Abstract
A response is developed to King's charge that the estimates of capital gains obtained for Adelaide housing in the 1970s and 1980s do not reflect the most favourable conditions prevailing in Australia at the time; and, therefore, that one is not really in a sound enough position to challenge the contention that homeownership is an enduring source of real wealth. His related criticism is that the attempt to link intraurban differentiation in rates of house price change to processes of urban restructuring is too restrictive. It is argued that his prescription, by contrast, runs the real risk of degenerating into theoretical eclecticism.
Full Text
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call