Regulation and reality: towards a tenant-centric understanding of social housing law

监管与现实：以租户为中心理解社会住房法

• 批准号: 2116639
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of York
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2018
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2018 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2116639
• 关键词: Regulation; reality; towards; tenant; centric

Historically, 'social housing' has invariably been understood as a system of state regulation, oversight and control.[1] The sector provides accommodation for 17% of the population,[2] yet some worryingly suggest that it is 'governed through obscurity'.[3] Indeed, the regulatory framework for social housing does not provide tenants with enforceable rights, and instead focuses heavily on financial governance through a 'shared regulatory community'.[4]The potential perils of inadequate governance and redress mechanisms were brought to the fore by the tragedy that unfolded at Grenfell Tower in June 2017, which claimed at least 71 lives. The incident unearthed concerns that some housing providers are failing to listen to the desperate demands of tenants, such as the members of Grenfell Action Group, and raised doubts about the effectiveness of current regulatory instruments.[5] If we assume that social housing regulation is for the benefit of tenants, the apparent inability of the system to provide a remedy in this case raises a more general issue: to what extent are tenants aware of the current regulatory settlement, and does it provide the meaningful safeguards that they desire?Research question:Does the current system of social housing regulation adequately serve the needs of tenants, and does it sufficiently involve and empower tenants as key stakeholders in the regulatory process?Research objectives:1. Construct a tenant-centric legal ethnography of social housing regulation.2. Develop and apply a theoretical framework to original qualitative research to understand how tenants interact with social housing regulation.3. Determine whether there is a need for further policy research to realign the regulatory system with the understandings and expectations of tenants.Methods:The research aims to provide a tenant-centred appreciation of social housing regulation by constructing a multi-site ethnography.[23] It will use networks developed by the author through organisations such as Greater Manchester Housing Action and Tenants' Union Manchester to reach tenants, including those who are not involved in recognised participation and governance structures. Such access is key to successful ethnographic research,[24] and through overt immersion within at least two representative bodies comprised of social housing tenants (e.g. residents' associations) and one housing provider (e.g. a housing association), the researcher hopes to provide an insight into the influence of regulation on the conduct of these groups. This has the potential to further our understanding of how landlords approach tenant engagement, the ways in which tenants make sense of such interactions, and the extent to which either group invokes legal and regulatory norms.[25] These methods will be developed during the MA Social Research with a view to utilising a mixed methods approach, including quantitative elements to contextualise the study. Impact:At a time when 'the very fabric that has held the system of affordable housing together is being unpicked',[26] the ESRC UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence has emphasised that housing policy cannot be 'based on assumptions or beliefs rather than fact'. This ethnographic study hopes to take steps to address this by engaging directly with tenants to produce policy-focussed academic outputs. Summaries of findings will be made openly available, and shared through active engagement with interested organisations at events and on social media to provide a breadth of distribution channels.

从历史上看，“社会住房”总是被理解为一种国家监管、监督和控制的制度。[1]该部门为17%的人口提供住宿，[2]但有些人担心它是“通过模糊管理”。[3]事实上，社会住房的监管框架并没有为租户提供可执行的权利，而是通过一个“共同监管社区”重点关注财务治理。[4] 2017年6月发生在格伦费尔大厦的悲剧凸显了治理和补救机制不足的潜在危险，造成至少71人死亡。这一事件揭示了人们的担忧，即一些住房提供商未能倾听租户的迫切要求，例如格伦费尔行动小组的成员，并对目前监管工具的有效性提出了质疑。[5]如果我们假设社会住房监管是为了租户的利益，那么在这种情况下，该系统显然无法提供补救措施，这就提出了一个更普遍的问题：租户在多大程度上意识到当前的监管解决方案，它是否提供了他们希望的有意义的保障？研究问题：目前的社会住房监管制度是否充分满足了租户的需求，是否充分让租户作为关键利益攸关方参与监管过程并赋予其权力？研究目的：1.建构以房客为中心的社会住房管制法律的民族志.发展并应用一个理论框架来进行原始的定性研究，以了解租户如何与社会住房监管互动。确定是否有必要进行进一步的政策研究，重新调整的理解和期望的trenchs.Methods的监管体系：研究的目的是提供一个以租户为中心的赞赏社会住房监管，通过构建一个多站点的人种学。[23]它将利用作者通过大曼彻斯特住房行动和曼彻斯特租户联盟等组织开发的网络来接触租户，包括那些没有参与公认的参与和治理结构的租户。这种接触是成功的人种学研究的关键，[24]通过公开沉浸在至少两个由社会住房租户（例如居民协会）和一个住房提供者（例如住房协会）组成的代表机构中，研究人员希望深入了解监管对这些群体行为的影响。这有可能进一步加深我们对房东如何对待房客的理解，房客如何理解这种互动，以及任何一个群体援引法律的和监管规范的程度。[25]这些方法将在MA社会研究期间开发，以便利用混合方法，包括定量元素来使研究背景化。影响：在“将经济适用房系统结合在一起的结构正在被拆除”的时候，ESRC英国住房证据合作中心强调，住房政策不能“基于假设或信念而不是事实”。这项民族志研究希望采取措施，通过直接与租户接触，以产生以政策为重点的学术成果来解决这个问题。调查结果的摘要将公开提供，并通过在活动和社交媒体上与感兴趣的组织积极互动来分享，以提供广泛的分销渠道。