Re-conceptualizing housing tenure beyond the owning-renting dichotomy: insights from housing and financialization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Housing tenure has often been taken-for-granted as consisting of dichotomous tenure types of owning and renting. This article critiques the owning-renting dichotomy through the lens of housing finance. It critically engages with three housing research programs wherein the owning-renting dichotomy is deep-seated: (a) the bundle of rights thesis, (b) comparative housing and welfare research, and (c) the ideology of housing. For each of them, the article first provides a brief recapitulation of the literature. It then explicates how they are constrained by the owning-renting dichotomy and why abandoning this dichotomy is necessary to transcend their limitations. Based on this, the article reveals a dialectical relation between owning and renting - the binary-oppositional attributes of owning and renting can be resolved with the changing relation of the occupant to financial markets. The article further proposes to re-conceptualize housing tenure as a relation of the occupant to financial markets and discusses the implications for reframing housing studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".