i s c a l Year Forgone taxes 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 ( m i l l i o n s of $) -575 -1 ,245 -2 ,015 -2 ,875 S o u r c e : Hon. John C r o s b i e , M i n i s t e r of F i n a n c e , Budget Speech, Department of F i n a n c e , Canada, 11 December, 1979. In t o t a l , Dowler e s t imate s tha t i n 1979 tax e x p e n d i t u r e s i n the form of forgone taxes r e l a t e d to hous ing amounted to $5066 m i l l i o n (or 76.8% of t o t a l hous ing e x p e n d i t u r e s ) w h i l e 2 8 a l l d i r e c t s u b s i d i e s t o t a l l e d to $840 m i l l i o n . I n d i r e c t s u b s i d i e s are t y p i c a l l y d i r e c t e d towards homeowners and the d e v e l o p m e n t / c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y ( t a b l e 2 . 1 0 ) . The p a t t e r n of subs idy a l l o c a t i o n has a p o l i t i c a l e f f e c t - t y p i c a l l y ' i n v i s i b l e ' , i n d i r e c t s u b s i d i e s are d i r e c t e d t o -wards homeowners w h i l e h i g h l y v i s i b l e , d i r e c t forms of s u b s i -29 d i s a t i o n tend to be t a r g e t e d towards r e n t e r s . Even g iven t h i s imbalance towards i n d i r e c t s u b s i d i s a t i o n for homeowners, i t can be seen from t a b l e 2.8 that homeowners have not been exc luded from d i r e c t c a p i t a l t r a n s f e r s through the N a t i o n a l 2 8 R . G . D o w l e r , " H o u s i n g R e l a t e d Tax E x p e n d i t u r e s : An Overview and E v a l u a t i o n , " p . 22. 29 P. D u n l e a v y , Urban p o l i t i c a l a n a l y s i s : The p o l i t i c s of c o l l e c t i v e consumpt ion . 79 TABLE 2.10 Summary of Major F e d e r a l Hous ing E x p e n d i t u r e s (1979) /annual E x p e n d i t u r e s % of ($ m i l l i o n ) T o t a l CMHC g r a n t s , c o n t r i b u t i o n s and s u b s i d i e s ^ a s o c i a l hous ing ( p u b l i c , non-p r o f i t , c o - o p e r a t i v e ) 288 market hous ing (AHOP, ARP, i n t e r e s t f o r g i v e n e s s ) 52 l a n d assembly and m u n i c i p a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e 133 o t h e r 237 I m p l i c i t i n t e r e s t s u b s i d i e s on o u t s t a n d i n g l o a n s ^ I m p l i c i t s u b s i d i e s on NHA insurance fees 840 F e d e r a l tax e x p e n d i t u r e s n o n - t a x a t i o n of imputed net rent n o n - t a x a t i o n of c a p i t a l ga ins RHOSPs MURBs Rent c o n t r o l c o s t s 6 T o t a l n o n - c a p i t a l items CMHC commitments for loans and investments^ 1 00 1 5 5066 1750 3000 95 221 225 6246 350 12.7 1 .5 0.2 76.8 3.4 5.3 TOTAL FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES 6596 99.9 S o u r c e : Adapted from R . G . Dowler , "Hous ing R e l a t e d Tax Expendi-t u r e s , " Major Report No. 22, Centre for Urban and Community S t u d i e s ( T o r o n t o , U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1983) , p. 22~. a . CMHC, Annual Report (Ottawa: 1980), pp . 60-61. b . L . B . Smi th , "Hous ing A s s i s t a n c e : A R e - e v a l u a t i o n , " Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y 7 (1981), p . 455. c . Task Force on CMHC (1979) , p . 79. d . R . G . Dowler , "Hous ing R e l a t e d Tax E x p e n d i t u r e s , " p . 74. e. L . B . Smith and P. T o m l i n s o n , "Rent c o n t r o l i n O n t a r i o : Roof or C e i l i n g s ? " , AREUEA 9 (1981). f . CMHC, Annual Report (Ottawa, 1980), pp . 58-59. 80 Hous ing A c t . Grant s for f i r s t - t i m e home p u r c h a s e , house r e -p a i r and home i n s u l a t i o n have g e n e r a l l y e q u a l l e d c a p i t a l ex-p e n d i t u r e s on n o n - p r o f i t , c o - o p e r a t i v e and r e n t a l hous ing from the l a t t e r 1970 ' s . As w e l l , g e n e r a l l y the s u b s i d i s a t i o n of the r e n t a l s e c t o r does not b e n e f i t r e n t e r s i n as s t r a i g h t -forward a f a s h i o n as does much of the s u b s i d i s a t i o n ( i n d i r e c t and d i r e c t ) of homeowners. With r e f e r e n c e to the A s s i s t e d R e n t a l Program, Ann McAfee , the C i t y of Vancouver Hous ing P l a n n e r , has w r i t t e n : " w h i l e A . R . P . may be a p r o f i t a b l e exer -c i s e from the p e r s p e c t i v e of the i n v e s t o r , the b e n e f i t s to the 30 community are l e s s o b v i o u s " . One reason for t h i s i s tha t c o n s t r u c t i o n of p r o j e c t s s u b s i d i s e d through programmes such as A . R . P . or M . U . R . B . o f t en n e c e s s i t a t e d the d e m o l i t i o n of e x i s t i n g r e n t a l accomodat ion . In Vancouver , for example, the Vancouver hous ing p l anner e s t i m a t e d that the c o n s t r u c t i o n of two A . R . P . / M . U . R . B . u n i t s r e s u l t e d i n the net g a i n of o n l y one u n i t to the C i t y ' s hous ing s t o c k , p r e c i s e l y because of t h i s 3 1 d e m o l i t i o n f a c t o r . S e c o n d l y , a s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n of M . U . R . B . u n i t s were s t r a t a - t i t l e d p r i o r to r e n t a l , l e a d i n g the same Vancouver hous ing p l a n n e r to s p e c u l a t e t h a t : 30 A . McAfee , "The Hous ing Game: The Rule s Change A g a i n , " Q u a r t e r l y Review 5 ( A p r i l , 1978), p . 9. 31 . L e t t e r from A . McAfee to D. H u l c h a n s k i , U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 12 October 1982. Reported by R . G . Dowler , "Hous ing R e l a t e d Tax E x p e n d i t u r e s , " p . 45. 81 "There i s some q u e s t i o n as to how long the u n i t s w i l l remain r e n t a l once v a r i o u s t a x a t i o n i n c e n t i v e s are reduced . P o s s i b l e s a l e to owner occupants c o u l d reduce s u b s t a n t i a l l y the C i t y ' s s tock of r e n t a l h o u s i n g . T h i r d l y , the type of u n i t s b u i l t w i t h A . R . P . / M . U . R . B . s u b s i -d i s a t i o n ( g e n e r a l l y b a c h e l o r and one bedroom u n i t s at the luxury end of the r e n t a l marke t ) , w h i l e the most l u c r a t i v e for d e v e l o p e r s , were u n s u i t a b l e for the types of r e n t e r s most i n need ( t y p i c a l l y f a m i l i e s ) and very o f ten out of the r e a c h , i n terms of a f f o r d a b i 1 i t y , of the m a j o r i t y of r e n t e r s . Dowler r e p o r t s tha t r e n t s for A . R . P . u n i t s i n 1977 were from 17% to 96% h i g h e r than average market r e n t s for the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s sampled, even though A . R . P . u n i t s , u n l i k e those s u b s i d i s e d through M . U . R . B . tax s h e l t e r s , had government c o n t r o l s on rent 33 l e v e l s . The r e g r e s s i v e nature of much of the s u b s i d i s a t i o n 34 of homeowners i s another i s sue , a l t h o u g h a s i m i l a r case has r e c e n t l y been made wi th re spect to f e d e r a l funding of c o -o p e r a t i v e h o u s i n g . Granted the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a s s e s s i n g the a c t u a l r e c i -p i e n t s of these hous ing programmes and a l s o the l a c k of i n f o r -I b i d . 33 R . G . Dowler , " H o u s i n g - R e l a t e d Tax E x p e n d i t u r e s , " pp . 46-47. 34 . . I b i d . See a l s o , G . F a l l i s , Housing Programs and Income D i s t r i b u t i o n i n O n t a r i o ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1980). 35 M o i r a Farrow, " S u b s i d i z e d co-ops not hous ing p o o r , " The Vancouver Sun, 24 November 1983, Sec . A , p . 3. Reference i s made to a r e p o r t r e c e n t l y p repared for CMHC by M i c h e a l P o u l t o n of the department of urban and r u r a l p l a n n i n g , T e c h n i c a l 82 mation c o n c e r n i n g the breakdown of income s u b s i d i e s by t e n u r e , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to make a f i r m statement c o n c e r n i n g the r e l a -t i v e f e d e r a l s u b s i d i s a t i o n of hous ing t e n u r e s . However, t ak-ing a very c o n s e r v a t i v e s tance which i n c l u d e s the a l l o c a t i o n of 70% of income s u b s i d i e s to r e n t e r s , programmes such as A . R . P . as r e n t a l s u b s i d i e s , as w e l l as the c o n f l a t i o n of s u b s i d i e s d i r e c t e d towards r e n t a l and n o n - p r o f i t or c o - o p e r a -t i v e h o u s i n g , i n 1976 homeowners r e c e i v e d $5229.7 m i l l i o n i n i n d i r e c t and d i r e c t s u b s i d i e s w h i l e r e n t e r s r e c e i v e d $1950.8 m i l l i o n . C o n s i d e r i n g that 61.8% of the n a t i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n were homeowners i n 1976 i t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s d i f f i c u l t to c l a i m the e q u i t y of homeowners r e c e i v i n g 72.8% of the s u b s i d i e s . E x c l u d i n g income s u b s i d i e s , which one might argue are not s p e c i f i c a l l y hous ing programmes, i n 1976 homeowners r e c e i v e d $4479.7 m i l l i o n i n s u b s i d i e s , compared to the $200.8 m i l l i o n t a r g e t e d towards r e n t e r s and n o n - p r o f i t , as w e l l as c o o p e r a -3 6 t i v e hous ing (or 95.7% of a l l s u b s i d i e s ) . As w e l l , the f ac t tha t the a b s o l u t e number of homeowners i n c r e a s e d by 21.8% (com-pared to a 14.1% i n c r e a s e i n r e n t e r s ) between 1971 and 1976 i s 37 not i n c i d e n t a l to these s u b s i d i e s . U n i v e r s i t y of Nova S c o t i a . 3 6 T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s ex t remely l a r g e but comparable to e s t i m a t e s of f e d e r a l hous ing e x p e n d i t u r e s for ownersh ip , p r i v a t e r e n t a l and s o c i a l hous ing p re sen ted by Dowler . I n c l u d i n g e s t i m a t e s for MURB and RRAP programmes not i n c l u d e d here for 1976 , Dowler s t i l l f i n d s tha t 80.0% of a l l e x p e n d i t u r e i s d i r e c t e d towards homeowners ( R . G . Dowler , "Hous ing R e l a t e d Tax E x p e n d i t u r e s : An Overview and E v a l u a t i o n " , p . 101). S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1976 Census of Canada, c a t . 93-802 (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1978). 83 2. P r o v i n c i a l Government S u b s i d i s a t i o n The i s s u e of d i f f e r e n t i a l funding a c r o s s hous ing tenures p e r s i s t s at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , the l e v e l of government which h o l d s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for h o u s i n g . R u t t l e argues tha t the w i l l i n g n e s s to take on 3 8 such r e s p o n s i b i l i t y has v a r i e d by p r o v i n c i a l p a r t y , w i t h the performance of the S o c i a l C r e d i t government more d e s e r v i n g of Dennis and F i s h ' s a c c u s a t i o n t h a t : " B . C . makes l i t t l e p r e t e n c e of hav ing a s o c i a l hous ing p o l i c y tha t i s i n t e g r a t e d w i t h the a c t i v i t i e s of the v a r i o u s p r o v i n c i a l departments and a g e n c i e s . Indeed, government p r i d e s i t s e l f on hav ing a ' p o l i c y of the d a y ' . . . a n d the tendency i s to r e l y on f e d e r a l i n i t i a -t i v e s and e x p e r t i s e . " ^ g As B r i t i s h Columbia has been governed almost c o n t i n u o u s l y by the S o c i a l C r e d i t Pa r ty s i n c e 1952, w i t h the n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n of New Democrat ic Par ty governance between 1972 and 1975, t h i s assessment g e n e r a l l y h o l d s t r u e for p r o v i n c i a l hous ing p o l i c y . With the p o l i t i c a l economy very much dependent upon the h e a l t h of the f o r e s t r y , lumber and c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r i e s , hous ing p o l i c y has been h e a v i l y d i c t a t e d by concerns for economic s t a b i l i s a t i o n . A c o l o u r f u l example of t h i s i s deve loped by C . R u t t l e , " T u r n i n g Back the C l o c k : B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ' s Hous ing P o l i c y , 1975-1983," U n p u b l i s h e d paper , Department of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1983. M. Dennis and S. F i s h , Programs i n Search of a p o l i c y : low income hous ing i n Canada ( T o r o n t o : H a k k e r t , 1972), p . 157. 84 R u t t l e who notes i n r e f e r e n c e to the '$200 m i l l i o n cheap mortgage' scheme i n t r o d u c e d i n 1980, t h a t : " I t was w i d e l y h e l d to have been the d i r e c t r e s u l t of t a l k s between the Premier and r e p r e s e n t a -t i v e s of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Woodworkers of Amer ica c o n c e r n i n g h i g h unemployment i n the f o r e s t r y i n d u s t r y . The program appeared to come d i r e c t l y from the P r e m i e r ' s o f f i c e r a t h e r than the M i n i s t r y of Lands , Parks and H o u s i n g . I t d i d not appear to have been deve loped i n the c o n t e x t of a hous ing p o l i c y . The M i n i s t r y was not drawn i n t o the p l a n u n t i l i t was w e l l a l o n g and the M i n i s t e r was out of town when the program was announced. Housing o f f i -c i a l s were h e l d to have d e s c r i b e d the p l a n as a ' s h o t out of the b l u e ' . A c c o r d i n g to the P r e m i e r , the program aimed t o : ' s t i m u l a t e the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y and i n t u r n improve domest ic lumber s a l e s which w i l l then s t i m u l a t e the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y . I t w i l l a l s o h e l p some people purchase homes at a more rea sonab le mortgage r a t e . " 4 Q T h i s and an e f f e c t i v e use of hous ing programmes to c u r r y v o t e r s ' favour has g e n e r a l l y l e d to an imbalance i n s u b s i d i s a -t i o n towards homeowners. As a Vancouver newspaper c o l u m n i s t t e l l s i t : " In 1956, B e n n e t t ' s most popu la r campaign p lank was the promise to pay 4 1 $28 of each homeowner's m u n i c i p a l t a x e s . " By 1972, the B r i t i s h Columbia Home Owner Grant was d e s c r i b e d as "undoubted-l y the most important s i n g l e hous ing programme. The e s t i m a t e d 1975 e x p e n d i t u r e exceeds $100 m i l l i o n , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 17 p e r -cent g r e a t e r than the budget for the e n t i r e Department of Housing i n the 1975 b u d g e t . . . . Even today the tax r e l i e f C . R u t t l e , " T u r n i n g Back the C l o c k : B r i t i s h Columbia Housing P o l i c y , 1975-83". D. Boyd, "Never say never i n Vancouver E a s t , " The Vancouver Sun 15 A p r i l 1983, Sec . A , p . 5. 85 a f f o r d e d to t enant s (the R e n t e r ' s Tax C r e d i t ) i n no way com-42 pares to tha t g i v e n o w n e r - o c c u p i e r s . " From the p e r s p e c t i v e of the ' t o d a y ' of 1984, as compared to that of 1976, the magnitude of t h i s statement i s compounded: the R e n t e r ' s Tax C r e d i t has now been c a n c e l l e d w h i l e the Home Owner Grant c o n t i n u e d to be i n c r e a s e d u n t i l 1980. Between 1976 and 1980 the Home Owner Grant was r a i s e d by a minimum of $50 a n n u a l l y for those 65 y e a r s and o l d e r , to a l e v e l of $630, and for those under 65 a s i n g l e i n c r e a s e of $100 i n 1979 r a i s e d tha annual grant from $280 to $380. One may note tha t 1979 was an e l e c t i o n y e a r . In t a b l e 2 . 1 1 , the breakdown of p r o v i n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s to v a r i o u s h o u s i n g programmes are i n d i c a t e d . I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t , a s i d e from the Home Owner G r a n t , there has been c o n s i d e r a b l e s u b s i d i s a t i o n of the homeownership s e c t o r through the hous ing m i n i s t r y i t s e l f . The r e l a t i v e commitment of the p r o v i n c i a l government to r e n t e r s and homeowners i s h i g h l i g h t e d d r a m a t i c a l l y by the p a t t e r n of s u b s i d i s a t i o n i n 1982 and 1983. From October 1982 the P r o v i n c i a l government implemented the B . C . Home Program to p r o v i d e i n t e r e s t f ree loans for mortgage r e l i e f on new and e x i s t i n g mortgages . T h i s programme t e m p o r a r i l y reduced mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s (with a maximum r e d u c t i o n of 6 p e r -F . G . Pennance, S.W. Hami l ton and D. B a x t e r , H o u s i n g , i t ' s your move, p . 81. 86 TABLE 2.11 P r o v i n c i a l Hous ing S u b s i d i e s ( m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s ) Year S u b s i d i e s 1 976 1 977 1 978 1 979 1980 1 981 HOMEOWNER AHOP (prov . summary) .06 .5 .4 a Home Loan C o n v e r s i o n (Loan p o r t i o n o n l y ) 2.3 2.7 3.3 3.8 4.4 8.3 F i r s t Home Grant .4 4 .9 4 .9 7.9 B . C . Second Mortgage 12.7 15.4 1 5 . 8 b F a m i l y F i r s t Home G . New Home B u i l d i n g Grant — — —_ — — 9.1 2.2 14.5 11.2 2.3 2.8 4.2 33. 1 39.2 43.2 RENTAL AND NONPROFIT Nonprof i t S e c t i o n 44(1) b S e c t i o n 44(1) a Co-op h i g h impact grant 1 .9 2.6 .4 4.5 1 .5 6.0 1 .8 6.2 2.2 .9 6.6 2.6 .7 P r o v i n c i a l R e n t a l A s s i s t a n c e .003 .04 O p e r . , M a i n . and Admin. Cos t s of B . C . H . M . C 12.2 16.6 19.3 1 .9 3.0 6.0 20.0 26.9 29.4 ARP 7.2 4.2 2 2 Z ' c S o u r c e : Adapted from C . R u t t l e , " T u r n i n g Back the C l o c k " . (Dept . of Hous ing Annual Report 1974,1975; M i n . of Mun. A f f a i r s , Annual R e p o r t , 1976, 1977; M i n . of Lands , Parks and H o u s i n g , Annual Report 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981-82.) a . New commitments of A s s i s t e d Home Ownership Program ceased i n A p r i l 1978. b . T h i s r e f e r s to the funds committed - the depth of the a c t u a l subs idy i s d i f f i c u l t to d i s c e r n . c . A s s i s t e d R e n t a l Program began i n summer 1976 and new commitments ceased 1978. 87 cent ) to a base r a t e of 12 p e r c e n t . The deputy m i n i s t e r e s t imated tha t the B . C . Home Program would c o s t between $200 43 and $400 m i l l i o n over a three year time p e r i o d . S ince October 1982 i n t e r e s t r a t e s have d e c l i n e d to below the base r a t e ( for i n s t a n c e , i n A p r i l 1983, mortgage r a t e s were r o u g h l y 11%) so as to reduce the a c t u a l amount spent on t h i s p r o v i n c i a l hous ing program. However, the important p o i n t would seem to be that the p r o v i n c i a l government was prepared to sponsor s u b s i d i s a t i o n of up to $400 m i l l i o n . At the same t ime , i n November 1982 F inance M i n i s t e r Hugh C u r t i s announced the government ' s i n t e n t i o n to c a n c e l the R e n t e r ' s Tax C r e d i t . The c a n c e l l a t i o n of t h i s tax rebate was e s t i m a t e d to save the 44 p r o v i n c i a l t r e a s u r y about $22 m i l l i o n . T h i s c o n t r a s t b e t -ween programmes d i r e c t e d towards homeowners and r e n t e r s i s sharpened when one c o n s i d e r s tha t there i s no c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n tha t a f f o r d a b i 1 i t y i s l e s s of a concern for r e n t e r s than for homeowners, an i s sue which w i l l be taken up below. Mortgage Rates and Genera l P r i c e I n f l a t i o n A t h i r d f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g t o the f a v o u r a b l e economic p o s i t i o n of homeowners r e l a t i v e to t enant s i n v o l v e s the r e l a -t i o n s h i p between mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s and the g e n e r a l r a t e of i n f l a t i o n . Saunders , f o r i n s t a n c e , has s i n g l e d out the 43 M. Grenby , "32,000 B . C . homeowners have a p p l i e d for s u b s i d y , " The Vancouver Sun, 30 November 1982, Sec . A , p . 10. "Move to a b o l i s h tax c r e d i t s r i l e s B a r r e t t , p o v e r t y g r o u p s , " The Vancouver Sun 12 November 1982, Sec . A , p . 3. 88 f ac t that mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s were r a r e l y a d j u s t e d through the 1970's to take f u l l account of the d e c l i n i n g va lue of money as one of the f a c t o r s i n c r e a s i n g the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of homeownership as an investment i n B r i t a i n . He argues that o w n e r - o c c u p i e r s have "been ab le to borrow money at s u b s t a n t i a l 45 . • n e g a t i v e r a t e s of i n t e r e s t " . In the B r i t i s h s i t u a t i o n , the net r e a l r a t e of i n t e r e s t was n e g a t i v e throughout the 1970's , w i t h a peak i n 1975 when the r a t e of i n f l a t i o n touched 25 46 percent w h i l e the mortgage ra te remained at 11 p e r c e n t . In the Canadian s i t u a t i o n , t h i s form of s u b s i d i s a t i o n has not been as e x t r e m e . ( t a b l e 2 . 1 2 ) , a l t h o u g h the r e a l r a t e of i n t e r e s t was ex t remely low from 1973 to 1980. The r e a l l o s e r s d u r i n g t h i s same time p e r i o d were those w i t h s a v i n g s d e p o s i t e d i n the bank, the r e a l va lue of which was be ing reduced by i n f l a t i o n . The Quest ion of Need - Housing and R e n t a l Cos t s For the purposes of the argument p r e s e n t e d thus f a r , i t may be noted tha t the above a n a l y s i s of the c a p i t a l ga ins p o s s i b l e through homeownership seems to p r o v i d e a c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t imate of the p r o f i t a b l i t y of homeownership, for r e n t a l and homeownership c o s t s have been r e p o r t e d to be even c l o s e r i n 45 P . Saunders , "Domestic p r o p e r t y and s o c i a l c l a s s , " p . 245. 46 C . Hamnett, "Owner-occupat ion i n the 1970 ' s : Home-ownership or i n v e s t m e n t , " U n p u b l i s h e d paper , Open U n i v e r s i t y , n . d . 89 TABLE 2 .12 S e l e c t e d I n t e r e s t Ra te s , 1971-1983 Year G e n e r a l 3 Rate of I n f l a t i o n Mortgage* 3 I n t e r e s t Rates ( C o n v e n t i o n a l Loans) Bus ines s Loans D e p o s i t Rates S a v i n g s / N o n -chequing 1-971 2 .9 9.43 6.48 4.54 1 972 4.7 9.21 6.00 4.00 1 973 7.7 9.59 7.65 5.44 1 974 10.9 1 1 .23 1 0.75 8.50 1975 10.8 1 1 .43 9.00 7.00 1 976 7.5 1 1 .78 10.00 7.83 1 977 7.9 1 0. 36 8.50 6.00 1 978 8.8 10.62 9.00 7.08 1 979 9.2 1 1 .98 1 2.92 10.15 1 980 10.2 14.32 1 4.27 11.17 1 981 12.5 18.15 19.29 1 5.42 1 982 10.8 17.89 15.81 1 1 .50 1 983 . 5 . 6 13.36 1 1 . 1 8 6.86 Source : Bank of Canada Review, n . p . r n . p . , J a n . 1975, Feb . 1978, March 1982, J a n . 1984. b a . Based on the Consumer P r i c e Index ( a l l i tems) b . Averaged monthly l i s t i n g s 90 the Urban F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s S u r v e y s . T h i s a l s o sheds a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t on the p a t t e r n s of government s u b s i d i s a t i o n which , as noted above, tend to favour homeowners. For i n s t a n c e , a c t u a l annua l s h e l t e r c o s t s for homeowners w i t h mortgages ( i n c l u d i n g maintenance , mortgage i n t e r e s t payments , taxes and i n s u r a n c e but e x c l u d i n g repayment of mortgage p r i n c i p a l , which i s i n any case a r e l a t i v e l y minor p o r t i o n of most mortgage payments) and for r e n t e r s , surveyed a c r o s s a number of Canadian c i t i e s (the number v a r i e s by y e a r ) , was r e p o r t e d to be even c l o s e r than those p r e s e n t e d in t a b l e 2 . 4 , at $1607.6 and $1405.0 for owners and r e n t e r s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n 1971, $2214.2 and $1607.6 in 1974, $3056.2 and $2070.7 i n 1976 and $3688.7 and $2490.9 for owners wi th mortgages and r e n t e r s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n 1978. G e n e r a l i s i n g a c r o s s mortgaged and o u t r i g h t homeowners i n the C i t y of Vancouver i n 1976, 41.7 percent of a l l homeowners p a i d l e s s than $1440 a year for h o u s i n g , w h i l e 41.3% of a l l r e n t e r s p a i d between $2160 and $2879. Remarkably , the average annua l hous ing e x p e n d i t u r e i n 1976 was $2547 for r e n t e r h o u s e h o l d s , w h i l e owner households p a i d an average of $2269. In a l l income c a t e g o r i e s , r a n g i n g Urban F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s S u r v e y s , p u b l i s h e d by S t a t i s t i c s Canada, to which r e f e r e n c e w i l l be made i n c l u d e : Urban F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1971, 1974, 1976, 1978 ( c a t a l o g u e s 62-541, 62-544, 62-547, 62-550) . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the 1980 survey was c l a s s i f i e d as a t e s t survey and no data was r e -l e a s e d . As these surveys are t y p i c a l l y p u b l i s h e d t h r e e year s a f t e r the date of s u r v e y , no l a t e r surveys have been p u b l i s h e d . 91 from $0-$5999 to $27,000 and o v e r , r e n t e r s p a i d p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more for hous ing than owners i n 1976; the average expend i ture in r e l a t i o n to income was 13.23 p e r c e n t for o w n e r - o c c u p i e r s i n a l l income group ings and 22.18 p e r c e n t for r e n t e r s a c ro s s 48 income c a t e g o r i e s . S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s are r e p o r t e d from a survey of GVRD r e n t e r s and homeowners conducted i n J u l y 49 1975. The l a r g e s t group of r e n t e r s i n t e r v i e w e d i n the GVRD (31.8%) p a i d between $200 and $300 per month fo r hous ing w h i l e the l a r g e s t group of homeowners (38.9%) p a i d l e s s than $100 per month. In 1981 the average monthly payments of homeowners and r e n t e r s i n the C i t y of Vancouver were comparab le ; the average monthly payment of homeowners was $409, w h i l e r e n t e r s 50 p a i d an average of $393 monthly i n hous ing expenses . A c r o s s the Vancouver CMA average monthly hous ing expenses were $411 and $472 fo r r e n t e r s and homeowners, r e s p e c t i v e l y . In 1981 s i m i l a r p r o p o r t i o n s of r e n t e r s and homeowners p a i d over 25% of household income towards hous ing expenses : 12.1% and 12.7%, r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n the C i t y of Vancouver and 16.3% and 17.8%, r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n the Vancouver CMA. The c l o s i n g gap between the c o s t s of r e n t i n g and home-ownership i n Vancouver through the 1970 ' s , as w e l l as a widen-48 Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g Dept . and Hous ing Study Team, U n d e r s t a n d i n g V a n c o u v e r ' s H o u s i n g : Par t 3. 49 F . G . Pennance, S.W. H a m i l t o n and D. B a x t e r , Housing i t ' s your move: v o l . 2, Appendix I . S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1981 Census of Canada, c a t . 95-978 (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1983). 92 ing spread between the c o s t s of the n a t i o n a l samples of mort-gaged o w n e r - o c c u p i e r s and r e n t e r s through the 1970 ' s , d i r e c t a t t e n t i o n to the d i s p a r i t y between d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s of hous ing c o s t s fo r a l l homeowners as opposed to homeowners wi th mortgages . G i v e n the t h e o r e t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e a f f o r d e d v a r -i a t i o n s amongst homeowners, the i s sue of the r e l a t i v e o b j e c -t i v e s i t u a t i o n w i t h i n tenure c a t e g o r i e s w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d . L i m i t a t i o n s to G e n e r a l i s a t i o n s W i t h i n Tenure C a t e g o r i e s A g e n e r a l statement c o n c e r n i n g the advantageous f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n of homeowners r e l a t i v e to t enant s i n the GVRD through the 1970's to 1982 must be q u a l i f i e d in a number of important ways. The f o l l o w i n g q u a l i f i c a t i o n s w i l l be c o n -s i d e r e d i n t u r n , two of which app ly to homeowners and the l a s t which a p p l i e d u n t i l r e c e n t l y to t e n a n t s : f i r s t , the time of house purchase i n r e l a t i o n to i n f l a t i o n a r y c o n d i t i o n s ; second, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mortgage d e b t ; and t h i r d , whether r e n t a l accommodation was c o n t r o l l e d or d e c o n t r o l l e d . 1. Time of House Purchase F i r s t , i t i s c l e a r from F i g u r e 2.1 tha t house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n has not been a s teady phenomenon; house p r i c e s i n f l a t e d r a p i d l y from 1971 to 1974 and from 1979 to e a r l y 1981. C l e a r l y an i n d i v i d u a l p u r c h a s i n g a house i n e a r l y 1981 has been o b j e c t i v e l y worse o f f than an e q u i v a l e n t t e n a n t , s imply because the more expens ive i n i t i a l c o s t s of homeowner-s h i p have not been o f f s e t by p r o j e c t e d c a p i t a l g a i n s . In f ac t 93 a c a p i t a l l o s s may have o c c u r r e d . The importance of house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n i n ' r a t i o n a l i s i n g ' hous ing tenure c h o i c e i s c o n s i s t e n t l y c i t e d by l and e c o n o m i s t s . Johnson, for i n s t a n c e , demonstrates i n the U . S . case tha t a house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n r a t e of 14 p e r c e n t , as compared to 6 p e r c e n t , would l e a d owning to be p r e f e r a b l e to r e n t i n g i n 1.5 i n s t e a d of 4 .5 y e a r s , assuming the purchase of a $30,000 house , an annual income of $10,000 and a market r e n t a l e q u i v a l e n t of $300 per 5 1 month. U s i n g Canadian e v i d e n c e , McFayden and Hobart argue much more c o n s e r v a t i v e l y tha t at "growth r a t e s l e s s than 9 p e r c e n t , under c o n d i t i o n s of 12 p e r c e n t mortgage i n t e r e s t and d i s c o u n t r a t e s , the c o s t s of ownership exceed those of tenancy 52 r e g a r d l e s s of the l e n g t h of h o l d i n g p e r i o d . " A l t h o u g h 53 McFadyen and H o b a r t ' s g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s are q u e s t i o n a b l e , M . S . Johnson, "A Cash Flow Model of R a t i o n a l Housing Tenure C h o i c e . " S . M . McFadyen and R . J . H o b a r t , " I n f l a t i o n and urban home o w n e r s h i p , " p . 173. 53 Reasons for s u s p e c t i n g McFadyen and H o b a r t ' s g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : f i r s t , e s t i m a t e s of a n n u a l -i s e d r e n t a l c o s t s do not i n c l u d e u t i l i t y c o s t s ( for e l e c t r i -c i t y for i n s t a n c e ) and are thus r e l a t i v e l y low - a f a c t o r which leads to a m i n i m i s a t i o n of r e n t a l c o s t s and hence a r e l a t i v e e x a g g e r a t i o n of homeownership c o s t s ; second, the imputed o p p o r t u n i t y income i s assumed to equa l the mortgage i n t e r e s t r a te of 12 p e r c e n t , an assumption which has been shown i n Appendix 1 to be u n r e a l i s t i c ; t h i r d , the r e l a t i v e hous ing and r e n t a l c o s t s are p a r t i a l l y an a r t i f a c t of the s t andard of house from which the au thor s have chosen to gener-a l i s e . With r e spec t to the l a s t p o i n t , McFayden and Hobart have based t h e i r e s t imate s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between market r e n t s and market v a l u e s on data from what they d e s c r i b e as "a m i d d l e - to upper-midd le c l a s s d i s t r i c t a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x square m i l e s i n area on the west s ide of Ottawa" (p. 176). I t i s c l e a r , i f one examines the data p r e s e n t e d for Vancouver i n 94 they demonstrate a d e q u a t e l y , in a h y p o t h e t i c a l f a s h i o n , that p r o p e r t y v a l u e a p p r e c i a t i o n has a c o n s i d e r a b l e impact on the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of homeownership r e l a t i v e to t e n a n c y . Thus time of purchase r e l a t i v e to house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n i s a f a c t o r which i n f l u e n c e s the p o s i t i o n of homeowners r e l a t i v e to t enant s - g e n e r a l l y the longer a house i s owned the more a t t r a c t i v e hous ing c o s t s become i n r e l a t i o n to r e n t a l , i n s o f a r as r e n t s c o n t i n u e to i n f l a t e w h i l e hous ing c o s t s remain more s t a b l e . 2. Mortgage Rates T h i s l a s t t r e n d must i n t u r n be q u a l i f i e d by a c o n s i d e r a -t i o n of mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s . Under i n f l a t i o n a r y c o n d i -t i o n s , the nominal mortgage r a t e tends to r i s e as l e n d e r s exact an i n f l a t i o n premium. T h i s i n v o l v e s a s h i f t i n g forward of the r e a l burden of debt s e r v i c i n g which i n c r e a s e s the percentage of r e a l payments made i n the e a r l y year s of a 54 mortgage. As shown i n t a b l e 2 . 1 2 , mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s have rough ly doubled d u r i n g the 1970's to reach c r i t i c a l l y h i g h l e v e l s (21.46 p e r c e n t i n September 1981) i n 1981 and 1982 and t h i s has had a s u b s t a n t i a l impact on hous ing c o s t s . For example, r e n e g o t i a t i n g an 8 year o l d mortgage on an ' a v e r a g e ' t a b l e 2 . 4 , tha t r e n t s are q u i t e c l o s e l y c l u s t e r e d around a mean a c r o s s areas d i f f e r i n g i n average hous ing c o s t s ( i . e . , $4774 a n n u a l l y for the lowest and $5864 for the h i g h e s t i n 1981). T h i s i n e f f e c t makes homeownership more expens ive r e l a t i v e to r e n t i n g i n areas w i t h h i g h homeownership c o s t s . D. P i a c h a u d , " I n f l a t i o n and Income D i s t r i b u t i o n . " ; J . T u c c i l l o , Hous ing and investment i n an i n f l a t i o n a r y w o r l d . 95 Richmond house at 18.55 percent i n June 1981, as compared to the June 1979 r a t e s of 11.6 p e r c e n t , l e d to an i n c r e a s e of monthly mortgage payments from $390.75 to $576.44. A 14 p e r -cent compared to a 10 percent mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e r e p r e -sents a 31 percent i n c r e a s e in monthly payments, w h i l e a s h i f t to a 15 percent from a 12 percent mortgage i n t e r e s t r a te 55 r e p r e s e n t s a 20 percent i n c r e a s e . Increase s i n mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s i n h i g h p r i c e d areas such as Vancouver have t r a n s l a t e d i n t o very l a r g e a b s o l u t e i n c r e a s e s i n hous ing pay-ments. For example, in Vancouver , where the average MLS house p r i c e was $156,500 in the f i r s t q u a r t e r of 1981, an i n c r e a s e i n mortgage r a t e s from 13 to 21 percent for a f i v e year mort-gage n e c e s s i t a t e d an a d d i t i o n a l $27,600 as a minimum income in order to m a i n t a i n hous ing c o s t s at o n l y 30 percent of t o t a l income (an i n c r e a s e from $57,700 to $85 ,300) . In M o n t r e a l , where the average MLS house p r i c e was $52,700, an i n c r e a s e of l e s s than $12,000 in income was needed, from $24,700 to $36,500. ^ Tsang e s t imated on the b a s i s of house p r i c e s i n the f i r s t q u a r t e r of 1981 (the peak of house p r i c e s i n Vancouver) tha t o n l y 1.5 to 2.3 percent of a t o t a l of 120,700 C . Renaud, "Hous ing P o l i c i e s fo r the 1 9 8 0 ' s , " p r e -sented at symposium on Home Ownership A s s i s t a n c e , sponsored by the Canadian C o u n c i l i n S o c i a l Development, C a l g a r y , 18 Sept . 1980. ^ E . T sang , "The Impact of High I n t e r e s t Rates on H o u s i n g , " H a b i t a t 24 (1981) , p . 11. 96 tenants w i t h household heads under 45 year s of age c o u l d a f f o r d an average p r i c e d house i n Vancouver , w i t h mortgage r a t e s v a r y i n g from 21 to 17 percent (a s t a t i s t i c which i s d i f f i c u l t to p e n e t r a t e g i v e n the f a c t tha t the a u t h o r ' s assumptions c o n c e r n i n g income i n f l a t i o n r a t e s are not i n d i -c a t e d . ) ^ At the same t ime , w h i l e mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s c e r t a i n l y a f f e c t the c o s t of homeownership, the Richmond house c i t e d above, h y p o t h e t i c a l l y purchased in 1973 wi th mortgage renewed at 18.55 p e r c e n t , would c o s t the owner-occup ie r $562.76 l e s s i n 1982 than the 1982 rent of an e q u i v a l e n t house i n the same 5 8 area , a comparison which may, i n p a r t , r e f l e c t the f ac t tha t h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s have an impact on the r e n t a l market as i i 59 w e l l . To e v a l u a t e the e f f e c t s of mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s , one must a l s o compare average i n c r e a s e s i n incomes. The average n a t i o n a l i n c r e a s e i n wages between 1977 and 1981, i n c l u s i v e , was 45.10 p e r c e n t for a l l wage s e t t l e m e n t s , e x c l u d i n g the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y , and 41.10 percent for manufac tur ing i b i d . 5 8 T h i s c a l c u l a t i o n assumes the Royal T r u s t r e n t a l p r i c e s . These f i g u r e s are c i t e d r a t h e r than those i s s u e d from the o f f i c e of the Rentalsman because of the l a t t e r ' s l a c k of c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e i r d a t a . I n d i v i d u a l s at the Renta l sman ' s o f f i c e f e l t tha t t h e i r f i g u r e s undere s t imated the r e n t a l c o s t s of houses (as opposed to apartments) because t h e i r sample r e p r e s e n t s o n l y about 20 percent of the t o t a l r e n t a l s tock of houses . 59 . . . C . Hamnett, "The Changing Economic B a s i s for P r i v a t e R e n t i n g and the Rent A c t s , " U n p u b l i s h e d paper , Open U n i v e r s i t y , n . d . 97 e n t e r p r i s e s . ^ These f i g u r e s i n d i c a t e that wages have r o u g h l y , a l t h o u g h not q u i t e , kept up wi th the hous ing co s t i n c r e a s e s c i t e d above . Tsang has at tempted to e v a l u a t e the e f f e c t s of h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s at mortgage renewal by compar-ing the percent change i n mortgage payments at r e n e w a l , i n average income, i n average house p r i c e s and i n r a t i o of mort-gage payments to income ( t a b l e 2.13) and notes t h a t : " W h i l e i t i s c l e a r that those who renewed i n the pas t 21 months [4th q u a r t e r of 1979 to 1981 ] were more a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by the r i s e i n i n t e r e s t r a t e s than those who renewed i n p r e v i o u s p e r i o d s , s h e l t e r burdens a f t e r renewal were s t i l l s i g n i f i -c a n t l y l e s s [as a p e r c e n t of c u r r e n t income] than when the mortgages were o r i g i n a l l y assumed. T h i s does n o t , however, deny tha t some homeowners may have e x p e r i e n c e d l i t t l e or no i n c r e a s e s i n incomes over the past f i v e year s and tha t the va lue of t h e i r home may not have a p p r e c i a t e d to any l a r g e e x t e n t . " g 1 T h i s l a t t e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s analogous to the d i s t i n c t i o n Goldberg makes between two types of a f f o r d a b i l i t y prob lems : the i n a b i l i t y of low-income households to meet r i s i n g hous ing expenses and the i n a c c e s s i b i l i t y of homeownership to middle income h o u s e h o l d s . The former i s judged by G o l d b e r g to be a r e a l problem l i n k e d to income. With r e f e r e n c e to the l a t t e r case of a f f o r d a b i l i t y , Go ldberg argues that i t i s not a genuine problem because average incomes and average house 6 2 p r i c e s have tended to r i s e t o g e t h e r . 6 0 Bank of Canada Review, March 1982. ^ 1 E . T s a n g , " T h e Impact of H i g h I n t e r e s t Rates on H o u s i n g , " p . 11. 62 M. G o l d b e r g , The Housing Prob lem: A Real C r i s i s ? 98 TABLE 2.13 The E f f e c t s of High I n t e r e s t Rates at Mortgage Renewal : Borrowers w i t h F i v e - Y e a r Term Mortgages Renewal % Change % Change d u r i n g the R a t i o of Homeowners' P e r i o d i n Pay- F i v e Year P e r i o d P r i n c i p a l E q u i t y as a ments at and % of House Renewal Average Average I n t e r e s t P r i c e at Income^ MLS House Payments Renewal^ P r i c e s to Income at Renewal 1980-1Q 3.7 68.4 71.9 15.4 48.3 2Q 11.1 72.0 80.3 16.2 50.7 3Q 12.5 76.3 80.8 16.0 50.6 4Q 10.8 80.5 74.4 15.3 48.7 1Q 3.6 83.4 88.6 14.1 52.5 2Q 2.3 93.5 94.8 13.2 54.0 3Q 8.3 95.0 99.5 13.9 55. 1 4Q 11.6 99. 1 101.5 14.0 55.6 1Q 15.4 96. 1 109. 1 14.7 57.4 2Q 19.2 99. 1 86.3 15.0 52.4 3Q 17.0 94.4 110.3 15.1 57.7 4Q 15.6 95.9 1 07.4 14.8 57.3 1Q 10.2 90.4 104.6 14.5 56.8 2Q 8.1 90.8 105.2 13.5 56.9 3Q 6.7 92.3 102.0 13.9 56.0 4Q 7.4 87.8 98.6 14.3 55.4 1Q 8.8 87.8 88.0 14.5 53.0 2Q 7.2 81 .7 83.9 14.7 51 .9 3Q 3.0 80. 0 70.8 14.3 47.8 4Q 8.1 76.6 64.2 15.3 45.6 1Q 7.9 74.3 53. 1 15.5 41 .7 2Q -0 .2 77.2 49.5 14.3 39.8 3Q - 0 . 6 69.9 49.6 14.6 39.4 4Q 11.6 68.6 57.8 16.6 42.5 1Q 17.7 66.9 64.2 17.6 45. 1 2Q 18.8 63.8 50.0 17.8 40.0 3Q 13.1 63. 7 51 .2 17.3 40.2 4Q 19.9 63.4 52.0 18.3 40.3 1Q 22.4 63.4 52.0 18.7 40.4 2Q 31.7 60. 1 52.0 20.6 40.3 Source : E . Tsang "The Impact of High I n t e r e s t Rates on H o u s i n g , " H a b i t a t 24 (1981), p . 10. a . Assuming a m o r t i s a t i o n p e r i o d of 25 year s when mortgage was assumed and 20 year a m o r t i s a t i o n at r enewa l . b . Based on change in p e r s o n a l d i s p o s a b l e income per c a p i t a . c . Assuming an i n i t i a l r a t i o of 25 p e r c e n t when mortgage was assumed. d . Based on average i n c r e a s e i n MLS house p r i c e s and assuming an i n i t i a l f i v e percent downpayment. 99 C e r t a i n l y the h i g h mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s of the e a r l y 1980's a t t a i n e d mythic p r o p o r t i o n s i n ' t h e popu la r c o n s c i o u s -n e s s ' , i f p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n the media can be taken as in any way r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . A p a r t i a l r e a d i n g of n a t i o n a l newspapers y i e l d s a r i c h harves t of a r t i c l e s of the f o l l o w i n g v a r i e t y : "Hous ing c r i s i s i s r e a l , homeowners s a y " , "Homeowners i n P e r i l : I t ' s a C r i s i s " , "The End of the S i n g l e Fami ly Home: If you d o n ' t own the roof over your head now, you p r o b a b l y never w i l l " , " I t ' s home, b i t t e r home", "Mortgage C r a z i n e s s dampens the urge to be a homeowner", and "When home sweet home turns 6 3 s o u r " . There i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e emot iona l i sm around the i s sue and the media coverage tends towards the h i s t r i o n i c ( F i g u r e 2 . 3 ) . As one reader re sponding to a s t o r y run in a n a t i o n a l weekend supplement wrote : You d o n ' t r e a l l y expect anyone to f e e l s o r r y for t h i s c o u p l e , do you? ( 'The End of the S i n g l e - f a m i l y Home', January 30) . Your cover comment was a p p r o p r i a t e : 'A dream has d i e d for the Tkach f a m i l y . ' They must have been dreaming when they bought t h e i r house . Here i s a coup le w i t h four p r e -s c h o o l c h i l d r e n , i n debt to the tune of $17000 from a bankrupt bus ine s s v e n t u r e , who put $4000 down on a house . They had to go to two mortgages , w i t h f i r s t up for renewal i n 18 months. The wife does not want to work because of the c h i l d r e n . , . These quotes appeared in the f o l l o w i n g n a t i o n a l news-p a p e r s , i n the order p r e s e n t e d : Toronto S ta r 21 October 1981, Sec . A , p . 1; Toronto S ta r 22 October 1981, Sec . A , p . 12; Weekend Magazine 30 January 1982, pp. 6-9 ; The Vancouver Sun 3 June 1982, Sec . B, p . 1; The Vancouver Sun 9 June 1982, Sec . C , p . 1; The C i t i z e n (Ottawa) 5 June 1982, p . 75. 64 L e t t e r , Weekend Magaz ine , 27 March 1982, p . 5. The d e s c r i p t i o n of the employment and f a m i l y l i f e - c y c l e c h o i c e s of the Tkach f a m i l y i s a l s o of i n t e r e s t ; the g e n e r a l r e l e v a n c e of the o b j e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n s of t h i s f a m i l y i s d i s c u s s e d i n chap te r 7. 100 FIGURE 2.3 D r a m a t i s a t i o n of Homeowners' P l i g h t by the Media i n 1981 101 So t o o , w h i l e a Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n (CMHC) document l eaked i n October 1981 p r o j e c t e d that 107,000 or 10 percent of a l l homeowners renewing mortgages between the autumn of 1981 and 1983 at a 21 p e r c e n t mortgage r a t e and 35,700 or 3 p e r c e n t at a 19 percent mortgage r a t e would have monthly payments i n excess of 30 p e r c e n t of t h e i r incomes, i t i s a l s o the case that o n l y 1,120 a p p l i c a t i o n s had been made n a t i o n a l l y for government a i d w i t h mortgage payments by June 1982, a f t e r which p o i n t i n t e r e s t r a t e s began to f a l l and the need for a s s i s t a n c e l e s s e n e d . ^ T h i s programme of a i d i n v o l v e d a grant or a d e f e r r a l guarantee of up to $3000 i n i n t e r e s t payments for a l l homeowners pay ing more than 30 percent of t h e i r gross income on mortgage payments, the grant a v a i l a b l e to those wi th l e s s than f i v e percent e q u i t y i n t h e i r homes and the guaranteed d e f e r r a l for those wi th more. A spokesman for the Canadian Bankers ' A s s o c i a t i o n s t a t e d t h a t : "Once they [homeowners] f i n d out i t ' s j u s t a d e f e r r a l p l a n , they l o se i n t e r e s t . " ^ A mortgage l e n d e r i s quoted i n June 1982 as s a y i n g : " A l l of us are i n awe of the gutsy way Canadians are managing to 6 7 hang o n . " The c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r of Canada ' s l a r g e s t mortgage i n s u r a n c e company w r i t e s i n the 1981 annual r e p o r t : 65 "When home sweet home t u r n s s o u r , " The C i t i z e n (Ottawa) 5 June 1982, p . 75. 6 6 P. Menyasz, "Budge t ' s mortgage a i d go ing nowhere , " The Vancouver Sun 11 February 1982, Sec . A , p . 12. 67 "When home sweet home t u r n s s o u r , " The C i t i z e n 1 02 Whi le r e s u l t s o v e r a l l were d i s a p p o i n t i n g , there are grounds for op t imi sm. D e s p i t e the h i g h i n t e r e s t r a te s and r i s i n g unemployment, c l a i m s l o s s e s from our r e s i d e n t i a l bus ine s s were down. T h i s r e f l e c t s the t i g h t e r u n d e r w r i t i n g implemented i n recent year s by o u r s e l v e s and our l e n d e r s . I t a l s o i n d i c a t e s the importance to Canadians of h o l d i n g on to t h e i r homes. When mortgages are renewed at h igher i n t e r e s t r a t e s , f a m i l y budgets are squeezed by the h i g h e r mortgage payments. Borrowers , however, have made c u t s in d i s c r e t i o n a r y areas of spending i n order to p r o t e c t t h e i r growing home e q u i t y . g g Whi le t h i s p o i n t s to the a d a p t a b i l i t y of homeowners i n a s t r e s s e d f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n , i t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s ex t remely d i f f i c u l t to e v a l u a t e the f u l l impact of these mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e i n c r e a s e s i n the absence of f u l l d i s c l o s u r e s from mortgage companies , e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t of the f ac t that some homeowners were undoubtedly over-ex tended f i n a n c i a l l y in the f r enzy of the hous ing p r i c e boom and, perhaps most i m p o r t a n t l y , because the i s s u e s of hous ing c o s t s are c o n f l a t e d w i t h o ther i s s u e s such as unemployment. Not a c c i d e n t a l l y , r i s e s i n i n t e r e s t r a t e s were f o l l o w e d by h i g h l e v e l s of unemployment. The r a t e s of unemployment for the Vancouver CMA are shown i n t a b l e 2.14 for the year s 1975-1983. P r o v i n c i a l s t a t i s t i c s fo r e a r l i e r year s supplement these s t a t i s t i c s to i n d i c a t e the r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e employment s i t u a t i o n of the 1970 ' s , w i t h i n c r e a s e d r a t e s of unemployment through 1982 to 1983. The impact , t h e n , of i n c r e a s e d hous ing c o s t s has been hardened by h i g h r a t e s of unemployment. J . H . Coleman, Chairman and C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r , MICC Investments L t d . Annual R e p o r t , 1981, p . 3. 1 03 R e t u r n i n g the comparison to one ac ros s hous ing t e n u r e s , i t i s perhaps s i g n i f i c a n t that the r i s i n g hous ing c o s t s due to h i g h mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s are r a r e l y compared to r i s i n g r e n t a l c o s t s . One Ottawa woman compla ins t h a t , " I ' d be s u r -p r i s e d i f my husband ' s income rose 10 per cent i n each of the 69 l a s t y e a r s . " , an i n c r e a s e neces sa ry to match i n c r e a s e d mortgage payments at h i g h e r i n t e r e s t r a t e s . Rent c o n t r o l s , l e g i s l a t e d i n B r i t i s h Columbia s i n c e 1972, have meant that the rent for any one u n i t cannot be. r a i s e d beyond 10 percent a n n u a l l y u n l e s s the l a n d l o r d can prove unusual e x p e n d i t u r e s and these r e n t s have tended to be rough ly h a l f of those i n the d e c o n t r o l l e d s e c t o r . As shown i n t a b l e 2 .15 , r e n t s i n the C i t y of Vancouver and the s u r r o u n d i n g m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have r i s e n s u b s t a n t i a l l y between 1976 and 1982. Annual rent i n c r e a s e s i n the c o n t r o l l e d s e c t o r averaged between 12 and 13 percent i n J u l y 1982, as compared to n e a r l y 14 percent in J u l y 1981, w h i l e J u l y 1982 rent i n c r e a s e s for d e c o n t r o l l e d u n i t s 70 averaged at 17%, down from 20% i n May 1982. Renter s too may have d i f f i c u l t i e s making r e n t a l payments for reasons of un-employment, and where p o s s i b l e ( i n r e g i o n s wi th h i g h vacancy 7 1 r a t e s ) have been w i t h h o l d i n g r e n t s . The f a c t tha t home-69 "When home sweet home t u r n s s o u r , " The C i t i z e n , p . 75. 70 "Apartment r e n t s tumble as vacancy r a t e h i t s 2%," The Vancouver Sun, 7 J u l y 1982, Sec . A , p . 1. 7 1 " R e n t - s h o r t tenants scramble to buy t i m e , " The Vancouver Sun, 17 June 1982, Sec . A , p . 1. 1 04 TABLE 2.14 Unemployment Trends for B r i t i s h Columbia and Vancouver CMA, 1971-1983 Year Unemployment Rate B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver CMA, a b male female male + female combined 1970 7.8 7.3 1971 6.6 8.5 1972 7.1 9.2 1973 5.8 8.5 1974 5.7 7.1 1975 8.0 9.4 7.1 1976 7.4 10.5 8.2 1977 7.3 10.4 7.7 1978 7.3 9.7 7.5 1979 6.6 9.3 J a n . 8.3 June 7.0 O c t . 5 .9 1980 5.7 8.5 J a n . 8.1 June 5.3 O c t . 4.2 1981 J a n . 4.4 June 4.5 O c t . 5.5 1 982 J a n . 6.3 June 10.3 O c t . 11.1 1 983 J a n . 14.0 June 11.2 O c t . 11.3 a . S t a t i s t i c s Canada, H i s t o r i c a l Labour Force S t a t i s t i c s ( c a t . 71-201) Ottawa! I n f o r m a t i o n Canada, 1975; ( c a t . 71-201) Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1980, 1981. b . T h i s i s assembled u s ing two s o u r c e s : f o r 1975-78, S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Labour F o r c e Annual A v e r a g e s , 1975-78, ( O c c a s i o n a l Paper , c a t . 71-529) Ottawa: n . p . , 1979; for 1979 to 1983 the unemployment r a t e s are shown fo r J anuary , June, October to show sea sona l v a r i a t i o n , S t a t i s t i c s Canada, The Labour Force ( c a t . 71-001) Ot tawa : Supply and S e r v i c e s , J a n . , June, O c t . 1979-83. T A B L E 2 . 1 5 R e n t a l I n c r e a s e s f o r V a n c o u v e r a n d S e l e c t e d S u r r o u n d i n g M u n i c i p a l i t i e s ( 3 b e d r o o m u n i t s ) , 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 8 2 A r e a a n d H o u s e T y p e A n n u a l I n c r e a s e i n R e n t s (%) 6 / 1 9 7 6 - 6 / 1 9 7 7 - 6 / 1 9 7 8 - 6 / 1 9 7 9 - 6 / 1 9 8 0 - 7 / 1 9 8 1 -6 / 1 9 7 7 6 / 1 9 7 8 6 / 1 9 7 9 6 / 1 9 8 0 7 / 1 9 8 1 5 / 1 9 8 2 D e c o n t r o l l e d U n i t s O n l y V a n c o u v e r - A p a r t m e n t s 9 . 0 8 17 . 6 2 12 .72 8 .01 8 . 5 2 8 . 9 3 - T o w n h o u s e s 12 .41 39 . 0 8 35 . 10 3 0 .43 - 1 9 . 9 5 13 . 7 0 - H o u s e s 1 .98 12 .58 4 .74 9 .82 10 . 6 0 13 .93 - D u p l e x e s 5 .83 2 . 9 2 7 . 2 9 9 . 76 6 .66 3 .81 W e s t V a n c o u v e r - A p a r t m e n t s 13 . 22 1 .08 4 . 0 3 5 . 39 8 . 0 9 2 0 . 25 - T o w n h o u s e s 7 . 57 7 .61 5 .66 7 , . 47 15 . 0 0 12 .68 - H o u s e s 27 .74 - . 13 3 .95 .07 10. .82 18 . 0 0 - D u p l e x e s 32 .61 14 . 39 - 3 .74 - 1 0 , ,94 27 . . 48 21 . . 5 0 S u r r e y - A p a r t m e n t s 7 . 22 1 .97 3 . 18 15. .91 5. . 7 0 7 . , 22 - T o w n h o u s e s 1 .43 2 9 . 37 7 .66 3 . .63 26 . . 76 8 . . 37 - H o u s e s 5. .38 9 .23 4 .63 10. .85 4 . .99 17 . 93 - D u p 1 e x e s 3 . . 33 4 .07 .31 f 15. . 18 1 1 . .59 14 . 24 R i c h m o n d - A p a r t m e n t s 4 . 44 17 , .61 13 . 74 1 10. 73 17 . 8 0 - 1 . 8 0 - T o w n h o u s e s 17 . 96 - 2 .46 - 5 . ,56 2 3 . 13 9 . 52 19. 75 - H o u s e s 14 . 5 0 8 .61 1 . .34 1 1 . 10 13 . .03 15 . 23 - D u p l e x e s 7 . .75 4 . 79 4 . .51 12 . 8 9 4 . 58 8. 72 N o r t h V a n . - A p a r t m e n t s 5 . 27 7 , , 13 3. ,99 6 . 2 9 24 . 04 - 3 . 55 - T o w n h o u s e s 8 . 62 6 . .44 16. .41 10 . 56 3. 24 6 . 78 - H o u s e s 95 3. .55 5 . 97 9 . 29 10 . 0 0 16 . 29 - D u p 1 e x e s 27 . 23 - 1 4 . 0 0 1 . 45 3 0 . 85 6 . 2 0 8 . 10 S o u r c e : O f f . i c e o f t h e R e n t a l s m a n 106 owners w i t h mortgages may be unprepared for a 10 p e r c e n t annual i n c r e a s e i n hous ing expenses i s t e s t imony tha t home-owners have h e l d somewhat d i f f e r e n t e x p e c t a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g hous ing c o s t s than r e n t e r s . One can p o i n t out i n t h i s context the ' s t r u c t u r a l ' c o n f l i c t between homeowners and r e n t e r s : a boom i n house p r i c e s g e n e r a l l y impacts on r e n t e r s i n a nega-t i v e way i n s o f a r as r e n t s are r a i s e d . A d e p r e s s i o n i n the economy c o u p l e d w i t h h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s may have the o p p o s i t e e f f e c t , w i t h r e n t s e a s i n g but the c o s t s of homeownership i n c r e a s e d . In sum, mortgage i n t e r e s t r a te i n c r e a s e s had the e f f e c t of r e d u c i n g the f i n a n c i a l a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of homeownership for those who had to n e g o t i a t e t h e i r mortgages at i n c r e a s e d r a t e s . However, i n t e r e s t r a t e s have f a l l e n back to an average of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 13% i n 1983, and g iven the tendency towards shor t term renewal p e r i o d s of 6 months to 2 year s d u r i n g the p e r i o d of h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s i n 1981 and 1982, those home-owners a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by the h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s p r e s e n t l y r e p r e s e n t a d i m i n i s h i n g p r o p o r t i o n of mortgaged homeowners. A s i d e from t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n amongst mortgaged homeowners, i t i s c l e a r tha t the o b j e c t i v e s i t u a t i o n of mortgaged and non-mortgaged homeowners d i f f e r s . Drawing on the Urban F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s surveys a g a i n , a c r o s s a l l c i t i e s sampled i n 1971, f a m i l i e s wi thout mortgages p a i d an average of $733.80 for s h e l t e r w h i l e mortgaged homeowners p a i d an average of $1607.60. In 1974, homeowners wi thout mortgages p a i d on a v e r -age $961.80 fo r s h e l t e r w h i l e mortgaged homeowners p a i d 1 07 $2214.20. In 1976 the gap c o n t i n u e s to widen, w i t h homeowners wi thout mortgages r e p o r t i n g annua l hous ing expenses of $1226.90 and mortgaged homeowners r e p o r t i n g an average of $3056.20. T h i s t r e n d c o n t i n u e s i n 1978, wi th o u t r i g h t owners r e p o r t i n g s h e l t e r expenses of $1343.50 and mortgaged home-owners r e p o r t i n g $3688.70. The Urban F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s surveys a l s o s u b s t a n t i a t e some r a t h e r p r e d i c t a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between mortgage d e b t , income and age, summarised i n t a b l e s 2.16 and 2 . 1 7 . The percentage of homeowners w i t h mortgage debt i n c r e a s e s w i t h income. There i s some s u g g e s t i o n , from t a b l e 2 .16 , t h a t mortgages have become i n a c c e s s i b l e to those in the lowest income ca tegory through the 1970's , w i t h 37.8% of homeowners in the lowest q u i n t i l e pay ing a mortgage in 1971 compared to 0% i n 1978. The average age of househo ld head for homeowners wi thout mortgages as compared to those wi th mortgages does not tend to vary through t ime ; they were 58.6 and 4 4 . 5 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n 1971, 58.6 and 42.9 i n 1974, 58.1 and 43.1 i n 1976, and 59.7 and 42.1 i n 1978. In 1976 40.0 percent of a l l households owning a house o u t r i g h t c o n t a i n e d an a d u l t over 65 year s of age w h i l e o n l y 7.3 percent of the households h o l d i n g a mortgage i n c l u d e d an a d u l t over 65 y e a r s . P r o p o r t i o n a t e l y , the presence and absence of mortgage debt rough ly d i v i d e s the Vancouver p o p u l a t i o n of homeowners i n h a l f . In the 1971 Census , 55 percent of the owner-occupied d w e l l i n g s i n the C i t y of Vancouver were r e p o r t e d to be h e l d T A B L E 2 . 1 6 M o r t g a g e D e b t b y I n c o m e ( A v e r a g e d a c r o s s s e l e c t i o n o f C<ir.?i<J i a n c i t i e s ) , 1 9 7 1 - 1 9 7 8 Y e a r a n d T y p e o f M o r t g a g e I n c o m e G r o u p i n g s 1 s t 2 n d 3 r d 4 t h 5 t h O u 1 n t i 1 e Ou i n t i 1 e Ou i n t i 1 e Q u i n t i l e O u 1 n t i 1 e 197 1 a v e r a g e i n c o m e b y q u i n t i l e 4 4 9 5 . 6 787 1 .8 10524 .8 1 3 4 8 0 .5 2 1668 .8 a % o f a l l f a m i l i e s h o m e o w n e r s 26 . 7 36 . 1 54 .8 5 9 . 5 73 .6 % h o m e o w n e r s w i t h 1 s t m o r t g a g e 37 . 1 46 . 3 68 .6 77 . 1 78 . 8 % h o m e o w n e r s w i t h 2 n d m o r t g a g e 0 3 .6 1 1 . 1 15 .5 9 . 0 % h o m e o w n e r s w i t h o t h e r m o r t g a g e 0 2 .2 3 .5 1 .7 2 . 2 % h o m e o w n e r s w i t h m o r t g a g e 37 . 1 47 .9 72 . 1 78 . 1 7 9 . 8 1974 a v e r a g e i n c o m e b y q u i n t i l e 4 3 7 3 . 4 9241 . 4 13329 .8 17832 . 0 2 8 6 1 2 . . 2 % f a m i l i e s h o m e o w n e r s 2 9 . 7 31 . 2 54 . .5 6 2 .8 83 . 3 % h o m e o w n e r s w i t h 1 s t m o r t g a g e 1 3 . 8 64 . . 1 66 . .4 75 . 2 76 . . 4 % h o m e o w n e r s w i t h 2 n d m o r t g a g e 2 .O 10. .9 10 . 1 9 .6 IO. .0 % h o m e o w n e r s w i t h o t h e r m o r t g a g e O 2 . 9 2 .6 2 .9 2 . 3 % h o m e o w n e r s w i t h m o r t g a g e 1 3 . 8 6 5 . , 1 6 8 . . 1 75 .5 77 . .4 1976 a v e r a g e i n c o m e b y q u i n t i l e 5 3 8 8 . 3 1 1668 . . 2 16878 . .9 2 2 5 6 3 . 1 3 5 9 7 8 . 1 % f a m i l i e s h o m e o w n e r s 26 . 1 34 . , 7 5 0 , .9 6 3 . 2 85 . 6 % h o m e o w n e r s w i t h m o r t g a g e b 6 . 1 34 . .9 7 0 . . 3 77 .8 77 . 2 1978 a v e r a g e i n c o m e b y q u i n t i l e 6 2 8 0 . 8 1 3 0 9 2 . 5 1 9 1 5 9 . .6 2 6 0 8 4 .4 4 1 3 2 1 . 9 % o f f a m i l i e s h o m e o w n e r s 2 4 . 8 3 0 . 0 48 . .2 6 9 . 5 86 . 1 % h o m e o w n e r s w i t h m o r t g a g e s 0 4 8 . 7 7 0 . 3 81 . 4 76 . 1 S o u r c e : A d a p t e d f r o m S t a t i s t i c s C a n a d a , U r b a n F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1971 ( c a t . 6 2 - 5 4 1 ) . O t t a w a : S u p p l y a n d S e r v i c e s , 1 9 7 5 ; U r b a n F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1974 ( c a t . 6 2 - 5 4 4 ) . O t t a w a : S u p p l y a n d S e r v i c e s . 1 9 7 7 ; U r b a n F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1976 ( c a t . 6 2 - 5 4 7 ) . O t t a w a : S u p p l y a n d S e r v i c e s . 1979 F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s i n C a n a d a , v o l . 2 ( c a t . 6 2 - 5 5 0 ) . O t t a w a : S u p p l y a n d S e r v i c e s , 1 9 8 1 . a . F i g u r e s r e f e r t o i n c o m e g r o u p i n g c l o s e s t t o m e a n o f q u i n t i l e ( i . e . d o n o t r e -p r e s e n t a c t u a l a v e r a g e s f o r t h e e n t i r e q u i n t i l e ) . b . M o r t g a g e d e b t b y t y p e o f m o r t g a g e n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r 1976 a n d 1 9 7 8 . T A B L E 2 . 1 7 M o r t g a g e D e b t By A g e o f H o u s e h o l d H e a d ( A v e r a g e d A c r o s s S e l e c t i o n o f C a n a d i a n C i t i e s ) Y e a r a n d T y p e o f M o r t g a g e % o f a l l F a m i l i e s w i t h M o r t g a g e s b y A g e o f H o u s e h o l d H e a d 25 2 5 - 3 4 3 5 - 4 4 4 5 - 5 4 5 5 - 6 4 6 5 - 6 9 a 7 0 - 7 4 75-t-197 1 1 s t M o r t g a g e 2 n d M o r t g a g e O t h e r D w e l l i n g M o r t g a g e 2 . 9 1 .4 . 1 27 .7 7 . 6 .5 48 .0 7 . 0 . 7 4 1 . 7 2 . 6 .6 2 3 . 8 1 .9 1 .8 8 . 1 .6 0 T o t a l w i t h M o r t g a g e s 3 . 1 2 7 . 9 4 8 . 3 4 1.8 2 5 . 3 8 . 1 - - - - - -% H o m e o w n e r s 3 . 1 2 9 . 8 5 5 . 5 5 8 . 3 53 . 0 44 .8 - - - - - -% H o m e o w n e r s w i t h M o r t g a g e s 100 94 87 72 48 18 - - - - - -S h e l t e r c o s t s f o r o w n e r - o c c u p i e r F a m i l i e s . $ p e r annum b 1380 1759 1504 1324 1061 7 6 5 - - - . . . 1974 S h e l t e r C o s t s f o r O w n e r - O c c u p i e r F a m i l i e s , $ p e r a n n u m 2 6 3 9 2 5 1 6 2 1 7 4 1 6 8 0 1275 9 6 2 8 4 9 8 8 6 1 9 7 6 S h e l t e r C o s t s f o r O w n e r - O c c u p i e r F a m i l i e s , $ p e r a n n u m 2 5 7 0 3 3 1 5 3071 2 1 7 3 1587 1328 S o u r c e : A d a p t e d f r o m S t a t i s t i c s C a n a d a , U r b a n F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1971 ( c a t . 6 2 - 5 4 1 ) . O t t a w a : S u p p l y a n d S e r v i c e s . 1 9 7 5 ; U r b a n F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1974 ( c a t . 6 2 - 5 4 4 ) . O t t a w a : S u p p l y a n d S e r v i c e s , 1 9 7 7 ; U r b a n F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1976 ( c a t . 6 2 - 5 4 7 ) . O t t a w a : S u p p l y a n d S e r v i c e s . 1 9 7 9 ; F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s i n C a n a d a , v o l . 2 ( c a t . 6 2 - 5 5 0 ) . O t t a w a : S u p p l y a n d S e r v i c e s . 1 9 8 1 . a . T h e 6 5 - 6 9 c a t e g o r y a c t u a l l y r e p r e s e n t s 65+ f o r a l l y e a r s e x c e p t 1 9 7 4 . b . S h e l t e r c o s t s i n c l u d e m a i n t e n a n c e , i n t e r e s t o n m o r t g a g e , f u e l a n d h y d r o b u t n o t p a y m e n t s o n t h e p r i n c i p a l o f t h e m o r t g a g e . D e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g m o r t g a g e s i s a v a i l a b l e o n l y f o r 1971 b u t c a n b e i n f e r r e d f r o m s h e l t e r c o s t s i n l a t e r y e a r s . 1 10 72 f ree and c l e a r of any mortgage. C o n s i d e r i n g the CMA and not j u s t the C i t y of Vancouver , the p r o p o r t i o n of a l l homeowners wi thout mortgages amounted to 41% i n 1971, 42% i n 1974, 39% i n 73 1976 and 43% i n 1978. A 1975 survey of homeowners i n the GVRD c o n f i r m s these s t a t i s t i c s : 43.6 p e r c e n t of a l l homeowners 74 were found to own t h e i r houses o u t r i g h t . 3. C o n t r o l l e d and D e c o n t r o l l e d R e n t a l Submarkets The t h i r d q u a l i f y i n g f a c t o r c o n c e r n i n g g e n e r a l i s a t i o n s w i t h i n tenure c a t e g o r i e s r e f e r s to the r e n t a l s e c t o r s . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s l a r g e l y of h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t s i n c e the t e r m i -n a t i o n of rent c o n t r o l s was announced i n the J u l y 6 1983 p r o v i n c i a l budget speech . The p r o v i n c i a l government of B r i t i s h Columbia l e g i s l a t e d a system of rent c o n t r o l s i n 1972, whereby a l l u n i t s r e n t e d be fore January 1st 1974 were s u s c e p t i b l e to l i m i t s on the annual rent i n c r e a s e . A f t e r 1975 the S o c i a l C r e d i t Pa r ty r e p l a c e d the New Democrat ic P a r t y i n T h i s s t a t i s t i c i s r e p o r t e d i n : Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g Dept . and Hous ing Study Team, U n d e r s t a n d i n g V a n c o u v e r ' s H o u s i n g : Pa r t 3, p . 3. The p u b l i s h e d 1981 Census c l a s s i f i e s homeowners by hous ing c o s t s to income but not by mortgage debt so comparisons are not p o s s i b l e . 73 S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Urban F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1971; Urban F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1974; Urban F a m i l y E x p e n d i - t u r e s 1976; Fami ly E x p e n d i t u r e s i n Canada, v o l . 2, 1978. 74 F . G . Pennance, S.W. Hami l ton and D. B a x t e r , H o u s i n g , i t ' s your move: volume 2, p . 96. 111 o f f i c e and has s i n c e remained i n power. Before the J u l y 1983 budget , the S o c i a l C r e d i t government had adopted a ' p o l i c y ' of l e t t i n g rent c o n t r o l s work themselves out of the system, as i t were, by not r a i s i n g the rent c e i l i n g s for c o n t r o l l e d u n i t s so that i n c r e a s i n g numbers of r e n t a l u n i t s underwent a p roce s s of d e c o n t r o l through t ime . T h i s l e d to three l e v e l s of c l a s s i f i -c a t i o n w i t h i n the r e n t a l s t o c k . The f i r s t l e v e l i n v o l v e d rent c o n t r o l l e d u n i t s , the annua l rent i n c r e a s e of which c o u l d not exceed 10 p e r c e n t u n l e s s the l a n d l o r d c o u l d prove e x c e s s i v e c o s t s . As of May 1982, 73% of a l l apartments i n the C i t y of Vancouver were under rent c o n t r o l s (75% of a l l 1 bedroom apar tments , 47% of a l l 2 bedroom apartments and 51% of a l l 3 75 bedroom and over a p a r t m e n t s ) . U n i t s q u a l i f y i n g fo r rent c o n t r o l s were s t u d i o , b a c h e l o r and one bedroom apartments r e n t i n g fo r $300 per month or l e s s ; 2 bedroom apartments w i t h monthly r e n t s not exceed ing $350 or 3 bedroom or l a r g e r a p a r t -ments r e n t i n g for $400 or l e s s a month; though i n each case o n l y u n i t s o c c u p i e d be fore the b e g i n n i n g of 1974. New u n i t s were exempt from c o n t r o l s . Once r e n t s exceeded t h i s l e v e l , the r e n t a l u n i t was s u s c e p t i b l e to a second t i e r of c o n t r o l r e f e r r e d to as Rent Review. A l l pre 1974 u n i t s r e n t i n g for $700 or l e s s a month were e l i g i b l e fo r r e v i e w , which meant that t enant s c o u l d reques t a review i f the annual rent i n -crease seemed e x c e s s i v e , the Renta l sman ' s d e c i s i o n c o n c e r n i n g a f a i r r en t b e i n g based on what was c o n s i d e r e d to be a " f a i r market r ent for a s i m i l a r u n i t , not s u b j e c t to c o n t r o l s , i n O f f i c e of the Rentalsman 1 1 2 7 6 the same a r e a " . For u n i t s w i t h r e n t s exceed ing $700 per month or which met o ther r u l e s of exempt ion , such as be ing a u n i t i n a b u i l d i n g of o n l y two u n i t s of which one i s o c c u p i e d by the l a n d l o r d , there c o u l d be no appea l a g a i n s t rent i n -c r e a s e s . E f f e c t i v e l y , g i v e n the g u i d e l i n e s for Rent Review, t h i s s t r u c t u r e can be c o l l a p s e d i n t o rent c o n t r o l l e d and d e c o n t r o l l e d u n i t s . T h i s s t r u c t u r i n g of the r e n t a l market r e s u l t e d i n a s t e a d i l y d e c r e a s i n g c o n t r o l l e d s e c t o r w i t h moderate r e n t s and a near ze ro vacancy ra te and a more expens ive s e c t o r w i t h an 77 e s t imated 30% vacancy r a t e . Two r e n t a l ' submarket s ' were t e m p o r a r i l y c r e a t e d by t h i s l a y e r i n g of c o n t r a d i c t o r y g o v e r n -ment p o l i c i e s ; two d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t vacancy l e v e l s may be taken as ev idence of the ' n o n - s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y ' of u n i t s be t -7 8 ween r e n t a l submarkets . The d i s c r e p a n c y i n rent l e v e l s for two and three bedroom apartments i n d i f f e r e n t l o c a l a reas of Vancouver and a d j o i n i n g suburban m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s l i s t e d i n t a b l e 2 .18 . In Vancouver , the r e n t s fo r two bedroom a p a r t -ments i n the c o n t r o l l e d s e c t o r , for i n s t a n c e , were on average on ly 56% of the average rent i n the d e c o n t r o l l e d s e c t o r . F i g u r e 2.4 d i s p l a y s the segmented na ture of the r e n t a l s tock 7 6 O f f i c e of the Renta l sman, Guide to L a n d l o r d Tenant R e l a t i o n s Under the R e s i d e n t i a l Tenancy Act ( B . C . : M i n i s t r y of Consumer and Corpora te A f f a i r s , 1981), p . 20. 77 "Newer s u i t e s go b e g g i n g , " The Vancouver Sun, 1 March 1982, Sec . A , p . 2. 7 8 L . S . Bourne, The Geography of Hous ing (New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1981). T A B L E 2 . 1 8 R e n t L e v e l s f o r C o n t r o l l e d a n d D e c o n t r o l l e d Two a n d T h r e e B e d r o o m ' A p a r t m e n t s i n S e l e c t e d L o c a l A r e a s o f V a n c o u v e r a n d A d j o i n i n g M u n i c i p a l i t i e s ( M a y , 1 9 8 2 ) A r e a Two B e d r o o m A p a r t m e n t s T h r e e B e d r o o m A p a r t m e n t s A v e r a g e R e n t s R e n t L e v e l s % o f S t o c k A v e r a g e R e n t s R e n t L e v e l s % o f S t o c k ($) o f C o n . a s i n A r e a ($) o f C o n . a s i n A r e a C o n . D e c o n . % o f D e c o n . D e c o n . C o n . D e c o n . % o f D e c o n . D e c o n . V a n c o u v e r E a s t H a s t i n g s 2 9 3 4 8 8 6 0 4 0 316 521 61 27 V a n . S o u t h 322 4 0 8 79 21 346 4 7 0 74 13 W e s t E n d 322 5 7 5 56 63 327 8 4 2 3 9 45 M a r p o l e 321 4 8 3 67 45 338 5 6 8 5 9 3 9 S o u t h G r a n v i 1 1 e 3 2 8 5 3 3 62 45 333 6 2 4 53 4 9 K i t s i 1 a n o 2 9 9 5 3 6 56 44 2 9 8 6 2 9 47 42 D u n b a r / P t . G r e y 334 531 63 63 332 6 8 2 4 9 8 3 K e r r i s d a 1 e 344 6 3 8 54 68 378 8 9 8 42 76 V a n c o u v e r 3 1 5 5 6 3 56 53 3 3 0 7 4 9 44 4 9 S u r r e y 3 1 4 4 4 5 71 26 3 5 6 4 9 6 72 5 0 New W e s t m i n s t e r 314 4 7 1 67 32 332 5 8 0 57 2 9 B u r n a b y 333 5 0 5 66 42 387~ 5 5 4 7 0 35 R i c h m o n d 3 2 9 4 8 7 68 54 315 5 3 5 5 9 21 N o r t h V a n . 3 3 9 5 0 9 6 7 46 3 7 6 5 7 5 6 5 36 W e s t V a n . 3 6 9 6 0 3 61 85 367 7 9 6 4 6 94 S o u r c e : O f f i c e o f t h e R e n t a l s m a n 1 1 4 FIGURE 2.4 Rent L e v e l s of C o n t r o l l e d and D e c o n t r o l l e d U n i t s By Area For One Bedroom Apartments (May, 1982) MUNICIPALITIES IN VANCOUVER CMA West Vancouver • N - 8 6 8 * ' N^887 * Surrey *"N=~979* ' N=331 * Richmond ^loTs"** N7Z42 * Nor th Vancouver - ^ 3 0 5 6"* ' N - 2 0 3 9 ' New Westminster — ^ 3 3 6 9 * ' N.93B ' C o q u i t l a m ^ " s i s - * i^Ii * Burnaby •- •* • • N=5857 N=2143 Vancouver *-,- • • » N=25,345 N=8627 CITY OF VANCOUVER LOCAL AREAS South Vancouver * N~3"62 ~ ~ " N-52 * East H a s t i n g s — ^ 8 1 6 - * N-1448 ' K e r r i s d a l e " " 0 ^ * ' N ^ 9 7 " M a r P ° l e " " s o s " •FJ^ TT S t . G r a n v i l l e - ~ N=3i3~~' V S 7 4 1 West End ^ ~ i " i " o ~ * * N=2991 K i t s i l a n o ' • ^ r i i - ' N^Ti ' D u n b a r / P t . G r e y " " " NIST ? " " " * Controlled rents ^ 4 D e c o n t r o l l e d rents 1o0 2"&13 2%0 300 350 400 450 50*0 550 600 . Rent L e v e l ($) 1. The mid 66% of l i s t i n g s ( i n terms of rent l e v e l s ) are shown. Source : O f f i c e of the Rentalsman 1 15 for one bedroom apartments more g r a p h i c a l l y . For each l o c a l a rea and m u n i c i p a l i t y a range i n c l u d i n g the median 66 percent of the Renta l sman ' s l i s t i n g s for apartment r e n t s i s shown. Not on ly were the rent l e v e l s for d e c o n t r o l l e d and c o n t r o l l e d u n i t s i n any one area almost c o m p l e t e l y n o n - o v e r l a p p i n g but the r e n t s w i t h i n e i t h e r s e c t o r were more s i m i l a r a c r o s s areas which range from the most to l e a s t p r e s t i g o u s than a c r o s s s e c t o r s . E v i d e n c e of apartment q u a l i t y i s neces sary to c o n s i d e r i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h rent l e v e l s to draw f i r m c o n c l u -s i o n s about the exact nature of the s p l i t between r e n t a l s e c t o r s . In the absence of such e v i d e n c e , however, one can s p e c u l a t e , on the b a s i s of the non-cont inuous nature of the rent l e v e l s between s e c t o r s and the s i m i l a r i t y of r en t l e v e l s w i t h i n submarkets but a c r o s s a r e a s , tha t the r e n t a l submarkets were s u b s t a n t i a l l y an a r t i f a c t of government p o l i c y . The s p l i t between r e n t a l s e c t o r s was very r e a l and the p e r c e p t i o n of be ing f o r c e d to u n w i l l i n g l y c r o s s from one s e c t o r to another (even accompanied by an upgrad ing of q u a l i t y ) or to cope i n o t h e r ways ( d o u b l i n g up, compromising on l o c a t i o n and moving a d i s t a n c e from the c i t y ) was a p r e v a l e n t one for many tenant s i n Vancouver . Quotes such as the f o l l o w i n g appeared r e g u l a r l y i n l o c a l newspapers : A rent i n c r e a s e from $304 to $429 i s f o r c i n g s e c r e t a r y Jan S e w e l l , 31, to vaca te her apartment of e i g h t y e a r s . Sewel l says she c a n ' t a f f o r d the h i g h e r p r i c e d s u i t e s d e s p i t e the goodies o f f e r e d to new t e n a n t s . 'One f ree month d o e s n ' t make up for a y e a r ' s h i g h r e n t s . No way I ' d move i n . " 7 q N. P a r t o n , "Perks f a i l i n g to f i l l h i g h - p r i c e d a p a r t m e n t s , " The Vancouver Sun, 28 May 1982, Sec . A , p . 1. 116 However, as mentioned above, t h i s s e c t o r a l d i v i s i o n w i t h i n the r e n t a l market w i l l l i k e l y d i s a p p e a r , w i t h the d e c o n t r o l of a l l r e n t a l u n i t s , announced i n the J u l y 1983 p r o v i n c i a l budget speech . T h e o r e t i c a l and P o l i t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s of the C o n t r a s t Between the Economic S i t u a t i o n s of Tenants and Homeowners Two t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of the economic c o n t r a s t between hous ing tenures r e q u i r e comment. The f i r s t r e v o l v e s around the o b j e c t i v e b a s i s of hous ing tenure g roup ings and hence has i m p l i c a t i o n s for the v a l i d i t y of m a r x i s t and weberian i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of consumption s e c t o r s . T h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s that i n Vancouver homeownership has o f f e r e d acces s to wea l th u n a v a i l a b l e to t e n a n t s : house p r i c e s have i n f l a t e d f a s t e r than other c o n v e n t i o n a l forms of investment from the mid 1970's through to A p r i l 1982 and-homeowners have been the r e c i p i e n t s of c o n s i d e r a b l e p u b l i c s u b s i d i s a t i o n as w e l l . By far the most important form of s u b s i d i s a t i o n fo r homeowners i s tax r e l i e f through the exemption of c a p i t a l ga ins on the s a l e of a p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e . T h i s form of s u b s i d i s a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e w i d e l y to a l l homeowners w h i l e r e n t a l s u b s i d i e s tend to take the form of r e l a t i v e l y deep s u b s i d i e s , o f t e n f i l t e r e d through d e v e l o p e r s and b u i l d e r s for the c o n s t r u c t i o n of p u b l i c hous ing or r e n t a l u n i t s , to l i m i t e d t a r g e t g roups . T h i s leads to a second t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t . I t does not seem to be an o v e r l y d i s t o r t i n g g e n e r a l i s a t i o n to c o n c e i v e of homeowners as a group or p r i v a t e r e n t e r s as an-other f a i r l y u n i f i e d consumption s e c t o r . Housing i n d i f f e r e n t 1 1 7 g e o g r a p h i c a l submarkets , r e f l e c t e d i n d i f f e r e n t hous ing v a l u e s , d i d not seem to i n f l a t e at d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t e s i n any c o n s i s t e n t f a s h i o n l i n k e d to house p r i c e . Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s w i t h i n tenure forms which d i d seem to be r e l e v a n t i n c l u d e : t ime of house p u r c h a s e , whether a house i s mortgaged or owned o u t r i g h t , and t ime of mortgage renewal , and , for r e n t e r s , the d i s t i n c t i o n between rent c o n t r o l l e d and u n c o n t r o l l e d sub-marke t s . I t was noted tha t the l a t t e r two d i s t i n c t i o n s were temporary and i n c r e a s i n g l y of h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t o n l y . What i n s i g h t s can one g l ean from t h i s a n a l y s i s for the purposes of an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l impact of tenure? There are three i s s u e s which w i l l be touched upon b r i e f l y : the r a t i o n a l i t y of i d e n t i f y i n g i n t e r e s t s i n terms of t e n u r e , the p e r c e p t i o n of r i g h t s as a consumption group by hous ing t e n u r e , and the extent to which d e t a i l s of f i n a n c i n g encourage d i f f e r e n t community v a l u e s . With r e f e r e n c e to the f i r s t , the a n a l y s i s support s the t h e o r e t i c a l argument tha t i t i s i n c o r r e c t to propose tha t homeowners have been i g n o r a n t of t h e i r own s e l f - i n t e r e s t when they i d e n t i f y t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n terms of be ing homeowners. As P a h l a rgues , homeownership p r o v i d e s rough ly h a l f of the p o p u l a t i o n w i t h acces s to an a c c u m u l a t i v e form of wea l th which r i v a l s earned wage income i n d e t e r m i n i n g i n e q u a l i t i e s of 8 0 m a t e r i a l l i f e c h a n c e s . Not o n l y does t h i s , i n a sense , R . E . P a h l , Whose c i t y ? And f u r t h e r essays on urban s o c i e t y . (Harmondsworthl P e n g u i n , 1975) 1 18 ' j u s t i f y ' homeowners' concern w i t h the investment p o t e n t i a l of t h e i r houses but i t e s t a b l i s h e s a dynamic whereby i t i s i n t h i s g r o u p ' s i n t e r e s t to m a i n t a i n , encourage and expand t h i s avenue for wea l th a c c u m u l a t i o n . The most p robab le v e h i c l e for d o i n g t h i s i s p o l i t i c a l ; g r a n t s , tax advantages , monetary p o l i c y a l l a f f e c t the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of homeownership as an inve s tment . As Go ldberg n o t e s : " P r a c t i c a l p o l i t i c s d i c t a t e tha t governments w i l l c o n t i n u e to make p o l i c i e s neces sary to prevent house p r i c e s from d e c l i n i n g because 3 t imes as many households b e n e f i t from such p o l i c i e s as would b e n e f i t from d e c l i n i n g p r i c e s [Goldberg i n c l u d e s both homeowners and p r o s p e c t i v e homeowners in t h i s a s s e s s m e n t . ] . . . w h a t i s d e s i r e d i d e a l l y , of c o u r s e , i s low p r i c e s for new e n t r a n t s and h i g h p r i c e s for e x i s t i n g homeowner u n i t s . T h i s i s no more r e a l i s t i c than wanting h i g h wheat p r i c e s for farmers but low bread p r i c e s for the consuming p u b l i c . T h i s i s c l e a r l y not p o s s i b l e , so the p re s sure w i l l remain for hous ing p r i c e s to i n c r e a s e and w i t h i t the c a l l for s u b s i d i z e d mortgages , a i d to f i r s t time house p u r c h a s e r s , and the l i k e . " R 1 That homeowners may pursue these p o l i t i c a l g o a l s more e f f e c t i v e l y than r e n t e r s i s p r o b a b l e for a number of r ea sons , r a n g i n g from h i g h e r incomes and e d u c a t i o n (both l i n k e d to g r e a t e r p o l i t i c a l i n v o l v e m e n t ) , a congruence of i n t e r e s t b e t -ween homeowners and the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y and the govern-ment ' s g e n e r a l l y f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e to the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n -M . A . G o l d b e r g , The Hous ing Problem: A Rea l C r i s i s ? , p . 88. Note however the f i n d i n g by Ley tha t not a l l home-owners d e s i r e the i n f l a t i o n of house p r i c e s , e s p e c i a l l y when such i n f l a t i o n i s p e r c e i v e d to have an impact on n e i g h b o u r -hood change through development p r e s s u r e s (D. L e y , " I n n e r - C i t y R e v i t a l i z a t i o n i n Canada: A Vancouver Case S t u d y " ) . 119 d u s t r y as a s i g n i f i c a n t m u l t i p l i e r in the h e a l t h of the na-t i o n a l and r e g i o n a l economy. There i s a l s o an a spect of the f i n a n c i n g of homeownership which seems to l e a d to a number of f e l t r i g h t s which add l e g i t i m a c y to homeowners' demands. Because mortgage r a t e s have tended to be f i x e d for l onger p e r i o d s u n t i l r e c e n t l y ( for f i v e year s or for the e n t i r e a m o r t i s a t i o n p e r i o d i f purchased be fore the e a r l y 1970 ' s ) , there seems to be the e x p e c t a t i o n tha t hous ing c o s t s for home-owners shou ld be r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t . R e n t e r s , on the o ther hand, have no grounds for t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n . Even more than t h i s , t h e r e i s an u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t homeownership s h o u l d be r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e to the middle c l a s s e s , an e x p e c t a t i o n 8 2 f i r m l y r o o t e d i n V a n c o u v e r ' s h i s t o r y . R e n t a l tenancy i s not g e n e r a l l y the p r e f e r r e d tenure form and thus commitment to i t i s l e s s a s s u r e d . As w e l l , the mode of d e c o n t r o l of r e n t s i n Vancouver has perhaps had the e f f e c t of d i f f u s i n g any focused o r g a n i s a t i o n amongst t e n a n t s ; i n d i v i d u a l r e n t a l u n i t s are d e c o n t r o l l e d i n d i f f e r e n t months i n d i f f e r e n t year s i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of the c i t y . Whether a concern about c o n s t a n t hous ing c o s t s , focused around mortgage r a t e s , d i v i d e s mort-gaged and non-mortgaged homeowners in t h e i r p o l i t i c a l concerns i s another i s s u e . To the extent tha t the f a l l i n house p r i c e s has been d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t e d to h i g h mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s , one would t h i n k n o t . On the o ther hand, a commitment to house D. H o l d s w o r t h , "House and Home i n Vancouver : The Making of a West Coast Urban Landscape ,1886-1929 , " D i s s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1981. 1 20 8 3 p r i c e i n f l a t i o n does not u n i t e a l l homeowners. In any ca se , the i s sue of f e l t r i g h t s i s an important one. As Thompson a r g u e s : "Perhaps i t s v e s t i g e s are s t i l l w i th us today , in a l l o t m e n t s and garden p l o t s . Land always c a r r i e s a s s o c i a t i o n s of s t a t u s , s e c u r i t y , r i g h t s - more profound than the va lue of 84 i t s c r o p . " Whether t h i s p e r c e p t i o n of r i g h t s extends beyond the house i n t o o ther realms of l i f e or l eads to a pr imary f o c u s i n g of r i g h t s around the house i s an i s sue to be pur sued . C r i t i c s of homeownership have assumed the l a t t e r and argue that homeownership encourages a l o c a l i s m which enerva te s ' c l a s s - b a s e d ' p o l i t i c a l programmes. There are s e v e r a l f e a t u r e s of hous ing f i n a n c e which indeed encourage an aware-ness of c e r t a i n community mat ter s amongst homeowners. One f a c t o r i n v o l v e s the f ac t t h a t hous ing c o s t s are c l e a r l y d i v i d e d between p r o p e r t y t a x e s , maintenance e x p e n d i t u r e s and mortgage payments for the homeowner. Whi le r e n t e r s may pay p o r t i o n s of each , i t i s l e s s c l e a r that each component i s i n v o l v e d . P r o p e r t y taxes make homeowners aware tha t they are p a y i n g for m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c e s and i n Vancouver p r o p e r t y tax 8 5 i n c r e a s e s have encouraged o r g a n i s e d community p r o t e s t . In D. L e y , " I n n e r - C i t y R e v i t a l i z a t i o n i n Canada: A Vancouver Case S t u d y , " p .136 ; D . A . P h i l l i p s , "Urban Housing Q u a l i t y : The Importance of A t t i t u d e s i n the D e c i s i o n to Re-h a b i l i t a t e , " M . A . T h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1976. 84 E . P. Thompson, The Making of the E n g i s h Working C l a s s (Harmondsworth: P e n g u i n , 1968), p . 254. C . V o l k a r t , "The l i t t l e guys f i g h t back a g a i n s t r i s i n g a s s e s s m e n t s , " The Vancouver Sun, 23 January 1982, Sec . A , p . 1. 121 a d d i t i o n , as noted above, Cox and McCarthy have argued that the t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h moving are much l e s s for 8 6 the t e n a n t . Not o n l y does a move between owner-occupied p r o p e r t i e s e n t a i l s u b s t a n t i a l r e a l e s t a t e and l e g a l c o s t s but we have seen tha t hous ing c o s t s d e c l i n e as a f a c t o r of l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e i n any one house . Because of t h i s , i t i s argued tha t tenants and homeowners d i f f e r e n t i a l l y r eac t to n e i g h b o u r -hood prob lems . In the face of u n d e s i r e d neighbourhood change persons in d i f f e r e n t tenure c a t e g o r i e s o f ten tend to choose a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s : t enant s t y p i c a l l y choose to r e l o c a t e w h i l e homeowners may become p o l i t i c a l l y a c t i v e i n community a f f a i r s . A concern w i t h community i s s u e s has been taken by some to imply a l ack of concern for s o - c a l l e d wider p o l i t i c a l 8 7 i s s u e s , and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , a r e j e c t i o n of c o l l e c t i v e d p a t t e r n s of consumpt ion . Kemeny has argued that homeowners are c o n s t r a i n e d by the i n i t i a l expenses of homeownership to r e j e c t s o c i a l we l f a re schemes i n an attempt to m a i n t a i n f u l l e r 8 8 c o n t r o l over a l a r g e r p o r t i o n of the hous ing budget . I t can be seen c l e a r l y from the ev idence p re sen ted here tha t home-owners do indeed a l l o c a t e a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r income 8 6 K . R . Cox and J . J . McCar thy , "Neighbourhood A c t i v i s m as a P o l i t i c s of T u r f : A C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s . " 8 7 T h i s view i s summarised i n J . Agnew, "Home Ownership and I d e n t i t y i n C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t i e s " . J . Kemeny, "Home ownership and p r i v a t i z a t i o n , " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research 4 (1980) , 372-87. 1 22 to hous ing in the e a r l y years of homeownership, even though the i n c r e a s e d e x p e n d i t u r e has amounted to an e x c e l l e n t i n v e s t -ment d u r i n g the 1970's and e a r l y 1980 ' s . Whether t h i s f a c t o r has the h y p o t h e s i s e d e f f e c t on a t t i t u d e s and p o l i t i c a l be-h a v i o u r i s something which w i l l be taken up below. 1 23 CHAPTER 3 SOCIAL CHANGE IN CANADA DATA SET Two c r i t i c i s m s of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s have been d e v e l o p e d : 1) the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s tends towards r e i f i e d s o c i a l a n a l y s i s i n the sense t h a t the a c t u a l p roce s se s i n -v o l v e d have not been e x p l o r e d e m p i r i c a l l y i n any c r i t i c a l and thorough manner and 2) there i s very l i t t l e ev idence for the assumed r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing tenure and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s or community v a l u e s , and l i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n g i v e n to the s p e c i f i c i t y of l i n k s between p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o u r s and hous ing s i t u a t i o n . In chapter two, the contex t of the Vancouver hous ing market was b r i e f l y set and, in r e l a t i o n to the f i r s t c r i t i c i s m mentioned above, the case was made tha t the economic b e n e f i t s a t t e n d a n t to homeownership i n Vancouver through the 1970's were s i g n i f i -c a n t . Wealth a c c u m u l a t i o n through house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n a lone exceeded that p o s s i b l e through o t h e r c o n v e n t i o n a l forms of inve s tment . T h i s and a d d i t i o n a l p u b l i c s u b s i d i s a t i o n p l a c e d the homeowner i n a d i s t i n c t l y s u p e r i o r p o s i t i o n r e l a t i v e to t e n a n t s , a l t h o u g h t ime of house p u r c h a s e , mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s , and rent c o n t r o l s i n t r o d u c e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to t h i s g e n e r a l i s a t i o n . T h i s o b j e c t i v e s i t u a t i o n seems an important element i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a t t i t u d i n a l commitments to the tenure form. In t h i s and the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r the focus w i l l tend more towards the l a t t e r c r i t i c i s m : that the a s s o c i a t i o n be t -ween p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and h o u s i n g tenure have not been 1 24 e m p i r i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d ac ro s s d i f f e r e n t types of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o u r s . R e l a t i o n s , d e r i v e d from s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n , w i l l be e s t a b l i s h e d between hous ing tenure and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s through p u b l i c l y a v a i l a b l e survey d a t a . One of the q u e s t i o n s which i s e x p l o r e d i s the b r e a d t h of the i d e o l o g i c a l d i v i d e between r e n t e r s and homeowners. Are home-owners s imply more committed to s t a b l e p r o p e r t y v a l u e s or i s there a more g e n e r a l d i f f e r e n c e i n o u t l o o k between r e n t e r s and homeowners? So t o o , are there r e l e v a n t v a r i a t i o n s between types of homeowners and r e n t e r s i n terms of a t t i t u d e s ? The importance of s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s such as mortgage debt or h i g h hous ing c o s t s , and c l a s s or s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , for i n -s t a n c e , i s e x p l o r e d to come to a f u l l e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of these assoc i a t i o n s . The a n a l y s i s of survey data thus serves a number of s p e c i f i c m e t h o d o l o g i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l purpose s . F i r s t l y , i t o f f e r s a base from which to s p e c u l a t e about the g e n e r a l i s -a b i l i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing t e n u r e / c o s t s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s . I t a l l o w s a s k e t c h of broad p a t t e r n s of r e l a t i o n s h i p . The proce s s of under s t and ing these p a t t e r n s w i l l then be pursued through a more c o n t e x t u a l method of i n depth i n t e r v i e w s in c h a p t e r s 6, 7 and 8. At the same t ime , the a n a l y s i s of i n t e r a c t i o n s between s o c i a l c l a s s , hous ing t e n u r e / c o s t s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s through survey data gu ides the f o l l o w i n g stage of e m p i r i c a l work. I t o f f e r s s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s to f o l l o w up as much as d e f i n i t i v e answers . In t h i s c h a p t e r , the survey data set u t i l i s e d , the method 125 of p a r t i t i o n i n g the sample and the mode of a n a y l s i s w i l l be d e s c r i b e d . P a t t e r n s of a s s o c i a t i o n between measures of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n w i l l be b r i e f l y o u t l i n e d . The Survey Data Set There are a number of q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to c o n s i d e r i n r e l a t i o n to the survey d a t a . The survey used to e x p l o r e the g e n e r a l a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing t e n u r e , p o l i t i c a l a t t i -tudes and community va lues i s the S o c i a l Change i n Canada study (phase two) , c a r r i e d out i n 1979. 1 In a sense t h e n , the survey data are h i s t o r i c a l w i t h i n a l i m i t e d t ime frame. I t i s w e l l to keep i n mind the p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s at t h i s t i m e . As noted i n the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r , i n t e r e s t r a t e s had not i n c r e a s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y between 1974 and 1979. In terms of house p r i c e s , the s i t u a t i o n i n Vancouver was one of a 'boom' of house p r i c e s between 1971 and 1974, w i t h a s t a b i l i -s a t i o n of house p r i c e s between 1975 and 1978. P r i c e s began to s l o w l y i n c r e a s e aga in i n 1979. T h i s was the s i t u a t i o n w i t h regards to house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n i n Vancouver . The next q u a l i f i c a t i o n concerns the sample e x p l o r e d u s i n g the S o c i a l Change i n Canada d a t a . At f i r s t the Vancouver sample was s i n g l e d out for a n a l y s i s but w i t h o n l y 201 cases i t soon became e v i d e n t that t h i s sample i s too s m a l l to e x p l o r e 1 T h i s i s the second i n a s e r i e s of n a t i o n a l surveys conducted by the I n s t i t u t e for B e h a v i o u r a l R e s e a r c h , York U n i v e r s i t y , T o r o n t o , Canada. 1 26 the more d e t a i l e d r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s . Thus the g e o g r a p h i c a l s c a l e of a n a l y s i s became tha t of ' u r b a n ' Canada, tha t i s , persons l i v i n g i n census m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s . A census metro-p o l i t a n area (CMA) i s d e f i n e d by S t a t i s t i c s Canada as the main l abour market area of a c o n t i n u o u s b u i l t - u p r e g i o n hav ing a p o p u l a t i o n of 100,000 or more persons and thus i n c l u d e s the suburbs s u r r o u n d i n g an u r b a n i s e d core of 100,000 or more p e r s o n s . The e s t i m a t e s of community s i z e used for the S o c i a l Change i n Canada survey were based on 1971 census i n f o r m a -2 t i o n . The f i n a l sample of urban r e s i d e n t s used here (which i s o n l y a subset of the e n t i r e sample surveyed) c o n s i s t s of 1941 c a s e s . Broken down i n terms of p r o v i n c e s , 1% of the sample l i v e d i n Nova S c o t i a , 38% i n Quebec, 40% i n O n t a r i o , 3% i n M a n i t o b a , 2% i n Saskatchewan, 5% i n A l b e r t a and 11% i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . The urban sample i s p r e d o m i n a n t l y s e l e c t e d from l a r g e r urban c e n t r e s , w i t h o n l y 15% of the sample l i v i n g i n the c ore and 4% l i v i n g i n the suburban f r i n g e of CMA's w i t h p o p u l a t i o n s r a n g i n g between 100,000 to 500,000. Of the r e -maining sample, 34% l i v e i n the core and 47% l i v e i n the suburban f r i n g e of CMA's w i t h p o p u l a t i o n s exceed ing 500,000 ( i . e . , T o r o n t o , M o n t r e a l , V a n c o u v e r ) . A p e r t i n e n t q u e s t i o n i s , to what extent were the t r ends i n o ther urban hous ing markets s i m i l a r to those i n Vancouver? P e r s o n a l communicat ion w i t h D r . D a r l a Rhyne, Research A s s o c i a t e , I n s t i t u t e for B e h a v i o u r a l Re sea rch . 1 27 TABLE 3.1 Percent Change i n House P r i c e s by Urban A r e a , 1971-76 Average Average MLS New House e s t imated t r a n s a c t i o n ^ p r i c e index^ t o t a l c o s t s Vancouver 76.7 159.5 n . a . Edmonton 138.9 1 48.8 145.8 C a l g a r y 151.1 197. 1 143.1 Regina 141.3 1 53. 1 n . a Winnipeg 137.9 114.9 99.8 T o r o n t o 75.8 97.3 80.7 O t t a w a - H u l l 92.0 85.4 92.5 M o n t r e a l 80.4 67.9 100.9 H a l i fax 30.5 73.3 n . a . Canadian average 80.5 1 09.0 n . a . Source : Adapted from D . T . Scheffman, 'Some ev idence on the recent boom i n l a n d and h o u s i n g . ' I n Urban Housing M a r k e t s . E d i t e d by L . S . Bourne and J . R . H i t c h c o c k . T o r o n t o : Toronto U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1978, p . 59. For new s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d d w e l l i n g s f i n a n c e d under the N a t i o n a l Hous ing Act (average t o t a l c o s t s as e s t imated by owner and b u i l d i n g a p p l i c a n t s at t ime of a p p r o v a l for NHA f i n a n c i n g ) - tends to underes t imate p r i c e s . k Average d o l l a r va lue per MLS t r a n s a c t i o n over a l l such t r a n s a c t i o n s ( i n c l u d i n g houses , apar tments , vacant l a n d , commercia l and i n d u s t r i a l p r o p e r t i e s ) - tends to o v e r e s t i m a t e house p r i c e s . c New House P r i c e Index ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada) , 1971=100 1 28 3 . . . . Scheffman has argued for the g e n e r a l i s a b i l i t y of hous ing i n f l a t i o n a c r o s s Canadian urban c e n t r e s d u r i n g the e a r l y to mid 1970 ' s , such t h a t i n each major urban c e n t r e i n Canada a boom p e r i o d f e l l between e a r l y 1972 and the end of 1976. As shown i n t a b l e 3 . 1 , there i s some v a r i a b l i t y i n the e x t r e m i t y of the house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n a c r o s s urban c e n t r e s , but the g e n e r a l s i t u a t i o n i s c l e a r . S i m i l a r l y , the Roya l T r u s t Survey 4 . of Canadian House P r i c e s i n d i c a t e s a g e n e r a l slump i n house p r i c e s between 1976 and 1978 ( n o t i n g a v a r i a t i o n i n the more s p e c i f i c t i m i n g a c r o s s urban c e n t r e s ) , wi th a tendency for house p r i c e s to i n c r e a s e i n 1979, shown i n t a b l e 3 .2 . Thus one can argue that g e n e r a l l y homeowners in major urban c e n t r e s a c r o s s Canada were e x p e r i e n c i n g r o u g h l y comparable hous ing market s h i f t s . A t h i r d c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to the Urban Change i n Canada survey i s the b a s i s for g e n e r a l i s a b i l i t y , t h a t i s , the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of the survey d a t a . R e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s i s one of the key b e n e f i t s of u t i l i s i n g t h i s type of survey d a t a , as w e l l as the s u b s t a n t i a l sample s i z e . The survey was c o n -ducted by the I n s t i t u t e fo r B e h a v i o r a l Research at York U n i v e r s i t y and i n v o l v e d a n a t i o n a l sample of 3475 p e r s o n s , 18 D . T . Scheffman,"Some ev idence on the r ecent boom i n l a n d and hous ing p r i c e s , " i n Urban Hous ing M a r k e t s : Recent d i r e c t i o n s i n r e s e a r c h and p o l i c y , e d . L . S . Bourne and J . R . H i t c h c o c k ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1978), pp . 57-85. 4 . . . Roya l T r u s t Survey of Canadian House P r i c e s , a t h r i c e annua l s u r v e y . 1 29 TABLE 3 .2 P e r c e n t a g e Change i n House P r i c e by Urban A r e a (or s p e c i f i c u rban n e i g h b o u r h o o d ) , Augus t 1976-June 1979 Augus t 1976 O c t . 1977 O c t . 1978 - June 1977 - June 1978 - June 1979 K e r r i s d a l e ( V a n c o u v e r ) 1 .1 3 .2 10.8 Sherwood P a r k (Edmonton) .5 9 .9 5 .7 Southwes t C a l g a r y -1 .9 9 .8 2 . 1 R e g i n a 12.1 4 . 6 5 . 3 W i n n i p e g 9 .8 1 .8 6 .0 C e n t r a l T o r o n t o 5 .3 2 .0 9 .7 H u l l 5 .0 0 .0 7.1 B e a c o n s f i e l d ( M o n t r e a l ) - 2 . 6 8 . 3 7 .3 H a l i f ax 7 .8 3 .9 5 .4 S o u r c e : A d a p t e d from R o y a l T r u s t S u r v e y of C a n a d i a n House P r i c e s . P r i c e changes i n d i c a t e d f o r t h r e e bedroom b u n g a l o w s . y e a r s of age and o v e r . The sample was d e s i g n e d t o a l l o w f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e e s t i m a t e s of t h e n a t i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n and i n v o l v e d what i s termed a m u l t i - s t a g e s a m p l i n g p r o c e d u r e . The p r i m a r y s t r a t i f i c a t i o n f a c t o r used was degree of u r b a n i s a t i o n . E n u m e r a t i o n a r e a s were s t r a t i f i e d i n terms of f o u r urban s i z e g r o u p s (by p o p u l a t i o n -.over 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , between 10 ,000 and 9 9 , 9 9 9 , between 1000 and 9999 and l e s s t h a n 1000 or r u r a l ) . The 1 30 s e v e n t y - s i x enumerat ion areas s e l e c t e d were sampled w i t h a p r o b a b i l i t y p r o p o r t i o n a l to t h e i r e s t i m a t e d s i z e a c c o r d i n g to 1971 census househo ld t o t a l s . For each sample enumerat ion a r e a , a s e l e c t i o n of d w e l l i n g s were randomly sampled. W i t h i n each sampled d w e l l i n g t h e n , households were randomly s e l e c t e d . F i n a l l y , for each h o u s e h o l d , i n d i v i d u a l s of 18 year s or o l d e r 5 were randomly sampled A b r i e f l i s t i n g of some of the demographic c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s of the urban sample f o l l o w s . Of the persons i n t e r -v iewed , 63% i d e n t i f i e d themselves as the head of household and 37% as the spouse of the household head . In terms of re spon-d e n t s ' sex, 43% are male w h i l e 57% i n t e r v i e w e d are female . With r e spec t to household t y p e , 19% of the respondents are s i n g l e p e r s o n s , 76% members of a n u c l e a r f a m i l y , 1% members of an extended f a m i l y , 1% members of a n u c l e a r f a m i l y p l u s non-r e l a t i v e s and 3% l i v e w i t h o t h e r s who are n o n - r e l a t i v e s . The ages of respondents range from 18 to 89: 31% of the sample i s l e s s than 30 year s o l d , 25% are aged between 30 and 39, 15% between 40 and 49, 18% between 50 and 64, and 11% of the sample are 65 year s of age and o l d e r . A d d i t i o n a l demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o n c e r n i n g soc io-economic s t a t u s w i l l be ou t -l i n e d f o l l o w i n g a d i s c u s s i o n of the c a t e g o r i e s employed. S o c i a l Change i n Canada: Trends i n A t t i t u d e s , V a l u e s and P e r c e p t i o n s . N a t i o n a l c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l s u r v e y , Phase 2. Codebook d i s t r i b u t e d by the I n s t i t u t e for B e h a v i o u r a l R e s e a r c h . 131 P a r t i t i o n i n g of the Sample 1. F i v e Measures of S t r a t i f i c a t i o n - C l a s s , SES, E d u c a t i o n , Household Income and L i f e - c y c l e In the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s of the S o c i a l Change i n Canada survey the r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing s i t u a t i o n and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s , as w e l l as hous ing s i t u a t i o n and community v a l u e s , are e v a l u a t e d . In a t t e m p t i n g to e v a l u a t e the ' i n d e p e n d e n t ' i n f l u e n c e of hous ing s i t u a t i o n , o ther measures of s o c i o -economic s i t u a t i o n are assembled w i t h the i n t e n t of h o l d i n g these a d d i t i o n a l measures ' c o n s t a n t ' to e v a l u a t e hous ing e f f e c t s . S e l e c t i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e ca tegory of soc io -economic s t a n d i n g or s o c i a l c l a s s i s not an unprob lemat i c c o n s i d e r a -t i o n ; the manner i n which one c o n c e p t u a l l y ' c a r v e s up' r e a l i t y at t h i s stage has b e a r i n g on f u r t h e r a n a l y s e s of the e f f e c t s of hous ing s i t u a t i o n . Given the importance of the d e c i s i o n t h e n , i t i s a p o i n t of f r u s t r a t i o n not o n l y that many a v a i l -ab le e m p i r i c a l d i s s e c t i o n s of s o c i a l c l a s s seem to be conducted w i t h l i t t l e over t c o n s i d e r a t i o n g i v e n to t h e o r y , ^ but a l s o that t h e o r e t i c a l l y deve loped d i s c u s s i o n s of c l a s s are r a r e l y s y s t e m a t i c a l l y extended to an e m p i r i c a l l e v e l . B .R . B l i s h e n and Hugh A . McRober t s , "A R e v i s e d Socioeconomic Index for o c c u p a t i o n s i n C a n a d a , " Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and A n t h r o p o l o g y 13 (1976) , 7 1 - 7 9 . ; Pe te r C . P i n e o , John P o r t e r and Hugh A . McRober t s , "The 1971 Census and the Soc ioeconomic C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of O c c u p a t i o n s , " Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and A n t h r o p o l o g y 14 (1977) , 91-102. ' . 1 32 I t i s a w i d e l y accepted p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o i n t that e m p i r i -7 c a l c a t e g o r i e s r e s t on t h e o r e t i c a l a s sumpt ions . E r i c O l i n 8 Wright has deve loped a u s e f u l typo logy of some of the types of t h e o r e t i c a l d e c i s i o n s tha t l i e behind d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t u a l -i s a t i o n s of s o c i a l c l a s s . He f i r s t l y d i s t i n q u i s h e s between g r a d a t i o n a l and r e l a t i o n a l t h e o r i e s of c l a s s , the former assuming a continuum of c l a s s p o s i t i o n s d i f f e r i n g o n l y q u a n t i -t a t i v e l y i n terms of the degree to which the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which c o n s t i t u t e the c r i t e r i o n of d i v i s i o n (such as income or s t a tu s ) are pos se s sed , the l a t t e r i n v o l v i n g d e f i n i t i o n s of c l a s s e s i n terms of t h e i r s t r u c t u r e d s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to o ther c l a s s e s (such as s e l l e r s and buyers of l abour power) . W i t h i n r e l a t i o n a l c l a s s models , Wright f u r t h e r d i s t i n g u i s h e s between those i n which c l a s s e s are a n a l y s e d i n terms of market r e l a t i o n s ( for i n s t a n c e , weberian c l a s s e s ) and those i n which c l a s s e s are a n a l y s e d p r i m a r i l y w i t h i n p r o d u c t i o n . Of the l a t -t e r , these v a r i o u s l y i n v o l v e d e f i n i t i o n s of c l a s s i n which p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s are a n a l y s e d p r i m a r i l y i n terms of the t e c h n i c a l d i v i s i o n of l abour (a t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n a s soc-g i a t e d w i t h p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l t h e o r i s t s ), i n terms of a u t h o r i t y A . G o u l d n e r , The Coming C r i s i s of Western S o c i o l o g y (New Y o r k : B a s i c Books'^ 1970); The Two Marxisms (New Y o r k : Seabury P r e s s , 1980); R. Keat and J . U r r y , S o c i a l Theory as Sc i ence (London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l , 1975). o E . O . W r i g h t , C l a s s S t r u c t u r e and Income D e t e r m i n a t i o n (New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1979). D. B e l l , The coming of p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y (New Y o r k : Ba s i c Books, 1973). 1 33 r e l a t i o n s ( a s s o c i a t e d with Dahrendorf or as a system of e x p l o i t a t i o n (the marxist p e r s p e c t i v e ) . Understanding that t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions a t t e n d any a p p l i c a t i o n of s o c i a l c l a s s , the most s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d way of proceeding would seem to be to attempt to o p e r a t i o n a l i s e a r e l a t i v e l y coherent t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e i n the most c o n s i s t e n t manner p o s s i b l e . In terms of s o c i a l c l a s s / s t r a t i f i c a t i o n measures, four such conceptions are s i n g l e d out f o r a n a l y s i s . F i r s t l y , a marxist c l a s s conception i s i d e n t i f i e d , p r i n c i p a l l y because of the c e n t r a l i t y of the marxist p e r s p e c t i v e to the arguments concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p between housing tenure and p o l i t i -c a l a t t i t u d e s . From a marxist p e r s p e c t i v e , housing tenure d i s t i n c t i o n s l e a d to a t t i t u d i n a l divergences which mask objec-t i v e c l a s s homogeneity. While, from a marxist p e r s p e c t i v e , c l a s s e s d e s c r i b e the b a s i c s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s i n s o c i e t y , the loose a s s o c i a t i o n between c l a s s and c l a s s consciousness makes i t somewhat d i f f i c u l t to t r a n s l a t e c l a s s r e l a t i o n s to the a t t i t u d i n a l realm i n the way of e m p i r i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . 1^ N e v e r t h e l e s s , the c l a s s concept i s employed here, i n p a r t , i n acknowledgement that i t summarises, i f not e x h a u s t i v e l y , important s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y and thus i s an important means of c o n c e p t u a l i s i n g s o c i a l r e a l i t y . R. Dahrendorf, C l a s s and C l a s s C o n f l i c t i n I n d u s t r i a l S o c i e t y (Palo A a l t o , C a l . : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1959). 1 1 T h i s i s not unique to marxist theory, of course. 1 34 A measure of s o c i a l c l a s s , d e r i v e d from the weberian p e r -s p e c t i v e , and by d e f i n i t i o n a s t r a t i f i c a t i o n measure more c l o s e l y r e l e v a n t to a t t i t u d e s , i s a l s o employed. The term s o c i a l c l a s s i s used w i t h i n weberian theory to r e f e r to a c l u s t e r of c l a s s s i t u a t i o n s which are l i n k e d because they . . 12 i n v o l v e common m o b i l i t y c h a n c e s . I t i s thus a more encom-p a s s i n g s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n concept which i n c l u d e s elements of s t a t u s and c l a s s . In p r a c t i c a l terms i t i s a l i g n e d more c l o s e l y w i t h o c c u p a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s than i s the m a r x i s t c l a s s c o n c e p t i o n . For the present purpose s , the c l a s s and s o c i a l c l a s s measures are taken to be d i f f e r e n t i d e a l t y p i c a l ways of c o n c e p t u a l i s i n g s o c i a l r e a l i t y . I n c r e a s i n g l y , there i s an u n d e r s t a n d i n g that marx i s t c l a s s and s o c i a l c l a s s c o n c e p t i o n s are d i s t i n c t but not t o t a l l y a n t a g o n i s t i c ways of v i e w i n g 1 3 s o c i a l r e a l i t y . K a t z , Doucet and S te rn have employed a s i m i l a r s t r a t e g y of u s i n g both m a r x i s t c l a s s and s o c i a l c l a s s measures i n t h e i r e m p i r i c a l work i n an attempt to ba lance what As Giddens n o t e s , the s o c i a l c l a s s concept s t a b i -l i s e s the weberian c l a s s schema w h i c h , d e f i n e d through mem-b e r s ' command over forms of p r o p e r t y which can r e a l i s e income i n any market s i t u a t i o n and through the marketable s k i l l s and s e r v i c e s h e l d by the people a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a c l a s s , has a tendency to l e a d to an i n f i n i t e p l u r a l i t y of c l a s s e s . (A. G i d d e n s , The c l a s s s t r u c t u r e of advanced s o c i e t i e s , (London: Hutchinson"! 1973)) . Weber d i s t i n g u i s h e d four s o c i a l c l a s s e s i n h i s own day : the manual working c l a s s , the p e t t y bour-g e o i s i e , p r o p e r t y l e s s w h i t e - c o l l a r workers and the p r o p e r t i e d b o u r g e o i s i e . i 3 M . B . K a t z , . M . J . Doucet and M . J . S t e r n , The S o c i a l O r g a n i s a t i o n of E a r l y I n d u s t r i a l C a p i t a l i s m (Cambridge, Mass : Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1982). 1 35 they take to be the u n d e r l y i n g dynamic p r o p e r t i e s and the complex p a t t e r n of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y . W r i g h t , as w e l l as G r i f f i n and K a l l e b e r g , argue tha t c l a s s e s are d e f i n e d by the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n , w h i l e o c c u p a t i o n s are d e f i n e d by the t e c h n i c a l d i v i s i o n of 1 4 l a b o u r . They demonstrate e m p i r i c a l l y that o c c u p a t i o n a l or s o c i a l c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s do not o v e r l a p p e r f e c t l y w i t h m a r x i s t c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s but that c l a s s e s and o c c u p a t i o n s are both " d e c i s i v e d imens ions of the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of c a p i t a l i s t o r g a n i s a t i o n of p r o d u c t i o n , and both 1 5 of them determine the empty p l a c e s w i t h i n p r o d u c t i o n . " The p o i n t of t h e o r e t i c a l advance h inges on the r e c o g n i t i o n that there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l a s s and o c c u p a t i o n , w i t h o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n s p l a y i n g an important r o l e in c r e a t i n g d e c i s i v e s o c i a l s t r a t a w i t h i n c l a s s e s and a l s o i n s t r u c t u r i n g c l a s s r e l a t i o n s . Both c l a s s and s o c i a l c l a s s measures are employed h e r e ; the i n c l u s i o n of the s o c i a l c l a s s measure i n d i c a t e s an a p p r e c i a t i o n of the importance of s o c i a l E . O . W r i g h t , " C l a s s and O c c u p a t i o n , " Theory and S o c i e t y 9 (1980), 177-214; L . J . G r i f f i n and A . L . K a l l e b e r g , " S t r a t i f i c a t i o n and m e r i t o c r a c y i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s : c l a s s and o c c u p a t i o n a l r e c r u i t m e n t p a t t e r n s , " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y 32 (1981) , 1-38. 1 5 E . O . W r i g h t , I b i d . , p . 1 9 4 . The r e f e r e n c e to empty p l a c e s i n d i c a t e s a concern fo r p o s i t i o n i n s o c i e t a l s t r u c t u r e as opposed to the a c t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l s who ' f i l l ' these p l a c e s . T h i s s t r u c t u r a l i s t o r i e n t a t i o n to c l a s s has been c r i t i c i s e d , for i n s t a n c e i n S o c i a l C l a s s and the D i v i s i o n of Labour : Es says i n honour of I l y a Neus tad t , ed . A . Giddens and G . MacKenzie (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1982); E . P . Thompson, The p o v e r t y of theory and o ther es says (New Y o r k : Monthly Review P r e s s , 1978). 136 s t r a t a not n e c e s s a r i l y a l i g n e d a l o n g c l a s s l i n e s i n r e l a t i o n to a t t i t u d e s . For the purpose of c l a r i t y of p r e s e n t a t i o n , weberian s o c i a l c l a s s e s w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as SES measures when d i s c u s s i n g the S o c i a l Change i n Canada data s e t . The term c l a s s i s r e se rved for the m a r x i s t c l a s s d e f i n i t i o n . At a pragmat ic l e v e l , i t i s u s e f u l to c o n s i d e r c l a s s and s o c i a l c l a s s (SES) t o g e t h e r . A l t h o u g h they are d e r i v e d from d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n s , e n t a i l d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l a s sumpt ions , and have a d i f f e r e n t e x p l a n a t o r y s t a t u s w i t h i n these t r a d i t i o n s , for pragmat ic purposes i t may be u s e f u l to ' p l a y o f f ' one a g a i n s t the o t h e r . What i s g e n e r a l l y lumped toge ther as the working c l a s s w i t h i n the m a r x i s t schema o u t -l i n e d below i s ca rved up more f i n e l y i n t o s t a t u s groups w i t h i n the SES schema used here and thus the l a t t e r o f f e r s c l u e s to d i s t i n c t i o n s w i t h i n the working c l a s s . C o n v e r s e l y , the bour-g e o i s i e or c a p i t a l i s t c a tegory of the m a r x i s t schema i s much more s p e c i f i c than that of the SES c a t e g o r y i n c l u d i n g mana-g e r s , owners and p r o f e s s i o n a l s . F i n a l l y , the d i f f e r e n t i n -f l u e n c e s of income and e d u c a t i o n are e x p l o r e d s e p a r a t e l y . In terms of the marx i s t c l a s s c o n c e p t , i t i s no longer p o s s i b l e to p i n p o i n t e a s i l y ' t h e ' m a r x i s t theory of c l a s s , g iven the v a r i e t y of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d by those c l a i m -ing a f f i l i a t i o n to the marx i s t p e r s p e c t i v e . 1 ^ The t h e o r e t i c a l A . G i d d e n s , " C l a s s e s , C a p i t a l i s m and the S t a t e , " Theory and S o c i e t y 9 (1980), 877-890; F . P a r k i n , Marxism and C l a s s Theory ; A Bourgeo i s C r i t i q u e (London: T a v i s t o c k , 1977). 137 and e m p i r i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of C a r c h e d i and Wright are deve loped h e r e . T h i s s e l e c t i o n r e s t s on s e v e r a l t h e o r e t i c a l and pragmat ic r e a s o n s . The work of these au thor s i n p a r t i c u -l a r i s f r e q u e n t l y drawn upon by r e s e a r c h e r s w i s h i n g to opera -t i o n a l i s e a marx i s t c o n c e p t i o n of c l a s s . Dunleavy c l a i m s that Wright and P e r r o n e ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n i s " the best M a r x i s t e m p i r i -c a l work on s o c i a l c l a s s b o u n d a r i e s " and O r n s t e i n , u s i n g an e a r l i e r S o c i a l Change i n Canada s u r v e y , has o p e r a t i o n a l i s e d c l a s s by means of both W r i g h t ' s and C a r c h e d i ' s t h e o r e t i c a l 1 8 schemas. Saunders d i s c o u n t s "an a p p l i c a t i o n of the P o u l a n t z i a n p o s i t i o n " on the grounds that i t " e n c o u n t e r s the problem of whether and how i d e o l o g i c a l c l a s s p r a c t i s e s can be seen as c o n s t i t u a t i v e of o b j e c t i v e c l a s s r e l a t i o n s " and a l s o 1 g opts to c o n s i d e r more f u l l y C a r c h e d i ' s schema. Thus there seems a d i f f u s e consensus on the t h e o r e t i c a l importance and G . C a r c h e d i , On the Economic I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of • S o c i a l C l a s s e s (London! Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1977); E . O . W r i g h t , C l a s s S t r u c t u r e ; E . O . Wright and L . P e r r o n e , " M a r x i s t C l a s s C a t e g o r i e s and Income I n e q u a l i t y , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 42 (1977), 32-55. 1 8 P. Dunleavy , "The urban b a s i s of p o l i t i c a l a l i g n m e n t : s o c i a l c l a s s , domest ic p r o p e r t y , and s t a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n i n consumption p r o c e s s e s , " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l Sc i ence 9 (1979) , 409-443; M. O r n s t e i n , A . M . S tevenson , A . P . W i l l i a m s , " R e g i o n , C l a s s and P o l i t i c a l C u l t u r e i n C a n a d a , " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e 13 (1983) , 227-271; W. Johnston and M. O r n s t e i n , " C l a s s , work and p o l i t i c s , " Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and A n t h r o p o l o g y 19 (1982) , 196-214. 19 . . . P. Saunders , Urban P o l i t i c s : A S o c i o l o g i c a l Approach (London: H u t c h i n s o n , 1979) , p~. 98~. 1 38 20 e m p i r i c a l p r a c t i c a l i t y of these p a r t i c u l a r a u t h o r s ' work The d e t a i l s of o p e r a t i o n a l i s i n g a v a r i a n t of C a r c h e d i ' s and W r i g h t ' s c l a s s d e f i n i t i o n s are o u t l i n e d i n Appendix I I . More s i m p l y , four c l a s s e s are i d e n t i f i e d : b o u r g e o i s i e , p e t t y bour-• • . 21 g e o i s i e , new middle and working c l a s s . As w e l l as o p e r a t i o n a l i s i n g a marxian c l a s s d e f i n i t i o n , weberian s o c i a l c l a s s theory i s c o n c e p t u a l i s e d i n e m p i r i c a l terms . A g a i n , t h i s i s not a c l e a r - c u t t a sk , not the l e a s t be-cause Weber h i m s e l f p r e s e n t s two, not e n t i r e l y c o m p a t i b l e , 22 v e r s i o n s of c l a s s theory . The d e t a i l s of the way i n which s o c i a l c l a s s i s o p e r a t i o n a l i s e d are a l s o o u t l i n e d i n Appendix I I . F i v e SES c a t e g o r i e s are d e l i n e a t e d : one c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e s h i g h l e v e l managers, p r o f e s s i o n a l s and owners of b u s i n e s s e s ; the o ther four c a t e g o r i e s are broken down i n t o n o n s k i l l e d manual , n o n s k i l l e d nonmanual, s k i l l e d manual and s k i l l e d nonmanual worker s . Appended to both c l a s s or SES d e f i n i t i o n s i s a r e s i d u a l 0 20 A l s o R. H a r r i s , G . L e v i n e and B. Osborne , "Hous ing tenure and s o c i a l c l a s s e s i n K i n g s t o n O n t a r i o , 1881-1901," J o u r n a l of H i s t o r i c a l Geography 7 (1981) , 271-289. 2 1 These c a t e g o r i e s of c l a s s come c l o s e to Weber ' s breakdown of s o c i a l c l a s s e s . N o t e , however, tha t Weber r e -t a i n e d a d i s t i n c t i o n between manual and nonmanual worker s , a d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t m a r x i s t s have been q u i t e emphatic i n r e j e c t -i n g . Neo-weberians have tended to c o n c e p t u a l i s e the manual and nonmanual c l a s s e s more f i n e l y , as noted i n Appendix I I . I t i s t h i s f i n e r g r a d a t i o n which i s s i g n i f i c a n t to the a n a l y s i s ; j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s p u t e s over c a t e g o r i e s are q u i t e i r r e l e v a n t . A . Giddens and D. H e l d , " I n t r o d u c t i o n " i n C l a s s e s , Power and C o n f l i c t ( B e r k l e y : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1982), p . 10. 1 39 ca tegory which i n c l u d e s s t u d e n t s , widowed, separa ted and d i -v o r c e d women who are not employed, unemployed, and r e t i r e d p e r s o n s . F u r t h e r , i n the case of both c l a s s or SES d e f i n i t i o n s , i t i s the employment of the head of household which i s c o n -s i d e r e d r a t h e r than that of the respondent ( i n the cases i n which these are not the same). Head of househo ld was chosen to o p e r a t i o n a l i s e the c l a s s and SES c a t e g o r i e s , r a t h e r than main wage-earner , w i t h the u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t i t e n c a p s u l a t e s some q u a l i t a t i v e s t a t u s d i s t i n c t i o n s w i t h i n the h o u s e h o l d . In any c a s e , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between head of househo ld and main wage e a r n e r , w h i l e not p e r f e c t , o v e r l a p p e d to a c o n s i d e r a b l e ex-t e n t . Of those who i d e n t i f y themselves as head of h o u s e h o l d , 92% a l s o c o n s i d e r themselves to be the main wage e a r n e r . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , of those who c o n s i d e r . t h e m s e l v e s to be the spouse of the househo ld head, 14% i d e n t i f y themselves as main wage e a r n e r s . In most cases the head of household i s male , a l t h o u g h t h i s v a r i e s w i t h age, as shown i n t a b l e 3 . 3 . , w i th more female househo ld heads over 65. In t a b l e s 3.4 and 3.5 the a c t u a l c l a s s s i t u a t i o n of TABLE 3.3 Percentage Household Heads Male and Spouses Female Respondents ' Age % Household % Spouses Heads Male Female < 30 65.5 96.6 30-39 69.3 97.3 40-49 76.8 97.7 50-64 65.2 98.3 > 65 50.3 100.0 1 40 spouses i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r husbands ' ( i n most cases ) c l a s s ca tegory i s shown. Employing the marx i s t c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s , 77.7% of a l l spouses working are c a t e g o r i s e d as working c l a s s in terms of t h e i r own o c c u p a t i o n s , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r hus-bands c l a s s r a n k i n g . T h i s v a r i e s to a degree w i t h household heads ' o c c u p a t i o n s : 84.2% of a l l working spouses of household heads c l a s s i f i e d as working c l a s s were a l s o c l a s s i f i e d as working c l a s s w h i l e 68% of a l l working spouses of househo ld heads c l a s s i f i e d as b o u r g e o i s i e were c l a s s i f i e d as working 23 c l a s s in terms of t h e i r own o c c u p a t i o n s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between spouses ' and househo ld heads ' o c c u p a t i o n s i s somewhat s t r o n g e r when the same data i s r e c l a s s i f i e d i n terms of SES. The p r a c t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e between the marx i s t c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s and the SES c a t e g o r i e s l i e s at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y i n the f a c t tha t the l a t t e r makes f i n e r d i s t i n c t i o n s w i t h i n the working c l a s s . A g a i n , however, the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s by no means ' p e r -f e c t ' . Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s the extent to which some of T h i s incongruency between the c l a s s p o s i t i o n s of household heads and spouses r a i s e s f a s c i n a t i n g t h e o r e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s which have not be adequa te ly d e a l t w i t h , e i t h e r here or in the l i t e r a t u r e . The p o s i t i o n of women i n the c l a s s system has s c a r c e l y been t r e a t e d by e i t h e r marx i s t or l i b e r a l w r i t e r s who s i m i l a r l y c o n c e i v e of the s t a t u s and c l a s s a t t r i -butes of f a m i l i e s i n terms of the household heads ' j o b s . The inadequacy of t r e a t i n g women as appendages, e s p e c i a l l y when they are engaged i n the workforce themse lves , has r e c e n t l y been r e c o g n i s e d and some at tempts have been made to formula te a l t e r n a t i v e c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n s of the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e : for example, D . E . Smi th , "Women, the F a m i l y and C o r p o r a t e C a p i t a l i s m , " and M. E i c h l e r "Women as P e r s o n a l D e p e n d e n t s , " in Women i n Canada, ed . M. Stephenson ( T o r o n t o : New P r e s s , 1973), pp . 2-35, 36-55; E . Garnsey , "Women's Work and T h e o r i e s of C l a s s S t r a t i f i c a t i o n , " S o c i o l o g y 12 (1978) , 223-243. 141 the spouses ' o c c u p a t i o n s are a c t u a l l y h i g h e r i n soc io-economic s t a t u s terms than tha t of the househo ld head, under s t andab le i n terms of o c c u p a t i o n s such as n u r s i n g and t e a c h i n g which are t r a d i t i o n a l l y female-dominated and c l a s s i f i e d as s k i l l e d non-manual . Whi le i t may be for t h i s reason a q u e s t i o n a b l e p r a c -t i c e to group spouses under the househo ld heads ' c l a s s group-i n g s , the procedure has been one of d o i n g so, w i t h the under-s t a n d i n g that the s o c i a l dynamics w i t h i n the f a m i l y s t i l l g e n e r a l l y warrant t h i s type of male-dominated schema. F u r t h e r , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n of spouses i d e n t i f y i n g themselves as housewives d i f f e r s a c r o s s household head c l a s s and SES c a t e g o r i e s . There i s a much l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of spouses i d e n t i f i e d as housewives amongst n o n s k i l l e d and s k i l l e d manual househo ld heads . Housewives have a l s o been i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e i r spouses ' c l a s s r a n k i n g ; there i s some ev idence which j u s t i f i e s t h i s p a t t e r n of a f f i l -24 l a t i o n . I t shou ld be r e c o g n i s e d , however, tha t i n the case of spouses of household heads, a v a r i e t y of s u b j e c t i v e f a c t o r s which have not been c a r e f u l l y e x p l o r e d in the l i t e r a t u r e are brought i n t o the a n a l y s i s . These s u b j e c t i v e f a c t o r s are not pa r t of the c l a s s d e f i n i t i o n , at l e a s t , for the working house-h o l d heads . For t h i s rea son , the responses of the household heads and spouses are ana ly sed s e p a r a t e l y and the c l a s s and SES c a t e g o r i s a t i o n of spouses s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d w i t h these R. Vanneman and F . C . Pampel , "The American P e r c e p t i o n of C l a s s and S t a t u s , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 42 (1977) , 422-437. 142 T A B L E 3 . 4 C l a s s S t a n d i n g o f S p o u s e s , C l a s s i f i e d b y Own O c c u p a t i o n , I n R e l a t i o n t o H o u s e h o l d H e a d s ' C l a s s S t a n d i n g H o u s e h o l d C l a s s B y S p o u s e ' s O c c u p a t i o n H e a d ' s W o r k i n g M i d d l e P e t t y B o u r g - R e s i - H o u s e -C l a s s B o u r g - e o i s i e d u a l w i f e % N % N % N % N % N % N Work i n g 6 2 . . 1 3 1 0 4 . .4 22 3. .8 19 1 , .4 7 2 . 0 10 26 , , 3 131 M i d d l e 4 7 . .6 7 7 14 . . 2 23 1 . . 2 2 1 . . 2 2 1 . 2 2 34 , .6 56 P e t t y B. 4 9 . 2 31 1 1 . 1 7 1 1 . . 1 7 3. . 2 2 1 .6 1 23 . 8 15 B o u r g . 4 7 . 1 6 6 8 .6 12 2 . .9 4 10. .7 15 0 3 0 .7 43 R e s i d u a l 6 7 . .9 19 10. . 7 3 10, 7 3 10, , 7 3 0 - 0 S T A T I S T I C S : C h i S q u a r e = 9 2 . 5 9 , 2 0 d . f . . p . = . 0 0 T A B L E 3 . 5 S E S C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f S p o u s e s , By Own O c c u p a t i o n , I n R e l a t i o n t o S E S C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f H o u s e h o l d H e a d S p o u s e s ' S ES H o u s e h o l d N o n s k i l l e d S k i l l e d M a n a g e r s R e s i - H o u s e -H e a d s ' M a n u a l N o n M a n u a l N o n d u a l w i v e s SES m a n u a l m a n u a l ' % N % N % N % N % N % N % N N o n s . M a n . 21 35 22 34 2 3 16 24 5 8 3 4 31 4 9 N o n s . Nman . 8 6 19 14 7 5 39 29 8 6 1 1 18 14 S k i 1 l e d M a n . 12 25 21 41 3 6 21 41 7 13 2 3 34 68 Sk i 1 1 e d N m a n . 4 7 25 38 1 1 35 53 13 19 2 3 2 0 2 9 M a n a g e r s 5 15 12 35 2 7 25 72 25 7 1 1 2 3 0 85 R e s i dua1 7 2 14 4 7 2 36 10 36 10 - 0 - 0 S T A T I S T I C S : C h i S q u a r e = 1 4 5 . 7 9 , 30 d . f . , p . = . 0 0 1 43 c a v e a t s i n m i n d . Three f u r t h e r s t r a t i f i c a t i o n measure s , e d u c a t i o n , h o u s e -h o l d income , and l i f e - c y c l e a r e c o n t r o l l e d , w i t h t h e u n d e r -s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e s e v a r i a b l e s a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s and a c t i v i s m . E d u c a t i o n and income a r e o p e r a t i o n a l i s e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner :1 ) f o r t h e e d u c a t i o n c o n t r o l , r e s p o n -d e n t s a r e c l a s s i f i e d i n t o s i x c a t e g o r i e s of e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t , r u n n i n g from no h i g h s c h o o l t o a u n i v e r s i t y d e g r e e , 2) f o r t h e income c o n t r o l , r e s p o n d e n t s a r e c l a s s i f i e d by q u i n t i l e , a c c o r d i n g t o f a m i l y ( h o u s e h o l d head and s p o u s e ) , not i n d i v i d u a l , income . F i n a l l y , f o u r s t a g e s of l i f e - c y c l e a r e i d e n t i f i e d . A c a t e g o r y ' d e s i g n a t e d as s i n g l e r e f e r s t o u n m a r r i e d p e r s o n s younger t h a n 6 5 , a m a r r i e d c a t e g o r y r e f e r s t o m a r r i e d but c h i l d l e s s r e s p o n d e n t s under 65 , a f a m i l y c a t e -g o r y r e f e r s t o m a r r i e d r e s p o n d e n t s under 65 w i t h c h i l d r e n a t home, and an e l d e r l y g r o u p c o n s i s t s of r e s p o n d e n t s 65 y e a r s and o l d e r . I t i s f e l t t h a t t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schema i s r e l e v a n t t o h o u s i n g s i t u a t i o n ( i n te rms of space and n e i g h -bourhood r e q u i r e m e n t s ) as w e l l as h o u s e h o l d b u d g e t a r y c o n -s t r a i n t s . 2 . H o u s i n g C l a s s and H o u s i n g C o s t s Respondent s a r e g rouped i n te rms of h o u s i n g s i t u a t i o n i n two ways . F i r s t , they a r e g rouped a c c o r d i n g t o h o u s i n g c l a s s : t h a t i s , w h e t h e r they r e n t accommodat ion , a r e mortgaged home-o w n e r s , o r own t h e i r house o u t r i g h t . The l a t t e r d i s t i n c t i o n a l l o w s a rough e v a l u a t i o n of the a s s o c i a t i o n between mortgage 1 44 debt and a t t i t u d e s . Because c i r c u m s t a n c e s of mortgage debt were not q u e s t i o n e d d i r e c t l y , e s t i m a t e s of mortgage debt must be approximated through i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e on hous ing c o s t s . I f hous ing c o s t s for homeowners ( i n c l u d i n g mortgage payments, u t i l i t i e s , t axe s , and maintenance) are l e s s than $300 a month then i t i s assumed t h a t payments are not be ing made on a mortgage. T h i s i s undoubtedly a rough e s t i m a t e . On the one hand, the mortgaged c a t e g o r y may i n c l u d e o u t r i g h t owners w i t h h i g h upkeep expenses , on the o t h e r , the o u t r i g h t ca tegory may i n c l u d e mortgaged homeowners of l e s s expens ive houses . However, there i s a s u g g e s t i o n of a ' b r e a k ' at $300, i n d i c a t e d in F i g u r e 3 . 1 . With r e f e r e n c e to the m i s c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n of mortgaged homeowners w i t h low hous ing c o s t s , in fo rma-t i o n on annual p r o p e r t y taxes a lone i n 1979 a c r o s s a s e l e c t i o n of urban c e n t r e s i n d i c a t e the p l a u s i b i l i t y of t h i s c r i t e r i o n . The annual 1979 p r o p e r t y taxes of average three bedroom bunga-lows i n s e l e c t e d lower p r i c e d suburbs of s e v e r a l major urban c e n t r e s are shown i n t a b l e 3 .6 . W i t h average p r o p e r t y taxes of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $80 to $100 a month ac ro s s most suburbs (and these are lower p r i c e d s u b u r b s ) , and i n c l u d i n g u t i l i t y and maintenance c o s t s , a payment of l e s s than $300 a month c o u l d n o t , i n most c a s e s , i n c l u d e much i n the way of mortgage pay-ments . Thus i t does not seem tha t a c u t - o f f p o i n t of $300 per month w i l l c a p t u r e many mortgaged homeowners. Some support for t h i s c r i t e r i o n used to o p e r a t i o n a l i s e hous ing c l a s s i s o f f e r e d from an examinat ion of hous ing c l a s s by hous ing v a l u e . As shown i n t a b l e 3 . 7 , there _is a tendency for 1 45 FIGURE 3.1 Monthly Housing Cos t s For N a t i o n a l Urban Sample 1979 CD £ 3 110-100-90-80-70-6Q-50-30 20-10-150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950 Monthly Housing Costs (Homeowners Only) ($) SOURCE: S o c i a l Change i n Canada Survey , 1979 146 TABLE 3.6 House P r i c e s and Annual P r o p e r t y Taxes i n S e l e c t e d Urban Neighbourhoods , June 1979 Average P r o p e r t y Taxes House P r i c e s ( i n d o l l a r s ) Vancouver Richmond 72,000 900 Surrey 54,000 1000 M o n t r e a l Beaconsf i e l d 44,000 1075 P i e r r e f o n d s 36,000 1 200 Toronto C e n t r a l 89,500 1 1 50 Scarborough 70,500 925 Ottawa 62,000 1 300 H u l l 44,000 1 000 C a l g a r y Nor th H i l l 86,900 700 Southwest 80,000 675 Regina 60,000 750 Winnipeg S t . James - A s s i n i b o i a 62,000 1 100 Nor th K i l d o n a n 61,900 950 H a l i fax 59,000 875 Source : Adapted from Roya l T r u s t Survey of Canadian House P r i c e s , June 1st , 1979. F i g u r e s p r e s e n t e d are those for a three bedroom bungalow. 1 47 TABLE 3.7 Hous ing C l a s s by Housing Va lue Housing C l a s s Housing V a l u e <30,000 30,000- 61 ,000- 101,000- >200,000 60,000 100,000 200,000 % N % N % N % N % N Mortgaged Homeowner 2 .9 14 45.0 221 41.1 202 10.2 50 .8 4 O u t r i g h t Homeowner 6.7 31 49.0 227 39.5 183 3.7 17 1.1 5 STATISTICS: K e n d a l l ' s Tau=- .12 , p . = . 0 0 a a . K e n d a l l ' s Tau i s a nonparametr ic s t a t i s t i c which assumes an o r d i n a l l e v e l of measure. A h i g h e r s core i n d i c a t e s a g r e a t e r degree of a s s o c i a t i o n between v a r i a b l e s . non-mortgaged houses to be somewhat lower i n p r i c e , a tendency which i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s c o u l d suggest tha t the o u t r i g h t homeownership ca tegory i s a c t u a l l y p i c k i n g up homeowners i n lower p r i c e d hous ing and not d i s c r i m i n a t i n g on the b a s i s of mortgage debt or that the mortgaged ca tegory i n c l u d e s o u t r i g h t owners of very expens ive h o u s i n g . However, w h i l e the 6.7% of (or 31) respondents i n the l e a s t expens ive hous ing c a t e g o r i e d as o u t r i g h t owners might a c t u a l l y be mort-gaged homeowners w i t h ext remely low monthly mortgage payments, the f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s some d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between homeowners w i t h i n t h i s lower p r i c e d group suggests tha t t h i s i s not the c a s e . T h i s type of m i s c a t e g o r i s a t ion of mortgaged and o u t -1 48 r i g h t owners becomes l e s s l i k e l y as the house p r i c e s i n c r e a s e . There are s e v e r a l reasons why o u t r i g h t owners might underva lue t h e i r houses compared to mortgaged homeowners, i n any c a s e . One reason i s tha t they may be r e l a t i v e l y out of touch w i t h market v a l u e s . So t o o , i t i s p o s s i b l e that hous ing owned o u t r i g h t i s a c t u a l l y worth l e s s because of f a c t o r s such as age of h o u s i n g . F i n a l l y , the f a c t that the c r i t e r i o n employed d i s t i n g u i s h e s amongst homeowners w i t h houses exceed ing $200,000 i n v a l u e , suggests that the m i s c a t e g o r i s a t i o n of o u t r i g h t owners of expens ive hous ing i s not a s e r i o u s prob lem. G e n e r a l l y , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing v a l u e and hous ing c l a s s seems to o f f e r support r a t h e r than i n v a l i d a t e the opera -t i o n a l i s e d hous ing c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s . Another p o s s i b i l i t y , however, i s that the non-mortgaged ca tegory i s a c t u a l l y i s o l a t i n g a group of homeowners who have s imply owned t h e i r houses longer and hence are p a y i n g r e l a -t i v e l y sma l l mortgages on l e s s i n f l a t e d hous ing p r i c e s . T h i s type of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s e q u a l l y r e l e v a n t because the t h e o r e -t i c a l i n t e r e s t i n mortgage debt r e s t s on the burden i t p r e -sents to the f a m i l y budget . As shown i n t a b l e 3 .8 , o u t r i g h t homeowners, as d e f i n e d h e r e , do seem to be l e s s c o n s t r a i n e d by hous ing c o s t s as a p r o p o r t i o n of household income. For home-owners, those pay ing between 0 and 10% of t h e i r income to hous ing c o s t s are p r i n c i p a l l y o u t r i g h t homeowners w h i l e those pay ing over 30% of househo ld income to hous ing c o s t s are c h i e f l y mortgaged homeowners. The few o u t r i g h t homeowners p a y i n g over 30% of househo ld income to hous ing are p r o b a b l y 1 49 e l d e r l y homeowners, an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n suggested by the f a c t that 83% of o u t r i g h t homeowners i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n had an annual income up to $8000 i n 1978. G e n e r a l l y , r e n t e r s and mortgaged homeowners are about e q u a l l y c o n s t r a i n e d by hous ing c o s t s . TABLE 3.8 Hous ing C l a s s by Housing Cos t s as a P r o p o r t i o n of Household Income Hous ing C l a s s Hous ing Cos t s N 0 - 1 0% 1 1 -30% over 30% % N % N % N Renter s 13.5 1 07 64.2 510 22.3 1 77 794 Homeowners Mortgaged 3.0 1 4 67.8 312 29.2 1 34 460 O u t r i g h t 38.2 1 32 53.5 1 85 8.4 29 346 As a l l u d e d to above, the second measure of h o u s i n g s i tua t i o n i n v o l v e s the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of respondents by tenure and hous ing c o s t s - t o - i n c o m e . Renter and ownership c a t e g o r i e s are d i v i d e d on the b a s i s of whether they spend l e s s than 10%, between 10 and 30% or over 30% of househo ld income on h o u s i n g . The p r i c e or va lue of hous ing i s not r e l a t e d to the impact of hous ing c o s t s on the househo ld incomes of home-owners. Of those pay ing l e s s than 10% of t h e i r income to hous ing c o s t s , 52.4% l i v e i n houses v a l u e d between $31,000 to $60,000 and 37.9% i n hous ing v a l u e d i n 1979 between $61,000 and $100,000. Of those p a y i n g over 30% of t h e i r househo ld income to hous ing c o s t s , 41.0% are l i v i n g i n hous ing va lued 1 50 between $31,000 and $60,000 and 45.6% own houses va lued i n 1979 from $61,000 to $100,000 ( K e n d a l l ' s Tau=.00, p=.84, N=788). The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the v a r i o u s s t r a t i f i c a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s i n the urban sample i d e n t i f i e d are shown in t a b l e 3 . 9 . When c a t e g o r i s e d by c l a s s , 52% of the p o p u l a t i o n i s working c l a s s , a l t h o u g h when r e c l a s s i f i e d by SES, the working c l a s s i s f a i r l y e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d amongst n o n s k i l l e d and s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual g roups . A l s o n o t a b l e i s the f ac t tha t 58% of the sample i s i n the f a m i l y l i f e - c y c l e c a t e g o r y . The sample i s e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d a c r o s s hous ing tenure and the m a j o r i t y of r e n t e r s and homeowners pay between 11-30% of t h e i r household income towards hous ing c o s t s . A n a l y t i c Method The r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing tenure and both p o l i t i -c a l a t t i t u d e s and community v a l u e s was a s ses sed by c r o s s t a b u l a t i n g hous ing c l a s s ( i . e . t e n a n t , homeowners w i t h mort-gages, o u t r i g h t homeowners) wi th an i n d i v i d u a l p o l i t i c a l a t t i -tude measure w h i l e c o n t r o l l i n g for one of f i v e s t r a t i f i c a t i o n measures ; c l a s s , SES, l i f e - c y c l e , household income and educa-t i o n . Because most of the v a r i a b l e s i n v o l v e o r d i n a l s c a l e s , the measure of a s s o c i a t i o n c o n s i d e r e d i s K e n d a l l ' s T a u . The t h e o r e t i c a l l e g i t i m a c y of c o n s i d e r i n g s e v e r a l of the v a r i a b l e s i n terms of o r d i n a l s c a l e s needs some j u s t i f i c a t i o n . For i n s t a n c e , hous ing c l a s s i s o rdered from r e n t e r , through mortgaged homeowner to o u t r i g h t homeowner on the b a s i s of degree of ownersh ip . An a l t e r n a t i v e c r i t e r i o n for o r d e r i n g 151 TABLE 3.9 Urban Sample D i s t r i b u t i o n A c r o s s S t r a t i f i c a t i o n C a t e g o r i e s Frequency Percent C l a s s Working 876 52 M i d d l e 244 1'4 P e t t y B o u r g e o i s i e 1 05 6 B o u r g e o i s i e 202 1 2 R e s i d u a l 263 1 6 SES N o n s k i l l e d manual 237 1 4 nonmanual 1 68 10 S k i l l e d manual 273 1 6 nonmanual 295 1 7 Managers , owners ~ and p r o f e s s i o n a l s 454 27 R e s i d u a l 263 16 L i f e - C y c l e S i n g l e 270 17 M a r r i e d 218 1 4 F a m i l y 919 58 E l d e r l y 1 65 1 1 Household Income 0-8999 299 1 7 9000-16,999 392 22 17,000-22,999 348 1 9 23,000-29,999 393 22 30,000 and over 353 20 Educat ion No h i g h s choo l 277 1 4 Some h i g h s choo l 41 1 21 High s c h o o l d iploma 421 22 T e c h n i c a l s c h o o l 178 9 Some c o l l e g e 323 1 7 C o l l e g e degree 320 1 7 Hous ing C l a s s Rent 926 48 Homeowner mortgaged 503 26 outr i gh t 507 26 Hous ing Cost To Income Renter s 10% and l e s s 1 07 1 3 11% - 30% 512 64 Over 30% 1 77 22 Homeowners 10% and l e s s 1 46 18 11% - 30% 497 62 Over 30% 1 63 20 1 52 would be degree of debt , which suggests a dichotomous s p l i t between mortgaged homeowners, and o u t r i g h t homeowners and r e n t e r s . The o r d i n a l i t y of the l i f e - c y c l e v a r i a b l e i s a l s o open to q u e s t i o n , l e s s on t h e o r e t i c a l grounds than on e m p i r i -c a l ; not everyone passes through the proposed c y c l e . F u r t h e r , the r e s i d u a l c a t e g o r y i s i n c l u d e d i n c a l c u l a t i o n s u s i n g c l a s s and SES and hence the o r d i n a l i t y of these v a r i a b l e s i s d i s t u r b e d . ( T h i s i s i r r e l e v a n t i n most cases because the focus i s g e n e r a l l y on hous ing c l a s s e s w i t h i n these c a t e g o r i e s . I t does , however, d i s t o r t the d i r e c t a s s o c i a t i o n s between c l a s s or SES and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s or b e h a v i o u r s . ) Because of t h i s t e n t a t i v e n e s s c o n c e r n i n g the o r d i n a l r a n k i n g of some v a r i a b l e s , the c h i square s t a t i s t i c i s a l s o c o n s i d e r e d . As w e l l , zero order and p a r t i a l gammas are p r e s e n t e d , the former measuring the r e l a t i o n s h i p between h o u s i n g c l a s s e s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i -tudes wi thout c o n t r o l l i n g for any o ther v a r i a b l e s , the l a t t e r measur ing the r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e , - c o n t r o l l i n g for o ther v a r i a b l e s . These gamma s t a t i s -t i c s are t r e a t e d as a n c i l l a r y a n a l y s e s . B l a l o c k has suggested t h a t p a r t i a l gammas shou ld be i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h some s k e p t i c i s m - gamma i s s e n s i t i v e to d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n m a r g i n a l d i s t r i b u -t i o n s and the p r o p e r t i e s of p a r t i a l r a n k - o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n s 25 are not w e l l known. H . M . J . B l a l o c k , S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s , 2nd e d . (New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l , 1972). 1 53 S i n g l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e items are a n a l y s e d s e p a r a t e l y . An a l t e r n a t i v e approach e n t a i l s the c o n s t r u c t i o n of m u l t i p l e item s c a l e s . Whi le the advantage of a t t i t u d i n a l s c a l e s i s a r educ-t i o n i n random e r r o r , t h i s i s a s m a l l worry w i t h such a l a r g e sample s i z e . S ince the need to be s e n s i t i v e to the r e l a t i o n -s h i p between hous ing tenure and d i f f e r e n t types of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o u r s has been s t r e s s e d , the i n d i v i d u a l t reatment of each p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e and behav iour seems j u s -t i f i e d . For the purpose of e x p o s i t i o n , the items are grouped i n t o common-sense c a t e g o r i e s . D i s t i n c t i o n s i n terms of p o l i - t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s are made between v o l u n t e e r work i n a p o l i t i -c a l campaign, working on a community prob lem, w r i t i n g or speak ing to an e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , s i g n i n g a p e t i t i o n and a t t e n d i n g a p r o t e s t mee t ing . P o l i t i c a l p a r t y membership at the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l l e v e l i s a s s e s s e d . The l e g i t i m a c y of d i f f e r e n t types of p r o t e s t i s a l s o c o n s i d e r e d , as are a t t i t u d e s towards economic i n e q u a l i t i e s and support for s o c i a l w e l f a r e measures , such as p r o v i d i n g a s s i s t a n c e to the unem-p l o y e d and h e l p i n g the p o o r . The exact wording of the i n d i v i -d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tems i s p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix I I I . C o r r e l a t i o n s Amongst S t r a t i f i c a t i o n Measures and Hous ing V a r i a b l e s 1. A s s o c i a t i o n s Amongst S t r a t i f i c a t i o n Measures Because of l i m i t a t i o n s i n sample s i z e , o n l y one or two v a r i a b l e s are g e n e r a l l y c o n t r o l l e d i n each c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n . Two i s s u e s w i l l be taken up i n t h i s s e c t i o n : the ex tent to which the c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s are c o r r e l a t e d amongst themselves 1 54 and whether hous ing c l a s s e s and c o s t s , the i s sue of c e n t r a l importance i n the a n a l y s i s , are s y s t e m a t i c a l l y confounded wi th p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . O b v i o u s l y , s y s t e m a t i c p a t t e r n s of confounding have s e r i o u s i m p l i c a t i o n s for what k i n d of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s can be made. F i r s t , the a s s o c i a t i o n s between c l a s s and SES c a t e g o r i e s and household income are shown i n t a b l e s 3.10 and 3 .11 . The r e l e v a n c e of the K e n d a l l ' s Tau s t a t i s t i c i s obscured i n both cases by the r e s i d u a l c a t e g o r y , i n the sense t h a t i t d i s t o r t s the o r d i n a l d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of the c l a s s and SES v a r i a b l e s and thus the c h i square s t a t i s t i c i s more a p p r o p r i a t e . Whi le the c h i square s t a t i s t i c measuring the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l a s s and household income i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , there i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e spread of income groupings a c ro s s a l l c l a s s c a t e -g o r i e s . I m p l i c a t i o n s of the spread of income w i t h i n c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s shou ld be drawn w i t h c a r e : one income and two income f a m i l i e s are both i n c l u d e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , the r e s i d u a l c a t egory which i s l a r g e l y composed of e l d e r l y and unemployed respondents i s most c o n s i s t e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d wi th low household incomes whi le per sons i n the b o u r g e o i s i e c a t e g o r y l a r g e l y have incomes i n the h i g h e s t r anges . The o ther three c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s are spread q u i t e e v e n l y a c r o s s income g r o u p i n g s . A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s w i t h the SES c a t e g o r i e s , a l t h o u g h i n t h i s case the manager i a l group i s not as c o n c e n t r a t e d w i t h i n the h i g h e r income ranges and the n o n s k i l l e d SES, p a r t i c u l a r l y the n o n s k i l l e d non-1 55 TABLE 3.10 C l a s s by Household Income C l a s s Household Income 0-8999 9000- 17,000- 23,000- 30,000 16,999 22,999 29,999 and over % N % N % N % N % N Working 13.0 111 N M i d d l e 2.2 5 P e t t y B. 13.0 13 Bourg . 3.2 6 R e s i d u a l 58.2 13 25.9 220 22.2 189 18.3 42 20.9 48 22.0 22 24.0 24 7.0 1 3 13.4 25 20.5 4 8.4 2 25.3 215 13.6 1 1 6 28.3 65 30.3 70 17.0 1 7 24.0 24 30.6 57 45.8 85 4.5 1 8.4 2 STATISTICS: C h i Square = 488. 1 3 , 16 d . f . , p . = .00 TABLE 3.11 SES by Household Income Household Income 0-8999 9000- 17,000- 23,000- 30,000 16,999 22,999 29,999 and over % N % N % N % N % N SES N o n s k i l l e d manual nonmanual S k i l l e d manual nonmanual Managers R e s i d u a l 18.3 43 21.0 34 4 .9 13 8.3 23 5.1 22 58.2 13 28.9 68 37.7 61 18.9 50 22.3 62 13.1 56 20.5 4 25.1 59 13.6 22 28.0 74 22.3 62 16.1 69 8.4 2 20.4 48 19.1 31 31.8 84 30.2 84 25.0 107 4.5 1 7.3 17 8.6 14 16.4 43 16.9 47 40.7 174 8.4 2 STATISTICS: C h i Square = 567 .09 , 20 d . f . , p . = .00 1 56 manual , are more c o n c e n t r a t e d w i t h i n the l o w e r . T h i s demon-s t r a t e s a u s e f u l pragmat ic d i f f e r e n c e between the c l a s s and SES c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , as d e f i n e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . The c l a s s schema d i s c r i m i n a t e s more c l e a r l y at the ' u p p e r ' end of the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n spectrum, w h i l e the SES c a t e g o r i e s u s e f u l l y d i s c r i m i n a t e between groups that are lumped toge ther as work-ing c l a s s . The c l a s s and SES measures can then be compared i n r e l a -t i o n to the e d u c a t i o n v a r i a b l e , as shown i n t a b l e 3 .12 . There i s a s t r o n g e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the SES v a r i a b l e and educa-t i o n than between e d u c a t i o n and c l a s s . T h i s i s not p a r t i c u -l a r l y s u r p r i s i n g g iven the f a c t t h a t e d u c a t i o n f i g u r e s i n t o the d e f i n i t i o n of SES ( i n the sense that the weberian d e f i n i -t i o n of s o c i a l c l a s s takes i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n marketable s k i l l s such as e d u c a t i o n ) . A g a i n , however, there i s c o n s i d e r -a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a inment w i t h i n SES c a t e -g o r i e s , w i t h over 26% of the managers, for i n s t a n c e , hav ing o n l y a h i g h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n or l e s s . The weaker r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l a s s and e d u c a t i o n p o i n t s to an i n t e r e s t i n g c h a r -a c t e r i s t i c of the working c l a s s c a t e g o r y . Not o n l y does the working c l a s s d e f i n i t i o n i n c l u d e 52 percent of the p o p u l a -26 t i o n , but there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n the working c l a s s for f a c t o r s such as e d u c a t i o n . The f a c t tha t roughly one t h i r d of the working c l a s s has some c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n suggests t h a t there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e h e t e r o g e n e i t y i n terms of l i v e d e x p e r i e n c e w i t h i n t h i s c l a s s g r o u p i n g . 1 57 2. A s s o c i a t i o n s Between S t r a t i f i c a t i o n V a r i a b l e s and Hous ing Measures Even more important for the purposes of t h i s a n a l y s i s , i n which the focus i s on the ' e x p l a n a t o r y ' va lue of hous ing c l a s s and c o s t s , i s the extent to which the hous ing measures are confounded w i t h the c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . Both hous ing c l a s s and hous ing c o s t s have very c l e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s to househo ld i n -come. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , r e n t e r s tend to have lower incomes. As shown i n t a b l e 3 .13 , t h e r e i s s t i l l a c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a b i -l i t y of househo ld incomes a c r o s s hous ing c a t e g o r i e s however: 25% of r e n t e r s have an annual househo ld income of $23,000 or more and a lmost 33% of mortgaged homeowners have annual household incomes of $22,999 or l e s s . However, the i m p l i c a -t i o n of t h i s i s that d i f f e r e n c e s between respondents i n d i f f e r e n t hous ing c l a s s e s may r e f l e c t the hous ing s i t u a t i o n o_r mere ly r e f l e c t income d i f f e r e n c e s . The p r o p o r t i o n of the employed p o p u l a t i o n c l a s s i f i e d as working c l a s s i s h i g h e r than t h a t found by W r i g h t . W r i g h t ' s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a 1969 sample of the U . S . l abour f o r c e l e d to the f o l l o w i n g breakdown: 7% employed, 6% p e t t y b o u r g e o i s i e , 34% m a n a g e r s / s u p e r v i s o r s [new middle c l a s s ] , 11% semi-autonomous employees , and 42% workers (the l a t t e r two are e f f e c t i v e l y grouped as working c l a s s i n t h i s a n a l y s i s ) . T h i s may r e f l e c t s y s t e m a t i c d i f f e r e n c e s i n the samples ( for i n s t a n c e , the f a c t tha t the sample c o n s i d e r e d here i s an urban sample w h i l e W r i g h t ' s sample i s not r e s t r i c t e d i n t h i s way) or n a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n s . D e s p i t e t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n , over h a l f of W r i g h t ' s sample i s a l s o c l a s s i f i e d as working c l a s s and thus the i s sue r a i s e d here i s r e l e v a n t to marx i s t c l a s s d e f i n i t i o n s more g e n e r a l l y . ( E . O . W r i g h t , " C l a s s and O c c u p a t i o n , " Theory and S o c i e t y 9 (1980) , 177-214.) 158 TABLE 3.12 C l a s s and SES by E d u c a t i o n - Head of Household Only Educat ion High Schoo l . T e c h - C o l l e g e n i c a l No Some Diploma Some Degree N N N N N N C l a s s Working 63 1 1 1 1 10 63 88 88 New M i d d l e 9 1 7 23 8 22 48 P e t t y Bourg . 9 10 1 0 1 0 10 12 B o u r g e i o s i e 5 1 4 13 8 20 39 R e s i d u a l 97 55 44 1 3 28 25 SES Nons Manual 34 46 23 1 3 1 2 3 Nons Nonmanual 12 26 41 12 21 8 S k i l l e d Manual 23 37 24 20 1 6 6 S k i l l e d Nmanual 3 1 6 42 22 52 48 Managers 1 4 27 26 21 39 1 23 R e s i d u a l 97 55 44 1 3 28 25 S T A T I S T I C S : C l a s s and e d u c a t i o n - Chi square=169.3, d . f . = 2 0 , p . = .00. SES and e d u c a t i o n - C h i square=398.6, d . f . = 2 5 , p.=.00 TABLE 3.13 Percentage Housing C l a s s by Household Income Housing Household Income C l a s s 0-8999 9000- 17,000 23,000- 30,000 16,999 22,999 29,999 and over % N % N % N % N % N Rent 24. 6 210 28 .8 245 21 . 7 185 14. 6 124 1 0 .3 88 Homeowner M o r t . 4. 8 23 1 1 .4 55 16. 6 80 33. 5 1 62 33 .7 1 63 Out . 14. 7. 66 20 .5 92 18. 3 82 23. 7 1 06 22 .8 1 02 STATISTICS: K e n d a l l ' s Tau=.23,p=.00 159 As one might expec t , hous ing c o s t s are a l s o c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to household income for r e n t e r s and o u t r i g h t house-owners . Of the r e n t e r s p a y i n g over 30% of t h e i r incomes to hous ing c o s t s , 93.2% have annual incomes below $ 1 6 , 9 9 9 , c o n -f i r m i n g the argument that r e n t e r s pay ing e x c e s s i v e hous ing c o s t s g e n e r a l l y have an income, not a h o u s i n g , p rob lem. The s i t u a t i o n i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t for mortgaged homeowners, as shown i n t a b l e 3 .14 . There i s a much g r e a t e r tendency fo r medium income and not j u s t lower income households to be p a y i n g over 30% of household income towards hous ing c o s t s amongst mortgaged homeowners. Thus for homeowners, hous ing c o s t s are not as s e v e r e l y confounded wi th househo ld income because many homeowners w i t h moderate incomes have purchased s u f f i c i e n t ' h o u s i n g goods' to p l a c e s e r i o u s c o n s t r a i n t s on the household budget . There i s a f u r t h e r p a t t e r n of confounding between hous ing c l a s s and stage i n l i f e c y c l e . The h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of lower incomes amongst o u t r i g h t owners of hous ing may be p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n e d by a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of e l d e r l y , r e t i r e d persons w i t h i n t h i s l a t t e r g r o u p i n g , as shown in t a b l e 3 .15 . C o n s i d e r -ing those who own t h e i r houses o u t r i g h t , 38.1% are e l d e r l y , compared w i t h 19.6% of mortgaged homeowners and 1 8 . 5 % of r e n t e r s . There i s not a c l e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between h i g h hous ing c o s t s and stage i n l i f e - c y c l e for homeowners, as shown in t a b l e 3 .16 , a l t h o u g h there i s a tendency for e l d e r l y house-ho ld s to s u s t a i n h i g h hous ing c o s t s . 1 60 TABLE 3.14 Hous ing Cos t s by Household Income Housing Cos t s By Tenure Renter s <1 1% 1 1-30% >30% Household Income ($) 0-8999 9000- 17,000- 23,000-16,999 22,999 29,999 N 1.9 10.2 59.0 Homeowners Mortgaged <1 1% 0 11-30% 0 >30% 2. O u t r i g h t <1 1% 0 11-30% 5, >30% 82, 30,000 and over 6.5 18.7 29.0 43.9 1 07 34.6 29.6 18.0 7.6 510 33.9 5.9 .6 .6 1 77 0 0 0 100.0 1 2 1 .4 13.4 41 .2 44.0 298 33.9 29.7 25.6 8.3 121 2.4 11.2 37.6 48.8 125 37.0 27.0 25.9 4.2 170 17.2 0 0 0 29 TABLE 3.15 Hous ing C l a s s by L i f e - C y c l e Hous ing C l a s s L i f e - c y c l e S i n g l e M a r r i e d F a m i l y E l d e r l y c i \. O N % N c i N % N Renter s 28. .0 243 21.1 1 84 32. .3 281 18. ,6 1 62 Homeowners Mortaged 4. .8 23 15.6 75 60. .0 288 19. ,6 94 O u t r i g h t 6. .6 31 18.1 85 37. .2 1 75 38. . 1 1 79 STATISTICS: K e n d a l l ' s Tau=.25, p .= .00 161 TABLE 3.16 Hous ing Cos t s by L i f e - C y c l e Housing Cos t s by Tenure S i n g l e L i f e - c y c l e M a r r i e d F a m i l y E l d e r l y % N % N % N % N Renter s 10% and l e s s 22. 3 23 29. 2 30 45. 6 47 2 .9 3 1 1 - 3 0 % 27. 8 1 33 22. 4 1 07 43. 1 206 6 .7 32 30% and more 32. 0 54 16. 0 27 33. 1 56 18 .9 32 Homeowners 10% and l e s s 7. 1 1 0 15. 7 22 69. 3 97 7 .9 1 1 11 - 30% 4. 8 23 14. 8 70 72. 4 343 8 .0 38 30% and more 5. 9 9 13. 2 20 65. 8 100 1 5 . 1 23 STATISTICS :Hous ing c o s t s and l i f e - c y c l e for r e n t e r s K e n d a l l ' s Tau=.03, p .= .33 Hous ing c o s t s and l i f e - c y c l e fo r homeowners -K e n d a l l ' s Tau=.04, p.=.08 TABLE 3.17 Hous ing C l a s s by C l a s s C l a s s Working New P . B o u r g . Bourg-M i d d l e e o i s i e R e s i d u a l % N % N % N % N % N Housing C l a s s Renter s 57. 1 474 11.7 97 5 .7 47 7. 0 58 18.5 1 53 Homeowners mortgage 50.4 231 19.0 87 7 .7 35 19. 2 88 3.7 17 o u t r i g h t 42.8 172 14.9 60 5 .5 22 13. 9 56 22.9 92 STATISTICS: C h i Square=122.29, 8 d . f . , p .= .00 162 TABLE 3.18 Hous ing C l a s s by SES SES N o n S k i l l e d S k i l l e d Manager Res . Manual NonMan. Manual Nonman. N N N N N N Housing C l a s s Renter s 139 112 104 156 165 153 Homeowners Mortgaged 39 30 96 90 186 17 O u t r i g h t 59 26 73 49 103 92 STATISTICS: Chi Square=165.22, 10 d . f . , p .=.00 The r e l a t i o n s h i p s between hous ing c l a s s and the c l a s s and SES measures are shown i n t a b l e s 3.17 and 3 .18 . W h i l e there i s a tendency for fewer r e n t e r s than homeowners to be i n the b o u r g e o i s i e c l a s s , even w i t h i n the b o u r g e o i s i e c a t e g o r y , 28.7% of the sample r e n t s h o u s i n g . There i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e range of c l a s s and SES c a t e g o r i e s for each hous ing tenure g roup . For i n s t a n c e , a l t h o u g h a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of mortgaged home-owners, compared to r e n t e r s and o u t r i g h t homeowners, are grouped i n the managers c a t e g o r y , 36% of the managers rent h o u s i n g . 1 63 TABLE 3.19 Hous ing C l a s s by E d u c a t i o n Educat ion High Schoo l T e c h - C o l l e g e n i c a l No Some Degree Some Degree N N N N N N Renter s 129 196 205 70 163 159 Homeowners Mortgaged 52 87 104 63 88 108 O u t r i g h t 95 127 110 45 71 53 STATISTICS: K e n d a l l ' s Tau=- .06 , p .= .00 ; C h i Square=50.80, 10 d . f . , p .=.00 The a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and e d u c a t i o n i s shown in t a b l e 3 . 1 9 . O u t r i g h t homeowners tend not to be as w e l l educated as those in o ther hous ing c l a s s e s but there i s l i t t l e s y s t e m a t i c d i f f e r e n c e between r e n t e r s and mortgaged homeowners i n terms of e d u c a t i o n a l ach ievement . S ince o n l y one c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e can be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y a p p l i e d at one t i m e , because of l i m i t a t i o n s i n sample s i z e , i t i s of i n t e r e s t to e x p l o r e the p a t t e r n s of confounding between hous ing c l a s s and the o ther four c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s when each c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e i s a p p l i e d . T h i s i s s u e i s pursued w i t h the hous ing c l a s s v a r i a b l e o n l y because , as has been seen, hous ing c l a s s i s more s e r i o u s l y confounded w i t h the v a r i o u s c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s and , as w i l l be seen , hous ing c l a s s t u r n s out to be a more u s e f u l concept i n the a n a l y s i s of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s . 1 64 3. A s s o c i a t i o n s Between Housing C l a s s and D i f f e r e n t C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s , Household Income C o n t r o l l e d A s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and o ther c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s when two such v a r i a b l e s are c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s -l y w i l l o n l y be p r e s e n t e d here for the case when household income i s h e l d c o n s t a n t a c r o s s a l l o ther c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s , shown i n t a b l e s 3 . 2 0 - 3 . 2 4 . S i m i l a r s e t s of a n a l y s e s were done for each c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e and are p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix I V . Even w i t h i n household income groups , sy s t emat i c v a r i a -t i o n s remain between hous ing c l a s s e s i n terms of the o ther c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . For i n s t a n c e , w i t h i n househo ld income c a t e g o r i e s there are s y s t e m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s tages i n l i f e - c y c l e and hous ing c l a s s e s , as shown i n t a b l e 3 .20 . There i s a c o n s i s t e n t tendency i n a l l household income c a t e -g o r i e s , except the h i g h e s t , for r e n t e r s to be l a r g e l y s i n g l e and homeowners to be m a r r i e d w i t h c h i l d r e n . Thus i f s i n g l e persons tend to h o l d more r a d i c a l v i e w p o i n t s , an e f f e c t for l i f e - c y c l e c o u l d m i s t a k e n l y be taken as an e f f e c t for hous ing tenure even w i t h i n s p e c i f i c household income groups . To summarise the p a t t e r n s of a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and the c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n household income groups , there i s : 1) a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of s i n g l e persons amongst r e n t e r s , re spondents w i t h c h i l d r e n amongst homeowners and e l d e r l y per sons amongst o u t r i g h t homeowners i n a l l income groups except the h i g h e s t ; 2) a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of r e spon-dents i n the manager i a l SES group w i t h mortgages i n the lowest and h i g h e s t income ranges for househo ld heads ; 3) a s l i g h t 1 65 tendency for o u t r i g h t homeowners i n a l l income ranges to be l e s s educated and 4) a h i g h e r ' e t h n i c ' component amongst mortgaged and o u t r i g h t homeowners i n a l l income ranges except the h i g h e s t . TABLE 3.20 Sys temat ic B ia se s i n Terms of L i f e - C y c l e A c r o s s Hous ing C l a s s e s When Household Income i s C o n t r o l l e d (Household Heads Only) S i n g l e M a r r i e d F a m i l y E l d e r l y N Income % % % % 0-8999 Renter s 40.4 4.0 25.8 29.8 151 Homeowners mortgage 18.2 9.1 45.5 27.4 1 1 o u t r i gh t 4.7 0 37.2 58. 1 43 9000-16,999 Renter s 51 .3 13.2 29.6 5.9 1 52 Homeowners mortgage 9.7 9.7 70.9 9.7 31 o u t r i g h t 15.2 4.3 50.0 30.5 46 17,000-22,999 Renter s 40.2 21.6 33.0 5.2 97 Homeowners mortgage 14.3 14.3 66.7 4.7 42 o u t r i g h t 18.2 6. 1 72.7 3.0 33 23,000-29,999 Renter s 40.0 21.4 37. 1 1 .5 70 Homeowners mortgage 6.8 11.0 79.5 2.7 73 o u t r i g n t 9.6 13.5 71.2 5.7 52 30,000 and over Renter s 14.6 27. 1 54.2 4.1 48 Homeowners mortgage 6. 1 22.7 71 .2 0 66 o u t r i g h t 9.3 18.6 58. 1 14.0 43 1 66 TABLE 3.21 Sys temat ic B ia se s C l a s s e s When Household Income Only) i n Terms of C l a s s A c r o s s Hous ing i s C o n t r o l l e d (Household Heads Household C l a s s Income and Working New P e t t y Bourg-Hous ing C l a s s M i d d l e Bourg . e o i s i e N Res. 0-8999 Renter s Homeowners mortgage o u t r i g h t 9000-16,999 Renter s Homeowners mortgage out r i gh t 17,000-22,999 Renter s Homeowners mortgage out r i g h t 23,000-29,999 Renter s Homeowners mortgage o u t r i g h t 30,000+ Renter s Homeowners mortgage o u t r i gh t 35. 1 41 .7 21.3 65.6 65.6 39.6 62.0 69.0 47.2 68.5 55.8 63.0 44.9 33.8 31.1 1 .9 0 2. 1 12.3 15.6 6.3 14.8 7.1 16.7 11.0 22. 1 7.4 20.4 23.5 22.2 16.6 2.1 4.5 9.4 6.3 7.4 4 .9 5.6 6.8 6.5 1 .9 2.0 11.9 4.4 1 .3 0 0 3.2 3.1 4.0 8.4 9.5 .7 11.0 13.0 16.6 22.5 27.9 24.5 57.2 41 .7 74.5 14.4 6.3 43.8 7.4 9.5 27.8 2.7 2.6 11.1 10.2 2 .9 17.8 1 54 1 2 47 334 32 48 1 08 42 36 73 77 54 49 68 45 1 67 TABLE 3.22 Sys temat ic B i a s e s i n Terms of SES A c r o s s Housing C l a s s e s When Household Income i s C o n t r o l l e d (Head of Households Only) Household Income and Hous ing N o n S k i l l e d C l a s s Manual Nonman. SES N S k i l l e d Managers Res . Manual Nonman. 0-8999 Renters 13.0 13.6 1 .3 7.8 7. 1 57.2 1 53 Homeowners mortgage 8.3 16.7 0 8.3 25.0 41 .7 1 2 ou t r i gh t 8.5 10.6 4.3 0 2. 1 74.5 47 9000-16,999 Renter s 14.9 20. 1 9.7 26.0 14.9 14.4 1 54 Homeowners mortgage 12.5 21.9 18.8 18.8 21.9 6.3 32 ou t r i gh t 14.6 8.4 2.1 16.7 14.5 43.8 48 17,000-22,999 Renter s 15.7 8.3 15.7 26.9 25.9 7.4 1 08 Homeowners mortgage 19.0 9.5 19.0 23.8 19.2 9.5 42 o u t r i g h t 19.4 0 36. 1 2.8 13.9 27.8 36 23,000-29,999 Renter s 13.7 15.1 19.2 23.3 26.0 2.7 73 Homeowners mortgage 7.8 10.4 19.5 26.0 33.7 2.6 77 o u t r i g h t 18.5 9.3 16.7 18.5 25.9 11.1 52 30,000+ Renter s 8.2 10.2 12.2 14.3 44.9 10.2 49 Homeowners mortgage 2.9 1 .5 14.7 14.7 63.3 2 .9 68 o u t r i g h t 6.7 6.7 8.9 17.8 42. 1 17.8 45 168 TABLE 3.23 Sys temat ic Confounding of Housing C l a s s and Educa-t i o n When Household Income i s C o n t r o l l e d (Head of Households Only ) Household E d u c a t i o n N Income and High S c h o o l T e c h - C o l l e g e Hous ing n i c a l C l a s s No Some Diploma Some Degree 0-8999 Renter s 34.2 22.2 13.3 3.2 15.1 12.0 1 58 Homeowners mortgage 25.0 25.0 16.7 8.3 16.7 8.3 1 2 o u t r i g h t 34.0 31.9 10.6 12.8 6.4 4.3 47 9000-16,999 Renter s 11.5 16.0 30. 1 7.7 17.9 16.8 1 56 Homeowners mortgage 21.9 28. 1 18.8 12.4 9.4 9.4 32 o u t r i g h t 25.5 23.4 27.7 12.8 10.6 0 47 17,000-22,999 Renter s 5.6 16.8 17.8 14.0 19.6 26.2 1 07 Homeowners mortgage 14.3 21.4 14.3 19.0 1 9 . 0 12.0 42 o u t r i g h t 28.6 34.3 14.3 8.6 2.9 11.3 35 23 ,000-29,999 Renter s 2.7 21.6 23.0 9.5 14.9 28.3 74 Homeowners mortgage 9.1 7.8 16.9 20.8 15.6 29.8 77 o u t r i g h t 21.8 20.0 16.4 9.1 12.7 20.0 55 30,000+ Renter s 2.0 14.0 10.0 10.0 22.0 42.0 50 Homeowners mortgage 5.8 13.0 11.6 5.8 20.3 43.5 69 o u t r i g h t 6.7 24.4 20.0 8.9 13.3 26.7 45 T A B L E 3.24 S y s t e m a t i c B i a s e s i n T e r m s o f E t h n i c i t y A c r o s s H o u s i n g C l a s s e s W i t h H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e C o n t r o l l e d ( H o u s e h o l d H e a d s O n l y ) H o u s e h o 1 d I n c o m e a n d H o u s i n g C1 a s s E t h n i c i t y C a n a d a U . S . U . K . S c a n - F r a n c e G e r -d i n a v i a many P o r t -u g a l , . I t a l y E a s t - O t h e r t e r n E u r o p e 0-8999 R e n t e r H o m e o w n e r mor t g a g e o u t r i g h t 78 .0 75 .0 55 . 3 3 . 1 8 . 3 6.4 2 . 5 0 8.5 1 .9 0 0 1 . 3 0 2 . 1 1 .9 0 4.3 1 .9 16 . 7 4 . 3 3.8 5.6 159 O 19. 1 0 O 12 47 90O0-16.999 R e n t e r H o m e o w n e r m o r t g a g e o u t r i g h t 80. 3 53 . 1 70. 2 15.6 2 . 1 5.7 0 4 . 3 O 2 . 1 0 0 1 .9 18.8 2 . 1 1 .3 9 . 4 14.9 3.8 6.4 157 0 4.3 3.1 32 0 45 17,000-22.999 R e n t e r 70. 1 H o m e o w n e r m o r t g a g e 69.0 o u t r i g h t 60.0 2.4 O 7 . 5 0 8.6 .9 O 8.6 1 .9 2.4 0 23.8 0 2.8 1.9 14.0 107 2.4 0 0 76 11.4 8.6 2.8 35 23.000-29,999 R e n t e r 73.0 H o m e o w n e r m o r t g a g e 76 . 3 o u t r i g h t 65.5 3.9 0 9.5 1 .3 3.6 2 . 7 2.6 0 2.7 1 .3 1 .8 1 .3 1 .8 2 . 7 2.6 12.7 2.7 1 .3 9. 1 6.7 9.4 5.5 74 76 55 30.000+ R e n t e r H o m e o w n e r m o r t g a g e o u t r i g h t 75 . 5 70.6 75 .6 8 . 2 11.8 6 . 7 4 . 1 1 . 5 8.9 2.9 0 4 . 1 2.9 2.2 1 .5 0 2.0 1 . 5 2.2 2.0 1 .5 4.4 4 . 1 5.8 0 49 68 45 170 The p o i n t of r e v i e w i n g these p a t t e r n s of a s s o c i a t i o n i s to demonstrate that there are sy s t emat i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s between hous ing c l a s s and d i f f e r e n t c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s even when one v a r i a b l e such as household income i s c o n t r o l l e d , making i t d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t a t t i t u d i n a l d i f f e r e n c e s observed be t -ween respondents in d i f f e r e n t hous ing c l a s s e s . The importance i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c o n t r o l l i n g for them hinges on the attempt to unders tand or e x p l a i n a t t i t u d e s i n terms of hous ing c l a s s r a t h e r than the confounding v a r i a b l e . O b s e r v a t i o n s of the confounding between hous ing c l a s s e s and v a r i o u s c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s noted through t a b l e s 3.20 to 3.24 and i n Appendix IV have had two i n f l u e n c e s on the a n a l y s e s p r e s e n t e d below. F i r s t , a s e r i e s of double c o n t r o l s w i l l be c a r r i e d out for a number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tems to t r y to demonstrate that hous ing c l a s s c o n t i n u e s to have e x p l a n a t o r y va lue i n terms of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and community v a l u e s . These four-way c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s are not p a r t i c u l a r l y s a t i s f a c t o r y i n them-s e l v e s i n most cases because l i m i t a t i o n s i n sample s i z e leave a s u b s t a n t i a l number of m i s s i n g c e l l s . However, they g ive some c l u e s to the s t a b i l i t y of the h o u s i n g c l a s s e f f e c t s . As w e l l , more d e t a i l e d use of t a b l e s 3.20 to 3.24 and those i n Appendix IV w i l l be made to exp lo re any p e c u l i a r i t i e s w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r v a l u e s of c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s which c o n t i n u a l l y show a hous ing c l a s s ' e f f e c t ' . 171 4. A s s o c i a t i o n s Between Hous ing C l a s s and S p a t i a l V a r i a b l e s F i n a l l y , the p a t t e r n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between hous ing c l a s s and v a r i o u s s p a t i a l v a r i a b l e s w i l l be b r i e f l y c o n -s i d e r e d . In terms of hous ing t y p e , 93.5% and 93.2% of mort-gaged and o u t r i g h t homeowners, r e s p e c t i v e l y , l i v e i n s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s . As shown i n t a b l e 3 .25 , hous ing type i s somewhat more v a r i a b l e for r e n t e r s , w i t h 21.7% a l s o l i v i n g in s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s . C o n s i d e r i n g the c i t y / s u b u r b d i s t i n c t i o n , r e n t e r s i n houses and apartment b u i l d i n g s are e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d between the c i t y core and suburbs , a l t h o u g h s u i t e s i n houses tend to be l e s s common i n the suburbs . Whi le a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of mortgaged and o u t r i g h t homeowners tend to be l o c a t e d i n the suburbs , shown i n t a b l e 3 .26 , the c i t y / s u b u r b d i s t i n c t i o n does not d i s c r i m i n a t e between the r e n t e r s and homeowners i n the sample i n the way that hous ing type appears to do . 5. Summary of R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between S t r a t i f i c a t i o n and Hous ing Measures To summarise b r i e f l y the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the v a r -ious s t r a t i f i c a t i o n measures : there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between both c l a s s and SES and household income and between both c l a s s and SES and e d u c a t i o n , but the r e l a t i o n s h i p s are not so c o n -s i s t e n t as to remove the need to look at the v a r i a b l e s separ-a t e l y . P r e d i c t a b l y , hous ing c l a s s i s r e l a t e d to c l a s s , SES, e d u c a t i o n , l i f e - c y c l e and household income, p a r t i c u l a r l y to 1 72 the l a t t e r two f a c t o r s , as i n d i c a t e d by the summary t a b l e 3 .27 . TABLE 3.25 Hous ing C l a s s by House Type Housing C l a s s Renters Homeowners mortgaged outr i g h t House 93.5 93.2 N 21.7 192 449 449 House Type Apartment i n House N in A . B u i l d i n g % N 1 9 . 8 174 3.4 3.2 1 6 15 58.5 515 3.0 3.6 1 5 1 7 TABLE 3.26 Hous ing C l a s s by House Type by C i t y / S u b u r b Di st i n c t ion Housing C l a s s and House Type Renter s House Apartment i n House Apartment B u i l d i n g Mortgaged Homeowners House Apartment i n House Apartment B u i l d i n g O u t r i g h t Homeowners House Apartment i n House Apartment B u i l d i n g C i t y Core % N 52.0 103 73.5 131 56.2 300 37.7 176 64.7 11 •13.3 2 41.2 43.8 55.6 1 92 7 10 Suburb N 48.0 95 26.5 50 43.8 234 62.3 292 35.3 6 86.7 13 58.8 56.2 44.4 274 9 8 173 TABLE 3.27 S t r e n g t h of A s s o c i a t i o n Between Hous ing C l a s s and A l t e r n a t i v e C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s K e n d a l l ' s P. Chi Square D . F . P. Tau C l a s s ( r e s i d u a l . 1 3 .00 50.35 6 .00 SES exc luded) .10 .00 90.86 10 .00 Household Income .23 .00 261.02 8 .00 L i f e - c y c l e .25 .00 258.53 6 .00 Educat ion - . 0 6 .00 50.50 10 .00 At the same t i m e , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and v a r i o u s s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and c l a s s measures i s by no means complete and hence c o n t r o l s for c l a s s , SES, e d u c a t i o n , l i f e -c y c l e and household income do not o b l i t e r a t e v a r i a t i o n d e r i v e d from hous ing t e n u r e . That i s , there i s enough tenure v a r i a -t i o n w i t h i n c o n t r o l v a l u e s that i t makes (numer ica l ) sense to c o n t r a s t hous ing c l a s s w h i l s t c o n t r o l l i n g for o ther s t r a t i f i -c a t i o n or c l a s s v a r i a b l e s . F o c u s i n g more c e n t r a l l y on the hous ing v a r i a b l e s , hous ing c o s t s as a p r o p o r t i o n of income do not merely r e f l e c t the p r i c e of h o u s i n g , hous ing c l a s s or household income. In the case of r e n t e r s , h i g h hous ing c o s t s do seem to be a d i r e c t r e f l e c t i o n of low incomes but t h i s i s not the case w i t h home-owners. Thus hous ing c o s t s , as a p r o p o r t i o n of t o t a l house-h o l d income, i s examined as an ' independent * v a r i a b l e in the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s e s . Hous ing s t r u c t u r e i s not f u l l y confounded 1 7 4 w i t h t enure to the extent tha t t h e r e i s some v a r i a b i l i t y amongst r e n t e r s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the number of r e n t e r s l i v i n g i n s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s i s q u i t e s m a l l (198) , making i t d i f f i c u l t to pursue the i s sue of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t types of r e n t a l s i t u a t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s i n any d e t a i l . F i n a l l y , i t i s noted tha t the c i t y / s u b u r b dichotomy i s not s u b s t a n t i a l l y confounded w i t h the hous ing c l a s s v a r i -a b l e . 1 75 CHAPTER 4 HOUSING CLASS, EMPLOYMENT STABILITY, POLITICAL ATTITUDES AND ACTIVITIES - THE SOCIAL CHANGE IN CANADA DATA SET "Renter s b a s i c a l l y have a low investment i n and thus a low commitment to t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r form of hous ing and i t s env i ronment ; whereas homeowners -whether of an apartment , a condominium, or a s i n g l e -d w e l l i n g p r o p e r t y - have a h i g h investment and t h e r e f o r e a h i g h community commitment. V o t i n g behav ior between tenants and homeowners a l s o d i f f e r s marked ly . Homeowners exer t a h i g h e r i n t e r e s t i n l o c a l government by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s c h o o l re ferendums, v o t i n g for c o u n c i l l o r s , and c i r c u l a t i n g p e t i t i o n s for or a g a i n s t c e r t a i n types of proposed l o c a l improvements . I t i s an important va lue i n our democra t i c s o c i e t y to m a i n t a i n c i t i z e n i n p u t , yet i f we move i n t o a more predominant r e n t a l s i t u a t i o n we w i l l g r e a t l y l e s s e n v o t e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . T h i s i s o n l y one of the emerging consequences of the changing hous ing market that have been unant i c i p a t e d . " In t h i s chap te r the p o s t u l a t e d l i n k s between homeowner-s h i p and employment s t a b i l i t y , community commitment and both p o l i t i c a l c o n s e r v a t i s m and a c t i v i s m w i l l be examined through the S o c i a l Change i n Canada data s e t . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p a r t i t i o n i n g of the sample, as w e l l as a n a l y t i c methods used , have been d e s c r i b e d i n the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r . In the f i r s t s e c t i o n of t h i s c h a p t e r , homeownership w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d in r e l a t i o n to job s t a b i l i t y and a c t i v i s m i n the workplace to e x p l o r e the c o n t e n t i o n tha t mortgage debt o r i e n t s the worker G . Gray and S. Meis d i s c u s s i n g the Vancouver hous ing market , quoted by G . Soules i n The Hous ing C r i s i s : Causes - E f f e c t s - S o l u t i o n s (Vancouver : Economic and M a r k e t i n g R e s e a r c h , 1976), p . 131. 176 towards job s e c u r i t y and reduces worker m i l i t a n c y . In a second s e c t i o n , the i s sue of community attachment w i l l be b r i e f l y c o n s i d e r e d . T h i r d l y , s p e c i f i c p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n s such as v o t i n g p r a c t i c e s , a c t i v i s m i n the community and a t tendance at p r o t e s t meet ings w i l l be e x p l o r e d . F o u r t h l y , a t t i t u d i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e s , such as c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and f e l t l e g i t i -macy of v a r i o u s types of p r o t e s t w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d . Throughout the a n a l y s e s e s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i s g iven to the r e l e v a n c e of hous ing tenure to groups of respondents d e f i n e d as b e i n g in d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s to p r o d u c t i o n , to e x p l o r e the i s s u e of how ' consumpt ion s e c t o r s ' ( i n t h i s i n -s t a n c e , hous ing c l a s s ) a r t i c u l a t e wi th s o c i a l c l a s s d e f i n e d through p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s . As w e l l , an attempt i s made to e v a l u a t e the g e n e r a l i t y of the a t t i t u d i n a l r i f t between home-owners and t e n a n t s , to e x p l o r e whether homeownership i s r e l e -vant to p a r t i c u l a r types of a t t i t u d e s and behav iour s but not to o t h e r s . Hous ing C l a s s and Employment 1. Job M o b i l i t y There i s a no tab le a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and employment s t a b i l i t y which even exceeds the a s s o c i a t i o n s b e t -ween job and employer s t a b i l i t y and stage i n l i f e - c y c l e or l e v e l of househo ld income ( t a b l e 4 . 1 ) . The tendency i s for homeowners, e s p e c i a l l y head of househo lds , to be much more s t a b l e in terms of both employer and j o b . 1 77 TABLE 4.1 S t r e n g t h of A s s o c i a t i o n Between C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s and Years w i t h Present Employer , as w e l l as Years i n Pre sent Job Household Head Spouse a K e n d a l l ' s Tau p . N K e n d a l l ' s Tau p . N YEARS WITH PRESENT EMPLOYER C l a s s .08 .00 782 .08 NS 305 SES .10 .00 782 .10 .03 305 L i f e - c y c l e .21 .00 748 .09 .02 304 Household I n c . .19 .00 754 . 1 1 .01 295 Educat ion - . 0 9 .00 783 - .02 NS 309 Hous ing C l a s s .34 .00 785 .24 .00 301 YEARS IN PRESENT JOB C l a s s - . 0 0 NS 770 .07 NS 296 SES .05 NS 770 .08 NS 296 L i f e - c y c l e . 1 7 .00 738 .09 .01 294 Household Income . 1 6 .00 745 . 1 3 .00 288 Educat ion - . 1 0 .00 771 -.01 NS 299 Hous ing C l a s s .26 .00 773 .22 .00 301 a Spouse c a t e g o r i s e d i n terms of head of h o u s e h o l d ' s c l a s s and SES r a n k i n g b The q u e s t i o n of year s w i t h pre sent employer i s most l i k e l y b i a s e d a g a i n s t c e r t a i n s k i l l e d manual o c c u p a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h i n the b u i l d i n g t r a d e s , i n which o c c u p a t i o n s t a b i l i t y f r e q u e n t l y c o i n c i d e s w i t h employer i n s t a b i l i t y . T h i s i s not e s p e c i a l l y r e l e v a n t to the a n a l y s i s as the focus i s on hous ing c l a s s e s , w i t h i n SES groups , r a t h e r than on the SES groupings t h e m s e l v e s . 1 78 The s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and job s t a b i l i t y i s not an a r t i f a c t of confounding w i t h o ther c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s , shown i n t a b l e 4 . 2 . C o n s i d e r i n g household heads o n l y , t h e r e i s a c o n s i s t e n t tendency for homeowners to be more s t a b l e i n t h e i r employment than r e n t e r s , c o n t r o l l i n g for both c l a s s and SES, re spondent s ' ages , l i f e - c y c l e , household income and e d u c a t i o n . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note tha t job s t a b i l i t y does not d i f f e r o n l y a c r o s s tenure g roup ings but in most cases a c r o s s a l l hous ing c l a s s e s . That i s , o u t r i g h t homeowners tend to be even more s t a b l e than mortgaged homeowners. T h i s i s l i n k e d to the date of house purchase , w i t h o u t r i g h t owners hav ing g e n e r a l l y owned t h e i r houses fo r a longer p e r i o d of t i m e . When l e n g t h of t ime i n house i s c o n t r o l l e d , d i f f e r e n c e s b e t -ween mortgaged and o u t r i g h t homeowners i n terms of job s t a b -i l i t y d i s a p p e a r , a l t h o u g h the d i f f e r e n c e between tenure r e -mains . I f homeowners tend to be more s t a b l e i n t h e i r employment, i s i t a l s o the case tha t they are more c o n s e r v a t i v e i n the work-p lace? An attempt to e v a l u a t e t h i s i s s u e i s made through an examinat ion of union membership, a t tendance and o f f i c i a l i n v o l v e m e n t . 179 T A B L E 4 . 2 A v e r a g e R e s p o n s e F o r Y e a r s W i t h P r e s e n t E m p l o y e r B y H o u s i n g C l a s s . C o n t r o l l i n g f o r C l a s s , S E S , R e s p o n d e n t ' s A g e , L i f e - C y c l e , H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e a n d E d u c a t i o n H o u s e h o l d H e a d S p o u s e R e n t e r s H o m e o w n e r s R e n t e r s H o m e o w n e r s m. o . K T s i g . N m. o . K T s i g . N G e n e r a 1 E f f e c t 1.8 2 . 7 3 . 2 . 3 4 . 0 0 6 5 6 1.4 2 . 0 2 . 3 .24 .OO 311 C O N T R O L L E D BY C L A S S W o r k i n g 1 .7 2. .5 3 .3 . 3 3 . 0 0 4 9 9 1 . 2 1 .9 2 . .2 . 2 3 . 0 0 169 N. M i d d l e 1 .6 2 . .9 3 .5 .44 . 0 0 120 1 .6 1 .9 2 , .7 . 26 . 0 5 52 P. B o u r g . 1 .8 2. .7 3 . 0 . 2 6 . 0 2 61 1 . 7 -- -- -- - 28 B o u r g . 2 . 1 3. . 2 2 , .9 . 2 0 . 0 3 100 -- 2 . 1 2. , 5 -- - 56 BY S E S N o n s k i 1 1 e d m a n u a l n o n m a n . S k i 1 l e d manua1 n o n m a n M a n a g e r s BY R E S P O N D -E N T ' S AGE <30 3 0 - 3 9 4 0 - 4 9 5 0 - 6 4 1 . 7 2 .6 3 .4 . 4 0 . 0 0 1 14 1 . 3 -- 2 . 0 -- - 46 1 .3 2 . 4 2 . 4 . 2 7 . 0 0 1 18 1 . 5 -- - 18 2 . 1 2 . 7 3 . .8 . 3 8 . 0 0 121 1 . 5 2 . 1 2 . 3 . 18 . 10 6 7 1 . 7 2. . 4 3 2 . 2 9 .OO 179 1 . 2 2 . 0 2 . 7 . 31 .01 59 2 . 0 3 . 0 3. . 1 . 27 . 0 0 2 4 8 1 .6 2 . 0 2 .6 . 23 .01 109 1 . 1 2 . 0 1 , .8 . 2 0 . 0 0 238 1 . 2 1 .4 86 1 .8 2, . 4 2 . 6 . 19 . 0 0 231 1 . 3 1 .8 1 . 4 . 12 .21 95 2 . .4 3 . .0 3 . 7 . 29 . 0 0 141 1 .6 2 . 3 2 . 4 . 17 . 12 73 3 . 1 3. . 7 3 . 4 . 0 6 . 4 5 155 -- 2 .7 2 .8 -- - 55 180 T A B L E 4 . 2 C O N T I N U E D H o u s e h o l d H e a d S p o u s e R e n t e r s H o m e o w n e r s R e n t e r s H o m e o w n e r s m. o . KT s i g . N m. o . KT s i g . N BY L I F E -C Y C L E S i n g l e 1 . 7 2 . 3 3 . 1 . 18 . 0 0 2 15 M a r r i e d 1 . 2 2 . 2 3 . 1 . 37 . 0 0 130 1 . 3 2. . 0 -- -- - 68 Fam i 1 y 1 .8 2 .7 3 . 1 .31 . 0 0 2 8 7 1 .3 1 .8 2 . 1 . 16 . 0 2 174 E 1 d e r 1 y 2 . 7 3 . 5 3 .5 . 19 . 0 2 130 2 . 1 2 .6 2 .9 . 16 . 18 59 BY H O U S E -HOLD INCOME 0 - 8 9 9 9 .9 -- 1 .9 -- - 73 -- - 12 9 0 0 0 -1 6 , 9 9 9 1 .9 2 , .8 3 . 0 . 24 . 0 0 182 1 . 0 -- 2 .4 -- - 42 1 7 , 0 0 0 -2 2 , 9 9 9 2 ; 1 2 . . 5 3. .6 . 2 9 . 0 0 161 1 . 4 1 . .8 2 . 1 . 17 . 17 57 2 3 , 0 0 0 -2 9 . 9 9 9 1 . 7 2 .9 3 .5 . 3 9 .oo 190 1 .5 2 . 0 2 .2 . 18 . 0 5 96 3 0 , 0 0 0 + 2 . 1 2 . .8 3 . 0 . 23 . 0 0 146 1 .8 2. . 0 2 .4 . 16 . 0 8 93 BY E D U C A T I O N No H i g h 1 .9 3. , 1 3 . . 2 . 35 . 0 0 79 - -- 27 Some H i g h 1 . .9 3 . 2 3 , , 4 . 37 . 0 0 188 .9 1 . . 4 2 . .8 . 4 7 . 0 0 7 0 H i g h S. D i p i o m a 1 .9 2 . , 7 3 , , 4 . 4 0 .oo 155 1 .8 2 . . 1 1 , .8 . 0 2 . 8 6 86 T e c h n i c a 1 2 . 0 2 . .2 2 . . 5 . 12 . 24 86 1 .8 2 . . 3 -- - -- 31 Some C . 1 . .6 2. 7 2 . . 4 . 26 . 0 0 134 .9 2 . 5 2 . . 1 . 3 3 .01 55 C o l 1 e g e D e g r e e 1 .7 2 . 6 3 , , 4 . 35 . 0 0 189 1 . 3 1 . .7 -- - -- 4 0 a 0 = l e s s t h a n 1 y e a r , 1= 1-2 y e a r s , 2= 3 - 5 y e a r s . 3= 6 - 1 0 y e a r s , 4= 1 1 - 2 0 y e a r s a n d 5= o v e r 2 0 y e a r s 181 2 . U n i o n Membership, A t t e n d a n c e , and O f f i c i a l Involvement There i s no g e n e r a l a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s e s and union p a r t i c i p a t i o n , shown i n t a b l e 4 . 3 . However, s k i l l e d nonmanual homeowners had a t t ended more meetings in the p r e -v i o u s year than had r e n t e r s . For i n s t a n c e , 53.6% of the 28 r e n t e r s had a t t ended no m e e t i n g , w h i l e o n l y 25.0% of the 12 mortgaged and 0% of 8 o u t r i g h t homeowners made such a c l a i m ( K e n d a l l ' s tau=.26, p .= .03 , N=48). As w e l l , t h e r e i s a ( s t a -t i s t i c a l l y n o n s i g n i f i c a n t ) tendency fo r more homeowners than r e n t e r s i n the s k i l l e d nonmanual SES group to have h e l d o f f i c e i n t h e i r union - 10.3% of r e n t e r s , 23.1% of mortgaged home-owners and 37.5% of o u t r i g h t homeowners had done so ( K e n d a l l ' s t au=- .20 , p .= .10 , N=50). There are no other i n t e r a c t i o n s , c o n t r o l l i n g for SES, c l a s s or l i f e - c y c l e , of i n t e r e s t . Thus i t seems that i t i s o n l y amongst s k i l l e d nonmanual workers that hous ing c l a s s i s r e l e v a n t to un ion a c t i v i s m and , i n t h i s c a se , i t i s homeowners who are more a c t i v e . From the survey data one cannot e v a l u a t e the na ture of the un ion a c t i v i s m amongst homeowners. Is the type of person a t t r a c t e d to home-ownership a l s o the type who wishes to become i n v o l v e d i n union p o l i t i c s or i s homeownership i n s t r u m e n t a l i n encourag ing union a c t i v i s m ? The l a t t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would h inge on the impact of mortgage debt on concerns about l abour n e g o t i a t i o n s . I f homeownership i s g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h employment s t a b i l i t y and w i t h i n c r e a s e d un ion a c t i v i s m amongst s k i l l e d nonmanual worker s , i s there a l s o a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the employment s t a t u s of spouses? 1 82 TABLE 4.3 Rate of Union Membership and Percent H o l d i n g O f f i c e (Responses of those w i t h union where work) i n Union Household Heads Spouses Belong to H e l d O f f i c e Belong to H e l d O f f i c e % T o t a l N % T o t a l N % T o t a l N % T o t a l N Renter s M. Ho. 0 . Ho. 77.0 187 69.5 105 72.9 85 23.1 143 17.8 73 16.1 62 68.3 41 69.2 52 64.5 31 3.6 28 17.1 35 0 19 K ' s Tau P. .05 .31 .06 .23 .02 .83 .00 .85 183 3.Employment of Spouse The spouses of household heads c l a s s i f i e d as s k i l l e d or n o n s k i l l e d manual workers are more l i k e l y to work than those whose husbands are c l a s s i f i e d i n o ther SES groupings ( t a b l e 4 . 4 ) . When one looks at the r e l a t i o n s h i p of hous ing c l a s s to spouse working o u t s i d e of the home, however, i t i s amongst those c l a s s i f i e d i n the s k i l l e d and n o n s k i l l e d nonmanual SES c a t e g o r i e s tha t the a s s o c i a t i o n i s a p p a r e n t , shown i n t a b l e 4 . 5 , a l t h o u g h spouses of mortgaged n o n s k i l l e d manual home-owners are a l s o more l i k e l y to work than spouses i n o ther hous ing c l a s s e s . Thus , f o r both the manual and nonmanual n o n s k i l l e d groups and s k i l l e d nonmanual SES c a t e g o r y , wives of TABLE 4.4 Percentage Spouses Working By C l a s s and SES, Head of Household Only Yes No N C l a s s Working New M i d d l e P e t t y B o u r g e o i s i e B o u r g e o i s i e R e s i d u a l 34.0 40.5 31.1 41.0 10.7 66.0 59.5 68.9 59.0 89.3 520 1 26 61 1 00 261 SES N o n s k i l l e d Manual 41.1 28.9 45.6 29. 1 36.0 58.9 71 . 1 54.4 70.9 64.0 129 121 1 25 182 250 Nonmanual S k i l l e d Manual Nonmanual Managers R e s i d u a l 10.7 89.3 261 S t a t i s t i c s : C l a s s - C h i Square=62.99, 4 d . f . , p . = . 0 0 a SES - Chi Square=73.10, 5 d . f . , p .= .00 a . c a l c u l a t e d w i t h c e l l f r e q u e n c i e s and not p r o p o r t i o n s 184 T A B L E 4 . 5 P r o p o r t i o n S p o u s e s W o r k i n g By H o u s i n g C l a s s , C o n t r o l l i n g f o r C l a s s , S E S , R e s p o n d e n t ' s A g e . L i f e - C y c l e a n d H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e R e n t e r s H o m e o w n e r s KT p . C h i S. d f p . Gamma m o r t g a g e o u t r i g h t % N % N % N G e n e r a l E f f e c t 22 . 1 5 8 9 4 4 . , 1 2 3 8 31 . ,6 2 5 3 - . 13 . 0 0 4 0 . .8 2 . 0 0 C o n t r o l 1 e d b y C l a s s Work 1ng 26 .5 2 9 8 4 8 . .0 123 38 . . 1 9 7 - . 15 . 0 0 18. ,9 2 . 0 0 New M i d d l e 27 .6 58 4 5 , , 2 42 61 . , 5 26 - . 2 8 . 0 0 9. .2 2 .01 P e t t y B o u r g . 19 .4 31 5 0 , . 0 2 0 3 0 , ,0 10 - . 2 0 . 15 5. .3 2 . 0 6 B o u r g e o i s i e 41 .O 39 4 0 . .0 35 42 , , 3 26 - .01 . 9 8 .0 2 . 9 8 R e s i d u a l 7 . 3 151 17 , .6 17 14 , . 1 92 - . 0 7 . 0 9 3. .9 2 . 14 C o n t r o l 1 e d b y S E S N o n s k i 1 1 e d man 34 .2 73 6 6 . . 7 21 36 .4 33 - . 0 8 . 3 9 7 . .3 2 . 0 2 n o n m a n u a l 19 .8 81 43 . .5 23 52 .9 9 - . 2 5 . 0 0 10 . 4 2 . 0 0 S k i 1 l e d m a n u a l 37 . 0 54 56 . . 1 41 46 , . 7 3 0 - . 12 . 25 3. , 4 2 . 17 n o n m a n u a 1 21 .3 108 41 . .3 46 3 9 , .3 28 - . 18 .01 7 . .9 2 .01 M a n a g e r s 3 0 . 0 1 10 4 0 . .4 89 41 , .2 51 - . 10 . 1 1 3. .0 2 .21 R e s i d u a l 7 .3 151 17 . 6 17 14 , 1 9 2 - . 0 7 . 0 9 3 . .9 2 . 14 C o n t r o l 1 e d b y R e s p o n d e n t ' s A g e L e s s t h a n 3 0 2 9 .6 2 2 3 6 9 . 2 39 3 5 , , 7 14 - . 18 . 0 0 2 2 . .7 2 . 0 0 3 0 - 3 9 26 . 7 146 42 . .5 87 4 0 , .6 32 - . 15 .01 6 . .9 2 . 0 3 4 0 - 4 9 22 .4 4 9 4 6 . . 4 56 57 , .4 4 7 - . 3 0 .01 12. . 7 2 .01 5 0 - 6 4 13 .8 8 7 33 . 3 45 3 3 , ,0 88 - . 18 . 0 0 10. . 3 2 .01 65 + 2 . 4 82 0 10 7 , . 1 7 0 - .04 . 22 2 . .5 2 . 2 9 185 T A B L E 4 . 5 C O N T I N U E D R e n t e r s H o m e o w n e r s KT p . C h i S. d f p . Gamma m o r t g a g e o u t r i g h t % N % N % N C o n t r o l l e d b y L i f e - C y c l e - . 1 4 M a r r i e d 6 6 . 7 78 8 7 .9 33 5 0 . . 0 2 0 - .01 . 9 9 9 . . 1 2 .01 Fam i 1 y 31 . .8 176 41 .6 166 46 . , 2 130 - . 13 .01 7 , . 1 2 . 0 3 E 1 d e r 1 y 2. .6 77 0 10 3. ,4 58 - .01 . 9 9 .3 2 . 8 2 C o n t r o l 1 e d b y H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e 0 - 8 9 9 9 7 . . 0 158 8 .3 12 10. .6 4 7 - . 0 2 . 5 0 6 2 .71 9 0 0 0 - 1 6 , 9 9 9 12 . . 2 156 2 5 . . 0 32 2 2 . .9 48 - . 10 . 0 4 5. .3 2 . 0 7 1 7 0 0 0 - 2 2 , 9 9 9 3 0 . . 2 106 4 7 , .6 42 3 0 . 6 42 - . 0 6 . 4 2 4 . . 3 2 . 1 1 2 3 , 0 0 0 - 2 9 , 9 9 9 4 9 . .3 73 4-6 . 1 76 4 9 . 1 55 .01 . 9 9 . 1 2 . 9 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 + 55 . , 1 4 9 55 . . 1 6 9 48 . 9 45 . 0 5 . 6 0 5 2 . 7 8 186 TABLE 4.6 Percentage of Spouses Working By Hous ing Cos t s and Hous ing Tenure Renter s Homeowners Housing Cos t s % T o t a l N % T o t a l N 10% and l e s s 44.6 65 48.7 78 11% to 30% 26.3 320 40.4 245 over 30% 9.0 122 33.0 91 K e n d a l l ' s Tau .21 .10 P- .00 .04 homeowners (mortgaged o n l y for n o n s k i l l e d manual workers) are more l i k e l y to work o u t s i d e of the home than wives of r e n t e r s . The s u g g e s t i o n t h a t homeownership encourages the spouse to work i s r a t h e r i n t r i g u i n g and c e r t a i n l y c a s t s a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t on the s t e r e o t y p e of a f a m i l y - o r i e n t e d suburban e x i s t -ence which o f t e n accompanies d i s c u s s i o n s of the p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of homeownership. As can be seen from t a b l e 4 . 5 , the tendency fo r fewer spouses who rent to work o u t s i d e of the home i s e q u a l l y apparent amongst households w i t h and without c h i l d r e n . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that the two wages are l inked* to c o s t c o n s t r a i n t s i s suggested by the f a c t that i t i s p a r t i c u -l a r l y for those i n the lower income ranges tha t homeownership i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of women working o u t -s i d e of the home. F u r t h e r , the f a c t t h a t hous ing c o s t s are l e s s c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d to the spouses ' employment p a t t e r n for homeowners, as compared to r e n t e r s , (shown i n t a b l e 4.6) a l s o suggests t h a t two incomes are more c r i t i c a l l y neces sary to cover b a s i c hous ing c o s t s for many homeowning h o u s e h o l d s . 187 Community Attachment I t i s o f ten assumed that homeowners are more a t t a c h e d to t h e i r community than are r e n t e r s and tha t t h i s has the p o l i t i -c a l e f f e c t of d i f f u s i n g wider c l a s s a f f i l i a t i o n s w h i l s t en-2 c o u r a g m g g r e a t e r a c t i v i s m at the l o c a l l e v e l . These a t t a c h -ments are a t t r i b u t e d to l e s s r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y as w e l l as the a c t u a l ownership component ( i n the sense of h a v i n g ' a s t a k e ' i n the community and a r e a l i n t e r e s t i n the maintenance of p r o p e r t y v a l u e s ) . Community at tachment i s probed here through two q u e s t i o n s : "Do you c o n s i d e r y o u r s e l f a p a r t of the ne ighbourhood?" and , "How many of the ten f a m i l i e s l i v i n g c l o s e s t to you do you know by name?" The r o l e that r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y p l a y s i n c o n n e c t i o n to community at tachments i s exa-mined by c o n t r o l l i n g for the number of years l i v e d i n the ne ighbourhood . Renter s are indeed more mobi le than homeowners ( t a b l e 4 . 7 ) . Note however, the tendency fo r t h i s e f f e c t to become s t r o n g e r as the q u e s t i o n becomes more neighbourhood and d w e l l -ing s p e c i f i c . C la ims t h a t r e n t e r s are more g e o g r a p h i c a l l y mobi le o f t e n miss the p o i n t that r e n t e r s may a c t u a l l y be q u i t e D. B l a k e , "The E f f e c t of Context in a P o l a r i z e d P o l i t i c a l S e t t i n g , " American P o l i t i c a l Sc ience A s s o c i a t i o n Annual M e e t i n g , New Y o r k , 1981; K . R . Cox and J . J . M c C a r t h y , "Neighbourhood a c t i v i s m as a p o l i t i c s of t u r f , " i n Con- f l i c t , P o l i t i c s and the Urban Scene, e d . K .R . Cox and R . J . Johnston (London: Longman, 1981), pp . 196-219; D. Harvey , " L a b o r , C a p i t a l and C l a s s S t r u g g l e Around the B u i l t E n v i r o n -ment i n Advanced S o c i e t i e s , " i n U r b a n i z a t i o n and C o n f l i c t in Market S o c i e t i e s , e d . K . R . Cox ( C h i c a g o : Maaroufa , 1978) . 188 TABLE 4.7 R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y by Tenure P r o p o r t i o n L i v i n g Over 5 Years % Very L i k e l y To L i v e Where At Pre-s e n t l y i n 2 Years In C i t y Neighbourhood House % N • % N % N % N Renter s 72.0 925 37.2 925 18.8 920 29.3 918 Homeowners mortgage 80.8 502 50.9 503 39.1 494 68.6 503 o u t r i g h t 93.1 506 84.2 507 77.7 498 68.6 500 K e n d a l l ' s .19 .34 .43 - . 3 3 Tau and p . .00 .00 .00 .00 s t a b l e i n terms of c i t i e s or even ne ighbourhoods . Even w i t h l e n g t h of time l i v i n g i n neighbourhood c o n -t r o l l e d , however, g e n e r a l l y r e n t e r s f e e l l e s s a p a r t of the ne ighbourhood than homeowners, shown i n t a b l e 4 . 8 . An excep-t i o n to t h i s i s o u t r i g h t homeowners who have l i v e d i n t h e i r ne ighbourhood for l e s s than an y e a r . T h i s seeming anomoly may r e s u l t from p e c u l i a r i t i e s in the s m a l l sample of o u t r i g h t homeowners. The g e n e r a l t r e n d i s for homeowners to f e e l more a p a r t of the ne ighbourhood . As w e l l , homeowners tend to know more of the s u r r o u n d i n g ne ighbours by name than do r e n t e r s , even when l e n g t h of t ime 3 L . S . Bourne, The geography of h o u s i n g ; B . T . Robson, Urban S o c i a l Areas ( O x f o r d : Ox ford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975). 189 TABLE 4.8 P r o p o r t i o n of Respondents by Hous ing C l a s s Who C o n s i d e r Themselves Par t of T h e i r Ne ighbourhood , Number of Years L i v e d in Neighbourhood C o n t r o l l e d Number of Years L i v e d i n Neighbourhood l e s s than 1- 5 6-10 Over Ten one % N % N % N % N Renter s 47.6 143 52.2 414 60.7 1 17 80.2 217 H . o . - m. 78.6 42 68.1 191 79.3 92 80.9 162 - o . 45.5 11 64.6 65 80.5 77 79.4 335 K e n d a l l ' s Tau - . 1 7 . 14 • 19 .008 and p . .01 .00 • 00 NS i n ne ighbourhood i s c o n t r o l l e d ( t a b l e 4 . 9 ) . Thus , t h e r e does seem to be a c o n s i s t e n t tendency for homeowners to be more i n t e g r a t e d w i t h i n the ne ighbourhood , a s se s sed by f e e l i n g s of be ing par t of the ne ighbourhood , and by number of n e i g h b o u r s ' names known. TABLE 4.9 P r o p o r t i o n of Respondents Knowing 6-10 F a m i l i e s L i v i n g C l o s e s t , C o n t r o l l i n g For Years L i v e d i n Neighbourhood Years i n Neighbourhood l e s s than 1 1-5 6-10 over 10 N % N % N % N Renter s 5.3 151 22.6 424 35.8 120 52.1 219 H . o . - m. 25.5 47 39.7 199 64.5 93 70.6 163 - o. 36.4 11 37.7 69 65.4 81 74.6 342 K e n d a l l ' s Tau .27 .23 .24 .17 and p . .00 .00 .00 .00 190 P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t y Involvement i n d i f f e r e n t types of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y can be rough ly a s ses sed by responses to a s e r i e s of q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tems c o n c e r n i n g the number of t imes w i t h i n the l a s t f i v e y e a r s tha t the respondent had 1) a c t e d as a v o l u n t e e r worker d u r i n g a p o l i t i c a l campaign, 2) worked w i t h o t h e r s i n h i s / h e r community to t r y to s o l v e some community prob lem, 3) spoken or w r i t t e n to an e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , 4) s i gned a p e t i t i o n d i r e c t e d to some government agency or 5) a t t e n d e d a p r o t e s t meet ing or demons t ra t ion s u p p o r t i n g something he / she b e l i e v e s i n . There a r e , however, problems i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the responses to these q u e s t i o n s which p a r t i a l l y h inge on the vagueness of these p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s . What i s i n t e r p r e t e d to be a community prob lem, for i n s t a n c e ? Working to o f f s e t development p r e s s u r e s to demol i sh lower p r i c e d r e n t a l accomodation i s q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y than o r g a n i s i n g to a l t e r the o p e r a t i n g hours of m u n i c i p a l swimming p o o l s . Both c o u l d be termed community prob lems . As w e l l , i t i s p o s s i b l e tha t involvement i n such community problems c o u l d aga in be l i s t e d under the p r o t e s t ca tegory which i t s e l f i s vague ly d e f i n e d . Perhaps the most i n t e r e s t i n g d i s t i n c t i o n between the q u e s t i o n n a i r e items i s the t r a n s i t i o n of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y from i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e d forms such as working i n an e l e c t i o n campaign to the l e s s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e d form of p r o t e s t mee t ing . C o n s i d e r a t i o n w i l l be g i v e n to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e items r o u g h l y i n t h i s o r d e r . 191 The number of t imes i n d i v i d u a l s had r e c e n t l y v o l u n t e e r e d i n a p o l i t i c a l campaign i s not a s s o c i a t e d w i t h hous ing c l a s s ( t a b l e 4 . 1 0 ) . Nor are there any s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s when c l a s s , SES, household income, l i f e - c y c l e and e d u c a t i o n are c o n t r o l l e d . One can conc lude tha t hous ing c l a s s i s not p a r t i -c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t to v o l u n t e e r i n g i n p o l i t i c a l campaigns . TABLE 4.10 A s s o c i a t i o n s Between Number of Times V o l u n t e e r e d to Work i n P o l i t i c a l Campaign i n La s t F i v e Years and C o n t r o l Var i a b l e s K ' s Tau Chi Square N s i g . d . f s i g . C l a s s Hh. Head .02 NS 21 .4 1 2 .04 1 070 Spouse .02 NS 6.6 9 NS 581 SES Hh. Head .02 NS 26. 3 1 5 .03 1 070 Spouse . 02 NS 28.0 1 2 .00 581 Hh. Income Hh. Head .04 .02 11.7 9 NS 1 007 Spouse .03 NS 4.4 9 NS 614 L i f e - c y c l e Hh. Head .00 NS 7.4 1 2 NS 1 026 Spouse .00 NS 7.4 1 2 NS 628 Educat ion Hh. Head .07 .00 27.8 1 5 .02 1 081 Spouse .05 .02 13.5 1 5 NS 643 Housing C l a s s Hh. Head .02 NS 6.6 6 NS 1 083 Spouse .02 NS 6.8 6 NS 648 Involvement i n community problem s o l v i n g i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n but not p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h hous ing c l a s s ( t a b l e 4 . 1 1 ) . There a r e , however, s c a t t e r e d i n t e r a c -t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and o ther c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s , shown 192 i n t a b l e 4 .12 . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note tha t the g e n e r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and community a c t i v i s m w i t h i n nonmanual SES c a t e g o r i e s i s not a s imple a r t i f a c t of number of year s l i v e d i n a ne ighbourhood , a l t h o u g h l i m i t e d sample s i z e s l e a v e these four-way c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s very i n -complete . TABLE 4.11 A s s o c i a t i o n s Between C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s and Number of Times I n v o l v e d i n Community Problem S o l v i n g in La s t F i v e Years K e n d a l l ' s Tau C h i Square N s i g . d . f . s i g . C l a s s Hh. Head - .02 NS 20.9 1 2 .05 1069 Spouse .09 .00 22.9 9 .00 581 SES Hh. Head .01 NS 26.4 1 5 .03 1 069 Spouse . 1 1 .00 33.5 1 2 .00 581 L i f e - c y c l e Hh. Head .04 .05 24.7 9 .00 1 024 Spouse .00 NS 13.0 9 NS 628 Hh. Income Hh. Head .07 .00 26.3 1 2 .00 1006 Spouse .06 .03 12.8 1 2 NS 614 Educat ion Hh. Head . 1 5 .00 58.9 1 5 .00 1080 Spouse . 1 5 .00 41.1 1 5 .00 643 Hous ing C l a s s Hh. Head .03 NS 5.8 6 NS 1082 Spouse .06 .03 10.3 6 NS 648 193 TABLE 4.12 S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t I n t e r a c t i o n s Between Hous ing C l a s s and V a r i o u s C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s for Number of Times I n v o l v e d i n Community Problem S o l v i n g i n Las t 5 Years G e n e r a l Hous ing C l a s s E f f e c t Household Heads Spouses I n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h : C o n t . V a r . Va lue C l a s s Hh. Income E d u c a t i o n h i g h s c h o o l d . (hh. heads) 2nd C o n t . Va lue SES n . s . n.man. (hh . heads) year s l i v e d i n community < 1 1-5 6-10 > 10 s. n.man (hh. heads) year s l i v e d i n community < 1 1-5 6-10 > 10 L i f e - c y c l e e l d e r l y (spouse) K e n d a l l ' s Tau Gamma s i g . N .03 NS 1082 .06 .03 648 none none 13 .01 201 13 .04 120 .07 .08 .04 . 1 1 .06 i n s u f f i c i e n t nos . i n s u f f i c i e n t nos . i n s u f f i c i e n t nos . .30 .00 53 .14 .02 181 i n s u f f i c i e n t nos . i n s u f f i c i e n t nos . .16 NS 51 .20 .05 65 .08 .12 .04 1 44 194 C o n s i d e r i n g the a c t s of w r i t i n g or speaking to an e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , there i s not an e s p e c i a l l y s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i s p o l i t i c a l ac t and hous ing c l a s s ( K e n d a l l ' s tau=.05, p=.04, N=1084 for household heads and K e n d a l l ' s tau=.06, p=.03, N=648 for s p o u s e s ) . I n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s s i m i -l a r to those found for the p r e c e d i n g two q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tems a r e , however, a p p a r e n t , as w e l l as s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l ones ( t a b l e 4 . 1 3 ) . There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and w r i t -ing or speaking to a p o l i t i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e when househo ld income i s c o n t r o l l e d . V a r i a t i o n s i n household income do not however e x p l a i n the noted a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and the p o l i t i c a l ac t of w r i t i n g or speaking to an e l e c t e d TABLE 4.13 S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t I n t e r a c t i o n s Between Hous ing C l a s s and V a r i o u s C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s for Number of Times W r i t t e n or Spoken to an E l e c t e d O f f i c i a l i n Las t 5 Years K e n d a l l ' s Tau Gamma .09 s i g . N G e n e r a l Hous ing C l a s s E f f e c t Household Heads .05 .04 1 084 Spouses .06 .03 648 I n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h : C o n t r o l V a r . Va lue C l a s s working (hh.head) .08 .05 521 SES n s . nonmanual (hh . head) . 1 3 .05 1 20 s. nonmanual (hh. head) .13 .02 1 20 L i f e - c y c l e f a m i l y (hh. head) .09 .02 473 f a m i l y (spouse) . 1 1 .00 488 E d u c a t i o n h i g h s c h o o l d . (hh . head) . 1 6 .00 201 Hh. Income none 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 5 04 195 r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r SES and l i f e - c y c l e groups , for i n s t a n c e . Even c o n t r o l l i n g for income an a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and formal c o n t a c t s wi th e l e c t e d r e p r e -s e n t a t i v e s i s e v i d e n t amongst n o n s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual workers and amongst m a r r i e d respondents w i t h c h i l d r e n , i n the moderate income ranges ( t a b l e A V . 1 ) . Moving down the continuum of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e d to l e s s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e d p o l i t i c a l re sponse , some support i s o f f e r e d to the s u g g e s t i o n that p e t i t i o n s i g n i n g and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p r o t e s t meet ings are somewhat d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l a c t s than the three p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d . In the case of the three q u e s t i o n n a i r e items a l r e a d y c o n s i d e r e d there i s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p , where there i s any, between p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n and the v a r i o u s c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . As the type of p o l i t i c a l a c t i -v i t y takes more of the form of p r o t e s t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s ( e x c e p t i n g e d u c a t i o n ) and p o l i -t i c a l a c t i v i t y becomes a n e g a t i v e one (with t e n a n t s , for i n s t a n c e , b e i n g more a c t i v e than homeowners). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and p e t i t i o n s i g n -ing w i l l be mentioned o n l y b r i e f l y . A l t h o u g h there i s a nega t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e t i t i o n s i g n i n g and hous ing c l a s s for household heads ( K e n d a l l ' s t au=- .05 , p .= .04 , N=1084) i t i s a weak one and there i s not much i n the way of i n t e r -a c t i o n e f f e c t s of s i g n i f i c a n c e ( those that there are w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n r e l a t i o n to p r o t e s t m e e t i n g s ) . There i s no r e l a -t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s e s and p e t i t i o n s i g n i n g for spouses of househo ld heads ( K e n d a l l ' s tau=.05, p . = . ! 3 , N=646). 1 96 Attendance at p r o t e s t meet ings i s most s t r o n g l y a s soc-i a t e d wi th e d u c a t i o n and t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n remains p o s i t i v e , w i t h those who have a t t a i n e d most e d u c a t i o n a t t e n d i n g more p r o t e s t meet ings ( t a b l e 4 . 1 4 ) . There are a l s o weak n e g a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n s between l i f e - c y c l e , c l a s s , and hous ing c l a s s for househo ld heads . The l a t t e r a s s o c i a t i o n s are such t h a t t h e r e i s a g r e a t e r tendency for ' l o w e r ' c l a s s , younger household heads and r e n t e r s to a t t e n d p r o t e s t meet ings . However, from t a b l e 4 .15 , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t tendance at p r o t e s t meetings i s l a r g e l y r e s t r i c t e d to those under 30 year s of age. TABLE 4.14 A s s o c i a t i o n s Between C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s and At tendance at P r o t e s t Meet ings K e n d a l l ' s Tau Chi Square N p . d . f . p . C l a s s Hh. Head - . 0 6 .00 16.7 12 NS 1 069 Spouse .02 NS 2.9 9 NS 581 SES Hh. Head - . 02 NS 20.4 1 5 NS 1 069 Spouse .02 NS 13.7 1 2 NS 581 L i f e - c y c l e Hh. Head - . 0 5 .00 21.6 9 .01 1 024 Spouse - . 0 3 .03 11.5 9 NS 628 Hh. Income Hh. Head .03 NS 11.5 1 2 NS 1 007 Spouse .03 NS 23.6 12 .02 614 Educat ion Hh. Head .14 .00 74.9 1 5 .00 1080 Spouse .12 .00 50. 1 15 .00 643 Hous ing C l a s s Hh. Head - . 0 7 .00 16.8 6 .00 1 082 Spouse -.01 NS 14.7 6 .02 648 1 97 TABLE 4.15 At tendance at P r o t e s t Meet ings by Housing C l a s s , C o n t r o l l e d by Respondent ' s Age Renter s Homeowners K ' s Tau Gamma M o r t g . O u t r i g h t p . Mean N Mean N Mean N Response G e n e r a l E f f e c t - . 1 9 Hhold Head 1.4 594 1.3 238 1.2 250 - . 0 8 .00 Spouse 1.2 238 1.2 232 1.2 178 -.01 .63 C o n t r o l l e d by Respondent ' s Age - . 0 8 < 30 Hhold Head 1 .6 1 58 1 .3 38 1 .4 1 4 - . 0 8 .03 Spouse 1 .3 1 1 4 1 .2 51 1 .2 1 1 - . 0 3 .42 30-39 Hhold Head 1 .3 1 48 1 .4 88 1 .2 30 .00 .99 Spouse 1 .2 55 1 .3 92 1 .0 38 .05 .29 40-49 Hhold Head 1 .3 50 1 .3 56 1 .3 48 .02 .65 Spouse 1 .2 31 1 .2 47 1 . 1 51 -.01 .93 50-64 Hhold Head 1 .2 89 1 .2 45 1 . 1 89 -.01 .65 Spouse 1 . 3 25 1 .3 34 1 . 1 61 - . 0 7 . 18 65 + Hhold Head 1 .3 82 1 .0 1 0 1 . 1 68 - . 02 .55 Spouse 1 .0 1 2 6 1 .0 1 7 198 B r i e f l y , what c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn from the ev idence of t h i s survey data c o n c e r n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous-ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m ? F i r s t l y , any a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m are s t r o n g e r for househo ld heads than for t h e i r spouses . In the case of two q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , community involvement and w r i t i n g or speak ing to an e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , the g e n e r a l a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and the p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y i s s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r for spouses , but the a s s o c i a t i o n tends to be minimal when the v a r i o u s c o n t r o l a n a l y s e s are c a r r i e d o u t . Part of t h i s i s mere ly an a r t i f a c t of the s m a l l e r sample s i z e for spouses b u t , l o o k i n g at a c t u a l l e v e l s of a s s o c i a t i o n and not merely l e v e l s of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , t h i s i s not the o n l y e x p l a n a t i o n . What seems more c o n s i s t e n t l y to be the case i s a low o v e r a l l l e v e l of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y amongst spouses of household heads ac ro s s a l l hous ing c l a s s e s which in e f f e c t c r e a t e s a low c e i l i n g under which v a r i a t i o n s are more d i f f i -c u l t to d i s c e r n . The g e n e r a l c o n s i s t e n c y of the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s e s and each p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y a c ro s s d i f f e r e n t c o n t r o l groups shou ld be n o t e d , e s p e c i a l l y g iven the c o n s i s t e n t s h i f t i n d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of a s s o c i a t i o n between q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems . That i s , a l t h o u g h the s t r e n g t h of a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s e s and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s i s not overwhelming for any q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tem there i s a c o n s i s t e n t l y p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n -1 99 s h i p between the hous ing c l a s s v a r i a b l e and w r i t i n g or speak-ing to an e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , when the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a p p a r e n t , and a g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t nega t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p between the hous ing c l a s s v a r i a b l e and a t t e n d i n g p r o t e s t meet-i n g s . So t o o , there i s a c o n s i s t e n c y i n the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s - t h i s i s somewhat c l e a r e r when d i s p l a y e d i n F i g u r e 4 . 1 . In F i g u r e 4.1 v a r i a t i o n in p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y by h o u s i n g c l a s s i s shown for each SES group. A c r o s s the f i r s t t h r e e q u e s t i o n -n a i r e i t ems , v o l u n t e e r i n g in a p o l i t i c a l campaign, working on a community problem and speak ing or w r i t i n g to an e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t fo r n o n s k i l l e d nonmanual household heads . For the l a t t e r two q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , the hous ing e f f e c t i s apparent for s k i l l e d nonmanual househo ld heads as w e l l . For the ques-t i o n n a i r e i tem i n v o l v i n g a t tendance at p r o t e s t mee t ing s , the i n t e r a c t i o n s are the m i r r o r of these in the sense tha t the manual and manager SES c a t e g o r i e s show the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t . One way of i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s t r a n s i t i o n i s by c o n -s i d e r i n g t h a t , w i t h the former types of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y r e n t e r s were much l e s s a c t i v e than homeowners ( e s p e c i a l l y o u t r i g h t owners) i n the n o n s k i l l e d and s k i l l e d nonmanual o c c u -p a t i o n s . That there i s no e f f e c t for hous ing c l a s s w i t h i n these SES c a t e g o r i e s for a t tendance at p r o t e s t m e e t i n g s , means that r e n t e r s are more a c t i v e i n terms of p r o t e s t than they are i n terms of o t h e r types of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y a l t h o u g h no more so than homeowners. F u r t h e r , the r e l a t i v e l y h i g h l e v e l of 200 FIGURE 4.1 Number o f T i m e s I n v o l v e d i n a V a r i e t y o f P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t i e s , Shown by H o u s i n g C l a s s f o r e a c h SES g r o u p . V O L U N T E E R IN P O L I T I C A L C A M P A I G N 2.0 r N S N M S P O K E N T O E L E C T E D REP. w 2 . 0 r CD E 1.8 .1.6 2 1.4 E -5 1.2 .1.0 NSNM ; N S M R M O Hous ing C l a s s WORKED O N C O M M U N I T Y P R O B L E M R M O Housing Class 2.0 r SNM M N S N M A T T E N D E D A P R O T E S T MEETING 2.0 W CD E 1.8 R M O Housing C l a s s o 1 - 6 co 1.4 I 1-2 1.0 • N S N M • SNM M SM ±1£M R M Housing C la s s S IGNED A PET IT ION 2.0 ime 1.8 1.6 o k_ CD 1.4 n E D •1.2 Z 1.0 SNM • *• * N S M R M O Housing C l a s s M -Manager S N M ' S k i l l e d N o n m a n u a l SM=Sk i l l ed Manua l N S N M ' N o n s k i l l e d N o n m a n u a l N S M ' N o n s k i l l e a Manual not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t statist ical ly significant 201 a t tendance at p r o t e s t meet ings by homeowners i n the n o n s k i l l e d and s k i l l e d nonmanual c a t e g o r i e s c o u l d a c t u a l l y s imply r e f l e c t t h e i r h i g h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n community a c t i v i t i e s i f these respondents a l s o c l a s s i f i e d community a c t i v i s m as a t t e n d i n g p r o t e s t demons t ra t ions for something they b e l i e v e i n . Because the c a t e g o r i e s for community a c t i v i s m and p r o t e s t are not l o g i c a l l y e x c l u s i v e , as they are phrased i n the s u r v e y , r e spon-dents c o u l d e a s i l y count the same a c t i v i t i e s t w i c e . The chosen methodology n e c e s s i t a t e s a r a t h e r p a i n s t a k i n g e v a l u a t i o n of the i n t e r a c t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and v a r -ious c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s for each q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m . For each of the p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s e x p l o r e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t was not e v i d e n t a c r o s s a l l c o n t r o l v a r -i a b l e s . In the case of involvement i n p o l i t i c a l campaigns, community problems and w r i t i n g or speaking to an e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , for i n s t a n c e , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s not e v i d e n t when household income i s c o n t r o l l e d . However, as was demonstrated fo r the i tem on w r i t i n g to an e l e c t e d r e p r e -s e n t a t i v e , t h e r e are SES and income i n t e r a c t i o n s so that household income does not account for the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t c o m p l e t e l y even for these q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems . As we s h a l l see , the p a t t e r n s of i n t e r a c t i o n between c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s and hous ing c l a s s are q u i t e s y s t e m a t i c , and hence p a t t e r n s of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n these se t s of four-way c r o s s t a b u -l a t i o n s do not s imply r e f l e c t a random p a t t e r n of s i g n i f i c a n c e a c r o s s a number of s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s . 202 P r o v i n c i a l and F e d e r a l P a r ty A f f i l i a t i o n In t h i s s e c t i o n a f f i l i a t i o n to f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l p a r t i e s i s e v a l u a t e d in terms of hous ing c l a s s . An attempt was made to get at more s t a b l e p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n s . In the case of f e d e r a l p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n , respondents were asked i f they u s u a l l y thought of themselves as a L i b e r a l , P r o g r e s s i v e Con-s e r v a t i v e ( P . C ) , New Democrat ic ( N . D . P . ) , S o c i a l C r e d i t or o ther p a r t y member and, i f they d i d , t h i s was taken to be t h e i r p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n . I f they d i d n o t , they were asked i f they thought of themselves as be ing a l i t t l e c l o s e r to one of the p a r t i e s than to the o t h e r s and , i f they d i d , t h i s was t h e i r p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n . I f they d i d n o t , they were c o n s i d e r e d to be a f f i l i a t e d w i t h the p a r t y they would vote for i f an e l e c t i o n was c a l l e d that day. The a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n i s much s t r o n g e r for p r o v i n c i a l than for f e d e r a l p o l i t i c s ( t a b l e 4 . 1 6 ) , when the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l p a r t y p r e f e r e n c e i s measured by K e n d a l l ' s Tau , w i t h p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s o r d e r e d from c o n s e r v a t i v e to l e s s c o n s e r v a t i v e . There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t r o v e r s y c o n c e r n i n g the appro-p r i a t e o r d e r i n g of p a r t i e s on a l e f t - r i g h t cont inuum. For i n s t a n c e , E l k i n s , i n e x p l o r i n g the u s e f u l n e s s of l e f t - r i g h t as a s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e for the p a r t y system i n Canada, notes that p e r c e p t i o n s of t h i s o r d e r i n g vary r e g i o n a l l y ; i n p r o -v i n c e s west of O n t a r i o p a r t i e s tended to be o r d e r e d from l e f t 203 to r i g h t as N . D . P . , P . C , L i b e r a l , S o c i a l C r e d i t , w h i l e the l e f t - r i g h t o r d e r i n g of N . D . P . , L i b e r a l , P . C . and S o c i a l C r e d i t was dominant i n O n t a r i o , Quebec, the A t l a n t i c p r o v i n c e s and 4 Newfoundland. P e r c e p t i o n s of p a r t i e s a l o n g a l e f t - r i g h t cont inuum a l s o vary wi th p a r t y membership; for i n s t a n c e , N . D . P . s u p p o r t e r s tended to pre sent the o r d e r i n g of C r e d i t i s t e , N . D . P . , L i b e r a l , S o c i a l C r e d i t and P . C , w h i l e P . C . s u p p o r t e r s o r d e r e d p a r t i e s as N . D . P . , L i b e r a l , C r e d i t i s t e , P . C , S o c i a l C r e d i t . N o t i n g t h i s v a r i a b i l i t y , a s i n g l e o r d e r -ing was n e v e r t h e l e s s employed i n t h i s s t u d y , perhaps r e f l e c t -ing the a u t h o r ' s b i a s e s as much as an o b j e c t i v e r a n k i n g . P r o v i n c i a l p a r t i e s were ranked P a r t i Quebecois , N . D . P . , L i b e r a l , S o c i a l C r e d i t and P . C . and f e d e r a l p a r t i e s o r d e r e d as N . D . P . , L i b e r a l , S o c i a l C r e d i t and P . C . N o t i n g the t e n t a -t i v e n e s s of any o r d i n a l r a n k i n g , i t i s u s e f u l to note t h a t there are few i n s t a n c e s i n which t h i s o r d e r i n g seems to d i s -t o r t r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n p a r t y support a c r o s s hous ing c l a s s e s , e v i d e n t by comparing the c h i square s t a t i s t i c , which does not assume an o r d i n a l r a n k i n g , and K e n d a l l ' s t a u , both shown i n t a b l e 4 .16 . In t a b l e 4.17 the a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and p a r t y support are shown, c o n t r o l l i n g for c l a s s , SES, l i f e - c y c l e , household income and e d u c a t i o n and, a g a i n , the o r d e r i n g does not seem to have v e i l e d any o ther d i f f e r e n c e s i n p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n f o l l o w i n g an a l t e r n a t e o r d e r i n g . Of the 52 4 D . J . E l k i n s , "The S t r u c t u r e of P r o v i n c i a l P a r t y Sys tems , " i n Smal l W o r l d s : P r o v i n c e s and P a r t i e s i n Canadian P o l i t i c a l hife~, e d . D . J . E l k i n s and R. Simeon ( T o r o n t o : Methuen, 1980), pp . 211-242. 204 a s s o c i a t i o n s shown for household heads , for o n l y 10 was there a d i s c r e p a n c y between the c h i square and K e n d a l l ' s t au s t a t i s -t i c s and i n a l l cases i t i s K e n d a l l ' s t au which i s s t a t i s t i -c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and the c h i square which i s n o t , sugge s t ing the r e l e v a n c e of the o r d e r i n g employed. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and both p r o v i n -c i a l and f e d e r a l p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n i s s t r o n g e r w i t h i n p a r t i c u -l a r SES, l i f e - c y c l e , househo ld income and e d u c a t i o n groups , shown i n t a b l e 4 .17 . In p a r t i c u l a r , for household heads , manager ia l and s k i l l e d nonmanual homeowners (mortgaged on ly for the l a t t e r SES group - t a b l e 4.18) are l e s s l i k e l y to vote N . D . P . (as w e l l as P a r t i Quebecois i n Quebec). So too are homeowners w i t h f a m i l i e s . Amongst the s i n g l e and m a r r i e d respondents as w e l l , a s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n of mortgaged home-owners tend to a f f i l i a t e themselves w i t h the N . D . P . than r e n t e r s and o u t r i g h t homeowners. W i t h i n income c a t e g o r i e s there i s the expected a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and f e d e r a l p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n o n l y for household heads w i t h i n -comes between $9000 and $16,999 and over $30,000. These a r e ' two income c a t e g o r i e s fo r which a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s r e p e a t e d l y e v i d e n t . The a s s o c i a t i o n between p r o v i n c i a l p a r t y support and hous ing c l a s s e s does however extend a c r o s s a broader range of income c a t e g o r i e s . F i n a l l y , when e d u c a t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d , a g a i n , t h e r e i s l i t t l e i n the way of hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s amongst spouses but a c l e a r one for household heads w i t h some h i g h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n , as w e l l as a l e s s c o n s i s t e n t set of r e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst o ther e d u c a t i o n c a t e -205 TABLE 4.16 A s s o c i a t i o n s Between F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l P a r t y Support and C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s C o n t r o l K e n d a l l ' s Tau Chi Square N V a r i a b l e s p . d . f . p . FEDERAL PARTY AFFILIATION C l a s s Hh. Head - . 08 .00 22. .6 1 2 .03 885 Spouse - .02 NS 5. .6 8 NS 477 SES Hh. Head - . 1 0 .00 25. .3 1 5 .04 885 Spouse - . 0 6 . 10 19. .0 1 2 .09 477 L i f e - c y c l e Hh. Head -.01 NS 1 1 . .6 9 NS 845 Spouse -.01 NS 3. .4 9 NS 524 Hh. Income Hh. Head .04 NS 20. .6 1 2 .05 840 Spouse - .05 NS 16. .3 1 2 NS 515 E d u c a t i o n Hh. Head .00 NS 19. . 1 1 5 NS 887 Spouse - . 0 4 NS 26. .0 1 5 .04 532 Housing C l a s s Hh. Head - . 0 6 .02 6. .2 6 NS 889 Spouse -.01 NS 9. .2 6 NS 537 PROVINCIAL PARTY AFFILIATION C l a s s Hh. Head - .12 .00 34. .5 1 6 .01 907 Spouse - . 0 6 NS 12, .3 1 2 NS 486 SES Hh. Head - . 1 5 .00 51 . .0 20 .00 907 Spouse - . 0 8 . 02 28. .8 1 6 .02 486 L i f e - c y c l e Hh. Head - . 0 6 .02 26. .6 1 2 .00 873 Spouse - . 0 4 . 1 1 18. .7 1 2 .09 527 Hh. Income Hh. Head -.01 NS 21 . .2 1 6 NS 862 Spouse - .02 NS 8. .6 1 6 NS 520 E d u c a t i o n Hh. Head .01 NS 30. ,7 20 .06 912 Spouse .00 NS 24. .3 20 NS 537 Hous ing C l a s s Hh. Head - . 1 4 .00 35. ,4 8 .00 914 Spouse - .12 .00 26. . 1 8 .00 542 206 TABLE 4.17 A s s o c i a t i o n s Between Hous ing C l a s s and Par ty Suppor t , C o n t r o l l i n g for C l a s s , SES, L i f e - c y c l e , Household Income and E d u c a t i o n Household Heads Spouses Gamma K e n d a l l ' s Tau N K e n d a l l ' s Tau N P- P-G e n e r a l Hous ing C l a s s E f f e c t F e d e r a l .06 .02 889 -.01 NS 537 - . 0 8 P r o v i n c i a l . 1 4 .00 914 - .12 .00 542 - . 1 9 I n t e r a c t i o n s : C l a s s F e d e r a l - . 0 4 working .02 NS 423 .02 NS 252 new middle .08 NS 1 04 .05 NS 94 p e t t y b o u r g . - . 1 6 NS 51 - .02 NS 38 b o u r g e o i s i e - .07 NS 92 - . 10 NS 93 r e s i d u a l .07 NS 213 P r o v i n c i a l - . 1 9 working . 1 3 .00 450 - .12 .03 259 new middle . 1 4 NS 1 1 0 - . 0 4 NS 97 p e t t y b o u r g . - . 1 3 NS 48 - . 1 6 NS 37 b o u r g e o i s i e - .08 NS 86 - . 0 7 NS 93 r e s i d u a l . 1 4 .01 21 1 SES F e d e r a l - . 1 0 n s . manual .09 NS 99 . 00 NS 82 n s . nmanual - .03 NS 1 00 -.11 NS 33 s. manual .04 NS 1 04 .09 NS 1 1 1 s. nmanual .08 NS 1 45 - . 08 NS 74 managers . 1 1 .04 222 - . 0 3 NS 1 77 r e s i d u a l .07 NS 213 P r o v i n c i a l - . 1 9 ns . manual .12 NS 1 04 - . 1 7 .05 86 n s . nmanual - .17 .03 1 05 - . 0 3 NS 35 s. manual . 1 1 NS 1 1 1 - . 0 4 NS 1 10 s. nmanual .10 NS 1 57 - . 0 9 NS 78 managers . 1 5 .01 217 - . 0 7 NS 1 77 r e s i d u a l . 1 4 .01 21 1 L i f e - c y c l e F e d e r a l - . 0 8 s i n g l e .04 NS 223 m a r r i e d .06 NS 1 07 -.01 NS 75 f a m i l y . 1 1 .04 275 .00 NS 323 e l d e r l y .04 NS 238 - . 0 6 NS 1 24 207 TABLE 4.17 CONTINUED Household Heads K e n d a l l ' s Tau N P-Spouses K e n d a l l ' s Tau P-N Gamma General Housing C l a s s E f f e c t F e d e r a l -.06 .02 889 -.01 NS 537 Provinc i a l -.14 .00 914 -.12 .00 542 I n t e r a c t i o n s : L i f e - c y c l e Provinc i a l s i n g l e -.05 NS 234 married -.22 .00 1 1 7 -.10 NS 82 fam i l y -.14 .00 399 -.12 .01 410 e l d e r l y -.09 NS 121 -.08 NS 35 Household Income F e d e r a l 0-8999 -.03 NS 1 70 -.30 .02 39 9000-16999 -.10 .06 198 .02 NS 94 17000-22999 -.04 NS 1 50 .03 NS 1 03 23000-29999 -.07 NS 1 73 .03 NS 1 44 30000 + -.15 .03 1 47 .03 NS 1 35 Provinc i a l 0-8999 -.18 . 00 1 38 -.27 .03 41 9000-16999 -.13 .02 202 -.12 NS 91 17000-22999 -.13 .05 1 56 -.10 NS 1 03 23000-29999 -.05 NS 1 76 -.14 .06 1 50 30000 + -.18 .01 1 50 -.01 NS 1 35 Educat ion F e d e r a l no high s. .08 NS 1 50 -.02 NS 47 some high s. -.15 .02 1 69 -.06 NS 1 34 high s. d. -.09 NS 1 65 .03 NS 141 t e c h n i c a l .00 NS 84 .08 NS 45 some c. -.14 .05 131 -.08 NS 85 c o l l e g e d. -.07 NS 186 -.09 NS 66 Provinc i a l no high s. -.03 NS 1 52 -.09 NS 63 some high s. -.25 .00 1 76 -.10 NS 1 32 high s. d. -.17 .01 1 72 -.14 . 06 1 43 t e c h n i c a l -.22 .02 82 .01 NS 46 some c. -.07 NS 1 44 -.06 NS 86 c o l l e g e d. -.10 NS 184 -.24 .02 67 08 19 - . 18 -.09 1 9 -.10 -.19 208 TABLE 4.18 P r o p o r t i o n V o t i n g P . C . or S o c i a l C r e d i t P r o v i n c i a l l y By Hous ing C l a s s , C l a s s and SES C o n t r o l l e d Renters Homeowners KT s i g . Mortgaged O u t r i g h t % N % N % N C l a s s Working Hh. Heads 20. ,6 258 36. 1 108 22. ,6 1 9 - . 13 .00 Spouses 22. ,8 1 14 32. , 1 87 32. ,7 58 - .12 .03 New M i d d l e Hh. Heads 17. , 1 47 31 . ,8 41 36. ,4 22 - . 1 3 . 1 1 Spouses 34. ,5 29 25. ,6 39 20. ,7 29 - . 04 .67 P . B o u r g e o i s i e Hh. Heads 21 . .7 23 31 . ,2 .1 7 25. ,0 8 - . 1 3 .32 Spouses 38. ,5 13 38. ,5 1 3 36. .4 1 1 - . 1 6 .28 Bourgeoi s i e Hh. Heads 25. ,0 32 48. ,5 33 33. .4 21 - . 08 .39 Spouses 14. .2 14 37. .2 51 28. .6 28 - . 0 6 .43 ; E S N o n s k i l l e d Man. Hh. Heads 23, . 4 60 23, .6 1 7 7, .4 27 - .12 . 1 5 Spouses 18. .8 48 26, .7 1 5 30, .4 23 - . 1 7 .05 Nonsk. Nonman. Hh. Heads 18, .6 70 14, .3 21 28, .6 1 4 - . 17 .03 Spouses 22, .7 22 33, .3 6 28, .6 7 - . 03 .85 S k i l l e d Manual Hh. Heads 31 . . 1 46 29, .0 38 25, .9 27 -.11 .19 Spouses 21 . .9 32 30, .4 46 21 , .9 32 - . 04 .60 S k i l l e d Nonman. Hh. Heads 22, .8 92 42, .5 40 32, .0 25 - . 1 0 . 1 1 Spouses 30, . 1 26 33, .4 36 31 , .3 1 6 - . 0 9 .34 Managers Hh. Heads 21 , .7 92 48, . 1 83 35 .8 42 - . 1 5 .01 Spouses 33, .4 42 34, .5 87 33, .4 48 - . 07 .24 209 gor i e s . When four-way c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n s are c a r r i e d out - f o r i n -s t a n c e , when c l a s s or SES and l i f e - c y c l e are c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l -t a n e o u s l y - the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s do not c a n c e l o u t . The hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t amongst m a r r i e d man-agers w i t h no c h i l d r e n ( K e n d a l l ' s t au=- .23 , p=.03, N=60) but the t r e n d a c r o s s o ther c l a s s and SES groups i s for a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of r e n t e r s to a f f i l i a t e themselves w i t h the N . D . P . . The e x c e p t i o n s to t h i s g e n e r a l i s a t i o n occur amongst the new middle c l a s s and s k i l l e d manual workers , i n which cases home-owners are more s u p p o r t i v e of the N . D . P . . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between p o l i t i c a l p a r t y s u p p o r t , f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l , and the v a r i o u s c o n t r o l measures can be summarised i n the f o l l o w i n g way: p o l i t i c a l p a r t y support tends to be r e l a t e d t o SES and c l a s s for household heads ( a l though not for spouses at the f e d e r a l l e v e l ) but not p a r t i c u l a r l y to l i f e - c y c l e , household income or e d u c a t i o n for e i t h e r household heads or spouses . A g a i n , the SES measure seems more c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d than the c l a s s measure to p o l i t i c a l p a r t y s u p p o r t . T h i s i s because the d i s t i n c t i o n s between s k i l l e d / n o n s k i l l e d and manual/nonmanual workers are r e l e v a n t to p o l i t i c a l p a r t y s u p p o r t . The most i n t e r e s t i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s f o r the pre sent purposes are between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l p a r t y a f f i l -i a t i o n w h i c h , a l t h o u g h not as s t r o n g as the a s s o c i a t i o n s between SES and p o l i t i c a l p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n , are c o n s i s -t e n t l y e v i d e n t for household heads and e v i d e n t for spouses at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l ( i n which case t h e r e i s no g e n e r a l a s so-210 c i a t i o n between c l a s s and p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n , for i n s t a n c e ) . Housing c l a s s i s more s t r o n g l y and b r o a d l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h v a r i a t i o n s i n p o l i t i c a l p a r t y support at the p r o v i n c i a l than the f e d e r a l l e v e l of government and amongst household heads than spouses . At both l e v e l s , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t amongst the manager i a l SES groups and i t i s e s p e c i a l l y mortgaged homeowners who tend to be more c o n s e r -v a t i v e i n p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n . A g a i n , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s e v i d e n t for household heads w i t h incomes between $9000 and $16,999 and over $30,000 and spouses in the lowest income c a t e g o r y . When e d u c a t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d , there i s no r e l a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and f e d e r a l p a r t y support for spouses and a r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and p r o v i n c i a l p a r t y support on ly for spouses w i t h u n i v e r s i t y degrees , w i t h home-owners more l i k e l y to support the P . C . and S o c i a l C r e d i t p a r t i e s . For household heads , the p a t t e r n of i n t e r a c t i o n i s more i n v o l v e d . As a rough g e n e r a l i s a t i o n , for those w i t h a h i g h s c h o o l or c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n , t h e r e tends to be a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t at both the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l l e v e l . C l a s s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n As o u t l i n e d i n chapter 1, the case has been made tha t homeownership i s l i n k e d to p e r c e p t i o n s of midd le c l a s s s t a t u s and thus has had the e f f e c t of f ragment ing the B r i t i s h and American working c l a s s e s , i d e o l o g i c a l l y and p o l i t i c a l l y . T h i s i s sue w i l l be e x p l o r e d h e r e . In a d d i t i o n , we s h a l l g a i n an impre s s ion of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the s u b j e c t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of 21 1 c l a s s h e l d by the respondents to t h e i r o b j e c t i v e c l a s s p l a c e -ment, as o p e r a t i o n a l i s e d in t h i s a n a l y s i s . C l a s s p e r c e p t i o n s are e s p e c i a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h educa-t i o n , SES and househo ld income ( t a b l e 4 . 1 9 ) . A l t h o u g h the m a j o r i t y of respondents see themselves as middle c l a s s , the SES d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s w i t h i n the working c l a s s are r e l e v a n t to c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ; nonmanual workers and those c l a s s i f i e d i n s k i l l e d o c c u p a t i o n s are l e s s l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y w i t h the working and lower c l a s s e s . Hence the a s s o c i a t i o n between SES and c l a s s p e r c e p t i o n i s s t r o n g e r than that between c l a s s and c l a s s p e r c e p t i o n . The s t r o n g a s s o c i a t i o n between e d u c a t i o n and c l a s s p e r c e p t i o n i s l i n k e d to a tendency for fewer respondents w i t h e d u c a t i o n beyond h i g h s c h o o l to c o n s i d e r themselves as lower or working c l a s s . As w e l l , there i s an a s s o c i a t i o n between income and c l a s s p e r c e p t i o n s , wi th those w i t h h i g h e r incomes g e n e r a l l y i d e n t i f y i n g l e s s o f t e n wi th working and lower c l a s s e s . There i s a weak o v e r a l l a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . T h i s i s because the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and c l a s s p e r c e p t i o n s i s s p e c i f i c to p a r t i c u l a r g roups , for i n s t a n c e , the s k i l l e d nonmanual house-h o l d heads ( t a b l e 4 . 2 0 ) . In t h i s c a s e , 26.9% of the 109 r e n t e r s viewed themselves as working or lower c l a s s w h i l e 9.5% of the 42 mortgaged and 14.8% of the 27 o u t r i g h t homeowners d i d so . As has been noted r e p e a t e d l y for o ther q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , the a s s o c i a t i o n between h o u s i n g c l a s s and c l a s s p e r c e p -t i o n s i s a l s o e v i d e n t on ly for househo ld heads who are m a r r i e d 212 TABLE 4.19 A s s o c i a t i o n s Between C l a s s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s K e n d a l l ' s Tau Chi Square N p . d . f . p . C l a s s Hhold Head - . 0 9 .00 60.3 16 .00 988 Spouse - .20 .00 58.4 12 .00 532 SES Hhold Head - . 1 3 .00 114.6 20 .00 988 Spouse - . 24 .00 74.4 16 .00 532 L i f e - c y c l e Hhold Head - .02 NS 10.5 12 NS 946 Spouse .03 NS — — 573 Hhold Income Hhold Head - . 1 3 .00 — - - 940 Spouse - . 1 6 .00 — — 564 E d u c a t i o n Hhold Head - . 2 5 .00 — — 997 Spouse - .22 .00 — — 586 Hous ing C l a s s Hhold Head - . 04 .08 14.9 8 .06 998 Spouse - .02 NS — — 591 a T h e c h i square s t a t i s t i c i s not shown i n cases i n which 20 of c e l l s have c e l l f requency l e s s than 5 . 0 . w i t h c h i l d r e n . In t h i s c a s e , 44.4% of the 117 r e n t e r s i d e n t i themselves as working c l a s s w h i l e 24.6% of the 114 mortgaged and 29.5% of the 78 o u t r i g h t homeowners make such an i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n . 213 TABLE 4.20 S i g n i f i c a n t A s s o c i a t i o n s Between Housing C l a s s and C l a s s Iden-t i f i c a t i o n w i t h SES, C l a s s , L i f e - c y c l e , E d u c a t i o n and House-h o l d Income C o n t r o l l e d G e n e r a l Hous ing C l a s s E f f e c t Household Heads Spouses I n t e r a c t i o n s : C o n t r o l V a r . Va lue SES s. nonmanual ( h . h . ) L i f e - c y c l e f a m i l y ( h . h . ) E d u c a t i o n K e n d a l l ' s Tau P-N Gamma Household Income C l a s s - . 0 4 - . 0 2 - . 1 4 - . 1 4 some c o l l e g e ( h . h . ) - .11 c o l l e g e degree ( h . h . ) - . 1 2 .08 NS .01 .00 .05 .04 none none 998 591 173 309 1 60 201 - . 0 9 - . 04 - . 1 3 - . 14 .00 - . 0 5 214 A l t h o u g h there i s an absence of an a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n when household income i s c o n t r o l l e d , the hous ing c l a s s ' e f f e c t s ' observed fo r s p e c i -f i c SES and e d u c a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s are not merely a r t i f a c t s of household income ( t a b l e A V . 2 ) . The s k i l l e d nonmanual c a t e g o r y approaches s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e w i t h i n the $23,000 to $29,999 income range . The a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n amongst those wi th c o l l e g e degrees are a l s o s t i l l e v i d e n t for those w i t h incomes between $9000 and $16,999. A number of a d d i t i o n a l four-way c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s were c a r r i e d out which y i e l d the g e n e r a l impre s s ion t h a t the noted a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n are not s p u r i o u s outcomes of c o n -founding v a r i a b l e s ( t a b l e A V . 3 ) . In g e n e r a l , the hous ing c l a s s and e d u c a t i o n , and hous ing c l a s s and SES i n t e r -a c t i o n s complement each o t h e r , r a t h e r than c a n c e l each other o u t . T h u s , w h i l e c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s most c l o s e l y a s soc-i a t e d w i t h e d u c a t i o n , w i t h those who have more e d u c a t i o n g e n e r a l l y f e e l i n g f a r t h e r removed s o c i a l l y from the working or lower c l a s s e s , there i s a l s o a s y s t e m a t i c a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y amongst household heads c l a s s i f i e d as s k i l l e d nonmanual worker s , household heads who are m a r r i e d w i t h c h i l d r e n and household heads who have some u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n . In terms of an assessment of the c l a s s and SES c o n t r o l s , i t appears that SES c a t e g o r i e s are more c l o s e l y a l i g n e d wi th s u b j e c t i v e c l a s s 215 p e r c e p t i o n s , which i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y s u r p r i s i n g g iven the b a s i s of SES i n s t a t u s d i m e n s i o n s . A t t i t u d e s Towards The L e g i t i m a c y Of V a r i o u s Types Of P r o t e s t Respondents were asked whether they f e l t v a r i o u s types of p r o t e s t to be o f t e n , sometimes or never j u s t i f i e d to ach ieve changes i n government p o l i c i e s . The types of p r o t e s t s c o n s i d -ered were b o y c o t t s , l e g a l and p e a c e f u l demons t ra t ions l i k e r a l l i e s , s t r i k e s , i l l e g a l and p e a c e f u l demons t ra t ions l i k e s i t - i n s and , f i n a l l y , v i o l e n t p r o t e s t demons t ra t ions such as f i g h t i n g w i t h p o l i c e and d e s t r o y i n g p r o p e r t y . To g ive an o v e r a l l view of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s , the K e n d a l l ' s tau and c h i square s t a t i s t i c s are shown i n t a b l e 4.21 for t h r e e of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , c o n t r o l l e d by c l a s s , SES, l i f e - c y c l e , household income, e d u c a t i o n and hous ing c l a s s . Most i n t e r e s t i n g , for the p r e s e n t purpose s , i s the s t r o n g a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s towards the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of s t r i k e s and i l l e g a l p r o t e s t - a s t ronger a s so-c i a t i o n than those observed between any o ther c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e and those p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s . The g e n e r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s are shown more c l e a r l y i n t a b l e 4.22 for a l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m s . With these q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tems a score of 1 i n d i c a t e d f u l l endorsement of the p r o t e s t , 2 i n d i c a t e s tha t the respondent f e e l s tha t the p r o t e s t i s sometimes j u s t i f i e d and 3 i n d i c a t e s tha t i t i s 216 TABLE 4.21 A s s o c i a t i o n s Between C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s and the L e g i t i m a c y of Three Types of P r o t e s t Household Head Spouse K ' s Chi Square N K ' s Chi Square N Tau s i g . d . f . s i g . Tau s i g . d . f . s i g . JUSTIFICATION OF STRIKES C l a s s .07 .00 22.3 8 .00 1 004 - . 0 4 .20 1 4 .0 6 .03 535 SES .07 .00 19.6 1 0 .03 1 004 - . 0 4 . 1 7 1 4 .4 8 .07 535 L i f e -c y c l e .08 .00 27.6 6 .00 965 .07 .00 1 1 .0 6 .08 576 Household Income .02 .42 5.8 8 .66 954 -.01 .68 4 .9 8 .77 564 Educa - t i o n - . 0 6 .01 21.1 10 .02 1015 - . 1 0 .00 1 6 .2 10 .09 589 Housing C l a s s .10 .00 17.0 4 .00 1018 .12 .00 10 .0 4 .04 595 JUSTIFICATION OF S I T - : INS C l a s s .13 .00 36.0 8 .00 1 009 .05 .15 7 .2 6 .30 528 SES .08 .00 36. 1 1 0 .00 1 009 .02 .64 1 1 .9 8 . 1 5 528 L i f e - c y c l e . 17 .00 66.2 6 .00 968 . 10 .00 1 5 .8 6 .01 571 Household Income .03 .28 6.5 8 . 58 954 .02 .49 1 2 .8 8 . 1 1 556 Educa - t i o n - . 1 7 .00 46.8 1 0 .00 1019 - . 0 9 .01 26 .4 10 .00 582 Housing C l a s s . 15 .00 31.6 4 .00 1 021 .10 .01 1 3 .2 4 .01 587 JUSTIFICATION OF VIOLENT,ILLEGAL PROTEST C l a s s .03 .09 6.8 8 .55 1050 .03 .12 5 .9 6 .42 563 SES .03 .08 7.0 10 .72 1050 .01 .58 5 .7 8 .68 563 L i f e - c y c l e .07 .00 25. 1 6 .00 1 008 .04 .02 9 .6 6 .14 608 Household I n c . - . 0 0 .89 3.7 8 .88 992 .03 .12 10 .5 8 .23 594 Educa - t i o n - . 0 4 .01 15.8 1 0 .10 1061 -.01 .64 1 4 .6 10 .14 621 Housing C l a s s .12 .00 18.0 4 .00 1063 .16 .00 21 .3 4 .00 626 217 TABLE 4 .22 Average Responses C o n c e r n i n g the L e g i t i m a c y of V a r i o u s Types of P r o t e s t By H o u s i n g C l a s s H o u s e h o l d Head Spouse R e n t e r s Homeowners R e n t e r s Homeowners m. o . K' S Tau s i g . m. o . K ' s s i g . Tau B o y c o t t s 1 .9 2 .0 2 . 1 . 1 1 .00 2 .0 1 .9 2 . 1 .04 .25 L e g a l , P e a c e f u l 1 .8 1 .9 2 . 1 . 1 3 .00 1 .9 1 .9 2 . 1 .06 .06 S t r i kes 2 .0 2 .2 2 . 2 . 1 0 .00 2 .0 2.1 2 .2 .12 .00 I l l e g a l , P e a c e f u l 1 .9 2 .5 2 . 6 . 1 5 .00 2 .4 2 .4 2 . 6 .10 .01 I l l e g a l , V i o l e n t 2 .8 2 .9 2 . 9 . 1 2 .00 2 .8 2 .9 2 . 9 .16 .00 f e l t t o be n e v e r j u s t i f i e d . The h o u s i n g c l a s s e f f e c t seems t o be s t r o n g e r f o r the more r a d i c a l t y p e s of p r o t e s t - t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y the ca se amongst spouses of h o u s e h o l d h e a d s . L i f e - c y c l e and e d u c a t i o n a r e , h o w e v e r , c o n s i s t e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l l a t t i t u d e s as w e l l and c l a s s and SES a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t t i t u d e s towards s t r i k e s and i l l e g a l p e a c e f u l d e m o n s t r a -t i o n s . R e g a r d l e s s , a t t i t u d i n a l d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s h o u s i n g c l a s s e s a r e a c c o u n t e d f o r by c o n f o u n d i n g v a r i a b l e s i n o n l y one c a s e ; endorsement of b o y c o t t s i s p r i n c i p a l l y r e l a t e d t o s t age of l i f e - c y c l e , j u d g i n g from the gamma s t a t i s t i c s shown i n t a b l e 4 . 2 3 . F o r t h e o t h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m s , the p a t t e r n s of i n t e r a c t i o n g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w t h o s e n o t e d t h u s f a r . The 218 r e l a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s i s s t ronges t amongst n o n - e l d e r l y l i f e - c y c l e g roups . For household heads , hous ing c l a s s i s most r e l e v a n t to a t t i t u d e s for those who are s i n g l e or m a r r i e d w i t h c h i l d r e n . When c l a s s i s c o n t r o l l e d , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s very s t r o n g amongst the middle c l a s s househo ld heads fo r the i s s u e s of i l l e g a l p r o t e s t s and r a l l i e s . Amongst spouses of the b o u r g e o i s i e , the r e n t e r s s t and out as hav ing p a r t i c u l a r l y r a d i c a l views on s t r i k e s and i l l e g a l p r o t e s t . When SES i s c o n t r o l l e d , i t i s amongst both the s k i l l e d nonmanual and manager i a l SES c a t e g o r i e s that the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s tands o u t . When income i s c o n t r o l l e d , i t i s once aga in the $9000 to $16,999 group for which there i s a c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s a c r o s s a l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems . Amongst spouses , r e n t e r s i n the h i g h e r income ranges as w e l l show more support for s t r i k e s and i l l e g a l , v i o l e n t p r o t e s t . I t i s of i n t e r e s t to s p e c u l a t e about the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s w i t h i n the $9000 to $16,999 income range . T h i s income ca tegory i s i n t e r e s t i n g because fewer of the spouses of mortgaged homeowners work i n t h i s group than i n h i g h e r income ranges . For i n s t a n c e , 25.0% of the spouses of the 32 mortgaged homeowners i n the $9000 to $16,999 income range work o u t s i d e of the home, w h i l e 47.6%, 46.1% and 55.1% of the spouses i n the t h r e e h i g h e r income groups are employed o u t s i d e of the home. Perhaps as a r e s u l t of t h i s , the mortgaged homeowners i n the $9000 to $16,999 range pay ex t remely h i g h h o u s i n g - t o - i n c o m e c o s t s : 219 93.1%, as compared to 45.2%, 20.8% and 5.8% i n the h i g h e r income ranges , pay over 30% of t h e i r income to hous ing c o s t s ( there are o n l y 3 mortgaged homeowners i n the 0-8999 income range and thus comparison i s not p o s s i b l e ) . Even the o u t r i g h t homeowners i n the $9000 to $16,999 income range pay a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r income to hous ing c o s t s than those i n o ther income c a t e g o r i e s ; 97.7% pay i n excess of 10% of t h e i r incomes for h o u s i n g , w h i l e 70.6%, 46.0% and 7.7% of those i n h i g h e r income groups pay t h i s much towards hous ing c o s t s . I t may be that t h i s i s a group of m a r g i n a l homeowners for whom homeownership r e p r e s e n t s a s u b s t a n t i a l f i n a n c i a l s a c r i f i c e . I t i s e v i d e n t tha t any c o n n e c t i o n i s not a s imple economic one, however. Homeowners i n the $9000 to $16,999 income range are g e n e r a l l y more c o n s e r v a t i v e than r e n t e r s , i n p o l i t i c a l p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n and a t t i t u d e s towards i l l e g a l forms of p r o t e s t a g a i n s t the government. A s e r i e s of four-way c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n s support the c o n c l u s i o n that d i f f e r e n c e s in o p i n i o n s a c ro s s hous ing c l a s s e s are not accounted for by the c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s , a l t h o u g h r e s t r i c t e d to p a r t i c u l a r g roups . The hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t does not ' d i s a p p e a r ' for the middle c l a s s and manager i a l SES groups when household income, e d u c a t i o n and l i f e - c y c l e are c o n t r o l l e d ; the r e l a t i v e l y s t r o n g a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s towards i l l e g a l demons t ra t ions and s t r i k e s amongst the new middle c l a s s or manager i a l SES groups are s t i l l apparent w i t h i n the m a r r i e d wi th c h i l d r e n l i f e - c y c l e c a t egory and w i t h i n moderate income ranges ( t a b l e s A V . 4 and A V . 5 ) . 220 TABLE 4.23 K e n d a l l ' s Tau and Gamma Measures of A s s o c i a t i o n Between Housing C l a s s and Quest ions Concern ing the L e g i t i m a c y of D i f f e r e n t Types of P r o t e s t , w i t h C l a s s , SES, L i f e - c y c l e and Household Income C o n t r o l l e d Household Head Spouse Gamma K ' s Tau s i g . N K ' s Tau s i g . N BOYCOTTS G e n e r a l E f f e c t . 1 1 .00 1010 .04 .25 593 C o n t r o l l e d by C l a s s Working .08 .05 496 .02 .66 293 New M i d d l e .08 .34 1 23 .04 .62 1 06 P. B o u r g e o i s i e .24 .03 55 .25 .04 41 B o u r g e o i s i e .17 .07 74 .10 .29 95 R e s i d u a l .10 .10 223 C o n t r o l l e d by SES N o n s k i l l e d Manual . 1 5 .08 1 18 .01 .97 87 NonManual . 17 .05 1 1 4 .04 .83 40 S k i l l e d Manual - . 0 3 .73 1 1 7 -.01 .88 1 26 NonManual .09 .18 182 .02 .80 92 Manager . 13 .03 242 . 1 6 .01 1 90 C o n t r o l l e d by L i f e - c y c l e S i n g l e .07 . 22 261 M a r r i e d .08 .32 129 .18 .05 92 Fami ly .04 .31 444 -.01 .82 440 E l d e r l y . 1 1 . 18 1 22 . 1 1 .42 38 C o n t r o l l e d by Household Income 0-8999 .15 .02 191 .20 .13 50 9000-16999 .25 .00 221 .18 .05 98 17000-22999 .07 .31 1 74 .05 .51 1 1 7 23000-29999 .06 .37 1 99 - . 1 0 . 1 6 1 55 30000 + .05 .49 160 .09 .26 1 40 C o n t r o l l e d by E d u c a t i o n No High Schoo l .13 .08 1 46 - . 10 .39 65 Some High Schoo l - . 0 4 .50 195 .03 .73 143 High Schoo l D i p . .19 .01 184 .07 .37 1 55 T e c h n i c a l .07 .46 100 .03 .87 52 Some C o l l e g e .12 .08 168 .02 .84 96 C o l l e g e Degree .10 .09 213 .13 .24 74 221 TABLE 4.2 3 CONTINUED Household Head Spouse Gamma K ' s Tau s i g . N K ' s Tau s i g . N RALLIES G e n e r a l E f f e c t . 1 3 .00 1 039 .06 .06 606 C o n t r o l l e d by C l a s s Work i n g .15 .00 508 .04 .39 293 New M i d d l e .21 .01 1 23 .14 .12 100 P. B o u r g e o i s i e .02 .84 59 .22 .13 41 B o u r g e o i s i e .15 .10 1 00 - .02 .86 95 R e s i d u a l .08 . 1 5 223 C o n t r o l l e d by SES N o n s k i l l e d Manual .17 .04 1 20 - . 07 .45 92 Nonmanual .15 .08 118 .22 .06 41 S k i l l e d Manual . 1 1 .17 1 22 .02 .73 1 25 Nonmanual . 17 .01 182 .19 .05 92 Manager . 1 4 .02 248 .06 .36 1 94 C o n t r o l l e d by L i f e - c y c l e S i n g l e . 14 .01 271 Marr i e d .04 .61 1 28 .08 .42 92 F a m i l y .08 .05 459 .03 .54 450 E l d e r l y .03 .74 1 26 .02 .95 42 C o n t r o l l e d by Household Income 0-8999 .17 .01 1 97 .23 .08 50 9000-16999 .27 .00 227 .09 .34 1 03 1 7000-22999 . 1 1 .10 1 78 .08 .34 1 18 23000-29999 .12 .06 203 .04 .61 1 56 30000 + .17 .01 1 63 - . 0 0 .94 140 C o n t r o l l e d by Educat i o n No H i g h Schoo l - . 0 6 .42 1 56 . 1 1 .34 68 Some High School .05 .46 202 .03 .68 1 46 High Schoo l D i p . .20 .00 1 96 -.01 .92 159 T e c h n i c a l Schoo l .13 . 1 6 101 - . 0 5 .72 53 Some C o l l e g e .15 .04 166 .23 .01 100 C o l l e g e Degree .18 .00 214 .05 .70 74 222 TABLE 4.23 CONTINUED Household Head Spouse i K ' s Tau s i g . N K ' s Tau s i g . N STRIKES G e n e r a l E f f e c t .10 .00 1 004 .12 .00 535 C o n t r o l l e d by C l a s s Working .05 .20 496 . 1 1 .03 296 New M i d d l e .08 .34 1 22 . 1 2 .20 101 P. B o u r g e o i s i e .26 .04 55 .04 .84 43 B o u r g e o i s i e .17 .08 97 .22 .02 95 R e s i d u a l . 1 1 .07 233 C o n t r o l l e d by SES N o n s k i l l e d Manual -.01 .92 121 .15 . 1 3 90 Nonmanual .17 .05 1 1 3 .05 .76 38 S k i l l e d Manual .00 .94 1 1 7 .05 . 53 128 Nonmanual .04 .39 1 79 .18 .06 88 Managers . 20 .00 240 . 1 7 .01 191 C o n t r o l l e d by L i f e - c y c l e S i n g l e . 1 3 .03 261 M a r r i e d - .05 .59 1 28 .05 .64 89 F a m i l y . 1 1 . 03 318 . 1 1 .02 355 E l d e r l y .01 .81 257 . 1 5 .06 1 29 C o n t r o l l e d by Household Income 0-8999 . 10 . 1 1 1 96 .17 . 19 50 9000-16999 .17 .01 220 .06 .38 99 17000-22999 - . 03 .59 1 79 .19 .02 1 18 23000-29999 .09 . 1 6 198 .22 .00 1 50 30000 + .15 .04 1 60 - . 0 6 .49 1 47 C o n t r o l l e d by E d u c a t i o n No H i g h S c h o o l .06 .37 159 .01 .92 72 Some High S c h o o l . 02 .79 1 97 .08 .27 1 46 High Schoo l D i p .20 .00 180 .16 .03 1 52 T e c h n i c a l S c h o o l .17 .08 96 .10 .45 51 Some C o l l e g e .15 .03 1 68 .08 .43 95 C o l l e g e Degree .12 .05 214 .27 .02 73 Gamma 1 6 .23 18 .20 19 223 TABLE 4.23 CONTINUED Household Head Spouse Gamma K ' s Tau s i g . N K ' s Tau s i g . N PEACEFUL, ILLEGAL G e n e r a l E f f e c t . 1 5 .00 1 009 .10 .01 528 C o n t r o l l e d by C l a s s Working .09 .02 496 .07 .20 293 New M i d d l e .29 .00 123 . 1 3 .16 1 00 P. B o u r g e o i s i e .16 .22 55 .00 .94 41 Bourgeoi s i e . 1 5 . 1 1 99 .17 .08 94 R e s i d u a l .17 .00 234 C o n t r o l l e d by SES N o n s k i l l e d Manual . 1 4 . 11 1 1 6 . 1 3 .20 86 Nonmanual .03 .72 1 1 3 .18 .23 41 S k i l l e d Manual .09 .25 121 -.01 .92 1 22 Nonmanual .19 .00 1 82 . 1 5 . 1 3 91 Manager . 1 6 .01 241 .21 .07 1 88 C o n t r o l l e d by L i f e - c y c l e S i n g l e . 1 5 .01 267 Marr i e d .00 .97 126 .19 .05 91 Fami ly . 14 .01 319 .05 .35 345 E l d e r l y .05 .40 254 .03 .72 1 32 C o n t r o l l e d by Household Income 0-8999 . 1 2 . 08 189 . 1 9 . 1 7 48 9000-16999 .23 .00 224 .17 .06 1 02 17000-22999 .17 .02 176 .00 .97 1 17 23000-29999 . 14 .03 200 .09 .22 1 47 30000 + .04 .58 163 .07 .38 1 42 C o n t r o l l e d by E d u c a t i o n No High Schoo l .02 .86 155 . 1 2 .31 61 Some High Schoo l .07 .28 1 97 .04 .64 1 43 High Schoo l D i p l . .12 .07 190 .09 .26 1 56 T e c h n i c a l Schoo l .16 .08 100 .25 .05 57 Some C o l l e g e .20 .00 165 . 1 7 .07 96 C o l l e g e Degree .23 .00 214 .13 .24 74 .19 24 1 6 20 19 224 TABLE 4.2 3 CONTINUED Household Head Spouse Gamma K ' s Tau s i g . N K ' s Tau s i g . N VIOLENT, ILLEGAL G e n e r a l E f f e c t .12 .00 1050 .16 .00 563 C o n t r o l l e d by C l a s s Working .09 .03 517 .12 .03 312 New M i d d l e .22 .01 125 . 1 5 . 1 2 1 10 P. B o u r g e o i s i e .22 .09 58 .21 . 1 7 42 Bourgeoi s i e .07 .47 1 00 .24 .01 99 R e s i d u a l .12 .05 248 C o n t r o l l e d by SES N o n s k i l l e d Manual .20 .02 1 26 . 1 3 .21 96 Nonmanual .03 .77 121 .06 .79 40 S k i l l e d Manual .00 .99 1 23 .10 .23 1 37 Nonmanual . 1 4 .05 183 .18 .08 94 Manager . 16 .01 247 .25 .00 1 96 C o n t r o l l e d by L i f e - c y c l e S i n g l e .10 .09 272 M a r r i e d .05 .59 1 29 .26 .01 93 Fami ly .07 . 1 5 333 . 1 3 .01 372 E l d e r l y .06 .28 272 . 1 1 . 1 9 1 40 C o n t r o l l e d by Household Income 0-8999 . 1 4 .04 208 .26 .05 52 9000-16999 .20 .00 230 .14 . 1 3 109 17000-22999 . 1 1 . 1 2 184 .05 .57 124 23000-29999 . 1 2 .07 205 .20 .01 161 30000 + .04 .57 1 63 .21 .01 1 48 C o n t r o l l e d by Educat ion No High S c h o o l .06 .46 171 .17 .12 78 Some High Schoo l .09 .15 207 .02 .79 1 53 High S c h o o l D i p l . . 13 .06 1 97 . 1 4 .06 163 T e c h n i c a l Schoo l .27 .00 1 02 .08 .76 52 Some C o l l e g e .06 .43 1 62 .25 .01 99 C o l l e g e Degree . 1 1 .09 215 .46 .00 75 225 Reviewing the a n a l y s e s p r e s e n t e d thus f a r , homeownership was r e l a t e d to job and employer s t a b i l i t y i n a s t r o n g and c o n s i s t e n t manner. For the o ther v a r i a b l e s examined, an a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h hous ing c l a s s was indeed n o t e d , but o n l y w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r SES, househo ld income and l i f e - c y c l e g roups . I t was e s p e c i a l l y amongst s k i l l e d nonmanual, lower income f a m i l i e s tha t hous ing c l a s s was r e l a t e d to the employment s t a t u s of the spouse, and a l s o to c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , p o l i t i c a l invo lvements (such as w r i t i n g or speaking to an e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e or community a c t i v i s m ) , f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n , and views c o n c e r n i n g the l e g i t i -macy of v a r i o u s forms of p r o t e s t . Ev idence i s thus p r o v i d e d which suggests both the breadth of the a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h hous ing c l a s s , as w e l l as s p e c i f i c l i m i t a t i o n s to the p a t t e r n of these a s s o c i a t i o n s ac ros s s o c i a l g roups . In the next chapter hous ing c l a s s w i l l be shown to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a broader range of more g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e s , a l t h o u g h the s p e c i f i c i t y of these a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h i n p a r t i c u -l a r s o c i a l groups remains . T h i s w i l l be f o l l o w e d by a review of the a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and a l l q u e s t i o n -n a i r e i tems examined for the n a t i o n a l urban sample. 226 CHAPTER 5 HOUSING CLASS AND BROAD ATTITUDINAL PERSPECTIVE - THE SOCIAL CHANGE IN CANADA DATA SET In t h i s chap te r the a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and broader a t t i t u d i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e s are e v a l u a t e d w i t h the n a t i o n a l urban sample. These more g e n e r a l p e r s p e c t i v e s are examined for two r e a s o n s . F i r s t , t h e r e i s ev idence that d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s are r e l e v a n t to p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s of v a r y i n g s p e c i f i c i t y . O r n s t e i n , Stevenson and W i l l i a m s found tha t r e g i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n i s r e l e v a n t to more s p e c i f i c ou t -l o o k s , such as a t t i t u d e s towards p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s , w h i l e soc io -economic measures are more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to broader normat ive a t t i t u d e s . ^ With t h i s i n mind, the a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s towards economic i n e q u a l i -t i e s and income r e d i s t r i b u t i o n , as w e l l as p l a n n i n g ahead, w i l l be e v a l u a t e d . A second reason for examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing tenure and a t t i t u d e s towards income r e d i s t r i b u t i o n through s o c i a l w e l f a r e p r o v i s i o n s i s tha t such an a s s o c i a t i o n has been p o s i t e d w i t h very weak e v i d e n t i a l s u p p o r t . The impact of hous ing c o s t s on the a t t i t u d e s of homeowners to s o c i a l w e l f a r e p r o v i s i o n has been a theme deve loped by Kemeny M. O r n s t e i n , A . M . Stevenson and A . P . W i l l i a m s , " R e g i o n , C l a s s and P o l i t i c a l C u l t u r e i n C a n a d a . " 227 i n at tempts to p e n e t r a t e the ' b l a c k box' nature of the i n c o r -2 p o r a t i o n t h e s i s . Kemeny argues that i t i s not merely home-ownership as a tenure form which r a t h e r m a g i c a l l y l eads to c o n s e r v a t i v e v a l u e s , but r a t h e r , s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s , such as h i g h hous ing c o s t s i n the i n i t i a l yea r s of owning a house, which c o n s t r a i n homeowners i n such a way so as to d i s c o u r a g e commitment to s o c i a l w e l f a r e schemes. In e s sence , the a r g u -ment i s tha t new homeowners r e s i s t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to s o c i a l w e l f a r e schemes i n order to r e t a i n more c o n t r o l over the e n t i r e f a m i l y budget . Kemeny argues for t h i s e q u a t i o n of h i g h hous ing c o s t s and minimal support for s o c i a l w e l f a r e schemes on the b a s i s of t r a n s - n a t i o n a l comparisons of percentage of Gross N a t i o n a l Product a l l o c a t e d to p u b l i c w e l f a r e i n r e l a t i o n to homeownership r a t e s , n o t i n g that low p u b l i c e x p e n d i t u r e s are c o r r e l a t e d w i t h h i g h e r homeownership r a t e s . However, the a c t u a l l i n k s to the i n d i v i d u a l have not yet been made. A t t i t u d e s Towards Economic I n e q u a l i t i e s and R e d i s t r i b u t i o n An attempt to draw the l i n k s between hous ing tenure and a t t i t u d e s towards s o c i a l we l f a re at the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l are made here through an examinat ion of two se t s of q u e s t i o n n a i r e J . Kemeny, "Home ownership and p r i v a t i z a t i o n " ; The myth of home ownersh ip : p r i v a t e ver sus p u b l i c c h o i c e s i n hous ing t e n u r e . 228 i tems . For the f i r s t i t em, re spondents are asked to express agreement or disagreement to the statement t h a t : "There i s too much of a d i f f e r e n c e between r i c h and poor i n t h i s c o u n t r y . " T h i s s tatement was e v a l u a t e d on a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e , w i t h one i n d i c a t i n g s t r o n g agreement and f i v e e x p r e s s i n g s t r o n g d i s -agreement. In a d d i t i o n , respondents were asked how much e f f o r t government s h o u l d put i n t o a number of a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d -i n g : " h e l p i n g the p o o r " , " p r o v i d i n g a s s i s t a n c e to the un-employed" , and " h e a l t h and m e d i c a l c a r e " . The responses to t h i s l a t t e r group of q u e s t i o n s vary from one to f i v e , r a n g i n g from much more e f f o r t to much l e s s e f f o r t . The hous ing c o s t v a r i a b l e i s taken up more d i r e c t l y fo r the s o c i a l w e l f a r e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , g iven the c e n t r a l p l a c e a f f o r d e d to hous ing c o s t s i n Kemeny's arguments o u t l i n e d above. F u r t h e r , c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n w i l l be d i r e c t e d t o -wards e x p l o r i n g p o s s i b l e sources of confounding w i t h i n the hous ing c l a s s v a r i a b l e so as to s u b s t a n t i a t e the p a t t e r n s of i n t e r a c t i o n observed in r e l a t i o n to p r e v i o u s q u e s t i o n n a i r e items as w e l l as the s o c i a l w e l f a r e q u e s t i o n s . For each of the four q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , t h e r e i s a g e n e r a l a s s o c i a t i o n between h o u s i n g c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i -tudes , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of spouses ' a t t i t u d e s towards gov-ernment p r o v i s i o n of h e a l t h care ( t a b l e 5 . 1 ) . The a s s o c i a -t i o n s for a l l of the c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s are shown i n t a b l e 5.2 for three of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m s . The l i f e - c y c l e v a r i -a b l e , which was c r i t i c a l i n r e l a t i o n to a t t i t u d e s towards the l e g i t i m a c y of d i f f e r e n t types of p r o t e s t i s not a s s o c i a t e d to 229 a t t i t u d e s towards s o c i a l w e l f a r e . As w e l l , the a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c o s t s and a t t i t u d e s tend to be f a i r l y u n r e l -i a b l e and weak. In f a c t , hous ing c l a s s aga in s tands out w i t h the s t r o n g e s t a s s o c i a t i o n s , a l t h o u g h SES, household income and e d u c a t i o n are a l s o c l o s e l y r e l a t e d for a l l i tems (keeping i n mind that the K e n d a l l ' s Tau s t a t i s t i c i s weakened fo r c l a s s and SES for household heads by the r e s i d u a l c a t e g o r y ) . TABLE 5.1 Average Responses Acros s Housing C l a s s e s for Quest ions P r o b i n g A t t i t u d e s toward Income I n e q u a l i t i e s and R e d i s t r i b u t i v e P o l i c i e s Renter s Homeowners K ' s s i g . N Mortgage O u t r i g h t Tau There i s too much d i f f e r e n c e between r i c h and poor Household Heads 2.2 2.6 2.5 .13 .00 1048 Spouses 2.4 2.5 2.5 .12 .00 624 Government a s s i s t a n c e - f o r h e l p i n g the poor Household Heads 2.1 2.4 2.4 .14 .00 1034 Spouses 2.1 2.3 2.4 .15 .00 610 - t o the unemployed Household Heads 2.7 3.1 2.9 . 1 3 . 0 0 1036 Spouses 2.6 2 .9 3.0 . 1 5 . 0 0 613 lor h e a l t h ca re Household Heads 2.3 2.4 2.4 .09 .00 1070 Spouses 2.2 2.4 2.3 .06 .10 638 230 TABLE 5.2 A s s o c i a t i o n s Between C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s and A t t i t u d e s Towards Three S o c i a l Wel f a re Programmes K ' s Tau C h i Square N p . d . f . p . TOO MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RICH AND POOR C l a s s Household Head .05 .01 37.3 16 .00 1036 Spouse . 1 4 .00 31.8 12 .00 561 SES Household Head .08 .00 45.2 20 .00 1036 Spouse .18 .00 47.6 16 .00 561 L i f e - C y c l e Household Head .01 .69 10.1 12 .61 994 Spouse .02 .51 6.2 1 2 .90 605 Household Income Household Head . 1 1 .00 41.7 1 6 .00 982 Spouse .13 .00 31.7 16 .01 593 Educat ion Household Head . 1 1 .00 37. 9 20 .00 1 045 Spouse . 1 1 .00 21.2 20 .38 619 Hous ing C l a s s Household Head .. 1 3 .00 39. 3 8 .00 1 048 Spouse .12 .00 20.5 8 .01 624 Hous ing Cost Household Head - . 0 0 .95 3.7 8 .88 405 Spouse - . 0 0 .85 4.7 8 .79 329 HELPING THE POOR C l a s s Household Head .03 .18 23. 4 1 6 . 10 1023 Spouse .07 .02 16.5 12 . 1 7 546 SES Household Head .06 .01 45. 4 20 .00 1023 Spouse .09 .00 15.5 16 .49 546 L i f e - c y c l e Household Head .00 .99 4.8 12 .96 981 Spouse .01 .79 5.0 12 .95 591 Household Income Household Head .12 .00 36.9 1 6 .00 960 Spouse .06 .04 30.7 1 6 .01 580 E d u c a t i o n Household Head .10 .00 45.0 20 .00 1 034 Spouse .09 .00 31.5 20 .05 605 Hous ing C l a s s Household Head . 1 4 .00 33. 4 8 .00 1034 Spouse .15 .00 24. 3 8 .00 610 Hous ing Cost Household Head - . 0 4 .29 6.0 8 .64 389 Spouse - . 1 0 .02 12.6 8 .12 321 231 TABLE 5.2 CONTINUED K ' s Tau p . Chi Square N d . f . s i g . PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THE UNEMPLOYED C l a s s Household Head .02 .47 30.9 1 6 .01 1 026 Spouse .07 .03 15.2 1 2 .23 549 SES Household Head .05 .04 41.9 20 .00 1 026 Spouse .08 .02 16.7 16 .40 549 L i f e - c y c l e Household Head .00 .82 9.6 12 .65 980 Spouse .05 .04 9.8 1 2 .63 594 Household Income Household Head .10 .00 36. 1 1 6 .00 970 Spouse .07 .03 15.0 1 6 .52 582 E d u c a t i o n Household Head .09 .00 25.3 20 . 1 9 1 036 Spouse .06 .05 24.6 20 .22 608 Housing C l a s s Household Head . 1 3 .00 48.4 8 .00 1 036 Spouse .15 .00 22.0 . 8 .01 613 Housing Cos t s Household Head .09 .02 10.6 8 .22 397 Spouse - .02 .60 4.6 8 .79 320 Concern ing the d i f f e r e n c e between r i c h and poor i n Canada, t h e r e i s once aga in a complex p a t t e r n of i n t e r a c t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and v a r i o u s c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s ( t a b l e 5 . 3 ) . A hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s observed when household income i s c o n t r o l l e d for househo ld heads w i t h incomes of $0-$8999, $9000-$16,999, and $30,000 p l u s and for spouses w i t h incomes of $0-$8999 and $ 17 ,000-$22,999. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e i s a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t for both househo ld heads and spouses w i t h i n the working c l a s s . However, when the working c l a s s i s fragmented i n terms of SES, i t i s c l e a r tha t the a s s o c i a t i o n 232 TABLE 5.3 A s s o c i a t i o n s Between Housing C l a s s and A t t i t u d e s Towards the Statement that There i s Too Much D i f f e r e n c e Between R i c h and Poor i n Canada, A c r o s s C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s Household Head Spouse K ' s Tau P. N K ' s Tau P- N G e n e r a l Housing C l a s s E f f e c t . 1 3 .00 1 048 .12 .00 624 I n t e r a c t i o n s : C l a s s Working . 1 1 .00 506 .15 .00 313 New M i d d l e -.02 NS 1 24 . 1 1 NS 109 P e t t y Bourg . -.01 NS 60 .12 NS 41 B o u r g e o i s i e . 1 1 NS 97 - . 0 9 NS 98 R e s i d u a l .22 .00 247 SES Ns. Manual .01 NS 1 25 . 1 1 NS 97 Ns. Nonmanual . 1 4 .05 1 20 .18 NS 40 S. Manual .00 NS 1 20 .18 .02 1 37 S. Nonmanual . 1 3 .04 178 . 1 3 NS 95 Manager . 1 2 .04 244 .04 NS 1 92 R e s i d u a l . 22 .00 247 Household Income 0-8999 . 1 3 .01 208 .25 .03 54 9000-16999 . 1 2 .02 230 .07 NS 1 1 2 17000-22999 .00 NS 1 78 . 15 .05 123 23000-29999 .02 NS 203 .06 NS 1 57 30000 + . 1 5 .03 161 - . 0 3 NS 147 L i f e - c y c l e S i n g l e . 30 .00 269 M a r r i e d .09 NS 1 30 .03 NS 91 F a m i l y .10 .03 329 .13 .00 377 E l d e r l y . 13 .02 264 .10 NS 1 34 E d u c a t i o n No High Schoo l .24 .02 171 .17 .07 81 Some High S. . 1 2 .04 205 . 1 4 .05 1 53 H i g h S. D i p l . .14 .02 1 94 .12 .08 1 63 T e c h n i c a l S. .09 NS 100 .01 NS 53 Some C o l l e g e . 1 3 .05 165 .19 .03 96 C o l l e g e Deg. . 12 .05 208 .06 NS 73 Gamma .20 .20 .20 1 4 .20 22 233 between a t t i t u d e s and hous ing c l a s s i s not g e n e r a l but r a t h e r l i m i t e d to s p e c i f i c SES groups - there i s a tendency for household heads i d e n t i f i e d w i t h nonmanual SES c a t e g o r i e s who are homeowners to agree l e s s w i t h the statement t h a t there i s too much d i f f e r e n c e between r i c h and poor than r e n t e r s i n the same SES g roups . As w e l l , there i s a tendency fo r mortgaged household heads to be the most c o n s e r v a t i v e i n non-working c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s . There tends to be a c o n s i s t e n t a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e w i t h i n most l i f e - c y c l e (except those who are m a r r i e d and c h i l d l e s s ) and e d u c a t i o n (except those w i t h a t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l educa t ion ) c a t e g o r i e s for househo ld heads . A g a i n , the tendency i s for hous ing c l a s s to be more c o n s i s t e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t t i t u d e s for house-h o l d heads than spouses . G e n e r a l l y , when two c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s are examined s im-u l t a n e o u s l y , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s noted between hous ing c l a s s and each c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e are s t i l l e v i d e n t . The tack taken here i s one of p u r s u i n g four-way i n t e r a c t i o n s i n terms of broad t rends and to r e s i s t r e a d i n g too much i n t o i s o l a t e d a n o m o l i e s . More a t t e n t i o n w i l l be g i v e n to these g e n e r a l p a t t e r n s of i n t e r a c t i o n a f t e r the a n a l y s e s fo r each q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tem have been r e v i e w e d . So for i n s t a n c e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s w i t h i n SES, c l a s s , e d u c a t i o n and l i f e - c y c l e c a t e g o r i e s are not s imply a r t i f a c t s of household income ( t a b l e A V . 6 ) . A h o u s i n g c l a s s e f f e c t i s s t i l l e v i d e n t fo r s k i l l e d nonmanual workers w i t h i n one of the two income c a t e g o r i e s 234 which can be e v a l u a t e d . As w e l l , a s y s t e m a t i c n o n - l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s amongst those i n the manager ia l SES group i s e v i d e n t a c ro s s a l l income c a t e g o r i e s , wi th mortgaged homeowners e x p r e s s i n g more c o n s e r v a t i v e v i e w s . The p a t t e r n of responses i s 2 . 3 , 2 . 7 , and 2.5 a c r o s s hous ing c l a s s e s i n the $9000 to $16999 income group , 2 .4 , 2.8 and 2.3 in the $17,000 to $22,999 income group , 2 . 6 , 2 . 8 , and 2.6 in the $23,000 to $29,999 income group and 2 . 3 , 2.9 and 2.6 i n the $30,000 and over c a t e g o r y . A g a i n , there i s an a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s amongst lower income f a m i l i e s , and i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h o n l y a h i g h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n . F u r t h e r , when SES i s c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h l i f e - c y c l e , t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t f o r m a r r i e d respondents w i t h c h i l d r e n c l a s s i f i e d i n s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual o c c u p a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , a t t i t u d e s towards the statement t h a t there i s too much d i f f e r e n c e between r i c h and poor were a s se s sed i n terms of hous ing c o s t s . T h i s i s sue of hous ing c o s t s i n r e l a -t i o n to p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s i s taken up more c e n t r a l l y for s o c i a l we l f a re i s s u e s to as sess Kemeny's h y p o t h e s i s , o u t l i n e d above, c o n c e r n i n g the impact of h i g h hous ing c o s t s on support of s o c i a l w e l f a r e schemes. I t was found that t h e r e i s no a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c o s t s and a t t i t u d e s towards t h i s p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t em, c o n t r o l l i n g for househo ld i n -come, c l a s s , SES and l i f e - c y c l e . C o n s i d e r i n g a t t i t u d e s towards government a s s i s t a n c e to the p o o r , hous ing c l a s s i s as s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s 235 a t t i t u d e as any other c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e for household heads and spouses and hous ing c o s t s are a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d for spouses . Once a g a i n , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s e v i d e n t w i t h i n the $9000 - $16999 income range for a l l r e spondent s , as w e l l as the $0-$8999 and $23000-$29999 for spouses ( t a b l e 5 . 4 ) . T h i s i s an i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n of e f f e c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h i n the lower income groups . W i t h i n the $9000 to $16,999 income group of household heads , for i n s t a n c e , fewer r e n t e r s (24.7%) than homeowners (38.8%) pay i n excess of 30% of t h e i r income to hous ing c o s t s and hence homeowners must o b j e c t i v e l y be i n the worst economic p o s i t i o n . One would t h i n k that they would be sympathet ic to government a s s i s t a n c e to the p o o r . When a t t i t u d e s are compared ac ro s s homeowners i n terms of hous ing c o s t s to income, however, there i s no e f f e c t of l e v e l of hous ing c o s t s on a t t i t u d e s for household heads i n any income group . T h i s i s not the case for spouses , a l t h o u g h the d i r e c t i o n of a s s o c i a t i o n v a r i e s a c r o s s income groups . There i s a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c o s t s and a t t i t u d e s towards h e l p i n g the poor ( K e n d a l l ' s tau=.25, p .= .05 , N=41) fo r spouses w i t h incomes between $9000 and $16,999 so that those w i t h h i g h e r hous ing c o s t s ' a c t u a l l y f e e l tha t government s h o u l d put l e s s e f f o r t towards h e l p i n g the p o o r . There are too few cases to e v a l u a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c o s t s and a t t i t u d e s amongst those i n the lowest income c a t e g o r y . There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c o s t s or hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s fo r those i n the $17,000 to $22,999 income range . For spouses w i t h incomes between $23,000 and $29,999, however, there i s a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c o s t s and 236 TABLE 5.4 A s s o c i a t i o n s Between Hous ing C l a s s and A t t i t u d e s Towards H e l p i n g the Poor , A c r o s s C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s Household Heads K e n d a l l ' s Tau N Spouses K e n d a l l 1 s Tau N Gamma G e n e r a l Hous ing C l a s s E f f e c t . 1 4 .00 1034 .15 .00 610 I n t e r a c t i o n s : C l a s s working . 1 4 .00 496 . 1 1 .02 306 new middle .04 NS 1.04 .08 NS 1 04 p e t t y b o u r g . .01 NS 61 . 1 1 NS 30 b o u r g e o i s i e .04 NS 95 .24 .00 95 r e s i d u a l .18 .00 341 SES ns . manual . 1 6 .03 121 . 1 2 NS 93 ns . nonmanual .02 NS 1 56 - . 0 3 NS 40 s. manual .08 NS 1 1 7 . 1 1 NS 1 32 s. nonmanual .21 .00 305 .21 .02 50 manager .08 NS 244 . 1 6 .01 191 r e s i d u a l .18 .00 341 L i f e - c y c l e s i n g l e . 1 0 .01 267 m a r r i e d . 1 2 NS 1 24 .04 NS 93 f a m i l y .07 NS 323 . 1 6 .00 366 e l d e r l y .22 .00 265 . 1 7 .03 129 Household Income 0-8999 .07 NS 203 .29 .02 49 9000-16999 . 1 3 .01 225 .09 NS 110 17000-22999 .04 NS 174 .09 NS 1 22 23000-29999 .09 NS 198 . 1 5 .03 153 30000 + .12 NS 1 58 .09 NS 145 Educat ion No h i g h s c h o o l . 14 .00 1 67 .25 .01 77 Some h i g h s. .23 .00 198 . 1 2 NS 148 High s. d i p l . .17 .00 193 .1 5 .02 160 T e c h n i c a l .01 NS 98 . 1 5 NS 50 Some c o l l e g e . 1 4 .03 1 64 .12 NS 96 C o l l e g e deg . . 1 2 .02 21 1 .13 NS 73 21 24 23 23 1 7 25 237 sympathy towards government support of the poor and an a s s o c i a t i o n ( K e n d a l l ' s t au=- .23 , p.= .00 , N=110) which i s much s t r o n g e r than t h a t between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i -tudes i n t h i s income range . The average response d i f f e r s from 2.7 fo r homeowners p a y i n g l e s s than 10% of t h e i r income to h o u s i n g , to 2.2 for those p a y i n g between between 11% and 30% and 1.9 for those pay ing over 30%. What t h i s means i s tha t there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between mortgaged and ou t -r i g h t homeowners in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s , w i t h those most h e a v i l y i n debt more sympathet ic to government support of the poor ( e s s e n t i a l l y the r ever se of what Kemeny p r e d i c t s ) . Why t h i s s h i f t o c c u r s i n the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p a c r o s s income groups i s u n c l e a r - perhaps a p roce s s such as the one Kemeny suggests i s p a r t i a l l y i n v o l v e d , w i t h those i n the $9000 to $16,999 ca tegory who pay i n excess of 30% of t h e i r income to hous ing e s p e c i a l l y v u l n e r a b l e to any i n c r e a s e s i n taxes that the s o c i a l w e l f a r e measure might e n t a i l . G e n e r a l l y hous-ing c o s t s are not r e l a t e d to a t t i t u d e s towards h e l p i n g the p o o r , when SES, c l a s s , or l i f e - c y c l e are c o n t r o l l e d ; the e x c e p t i o n s are s k i l l e d nonmanual spouses and e l d e r l y household heads , where those w i t h h i g h e r hous ing c o s t s respond more f a v o u r a b l y towards government a s s i s t a n c e to the p o o r . A g a i n , t h i s p a t t e r n i s the o p p o s i t e to tha t suggested by Kemeny. I t i s a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g to note tha t there i s no a s s o c i a t i o n between r e n t a l c o s t s , as a p r o p o r t i o n of income, and a t t i t u d e s towards h e l p i n g the poor w i t h i n any income, SES or l i f e - c y c l e c a t egory fo r e i t h e r househo ld heads or spouses . 238 A v a r i a t i o n i n o p i n i o n due to hous ing c l a s s s t r eng thens when SES i s c o n t r o l l e d , a l t h o u g h i t i s once aga in r e s t r i c t e d to househo ld heads i n the n o n s k i l l e d manual and s k i l l e d non-manual groups and for spouses i n the s k i l l e d nonmanual and p r o f e s s i o n a l / m a n a g e r i a l c a t e g o r i e s . Hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s are noted q u i t e g e n e r a l l y a c r o s s e d u c a t i o n and l i f e - c y c l e c a t e -g o r i e s , except for household heads w i t h a t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n , m a r r i e d coup le s without c h i l d r e n and househo ld heads w i t h f a m i l i e s . The four-way c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s c a r r i e d out i n d i c a t e d that the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s observed w i t h i n SES c a t e g o r i e s are not due to s y s t e m a t i c confounding between hous ing c l a s s and l i f e - c y c l e or e d u c a t i o n ( t a b l e A V . 7 ) . Nor are the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s w i t h i n income c a t e g o r i e s due to confounding between hous ing c l a s s and l i f e - c y c l e , e d u c a t i o n , SES or c l a s s ( t a b l e A V . 8 ) : the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s once aga in s t r o n g e s t for those w i t h c h i l d r e n and of the s k i l l e d nonmanual or man-a g e r i a l SES groups i n the $9000 to $16999 income range , for i n s t a n c e . F i n a l l y , d i f f e r e n c e s i n o p i n i o n a t t r i b u t e d to hous ing c l a s s w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r SES and income groups are not due to e t h n i c d i f f e r e n c e s between homeowners and r e n t e r s , for i n -s t a n c e . To e x p l o r e the impact of e t h n i c i t y i n r e l a t i o n to hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s , the sample was d i v i d e d between those who are C a n a d i a n , B r i t i s h or American born and those who were born i n c o u n t r i e s other than t h e s e . When income and e t h n i c i t y are c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s are 239 TABLE 5.5 Average Responses For H e l p i n g the Poor By Hous ing C l a s s , Household Income and E t h n i c i t y C o n t r o l l e d Renter s Homeowners K ' s s i g . Mortgaged O u t r i g h t Tau N N N 0-$8999 C a n a d i a n , U . K . , U . S . 1.9 167 2.-2 18 2.2 43 . 10 .03 Other 31 4 13 $9000-$16,999 C a n a d i a n , U . K . , U . S . 2.0 197 2.3 32 2.3 59 .12 .01 Other 2.1 38 2.3 18 2.5 23 .15 .14 $17,000-$22,999 C a n a d i a n , U . K . , U . S . 2.2 145 2.3 55 2.2 52 - . 02 .67 Other 2.1 32 1.9 19 2.4 22 .05 .65 $23,000-$29,999 C a n a d i a n , U . K . , U . S . 2.2 97 2.3 119 2.4 74 .09 .06 Other 2.1 24 2.3 31 2.4 25 .15 .13 $30,000 and over C a n a d i a n , U . K . , U . S . 2.2 76 2.5 135 2.4 86 .10 .05 Other 8 23 12 e v i d e n t amongst both samples , as shown i n t a b l e 5 . 5 , a l t h o u g h i n the case of the ' e t h n i c ' sample, the sample s i z e s are so s m a l l tha t hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s w i t h i n income groups are not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . I t was a l s o noted that homeownership i s confounded w i t h e t h n i c i t y amongst the n o n s k i l l e d manual group (77.3% of r e n t e r s i n t h i s ca tegory i d e n t i f y themselves as C a n a d i a n , w h i l e 42.9% of the mortgaged and 36.4% of the o u t r i g h t home-240 owners are I t a l i a n , Portuguese or E a s t e r n E u r o p e a n ) . However, the d i f f e r i n g responses of r e n t e r s , mortgaged and o u t r i g h t homeowners w i t h i n SES groups are not accounted for by e t h n i c i t y ( t a b l e 5 . 6 ) . A l t h o u g h the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s e v i d e n t amongst both the C a n a d i a n , American and B r i t i s h group and those c l a s s i f i e d as ' e t h n i c ' who have n o n s k i l l e d manual SES c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s towards h e l p i n g the poor i s s t r o n g e r for the e t h n i c sample . At the same t i m e , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t shows up more c l e a r l y for the C a n a d i a n , American and B r i t i s h sample of managers than when t h i s sample i s combined w i t h the e t h n i c g roup . TABLE 5.6 Average Responses for H e l p i n g the Poor By Hous ing C l a s s , SES and E t h n i c i t y C o n t r o l l e d Renter s Homeowners K ' s s i g . Mortgaged O u t r i g h t Tau Mean N Mean N Mean N N o n s k i l l e d Manual ' C a n a d i a n ' 1 .9 1 06 2.3 20 2. 1 27 .10 .09 ' E t h n i c ' 1 .8 26 2.2 1 7 2.2 22 .21 .05 N o n s k i l l e d Nonmanual ' C a n a d i a n ' 2.2 95 2.4 23 2. 1 21 .02 NS ' E t h n i c ' --- 1 6 4 4 S k i l l e d Manual ' C a n a d i a n ' 2.1 85 2.4 62 1 .8 46 .10 .09 ' E t h n i c ' 2.1 1 6 2.0 23 2.4 20 . 1 1 NS S k i l l e d Nonmanual ' C a n a d i a n ' 2.1 125 2.3 79 2.6 41 .20 .00 ' E t h n i c ' 20 9 4 Managers ' C a n a d i a n ' 2.3 137 2.4 1 40 2.6 75 . 13 .00 ' E t h n i c * 2.2 24 2.4 36 2.3 20 .03 NS R e s i d u a l ' C a n a d i a n ' 2.0 1 26 2.6 1 6 2.3 57 .17 .00 ' E t h n i c ' 21 1 23 241 Next , a t t i t u d e s towards government a s s i s t a n c e to the un-employed w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n more d e t a i l . As noted above, there i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t tendency for those in the lower income c a t e g o r i e s to f e e l tha t government shou ld d i r e c t more a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed. However, when c o n t r o l l e d by househo ld income, the gamma s t a t i s t i c i n d i c a t i n g the r e l a -t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e i s r e -duced o n l y s l i g h t l y from .19 to . 1 7 . In what has become a f a m i l i a r p a t t e r n , there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s for household heads i n the two lowest income groups and the h i g h e s t and for spouses i n the medium income ranges , shown in t a b l e 5 . 7 . I t i s of i n t e r e s t to look more c l o s e l y at the income groups for which there i s no hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t . Amongst household heads , for i n s t a n c e , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t does not r e a l l y drop out for the middle income groups . R a t h e r , o n l y mortgaged homeowners express l e s s support for government a s s i s t a n c e . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c a p t u r e d more c l e a r l y when hous ing c o s t s as a p r o p o r t i o n of household income are a l i g n e d w i t h a t t i t u d e s towards government a s s i s t a n c e to the unem-p l o y e d , a l s o shown i n t a b l e 5 . 7 . For household heads w i t h incomes between $17,000 and $29,999, those p a y i n g o n l y 10% of t h e i r incomes to hous ing are q u i t e f a v o u r a b l e to government a s s i s t a n c e w h i l e those p a y i n g between 11% and 30% are l e s s f a v o u r a b l e and those pay ing over 30% even l e s s so . For spouses , as w e l l , the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c o s t s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e i s o n l y e v i d e n t w i t h i n the income range 242 TABLE 5.7 Average Response for A s s i s t a n c e to the Unemployed By Housing C l a s s and Housing C o s t s , C o n t r o l l i n g For Household Income HOUSEHOLD INCOME ($) 0-8999 9000-16,999 17,000 22,999 23,000 29,999 30,000 and over HOUSEHOLD HEADS Mean N Mean N Mean N HOUSING CLASS Renter s 2.4 150 2.8 153 2.8 104 M.Ho . 2.9 12 3.3 30 3.0 40 O.Ho . 3.0 44 3.0 43 2.6 34 Mean N Mean N 2.7 3.3 2.8 73 73 53 2.6 3.2 3. 1 49 66 44 K e n d a l l ' s KT p . KT p . KT p . KT p . KT p . Tau .18 .00 .10 .05 .04 NS .06 NS .16 .03 HOUSING COSTS To 10% 3 1 2.3 10 2.9 27 3.1 40 1 1 %-30% 9 3.0 39 2.8 43 3.1 81 3.2 62 Over 30% 2.5 23 3.5 26 3.2 19 4.1 14 3 K e n d a l l ' s KT P- KT P- KT P. KT P- KT P . Tau .05 NS . 1 4 NS .23 .02 . 16 .03 .03 NS SPOUSES Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N HOUSING CLASS Renter s 2.5 28 2.6 64 2 .5 60 2.5 40 2.6 25 M.Ho. 2.7 1 0 3.0 1 6 2 .9 32 2 .9 70 3.1 79 O . H o . 2.7 1 2 2.8 32 3.1 31 3.1 44 2.9 39 K e n d a l l ' s KT p . KT p . KT p . KT p . KT p . Tau .11 NS .07 NS .21 .01 .18 .01 .04 NS HOUSING COSTS To 10% 0 2 4 3.2 1 9 2 .9 32 1 1 %-3 0% 1 2.5 25 3.0 36 2.8 78 3.1 69 Over 30% 3 3.2 16 2.7 16 2.8 13 6 K e n d a l l ' s KT p . KT p . KT p . KT p . KT p . Tau NS .26 .04 - . 14 NS -.11 NS .08 NS 243 of $9000 and $16,999, an income ca tegory for which no hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s e v i d e n t . There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e n t a l c o s t s and p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n for e i t h e r household heads or spouses i n any income c a t e g o r y . What appears to e x p l a i n t h i s p a t t e r n of i n t e r a c t i o n i s the f o l l o w i n g : w i t h i n the middle income c a t e g o r i e s there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between h o u s i n g c o s t s and a t t i t u d e s amongst homeowners which i s apparent as a n o n - l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s . When there i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c o s t s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s , the hous ing tenure s p l i t i n a t t i t u d e s i s p i c k e d up by the K e n d a l l ' s t au s t a t i s t i c . A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n of i n t e r p l a y between the hous ing c l a s s and hous ing c o s t s v a r i a b l e s i s noted when c l a s s , SES and l i f e -c y c l e are c o n t r o l l e d . I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y mortgaged working c l a s s and s k i l l e d nonmanual homeowners who are unsympathet ic to government a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed for i n s t a n c e ( t a b l e s 5.8 and 5 . 9 ) . So t o o , there i s an a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing s i t u a t i o n and a t t i t u d e s a c ro s s a l l s tages of the l i f e -c y c l e for househo ld heads , e x c e p t i n g those c l a s s i f i e d as s i n g l e , a l t h o u g h i t i s e s p e c i a l l y mortgaged homeowners who are l e s s s u p p o r t i v e of government a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed amongst the c h i l d l e s s m a r r i e d group ( t a b l e 5 . 1 0 ) . 244 TABLE 5.8 Average Responses and A s s o c i a t i o n Between Housing C l a s s and Hous ing Cos t s and A t t i t u d e s Towards Government A s s i s t a n c e to the Unemployed, C l a s s C o n t r o l l e d Working M i d d l e CLASS P e t t y B. B o u r g e o i s i e HOUSEHOLD HEADS HOUSING CLASS Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Renter s M. Ho. 0 . Ho. 2.7 296 3.1 116 2.7 90 2.6 3.1 3.0 57 41 26 2.6 30 3.3 20 2.3 9 2 .9 38 3.4 33 3.2 26 K e n d a l l ' s Tau KT p . KT p . KT p . KT p . .07 .04 .22 .00 .03 NS .14 NS HOUSING COSTS Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N <10% 2.9 36 3.0 12 3.2 16 l0%-30% 2.9 105 3.1 40 3.3 15 3.4 30 >30% 3.3 44 3.1 9 K e n d a l l ' s Tau KT p. KT p . KT p . KT p . .13 .03 .03 NS .28 NS .16 NS SPOUSES HOUSING CLASS Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Renter s 2.6 135 2.3 35 3.2 16 2.6 1 8 M. Ho. 2.8 99 3.0 39 2 .9 1 4 3.0 51 0 . Ho. 2.9 70 2.5 31 3.3 1 1 3.2 30 K e n d a l l ' s Tau KT p . KT p . KT p . KT p . .11 .02 .18 .04 .03 NS .15 .08 HOUSING COSTS Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N <10% 2.9 20 3.2 12 2 .9 14 10%"30% 2.8 103 2.8 39 3.2 13 3.1 39 >30% 3.0 31 - - - 2.8 10 K e n d a l l ' s Tau KT p . KT p . KT p . KT p . .02 NS .00 NS - . 2 4 NS .00 NS 245 TABLE 5.9 Average Responses and A s s o c i a t i o n Between Hous ing C l a s s and Cos t s and A t t i t u d e s Towards A s s i s t a n c e to the Unemployed, SES C o n t r o l l e d SES N o n s k i l l e d S k i l l e d Managers Manual Nonmanual Manual Nonmanual HOUSEHOLD HEAD Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N HOUSING CLASS Renter s 2.3 73 2.8 80 2.6 55 2.8 1 06 2.8 1 07 M. Ho. 3.1 19 2.8 23 2.8 38 3.5 45 3.3 85 0 . Ho. 2.6 29 2. 1 1 7 2.8 28 2.8 27 3.1 50 K e n d a l l ' s Tau KT P- KT P. KT P- KT P- KT P-. 1 1 NS .02 NS .09 NS . 1 1 .09 . 1 6 .00 Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N HOUSING COSTS <10 2.7 1 0 3.0 5 2.5 1 1 3.0 1 2 3. 1 29 1 1-30 2.7 24 2.6 18 2.7 35 3. 1 40 3.2 73 >30 3.7 9 3.4 1 1 2.7 1 3 3.2 1 5 3.4 18 K e n d a l l ' s Tau KT P- KT P- KT P- KT P- KT P-.20 NS .15 NS .01 NS .22 .03 .08 NS SPOUSES Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N HOUSING CLASS Renter s 2.5 55 2.9 25 2.6 42 2.4 31 2.6 51 M. Ho. 2.2 1 6 3.2 6 2.9 49 3. 1 39 2.9 93 0 . Ho. 2.8 24 2.7 9 2.9 37 3.0 21 3.2 195 K e n d a l l ' s Tau KT P. KT P- KT P- KT P- KT P. .05 NS - . 03 NS . 1 1 NS .20 .03 . 1 8 .00 Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N HOUSING COSTS <10 3.0 6 3.0 1 3.0 1 4 2.5 6 2 .9 24 1 1-30 2.3 21 2 .9 10 2.7 50 2 .9 37 3.1 76 >30 2.7 9 3.3 3 2 .9 1 3 3.4 10 2.7 1 7 246 TABLE 5.10 Average Responses and A s s o c i a t i o n s Between Hous ing C l a s s and Cos t s and A t t i t u d e s Towards A s s i s t a n c e to the Unemployed, L i f e - c y c l e C o n t r o l l e d LIFE-CYCLE S i n g l e M a r r i e d F a m i l y E l d e r l y HOUSEHOLD HEADS HOUSING CLASS Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Renter s 2.7 222 2.8 75 2.4 1 76 2.6 65 Mortgaged Ho. 3.0 20 3.2 32 3. 1 159 2.9 8 O u t r i g h t Ho. 2.8 26 3.0 1 9 2.8 1 24 3. 1 52 K e n d a l l ' s Tau KT P. KT P- KT P- KT P-.03 NS . 1 1 NS . 1 4 .00 .20 .00 HOUSING COSTS Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N <1 0% 3. 1 10 2.3 1 1 2.6 28 3.0 26 11-30% 2.7 19 2.2 27 3. 1 1 07 3. 1 67 over 30% 3.6 7 3. 1 8 3.2 40 3.2 26 K e n d a l l ' s Tau KT P- KT P- KT P- KT P-.08 NS .26 .03 . 1 1 .06 .06 NS SPOUSES HOUSING CLASS Mean N Mean N Mean N Renter s 2.6 59 2.5 151 2.7 9 Mortgaged Ho. 3.0 21 2 .9 1 76 3.2 1 0 O u t r i g h t Ho. 2.3 1 2 3.0 1 33 3.2 21 K e n d a l l ' s Tau KT P. KT P- KT P-.03 NS . 1 6 .00 .17 NS HOUSING COSTS Mean N Mean N Mean N <1 0% 2.7 6 2.8 28 3.3 23 11-30% 2.7 18 2.9 144 2.9 31 >30% 3.0 7 2 .9 31 2 .9 1 3 K e n d a l l ' s Tau KT P- KT P- KT P. .10 NS .08 203 2.9 1 3 247 W i t h i n e d u c a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s there are q u i t e s t r o n g hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s ( t a b l e 5 . 1 1 ) . S i m i l a r t o the two p r e -v i o u s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , t h e r e i s an a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s for household heads i n every e d u c a t i o n c a t e g o r y , except for those w i t h t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n . But for t h i s e x c e p t i o n , mortgaged homeowners show the u s u a l p a t t e r n a l tho ugh o u t r i g h t homeowners do n o t . TABLE 5.11 Average Responses and A s s o c i a t i o n s Between Hous ing C l a s s and A t t i t u d e s Towards Government A s s i s t a n c e to the Unemployed, E d u c a t i o n C o n t r o l l e d EDUCATION High Schoo l T e c h n i c a l C o l l e g e No Some Diploma School Some Degree HOUSEHOLD HEADS Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Renter s 2.6 85 2.5 1 06 2.7 1 1 5 2.8 42 2.8 101 2.7 1 20 M. Ho. 2.7 27 3.0 36 3. 1 35 3.2 34 3.4 36 3.3 60 0 . Ho. 2.8 53 2.8 57 3.0 46 2.6 23 3.0 25 3.2 32 K e n d a l l ' s KT P- KT P- KT P- KT P. KT P- KT P-Tau .09 NS . 1 3 .03 . 1 6 .00 .00 NS . 1 3 .05 .25 .00 SPOUSES Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Renter s 2.4 29 2.7 59 2.4 65 2.9 16 2.7 36 2.4 22 M. Ho. 2.5 19 3.1 41 2.6 54 3.2 26 2.8 37 3.2 36 0 . Ho. 2 .9 33 3.0 50 2 .9 35 3.0 1 1 3. 1 24 3.4 1 4 K e n d a l l 1 s KT P. KT P- KT P- KT P. KT P. KT P-Tau .21 . 04 . 1 1 NS .15 . 03 .05 NS .12 NS .28 . 01 248 F i n a l l y , a t t i t u d e s towards government support of h e a l t h and m e d i c a l s e r v i c e s w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d o n l y b r i e f l y , as the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r o n g and t h e r e i s no a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c o s t s and a t t i t u d e s on t h i s i s sue - e i t h e r g e n e r a l l y or w i t h i n s p e c i f i c c a t e g o r i e s of the c o n t r o l s . I n t e r a c t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d o n l y i n summaris ing t r ends observed fo r o ther q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m s . Summary of R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Hous ing and P o l i t i c a l A t t i t u d e s G e n e r a l l y there i s a tendency fo r a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t amongst those i n the lowest income c a t e g o r i e s for q u e s t i o n -n a i r e i tems c o n c e r n i n g income d i s t r i b u t i o n and government p r o v i s i o n of s o c i a l w e l f a r e . There i s a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t w i t h i n the 0-$8999 c a t e g o r y for every q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tem ex-cept h e l p i n g the poor fo r household heads and a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed for spouses , i n which cases the respondents are u n i f o r m l y s u p p o r t i v e . In the $9000 to $16,999 ca tegory there i s a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t for a l l re spondents for every ques-t i o n n a i r e i t e m , w i t h mortgaged homeowners the l e a s t sympathe-t i c to v a r i o u s we l f a re p r o v i s i o n s . There i s a l e s s s y s t e m a t i c p a t t e r n of a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s w i t h i n the middle income ranges , f o r both househo ld heads and spouses . However, the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s e v i d e n t amongst household heads i n the w e a l t h i e s t group for every i tem except h e l p i n g the poor ( i n which case the respondents are u n i f o r m l y n e u t r a l ) . 249 I t i s a l s o worthwhi le r e c a p i t u l a t i n g the p a t t e r n of i n -t e r a c t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and SES or c l a s s a c r o s s a l l of the s o c i a l we l f a re i tems . A c r o s s a l l s o c i a l w e l f a r e i t ems , except government a s s i s t a n c e to h e a l t h and m e d i c a l c a r e , there i s an a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and o p i n i o n for house-h o l d heads c l a s s i f i e d as working c l a s s and i n the case of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tem c o n c e r n i n g p r o v i s i o n s to the unemployed, those w i t h h i g h hous ing c o s t s are p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n s e r v a t i v e . When the working c l a s s i s broken down i n t o SES groups , i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y the n o n s k i l l e d manual group of househo ld heads for whom there i s a c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s , w i t h homeowners p a y i n g more of t h e i r income to hous ing c o s t s o f f e r i n g l e s s support than other homeowners to s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . For those c l a s s i f i e d i n the s k i l l e d nonmanual c a t e g o r y , there i s a l s o a c o n s i s t e n t set of r e l a t i o n s h i p s : there i s a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t f o r the ques-t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g income i n e q u a l i t y , h e l p i n g the p o o r , govern-ment a s s i s t a n c e for h e a l t h and m e d i c a l c a r e , and a hous ing c o s t e f f e c t for the i s sue of a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed i t e m s . Thus , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s items and w i t h i n t h i s group of s k i l l e d nonmanual household heads , the mortgaged homeowners are the l e a s t sym-p a t h e t i c to the s o c i a l w e l f a r e p r o v i s i o n s p r o b e d . There i s a l e s s c o n s i s t e n t hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t amongst househo ld heads c l a s s i f i e d as managers, p r o f e s s i o n a l s and owners. There i s o n l y an a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s c o n -c e r n i n g income i n e q u a l i t y and a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed. 250 When l i f e - c y c l e i s c o n t r o l l e d , i t i s apparent tha t any a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s towards s o c i a l we l f a re p r o v i s i o n i s g e n e r a l l y s t r o n g e s t amongst the group of m a r r i e d respondents wi th c h i l d r e n and e l d e r l y r e s p o n d e n t s , for both househo ld heads and spouses . The hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s e v i d e n t fo r m a r r i e d household heads w i t h f a m i l i e s for a l l items except h e l p i n g the poor and fo r m a r r i e d spouses w i t h f a m i l i e s and the e l d e r l y for a l l i tems except government support of h e a l t h and m e d i c a l c a r e . C o n c e r n i n g e d u c a t i o n , there i s a c o n s i s t e n c y of i n t e r -a c t i o n e f f e c t s between e d u c a t i o n , hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e fo r household heads a c r o s s a l l i t ems . There i s g e n e r a l l y a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t w i t h i n every e d u c a t i o n c a t e -gory except t h a t of t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l , for household heads . A g a i n , the p a t t e r n of i n t e r a c t i o n s i n terms of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i s not as c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s items fo r spouses , a l t h o u g h g e n e r a l l y there i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t hous-ing c l a s s e f f e c t amongst the l e a s t e d u c a t e d . As has been noted above, t h i s i s g e n e r a l l y an a r t i f a c t of the s m a l l sample s i z e s of b e t t e r educated spouses . There are two s e r i e s of c o n t r o l s c a r r i e d out w i t h i n t h i s s e c t i o n tha t are worthy of note through r e s t a t e m e n t . The f i r s t concerns the c o n t r o l for e t h n i c i t y , shown fo r the ques-t i o n n a i r e i tem c o n c e r n i n g government h e l p to the p o o r . To e x p l o r e whether the c o n s i s t e n t hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s amongst those w i t h incomes between $9000 and $16,999 and n o n s k i l l e d manual workers i n p a r t i c u l a r are a r t i f a c t s of con found ing 251 between e t h n i c i t y and hous ing c l a s s , four-way c r o s s - t a b u l a -t i o n s were examined i n which household income and e t h n i c i t y and SES and e t h n i c i t y were c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . E t h n i -c i t y was found not to account for the a s s o c i a t i o n between a t t i t u d e s towards government h e l p to the poor and hous ing c l a s s and there are hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s w i t h i n both C a n a d i a n / A m e r i c a n / B r i t i s h and ' e t h n i c ' samples . S e c o n d l y , a tendency for mortgaged homeowners to be more n e g a t i v e towards s o c i a l we l fa re schemes was noted and exposed more c l e a r l y by the hous ing c o s t s a n a l y s e s . T h i s i s p a r t i c u -l a r l y t h e ° case fo r the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tem c o n c e r n i n g government a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed. For the o ther q u e s t i o n n a i r e items t h e r e i s not a c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c o s t s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s ; c e r t a i n l y the hous ing c l a s s concept i s more c l o s e l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h v a r -i a t i o n s in a t t i t u d e s . I t i s a l s o of i n t e r e s t to note tha t there i s very l i t t l e i n terms of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e n t a l c o s t s and a t t i t u d e s . A t t i t u d e s Towards P e r s o n a l P l a n n i n g and C o n t r o l G iven the i n f l u e n c e of mortgage debt on the long term f a m i l y budget , and the observed r e l a t i o n s h i p between job and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y and hous ing t e n u r e , a t t i t u d e s towards p l a n n i n g fo r the f u t u r e are probed more f u l l y . T h i s i s approached through the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m : "Do you t h i n k i t ' s b e t t e r to p l a n your l i f e a good way ahead, or would you say l i f e i s too much a matter of luck to p l a n ahead very f a r ? " 252 The re spondent s ' a t t i t u d e s are broken down by c l a s s , SES, l i f e - c y c l e , household income and e d u c a t i o n and are shown i n t a b l e 5 .12 . Whi le i t i s apparent t h a t fewer of those l a b e l e d as working c l a s s f e e l tha t i t i s b e t t e r to p l a n l i f e ahead, when the working c l a s s i s broken down i n terms of SES i t i s p a r t i -c u l a r l y amongst manual workers that there i s the b e l i e f t h a t l i f e i s l a r g e l y a matter of l u c k . As w e l l , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t a t t i t u d e s towards p l a n n i n g are s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h educa-t i o n (and income for househo ld heads ) , w i t h those w i t h more e d u c a t i o n and h i g h e r incomes g e n e r a l l y f e e l i n g that i t i s b e t t e r to p l a n o n e ' s l i f e ahead. L i f e - c y c l e i s u n r e l a t e d to a t t i t u d e s towards the r o l e p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l as opposed to chance p l a y s i n l i f e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s towards p l a n n i n g i s very weak at a genera l l e v e l and o n l y s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n the case of spouses . However, when hous ing c l a s s i s i n v e s t i g a t e d w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r o l g roups , the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c o n s i d e r a b l y s t r o n g e r ( t a b l e 5 . 1 3 ) . Noteworthy i s the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s amongst s k i l l e d nonmanual household heads , as w e l l as spouses i n the n o n s k i l l e d nonmanual and s k i l l e d manual g roups . At the same t i m e , c o n t r o l s for l i f e - c y c l e seem to account for the r e l a t i o n s h i p amongst household heads , a l t h o u g h when e d u c a t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h SES and l i f e -c y c l e , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s s t i l l e v i d e n t amongst those w i t h a c o l l e g e degree i n the f a m i l y stage of l i f e - c y c l e ( t a b l e A V . 9 ) . 253 TABLE 5.12 Percentage A g r e e i n g That B e t t e r to P l a n L i f e Ahead, C o n t r o l l e d By C l a s s , SES, L i f e - c y c l e , E d u c a t i o n and Household Income Head of Household Spouse % N KT s i g . C h i S. df s i g . % N KT s i g . CLASS Working 53.3 497 43.8 304 New M i d d l e 64.7 1 19 53.8 1 04 P. Bourg . 61 .4 57 50.0 40 Bourgeoi s i e 64. 1 92 56.8 95 R e s i d u a l 41 .9 248 .05 .09 24 .9 4 .00 -.11 SES Ns . manual 49.2 1 26 38. 1 97 Ns . nonman. 44. 3 1 15 42.5 40 S. manual 51 .7 1 18 40.6 1 33 S. nonman. 59. 1 171 58.8 85 Managers 68.5 235 55.9 188 R e s i d u a l 41 .9 248 .00 .95 41 .7 5 .00 - . 1 6 LIFE-CYCLE S i n g l e 52.9 259 Marr i e d 62. 1 1 24 56.2 89 Fami ly 52.0 321 45.3 360 E l d e r l y 51.1 266 49.2 1 32 .04 .30 4 .6 3 .20 .05 EDUCATION No High 39.7 1 74 37.5 80 Some High 42. 1 202 37.0 1 46 High Schoo l 48.4 1 92 - 45.9 1 59 T e c h n i c a l 59.6 99 53.8 52 Some C . 61 .4 1 53 58.2 91 C o l l e g e D. 71 .6 204 70.4 71 - . 2 6 .00 58 . 1 5 .00 - . 2 4 HOUSEHOLD INCOME 0-8999 43.4 205 39.2 51 9000-16999 46.4 224 50.0 1 10 17-22,999 51 .4 173 40.8 1 20 23-29,999 61 .5 200 54.3 151 30,000 + 67.5 1 57 52. 1 1 42 - . 2 0 .00 30 .7 4 .00 - . 0 8 HOUSING CLASS Renter s 49.3 558 42.4 217 M. Ho. 66. 1 227 48.8 217 0 . Ho. 51 .2 242 54.4 1 69 - . 0 6 .07 18 .9 2 .00 - . 1 0 .01 00 1 3 00 .02 254 TABLE 5.13 A s s o c i a t i o n s Between F e e l i n g That B e t t e r to P l a n One ' s L i f e Ahead and Hous ing C l a s s , With C l a s s , SES, L i f e - c y c l e , House-h o l d Income and E d u c a t i o n C o n t r o l l e d Household Head Spouse Gamma K e n d a l l ' s Tau p . N K e n d a l l ' s Tau p . N GENERAL HOUSING CLASS EFFECT .06 .07 1 027 - . 1 0 .02 596 INTERACTIONS: CLASS Working .03 NS 497 - . 1 7 .01 304 New M i d d l e .05 NS 119 .08 NS 1 04 P. B o u r g e o i s i e - .08 NS 57 - . 1 7 NS 40 B o u r g e o i s i e .07 NS 92 .02 NS 95 R e s i d u a l . 1 1 .09 248 0 SES N o n s k i l i e d manual .07 NS 1 26 - . 0 3 NS 97 nonmanual .08 NS 1 1 5 - . 3 3 .05 40 S k i l l e d manual . 1 5 NS 1 18 - . 2 0 .04 1 33 non-manual . 15 .07 171 .02 NS 85 Managers .04 NS 235 - . 0 4 NS 188 R e s i d u a l . 1 1 .09 248 0 LIFE-CYCLE S i n g l e .07 NS 259 M a r r i e d .08 NS 1 24 - . 0 4 NS 89 Fami ly .07 NS 321 - . 1 5 .01 360 E l d e r l y .08 NS 266 - . 0 9 NS 1 32 HOUSEHOLD INCOME 0-8999 .06 NS 205 .01 NS 51 9000-16,999 .09 NS 224 - . 02 NS 1 10 17,000-22,999 . 1 7 .03 1 72 - . 1 5 . 1 4 120 23,000-29,999 .00 NS 1 99 - . 0 6 NS 151 30,000 + .01 NS 157 - . 1 0 NS 1 42 EDUCATION No High Schoo l - .09 NS 1 73 - . 1 9 . 1 2 80 Some High .08 NS 201 -.01 NS 146 High Schoo l .09 NS 1 92 - . 1 8 .04 159 T e c h n i c a l .10 NS 99 - . 2 5 .13 52 Some C o l l e g e .02 NS 153 . 1 3 NS 91 C o l l e g e Degree - .18 .01 204 - . 2 9 .01 71 - . 1 6 255 Summarising G e n e r a l i s a t i o n s A c r o s s A l l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items Perhaps one of the most s u r p r i s i n g f i n d i n g s of these a n a l y s e s has been that hous ing c l a s s i s more c l o s e l y a s soc-i a t e d than any o ther c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e to more than a t h i r d of the p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s examined. T h i s i s shown i n t a b l e 5 .14 , where the c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s are s imply ranked i n terms of a s s o c i a t i o n fo r each q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tem for which there i s i n f o r m a t i o n a c r o s s a l l c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . A c r o s s the 14 ques-t i o n n a i r e items c o n s i d e r e d , hous ing c l a s s i s the most c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e for 5 i t ems , e d u c a t i o n for 6, SES for 2 and c l a s s fo r 1. L i f e - c y c l e and household income were found to be the poore s t ' p r e d i c t o r s ' i n s o f a r as t h e r e i s no a s s o c i a t i o n between l i f e - c y c l e or household income for 6 and 7 of the i tems , r e s p e c t i v e l y . C l a s s , and to a l e s s e r extent SES, a l s o f a i l e d to p r e d i c t p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s w i t h any c o n s i s t e n c y . D e f i n i t e l y , the c o n t e n t i o n tha t c l a s s h o l d s a de terminant r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h broader a t t i t u d e s i s not c o n -f i rmed by t h i s a n a l y s i s . I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y for q u e s t i o n s of s o c i a l w e l f a r e , the l e g i t i m a c y of v a r i o u s types of p r o t e s t and job m o b i l i t y that hous ing c l a s s i s s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d . The most immediate e x p l a n a t i o n fo r t h i s i s tha t hous ing c l a s s ' s u m m a r i s e s ' , much l i k e the f a c t o r l o c a t i o n , a c l u s t e r of income, l i f e - c y c l e , e d u c a t i o n and SES v a l u e s and thus shows up more s t r o n g l y than any of these o t h e r c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s do i n i s o l a t i o n . What argues a g a i n s t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e x p l a n a t i o n i s the f a c t that the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l 256 T A 8 L E 5 . 1 4 R a n k i n g s o f A s s o c i a t i o n s B e t w e e n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I t e m s a n d C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s , H o u s e h o l d H e a d s O n l y C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s C l a s s S E S L i f e - c y c l e I n c o m e ,• E d u c a t i o n H o u s i n g C l a s s Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ITEMS '• Y e a r s W i t h P r e s e n t E m p l o y e r 6 5 2 3 4 1 I n v o l v e m e n t i n P o l -i t i c a l C a m p a i g n 3 2 4 NS 1 NS I n v o l v e m e n t w i t h C o m m u n i t y P r o b l e m s 5 3 4 2 1 NS A t t e n d a n c e o f P r o t e s t M e e t i n g s 4 3 5 NS 1 2 P r o v i n c i a l P a r t y A f f i l i a t i o n 2 1 4 NS NS 3 F e d e r a l P a r t y A f f i l i a t i o n 1 2 NS NS NS 3 C l a s s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 4 3 NS 2 1 NS J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f S t r i k e s 3 4 2 NS 5 1 J u s t i f i c a t i o n , P e a c e f u l . 1 1 1 e g a l P r o t e s t 5 4 2 NS 1 3 J u s t i f i c a t i o n , V i o l e n t , I l l e g a l P r o t e s t NS NS 2 NS 3 1 T o o M u c h D i f f e r e n c e B e t w e e n R i c h a n d P o o r 5 1 NS 3 - 4 2 G o v e r n m e n t A s s i s t a n c e T o t h e P o o r NS 4 NS 2 3 1 G o v e r n m e n t A s s i s t a n c e T o t h e U n e m p l o y e d NS 2 NS 3 4 1 A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d s L i f e P l a n n i n g 4 2 NS 3 1 NS 257 a t t i t u d e s tends to be as s t r o n g , i f not s t r o n g e r , w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r v a l u e s of each c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e . That i s , the noted a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and p a r t i c u l a r p o l i -t i c a l a t t i t u d e s do not s imply r e f l e c t the f ac t tha t r e n t e r s tend to have lower incomes and SES s t a n d i n g or tha t r e n t e r s tend to be younger because when househo ld income, SES and l i f e - c y c l e (or r e spondent s ' ages) are c o n t r o l l e d , the a s s o c i a -t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s remain . I t i s important to r e f l e c t on the types of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and behav iour w i t h which hous ing c l a s s i s the most s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d . The f a c t tha t the a s s o c i a t i o n i s s t r o n g for the s o c i a l w e l f a r e i s s u e s seems, at f i r s t s i g h t , b r o a d l y s u p p o r t i v e of Kemeny's argument l i n k i n g mortgage debt and p e r s o n a l wi thdrawal from s o c i a l w e l f a r e schemes. T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t rue for support of unemployment p r o v i s i o n s for which i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y mortgaged homeowners who are l e s s s u p p o r t i v e . At the same t i m e , hous ing co s t does not seem to be a p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t f a c t o r i n r e l a t i o n to o ther s o c i a l w e l f a r e schemes, such as h e a l t h and m e d i c a l c a r e , or h e l p i n g the poor , i n which cases the p a t t e r n i s a c t u a l l y the r e v e r s e to tha t proposed by Kemeny. I t c o u l d be argued tha t the p a r t i a l r e l e v a n c e of the hous ing c o s t v a r i a b l e to a t t i t u d e s may i n p a r t r e f l e c t the s m a l l e r sample for whom i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e on h o u s i n g c o s t s (as opposed to hous ing c l a s s ) . For i n s t a n c e , as shown i n F i g u r e 5.1 t h e r e i s a tendency for mortgaged homeowners c l a s s i f i e d as managers and s k i l l e d nonmanual to agree the 258 FIGURE 5.1 Support for S o c i a l Wel fare Programmes, Shown for Each SES Group (Household Heads Only) PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THE UNEMPLOYED Housing C lass Hous ing C o s t TOO MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RICH AND POOR R M Hous ing C l a s s <\ 1% 11%- '30% >30% Hous ing C o s t HELPING THE POOR SNM .M • " ^ 2 2 ^ oSM • i N S M M NSM 2.8 ° 2.4 ca o 2.0}-R M O Hous ing C l a s s ^ S ^ x " . . - • S N M N X - » NSM ~ ~ C , N S N M r ^*SM <1 1% 1 1 % - 3 0 % > 3 0 % H o u s i n g C o s t HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE R » 2.8r * ^ " J r - - » ^ r — - - SNM 2 4j- t m-—~~ • M ^ ~ * S M CD 2 2.0h o E R M Hous ing C l a s s not s ta t i s t i ca l l y s i gn i f i cant s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ign i f icant " •NSM <11% 1 1 % - 3 0 % >30% H o u s i n g C o s t Insuf f i c ient nos. to a s se s s nonsk i l led nonmanual for housing cost variable 259 l e a s t wi th the statement that t h e r e i s too much d i f f e r e n c e between r i c h and p o o r . The a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing cos t and a t t i t u d e s i s q u i t e s t rong i n the case of managers ( K e n d a l l ' s Tau=.14, s i g n i f i c a n c e = . 0 6 , N=122) but the sample s i z e i s such t h a t the a s s o c i a t i o n i s not q u i t e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . R e l a t i v e l i m i t a t i o n s of sample s i z e a l s o f i g u r e in the l a c k of a s s o c i a t i o n between r e n t a l c o s t s and a t t i t u d e s . Thus an argument can be made tha t a l ack of a s s o c i a t i o n bet-ween hous ing or r e n t a l c o s t s and a t t i t u d e s towards s o c i a l w e l f a r e p r o v i s i o n s may r e f l e c t , i n p a r t , l i m i t a t i o n s of sample s i z e . I t i s , however, a l s o a p p a r e n t , for homeowners at l e a s t , tha t sample s i z e i s not the o n l y f a c t o r r e s p o n s i b l e fo r the l a ck of a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c o s t s and support for some s o c i a l we l f a re schemes. For o ther s o c i a l we l f a re i t ems , a l s o shown in F i g u r e 5 . 1 , there i s s imply no r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c o s t s and support of v a r i o u s s o c i a l w e l f a r e p r o v i -s i o n s , or at l e a s t no tendency fo r mortgaged homeowners to be more n e g a t i v e . T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y the case fo r support of government a s s i s t a n c e to h e l p the poor and support of h e a l t h and m e d i c a l c a r e ; perhaps because there i s l e s s room for mortgaged homeowners to c o n s i d e r t h i s form of a s s i s t a n c e as n o n - e s s e n t i a l ( a l though homeowners i n s p e c i f i c SES groups are s t i l l l e s s s u p p o r t i v e than r e n t e r s ) . What i s sugges ted i s tha t there i s a ' c e i l i n g ' of d i s a p p r o v a l for i tems such as h e l p i n g the p o o r , such that most people agree t h a t t h e r e shou ld be some support and tha t t h i s tends to be l e s s the case for i tems such as a s s i s t a n c e to unemployed p e r s o n s . 260 Not o n l y i s Kemeny's argument c o n c e r n i n g househo ld budget ing and support of we l f a re p r o v i s i o n s not g e n e r a l i s a b l e a c r o s s types of s o c i a l w e l f a r e , but the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s seems to range beyond support for s o c i a l w e l f a r e . That i s , w h i l e a s t r o n g p o i n t of Kemeny's argument i s an attempt to t r a n s c e n d broad and some-what vacuous g e n e r a l i s a t i o n s which have t y p i f i e d the i n c o r p o r -a t i o n t h e s i s , and to e x p l o r e more s p e c i f i c p r o c e s s e s , the ev idence p r e s e n t e d here suggests tha t a t t i t u d i n a l d i v i d e s a c r o s s hous ing c l a s s e s a c t u a l l y do range over a f a i r l y wide sphere of i s s u e s and thus are not merely the d i r e c t r e s u l t of household budgetary c o n s t r a i n t s . H igher l e v e l s of r e n t e r involvement i n p r o t e s t meetings and g r e a t e r endorsement of i l l e g a l , v i o l e n t p r o t e s t amongst r e n t e r s are two i n s t a n c e s which seem to i n d i c a t e a more g e n e r a l r a d i c a l / c o n s e r v a t i v e d i v i d e between r e n t e r s and homeowners. The g e n e r a l nature of the i d e o l o g i c a l d i v i d e between r e n t e r s and homeowners becomes somewhat c l e a r e r when SES i s c o n t r o l l e d , f o r w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r SES groups there i s an a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h hous ing c l a s s for almost every q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m . I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y amongst household heads c l a s s i f i e d as s k i l l e d nonmanual or as managers tha t there i s a c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s . The ex tent to which t h i s i s the case can be seen more c l e a r l y from t a b l e 5 .15 , where a q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tem i s l i s t e d for a p a r t i c u l a r SES group i f there i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n between that q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tem and hous ing c l a s s . 2 6 1 T A B L E 5 . 1 5 S u m m a r y o f S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t ( a t . 0 5 ) A s s o c i a t i o n s B e t w e e n H o u s i n g C l a s s a n d Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I t e m s W i t h i n SES G r o u p s 1 Q U E S T I O N N A I R E I TEMS SES GROUPS N o n s k 1 1 1 e d S k 1 1 1 e d M a n u a l N o n m a n u a l M a n u a l N o n m a n u a l M a n a g e r s Y e a r s W i t h P r e s e n t Emp1 o y e r HH HH HH HH+S HH+S S p o u s e E m p l o y e d U n i o n A t t e n d a n c e HH HH HH HH H o l d i n g U n i o n O f f i c e HH I n v o l v e m e n t i n P o l 11 i c a 1 C a m p . HH I n v o l v e m e n t w i t h C o m m u n i t y P r o b l e m HH HH W r i t t e n t o E l e c t e d R e p r e s e n t a t i v e HH HH P r o t e s t M e e t i n g A t t e n d a n c e S i g n e d a P e t i t i o n HH HH HH HH F e d e r a l P a r t y A f f i1 i a t i o n HH HH P r o v i n c i a l P a r t y A f f i 1 i a t i o n HH HH HH C l a s s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f S t r i k e s HH J u s t 1f i c a t i o n o f P e a c e f u l P r o t e s t HH HH ( 1 7 , 0 0 0 -2 2 . 9 9 9 ) HH+S HH+S ( 1 7 , 0 0 0 ( 9 , 0 0 0 - 1 6 , 9 9 9 , 2 2 , 9 9 9 ) 2 3 , 0 0 0 - 2 9 , 9 9 9 ) HH HH ( 9 0 0 0 - 1 6 , 9 9 9 ) 262 T A B L E 5 . 1 5 C O N T I N U E D Q U E S T I O N N A I R E I T E M S SES GROUPS N o n s k 1 1 1 e d M a n u a l N o n m a n u a l Sk11 l e d M a n u a l N o n m a n u a l M a n a g e r s J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f V i o l e n t P r o t e s t HH T o o M u c h D i f f e r -e r e n c e B e t w e e n R i c h a n d P o o r G o v e r n m e n t A s s i s t a n c e HH T o T h e P o o r G o v e r n m e n t A s s i s t a n c e HH T o U n e m p l o y e d HH+S ( 1 7 . 0 0 0 -2 2 . 9 9 9 ) HH HH+S ( 2 3 . 0 0 0 - ( 1 7 , 0 0 0 - 2 2 , 9 9 9 , 2 9 , 9 9 9 ) 3 0 . 0 0 0 + ) HH ( 2 3 . 0 0 0 -2 9 . 9 9 9 ) HH+S ( 9 0 0 0 + ) HH+S S ( 9 - 2 2 , 9 9 9 ) ( 9 0 0 0 - 1 6 , 9 9 9 ) HH+S HH+S P l a n n i n g A h e a d HH 1. H H = H o u s e h o l d H e a d s a n d S = S p o u s e s ; f o r 6 o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m s t h e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n S E S a n d h o u s e h o l d i n c o m e a r e i n d i c a t e d i n b r a c k e t s . 263 Of the 19 q u e s t i o n s c o n s i d e r e d , there i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h hous ing c l a s s i n the case of 7, 8, 2, 16, and 10 q u e s t i o n s for household heads c l a s s i f i e d as n o n s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual, s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual and managers, r e s p e c t i v e l y . C l e a r l y , the hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s most p e r v a s i v e amongst the s k i l l e d nonmanual group and l e a s t e v i d e n t amongst s k i l l e d manual worker s . The s i t u a t i o n i s s i m i l a r but much weaker for spouses . The g e n e r a l c o n c l u -s i o n i s tha t hous ing c l a s s i s more c o n s i s t e n t l y r e l a t e d to a t t i t u d e s for household heads : there i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i -f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h hous ing c l a s s i n the case of 1, 1, 1, 4 and 6 q u e s t i o n s for spouses c l a s s i f i e d as n o n s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual, s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual and managers, r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i s i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g when r e l a t e d to arguments c o n c e r n i n g the r e l a t i v e impact of consumption and p r o d u c t i o n . . . 3 r e l a t i o n s on i n d i v i d u a l s ' l i v e s . I t i s worth n o t i n g that c o n -sumption r e l a t i o n s , as d e f i n e d here by hous ing c l a s s , may f i g u r e more p r o m i n e n t l y i n the p e r c e p t i o n s of some people and p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s i n the p e r c e p t i o n s of o t h e r s . I t i s sugge s t ive to l i n k t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n to C a r c h e d i ' s or W r i g h t ' s schema of c o n t r a d i c t o r y c l a s s l o c a t i o n s . Regard le s s of how much t h e o r e t i c a l sense these p o s i t i o n s make i n terms of M a r x i s t c l a s s t h e o r y , i t may be the case tha t the extremes i n 3 P. D u n l e a v y , Urban P o l i t i c a l A n a l y s i s ; G . P r a t t , " C l a s s a n a l y s i s and urban domest ic p r o p e r t y : a c r i t i c a l r e e x a m i n a t i o n " ; P. Saunders , S o c i a l Theory and the Urban Q u e s t i o n . London: H u t c h i n s o n , 1981. 264 terms of a dichotomous c l a s s model i d e n t i f y more c l e a r l y w i t h a c l a s s p o s i t i o n d e r i v e d from t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n the sphere of p r o d u c t i o n . T h i s seems to be the case e s p e c i a l l y f o r manual w o r k e r s . Manual workers tend to i d e n t i f y w i t h the working c l a s s , as was observed above i n r e l a t i o n to c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a -t i o n . T h e i r p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s seem not to be i n f l u e n c e d by hous ing t e n u r e . Manual workers may a b s o r b , r e - c r e a t e , and l i v e a set of v a l u e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the working c l a s s and thus may be l e s s i n f l u e n c e d by v a r i a t i o n s i n consumption p a t t e r n s . Those i n the middle c l a s s e s , C a r c h e d i ' s and W r i g h t ' s c o n t r a d i c t o r y c l a s s e s , may not f e e l a c l a s s p o s i t i o n as c l e a r l y and the impact of v a r i a t i o n s i n consumption may be s t r o n g e r . In any ca se , t h i s v a r i a t i o n i n a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s a c r o s s SES groups w i l l be a focus of i n v e s t i g a t i o n in the subsequent i n depth i n t e r v i e w s . I t i s thus wise to c o n s i d e r v a r i a t i o n s a c r o s s groups more spec i f i c a l l y . The c l a s s c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n makes f i n e r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s w i t h i n the manager i a l groups and as shown i n t a b l e 5 .16 , i t i s amongst the new middle c l a s s tha t t h e r e i s the more c o n s i s t e n t h o u s i n g c l a s s e f f e c t for household heads . Thus t h e r e i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t f o r household heads for 9, 9, 5 and 5 of the 18 q u e s t i o n s e v a l u a t e d i n terms of c l a s s for those i n the w o r k i n g , new m i d d l e , p e t t y bour-g e o i s i e and b o u r g e o i s i e c l a s s e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i s r e a f f i r m s the remarks made c o n c e r n i n g the dominance of consumption r e l a t i o n s for the p e r c e p t i o n s of the middle c l a s s e s . A s l i g h t l y 265 T A B L E 5 . 1 6 S u m m a r y o f S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t A s s o c i a t i o n s ( a t . 0 5 ) B e t w e e n H o u s i n g C l a s s a n d Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I t e m s W i t h i n C l a s s e s Work 1ng C l a s s New M i d d l e P. B o u r g . B o u r g e o i s i e R e s i d u a l Q U E S T I O N N A I R E I T E M S C l a s s I d e n . U n i o n M e m b e r s h i p U n i o n O f f i c i a l I n v o l v e m e n t i n P o l i t i c a 1 C a m p . C o m m u n i t y P r o b . W r i t i n g t o E l e c t e d R e p r e s e n t a t 1 v e F e d e r a l P a r t y A f f i l - n o a s s o c i a t i o n s - n o a s s o c i a t i o n s - n o a s s o c i a t i o n s - n o a s s o c i a t i o n s - n o a s s o c i a t i o n s - n o a s s o c i a t i o n s - n o a s s o c i a t i o n s Y e a r s w i t h P r e s e n t E m p l o y e r HH+S HH+S HH HH S p o u s e E m p l o y e d HH HH P r o t e s t M e e t i n g A t t e n d a n c e HH HH HH+S S i g n i n g a P e t i t i o n HH P r o v i n c i a l P a r t y A f f i l i a t i o n HH+S HH HH HH J u s t i f i c a t i o n S t r i k e s o f HH J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f P e a c e f u l P r o t e s t HH HH HH J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f V i o l e n t P r o t e s t HH+S HH HH T o o M u c h D i f f e r e n c e B e t w e e n R i c h , P o o r HH+S HH HH HH+S G o v e r n m e n t H e l p T o P o o r HH + S HH G o v e r n m e n t H e l p T o U n e m p l o y e d HH+S HH+S HH HH 266 d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n i s e v i d e n t for spouses , r e f l e c t i n g the t e n -dency for t h e r e to be an a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s fo r spouses c l a s s i f i e d as b o u r g e o i s i e . In the case of spouses , t h e r e i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t for 7, 2, 1 and 5 of the q u e s t i o n s for those c l a s s i f i e d as working c l a s s , new middle c l a s s , p e t t y b o u r g e o i s i e and b o u r g e o i s i e , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The p o i n t s to be made here are t h a t , a g a i n , g e n e r a l l y the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s i s l e s s c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s a t t i t u d e s for spouses and t h a t , amongst non-working c l a s s household heads , i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h i n a lower management group tha t a t t i t u d e s vary w i t h hous ing c l a s s . A d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t i n t o key groups of respondents for whom hous ing c l a s s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t t i t u d e s i s g leaned from an overview of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t hous-ing c l a s s e f f e c t s a c ro s s income groups . As was noted r e p e a t -ed ly throughout the d i s c u s s i o n of i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s i s most c o n s i s t e n t l y apparent fo r those whose annual household income i s between $9000 and $16,999 . As shown i n t a b l e 5 .17 , of the 17 q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tems examined, t h e r e i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and 5, 13, 6, 3 and 5 of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tems fo r household heads i n the $0-8999, $9000-16,999, $17,000 to $22,999, $23,000 to 29,999 and $30,000 and over income ranges . For spouses , t h e r e i s a un i fo rm tendency a c r o s s a l l income groups for t h e r e to be a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n be t -267 TABLE 5.17 Summary of S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t A s s o c i a t i o n s ( a t .05) Between Housing C l a s s and Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items W i t h i n Household Income C a t e g o r i e s Household Income ($) 0-8999 9000- 17,000- 23,000- 30,000+ 16,999 22,999 29,999 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I terns C l a s s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Involvement i n P o l i t i c a l Campaign Community Problem S o l v 1 n g W r i t t e n to E l e c t e d R e p r e s e n t a t i ve Y ears With HH P r e s e n t Employer Spouse Employed P r o t e s t M e e t i n g A t t e n d a n c e Pet i t i on S i g n i n g S F e d e r a l P a r t y A f f i l i a t i o n HH -no a s s o c i a t i o n s -no a s s o c i a t i o n s -no a s s o c i a t i o n s -no a s s o c i a t i o n s HH HH . HH+S (NSM, Managers) (Fam i1y) (No High S c h o o l ) HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH P r o v i n c i a l P a r t y Af f i 1 i a t i o n HH+S HH HH HH Oust i f i c a t i o n of S t r i k e s J u s t i f i c a t i o n of P e a c e f u l P r o t e s t HH S (Managers) (SNM) (High School Diploma) HH (Managers) HH HH (Managers) (Fam i1y) (Col l e g e Degree) HH (Some High, Tech.) 268 TABLE 5.17 CONTINUED Household Income ($) 0-8999 9000- 17.000- 23.000- 30.000+ 16,999 22.999 29.999 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items J u s t i f i c a t i o n of V i o l e n t P r o t e s t S (Fam i 1 y ) Too Much D i f f e r e n c e Between R i c h . Poor HH+S (Fam i 1 y ) (No High S. Government Help To Poor S Government H e l p To Unemployed HH ( F a m i l y ) HH+S (Managers) ( F a m i l y ) (High S c h o o l ) (SM,Manager) (Some High, High S c h o o l ) HH HH+S (SNM, Manager) (Fam i 1 y ) (No High S c h o o l ) HH+S S (SNM) (Manag.) (Manag.) HH+S S (SM) (Fam i1y) (Some High S c h o o l ) HH+S HH P l a n n i n g L i f e Ahead HH 269 TABLE 5. 18 Summary of S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t A s s o c i a t i o n s ( a t .05) Between Housing C l a s s and Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items W i t h i n L i f e - c y c l e C a t e g o r i e s S i n g l e L i f e - c y c 1 e Marr i e d Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items Fam i1y E1der1y Union Membership P o l i t i c a l Campaign C l a s s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n -no a s s o c i a t i o n s -no a s s o c i a t i o n s HH Years With P r e s e n t Emp1 oyer Spouse Employed Community Problem HH HH+S HH+S HH W r i t t e n To E l e c t e d R e p r e s e n t a t i ve P r o t e s t M e e t i n g F e d e r a l P a r t y A f f 1 1 i a t i o n HH HH+S (9000-16999) HH P r o v i n c i a l P a r t y A f f i1 i a t i o n HH HH J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f S t r i k e s J u s t i f i c a t i o n of P e a c e f u l P r o t e s t HH HH HH+S (9000-16,999 , 23.000-29,999) HH J u s t i f i c a t i o n of V i o l e n t P r o t e s t Too Much D i f f e r e n c e Between R i c h , Poor Government H e l p to Poor Government Help t o Unemployed (17,000-22.999) HH HH (0-8999,17,000 22,999) HH + S (0-22,999) S (23.000 +) HH+S HH+S HH+S HH P l a n n i n g L i f e Ahead S 270 ween hous ing c l a s s and o n l y a few p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s or types of p o l i t i c a l b e h a v i o u r . When l i f e - c y c l e i s c o n t r o l l e d , there i s aga in an i n t e r -a c t i o n e f f e c t w i t h a more c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n of a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s i n the f a m i l y w i t h c h i l d r e n l i f e - c y c l e group , for both household heads and spouses . The g e n e r a l p a t t e r n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s shown i n t a b l e 5 .18 . In t h i s case for household heads t h e r e are s t a -t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and 5, 3, 10 and 3 q u e s t i o n n a i r e items for those c l a s s i f i e d as s i n g l e , m a r r i e d , m a r r i e d w i t h c h i l d r e n and e l d e r l y , r e s p e c t -i v e l y . For spouses , there are 3, 8, and 3 such a s s o c i a t i o n s a c r o s s m a r r i e d , m a r r i e d w i t h c h i l d r e n and e l d e r l y r e spondent s . The one c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e for which there i s not t h i s c o n c e n t r a t i o n of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r va lue s i s tha t of e d u c a t i o n , a l t h o u g h i n t h i s case t h e r e tends not be a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t amongst those w i t h a t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n . Why t h i s i s so i s not c l e a r . One sugges t ion i s tha t there are more s k i l l e d manual workers w i t h t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n s and s i n c e a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t i s not o f ten e v i d e n t amongst s k i l l e d manual workers one would not be expected for those w i t h a t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n . However, there are more s k i l l e d manual workers i n the mortgaged homeowner group (the group which would e s p e c i a l l y o f f s e t a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t ) fo r the no h i g h s c h o o l and some h i g h s c h o o l c a t e g o r i e s than for the t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l group (28.6%, 30.6% and 26.5%, r e s -271 T A B L E 5 . 1 9 S u m m a r y o f S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t A s s o c i a t i o n s ( a t . 0 5 ) B e t w e e n H o u s i n g C l a s s a n d Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I terns W i t h i n E d u c a t i o n a l G r o u p i n g s E d u c a t i o n H i g h S c h o o l T e c h n i c a l No Some D i p l o m a S c h o o l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I t e m s U n i o n M e m b e r s h i p - n o a s s o c i a t i o n s I n v o l v e m e n t i n P o l i t i c a l C a m p a i g n s - n o a s s o c i a t i o n s C l a s s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Y e a r s W i t h P r e s e n t E m p l o y e r I n v o l v e m e n t i n C o m m u n i t y P o l i t i c s W r i t t e n t o E l e c t e d R e p r e s e n t a t i v e HH P r o t e s t M e e t i n g A t t e n d a n c e P e t i t i o n S i g n i n g F e d e r a l P a r t y A f f i 1 i a t i o n P r o v i n c i a l P a r t y A f f i1 i a t i o n HH ( 9 - 1 6 9 9 9 ) HH+S HH HH HH ( 3 0 . 0 0 0 + ) HH HH ( 0 - 8 9 9 9 ) HH HH C o 1 1 e g e Some D e g r e e HH HH+S HH HH HH ( 9 0 0 0 -1 6 , 9 9 9 ) HH 272 T A B L E 5 . 1 9 C O N T I N U E D E d u c a t i o n H i g h S c h o o l T e c h n i c a l No Some D i p l o m a S c h o o l C o l 1 e g e Some D e g r e e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I t e m s J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f S t r i k e s J u s t 1f i c a t i o n o f B o y c o t t s HH+S ( 9 0 0 0 - 1 6 9 9 9 ) HH HH HH+S ( 2 3 . 0 0 0 - 3 0 , 0 0 0 ) J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f R a 1 1 i e s HH J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f P e a c e f u l P r o t e s t J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f V i o l e n t P r o t e s t ( 2 3 , 0 0 0 2 9 , 9 9 9 ) HH HH HH T o o M u c h D i f f e r e n c e B e t w e e n R i c h , P o o r G o v e r n m e n t H e l p T o P o o r G o v e r n m e n t H e l p T o U n e m p l o y e d HH+S ( 0 - 8 9 9 9 ) HH+S ( 9 0 0 0 1 6 , 9 9 9 ) HH+S ( 1 7 , 0 0 0 2 2 , 9 9 9 ) HH+S ( 2 3 , 0 0 0 2 9 . 9 9 9 ) HH HH+S ( 9 0 0 0 -2 2 . 9 9 9 ) HH+S ( 3 0 . 0 0 0 + ) HH+S HH+S ( 2 3 , 0 0 0 -2 9 . 9 9 9 ) HH+S HH HH HH ( 3 0 , 0 0 0 + ) HH+S 273 p e c t i v e l y ) . Nor does i t seem tha t the t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l c a t e -gory i s any more heterogenous i n a t t i t u d e s , SES, or household income than any o ther e d u c a t i o n a l c a t e g o r y . Bes ide the l a ck of a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s amongst those wi th a t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n , there i s no o ther c l e a r i n t e r a c t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and the e d u c a t i o n v a r i a b l e : there i s a hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t for househo ld heads for 5, 8, 11, 9 and 7 of the 20 q u e s t i o n n a i r e items for those w i t h no h i g h s c h o o l , some h i g h s c h o o l , a h i g h s c h o o l d i p l o m a , some c o l l e g e and a c o l l e g e degree , r e s p e c t i v e -l y , shown i n t a b l e 5 .19 . For spouses , the number of a s s o c i a -t i o n s i s 3, 5, 6, 5 and 6 a c ro s s these same e d u c a t i o n a l group-i n g s , r e a f f i r m i n g the tendency fo r fewer a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e amongst spouses . In sum, i t does not seem tha t e d u c a t i o n i s ve ry h e l p f u l i n p i n p o i n t i n g s o c i a l groups most i n f l u e n c e d a t t i t u d i n a l l y by hous ing c l a s s . Having gone through the p a t t e r n s of i n t e r a c t i o n ac ro s s c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s s e p a r a t e l y , i t i s p o s s i b l e to g a i n some overview of the four-way i n t e r a c t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n r e l a t i o n to independent q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems . Some of the i n t e r a c t i o n s a v a i l a b l e for e i g h t q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tems have been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t a b l e s 5.15 to 5 .19 . These t a b l e s must be i n t e r p r e t e d very c a r e f u l l y because the p a t t e r n s of four-way i n t e r a c t i o n s very much r e f l e c t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s a m p l i n g . For i n s t a n c e , there seems to be a tendency for hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s amongst those who are bo th w e l l educated and have h i g h incomes and amongst those w i t h l e s s e d u c a t i o n and lower incomes. In f a c t , 274 t h i s r e f l e c t s the p a t t e r n of m i s s i n g c e l l s i n the a n a l y s e s as much as any r e a l i n t e r a c t i o n between the v a r i a b l e s c o n s i d e r e d . So too the i n t e r a c t i o n between the $9000 to $16999 income range and a h i g h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n i s apparent o n l y i n r e l a t i o n to two q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t ems , a l t h o u g h i t i s a l s o the case tha t i t i s on ly a c c e s s i b l e for review because of fewer cases of m i s s i n g data for these items and one o t h e r . In t h i s sense , the i n c i d e n c e of hous ing c l a s s e f f e c t s amongst those w i t h h i g h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n s and lower incomes may be o b s c u r e d . Because of these prob lems , i t i s most i n t e r e s t i n g to examine c a t e -g o r i e s w i t h fewer m i s s i n g c e l l s - for i n s t a n c e , the manager i a l SES ca tegory can be compared a c r o s s most household income groups and the f a m i l y l i f e - c y c l e group i s a l s o q u i t e w e l l r e p r e s e n t e d a c r o s s o ther c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . Two se t s of a n a l y s e s are of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t : i t i s c l e a r l y amongst m a r r i e d persons w i t h c h i l d r e n i n the lower income ranges and w i t h i n the s k i l l e d nonmanual and manager i a l SES groups that t h e r e i s an impact of hous ing c l a s s on a t t i t u d e s ( t h i s does not show up as s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t for the four-way c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s as o f t e n for the s k i l l e d nonmanual group due to sample s i z e ) . So t o o , amongst those i n the manager i a l SES group , i t i s for those i n the $9000 to $22,999 household income range tha t the a s s o c i a t i o n between a t t i t u d e s and hous-ing c l a s s i s c l e a r e s t . (For those i n the s k i l l e d nonmanual SES group , these income ranges cannot be a s s e s s e d ) . Note tha t the remarks c o n c e r n i n g l i m i t a t i o n s i n sample s i z e r e f e r o n l y to the four-way c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s , which are 275 checks that s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s for the three-way c r o s s -t a b u l a t i o n s do not r e s u l t from ' h i d d e n ' confounding w i t h other v a r i a b l e s . They do not suggest tha t the p a t t e r n s noted i n r e l a t i o n to the three-way c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n s , namely the s t r o n g a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and a t t i t u d e s and behav iour amongst s k i l l e d nonmanual, lower income f a m i l i e s , a re s imply v i s i b l e because of m i s s i n g data in o ther groups . There were ample numbers in the s k i l l e d manual group, for i n s t a n c e , to a s se s s the a s s o c i a t i o n s between hous ing c l a s s and o ther v a r -i a b l e s - the a s s o c i a t i o n s s imply were not found . A p r o f i l e has thus emerged of a group for whom hous ing i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s : lower income househo ld heads i n s k i l l e d nonmanual or lower to middle l e v e l manager i a l p o s i t i o n s whose f a m i l y o b l i g a t i o n s have perhaps f o r c e d them i n t o a m a r g i n a l homeownership p o s i t i o n ( i n terms of t h e i r household income) . F l e s h i n g out t h i s p r o f i l e and c o n t r a s t i n g i t to that of s k i l l e d manual workers w i l l be the focus of the next c h a p t e r . 276 CHAPTER 6 THE INTERVIEW CONTEXT AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY The m u n i c i p a l i t y of S u r r e y , an outer suburb of Vancouver , was s e l e c t e d as the s i t e for i n t e r v i e w s w i t h homeowners and r e n t e r s . T h i s c h o i c e was p r e d i c a t e d on the a n a l y s i s of the S o c i a l Change i n Canada data set w h i c h , we have seen , d i s -c l o s e d an a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing tenure and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s amongst f a m i l i e s w i t h lower to middle incomes i n p a r t i c u l a r SES or s o c i a l c l a s s g r o u p i n g s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , an a s s o c i a t i o n was noted amongst s k i l l e d nonmanual ( i n c l u d i n g low l e v e l managers) but not s k i l l e d manual household heads . To unders tand what l i e s behind t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n , a s e r i e s of i n t e r v i e w s were c a r r i e d o u t : the sample i s s t r a t i f i e d i n terms of these s o c i a l g roups , w h i l e v a r i a t i o n s i n household income and f a m i l y l i f e - c y c l e are e f f e c t i v e l y narrowed by l o c a t i n g the sample g e o g r a p h i c a l l y . A l s o , by bounding the sample a r e a l l y , i t was f e l t tha t the l o c a l p o l i t i c a l c o n t e x t would be s t a n -d a r d i s e d a c r o s s hous ing tenure and s o c i a l c l a s s g r o u p i n g s . In t h i s c h a p t e r , an e x p l a n a t i o n of the c h o i c e of g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n w i l l be p re sen ted which w i l l a l s o a l l o w some c o n t e x t -u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the i n t e r v i e w m a t e r i a l . S u r r e y , B r i t i s h Columbia - The G e o g r a p h i c a l Context Sur rey i s an o u t l y i n g suburb l o c a t e d southeas t of Vancouver but s epara ted from the C i t y on the n o r t h by the F r a s e r R i v e r . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of Surrey to Vancouver i s shown 277 MAP 6.1 The M u n i c i p a l i t y of Surrey in the Region 278 on Map 6 . 1 . L i n k e d to Vancouver at three c r o s s i n g s of the F r a s e r R i v e r , Surrey o f f e r s acces s to a l e s s expens ive hous ing market w i t h i n a f o r t y to s i x t y minute commute to the bus ines s c e n t r e of Vancouver . Surrey i s the l a r g e s t m u n i c i p a l i t y i n the lower main land - i t i s 126 square m i l e s or 326 square k i l o m e t r e s i n a r e a , or rough ly three t imes the s i z e of the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r . U n t i l the 1940's i t was p r i m a r i l y a farming community, w i t h a few lumber m i l l s and a tannery l o c a t e d a l o n g the F r a s e r R i v e r . Even today , approx imate ly one t h i r d of the area in Surrey i s o c c u p i e d by a g r i c u l t u r a l lowlands and the area r e p r e s e n t s 40% of the farmland i n the r e g i o n . 1 Development s i n c e the 1940's has been p r e d o m i n a n t l y of a r e s i d e n t i a l n a t u r e . The e a r l i e s t s e t t l ement took p l a c e in C l o v e r d a l e but by 1960 most of the commercia l and s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l development was e s t a b l i s h e d i n Nor th S u r r e y , the area c l o s e s t to Vancouver as i n d i c a t e d by Map 6 . 2 . With c o n t i n u e d demand for ' a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g ' w i t h i n the Vancouver m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a , the more southern p o r t i o n s of the m u n i c i p a l i t y have been deve loped through the 1970 ' s . Newton has been the most r a p i d l y growing r e s i d e n t i a l area from 1976 to 1981 and i n c l u d e s most of S u r r e y ' s compact hous ing d e v e l o p -ments . Even w i t h i n North Surrey there has been an i n t e n s i f i -c a t i o n of use , w i t h s h i f t s from low d e n s i t y acreage d e v e l o p -ments to a d e n s i t y c l a s s i f i e d as 'urban r e s i d e n t i a l ' and from 1 P l a n n i n g Department , C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , Surrey O f f i c i a l Community P l a n , ( S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , May 1983). " 279 MAP 6.2 S u r r e y Sub-Area B o u n d a r i e s S O U R C E : P l ann ing Dept. , Corp. ot the Dist . o l S u r r e y , S u L L a ^ . L t l c J ^ j l Q m m u n L L v _ 280 TABLE 6.1 R e s i d e n t i a l D e n s i t i e s i n S u r r e y , by subareas New and 1981 Average D e n s i t i e s ( u n i t / h e c t a r e ) e x i s t i n g by subarea development by zon ing c l a s s . tohalley- F l e e t - Newton C l o v e r - South Surrey G u i l d f o r d wood d a l e Surrey E x i s t i n g (198T5 urban mult i f a m i l y 40.9 37.5 47.9 45.0 57.7 44.8 urban s i n g l e f a m i l y 8.2 6.8 10.0 9.4 7.9 8.4 suburban s i n g l e f a m i l y 2.0 1 .7 3.2 1 . 1 2.0 2.2 t o t a l 9.6 4. 1 6.5 4.9 4.7 0.2 lew Development urban mult i f a m i l y 72.8 50.8 48.3 69.5 69.3 64.0 urban s i n g l e f a m i l y 11.7 14.0 16.8 12.1 15.3 14.1 suburban s i n g l e f a m i l y 2.6 4.0 4.8 3.9 3.7 4.0 t o t a l 20.7 13.5 13.8 14.3 10.7 Source : P l a n n i n g D e p t . , C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y . Surrey O f f i c i a l Community P l a n . S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , May 1983, p . 82. urban s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s to townhouses and apar tments . L o o k i n g at t a b l e 6 . 1 , the c o n t i n u i n g d e n s i f i c a t i o n of d e v e l o p -ment w i t h i n Surrey i s e v i d e n t . In 1981 over h a l f of the p o p u l a t i o n l i v e d i n the Whal ley - G u i l d f o r d - F leetwood area and almost a q u a r t e r in Newton. B r e a k i n g down the u n i t s of hous ing by a r e a , 44% were i n the W h a l l e y - G u i l d f o r d a r e a , 21% i n Newton, 16% i n South S u r r e y , 8% i n C l o v e r d a l e , 7% in 281 F leetwood and 4% i n a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s . The r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n has been accompanied by s u b s t a n t i a l r e t a i l development , l a r g e l y in the form of shopping m a l l s . The G u i l d f o r d M a l l , which was opened i n 1967, was t o u t e d i n 1980 as the l a r g e s t shopping c e n t r e west of 3 O n t a r i o . In a d d i t i o n , i n d u s t r i a l areas have deve loped on the w a t e r f r o n t a l o n g the F r a s e r R i v e r , as w e l l as a l o n g the r a i l -way t r a c k s i n Newton and C l o v e r d a l e . There has been c o n s i d -e r a b l e i n d u s t r i a l growth s i n c e the 1960's - as an index of t h i s growth, the r a t i o of jobs a v a i l a b l e compared to the number of r e s i d e n t s in the l abour f o r c e i n c r e a s e d from .51 i n 1971 to .61 i n 1980. Even so , a comparison w i t h o t h e r m u n i c i -p a l i t i e s i n d i c a t e s the 'bedroom suburb ' nature of S u r r e y . The jobs to r e s i d e n t s ' r a t i o i s g r e a t e r than one i n Richmond, New W e s t m i n i s t e r and the C i t y of Vancouver , w h i l e those of Burnaby 4 and the C i t y of Nor th Vancouver approach one. The dramat ic i n c r e a s e i n the p o p u l a t i o n of Surrey i s shown i n F i g u r e 6 . 1 . The p o p u l a t i o n i n Surrey was 147,138 i n 1981, an i n c r e a s e of 26.3% from 1976. The p o p u l a t i o n has doubled between 196.1 and 1981. A homely i n d i c a t i o n of what t h i s growth has meant to Surrey i s g i v e n by a member of the l o c a l h i s t o r i c a l s o c i e t y : 2 I b i d , p . 83. 3 P l a n n i n g Department , C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , The Whal ley G u i l d f o r d Town P l a n , ( S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , Feb . 1980). 4 Sur rey P l a n n i n g Dept . Surrey O f f i c i a l Community P l a n , p . 89. 282 FIGURE 6.1 The P o p u l a t i o n of the M u n i c i p a l i t y of S u r r e y , 1921 to 1981 Pop- ' 150 u l a t ion (1000's) 100-Source : P l a n n i n g D e p t . , C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y . Surrey O f f i c i a l Community P l a n . S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , May 1983, p . 64. FIGURE 6.2 P o p u l a t i o n Growth i n Surrey as a Percentage of G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t Growth, 1931 1981 S u r r e y ' s 40-growth as a 30-percentage of GVRD 20-popula t ion growth 10-0-1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 Year 1981 Source : P l a n n i n g D e p t . , C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y . Sur rey O f f i c i a l Community P l a n . S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , May 1983, p . 65. 283 "Surrey i s becoming too urbanised over a l a r g e part of the m u n i c i p a l i t y to have much space f o r animals and b i r d s to l i v e i n a n a t u r a l w i l d s t a t e anymore. The day when the f a l l hunting season opened and a hunter c o u l d go a short way from h i s home to b r i n g back pheasant, grouse, or ducks i s n e a r l y over. By 1968 more than h a l f of Surrey had been c l o s e d to hunting.... 11 i s understandable when a f i g u r e of t h i r t y - t w o m i l l i o n d o l l a r s was recorded f o r b u i l d i n g permits i n t h i s y e a r . " ^ S i g n i f i c a n t f o r our present i n t e r e s t s i s the share of r e g i o n a l growth which has been absorbed by Surrey. The i n t e r -dependence between Surrey and Vancouver i s not new. Fern Treleaven of the Surrey Museum and H i s t o r i c a l S o c i e t y w r i t e s with r e f e r e n c e to the year 1940: "Housing i n Vancouver was at a premium, and workers and 'grass widows' found that they c o u l d secure cheaper homes south of the F r a s e r R i v e r . Surrey began to be c a l l e d 'Vancouver's bedroom'. The name s t i l l c l i n g s . People moved i n t o p r a c t i c a l l y any b u i l d i n g i n Surrey that had four w a l l s and a r o o f . Old s t o r e s , warehouses, garages, and even chicken houses were u t i l i z e d . " , 6 What i s unprecedented i s the s c a l e of the p o p u l a t i o n s h i f t in more recent y e a r s . Surrey's growth as a percentage of the growth of the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (GVRD) i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 6.2. Surrey's share of the t o t a l number of f a m i l i e s i n the region has i n c r e a s e d from 2% i n 1931 to G.F. T r e l e a v e n , The Surrey S t o r y , (Surrey: Surrey Museum and H i s t o r i c a l S o c i e t y , 1978 ) , p. 129. 6 I b i d , p. 98. 7 Surrey Planning Dept., The O f f i c i a l Community Plan, p. 68. 284 TABLE 6.2 Hous ing U n i t s C o n s t r u c t e d in Surrey and the G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t 1976-1981, by House Type T o t a l U n i t s T o t a l U n i t s U n i t s C o n s t r u c t e d 1976-1981 1976 1981 ( e x c l u d i n g mobi le homes) T o t a l S i n g l e Town- A p a r t -F a m i l y house ment and Duplex Surrey 35,135 47,585 12,450 9,145 1945 1,360 GVRD 378,375 439,865 61,490 34,525 9005 17,960 No. u n i t s i n Surrey as a % of GVRD 9.3 10.8 20.2 26.5 21.6 7.6 Source : P l a n n i n g D e p t . , C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y . Sur rey O f f i c i a l Community P l a n . S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , May 1983, p . 110. 13.5% i n 1981 and i t s share of the r e g i o n a l growth has i n -7 c r ea se d to 40% for the f i v e year s from 1976 to 1981. D u r i n g the same time p e r i o d , 12,450 u n i t s were added to the hous ing s tock i n S u r r e y , which i n c r e a s e d the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s t o t a l s tock by 35%. T h i s was the l a r g e s t i n c r e a s e of hous ing s tock i n any m u n i c i p a l i t y i n the GVRD and i n c r e a s e d S u r r e y ' s share of the r e g i o n ' s hous ing s tock to 10.8% i n 1981 from 9.3% i n g 1976. The i n c r e a s e i n hous ing s tock by type i s shown i n t a b l e 6 . 2 . T h i s r a p i d growth i s h i g h l i g h t e d by the f a c t t h a t on ly 38.1% of the r e s i d e n t s i n Surrey l i v e d i n the same 8 I b i d , pp. 108-110. 285 address i n 1981 as they had f i v e year s p r e v i o u s l y (as compared to 45.7% of those l i v i n g i n the census m e t r o p o l i t a n area (CMA) as a whole and 47.7% i n the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r ) . A p a t t e r n of m i g r a t i o n from Vancouver to Surrey i s suggested by the f a c t tha t 50.8% of those moving i n t o Surrey between 1976 and 1981 9 came from w i t h i n the Vancouver CMA. T h i s growth i n Surrey i s due to both i n c r e a s e d a c c e s s i b i l i t y (wi th the Port Mann b r i d g e opening i n 1960, for i n s t a n c e ) and a v a i l a b i l i t y of l e s s expen-s i v e l a n d and c o n s e q u e n t l y , l e s s expens ive h o u s i n g . These t r e n d s have demographic i m p l i c a t i o n s which make Surrey an a p p r o p r i a t e l o c a l e for a survey i n which a ' n a t u r a l ' narrowing of househo ld income and l i f e - c y c l e , towards lower to middle income f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n l i v i n g at home, i s d e s i r e d . As noted i n S u r r e y ' s 1983 O f f i c i a l Community P l a n : "The 20-30 year o l d group, w i t h i n which most people rent apartments or are f i r s t time buyers of l e s s expens ive homes, has i n c r e a s e d as a p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i n the pas t 15 year s from 11.5% i n 1966 to 19.6% i n 1 9 8 1 . . . . The 30- 50 year g r o u p . . . h a s remained i n almost the same p r o p o r t i o n (25%) of the p o p u l a t i o n d u r i n g the past 15 y e a r s . " i n W i t h i n these age groups , the m a j o r i t y are f a m i l y h o u s e h o l d s , d e f i n e d as husband and w i f e , w i t h or wi thout c h i l d r e n , or s i n g l e pa rent s w i t h c h i l d r e n l i v i n g at home. In 1981, 82.2% of S u r r e y ' s households are f a m i l y h o u s e h o l d s , as compared to 69.2% i n the CMA as a whole or 56.1% i n Vancouver C i t y . Given g S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1981 Census of Canada, c a t . 95-978 (Ottawa: Supply and Services") 1983). Surrey P l a n n i n g D e p t . , Sur rey O f f i c i a l Community P l a n , p . 71 . 286 t h a t 24.7% of the 1981 Surrey p o p u l a t i o n i s found to be 14 y e a r s or younger (compared to 19.0% for the CMA and 14.3% for the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r ) , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g tha t a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of S u r r e y ' s f a m i l i e s have c h i l d r e n l i v i n g at home. In 1981, t h i s group of f a m i l i e s wi th c h i l d r e n at home com-p r i s e d 54.3% of S u r r e y ' s househo ld s , compared to 43.1% i n the CMA and 32.6% of those i n the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r . 1 1 As noted i n S u r r e y ' s O f f i c i a l Community P l a n , the l a r g e s t p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e has been amongst those who are l i k e l y to be f i r s t t ime buyers of l e s s expens ive houses . Indeed, Surrey house p r i c e s are c o n s i d e r a b l y lower than those of a reas c l o s e r to the C i t y of Vancouver . Towards the h e i g h t of the most r ecent hous ing p r i c e boom i n October 1981, a detached three bedroom bungalow in Surrey was judged to c o s t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $110,000 w h i l e an e q u i v a l e n t house co s t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $149,000 i n Nor th Vancouver and $155,000 i n East Vancouver , suburbs 1 2 c l o s e r to the c i t y c o r e . A recent assessment of house p r i c e s i n d i c a t e s that the 'same' house c o s t s approx imate ly $87,000 i n S u r r e y , $128,000 i n Nor th Vancouver and $135,000 i n Eas t Vancouver , as of October 1983. As w e l l , Surrey i s the l o c a t i o n of 21.6% of a l l townhouse development c o n s t r u c t e d i n the GVRD between 1976 and 1981. 1 3 1 1 S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1981 Census of Canada, c a t . 95-903 (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1982). 1 2 These e s t i m a t e s of house p r i c e s are from the Roya l T r u s t ' s Survey of Canadian House P r i c e s , i s s u e d three t imes y e a r l y . 13 Surrey P l a n n i n g D e p t . , Surrey O f f i c i a l P l a n , p . 110. 287 There was an i n t e r e s t i n i n t e r v i e w i n g homeowners w i t h mortgages and i t was a n t i c i p a t e d tha t a s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n of Surrey homeowners would be i n t h i s f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n . In the C i t y of Vancouver , 55% of the owner-occupied d w e l l i n g s were r e p o r t e d as be ing h e l d f ree and c l e a r of any mortgage in 1 4 1971. A 1975 survey of homeowners a c ro s s the GVRD i n d i c a t e d that 43.6% of a l l homeowners owned t h e i r houses o u t r i g h t , sugge s t ing a lower p r o p o r t i o n of o u t r i g h t owners i n the 1 5 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s u r r o u n d i n g the C i t y of Vancouver . Housing c o s t s as a p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l y income, r e p o r t e d i n the 1981 Census and shown as t a b l e 6 . 3 , a l s o imply a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of mortgaged homeowners i n the suburban m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , a l t h o u g h mortgaged and o u t r i g h t homeowners are not s p e c i f i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . That 23.5% of homeowners i n Surrey p a i d over 25% of t h e i r househo ld income to hous ing c o s t s , as compared to 12.7% i n the C i t y of Vancouver , suggests that a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of Sur rey homeowners are mortgaged homeowners. More d i r e c t l y , hous ing c o s t s consume a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of homeowners' incomes i n Surrey and i n the n e i g h -b o u r i n g m u n i c i p a l i t y of D e l t a than i n any other m u n i c i p a l i t y 1 4 Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g D e p t . and Hous ing Study Team, U n d e r s t a n d i n g V a n c o u v e r ' s H o u s i n g : P a r t 3, (Vancouver : Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g D e p t . , J anuary 1979), p . 3. 1 5 F . G . Pennance, S.W. H a m i l t o n and D. B a x t e r , H o u s i n g , i t s your move: volume 2, (Vancouver : Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n , F a c u l t y of Commerce and Bus ines s A d m i n i -s t r a t i o n , U . B . C . , 1976), p . 96. 288 i n the Vancouver CMA. I t i s perhaps not merely a c o i n c i d e n c e that i n an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d , "How C o u n s e l l i n g Can H e l p " , which appeared i n V a n c o u v e r ' s evening newspaper i n June 1983, t h r e e of the four case s t u d i e s of i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s w i t h debt problems i n v o l v e d Surrey r e s i d e n t s , two wi th newly a c q u i r e d f i r s t and second mortgages , or tha t the Surrey C o o r d i n a t i n g 1 6 Centre was the f e a t u r e d debt c o u n s e l l i n g c e n t r e . The h i g h hous ing c o s t s to househo ld income r a t i o found amongst a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of Surrey homeowners a l s o r e f l e c t s lower household incomes amongst Surrey r e s i -d e n t s . The median 1980 gross househo ld income was $26,229 for Surrey r e s i d e n t s , compared to the median CMA househo ld income of $28,292. In the same y e a r , o n l y 17.9% of Surrey households had incomes of $40,000 or o v e r , compared to 26.2% in the C i t y of Vancouver . A comparison of census f a m i l y incomes i n 1980 a c r o s s a s e l e c t i o n of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the Vancouver CMA i s shown in t a b l e 6 . 4 . Apart from c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of income and f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e , i t had a l s o been d e c i d e d tha t o n l y r e n t e r s l i v i n g in s i n g l e f a m i l y detached houses , duplexes and townhouses would be i n t e r v i e w e d . T h i s d e c i s i o n i n p a r t r e f l e c t e d the pragmat ic s i t u a t i o n of l o c a t i n g f a m i l i e s and not s i n g l e persons in r e n t a l accomodat ion ( t a b l e 6 . 5 ) . As w e l l , t h e r e was a d e s i r e to ' c o n t r o l ' house s t r u c t u r e as f a r as p o s s i b l e i n order to "How C o u n s e l l i n g Can H e l p , " The Sun, 13 June 1983, Sec . C , p . 1. 289 TABLE 6.3 Hous ing and R e n t a l Cos t s a c r o s s a S e l e c t i o n of M u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the Vancouver CMA, 1981 M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Average % r e n t e r s Average % homeowners monthly gross rent monthly hous ing pay-gross > 25% of payments ments more rent househo ld of home- than 25% of ($) income owners househo ld ($) income Vancouver CMA 41 1 16.3 472 17.8 Surrey 425 30.3 487 23.5 Burnaby 415 16.5 403 14.0 C o q u i t l a m 439 21 .4 474 18.7 D e l t a 443 24.8 539 23.2 New Westminster 340 12.6 373 13.6 C i t y of North V a n . 410 14.8 432 16.3 D i s t . Mun. of Nor th V a n . 506 21.1 551 18.8 Richmond 454 20.9 505 19.6 Vancouver C i t y 393 12.1 409 12.7 Source : Adapted from S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1981 Census of Canada, c a t . 95-978. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1983. TABLE 6.4 Average and Median 1980 Census Fami ly Incomes A c r o s s a S e l e c t i o n of M u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the Vancouver CMA Mun i c i p a l i t i e s Household Incomes ($) Average Median Vancouver CMA 31,634 28,292 Surrey 28,152 26,229 Burnaby 30,822 28,693 C o q u i t l a m 33,266 31,193 D e l t a 34,294 31,787 New Westminster 26,625 23,798 Nor th Vancouver C i t y 27,477 25,877 Nor th Vancouver D i s t . Mun. 40,004 36,567 Richmond 33,185 30,922 Vancouver C i t y 30,252 25,525 Source : Adapted from S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1981 Census of Canada, c a t . 95-978. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1983. 290 TABLE 6.5 Average Household S i z e by House Type and Sub-area w i t h i n S u r r e y , 1981 Sub-area House Type S i n g l e F a m i l y Townhouse Apartment and Duplex W h a l l e y - G u i l d f o r d 3.15 2.90 2.00 F leetwood 3.20 2.80 1 .50 Newton 3.15 2.90 2.20 C l o v e r d a l e 3.20 2.80 1 .70 South Surrey 2.85 2.30 1 .70 Source : P l a n n i n g D e p t . , C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y . Surrey O f f i c i a l Community P l a n . S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , May 1983, p . 74 unders tand the impact of hous ing tenure on a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o u r . T h i s c h o i c e of h o u s i n g s t r u c t u r e undoubtedly has i m p l i c a t i o n s for p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i s a t i o n around the hous ing i s sue and i n some senses demonstrates the a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the e x p e r i m e n t a l method when a p p l i e d to s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . S p a t i a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s are not i r r e l e v a n t to p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i s a t i o n , i n the sense t h a t l o c a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n and t e r r i -t o r i a l d e f i n i t i o n can be c o n d u c i v e to p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i s a t i o n w h i l e s p a t i a l d i s p e r s i o n may have the e f f e c t of d i s s i p a t i o n . 1 R . S . H a r r i s , "The p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of r e s i d e n t i a l s e g r e g a t i o n i n the c a p i t a l i s t c i t y , " D i s s . Queen' s , K i n g s t o n , 1981; S. Has son , "The emergence of an urban s o c i a l movement i n I s r a e l i s o c i e t y - an i n t e g r a t e d a p p r o a c h , " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 7 (1983) , 157-173. T h i s p o i n t has been g i v e n recent prominence i n the s o c i o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e : A . Giddens C e n t r a l Problems i n S o c i a l Theory (London: M a c m i l l a n , 1979); J . U r r y , " L o c a l i t i e s , r e g i o n s and s o c i a l c l a s s , " I n t e r n a - t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research 5 (1981) , 457-473. 291 As w e l l , a n a l y s i s of a p u b l i c o p i n i o n survey conducted i n Surrey i n A p r i l 1980 suggests that those r e n t i n g townhouses "would l i k e to see themselves i n s i n g l e f a m i l y areas as they seem to r e l a t e to or a s p i r e to those l i v i n g i n tha t form of I Q hous ing r a t h e r than apartment d w e l l e r s " . Other s t u d i e s have suggested tha t t h i s does not d i s t i n g u i s h townhouse r e s i d e n t s 1 9 from apartment d w e l l e r s but the p o s s i b i l i t y remains that non-apartment r e s i d e n t s i d e n t i f y more f u l l y w i t h the s i n g l e f a m i l y house form and a ' suburban l i f e s t y l e ' . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t enant s not l i v i n g i n apartments was the t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n and Surrey i s a good l o c a t i o n in which to survey t h i s g roup . The homeownership r a t e i s p a r t i c u l a r l y h i g h i n Surrey - 70.5% of the households i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y owned t h e i r houses i n 1981. T h i s can be compared to an a v e r -age r a t e of homeownership of 58.5% i n the Vancouver CMA as a whole and 44.9% i n the C i t y of Vancouver . I f hous ing u n i t s are broken down by s t r u c t u r e ( t a b l e 6 . 6 ) , 54.0% of a l l r e n t e r s i n Surrey l i v e d i n d u p l e x e s , townhouses or s i n g l e detached houses i n 1981. T h i s compares to 30.3% of a l l r e n t e r s i n the Vancouver CMA and 23.9% of r e n t e r s i n the C i t y of Vancouver . Thus , over h a l f of the r e n t e r s i n Surrey l i v e i n the t a r g e t e d house form. P l a n n i n g Department , C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , P u b l i c O p i n i o n Survey ( S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , 1980) , p . 16. 1 9 W.M. M i c h e l s o n , E n v i r o n m e n t a l C h o i c e , Human Behav ior and R e s i d e n t i a l S a t i s f a c t i o n , (New Y o r k : Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1977) . 292 TABLE 6.6 P r o p o r t i o n Households by House Type and Hous ing Tenure for S u r r e y , C i t y of Vancouver and Vancouver CMA, 1981 Area House Type T o t a l S i n g l e S i n g l e Duplex Apartment # detached a t t a c h e d <5 5 s t o r e y s house- s t o r e y s or more h o l d s Sur rey Rented 14,670 4,585 2,685 725 5,625 885 Owned 35,090 31,005 1,350 285 320 10 Vancouver C i t y Rented 95,325 14,065 3,800 4,985 46,675 25,340 Owned 77,710 65,455 1,890 2,165 5,505 2,355 Vancouver CMA Rented 197,905 34,540 15,608 9,625 94,780 41,920 Owned 278,845 239,165 11,505 4,135 12,975 5,210 S o u r c e : Adapted from S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1981 Census of Canada, c a t . 93-922. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1982. The z o n i n g i n Surrey d i c t a t e s the s t r u c t u r e of the r e n t a l market . Even the most d e n s e l y p o p u l a t e d a rea of S u r r e y , n o r t h of 88th Avenue, has been a m i x t u r e of mos t ly r e s i d e n t i a l urban and r e s i d e n t i a l suburban z o n i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . S u r r o u n d i n g the commercia l areas i s an urban r e s i d e n t i a l zone for s i n g l e f a m i l y hous ing on 60 foot l o t s , w i t h on ly i n d i v i d u a l spots of m u l t i - f a m i l y hous ing d e s i g n a t e d . S e v e r a l c o n j e c t u r e s may be made c o n c e r n i n g the r e n t a l accommodation a v a i l a b l e . One r e a l e s t a t e agent i n d i c a t e d that townhouse deve lopments , which repre sent 15.6% of t o t a l u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d between 1976 and 1981, have not s o l d p a r t i c u l a r l y 293 w e l l and have been r e n t e d as a f o r c e d a l t e r n a t i v e . From the i n t e r v i e w s c o n d u c t e d , i t was found tha t t h i s g e n e r a l i s a t i o n needs some q u a l i f i c a t i o n : i n s e v e r a l of the o l d e r townhouse developments ( b u i l t be fore 1978) r a t e s of owner-occupa t ion were e s t i m a t e d by r e s i d e n t s to be as h i g h as 80%. In o t h e r s , owner-occupa t ion was indeed e s t i m a t e d to be as low as 10%, but because the u n i t s had been purchased as a s p e c u l a t i v e i n v e s t -ment i n the l a t e 1970's and not because they would not s e l l . The statement c o n c e r n i n g the d i f f i c u l t y i n s e l l i n g townhouses would seem t o app ly more f i t t i n g l y to newer developments and extends beyond townhouses. Two i n t e r v i e w s were conducted w i t h i n a s m a l l l o t development of 74 s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s which are p r e s e n t l y r e n t e d , hav ing been completed i n the s p r i n g of 1981 as house p r i c e s p l u n g e d . The p r o p e r t y manager r e p o r t e d t h a t the d e v e l o p e r i s r e n t i n g the houses u n t i l hous-ing p r i c e s r i s e to a p o i n t where i t w i l l be p r o f i t a b l e to s e l l . G iven tha t Surrey was the s i t e of 20.2% of a l l newly c o n s t r u c t e d u n i t s between 1976 and 1981 i t i s p r o b a b l e tha t t h e r e are o t h e r d e v e l o p e r s i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n . As w e l l , presumably because of a combina t ion of l a n d c o s t s and we l f a re need, Surrey has been the focus of government i n i t i a t i v e s i n s o c i a l h o u s i n g . As of November 1983, the G r e a t e r Vancouver Hous ing C o r p o r a t i o n managed a t o t a l of 667 r e n t a l u n i t s , p r i n c i p a l l y townhouse and s m a l l l o t d e t a c h e d , i n S u r r e y . T h i s i s a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y h i g h number compared to 741 u n i t s of s o c i a l h o u s i n g i n the C i t y of Vancouver , i n that the C i t y of 2 Vancouver houses roughly 3.5 t imes the number of h o u s e h o l d s . 294 Given i n f l u e n c e s such as t h e s e , a s i g n i f i c a n t number of non-apartment u n i t s comprise the Surrey r e n t a l s t o c k . F i n a l l y , as a secondary c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n s i t e s e l e c t i o n , Surrey has a homogeneous e t h n i c s t r u c t u r e , r e l a t i v e to the C i t y of Vancouver for i n s t a n c e . A l t h o u g h there seems to be a he igh tened awareness of the East I n d i a n community in S u r r e y , g iven the f requent comments c o n c e r n i n g t h i s e t h n i c group by i n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r v i e w e d , i n 1981 77.6% of S u r r e y ' s p o p u l a t i o n was Canadian b o r n . In f a c t , 48.1% was born i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , w h i l e 91% (compared to 69% i n the C i t y of Vancouver) 2 1 c i t e d E n g l i s h as t h e i r f i r s t l anguage . Method of Assembl ing Sur rey Sample The sample was s t r a t i f i e d by s o c i a l c l a s s and hous ing t e n u r e , i n t o s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual homeowners and r e n t e r s . T h i s was a c c o m p l i s h e d by means of the 1981/82 C i t y D i r e c t o r y and the 1983 p r o p e r t y tax assessment r o l l s . U s i n g the C i t y D i r e c t o r y , the names, m a r i t a l s t a t u s , o c c u p a t i o n s and addres ses of i n d i v i d u a l s were o b t a i n e d . Only m a r r i e d persons w i t h i n the d e s i g n a t e d s o c i a l c l a s s groupings were s e l e c t e d . The i n f o r m a t i o n on tenure c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n the C i t y D i r e c t o r y was found to be ex t remely u n r e l i a b l e . In the C i t y D i r e c t o r y a P e r s o n a l communicat ion w i t h Mr . F r e d M i n t y , G r e a t e r Vancouver Hous ing C o r p o r a t i o n , November 1983. S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1981 Census of Canada, c a t . 95-978 (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1983). 295 symbol i s used to i n d i c a t e a homeowner b u t , as e x p e r i e n c e t o l d , the absence of a symbol i n d i c a t e s e i t h e r a r e n t e r or m i s s i n g d a t a , the l a t t e r , i n the m a j o r i t y of cases i n S u r r e y , masking homeowners. To assemble the sample of r e n t e r s , i t was neces sa ry to o b t a i n a l i s t i n g of p r o p e r t i e s from the a s se s s -ment r o l l s for which the owners ' r e s i d e n t i a l address d i d not match the p r o p e r t y for which he/she was be ing taxed and to enter the C i t y D i r e c t o r y through the address l i s t i n g s for i n f o r m a t i o n on the o c c u p a n t s . The p r o v i n c i a l v o t e r s l i s t was used to supplement the C i t y D i r e c t o r y where the r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n was m i s s i n g . The names were s e l e c t e d ac ro s s the Nor th Surrey a r e a , the more f u l l y deve loped p o r t i o n of S u r r e y . The r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a -t i o n of those i n t e r v i e w e d i s shown i n Map 6 . 3 . The sub-areas demarcated on t h i s map are not the t e c h n i c a l l o c a l p l a n n i n g a r e a s , but those u t i l i s e d by the p l a n n i n g department for 22 d e s c r i p t i v e purpose s . In f a c t , t e c h n i c a l l y the i n t e r -views i n Nor th Surrey o v e r l a p two l o c a l a r e a s , Whal ley and G u i l d f o r d . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n f o l l o w s from a r e g i o n a l p o l i c y p r e s e n t e d i n 1975 as "The L i v e a b l e Region P l a n , 1976-1986". T h i s p o l i c y proposed the development of f i v e towns i n S u r r e y : W h a l l e y , G u i l d f o r d , C l o v e r d a l e , Newton and S u n n y s i d e , each surrounded by a green b e l t . However, subsequent recommenda-t i o n s from a c i t i z e n s ' committee and the l o c a l p l a n n i n g department have suggested tha t Nor th Surrey s h o u l d be Surrey P l a n n i n g D e p t . , S u r r e y O f f i c i a l Community P l a n . 296 MAP 6 .3 R e s i d e n t i a l L o c a t i o n of Surrey Sample • Homeowner • Renter 297 c o n c e p t u a l i s e d and p lanned for as a s i n g l e e n t i t y . For r e s i d e n t s , a d i f f u s e n e s s i n p e r c e p t i o n s of these areas i s suggested by a statement made by one i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w e d : " T h e r e ' s Br idgev iew [ i n e x p e n s i v e , p o o r l y s e r v i c e d homes a b u t t i n g an i n d u s t r i a l a rea on the F r a s e r R i v e r ] and then t h e r e ' s Panorama H e i g h t s [a development of ' e x e c u t i v e ' homes i n Newton] , We're somewhere i n between. " In any c a s e , i n terms of l o c a l p o l i t i c s the d i s t i n c t i o n s w i t h i n Nor th Surrey seem to make l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e . A more r e l e v a n t d i s -t i n c t i o n w i t h i n Surrey i s between Nor th Surrey and p a r t s of West Newton and F leetwood and h inges on d i f f e r e n t i a l zon ing c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s - many owners i n the l a t t e r a rea s are c o n -cerned to o b t a i n an urban development d e s i g n a t i o n comparable w i t h tha t i n e f f e c t i n North Surrey i n order to s u b d i v i d e 24 t h e i r l a n d . Nine i n t e r v i e w s f e l l o u t s i d e the Nor th Sur rey a r e a . In four c a s e s , t h i s was because the person c o n t a c t e d had r e c e n t l y moved from Nor th Surrey to Newton. In a d d i t i o n , the geo-g r a p h i c a l a rea was extended south for the l a s t f i v e i n t e r v i e w s w i t h r e n t e r s , who were c o n s i d e r a b l y more d i f f i c u l t to c o n t a c t W h a l l e y - G u i l d f o r d C i t i z e n s ' P l a n n i n g Committee, The N o r t h Sur rey Community, ( S u r r e y : The C o r p o r a t i o n of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , 1974); P l a n n i n g Department, D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , The Whal ley G u i l d f o r d Town P l a n , ( S u r r e y : The C o r p o r a -t i o n of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , 1980). 24 "Incumbents get rough t r e a t m e n t , " The S u r r e y - D e l t a Messenger , 16 November 1983, p . 1. 298 than homeowners, g iven t h e i r r e l a t i v e s c a r c i t y and g r e a t e r m o b i l i t y . T h i s d e v i a t i o n does not seem p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i -c a n t . A l l persons i n t e r v i e w e d l i v e d in r e s i d e n t i a l n e i g h b o u r -hoods w i t h some l o c a l v a r i a b i l i t y i n d e n s i t y . The predominant d e n s i t y of s i n g l e f a m i l y houses on 60 foot l o t s was i n a l l cases i n t e r m i x e d w i t h d u p l e x e s , s m a l l l o t developments or an i s o l a t e d townhouse development . W h i l e a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of o l d e r houses i s found i n Whal ley than i n those p a r t s of Newton where i n t e r v i e w s were c o n d u c t e d , much of the Nor th Surrey study area has a l s o been deve loped w i t h i n the l a s t 10 y e a r s . L i s t s of 300 homeowners and 300 r e n t e r s , s e l e c t e d for s o c i a l c l a s s , were assembled by s t r e e t u s ing the C i t y D i r e c t o r y . Every f i f t h name was chosen from the l i s t to be c o n t a c t e d . As o n l y one out of the f i r s t ten persons i n t e r -viewed from the l i s t of r e n t e r s was a c t u a l l y r e n t i n g , an a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g y was used to assemble the r e n t i n g sample. The homeowner sample c o n t i n u e d t o be s e l e c t e d from the o r i g i -n a l l i s t s . In the meantime, the assessment r o l l s were scanned for p r o p e r t i e s not o c c u p i e d by t h e i r owners. A l i s t of 2246 such p r o p e r t i e s was c o m p i l e d , r e p r e s e n t i n g a t o t a l s e a r c h of the Nor th Surrey a r e a , e x c l u d i n g B r i d g e v i e w , and a p a r t i a l s e a r c h of the more dense ly d e v e l o p e d area of Newton, n o r t h of 66 Avenue. The C i t y D i r e c t o r y was c o n s u l t e d for i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the occupant s , but fo r the m a j o r i t y no r e t u r n had been f i l e d fo r the addre s s ; the houses were l i s t e d as vacant or the C i t y D i r e c t o r y i n d i c a t e d the occupant as owner. Three hundred addresses were assembled fo r which there was in forma-299 t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the occupants and for whom the o c c u p a t i o n a l l i s t i n g s were compat ib l e w i t h the s o c i a l c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s s e l e c t e d fo r s t u d y . When checked w i t h the l i s t i n g s i n the te lephone d i r e c t o r y , the most c u r r e n t source of names and addres ses a v a i l a b l e , 135 of the s e l e c t e d names were found to be c u r r e n t l y l i s t e d and a l l of these were c o n t a c t e d . L e t t e r s were sent to 162 homeowners and 135 r e n t e r s , s t aggered over a t ime p e r i o d ex tend ing from May to mid October of 1983. A copy of the i n t r o d u c t o r y l e t t e r i s shown i n Appendix V I . The l e t t e r s were addres sed to the male head of h o u s e h o l d , f o l l o w i n g the a n a l y s i s of the S o c i a l Change i n Canada data set which showed a s t r o n g e r a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing tenure and a t t i t u d e s amongst household heads , who i n a m a j o r i t y of cases were a l s o male . The male head of household was then c o n t a c t e d by te lephone to ar range an appointment for an i n t e r v i e w i n h i s home. Of the 162 homeowners c o n t a c t e d , 58 agreed to an i n t e r v i e w , 70 re fused and 34 had moved and/or t h e i r t e l ephone was out of s e r v i c e . Of the 137 r e n t e r s c o n -t a c t e d , 52 agreed to be i n t e r v i e w e d , 63 re fu sed and 22 had moved and/or t e lephone was out of s e r v i c e . Thus , of those c o n t a c t e d , 45% agreed to an i n t e r v i e w . The i n t e r v i e w s were conducted i n the home of the person c o n t a c t e d , a lmost e x c l u s i v e l y on a weekday e v e n i n g . The ques-t i o n n a i r e i s r e c o r d e d i n Appendix V I . Answered wi thout e l a -b o r a t i o n , the q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o u l d be completed i n an h o u r . However, the t y p i c a l i n t e r v i e w was from 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours i n l e n g t h , as most i n t e r v i e w e e s seemed i n t e r e s t e d i n hous ing 300 as an i s s u e and the r o l e of government i n the a rea of h o u s i n g . In h a l f of the ca se s , o n l y the person c o n t a c t e d was i n t e r -v iewed , but for the o t h e r h a l f both husband and wi fe p a r t i c i -p a t e d . O r i g i n a l l y i t was hoped t h a t o n l y the former s i t u a t i o n would occur (on the b a s i s of former i n t e r v i e w i n g r e v e a l i n g t h a t the spouse ' s presence i n h i b i t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n ) , but the i n t e r c h a n g e s between husband and wi fe were o f t e n i l l u m i n a t i n g and , in a l l but three c a s e s , the male dominated to a g r e a t e r ex tent ( i n some cases p r e s s i n g h i s p o i n t because the l e t t e r had been addressed to h i m ! ) . In the cases i n which both husband and wife were i n t e r v i e w e d , t h e i r comments were r e -corded s e p a r a t e l y . One hundred i n t e r v i e w s were r e t a i n e d for a n a l y s i s : 50 homeowners and r e n t e r s were s u b d i v i d e d i n t o groups of 25 in terms of the s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . Ten i n t e r v i e w s were d i s c a r d e d : t h e r e was a c e r t a i n amount of a m b i g u i t y i n the C i t y D i r e c t o r y o c c u p a t i o n a l l i s t i n g s and i n s e v e r a l cases the o c c u p a t i o n of the person i n t e r v i e w e d d i d not f i t w i t h i n the p r e s c r i b e d s o c i a l c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s . As w e l l , a few a t tempts to f i n d per sons r e n t i n g houses through p e r s o n a l networks were u n s u c c e s s f u l in terms of s o c i a l c l a s s d e s i g n a -t i o n s . 301 CHAPTER 7 A PROFILE OF RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS D i s c u s s i o n s of hous ing tenure o f t e n s l i d e i n t o s ta tements c o n c e r n i n g ' r e n t e r s ' and 'homeowners ' , the assumption be ing tha t hous ing tenure m e a n i n g f u l l y summarises types of p e o p l e . The e m p i r i c a l problem i s then viewed as one of d i s e n t a n g l i n g c a u s a t i o n : what par t does hous ing tenure p l a y i n c r e a t i n g these s o c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s ? Answers to t h i s problem have some-times been s i m p l i s t i c . Gray , for example, m a i n t a i n s tha t " the n o t i o n that owner-occupat ion i s an independent v a r i a b l e of major c a u s a l importance i n the l i v e s of i n d i v i d u a l s and the fo rmat ion and nature of s o c i a l groups has been taken up by s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s of a v a r i e t y of p e r s u a s i o n s , i n c l u d i n g a number of M a r x i s t s and Weberian urban s o c i o l o g i s t s " . 1 A s i m i l a r view i s taken by F o r r e s t who argues that i t " i s c e r -t a i n l y more a p p r o p r i a t e to view homeownership as the product of a complex combina t ion of p roce s se s than to attempt to 2 i d e n t i f y autonomous causes and e f f e c t s . " The need to unders tand homeownership as p a r t of a complex set of r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s very c l e a r i n the case of the Surrey sample of homeowners and r e n t e r s . I t i s i m p o s s i b l e to c o n s i d e r F . G r a y , "Owner-Occupat ion and S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s " , i n Owner O c c u p a t i o n i n B r i t a i n , e d . S. M e r r e t t (London: Rout ledge and Regan P a u l , 1982), pp . 267-68. 2 R. F o r r e s t , "The meaning of homeownership" , Environment and P l a n n i n g D: S o c i e t y and Space, 1 (1983) , p . 206. 302 the groups n e a t l y i n terms of e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n , as i n d i v i d u a l s randomly s h u f f l e d between hous ing tenure groups , i n o rder to d i s c e r n the ' i n d e p e n d e n t ' e f f e c t s Of hous ing t e n u r e . D e c i s i o n s about work, f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s and l i f e s t y l e are interwoven w i t h hous ing tenure d e c i s i o n s . A p r o f i l e of the homeowning and r e n t i n g samples w i l l be assembled in terms of an i n t e r p l a y of these f a c t o r s . But f i r s t , a b r i e f ske tch of b a s i c demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample w i l l be p r e s e n t e d . Demographic ske tch of Surrey sample How s u c c e s s f u l l y were l i f e - c y c l e and househo ld income c o n t r o l l e d by the g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n and to what extent are c r i t i c a l s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s confounded w i t h hous ing tenure? F i r s t l y , most persons c o n t a c t e d were m a r r i e d wi th c h i l d r e n l i v i n g at home. The e x c e p t i o n s i n c l u d e d 7 s k i l l e d manual c o u p l e s (1 homeowner and 4 tenants ) and 4 s k i l l e d nonmanual c o u p l e s (1 homeowner and 3 t e n a n t s ) . F u r t h e r , homeowners and r e n t e r s are not d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on the b a s i s of the age of t h e i r f a m i l i e s - amongst both groups there i s a range of f a m i l y ages ( t a b l e 7 . 1 ) . Nor do r e n t e r s have a p p r e c i a b l y s m a l l e r f a m i l i e s . Thus stage i n l i f e - c y c l e was e f f e c t i v e l y narrowed and extreme b i a s e s i n terms of age of f a m i l i e s or numbers of c h i l d r e n do not seem to d i f f e r e n t i a t e r e n t i n g and homeowning f a m i l i e s . 303 TABLE 7.1 The Surrey Sample: Number of C h i l d r e n and Age of E l d e s t C h i l d by Hous ing Tenure and SES SES Age of E l d e s t C h i l d and Hous ing Tenure 0-4 5-12 13-18 19 and No c h i l - Average o l d e r dren number of c h i l d r e n Homeowners Manual 5 6 6 6 3 1.9 Nonmanual 11 9 2 3 1 2.4 Renter s Manual 8 5 4 4 4 1.8 Nonmanual 7 11 1 3 3 2.0 Net househo ld incomes are most ly w i t h i n the moderate income range ( t a b l e 7.2) However, the median net househo ld income of r e n t e r s i s somewhat lower than t h a t of homeowners. The median net incomes are $25,000 and $27,000 for s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual homeowners, r e s p e c t i v e l y , and $21,000 and $20,000 fo r r e n t e r s a c r o s s the same SES or s o c i a l c l a s s g roups . The reasons l y i n g beh ind the income d i s c r e p a n c y a c r o s s hous ing tenure groups w i l l be taken up i n the more d e t a i l e d p r o f i l e of r e n t e r s and homeowners which f o l l o w s . 304 TABLE 7.2 The Surrey Sample: Net Household Income by Housing Tenure and SES SES Income Ranges ($1000) and Hous ing Tenure 10-15 1 6-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36 + Homeowners Manual 3 5 6 3 3 5 Nonmanual 0 3 5 9 3 5 Renter s Manual 6 5 7 4 0 3 Nonmanual 5 8 4 4 4 0 When l e v e l of formal e d u c a t i o n i s compared a c r o s s hous ing tenure for each s o c i a l c l a s s , there i s not an a p p r e c i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e between the e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s of r e n t e r s and home-owners ( t a b l e 7 . 3 ) . For i n s t a n c e , c o n s i d e r i n g the s k i l l e d nonmanual g roup , 13 homeowners as compared to 11 r e n t e r s have some formal e d u c a t i o n a f t e r h i g h s c h o o l . There i s , however, ev idence of h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a l s t a n d i n g among both nonmanual g roups . The r e n t i n g p o p u l a t i o n i s somewhat younger than the home-owners ( t a b l e 7 . 4 ) . The median ages fo r homeowners are 40 and 37 fo r those c l a s s i f i e d as s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual r e s p e c t i v e l y . The median age for s k i l l e d manual r e n t e r s i s 31 and tha t of s k i l l e d nonmanual r e n t e r s i s 32. One might no te , however, t h a t i t i s not s imply a s l i g h t age d i f f e r e n c e which 305 TABLE 7.3 The Surrey Sample: E d u c a t i o n by Hous ing Tenure and SES SES ' Formal E d u c a t i o n Completed and h i g h s c h o o l t e c h n i c a l u n i v e r s i t y Hous ing s c h o o l Tenure some d ip loma some degree p o s t - g r a d Manual Homeowners 7 Renter s 11 1 1 9 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nonmanual Homeowners 3 Renter s 6 9 8 2 3 8 2 0 2 TABLE 7.4 The Surrey Sample: Age of Respondents by Hous ing Tenure and SES SES Age Groups and Housing Tenure 20-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Homeowners Manual 0 5 8 10 2 Nonmanual 0 4 14 5 2 Renter s Manual 1 6 11 5 2 Nonmanual 0 10 12 2 1 306 account s for hous ing t e n u r e . T h i s i s e v i d e n t when median age at the time of f i r s t house purchase i s i n d i c a t e d for each age c o h o r t of homeowners, as i n d i c a t e d i n t a b l e 7 . 5 . For i n s t a n c e , even though a lmost h a l f of nonmanual r e n t e r s are between 26 and 30 year s o l d , and are thus q u i t e young, most homeowners 40 and under had owned t h e i r houses by the time they were t h i s age. TABLE 7.5 The Surrey Sample: Median Age When Purchased F i r s t House By Age Cohort and SES (Current Homeowners Only) SES 26-30 C u r r e n t Age Cohort 31-40 41-50 51-60 N Median age N Median age N Median age N Median age at time of at t ime of at time of at time purchase purchase purchase purchase Manual 5 Nonman. 4 24.0 24.5 8 1 4 28.0 25.0 1 0 5 26.0 32.0 2 2 31.0 29.5 In f a c t , a good p r o p o r t i o n of those over 30 who are c u r r e n t l y r e n t i n g have owned a house at one p o i n t i n t i m e . Of the 18 f a m i l i e s c l a s s i f i e d as manual who are r e n t i n g , 11 have owned a house in the p a s t . C o n s i d e r i n g the nonmanual r e n t e r s , 2 of the 10 aged between 26 and 30 have owned a house, whi le 5 307 of the 15 over 30 have a l s o done so . T h i s a l e r t s one to the f ac t tha t hous ing tenure i s an a spec t of a s o c i a l p roces s r a t h e r than an i n e r t s o c i a l c a t e g o r y . A c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s proces s w i l l be the focus of the p r o f i l e s which f o l l o w a f t e r b r i e f l y c o n s i d e r i n g l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e and hous ing c o s t s ac ros s hous ing t e n u r e . From t a b l e 7.6 i t can be seen tha t homeowners have g e n e r a l l y l i v e d longer i n t h e i r p r e s e n t d w e l l i n g s . They have a l s o l i v e d i n s l i g h t l y fewer d w e l l i n g u n i t s than have r e n t e r s , a l though they have g e n e r a l l y been m a r r i e d for a longer p e r i o d of t ime . The homeowners i n t e r v i e w e d c h i e f l y l i v e i n s i n g l e f a m i l y detached h o u s i n g , wi th the e x c e p t i o n of 3 f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n townhouses. Amongst the r e n t i n g sample, 32 l i v e i n detached houses , 10 in duplexes and 8 in townhouses. TABLE 7.6 The Surrey Sample: Length of Tenure i n Present D w e l l i n g , Number of U n i t s I n h a b i t e d S ince Marr i age and Number of Years M a r r i e d , by Hous ing Tenure and SES Housing Average No. Average No. Average No. Average No. Tenure Years L i v e d D w e l l i n g Commun- Years and i n Present U n i t s I n h a b i t e d i t i e s L i v e d M a r r i e d SES D w e l l i n g S ince M a r r i a g e i n S ince M a r r i a g e Homeowners Manual 6.42 3.80 1.64 14.52 Nonmanual 5.12 4.28 1.64 12.56 Renters Manual 2.58 4.44 1.76 10.48 Nonmanual 2.44 4.56 2.00 7.58 308 On average , homeowners p a i d j u s t s l i g h t l y more for monthly hous ing c o s t s than d i d r e n t e r s . The monthly average for hous ing c o s t s , i n c l u d i n g mortgage payments, p r o p e r t y taxes and u t i l i t i e s , i s $581 for manual and $612 f o r nonmanual homeowners. In c o m p a r i s o n , the average monthly rent and u t i l i t y payments are $575 for manual and $579 for nonmanual r e n t e r s . An a d d i t i o n a l expense for homeowners i s the cos t of house maintenance . Homeowners g e n e r a l l y found i t very d i f f i -c u l t to e s t imate what they spend for house maintenance on an annual b a s i s and many c o s t s were r a t i o n a l i s e d : for i n s t a n c e , "I have no i d e a . I a lways have a l o t g o i n g . I have put a l o t of money i n t o a p o o l , a J a c u z z i and a sauna but I d o n ' t l i k e going to c l u b s so I l i k e to have these t h i n g s i n my house -t h a t ' s what owning a house i s a l l a b o u t . " As a rough e s t i -mate, most homeowners e s t i m a t e d that they spend $500 a n n u a l l y for house maintenance . However, a s p e c i f i c e s t imate was g iven i n f r e q u e n t l y and thus maintenance c o s t s are not i n c l u d e d w i t h i n homeowners' hous ing c o s t s s t a t i s t i c s . As w e l l as be ing s l i g h t l y l ower , the range of c o s t s i s l e s s v a r i a b l e a c r o s s the r e n t a l sample. With the e x c e p t i o n of one c o u p l e r e n t i n g a house owned by r e l a t i v e s and not pay ing 'market r e n t ' , monthly r e n t a l c o s t s ranged from $394 to $885. The monthly c o s t s of homeowners ranged from $83, for a f a m i l y who owned a townhouse o u t r i g h t , to $1125, for an i n d i v i d u a l who bought a townhouse at the peak of the market i n 1980. Some of the v a r i a b i l i t y i s a l s o c a p t u r e d by the r a t i o of these hous ing c o s t s to household income, shown i n t a b l e 7 . 7 . 309 Only one r e n t i n g household pays l e s s than 11% of net household income towards hous ing compared to one f i f t h of the home-owners. A l s o worthy of note i s the f a c t tha t h a l f of the r e n t e r s , as w e l l as 38% of the homeowners, pay more than 30% of t h e i r net household income to hous ing expenses . The lowest hous ing c o s t s amongst homeowners a r e , of c o u r s e , amongst those who own t h e i r houses o u t r i g h t . S ix of the homeowners i n t e r -viewed are i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , three of whom had bought t h e i r f i r s t house i n the mid 1970's but had made c o n c e r t e d e f f o r t s to pay the mortgage o f f w i t h i n 10 y e a r s . TABLE 7.7 The Surrey Sample: Housing Cos t s as a Percentage of Household Income, by Housing Tenure and SES Hous ing Hous ing Cos t s as a Percentage of Net Household Income Tenure and SES 0-10 11-30 31 or more Homeowners-Manual 3 13 9 Nonmanual 7 8 10 Renter s Manual 1 10 14 Nonmanual 0 14 11 The m a j o r i t y of homeowners had purchased t h e i r f i r s t house through the 1970's and hence had b e n e f i t e d , to v a r y i n g degrees , from the i n f l a t i o n a r y i n c r e a s e of p r i c e s d u r i n g the decade ( t a b l e 7 . 8 ) . Only one person had been d i s advantaged by t h i s t r e n d , buy ing h i s townhouse i n 1980 for $78,000 and 310 e s t i m a t i n g i t s c u r r e n t va lue to be $55,000. Having put $5000 down and a c q u i r i n g a $73,000 mortgage, t h i s person i s now in a " n e g a t i v e e q u i t y " p o s i t i o n . A c r o s s a l l homeowners, however, i t was e s t i m a t e d that the house p r e s e n t l y owned has i n f l a t e d i n p r i c e by an average of $27,240 d u r i n g the p e r i o d of owner-s h i p , which has been an average of 5 y e a r s . The i n i t i a l investment has thus i n c r e a s e d by a p p r o x i m a t e l y 166% on average , as measured a g a i n s t an average downpayment of $16,952. To summarise b r i e f l y the s k e t c h of r e n t e r s and homeowners p re sen ted thus f a r , the m a j o r i t y of a l l persons i n t e r v i e w e d are male househo ld heads of f a m i l i e s w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y two c h i l d r e n l i v i n g at home. There i s l i t t l e v a r i a b i l i t y i n l e v e l of formal e d u c a t i o n ac ros s hous ing tenure c a t e g o r i e s . Renters are a l i t t l e younger than homeowners and pay m a r g i n a l l y l e s s for h o u s i n g , a l t h o u g h a s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n of both r e n t e r s TABLE 7.8 The Surrey Sample: Year Purchased F i r s t and Present House by SES Year Bought F i r s t House Year Bought Present House Year Manual Nonmanual Manual Nonmanual 1950-60 2 1 0 0 1961-70 6 4 0 1 1971-75 8 9 8 4 1976-78 6 8 10 7 1979-80 2 2 4 7 1981 0 0 0 1 1982 0 1 1 2 1983 1 0 2 3 31 1 and homeowners pay i n excess of 30% of t h e i r net household income towards h o u s i n g . As r e n t s have a lower p r i c e c e i l i n g than i s apparent for mortgage payments, t h i s i n p a r t r e f l e c t s s l i g h t l y lower household incomes amongst those r e n t i n g . The b a s i s for t h i s v a r i a t i o n i n household income i s something which w i l l be taken up i n more d e t a i l i n the p r o f i l e s below. Hous ing Tenure and Work H i s t o r y The Surrey sample was s t r a t i f i e d i n terms of s k i l l e d manual and s k i l l e d nonmanual SES c a t e g o r i e s . W i t h i n these broad s o c i a l c a t e g o r i e s there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e room for v a r i a -t i o n : d i f f e r i n g job l a b e l s are shown i n t a b l e 7 . 9 . At f i r s t g l a n c e , r e n t e r s and homeowners seem q u i t e comparable i n terms of job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . Another index of v a r i a t i o n , which i s g i v e n t h e o r e t i c a l prominence i n s e v e r a l neo-marx i s t c l a s s c a t e g o r i s a t i o n s and p r o v i d e s a measure of a u t h o r i t y on the j o b , i s t ime s u p e r v i s i n g o t h e r s ' l abour power. U s i n g t h i s i n d e x , home-owners and r e n t e r s a l s o have very s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s of super-v i s o r y a u t h o r i t y , as shown i n t a b l e 7 .10 . Regard le s s of the s u p e r f i c i a l s i m i l a r i t i e s i n job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , a very important f a c t o r d i f f e r e n t i a t e s those r e n t i n g and owning houses . D e s p i t e the f ac t tha t i n d i v i d u a l s i d e n t i f i e d as s e l f - e m p l o y e d i n the C i t y D i r e c t o r i e s were e x p l i c i t l y exc luded from the sample, a s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n 312 TABLE 7.9 The Surrey Sample: O c c u p a t i o n a l L i s t i n g s by SES and Housing Tenure Nonmanual Manual O c c u p a t i o n s H.owners Renter s Occupa t ions H.owners Renter s salesman 7 9 f o r e m a n / s u p e r v i s o r 2 3 lower manager 8 7 e l e c t r i c i a n 5 1 a c c o u n t s / c l a i m s / mechanic 5 3 customs c l e r k s 6 5 c a r p e n t e r 0 4 draf t smen 3 1 m i l l w r i g h t 3 1 r e c r e a t i o n c o o r d . 0 2 t r u c k i n g d i s p a t c h 1 4 photographer 0 1 mason 1 2 union r e p . 1 0 d r y w a l l e r 3 1 s e r v i c e / r e p a i r 3 0 welder 1 1 s t e e l p r o c e s s i n g 0 1 autobody r e p a i r 0 1 u p h o l s t e r y 0 1 warehouseman 1 0 f isherman 0 1 lumber boomer 0 1 TABLE 7.10 The Surrey Sample: Time Spent S u p e r v i s i n g O t h e r s ' Work by SES and Housing Tenure Time Spent S u p e r v i s i n g O t h e r s ' Work SES and Hous ing Tenure No t ime About H a l f of A l l the time t ime S k i l l e d Manual Homeowners 11 11 3 Renter s 12 8 5 S k i l l e d Nonmanual Homeowners Renter s 1 5 19 10 3 0 3 313 of those r e n t i n g houses are s e l f - e m p l o y e d . Thus the homeowner i d e n t i f i e d i n the D i r e c t o r y as a mason or mechanic tended to be a wage-earner w h i l e the r e n t i n g e q u i v a l e n t tended to be s e l f - e m p l o y e d . T h i s p a t t e r n o c c u r r e d w i t h such r e g u l a r i t y as to i n v i t e t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t r a t h e r than the d e s i r e to ' c o n t r o l ' t h i s f a c t o r by e x c l u d i n g these s e l f - e m p l o y e d persons from the r e n t e r sample. Se l f -employment i s an important f a c t o r i n why these f a m i l i e s are r e n t i n g . Moreover , s e l f -employment i s a r a t h e r f l u i d s o c i a l c a t e g o r y ; 7 of the 9 s e l f -employed s k i l l e d manual r e n t e r s move i n and out of s e l f -employment w i t h the economic s i t u a t i o n and a l t e r n a t i v e employ-. . 3 ment o p p o r t u n i t i e s . T h i s f l u i d i t y can be e x e m p l i f i e d by the job h i s t o r i e s of two i n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r v i e w e d . In one c a s e , an autobody r e p a i r -man had completed h i s a p p r e n t i c e s h i p three year s be fore and had worked, u n t i l a few months be fore the i n t e r v i e w , i n four d i f f e r e n t j o b s . He works for "whoever pays b e s t " , d e s c r i b e d h i m s e l f as "a w o r k a h o l i c " and " the best guy i n autobody r e p a i r in the a r e a " . He had been l a i d o f f h i s l a s t job and for the l a s t few months had been s e l f - e m p l o y e d , buying c a r s w r i t t e n o f f for i n s u r a n c e purposes , r e p a i r i n g and s e l l i n g them. He i s c u r r e n t l y s e l f - e m p l o y e d , h i s goa l i s to set up h i s own autobody shop, yet he env i saged working for an employer aga in The i n a b i l i t y of t h e o r e t i c a l c a t e g o r i e s of c l a s s to d e a l w i t h t h i s f l u i d i t y has r e c e n t l y been commented upon by R. Scase and R. G o f f e e , The E n t r e p r e n e u r i a l M i d d l e C l a s s (London: Croom Helm, 1982), p . 20. 314 before be ing i n the p o s i t i o n to do so . As another example, a p r e s e n t l y s e l f - e m p l o y e d c a r p e n t e r had worked as a warehouseman for the f i r s t three year s a f t e r f i n i s h i n g h i g h s c h o o l , a job he l e f t for a c o o p e r a t i v e f i s h i n g v e n t u r e . The commercia l f i s h i n g e n t e r p r i s e l a s t e d s i x months and was a p e r s o n a l f i n a n c i a l d i s a s t e r , r e c o v e r y from which n e c e s s i t a t e d three f u r t h e r year s as a warehouseman, as w e l l as the s a l e of h i s house . " B o r e d " wi th t h i s warehouseman j o b , t h i s i n d i v i d u a l became a " f r e e l a n c e " c a r p e n t e r . He has done t h i s for seven years a l t h o u g h he has been a union member for the l a s t three and i s o c c a s i o n a l l y employed on union j o b s . G iven the f l u i d i t y between employment and se l f - employment , i t seemed somewhat a r b i t r a r y to exc lude s e l f - e m p l o y e d persons from the sample. What these two examples a l s o i n d i c a t e , however, i s that se l f -employment i n v o l v e s an element of c h o i c e amongst the people sampled, and i s not merely an a d a p t a t i o n to the economic r e c e s s i o n of the e a r l y to mid 1980 ' s . The breakdown of se l f -employment by hous ing tenure i s shown i n t a b l e 7 . 1 1 . C l e a r l y se l f -employment i s a s s o c i a t e d wi th r e n t i n g h o u s i n g . M e n t i o n i n g t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n to one s e l f - e m p l o y e d p e r s o n , he s a i d , "Oh y e s , a lmost every s e l f -employed person I know r e n t s - u n l e s s t h e y ' v e been i n b u s i n e s s for over ten y e a r s , through the good t i m e s . " Lack of income s t a b i l i t y i s one f a c t o r i n s e l f - e m p l o y e d persons r e n t i n g . E i g h t e e n of the f i f t y r e n t e r s had owned a house at one p o i n t in time and twelve of these are s e l f - e m p l o y e d . F i v e of the 315 TABLE 7.11 The Surrey Sample: Number of S e l f - E m p l o y e d and Commissioned Salesmen by Housing Tenure and SES Hous ing tenure C u r r e n t l y C u r r e n t l y Se l f - emp . or and SES s e l f - e m p l o y e d commissioned comm. salesmen salesmen w i t h i n past 5 year s but not p r e s e n t l y Renter s Nonmanual ' 7 4 3 Manual 9 0 2 Homeowners Nonmanual 0 4 0 Manual 0 0 1 s i x p r e v i o u s homeowners who had been f o r c e d to s e l l t h e i r houses because of f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s had been s e l f -employed at the t i m e . The f ac t t h a t s e l f - e m p l o y e d i n d i v i d u a l s cannot c o n t r i b u t e to and hence are i n e l i g i b l e to c o l l e c t un-employment i n s u r a n c e makes them and t h e i r homeownership ext remely v u l n e r a b l e to economic i n s e c u r i t y . The i n s e c u r i t y of commissioned s a l e s jobs a l s o seems to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h hous ing t e n u r e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between commissioned s a l e s jobs and r e n t i n g i s not apparent i n t a b l e 7.11 where the commissioned salesmen are e v e n l y d i v i d e d a c r o s s hous ing t e n u r e s . The c i r c u m s t a n c e s of each of the four home-owning salesmen dependent upon commissioned s a l e s a r e , how-e v e r , u n u s u a l . In one ca se , the i n d i v i d u a l became a salesman a f t e r twelve year s as a p lumber . An a c c i d e n t on the w o r k s i t e prompted the change in j o b s , as w e l l as p r o v i d i n g a $5000 se t t l ement which was used as a downpayment on a house . Two 316 o t h e r s had bought houses f i v e and ten year s before t a k i n g jobs i n commiss ioned s a l e s . The l a s t of the four " r e a l l y d i d n ' t have a penny" when he bought h i s house , but was f i n a n c e d by h i s f a m i l y . Thus i n no case had the purchase of a house been f i n a n c e d through a commissioned s a l e s j o b . Job s t a b i l i t y i s a f a c t o r which d i s t i n g u i s h e s r e n t e r s and homeowners g e n e r a l l y . Homeownership does not s imply r e f l e c t more year s i n the w o r k f o r c e . C o n s i d e r i n g those c l a s s i f i e d as nonmanual for i n s t a n c e , homeowners had on average worked three more year s than r e n t e r s (15.8 as compared to 12.8 year s ) but they had a l s o owned t h e i r houses for an average of 9.7 y e a r s . The p a t t e r n i s the same fo r manual worker s ; the average number of year s i n the workforce fo r homeowners i s 20.2 compared to 16.0 for r e n t e r s . Homeowners had owned a house for an average of 11.8 yea r s however, meaning tha t the r e n t e r s ' comparably fewer years in the workforce does not i n i t s e l f e x p l a i n t h e i r hous ing t e n u r e . However, r e n t e r s are l e s s s t a b l e i n t h e i r employment p a t t e r n s when compared to homeowners. C o n s i d e r i n g the number of year s each had worked for t h e i r p re sen t employers , r e n t e r s had worked c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s t i m e . T h i s can be seen i n t a b l e 7 .12 . I t can a l s o be seen from t h i s t a b l e tha t the l e n g t h of t ime spent working for the p re sen t employer i s not a s imple r e f l e c t i o n of number of y e a r s i n the w o r k f o r c e . Nor i s i t o n l y s e l f - e m p l o y e d r e n t e r s who are d i s t i n c t i v e l y m o b i l e . The tendency for homeowners to be more s t a b l e i n terms of employer i s p i n p o i n t e d by a breakdown i n terms of hous ing tenure of 317 those who have never changed employer s . One f i f t h of the homeowners had always worked for t h e i r pre sent employer (6 manual and 4 nonmanual) and had done so for an average : of 16.4 y e a r s . In c o n t r a s t , o n l y 2 r e n t e r s had always worked for the same employer and i n both cases t h i s had been for three year s o n l y . TABLE 7.12 The Surrey Sample: Number of year s w i t h pre sent employer and average number of year s i n workforce by hous ing t e n u r e , SES and employment s t a t u s Number of year s w i t h present employer Hous ing t e n u r e , <2 2-5 6-10 11 or more SES and # Average # Average # Average # Average employment Y r s . in Y r s . i n Y r s . i n Y r s . in s t a t u s Workforce Workforce Workforce Workforce Renter s Manual 7 10.8 10 18.6 4 14.5 4 19.3 Nonmanual 8 12.6 11 11.2 5 15.8 1 13.0 Se l f -emp.+ comm. s a l e s (now or w i t h i n 5 year s ) 9 14.3 9 15.2 4 17.7 3 15.3 Wage-e a r n e r s 6 8.0 12 14.3 5 13.2 2 22.0 Homeowners Manual 4 16.0 3 25.3 9 20.3 9 20.8 Nonmanual 1 15.0 10 12.9 6 11.3 8 22.5 Those who rent have not o n l y changed employers more f r e q u e n t l y than homeowners, but a l s o the types of work they do . Of those r e n t i n g , f i f t e e n (30%) have changed job types ( for example, from cook to i n s u r a n c e salesman) a f t e r at l e a s t f i v e year s i n the w o r k f o r c e . In compar i son , 5 homeowners have 318 done so (Chi square=5.06, d . f . = 1 , p< .025) . Whi le the ev idence p re sen ted g e n e r a l l y suppor t s the n o t i o n tha t homeowners are more s t a b l e employees , i t i s a mis take to s t e r e o t y p e the r e n t e r s ' job m o b i l i t y p e j o r a t i v e l y , to assume tha t r e n t e r s are the type who d r i f t from job to j o b , a s t e r e o t y p e which appears p r o m i n e n t l y i n the c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n of owners and r e n t e r s amongst those i n t e r v i e w e d by Constance 4 P e r i n , for i n s t a n c e . Rather than d r i f t i n g , many of those w i t h r e c o r d s of job i n s t a b i l i t y have made d e c i s i o n s which hinge on s o c i a l and economic a m b i t i o n s . The p r o p o r t i o n of s e l f - e m p l o y e d i n d i v i d u a l s amongst t h i s group has a l r e a d y been ment ioned . For t h i s group , se l f -employment was not mere ly an a d a p t a t i o n to an economic r e c e s s i o n . In o n l y one case had the person turned to se l f -employment as a l a s t r e s o r t i n a s i t u a -t i o n of h i g h unemployment. Se l f -employment has t y p i c a l l y been a c a ree r c h o i c e h i n g i n g on p e r s o n a l a m b i t i o n s and a d e s i r e to 5 c o n t r o l o n e ' s own work s i t u a t i o n . As w e l l , t y p i c a l of the p e r c e p t i o n tha t se l f -employment f u n c t i o n s as a ' b u f f e r ' b e t -ween the working and middle c l a s s e s i n terms of s o c i a l m o b i l -i t y ^ , s i x of the 25 s k i l l e d nonmanual r e n t e r s had moved i n t o 4 C . P e r i n , E v e r y t h i n g In I t s P l a c e : S o c i a l o rder and l a n d use i n America^ ( P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1977). 5 These are commonly c i t e d reasons for s e l f - employment : for example, F . Bechhofe r , B. E l l i o t t , M. R u s h f o r t h and R. B l a n d , "The P e t i t s Bourgeo i s i n the C l a s s S t r u c t u r e , " i n The S o c i a l A n a l y s i s of C l a s s S t r u c t u r e e d . F . P a r k i n (London: T a v i s t o c k , 1974). ^ R. Scase and R. G o f f e e , The E n t r e p e n e u r i a l M i d d l e C l a s s . 319 commissioned s a l e s as a way of moving from s k i l l e d manual to nonmanual employment and t h i s change was p e r c e i v e d to be a move of upward s o c i a l m o b i l i t y . One such i n d i v i d u a l d e s c r i b e d t h i s s h i f t as one from "a job to a c a r e e r " . Another commissioned salesman s a i d : "Everyone g i v e s me a hard time because I wear a white c o l l a r . My f r i e n d s are mos t ly b lue c o l l a r " . Asked whether he thought i t made a d i f f e r e n c e , he s a i d : "Nah, maybe they c o u l d n ' t do my j o b . . . . I w o u l d n ' t want to do t h e i r s . " The p e r s o n a l upheaval tha t i s i n v o l v e d i n some of these c a r e e r s h i f t s i s c a p t u r e d by the job h i s t o r y of another re spondent . T h i s person l e f t s c h o o l at age 15, worked i n a g rocery s t o r e for a y e a r , then a d a i r y and then as a meta l worker for 14 y e a r s . At t h i s p o i n t he s o l d l i f e i n s u r -ance for two y e a r s . F e e l i n g that an inadequate e d u c a t i o n was c r i p p l i n g h i s employment p r o s p e c t s , he then went back to h i g h s c h o o l on a f u l l t ime b a s i s for two y e a r s , s t a r t i n g a t age 35. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , h i s house was s o l d at t h i s p o i n t and he has been r e n t i n g s i n c e . The f a c t tha t job m o b i l i t y may have a d i f f e r e n t meaning for employed and s e l f - e m p l o y e d or commissioned salesmen i s suggested by responses to the i n q u i r y c o n c e r n i n g which a spec t s of a job are most i m p o r t a n t , shown i n t a b l e 7 .13 . Of i n t e r e s t i s the d i f f e r e n c e i n concerns for job s e c u r i t y between s e l f -employed and employed r e n t e r s . Only t h r e e (15%) s e l f - e m p l o y e d r e n t e r s ( i n c l u d i n g commissioned salesmen) i n d i c a t e d that job s e c u r i t y i s a concern as compared to 13 (43%) of wage-earning r e n t e r s ( a l though t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y 320 s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l : Chi square=3.22, d . f . = 1 , p> .05) . Of a lmost e x c l u s i v e concern to the s e l f -employed i n d i v i d u a l s i s a job wi th i n t e r e s t and v a r i e t y . TABLE 7.13 The Surrey Sample: What i s C o n s i d e r e d to be Most Important i n Terms of a Job by Housing Tenure and SES Most Percent A g r e e i n g by Housing Tenure and SES Important Aspec t s of a Job Homeowners Renter s Manual Non- Manual Non- S e l f - Wage-manual man. empl . earner and c omm. s a l e s Good pay 24 28 38 1 6 30 24 I n t e r e s t and v a r i e t y 52 68 60 72 90 47 Good workmates 48 28 29 20 1 0 33 S u p e r v i s o r who d o e s n ' t brea the 29 down your neck 8 1 7 12 1 0 1 6 Good work c o n d i t i o n s 60 20 25 28 25 27 S e c u r i t y 60 28 28 36 15 43 S t r o n g , a c t i v e 8 union 5 5 0 0 3 A concern for i n t e r e s t and v a r i e t y at the expense of s e c u r i t y c o u l d r u l e out homeownership as a p o s s i b i l i t y for these s e l f - e m p l o y e d i n d i v i d u a l s , by c o n s t r a i n t r a t h e r than 321 c h o i c e . T h i s might be the c o n c l u s i o n i f the assumption i s made that a l l f a m i l i e s want to own a home. What i s p a r t i c u -l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g about t h i s group of s e l f - e m p l o y e d p e r s o n s , however, i s tha t homeownership i s not the p r e f e r r e d tenure form. T h i s d i s t i n g u i s h e s the s e l f - e m p l o y e d markedly from those who are employed. Of the 20 s e l f - e m p l o y e d r e n t e r s , 13 i n d i c a t e d that they d i d not want to own a home. In c o m p a r i -son, 26 of the 30 employed respondents favoured homeownership but c o u l d not manage i t for f i n a n c i a l reasons which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d below. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e towards home-ownersh ip , between employed and s e l f - e m p l o y e d p e r s o n s , i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (Chi square = 12.06, d . f . = 1 , p< .005) . As w e l l , t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e i s not a s imple r a t i o n a l i s i n g accommodation - the average net househo ld income for the s e l f - e m p l o y e d i s $22,750 as compared to $22,500 for wage-earners . S e l f - e m p l o y e d persons tended to e v a l u a t e homeownership c h i e f l y as a c a p i t a l inves tment ; those who p r e f e r r e d to rent d i d not see homeownership as a f a v o u r a b l e c a p i t a l investment at the moment or saw i t as one which was c o m p e t i t i v e w i t h the development of t h e i r b u s i n e s s e s . T h i s was the case fo r ten of the t h i r t e e n who p r e f e r r e d to r e n t . (The other three mentioned non-work r e l a t e d l i f e - s t y l e c h o i c e s such as a d e s i r e to t r a v e l as reasons fo r p r e f e r r i n g to r e n t . ) S e v e r a l of the s tatements made by s e l f - e m p l o y e d r e n t e r s c o n c e r n i n g tenure are s t r i k i n g and w i l l be quoted at some l e n g t h . One such statement comes from an i n t e r v i e w wi th a 322 husband and w i f e . The husband had owned a s m a l l p r i n t i n g bus ines s for one year but the wife had not been employed s i n c e the b i r t h of t h e i r f i r s t c h i l d four year s b e f o r e . When asked whether they would p r e f e r to own or r e n t , he answered: "We d i s a g r e e about t h i s . I ' d r a t h e r r e n t . There are more i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g s to do w i t h your money." She then s a i d , "I p r e f e r to own. You have the s e c u r i t y . . . . B e s i d e s , I d o n ' t l i k e p a y i n g money for rent and not get a n y t h i n g fo r i t i n t h e . . . " " P a h , the bank owns i t , not the homeowner. What the homeowner pays i n i n t e r e s t over the year s i s a s t o u n d i n g . . . . A n d then you have a l l of the o ther expenses of f i x i n g up the p l a c e . I f i t ' s y o u r s , you f e e l l i k e p a i n t i n g and w a l l p a p e r i n g and g a r d e n i n g . Homeownership encourages t h i s s o r t of t h i n g . For example, my b r o t h e r j u s t spent $15,000 on a swimming p o o l . " "But your b r o t h e r en joys h i s home. He en joys s h a r i n g h i s home w i t h o t h e r s . " T u r n i n g to me, she s a i d : "He d o e s n ' t care about h i s h o u s e . " He r e t a l i a t e d by e x p l a i n i n g : "I j u s t want to come home and r e l a x . . . . watch a f o o t b a l l game." Then she s a i d : "But f i x i n g a home i s pa r t of the meaning of h o m e . . . " " T h a t ' s p r e c i s e l y why I w o u l d n ' t want a home - i t t akes a l o t of money to d e c o r a t e . " Asked whether he f e l t he was l e s s i n t e r e s t e d i n h i s home because he had a job he found c h a l l e n g i n g , he s a i d : " Y e s , p o s s i b l y . I d o n ' t have the time to spend around h e r e . I come home to r e l a x . " Running through the husband ' s e n t i r e d i s c u s s i o n was the theme of the unnecessary expense of home-ownersh ip , p a r t i c u l a r l y s u p e r f l u o u s because of h i s d i s i n t e r e s t in h i s home as a source of p e r s o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . 323 S i m i l a r s ta tements were made by an autobody repairman whose job h i s t o r y has been o u t l i n e d above. B r i e f l y , he i s c u r r e n t l y s e l f - e m p l o y e d by r e p a i r i n g c a r s w r i t t e n o f f by i n s u r a n c e companies . He purchases the automobi le which has been w r i t t e n o f f at a u c t i o n w i t h h i s own funds and r e p a i r s i t f o r r e s a l e . H i s long term goa l i s to own an autobody r e p a i r shop. He noted t h a t he was not e l i g i b l e for mortgage f i n a n c -ing at the moment because of job i n s e c u r i t y and income l e v e l but added: " R i g h t now a shop i s a p r i o r i t y . I f I own a shop I can do what a f r i e n d of mine d i d who owns a shop - go out and buy a house fo r c a s h . I f we were r e n t i n g a p l a c e tha t was l e s s a t t r a c t i v e then we'd ca re m o r e . . . . R i g h t now i t depends on the economy. I 'm a f t e r a shop i f i t p i c k s up. I f i t ' s slow I ' l l go for a house f i r s t . " L a t e r he r e i n f o r c e d the n o t i o n t h a t homeownership can be a f i n a n c i a l burden . "Homeowners are p r e s s u r e d i n t o be ing more c o n s e r v a t i v e . The guys where I ' v e worked who are homeowners . . . l i k e , they have an anchor on t h e i r l e f t foot and a job on t h e i r b a c k . . . . Sure , I 'm f r e e r to pursue my b u s i n e s s wi thout a house . I f you have a house , y o u ' r e s c a r e d to t r y your wings on something new. You know, you l i v e by your c h o i c e s . I d o n ' t t h i n k tha t a homeowner unders tands the d e c i s i o n h e ' s made." In c o n t r a s t to the s e l f - e m p l o y e d r e n t e r s , those who are employed are r e n t i n g l e s s from c h o i c e than more d i r e c t economic c o n s t r a i n t . The reasons of those who p r e f e r to rent w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d below i n r e l a t i o n to f a m i l y o r i e n t a t i o n and tenure c h o i c e . Of those who would p r e f e r to own, s i x are 324 r e n t i n g p r i n c i p a l l y because of t h e i r stage i n the l i f e - c y c l e . T h i s group i n c l u d e s younger c o u p l e s without c h i l d r e n , or those w i t h on ly one i n f a n t . Another f i v e f a m i l i e s w i t h s c h o o l - a g e d c h i l d r e n seemed to be r e n t i n g fo r reasons connec ted to marr iage breakdown - e i t h e r the husband was f i n a n c i a l l y committed to a p r e v i o u s marr iage and i n d i c a t e d tha t t h i s p r e -vented s a v i n g a downpayment, or the second marr iage was r e l a -t i v e l y recent and the sav ings had not yet been accumulated for a house . Another three expressed very s t r o n g sent iments c o n -c e r n i n g homeownership ("It i s the r i g h t of every Canadian to own a h o u s e . " ) but had made c o n f l i c t i n g l i f e - s t y l e c h o i c e s i n terms of c o s t l y hobbies such as car r a c i n g . The remain ing twelve had not been ab le to a f f o r d homeownership because of income i n s e c u r i t y , a combinat ion of p e r s o n a l c h o i c e in job m o b i l i t y and the g e n e r a l economic d e p r e s s i o n . To c o n t i n u e w i t h the theme deve loped above, f i v e of those i n the l a t t e r group had been p r e v i o u s l y s e l f - e m p l o y e d or commissioned s a l e s -men . The reasons which wage-earners c i t e i n favour of home-7 ownership are those which are commonly i n d i c a t e d : p h y s i c a l s t a b i l i t y , f i n a n c i a l s e c u r i t y , investment p o t e n t i a l , p r i v a c y , p r i d e i n ownersh ip , p e r s o n a l independence and f e e l i n g s of c o n t r o l . Asked more d i r e c t l y , whether they f e l t tha t home-7 K. M a c k i e , "An E x p l o r a t i o n of the Idea of Home i n Human G e o g r a p h y , " M . A . T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1981; R . M . R a k o f f , " I d e o l o g y in everyday l i f e : the meaning of the h o u s e , " P o l i t i c s and S o c i e t y , 7 (1977) , 85-104; C . R u t t l e , "The home and hegemony i n everyday l i f e , " M . A . T h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1981. 325 ownership i s one way of a v o i d i n g p o v e r t y i n o l d age, every em-p l o y e d person f e l t tha t i t i s . T y p i c a l remarks were: "Renters shou ld save money but you save more i f you have to save . When y o u ' r e r e n t i n g you say y o u ' r e go ing to put a s i d e $100 per month but by the second month you u s u a l l y have something b e t t e r to do w i t h the $100 . " or " D e f i n i t e l y , i t ' s a hedge a g a i n s t i n f l a t i o n . You always have the s e c u r i t y of hav ing the home and i t ' s a way of l i f e t h a t p r i c e s go u p . " C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e for r e n t i n g , h a l f of those who are s e l f - e m p l o y e d do not r egard homeownership as an a p p r o p r i a t e method for s a v i n g for o l d age. One such person remarked: "For 80% of the p o p u l a t i o n i t ' s a good way. E i g h t y percent d o n ' t do a n y t h i n g w i t h t h e i r l i v e s - they have a j ob , r a i s e some k i d s , r e t i r e and take up an average of 27 pens ion cheques . E i g h t y percent d o n ' t amount to great f i n a n c i a l s u c c e s s e s . Homeownership i s good for them but i t ' s a very c o n s e r v a t i v e i n v e s t m e n t . " Another commented: " In the p a s t , the o n l y t h i n g s go ing for you were your k i d s and your house. Now there are so many ways of making money." Another view was: "No, i t ' s not adequate - not compared to what i s p a i d out fo r the mortgage i n t e r e s t . " What of a g e n e r a l na ture can be c o n c l u d e d c o n c e r n i n g the l i n k s between hous ing tenure and job h i s t o r i e s ? As was the case w i t h the l a r g e r , n a t i o n a l data s e t , r e n t e r s tend to have l e s s s t a b l e employment h i s t o r i e s than do homeowners. One needs to unders tand the c o n t e x t u a l d e t a i l s behind these s t a t i s t i c s however. Rather than conforming to the s t e r e o t y p e 326 of the r e n t e r who i s " u n s e t t l e d and u n s e t t l i n g " , 40% of the r e n t e r s are found to be s e l f - e m p l o y e d or i n commissioned s a l e s , the l a t t e r o f ten a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a s e l f - p e r c e i v e d s t a -tus jump from manual to nonmanual work. A p o r t r a i t emerges of a group of suburban f a m i l y r e n t e r s who are e n t r e p e n e u r s . T h i s group of s e l f - e m p l o y e d persons o f t e n rent by c h o i c e . T h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n , p e r s o n a l and f i n a n c i a l , i s towards t h e i r work and homeownership i s o f ten viewed as a f i n a n c i a l burden . At the same t ime , the i n s e c u r i t y of se l f -employment makes homeowner-s h i p more p r e c a r i o u s amongst t h i s group, a s i t u a t i o n which i s exacerba ted by a l ack of p r o t e c t i o n through unemployment i n s u r a n c e . The remaining 60% conform more c l o s e l y to commonly h e l d s t e r e o t y p e s - a d e s i r e for homeownership has been thwarted by f ami ly i n s t a b i l i t y or economic i n s e c u r i t y , i n some i n s t a n c e s temporary, i n o t h e r s more e n d u r i n g . Hous ing Tenure and Women's P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Workforce Those who minimise the impact of hous ing tenure as an independent i n f l u e n c e upon a t t i t u d e s and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m o f t e n s t r e s s the d i r e c t l i n k between homeownership and house-h o l d income, a t t r i b u t i n g v a r i a t i o n s a c ro s s t enure s to income d i f f e r e n t i a l s . In l i n e w i t h t h i s a n a l y s i s , i t has been noted tha t the income l e v e l s of homeowners i n the Sur rey sample are indeed h i g h e r than those of the r e n t e r s . To r e i t e r a t e the J . Agnew, "Home Ownership and I d e n t i t y i n C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t i e s , " i n Housing and I d e n t i t y : c r o s s - c u l t u r a l p e r s p e c t i v e s , e d . J . S . Duncan (London: Croom Helm, 1981), p^ 75~. 327 d i s t i n c t i o n , the median net incomes of the manual and non-manual homeowners are $25,000 and $27,000, r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h i l e those fo r the e q u i v a l e n t SES groups who are r e n t i n g are $21,000 and $20,000, r e s p e c t i v e l y . What these income l e v e l s c o n c e a l , however, i s d i f f e r e n t i a l f a m i l y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the w o r k f o r c e . There i s a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of two income f a m i l i e s amongst homeowners. Amongst homeowning f a m i l i e s 31 (62%) of the women worked o u t s i d e the home w h i l e 18 (36%) of those r e n t i n g d i d so (Chi square = 5 .76 , d . f . = 1 , p< ,025) . T h i s a s s o c i a t i o n i s s t ronger amongst the manual group than amongst those c l a s s i f i e d as nonmanual, a l t h o u g h i n both cases the d i r e c t i o n of a s s o c i a t i o n i s s i m i l a r . Amongst the f a m i l i e s c l a s s i f i e d as manual , 17 homeowning as opposed to 8 r e n t i n g f a m i l i e s have two incomes (Chi square = 5 .12 , d . f . = 1 , p< .025) . Amongst the nonmanual group , 14 homeowning and 10 r e n t i n g f a m i l i e s depend on two incomes - a l t h o u g h three of the l a t t e r are c o u p l e s wi thout c h i l d r e n . (However, even e x c l u d i n g the c o u p l e s wi thout c h i l d r e n , the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing tenure and two incomes i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t amongst the nonmanual group (Chi square = 1.63, d . f . = 1 , p> .05) . ) The l i n k between h i g h e r incomes and two wages i s f a i r l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . Of the households w i t h net annual incomes over $30,000, 9 of the 10 manual homeowners, 6 of the 10 nonmanual homeowners, 4 of the 6 manual r e n t e r s , and 4 of the 6 nonmanual r e n t e r s have two wage-earners . These s t a t i s t i c s can be compared to those of the l a r g e r 328 n a t i o n a l s u r v e y . Amongst the n a t i o n a l sample a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n was found, wi th homeownership a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of employed spouses . Broken down i n terms of SES, 37% of the 54 f a m i l i e s r e n t i n g as compared to 56% of the 41 mortgaged homeowners w i t h i n the s k i l l e d manual group had two incomes. C o n s i d e r i n g the s k i l l e d nonmanual g roup , 21% of 108 r e n t i n g f a m i l i e s as compared to 41% of 46 mortgaged homeowners had two incomes. In t h i s a n a l y s i s , the a s s o c i a t i o n between homeownership and two wages per household was s t r o n g e r amongst the s k i l l e d nonmanual group , as compared to the manual group, a f i n d i n g which i s dependent , i n p a r t , mere ly on d i f f e r e n t i a l sample s i z e . As w e l l , t h i s sample d i f f e r s from the Surrey one i n that l i f e - c y c l e , income, and hous ing s t r u c -t u r e are u n c o n t r o l l e d . G iven these d i f f e r e n c e s , i t i s s t r i k -ing that the g e n e r a l p a t t e r n i s s i m i l a r . I t a l s o suggests tha t the d i f f e r e n c e i n employment p a t t e r n s amongst the women i n the s k i l l e d nonmanual group of the Surrey sample, a l though not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , i s not t r i v i a l . What e x p l a i n s t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n between homeownership and two income households? Are the homeowning women s imply more c a r e e r o r i e n t e d ? A l i s t i n g of job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s by hous ing t e n u r e , shown i n t a b l e 7 .14 , does not suggest t h i s . A com-p l e t e l i s t i n g of e d u c a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and job h i s t o r i e s was not o b t a i n e d so i t i s d i f f i c u l t to compare a c r o s s SES and hous ing t enure groups . For i n s t a n c e , a l t h o u g h i t appears that there are t e a c h e r s and n u r s e s , two of the more p r o f e s s i o n a l l y o r i e n t e d of the job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , on ly amongst homeowners, 329 s e v e r a l r e n t e r s mentioned that they were t r a i n e d and had worked in such a c a p a c i t y before t h e i r c h i l d r e n were born. What can be s a i d i s that the m a j o r i t y of jobs l i s t e d f a l l w i t h i n the r e c e p t i o n i s t / s e c r e t a r i a l / c l e r k nexus which, on the face of i t , does not seem to have such a p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r e e r o r i e n t a t i o n . TABLE 7.14 The Surrey Sample: Job C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of Employed Spouses by Housing Tenure and SES Job C l a s s i f i c a t i o n No. by Housing Tenure and Husband's SES Homeowners Renters Manual Nonmanual Manual Nonmanual R e c e p t i o n i s t 0 S e c r e t a r y 3 O f f i c e C l e r k 0 CRTC Operator 2 Bookkeeper 2 Employment Couns. 0 O f f i c e Manager 0 I n t e r i o r Designer 0 Teacher 1 Nurse 2 Dental A s s i s t a n t 2 N u t r i t i o n a l Cons. (paramedical) 0 Sales C l e r k 2 H a i r d r e s s e r 1 W aitress 1 L e t t e r C a r r i e r 1 77 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 71 o o 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 "8 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 To 330 Are fewer women i n the r e n t a l c a t e g o r y working because a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n have i n f a n t s and younger c h i l d r e n at home? The breakdown of f a m i l i e s by s o c i a l c l a s s , hous ing tenure and age of youngest c h i l d can be seen i n t a b l e 7 .15 . Indeed, fewer women in the s k i l l e d manual homeowner ca tegory have c h i l d r e n under 5 yea r s o l d at home. However, hav ing younger c h i l d r e n at home does not seem to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the woman s t a y i n g at home amongst homeowning f a m i l i e s . C o n s i d e r i n g those w i t h c h i l d r e n l e s s than 5 yea r s of age, a l l 6 of the women whose f a m i l y u n i t i s c l a s s i f i e d as s k i l l e d manual home-owners work o u t s i d e of the home w h i l e 8 of the 13 c l a s s i f i e d as s k i l l e d nonmanual do a l s o . Of the r e n t e r s w i t h c h i l d r e n i n t h i s age c a t e g o r y , on ly 2 of the 11 s k i l l e d manual and 3 of the 13 s k i l l e d nonmanual f a m i l i e s have two wage-earners . T h i s c o n t r a s t between r e n t e r s and homeowners w i t h c h i l d r e n under f i v e , in terms of whether the woman works o u t s i d e of the home, i s q u i t e extreme and c e r t a i n l y s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (Chi square = 11.72, d . f . = 1 , p< .005) . TABLE 7.15 The Surrey Sample: Age of Youngest C h i l d by Hous ing Tenure and SES Age of Youngest C h i l d Hous ing Tenure and SES 0-4 5-12 13-18 19+ No c h i l d r e n Homeowners Manual 6 8 8 1 2 Nonmanual 13 8 2 1 1 Renter s Manual 11 5 4 1 4 Nonmanual 13 6 2 1 3 331 Can one c l a i m that the a s s o c i a t i o n i s a c t u a l l y l i n k e d to h igher hous ing c o s t s amongst younger homeowners? Comparing the monthly hous ing c o s t s of homeowners and r e n t e r s w i t h c h i l d r e n under 5 y e a r s , homeowners do have h i g h e r c o s t s . The average monthly hous ing c o s t s for homeowners (mortgage pay-ments, p r o p e r t y taxes and u t i l i t i e s ) are $670 and $776 for those c l a s s i f i e d as manual and nonmanual, r e s p e c t i v e l y . In compar i son , monthly rent and u t i l i t y payments average at $595 and $578 for manual and nonmanual r e n t e r s . As mentioned e a r l i e r , maintenance c o s t s are a l s o a f a c t o r for homeowners, a l t h o u g h those sampled found i t d i f f i c u l t to p r o v i d e e s t imate s of these c o s t s . When asked whether i t i s p r e s e n t l y neces sary for a coup le to have two incomes i n o rder to buy a house, 12 manual and 14 nonmanual homeowners thought that i t i s n e c e s s a r y . Of those w i t h wives working and c h i l d r e n under 5 year s of age, 3 of the 5 manual and 6 of the 8 nonmanual homeowners i n d i c a t e d that t h e i r wives had to work at some p o i n t i n order to meet t h e i r hous ing expenses . I t was noted t h a t two incomes are e s p e c i a l l y c r i t i c a l when s a v i n g for a downpayment, i n order to f u r n i s h the house once purchased and as a b u f f e r a g a i n s t f l u c t u a t i n g i n t e r e s t r a t e s . The importance of two incomes fo r p u r c h a s i n g a house was r e p e a t e d l y ment ioned . In f a c t , 30 (60%) of the homeowners had purchased t h e i r homes when both husband and wife were working and for 23 (46%) the mortgage was a s se s sed on the b a s i s of one and a h a l f or two incomes. Of the s i x t e e n r e n t e r s who f e l t 332 they would buy a home w i t h i n a few y e a r s , twelve are f a m i l i e s i n which both husband and wife are w o r k i n g . F u r t h e r , 16 r e n t e r s s p o n t a n e o u s l y remarked t h a t a ' t r a d i -t i o n a l ' arrangement , wi th t h e i r wi fe at home c a r i n g for t h e i r c h i l d r e n , was not one they would f o r f e i t for the sake of home-ownersh ip . In one case i t was the woman who i n i t i a t e d the d i s c u s s i o n by s a y i n g : "I d o n ' t b e l i e v e i n working when you have c h i l d r e n . Too o f t en these days men t h i n k ' I ' l l send her out to work' to manage expenses or buy a house . In the past they used to take a second or t h i r d j o b . " I t seemed a p o i n t of honour for her husband tha t she d i d not work. He s a i d : "My s tep-dad never made my mother work. When we needed an ex t ra $5000 he went up Nor th and worked - t h a t ' s where the money was - and took care of i t . " Another r e n t e r remarked when asked i f he had p l ans to swi t ch to homeownership: "What do you put more va lue on - your f a m i l y or a house? I f I 'm f o r c e d to buy a home then I have to [ i f t h e i r rent went up so i t becomes more economica l to own]. But for now I ' l l go for my f a m i l y needs . A number of t h i n g s have come up t h i s y e a r . . . h e a l t h expenses for my f a m i l y . . . I ' d r a t h e r have the money to a f f o r d t h i s . . . " In response to the q u e s t i o n of two incomes, he s a i d : "I grew up i n a f a m i l y w i t h two working pa rent s and we had no f a m i l y l i f e . I 'm not w i l l i n g to make tha t s a c r i f i c e . " Another made the same p o i n t : " I t ' s not worth the a n g u i s h to own a house . T h a t ' s why some f a m i l i e s d o n ' t s tay t o g e t h e r . I t ' s chaos when y o u ' r e r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n and both w o r k i n g . Both my parent s worked and I never got over i t . There was no f a m i l y l i f e . . . m y 333 parents j u s t came home to s l e e p . Our f a m i l y i s a p r i o r i t y and we're not w i l l i n g to s a c r i f i c e e v e r y t h i n g to own a h o u s e . " Perhaps i r o n i c a l l y , g i v e n the common a s s o c i a t i o n between home-ownership and a f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e , one woman r e n t i n g a house i n an area of p r e d o m i n a t e l y owned houses compla ined of the " h o s t i l i t y " of the c h i l d r e n i n the neighbourhood whose p a r e n t s both work and noted tha t these c h i l d r e n were always around her home because they knew she was c o n t i n u a l l y b a k i n g . A home-owner who had been l o c k e d i n t o a mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e of 18% s i n c e November 1980 and who i s c u r r e n t l y pay ing $1025 a month for mortgage payments, expres sed these sent iments from the homeowner's p e r s p e c t i v e . H i s mortgage had been a s se s sed on the b a s i s of two incomes but h i s wi fe i s no longer working as they have two young c h i l d r e n , 10 months and three and h a l f y e a r s . He s a i d t h a t : " S i n c e she has s topped w o r k i n g , t h i s has added tremendous p r e s s u r e . Y o u ' r e caught i n the m i d d l e . You have two young k i d s and you d o n ' t l i k e farming them out to the b a b y s i t t e r and y e t . . . . B u t fo r me, my f a m i l y i s the p r i o r i t y and I d o n ' t g i v e a hoot about the house i n c o m p a r i s o n . " He f e l t tha t he would be b e t t e r o f f r e n t i n g and s a i d : " I ' m s e r i o u s l y t h i n k i n g of t e l l i n g the bank to take i t [ h i s house] and get o f f my b a c k . " The r e l a t i o n s h i p between h i g h hous ing c o s t s and two wage e a r n e r s , as w e l l as the impact of t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n on f a m i l y l i f e , was a l s o noted by Ley i n a s tudy of w o r k - r e s i d e n c e r e l a t i o n s for downtown Vancouver and sub-urban o f f i c e workers i n 1982. F o r t y - s e v e n percent of the sample were i n two wage earner h o u s e h o l d s , 77 p e r c e n t f e l t 334 tha t home purchase r e q u i r e d the incomes of two f u l l - t i m e workers and a lmost h a l f f e l t that t h i s makes f a m i l y l i f e more d i f f i c u l t . 9 Given t h a t the q u e s t i o n of a f f o r d a b i l i t y of homeownership i n terms of the ' t r a d i t i o n a l ' f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e of one wage-earner i s r a i s e d , i t i s perhaps i n t e r e s t i n g to note that few of the Sur rey homeowners had bought r e c e n t l y , at l e a s t not w i t h i n the 1979-1981 hous ing p r i c e e s c a l a t i o n , a p e r i o d d u r i n g which h o u s i n g a f f o r d a b i l i t y was of popu la r c o n c e r n . Date of f i r s t house purchase by year has been shown i n t a b l e 7 .8 . T h i r t y (or 60%) of homeowners had purchased houses by 1975. Of those w i t h two incomes and c h i l d r e n under 5 year s of age, the median year of house purchase was 1977. The f a c t tha t t h i s t r e n d was a l s o d i s c e r n e d i n the 1979 S o c i a l Change i n Canada data set suggests a longer term p r o c e s s . Two t h r e a d s have been drawn out c o n c e r n i n g the reasons l y i n g beh ind the c h o i c e of hous ing t e n u r e , one i n v o l v i n g job m o b i l i t y and employment s t a t u s , the o ther f o c u s i n g on a f a m i l y o r i e n t a t i o n . Both of these f a c t o r s c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e , at l e a s t i n i t i a l l y , h i g h e r c o s t s of homeownership. G iven t h a t these p r o c e s s e s l i e behind tenure c h o i c e , what can be s a i d of the e f f e c t s of homeownership on p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and behav iour? T h i s w i l l be the focus of the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r . D. L e y , "Work-Res idence R e l a t i o n s for Downtown and Suburban Head O f f i c e Workers : A P r e l i m i n a r y R e p o r t , " U n p u b l i s h e d r e p o r t , D e p t . of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Co lumbia , J anuary , 1983. 335 CHAPTER 8 THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND POLITICAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOUR IN SURREY, BRITISH COLUMBIA I t seems p o s s i b l e to r ecogn i se t h a t hous ing tenure i s the product of a complex combina t ion of p r o c e s s e s , some of which are r o o t e d i n the p r o d u c t i o n sphere , wi thout deny ing the s p e c i f i c c o n t r i b u t i o n of hous ing tenure upon s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . That i s , even though homeownership i s l i n k e d to job s e c u r i t y , making those who are s e l f - e m p l o y e d , or employed i n s e c t o r s of the economy most v u l n e r a b l e to economic downturn, l e s s a b l e or w i l l i n g to choose and m a i n t a i n t h i s tenure form, homeownership i t s e l f may exer t i t s own e f f e c t on p o l i t i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s and a c t i v i t y . A n a l y s i s of the S o c i a l Change i n Canada data set i n d i c a t e s tha t the i n f l u e n c e of hous ing tenure i s not un i fo rm ac ro s s a l l s o c i a l g roups . An u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h i s d i f f e r -e n t i a l p a t t e r n of i n f l u e n c e , as w e l l as an o p p o r t u n i t y to e x p l o r e hous ing r e l a t e d p o l i t i c a l i s s u e s more e x p l i c i t l y , i s pursued through the i n t e r v i e w s w i t h the sample of Surrey homeowners and r e n t e r s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , forms of p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n of home-owners and tenant s w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d , to e x p l o r e whether homeowners are more i n v o l v e d i n community a c t i v i t i e s w i t h an eye for c o n t r o l l i n g t h e i r p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . The r e l e v a n c e of hous ing tenure and, most p a r t i c u l a r l y , hous ing programmes, for e l e c t o r a l d e c i s i o n s w i l l then be a s s e s s e d . A t t i t u d e s towards the l e g i t i m a c y of v a r i o u s types of p r o t e s t around hous ing 336 i s s u e s are then c o n s i d e r e d and at tempts made to unders tand a p r o t e s t o r i e n t a t i o n i n terms of more g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e s c o n -c e r n i n g sources of c o n f l i c t i n s o c i e t y , as w e l l as s p e c i f i c i n s t i t u t i o n a l membership. The focus then t u r n s to a t t i t u d e s towards v a r i o u s hous ing programmes: a tendency i s noted fo r both r e n t e r s and homeowners to favour homeownership p r o -grammes, hence c r e a t i n g an imbalance in i n t e r e s t group forma-t i o n which favours the s t r u c t u r a t i o n of o b j e c t i v e hous ing s e c t o r s . The more g e n e r a l l i n k s between hous ing tenure and support for s o c i a l we l f a re programmes, which have been a s se s s -ed through the S o c i a l Change i n Canada data s e t , are then s t u d i e d more c a r e f u l l y wi th the a d d i t i o n a l S u r r e y ev idence i n order to r e f l e c t on Kemeny's p r o p o s a l once a g a i n , as w e l l as the c o n s i s t e n c i e s between data s e t s . Formal P o l i t i c a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n Homeowners have o f t en been p r e s e n t e d as be ing ' m i l i t a n t c o n s e r v a t i v e s . 1 With a f i n a n c i a l investment i n t h e i r house , they are assumed to be a t t u n e d to l o c a l e v e n t s , guard ing themselves from p r o p e r t y tax h i k e s or a g a i n s t l a n d uses which might have a n e g a t i v e impact on p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . E v i d e n c e tha t homeowners are more a c t i v e i n neighbourhood p o l i t i c s has R . S . H a r r i s , " H o u s i n g Tenure and C l a s s i n Canadian C i t i e s S ince the La te 19th C e n t u r y , " S p e c i a l S e s s i o n on H o u s i n g , Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of Geographers ' Annual M e e t i n g , W i n n i p e g , May-June 1983. 337. been p r e s e n t e d by Cox and McCarthy for the Columbus, Ohio a r e a . F u r t h e r , a n a l y s i s of the S o c i a l Change i n Canada 1979 data set i n d i c a t e s that nonmanual homeowners tend to have been more i n v o l v e d i n community p r o j e c t s than nonmanual r e n t e r s . These f i n d i n g s of g r e a t e r community a c t i v i s m amongst homeowners are not s t r o n g l y supported by the lower m i d d l e -c l a s s homeowners and t enant s i n t e r v i e w e d in the Sur rey a r e a . The q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m was phrased as i t was for the S o c i a l Change i n Canada s u r v e y : persons i n t e r -viewed were a sked , for example, how many t imes i n the l a s t f i v e year s they had s i gned a p e t i t i o n or been i n v o l v e d in a community p r o j e c t , the l a t t e r very l o o s e l y d e f i n e d i n the respondents terms , a l t h o u g h the d e t a i l s of each a c t i v i t y were recorded for f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s (see Appendix VI for the exact wording of the q u e s t i o n ) . Recorded a c t i v i t i e s were r e c l a s s -i f i e d i n terms of Cox and M c C a r t h y ' s d e f i n i t i o n of n e i g h b o u r -hood a c t i v i s m . Us ing t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , an i n d i v i d u a l was deemed a neighbourhood a c t i v i s t i f he had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n two of the f o l l o w i n g f i v e a c t i v i t i e s : 1) a t t ended a meet ing to d i s c u s s a problem i n the ne ighbourhood , 2) be longed to an o r g a n i s a t i o n a t t e m p t i n g to s o l v e a neighbourhood prob lem, 3) o r g a n i s e d a p e t i t i o n d r i v e c o n c e r n i n g a neighbourhood prob lem, K . R . Cox and J . J . McCar thy , "Neighbourhood a c t i v i s m as a p o l i t i c s of t u r f : a c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s , " i n C o n f l i c t , P o l i t i c s and the Urban Scene, ed . K . R . Cox and R. Johnston (London: Longman, 1982), pp . 196-219. 338 4) t e l ephoned or w r i t t e n to a l o c a l p o l i t i c i a n or p u b l i c o f f i c i a l c o n c e r n i n g a neighbourhood prob lem, or 5) s i gned a p e t i t i o n r e g a r d i n g a neighbourhood prob lem. U s i n g t h i s d e f i n i -t i o n , 17 homeowners (34%) and 9 r e n t e r s (18%) are c l a s s i f i e d as ne ighbourhood a c t i v i s t s . A l t h o u g h t h i s comparison i s i n the expected d i r e c t i o n , i t i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (Chi square = 2 .55 , d . f . = 1 , p<.10) and thus the e f f e c t i s not as ' r o b u s t ' as Cox and McCarthy sugges t . When a wider spectrum of a c t i v i t i e s are c o n s i d e r e d , shown i n t a b l e 8 . 1 , there i s s c a t t e r e d v a r i a t i o n between r e n t e r s and homeowners. One of the most n o t i c e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i s the g r e a t e r number of r e n t e r s as compared to homeowners who are e l i g i b l e to but choose not to vote i n both p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l e l e c t i o n s . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e j u s t misses s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e (Chi square = 3 .32, d . f . = 1 , p<.10) but perhaps not much shou ld be made of i t . When the ages of n o n - v o t e r s are broken down, over h a l f (7) of r e n t e r s who do not vote i n both p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l e l e c t i o n s are under 30, an age ca tegory s l i g h t l y o v e r - r e p r e s e n t e d amongst r e n t e r s when com-pared to homeowners. Of those over 30, there are 5 homeowners and 6 r e n t e r s who chose not to v o t e . A l t h o u g h i t appears that manual homeowners are the most i n v o l v e d w i t h community a f f a i r s (the comparison between manual r e n t e r s and homeowners j u s t misses s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e : Chi square=3.42, d . f . = 1 , p> .05) , i t i s neces sary to c o n s i d e r the range of a c t i v i t i e s c a p t u r e d under t h i s h e a d i n g . I n c l u d e d as community involvement are a c t i v i t i e s r e v o l v i n g around TABLE 8.1 The S u r r e y Sample : Number P a r t i c i p a t i n g i n V a r i o u s P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t i e s by H o u s i n g Tenure and SES P o l i t i c a l Invo lvements Worked commun i ty p r o j e c t b . 1 n a e 1 e c t i o n campa i gn Worn a po1 i t i ca1 but ton Put up e l e c t i o n s ign W r i t t e n or spoken to an e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l a . c . S i g n e d a pet i t i on V o t e d in an e 1 e c t i on Homeowners Nonmanual 16 10 1.4 2 1.0 1 1.0 2 1.0 11 2 .4 18 1.9 23 Manual 21 15 1.0 2 1.0 5 1.0 3 1.0 6 1.4 20 2 .4 22 R e n t e r s Nonmanual 14 8 2 . 2 1 1.0 1 1.0 2 1.0 6 1.5 18 1.9 18 Manual 14 7 1.3 0 0 1 3 . 0 1 1.0 3 1.0 17 2 . 3 19 a . number i n d i c a t i n g t h a t they have been i n v o l v e d i n a c t i v i t y b . number i n d i c a t i n g week ly o r o n g o i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n c . a v e r a g e number o f i n v o l v e m e n t s ( f o r invo lvement i n community p r o j e c t s a v e r a g e o n l y f o r t h o s e not i n v o l v e d on o n g o i n g b a s i s ) 340 TABLE 8.2 The Surrey Sample: Number I n v o l v e d i n D i f f e r e n t Types of Community P r o j e c t s by Housing Tenure and SES C h i l d -r e l a t e d Church A d u l t s p o r t , s e r v i c e c l u b P o l i t i c a l L o c a l Work No p a r t y a rea r e l a t e d i n v o l v e -p l a n n i n g ments 'H.O Nonman, Manual 5 9 3 2 4 4 2 3 1 3 1 0 9 4 Renter s Nonman, Manual 4 8 5 2 0 2 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 c h i l d r e n ' s s p o r t s and s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s , such as c o a c h i n g a soccer team or s e r v i n g as a B lock Parent ( t a b l e 8 . 2 ) . A d u l t s p o r t s or hobby groups , i n c l u d i n g c a r r a c i n g and snowmobile c l u b s , and s e r v i c e c l u b s , such as the L i o n s or the K n i g h t s of Columbus, were important a d d i t i o n a l sources of involvement i n the community. In a m i n o r i t y of cases e x p l i c i t l y p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s c o n c e r n i n g l o c a l area p l a n n i n g and development were ment ioned , but e q u a l l y by r e n t e r s and homeowners. On the whole , community involvement seemed to have most to do w i t h a f a m i l y o r i e n t a t i o n and does not d i s c r i m i n a t e between r e n t e r s and homeowners. A n a l y s i s of the S o c i a l Change i n Canada s tudy i n d i c a t e d t h a t more r e n t e r s amongst the manual groups a t t ended p r o t e s t meet ings than d i d homeowners. However, i t was noted tha t the e f f e c t was l i m i t e d to a younger age group and was not gen-e r a l l y apparent amongst those who were m a r r i e d w i t h c h i l d r e n . 341 I t i s thus perhaps not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t , when p r o t e s t meetings were c u l l e d from more g e n e r a l meet ings for the S u r r e y sample, s l i g h t l y more homeowners had a t t e n d e d p r o t e s t mee t ing s , amongst both manual and nonmanual g roups . The focus of p r o t e s t does not d i f f e r markedly between homeowners and r e n t e r s ( t a b l e 8 . 3 ) . TABLE 8.3 The Surrey Sample: Number A t t e n d i n g P r o t e s t Meet ings C l a s s i f i e d by Issue and Hous ing Tenure Hous ing Tenure I ssue Homeowners Renter s School r e l a t e d L o c a l zon ing S o l i d a r i t y ( p o l i t i c a l p r o t e s t ) A n t i - n u c l e a r demons t ra t ion A n t i - a b o r t i o n meeting KOHO (Keep Our Homes Ours -p r o t e s t a g a i n s t h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s ) Maintenance of race t r a c k s Opening time for swimming p o o l W o r k - r e l a t e d lobby group s 3 3 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 9 342 TABLE 8.4 The Surrey Sample: Number of P e t i t i o n s S igned by T o p i c , Housing Tenure and SES Number of P e t i t i o n s Ment ioned by Top ic Hous ing Tenure l o c a l work- hobby s o c i a l g e n e r a l c a n ' t and p l a n n i n g r e l a t e d we l f a re ( a b o r t i o n , remember SES i s s u e s cutbacks arms i s sue c o n t r o l , save the whales) Homeowners Manual 11 4 5 0 16 12 Nonmanual 1 1 4 1 7 12 0 Renter s Manual 8 1 1 1 17 11 Nonmanual 9 2 0 1 10 12 P e t i t i o n s that respondents r e c a l l e d s i g n i n g w i t h i n the l a s t f i v e year s were a l s o c a t e g o r i s e d by t o p i c ( t a b l e 8 . 4 ) . A g a i n , the behav iour of r e n t e r s and homeowners seems compar-a b l e i n terms of number of per sons who i n d i c a t e d s i g n i n g p e t i t i o n s , the e s t imate s for numbers of p e t i t i o n s s i g n e d , and more i m p o r t a n t l y , the i s s u e s for which p e t i t i o n s were s i g n e d . As many r e n t e r s had s i gned p e t i t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g l o c a l zon ing and hous ing mat ter s as had homeowners and o n l y four homeowners as opposed to one r e n t e r had a c t u a l l y i n i t i a t e d a p e t i t i o n d r i v e c o n c e r n i n g a neighbourhood prob lem. F o l l o w i n g from the p e r s p e c t i v e that homeowners are more a t t u n e d to l o c a l i s s u e s i s the s u p p o s i t i o n tha t they are more l i k e l y to be i n v o l v e d w i t h formal m u n i c i p a l p o l i t i c s . One r e n t e r expres sed t h i s p e r c e p t i o n q u i t e s u c c i n c t l y : 343 "Renter s d o n ' t have the same community p r i d e . You w o u l d n ' t f i n d too many r e n t e r s showing up for meet ings to d i s c u s s zon ing by- laws or running for m u n i c i p a l o f f i c e . I ' v e never vo ted i n a m u n i c i p a l e l e c t i o n and I would i f I owned. I f you t h i n k about t h i s p l a c e [a townhouse complex] I ' d bet there was a s t r o n g turnout for the l a s t p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n but u s u a l l y none for a m u n i c i p a l . " A breakdown of v o t e r tu rnout for the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r ' s 1982 m u n i c i p a l e l e c t i o n i n terms of a reas d e s i g n a t e d by home-ownership r a t e s (map 8.1) tends to c o n f i r m t h i s impres s ion ( there i s such a h i g h ra te of homeownership a c r o s s most a reas i n Surrey t h a t t h i s type of comparison i s d i f f i c u l t ) . The i n t e r v i e w s w i t h i n d i v i d u a l homeowners and r e n t e r s i n S u r r e y , however, throw t h i s s t e r e o t y p e i n t o doubt (and r a i s e the q u e s t i o n of " e c o l o g i c a l f a l l a c y " w i t h re spec t to the c o n c l u -s i o n s that e a s i l y f o l l o w from map 8 . 1 ) . Amongst those i n t e r -v iewed , as many r e n t e r s as homeowners f e l t tha t m u n i c i p a l p o l i t i c s were important and that i t mat tered who was e l e c t e d m u n i c i p a l l y . T h i r t e e n homeowners as opposed to 11 r e n t e r s f e l t tha t i t mat ter s who i s e l e c t e d at the m u n i c i p a l l e v e l of government. One r e n t e r s t r e s s e d that i t mat ter s who i s e l e c t e d m u n i c i p a l l y because : " T h a t ' s where i t a l l s t a r t s - a f lower grows from a s e e d . " Another r e n t e r expres sed i n t e n -t i o n s of runn ing for m u n i c i p a l o f f i c e . S e v e r a l homeowners who s t a t e d an i n t e r e s t i n m u n i c i p a l p o l i t i c s s a i d they were j u s t as i n t e r e s t e d when they r e n t e d . I n t e r e s t i n m u n i c i p a l p o l i -t i c s seemed equa l between homeowners and r e n t e r s and throws the common s t e r e o t y p e i n t o doubt . 344 MAP 8.1 V o t e r Turnout and Homeownership Rates W i t h i n the C i t y of Vancouver , 1982 V O T E R TURNOUT (The number of votes cast for mayor as a % of total eligible voters.] OWNER E L E C T O R S (The number of eligible voters who own property as a % of total eligible voters.) • Less than 35% • 35%-59% 0 60% or more • Less than 35% • 35%-44% P 45% or more S O U R C E : '1982 Civic Elect ion R e s u l t s ; ' Quarter ly Review 10 (1983). p. 13. 345 I t jj> p o s s i b l e that homeowners f e e l more s t r o n g l y about the l o c a l i s s u e s around which p e t i t i o n s and meet ings are o r g a n i s e d . For i n s t a n c e , one r e n t e r i n d i c a t e d that he had s i g n e d a p e t i t i o n i n o p p o s i t i o n to a s t o r e i n the l o c a l a r e a , add ing t h a t : "I d o n ' t r e a l l y c a r e . I j u s t s i g n e d i t to be n e i g h b o u r l y . My next door ne ighbour brought the p e t i t i o n around and s h e ' s r e a l l y a n i c e o l d l a d y . " T h i s type of d i f f e r e n c e in emphasis i s very d i f f i c u l t to measure. Most r e n t e r s d i d i n d i c a t e t h a t they would be more p r e -pared to take d i r e c t a c t i o n to oppose zon ing changes which would i n c r e a s e the a l l o w a b l e d e n s i t y of hous ing i n the a r e a , or a l l o w a c o o p e r a t i v e or p u b l i c hous ing to be b u i l t nearby , i f they were homeowners. In p r i n c i p l e , r e n t e r s are as opposed to i n c r e a s e d d e n s i t y as homeowners and nonmanual r e n t e r s s l i g h t l y more opposed than nonmanual homeowners to p u b l i c and TABLE 8.5 The Surrey Sample: O p p o s i t i o n to D e n s i t y Increases and C o o p e r a t i v e Hous ing i n Neighbourhood by Housing Tenure and SES O p p o s i t i o n t o : Hous ing Tenure and SES Homeowners Renter s Manual Nonman. Manual Nonman. D e n s i t y Increa se s 20 19 20 17 (as homeowner and r e n t e r ) — — 12 8 (on ly as a homeowner) — - - 8 9 C o o p e r a t i v e Hous ing 14 7 10 13 (as homeowner and r e n t e r ) — — 6 5 (on ly as a homeowner) — - - 4 8 346 even c o o p e r a t i v e hous ing in t h e i r ne ighbourhoods . However, a lmost a h a l f s a i d they would become a c t i v e l y opposed o n l y as homeowners, as i n d i c a t e d in t a b l e 8 . 5 . For the r e n t e r s who would care about these s i t u a t i o n s o n l y as homeowners, p r o p e r t y 3 d e v a l u a t i o n was t h e i r prime c o n c e r n . As one r e n t e r n o t e d , " I ' d f e e l more s t r o n g l y i f I owned because the lower income bracket d o e s n ' t care as much and the houses go to p o t . I t a f f e c t s the whole communi ty . " Another commented t h a t , as a r e n t e r , "I d o n ' t ca re i f the K l u Klux Klan moves i n a c r o s s the s t r e e t as long as they d o n ' t bother me," b u t , as a homeowner, ne ighbours become an immediate concern because of p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . The extent of the sympathy and re spec t for the main-tenance of homeowners' p r o p e r t y v a l u e s amongst r e n t e r s was very i n t e r e s t i n g . One r e n t e r , who had never owned a house h i m s e l f , noted s y m p a t h e t i c a l l y that the duplex i n which he Agnew p r e s e n t s ev idence tha t an investment o r i e n t a t i o n towards the home i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e s s t o l e r a n c e for the mixture of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e hous ing ( J . A . Agnew, "Market r e l a t i o n s and l o c a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t i n c r o s s - n a t i o n a l p e r s p e c -t i v e , " i n U r b a n i z a t i o n and C o n f l i c t i n Market S o c i e t i e s , e d . K . R . Cox (New Y o r k : Methuen, 1978), p p . 1 2 8 - 4 3 . ) . Cox and McCar thy , who do not f i n d a r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighbourhood a c t i v i s m and an investment o r i e n t a t i o n amongst t h e i r sample of Columbus, Ohio homeowners, q u e s t i o n Agnew's l i n e of argumenta-t i o n . (K .R . Cox and J . J . M c C a r t h y , "Neighbourhood A c t i v i s m i n the American C i t y : B e h a v i o r a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s and E v a l u a t i o n , " Urban Geography, 1 (1980) , p . 27.) So t o o , the responses of the Surrey homeowners g i v e no ev idence of an a s s o c i a t i o n between investment o r i e n t a t i o n and a c t i v i s m around neighbourhood prob lems . Investment o r i e n t a t i o n was c l a s s i f i e d i n terms of whether a respondent f e l t t h a t s e l l i n g h i s house l a t e r at a p r o f i t was very i m p o r t a n t , i m p o r t a n t , unimportant or very unimportant to h i s d e c i s i o n at the t ime of buy ing h i s house . There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i s and c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n as a neighbourhood a c t i v i s t (Chi square = 1.71, d . f . = 3 , p> . 1 0 ) . 347 p r e s e n t l y l i v e s p u l l s down the va lue of h i s n e i g h b o u r ' s house by $15,000 to $20,000 and g e n e r a l i s e d from t h i s s i t u a t i o n to a p o l i c y of complete s e g r e g a t i o n of s i n g l e f a m i l y houses from even m a r g i n a l l y denser hous ing u n i t s , even though he saw no o p p o r t u n i t y for buying a house h i m s e l f for a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d of t i m e . Amongst r e n t e r s who opposed d e n s i t y i n c r e a s e s i n p r i n c i p l e but would take no a c t i o n i n t h e i r c u r r e n t tenure s i t u a t i o n , p e r c e i v e d m o b i l i t y was a l s o a f a c t o r mentioned spontaneous ly by 11 people or 65% of the sample. As Cox and 4 McCarthy have suggested , many r e n t e r s do not take p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n i n response to neighbourhood problems because they f e e l they can e a s i l y move. One Surrey r e n t e r noted that he had opposed a c o o p e r a t i v e development when he owned a house i n the ne ighbourhood , "but when you r e n t , y o u ' r e not as c o n c e r n e d . You always t h i n k y o u ' r e gonna move. Y o u ' r e i n l imbo r e n t i n g . Ownership promotes community mindedness - t h e r e ' s no doubt about i t . " Another commented: "When we owned we were more concerned w i t h garbage c o l l e c t i o n and the s c h o o l s - you f e e l t h a t you can do more. Now we f e e l l i k e we 're here today and gone tomorrow." "But y o u ' v e been here over two y e a r s . " " Y a , but i t ' s a r e n t e r ne ighbourhood [of s i n g l e f a m i l y homes and K . R . Cox and J . McCar thy , "Neighbourhood a c t i v i s m as a p o l i t i c s of t u r f " , p . 201. 348 d u p l e x e s ] . Our ne ighbours are more t r a n s i e n t . S ince we've been h e r e , t h e r e ' s been a complete change of n e i g h b o u r s . " A f e e l i n g of s t a b i l i t y seems to be a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r i n community i n v o l v e m e n t , be i t for a r e n t e r or homeowner. Rente r s who became i n v o l v e d l o c a l l y e x p l a i n e d tha t " I ' m j u s t r e n t i n g but i t ' s s t i l l my home" w h i l e homeowners who viewed t h e i r p re sent home as a s t e p p i n g stone i n the p r o c e s s of ' t r a d i n g up' excused t h e i r l a c k of involvement i n l o c a l a f f a i r s on t h i s b a s i s . One homeowner commented: "We ' re more i n v o l v e d here because i n Vancouver [where they owned two houses p r e v i o u s l y ] we knew we weren ' t there p e r m a n e n t l y . Now I s t i c k up fo r my r i g h t s - you have to i f you want a good community - l i k e phone the cops i f you see anyone s p e e d i n g . " Homeowners were asked whether they f e l t they had become more i n v o l v e d in t h e i r communit ies s i n c e owning a house . Almost a h a l f (46%) f e l t tha t they have . S e v e r a l comments w i l l be quoted at l e n g t h because they i n d i c a t e the range of reasons for f e e l i n g t h i s way, from sent iments of p e r s o n a l p r i d e to monetary commitment. " Y e s . Y o u ' r e more aware. You d o n ' t on ly look at your own home. You have a p e r i m e t e r and y o u ' r e i n t e r e s t e d i n the go ings on . . . . i n the h o u s i n g , the type of p e o p l e , the s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s , the shopping f a c i l i t i e s . . . w i t h i n those p e r i m e t e r s . You t h i n k . . . t h i s i s my k i n g d o m . . . a n d y o u ' r e i n t e r e s t e d i n i t . " " Y e s . For one rea son , y o u ' r e more r e s p o n s i b l e . Y o u ' r e more i n v o l v e d , more a n c h o r e d , b e t t e r ba sed . When y o u ' r e r e n t i n g y o u ' r e j u s t i n v o l v e d i n y o u r -s e l f . When you i n v e s t i n p r o p e r t y you have a commit-ment . " 349 " Y e s , you have a d e f i n i t e s take i n what happens i n the community. You f e e l l i k e y o u ' d l i k e to improve the area and the l i f e s t y l e of the people around y o u . " " Y e s . I take more advantage of the f a c i l i t i e s . You tend to f e e l tha t t h e y ' r e i n d i r e c t l y yours be-cause you pay t a x e s . " "I won't take any b u l l s h i t i n t h i s n e i g h b o u r -hood. I f I see i t , I stamp on i t . I have no qualms about c a l l i n g the p o l i c e . I t ' s my investment and I d o n ' t want i t w r e c k e d . " Not a l l homeowners, however, f e e l tha t ownership of domest ic p r o p e r t y has had the e f f e c t of i n v o l v i n g them i n the community. The d i s t i n c t i o n between s k i l l e d manual and non-manual homeowners i s r e l e v a n t h e r e , w i t h 56% of the nonmanual f e e l i n g tha t homeownership does have an e f f e c t , a g a i n s t o n l y 36% of the manual group (Chi square = 5 .19 , d . f . = 1 , p< .025) . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual home-owners became important in the a n a l y s i s of the S o c i a l Change i n Canada data set and w i l l preoccupy the d i s c u s s i o n of the a s s o c i a t i o n between p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and homeownership amongst the Surrey sample as w e l l . But f i r s t , what of a summaris ing nature may be s a i d c o n -c e r n i n g the impact of hous ing tenure on p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m ? The s t r o n g e s t statement which can be made i s tha t there i s a r i f t between p e r c e p t i o n s of involvement and a c t u a l r e c o r d s of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m . The r e c o r d s of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y d i d not vary c o n s i d e r a b l y between r e n t e r s and homeowners but r e n t e r s g e n e r a l l y f e l t tha t they would f e e l more compe l l ed to respond to zon ing changes i f they were homeowners, and s k i l l e d non-manual homeowners f e l t tha t they had become more i n v o l v e d i n 350 the community s i n c e owning t h e i r homes. As noted above, two p r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s , i n c l u d i n g the a n a l y s i s of the S o c i a l Change i n Canada survey which served to focus the Surrey i n t e r v i e w s , r e v e a l e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the community a c t i v i s m of homeowners and r e n t e r s . Perhaps the d i s c r e p a n c y between these a n a l y s e s and the f i n d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g the Surrey sample l i e s i n the f ac t tha t the Surrey r e n t a l sample does not i n c l u d e apartment d w e l l e r s and thus hous ing tenure and hous ing s t r u c t u r e are not confounded . T h i s seems l i k e l y because the major d i f f e r e n c e between r a t e s of n e i g h -bourhood a c t i v i s m found by Cox and McCarthy and the r a t e s noted for the Surrey sample i s i n terms of tenant a c t i v i s m . On average 38% of the Columbus, Ohio homeowners were p o l i -t i c a l l y a c t i v e , as compared to 34% of the Surrey homeowners. In compar i son , 4% of r e n t e r s i n Columbus, Ohio as opposed to 18% of r e n t e r s in Surrey were l a b e l l e d as neighbourhood a c t i -v i s t s . Renter s i n houses make up o n l y 21.7% (192 i n d i v i d u a l s ) of the r e n t a l sample i n the S o c i a l Change i n Canada data set and one assumes a roughly s i m i l a r p r o p o r t i o n for Cox and M c C a r t h y ' s survey sample, a l t h o u g h they are not e x p l i c i t on t h i s i s s u e . Apartment d w e l l e r s t y p i c a l l y l i v e i n d i f f e r e n t s o r t s of neighbourhoods than do homeowners (denser by d e f i n i -t i o n ) and have a d i f f e r e n t s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e i r ne ighbours and community. T h i s perhaps o f f e r s a p a r t i a l ex-p l a n a t i o n of the lower l e v e l s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n community p r o j e c t s and involvement i n s o l v i n g neighbourhood problems noted for the S o c i a l Change in Canada and Columbus, Ohio 351 samples , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Another f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g the r a t e s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n of r e n t e r s and homeowners amongst the Surrey sample may be tha t of s o c i a l c l a s s . When Cox and McCarthy c l a s s i f y homeowners in terms of SES ( u n d e f i n e d ) , 52% of h i g h SES homeowners as com-pared to 30% of low SES homeowners were found to be n e i g h b o u r -hood a c t i v i s t s . Hence the d i s c r e p a n c y i n a c t i v i s m i s not as g rea t amongst lower SES homeowners and r e n t e r s . Ley and Mercer have a l s o demonstrated for the C i t y of Vancouver tha t community p r o t e s t i s very much a s s o c i a t e d w i t h SES c h a r a c t e r -5 i s t i c s such as e d u c a t i o n and income . As noted above, the S u r r e y sample was chosen i n terms of t h e i r more moderate incomes and the m a j o r i t y have not completed a u n i v e r s i t y degree . T h i s may have some b e a r i n g on the r e l a t i v e l y low l e v e l s of neighbourhood a c t i v i s m amongst the Surrey homeowners i n t e r v i e w e d . C e r t a i n l y , the l e v e l of p o l i t i c a l apathy ev idenced amongst the homeowners i n t e r v i e w e d seems f a i r l y t y p i c a l for Sur rey r e s i d e n t s as a whole . In the m u n i c i p a l e l e c t i o n s of November 1 9 t h , 1983, o n l y 22% of the e l i g i b l e v o t e r s i n Sur rey a c t u a l l y v o t e d , compared to 26.6% i n Burnaby, 36.5% i n D e l t a , 52.0% i n New Westminster and 30.0% in Richmond, the l a t t e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t e n d i n g to have h i g h e r average incomes (as was shown i n t a b l e 6 . 4 ) . D. Ley and J . M e r c e r , " L o c a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t and the p o l i t i c s of c o n s u m p t i o n , " Economic Geography, 56 (1980), pp . 89-109. 352 The d i s c r e p a n c y a c r o s s data se t s may r e f l e c t o ther f e a t u r e s of Surrey as the l o c a l e i n which the i n t e r v i e w s were c o n d u c t e d . Cox and McCarthy have p r e s e n t e d ev idence i n d i c a t -ing t h a t the v a r i a b i l i t y i n p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m between r e n t e r s and homeowners tends to be more extreme when t h e r e i s an a c t u a l ne ighbourhood prob lem. For i n s t a n c e , o n l y 28% of Columbus, Ohio homeowners are c l a s s i f i e d as ne ighbourhood a c t i v i s t s when t h e r e i s no s p e c i f i c ne ighbourhood problem r e q u i r i n g t h e i r a t t e n t i o n , as opposed to 54% who are a c t i v e i n response to a neighbourhood prob lem. Surrey has perhaps deve-loped i n such a way as to d i s c o u r a g e the p e r c e p t i o n of n e i g h -bourhood prob lems , at l e a s t amongst many of the persons i n t e r -v iewed . One r e a l e s t a t e agent i n t e r v i e w e d s t r e s s e d the f r a g -mented nature of development i n S u r r e y . The l a n d has been deve loped i n a p iecemeal f a s h i o n , as t r a c t s of farmland have been s o l d o f f for r e s i d e n t i a l development , and , w i t h i n the a l l o w e d z o n i n g g u i d e l i n e s , t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e h e t e r o g e n e i t y in the hous ing tha t has been b u i l t . In the words of t h i s r e a l e s t a t e agent , "One d e v e l o p e r can come a long and f i g u r e t h a t h e ' s go ing to c a t e r to e x e c u t i v e s . Next door , another can f i g u r e h e ' s go ing to c a t e r to the 'common man' and s e l l o f f h i s u n i t s r e a l q u i c k . " As w e l l , the hous ing development i n which many of the homeowners i n t e r v i e w e d l i v e d had been b u i l t s i n c e 1976 and hence the mixture of s i n g l e f a m i l y h o u s i n g and s c a t t e r e d townhouse developments was an accep ted f ac t when most of those who were i n t e r v i e w e d bought t h e i r houses . The i s s u e s r a i s e d c o n c e r n i n g d i s c r e p a n c i e s between the 353 a n a l y s i s by Cox and McCarthy and that of the Surrey sample cannot be r e s o l v e d i n any d e f i n i t i v e way on the b a s i s of the a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e . What can be s t a t e d i s tha t where there i s l e s s v a r i a b i l i t y i n s o c i a l c l a s s or house t y p e , f e a t u r e s which tend to have some a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h tenure (as ev idenced i n the S o c i a l Change i n Canada a n a l y s i s ) , the importance of hous ing tenure per se as a determinant of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m seems to be m i n i m i s e d . There does , however, tend to be a more s u b j e c t i v e f e e l i n g of commitment amongst homeowners, p a r t i c u l a r l y amongst those c l a s s i f i e d as s k i l l e d nonmanual. The Manual/Nonmanual D i s t i n c t i o n - Housing as an E l e c t o r a l I ssue Homeownership seems to assume a l a r g e r p l a c e i n the wor ld view of those c l a s s i f i e d as s k i l l e d nonmanual as opposed to manual worker s . As one aspect of t h i s tendency , nonmanual homeowners more f r e q u e n t l y i n d i c a t e d that t h e i r f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l p a r t y vo te s c o u l d be swayed by a hous ing programme, and by f a r the most popu la r programme i s the i n c l u s i o n of mortgage i n t e r e s t payments as a tax d e d u c t i o n . ^ Seventeen or Ley found that t w o - t h i r d s of a sample of o f f i c e workers s t a t e d tha t they would vote for a p a r t y o f f e r i n g more a f f o r d a b l e hous ing to f i r s t - t i m e home-buyers . (D. L e y , "Work-Res idence R e l a t i o n s for Downtown and Suburban Head O f f i c e W o r k e r s . " ) 354 68% of nonmanual homeowners f e l t tha t t h e i r vo te s c o u l d be swayed towards a p a r t y they do not n o r m a l l y vote for i f tha t p a r t y promised to change the tax system to a l l o w i n t e r e s t payments on mortgages to be deducted from t a x e s . They noted tha t the 1979 campaign of the P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e P a r t y l e a d e r , Joe C l a r k , which i n c l u d e d such a r e v i s i o n as a cam-pa ign promi se , had been e f f e c t i v e i n swaying t h e i r v o t e s . Comments i n c l u d e d : " I f anyone had a house and mortgage, t h e y ' d be c r a z y to say n o . " and " I ' d vote for A t t i l a the Hun to b r i n g t h a t i n . " In compar i son , o n l y 9 (36%) of the manual home-owners, 7 of the manual r e n t e r s and 4 of the nonmanual 7 r e n t e r s f e l t tha t t h e i r votes c o u l d be swayed at e l e c t i o n time by a hous ing programme. Both the c o n t r a s t between home-owner groups (Chi square = 3 .92, d . f . = 1 , p<.05) and a c r o s s s k i l l e d nonmanual homeowners and r e n t e r s (Chi square = 11.82, d . f . = 1 , p< .00l ) are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The f a c t tha t these l a t t e r groups are l e s s swayed by t h i s hous ing programme does not r e f l e c t any l e s s support fo r the programme of mort-gage i n t e r e s t d e d u c t a b i l i t y i t s e l f . Those a p p r o v i n g of the programme i n p r i n c i p l e i n c l u d e d 20 manual and 18 nonmanual homeowners and 19 r e n t e r s i n each s o c i a l c l a s s c a t e g o r y . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , f e d e r a l p a r t y support does not d i f f e r markedly a c r o s s s o c i a l c l a s s e s . T h i s i s the l e v e l of govern-ment at which changes i n the tax system to a l l o w mortgage 7 The se l f -employment/employment breakdown does not seem to be s i g n i f i c a n t here - 3 of 20 (15%) s e l f - e m p l o y e d and 8/30 (27%) wage-earners c o u l d be swayed by hous ing as an e l e c t i o n i s s u e . 355 TABLE 8.6 The S u r r e y Sample: P r o v i n c i a l and F e d e r a l Par ty A f f i l i a t i o n by Hous ing Tenure and SES P r o v i n c i a l P a r t i e s F e d e r a l P a r t i e s Hous ing Tenure N . D . P . S o c i a l D o n ' t N . D . P . L i b . P . C . D o n ' t Would and SES C r e d i t Vote Vote not say Homeowners Manual 15 9 1 Nonman. 8 14 2 Renter s Manual 10 9 6 N o n m a n . 8 11 6 Se l f - e m p . 8 7 5 Employed 10 13 7 4 3 1 6 2 0 2 3 18 1 1 4 4 1 1 6 0 2 6 1 1 6 0 2 4 9 5 0 4 6 1 3 7 0 i n t e r e s t payments as p e r s o n a l tax d e d u c t i o n s i s a r e l e v a n t p r o -gramme ( t a b l e 8 . 6 ) . Thus , the r e l u c t a n c e of manual homeowners to focus t h e i r vote around t h i s p a r t i c u l a r hous ing programme does not r e f l e c t a p a r t i c u l a r f e d e r a l p a r t y b i a s . The l ack of v a r i a t i o n i n f e d e r a l p a r t y support g e n e r a l l y r e f l e c t s the c u r r e n t p o p u l a r i t y of the P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y : the g o v e r n i n g p a r t y , tha t of the L i b e r a l s , has had no e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n B r i t i s h Columbia s i n c e 1980 and amongst those i n t e r v i e w e d the h o s t i l i t y towards the L i b e r a l s was such t h a t e l e c t o r a l support tended to be d i r e c t e d to the most l i k e l y c o n t e n d e r , the P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e P a r t y . Even in the more e v e n l y ba l anced and h i g h l y p o l a r i s e d p r o v i n c i a l p a r t y s i t u a t i o n which i s dominated by two p a r t i e s , the S o c i a l C r e d i t 356 on the r i g h t of the p o l i t i c a l spectrum and the New Democrat ic Par ty ( N . D . P . ) on the l e f t , there i s o n l y a s t a t i s t i c a l l y n o n s i g n i f i c a n t tendency for those homeowners c l a s s i f i e d as manual workers to vote fo r the N . D . P . more o f t e n then those c l a s s i f i e d as nonmanual (Chi square = 2 .17 , d . f . = 1 , p> .1u) . G e n e r a l l y , the d i s t i n c t i o n s in p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n ac ro s s hous ing t e n u r e , noted for the n a t i o n a l urban sample, are not e v i d e n t . TABLE 8.7 The Surrey Sample: Number Whose Vote Would be Swayed by a Hous ing Programme by Housing C o s t s , Hous ing Tenure and SES Homeowners Renters Manual Nonmanual Manual Nonmanual a . b . c . a . b . c . a . b . c . d . a . b . c . d . Vote swayed by a hous ing programme 9 4 3 1 7 1 0 7 7 4 4 3 4 3 1 2 Vote not swayed 16 5 4 8 6 3 1 8 1 1 1 0 5 2 1 1 3 1 0 8 a . t o t a l number in hous ing tenure and SES ca tegory b . number w i t h hous ing c o s t s exceeding $500 a month c . number w i t h hous ing c o s t s i n excess of 30% of net househo ld income d . number of r e n t e r s w i t h p l a n s to purchase a house w i t h i n two year s 357 Is the tendency to a l l o w o n e ' s vote to be i n f l u e n c e d by a hous ing programme l i n k e d to a c t u a l mortgage burden or r e n t a l co s t s ? T h i s does not appear to be the case ( t a b l e 8 . 7 ) . Homeowners p a y i n g over $500 a month for mortgage payments and p r o p e r t y taxes are even ly d i v i d e d between those who would be swayed and those who would not be swayed by a hous ing p r o -gramme. As w e l l , those pay ing over 30% of househo ld income towards hous ing are no more l i k e l y to a t t end to hous ing p r o -grammes as campaign i s sue s than are those pay ing a s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n of household income towards h o u s i n g . For r e n t e r s , p l ans to purchase a house w i t h i n the next two year s do not l e a d to an automat ic a t t e n t i v e n e s s to hous ing programmes, such as g rant s for f i r s t - t i m e h o u s e - b u y e r s , at e l e c t i o n t i m e . As such , the tendency to weigh hous ing h e a v i l y as an e l e c t i o n i s sue does not seem to depend on p e r s o n a l hous ing f i n a n c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The m a j o r i t y . o f i n d i v i d u a l s who s t a t e d tha t t h e i r vote would not be i n f l u e n c e d by a hous ing programme d i d so on the grounds t h a t i t i s necessary to take i n t o account the e n t i r e economic s i t u a t i o n or because they c o n s i d e r e d employment to be a more important i s sue than h o u s i n g at t h i s p o i n t i n time ( t a b l e 8 . 8 ) . T y p i c a l remarks i n c l u d e d : " T h e r e ' s no sense owning a house i f the c o u n t r y i s b a n k r u p t . " and " I f you put money i n t o p e o p l e ' s pockets then the r e s t w i l l take care of i t s e l f . " For manual homeowners and r e n t e r s , employment i s the c r i t i c a l i s s u e ; hous ing i s a secondary c o n c e r n . T h i s does not seem to be because t h e i r own jobs are l e s s s e c u r e . In f a c t , 358 job s e c u r i t y does not seem to be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to whether the i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e i v e s h i s i n t e r e s t s i n terms of hous ing or a g e n e r a l l y more buoyant economy. Of 6 of the manual home-owners who were c l e a r l y v u l n e r a b l e to the economic downturn (4 had been r e c e n t l y l a i d o f f and the o ther 2 are employed i n the same t rade ) 2 f e l t they would be swayed by a hous ing i s s u e at e l e c t i o n t i m e . In a d d i t i o n , the 3 more v u l n e r a b l e nonmanual i n d i v i d u a l s (an a r c h i t e c t u r a l draf t sman r e c e n t l y l a i d o f f , and 2 commission salesmen who mentioned employment i n s e c u r i t y ) a l s o s t a t e d that they would swing towards any p a r t y p r o m i s i n g tax r e l i e f through mortgage i n t e r e s t d e d u c t a b i l i t y . TABLE 8.8 The Surrey Sample: Reasons for Not V o t i n g in Terms of Hous ing Programmes by Housing Tenure and SES Hous ing Tenure and SES Homeowners Renter s Manual Nonmanual Manual Nonmanual Unemployment and t o t a l economic p i c t u r e more important E l e c t i o n promises are never kept Committed to one p a r t y A g a i n s t s u b s i d i s e d hous ing D o n ' t vote 14 6 14 16 1 0 1 5 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 359 Compare the meaning of the two s t r a t e g i e s ; on the one hand, o p t i n g for tax r e l i e f , on the o t h e r , a p l a t f o r m a d v o c a t i n g job c r e a t i o n and an improved employment s i t u a t i o n . The tax r e l i e f i s immediate and the i n d i v i d u a l b e n e f i t s a s sured and e a s i l y e s t i m a t e d . Indeed, many homeowners c o u l d s t a t e e x a c t l y how much they would have saved had C l a r k ' s proposed tax changes been c a r r i e d out i n 1979. The outcome of job c r e a t i o n programmes may be more i n d i r e c t and the i n d i v i d u a l b e n e f i t s l e s s e a s i l y c a l c u l a t e d . Indeed, a type of i n d i v i d u a l i s m c h a r a c t e r i s e s those who s t a t e d that they would swing to any p a r t y o f f e r i n g mortgage i n t e r e s t d e d u c t a b i 1 i t y . T h i s i s the group which swings back and f o r t h between p a r t i e s , v o t i n g " f o r whatever i s best for my f a m i l y and s e l f " or TABLE 8.9 The Surrey Sample: P o l i t i c a l C y n i c i s m Broken Down by Whether One ' s Vote Cou ld be Swayed by a Housing Programme, Hous ing Tenure and SES Homeowners Renter s Manual Nonman. Manual Nonman. S e l f - Wage-E m p l . Earner I % I % I % # % # % # % D o e s n ' t matter who i s e l e c t e d -any l e v e l of government vote swayed by hous ing 5 55 8 47 4 57 0 0 1 33 3 33 programme not swayed 3 1 9 1 1 2 8 44 3 1 4 9 52 2 9 M a t t e r s who i s e l e c t e d -a l l l e v e l s of government vote swayed 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 50 1 33 1 11 not swayed 8 50 4 50 1 5 8 38 5 29 3 14 360 " a n y t h i n g that works for me"; 6 of the 8 manual and 6 of the 8 nonmanual homeowners and 5 of the 8 r e n t e r s , who had not vo ted c o n s i s t e n t l y for one p a r t y in the p a s t , a l s o f e l t tha t they would be swayed by t h i s p a r t i c u l a r hous ing i s s u e . A good p r o p o r t i o n of those homeowners who chose to pursue t h e i r hous ing i n t e r e s t s through p a r t y p o l i t i c s a l s o e x h i b i t a p o l i -t i c a l c y n i c i s m i n tha t they tend to t h i n k i t mat ter s l i t t l e who wins at each l e v e l of government, g e n e r a l l y because " t h e y ' r e a l l c r o o k s " . In t a b l e 8.9 the breakdown of t h i s type of p o l i t i c a l c y n i c i s m i s shown i n terms of whether the i n d i v i d u a l f e e l s that he c o u l d be swayed at e l e c t i o n time by a hous ing programme. Note that rough ly h a l f of those homeowners who are swayed f e e l that i t does not matter what p a r t y i s e l e c t e d at any l e v e l of government w h i l e h a l f of those who are not swayed b e l i e v e that i t mat ter s at a l l l e v e l s , even m u n i c i -p a l l y . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between v o t i n g i n terms of the hous ing i s sue and p o l i t i c a l c y n i c i s m ( d e f i n e d by whether i t i s f e l t tha t i t mat ter s who i s e l e c t e d at no, some or a l l l e v e l s of government) i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t amongst homeowners (Chi square =14.52, d . f . = 2 , p< .005) . The p a t t e r n i s l e s s c l e a r cut amongst r e n t e r s , c h i e f l y because the s e l f - e m p l o y e d tended to be p o l i t i c a l l y c y n i c a l but u n l i k e l y to see t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n terms of h o u s i n g . The hous ing i s s u e , t h e n , i s important to e l e c t o r a l d e c i -s i o n s , but o n l y amongst nonmanual homeowners. A w i l l i n g n e s s on the par t of nonmanual homeowners to swing t h e i r vo te s i n order to o b t a i n p a r t i c u l a r hous ing programmes has important 361 i m p l i c a t i o n s for the o b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r i n g of hous ing r e l a -t i o n s . In e s s ence , i t i s suggested that nonmanual homeowners f u n c t i o n as a r e l a t i v e l y p a s s i v e but none the le s s s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r e s t group, and t h e i r e l e c t o r a l behav iour s t r u c t u r e s the hous ing s e c t o r as a whole . S k i l l e d Manual and S k i l l e d Nonmanual Workers - L e g i t i m a c y of P r o t e s t Around Hous ing I ssues I t i s c l e a r tha t the e l e c t o r a l p roces s i s f avoured by s k i l l e d nonmanual homeowners as a means of e f f e c t i n g change around hous ing i s s u e s . For each of the four types of p o l i t i -c a l p r o t e s t d i s c u s s e d , the s k i l l e d nonmanual homeowners tend to be l e s s a p p r o v i n g than the manual homeowners and nonmanual r e n t e r s ( t a b l e 8 . 1 0 ) . The widest spread in o p i n i o n a c r o s s these groups occurs for the i s sue of p e a c e f u l i l l e g a l s t r i k e s , such as mortgage s t r i k e s . Comparing homeowners, 56% of the manual and 32% of nonmanual homeowners f e e l tha t mortgage s t r i k e s are o f t e n or sometimes j u s t i f i e d (Chi square=5.5 , d . f . = 2 , P . < . 1 0 ) . In a s s e s s i n g t h i s form of p r o t e s t the focus was very much on the i s s u e of mortgage s t r i k e s for a l l respondents Note tha t there i s some f l e x i b i l i t y i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the importance of the d i f f e r e n c e s between groups , h i n g i n g on sample s i z e . For i n s t a n c e , the d i f f e r e n c e i n neighbourhood a c t i v i s m between r e n t e r s and homeowners was not emphas i sed , a l t h o u g h the p r o b a b i l i t y that t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s due to chance i s l e s s than .10 , w h i l e the spread i n o p i n i o n a c r o s s nonmanual and manual homeowners c o n c e r n i n g the l e g i t i m a c y of mortgage s t r i k e s , a l s o w i t h a p r o b a b i l i t y l e s s than .10 , i s g i v e n some emphas i s . Note , however, tha t the former c o n t r a s t i n v o l v e s a sample of 100 (50 in each group) w h i l e the l a t t e r compares groups of 25. 362 TABLE 8.10 The Surrey Sample: Support For V a r i o u s Forms of P r o t e s t by Housing Tenure and SES Housing Tenure and SES Forms of P o l i t i c a l Homeowners Renters P r o t e s t Manual Nonmanual Manual Nonmanual P e t i t i o n s Often J u s t i f i e d 15 1 5 1 0 1 4 Sometimes J u s t i f i e d 7 4 1 0 1 0 Never J u s t i f i e d 3 6 5 1 Average response d = 0 f t e n , 3=Never) 1 .52 1 .64 1 .80 1 .48 Ra 11 i e s Often J u s t i f i e d 10 7 8 8 Sometimes J u s t i f i e d 10 1 1 8 1 2 Never J u s t i f i e d 5 7 9 5 Average response ( l=Of ten , 3=Never) 1 .80 2 .00 2 .04 1 .88 P e a c e f u l , I l l e g a l Mortgage S t r i k e s Often J u s t i f i e d 4 0 1 1 Sometimes J u s t i f i e d 10 8 1 1 1 0 Never J u s t i f i e d 1 1 1 7 1 3 1 4 Average response (1=Often, 3=Never) 2 .28 2 .68 2 .48 2 .44 V i o l e n t I l l e g a l P r o t e s t Often J u s t i f i e d 0 0 0 0 Sometimes J u s t i f i e d 2 0 1 2 Never J u s t i f i e d 23 25 24 23 Average response (1=Often, 3=Never) 2 .92 3 .00 2 .96 2 .92 363 (as opposed to the more g e n e r a l i s s u e of i l l e g a l , p e a c e f u l s t r i k e s ) . However, the manual homeowners who f e l t such s t r i k e s are never j u s t i f i e d d i d so because : " Y o u ' l l hur t y o u r s e l f more than the b a n k s . " or " Y o u ' l l j u s t get k i c k e d out of your h o u s e . " Nonmanual homeowners who d i d not support t h i s type of p o l i t i c a l p r o t e s t t y p i c a l l y mentioned i t s i l l e g a l n a t u r e , commenting: " N o t h i n g i l l e g a l " or " E v e r y t h i n g w i t h i n the l i m i t s of the l a w . " These d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s on why mortgage s t r i k e s are u n j u s t i f i e d o f f e r c l u e s to broader d i f f e r e n c e s i n o u t l o o k a c r o s s SES g roups . In the next s e c t i o n , reasons for the d i f f e r e n t e l e c t o r a l p r i o r i t i e s of manual and nonmanual home-owners w i l l be pur sued . As w e l l , i t w i l l be shown tha t an o r i e n t a t i o n towards p r o t e s t around hous ing i s s u e s h o l d s a d i f f e r e n t meaning for manual and nonmanual homeowners. S k i l l e d Manual and Nonmanual Workers - A D i f f e r e n c e i n W o r l d - view and the I n s t i t u t i o n a l L i n k The d i f f e r e n t i a l w e i g h t i n g g i v e n to consumption i s sue s such as hous ing i n the e l e c t o r a l d e c i s i o n s of nonmanual and manual homeowners i n par t r e f l e c t s a fundamenta l ly d i f f e r e n t wor ld-v iew a c r o s s the SES groups . Of s i g n i f i c a n c e here i s the f a c t tha t government i n t e r v e n t i o n i s seen to p l a y a more s u b s t a n t i a l r o l e i n economic a f f a i r s by nonmanual, compared to manual , homeowners. An u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the d i f f e r e n t s i g n i -f i c a n c e g i v e n to the r o l e of government by manual and non-manual homeowners i s g l impsed by c o n s i d e r i n g the v a r y i n g 364 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s g iven to the causes and j u s t i f i c a t i o n of i n t e r e s t r a t e s exceed ing 20%. F i r s t , a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of nonmanual homeowners, compared to manual homeowners and r e n t e r s , f e l t tha t the c h a r t e r e d banks were j u s t i f i e d i n c h a r g i n g i n t e r e s t r a t e s as h i g h as 20% in the e a r l y 1980 ' s . Seven nonmanual homeowners, compared to 2 i n each of the manual hous ing groups and 5 i n the nonmanual r e n t a l , f e l t t h a t the banks were so j u s t i f i e d (Chi square fo r comparison between nonmanual homeowners and e i t h e r manual group = 2 .16 , d . f . = 1 , p>. 10) . A more important c o n t r a s t l i n k e d to the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l of acceptance of h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s i n v o l v e s v a r y i n g a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a t i o n . S k i l l e d manual homeowners and r e n t e r s g e n e r a l l y f e l t tha t h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s r e f l e c t e d e x c e s s i v e p r o f i t - m a k i n g by the c h a r t e r e d banks , as shown i n t a b l e 8 .11 . In compar i son , the m a j o r i t y of nonmanual home-owners f e l t tha t i n t e r e s t r a t e s of 20% or h i g h e r r e f l e c t e d governmental monetary p o l i c y , aimed p r i m a r i l y at the r e d u c t i o n of i n f l a t i o n , or were an automat ic and u n c o n t r o l l a b l e response to i n t e r n a t i o n a l p r e s s u r e s , such as h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . The d i f f e r e n c e i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n of manual and nonmanual homeowners ( c o n f l a t i n g the a t t r i b u t i o n s of those who f e l t i n t e r e s t r a t e s of 20% or h i g h e r were j u s t i f i e d w i t h those who f e l t tha t they were not) i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i -cant (Chi square = 11.8 , d . f . = 1 , p < . 0 0 l ) ; the comparison b e t -ween nonmanual homeowners and r e n t e r s i s not (Chi square =.52, d . f . = 1 , p> .05) . 365 TABLE 8.11 The Surrey Sample: A t t r i b u t i o n of Causes for High I n t e r e s t Rates by Housing Tenure , SES and Employment S ta tus A t t r i b u t i o n s of C a u s a l i t y Housing T e n u r e , I n t e r e s t Rates a r e : SES and J u s t i f i e d Not J u s t i f i e d Employment S ta tus Bank Government Bank Government D o n ' t P r o f i t s P o l i c y P r o f i t s P o l i c y Know Homeowners Manual 2 0 19 4 0 Nonmanual 0 7 8 10 0 Renters Manual 0 2 20 1 2 S e l f - e m p l . 0 1 8 0 0 Employed 0 1 12 1 2 Nonmanual 0 5 11 7 2 S e l f - e m p l . 0 2 6 2 1 Employed 0 3 5 5 1 The focus on bank p r o f i t s as the source of h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s i s d i r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t rade union membership of both manual and nonmanual worker s : the n u m e r i c a l breakdown i s i n d i c a t e d i n t a b l e 8 .12 . Those d e s i g n a t e d as union members amongst the nonmanual group i n c l u d e 4 members of p u b l i c s e c t o r u n i o n s , 3 members of p r i v a t e unions i n the communicat ion i n d u s t r y and 6 i n d i v i d u a l s who were p r e v i o u s l y i n p r i v a t e s e c t o r t r ade unions w h i l s t d o i n g jobs c l a s s i f i e d as manual l a b o u r . C o n s i d e r i n g manual worker s , 29 are i n p r i v a t e s e c t o r unions working for p r i v a t e companies , 4 i n p r i v a t e s e c t o r unions working for Crown C o r p o r a t i o n s and 1 i s a member of the p r o v i n c i a l government ' s employees union ( B . C . G . E . U . ) . Three of the four union members who d i d not a t t r i b u t e h i g h mortgage 366 r a t e s to bank p r o f i t s are i n p u b l i c s e c t o r u n i o n s . Numbers do not a l l o w an adequate assessment of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e s e c t o r unions i n terms of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s . However, t r ade union membership seemed to have more p e r s o n a l r e l e v a n c e for the manual as opposed to nonmanual t r ade u n i o n -i s t s . Only f i v e of the 34 manual union members never a t t ended union meet ings and 11 were a c t i v e i n t h e i r union o r g a n i -s a t i o n s . Of the remain ing 18, each a t tended a p p r o x i m a t e l y three meet ings a year but made comments such a s : "We get a good n e w s l e t t e r " or "We have an a c t i v e shop s teward . I keep up w i t h what ' s go ing o n . " I t was c l e a r , however, tha t for f i v e of the seven nonmanual union members t h i s type of a s soc-i a t i o n had l i t t l e impact on i d e n t i t y . Comments i n c l u d e d : "I have zero i n t e r e s t . I never a t t e n d m e e t i n g s . " , " I ' m s t r o n g l y a n t i - u n i o n " and "I d i s a g r e e w i t h the u n i o n ' s s t a n d s . " TABLE 8.12 The Surrey Sample: A s s o c i a t i o n Between Union Membership and A t t r i b u t i n g High I n t e r e s t Rates to Bank P r o f i t s by SES SES and Source of High I n t e r e s t Rates Union Membership Bank P r o f i t s Other Manual Union Member 32 2 Not a Member of a Union 9 7 Nonmanual Union Member p r e s e n t l y or w i t h i n l a s t 5 yea r s 11 2 Nonmember 8 29 Chi square = 8 .16 , d . f . = 1 , p<.005 for compari son between manual workers Chi square =13.64, d . f . = 1 , p<.005 for comparison between nonmanual workers 367 E l s e w h e r e , the tendency has been noted for white c o l l a r workers to i d e n t i f y wi th management so that t h e i r unions "are u s u a l l y a c c e p t e d on i n s t r u m e n t a l r a t h e r than i d e o l o g i c a l grounds 'as something to be used r a t h e r than as something i n 9 which to b e l i e v e ' " . In B r i t a i n , the nonmanual un ions have g e n e r a l l y not a f f i l i a t e d w i t h the Labour p a r t y and "among the m i n o r i t y who do (such as ASTMS [ A s s o c i a t i o n of S c i e n t i f i c , T e c h n i c a l and M a n a g e r i a l S t a f f s ] ) n e a r l y t w o - t h i r d s of the members do not pay the p o l i t i c a l l e v y . With the d e c l i n e i n the membership of t r a d i t i o n a l u n i o n s , b a r e l y h a l f the T U C ' s [Trades Union Congress ] membership i s now a f f i l i a t e d to the Labour p a r t y . I t i s suggested i n r e l a t i o n to the Surrey sample t h a t , in the absence of t h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h a p r o -d u c t i o n - b a s e d group, s k i l l e d nonmanual homeowners are p repared to f o l l o w t h e i r i n t e r e s t s through consumption i s s u e s . For the manual workers the union movement i s an important v e h i c l e for the t r a n s m i s s i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r p e r s p e c t i v e on the h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s and , i n p a r t i c u l a r , i n f o c u s i n g c o n f l i c t t o -wards the c h a r t e r e d banks as opposed to government i n s t i t u t i o n s . T h i s i n t e r p l a y between consumption and p r o d u c t i o n o r i e n -t a t i o n s i s c a p t u r e d by o r i e n t a t i o n s towards p r o t e s t around 9 G . S . B a i n , The Growth of White C o l l a r Union i sm (London: C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1970), p . 123. T . May, " M i d d l e c l a s s u n i o n i s m , " i n R e s p e c t a b l e R e b e l s : M i d d l e C l a s s Campaigns in B r i t a i n i n the 1970 ' s , e d . R~. K i n g and N. Nugent (London: Hodder and S toughton , i~979) , p . 123. 368 hous ing i s s u e s . For the manual worker s , an o r i e n t a t i o n t o -wards p r o t e s t over hous ing i s sue s s imply r e f l e c t s a c t i v i s m i n the workp lace . What d i s t i n g u i s h e s the m a j o r i t y of manual homeowners who endorse mortgage s t r i k e s i s an a c t i v e r o l e i n t h e i r workplace t rade u n i o n . D e f i n i n g a c t i v i s m i n terms of formal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e i r union o r g a n i s a t i o n , for i n s t a n c e as shop s teward , 9 of 14 who endorsed mortgage s t r i k e s were a c t i v e i n t h e i r union at work. In c o n t r a s t , o n l y 2 of the 11 who f e l t mortgage s t r i k e s were not j u s t i f i e d had been a union o f f i c i a l . ( T h i s c o n t r a s t o n l y approaches s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i -cance , r e f l e c t i n g the sma l l numbers i n v o l v e d : Chi square = 3 .61 , d . f . = 1 . p< .075) . A c t i v i s m around the i s sue of mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e s seems to be a d i r e c t c o n t i n u a t i o n of workplace a c t i v i s m amongst the manual homeowners. T h i s was not the case for the nonmanual homeowners. Only one nonmanual homeowner c o u l d be s a i d to be a c t i v e i n a union and thus t h i s c r i t e r i o n c o u l d not be u t i l i s e d . S imply c o n -s i d e r i n g union members, 3 endorsed mortgage s t r i k e s and 4 d i d n o t . Of the 6 r e n t e r s who belong to or have r e c e n t l y be longed t o u n i o n s , t h e r e i s an even s p l i t between those who endorse mortgage s t r i k e s and those who do n o t . What does seem to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the f e e l i n g tha t mortgage s t r i k e s are a l e g i t i m a t e form of p r o t e s t amongst non-manual workers i s the e v a l u a t i o n of h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s as both u n j u s t i f i e d and the d i r e c t r e s u l t of government i n t e r v e n -t i o n . Of the 18 homeowners and r e n t e r s who f e l t mortgage s t r i k e s are j u s t i f i e d , 13 c o n s i d e r e d h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s to be 369 an u n d e s i r a b l e e f f e c t of governmental monetary p o l i c y , com-pared to 4 of the 32 who f e l t tha t mortgage s t r i k e s are never j u s t i f i e d (Chi square = 15.74, d . f . = 1 , p . < . 0 0 5 ) . Of those who f e l t mortgage s t r i k e s are j u s t i f i e d , comments i n c l u d e d : "I d o n ' t blame the banks for the i n t e r e s t r a t e s . T h e y ' r e not c o n t r o l l e d by the banks . T h e y ' r e c o n t r o l l e d by government. The government drove the prime ra te so h i g h . I f government i s so concerned w i t h the p l i g h t of homeowners, they shou ld e s t a -b l i s h lower prime r a t e s . " For the manual homeowners, t h e n , an o r i e n t a t i o n towards c o n f l i c t over hous ing r e l a t e d i s sue s d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t s a c t i -v i sm i n the workplace and i s focused towards the p r i v a t e f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . In c o n t r a s t , for the nonmanual home-owners an e q u i v a l e n t o r i e n t a t i o n r e f l e c t s a c r i t i c a l s tance towards government p o l i c i e s . I t i s thus perhaps not s u r -p r i s i n g that the nonmanual homeowners are more l i k e l y to o r i e n t t h e i r vote towards a hous ing i s s u e , both because they see government p o l i c y as be ing a c r i t i c a l de terminant of t h e i r hous ing s i t u a t i o n and because t h e i r hous ing s i t u a t i o n i s a more fundamental f a c t o r to t h e i r s o c i a l o u t l o o k . Homeownership and I d e n t i t y - C o n t r a s t Between S k i l l e d Manual and Nonmanual Workers T h i s i s the f i n a l l i n k i n the argument. Nonmanual home-owners are more l i k e l y to pursue hous ing i s s u e s p o l i t i c a l l y because they are more fundamental to t h e i r s o c i a l i d e n t i t y . What ev idence i s there tha t hous ing i s more important to the 370 s o c i a l o u t l o o k of nonmanual as compared to manual workers? Persons c l a s s i f i e d as nonmanual more o f t en f e l t t h a t hous ing tenure has a d e t e r m i n i n g i n f l u e n c e on o n e ' s economic and soc i a l s t a n d i n g . Asked whether they f e l t tha t homeowners "had taken a s t ep up the l adder of s o c i a l and economic s t a n d i n g " , 22 persons c l a s s i f i e d as nonmanual, compared to 11 c l a s s i f i e d as manual , agreed (Chi square = 4 .50 , d . f . = 1 , p< .05) . More nonmanual homeowners and r e n t e r s made comments such a s : " Y e s , owning a house i s something to pat y o u r s e l f on the back f o r " , or "The way t h i s i s phrased begs the q u e s t i o n . Most people d e f i n e homeowners as a c e r t a i n c l a s s and r e n t e r s as a n o t h e r . " Thus the nonmanual workers c o n c e i v e of homeownership i n much the same way as P e r i n when she s t a t e s : " . . . t h e banker q u a l i f i e s ' the homebuyer w i t h a c r e d i t r a t i n g that i s a major t h r e s h o l d of American s o c i a l personhood c r u c i a l i n the c o r r e c t t r a v e r s a l of the l adder of l i f e . Being ' a b l e to own' i s a t h r e s h o l d c r i t e r i o n of s o c i a l personhood tha t r e n t e r s , by d e f i n i t i o n , do not meet; they par take of l e s s c i t i z e n s h i p and on that account have lower s t a t u s . " 1 1 Note , however, tha t P e r i n has o v e r g e n e r a l i s e d t h i s v i ew: manual workers i n Surrey d i d not tend to c o n c e i v e of home-ownership as a c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e fo r the s t a t u s passage i n t o ' s o c i a l p e r s o n h o o d ' . As w e l l , 14 nonmanual compared to 6 manual homeowners and r e n t e r s agreed w i t h the statement that homeowners "are o n l y concerned w i t h t h e i r house and garden and tend not to be concerned w i t h wider s o c i a l i s s u e s " ( a l though C . P e r i n , E v e r y t h i n g In I t s P l a c e , p . 66. 371 t h i s c o n t r a s t j u s t approaches s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e : c h i square = 3 .06 , d . f . = 1 , p< .075) . One nonmanual homeowner e x p l a i n e d t h a t : "You get a comfort zone and spend your time c u t t i n g the lawn and tend not to be concerned w i t h what i s go ing on down the s t r e e t . " Another noted t h a t : "You tend to l i v e i n your own l i t t l e w o r l d . I t ' s your c a s t l e . No - i t ' s even more b a s i s than that - i t ' s s e c u r i t y , and at an i n s t i n c t u a l l e v e l , i t ' s p o s s e s s i v e n e s s . " In the n e g a t i v e , another commented i n such a way as to suggest the o p p o s i t e : "I d o n ' t ag ree . Homeowners tend to be.more concerned wi th o ther i s s u e s . Being a homeowner a f f e c t s you i n the day to day t h i n g s . At the pub my f r i e n d s and I who are homeowners, we t a l k about s o c i a l d i s e a s e s of shrubs or t h i n g s i n the n e i g h -bourhood . " As noted i n the p r e l u d e of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n of manual and nonmanual homeowners, nonmanual homeowners tend to b e l i e v e tha t owning a home has had an impact on t h e i r involvement i n t h e i r communi t ie s . F o l l o w i n g from t h i s , nonmanual homeowners and r e n t e r s tend more o f t e n to b e l i e v e that r e n t e r s should have l e s s input i n t o the l o c a l p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s . Asked whether they f e l t tha t owners and r e n t e r s s h o u l d have an equa l say i n the fu ture of the community, 16 (32%) nonmanual r e s -pondents compared to 8 (16%) manual respondents f e l t tha t r e n t e r s shou ld have l e s s input ( a l though t h i s c o n t r a s t merely approaches s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e : c h i square = 2 .70 , d . f . = 1 , p = . l 0 ) . I t was f e l t tha t r e n t e r s s h o u l d most p a r t i c u l a r l y be exc luded from d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g c o n c e r n i n g 372 development i s s u e s . The m a j o r i t y a l s o mentioned that the votes of homeowners for e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s shou ld be g i v e n a d i s p r o -p o r t i o n a t e we ight , u s u a l l y twice the weight of the votes of r e n t e r s . T h i s proposed d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n at the l o c a l l e v e l was j u s t i f i e d by the m a j o r i t y (11 nonmanual and 5 manual i n d i v i d u a l s ) on the grounds that r e n t e r s are t r a n s i e n t , tha t " T h e y ' r e here now but i n 6 months they c o u l d be i n T o r o n t o or Edmonton. " Another 6 homeowners mentioned tha t r e n t e r s do not pay p r o p e r t y taxes and thus shou ld not have an i n f l u e n c e on the way i n which these monies are d i r e c t e d . Both homeowners and r e n t e r s c l a s s i f i e d as nonmanual tend to endorse s t a t u s d i s t i n c t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h homeownership. Comparisons a c r o s s a f u l l e r range of s t e r e o t y p e s of homeowners and r e n t e r s , shown i n t a b l e 8 .13 , i n d i c a t e tha t there i s very l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n (and none that are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ) in the p r o p o r t i o n of r e n t e r s and homeowners e n d o r s i n g these d i s t i n c t i o n s . Homeownership seems to be very important to nonmanual r e n t e r s and, r e p e a t i n g the r e l a t i o n among home-owners, more important than i t i s to manual r e n t e r s . What then can be s a i d about the s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s of home-ownership on va lue s and p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n s beyond the f a c t tha t there i s a g e n e r a l v a l u i n g of homeownership amongst the non-manual workers? F i r s t , homeownership i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h more extreme s t e r e o t y p e s c o n c e r n i n g r e n t e r s and homeowners amongst the nonmanual group. Asked whether they f e l t t h a t there i s a d i f f e r e n c e between people who r e n t and own t h e i r houses , 21 or 81% of nonmanual homeowners c o u l d i d e n t i f y a d i s t i n c t i o n , 373 TABLE 8.13 The Surrey Sample: Number A g r e e i n g w i t h V a r i o u s S t e r e o t y p e s Concern ing Homeowners and R e n t e r s , by Hous ing Tenure and SES S t e r e o t y p e s Hous ing Tenure and SES Homeowners Renter s Manual Nonman. Manual Nonman, R e n t e r s : Are j u s t keeping a f l o a t and u s i n g up a l l t h e i r monthly income 6 Are the type who d r i f t from job to job 6 Are l e s s c o n s e r v a t i v e than homeowners 10 Are not l i k e l y to m a i n t a i n t h e i r p r o p e r t y 15 Are not p a r t of the neighbourhood 4 Homeowners: Have taken a s tep up the l adder of economic s t and ing 3 Have taken a s tep up the l a d d e r of both economic and s o c i a l s t a n d i n g 5 Are l e s s l i k e l y to a g i t a t e over c o n d i t i o n s at work 7 Are more s t a b l e employees because they are r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e i r mortgages 17 Are o n l y concerned about t h e i r house and garden and tend not to be concerned w i t h wider s o c i a l i s s u e s 3 5 1 0 1 5 1 6 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 2 10 1 2 6 5 1 5 1 2 1 0 1 4 374 compared w i t h 1 1 or 44% of nonmanual r e n t e r s (Chi square '= 7 .03 , d . f . = 1 , p< .01) . Fewer manual homeowners (16 or 64%) f e l t t h i s way so that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e compared w i t h the 12 manual r e n t e r s who agreed w i t h t h i s s t e r e o t y p e (Chi square = . 73 , d . f . = 1 , p> .05) . A l t h o u g h j u s t over h a l f of nonmanual homeowners f e l t tha t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s p r i m a r i l y r e f l e c t e d i n d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of maintenance of the home, 10 (compared to 2 r e n t e r s ) c o n s i d e r e d the d i f f e r e n c e to be one of c h a r a c t e r , summarised by s tatements c o n c e r n i n g p r i d e , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and a concern for the way one l i v e s . More i m p o r t a n t l y , nonmanual homeowners are more prepared to pursue t h e i r m a t e r i a l i n t e r e s t s as homeowners through the formal v o t i n g p r o c e s s . Nonmanual r e n t e r s were g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t i v e of government i n i t i a t i v e s to make homeownership more a f f o r d a b l e but they more c l o s e l y resembled the manual sample of homeowners and r e n t e r s i n not p e r c e i v i n g t h e i r i n t e r e s t s s imply i n terms of h o u s i n g . Both amongst employed and s e l f - e m p l o y e d nonmanual r e n t e r s , t h e i r p a r t y vote tended to be i n f l u e n c e d more by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of employment- re l a ted i s s u e s than by hous ing c o n c e r n s . Of c o u r s e , the d i r e c t i n -f l u e n c e of hous ing tenure and employment h i s t o r i e s was im-p o s s i b l e to d i s e n t a n g l e . T h i s confounding c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s what makes the c o n t r a s t between manual and nonmanual home-owners such a u s e f u l a d d i t i o n a l compari son i n the nega t ive sense t h a t one can argue tha t job s e c u r i t y i s not the o n l y f a c t o r . A f u l l e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the s t r o n g e r tendency for nonmanual homeowners as compared to r e n t e r s to vote wi th 375 hous ing foremost i n mind w i l l be taken up i n the next s e c t i o n . But f i r s t , can we say, on the b a s i s of the ev idence p r e s e n t e d thus f a r , tha t homeownership has no impact on the p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s of manual workers? Manual homeowners do not g e n e r a l l y vote w i t h t h e i r m a t e r i a l i n t e r e s t s as homeowners as a p r i o r i t y , nor do they a t t r i b u t e the same impact to home-ownership i n terms of s o c i a l s t a n d i n g or community i n v o l v e -ment. A c t i v i s m over hous ing i s s u e s seems to be a c o n t i n u a t i o n of workplace a c t i v i s m . A p o i n t of i n t e r e s t , however, i s the p r o p o r t i o n of manual homeowners a g r e e i n g that homeowners are more s t a b l e employees . L o o k i n g at t a b l e 8.13 i t can be seen that t h i s s ta tement , r e l a t i v e to o ther s t e r e o t y p e s c o n c e r n i n g b e h a v i o u r a l c o r r e l a t e s of hous ing t e n u r e , i s endorsed by the l a r g e s t number of manual homeowners, over two t h i r d s of the group . A d d i t i o n a l l y , 10 of the 21 manual homeowners b e l o n g i n g to t r ade un ions f e l t that the burden of mortgage debt has an immediate and d i r e c t impact on support of s t r i k e s and, more g e n e r a l l y , c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s . The c o m p l e x i t y of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p cannot be p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e d w i t h the ev idence at hand. For i n s t a n c e , 8 i n d i v i d u a l s f e l t tha t mortgage debt weakens support for s t r i k e s : "The young ones w i t h b i g mortgages are the ones who are w o r r i e d . Las t year our c o n t r a c t was up for n e g o t i a t i o n and t h i s came up when there were rumours of a s t r i k e . And i t was taken i n t o account by the un ion l e a d e r s . T h e r e ' s no use go ing on s t r i k e i f two weeks i n t o i t , the members are mourn ing . You need a good morale on the p i c k e t l i n e so you have to take i t i n t o a c c o u n t . . . . Sure i t i n f l u e n c e s me. T h e r e ' s no c a t c h i n g up a f t e r a s t r i k e . " 376 At the same t i m e , 2 people f e l t tha t those wi th mortgage debt are more l i k e l y to pres s for l a r g e r wage i n c r e a s e s and support s t r i k e a c t i o n i f t h i s seems neces sary to ach ieve these ends . As w e l l , the d i s t i n c t i o n between l o s i n g b e n e f i t s and p r e s s i n g for f u r t h e r ga in s seems a c r i t i c a l i s s u e in whether mortgage debt a c t s as a r e s t r a i n i n g f a c t o r : "When you get to that stage you d o n ' t t h i n k about your mortgage. E s p e c i a l l y i f y o u ' r e f i g h t i n g for something y o u ' r e l o s i n g . . . t o keep what you have . We've been through tha t r e c e n t l y . . . . W e had a f u l l -f l e d g e d vote and young guys d i d n ' t t r y to t a l k us out of the s t r i k e . By that t ime i t i s so e m o t i o n a l that a mortgage i s n ' t an i s s u e . " There were mixed impres s ions on how v u l n e r a b l e mortgaged home-owners are to l ender p r e s s u r e s d u r i n g s t r i k e s . On the one hand, some f e l t extremely v u l n e r a b l e to mortgage l e n d e r s i f unable to make payments d u r i n g a s t r i k e : " P e r s o n a l l y I t h i n k i t has an e f f e c t . As a r e n t e r you h a v e n ' t l o s t a n y t h i n g i f you move. I f you l o s e your house you have to s t a r t a l l over a g a i n . . . I t ' s d i f f e r e n t t o o . As a r e n t e r you can go to the we l f a re o f f i c e and say ' I ' m on s t r i k e and my l a n d l o r d ' s t r y i n g to k i ck me o u t ' and t h e y ' l l say 'He c a n ' t do t h a t ' and t h e y ' l l s top the l a n d l o r d . I f a homeowner goes to a we l f a re o f f i c e and says 'The banks are k i c k i n g me out of my home. " , t h e y ' l l say "So what, we c a n ' t do a n y t h i n g about t h a t " . T h e y ' l l t a c k l e the l a n d l o r d but not the b a n k s . " On the o ther hand, o t h e r s c l a i m e d : "I d o n ' t know why i t has an e f f e c t but i t does . The o n e ' s I ' v e t a l k e d t o . . . i t ' s hard to c o n v i n c e them t h a t the banks c a n ' t get you fo r a y e a r . There are t h i n g s you can do to f o r e s t a l l the banks . They c a n ' t get t h e i r hands on your house for one y e a r . " Commitment to the union movement, age, f a m i l y o b l i g a t i o n s , s i z e of mortgage deb t , p r i c e of house at time of purchase r e l a t i v e to the time of s t r i k e , a l l these f a c t o r s i n t r o d u c e 377 c o m p l e x i t y to the r e l a t i o n s h i p of mortgage debt to workplace r a d i c a l i s m which cannot be d i s e n t a n g l e d h e r e . What may be noted of a g e n e r a l nature i s the common assumption t h a t there i s a l i n k between mortgage debt and a t t i t u d e s towards union c o n t r a c t demands. Manual homeowners, t h e n , are c e r t a i n l y not i n v u l n e r a b l e to the impact of mortgage d e b t . Homeownership does n o t , however, seem to have the same impact on t h e i r p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s and g e n e r a l i d e o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e as i t has for nonmanual homeowners. A g e n e r a l c o n t r a s t can be drawn between a l o c a l i s e d m a t e r i a l i n f l u e n c e of homeownership on the l i v e s of manual worker s , i n s o f a r as manual workers are i n f l u e n c e d by the f i n a n c i a l c o n s t r a i n t s of mortgage d e b t s , and a more g e n e r a l i d e o l o g i c a l impact amongst nonmanual workers . Renters and P o l i t i c i s a t ion Around Hous ing Issues The t h e o r e t i c a l importance of hous ing tenure groups r e s t s on the c o n c e p t i o n that these consumption-based group ings c r e a t e l i n e s of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n not who l ly r e d u c i b l e to s t r a t i f i c a t i o n deve loped through the p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s . The l o n g - t e r m o b j e c t i v e b a s i s for hous ing groups i s seen to a r i s e p r e d o m i n a n t l y from a p o l i t i c a l / e c o n o m i c proces s of o n e - s i d e d s u b s i d i s a t i o n of the homeownership tenure form. The r e c o g n i t i o n tha t homeowners' m a t e r i a l b e n e f i t s are guarded through a p o l i t i c a l p roce s s r a i s e s the i s sue of the extent to which homeowners see these i n t e r e s t s and pursue them i n t h e i r hous ing s t r a t e g i e s . Thus far a d i s t i n c t i o n has been made between manual and nonmanual homeowners and the case has been made t h a t nonmanual as compared to manual homeowners pursue 378 t h e i r i n t e r e s t s more v i g o u r o u s l y i n terms of h o u s i n g . What of the other h a l f of the hous ing tenure equat ion? Surrey r e n t e r s have been shown to h o l d s t e r e o t y p e s of persons i d e n t i f i e d as r e n t e r s and homeowners which are s i m i l a r to those h e l d by homeowners i n e q u i v a l e n t s o c i a l c l a s s g r o u p i n g s . T h i s i s r e f l e c t e d in a g e n e r a l l a c k of i n t e r e s t i n p u r s u i n g t h e i r r i g h t s as t e n a n t s , as can be seen through a c o n s i d e r a -t i o n of support for v a r i o u s h o u s i n g programmes. 1. Renter B i a s Towards Homeownership Programmes One of the f i r s t t h i n g s to note i s tha t s e l f - e m p l o y e d r e n t e r s are somewhat l e s s sympathet ic towards any programme i n v o l v i n g a d i r e c t subs idy than are wage-earning r e n t e r s and thus the sample of r e n t e r s cannot be t r e a t e d as a whole . T h i s can be seen from t a b l e 8 .14 , i n which agreement w i t h v a r i o u s hous ing programmes i s summarised by hous ing t e n u r e , s o c i a l c l a s s and the employment s t a t u s of r e n t e r s . In response to the proposed programme of d i r e c t s u b s i d i e s for low income r e n t e r s which can on ly be spent to rent b e t t e r h o u s i n g , for i n s t a n c e , s e l f - e m p l o y e d persons made comments such a s : "I d o n ' t b e l i e v e i n p u t t i n g a roo f over the head of someone who shou ld be w o r k i n g . " , and "You shou ld b e t t e r y o u r s e l f on your own. " and "You shou ld have to work for whatever you g e t . " The same types of comments were made by the same s e l f - e m p l o y e d group, p a r t i c u l a r l y amongst manual r e n t e r s , c o n c e r n i n g p r o -grammes to h e l p lower and middle income persons to buy houses : " I f you want a house, you s h o u l d earn enough on your own. " and "Get a b e t t e r job and work harder - you snooze, you l o s e . " 379 S trong sent iment s c o n c e r n i n g the amount of taxes p a i d a l s o l e d 90% of the s e l f - e m p l o y e d persons to endorse changes i n the tax system to a l l o w mortgage i n t e r e s t as a tax d e d u c t i o n , even though t h i s change would not be d i r e c t l y i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t s , e s p e c i a l l y g i v e n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards homeownership. On the whole , support for v a r i o u s hous ing programmes v a r i e s l i t t l e a c r o s s hous ing tenure groups . T h i s i s perhaps s u r p r i s i n g i n the case of rent c o n t r o l s , or changes i n the tax system to a l l o w the i n c l u s i o n of mortgage i n t e r e s t payments as a d e d u c t i o n , a l t h o u g h homeowners do not i d e n t i f y w i t h l a n d -l o r d i s m g e n e r a l l y and r e n t e r s are keen to support homeowner-s h i p , as s h a l l be seen. One s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ence i n a t t i t u d e s a c ro s s hous ing tenure groups occur s between nonmanual r e n t e r s and homeowners over the i s sue of d i r e c t payments to low income r e n t e r s which can o n l y be spent to rent b e t t e r h o u s i n g . Even i n c l u d i n g the s e l f - e m p l o y e d r e n t e r s , 60% of the r e n t e r s agreed w i t h t h i s type of hous ing a l l o w a n c e , w h i l e on ly 16% of homeowners d i d so . T h i s f i n d i n g i s 1 2 compat ib le w i t h those of H a r r o p , r e i n t e r p r e t e d by Dunleavy . As noted i n chap te r 1, Dunleavy d e t e c t s a homeowner/counci l tenant d i f f e r e n c e i n support for s e v e r a l s u b s i d i e s d i f f e r e n -t i a l l y t a r g e t e d towards hous ing g roups . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the g e n e r a l p r o p e n s i t y for r e n t e r s to p l a c e hous ing as a low p r i o r i t y i n t h e i r e l e c t o r a l d e c i s i o n s c o n f i r m s H a r r o p ' s c o n -12 . . . M. H a r r o p , "The Urban B a s i s of P o l i t i c a l A l i g n m e n t : A Comment"; P . Dunleavy , "The Urban B a s i s of P o l i t i c a l A l i g n m e n t : A R e j o i n d e r to H a r r o p . " 380 T A B L E 8 . 1 4 T h e S u r r e y S a m p l e : S u p p o r t f o r V a r i o u s H o u s i n g P r o g r a m m e s b y H o u s i n g T e n u r e , SES a n d E m p l o y m e n t S t a t u s N u m b e r Who S u p p o r t E a c h P r o g r a m m e b y H o u s i n g T e n u r e , S E S a n d E m p l o y m e n t S t a t u s H o u s i n g P r o g r a m m e s H o m e o w n e r s R e n t e r s M a n u a l N=25 R e n t c o n t r o l s 16 M o r t g a g e i n t e r e s t d e d u c t . 2 0 P r o m o t i o n o f n o n - p r o f i t h o u s i n g 16 H o u s i n g a l l o w a n c e s f o r l o w i n c o m e r e n t e r s 9 G r a n t s t o d e v e l o p e r s t o e n c o u r a g e c o n s t r u c t 1 o n 11 N o n m a n . N = 25 Manua1 N o n m a n u a 1 s e l f - w a g e -emp. e a r n . N=9 N=16 t o t a l N = 25 s e 1 f - w a g e - t o t a 1 e m p . e a r n . N=11 N=14 N=25 16 18 12 9 • 13 22 6 8 10 18 9 10 13 12 10 19 10 15 12 16 16 19 16 15 10 R e n t r e b a t e s S p e c i a l p r o g r a m m e s t o a l l o w l o w i n c o m e p e o p l e t o b u y h o u s e s A l l o w t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y t o u s e h o u s i n g t h a t h a s n o t b e e n o c c u p i e d f o r a y e a r o r m o r e A l l o w c o n t r o l l e d s q u a t t i n g E n c o u r a g e t h e m i x t u r e o f p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e h o u s i n g 13 18 10 16 10 16 10 12 - 15 8 10 18 12 8 14 381 e l u s i o n that a t t i t u d e s towards hous ing p o l i c y do not account for more than a s m a l l f r a c t i o n of t o t a l v a r i a t i o n i n p a r t i s a n s u p p o r t . As w i l l be no ted , i t i s not that a t t i t u d e s towards hous ing p o l i c y vary c o n s i d e r a b l y a c r o s s hous ing t e n u r e s , but r a t h e r that o n l y c e r t a i n groups (nonmanual homeowners) are p repared to sway t h e i r votes i n terms of hous ing p o l i c y . In g e n e r a l , r e n t e r s come o f f r a t h e r bad ly i n d e f e n d i n g t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n terms of t h e i r tenure form, l a r g e l y because they d i d not seem to see t h e i r i n t e r e s t s a long these l i n e s . Renter s are e q u a l l y or more i n t e r e s t e d i n programmes to support homeownership; on ly 6 r e n t e r s s a i d that they would even pay a t t e n t i o n to programmes d i r e c t e d towards r e n t e r s at e l e c t i o n time and 4 of these would pay equa l a t t e n t i o n to homeownership programmes. In c o n t r a s t , 28 r e n t e r s f e l t they would d e f i n i t e l y a t t e n d to the e l e c t i o n promises c o n c e r n i n g homeownership. T h i s o r i e n t a t i o n towards homeownership even comes through i n the case of the two programmes which seemed to sharpen a p o i n t of c o n f l i c t between r e n t e r s and homeowners. The r e n t e r s ' tax r e b a t e , which was i n e f f e c t i n B r i t i s h Columbia u n t i l c a n c e l l e d by the p r o v i n c i a l S o c i a l C r e d i t government in 1983, was seen as be ing d i r e c t l y c o m p e t i t i v e wi th the tax d e d u c t a b i l i t y of mortgage payments, a f e d e r a l f i s c a l p o l i c y amendment promoted, but not c a r r i e d o u t , by the f e d e r a l P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e Par ty i n 1979. These two programmes presumably genera ted comparison a c r o s s tenure groups because they both i n v o l v e r e d u c t i o n s i n p e r s o n a l income t axe s , a l b e i t 382 r e f l e c t i n g f i s c a l p o l i c y at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of government. Ten homeowners and, more s u r p r i s i n g l y , 12 r e n t e r s (almost one q u a r t e r ) d i s a g r e e d wi th the programme of rent r e b a t e s , d i r e c t e d o n l y at low income r e n t e r s , on the grounds tha t home-owners are not p r e s e n t l y a l l o w e d to deduct mortgage i n t e r e s t payments. F o l l o w i n g the l i n e of argument tha t nonmanual r e n t e r s are p a r t i c u l a r l y o r i e n t e d towards homeownership, i t i s e s p e c i a l l y t h i s group which i s d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n the r e n t e r s ' tax rebate and drew t h i s l i n e of comparison (a l though the d i f f e r e n c e between the 63% of manual and 36% of nonmanual em-p l o y e d r e n t e r s who supported rent reba te s i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t because of the s m a l l sample s i z e : c h i square = 2 . 2 3 , d . f . = 1 , p> .10) . These r e n t e r s made comments such a s : "No, what does the homeowner ge t ? " and " I f not on mortgages , then why on r e n t s ? " I n t e r e s t i n g l y , o n l y 5 r e n t e r s d i s a g r e e d w i t h changes i n the tax system to a l l o w mortgage i n t e r e s t payments as a tax d e d u c t i o n on the grounds that t h i s i s i n e q u i t a b l e fo r r e n t e r s and c e r t a i n l y no homeowners mentioned t h i s b i a s . More r e n t e r s than homeowners f e l t tha t government shou ld d i r e c t more fund ing towards homeownership than to r e n t a l accommodation, shown i n t a b l e 8 .15 . A l t h o u g h o n l y 10 of these r e n t e r s a c t u a l l y a n t i c i p a t e d buying a house w i t h i n the next 2 or 3 y e a r s , the d e s i r e for b i a s e d support of homeownership r e f l e c t e d l a t e n t homeownership a s p i r a t i o n s amongst the r e s t . One r e n t e r w i t h no c u r r e n t p r o s p e c t s of be ing a b l e to a f f o r d homeownership rea soned : " Y e s , homeownership warrants more 383 f i n a n c i a l h e l p . I t would be b e t t e r f o r the government too because these people w i l l pay taxes and t h e y ' l l be more s a t i s -f i e d . They won't be so f r u s t r a t e d . " "Would you be more s a t i s f i e d i f you owned a house?" " Y e s , I would be more s a t i s -f i e d . I l i k e working around the house . When y o u ' r e r e n t i n g you d o n ' t look a f t e r i t so w e l l because you d o n ' t know when y o u ' r e go ing to move o u t . " TABLE 8.15 The Surrey Sample: A t t i t u d e s Towards Whether Housing Tenures Should be E q u a l l y S u b s i d i s e d , by Hous ing Tenure and SES A t t i t u d e s towards how s u b s i d i s a t i o n s h o u l d be d i v i d e d ac ro s s hous ing tenures Housing Tenure and SES More to homeowners More to r e n t a l D i v i d e d e q u a l l y N e i t h e r shou ld be s u b s i d i s e d Homeowners Manual Nonmanual Renters Manual Nonmanual 9 1 0 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 5 9 9 9 The sympathy for homeownership amongst r e n t e r s extended beyond d i r e c t s e l f - i n t e r e s t . Asked whether homeowners should be a s s i s t e d by government i f the mortgage r a t e s r i s e unexpec ted ly or whether they shou ld s e l l t h e i r houses i f they . can no l o n g e r a f f o r d them, on ly 15 r e n t e r s compared w i t h 9 homeowners opted for the l a t t e r ( t a b l e 8 . 1 6 ) . A l t h o u g h a s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n of s e l f - e m p l o y e d r e n t e r s endorse a s s i s t a n c e 384 to homeowners i n these c i r c u m s t a n c e s , there i s no s t a t i s t i -c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between employed and s e l f -employed r e n t e r s on t h i s i s sue ( c h i square = 1.10, d . f . = 1 , p>.10 ) . Indeed, both r e n t i n g and homeowning groups were g e n e r a l l y more sympathet ic to homeowners caught by h i g h mortgage r a t e s than r e n t e r s caught by a d i f f e r e n t set of 'market f o r c e s ' . Asked whether they f e l t t enants s h o u l d be a s s i s t e d i f t h e i r r e n t s are r a i s e d beyond t h e i r means or whether they shou ld move to a cheaper apartment , as many r e n t e r s as homeowners f e l t tha t the r e n t e r should move, a l s o shown i n t a b l e 8 .16 . It has been a rgued , wi th r e f e r e n c e to the s i t u a t i o n in B r i t a i n , tha t s u b s i d i e s towards homeowners and c o u n c i l t enant s have been s t r u c t u r e d i n such a way as to r e i n f o r c e the 1 3 i d e o l o g y of homeownership as a p r i v a t i s e d tenure form. S u b s i d i e s d i r e c t e d towards homeowners are t y p i c a l l y l e s s v i s i b l e , t a k i n g the form of i n d i r e c t s u b s i d i e s through tax r e l i e f , w h i l e s u b s i d i e s t a r g e t e d towards c o u n c i l t enants tend to be more d i r e c t , v i s i b l e and hence p o l i t i c a l l y c o n t e n t i o u s . I t i s thus i n t e r e s t i n g to note from the Surrey e v i d e n c e , w h i l e acknowledging the p roce s se s of s t r u c t u r a t i o n Dunleavy draws a t t e n t i o n t o , tha t both i n d i r e c t and d i r e c t s u b s i d i e s are more p a l a t a b l e when d i r e c t e d towards homeowners. Tax c o n c e s s i o n s P. D u n l e a v y , "The urban b a s i s of p o l i t i c a l a l i g n m e n t : s o c i a l c l a s s , domest ic p r o p e r t y owner sh ip , and s t a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n i n consumption p r o c e s s e s " ; Urban p o l i t i c a l a n a l y s e s : the p o l i t i c s of c o l l e c t i v e consumpt ion . 385 TABLE 8.16 The Surrey Sample: A p p r o v a l of D i r e c t A s s i s t a n c e to Homeowners and Renter s by Housing Tenure , SES and Employment S ta tus Hous ing Tenure , SES and Employ-ment S t a tus Should Homeowners Be A s s i s t e d I f Mortgage Rates R i se Unexpec ted ly? Yes No but r e g u l a t e i n t e r e s t r a t e s No Don' t know Should Renter s Be A s s i s t e d I f Rents Ra i sed Beyond T h e i r Means? Yes No but rent c o n t r o l s No Don 1 1 know Homeowners Manual 1 9 2 4 0 9 6 8 2 Nonmanual 20 0 5 0 5 8 1 2 0 centers Manual 18 2 5 0 8 5 1 0 2 Nonmanual 1 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 Se l f - emp . 1 1 1 8 0 8 5 6 1 Wage-earner 21 1 7 1 1 0 5 1 4 1 d i r e c t e d towards r e n t e r s are l e s s favoured than those d i r e c t e d towards homeowners even though the c o s t s of the two programmes can s c a r c e l y even be compared. I t was e s t i m a t e d tha t the c a n c e l l a t i o n of the r e n t e r s tax rebate programme for the 1982 1 £ tax year saved the p r o v i n c i a l government $22 m i l l i o n . * In compar i son , mortgage i n t e r e s t and p r o p e r t y tax c r e d i t s were "Move to a b o l i s h tax c r e d i t s r i l e s B a r r e t t , p o v e r t y g r o u p , " The Vancouver Sun, 12 November 1982, Sec . A , p . 3. 386 e s t imated to co s t $2015 m i l l i o n i n the 1982 tax y e a r . In terms of d i r e c t s u b s i d i s a t i o n , there was g e n e r a l l y more support for a i d towards homeowners caught by h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s than r e n t e r s whose r e n t s outpace t h e i r incomes, a l t h o u g h the c o n t r a s t i n support was l e s s apparent amongst r e n t e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y amongst the s k i l l e d nonmanual g roup . In chap te r 2 the r e l a t i v e h a r d s h i p a c t u a l l y e x p e r i e n c e d by t enant s and homeowners was examined and the argument made that r e n t e r s have e x p e r i e n c e d as much f i n a n c i a l s t r e s s as homeowners. However, the a f f o r d a b i 1 i t y c r i s i s of r e n t e r s has c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s p u b l i c sympathy, even amongst r e n t e r s . Quest ions can be r a i s e d c o n c e r n i n g the g e n e r a l i s a b i i t y of these f i n d i n g s ac ros s r e n t e r s as a t enure group , g i v e n the r e s t r i c t i o n of the r e n t i n g sample to those r e n t i n g houses , duplexes and townhouses. Before c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s , a l b e i t i n a s p e c u l a t i v e f a s h i o n , a note shou ld be made tha t r e n t e r s i n the chosen hous ing s t r u c t u r e s are not a t r i v i a l p r o p o r t i o n of the~ r e n t a l p o p u l a t i o n , c o n s t i t u t i n g 22% of the 1979 S o c i a l Change i n Canada sample, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the p o p u l a t i o n l i v i n g i n census m e t r o p o l i t a n a reas a c r o s s Canada. However, t h e r e are f e a t u r e s of t h i s hous ing s i t u a t i o n which c o u l d l e a d one to argue tha t t h i s might be the group of t enant s l e a s t l i k e l y to o r g a n i s e p o l i t i c a l l y around r e n t a l i s s u e s . The argument p a r -a l l e l s one which has been used to suggest tha t homeowners w i l l not o r g a n i s e p o l i t i c a l l y , namely t h a t the c o l l e c t i v e nature of Honourable John C r o s b i e , Budget Speech, 11 Dec .1979 . 387 problems w i l l not be r e c o g n i s e d and /or a c o l l e c t i v i t y cannot r e a d i l y be m o b i l i s e d i n a s i t u a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l i s e d c o n -sumpt ion . That i s , i n d i v i d u a l s are more l i k e l y to see t h e i r problems as t h e i r own or are l e s s e a s i l y m o b i l i s e d as a p o l i -t i c a l f o r c e i n s i t u a t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l i s e d consumpt ion , such as homeownership. R e n t a l h o u s i n g , as opposed to apar tments , are the most i n d i v i d u a l i s e d form of p r i v a t e r e n t a l s i t u a t i o n i n the sense t h a t , even i f the l a n d l o r d does own more than one d w e l l i n g , they are o f t en not s p a t i a l l y c o n t i g u o u s and thus the l a n d l o r d - t e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p i s very much on a one- to-one b a s i s . In t h i s r e s p e c t , i t can be noted tha t 10 of the r e n t e r s i n t e r v i e w e d l i v e d in townhouse complexes and another 3 i n r e n t a l developments of more than 30 s i n g l e - f a m i l y u n i t s . Thus over a q u a r t e r of the r e n t a l sample d i d not l i v e i n the most i n d i v i d u a l i s e d arrangement . A l t h o u g h the sample i s too smal l to a l l o w a d e f i n i t i v e s ta tement , i t i s a l s o the case that 5 of the 13 r e n t e r s i n the l e s s i n d i v i d u a l i s e d s i t u a t i o n s c i t e d involvements w i t h o ther t e n a n t s , e i t h e r s i g n i n g p e t i -t i o n s for b e t t e r s e r v i c e s and unkeep from l a n d l o r d s or func-t i o n i n g on t e n a n t s ' c o u n c i l s . Space i s an important f a c t o r i n the s t r u c t u r i n g of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . Even so , a few comments can be made c o n c e r n i n g the l e v e l of commitment to these a c t i v i t i e s amongst r e n t e r s . The i n d i v i d u a l who had been the most i n v o l v e d as a tenant a c t i v i s t had been P r e s i d e n t of the Tenants A s s o c i a t i o n in a s o c i a l hous ing townhouse development m a i n t a i n e d by the B . C . Hous ing C o r p o r a t i o n , a l t h o u g h he had moved to a r e n t e d s i n g l e - f a m i l y 388 house one month before the i n t e r v i e w . He d i s a g r e e d w i t h non-p r o f i t h o u s i n g , hous ing a l lowances for low income r e n t e r s , tax reba te s on r e n t s and programmes to a l l o w low income people to buy houses but agreed w i t h changes i n the tax system to a l l o w i n t e r e s t payments on mortgages to be d e d u c t e d . He r e j e c t e d hous ing a l l o w a n c e s because t h i s would " o n l y get b e t t e r hous ing i n worse c o n d i t i o n . Lower income people d o n ' t g i v e a damn." He d i s a g r e e d w i t h tax r eba te s for low income r e n t e r s be-c a u s e : "Why s h o u l d someone get a rebate on rent? What does the homeowner ge t ? " A woman who l i v e d i n a p r i v a t e l y owned town-house complex noted that t h e i r r e n t s had been r a i s e d by 25% the f i r s t year she l i v e d t h e r e and aga in by 25% the second and tha t tenant response as a group had been to move as i n d i v i d u a l s , a p roces s which e v e n t u a l l y f o r c e d the r e n t s down. G i v e n t h i s i n d i v i d u a l i s e d response to t h i s s i t u a t i o n , i t was i n t e r e s t i n g to note her comments c o n c e r n i n g the types of c a s u a l c o n v e r s a t i o n she had had w i t h o ther t enant s c o n c e r n i n g the hous ing s i t u a t i o n : "Working at the p o o l , I t a l k to a l o t of people in h e r e . The people who l i v e here j u s t c a n ' t get that downpayment toge ther to buy a house . I f you can j u s t get that downpayment the c o s t of owning i s not t h a t d i f f e r e n t . I f i n d a l o t are a b l e to move these days through the h e l p of t h e i r i n - l a w s . " A l l of the r e n t e r s , r e g a r d l e s s of s p a t i a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n , were w h o l l y committed to homeownership as the p r e f e r r e d tenure form. (The e x c e p t i o n i s amongst the s e l f - e m p l o y e d and they s imply were not o r i e n t e d towards consumption i s s u e s . ) A n o t h e r , a l b e i t p a r t i a l , i n d i c a t i o n tha t the Surrey t enant s are not unique i n t h e i r tendency to i gnore t h e i r 389 m a t e r i a l i n t e r e s t s as t enant s can be g leaned by b r i e f l y i n d i -c a t i n g g e n e r a l tenant response to the c a n c e l l a t i o n of a p r o -gramme which had an immediate f i n a n c i a l impact on 200,000 1 6 B r i t i s h Columbia r e n t e r s , the r e n t e r s ' tax c r e d i t . T h i s tax c r e d i t was i n t r o d u c e d by the New Democrat ic P a r t y i n 1975 and a l l o w e d r e n t e r s a c r e d i t of up to $150 a year minus 1.5% of t axab le income. As such , i t was t a r g e t e d at low income r e n t e r s . In the second q u a r t e r f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t p r e s e n t e d by S o c i a l C r e d i t F inance M i n i s t e r Hugh C u r t i s on November 10th 1982, three separa te p r o v i n c i a l tax c r e d i t s for the p o o r , the e l d e r l y and r e n t e r s were a b o l i s h e d , o s t e n s i b l y for the purpose of r e d u c i n g the p r o v i n c i a l government d e f i c i t . Sav ings from the a b o l i t i o n of the three tax c r e d i t s were e s t i m a t e d to be 1 7 $72 m i l l i o n , $22 m i l l i o n from the r e n t e r s ' tax c r e d i t a l o n e . The c a n c e l l a t i o n of the r e n t e r s ' tax c r e d i t r e c e i v e d some media a t t e n t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y because i t caused i n f i g h t i n g amongst S o c i a l C r e d i t p a r t y members and because the procedures taken by the S o c i a l C r e d i t government were p o l i t i c a l l y , i f not l e g a l l y , c o n t e n t i o u s . At the S o c i a l C r e d i t p a r t y c o n v e n t i o n h e l d the weekend f o l l o w i n g the announcement of the tax c r e d i t c a n c e l l a t i o n s , the P r e s i d e n t of the Women's A u x i l i a r y of the E s t i m a t e s for the number of r e n t e r s a f f e c t e d appear i n : " B a r r e t t angry as p o o r , e l d e r l y l o s e tax c r e d i t s , " P r o v i n c e , 12 November 1982, Sec . A , p . 4. 17 "Move to a b o l i s h tax c r e d i t s r i l e s B a r r e t t , pover ty g r o u p , " The Vancouver Sun, 12 November 1982, Sec . A , p . 3. 390 S o c i a l C r e d i t p a r t y , Barbara Foxwell, openly c r i t i c i s e d the performance of her p a r t y . I t was the c a n c e l l a t i o n of the tax c r e d i t s which was s a i d to have f u n c t i o n e d as the " l a s t straw". Foxwell i s quoted as s a y i n g : " I t i s to me a r e f l e c t i o n of j u s t how f a r we've s l i p p e d away from the b a s i c b e l i e f t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l i s the most important element in the s o c i a l 1 8 o r d e r . " Foxwell's comments prompted e d i t o r i a l comment from one of Vancouver's major newspapers i n which i t was neverthe-l e s s s t r e s s e d t h a t : " I f government i s to keep w i t h i n a budget d e p l e t e d by reduced revenues, some programs have to be cut, 1 9 perhaps even programs that the l a d i e s h o l d dear." The c a n c e l l a t i o n of the tax c r e d i t s was brought back i n t o the media l i m e l i g h t on March 1st, 1983 by the New Democratic Party f i n a n c e c r i t i c , Dave S t u p i c h , who questioned the l e g a l i t y of the c a n c e l l a t i o n on p r o c e d u r a l grounds. The S o c i a l C r e d i t government had informed Revenue Canada to remove the necessary forms to apply f o r the tax c r e d i t s from the 1982 tax forms, although the l e g i s l a t u r e had not a c t u a l l y a b o l i s h e d the tax c r e d i t s through the a p p r o p r i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n . T h i s caused one c o l u m n i s t , i n an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d , "The making of laws by press r e l e a s e " , to w r i t e t h a t : " I t seems that a f t e r Mr. C u r t i s decided, v i a press r e l e a s e , to r e t r o a c t i v e l y r e -"Government S e r v i c e s to be Cut", The Vancouver Sun, 12 November 1982, Sec. A, p. 2. 1 9 E d i t o r i a l , The P r o v i n c e , 14 November 1982, Sec. B, p. 1 . 391 w r i t e p r o v i n c i a l law, he had the t e m e r i t y to p i c k up the phone and t e l l Ottawa to proceed as though the law had a l r e a d y been 20 . . . passed by l e g i s l a t u r e . " The N . D . P . f i n a n c e c r i t i c urged those p o t e n t i a l l y e l i g i b l e to n e v e r t h e l e s s app ly for the r e n t e r s ' and p e r s o n a l income tax c r e d i t s and promised that the N . D . P . would r e s t o r e these tax c r e d i t s i f e l e c t e d i n a p r e -sumed upcoming p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n (which a c t u a l l y took p l a c e i n May, 1983). Revenue Canada a l s o d i d i t s p a r t to keep the i s sue a l i v e . On March 9 t h , 1983 the f e d e r a l tax department made a formal s tatement s a y i n g t h a t they would a l l o w B r i t i s h Columbians to app ly for the tax c r e d i t s , c a u s i n g the S o c i a l C r e d i t govern-2 1 ment to r e a f f i r m t h e i r i n t e n t i o n to c a n c e l the tax c r e d i t . D i s c u s s i o n s ensued i n V a n c o u v e r ' s newspapers as to whether i t was a d v i s a b l e for an i n d i v i d u a l to app ly for the tax c r e d i t s . As the e d i t o r of one newspaper wrote : " In order to rea s sure the e l d e r l y i n p a r t i c u l a r - many are anx ious or confused about the c r e d i t s - the B . C . government s h o u l d say when the l e g i s l a -22 t u r e w i l l meet and a b o l i s h the tax c r e d i t s . " Given t h i s media coverage , the absence of tenant response i s noteworthy . Not one p u b l i c statement from a tenant group was r e c o r d e d i n e i t h e r of the two major Vancouver newspapers 20 . M. N i c h o l s , "The making of laws by p r e s s r e l e a s e , " Vancouver Sun, 2 March 1983, Sec . A , p . 4. 2 1 "Tax C r e d i t s to be axed says g o v ' t , " Vancouver Sun, 11 March 1983, Sec . B, p . 1. 22 "Wrong way to a b o l i s h c r e d i t s , " E d i t o r i a l , P r o v i n c e , 3 March 1983, Sec . B, p . 2. 392 w i t h i n a two week p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g both the f i r s t announcement of the tax c r e d i t cut in November 1982 and the p o l i t i c i s a t ion of the i s s u e by the f inance c r i t i c i n March 1983. Nor was there one l e t t e r to the e d i t o r c o n c e r n i n g the tax c u t s d u r i n g t h i s same time p e r i o d . P r i v a t e a c t i o n was taken by a Surrey woman, Susan T o p l a s s , who sued the p r o v i n c i a l government and the F inance M i n i s t e r , c l a i m i n g that the F i n a n c e M i n i s t e r a c t e d wi thout a u t h o r i t y when he suspended the r e n t e r s ' tax c r e d i t and the p r o v i n c i a l p e r s o n a l tax c r e d i t . As of May 7th 1983, a B . C . 23 Supreme Cour t }udge r e s e r v e d d e c i s i o n on t h i s t e s t a c t i o n . With the r e - e l e c t i o n of the S o c i a l C r e d i t government on May 5th 1983, the c a n c e l l a t i o n of the tax c r e d i t s was l e g i s l a t e d and the i s sue i n e f f e c t r e s o l v e d . W h i l s t c e r t a i n l y incomplete as a r e c o r d of tenant a c t i v i s m , tenant r e a c t i o n to the c a n c e l l a t i o n of the r e n t e r s ' tax c r e d i t a f f i r m s the argument which has been made c o n c e r n i n g the l e v e l of p o l i t i c a l commitment i n terms of hous ing tenure amongst r e n t e r s . I t has been noted that at l e a s t c e r t a i n groups of homeowners are keen to pursue t h e i r i n t e r e s t s as homeowners. Tenant i n a c t i v i t y complements r a t h e r than c o n -f l i c t s w i t h t h i s i n t e r e s t on the par t of homeowners. "Rent t a x - c r e d i t s h e l v i n g f o u g h t " , The Sun, 7 May 1983, Sec . A , p . 1. 393 2 . Homeowner and Tenant S u p p o r t f o r Government I n v o l v e m e n t i n H o u s i n g I s s u e s An o r i e n t a t i o n towards homeownership on t h e p a r t of t e n a n t s was accompan ied by a g e n e r a l s u p p o r t f o r government i n i t i a t i v e s t o make h o u s i n g more a f f o r d a b l e . P e r h a p s i r o n i -c a l l y , a w i l l i n g n e s s on the p a r t of nonmanual homeowners t o v o t e f o r any p o l i t i c a l p a r t y i n o r d e r t o b r i n g i n t h e i r f a v o u r e d h o u s i n g programme of t a x r e l i e f t h r o u g h mortgage i n t e r e s t d e d u c t a b i l i t y i s a ccompan ied by a g e n e r a l a n t i -government s t a n c e and a l a c k of sympathy f o r government e f f o r t s d i r e c t e d towards making h o u s i n g more a f f o r d a b l e r e l a -t i v e t o o t h e r s o c i a l g r o u p s , i n d i c a t e d i n t a b l e 8 . 1 7 . T h i s i s the case d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t 64% of nonmanual homeowners had r e c e i v e d government s u p p o r t of some s o r t t o a i d i n t h e p u r -chase of t h e i r h o u s e . The t y p e s of a s s i s t a n c e , w h i c h a re i n d i c a t e d i n t a b l e 8 . 1 8 , v a r y from r e l a t i v e l y m i n o r i n d i r e c t s u b s i d i s a t i o n ( i n terms of t h e i n d i v i d u a l ) t h r o u g h the R e g i s t e r e d Homeownership Program of t a x d e d u c t i o n s t o d i r e c t f i r s t - t i m e homeownership g r a n t s of up t o $5000. The same i n d i v i d u a l s who r e c e i v e d a s s i s t a n c e made comments s u c h a s : " L e t e v e r y o n e s t r u g g l e l i k e I d i d . " , "We had t o s t r u g g l e . O t h e r s s h o u l d j u s t t h e s a m e . " , " I d o n ' t know what t h e government can do - e x c e p t use more t a x d o l l a r s . " , " Y o u g i v e i t t o some, but you t a k e i t away from o t h e r s . . . N o I d o n ' t s u p p o r t i t . " , "The market p l a c e w i l l do t h a t . . . " and "The government s h o u l d get the h e l l o u t . " In c o m p a r i s o n , nonmanual r e n t e r s , b o t h s e l f - e m p l o y e d and w a g e - e a r n e r s , p l a c e the 394 cl TABLE 8.17 The Surrey Sample: Average Responses Concern ing Amount of E f f o r t Government Should Put i n t o V a r i o u s Programmes by Housing T e n u r e , SES and Employment S ta tus Homeowners Renter s Government Programmes Man. NonMan. Manual Nonmanual S e l f - Empl . T o t a l S e l f - Empl . T o t a l Empl . Empl . H e l p i n g Poor 2.32 2.72 2.66 1.93 2.20 2.36 2.57 2.48 M e d i c a l and H e a l t h 2.32 2.68 2.44 1.81 2.04 2.27 2.50 2.40 Making Housing A f f o r d a b l e 2.32 2.84 2.34 2.13 2.20 2.00 2.14 2.12 Job C r e a t i o n 2.32 2.08 2.11 2.06 2.08 2.55 2.29 2.48 Unemployment Insurance 2.80 2.92 3.22 2.06 2.48 2.46 2.72 2.64 a . a h i g h e r score i n d i c a t e s l e s s e f f o r t - 1=much more e f f o r t , 2 = s l i g h t l y more e f f o r t , 3=the same amount of e f f o r t , 4 = s l i g h t l y l e s s e f f o r t and 5=much l e s s e f f o r t TABLE 8.18 The Surrey Sample: Types of Government A s s i s t a n c e which had been R e c e i v e d by Homeowners SES Types of Hous ing R e l a t e d Government A s s i s t a n c e Rece ived by Homeowners AHOP F i r s t - t i m e home-buyers g r a n t s B . C . 2nd RHOSP B . C . Home T o t a l mortgage Program ( a s s i s t a n c e a g a i n s t h i g h mortgage r a t e s ) Nonman. 3 Manual 1 5 4 5 5 2 0 1 0 1 6 10 395 h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y on making hous ing more a f f o r d a b l e i n the sense that t h e y , on average , t h i n k the most e f f o r t shou ld be d i r e c t e d towards t h i s p a r t i c u l a r area ( t a b l e 8 . 1 8 ) . With an average response of 2 .12 , a lmost every i n d i v i d u a l f e l t t h a t more government e f f o r t shou ld be d i r e c t e d towards making hous ing more a f f o r d a b l e . When i n d i v i d u a l s are l i s t e d under the programmes for which they i n d i c a t e d most s u p p o r t , r e g a r d -l e s s of degree of s u p p o r t , r e n t e r s i n g e n e r a l g i v e h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y to making hous ing more a f f o r d a b l e ( t a b l e 8 . 1 9 ) . On TABLE 8.19 The Surrey Sample: Government Programmes R e c e i v i n g the Most Support from each I n d i v i d u a l , by Housing Tenure and SES Government Programmes Housing Tenure and SES Homeowners Renters Manual Nonmanual Manual Nonmanual Making Hous ing More A f f o r d a b l e 7 H e l p i n g the Poor 10 H e a l t h and M e d i c a l Care 11 Job C r e a t i o n 9 Unemployment Insurance 4 5 8 9 17 8 1 6 1 2 1 5 16 9 1 4 9 9 1 2 9 a . h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y c o u l d be t i e d ac ro s s programmes and hence columns do not t o t a l to 25 396 the o ther hand, t h i s ranks lowest and second lowest amongst nonmanual and manual homeowners, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Note that i t i s o n l y for the hous ing i s sue s tha t a d i s c r e p a n c y i s noted between r e n t e r s and homeowners i n support for v a r i o u s s o c i a l we l f a re measures ( for the c o n t r a s t between nonmanual home-owners and r e n t e r s on hous ing i s s u e ; K e n d a l l ' s Tau = - . 3 7 , p= .02) . On the face of i t , there appears a c o n t r a d i c t i o n between the s t r o n g support of government i n i t i a t i v e s to reduce hous ing c o s t s on the p a r t of nonmanual r e n t e r s and t h e i r r e l u c t a n c e to vote s o l e l y i n terms of hous ing i s s u e s , and homeowners' w i l l i n g n e s s to base t h e i r e l e c t o r a l d e c i s i o n s on hous ing p r o -grammes w h i l e e x p r e s s i n g l i t t l e support for government a t tempts to reduce hous ing c o s t s . A number of f a c t o r s may e x p l a i n t h i s seeming c o n t r a d i c t i o n : a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t s between homeowners and would-be home-buyers , a masking of homeowner s u b s i d i s a t i o n such that homeowners tend not view tax r e l i e f as government a s s i s t a n c e , and a g r e a t e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th hous ing as a p o l i t i c a l i s sue through homeownership. W i t h r e f e r e n c e to the f i r s t p o i n t , a l th ough homeowners expres s as much support for g ran t s to a l l o w low income people to purchase houses , they have g e n e r a l l y reaped the b e n e f i t s of t h i s type of programme and would now t y p i c a l l y f e e l the c o s t s through e x t r a t a x a t i o n . Thus when the q u e s t i o n was broached more d i r e c t l y i n terms of e x p e n d i t u r e s , homeowners tended to show c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s support than d i d r e n t e r s . Renters a n t i c i p a t e the b e n e f i t s of such programmes i n terms of t h e i r 397 own acces s to homeownership. F u r t h e r , homeowners can vote w i t h the expres s purpose of o b t a i n i n g one of the most expens ive hous ing programmes i n e x i s t e n c e (chapter 2) w h i l s t r e t a i n i n g the p o s i t i o n tha t government shou ld not be i n v o l v e d i n the hous ing f i e l d because of the c a t e g o r i e s they tend to employ i n b r a c k e t i n g government a s s i s t a n c e . Tax r e l i e f i s not g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d to i n v o l v e government a s s i s t a n c e : government i s thought to grasp too much through p e r s o n a l taxes and tax r e l i e f merely m o d i f i e s t h i s e x c e s s i v e c h a r g e . I t i s l e f t to e x p l a i n why nonmanual r e n t e r s , who va lue homeownership as much as homeowners, and b e l i e v e tha t govern-ment shou ld attempt to make hous ing more a f f o r d a b l e so as to ease t h e i r e n t r y i n t o homeownership, do not tend to vote w i t h hous ing i s s u e s as a f i r s t p r i o r i t y , as do homeowners. One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n for t h i s i s tha t the e f f e c t s of the d e s i r e d hous ing programmes are much more immediate for home-owners . A mortgage i n t e r e s t and p r o p e r t y tax c r e d i t would have an immediate and c e r t a i n impact on the househo ld budget of homeowners. Grant s for f i r s t - t i m e house purchase are a somewhat l e s s c e r t a i n programme, i n the sense tha t r e c e i p t i s c o n d i t i o n a l upon a c t u a l l y making the tenure change and on meet ing the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the programme. As w e l l , i n l i n e w i t h the p r e c e d i n g p o i n t , g r a n t s for f i r s t - t i m e house purchase were p e r c e i v e d as a more o b v i o u s e l e c t i o n p l o y and were l e s s t r u s t e d on t h i s c o u n t . The mortgage i n t e r e s t and p r o p e r t y tax c r e d i t was more o f ten seen as a r i g h t ; a p e r c e p t i o n m o d i f i e d 398 to a c o n s i d e r a b l e extent by knowledge of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h i s tax c r e d i t i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Almost every Surrey homeowner and r e n t e r who favoured changes i n the tax system to a l l o w mortgage i n t e r e s t payments as tax d e d u c t i o n s d i d so w i t h the a u t h o r i t y that homeowners in the U n i t e d S t a t e s are a l l o w e d such d e d u c t i o n s . T h i s common knowledge of U . S . hous ing and f i s c a l p o l i c y i s s t r i k i n g and has a s u b s t a n t i a l e f f e c t i n l e g i t i m i s i n g t h i s tax c o n c e s s i o n as a f e l t r i g h t amongst Canadian homeowners. At a l e s s m a t e r i a l l e v e l , t h e r e i s a l s o the p o s s i b i l i t y that nonmanual homeowners i d e n t i f y more com-p l e t e l y w i t h t h e i r tenure form and have come to view t h e i r i d e n t i t y more i n terms of h o u s i n g . With nonmanual homeowners c o n v i n c e d tha t owning a house " i s something to pat y o u r s e l f on the back f o r " and "has r e a l s o c i a l v a l u e " , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t a p e r c e p t i o n of r i g h t s f o l l o w s from the s t a t u s of homeowner-s h i p for these p e o p l e . Support For S o c i a l Wel fa re Programmes Before r e v i e w i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between hous ing tenure and p o l i t i c i s a t i o n around hous ing i s sue s d i s c u s s e d thus f a r , responses to the f u l l range of s o c i a l we l f a re programmes d i s c u s s e d w i t h each person i n t e r v i e w e d w i l l be b r i e f l y c o n s i d e r e d . T h i s s h i f t s the focus to more g e n e r a l a t t i t u d i n a l r i f t s between r e n t e r s and homeowners and thus forms a ' b r i d g e ' w i t h the a n a l y s i s of the urban n a t i o n a l sample . A l t h o u g h nonmanual homeowners i n the Sur rey sample a r e , on average , the group l e a s t s u p p o r t i v e of government i n t e r v e n t i o n i n any area except job c r e a t i o n , the d i s c r e p a n c y 399 i n response between nonmanual homeowners and r e n t e r s i s on ly noteworthy (and s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ) i n the case of hous ing a f f o r d a b i l i t y , i n which case there i s a spread of almost a f u l l p o i n t between homeowners' and r e n t e r s ' average re sponses . A n a l y s i s of the S o c i a l Change i n Canada data set i n d i c a t e d tha t nonmanual mortgaged homeowners were l e s s s u p p o r t i v e of a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed and h e l p i n g the poor than were r e n t e r s . Comparing the responses a c ro s s data s e t s , shown i n t a b l e 8 .20 , one can see that the d i r e c t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s remains the same w i t h r e n t e r s g e n e r a l l y more f avourab le towards government i n t e r v e n t i o n but the Surrey sample of nonmanual homeowners are more s u p p o r t i v e of a s s i s t -ance to the unemployed and s l i g h t l y l e s s sympathet ic towards the poor compared wi th the urban n a t i o n a l sample. In p a r t , the comparison ac ro s s data se t s for the i s sue of a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e . In the case of the Surrey sample, a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed r e f e r r e d s p e c i f i c a l l y to unemployment i n s u r a n c e , w i t h job c r e a t i o n c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y . No such d i s t i n c t i o n was made for the l a r g e r sample and t h i s may account for the l e s s sympathet ic a t t i t u d e s towards a s s i s t a n c e for the unemployed amongst the Surrey manual homeowners, as compared to the n a t i o n a l sample. As w e l l , the economic and unemployment s i t u a t i o n s were very d i f f e r e n t i n 1979 and 1983. For i n s t a n c e , the s e a s o n a l l y a d j u s t e d unemployment r a t e of August 1979 was 7.4% in B r i t i s h Columbia and 7.2% n a t i o n a l l y . In August 1983 the s e a s o n a l l y a d j u s t e d r a t e of unemployment had almost d o u b l e d , at 14.1% i n 400 TABLE 8.20 Comparison of Average Responses C o n c e r n i n g Amount of E f f o r t Government Should D i r e c t Towards Two S o c i a l Wel fa re Programs ac ro s s Surrey and S o c i a l Change i n Canada Data Sets Wel fare Programs ac ro s s Data Sets Hous ing Tenure and SES Homeowners Renter s Manual Nonman Manual Nonman. Wage- A l l Wage- A l l Earner Earner H e l p i n g the Poor S o c i a l Change i n Canada 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.1 Surrey 2.3 2.7 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.5 A s s i s t a n c e to Unemployed S o c i a l Change i n Canada 2.3 3.5 2 .6 2.8 Surrey 2.8 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.7 2.6 a . 1=much more e f f o r t , 5=much l e s s e f f o r t B r i t i s h Columbia and 11.8% a c r o s s Canada. In 1983 the s t r u c t u r a l na ture of unemployment c o u l d not e a s i l y be i g n o r e d and the unemployment s i t u a t i o n was thus perhaps l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n terms of the unemployeds ' m o t i v a t i o n s . The acceptance of unemployment as a l e g i t i m a t e problem by Surrey nonmanual homeowners, amongst o t h e r s , i s r e f l e c t e d i n the average responses to both h e l p i n g the poor and the unemployed. A t t e n t i o n i s focused away from the former S t a t i s t i c s Canada, The Labour F o r c e , c a t . 71-001, (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , August 1979 and August 1983). 401 towards the l a t t e r (note t h a t a score of 3 i n d i c a t e s the a t t i t u d e t h a t government s h o u l d not change i t s e f f o r t towards an area) and e s p e c i a l l y towards job c r e a t i o n ( t a b l e 8 . 1 7 ) . An e x p e c t a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g an a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing tenure and support of s o c i a l we l f a re measures, a s i d e from the more g e n e r a l case for i d e o l o g i c a l i n c o r p o r a t i o n , a r i s e s out of Kemeny's l i n k between the economic s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y d e r i v e d from homeownership and an a s s o c i a t e d reduced commitment to 25 p u b l i c i n s u r a n c e or s o c i a l w e l f a r e schemes. To review b r i e f l y Kemeny's argument, homeowners w i l l be tempted to opt out of p u b l i c in surance schemes i n the e a r l y years of home-ownership because these are t y p i c a l l y the most expens ive year s of buying a house . In l a t e r year s they w i l l be l e s s w i l l i n g to c o n t r i b u t e because , hav ing i n e f f e c t set up a type of p r i v a t e i n s u r a n c e scheme through homeownership, they w i l l be i n l e s s need . Even at the gross n a t i o n a l s c a l e , the s c a l e at which Kemeny produces s t a t i s t i c s , the l i n k between homeownership and s o c i a l w e l f a r e spending i s d u b i o u s . In Canada, t o t a l s o c i a l s e c u r i t y spending grew by 175% between 1966 and 1980, yea r s i n which house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n was such to make Kemeny's argument f e a s i b l e , bo th i n terms of the ' f r o n t l o a d i n g ' of i n t e r e s t payments and the c a p i t a l g a i n s acc rued through homeownership. But the e x p e n d i t u r e s on s o c i a l s e c u r i t y , i n c l u d i n g those made by employees and employers as w e l l as a l l o c a t e d t a x e s , out J . Kemeny, "Home ownership and p r i v a t i z a t i o n . " 402 paced i n c r e a s e s i n the p o p u l a t i o n and p e r s o n a l income between 1966 and 1980. " C o n s e q u e n t l y , not o n l y were more d o l l a r s be ing spent on p e r s o n a l f i n a n c i a l s e c u r i t y i n 1980 than i n 1966 but a g r e a t e r p o r t i o n of each d o l l a r earned was be ing 2 6 devoted to these e x p e n d i t u r e s as w e l l . " As noted i n chap te r 5, Kemeny's p r o p o s a l ga ined l i t t l e support from an a n a l y s i s of i n d i v i d u a l s ' a t t i t u d e s towards v a r i o u s s o c i a l w e l f a r e programmes. A more c o n t e x t u a l t r e a t -ment of the p r o p o s a l w i t h the Surrey sample d i d not l e n d any more e v i d e n t i a l s u p p o r t . On the one hand, i n l i n e w i t h Kemeny's h y p o t h e s i s , Surrey homeowners, r e g a r d l e s s of SES group, were more s av ings o r i e n t e d than were r e n t e r s (Chi square = 7 . 9 6 , d . f . = 1 , p< .005) . Asked whether they f e l t a person shou ld save for o l d age and not depend on t h e i r employers or the government to support them i n t h e i r o l d age, 62% of homeowners as compared to 38% of r e n t e r s a g r e e d . At the o ther extreme, 26% of r e n t e r s and 8% of homeowners f e l t t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l has no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to save for o l d age. The remainder f e l t tha t the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y l i e s j o i n t l y w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l and government and /or employer s . In a d d i t i o n , 90% of homeowners f e l t tha t owning a home i s a good way of a v o i d i n g p o v e r t y i n o l d age, a l t h o u g h h a l f of the i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h i s group i n d i c a t e d tha t t h i s was not a reason for buy ing t h e i r house . As has a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d , A n a l y s i s of f i n a n c i a l s e c u r i t y e x p e n d i t u r e s by L i f e Insurance M a r k e t i n g and Research A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , r e p o r t e d i n " P e r s o n a l s e c u r i t y spending l e a p s , " F i n a n c i a l P o s t , 12 November 1983, p . 19. 403 employed but not s e l f - e m p l o y e d r e n t e r s a l s o f e l t tha t home-ownership i s an e f f e c t i v e way of s a v i n g for o l d age. However, g iven Kemeny's s c e n a r i o and asked whether they had or would c o n s i d e r o p t i n g out of unemployment i n s u r a n c e , p u b l i c m e d i c a l in surance or the Canada Pens ion P l a n , o n l y a m i n o r i t y even e n t e r t a i n e d the p o s s i b i l i t y , as shown i n t a b l e 8 . 2 1 . As many f e l t tha t these programmes are p a r t i c u l a r l y e s s e n t i a l when one owns a house , i n cases where the household income i s budgeted very c l o s e l y . I t s h o u l d be remembered tha t TABLE 8.21 The Surrey Sample: A t t i t u d e s Towards O p t i n g Out of P u b l i c Insurance Programmes by Hous ing Tenure and SES A t t i t u d e s towards o p t i n g out of p u b l i c in surance Housing schemes Tenure Would c o n s i d e r Would not c o n s i d e r o p t i n g out and o p t i n g out of of any programmes because : SES programmes you need they are on # programmes them more not p r i n c i p l e when own expens ive house Homeowners Manual 2 2 C P . P . 3 7 13 Nonmanual 1 C P . P . 3 4 17 Renter s Manual 1 C P . P . 2 11 11 Nonmanual 4 3 C P . P . , 4 3 14 1 U . I . C . 404 t h i s i s a group of homeowners amongst whom 38% are p a y i n g i n excess of 30% of t h e i r household income towards hous ing c o s t s and hence are v u l n e r a b l e to the type of budgetary p r e s s u r e s Kemeny d i s c u s s e s . Commenting on Kemeny's p r o p o s a l , one r e s -pondent q u i p p e d : " I t takes a s o c i o l o g i s t to dream i t up and a p s y c h i a t r i s t to f i g u r e i t o u t . " Summary G e n e r a l l y the ev idence p r e s e n t e d from the Surrey i n t e r -views suggests tha t the impact of hous ing tenure on p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s and v a l u e s i s somewhat l e s s s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d than has been suggested by those c h a r a c t e r i s i n g homeowners as community a c t i v i s t s narrowly obsessed wi th p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . Very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e was found between the records of n e i g h -bourhood a c t i v i s m of tenants and homeowners, a f i n d i n g ex-p l a i n e d by c o n t r o l s for hous ing s t r u c t u r e , income and l i f e -c y c l e . Nonmanual homeowners were found to ac t as an i n t e r e s t group, not at the neighbourhood l e v e l , but i n terms of f e d e r a l e l e c t o r a l p o l i t i c s . The o r i e n t a t i o n towards hous ing p r o -grammes as e l e c t o r a l i s s u e s on the p a r t of nonmanual home-owners was e x p l a i n e d by the f ac t tha t homeownership seemed a more c r i t i c a l f ace t of s o c i a l i d e n t i t y fo r t h i s group , i n the absence of sources of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n formed through p r o d u c t i o n - b a s e d groups . The r e a d i n e s s of nonmanual homeowners to pursue govern-ment s u b s i d i e s fo r hous ing through the e l e c t o r a l p roce s s has 405 important i m p l i c a t i o n s for the s t r u c t u r i n g of domest ic p r o p e r t y c l a s s e s or consumption s e c t o r s . T h i s p r o c e s s i s a i d e d , r a t h e r than b a l a n c e d , by the tendency for t enant s not to see t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n terms of hous ing and hence to show a p a r t i c u l a r apathy c o n c e r n i n g government programmes d i r e c t e d towards t e n a n t s . F i n a l l y , the p a t t e r n of a t t i t u d i n a l v a r i a t i o n by hous ing tenure noted for s k i l l e d nonmanual household heads for the n a t i o n a l data set was not as c l e a r c u t for the S u r r e y sample. T h i s may p a r t i a l l y r e f l e c t the v a r i a t i o n in sample s i z e -comparing a sample of 50 to one of 295. For i n s t a n c e , there was a tendency for nonmanual r e n t e r s to be more a p p r o v i n g of v a r i o u s types of p r o t e s t compared to nonmanual homeowners. A l t h o u g h the d i f f e r e n c e i n average responses fo r r e n t e r s and homeowners v a r i e s o n l y s l i g h t l y a c r o s s samples (.31 for the n a t i o n a l and .24 for the Surrey sample for a p p r o v a l of peace-f u l , i l l e g a l p r o t e s t as an example) , the d i f f e r e n c e i s o n l y s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n the case of the l a r g e r data s e t . As w e l l , a l t h o u g h a c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between hous ing tenure and p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n , at e i t h e r the f e d e r a l or p r o -v i n c i a l l e v e l , was not noted for the Surrey sample , p e c u l i a r i t i e s of the B r i t i s h Columbia p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n were c o n s i d e r e d , as w e l l as s u b s t a n t i a l p o l i t i c a l / economic changes between 1979 and 1983. For i n s t a n c e , i t i s not i r r e l e v a n t tha t i n the spring/summer of 1979, d u r i n g which t ime the S o c i a l Change i n Canada survey was c o n d u c t e d , the P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y campaigned w i t h the e l e c t i o n promise of the 406 mortgage i n t e r e s t and p r o p e r t y tax c r e d i t . T h i s c o i n c i d e n c e may have had some impact on the noted p r o c l i v i t y of homeowners i n the 1979 n a t i o n a l sample to i n d i c a t e support for the Con-s e r v a t i v e p a r t y . A l t h o u g h there was a tendency towards g r e a t e r s o c i a l c o n s e r v a t i s m on the par t of nonmanual home-owners, i n terms of support of s o c i a l we l fa re programmes, g e n e r a l l y the a t t i t u d i n a l r i f t s between Surrey nonmanual homeowners and r e n t e r s c e n t r e d on hous ing i s s u e s . Never the-l e s s , the e f f e c t s of these more l i m i t e d a t t i t u d i n a l d i s -c r e p a n c i e s have a s u b s t a n t i a l impact i n shaping consumption s e c t o r s and are thus of c o n s i d e r a b l e t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t . 407 CHAPTER 9 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE EMPIRICAL STUDY Homeownership has f i g u r e d w i t h i n s o c i a l theory i n two s i g n i f i c a n t ways: i n the form of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s and , f o l l o w i n g from t h i s , as an a spect of a theory of consumption s e c t o r s . The i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s has been an argument of c o n s i d e r a b l e t h e o r e t i c a l and p o l i t i c a l importance for decades . T h e o r i s t s have invoked the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s to ' e x p l a i n ' the demise of working c l a s s c o n s c i o u s n e s s throughout t h i s c e n t u r y , both i n Western Europe and Nor th A m e r i c a . P o l i t i -c i a n s have u t i l i s e d the t h e s i s to j u s t i f y government e x p e n d i -t u r e s d i r e c t e d towards homeownership. More r e c e n t l y , the consumption s e c t o r approach has h i g h l i g h t e d the importance of hous ing tenure i n c r e a t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l i n e s of s o c i a l c l e a -vage i n contemporary western s o c i e t i e s . The c l a i m s of e i t h e r theory have never been s y s t e m a t i -c a l l y examined e m p i r i c a l l y . Most c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of the p o l i -t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of homeownership amount to t h e o r e t i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n ; the e m p i r i c a l work tha t e x i s t s i s o f t en p e r f u n c -1 t o r y . The argument i s a complex one, e s p e c i a l l y g iven the Kemeny's tendency to draw l a r g e i m p l i c a t i o n s from l i t t l e ev idence has been n o t e d . T h i s tendency i s a l s o n o t a b l e i n the case of P e r i n , who bases her c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the s o c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of homeownership on i n t e r v i e w s w i t h 19 persons chosen because of t h e i r involvement i n l a n d d e v e l o p -ment ( E v e r y t h i n g i n i t s P l a c e ) . S i m i l a r l y , Rakoff g e n e r a l i s e s about the meaning of the home on the b a s i s of a sample of 18 persons ( " Ideo logy i n everyday l i f e " ) . 408 nuances i n t r o d u c e d v i a the weberian c r i t i q u e of the i n c o r p o r a -t i o n t h e s i s , and r e q u i r e s a s y n t h e s i s of economic , p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l f a c t o r s . T h i s , and the s u r p r i s i n g d e a r t h of empir-i c a l work on the s u b j e c t , n e c e s s i t a t e d a complex r e s e a r c h d e s i g n which ranged from a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the m a t e r i a l advantages of homeownership, through a s y s t e m a t i c examinat ion of a t t i t u d e s by hous ing t e n u r e , c o n t r o l l i n g for a number of i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s , to a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the l i n k s between hous ing t e n u r e , s o c i a l c l a s s , s o c i a l i d e n t i t y and p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s . Summary of Research Des ign and E m p i r i c a l F i n d i n g s An examinat ion of the Vancouver hous ing market , as w e l l as f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l funding of hous ing programmes, p r o -v i d e d the r e s e a r c h c o n t e x t , i n a d d i t i o n to s e r v i n g the t h e o r e t i c a l purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g that homeownership has been a s i g n i f i c a n t source of revenue for homeowners. Vancouver house p r i c e s i n f l a t e d c o n s i d e r a b l y through the 1970's and homeownership outpaced o ther c o n v e n t i o n a l forms of inve s tment . L i m i t s t o t h i s g e n e r a l i s a t i o n were not l i n k e d t o s o c i a l c l a s s , as has been suggested i n the l i t e r a t u r e , but to s p e c i f i c f inance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such as s i z e of mortgage debt and r a t e s of mortgage i n t e r e s t . E v i d e n c e on n a t i o n a l urban hous ing markets suggests t h a t house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n was t y p i c a l through the 1970's and hence the Vancouver s i t u a t i o n i s not u n i q u e . Government s u b s i d i e s have tended to favour homeowners as w e l l , s u p p o r t i n g the p o s i t i o n t h a t groups organ-409 i s e d around hous ing i s sue s are both de fend ing and expanding r e a l m a t e r i a l i n t e r e s t s . The c l a i m s of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s were e v a l u a t e d by means of an urban n a t i o n a l sample of rough ly 2000 i n t e r -views c o l l e c t e d i n 1979. Hous ing c l a s s , d i s c r i m i n a t i n g be t -ween r e n t e r s , mortgaged homeowners and o u t r i g h t homeowners, was c o n s i s t e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a wide range of p o l i t i c a l behav iour and a t t i t u d e s . A t t i t u d e s towards s t r i k e s , i l l e g a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n s , government a s s i s t a n c e to the poor and unem-p l o y e d , the income d i s t r i b u t i o n between r i c h and poor , and p l a n n i n g o n e ' s l i f e ahead, as w e l l as f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n , a l l v a r i e d by hous ing t e n u r e . S i g n i f i -c a n t l y , hous ing c l a s s was more c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e v e r a l of the p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and behav iour s c o n s i d e r e d than any o ther c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e . Housing c l a s s was most c l o s e l y a s soc-i a t e d w i t h f i v e of the 14 q u e s t i o n n a i r e i tems for which t h e r e was i n f o r m a t i o n a c r o s s a l l c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s , as compared to e d u c a t i o n , which was the best p r e d i c t o r for s i x of the o ther i t e m s . L i f e - c y c l e and household income were r e l a t i v e l y poor p r e d i c t o r s of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s , and c l a s s and SES were the most c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s for o n l y 1 and 2 i t ems , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The independent s i g n i f i c a n c e of hous ing c l a s s in r e l a t i o n to a t t i t u d e s was e s t a b l i s h e d by c o n t r o l l i n g for these o t h e r v a r i a b l e s , i n some cases two at one t i m e . When t h i s was done, the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s tended to be as s t r o n g , i f not s t r o n g e r , w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r v a l u e s of each c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e . 410 A s t r i k i n g outcome of t h i s a n a l y s i s was the f i n d i n g that the a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing tenure and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and /or behav iour was indeed e v i d e n t , but on ly w i t h i n p a r t i c u -l a r s o c i a l c l a s s e s , household income groups and s tages of the l i f e - c y c l e . A s o c i a l p r o f i l e was deve loped of those for whom hous ing c l a s s was p a r t i c u l a r l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t t i t u d e s : low to moderate income household heads i n s k i l l e d nonmanual o c c u -p a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , whose f a m i l y o b l i g a t i o n s had perhaps f o r c e d them i n t o a marg ina l homeownership p o s i t i o n . In c o n -t r a s t to t h i s s o c i a l group, there was no a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing c l a s s and p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n for s k i l l e d manual household heads . T h i s c o n t r a s t was taken i n t o a sample of 100 i n d e p t h i n t e r v i e w s of homeowners and r e n t e r s i n a Vancouver suburb , S u r r e y , i n order to unders tand some of the p roce s se s l y i n g beh ind the s t a t i c c a t e g o r i e s n e c e s s a r i l y employed i n a n a l y s i n g the n a t i o n a l urban sample. Household income range and stage of l i f e - c y c l e were e f f e c t i v e l y narrowed to f a m i l i e s w i t h mod-e r a t e incomes by t h i s g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n . A l t h o u g h educa-t i o n was not c o n t r o l l e d , the v a r i a b i l i t y i n e d u c a t i o n a l achievement d i d not d i s c r i m i n a t e between r e n t e r s and home-owners . As w i t h the n a t i o n a l sample, t h e r e was a c o n s i s t e n t tendency for homeowners to r e p o r t more s t a b l e employment h i s -t o r i e s , as compared to r e n t e r s . A l s o comparable w i t h the n a t i o n a l sample, mortgage payments tended to r e q u i r e the i n -comes of two wage e a r n e r s , and hence homeownership was r e l a t e d 41 1 to a p a r t i c u l a r f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e . A s s o c i a t i o n s between hous-ing tenure and p o l i t i c a l response were l e s s c l e a r c u t for the Surrey sample. Renter s and homeowners tended to be e q u a l l y i n v o l v e d i n s i m i l a r p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . The d i s c r e p a n c y between t h i s f i n d i n g and those noted i n r e l a t i o n to the n a t i o n a l urban and o ther samples i s accounted for by the c o n t r o l s for hous ing s t r u c t u r e , l i f e - c y c l e , and s o c i a l c l a s s i n the Surrey sample. As w e l l , homeowners and r e n t e r s d i d not d i f f e r markedly i n p o l i t i c a l p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n or support fo r v a r i o u s s o c i a l we l f a re programmes, presumably because of p e c u l i a r i t i e s of the p r o v i n c i a l p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n , as w e l l as p o l i t i c a l and economic s h i f t s between 1979 and 1983. In f a c t , the Surrey ev idence suggests t h a t the a t t i t u d i n a l r i f t between homeowners and r e n t e r s i s not of the g e n e r a l i d e o l o g i -c a l na ture suggested by the terms ' p r i v a t i s t i c ' and ' p o s s e s s i v e i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c ' , employed q u i t e i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y by i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s , bu t , r a t h e r , i s more c l o s e l y f o -cused on hous ing i s s u e s . For nonmanual workers i n the Surrey sample, there was an a s s o c i a t i o n between hous ing tenure and support for government a s s i s t a n c e to make hous ing more a f f o r d -a b l e , s t e r e o t y p i n g by hous ing tenure and w i l l i n g n e s s to vote w i t h hous ing i s sue s as de te rminant s of p a r t y c h o i c e . A number of a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t s emerged from the q u a l i t a -t i v e depth i n t e r v i e w s . Foremost i s an u n d e r s t a n d i n g c o n c e r n -ing the f l e x i b i l i t y of c a t e g o r i e s . Hous ing tenure i t s e l f was seen to be a n e g o t i a t e d s o c i a l p r o c e s s , w i t h many of the r e n t e r s hav ing been homeowners i n the p a s t . The r e l a t i o n s h i p 412 between se l f -employment and r e n t a l s t a t u s was s t r i k i n g . A c h o i c e c o n c e r n i n g employment s t a t u s had d e f i n i t e i m p l i c a t i o n s fo r hous ing t e n u r e , se l f -employment l e a d i n g to a c h o i c e not to i n v e s t c a p i t a l i n h o u s i n g . So t o o , f a m i l y l i f e - c y c l e c h o i c e s were t i e d to hous ing tenure d e c i s i o n s , wi th a number of house-h o l d s d e c i d i n g a g a i n s t homeownership i n order to p r e s e r v e what they p e r c e i v e d to be a h e a l t h i e r f a m i l y env i ronment . T h e o r e t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s of the E m p i r i c a l Study 1. Homeownership as a Causa l F a c t o r i n the S u p p r e s s i o n of Working C l a s s Consc iousnes s There are dangers i n drawing a h i s t o r i c a l argument from r e l a t i v e l y s t a t i c s o c i o l o g i c a l a n a l y s e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , I would l i k e to c r i t i c i s e the l i n e of h i s t o r i c a l i m p u t a t i o n p r e s e n t e d by i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s on the b a s i s of the ev idence o b t a i n e d through t h i s s t u d y . The f i n d i n g that hous-ing tenure was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h g e n e r a l p o l i t i c a l o u t l o o k for nonmanual but not for manual workers c a s t s doubt on the sweep-i n g c o n s e r v a t i s i n g e f f e c t s a t t r i b u t e d to homeownership by the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s . The p o l i t i c a l o u t l o o k of s k i l l e d manual workers d i d not seem t o be a f f e c t e d by homeownership i n any automat ic way. A d e c l i n e i n working c l a s s p o l i t i c s would seem to have as much to do w i t h the f a c t tha t nonmanual sec-t o r s as a p r o p o r t i o n of the l a b o u r f o r c e have i n c r e a s e d mark-e d l y throughout t h i s c e n t u r y than w i t h a r a d i c a l t r a n s f o r m a -t i o n i n the manual group. F o r r e s t has r e c e n t l y suggested t h a t : 413 " . . . i t may be more a p p r o p r i a t e to s ea rch fo r emergent c l a s s c l eavages i n more fundamental h i s t o r i c a l changes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the l abour p roce s s and the d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r . In p a r t i c u l a r , one might a l s o examine the growth of t e r t i a r y and b u r e a u c r a t i c employment and p roce s se s r e l a t i n g to i n c r e a s e d u n i o n i s a t i o n , wage s t a b i l i s a t i o n , and working c l a s s s a v i n g s . ' ^ The a v a i l a b l e ev idence suggests tha t F o r r e s t i s o n l y p a r t i a l l y c o r r e c t : i t i s a l s o the case that those i n v o l v e d i n t e r t i a r y and b u r e a u c r a t i c employment, c l a s s i f i e d s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t l y here as s k i l l e d nonmanual, are p a r t i c u l a r l y s u s c e p t i b l e to s ee ing t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n terms of consumption r e l a t i o n s , i n t h i s c a se , in terms of hous ing c l a s s . T h i s i s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the argument p r e s e n t e d by Agnew that homeownership does not l e a d to p o l i t i c a l c o n s e r v a t i s m i n 3 any automat ic way. Agnew argues tha t homeownership has d i f f e r e n t meanings i n B r i t a i n and N o r t h A m e r i c a , w i t h d i f f e r -ent e f f e c t s on l o c a l p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . As one e x p l a n a t i o n for t h i s source of v a r i a t i o n , Agnew suggests t h a t : " R e s i s t a n c e to c a p i t a l i s t s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s , ' s t r u g g l e ' i f you w i l l , g i v e s r i s e to ideas and i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t r e o r i e n t the p roce s s of s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n . So i n the case of homeownership, the mean-ings a t t a c h e d to the tenure d i f f e r from context t o contex t depending upon the extent to which the dominance of c a p i t a l i s t 4 s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s has been s u c c e s s f u l l y c h a l l e n g e d . " 2 R. F o r r e s t , "The meaning of homeownership , " p . 206. 3 J . Agnew, "Home Ownership and I d e n t i t y i n C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t i e s . I! 4 I b i d p . 88. r 414 2. Meaning and S o c i a l I d e n t i t y as Aspec t s of a Complete E x p l a n a t i o n T h i s l eads to a second t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t . The i n c o r p o r a -t i o n t h e o r i s t s present a f u n c t i o n a l argument which leads to c o n c l u s i o n s which are s imply wrong. The neatness of func-t i o n a l arguments needs to be checked by an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of s o c i a l p roce s se s as l i v e d e x p e r i e n c e , as a p roce s s of s t r u c -t u r a t i o n . S e l f - d e f i n i t i o n , meaning and s o c i a l i d e n t i t y are c r i t i c a l concept s i n under s t and ing the p o l i t i c a l ' i m p a c t ' of hous ing t e n u r e . Homeownership was l i n k e d to s o c i a l s t a t u s for the nonmanual but not the manual workers i n t e r v i e w e d i n Surrey and t h i s s i g n i f i c a n c e in terms of s o c i a l i d e n t i t y i n f l u e n c e d the importance g iven to hous ing as a p o l i t i c a l i s s u e . The d i f f e r -ent s i g n i f i c a n c e of homeownership to the s o c i a l i d e n t i t i e s of manual and nonmanual workers seemed r e f l e c t e d l e s s in the s p e c i f i c meanings a t t a c h e d to homeownership than in the p r i o r -i t y these meanings were g i v e n i n s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n . S i m i l a r sent iments were expressed about the home as a l o c u s of p e r s o n -a l c o n t r o l and s a t i s f a c t i o n - gardens , p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o d u c t i v e vege tab le p l o t s , seemed the source of c o n s i d e r a b l e p r i d e and f e e l i n g s of accomplishment fo r a lmost a l l homeowners i n t e r -v iewed . For the manual worker s , however, t h i s p r i d e i n home was ba l anced w i t h a sense of i d e n t i t y deve loped through t rade union membership. S t r a u s s w r i t e s : " I d e n t i t i e s imply not merely p e r s o n a l h i s t o r i e s but a l s o s o c i a l h i s t o r i e s . . . . i n d i v i d u a l s h o l d mem-415 b e r s h i p s i n groups that themselves are p roduc t s of the p a s t . I f you wish to unders tand persons - t h e i r development and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s - you must be prepared 5 to view them as embedded i n h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t . " The manual workers i n t e r v i e w e d l i v e i n a p r o v i n c e in which the s t r e n g t h of the t rade union movement i s n a t i o n a l l y n o t o r i o u s , a f a c t which i s p a r t i a l l y a t t r i b u t e d to the s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e of B r i t i s h and U . S . t r ade u n i o n i s t s and the re source base of the r e g i o n a l economy. For manual worker s , t r ade union membership focused p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n away from hous ing and f i r m l y onto p r o d u c t i o n i s s u e s , not j u s t through an amorphous sense of sent iment or group s o l i d a r i t y , but through very s p e c i f i c channe l s of i n f o r m a t i o n and i n f l u e n c e . The t rade u n i o n i s t s i n t e r v i e w e d i n Surrey knew, for i n s t a n c e , i n a much more s p e c i f i c sense than the n o n - u n i o n i s e d nonmanual workers such as d ra f t smen , e x a c t l y what p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l c a t egory was at tha t p o i n t unemployed. Not o n l y was the r e a l i s a t i o n of the unemployment prob lem, d i r e c t l y i n r e l a t i o n to themse lve s , more c l e a r c u t amongst manual t r ade u n i o n i s t s but an e f f e c t i v e means of a l l e v i a t i n g t h i s problem was seen to l i e i n c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s and to a l e s s e r ex tent government involvement i n job c r e a t i o n . In o ther words, the union was seen as an e f f e c t i v e channe l fo r a c t i o n . 5 A . S t r a u s s , M i r r o r s and Masks : The Search for I d e n t i t y (London: M a r t i n R o b e r t s o n , 1977), pT 764. S. J amieson , Times of T r o u b l e : Labour Unres t and I n d u s t r i a l C o n f l i c t i n Canada, 1900-1966, Task F o r c e on Labour R e l a t i o n s , Ottawa, 1968, p . 106. 416 At the same t ime , the manual worker s ' o r i e n t a t i o n towards the economy does not o n l y r e f l e c t more awareness of the p r o -blem of unemployment but a g r e a t e r problem as w e l l . Comparing n a t i o n a l unemployment r a t e s i n J u l y 1983 by o c c u p a t i o n c a t e -g o r y , there was an unemployment r a t e of 17.0% i n the c o n s t r u c -t i o n s e c t o r , 12.7% in t r a n s p o r t equipment o p e r a t i o n occupa-t i o n s , 18.0% for m a c h i n i n g , 10.9% for product f a b r i c a t i n g , a s sembl ing and r e p a i r i n g , 13.3% in s e r v i c e i n d u s t r i e s , 7.0% amongst t e a c h e r s , 8.2% i n s a l e s o c c u p a t i o n s and 3.9% i n man-7 a g e r i a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o c c u p a t i o n s . With an o v e r a l l employment r a t e of 11.2%, i t i s c l e a r l y amongst manual occupa-t i o n s that the h i g h e s t unemployment r a t e s o c c u r . These s t a t i s -t i c s are s imply s u g g e s t i v e , of c o u r s e , g i v e n tha t the occupa-t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y in compounding n o n s k i l l e d and s k i l l e d o c c u p a t i o n s , do not f o l l o w those employed i n t h i s s t u d y . N e v e r t h e l e s s , as noted i n the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r , a c t u a l p e r s o n a l job s e c u r i t y d i d not seem to be d i r e c t l y or a u t o m a t i -c a l l y l i n k e d to whether i n d i v i d u a l s p e r c e i v e d t h e i r e l e c t o r a l i n t e r e s t s i n terms of h o u s i n g , i n s o f a r as s e v e r a l of those r e c e n t l y l a i d o f f were w i l l i n g to vote fo r any p a r t y s t r i c t l y to b r i n g changes i n the tax system to a l l o w mortgage i n t e r e s t payments as tax d e d u c t i o n s . Thus I would argue tha t t r ade union membership mediates the unemployment s i t u a t i o n of manual workers i n such a way as to make i t dominant as a p o l i t i c a l c o n c e r n . For nonmanual workers there was no such i d e n t i f i c a -S t a t i s t i c s Canada, The Labour F o r c e , c a t . 71-001 (Ottawa: Supply and Services") J u l y 1983) . 417 t i o n w i t h a p r o d u c t i o n - b a s e d group , a n d * i n the absence of t h i s , homeownership was g iven more s o c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Nonmanual homeowners then chose to make e l e c t o r a l d e c i s i o n s wi th h o u s i n g i s s u e s foremost i n mind . I t i s t h i s complex proce s s of s t r u c t u r a t i o n tha t Dunleavy f l a t t e n s out when he w r i t e s that " i d e o l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r a t i o n of these s e c t o r a l consumption c l e a v a g e s fundamenta l ly r e f l e c t s the i n t e r e s t s of dominant s o c i a l groups and h i g h e r s o c i a l g g rades " w h i l e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y acknowledging t h a t p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s become d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a l o n g c o l l e c t i v e - i n d i v i d u a l i s e d consumption l i n e s v i a l o c a l p o l i t i c a l c o n f l i c t s . He r e a l i s e s t h a t : " A t the l o c a l l e v e l , however, the f u n c t i o n s of the p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n p r o v i d i n g channe l s of access from p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l bases to l o c a l d e c i s i o n makers (and thus in g e n e r a t i n g l o c a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t for p e r c e p t i o n s of the c o s t - s u b s i d y ba lance for d i f f e r e n t tenure g r o u p s ) , has been c o n s i s t e n t l y and i n c r e a s i n g l y i m p o r t a n t . There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e ev idence that the inner c i t y working c l a s s came to support the Labour p a r t y at the l o c a l l e v e l p r i m a r i l y as a means of c o n t r o l l i n g and a m e l i o r a t i n g the o p e r a t i o n s of the l o c a l hous ing m a r k e t . " q T h i s type of e m p i r i c a l r e a l i s a t i o n must be g i v e n t h e o r e t i c a l weight so tha t i d e o l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r a t i o n i s seen as a nego-t i a t e d p roce s s r a t h e r than something implanted from above. P. Dunleavy , "The urban b a s i s of p o l i t i c a l a l i g n m e n t : s o c i a l c l a s s , domest ic p r o p e r t y ownersh ip , and s t a t e i n t e r v e n -t i o n i n consumption p r o c e s s e s , " p . 429. I b i d . , p . 433. 418 3. T h e o r e t i c a l S p e c i f i c i t y Through E m p i r i c a l Study Another f a i l i n g of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s r e s t s on an i m p r e c i s e l e v e l of g e n e r a l i s a t i o n which has r e s u l t e d from t h e o r e t i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n . R e l a t e d t o t h i s i s the tendency fo r theory to r e i n f o r c e p r e c o n c e i v e d assumptions when u n c o n t r o l l e d by e m p i r i c a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n . T h i s s tudy i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t i s a mis take to g e n e r a l i s e the importance of homeownership for p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n a c r o s s a l l s o c i a l c l a s s e s . There i s a dynamic i n t e r p l a y between p r o d u c t i o n - b a s e d and consumpt ion-based groups , w i t h hous ing tenure p l a y i n g a more s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n shaping p o l i t i c a l response amongst those c l a s s i f i e d as s k i l l e d nonmanual, as compared to a l l o ther s o c i a l c l a s s e s , but most p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n to s k i l l e d manual worker s . For manual workers hous ing tenure does not seem to i n f l u e n c e p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s , a l tho ugh those who are more s t a b l e i n terms of jobs are drawn to homeownership. For nonmanual worker s , homeownership appears to have some o v e r a l l impact on g e n e r a l p o l i t i c a l o u t l o o k , i n d i c a t e d by the n a t i o n a l data s e t , and c e r t a i n l y some e f f e c t on p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n towards hous ing i s s u e s . T h i s causes one to reexamine the s o c i a l ped ig ree of those promot ing the impact of homeownership on community a f f a i r s and a l s o to q u e s t i o n the easy marr iage between ' t h e l e f t ' and ' t h e r i g h t ' , or the p o l i t i c i a n s , the r e a l e s t a t e promoters and t h e o r e t i c i a n s , i n t h e i r a n a l y s e s of the impact of homeowner-s h i p on p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s . I t becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y i n t r i g u i n g tha t the 1976 Community Development P r o j e c t c r i t i c s t a t e s tha t 419 B e l l m a n , former b u i l d i n g s o c i e t y p r e s i d e n t , has "put h i s f i n -ger on i t " when he w r i t e s t h a t : "The man who has something to p r o t e c t and improve - a o t a k e of some s o r t i n t h i s c o u n t r y -n a t u r a l l y t u r n s h i s thoughts in the d i r e c t i o n of sane, o rdered and p e r f o r c e economica l government . " 1 ^ I t does not seem too s t r o n g a statement to suggest that the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s , both l e f t and r i g h t on the p o l i t i c a l spectrum, have been c l o u d e d by p o l i t i c a l c o n c e r n s . An e x c e l l e n t example of t h i s i s D u n l e a v y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the e m p i r i c a l ev idence he p r e s e n t s to support the p o s i t i o n that hous ing tenure has an a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h v o t i n g behav iour independent of o c c u p a t i o n a l c l a s s . 1 1 Dunleavy argues on f a u l t y t h e o r e t i c a l grounds that i t i s p r i m a r i l y amongst manual workers tha t there tends to be a d i s c o r d a n c e between s o c i a l c l a s s and consumption s e c t o r s ( i n d i v i d u a l i s e d ve r su s c o l l e c t i -v i s e d hous ing and t r a n s p o r t s t a t u s ) . H i s e m p i r i c a l da ta c e r -t a i n l y do not show t h i s . There i s no e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e that the a c t u a l impact of consumption s e c t o r s i s l e s s fo r those i n nonmanual o c c u p a t i o n s . I f a n y t h i n g the ev idence shows q u i t e the o p p o s i t e . For i n s t a n c e , i n 1974 i n B r i t a i n the C o n s e r v a -t i v e percentage of the two p a r t y vote f o r those i n the lower nonmanual s o c i a l grade (an approximate amalgam of the non-1 ^ Community Development P r o j e c t , Prof i t s A g a i n s t Houses , p . 42. 1 1 P. Dunleavy , "The urban b a s i s of p o l i t i c a l a l i g n m e n t : s o c i a l c l a s s , domest ic p r o p e r t y owner sh ip , and s t a t e i n t e r v e n -t i o n i n consumption p r o c e s s e s . " 420 s k i l l e d and s k i l l e d nonmanual c a t e g o r i e s u t i l i s e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s ) i s 74 for homeowners (wi th one car ) and 50 for c o u n c i l t e n a n t s (with one car a l s o ) . In compar i son , the C o n s e r v a t i v e percentage of the two p a r t y vote fo r those i n the s k i l l e d manual o c c u p a t i o n s i s 50 for homeowners (wi th one c a r ) and 32 fo r c o u n c i l t enant s (wi th one c a r ) . Thus the d i f f e r -ence i n p o l i t i c a l a l ignment a c r o s s consumption l o c a t i o n s i s a c t u a l l y g r e a t e r for those c l a s s i f i e d as lower nonmanual . D u n l e a v y ' s m i s r e a d i n g of h i s own a n a l y s i s seems l i n k e d to a t h e o r e t i c a l p r o c l i v i t y to judge any impact on manual workers* p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n as more s i g n i f i c a n t than tha t on the p o l i t i c s of nonmanual worker s , a p e r s p e c t i v e h inged to p r e c a r i o u s t h e o r e t i c a l and perhaps even h i s t o r i c a l r a t i o n a l e . The b a s i s for t h i s view i s that i n d i v i d u a l i s e d modes of c o n -sumption mere ly r e i n f o r c e s o c i a l c l a s s i n the nonmanual s o c i a l g rades . On these grounds Dunleavy argues that consumption s e c t o r s are p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e i n f ragment ing working c l a s s c o n s c i o u s n e s s amongst manual worker s : "The i d e o l o g i c a l and p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s accompanying consumption l o c a t i o n s thus fundamenta l ly weaken the l i n k s between manual workers and the Labour p a r t y . The h i g h e r l e v e l s of w o r k i n g - c l a s s C o n s e r v a t i v e support produced as a r e s u l t a re i n themselves f u n c t i o n a l for the maintenance of s o c i a l c o h e s i o n , l e a d i n g d i r e c t l y to i n c r e a s e d p o l i t i c a l s t a b i l i t y and r e d u c i n g the p o l a r i z a t i o n of e l e c t o r a l p o l i t i c s a l o n g o c c u p a t i o n a l c l a s s l i n e s . " 1 2 D u n l e a v y ' s c l a i m tha t the i n d i v i d u a l i s e d consumption of home-ownership mere ly r e i n f o r c e s the s o c i a l c l a s s p o s i t i o n of lower I b i d . , p . 443. 421 nonmanual workers i s without t h e o r e t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n : marx i s t ( D u n l e a v y ' s chosen framework) and to some extent weberian t h e o r i s i n g more c l e a r l y suggests an o b j e c t i v e c l a s s s p l i t between the p r o f e s s i o n a l and manager i a l s o c i a l grades and 13 . . . . o ther c a t e g o r i e s . In some senses however t h i s c r i t i c i s m i s q u i t e i r r e l e v a n t : what Dunleavy i s concerned to e x p l a i n i s not the g e n e r a l r e l a t i o n between consumption c l eavages and o b j e c -t i v e l y d e f i n e d s o c i a l c l a s s e s but r a t h e r the h i s t o r i c s h i f t of manual workers from Labour to C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y s u p p o r t . T h i s l eads to d i s t o r t i o n s i n a p p r a i s i n g the pre sent s i t u a t i o n . R e i n t e r p r e t e d , D u n l e a v y ' s ev idence i s q u i t e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the argument p re sen ted here , t h a t hous ing tenure i s more c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s for s k i l l e d nonmanual worker s . That i t i s nonmanual homeowners who choose to make e l e c t o r a l d e c i s i o n s w i t h hous ing i s s u e s foremost i n mind f i t s w i t h t h e i r tendency to o r i e n t c o n f l i c t towards the s t a t e . The l a t t e r f i n d i n g i s i n tu rn c o m p a t i b l e w i t h U r r y ' s o b s e r v a t i o n tha t for those i n the middle c l a s s e s " the dominant c o n t r a d i c -t i o n w i l l not be one of r u l i n g c l a s s / r u l e d c l a s s . Rather i t w i l l b e . . . t h e s t a t e / the people or the l a r g e c o r p o r a t i o n s / t h e p e o p l e . " 1 4 G. C a r c h e d i , On the Economic I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of S o c i a l C l a s s e s ; F . P a r k i n , Marxism and C l a s s T h e o r y : A Bourgeo i s C r i t i q u e ; E . O . W,right, C l a s s S t r u c t u r e and Income Determinat i o n . 1 4 J . U r r y , The Anatomy of C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t i e s : The Economy, C i v i l S o c i e t y and the S t a t e (London: M a c m i l l a n , 1 981 ) , p . 67. 422 T h e o r i s t s such as Habermas have tended to make - u n s p e c i -f i e d s t a t e m e n t s . c o n c e r n i n g the tendency towards l e g i t i m a t i o n c r i s i s i n advanced c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t i e s , p a r t i a l l y f o l l o w i n g from a r e a l i s a t i o n of the p o l i t i c a l nature of economic a f f a i r s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s t r i b u t i v e outcomes, w i t h the 1 5 growth of the we l f a re s t a t e . T h i s s tudy suggests that the tendency towards t h i s type of d i s a f f e c t i o n i s r a t h e r more l o c a l i s e d , most p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h i n the s k i l l e d nonmanual g roup . Le f ebvre i s perhaps s u i t a b l y dramat ic but d e c e p t i v e l y i m p r e c i s e when he w r i t e s t h a t : "What we see i s i n f a c t a s o c i e t y t e n d i n g t a c t i c a l l y and s t r a t e g i c a l l y towards the i n t e g r a t i o n of the working c l a s s e s and p a r t i a l l y succeed ing - by the r e p r e s s i v e o r g a n i s a t i o n s of everyday l i f e through compuls ions and by a p e r s u a s i v e i d e o l o g y of consumption more than by consumption i t s e l f . . . . T h u s the c i r c u m -s tances that c h a r a c t e r i s e [the middle c l a s s e s ] have spread to the whole of s o c i e t y , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of the r u l i n g c l a s s e s or contemporary e q u i v a l e n t of the a r i s t o c r a c y who have no everyday l i f e . ' ' . 4. Consumption S e c t o r s Whi le t h i s study l eads to a r e j e c t i o n of the i n c o r p o r a -t i o n t h e s i s on e m p i r i c a l grounds , the consumption s e c t o r approach , which has deve loped out of t h e o r e t i c a l r e v i s i o n s of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s , r e c e i v e s e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t . The J . Habermas, L e g i t i m a t i o n C r i s i s (Bos ton : Beacon P r e s s , 1975). See a l s o , E . G e l l n e r , "A S o c i a l C o n t r a c t i n Search of an Id iom: The Demise of the Danegeld S t a t e ? " P o l i t i - c a l Q u a r t e r l y 46 (1975), 127-152; H . L e f e b v r e , The S u r v i v a l of C a p i t a l i s m : R e p r o d u c t i o n of the R e l a t i o n s of P r o d u c t i o n . 1 ^ H . L e f e b v r e , Everyday L i f e i n the Modern World (New Y o r k : H a r p e r , 1971), p . 78 and p . 93. 423 Surrey i n t e r v i e w s i n d i c a t e d very c l e a r l y that nonmanual home-owners f u n c t i o n as a p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t group, p repared to vote for any p o l i t i c a l p a r t y i n o rder to b r i n g i n t o e f f e c t mortgage i n t e r e s t and p r o p e r t y tax c r e d i t s . That i t was o n l y s k i l l e d nonmanual homeowners who were prepared to do so does not negate the f a c t t h a t t h i s i s a powerfu l group , i n numer i -c a l terms , p repared to express t h e i r hous ing i n t e r e s t s through t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l v o t i n g p r a c t i s e s . Moreover , the s u c c e s s f u l outcome of these v o t i n g t e n d e n c i e s w i l l impact on homeowners, or r a t h e r , t h i s consumption s e c t o r , as a whole . The argument that homeowners are u n l i k e l y to f u n c t i o n as a p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t group because t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i s e d form of hous ing consumption p r e v e n t s them from see ing t h e i r common 17 18 i n t e r e s t s n e g l e c t s the " t y r a n n y of smal l d e c i s i o n s " . Notab ly i t was i n t h i s p roce s s of s m a l l , somewhat independent e l e c t o r a l d e c i s i o n s t h a t the s t r e n g t h of homeowners as a group was e v i d e n c e d , much more so than i n the p a t t e r n which i s more c o n v e n t i o n a l l y p r e s e n t e d of homeowners as ne ighbourhood a c t i -v i s t s so as to c o n t r o l p r o p e r t y v a l u e s and tax r a t e s . The w i l l i n g n e s s of nonmanual homeowners to vote s t r i c t l y i n terms of a hous ing programme which o f f e r s them i n d i r e c t M. E d e l "Home ownership and working c l a s s u n i t y , " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research 6 (1982), 205-22. 1 8 A . E . Kahn, "The Tyranny of Smal l D e c i s i o n s : Market F a i l u r e s , I m p e r f e c t i o n s , and the L i m i t s of E c o n o m i c s , " Kyk lo s 19 (1966) , 23-47; T . C . S c h e l l i n g "On the Eco logy of M i c r o -m o t i v e s , " i n The Corpora te S o c i e t y , e d . R. M o r r i s (London: M a c M i l l a n , 1974) . 424 s u b s i d i s a t i o n through tax r e l i e f , and to do so r e g a r d l e s s of the remainder of the p a r t y p l a t f o r m , has i m p l i c a t i o n s for the economic b a s i s of the d i s t i n c t i o n between hous ing t e n u r e s . E l sewhere I have argued that i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y p u b l i c sub-s i d i s a t i o n , b i a s e d i n favour of homeownership, which forms the more e n d u r i n g b a s i s of m a t e r i a l advantage for the homeowner and hence the economic f o u n d a t i o n for consumption s e c t o r s (or 1 q domest ic p r o p e r t y c l a s s e s ) . The o b j e c t i v e b a s i s to hous ing tenure d i v i s i o n s i s a n e g o t i a t e d p roce s s w i t h n o t a b l y c o n s e r -v a t i v e p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s p u r s u i n g t h e i r s e l f i n t e r e s t i n the e l e c t o r a l p roce s s by o f f e r i n g such programmes as e l e c t i o n promises and groups of homeowners w i l l i n g to see t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n terms of hous ing so as to be swayed by such e l e c t i o n p r o m i s e s . In a d d i t i o n , the c o a l i t i o n between c o n -s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y i n t e r e s t s and those of homeowners, a c o i n -c i d e n c e of i n t e r e s t s , c r e a t e s a powerfu l c o a l i t i o n which a l -most ensures the c o n t i n u a t i o n of such hous ing programmes. T h i s i s r e i n f o r c e d i n t u r n by the unbalanced r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of hous ing i n t e r e s t s ; r e n t e r s tend to a s p i r e to homeownership and hence show no i n t e r e s t i n promoting t h e i r tenure form. Abrams notes that "as we move from what q u e s t i o n s to why 20 q u e s t i o n s our s o c i o l o g y has to become h i s t o r i c a l . " T h i s 1 9 G . P r a t t , " C l a s s a n a l y s i s and urban domest ic p r o p e r t y " . See a l s o M. Farmer and R. B a r r e l l , " E n t r e p e n e u r s h i p and government p o l i c y : the case of the hous ing m a r k e t , " J o u r n a l of P u b l i c P o l i c y 2 (1981) , 307-32; P. Saunders , "Beyond Hous ing C l a s s e s " . 20 P. Abrams, H i s t o r i c a l S o c i o l o g y (Somerset : Open Books, 1982), p . 10. 425 tempora l d imens ion seems e s s e n t i a l in u n d e r s t a n d i n g the i n t e r -p l a y of c a u s a l i t y l y i n g beh ind hous ing p o l i c y and u l t i m a t e l y the e x i s t e n c e of o b j e c t i v e consumption s e c t o r s . Even i f much of postwar h o u s i n g p o l i c y i n Canada, the U . S . and B r i t a i n , which has i n e f f e c t f avoured homeowners, was p r i m a r i l y d i r e c t -ed towards the p r o d u c t i o n of new hous ing u n i t s and the s t a b i l i s a t i o n of the economy, wi th the concerns of hous ing consumers a secondary c o n s i d e r a t i o n , these hous ing p o l i c i e s have had the e f f e c t of f a v o u r i n g one group of hous ing c o n -sumers. A second stage i n the proces s i s for homeowners to r e c o g n i s e t h e i r i n t e r e s t s a l o n g these l i n e s and to lobby for them. T h i s second stage was e v i d e n t amongst nonmanual home-owners in Surrey and thus i n dynamic i n t e r p l a y , consumption c h o i c e s feed forward i n t o p o l i t i c a l p o l i c y . 5. A g a i n s t r e d u c t i o n i sm: The means of consumption as an independent mode of s o c i a l s t r u c t u r a t i o n In drawing out the d i s t i n c t i o n between manual and non-manual workers i n terms of broad i d e o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s and o r i e n t a t i o n s towards consumption i s s u e s , the emphasis was on the de terminant r o l e of p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s . I t i s w e l l to emphasise the r o l e of consumption r e l a t i o n s , i n t h i s case hous ing t e n u r e , i n s t r u c t u r i n g s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . The m a t e r i a l advantages of homeownership, l i n k e d to house p r i c e i n f l a t i o n and , more e n d u r i n g l y , to government s u b s i d i s a t i o n have been ment ioned . Three a d d i t i o n a l sources of g e n e r a l impact w i l l be r e v i e w e d : the r e l a t i o n s between hous ing t e n u r e , l abour n e g o t i a t i o n s and job s t a b i l i t y ; between tenure and 426 e n t r e p e n e u r i a l a c t i v i t y ; and between tenure and f a m i l y o r g a n i s a t i o n . Homeownership may r e f l e c t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s tendency t o -wards p e r s o n a l f i n a n c i a l s t a b i l i t y but i t a l s o r e i n f o r c e s t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n towards p e r s o n a l t h r i f t . As ide from c h o i c e s c o n -c e r n i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y income, o b l i g a t i o n s towards mortgage debt were thought , by Surrey re spondent s , to have an i n f l u e n c e on , and not merely r e f l e c t , job s t a b i l i t y . T h i s was expres sed by the g e n e r a l agreement amongst Surrey respondents tha t home-owners are more s t a b l e employees because they are r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e i r mortgages . For the t r ade u n i o n i s t s i n the Surrey sample, t h i s concern for s t a b i l i t y was o f ten thought to be r e -f l e c t e d in a t t i t u d e s towards l abour unres t and, more s p e c i f i -c a l l y , the use of s t r i k e s as b a r g a i n i n g t a c t i c s . The more g e n e r a l o u t l o o k was that mortgaged homeowners w i l l be l e s s w i l l i n g to s t r i k e for fear of m i s s i n g mortgage payments and perhaps l o s i n g t h e i r houses . In t h i s sense , consumption r e l a -t i o n s m o d i f y ' c l a s s ' a c t i o n . Thus the o r i e n t a t i o n towards p e r s o n a l t h r i f t , s t r e s s e d by the P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y of Canada i n t h e i r c l a i m t h a t : "People who own homes have a r e a l i n c e n t i v e to ensure that they earn enough to pay 2 1 for i t - an i n c e n t i v e to work f i v e days a week" , and e q u a l l y by the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s , was g e n e r a l l y c o n f i r m e d i n t h i s s t u d y . An important q u a l i f i c a t i o n which must be appended to the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s ' p e r s p e c t i v e , however, i s tha t 21 C o n s e r v a t i v e P a r t y of Canada, "Homeowners and buyers deserve a b r e a k . . . . Economic recovery through s t i m u l u s , " 1979, p . 3. 427 homeownership f u n c t i o n s i n a d u a l f a s h i o n , c o n s t r a i n i n g home-owners ' consumption p a t t e r n s and l abour a c t i o n w h i l e a l s o o f f e r i n g access to r e a l w e a l t h . T h i s t e n s i o n between the c o n s t r a i n t s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f f e r e d by homeownership was c l e a r l y apparent i n r e l a t i o n to the s e l f - e m p l o y e d segment of Surrey r e n t e r s . A c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n between se l f -employment and hous ing tenure f o r c e s one to a p p r e c i a t e the tempora l na ture of the i n t e r p l a y between the c o n s t r a i n t s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f f e r e d by homeownership, as w e l l as tha t between p r o d u c t i o n and consump-t i o n r e l a t i o n s , and hence the need to loosen r i g i d t h e o r e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s . P r e s e n t l y , most en t repeneur s i n t e r v i e w e d were not keen to own a house, p a r t i a l l y because they viewed homeowner-s h i p s t r i c t l y i n investment terms and d i d not view hous ing as a good investment at t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e . In t h i s sense , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards homeownership were a d i r e c t r e s u l t of t h e i r employment s t a t u s . At the same t i m e , s e v e r a l had used the p r o f i t s o b t a i n e d through homeownership d u r i n g an i n f l a t i o n a r y p e r i o d i n the 1970's as ' s e e d ' money for t h e i r e n t r e p e n e u r i a l a c t i v i t i e s . Other s had used the s a l e of t h e i r homes as b u f f e r s for the f i n a n c i a l s e c u r i t y of t h e i r b u s i n e s s e s d u r i n g t imes of g e n e r a l economic r e c e s s i o n o r , more i n d i v i d u a l l y , b u s i n e s s f a i l u r e . In t h i s sense , p o s i t i o n i n the sphere of consumption d i r e c t l y impacted on t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s . I t i s t h i s dynamic i n t e r p l a y between consumption and produc-t i o n spheres tha t F o r r e s t fundamenta l ly misses when he w r i t e s : 428 "we can see how the e q u a t i o n proper ty=th ings=wea l th s e r i o u s l y d i s t o r t s a n a l y s e s of homeownership. The p r o p e r t y - o w n i n g democracy i m p l i e s o n l y a g r e a t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n of commodit ies and hence the enhancement of consumption power (which may r e f l e c t a l o w e r i n g of the v a l u e of embodied l a b o u r r a t h e r than a r i s e i n r e a l incomes) , a democracy s t r i c t l y l i m i t e d to the sphere of consumpt ion . A n a t i o n of homeowners would not n e c e s s a r i l y mean a n y t h i n g i n terms of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y r i g h t s in the p r o d u c t i o n of s o c i a l wea l th or the e x e r c i s e of s o c i a l power.22 There i s no s t r i c t l i m i t to the sphere of consumption which i s o l a t e s i t from that of p r o d u c t i o n and w h i l e the l i n k s from p r o d u c t i o n to consumption are most o f t en made, the p a t t e r n of i n f l u e n c e i s b i d i r e c t i o n a l . I t i s t h i s type of i n t e r p l a y which makes hous ing and f i s c a l p o l i c y , such as tax changes to a l l o w mortgage i n t e r e s t payments as tax d e d u c t i o n s , so impor-tant - making homeownership too a t t r a c t i v e as an investment may have s e r i o u s i m p l i c a t i o n s for drawing funds away from a l t e r n a t i v e p r o d u c t i v e i n v e s t m e n t s . Another g e n e r a l e f f e c t of hous ing tenure concerns female p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the w o r k f o r c e . An a s s o c i a t i o n between home-ownership and two income f a m i l i e s was s t r o n g l y e v i d e n t for both the n a t i o n a l and Surrey data s e t s . The argument has been made tha t i n c r e a s i n g female p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the workforce has r a i s e d househo ld incomes so as to i n c r e a s e e f f e c t i v e demand 2 fo r h o u s i n g , e v e n t u a l l y c a u s i n g an i n c r e a s e i n house p r i c e s . T h i s s c e n a r i o may have a c l a s s b i a s , perhaps more t y p i c a l of R. F o r r e s t , "The meaning of homeownership" , p . 209. 23 C . Hamnett, "The house p r i c e r o l l e r c o a s t e r , " New S o c i e t y , 28 (1982) , p . 148. 429 w e l l - e d u c a t e d middle c l a s s or p r o f e s s i o n a l women than those i n t e r v i e w e d i n S u r r e y . Amongst the Surrey sample, two income f a m i l i e s appeared to f o l l o w from the c o s t s of homeownership, w i t h a much l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of spouses working i n homeowning as compared to r e n t i n g households for reasons of need as much as a d e s i r e to work o u t s i d e of the home. A s i d e from a tremendous impact on the s o c i o l o g y of the f a m i l y , w i t h r e n t e r s t e n d i n g to r e t a i n one form of f a m i l y u n i t and lower income 24 homeowners another , t h i s p a t t e r n has a r a t h e r l a r g e economic impact , w i t h homeownership in e f f e c t pushing to expand the l abour f o r c e . I f one wishes to draw, i n a somewhat s p e c u l a -t i v e f a s h i o n , the l a r g e r i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s expans ion of the l abour f o r c e one need on ly c i t e the growing l i t e r a t u r e on the economic s i g n i f i c a n c e of domest ic l abour i n the r e p r o d u c t i o n 25 of c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s . S t a y i n g c l o s e r to the ev idence at hand, there i s a rhythmic i n t e r p l a y and t e n s i o n between the p a t t e r n of a s s o c i a t i o n between homeownership and two income f a m i l i e s and the forement ioned tendency towards p e r s o n a l t h r i f t amongst homeowners. Two incomes are c o n s i d e r e d e s sen-t i a l for en t rance i n t o homeownership for those w i t h moderate For B r i t i s h ev idence on the way i n which c o u n c i l tenancy s t r u c t u r e s f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s , see C . Hamnett, "The post-war r e s t r u c t u r i n g of the B r i t i s h hous ing and l abour markets : A c r i t i c a l comment on T h o r n s " ; J . Payne and G . Payne, "Hous ing Pathways and S t r a t i f i c a t i o n : a study of l i f e changes i n the h o u s i n g m a r k e t , " J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P o l i c y 6 (1977) , 129-156. For example, D. Hayden, The Grand Domestic R e v o l u - t i o n ; E . Z a r e t s k y , C a p i t a l i s m , the Fami ly and the P e r s o n a l L i f e (New Y o r k : Harper Colophon Books , 1976). 430 incomes and i n a m a j o r i t y of ca ses for Surrey homeowners the mortgage was e v a l u a t e d i n terms of two incomes. I f the spouse chooses to r e t i r e from the l abour fo rce d u r i n g c h i l d b e a r i n g and r a i s i n g y e a r s , t h i s exacerba te s the n e c e s s i t y for t h r i f t . A c o n s c i o u s s t r a t e g y , mentioned r e p e a t e d l y by Surrey home-owners, for a l l e v i a t i n g t e n s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g job s e c u r i t y and c o n s t r a i n t s on d i s c r e t i o n a r y income, both of which f o l l o w from the r e l a t i v e l y heavy i n i t i a l c o s t s of homeownership for lower income f a m i l i e s , i s for the spouse to work o u t s i d e the home. On the o ther hand, the d e c i s i o n f o r the spouse to s tay at home to ca re for the f a m i l y had the e f f e c t of nar rowing the tenure o p t i o n to r e n t i n g for s e v e r a l f a m i l i e s i n t e r v i e w e d . Home-ownership thus has an i n f l u e n c e on the way i n which p r o d u c t i o n and f a m i l i a l r e l a t i o n s are o r d e r e d and v i c e v e r s a . 6. M a r x i s t and Weberian Approaches - T h e o r e t i c a l and M e t h o d o l o g i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s Much of the t h e o r e t i c a l debate c o n c e r n i n g the ' i n d e p e n -d e n t ' s i g n i f i c a n c e of consumption r e l a t i o n s has been a r t i c u -l a t e d very b a l d l y as one between m a r x i s t w r i t e r s , promoting the i n c o r p o r a t i o n t h e s i s , and w e b e r i a n s , a r t i c u l a t i n g a domes-t i c p r o p e r t y c l a s s model . A c o n c e n t r a t i o n of i n t e r e s t from both marx i s t and weberian t h e o r i s t s now surrounds the concept of consumption s e c t o r s a l t h o u g h a c r i t i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n i s r e t a i n e d : marx i s t w r i t e r s s t i l l g e n e r a l l y i n s i s t tha t consump-t i o n s e c t o r s are merely i d e o l o g i c a l w h i l e weber ian t h e o r i s t s tend to emphasise the m a t e r i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i v i s i o n s 431 between d i f f e r e n t consumption groups . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i n v o l v e s an u n w i l l i n g n e s s on the par t of the marx i s t t h e o r i s t s to draw the f u l l c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e i r own a n a l y s i s . I have argued e l s ewhere , in r e l a t i o n to D u n l e a v y ' s development of the 27 consumption s e c t o r approach : " the s u b s i d i e s d i r e c t e d towards homeowners are i n c o r p o r a t e d in an u n c l e a r f a s h i o n i n t o the t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s of consumption s e c t o r s and the d i f f e r e n c e s between house owners and n o n - p r o p e r t y owners are l e f t to r e v o l v e around i d e o l o g i c a l i s s u e s . . . . N o t o n l y i s i t neces sary to examine the c e n t r a l i t y of subs idy i n c i d e n c e but a l s o the r e a l i n e q u a l i t i e s i n the r e s u l t i n g p a t t e r n s of b e n e f i t s which are cap tured by house owners through s u b s i d i e s and c a p i t a l g a i n s . 2 g I f a convergence of t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t i s p o s s i b l e on these grounds i n terms of consumption s e c t o r s , i t s t i l l r e -mains that m a r x i s t and weberian a n a l y s i s d e f i n e c l a s s e s in very d i f f e r e n t ways and so the a r t i c u l a t i o n between consump-t i o n s e c t o r s and s o c i a l c l a s s e s ( v a r i o u s l y d e f i n e d ) i s go ing to look d i f f e r e n t from the p e r s p e c t i v e of these two t r a d i -t i o n s . For i n s t a n c e , has p a r t of the working c l a s s been N e v e r t h e l e s s , a note s h o u l d be made t h a t a r e c o g n i t i o n of the m a t e r i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of homeownership need not reduce the meaning of homeownership s o l e l y to economic terms . Homeownership i s a m u l t i - f a c e t e d c o n c e p t , wi th a wea l th of s t a t u s and symbol i c meanings . I t would be i r o n i c i f arguments for the m a t e r i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of homeownership, which have a r i s e n out of a weberian p e r s p e c t i v e , shou ld have such an e f f e c t ; the weberian t r a d i t i o n i s noted for the s i g n i f i c a n c e g i v e n t o s t a t u s groups and p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s , as important s o c i a l d i v i s i o n s p a r t i a l l y d i s t i n c t from economic c l a s s e s . 27 P. D u n l e a v y , Urban p o l i t i c a l a n a l y s i s : the p o l i t i c s of c o l l e c t i v e consumpt ion . G . P r a t t , " C l a s s a n a l y s i s and urban domest ic p r o p e r t y : a c r i t i c a l r e e x a m i n a t i o n , " p . 497. 432 i n c o r p o r a t e d by homeownership o r , as suggested h e r e , are two d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c l a s s e s d i f f e r e n t l y s u s c e p t i b l e to s ee ing t h e i r i n t e r e s t s in terms of hous ing? A few comments c o n -c e r n i n g the e m p i r i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of the m a r x i s t and weberian s o c i a l c l a s s d e f i n i t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y g iven the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the s k i l l e d manual/nonmanual d i s t i n c t i o n throughout t h i s a n a l y s i s , are thus warranted . In do ing t h i s , I wish to make some f i n a l remarks c o n c e r n i n g the l i n k s between e m p i r i c a l study and t h e o r e t i c a l work. The e m p i r i c a l study began w i t h a s t a t i c a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e o r e t i c a l l y d e r i v e d marxian and weberian c a t e g o r i e s as a way of b e g i n n i n g the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Sympath i s ing w i t h Thompson's o b s e r v a t i o n tha t " the f ine s t -meshed s o c i o l o g i c a l net cannot 29 g ive us a pure specimen of c l a s s " , t h i s was n e v e r t h e l e s s a way of b r e a k i n g i n t o the e m p i r i c a l s t u d y . The nonmanual/ manual s p l i t was found to be r e l e v a n t for the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of i n t e r e s t , namely those between hous ing c l a s s and the p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and behav iour s c o n s i d e r e d . That these f i n e r grada-t i o n s are r e l e v a n t to e x p e r i e n c e i s suggested f u r t h e r by the f a c t t h a t , for i n s t a n c e , 61.1% of the n o n s k i l l e d manual workers had o n l y e lementary s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n , compared to 31.7% of the n o n s k i l l e d nonmanual, 47.7% of the s k i l l e d manual 30 and 10.4% of the s k i l l e d nonmanual worker s . The d i s t i n c t i o n 29 E . P . Thompson, The Making of the E n g l i s h Work- ing C l a s s (London: G o l l a n c z , 1963), p . 9^ 30 The household income v a r i a b l e i s not as r e l e v a n t to the argument because i t combines the incomes of spouses and household heads . 433 between manual and nonmanual s k i l l e d workers was c a r r i e d i n t o the Surrey sample and was aga in found to be c r i t i c a l , both in terms of g e n e r a l i d e o l o g i c a l ou t look and because i t was o n l y amongst nonmanual workers tha t hous ing tenure s t r u c t u r e d p o l i t i c a l re sponse , i n s o f a r as o n l y homeowners were prepared to vote as a consumption group and e x p r e s s l y w i t h these hous ing i n t e r e s t s i n mind . An attempt was made to unders tand the reasons for t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n by p e n e t r a t i n g the s o c i o l o g i c a l c a t e g o r i e s i n terms of l i v e d e x p e r i e n c e . The r e l e v a n t d i f f e r ence seemed l i n k e d to the i n f l u e n c e of t rade unions on the p o l i t i c a l - e c o n o m i c ou t look of the manual workers and the ab-sence of such an i n f l u e n c e on that of the nonmanual . The hous ing i s sue was e q u a l l y important to nonmanual homeowners and r e n t e r s but o n l y the former were prepared to take p o l i t i -c a l a c t i o n i n terms of t h i s hous ing i n t e r e s t , presumably because they f e l t the a u t h o r i t y ( r i g h t ) to do so and f e l t a c l o s e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e i r tenure form. Thompson w r i t e s " S o c i o l o g i s t s who have stopped the t ime-machine and, w i t h a good d e a l of c o n c e p t u a l h u f f i n g and p u f f i n g , have gone down to the engine room to l o o k , t e l l us that nowhere at a l l have they been a b l e to l o c a t e and c l a s s i f y a c l a s s . They can f i n d o n l y a m u l t i t u d e of people w i t h d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a t i o n s , incomes, s t a t u s h i e r a r c h i e s , and the r e s t . Of cour se they are r i g h t , s i n c e c l a s s i s not t h i s or that p a r t of the machine, but the way the machine works once i t i s set i n motion - not t h i s i n t e r e s t and tha t i n t e r e s t , but the f r i c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s - the movement i t s e l f , the h e a t , the t h u n d e r i n g n o i s e . C l a s s i s a s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l fo rmat ion (o f ten f i n d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n ) which cannot be d e f i n e d a b s t r a c t l y or in i s o l a t i o n , but o n l y i n terms of r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h o ther c l a s s e s . . . . c l a s s i t s e l f i s not a t h i n g , i t i s a h a p p e n i n g . " _ E . P . Thompson, "The P e c u l i a r i t i e s of the E n g l i s h , " 434 I t i s the l i v e d e x p e r i e n c e w i t h i n an i n s t i t u t i o n a l framework through which s o c i a l c l a s s i s c r e a t e d and u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , a l t h o u g h in the case of consumption s e c t o r s I would argue tha t i t i s the p a r t i c u l a r l a c k of f r i c t i o n , the u n i l a t e r a l p u r s u i t of s e l f i n t e r e s t on the p a r t of homeowners which has c r e a t e d the o b j e c t i v e b a s i s for the s e c t o r s . I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t to comment on the r e l a t i v e u t i l i t y of the marx i s t and weberian c l a s s schemas, e s p e c i a l l y g i v e n that the l i n k s between c la s s , and c l a s s c o n s c i o u s n e s s are l a r g e l y u n s p e c i f i e d i n both t r a d i t i o n s . One c o u l d argue e q u a l l y from e i t h e r t r a d i t i o n tha t t h i s study demonstrates how c l a s s ' s t r u g g l e ' m i t i g a t e s an o r i e n t a t i o n towards consumption i s s u e s . The comments t h a t I would l i k e to make are s t r i c t l y of a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l n a t u r e . My b a s i c p o i n t i s tha t the C a r c h e d i - W r i g h t system seems p a r t i c u l a r l y u n h e l p f u l i n lumping f i f t y percent of the p o p u l a t i o n t o g e t h e r under the heading of working c l a s s as a s t a r t i n g p o i n t for an e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y the case when e m p i r i c a l concerns i n c l u d e q u e s t i o n s of s o c i a l i d e n t i t y , p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n and gen-e r a l i d e o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , i s s u e s of some s u b t l e t y i n terms of the way people l i v e t h e i r l i v e s . As a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l t a c t i t seems neces sa ry to proceed w i t h a r e l a t i v e l y f i n e l y - m e s h e d t h e o r e t i c a l net and to work towards g e n e r a l i s a t i o n s through The S o c i a l i s t R e g i s t e r e d . R. M i l i b a n d and J . S a v i l l e (London: M e r l i n P r e s s , 1965), p . 357. 435 the e m p i r i c a l s tudy . In t h i s study l i n e s of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n which l i e c h i e f l y w i t h i n the working c l a s s were found to be c r i t i c a l for an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p o l i t i c a l impact of hous ing t e n u r e . 7. F l u i d i t y of T h e o r e t i c a l C a t e g o r i e s G e n e r a l l y , the ev idence spoke to the n e c e s s i t y for a f l e x i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n of any t h e o r e t i c a l c a t e g o r y . Beyond the t h e o r e t i c a l c a t e g o r i e s l i e n e g o t i a t e d s o c i a l p r o c e s s e s . The hous ing h i s t o r i e s of many of the r e n t e r s were very i r r e g u l a r , w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e movement between tenure c a t e g o r i e s , e s p e c i a l l y amongst the s e l f - e m p l o y e d . Housing t e n u r e , t h e n , i s a p r o c e s s , l i n k e d to o ther s o c i a l p r o c e s s e s . For the s e l f -employed a l s o , there was c o n s i d e r a b l e f l u i d i t y of movement between employment and se l f -employment and the impetus of t h i s movement l a y l a r g e l y i n the meaning of work for these people and the d e s i r e for c o n t r o l over the l abour p r o c e s s . A degree of p e r s o n a l c h o i c e was aga in e v i d e n t i n l i f e - s t y l e c h o i c e s c o n c e r n i n g f a m i l y o r g a n i s a t i o n and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , i n whether the spouse would work o u t s i d e of the home. W i t h i n l i m i t s , the immediate economic c o n s t r a i n t of homeownership was i t s e l f s e l e c t e d , o r , r a t h e r , more c o n s c i o u s l y r e j e c t e d by r e n t e r s who p e r c e i v e d the two incomes neces sary to a f f o r d homeownership as a t h r e a t to t h e i r f a m i l y s t a b i l i t y . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e o r e t i c a l concept s and a r e g u l a r i t y of p a t t e r n are n e g o t i a t e d through e m p i r i c a l s t u d y . Abrams w r i t e s : "The o b j e c t of a n a l y s i s of s o c i o l o g y [as of s o c i a l 436 geography] i s a c o n t i n u o u s l y r e - p a t t e r n e d s o c i a l dance , the changing f i g u r a t i o n s of which are n o t h i n g but the dancers i n 3 2 a c t i o n w i t h i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of t h e i r d a n c e . " We may note tha t the dancers know s e v e r a l dance s t e p s , a l t h o u g h o n l y a segment of the dancers p a t t e r n the homeownership two- s tep . P . Abrams, H i s t o r i c a l S o c i o l o g y , p . 233. 437 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and A r t i c l e s A a r o n , H . T . S h e l t e r and S u b s i d i e s - Who B e n e f i t s from F e d e r a l Housing P o l i c i e s ? Washington , D . C . : Brook ings I n s t . , 1972. Abrams, P. H i s t o r i c a l S o c i o l o g y . Somerset : Open Books, 1982. Agnew, J . "Market R e l a t i o n s and L o c a t i o n a l C o n f l i c t . " In U r b a n i z a t i o n and C o n f l i c t i n Market S o c i e t i e s . E d . K . R . Cox. C h i c a g o : Maaroufa , 1978, pp. 128-43. . "Home Ownership and I d e n t i t y i n C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t i e s . " In Housing and I d e n t i t y : C r o s s - c u l t u r a l P e r s p e c t i v e s . E d . J . S . Duncan. London: Croom Helm, 1981, pp . 60-97. A r e n d t , H . The Human C o n d i t i o n . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1958. B a c h e l a r d , G. The P o e t i c s of Space . T r a n s . M a r i a J o l a s . B o s t o n : Beacon P r e s s , 1969. B a i n , G . S . The Growth of White C o l l a r U n i o n i s m . London: C l a rendon P r e s s , 1970. B e c h h o f e r , F . , B. E l l i o t t , M. R u s h f o r t h and R. B l a n d . "The P e t i t s Bourgeo i s in the C l a s s S t r u c t u r e . " In The S o c i a l A n a l y s i s of C l a s s S t r u c t u r e . E d . F . P a r k i n . London: T a v i s t o c k , 1974. B e l l , C . "On Hous ing C l a s s e s . " A u s t r a l i a n and New Zealand J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , 13 (1977), 36-40. B e l l , D. The coming of p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y : A V e n - t u r e i n S o c i a l F o r e c a s t i n g . 2d e d . New Y o r k : Ba s i c Books , 1976. Bhaskar , R. The P o s s i b i l i t y of N a t u r a l i s m . New J e r s e y : Humani t i e s P r e s s , 1979. B l a l o c k , H . M . J . S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s , 2d e d . New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l , 1972. 438 B l i s h e n , B .R . and H . A . McRober t s . "A r e v i s e d soc ioeconomic index fo r o c c u p a t i o n s i n C a n a d a . " Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and A n t h r o p o l o g y , 1 3 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 71-79. Boddy, M. B u i l d i n g S o c i e t i e s . London: M a c M i l l a n , 1980. Bourne , L . S . The geography of h o u s i n g . New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1981. B r i t t a n , A . The P r i v a t i s e d W o r l d . London: Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1978. B u t l e r , P. and D. S t o k e s . P o l i t i c a l Change i n B r i t a i n . 2nd e d . London: M a c M i l l a n , 1975. C a r c h e d i , G . On the Economic I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of S o c i a l C l a s s e s . London: Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1977. C a r v e r , H . Compassionate Landscape . T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1975. C a s t e l l s , M. The Urban Q u e s t i o n : A M a r x i s t A p p r o a c h . London: H u t c h i n s o n , 1979. Checkoway, B. "Large b u i l d e r s , f e d e r a l hous ing programmes, and postwar s u b u r b a n i z a t i o n . " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 4 (1980), 21-45. C l a r k e , S. and G i n s b u r g , N . "The p o l i t i c a l economy of h o u s i n g . " In P o l i t i c a l economy and the hous ing q u e s t i o n . London: P o l i t i c a l Economy of Hous ing Workshop, 1975, pp . 3-33. C l a y t o n Research A s s o c i a t e s . Tax E x p e n d i t u r e s - H o u s i n g . Ottawa: CMHC, 1981. Community Development P r o j e c t . P r o f i t A g a i n s t Houses . Not t ingham: R u s s e l l P r e s s , 1976. C o n s e r v a t i v e Par ty of Canada. Homeowners and buyers deserve a b r e a k . . . Economic r e c o v e r y through s t i m u l u s . [Canada] : n . p . , 1979. Cooper Marcus , C . "The House as Symbol of the S e l f . " In D e s i g n i n g for Human B e h a v i o r : A r c h i t e c t u r e and the B e h a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e s . E d . J . Lang , C . B u r n e t t e , W. M o l e s k i and D. Vachon. S t r o u d s b e r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and Ross , 1974, pp . 130-46. Cox, K . R . " C a p i t a l i s m and c o n f l i c t around the communal l i v i n g s p a c e . " In U r b a n i z a t i o n and Urban P l a n n i n g in C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t y . E d . M. Dear and A . J . S c o t t . New Y o r k : Methuen, 1981, pp . 431-55. 439 and J . J . McCar thy . "Neighbourhood A c t i v i s m i n the American C i t y : B e h a v i o r a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s and E v a l u a t i o n . " Urban Geography, 1 (1980) , 22-38. and J . J . McCar thy . "Neighbourhood A c t i v i s m as a P o l i t i c s of T u r f : A C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s . " In C o n f l i c t , P o l i t i c s and the Urban Scene. E d . K . R . Cox and R . J . J ohnson . London: Longman, 1981, pp. 196-219. D a h r e n d o r f , R. C l a s s and C l a s s C o n f l i c t in I n d u s t r i a l S o c i e t y . Pa lo A a l t o , C a l . : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959. D a v i s , P . P . and K. Newton. "An Aggregate Data A n a l y s i s of Turnout and P ar ty V o t i n g i n L o c a l E l e c t i o n s . " S o c i o l o g y , 8 (1974) , 213-231. Dean, J . P . Homeownership: Is I t Sound? New Y o r k : Harper and Row, 1945. D e n n i s , M. and S. F i s h . Programs i n Search of P o l i c y : Low Income Housing i n Canada. T o r o n t o : H a k k e r t , 1972. D i g g i n s , J . P . " T h o r e a u , Marx, and the ' R i d d l e ' of A l i e n a t i o n . " S o c i a l Resea rch , 39 (1972) , 571-598. Dovey, K. "Home: An O r d e r i n g P r i n c i p l e i n S p a c e . " Landscape , 22 (1978) , 27-30. Dowler , R . G . "Hous ing R e l a t e d Tax E x p e n d i t u r e s : An Overview and E v a l u a t i o n . " Major Report No. 22, Centre for Urban and Community S t u d i e s . T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1 983. Duncan, J . S . and D. L e y . " S t r u c t u r a l Marxism and Human Geography: A C r i t i c a l As se s sment . " Annal s of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers , 72 (1982) , 30-59. Duncan, N . G . "Home Ownership and S o c i a l T h e o r y . " In Housing and I d e n t i t y : C r o s s - c u l t u r a l P e r s p e c t i v e s . E d . J . S . Duncan. London: Croom Helm, 1981, pp . 98-134. Duncan, S . S . "Hous ing p o l i c y , the methodology of l e v e l s , and urban r e s e a r c h : the case of C a s t e l l s . " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research , 5 (1981) , 231-254. Dunleavy , P. "The Urban B a s i s of P o l i t i c a l A l i g n m e n t : S o c i a l C l a s s , Domestic P r o p e r t y Ownership , and S ta te I n t e r v e n t i o n i n Consumption P r o c e s s e s . " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 9 (1979) , 409-443. 440 . Urban p o l i t i c a l a n a l y s i s : The p o l i t i c s of c o l l e c t i v e consumpt ion . London: M a c M i l l a n , 1980. . "The Urban B a s i s of P o l i t i c a l A l i g n m e n t : A R e j o i n d e r to H a r r o p . " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 10 (1980), 398-402. E d e l , M. "Homeownership and working c l a s s u n i t y . " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 6 (1982) , 205-221. E i c h l e r , M. "Women as P e r s o n a l D e p e n d e n t s . " In Women i n Canada. E d . M. S tephenson. T o r o n t o : New P r e s s , 1973, pp . 36-55. E l k i n s , D . J . "The S t r u c t u r e of P r o v i n c i a l P a r ty Sys tems . " In Smal l W o r l d s : P r o v i n c e s and P a r t i e s in Canadian P o l i t i c a l L i f e . E d . D . J . E l k i n s and R. Simeon. T o r o n t o : Methuen, 1980, pp . 211-242. E n g e l s , F . The Housing Q u e s t i o n . New Y o r k : I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1935 edn . F a l l i s , G . Hous ing Programs and Income D i s t r i b u t i o n i n O n t a r i o . T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1980. Farmer , M. and R. B a r r e l l . " E n t r e p e n e u r s h i p and government p o l i c y : the case of the hous ing m a r k e t . " J o u r n a l of P u b l i c P o l i c y , 2 (1981) , 307-32. Feyerabend , P . K . " E x p l a n a t i o n , r e d u c t i o n and e m p i r i c i s m . " In Minnesota S t u d i e s I I I . E d . H . F e i g l and G . M a x w e l l . M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota P r e s s , 1962, pp . 28-97. . " C o n s o l a t i o n s for the s p e c i a l i s t . " In C r i t i c i s m and the Growth of Knowledge. E d . I . Laka.tos and A . Musgrave . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1970. F i n k e l , A . " O r i g i n s of the Wel fa re S t a te i n C a n a d a . " In The Canadian S t a t e : P o l i t i c a l Economy and P o l i t i c a l Power. E d . L . P a n i t c h . T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1977, pp . 344-370. F l e t c h e r , C . "The r e l e v a n c e of domest ic p r o p e r t y to s o c i o l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g . " S o c i o l o q y , 10 (1976) , 451-469. F o r r e s t , R. "The meaning of homeownership . " Environment and P l a n n i n g D: S o c i e t y and Space, 1 (1983) , 205-216. 441 F r a z e r , D. and J . M c C l a i n . C r e d i t : A Mortgage For L i f e . Ottawa: Canadian C o u n c i l on S o c i a l Development, 1981. Gans, H . The L e v i t t o w n e r s : Ways of L i f e and P o l i t i c s in a New Suburban Community. New Y o r k : Random House, 1967. Garnsey , E . "Women's Work and T h e o r i e s of C l a s s S t r a t i f i c a t i o n . " S o c i o l o g y , 12 (1978) , 223-243. G e l l n e r , E . "A S o c i a l C o n t r a c t i n Search of an Id iom: The Demise of the Danegeld S t a t e ? " P o l i t i c a l Q u a r t e r l y , 46 (1975) , 127-152. G i d d e n s , A . The C l a s s S t r u c t u r e of Advanced S o c i e t i e s . London: H u t c h i n s o n , 1973. . C e n t r a l Problems i n S o c i a l T h e o r y . London: M a c M i l l a n , 1979. . " C l a s s e s , C a p i t a l i s m and the S t a t e . " Theory and S o c i e t y , 9 (1980), 877-890. and D. H e l d . " I n t r o d u c t i o n . " In C l a s s e s , Power and C o n f 1 i c t . B e r k l e y : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1982, pp. 1-11. and G. MacKenz ie , e d s . , S o c i a l C l a s s and the D i v i s i o n of Labour : Essays in honour of I l y a N e u s t a d t . Cambridge : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1982. G l a z e r , N . "The B i a s of American Hous ing P o l i c y . " In Hous ing Urban A m e r i c a . E d . J . Pynoos, R. Schafer and C.W. Hartman. C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1973, pp . 405-22. G o l d b e r g , M . A . The Hous ing Prob lem: A Rea l C r i s i s ? V a n c o u v e r : U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia P r e s s , 1983. G o l d t h o r p e , J . H . , D. Lockwood, F . Bechhofe r , and J . P i a t t , The a f f l u e n t worker i n the c l a s s s t r u c t u r e . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969. G o u l d n e r , A . The Coming C r i s i s of Western S o c i o l o g y . New Y o r k : Ba s i c Books, 1970. . The Two Marxi sms . New Y o r k : Seabury P r e s s , 1980. Gray , F . "Owner-Occupat ion and S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s . " In Owner O c c u p a t i o n i n B r i t a i n . E d . S. M e r r e t t . London: Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1982. 442 G r e b l e r , L . and F . G . M i t t e l b a c h . The i n f l a t i o n of house p r i c e s : I t s e x t e n t , causes and consequences . L e x i n g t o n , M a s s . : L e x i n g t o n Books , 1979. G r i f f i n , L . J . and A . L . K a l l e b e r g . " S t r a t i f i c a t i o n and m e r i t o c r a c y in the U n i t e d S t a t e s : C l a s s and o c c u p a t i o n a l r e c r u i t m e n t p a t t e r n s . " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , 32 (1981) , 1-38. Habermas, J . L e g i t i m a t i o n C r i s i s . B o s t o n : Beacon P r e s s , 1975. H a m i l t o n , S.W. "Measur ing Changes i n House P r i c e s . " In Recent P e r s p e c t i v e s i n Urban Land Economics : Es says i n Honour of R i c h a r d U . R a t c l i f f and Paul E . Wendt. E d . M . A . G o l d b e r g . Vancouver : The Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n , F a c u l t y of Commerce and Bus ine s s A d m i n . , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1976. Hamnett, C . "The house p r i c e r o l l e r c o a s t e r . " New S o c i e t y , 28 (1982) , 148. . "The post-war r e s t r u c t u r i n g of the B r i t i s h hous ing and l a b o u r marke t s : A c r i t i c a l comment on T h o r n s . " Environment and P l a n n i n g A , i n p r e s s . H a n d l i n , D . P . The American Home: A r c h i t e c t u r e and S o c i e t y , 1815-1915. B o s t o n : L i t t l e , Brown and C o . , 1979. Hanson, N . R . P a t t e r n s of D i s c o v e r y . Cambridge : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1958. H a r r i s , R . , G . L e v i n e and B . S . Osborne . "Hous ing tenure and s o c i a l c l a s s e s i n K i n g s t o n O n t a r i o , 1881-1901." J o u r n a l of H i s t o r i c a l Geography, 7 (1981) , 271-289. H a r r o p , M. "The Urban B a s i s of P o l i t i c a l A l i g n m e n t : A Comment." B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 10 (1980) , 388-98. Harvey , D. and L . C h a t t e r j e e . " A b s o l u t e rent and the s t r u c t u r i n g of space by governmental and f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . " A n t i p o d e , 6 (1974) , 22-36. . "Government p o l i c i e s , f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and ne ighbourhood change i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s c i t i e s . " In C a p t i v e C i t i e s : S t u d i e s i n the p o l i t i c a l economy of c i t i e s and r e g i o n s . E d . M. H a r l o e . C h i c h e s t e r : John W i l e y , 1977, pp . 123-39. 443 . " L a b o r , C a p i t a l , and C l a s s S t r u g g l e Around the B u i l t Environment i n Advanced C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t i e s . " In U r b a n i z a t i o n and C o n f l i c t i n Market S o c i e t i e s . E d . K . R . Cox. C h i c a g o : Maaroufa , 1978, pp . 9-37. Hasson, S. "The emergence of an urban s o c i a l movement i n I s r a e l i s o c i e t y - an i n t e g r a t e d a p p r o a c h . " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research , 7 (1983) , 1 57-173. Hayden, D. The Grand Domestic R e v o l u t i o n : A H i s t o r y of F e m i n i s t Des igns for American Homes, Neighbourhoods , and C i t i e s . Cambridge, M a s s . : The MIT P r e s s , 1981. He idegger , M. " B u i l d i n g D w e l l i n g T h i n k i n g . " In B a s i c W r i t i n g s . E d . D . F . K r e l l . New Y o r k : Harper and Row, 1977, pp. 319-339. H i n d e s s , B. and P. H i r s t . Mode of P r o d u c t i o n and S o c i a l Format i o n . London: M a c M i l l a n , 1977. H i r s t , P. "The n e c e s s i t y of t h e o r y . " Economy and S o c i e t y , 8 (1979), 417-45. H o l d s w o r t h , D. "House and Home i n Vancouver : Es says i n Urban H i s t o r y . " In The Canadian C i t y : Essays i n Urban H i s t o r y . E d . G . A . S t e l t e r and A . F . J . A r t i b u s e . T o r o n t o : M c C l e l l a n d and S tewar t , 1977, pp. 186-211. Jamieson, S. Times of T r o u b l e : Labour Unres t and I n d u s t r i a l C o n f l i c t i n Canada, 1900-1966. Ottawa: Task Force on. Labour R e l a t i o n s , 1968. Johnson, M . S . "A Cash Flow Model of R a t i o n a l Hous ing Tenure C h o i c e . " AREUEA J o u r n a l , 9 (1981) , 1-17. Johnson , R. "Edward Thompson, Eugene Genovese, and s o c i a l i s t -humanist h i s t o r y . " H i s t o r y Workshop, 6 (1978) , 79-100. J o h n s t o n , W. and M. O r n s t e i n . " C l a s s , work and p o l i t i c s . " Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and A n t h r o p o l o g y , 19 (1982) , 196-214. Jones , F . E . " S k i l l as a Dimension of O c c u p a t i o n a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . " Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and A n t h r o p o l o g y , 17 (1980) , 176-183. Kahn, A . E . "The Tyranny of Smal l D e c i s i o n s : Market F a i l u r e s , I m p e r f e c t i o n s , and the L i m i t s of E c o n o m i c s . " K y k l o s , 19 (1966), 23-47. 444 K a t z , M . B . , M . J . Doucet , and M . J . S t e r n . The S o c i a l O r g a n i s a t i o n of E a r l y I n d u s t r i a l C a p i t a l i s m . Cambridge, M a s s . : Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1982. Kea t , R. and J . U r r y . S o c i a l Theory as S c i e n c e . London: Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1975. Kemeny, J . "A P o l i t i c a l S o c i o l o g y of Home Ownership i n A u s t r a l i a . " A u s t r a l i a n and New Zealand J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , 13 (1977), 47-52. . "Home ownership and p r i v a t i z a t i o n . " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 4 (1980) , 372-87. . The Myth of Home Ownership : P r i v a t e ve r su s p u b l i c c h o i c e s in hous ing t e n u r e . London: Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1981. Kuhn, T . S . The S t r u c t u r e of S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n s . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1962. L e f e b v r e , H . Everyday L i f e i n the Modern W o r l d . New Y o r k : H a r p e r , 1971. .The S u r v i v a l of C a p i t a l i s m : R e p r o d u c t i o n of the R e l a t i o n s of P r o d u c t i o n . London: A l l i s o n and Busby, 1976. L e y , D. and J . M e r c e r . " L o c a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t and the p o l i t i c s of c o n s u m p t i o n . " Economic Geography, 56 (1980) , 89-109. . I n n e r - C i t y R e v i t a l i z a t i o n i n Canada: A Vancouver Case S t u d y . " The Canadian Geographer , 25 (1981), 124-148. Marcuse , P. "The Myth of the Benevolent S t a t e : Towards a theory of h o u s i n g . " Papers i n P l a n n i n g : 8. New Y o r k : Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Graduate S c h o o l i n A r c h i t e c t u r e and P l a n n i n g , 1978. May, T . " M i d d l e c l a s s u n i o n i s m . " In Respec tab le R e b e l s : M i d d l e C l a s s Campaigns i n B r i t a i n i n the 1970 ' s . E d . R. K ing and N . Nugent . London: Hodder and S toughton , 1979, pp . 101-1 26. McAfee , A . "The Housing Game: The Rules Change A g a i n . " Q u a r t e r l y Review, 5 (1978), p . 9. McFayden, S . M . and R . J . H o b a r t . " I n f l a t i o n and urban home o w n e r s h i p . " In Urban Hous ing M a r k e t s : Recent d i r e c t i o n s i n r e s e a r c h and p o l i c y . E d . L . S . Bourne and J . R . H i t c h c o c k . T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1978, pp . 163-178. 445 M e r c e r , J . "On C o n t i n e n t a l i s m , D i s t i n c t i v e n e s s , and Comparat ive Urban Geography: Canadian and American C i t i e s . " The Canadian Geographer , 23 (1979) , 119-139. M i c h e l s o n , W.M. E n v i r o n m e n t a l C h o i c e , Human B e h a v i o r and R e s i d e n t i a l S a t i s f a c t i o n . New Y o r k : Ox ford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1977. M u r i e , A . , P. N i n e r and C . Watson. Housing P o l i c y and the Hous ing System. London: George A l l e n and Unwin, 1976. O ' N e i l l , J . Modes of I n d i v i d u a l i s m and C o l l e c t i v i s m . London: Heinemann, 1973. O r n s t e i n , M . , A . M . Stevenson and A . P . W i l l i a m s . " R e g i o n , C l a s s and P o l i t i c a l C u l t u r e i n C a n a d a . " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 13 (1980) , 227-271. P a h l , R . E . Whose C i t y ? And f u r t h e r essays on urban s o c i e t y . Harmondsworth: Pengu in , 1975. P a r k i n , F . Marxism and C l a s s T h e o r y : A Bourgeo i s C r i t i q u e . London: T a v i s t o c k , 1977. . C l a s s I n e q u a l i t y and P o l i t i c a l O r d e r . London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1971. P a t t e r s o n , J . " D i s t r i b u t i o n a l and s o c i a l impacts of Canadian n a t i o n a l hous ing p o l i c y : L e a v i n g i t to the m a r k e t . " In Urban Hous ing M a r k e t s : Recent d i r e c t i o n s i n r e s e a r c h and p o l i c y . E d . L . S . Bourne and J . R . H i t c h c o c k . T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1978, pp. 279-301. Payne, J . and G . Payne. "Hous ing Pathways and S t r a t i f i c a t i o n : A study of l i f e chances i n the hous ing m a r k e t . " J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P o l i c y , 6 (1977) , 129-156. Pennance, F . G . , S.W. H a m i l t o n , D. B a x t e r . H o u s i n g , i t ' s your move: v o l . 2. Vancouver : Urban Land Economics D i v . , F a c u l t y of Commerce and Bus ines s A d m i n . , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Co lumbia , 1976. P e r i n , C . E v e r y t h i n g i n i t s p l a c e : s o c i a l o rder and l a n d use i n A m e r i c a . P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1977. P i a c h a u d , D. " I n f l a t i o n and Income D i s t r i b u t i o n . " In The P o l i t i c a l Economy of I n f l a t i o n . E d . F . H i r s c h and J . H . G o l d t h o r p e . London: M a r t i n R o b e r t s o n , 1978. 446 P i n e o , P . C , J . P o r t e r , and H . A . McRober t s . "The 1971 Census and the Socioeconomic C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of O c c u p a t i o n s . " Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and A n t h r o p o l o g y , 14 (1977) , 91-102. P o r t e o u s , J . D . "Home: The T e r r i t o r i a l C o r e . " G e o g r a p h i c a l Review, 66 (1976), 383-390. P r a t t , G . " C l a s s a n a l y s i s and urban domest ic p r o p e r t y : a c r i t i c a l r e e x a m i n a t i o n . " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l Research , 6 (1982) , 481-502. Rakof f , R . M . " Ideo logy i n everyday l i f e : the meaning of the home." P o l i t i c s and S o c i e t y , 7 (1977) 85-104. R e l p h , T . p l a c e and p l a c e l e s s n e s s . London: P i o n , 1976. Robson, B . T . Urban S o c i a l A r e a s . O x f o r d : Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975. Rose, A . Canadian Housing P o l i c i e s , (1935-1980). T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h , 1980. Rose , , D. "Towards a R e - e v a l u a t i o n of the P o l i t i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e of Home-Ownership i n B r i t a i n . " H o u s i n g , Con- s t r u c t i o n and the S t a t e . London: Conference of S o c i a l i s t Economis t s Housing Workshop, 1980. Sabre F o u n d a t i o n . Expanded Ownership . Ford du L a c , Wise , n . p . , 1972. Saunders , P . "Domestic P r o p e r t y and S o c i a l C l a s s . " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 2 (1978) , 233-51. . Urban P o l i t i c s : A S o c i o l o g i c a l Approach . London: H u t c h i n s o n , 1979. . S o c i a l Theory and the Urban Q u e s t i o n . London: H u t c h i n s o n , 1 9 8 1 . . "Beyond Housing C l a s s e s : The S o c i o l o g i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e of P r i v a t e P r o p e r t y R i g h t s i n Means of C o n s u m p t i o n . " Working Paper 33: Urban and R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s . U n i v e r s i t y of Sussex, 1982. Sayer , A . "Theory and E m p i r i c a l Research i n Urban and R e g i o n a l P o l i t i c a l Economy: A Sympathet ic C r i t i q u e . " Working Paper 14: Urban and R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s . U n i v e r s i t y of Sussex , 1979. Sayer , D. M a r x ' s Method: I d e o l o g y , S c i e n c e and C r i t i q u e i n ' C a p i t a l ' . Sussex: H a r v e s t e r , 1979. 447 Scase , R. and R. G o f f e e . The E n t r e p e n e u r i a l M i d d l e C l a s s . London: Croom Helm, 1982. Scheffman, D . T . "Some ev idence on the recent boom i n l and and house p r i c e s . " In Urban Hous ing M a r k e t s : Recent d i r e c t i o n s i n r e s e a r c h and p o l i c y . E d . L . S . Bourne and J . R . H i t c h c o c k . T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1978, pp . 57-85. S c h e l l i n g , T . C . "On the E c o l o g y of M i c r o m o t i v e s . " In The C o r p o r a t e S o c i e t y . E d . R. M o r r i s . London: M a c M i l l a n , 1974. S e n n e t t , R. The F a l l of P u b l i c Man: On the S o c i a l Psychology of C a p i t a l i s m . New Y o r k : V i n t a g e Books, 1974. Smi th , D . E . "Women, the F a m i l y and Corpora te C a p i t a l i s m . " In Women i n Canada. E d . M. S tephenson. T o r o n t o : New P r e s s , 1973, pp . 2-35. Smi th , L . B . "Hous ing A s s i s t a n c e : A R e - e v a l u a t i o n . " Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y , 7 (1981) , 454-463. and P. T o m l i n s o n . "Rent C o n t r o l s i n O n t a r i o : Roofs or C e i l i n g s ? " AREUEA J o u r n a l , 9 (1981) , 93-114. S m i t h , P . J . and L . D . McCann. " R e s i d e n t i a l Land Use Change i n Inner Edmonton. " Annal s of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers , 71 (1981) , 536-551. S o u l e s , G . The Housing C r i s i s : Causes - E f f e c t s - S o l u t i o n s . Vancouver : Economic and M a r k e t i n g Research , 1976. S t r a u s s , A . M i r r o r s and Masks : The Search for I d e n t i t y . London: M a r t i n R o b e r t s o n , 1977. S t r u y k , R. Should Government Encourage Homeownership? Washington , D . C : The Urban I n s t i t u t e , 1977. Thompson, E . P . The Making of the E n g l i s h Working C l a s s . Harmondsworth: Penguin , 1968. . "The P e c u l i a r i t i e s of the E n g l i s h . " In The S o c i a l i s t R e g i s t e r . E d . R. M i l i b a n d and J . S a v i l l e . London: M e r l i n P r e s s , 1965. The Pover ty of Theory and o ther e s s a y s . New Y o r k : Monthly Review P r e s s , 1978, 448 T h o r n s , D . C . "Owner-Occupa t ion : I t s s i g n i f i c a n c e fo r wea l th t r a n s f e r and c l a s s f o r m a t i o n . " S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 29 (1981) , 705-728. . "The i m p l i c a t i o n s of d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t e s of c a p i t a l g a i n from owner o c c u p a t i o n for the fo rmat ion and development of hous ing c l a s s e s . " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 5 (1981), 205-17. . " I n d u s t r i a l r e s t r u c t u r i n g and change i n the l abour and p r o p e r t y markets i n B r i t a i n . " Environment and P l a n n i n g A , 14 (1982), 745-763. T r e l e a v e n , G . F . The Surrey S t o r y . S u r r e y : Surrey Museum and H i s t o r i c a l S o c i e t y , 1978. Tsang , E . "The Impact of High I n t e r e s t Rates on H o u s i n g . " H a b i t a t , 24 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 9-12. Tuan, Y . - F . " P l a c e : An E x p e r i e n t i a l P e r s p e c t i v e . " G e o g r a p h i c a l Review, 65 (1975) , 151-165. . Space and P l a c e : The P e r s p e c t i v e of E x p e r i e n c e . M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of M i n n e a p o l i s P r e s s , 1977). T u c c i l l o , J . Hous ing and investment i n an i n f l a t i o n a r y w o r l d : Theory and e v i d e n c e . Washington , D . C . : The Urban I n s t i t u t e , 1980. T u r n e r , B. For Weber. London: Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1981. U r r y , J . The Anatomy of C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t i e s : The Economy, C i v i l S o c i e t y and the S t a t e . London: M a c M i l l a n , 1981. . " L o c a l i t i e s , r e g i o n s and s o c i a l c l a s s . " I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Urban and R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 5 (1981) , 457-473. Vanneman, R. and F . C . Pampel . "The American P e r c e p t i o n of C l a s s and S t a t u s . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 42 (1977) , 422-437. V e r b a , S. and N . H . N i e . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n A m e r i c a : P o l i t i c a l democracy and s o c i a l e q u i t y . New Y o r k : Harper and Row, 1972. Walker , R . A . "The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of urban s t r u c t u r e i n the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y and the b e g i n n i n g of s u b u r b a n i z a t i o n . " In U r b a n i z a t i o n and c o n f l i c t i n market s o c i e t i e s . E d . K . R . Cox . C h i c a g o : Maaroufa P r e s s , 1978, pp . 165-212. W e i l , S. The Need for Root s . New Y o r k : Harper and Row, 1949. 449 W h i t e , M . J . and L . J . W h i t e . "The tax subs idy to owner-occup ied h o u s i n g : who b e n e f i t s ? " J o u r n a l of P u b l i c Economics , 7 (1977) , 111-126. W i l l m o t t , P . and' M. Young. The Symmetr ica l F a m i l y . New Y o r k : Pantheon Books, 1973. W i n k l e r , J . D . , C M . Judd and H . C Kelman. "De te rminant s of P o l i t i c a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a Canadian and U n i t e d S t a t e s C i t y . " P o l i t i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 3 (1981-1982), 140-161. W r i g h t , E . O . and L . P e r r o n e . " M a r x i s t C l a s s C a t e g o r i e s and Income I n e q u a l i t y . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 42 (1977) , 32-55. . C l a s s S t r u c t u r e and Income D e t e r m i n a t i o n . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1979. . " C l a s s and O c c u p a t i o n . " Theory and S o c i e t y , 9 (1980), 177-214. W r i g h t , G . M o r a l i s m and the Model Home: Domestic A r c h i t e c t u r e and C u l t u r a l C o n f l i c t i n C h i c a g o , 1873-1913. C h i c a g o : The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1980. Z a r e t s k y , E . C a p i t a l i s m , the F a m i l y and the P e r s o n a l L i f e . New Y o r k : Harper Colophon Books, 1976. T h e s e s , Conference and U n p u b l i s h e d Papers B l a k e , D. "The E f f e c t of Context i n a P o l a r i s e d P o l i t i c a l S e t t i n g . " American P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n Annual M e e t i n g , New York , 1981. Hamnett, C . "Owner-occupat ion i n the 1970 ' s : Homeownership or i n v e s t m e n t ? " U n p u b l i s h e d paper . Open U n i v e r s i t y , n . d . . "The Changing Economic B a s i s of P r i v a t e R e n t i n g and the Rent A c t s . " U n p u b l i s h e d paper . Open U n i v e r s i t y , n . d . H a r r i s , R. "The P o l i t i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e of R e s i d e n t i a l S e g r e g a t i o n i n the C a p i t a l i s t C i t y . " D i s s . Queen ' s , K i n g s t o n 1981. 450 . "Hous ing Tenure and C l a s s i n Canadian C i t i e s S ince the La te 19th C e n t u r y . " S p e c i a l Se s s ion on H o u s i n g , Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of Geographers ' Annual M e e t i n g , W i n n i p e g , May-June 1983. H o l d s w o r t h , D. "Bread and Roses : The S t r u g g l e for Home i n Vancouver and Cape B r e t o n . " U n p u b l i s h e d paper . Dept . of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1980. _ _ . "House and Home i n Vancouver : The Making of a West Coast Urban Landscape , 1886-1929." D i s s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1981. HUDAC (Housing and Urban Development A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada) . "The F i l t e r i n g Proces s i n H o u s i n g : A Vancouver Case S tudy , 1965-1977". mimeo. 1978. L e y , D. "Work-Residence. R e l a t i o n s for Downtown and Suburban Head O f f i c e Workers : A P r e l i m i n a r y R e p o r t . " Dept . of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , J a n . 1983. L u r i a , D. " S u b u r b a n i z a t i o n , Homeownership and Working C l a s s C o n s c i o u s n e s s . " D i s s . Mass. 1976. M a c k i e , K. "An E x p l o r a t i o n of the Idea of Home i n Human Geography . " M . A . Research Paper . Department of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1981. McAfee, A . , Vancouver C i t y Housing P l a n n e r . Mimeo. n . p , n . d . MICC Investments L t d . Annual R e p o r t . 1981. P h i l l i p s , D . A . "Urban Housing Q u a l i t y : The Importance of A t t i t u d e s i n the D e c i s i o n to R e h a b i l i t a t e . " M . A . T h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Co lumbia , 1976. Renaud, C . "Hous ing P o l i c i e s fo r the 1 9 8 0 ' s . " Symposium on Home Ownership A s s i s t a n c e . Sponsored by the Canadian C o u n c i l on S o c i a l Development. C a l g a r y , 18 September 1980. R u t t l e , C . "The home and hegemony i n everyday l i f e . " M . A . T h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1981. . " T u r n i n g Back the C l o c k : B r i t i s h Columbia Hous ing P o l i c y , 1975-83." U n p u b l i s h e d paper . Dept . of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1983. W i l l i a m s , P. " P r o p e r t y , power and p o l i t i c s : Home ownership and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . " Annual Conference of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers , San A n t o n i o , Texas , A p r i l 1982. 451 . "The Home Ownership Debate : Theory and R e s e a r c h . " U n p u b l i s h e d paper . J a n . 1983. Newspaper A r t i c l e s "Apartment r e n t s tumble as vacancy ra te h i t s 2%." Vancouver Sun, 7 J u l y 1982, Sec . A . , p . 1. " B a r r e t t angry as poor , e l d e r l y l o s e tax c r e d i t s . " The P r o v i n c e , 12 November 1982. Sec . A . , p . 4. Boyd, D. "Never say never i n Vancouver E a s t . " Vancouver Sun, 15 A p r i l 1983, Sec . A . , p . 3. E d i t o r i a l . The P r o v i n c e , 14 November 1981. Sec . B . , p . 1. E d i t o r i a l . The P r o v i n c e , 3 March 1983. Sec . B . , p . 2. Far row, M. " S u b s i d i z e d co-ops not hous ing p o o r . " Vancouver Sun, 24 November 1983. Sec . A . , p . 3. " F o r e c l o s u r e : I t Can Ruin the Canadian Dream." Vancouver Sun 3 June 1982. Sec . A . , p . 1. "Government S e r v i c e s to be C u t . " Vancouver Sun, 12 November 1982. Sec . A . , p . 2. G r e e n , C . "Many mixes i n mortgage m a r k e t s . " F i n a n c i a l P o s t , 9 J u l y 1983, p . 2. Grenby , M. "32,000 B . C . homeowners have a p p l i e d fo r s u b s i d y . " Vancouver Sun. 12 November 1982. Sec . A . , p . 3. "How C o u n c e l l i n g Can H e l p . " The Sun, 13 June 1983. Sec . C , p . 1 . Homeowners i n P e r i l : I t ' s a C r i s i s . " Toronto S t a r , 22 October 1981, Sec . A . , p . 12. "Hous ing c r i s i s r e a l , homeowners s a y . " Toronto S t a r , 21 October 1981, Sec . A . , p . 1. "Incumbents get rough t r e a t m e n t . " The S u r r e y - D e l t a Messenger , 16 November 1983, p . 1 . " I t ' s Home, b i t t e r home." Vancouver Sun, 3 June 1982, Sec . B . , p . 1 . 452 L e t t e r . Weekend Magaz ine , 27 March 1982, p . 5. Menyasz, P . " B u d g e t ' s mortgage a i d go ing nowhere . " Vancouver Sun, 11 February 1982, Sec . A . , p . 12. "Mortgage C r a z i n e s s dampens the urge to be a homeowner." Vancouver Sun, Sec . C , p . 1. "Move to a b o l i s h tax c r e d i t s r i l e s B a r r e t t , p o v e r t y g r o u p . " Vancouver Sun, 12 November 1982. Sec . A . , p . 3. "Newer s u i t e s go b e g g i n g . " Vancouver Sun, 1 March 1982, Sec . A . , p . 2 . N i c h o l s , M. "The making of laws by pre s s r e l e a s e . " Vancouver Sun, 2 March 1983, Sec . A . , p . 4. P a r t o n , N . "Perks f a i l i n g to f i l l h i g h - p r i c e d a p a r t m e n t s . " Vancouver Sun, 28 May 1982, Sec . A . , p . 1. " P e r s o n a l s e c u r i t y spending l e a p s . " F i n a n c i a l P o s t , 12 November 1983, p . 19. " R e n t - s h o r t t enant s scramble to buy t i m e . " Vancouver Sun, 17 June 1982, Sec . A . , p . 1. "Rent t a x - c r e d i t s h e l v i n g f o u g h t . " The Sun, 7 May 1983, Sec . A . , p . 1 . S h o r t e l l , A . " R i d i n g the r o l l e r c o a s t e r . " F i n a n c i a l Post 500. June 1982, pp . 130-131. "Tax C r e d i t s to be axed says g o v ' t . " Vancouver Sun, 11 March 1983. Sec . B . , p . 1. "The l i t t l e guys f i g h t back a g a i n s t r i s i n g a s s e s sment s . " Vancouver Sun. 23 January 1982, Sec . A . , p . 1. "The End of the S i n g l e F a m i l y Home: I f you d o n ' t own the roof over your head now, you p r o b a b l y never w i l l . " Weekend Magaz ine , 30 January 1982. pp . 6-9 . "When home sweet home turns s o u r . " The C i t i z e n , Ottawa, 5 June 1982, p . 75. Young, C . " B r i t i s h miners u n w i l l i n g to gamble . " Vancouver Sun, 11 March 1983, Sec . A , p . 4. 453 Government P u b l i c a t i o n s B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , P r o v i n c e o f . Department of H o u s i n g . Annual R e p o r t . 1974. . Annual R e p o r t . 1975. M i n i s t r y of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s and H o u s i n g . Annual R e p o r t . 1976. . Annual R e p o r t . 1977. M i n i s t r y of Lands , Parks and H o u s i n g . Annual Report 1 978. . Annual R e p o r t . 1979. . Annual R e p o r t . 1980. . Annual R e p o r t . 1981-1982. O f f i c e of the Renta l sman, M i n i s t r y of Consumer and C o r p o r a t e A f f a i r s . "Guide to L a n d l o r d Tenant R e l a t i o n s Under the R e s i d e n t i a l Tenancy A c t " . 1981. Canada. Bank of Canada Review. Ottawa: n . p . , January 1975. . Ottawa: n . p . , February 1978. . O t t a w a : n . p . , March 1982. . Ottawa: n . p . , January 1984. C r o s b i e , Hon. J . Budget Speech. Department of F i n a n c e , Canada. 11 Dec . 1979. Canada Mortgage and Hous ing C o r p . Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1980. . Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1981. C e n t r a l Mortgage and Hous ing C o r p . Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1970. . Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1971. Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1972. 454 . Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1973. . Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1 974. . Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1 975. . Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1976. . Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1 977. . Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1 978. . Annual R e p o r t , Ottawa, 1979. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1976 Census of Canada. C a t . 93-802. Ottawa: : Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1 979. • 1981 Census of Canada. C a t . 93--922. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1982. • 1981 Census of Canada. C a t . 95--903. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1982. 1981 Census of Canada. C a t . 95--978. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1983. Fami ly E x p e n d i t u r e s i n Canada. V o l . 2. C a t . 62-550. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1981. • H i s t o r i c a l Labour Force S t a t i s t i c s . C a t . 71-201. Ottawa: In fo rmat ion Canada, 1975. . H i s t o r i c a l Labour Force S t a t i s t i c s . C a t . 71-201. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1981. . Labour F o r c e Annual Average s . C a t . 71-529. Ottawa: n . p . , 1979. . The Labour F o r c e . C a t . 71-001. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , J anuary , June and October 1979-1983. . Urban F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1971. C a t . 62-541. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1975. . Urban F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1974. C a t . 62-544. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1977. . Urban F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e s 1976. C a t . 62-547. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1979. 455 Surrey P l a n n i n g Dept . and W h a l l e y - G u i l d f o r d C i t i z e n s ' P l a n n i n g Committee. The Nor th Surrey Community. S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , 1974. . The Whal ley G u i l d f o r d Town P l a n . S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , Feb . 1980. . P u b l i c O p i n i o n Survey . S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , 1980. . Sur rey O f f i c i a l Community P l a n . S u r r e y : C o r p . of the D i s t r i c t of S u r r e y , May -1983. Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g Dept . and Hous ing Study Team. Under- s t a n d i n g V a n c o u v e r ' s H o u s i n g : Pa r t 3. Vancouver : Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g D e p t . , January 1979. 456 APPENDIX I CALCULATION OF HOUSING COSTS AND THE GAINS FROM ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS The f o l l o w i n g are the c a l c u l a t i o n s fo r the Richmond house, h y p o t h e t i c a l l y purchased i n 1973. HOUSING COSTS 1973 Purchase P r i c e = $44,000 Downpayment = $4,400 Mortgage terms = 25 year a m o r t i s a t i o n p e r i o d , renewed every two years P r o p e r t y taxes - o b t a i n e d from Royal T r u s t Survey of Canadian House P r i c e s Maintenance - assumed to be .01 of house p r i c e Mortgage i n t e r e s t r a te - Bank of Canada Review, January 1975. Monthly mortgage payment = c a l c u l a t e d on debt of $39,600 at 10.13% i n t e r e s t Annual Hous ing Cos t s = Mortgage payment (363.48 x 12) + P r o p e r t y Taxes (550) + Maintenance (440) - Home Owner Grant ($200 for persons under 65) = $5101.76 1 974 Annual Hous ing Cos t s = ($363.48 x 12 ) + $550 + $470 - $230 = $5151.76 1975 Mortgage renewed on the b a s i s of the remain ing $38,827.03 mortgage debt at 11.52% mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e . House i s worth $57,000 (August , 1975), maintenance c o s t s = $570 P r o p e r t y taxes = $660 Annual Hous ing Cos t s = ($401.48 x 12) + $570 + $660 - $230 (Home Owner Grant ) = $5817.76 1 976 Annual Hous ing Cos t s = ($401.48 x 12) + $800 + 600 (house p r i c e , 60,000 as of August 1976) -$280 = $5937.80 457 1 977 Mortgage renewed on the b a s i s of the remain ing $38,055.46 mortgage debt at 10.35% mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e . New monthly payments are $370.81 for mortgage. P r o p e r t y taxes =,$900 Maintenance = 630 (house va lue of 63,000 as of J u l y 1977) Annual Housing Cos t s = ($370.81 x 12) + $900 + $630 - $280 = $5699.72 T h i s p roce s s i n c o n t i n u e d u n t i l 1982, u s ing A p r i l 1982 e s t imate s for house v a l u e . The amount that homeowners had p a i d over r e n t e r s (downpayment + (hous ing c o s t s - r e n t a l c o s t s ) ) was then h y p o t h e t i c a l l y i n v e s t e d i n a number of a l t e r n a t i v e i n v e s t m e n t s . TABLE A1.1 Rates for A l t e r n a t i v e Investments Canadian Govern Average Bond Y i e l d s 5-10 Years « McLeod, Young and Weir - P r o v i n c i a l s Bond Y i e l d Average weighted long term Toronto Stock Exchange I n d u s t r i a l s Base M e t a l s 1 1 973 7.17 8.36 -7 .90 8.91 1 974 8.26 9.91 -56 .90 -36.25 1 975 7.96 10.71 11.81 1 6.48 1976 8.72 10.11 5.80 14.56 1 977 8.14 9.53 4.81 -20 .55 1 978 9.08 9.85 25.00 1 9.83 1 979 10.16 10.73 50.42 67.63 1980 12.13 13.05 45.55 55. 1 4 1 981 1 5.29 16.09 -35 .45 -48.08 1982 2 15.41 16.79 -28 .29 -22 .74 1. Bank of Canada Review (Monthly averages averaged fo r e n t i r e year ) Ot tawa : n . p . , J a n . 1975, F e b . 1978, March 1982). 2. 1982 e s t i m a t e s based on January and February 1982. 458 I f hous ing c o s t s over and above r e n t a l c o s t s for the Richmond house , bought i n 1973, were r e i n v e s t e d in Canadian Bonds, one f i n d s the f o l l o w i n g : 1973 4400 + 1911.76 = 6311.76 + (6311.76 x 7.17) 1974 6764.31 + 1911.76 = 8676.07 + i n t e r e s t at 8.26% 1975 9392.71 + 2277.76 = 11670.47 + i n t e r e s t at 7.96% 1982 40,027.25 - 526.76 = 39 ,464.49 + i n t e r e s t at 15.41% = 45 ,545.97 as of y e a r - e n d 1982. The same procedure was employed fo r each of the three o ther forms of inves tment . 459 APPENDIX II OPERATIONALISING MARXIST AND WEBERIAN CLASS DEFINITIONS M a r x i s t C l a s s D e f i n i t i o n Because W r i g h t ' s 1 c l a s s c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n seems t h e o r e t i -2 c a l l y weak at p o i n t s and C a r c h e d i ' s a n a l y s i s e m p i r i c a l l y ambiva lent at o t h e r s , I have used each to complement the o t h e r . The o p e r a t i o n a l form used i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s thus an amalgam. Whi le W r i g h t ' s and C a r c h e d i ' s a n a l y s e s c o n t r a d i c t each o ther on a b s t r a c t t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t s , as w e l l as more s p e c i f i c i s s u e s of c l a s s b o u n d a r i e s , I found i t u s e f u l to work through both schemata s i m u l t a n e o u s l y : c o n t r a d i c t i o n s between the a n a l y s e s of C a r c h e d i and Wright tend to h i g h l i g h t r e a l t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l a m b i g u i t i e s common to both a n a l y s e s . As w e l l , s i n c e C a r c h e d i hedges h i s a n a l y s i s of the economic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c l a s s s t r u c t u r e i n monopoly c a p i t a l i s m w i t h the q u a l i f i c a t i o n tha t p o l i t i c a l and i d e o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s must be c o n s i d e r e d i n any s p e c i f i c e m p i r i c a l s t u d y , i t seemed u s e f u l to compare h i s a n a l y s i s to t h a t o f W r i g h t . In what f o l l o w s , the c r i t e r i o n i n v o l v e d i n t h i s o p e r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n of 1 E . O . W r i g h t , C l a s s S t r u c t u r e and Income D e t e r m i n a t i o n (New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1979). 2 G . C a r c h e d i , O n The Economic I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of S o c i a l C l a s s e s (London: Rout ledge and Kegan P a u l , 1977). 3 A . Giddens and D. H e l d , ' I n t r o d u c t i o n ' i n C l a s s e s , Power and C o n f l i c t ( B e r k e l y : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1982) p . 10. 460 a marx i s t c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n of c l a s s w i l l be o u t l i n e d . An important p o i n t of u n i t y between the a n a l y s e s of Wright and C a r c h e d i seems the mutual u n d e r s t a n d i n g tha t mono-p o l y or advanced c a p i t a l i s m i s c h a r a c t e r i s e d by a change i n the ca tegory known as ' b o u r g e o i s i e ' or ' c a p i t a l i s t ' . Wright 4 and Perrone argue that a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e s i n the contem-porary c a p i t a l i s t e n t e r p r i s e have become p a r t i a l l y d i f f e r e n -t i a t e d from ownership of the means of p r o d u c t i o n . T h i s they argue does not c o n t r a d i c t a M a r x i s t d e f i n i t i o n of c l a s s but i n v o l v e s a d i s t i n c t i o n between two d imens ions f o r m e r l y cap-t u r e d by one c l a s s c r i t e r i o n , the purchase of a n o t h e r ' s l abour power. T h i s c r i t e r i o n has two d i m e n s i o n s : l e g a l r i g h t s to the p roduc t s of l abour and c o n t r o l over the a c t i v i t i e s of the l abour p r o c e s s . Whi le in the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , these com-plementary d imens ions were u n i t e d i n the person of the e n t r e -p r e n e u r i a l c a p i t a l i s t , today they are p a r t i a l l y d i f f e r e n -t i a t e d . T h i s b i f u r c a t i o n i m p l i e s the emergence of a new s o c i a l c a t e g o r y , tha t of managers. Managers are wage-earners , not owning the means of p r o d u c t i o n nor f o r m a l l y employing workers , who c o n t r o l or s u p e r v i s e l a b o u r power. T h i s c l a s s ca tegory i s c o n s i d e r e d to be a c o n t r a d i c t o r y c l a s s l o c a t i o n because i t r e p r e s e n t s a p o s i t i o n which i s " t o r n between the E . O . Wright and L . P e r r o n e , ' M a r x i s t C l a s s C a t e g o r i e s and Income I n e q u a l i t y , ' American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 42 (1977) , 32-55. 461 b a s i c c o n t r a d i c t o r y c l a s s r e l a t i o n s of c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y " , tha t of worker and c a p i t a l i s t . A s i m i l a r type of a n a l y s i s i s deve loped by C a r c h e d i who argues tha t two elements of the b o u r g e o i s i e change wi th mono-p o l y c a p i t a l i s m . Whi le the b o u r g e o i s i e c o n s i s t of non-producer s of s u r p l u s va lue (or l abour ) w h i l e drawing income from s u r p l u s v a l u e , C a r c h e d i ' s c l a s s d e f i n i t i o n invokes changes i n the ownership and s o c i a l d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r . With monopoly c a p i t a l i s m , r e a l ownership ( c o n t r o l of the means of p r o d u c t i o n ) becomes d i s t i n c t from l e g a l ownership and the i n d i v i d u a l c a p i t a l i s t i s r e p l a c e d by a h i e r a r c h i c a l l y and b u r e a u c r a t i c a l l y o r g a n i s e d s t r u c t u r e . Thus C a r c h e d i a l s o argues tha t a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e s (the f u n c t i o n of g l o b a l c a p i t a l ) becomes p a r t i a l l y d i v o r c e d from l e g a l ownership of the means of p r o d u c t i o n . However, u n l i k e Wright and P e r r o n e , C a r c h e d i argues that many managers are c a p i t a l i s t s . "On t h i s l e v e l , the manager, r a t h e r than the c a p i t a l i s t r e n t i e r , i s the c e n t r a l f i g u r e , he , r a t h e r than the c a p i t a l i s t r e n t i e r , i s c a p i t a l p e r s o n i f i e d . T h i s does not imply that he has r e p l a c e d the c a p i t a l i s t as a c l a s s . The managers are on ly a pa r t of the c a p i t a l i s t c l a s s , the most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a r t from the p o i n t of view of the p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s t y p i c a l of monopoly c a p i t a l i s m . . . a l r e a d y at the l e v e l of p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s , i t i s p o s s i b l e , and i n d e e d , n e c e s s a r y , to c l a s s i f y the managers as members of the b o u r g e o i s i e . " . E . O . W r i g h t , C l a s s S t r u c t u r e , p . 26. G. C a r c h e d i , Economic I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , p . 85. 462 At the same t i m e , a new midd le c l a s s emerges i n C a r c h e d i ' s a n a l y s i s which i s s i m i l a r to that d e s c r i b e d by Wright and Perrone i n t h a t i t has f e a t u r e s of both the p r o l e t a r i a t and b o u r g e o i s i e c l a s s e s . Members of the new middle c l a s s i n C a r c h e d i ' s t h e o r e t i c a l schema have n e i t h e r l e g a l nor r e a l ownership of the means of p r o d u c t i o n , but spend p a r t of t h e i r work day p e r f o r m i n g the s u p e r v i s o r y d u t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the f u n c t i o n of c a p i t a l and the r e s t p r o d u c i n g s u r p l u s va lue or s u r p l u s l a b o u r . The placement of managers, by Wright and P e r r o n e , and C a r c h e d i , as middle c l a s s and c a p i t a l i s t r e s p e c t i v e l y , r e v e a l s an ambigu i ty around the boundary of the middle and c a p i t a l i s t c l a s s . Wright and Perrone r e c o g n i s e the prob lem: "As d e f i n e d . . . the p r e s i d e n t of G e n e r a l Motors would be c a l l e d a 'manager' r a t h e r than a c a p i t a l i s t , i n s p i t e of the f a c t that most of h i s income comes from the d i r e c t a p p r o p r i a t i o n of p r o f i t s . C l e a r l y , formal l e g a l ownership of the means of p r o d u c t i o n and formal l e g a l s t a t u s as the employer of l a b o u r power are not s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i a to d i f f e r e n t i a t e c a p i t a l i s t s from managers. For p re sent purposes , however, we w i l l i gnore both of these a m b i g u i t i e s . " 7 In a l a t e r work, Wright c o n f r o n t s more d i r e c t l y the i s sue of r e a l ownership but i gnore s t h i s i s sue at the e m p i r i c a l l e v e l because " i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t any such people [ top e x e c u t i v e s of monopoly c o r p o r a t i o n s ] appear i n these s u r v e y s " . So too C a r c h e d i r e c o g n i s e s the g r a d a t i o n s w i t h i n the manager i a l g roup ing and the v a r y i n g degree to which i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e to app ly the l a b e l ' b o u r g e o i s i e ' to managers. E . O . Wright and L . P e r r o n e , p . 35. E . O . W r i g h t , C l a s s S t r u c t u r e , p . 242 463 "The top manager has r e a l , economic ownership and thus has economic power. He must d e l e g a t e a p a r t of h i s work of c o n t r o l and s u r v e i l l a n c e to lower manager i a l s t r a t a and to the new middle c l a s s . The lower s t r a t a , s i n c e they are f a r t h e r from the cen te r of economic power, a l s o get lower i n c o m e s . " g Of both t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i s the degree to which a marxian schema i s as c l e a r l y r e l a t i o n a l and d e v o i d of the a m b i g u i t i e s or a r b i t r a r i n e s s of a g r a d a t i o n a l c l a s s schema as Wright suggests when the c r i t e r i o n of a u t h o r i t y or r e a l economic ownership (as d i s t i n c t from l e g a l ownership) i s g iven t h e o r e t i c a l prominence . U n d e r s t a n d i n g more f u l l y the a v a i l a b l e room for d i s c r e t i o n a r y judgements , I have chosen to mediate between C a r c h e d i and Wright by a s s i g n i n g upper manage-ment to the b o u r g e o i s i e and middle and lower management, as w e l l as foremen and s u p e r v i s o r s to the middle c l a s s . G iven the f a c t that d i s c u s s i o n of c l a s s boundar ie s i s most o f t e n focused around the c a p i t a l i s t e n t e r p r i s e ( p r i v a t e or monopoly) there i s a l s o a c e r t a i n amount of ambigu i ty c o n c e r n i n g the c l a s s p o s i t i o n of those employed by such i n s t i -t u t i o n s as the S t a t e , Church or Army. In c o n t r a s t i n g t h e i r p o s i t i o n w i t h D a h r e n d o r f ' s c o n c e p t i o n of c l a s s as a common p o s i t i o n w i t h i n a u t h o r i t y h i e r a r c h i e s , Wright and Perrone argue t h a t , " i n D a h r e n d o r f ' s a n a l y s i s a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n churches are as much the b a s i s of c l a s s G . C a r c h e d i , Economic I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , p . 96 E . O . W r i g h t , C l a s s S t r u c t u r e . 464 p o s i t i o n as a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n i n d u s t r y " , whi le from t h e i r marx i s t p e r s p e c t i v e , " a u t h o r i t y i s d e f i n e d s p e c i f i c a l l y in terms of the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n , not the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s of any o r g a n i s a t i o n w h a t s o e v e r . " 1 1 A q u e s t i o n i s r a i s e d as to whether these o ther o r g a n i s a -t i o n s l i e o u t s i d e c l a s s a n a l y s i s a l t o g e t h e r . C a r c h e d i has argued tha t n o n - c a p i t a l i s t s t a t e a c t i v i t i e s , e x c l u d i n g the p o l i c e or army, or " those i n s t i t u t i o n s the b a s i c f u n c t i o n of which i s the domina t ion of the working c l a s s " , " b y be ing immersed i n , and thus dominated by , a c a p i t a l i s t economic 12 . . . . . s t r u c t u r e " produce n o n - c a p i t a l i s t commodit ies j u s t as c a p i -t a l i s t commodit ies are p roduced . He argues tha t because non-c a p i t a l i s t p r o d u c t i o n takes p l a c e i n a c a p i t a l i s t economic. s t r u c t u r e i t i s dominated by t h i s s t r u c t u r e and s u r p l u s l abour i s e x t r a c t e d from the i n d i v i d u a l employee. T h i s argument r e s t s on the assumption that because employers i n n o n - c a p i -t a l i s t s t a t e and p r i v a t e c a p i t a l i s t e n t e r p r i s e earn e q u i v a l e n t incomes, s u r p l u s l a b o u r , by d e d u c t i o n , must be e x t r a c t e d from n o n - c a p i t a l i s t s t a t e employees . The va lue of l abour power of n o n - c a p i t a l i s t s t a t e employees and p r o d u c t i v e workers i s c o n -s i d e r e d to be de termined on the b a s i s of the same c r i t e r i o n -the v a l u e of the goods and s e r v i c e s going i n t o the c u l t u r a l l y de termined s u b s i s t a n c e minimum. One might q u e s t i o n t h i s l i n e of d e d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g ; for i n s t a n c e , on the e m p i r i c a l grounds 1 1 E . O . Wright and L . P e r r o n e , p . 34. 1 2 G . C a r c h e d i , Economic I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , p . 14. 465 of equa l p r o d u c t i v i t y i n n o n - c a p i t a l i s t s t a t e employment and c a p i t a l i s t e n t e r p r i s e , and the t h e o r e t i c a l r e l e v a n c e of reve-nue t o a m a r x i s t d e f i n i t i o n of c l a s s . However, as the pre sent purpose i s to o p e r a t i o n a l i s e a marx i s t d e f i n i t i o n of c l a s s t h i s c r i t i c i s m w i l l not be pur sued . C a r c h e d i suggests tha t one must c l a s s i f y workers i n the n o n - c a p i t a l i s t s t a t e s e c t o r on the b a s i s of whether they perform the f u n c t i o n of g l o b a l c a p i t a l or c o l l e c t i v e worker . The f u n c t i o n of g l o b a l c a p i t a l " b a s i c a l l y means to c a r r y out the work of c o n t r o l and sur -1 3 v e i l l a n c e " w h i l e the f u n c t i o n of the c o l l e c t i v e worker means " to take p a r t i n the complex, s c i e n t i f i c a l l y o r g a n i s e d l abour proces s as a pa r t of the c o l l e c t i v e labour-power to produce 1 4 c o l l e c t i v e l y use va lues i n order to produce s u r p l u s v a l u e " . Thus , a g a i n w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y for d i s c r e t i o n , I have p l a c e d s t a t e employees on the b a s i s of t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r y c a p a c i t i e s . As w e l l , o c c u p a t i o n s which C a r c h e d i a s s o c i a t e s wi th d o m i n a t i o n ( i . e . p o l i c e and army) , but which C a r c h e d i exc ludes from h i s a n a l y s i s , are c o n s i d e r e d to be middle c l a s s or b o u r g e o i s i e , r e l a t i v e to t h e i r p o s i t i o n of a u t h o r i t y , more i n the sense of be ing a r e s i d u a l c a t egory supposedly not to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the working c l a s s . One f u r t h e r p o i n t of ambigu i ty that w i l l be taken up here i n v o l v e s the placement of p r o f e s s i o n a l s such as l awyers and 1 3 I b i d . , p . 63. 14 . I b i d . , p . 66. 466 u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r s who are not s e l f employed and may not supervise and exert c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t r o l over the labour power of o t h e r s . These occupations have been placed i n the middle c l a s s on the b a s i s of Wright's c o n t r a d i c t o r y c l a s s category of semi-autonomous employees. Wright sees t h i s as a c o n t r a d i c -t o r y c l a s s l o c a t i o n between p e t t y b o u r g e o i s i e and working c l a s s and d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h i s p o s i t i o n on the b a s i s of the high degree of c o n t r o l r e t a i n e d over the p l a n n i n g and execution of p r o d u c t i o n . "The d e c i s i v e content of t h i s c o n t r o l over the immediate labour process i s the c o n t r o l ( w i t h i n l i m i t s ) over what i s produced, not simply c o n t r o l over how t h i n g s are 1 5 produced." T h i s category has not been o p e r a t l o n a l i s e d i n any systematic f a s h i o n , both f o r the pragmatic reason that there i s a d e a r t h of i n f o r m a t i o n on the issue of autonomy in the S o c i a l Change in Canada survey c o n s i d e r e d here and because the boundary problem surrounding t h i s category i s s i g n i f i c a n t and exacerbated by l i m i t e d t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n by Wright. The semi-autonomous employee category has been c o n s i d e r e d only in the case of occupations such as u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r s , who have, f o r i n s t a n c e , c o n s i d e r a b l e c h o i c e in terms of r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t i e s . In most cases, as Wright i n d i c a t e s h i m s e l f 1f^, when inadequate i n f o r m a t i o n f o r o p e r a t i o n a l i s i n g the semi-autonomous categor y i s a v a i l a b l e , semi-autonomous employees should be merged with the working c l a s s . E.O. Wright, C l a s s S t r u c t u r e , p. 47. 1 6 I b i d . , p. 242. 467 G i v e n what was f e l t to be c o n s i d e r a b l e room for d i s c r e -t i o n a r y judgement i n o p e r a t i o n a l i s i n g a marx i s t c l a s s d e f i n i -t i o n , composed v i a a s taged in te rchange between the s tatements of Wright and C a r c h e d i , i t was r e a s s u r i n g to f i n d that t h i s o p e r a t i o n a l i s a t ion almost e x a c t l y r e p l i c a t e s Johnston and . . 17 O r n s t e i n ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of C a r c h e d i ' s c l a s s schema. Except for the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 24 o c c u p a t i o n s which are l i s t e d as " I n s p e c t i n g , t e s t i n g , g r a d i n g , and sampl ing o c c u p a t i o n s " i n 1 8 v a r i o u s i n d u s t r i e s , t h e r e are on ly s c a t t e r e d d i s c r e p a n c i e s between Johnston and O r n s t e i n ' s and t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n sche-ma. Johnston and O r n s t e i n c l a s s i f i e d " I n s p e c t i n g , t e s t i n g , g r a d i n g and sampl ing o c c u p a t i o n s " as pa r t of the new middle c l a s s w h i l e they are p l a c e d here w i t h i n the working c l a s s c a t e g o r y . My u n d e r s t a n d i n g of C a r c h e d i ' s concept of the ' g l o -b a l f u n c t i o n of c a p i t a l ' i s that the c r i t i c a l element of c o n t r o l i n v o l v e s s u p e r v i s i o n over o t h e r s ' l abour power r a t h e r than product q u a l i t y c o n t r o l . Because these 24 o c c u p a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t a r e l a t i v e l y minor p o r t i o n of the 500 o c c u p a t i o n a l l i s t i n g s , I have f o l l o w e d my own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of C a r c h e d i (a p o s i t i o n which seems to be h e l d by Wright as w e l l when he argues t h a t : " T h e d e c i s i v e content of [ c o n t r o l f o r the semi-P e r s o n a l communication w i t h M i c h a e l O r n s t e i n , 1982. T h i s schema has been used by W. Johnston and M. O r n s t e i n , ' C l a s s , work and p o l i t i c s , ' Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and A n t h r o p o l o g y 19 (1982) 196-214. 1 8 1971 Census of Canada l i s t of o c c u p a t i o n a l codes and t i t l e s . 468 autonomous employee] i s the c o n t r o l . . . over what i s p roduced , 1 9 not s imply c o n t r o l over how t h i n g s are p r o d u c e d . " ) w i t h the assumption t h a t t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y between t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and Johnston and O r n s t e i n ' s w i l l not s u b s t a n t i a l l y endanger c o m p a r a b i l i t y a c r o s s a n a l y s e s . Given the above q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t h e n , a m a r x i s t d e f i n i t i o n of c l a s s i s o p e r a t i o n a l i s e d u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a which y i e l d four c l a s s g r o u p i n g s : TABLE A l l . 1 C r i t e r i a For C l a s s C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s C r i t e r i a Rea l Owner E x p l o i t e r s / - s h i p of E x p l o i t e d Means of P r o d u c t i o n Funct ion of C a p i t a l or C o l l e c -t i v e Worker Working C l a s s no e x p l o i ted worker New M i d d l e no both both P e t t y B o u r g e o i s i e yes both both B o u r g e o i s i e yes e x p l o i t e r s c a p i t a l The d i v i d i n g l i n e between b o u r g e o i s i e and p e t t y bour-g e o i s i e i s s u b j e c t to some d i s c r e t i o n . C a r c h e d i i d e n t i f i e s the o l d middle c l a s s wi th " the i n d i v i d u a l c a p i t a l i s t , at most E . O . W r i g h t , C l a s s S t r u c t u r e , p . 47. 469 he lped by a few employees" w h i l e Wright r e s t r i c t s the term to employers w i t h no employees . As the survey under c o n s i d e r -a t i o n o n l y c l a s s i f i e s employers in terms of 0-4 employees or more (the l a t t e r broken down i n some d e t a i l ) , there i s no c h o i c e but to c o n s i d e r the employer w i t h 0-4 employees to be long to the p e t t y b o u r g e o i s i e . I n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e for the S o c i a l Change in Canada survey c o n c e r n i n g whether an i n d i v i d u a l i s s e l f - e m p l o y e d a l l o w s one to d i f f e r e n t i a t e s e l f - e m p l o y e d employers and p e t t y b o u r g e o i s i e from other c l a s s g r o u p i n g s . The remain ing c l a s s d i s t i n c t i o n s are somewhat more p r o b l e m a t i c . Because data on amount of t ime spent s u p e r v i s i n g o t h e r s i s a v a i l a b l e for the S o c i a l Change i n Canada survey o n l y fo r a s e l e c t i o n of the households i n the sample ( those for which the head of house-h o l d was the a c t u a l respondent) c l a s s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were made u s i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l data in c o n j u c t i o n w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g whether the head of househo ld i s s e l f - e m p l o y e d or n o t . Both C a r c h e d i and Wright o u t l i n e c l e a r l y tha t c l a s s p o s i t i o n and o c c u p a t i o n a l l a b e l do not o v e r l a p c o n s i s t e n t l y . However, the d i s t i n c t i o n was made here between w o r k i n g , midd le and b o u r g e o i s i e c l a s s o c c u p a t i o n s on the b a s i s of my under-s t a n d i n g of the s u p e r v i s o r y d u t i e s of each o c c u p a t i o n . As shown i n t a b l e s A l l . 2 and A l l . 3 , these o c c u p a t i o n a l d i v i s i o n s have c a p t u r e d f a i r l y w e l l the expected p a t t e r n s of s u p e r v i s i o n G . C a r c h e d i , Economic I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , p . 88. 470 for the midd le c l a s s e s and b o u r g e o i s i e . There i s a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of s u p e r v i s o r s amongst the working c l a s s than might be e x p e c t e d , sugge s t ing tha t the working c l a s s ca tegory a c t u a l l y i n c l u d e s a segment of the middle c l a s s . However, because of t e r m i n o l o g i c a l vagueness , t h i s i s d i f f i c u l t to e v a l u a t e . A t e a c h e r , for i n s t a n c e may say tha t over h a l f of a l l t ime i s spent s u p e r v i s i n g work of o t h e r s w h i l e t h i s type of s u p e r v i s i o n (over s tudent s ) i s not r e l e v a n t to the c l a s s d e f i n i t i o n . TABLE A l l .2 Percentage Time S u p e r v i s i n g Other s By C l a s s Any Time S u p e r v i s i n g Other s ? Yes % No % N Working C l a s s 40.5 59.5 501 New M i d d l e 76.9 23.1 121 P e t t y B o u r g e o i s i e 40.0 60.0 60 B o u r g e o i s i e 88.0 12.0 1 00 TABLE A l l . 3 Percentage Time Spent S u p e r v i s i n g Other s by C l a s s N e a r l y A l l >.5 About .5 About .25 <.25 N Working 1 1 . .5 7, .0 16, .5 25. .5 39. .5 200 New M i d d l e 33. .3 14, .0 1 1 , .8 20. ,4 20. .4 93 P e t t y B. 12, .5 8, .3 12, .5 29, .2 37. .5 24 B o u r g e o i s i e 30. .7 14, .8 22, .7 22. .7 9. . 1 88 471 Weberian S o c i a l C l a s s D e f i n i t i o n A p p l i e d A c c o r d i n g to Weber, c l a s s e s c o n s i s t of aggregates of i n d i v i d u a l s who share s i m i l a r s e t s of ' l i f e chances ' i n l abour . . 21 and commodity market s . In h i s e a r l i e r e x p o s i t i o n of c l a s s , Weber d i s t i n g u i s h e s between p r o p e r t y c l a s s e s which are based on the members' command over forms of p r o p e r t y tha t can r e a l i s e income i n the market , a c q u i s i t i o n c l a s s e s which are determined by the k inds of marketable s k i l l s or s e r v i c e s h e l d by the people a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the c l a s s , and s o c i a l c l a s s e s which r e f e r to a c l u s t e r of c l a s s s i t u a t i o n s l i n k e d because . . 22 the i n v o l v e common m o b i l i t y c h a n c e s . As Giddens notes , the concept of s o c i a l c l a s s u n i f i e s the m u l t i p l i c i t y of c l a s s p o s i t i o n s a r i s i n g from Weber ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c l a s s s i t u a -t i o n w i t h market p o s i t i o n . At the same t i m e , i t goes beyond p u r e l y economic c l a s s s i t u a t i o n and i n c o r p o r a t e s elements of s t a t u s . Weber h i m s e l f d i s t i n g u i s h e d four main s o c i a l c l a s s g r o u p i n g s : the manual working c l a s s , the p e t t y b o u r g e o i s i e , p r o p e r t y l e s s white c o l l a r workers , and those p r i v i l e g e d through both e d u c a t i o n and p r o p e r t y . G iven the now h i s t o r i c nature of Weber ' s w r i t i n g s , i t i s s u r p r i s i n g tha t the above schema has been a p p l i e d i n many cases q u i t e u n q u e s t i o n i n g l y . Without even c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s i s sue of h i s t o r i c a l change, P a r k i n has c r i t i c i s e d s o c i o l o g i s t s 21 A . Giddens and D. H e l d , C l a s s e s , Power and C o n f l i c t . 22 A . G i d d e n s , The C l a s s S t r u c t u r e of the Advanced S o c i e t i e s (London: H u t c h i n s o n , 1 973) . 472 for t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Weber, sugge s t ing tha t Weber ' s c o n c e p t i o n s of c l a s s and s t a tu s "have been somewhat 23 t r i v i a l i s e d by h i s p r e s e n t - d a y f o l l o w e r s " . For i n s t a n c e , P a r k i n s t r e s s e s the importance a f f o r d e d by Weber to p r o p e r t y r e l a t i o n s in the d e f i n i t i o n of c l a s s , the s i g n i f i c a n c e of which seems l o s t to many non-marx i s t s o c i o l o g i s t s p r o f e s s i n g to use a Weberian schema. In terms of h i s t o r i c a l change which n e c e s s i t a t e s an u p - d a t i n g of Weberian c a t e g o r i e s , P a r k i n ques-t i o n s the t a k e n - f o r - g r a n t e d r e l e v a n c e of the s imple manual / nonmanual d i s t i n c t i o n for c l a s s a n a l y s i s , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h the expans ion of s t a t e employment and a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of lower w h i t e - c o l l a r groups whose b e n e f i t s ( i n c l u d i n g symbol i c and n o n - p e c u n i a r y advantages) do not seem t o c l e a r l y outweigh 24 those a v a i l a b l e to s k i l l e d manual w o r k e r s . As Turner n o t e s , the proces s of d e s k i l l i n g was one which Weber h i m s e l f a n t i c i -25 . . p a t e d . With t h i s i n mind, the nonmanual, nonmanager ia l group i s d i v i d e d i n terms of s k i l l . Manual workers are a l s o d i v i d e d by s k i l l l e v e l , for as Giddens has a l s o n o t e d , the d i s t i n c t i o n between n o n s k i l l e d and s k i l l e d manual workers 2 6 c o n t i n u e s to be an important l i n e of s t r u c t u r a t i o n . What i s 23 F . P a r kI n , C l a s s I n e q u a l i t y and P o l i t i c a l Order (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1971). 24 F . P a r k i n , Marxism and C l a s s T h e o r y : A Bourgeo i s C r i t i q u e (London: T a v i s t o c k , 1979) . 2 5 B. T u r n e r , For Weber (London: Rout ledge and Regan P a u l , 1981) A . G i d d e n s , The C l a s s S t r u c t u r e of the Advanced S o c i e t i e s , p . 1 1 0 . 473 needed, a l t h o u g h seemingly not a v a i l a b l e , for a j u s t i f i c a t i o n of t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i n Weberian terms , i s ev idence of l i m i t e d s o c i a l m o b i l i t y a c ro s s s k i l l e d and l e s s s k i l l e d o c c u p a t i o n s . The manual and nonmanual d i s t i n c t i o n i s r e t a i n e d wi th t h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , g i v e n the views of neo-weberian t h e o r i s t s c o n -. 27 c e r n i n g the c o n t i n u i n g importance of t h i s c a t egory The f o l l o w i n g Weberian s o c i a l c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s are d e l i n -e a t e d : 1) managers, p r o f e s s i o n a l s and owners, 2) s k i l l e d non-manual , 3) n o n s k i l l e d nonmanual, 4) s k i l l e d manual and 5) non-s k i l l e d manual . A few comments shou ld be made c o n c e r n i n g the f i r s t , r a t h e r heterogeneous c a t e g o r y . Whi le Giddens m a i n t a i n s the importance of the p e t t y b o u r g e o i s i e as a separa te group , t h i s group was not c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y here because of c o n t r a i n t s on sample s i z e . I t i s however i d e n t i f i e d s e p a r a t e l y through the marx i s t c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s . An argument s i m i l a r to t h a t of C a r c h e d i j u s t i f i e s the i n c l u s i o n of man-agers i n the p r i v i l e g e d c l a s s . As P a r k i n w r i t e s : " C a r c h e d i and other n e o - M a r x i s t s may t h e r e f o r e be q u i t e c o r r e c t in sugges-t i n g t h a t ' t h e manager i s c a p i t a l p e r s o n i f i e d ' ; but a l l tha t needs to be added i s . . . t h a t i t squares far more c o m f o r t a b l y w i t h the assumptions of b o u r g e o i s , or at l e a s t Weber ian , 2 8 s o c i o l o g y than w i t h c l a s s i c a l M a r x i s t t h e o r y . " P r o f e s s i o n a l s are i n c l u d e d w i t h i n t h i s c a t egory because ' c r e -d e n t i a l i s m ' or the use of e d u c a t i o n a l c e r t i f i c a t e s to 27 A . G i d d e n s , C l a s s s t r u c t u r e and P a r k i n , Marxism and C l a s s T h e o r y . 2 8 F . P a r k i n , Marxism and C l a s s T h e o r y , pp. 53-54. 474 sa feguard or enhance o c c u p a t i o n a l market va lue i s seen by P a r k i n to be of " equa l importance to the e x c l u s i o n a r y r i g h t s 29 of p r o p e r t y " . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the f i v e s o c i a l c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s were o p e r a t i o n a l i s e d u s i n g the breakdown by P i n e o , P o r t e r and McRoberts of the 1971 Canadian Census c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of o c c u -30 p a t i o n s . The p r i n c i p l e used by P i n e o , P o r t e r and McRoberts to c r e a t e o c c u p a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s was, r a t h e r v a g u e l y , one of g roup ing toge ther "where p o s s i b l e , o c c u p a t i o n s which are r e c u r r e n t l y s a i d by s o c i o l o g i s t s to have s p e c i a l a f f i n i t i e s even i f they d i f f e r somewhat i n s o c i a l s t a n d i n g . . . p r o f e s s i o n a l s can be m e a n i n g f u l l y g rouped . They may share some moderate c o n s c i o u s n e s s of k i n d . They c e r t a i n l y share a common 3 1 o b 3 e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n - t h a t of p r o l o n g e d formal t r a i n i n g . " To g ive some i n d i c a t i o n of the a c t u a l c r i t e r i a used , these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s have (Pearson) c o r r e l a t i o n s of .80 w i t h 32 the B l i s h e n soc io-economic s c a l e s (which are a c t u a l e s t i -mates of s t a t u s scores for o c c u p a t i o n s based on mean l e v e l s of I b i d . , p . 54. 30 P . C . P i n e o , J . P o r t e r and H . A . McRobert s , 'The 1971 Census and the Soc io-Economic C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of O c c u p a t i o n s , ' Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and Anthopology 14 (1977) , 91-102. 3 1 I b i d . , p . 96. B .R . B l i s h e n and H . A . McRober t s , ' A R e v i s e d S o c i o -Economic Index for o c c u p a t i o n s i n C a n a d a , ' Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and Anthropo logy 13 (1976) , 71-79. 475 income and e d u c a t i o n of t h e i r incumbents , as determined n a t i o n a l l y in the 1971 Canadian Census ) , and .82 w i t h a s c a l e of G e n e r a l E d u c a t i o n a l Development (dev i sed by the Department of Manpower and Immigrat ion to as sess the s k i l l requirements 3 3 a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a t i o n s ) . P i n e o , P o r t e r and McRober t s ' s i x t e e n c a t e g o r i e s were c o l l a p s e d for the purposes of t h i s a n a l y s i s i n t o the f i v e s o c i a l c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s des-c r i b e d above i n the f o l l o w i n g manner: the manager i a l s o c i a l c l a s s i n c l u d e s P i n e o , P o r t e r and McRober t s ' c a t e g o r i e s e n t i t l e d s e l f - e m p l o y e d p r o f e s s i o n a l s , employed p r o f e s s i o n a l s and h i g h and midd le l e v e l management; the s k i l l e d nonmanual c a t egory i n c l u d e s t h e i r c a t e g o r i e s of s e m i - p r o f e s s i o n a l s , s u p e r v i s o r s and s k i l l e d c l e r i c a l - s a l e s - s e r v i c e o c c u p a t i o n s ; the s k i l l e d manual c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e s t h e i r c a t e g o r i e s of t e c h n i c i a n s , s u p e r v i s o r s , foremen and s k i l l e d c r a f t s and t r a d e s ; and f i n a l l y , n o n s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e the semi- and u n s k i l l e d manual and nonmanual c a t e g o r i e s from the P i n e o , P o r t e r and McRoberts c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 33 . • F . E . Jones ' S k i l l as a Dimension of O c c u p a t i o n a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , ' Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and Anthropo logy 17 (1980) , 176-183. 476 APPENDIX III EXACT WORDING OF SOCIAL CHANGE IN CANADA QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS C l a s s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n One hear s a l o t about d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c l a s s e s . Do you ever t h i n k of y o u r s e l f as b e l o n g i n g to a s o c i a l c l a s s ? IF YES- Which of the f o l l o w i n g f i v e s o c i a l c l a s s e s would you say you were i n : upper c l a s s , upper-midd le c l a s s , midd le c l a s s , working c l a s s , or lower c l a s s ? IF NO- W e l l , i f you had to make a c h o i c e , would you say you were i n the upper c l a s s , upper-midd le c l a s s , midd le c l a s s , working c l a s s or lower c l a s s ? Community Attachments Some people t h i n k of themselves as be ing a pa r t of a p a r t i -c u l a r area or neighbourhood i n the community, w h i l e o t h e r s d o n ' t c o n s i d e r themselves pa r t of such a r e a s . Which sor t of person are you most l i k e ? Of the ten f a m i l i e s that l i v e the c l o s e s t to you h e r e , how many would you know by name? Job M o b i l i t y For how many years have you been w i t h your pre sent employer? For how many years have you been i n your present job w i t h t h i s company? Employment of Spouse Do you have a wife (or husband) who i s now w o r k i n g , or l o o k i n g for a job? Union Membership Is t h e r e a union where you work? Are you a member of the union? How many union meetings have you a t t ended in the past year? Have you ever h e l d an o f f i c e i n the union? 477 P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t y We would l i k e to know how i n v o l v e d you have been i n p o l i t i c s and i n your community. Cou ld you t e l l me how o f t en you have done each of the f o l l o w i n g t h i n g s i n the past f i v e y e a r s : n e v e r , once or t w i c e , three to f i v e t i m e s , or more than f i v e t i m e s . How o f t e n have y o u . . . been a v o l u n t e e r worker d u r i n g a p o l i t i c a l campaign? worked w i t h o t h e r s i n your community to t r y to s o l v e some community problem? spoken or w r i t t e n to an e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of yours? s i gned a p e t i t i o n d i r e c t e d to some government agency? a t t ended a p r o t e s t meet ing or demons t ra t ion s u p p o r t i n g some-t h i n g you b e l i e v e in? P o l i t i c a l P a r t y Membership T h i n k i n g of f e d e r a l p o l i t i c s , do you u s u a l l y t h i n k of y o u r s e l f as a L i b e r a l , C o n s e r v a t i v e , N . D . P . , S o c i a l C r e d i t , or what? IF DON'T KNOW OR INDEPENDENT OR NONE ABOVE S t i l l t h i n k i n g of F e d e r a l p o l i t i c s , do you g e n e r a l l y t h i n k of y o u r s e l f as be ing a l i t t l e c l o s e r to one of the p a r t i e s than to the o t h e r s ? IF YES Which p a r t y i s tha t ? T h i n k i n g of p r o v i n c i a l p o l i t i c s , do you u s u a l l y t h i n k of y o u r s e l f as a L i b e r a l , C o n s e r v a t i v e , N . D . P . , S o c i a l C r e d i t , P . Q . , or what? IF DON'T KNOW OR INDEPENDENT OR NONE ABOVE S t i l l t h i n k i n g of p r o v i n c i a l p o l i t i c s , do you g e n e r a l l y t h i n k of y o u r s e l f as be ing a l i t t l e c l o s e r to one of the p a r t i e s than the o t h e r s ? IF YES Which p a r t y i s tha t ? 478 L e g i t i m a c y of D i f f e r e n t Types of P r o t e s t We would l i k e to know how you f e e l about d i f f e r e n t k inds of p r o t e s t which might be used to get the government to change i t s p o l i c i e s . What about s t r i k e s , do you t h i n k they can o f ten be j u s t i f i e d , tha t they can sometimes be j u s t i f i e d , or that s t r i k e s are never j u s t i f i e d to change government p o l i c y ? What about b o y c o t t s ? What about l e g a l and p e a c e f u l d e m o n s t r a t i o n s , l i k e marches , r a l l i e s and p i c k e t i n g ? What about i l l e g a l but p e a c e f u l d e m o n s t r a t i o n s , l i k e s i t - i n s ? And f i n a l l y , what about v i o l e n t p r o t e s t demons t ra t ions i n c l u d i n g a c t i o n s such as f i g h t i n g w i t h the p o l i c e and d e s t r o y i n g p r o p e r t y ? A t t i t u d e s Towards Economic I n e q u a l i t i e s 1. Here i s a s e r i e s of s tatements about the way our economy works. P l ea se choose the answer on t h i s c a r d which comes c l o s e s t to your o p i n i o n about each one . I f you have mixed f e e l i n g s about a s tatement you shou ld use the " n e i t h e r agree or d i s a g r e e " answer. Use the "no o p i n i o n " answer i f you r e a l l y have no views on the statement at a l l . There i s too much d i f f e r e n c e between r i c h and poor i n t h i s c o u n t r y . 2. We would l i k e to know how much e f f o r t you t h i n k government s h o u l d put i n t o a number of a c t i v i t i e s . P lease choose the answer on t h i s c a r d which comes c l o s e s t to your o p i n i o n abut the e f f o r t tha t shou ld be made i n each a r e a . Remember that p u t t i n g more e f f o r t i n t o one of these areas would r e q u i r e a s h i f t of money from o t h e r areas or an i n c r e a s e i n t a x e s . . . F i r s t of a l l , how much e f f o r t should be put i n t o h e a l t h and m e d i c a l ca re? p r o v i d i n g a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed? h e l p i n g the poor? P e r s o n a l P l a n n i n g and C o n t r o l Do you t h i n k i t ' s b e t t e r to p lan your l i f e a good way ahead, or would you say l i f e i s too much a matter of luck to p l a n ahead very far? 479 APPENDIX IV PATTERNS OF CONFOUNDING BETWEEN HOUSING CLASS AND CONTROL VARIABLES P r e s e n t e d below are the p a t t e r n s of confounding between hous ing c l a s s and v a r i o u s c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s when c l a s s , SES, l i f e - c y c l e and educa t ion are each c o n t r o l l e d . With c l a s s c o n t r o l l e d , hous ing c l a s s i s s t i l l confounded q u i t e s e r i o u s l y wi th household income (Table A I V . 1 ) . For i n s t a n c e , w i t h i n the working c l a s s , 52.8% of r e n t e r s have incomes of $16,999 or l e s s w h i l e o n l y 21.5% of mortgaged and 30.8% of o u t r i g h t homeowners have incomes w i t h i n these lower b r a c k e t s . T h i s tendency i s e v i d e n t ac ros s a l l c l a s s e s . T h i s i s a l s o the case when SES i s c o n t r o l l e d (Table A I V . 1 ) . The confounding between hous ing c l a s s and hous ing income i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s e r i o u s w i t h i n the s k i l l e d nonmanual c a t e g o r y , i n which case 77.1% of a l l r e n t e r s have incomes below $22,999 and 63.9% of a l l mortgaged homewners, as w e l l as 66.6% of a l l o u t r i g h t owners, have annual incomes of $23,000 or more. In t a b l e A I V . 2 one can e v a l u a t e the extent to which hous ing c l a s s i s confounded w i t h e t h n i c i t y when SES and c l a s s are c o n t r o l l e d . I t i s c l e a r tha t w i t h i n the two manual c a t e -g o r i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y n o n s k i l l e d manual , homeownership i s more o f t en a s s o c i a t e d wi th a Por tuguese , I t a l i a n or E a s t e r n European background than i s r e n t i n g . T h i s tends a l s o to be t rue for o u t r i g h t owners in the manager ia l c a t e g o r y . T h i s l a t t e r a s s o c i a t i o n i s e v i d e n t l y due to the s e l f - e m p l o y e d 480 TABLE AIV.1 Systematic Biases in Terms of Household Income Across Housing Classes When Class and SES Controlled, Household Heads Only Household Income ($) 0-8999 9000-16999 17000-22.999 23,000-29,999 30,000 + CLASS Work 1ng Renters Homeowners mortgage outr ight 18.4 4 . 1 10.6 34.3 17.4 20. 2 22 .8 24 .0 18 . 1 17.0 35.5 36.2 7.5 19.0 14.9 Middle Renters Homeowners mortgage outrIght 5.4 0 4 . 2 33.9 12.. 2 12.4 28.6 7.3 25.0 14.2 41.5 16.7 17.9 39 .0 41.7 Petty Bourg. Renters Homeowners mortgage owners 25.0 10.0 11.1 25.0 15.0 33.3 28.6 10.0 22 . 2 17.9 25.0 11.1 3.6 40.0 22 . 2 Bourgeo1s i e Renters Homeowners mortgage outr ight 5 . 7 0 0 14.3 2.9 8.7 25 . 7 11.8 4 . 3 22 .9 29.4 39. 1 31.4 55.9 47.8 Residual Renters Homeowners mortgage outr ight 70.4 33.3 43 .8 17.6 13.3 26.3 6.4 26 . 7 12.5 1 .6 13.3 7 . 5 4.0 13.3 10.0 481 TABLE AIV.1 CONTINUED Household Income ($) 0-8999 9000-16999 17000-22,999 23,000-29,999 30.000 + SES Nonsk i11ed manual Renters 27.0 31.1 23.0 13.5 5.4 Homeowners mortgage 4.8 19.0 38.1 28.6 9.5 outright 8.5 14.6 19.4 18.5 6.7 nonmanual Renters 27.2 40.3 11.7 14.3 6.5 Homeowners mortgage 9.1 31.8 18.2 36.4 4.5 outright 29.4 23.5 0 29.4 17.6 Sk11 led manua1 Renters 3.7 27.8 31.5 25.9 11.1 Homeowners mortgage 0 15.4 20.5 38.5 25.6 outright 6.9 3.4 44.8 31.0 13.9 nonmanua1 Renters 11.4 38.1 27.6 16.2 6.7 Homeowners mortgage 2.1 12.8 21.3 42.6 21.3 outright 0 29.6 3.7 37.1 29.6 Managers Renters 10.7 22.3 27.2 18.4 21.4 Homeowners mortgage 3.4 8.0 9.2 29.9 49.4 outright 2.2 15.2 10.9 30.4 41.3 482 TABLE AIV.2 Systematic Biases in Terms of Ethnicity Across Housing Classes When SES is Controlled, Household Heads Only Country of Origin Canada US UK Scand. France Germ. Portug. East. Other and Italy Europ. CLASS Work i ng Renter 77 .8 1 .O 4 . 6 1 .0 1 . 7 1 .3 2 . 3 . 7 9.6 Homeowner mortgage 69 . 7 0 4 . 1 0 2 . 5 1 .6 11.5 4 . 1 6.5 outr i ght 69 .8 1 . 1 4 . 2 2. 1 1 .0 0 11.5 7.3 2.0 New Middle Renter 74 . 1 1 .7 3 . 4 0 3.4 1 .7 1 . 7 6.9 7.4 Homeowner mortgage 74 . 4 0 14 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 . 3 9.3 outr i ght 80 .9 0 3. ,8 0 0 O 3.8 7 . 7 3.8 Petty Bour. Renter 71 .0 0 3. 2 3 . 2 0 3.2 0 12.9 6.5 Homeowner mortgage 45 .0 0 1.0. 0 10.0 0 0 25.0 5.0 5.0 outr i ght 20 .0 0 30. O 0 0 0 30.0 20.0 O Bourgeo i s i e Renter 78 . 9 0 13 . 2 2.6 2.6 0 0 0 2.6 Homeowner mortgage 73 . 5 0 8 . 8 0 2.9 5.9 5.9 0 2.9 outr ight 72 . 0 8.0 0 • 0 0 4.0 16.0 0 O Res i dua1 Renter 74. 5 3.9 7. 2 2.0 . 7 . 7 1 . 3 4.6 5. 1 Homeowner mortgage 76 . 5 5.9 1 1 . 7 0 0 0 0 5.9 0 outr i ght 54 . 9 4 . 4 12 . 1 2 . 2 2 . 2 5.5 5.5 13.2 0 483 TABLE AIV.2 CONTINUED Country of Origin Canada US UK Scand. France Germ. Portug. East. Other and Italy Europ. SES Nonskilled Manual . _ _ . Renter 77.3 0 0 1.3 0 1.3 4.0 0 16.1 Homeowner „„ _ . , „ . _ mortgage 42.9 0 0 0 0 9.5 28.6 4.3 4.7 outright 45.5 O 9.1 6.1 O 0 21.2 15.1 3.0 outr ight Nonmanua1 Renter 80.2 Homeowner 0 2.5 ' 0 1.2 1.2 3.7 1.2 10.0 mortgage 73.9 0 8.7 0 0 0 8.7 0 8.7 o u t r T g h t 81.3 6.2 0 0 6.2 O 0 0 6.3 S k i l l e d Manual , „ „ . ., „ Renter 76.4 O 3.6 O 1.8 1.8 1.8 3.6 11.0 Homeowner m n mortgage 65.0 O 2.5 0 5,0 0 15.0 2.5 10.0 o u t r i g h t 73.3 0 0 0 0 0 16.7 6.7 3.3 Nonmanual „ „ . _ Renter 76.1 1.8 10.1 1.8 2.8 1.8 O .9 4.7 Homeowner _ . _ mortgage 87.2 O 6.5 O 2.1 0 O O 4^2 o u t r i g h t 92.8 0 3.6 0 O 0 0 3.6 0 M a S e r 75.5 1.8 6.4 1.8 2.7 .9 .9 5.0 Homeowners „ ^ , _ mortgage 65.9 0 11.4 2.3 1.1 2.3 8.0 3.4 5.6 outright 64.0 4.0 8.0 0 0 2.0 14.0 6.0 2.0 484 i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the manager i a l c a tegory but a l s o i d e n t i f i e d s e p a r a t e l y as p e t t y b o u r g e o i s i e . Amongst working c l a s s household heads , as w e l l , t h e r e i s a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of E a s t e r n Europeans , Portuguese and I t a l i a n s owning as compared to r e n t i n g homes. When c l a s s and SES are c o n t r o l l e d , there remains a c o n s i s t e n t tendency for t h e r e to be more s i n g l e persons amongst the sample of r e n t e r s and more m a r r i e d respondents w i t h f a m i l i e s amongst homeowners, a c r o s s a l l c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s . As w e l l , t h e r e i s q u i t e a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of e l d e r l y home-owners amongst p e t t y bourgeo i s household heads . T h i s p a t t e r n of confounding i s shown i n t a b l e A I V . 3 . F i n a l l y , there i s a tendency for o u t r i g h t homeowners to have l e s s e d u c a t i o n than those i n o ther hous ing c l a s s e s , a c r o s s a l l c l a s s and SES groups . T h i s p a t t e r n of confounding i s shown i n t a b l e A I V . 4 . To summarise the p a t t e r n of confounding between hous ing c l a s s and the other c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s when SES and c l a s s are c o n t r o l l e d : 1) i n each c l a s s and SES group homeowners tend to have h i g h e r incomes than r e n t e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the s k i l l e d nonmanual c a t e g o r y , 2) homeownership i s s l i g h t l y confounded w i t h e t h n i c i t y w i t h i n the working c l a s s , e s p e c i a l l y amongst n o n s k i l l e d manual workers , and the p e t t y b o u r g e o i s c l a s s , 3) there tends to be more s i n g l e persons amongst the r e n t a l sample for a l l c l a s s and SES c a t e g o r i e s and more m a r r i e d respondents wi th f a m i l i e s amongst the homeowning samples , and 4) there i s a s l i g h t tendency for o u t r i g h t homeowners to have 485 TABLE AIV.3 1 Systematic Biases in Terms of L i f e - c y c l e Across Housing Classes, Class and SES Controlled, Household Heads Only L i f e - c y c l e Single Married Family Elderly % N % N % N % N Class Work 1ng Renters 47 .9 138 17 .0 49 32 .6 94 2 .4 7 Mortgaged H.O. 1 1 .9 14 .9 20 71 .2 84 0 Outright H.O. 15 .8 15 - ^4 ,7 14 66 .3 63 3 .2 3 New Middle Renters 45 . 3 24 22 .6 12 30 . 2 16 1 .9 1 Mortgaged H.O. 7. . 3 3 14 .6 6 75 .6 31 2 .4 1 Outright H.O. 4 . 0 1 4 .0 1 92, .0 23 0 Petty Bourgeoisie Renters 53 . 3 16 13 . 3 4 33 .3 10 0 Mortgaged H.O. 10. . 5 2 21 . 1 4 68, . 4 13 0 Outright H.O. 20. .0 2 0 60. .0 6 20 .0 2 Bourgeoi s i e Renters 22 . 2 8 22. , 2 8 52. 8 19 2. .8 1 Mortgaged H.O. 2 . 9 1 5 . 9 2 88 . ,2 30 2 . 9 1 Outright H.O. 7 . 7 2 7 . 7 2 80. .8 2 1 3. .8 1 486 TABLE AIV.3 CONTINUED Li f e - c y c l e Single Married Family Elderly % N % N % N % N SES Nonskilled Manual Renters 31 . 5 23 19 . 2 14 47 .9 85 1 .4 1 Mortgaged H.O. 5 . 3 1 26 . 3 5 68 . 4 13 0 Outright H.O. 12 . 1 4 9 . 1 3 75 .8 25 3 .0 1 NonManual Renters 53 .8 42 16 .7 13 26 .9 1 1 2 .6 2 Mortgaged H.O. 4 .8 1 14 .3 3 81 .0 17 0 Outright H.O. 23 . 5 4 1 1 .8 2 64 . 7 1 1 0 Sk11 led Manual Renters 35 .8 19 20. . 8 11 41 . 5 22 1 . 9 1 Mortgaged H.O. 7 . 5 3 10. .0 4 82 .5 33 0 Outright H.O. 3 .3 1 13. .3 4 83. .3 25 0 S k i l l e d NonManual Renters 61 .6 61 13. . 1 13 23 . 2 23 2 .0 2 Mortgaged H.O. 13 .0 6 15. , 2 7 71 . 7 33 0 Outright H.O. 23. . 1 6 19. .2 5 50, ,0 13 3 .5 2 Manager Renters 39 . 4 41 21 . 2 22 36. .5 38 2. .9 3 Mortgaged H.O. 10. . 5 9 15 . 1 13 72 . 1 62 2 . 3 2 Outright H.O. 10. .0 5 6. 0 3 78 . 0 39 6 . 0 3 Residual Renters 25 . 5 37 3 . 4 5 24 . 1 35 46. .9 68 Mortgaged H.O. 5 . 9 1 5 . 9 1 41 . 2 7 47 . , 1 8 Outright H.O. 1 1 . 4 9 3 . 8 3 20. 3 16 64 . 6 51 487 TABLE AIV.4 Systematic Confounding of Housing Class and Education When Class and SES Controlled, Household Heads Only Educat ion High School Technical College No Some Diploma School Some Degree % N % N % N % N % N % N Class Work i ng Renters 7 . 6 23 20, .9 63 24 . ,5 74 9. ,9 30 18. ,5 56 18. .5 56 Mortgaged 15. ,4 19 13 . 8 17 17 . 1 21 18 . 7 23 16 , .3 20 18. , 7 23 Outr ight 20, 8 20 31 . , 3 30 15. .6 15 9. .4 9 12. ,5 12 10. ,4 10 New Middle Renters 5, . 2 3 8. .6 5 15 .5 9 5 .2 3 22 . 4 13 43 . 1 25 Mortgaged 4 .7 2 16. . 3 7 18 .6 8 4 .7 2 18. .6 8 37 . 2 16 Outright 15 .4 4 19, .2 5 23 . 1 6 1 1 .5 3 3 .8 1 26 .9 7 Petty Bourg. Renters 6 . 1 5 9 . 7 3 16 , 1 5 16 . 1 5 19. .4 6 22 . 6 7 Mortgaged 0 25. .0 5 20. .0 4 20, ,0 4 10. .0 2 25. .0 5 Outr i ght 40. ,0 4 20. .0 2 10. .0 1 10. .0 1 20. .0 2 0 Jourgeo1s 1 e Renters 2, .6 1 7 . 9 3 10, .5 4 7. .9 3 26, .3 10 44 , .7 17 Mortgaged 5 . , 7 2 17 . 1 6 5 . 7 2 1 1 . .4 4 20. .0 7 40. .0 14 Outr i ght 7 . 7' 2 19 . 2 5 26 . 9 7 3 . 9 1 1 1 . .5 3 30. .8 8 488 TABLE AIV.4 CONTINUED Educat i on High School Technical College No Some Diploma School Some Degree % N % N % N % N % N % N SES Nonsk i11ed Manual Renters 17 . 3 13 38 . 7 29 20 .0 15 8 .0 6 13 .3 10 2.7 2 Mortgaged 33 . 1 8 9, .5 2 28 .6 6 19 .0 4 4. .8 1 0 Outr ight 36. ,4 12 42 . 4 14 6 . 1 2 9 . 1 3 3 .0 1 3.0 1 Nonsk i11ed Nonmanual Renters 10. .0 8 17 , .5 14 36, .3 29 6 .3 5 20, .0 16 10.0 8 Mortgaged 17 . 4 4 17 . 4 4 30. . 4 7 21 .7 5 13 .0 3 0 Outright 0 47 . 1 8 29, .4 5 1 1 .8 2 1 1 . .8 2 0 Ski l i e d Manual Renters 7 . , 3 4 30. ,9 17 21 .8 12 16. . 4 9 16 .4 9 7 3 4 Mortgaged 19. . 5 8 26. 8 1 1 14 . 6 6 22 .0 9 12 .2 5 4.9 2 Outright 36. . 7 1 1 30. .0 9 20 .0 6 6 . 7 2 6 . 7 n 0 Ski l i e d Nonmanua1 Renters .9 1 7 , .3 8 23 .9 26 1 1 .0 12 26 .6 29 30 . 3 33 Mortgaged 2. . 1 1 8 .5 4 19 . 1 9 12 .8 6 36 . 2 17 21 . 3 10 Outr i ght 3 . 7 1 14 , .8 4 25 .9 7 14 .8 4 22 . 2 6 18 . 5 5 Managers Renters 5.5 6 5.5 6 9.1 10 8.2 9 19.1 21 52.7 58 Mortgaged 2.2 2 15.7 14 7.9 7 10.1 9 12.4 11 51.7 46 Outright 11.8 6 13.7 7 17.6 9 5.9 3 13.7 7 37.3 19 489 l e s s e d u c a t i o n i n a l l c l a s s and SES c a t e g o r i e s . When l i f e - c y c l e i s c o n t r o l l e d , there do not seem to be c o n s i s t e n t b i a s e s i n terms of c l a s s and hous ing c l a s s a c ro s s l i f e - c y c l e v a l u e s . R a t h e r , t h e r e are a few i d i o s y n c r a t i c ca ses of b i a s . For i n s t a n c e , amongst the s i n g l e c a t e g o r y , t h e r e i s a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of respondents c l a s s i -f i e d as r e s i d u a l amongst o u t r i g h t homeowners, perhaps i n d i c a -t i n g widows under 65 year s of age . There i s a l s o a predomi-nance of managers amongst s i n g l e mortgaged homeowners, com-pared to o ther hous ing c l a s s e s . The r e s i d u a l and manager i a l s o c i a l c l a s s e s might be r e l a t e d to c o n s e r v a t i v e a t t i t u d e s , and t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d m i s t a k e n l y i n terms of h o u s i n g c l a s s . In the same way, the low p r o p o r t i o n of non-s k i l l e d , manual workers and h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of managers amongst f a m i l i e s w i t h mortgages c o u l d be mis taken as a t e n -dency towards c o n s e r v a t i v i s m amongst mortgaged homeowners i n the m a r r i e d w i t h c h i l d r e n l i f e - c y c l e c a t e g o r y . T h i s i s a l s o the case for m a r r i e d , c h i l d l e s s spouses , shown in t a b l e A I V . 3 . When one l o o k s at s y s t e m a t i c b i a s e s i n terms of household income, w i t h i n each l i f e - c y c l e group but a c r o s s hous ing c l a s s e s , i t i s c l e a r that there i s a s y s t e m a t i c tendency for r e n t e r s to have lower incomes than homeowners, a c r o s s a l l l i f e - c y c l e c a t e g o r i e s ( t a b l e A I V . 5 ) . For i n s t a n c e , 65.2% of the s i n g l e r e n t e r s have annual househo ld incomes of $16999 or l e s s w h i l e o n l y 25% of the mortgaged homeowners and 37.6% of the o u t r i g h t homeowners who are s i n g l e have such low incomes. 490 TABLE AIV.5 Systematic Biases in Terms of Household Income Across Housing Class When L i f e -cycle is Controlled, Heads of Household Only Household Income 0-8999 9000-16999 17000-22999 23000-29999 30000+ % . % % % % L1fe-cycle S i ngle Renters 28.6 36.6 Mortgaged H.O. 10.0 15.0 Outright H.O. 8.3 29.2 Marr i ed Renters 8.0 26.7 Mortgaged H.O. 3.0 9.1 Outright H.O. O 10.5 Fam i1y Renters 23.2 26.8 Mortgaged H.O. 3.1 13.8 Outright H.O. 12.8 18.4 E1der1y Renters 72.6 14.5 Mortgaged H.O. 30.0 30.0 Outright H.O. 51.1 28.6 18.3 13.1 3.3 30.0 25.0 20.0 25.0 20.8 16.7 28.0 20.0 17.3 18.2 24.2 45.5 10.5 36.8 42.1 19.0 15.5 15.5 17.5 36.3 29.4 19.2 29.6 20.0 8.1 1.6 3.2 20.0 20.0 O 2.0 6.1 2.2 491 Thus hous ing c l a s s i s confounded w i t h household income even when l i f e - c y c l e i s c o n t r o l l e d . F i n a l l y , as i s e v i d e n t from t a b l e A I V . 6 , there i s a tendency for o u t r i g h t owners to be somewhat l e s s educated than r e n t e r s and mortgaged homeowners i n the s i n g l e and m a r r i e d l i f e - c y c l e c a t e g o r i e s . Mortgaged homeowners w i t h i n the o ther two l i f e - c y c l e c a t e g o r i e s tend to be b e t t e r educated than those i n o ther hous ing c l a s s e s . Thus , to summarise the p a t t e r n of confounding between hous ing c l a s s and the c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s when l i f e - c y c l e i s c o n t r o l l e d : 1) there are no s y s t e m a t i c b i a s e s i n terms of c l a s s and SES, a l t h o u g h there i s a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of those c l a s s i f i e d as managers amongst s i n g l e mortgagees , 2) there i s a c o n s i s t e n t tendency for r e n t e r s to have lower incomes a c r o s s a l l l i f e - c y c l e v a l u e s and 3) o u t r i g h t owners tend to be l e s s educated than mortgagees i n the f a m i l y and e l d e r l y l i f e c y c l e c a t e g o r i e s as w e l l . When e d u c a t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d , there i s a c l e a r tendency for there to be more spouses c l a s s i f i e d as b o u r g e o i s i e or managers ( in terms of t h e i r husbands ' c l a s s and SES c a t e g o r i e s ) w i t h i n the homeowner groups , for a l l e d u c a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s . For househo ld heads , there i s a tendency for there to be more respondents c l a s s i f i e d as r e s i d u a l amongst r e n t e r s and out -r i g h t homeowners than amongst mortgaged homeowners, i n a l l e d u c a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s . A g a i n , for a l l e d u c a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s , there are more s i n g l e r e n t e r s , mortgaged homeowners wi th c h i l d r e n and e l d e r l y o u t r i g h t homeowners. T h i s p a t t e r n of 492 TABLE AIV.6 Systematic Confounding of Education and Housing Class with L i f e - c y c l e Controlled. Heads of Household Only Educat ion High School Technical College No Some Diploma School Some Degree N % N % N % N % N % L i fe-cycle S i ngle Renters 8 .9 20 16 .0 36 22 . 7 51 6 .2 14 23 .6 53 22. .7 51 Mortgaged 0 28 . 6 6 19 .0 4 9. .5 2 19. .0 5 23 .8 5 Outr ight 13. .8 4 27 .6 8 31 .0 9 6 .9 2 6 .9 2 13 .8 4 Marr1ed Renters 2 .6 2 20 .8 16 19 . 5 15 10.4 8 13 .0 10 33. .8 26 Mortgaged 3 .0 1 3 .0 1 27 .3 9 12. 1 4 15 .2 5 39, . 4 13 Outr ight 15 .0 3 25 . 0 5 20 .0 4 0 25 .0 5 15. ,0 3 Family Renters 18 . , 4 23 23. .5 42 19 .0 34 10 . 1 18 15. 6 28 13 .4 24 Mortgaged 13. .9 23 16 . 3 27 13 . 9 23 15 . , 1 25 16 . ,9 28 24 . 1 40 Outr1ght 19. . 4 25 26 . 4 34 17 , .8 23 10. .9 14 10. 9 14 14 .7 19 i l d e r l y Renters 47 . 4 37 14 . 1 1 1 12 . 8 10 2 . 6 2 1 1 . 5 9 1 1 . .5 9 Mortgaged 40. .0 4 0 10, ,0 1 10, 0 1 IO. 0 1 30. .O 3 Outr ight 19 . 4 25 26. . 4 34 17 . 8 23 10, , 9 14 10. 9 14 14 .9 19 493 confounding between l i f e - c y c l e and hous ing c l a s s i s thus e v i d e n t whenever l i f e - c y c l e i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d . In a d d i t i o n , the g e n e r a l tendency for r e n t e r s to have lower incomes than home owners i s e v i d e n t w i t h i n a l l e d u c a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s . APPENDIX V FOUR-WAY CROSS-TABULATIONS FOR SOCIAL CHANGE IN CANADA DATA SET These analyses are not d e f i n i t i v e because limitations of sample size lead to a number of empty c e l l s . As well, the responses of spouses and household heads are combined which tends to weaken the noted interactions, which are often evident only amongst household heads. TABLE AV . 1 Patterns of Association Between Housing Class and Number of Times Spoken or Written to an Elected Representative, with SES, Education and L i f e - c y c l e Controlled Simultaneously with Household Income 1978 Household Income ( i n dollars) 0-8999 9000- 17,000- 23.000- 30.000 16,000 22,999 29,999 and over KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N 4^ VO *». SES Nonsk111ed man -.14 .04 58 nman. Ski 1 led man. .01 NS 73 nman. Manag. .05 NS 56 -.02 NS 69 EDUCATION Noh.s. .02 NS 70 Some h.s. .01 NS 92 .01 NS 81 H.s. .08 NS 85 Tech. Some c. .00 NS 53 C . deg. LIFE-CYCLE Single Married -. 1 1 NS 69 Family -.02 NS 102 .10 .05 170 .02 NS 182 El d e r l y IT . .05 NS 47 .30 .05 31 .03 NS 84 - . 1 1 NS 43 .04 NS 83 . 16 NS 47 .01 NS 107 .02 NS 174 . 10 NS 71 - .04 NS 56 .05 NS 92 .26 . .00 68 .09 NS 47 . 18 NS 36 . 10 NS 69 .08 NS 70 .01 NS 1 1 1 .02 NS 64 .04 NS 82 .03 NS 258 .07 NS 224 495 TABLE AV.2 Association Between Housing Class and Class I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , SES and Education Controlled Simultaneously with Household Income Household Income ( i n d o l l a r s ) 0-8999 9000-16,999 17,000-22.999 23,000-30.000 30,000 and over KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N SES Nonsk i1 1 ed man. nonman. S k i l l e d manua1 nonman. Managers Residual EDUCATION No High School - . 10 NS 63 Some High School - . 15 NS 86 High School Diploma -.02 NS 89 Technical School -.02 NS 32 Some Col 1ege -.07 NS 52 Col 1ege Degree - . 19 .06 38 .06 NS 54 .09 NS 73 . 12 NS 63 .11 NS 77 .05 NS 82 .14 NS 47 13 NS 76 15.08 78 13.09 99 .01 NS 65 .04 NS 87 .01 NS 66 .11 NS 66 .03 NS 42 .01 NS 164 .08 NS 53 .17 NS 63 .15 NS 64 .14 .09 109 496 TABLE AV.3 Association Between Housing Class and Class I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , with SES and Education Controlled Education SES Non-Skilled S k i l l e d Managers Residual Manual Non-manual Manual Non-manual KT Sig.N KT Sig.N KT Sig.N KT Sig.N KT Sig.N KT Sig.N No High . 1 1 NS 47 Some High -.08 NS 84 -.09 NS 71 -.02 NS 30 -.01 NS 57 High School Diploma .02 NS 50 -.14 NS 62 -.17.04 68 .15 NS 62 Technical School Some College -.01 NS 70 -.06 NS 82 Col 1ege Degree -.18.04 68 -.07 NS 156 1 C e l l s are blank 1n the cases of less than 10 persons in each housing c l a s s . 497 TABLE AV.4 Association between Housing Class and Felt J u s t i f i c a t i o n of Strikes and I l l e g a l Protest, with SES and Class Controlled Simultaneously with L i f e - c y c l e Single Married Family El d e r l y JUSTIFICATION OF STRIKES CLASS Working .12 NS 143 -.04 NS 143 .06 .07 447 New Middle .13 .03 151 P. Bourg. .11 NS 60 Bourgeoisie .12 .05 152 SES Nonsk i11ed manual -.01 NS 137 nonmanual .17 .09 72 Ski 1 led manual .07 NS 178 nonmanual .10 NS 130 Managers .14 .00 293 JUSTIFICATION OF NON-VIOLENT, ILLEGAL PROTEST CLASS Working, .11 NS 177 .04 NS 14 1 .05 NS 441 New Middle .15 .04 151 P. Bourg. .04 .86 59 Bourgeoisie .09 NS 151 498 TABLE AV.4 CONTINUED Single Married Family Elderly SES Nonsk11 led manual .08 NS 129 nonmanual .04 NS 75 Ski 1 led manual .04 NS 175 nonmanual .09 NS 133 Managers .11 .04 290 .JUSTIFICATION OF VIOLENT, ILLEGAL PROTEST CLASS Working .01 NS 183 .09 .04 145 .04 .08 470 New Middle .06 .09 162 P. Bourg. .04 NS 61 Bourgeoisie .06 .08 156 SES Nonsk i11ed manual .07 NS 145 nonmanual .00 NS 78 S k i l l e d manual .01 NS 191 nonmanual .07 .09 136 Managers .08 .OO 299 499 TABLE AV.5 Association Between Housing Class and Felt J u s t i f i c a t i o n of Strikes and I l l e g a l . Violent Protest, with Household Income Controlled Simultaneously with Class. SES. L i f e - c y c l e and Education Household Income ( i n doll a r s ) 0-8999 9000- 17.000- 23,000- 30.000 16,999 22,999 29,999 and over KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N JUSTIFICATION OF STRIKES CLASS W .05 NS 102 .04 NS 197 .08 NS 181 .08 NS 201 -.05 NS 112 NM .03 NS 45 .13 NS 59 .08 NS 69 PB B .15 NS 56 .05 NS 83 R SES NSM .03 NS 58 .05 NS 44 NSNM SM .09 NS 68 .14 NS 77 .00 NS 41 SNM .27 .00 60 .03 NS 77 .01 NS 46 M .20 .03 51 .05 NS 64 .17 .02 103 .05 NS 17 1 LIFE-CYCLE s M .04 NS 66 -.00 NS 62 -.09 NS 82 F .14 .05 95 .07 NS 147 .03 NS 170 .12 .01 240 .04 NS 216 E 500 TABLE AV.5 CONTINUED Household Income ( i n doll a r s ) 0-8999 9000- 17.000- 23.000- 30.000 16,999 22,999 29,999 and over KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N JUSTIFICATION OF STRIKES EDUCATION NHS .11 NS 58 SHS .00 NS 84 -.03 NS 76 .17 .09 68 - . 20 .07 54 HSD .14 .03 87 .09 NS 80 .01 NS 82 .07 NS 66 Tech .20 NS 36 SC .06 NS 52 .07 NS 66 .05 NS 68 CD .16 .06 68 .07 NS 110 JUSTIFICATION OF VIOLENT, ILLEGAL PROTEST CLASS W .08 NS 109 .06 .03 210 .02 NS 182 .06 .08 212 -.03 NS 115 M .04 NS 48 .14.04 64 .15.07 69 PB B .06 NS 57 . 14 NS 85 R --SES NSM .08 NS 42 .01 NS 57 .15 NS 47 NSNM SM -.05 NS 71 .06 NS 83 .10 NS 43 SNM .13 .02 83 -.08 NS 46 M .12 .07 68 .08 .12 105 .10 .03 173 501 TABLE AV.5 CONTINUED Household Income (In do l l a r s ) 0-8999 9000- 17.000- 23.000- 30,000 16,999 22,999 29,999 and over KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N KT s i g . N JUSTIFICATION OF VIOLENT. ILLEGAL PROTEST LIFE-CYCLE s M .13 .04 67 .08 NS 64 -.02 NS 82 F .09 .08 98 .06 .06 160 .00 NS 177 .05 .09 254 .05 .07 220 E EDUCATION NHS .10 .09 64 SHS .04 NS 83 -.05 NS 77 .10 .08 72 -.08 NS 55 HSD .04 NS 94 .09 .04 85 .04 NS 90 -.03 NS 67 Tech .14 .08 47 .06 NS 36 SC .06 NS 52 -.OO NS 67 -.02 NS 69 CD .09 NS 70 .05 NS 110 T A B L E A V . 6 A s s o c i a t i o n s B e t w e e n H o u s i n g C l a s s a n d S t a t e m e n t T h a t T h e r e i s T o o M u c h D i f f e r e n c e B e t w e e n R i c h a n d P o o r i n C a n a d a , C o n t r o l l i n g f o r C l a s s , S E S . L i f e - c y c l e a n d E d u c a t i o n w i t h H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e S i m u l t a n e o u s l y H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e ( $ ) 0 - 8 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 - 1 G 9 9 9 1 7 0 0 0 - 2 2 9 9 9 2 3 0 0 0 - 2 9 9 9 9 3 0 0 0 0 + C L A S S W o r k i n g . 0 0 NS 107 . 0 8 NS 215 . 0 7 NS 179 . 1 3 .04 2 0 6 . 2 5 . 0 0 113 New M i d d l e .21 . 0 7 42 - . 0 4 NS 4 0 . 0 0 NS 6 4 - . 0 7 NS 6 8 P e t t y B o u r g . ' - -B o u r g e o i s i e - . 2 2 .06 5 6 - . 0 2 NS 85 S E S N o n s k i1 l e d M a n u a l .01 NS 55 . 0 8 NS 75 N o n s k 1 1 l e d N o n m a n u a l : Sk i1 l e d M a n u a l . 1 9 . 0 5 7 0 - . 0 6 NS BO .OS NS 41 U i S k i l l e d O N o n m a n u a l . 2 5 . 0 0 82 . 0 0 N S 4 6 1 0 M a n a g e r s . 1 3 NS 52 .05 NS 68 - . 0 7 NS 105 . 0 6 NS 171 R e s i d u a l L-C. S i n g l e M a r r i e d . 09 NS 7 0 - . 1 1 NS 6 3 .14 NS 81 F a m i l y . 15 . 0 5 9 9 .14 . 0 3 167 . 0 8 NS 175 . 0 4 NS 2 4 9 .02 NS 2 2 0 E1 d e r l y E D U C A T I O N No H i g h S. .22 . 0 0 79 . 1 8 . 0 8 68 Some H i g h S. .14 . 1 0 77 .08 NS 91 .18 . 0 7 78 . 1 3 NS 68 - . 0 0 NS 5 3 H i g h S. D i p l o m a . 1 5 . 0 5 93 . 19 . 0 5 81 - . 1 2 NS 8 9 . 0 0 NS 6 8 T e c h n i c a l .01 NS 36 Some C o l l e g e .21 .05 6 7 . 1 6 NS 6 8 C o l l e g e D e g r e e .01 NS 6 9 .14 . 1 0 107 T A B L E A V . 7 A s s o c i a t i o n s B e t w e e n A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d s H e l p i n g t h e P o o r a n d H o u s i n g C l a s s , S E S C o n t r o l l e d S i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h L i f e - c y c l e a n d E d u c a t i o n SES N s . M a n u a l N s . N o n m a n u a l S. M a n u a l S. N o n m a n u a l M a n a g e r KT p . N KT p . N KT p . N KT p . N KT p . N L i f e - C y c 1 e S i n g l e M a r r i e d F a m i l y . 1 7 .02 137 - . 0 5 NS 7G E 1 d e r l y E D U C A T I O N No H i g h S. . 2 6 .05 43 Some H i g h S. H i g h S. D i p l . T e c h n i c a l S. Some C o 1 1 e g e C o 1 1 e g e D e g r e e . 11 . 0 9 183 . 23 . 0 0 132 . 17 . 0 0 2 9 3 . 19 NS 4 7 . 1 1 NS 73 . 2 7 . 0 8 32 . 15 NS 5 9 . 23 .04 62 . 17 NS 64 .21 .05 6 6 .34 . 0 2 33 . 23 .08 42 .28 . 0 0 73 . 0 5 NS 6 9 .05 NS 6 9 . 10 NS 164 T A B L E A V . 8 A s s o c i a t i o n s B e t w e e n A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d s H e l p i n g t h e P o o r a n d H o u s i n g C l a s s , H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e C o n t r o l l e d S i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h C l a s s , S E S , L i f e - c y c l e a n d E d u c a t i o n H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e I n D o l l a r s < 0 - 8 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 - 1 6 , 9 9 9 1 7 , 0 0 0 - 2 3 , 0 0 0 - 3 0 , 0 0 0 2 2 , 9 9 9 2 9 . 9 9 9 a n d o v e r KT p . N KT p . N KT p . N KT p . N KT p . N C L A S S W o r k i n g .11 .04 2 0 6 . 0 5 NS 177 . 0 9 NS 2 0 5 .24 . 0 0 114 New M i d d l e . 1 1 NS 47 . 1 9 . 0 9 6 0 .01 NS 6 7 P e t t y B o u r g . B o u r g e o i s i e .03 NS 53 . 0 5 NS 84 R e s i d u a l S E S N o n s k i 1 1 e d M a n u a l . 2 5 . 0 5 45 <_n N o n s k i 1 l e d O N o n m a n u a l S k i l l e d M a n u a l .04 NS 71 .03 NS 75 . 1 9 NS 42 Sk i1 l e d N o n m a n u a l . 2 3 .02 57 . 2 2 . 0 5 57 . 1 2 NS 81 . 0 6 NS 46 M a n a g e r s . 2 6 .02 54 - . 0 6 NS 66 . 0 7 NS 103 . 0 5 NS 169 L i f e - c y c l e S i n g l e M a r r i e d - . 0 8 NS 68 - . 0 5 NS 62 . 0 5 NS 7 9 F a m i l y . 0 7 NS 94 . 1 6 .01 162 . 0 3 NS 170 . 1 3 .02 2 4 3 .11 . 0 5 2 1 8 E l d e r l y E D U C A T I O N No H i g h S. . 2 0 . 0 6 64 Some H i g h S. . 1 5 NS 88 . 0 6 NS 8 0 .24 .03 64 . 0 7 NS 5 3 H i g h S. D i p l . . 13 NS 82 . 0 3 NS 8 9 . 1 9 . 0 7 6 6 T e c h n i c a l S. Some C o l l e g e . 1 3 NS 6 6 .11 NS 6 6 C o l l e g e D e g r e e .18 .08 6 9 .28 .04 109 505 T A B L E A V . 9 A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d s P l a n n i n g L i f e , F o u r - w a y C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s HOUSEHOLD INCOME ( $ ) 0 - 8 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 - 1 6 , 9 9 9 1 7 , 0 0 0 - 2 2 . 9 9 9 2 3 . 0 0 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 + - 2 9 , 9 9 9 KT s i g N KT s i g N KT s i g N KT s i g N KT s i g N S E S N man . 1 2 NS 56 . 1 2 NS 4 6 N nman - . 2 6 NS 29 S man .01 NS 47 - . 0 9 NS 6 6 . 1 2 NS 82 - . 0 7 NS 42 S nman > - . 3 0 . 0 2 56 . 0 6 NS 56 . 0 6 NS 78 - . 0 0 NS 4 5 M a n a g e r - . 1 2 NS 52 . 1 5 NS 6 3 - . 0 9 NS 9 9 .01 NS 166 R e s - . 2 0 .01 123 - . 0 3 NS 44 L I F E - C Y C L E S i n g l e M a r r i e d .11 NS 68 . 0 7 NS 62 - . 0 2 NS 78 F a m i l y - . 0 1 NS 9 8 - . 1 8 . 0 3 161 .02 NS 168 - . 0 3 NS - . 0 5 NS 2 1 2 E l d e r l y - . 1 6 NS 81 - . 2 6 NS 37 E D U C A T I O N H i g h S c h o o l T e c h n i c a l C o l l e g e No Some D i p l o m a S c h o o l Some D e g r e e KT S i g N KT S i g N KT s i g N KT s i g N KT S i g N KT s i g N SES NSM . 0 7 NS 5 0 - . 0 7 NS 83 - . 0 3 NS 52 NSNM - . 1 5 NS 36 - . 1 3 NS 56 SM . 0 6 NS 4 9 . 0 6 NS 75 - . 2 5 . 0 8 64 . 1 8 NS 3 0 SNM . 1 5 NS 3 0 - . 0 2 NS 6 6 - . 1 1 NS 34 - . 1 6 NS 6 9 - . 1 6 NS 62 M - . 0 3 NS 58 - . 0 4 NS 6 3 - . 1 6 NS 43 . 0 9 NS 77 - . 1 3 . 0 6 161 R - . 1 2 NS 91 - . 1 8 NS 53 .01 NS 43 L i f e - c y c 1 e s M - . 1 0 NS 87 . 2 5 . 0 6 73 - . 0 5 NS 73 F - . 1 3 NS 144 - . 0 7 NS 2 2 9 - . 1 2 NS 196 . 0 7 NS 9 7 - . 0 7 NS 123 - . 1 8 . 0 4 127 E - . 1 5 NS 71 507 2. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e The f i r s t q u e s t i o n s w i l l be q u i t e broad and g e n e r a l . They i n v o l v e background i n f o r m a t i o n about your j o b , your f a m i l y and how your l i f e i s o r g a n i s e d . I 'm not a f t e r p r i v a t e d e t a i l s but j u s t the g e n e r a l p a t t e r n of the t h i n g s you do . I 'm go ing to ask you about the o ther people you do t h i n g s w i t h because i t g i v e s me a b e t t e r idea of your g e n e r a l s t y l e of l i f e . 1. F i r s t of a l l , c o u l d you l i s t the main jobs y o u ' v e done s i n c e you l e f t s c h o o l and how much time y o u ' v e spent at each (the ones y o u ' v e done f o r a year or more) . (With each one i n q u i r e as to why gave i t up . ) IF WORKING 2. R i g h t now, what i s your work schedule i n terms of hours and number of days a week? Where do you work? How do you get there and how long does t h i s take? C o u l d you t e l l me what s p e c i f i c a l l y you do t h e r e ? IF UNEMPLOYED 2. How long have you been unemployed? Are you l o o k i n g for work? What are your job p r o s p e c t s r i g h t now? 3. When you t h i n k of your j o b , what mat ter s most to y o u . (Give card) good pay and p l e n t y of overt ime i n t e r e s t and v a r i e t y good workmates a s u p e r v i s o r who d o e s n ' t breathe down your neck p l e a s a n t work c o n d i t i o n s s e c u r i t y a s t r o n g and a c t i v e un ion o ther ( s p e c i f y ) 4. C o u l d you t e l l me how far you went i n s choo l ? 5. What does your f a t h e r do or what was h i s main job be fore he r e t i r e d ? 6. What i s your m a r i t a l s t a t u s r i g h t now? 6. a.What does your wi fe do? Has she always (ever) worked s i n c e y o u ' v e been marr ied? 7. Do you have any c h i l d r e n ? How many and what are t h e i r ages? 508 8. In terms of your spare time about what percentage i s spent w i t h the f o l l o w i n g types of p e o p l e : ne ighbours f r i e n d s from work r e l a t i v e s f r i e n d s from s c h o o l f r i e n d s that y o u ' v e made through spor t s f r i e n d s tha t y o u ' v e made through other types of a s s o c i a t i o n s immediate f a m i l y members o n l y 9. How do your f r i e n d s and a c q u a i n t a n c e s break down i n terms of be ing r e n t e r s and homeowners? 10. Do you be long to any c l u b s or o r g a n i s a t i o n s or a n y t h i n g l i k e tha t ? Are you j u s t an o r d i n a r y member, or have you h e l d any p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n in i t ? HOUSING HISTORY Now I ' d l i k e .to ask you some q u e s t i o n s about the houses and communit ies tha t you have l i v e d i n . As we go a l o n g , I 'm go ing to ask you some f a i r l y s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s about h o u s i n g c o s t s because I'm i n t e r e s t e d i n what type of hous ing c o s t s people are c o p i n g w i t h these days . I r e a l i s e tha t i t i s o f t e n very d i f f i c u l t to t h i n k back and remember t h i n g s l i k e t h i s . Take your time to t h i n k about i t . A g a i n , I 'm i n t e r e s t e d i n the g e n e r a l p a t t e r n , not the exact s p e c i f i c s . 1. F i r s t of a l l , c o u l d you b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e the houses and apartments tha t you have l i v e d i n through your m a r r i e d l i f e i n terms of l o c a t i o n , how long you l i v e d in each and whether they were ren ted or owned? IF PRESENTLY OWNS A HOUSE 2. That means t h a t you bought your ( f i r s t ) house i n ? 3. At the t ime t h a t you bought your ( f i r s t ) house , what f a c t o r s f i g u r e d i n t o your d e c i s i o n to buy r a t h e r than ren t ? 4. I unders tand tha t one of the reasons some peop le buy houses i s so they can s e l l l a t e r a t a p r o f i t . Would you say t h a t , i n your p a r t i c u l a r ca se , t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n was very i m p o r t a n t , i m p o r t a n t , unimportant or very important? 509 5. How d i d you d e c i d e that you c o u l d a f f o r d to buy a house at the t ime of buy ing your f i r s t house? 6. Can you remember the p r i c e of your ( f i r s t ) house? 7. What was your job at tha t t ime? 8. How long had you worked at t h i s job at tha t t ime? (IF MORE THAN 2 YEARS) Was the prospec t of buying a house a f a c t o r i n working s t e a d i l y at t h i s job for t h i s p e r i o d ? 9. Can you remember roughly what your income was at that t ime? 10. What was your downpayment on your f i r s t house? Can you remember how long i t took you to save t h i s downpayment? 11. I f your house c o s t and your downpayment was , does that mean t h a t you mortgage was ? How d i d you arrange for your mortgage f i n a n c i n g ? What i n s t i t u t i o n s were approached? , What e x p e r i e n c e had they had w i t h i n s t i t u t i o n p r e v i o u s l y ? , how much compara t ive shopping around for mortgage?, mortgage based on one or two incomes? , any g i f t s or i n h e r i t a n c e s i n v o l v e d i n f i n a n c i n g ? , a second mortgage? IF NOT IN FIRST HOUSE 12. What p r i c e d i d you s e l l your f i r s t house fo r ? How much d i d you g a i n from the s a l e of t h i s house? Now t h i n k i n g of t h i s pre sent house , can you remember how much i t c o s t ? Can you remember how much you put down on t h i s house? So your mortgage on t h i s house i s ? 13. Are you making mortgage payments on t h i s house now? IF SO: 14. What was the mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e when you f i r s t o b t a i n e d your mortgage? 15. When d i d you l a s t n e g o t i a t e the terms of t h i s mortgage? 16. When w i l l you have to r e - n e g o t i a t e the terms? 17. What i n t e r e s t r a t e are you c u r r e n t l y p a y i n g for your mortgage? 18. What i s your r e g u l a r mortgage payment? 510 19. How o f t e n i s t h i s payment made? 20. Does t h i s payment for the mortgage i n c l u d e m u n i c i p a l p r o p e r t y taxes? ALL HOMEOWNERS 21. How much d i d you pay i n p r o p e r t y taxes l a s t year? 22. In a d d i t i o n to mortgage payments and t a x e s , what are your average monthly c o s t s for u t i l i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g hea t , l i g h t and water but not te lephone and c a b l e T . V . ? 23. Can you p lea se e s t imate what p r o p o r t i o n of your t o t a l f a m i l y income ( a f t e r taxes) i s taken up by hous ing expenses ( i n c l u d i n g mortgage payments, taxes and u t i l i t i e s ) ? 24. How s a t i s f i e d are you w i t h your hous ing c o s t s ? (very s a t i s f i e d , s a t i s f i e d , d i s s a t i s f i e d , very d i s s a t i s f i e d ) . I f p a y i n g h i g h hous ing c o s t s and s a t i s f i e d , probe- p o i n t out d i s p a r i t y and ask about i t . 25. Do hous ing concerns come up i n c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h f r i e n d s ? What s o r t s of concerns? 26. How do you t h i n k tha t the s i t u a t i o n of homeowners compares to that of tenants r i g h t now? 27. I f you were to s e l l your house r i g h t now, how much would you expect to s e l l i t for? 28. How much would you have made i n terms of c a p i t a l ga ins then? 29. How w i l l you use these c a p i t a l ga ins earned by owning a house? HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE RENEGOTIATED AT HIGHER MORTGAGE RATES 30. Have there been any s p e c i f i c changes i n your budget ing as a r e s u l t of r e n e g o t i a t i n g at h i g h e r i n t e r e s t r a t e s ? Probe . RENTERS 2. How much do you pay for rent each month? 3. In a d d i t i o n to r e n t , what are your average monthly c o s t s for u t i l i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g hea t , l i g h t and water but not t e l ephone or c a b l e T . V . ? 4. When d i d your rent l a s t i n c r e a s e and by how much? 5. Is your house c u r r e n t l y under rent c o n t r o l s ? 51 1 6. What p r o p o r t i o n of your t o t a l f a m i l y income ( a f t e r taxes) i s taken up by hous ing expenses ( i n c l u d i n g u t i l i t i e s ) ? 7. What i s a rea sonab le annual i n c r e a s e i n hous ing c o s t s ? 8. How do you t h i n k that your hous ing c o s t s compare w i t h f r i e n d s and n e i g h b o u r s ' hous ing c o s t s ? On what do you base t h i s judgement? 9. Do hous ing concerns come up i n c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h f r i e n d s ? What type of concerns come up? 10. How s a t i s f i e d are you w i t h your hous ing c o s t s ? (very s a t i s f i e d , s a t i s f i e d , d i s s a t i s f i e d , very d i s s a t i s f i e d ) . 11. How do you t h i n k tha t the s i t u a t i o n of homeowners compares to tha t of t enant s r i g h t now? 12. Given a chance , would you p r e f e r to rent or own a house? 13. Do you have any p l a n s to s w i t c h to ownership i n the fu ture? HOUSING COSTS AND FAMILY L I F E 1. Have your hous ing c o s t s p l a c e d p r e s s u r e s on your wife to h o l d a job? 2. Do you t h i n k that a person s h o u l d expect tha t a s i n g l e wage can support a f a m i l y these days or do you t h i n k that households shou ld expect to have to have two wage earner s ? 3. Do you t h i n k tha t hav ing two wage ea rner s p l a c e s p r e s s u r e s on the f a m i l y ? Probe . IF WIFE WORKS 4. Which seems t r u e r to your s i t u a t i o n — t h a t your wife wanted to work anyways and t h i s a l l o w e d you to buy a house ( rent more expens ive hous ing) or tha t she was f o r c e d to work i n order to buy a house ( rent b e t t e r q u a l i t y hous ing ) ? MORTGAGE DEBT Now I ' d l i k e to ask you some q u e s t i o n s about your a t t i t u d e s towards i n t e r e s t r a t e s and mortgages . 1. Do you t h i n k that i t has been neces sa ry for the banks to charge i n t e r e s t r a te s as h i g h as 20 percent ? 512 2. Do you t h i n k tha t even i f the banks have to charge these h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s , tha t mortgage r a t e s s h o u l d be t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y from o ther loans and shou ld be at a lower more s t a b l e r a te ? Why? Why not? 3. I f you were to break down your c r e d i t debt i n terms of monthly payment, how does i t break down amongst the f o l l o w i n g : (Hand card ) Consumer l o a n s Mortgage C r e d i t Cards Loans from Other from bank or f a m i l y t r u s t company 1st 2nd GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES 1. How much e f f o r t do you t h i n k tha t government s h o u l d put i n t o the f o l l o w i n g programmes: (Hand card-much more e f f o r t , s l i g h t l y more e f f o r t , the same amount of e f f o r t , s l i g h t l y l e s s e f f o r t , much l e s s e f f o r t ) - a s s i s t a n c e to the unemployed - h e l p i n g the poor - h e a l t h and m e d i c a l c a r e -making hous ing more a f f o r d a b l e - j o b c r e a t i o n Would you f e e l the same i f s u p p o r t i n g each meant an i n c r e a s e in taxes? Have these always been your main p r i o r i t i e s ? T h i n k i n g about hous ing more s p e c i f i c a l l y : 2. Do you t h i n k tha t there i s something about house-ownership which warrants i t to r e c e i v e more f i n a n c i a l h e l p from the government than r e n t a l accomodat ion? I f so , what? 3. Do you t h i n k t h a t measures s h o u l d be taken to a s s i s t homeowners when mortgage r a t e s r i s e unexpec ted ly or that homeowners s h o u l d s e l l t h e i r houses i f they c a n ' t a f f o r d them? 4. In order to get t h i s a s s i s t a n c e from the government or any o ther type of a s s i s t a n c e , which types of p r o t e s t do you t h i n k are o f t e n j u s t i f i e d , sometimes j u s t i f i e d or never j u s t i f i e d : (Hand card) s i g n i n g p e t i t i o n s ? o r g a n i s i n g r a l l i e s ? o r g a n i s i n g p e a c e f u l , i l l e g a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n s ' such as w i t h h o l d i n g mortgage payments? o r g a n i s i n g v i o l e n t , i l l e g a l demons t ra t ions? 513 5. A number of measures have been suggested to h e l p lower and middle income people w i t h h o u s i n g . Cou ld you t e l l me i f you support or d i s approve of each of these measures? (Hand card) a . rent c o n t r o l s b . changes i n the tax system to a l l o w i n t e r e s t payments on mortgages to be deducted from taxes c . the promotion of n o n - p r o f i t hous ing ( co-ops , e t c . ) as an a l t e r n a t i v e to homeownership d . d i r e c t payments to low income r e n t e r s which can o n l y be spent to rent b e t t e r hous ing e . g rant s to d e v e l o p e r s to encourage c o n s t r u c t i o n f . tax rebates on r e n t s g . s p e c i a l programmes to a l l o w low income people to buy houses 6. Would you a c t u a l l y become p o l i t i c a l l y a c t i v e i n order to lobby for any of these programmes? 7. Should tenants be a s s i s t e d i f t h e i r r e n t s are r a i s e d beyond t h e i r means or should they move to a cheaper apartment? ATTITUDES TOWARDS SOCIAL WELFARE To s h i f t away from hous ing for a minute , 1. Do you t h i n k that people shou ld save for o l d age and not depend on the s t a t e or t h e i r employers to support them to any grea t extent i n t h e i r o l d age? At what age do you t h i n k you have to s t a r t t h i n k i n g about your o l d age? 2. I t has w r i t t e n t h a t : " l o w pens ion l e v e l s have the e f f e c t of encourag ing homeownership s i n c e t h i s i s one way i n which i n d i v i d u a l s can themselves h e l p to a v o i d p o v e r t y i n o l d age " . What do you t h i n k about t h i s ? 3. Do you t h i n k that an i n d i v i d u a l shou ld have the r i g h t to opt out of schemes l i k e the B . C . M e d i c a l P l a n or C P . P . ? Why? 4. I ' v e heard the argument that homeowners are l e s s s u p p o r t i v e of s o c i a l we l fa re programs i n the e a r l y year s of owning a home because they need to m a i n t a i n more c o n t r o l over t h e i r househo ld budget . How would you e v a l u a t e t h i s argument i n terms of your own s i t u a t i o n ? 514 HOME AND WORK 1. Is there a un ion where you work tha t you would be e l i g i b l e to j o i n ? 2. Are you a member of a t rade union? Is membership o b l i g a t o r y ? When d i d you j o i n ? Why d i d you j o i n ? IF A UNION MEMBER 3. How o f t e n l a s t year d i d you go to union shop meet ings? I f never or r a r e l y , why i s i t then you d o n ' t bother w i t h union meet ings? 4. How about v o t i n g i n the e l e c t i o n s for shop stewards? Would you say you voted r e g u l a r l y , o c c a s i o n a l l y , r a r e l y or never? 5. Have you ever been a union o f f i c i a l ? 6. Do you agree w i t h a l l of the s tands that your union l e a d e r s take? UNION MEMBERS 7. I f your union c a l l e d a s t r i k e , would you come out? 8. Would you be a b l e to meet your f a m i l y expenses i f you went on s t r i k e ? IF ALSO HAS MORTGAGE 9. Do you t h i n k that the knowledge tha t you have to meet your mortgage payments i n f l u e n c e s your a t t i t u d e s towards work and s t r i k e s ? IF SO Do you t h i n k that the t r a d e - o f f i s worth i t ? Make l i n k s between rent payments and mortgage. IF NO MORTGAGE 9. Do you t h i n k t h a t y o u ' r e any f r e e r to make demands at work than a homeowner w i t h a mortgage? ALL UNION MEMBERS 10. Do you t h i n k tha t r e n t e r s and homeowners have d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s towards s t r i k e s or o ther union demands? 515 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES Now I ' d l i k e to ask you some g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s about your p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s so as to get a more g e n e r a l p i c t u r e of how you look at t h i n g s . Then w e ' l l work our way back to hous ing and f i n i s h the i n t e r v i e w . 1. How many t imes in the past 5 year s have you a . been i n v o l v e d i n some s o r t of community p r o j e c t b . worked i n an e l e c t i o n campaign c . worn a p o l i t i c a l but ton d . put an e l e c t i o n s i g n on your y a r d e . w r i t t e n or spoken to an e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l f . s i gned a p e t i t i o n g . a t t ended a demons t ra t ion for something you b e l i e v e i n Probe about the s p e c i f i c s of each type of involvement why got i n v o l v e d , exact nature of invo lvement . 2. I t seems l i k e l y that there w i l l be both a f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n soon. Do you t h i n k i t makes a great d e a l of d i f f e r e n c e which p a r t y wins at each l e v e l of government? 3. When the p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n comes, how do you t h i n k y o u ' l l vote? Is tha t the way that y o u ' v e voted for the l a s t few p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n s ? IF CONSISTENT - You seem p r e t t y a t t a c h e d to . Can you t e l l me why t h i s i s ? IF NOT - Why have you changed each time? 4. What about the f e d e r a l e l e c t i o n , how do you t h i n k y o u ' l l vote? Is t h i s the way y o u ' v e voted for the l a s t few f e d e r a l e l e c t i o n s ? Why have you voted c o n s i s t e n t l y fo r ? OR Why d i d you change between e l e c t i o n s ? 5. I f (a p a r t y they h a v e n ' t voted for f e d e r a l l y ) came up wi th a scheme to h e l p homeowners ( r e n t e r s ) would you vote for them? 6. Which p r o v i n c i a l p a r t y i s more concerned w i t h homeowners? How about r e n t e r s ? 516 7. Have you heard about the S o c i a l C r e d i t government c a n c e l l i n g the r e n t e r s tax rebate? Do you t h i n k tha t the government i s r i g h t to do t h i s ? 8. Do you t h i n k that i t would be r i g h t for the p r o v i n c i a l government to c a n c e l the homeowner g rant s for p r o p e r t y taxes? 9. W i t h i n the l a s t few weeks, have you d i s c u s s e d p o l i t i c a l i s s u e s w i t h anyone? How of ten? What i s sue s ? Who do you g e n e r a l l y d i s c u s s p o l i t i c a l i s s u e s with? 10. Coming back to your f r i e n d s , would you say tha t t h e i r p o l i t i c a l l e a n i n g s are g e n e r a l l y l i k e y o u r s , g e n e r a l l y d i f f e r e n t or mixed? 11. People o f t e n t h i n k of themselves as b e l o n g i n g to one s o c i a l c l a s s or a n o t h e r . Most people say they be long to the working c l a s s or middle c l a s s . Do you ever t h i n k of y o u r s e l f as b e l o n g i n g to one of these s o c i a l c l a s s e s ? (Which one) Yes , Upper middle Yes , M i d d l e Yes , Working Yes , Other No Such T h i n g as C l a s s D o n ' t Know 12. What does s o c i a l c l a s s mean to you? (Probe , For example i t might mean what you do for a l i v i n g , whether you own p r o p e r t y or the s t y l e of l i f e you l e a d . ) 13. Whatever c l a s s means, i s your c l a s s important i n how you t h i n k of y o u r s e l f ? 14. There are of course o ther ways of t h i n k i n g of y o u r s e l f -as a member of a r e l i g i o u s group, as p a r t of an e t h n i c group , as a p a r t y s u p p o r t e r , as a c o u n t r y or c i t y p e r s o n , or something a long these l i n e s . Is one of these groups or any o t h e r group r e a l l y important in how you t h i n k of y o u r s e l f ? IMAGES OF HOUSEOWNERS AND TENANTS HOUSEOWNERS 1. Have you f e l t tha t y o u ' v e become more i n v o l v e d i n the community or a b e t t e r c i t i z e n s i n c e y o u ' v e bought your home? 517 ALL 2. Has there been a n y t h i n g s p e c i f i c over the l a s t few year s i n t h i s ne ighbourhood tha t has made you d i s s a t i f i e d or angry? D i d you do a n y t h i n g about i t ? 3. Would you oppose zoning changes which would i n c r e a s e the a l l o w a b l e d e n s i t y of hous ing i n t h i s neighbourhood? Why, why not? 4. Would you oppose the development of a p u b l i c hous ing p r o j e c t i n t h i s ne ighbourhood , even i f i t l ooked l i k e a l l of the r e s t of the hous ing? Why or why not? 5. Do you t h i n k tha t owners and r e n t e r s shou ld have an equa l say i n the f u t u r e of t h i s community? What i f r e n t e r s want more r e n t a l accomodation in the neighbourhood? 6. Are there any (other) f a m i l i e s who rent t h e i r houses around here? 7. Do you t h i n k t h a t there i s a d i f f e r e n c e between people who rent t h e i r homes and people who own? 8. I would l i k e to read you a l i s t of s t e r e o t y p e s about r e n t e r s . C o u l d you p lea se t e l l me whether you agree or d i s a g r e e w i t h the s tatements? R e n t e r s : a re ju s t keeping a f l o a t and u s ing up a l l t h e i r monthly income. are the type of people who d r i f t from job to job t h i n k d i f f e r e n t l y than owners and are not as c o n s e r v a t i v e as homeowners tend to be . a re not a pa r t of the ne ighbourhood . are not l i k e l y to m a i n t a i n t h e i r p r o p e r t y . 9. Now I would l i k e you to t e l l me i f you d i s a g r e e or agree w i t h the f o l l o w i n g s tatements about homeowners. Homeowners: have taken a s tep up the l adder of s o c i a l as w e l l as economic s t a n d i n g are more s t a b l e employees because they are r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e i r mortgages are l e s s l i k e l y to a g i t a t e over c o n d i t i o n s at work are on ly concerned about t h e i r house and garden and tend not to be concerned w i t h wider s o c i a l i s sue s PUBLICATIONS CONTINUED P r a t t , G. Rev. of The Grand Revolut ion : A H i s t o r y of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighbourhoods, and C i t i e s by Dolores Hayden. Newsletter of the Spec ia l ty Group on Geographical Perspect ives on Women, v o l 3 (1982). P r a t t , G. "C la s s ana lys i s and urban domestic property : A c r i t i c a l r e -examination . " In te rna t iona l Journal of Urban and Regional Research, v o l . 6 (1982), 481-502. Ley, D. and G. P r a t t . "Is Philosophy Necessary?" Geographical A n a l y s i s , v o l . 15 (1983), 64-69. P r a t t , G. Rev. of C o n f l i c t , P o l i t i c s and the Urban Scene by Kevin R. Cox and R . J . Johnston (eds.) In te rna t iona l Journal of Urban and Regional Research, ( forthcoming).
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Geography
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
An appraisal of the incorporation thesis : housing tenure and political values in urban Canada
Text