Severe Housing Deprivation in the European Union: a Joint Analysis of Measurement and Theory.

Concerns about the quality of housing feature prominently in academic and policy discussion on housing, yet there is little agreement about how housing deprivation should be measured or monitored. In empirical studies, measures of housing deprivation are typically examined for one of two purposes-either to compare incidences of housing quality problems for different groups, which typically leads to an examination of performance of different measures of housing deprivation, or as dependent variables to examine competing theories about what explains cross-national variation in such problems, which typically ignores these measurement considerations. Our paper seeks to analyse measurement and theory jointly, focussing in particular on the EU's severe housing deprivation measure, and its subcomponents-overcrowding and housing conditions problems. In descriptive analysis, we show that the two components of the severe housing deprivation measure are weakly related and pattern differently across nations and that the aggregation rule of the main measure has a substantial influence on observed incidences of this problem. We subsequently construct multi-level regression-based models and demonstrate that the two components have quite different determinants. Our paper has implications for the measurement of severe housing deprivation in Europe, for theories that seek to account for differences in housing outcomes, and for policy that seeks to tackle housing deprivation problems.

Social policy in the face of a global pandemic: Policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis.

How have welfare states responded to the coronavirus pandemic? In this introductory article, we provide a synopsis of papers that comprise this special issue on social policy responses to COVID-19, an overview of some of the key questions they raise, and some provisional answers to these questions. Our conclusions are threefold: first, these social policy responses, while entailing new developments in many countries, nonetheless reflect, at least in part, existing national policy legacies. Second, these responses can be understood as a form of "emergency Keynesianism," which is characterized by the massive use of deficit spending during economic crises, with the aim of to supporting rather than challenging core capitalist institutions. Third, there are clear differences in terms of the nature of the reforms enacted during the initial phase of the COVID-19 crisis as compared to reforms enacted as a response to the 2008 financial crisis.

Three perspectives on the mismatch between measures of material poverty.

The two most prominent measures of material poverty within contemporary European poverty analysis are low income and material deprivation. However, it is by now well-known that these measures identify substantially different people as being poor. In this research note, I seek to demonstrate that there are at least three ways to understand the mismatch between low income and material deprivation, relating to three different forms of identification: identifying poor households, identifying groups at risk of poverty and identifying trends in material poverty over time. Drawing on data from the British Household Panel Survey, I show that while low income and material deprivation identify very different households as being poor, and display distinct trends over time, in many cases they identify the same groups at being at risk of material poverty.