Selling and Buying Shared Ownership

  • Dave Cowan
  • Helen Carr
  • Alison Wallace
Part of the Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies book series (PSLS)


In the previous two chapters, we have discussed how and why shared ownership became knowable. In this chapter, we move on to consider how shared ownership is sold and why it is bought. One of the issues confronting housing associations wishing to sell shared ownership is the general lack of knowledge about it, even after 40 years or so. That lack of knowledge may be less since the advent of the internet’s search ability and since some Web-based property sale platforms have introduced a shared ownership filter. However, there is still a need to “sell” shared ownership, both in terms of the concept and in terms of marketing properties.


  1. Callon, M. (1986), ‘The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle’, in M. Callon, J. Law and A. Rip (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cowan, D. and McDermont, M. (2006), Regulating Social Housing: Governing Decline, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, S. and Sinn, C. (2016), Shared Ownership 2.1: Towards a Fourth Mainstream tenure - Taking Stock, Coventry: CIH.Google Scholar
  4. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2010), Local Decisions: A Fairer Future for Housing, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
  5. Department for Communities and Local Government (2015), Proposals to Streamline the Resale of Shared Ownership Properties, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
  6. Goffman, E, (1963) [1990], Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  7. Gurney, C. (1999), ‘Lowering the Drawbridge: A Case Study of Analogy and Metaphor in the Social Construction of Home-Ownership’, 36(7), Urban Studies: 1705–22.Google Scholar
  8. Hurdley, R. (2006), ‘Dismantling Mantelpieces: Narrating Identities and Materializing Culture in the Home’, 40(4), Sociology: 717–33.Google Scholar
  9. Langley, P. (2006), ‘The Making of Investor Subjects in Anglo-American Pensions’, 24(5), Environment and Planning D: 919–34.Google Scholar
  10. Law, J. (2002), Aircraft Stories: Decentring the Object in Technoscience, Durham: Duke UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McKee, K. (2011), ‘Challenging the Norm? The “Ethopolitics” of Low Cost Homeownership in Scotland’, 48(16), Urban Studies: 3399–413.Google Scholar
  12. Osborne, H. (2014), ‘Poor Doors: The Segregation of London’s Inner-City Flat Dwellers’, The Guardian, 25th July.Google Scholar
  13. Savage, M., Bagnall C. and Longhurst, B. (2005), Globalisation and Belonging, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Sinn, C. and Davies, S. (2014), Shared Ownership 2.0: Towards a Fourth Mainstream Tenure, London: Orbit Group; Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, S. (2008), ‘Owner-occupation: At home with a hybrid of money and materials’, 40(3), Environment and Planning A: 520–35.Google Scholar
  16. Wallace, A. (2008b), Achieving Mobility in the Intermediate Housing Market: Moving Up and Moving On?, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. Watt, P. (2009), ‘Living in an Oasis: Middle-Class Disaffiliation and Selective Belonging in an English Suburb’, 41(12), Environment and Planning A: 2874–92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dave Cowan
    • 1
  • Helen Carr
    • 2
  • Alison Wallace
    • 3
  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Kent Law SchoolUniversity of KentCanterburyUK
  3. 3.Centre for Housing PolicyUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations