TABLE 1
FROM:
Varieties of Residential Capitalism in the International Political Economy: Old Welfare States and the New Politics of Housing
Herman Schwartz and Leonard Seabrooke
BACK TO ARTICLETable 1. Housing market characteristics, 19 OECD countries
| Owner-occupation, % households a | Social rental, % of households a | Private rental, % of house holds a | Change in owner-occupation as % of households, 1980-latest a | Residential mortgages as % of GDP (1992) b | Residential mortgages as % of GDP (2004) b | Typical loan-to- value ratio (%) (2002) c | Maximum loan-to- value ratio (%) (2002)* c | Typical loan term (2002) e | Mortgage securitization possible? | Home equity release possible? | Absolute change in number of women working, 1980–2004, as % of 1980 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austria | 56 | 21 | 20 | +6 | c. 5.0 | 20.3 | 60 | 80 | 20–30 | No | No | 42.8 |
| Belgium | 74 | 7 | 16 | +9 | 19.9 | 31.2 | 83 | 100 | 20 | No | No | 36.2 |
| Denmark | 51 | 19 | 26 | -2 | 70.1 | 88.4 | 80 | 80 | 30 | Yes | Yes (1993) | 18.9 |
| Finland | 60 | 14 | 16 | 0 | 37.1 | 37.8 | 75 | 80 | 15–18 | No (?) | Yes | 4.4 |
| France | 54 | 17 | 21 | +9 | 21.2 | 26.2 | 67 | 100 | 15 | Yes but limited | Not used | 33.5 |
| Germany (West) | 43 | 7 | 50 | 67 | 80 | 25–30 | As covered bonds | Yes, but not used | ||||
| Germany (all) | 40
| +5 | 41.0 | 52.2 | As covered bonds | No | 57.2 | |||||
| Ireland | 78 | 9 | 16 | +1 | 20.3 | 52.7 | 66 | 90 | 20 | Yes but limited | Yes but limited use | 131.4 |
| Italy | 69 | 5 | 11 | +16 | 3.2 | 15.3 | 55 | 80 | 15 | Only recently | Not used | 34.2 |
| Netherlands | 53 | 36 | 11 | +13 | 43.2 | 111.1 | 90 | 115 | 30 | Yes | Yes | 128.8 |
| Norway | 78 | 46.1 | 56.0 | 80 | 15–20 | Yes but limited | No | 38.6 | ||||
| Portugal | 64 | 3 | 25 | +23 | c. 20.0 | 52.5 | 83 | 90 | 15 | No | No | 55.5 |
| Spain | 85 | 1 | 10 | +9 | 12.9 | 45.9 | 70 | 100 | 15 | New but rising | Yes but limited use | 110.0 |
| Sweden | 41 | 27 | 13 | +4 | 50.8 | 51.6 | 77 | 80 | <30 | Yes | Yes | 6.3 |
| United Kingdom | 69 | 22 | 9 | +11 | 52.8 | 75.3 | 69 | 110 | 25 | Yes | Yes | 28.6 |
| Australia | 72 | 78.0 | 301.0 | 65 | 25 | Yes | Yes | 86.7 | ||||
| New Zealand | 70 | 146.0 | 267.0 | Yes | No | 116.5 | ||||||
| Canada | 64 | 42.7
| 43.1
| 75 | 25 | Yes | Yes but limited use | 71.8 | ||||
| United States | 68 | 45.0 | 65.0 | 78 | 30 | Yes | Yes | 53.7 | ||||
| Japan | 60 | 25.3 | 36.8 | 80 | 25–30 | No | No | 22.1 |
a Judith Allen, EU Housing Statistics 2004 (years vary) plus Pietro Catte, Nathalie Girouarde, Robert Price, and Christopher Andre, 'The Contribution of Housing Markets to Cyclical Resilience,' OECD Economic Studies #38, 2004/1, 138 for non-EU countries.
b Hypostat (2006).
c based on MacLennan, D., Muellbauer, J., and Stephens, M. (1998) 'Asymmetries in housing and financial market institutions and EMU', Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14(3): 54–80; Catte et al. (2004, 138).
