Kováts Bence: The Financialisation of Housing and Housing-related Family Support in Hungary
›
4. Housing-related family support in Hungary
›
4.1. Family support in Hungarian housing studies
›
4.1.3. Family support in housing in Hungary in the long-run: fluctuation or rise?

4.1.3. Family support in housing in Hungary in the long-run: fluctuation or rise?

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

From the above review of the international and the Hungarian literature it is apparent that while the interest of housing studies grows in the documented rise of housing-related family support globally, in Hungary the issue has not been addressed by theoretical works in detail1. Even though none of the Hungarian works in housing studies presented above deal with family support explicitly in length, two (somewhat contradicting) views of familialisation can be identified: the transition approach and the financialisation perspective. Both approaches agree in that housing-related family support in Hungary is significant, they differ mostly in their interpretations regarding trends and causes of it.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

On the one hand, the transition approach sees family support (and within it parental support) as filling the gap created by the transition from state socialism to market capitalism (Csizmady, Hegedüs and Vonnák, 2019). It assumes support increases at times when de-commodification and commodification are both low. According to this view, both commodification and de-commodification have been decreasing since the 1970s with the exception of the 2000s characterised by a wave of commodification. On the other hand, the financialisation approach suggests a rise of housing-related family support due to the re-commodification of housing taking place from the 1970s onwards globally, as well as in Hungary.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The above interpretations of the development of housing-related family support and underlying causes can also be posited in the international literature. The financialisation view is akin to the approach explaining the rise of family support in the highest-income countries as the consequence of re-commodification (Flynn and Schwartz, 2017; Ronald, 2018; Ronald and Lennartz, 2018). The transition view also sees the phenomenon affected by waves of commodification, however, they assume an inverse relationship between commodification and family support while they dismiss the argument that commodification has been significant in Hungary. In this sense, their position is similar to political economists such as Streeck (2009) who noted the retreat of the family as welfare provider as a consequence of capitalist transformation.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Since family support is not in the main focus of either approach, their theoretical assumptions are underpinned with only meagre empirical evidence. Both approaches present data about self-build, but other forms of family support such as intergenerational co-residence and financial support are not analysed in depth.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Hegedüs and Tosics present the development of self-build through data about self-provision (also containing entrepreneurial construction) from 1960 but not the earlier period of state socialism. Further, somewhat in contradiction with the development of self-build outlined by authors, this data show self-building was, already at the beginning of the 1960s, as widespread as in the alleged boom in the 1980s (Hegedüs, 1992, p. 224; Hegedüs and Tosics, 1992b, pp. 133–134).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The financialisation approach presents even less empirical evidence about family support. They mostly rely on Gagyi and Vigvári’s (2018) qualitative data from one allotment garden near Budapest to suggest reciprocal work in housing construction and renovation has been on the rise (Gagyi et al., 2019). In order to explore trends in housing-related family support since WWII and test the validity of the two approaches, further empirical evidence needs to be evaluated.
 
1 A number of authors discussed the emergence of pro-natalist housing policy measures as examples of state-supported familialism (Elek and Szikra, 2018; Bohle and Seabrooke, 2020; Makszin and Bohle, 2020). Though such measures do reinforce traditional family roles, they do not affect family help in the provision of housing: subsidies are available for housing acquisition regardless of support received from the family. For this reason, they are not expounded in length in the dissertation.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave