Search

Home ownership is the most desired form of housing tenure around the world for reasons of security and certainty. Owning a house presents a struggle for families virtually everywhere: for example, in Tokyo a typical house can cost around five to six times the yearly earnings of a family. Many families simply do not possess sufficient funds to purchase a house with equity. A universal alternative to equity-based financing for outright purchase before taking possession of a house is through debt financing. Debt in total housing finance in Japan is around 60-70%. Housing finance systems struggle to create instruments that will efficiently finance the purchase of owner-occupied housing. Design of mortgages depends on the nature of the housing system, the allocation of risk and the economic and institutional factors in a country. The present paper focuses on housing finance arrangements in Japan. Mortgage loan funding in Japan is characterized by heavy dependence on government treasury investment, which is based on subsidies. The last decade virtually eroded the capital base of financial institutions due to non-performing loans and forced them to restructure their business models from lending to industrial enterprises to financing home purchases. Coupled with the price crash in property markets, after the bubble era, debate on the current housing finance system has emerged. Currently Japan is restructuring its housing finance institutions by redefining the role for the public sector. This paper contributes by analyzing the efficiency with which the mortgage market delivers mortgage credit to home-buyers in Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to explore the commonality of social policies on homelessness between Japan and England and to discuss the role of social policy in response to the recent emergence of homelessness throughout the world. Japan and England are regarded as different types of welfare state, and policies towards homelessness in both countries contrast sharply with each other. In some important areas, however, their approaches to homelessness coincide. There is a common 'style' of 'main bypass' policy with a diverse and often subjective implementation. This commonality can be interpreted as a result of the application of some general principles of the welfare state such as work requirement, family principles, moral requirement as a good citizen of the welfare state as well as the narrow and often stereotypical understanding of a person's 'place to live' in a society. Policies concerning homelessness in this common 'style' have not responded satisfactorily to the global emergence of homelessness. Instead, they have often played a part perpetuating situations where homeless people stay in temporary accommodation often facing uncertain and inconsistent treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]