Housing policies such as rent caps and eviction bans are supported widely across society but are unlikely to increase political participation among disadvantaged groups, according to new research co-authored by a King's College London academic.
The study, by Dr Raluca Pahontu (King's) and Dr Tom O'Grady (University College London), examined whether policies designed to reduce housing insecurity could encourage greater electoral engagement among those most affected.
Those on lower incomes and exposed to housing insecurity are typically less likely to vote, contributing to an out-sized political influence for those with higher incomes and in secure housing.
Using a survey experiment of 1,790 people, the academics asked respondents about a range of proposed housing measures, including caps on rent increases, bans on evictions, and limits on mortgage interest rates. Participants were asked to choose between hypothetical political candidates offering different combinations of these policies and indicate how likely they would be to vote.
The findings suggest that while such policies are popular, they do not disproportionately motivate those experiencing housing insecurity to vote or engage in the political process. Instead, support was broadly spread across groups, including both the affluent and less secure.
Policies aimed at the insecure, such as limiting rent rises, strengthening eviction protections and introducing mandatory quality inspections, were particularly well received. However, the popularity of the policies did not translate into a higher stated turnout among disadvantaged respondents compared with others.
The researchers say housing is a "high valence, low priority" issue: one where there is broad agreement on what is required to address problems, but which ranks below concerns such as the economy, healthcare and immigration for most voters.
The study concludes that unequal political participation is unlikely to be solved by introducing targeted housing reforms. Instead, lower turnout among disadvantaged groups appears to stem from more deep-rooted factors, such as long-term voting habits and levels of political engagement, rather than a lack of policies addressing their needs.
