You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
In comparative analyses, specific features of the Spanish welfare and housing systems have often been emphasized. The case of Barcelona illustrates the extent to which these features are the result of a long-standing historical trajectory and the decisive impact of the challenges and policy responses adopted during Franco’s lengthy, dark, and gloomy regime. This period marked a significant shift, not only due to the persistent shortage of social rental housing, but also because of the early consolidation of a homeownership culture and its dominance in working-class suburban areas—a legacy that is completely different from that of the welfare states of Western Europe. Through a review of the literature and the analysis of primary sources, ongoing research on Barcelona seeks to clarify the factors and processes that led to this transformation, as well as its evolution during the democratic period, within an international context of economic liberalization and the dismantling of the welfare state.
- homeownership
- working-class suburbs
- Barcelona
- Francoism
Since the crisis of the 1970s, there has been growing convergence in European housing policies. Especially since Margaret Thatcher’s Housing Act in 1980, neoliberal postulates have increasingly emphasized homeownership and reduced public investment in social rented housing [1][2][3][4][5]. Today, the most prominent expression of the spread of these policies is the high percentage of homeownership in the countries of the former Soviet orbit (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Percentage of homeownership in different European countries, 2024. Adapted from Ref. [6].
Despite this growing convergence, it should be stressed that decisive structural divergences remain between the countries of Western Europe. The attempt to categorize these differences through housing regimes aims to provide a baseline for comparative studies and highlights the path-dependencies of each case. The decisions made in the years immediately following the Second World War, in particular, have led to significant divergences [7][8][9]. The housing shortage that ensued in the aftermath of the war, precipitated by the devastation wrought, gave rise to a substantial need for reconstruction. However, this need was addressed in divergent ways by different countries. While Western Europe adopted measures characteristic of social-democratic welfare states (an emphasis on public housing in the United Kingdom, a robust rental market in West Germany, mass construction in France, universal housing in Sweden, mixed housing solutions in Italy, etc.) [10][11][12], Eastern European countries, satellite states of the Soviet bloc, maintained collectivized housing models under communist regimes [13][14][15]. These models later led to massive privatizations at affordable prices, resulting in extremely high homeownership rates.
In this context, a specific Mediterranean welfare regime has been proposed, and the Spanish case is of interest because of the early policy of homeownership and because of the paradoxical bias it has adopted since the 1960s. From this time, the new working-class peripheries have accumulated the highest percentages of homeownership. Another legacy that has become structural is the persistently low percentage of social rented housing compared to other Western European countries [16].
This article attempts, firstly, to understand the development of this homeownership divergence with other European countries. Secondly, it aims to consider to what extent the triumph of this option for house ownership marked and still marks the subsequent development of not only the housing market, but also the course of history and the political situation in Spain.
Recent analyses agree that this past history is the origin of many contradictions and is still a determining factor in understanding the housing issue in Spain today (exorbitant property prices, a paucity of public housing stock, and a dearth of affordable rental properties, among other factors) [17]. The well-established historical legacy has led to long-standing inertias that are very difficult to change because they were reinforced by the subsequent liberalization process. They condition and limit possible responses to the housing problem, which is an increasingly decisive issue on the current economic and political agenda.
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/encyclopedia5030113
References
- Bonomo, B. Politiche Abitative e Proprietà della Casa in Italia nel Secondo Dopoguerra; Sapienza University: Roma, Italy, 2019.
- Chambers, M.; Garriga, C.; Schlagenhauf, D.E. The Post-War Boom in Homeownership: An Exercise in Quantitative History. Editor. Express 2011, 62, 1–28.
- Collins, W.J.; Margo, R.A. Race and Home Ownership from the End of the Civil War to the Present. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 101, 355–359.
- Saunders, P. Restoring a Nation of Homeowners. What Went Wrong with Home Ownership in Britain, and How to Start Putting it Right; Civitas: Essex, UK, 2016.
- Woodin, T.; Crook, D.; Carpentier, V. Chapter heading Community and Mutual Ownership. A Historical Review; Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York, UK, 2010.
- Eurostat. Distribution of Population by Tenure Status, Type of Household and Income Group. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ILC_LVHO02__custom_5518940/default/map?lang=en (accessed on 20 June 2025).
- Esping-Andersen, G. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1990.
- Ferrera, M. The Southern Model of Welfare in Social Europe. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 1996, 6, 17–37.
- Hoekstra, J.; Vakili, Z. High house prices and high vacancy rates: A Mediterranean paradox? In Proceedings of the ENHR 2007 International Conference “Sustainable Urban Areas”, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 25–28 June 2007.
- Angelini, V.; Laferrère, A.; Weber, G. Home-ownership in Europe: How did it happen? Adv. Life Course Res. 2013, 18, 83–90.
- Flora, P. Growth to Limits: The Western European Welfare States Since World War II; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 1986; Volume 4.
- Sørvoll, J.; Nordvik, V. Social citizenship, inequality and homeownership. Postwar perspectives from the north of Europe. Soc. Policy Soc. 2020, 19, 293–306.
- Tsenkova, S. Housing change in East and Central Europe: Integration or fragmentation? Routledge: London, UK, 2017.
- Marcuse, P. Privatization and its discontents: Property rights in land and housing in the transition in Eastern Europe. In Cities After Socialism: Urban and Regional Change and Conflict in Post-Socialist Societies; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1996; pp. 119–191.
- Huber, P.; Montag, J. Homeownership, Political Participation, and Social Capital in Post-Communist Countries and Western Europe. Kyklos 2020, 73, 96–119.
- Trilla, C. La Política D’habitatge en Una Perspectiva Comparada; La Caixa: Barcelona, Spain, 2001.
- Di Feliciantonio, C.; Aalbers, M.B. The Pre-histories of Neoliberal Housing Policies in Italy and Spain and their Reification in Times of Crisis. Hous. Policy Debate 2017, 28, 135–151.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!