The social use of market processes in British and Hungarian housing policies

The switch of state subsidies away from support for public housing investment and towards an intensification of market processes is no longer the prerogative of Western countries, but, in the 1980s, has also become a feature of some state socialist societies. However, given the contrasting social, political and economic character of these societies, does the apparently similar process of privatisation in fact have the same characteristics, meaning and social consequences? In this paper Britain and Hungary have been chosen as countries representative of the two social systems and in which market processes have intensified. The comparison begins by examining the social meaning of'owning’ and ‘renting’, the historical context of the development of housing policy, the allocation systems, rents, and subsidies. Focusing on the social housing sector the paper contrasts current housing issues. Particular attention is given to the “Right to Buy” policy which is a common feature in the 1980s of housing policy in both countries. As a result of their mainly empirical comparison the authors conclude that privatisation in Britain and Hungary occurred in housing systems which have been similar in their tenure structure but very different in historical context. Because the broad social‐political context of privatisation is different, particularly the economic and institutional interests rooted within this issue, it is not inevitable that the regressive social consequences of measures which promote the privatisation process (which are common to both countries) are automatically negative in terms of the general sociological assessment.Thus comparison can help in the preparation of policy options and the assessment of new possibilities, but only as background. Strategies should be evaluated primarily against the social‐political context of each country and against the current policy objectives.