La présente thèse offre une nouvelle explication des variations du taux de propriété de différents pays en mobilisant de larges parts de la littérature existante en histoire urbaine et des données portant sur les villes. La littérature existante a souvent son origine dans l’opposition des pays germanophones et des pays anglophones, les derniers montrant un taux de propriété systématiquement plus élevé que les premiers. Par une étude historique comparative des cas américain et allemand, considérés comme exemplaire pour les types de pays, la thèse essaie de répondre à la question que pose l’écart persistant entre les taux de propriété allemand et américain. La présente thèse argue que c’étaient des différences en organisations urbaines au 19e siècle et de différentes institutions de financement de logement et de construction qui ont mis les pays sur des trajectoires différentes. Elle maintient que le laissez-faire de certaines municipalités faibles a plutôt privilégie des villes périurbanisées sous formes de maisons individuelles aux États-Unis, alors que les municipalités corporatistes allemandes tendaient à mener aux villes compactes d’immeubles de rapport ; que le développement de sociétés d’épargne-logement américaines favorisait le financement de maisons en propriété individuelle, alors que les banques hypothécaires allemandes et les associations de logement privilégiaient les immeubles de location ; que l’émergence d’une production Fordiste des pavillons standardisés facilitait la vulgarisation de la propriété, alors que la production artisanale allemande la limitait. Une fois ces structures établie – ainsi va l’argument faisant allusion à la dépendance au sentier – elles furent perpétuées par des mécanismes de pouvoir de groupes d’intérêt, de fonctionnalité économique, alors que des processus de conversion du locatif en propriété ainsi que de la périurbanisation pouvaient contrecarrer cette inertie structurelle. / The thesis gives an answer to the question of why different countries ended up with different rates of homeowners and tenants in the 20th-century. The literature identifies Germanspeaking countries of low homeownership rates around 40% and English-speaking countries of high homeownership rates of more than 60%, with France falling in between the two groups. Moreover, most of these differences have persisted through the second half of the 20th-century and can be shown to reach back to different urban homeownership rates around 1900. The homeownership-question is of importance beyond the mere question of tenure as studies have associated homeownership questions with stability in financial crises, with embourgeoisement of the working-class in life-style, attitudes and voting behavior or with different unemployment rates. Existing explanations have used post-1980 international, regional or individual data to explain homeownership differences through socio-demographic, economic or urbanization differences, through a public-welfare/homeownership trade-off or else through cultural preferences. These explanations fail to account, however, for the persistent country differences that existed already prior to the 1980s and prior to government intervention in housing. The thesis, by contrast, goes back to 19th-century differences of urban organization, housing finance and the construction sector to claim that countries were historically set on different housing trajectories establishing differences hard to reverse in later periods. The US and Germany are chosen for historic case studies of the often opposed country groups. France is included to use the variables found for explaining why a country of similar welfare type as Germany kept a persistently higher urban homeownership rate. The thesis claims that different complementary institutions in city organization, the housing finance and construction industry locked countries into inert physical and institutional structures of either the compact tenement city-form in Germany or the suburbanized form of a city of homes like in the United States. More concretely, functional complementarities of public welfare cities, housing cooperatives, mortgage banks and a raftsmanship production of solid single-unit homes led to the German tenant-dominance, whereas private cities, savings and loans (SLAs) and a Fordist mass production of single-family homes created the American production regime in favor of more accessible homeownership. Though the thesis establishes the argument for Germany and the US in historic case studies, it tries to make plausible that it can be extended to other German- and English-speaking countries. The innovation of the thesis concerning the particular explanatory puzzle lies in its reference to relevant historical prior causes, its inclusion of the urban level of analysis and the combination of three institutional factors – urban organization, housing finance, construction – that even singly have not been put forward yet in comparative explanations. The thesis contributes to the literature on path dependencies that identifies distant occurrences as longterm causes for hard-to-reverse historical trajectories. On a theoretical level, the study contributes to research in a yet little noticed type of market, i.e. markets for durable goods whose use stretches over time, and which therefore requires history-directed explanations.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:theses.fr/2014IEPP0030 |
| Date | 25 June 2014 |
| Creators | Kohl, Sebastian |
| Contributors | Paris, Institut d'études politiques, Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung (Cologne, Allemagne), Beckert, Jens, François, Pierre |
| Source Sets | Dépôt national des thèses électroniques françaises |
| Language | English, French |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, Text |
Page generated in 0.003 seconds