By the same authors

From the same journal

The right to buy: examination of an exercise in allocating, shifting and re-branding risks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

The right to buy : examination of an exercise in allocating, shifting and re-branding risks. / Hunter, Caroline Margaret; Blandy, Sarah.

In: Critical Social Policy, Vol. 33, No. 1, 02.2012, p. 17-36.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Hunter, CM & Blandy, S 2012, 'The right to buy: examination of an exercise in allocating, shifting and re-branding risks', Critical Social Policy, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 17-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018312457869

APA

Hunter, C. M., & Blandy, S. (2012). The right to buy: examination of an exercise in allocating, shifting and re-branding risks. Critical Social Policy, 33(1), 17-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018312457869

Vancouver

Hunter CM, Blandy S. The right to buy: examination of an exercise in allocating, shifting and re-branding risks. Critical Social Policy. 2012 Feb;33(1):17-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018312457869

Author

Hunter, Caroline Margaret ; Blandy, Sarah. / The right to buy : examination of an exercise in allocating, shifting and re-branding risks. In: Critical Social Policy. 2012 ; Vol. 33, No. 1. pp. 17-36.

Bibtex - Download

@article{56062b213ec546d293501b3b75f3f7cb,
title = "The right to buy: examination of an exercise in allocating, shifting and re-branding risks",
abstract = "This paper examines the development of the Right to Buy, introducedby the Housing Act 1980, from the standpoint of governmentality, riskand responsibilization. Our focus is on the risks not only to the purchasersbut also to local authorities and to those tenants who have notpurchased their homes. We trace how these risks have been assessed,allocated and rebranded, by central government, by local authorities aslandlords with wider responsibility for housing issues in their local area,and by the judiciary. Our analysis, for the first time, points out the sharpcontrasts between these three arms of government. Central governmenthas promoted the Right to Buy as an opportunity through technologiessuch as ideological policy documents, legislation and regulations, withina governing rationality which has succeeded in normalizing the tenureof owner-occupation. Local authorities recognized from the outset therisks associated with the Right to Buy both to individual purchasers andmore widely. The courts have allocated risk on the basis of individualresponsibility, implicitly supporting local authorities. Despite neoliberalpolicies and ideology emphasizing the free market, central government has reduced or re-allocated risks through interventions to protect purchasers and also the broader community.Key",
keywords = "courts, government, homeownership, re-branding, Right to Buy, risk",
author = "Hunter, {Caroline Margaret} and Sarah Blandy",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1177/0261018312457869",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "17--36",
journal = "Critical Social Policy",
issn = "0261-0183",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "1",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - The right to buy

T2 - examination of an exercise in allocating, shifting and re-branding risks

AU - Hunter, Caroline Margaret

AU - Blandy, Sarah

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - This paper examines the development of the Right to Buy, introducedby the Housing Act 1980, from the standpoint of governmentality, riskand responsibilization. Our focus is on the risks not only to the purchasersbut also to local authorities and to those tenants who have notpurchased their homes. We trace how these risks have been assessed,allocated and rebranded, by central government, by local authorities aslandlords with wider responsibility for housing issues in their local area,and by the judiciary. Our analysis, for the first time, points out the sharpcontrasts between these three arms of government. Central governmenthas promoted the Right to Buy as an opportunity through technologiessuch as ideological policy documents, legislation and regulations, withina governing rationality which has succeeded in normalizing the tenureof owner-occupation. Local authorities recognized from the outset therisks associated with the Right to Buy both to individual purchasers andmore widely. The courts have allocated risk on the basis of individualresponsibility, implicitly supporting local authorities. Despite neoliberalpolicies and ideology emphasizing the free market, central government has reduced or re-allocated risks through interventions to protect purchasers and also the broader community.Key

AB - This paper examines the development of the Right to Buy, introducedby the Housing Act 1980, from the standpoint of governmentality, riskand responsibilization. Our focus is on the risks not only to the purchasersbut also to local authorities and to those tenants who have notpurchased their homes. We trace how these risks have been assessed,allocated and rebranded, by central government, by local authorities aslandlords with wider responsibility for housing issues in their local area,and by the judiciary. Our analysis, for the first time, points out the sharpcontrasts between these three arms of government. Central governmenthas promoted the Right to Buy as an opportunity through technologiessuch as ideological policy documents, legislation and regulations, withina governing rationality which has succeeded in normalizing the tenureof owner-occupation. Local authorities recognized from the outset therisks associated with the Right to Buy both to individual purchasers andmore widely. The courts have allocated risk on the basis of individualresponsibility, implicitly supporting local authorities. Despite neoliberalpolicies and ideology emphasizing the free market, central government has reduced or re-allocated risks through interventions to protect purchasers and also the broader community.Key

KW - courts, government, homeownership, re-branding, Right to Buy, risk

U2 - 10.1177/0261018312457869

DO - 10.1177/0261018312457869

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 17

EP - 36

JO - Critical Social Policy

JF - Critical Social Policy

SN - 0261-0183

IS - 1

ER -