Special issues

This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of pan-European datasets, in particular ECHP and EU-SILC, for research in housing. Although ‘housing’ is a complex topic when studied from a European comparative perspective, I argue that there is no inherent reason why housing should be less amenable to cross-national research than other equally complex topics in comparative social science research, such as research into family change and stability, or the impact of educational systems on social stratification. Given appropriate theory, conceptualisation and contextualisation, along with strong methodologies, meaningful and informative research in housing with ECHP and EU-SILC are possible. There are however a number of limitations, which are mainly related to the fact that both datasets are geared towards the ‘production’ of a ‘system of social indicators’ informing European and national governments. Because of these limitations, ECHP and in particular EU-SILC are less attractive and less useful for academic research then they could potentially be.

In this Briefing Paper the focus is on the EU-SILC based on the question: What are the strengths and weakness of the pan-European data set EU-SILC which stands for ‘European Union Statistics of Income and Living Conditions’? How useful is this database when making international housing comparisons? The examples in this paper are based on my experience with the EU-SILC and illustrate a number of themes as setting norms for all countries and differences between housing and poverty research. My conclusion is that some of these measures transcend the database evaluation and are concerned with the definition of concepts. As long as there are no ‘better’ data alternatives, we should make do with what we have, but carefully and transparently.