Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

In the United States, the federal government has performed at least three major functions in the housing market. One has been to foster the capital markets necessary for individuals and businesses to finance the building or purchasing of housing. Another major function has been to limit the ability of private actors in the housing market to discriminate against individuals based on their membership in a suspect class, such as race. A third major function has been to help low-income families find “safe, decent, and affordable” rental housing. The U.S. government has performed these functions through an enormously complex web of programs, agencies, and policy instruments over time. Although a complete account of these is outside the scope of this article, it will offer a brief overview of some of the more important of these programs.

While the three functions of facilitating financing, fighting discrimination, and assisting low-income renters can be gleaned clearly from the morass of housing-related government policies, it would be a mistake to assume that the stakeholders involved in their creation and operation have always shared common goals. Rather, housing policies are more accurately described as bringing together a variety of stakeholders and policy entrepreneurs who use various programs to pursue a variety of different, and sometimes conflicting, goals. For example, public housing has been variously described by its supporters as a public health intervention to avoid disease, as a cultural intervention to break the cycle of poverty, or simply as a solution to overcrowding. This “goal divergence” complicates any assessment of the success or failure of U.S. housing policies, for often success or failure depends on whose goals are being considered. Moreover, goals shift over time as administrators and politicians cycle out of power. This partially explains why housing policy, particularly low-income housing policy, has been so contentious.

The Federal Role in Promoting Housing Finance

In the wake of the Great Depression, the federal government began enacting a series of programs aimed at promoting homeownership among middle-income families, the most important of which was the creation of the Federal Housing Administration and its mortgage insurance program in 1934. The Depression had resulted in widespread home foreclosures, throwing into relief the dangers and weaknesses of the existing housing finance system. Prior to the mortgage insurance program, families wanting to purchase a home on credit faced large down payment requirements, relatively short repayment schedules, and large balloon payments at the end of their terms. This made homeownership prohibitively expensive and risky for most families. FHA mortgage insurance allowed lenders to soften their terms, in exchange for federal acceptance of responsibility in the case of default. FHA-backed loans required a smaller down payment, had a much longer repayment period (30 years was common), and were fully amortized. The Veterans Administration would later begin a similar program specifically for veterans. Together, these programs played a central role in the post–World War II emergence of the suburbs, the ubiquity of single-family homes, and the establishment of home-ownership as a widely shared cultural norm.

The FHA's early efforts have been criticized for their role in crystallizing patterns of racial neighborhood segregation. FHA refused to back mortgages in many “risky” neighborhoods, which essentially cut off many central city poor and minority neighborhoods from access to homeownership. When combined with the restrictive covenants and other blatantly hostile policies intrinsic to many White and middle-class suburbs, these FHA policies effectively relegated poor and minority families to economically distressed central city neighborhoods and prevented the economic empowerment that accompanies home-ownership. The hypersegregated ghettos that emerged in many cities in the 20th century can be blamed partially on FHA's discriminatory lending policies.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading