Social rental housing in HK and the UK: Neoliberal policy divergence or the market in the making?

This paper reviews recent developments regarding social housing policies in Hong Kong and the UK. Underlying the analysis is the fact that, during the last 40 years or so, both countries have been major global players in financial markets and thus pursued aggressive market-driven approaches to economic development. Notwithstanding that fact, each followed a different direction regarding housing policy reforms in the period. In Hong Kong (HK), the system of public housing provision was expanded; in the UK, the system of housing provision was scaled down. The argument being developed here is that a pro-public housing approach in HK should not be seen as a threat to capitalism in any way or measure. On the contrary, land development as well as land-originated fiscal revenues is a crucial part of HKSAR government's revenues. In the UK, this is no different. The return (through various forms of privatization) of the public housing stock (Council housing) to private hands (homeowners and housing associations) meant also to enhance businesses, in particular the mortgage and real estate markets. In both cases, there were also clear political reasons that justify developments in housing policy. The idea that Council housing served as a stage in the passage from a time when housing was predominantly provided in a largely unregulated private-rental market to a time when most people became homeowners is also discussed. This was what defined the 'modernization' of housing in the UK. The of 'residualization' was adopted to discuss the UK case. One important question is to know whether Hong Kong will follow the same path of 'modernization' as the UK, in the future. So far, HK has resisted; public housing has been 'resilient', ensured by a proper repair and maintenance policy, redevelopment and production of new housing throughout the last decades. Resilience is also granted by people's recognition and attachment to public housing and low stigmatization. More importantly, public provision of housing continues to be regarded, in both countries, as a necessary development to grant quality of life and a better distribution of income, avoiding the sharpening of social and territorial segregation, gentrification and stigmatization.