Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Valuing social housing needs to take a broader view
  1. Philippa Howden-Chapman1,
  2. Ralph Chapman2,
  3. Michael G Baker1
  1. 1He Kainga Oranga/Housing and Health Research Programme, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
  2. 2School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
  1. Correspondence to Professor Philippa Howden-Chapman, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, 23a Mein St, Wellington South, Wellington 6041, New Zealand; Philippa.Howden-Chapman{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Tenements were viewed as plague houses in nineteenth century industrial cities such as Glasgow, London, New York and Berlin. Replacing the tenements with social housing was seen as a key marker of social progress in the late 19th and 20th centuries. But as austerity budgets have spread across national and local governments in the 21st century, public expenditure on social housing, like other collective services, is not necessarily protected. Yet success in breaking the link between poor housing and health inequalities critically depends on retaining a social role for housing.1

How can public health researchers make the case that good quality housing is an upstream determinant of health? Good quality housing for low-income people is a public good which is under-provided by the private market—the market ignores negative spillovers, such as infectious disease, as well as social spillovers, such as community instability affecting education outcomes. Attaining positive health and social outcomes therefore requires some public funding to be sustainable. The social housing system frequently selects sick people as priority tenants; this suggests that evaluating the impact of social housing requires a robust methodological design.

Lawson and colleagues took the opportunity to evaluate the Scottish Government's progressive broad healthy public policy approach and make substantial investments in new social housing. Scottish housing associations approached their clientele, but only 46% of those approached agreed to participate in this study.2 Using a matched sample rather than randomisation inevitably resulted in a sample that was not matched on some key variables, such as age, …

View Full Text


  • Contributors PLHC drafted the editorial. RC and MGB commented on the draft and clarified several concepts. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors are funded by a Health Research Council of New Zealand grant for He Kainga Oranga/Housing and Health Research Programme.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles