Property Owning and Democracy-Do the Twain Ever Meet?

Abstract

ABSTRACT Starting from the Conservative assertion that home ownership fosters politically active and virtuous citizens, this paper examines two lines of argument in housing theory; (a) Jim Kemeny's thesis that owner occupation is closely linked to increasing privatism, i.e. a growth in lifestyles centred around the home and privacy rather than the workplace or the public affairs in a society, and (b) Peter Saunders' thesis that home owners will organise and mobilise politically in defence of their property interests if and when various government agencies threaten to remove their tax subsidies. To test these propositions empirically, data on the effects of the rapid and comprehensive dismantling of tax privileges to Swedish home owners in the 1980s and early 1990s are confronted with data on political interest, participation and knowledge as well as civic trust and responsibility from the Swedish election surveys of 1979, 1985 and 1991. Contrary to Conservative beliefs, home owners do not stand out as 'democratic examples'; with the exception of political knowledge and party membership, they are no more 'civil' or 'democratic' than other citizens. There is also not much to support Kemeny's 'privatism' or Saunders' 'reaction-to-threat' theses. Although home owners in Sweden saw their tax privileges diminishing rapidly during the 1980s and early 1990s, they do not show the distinctive patterns of change in democratic orientation and spirit predicted by these two housing theorists. To allow for an even more conclusive test of Kemeny's 'privatism' thesis, however, one must overcome the mismatch of income definitions in housing statistics and election survey data.