Compared predictions of a consumption and a normative criterion of housing affordability in two mid-sized Canadian cities over time

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to theorize and measure a consumption criterion of housing affordability and then to compare its predictions with those of a normative criterion over time. The new consumption criterion of housing affordability is quantified with predicted compensatory expenditures that a resident would pay to upgrade to their most preferred home. Its predictions are compared with those of the most popular normative criterion that predicts unaffordability if a resident spends more than a proportion such as 30% of their income on housing. Design/methodology/approach This study uses census and experimental data for owner-occupiers in two mid-sized Canadian cities between 1987 or 2001 and 2020 or 2021. These data are mapped and statistically analysed for comparing the predictions of the two criteria. Findings The study’s primary finding is that both criteria predict improved affordability of owned homes over time. Secondarily, however, the consumption criterion predicts worse unaffordability for the minority experiencing this. It furthermore clarifies their budgets for housing as more constraining than their social utilities that they may have already revised toward affordable home attributes. Indisputable unaffordability after the end of the study period may have nullified the originally recommended sacrifices for residents upgrading to their most preferred owned home. Originality/value The study is original because it demonstrates that a new consumption criterion of housing affordability subsumes the popular normative criterion if plausible assumptions are made about a homeowner’s choices. It then proceeds to speculate how this new criterion might refine the normative criterion with predicted compensatory expenditures for a resident’s affordable preferred homes.