This paper discusses the hypothesis that, despite numerous similarities between Canada and the US in terms of their history, geography, life-style, living standard and democratic form of government, there are nonetheless significant differences between the two countries' social policies that translate into differences in several of their housing and related urban policies. Here the case is made that variations in each country's approach to housing result from differences in their founding principles and from their historical experiences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barber, J. (1995) Mending our lovely metros, The Globe and Mail, 9 September, pp. D1 and D5.
2.
Blackburn, M.L. and Bloom, D.E. (1993) The distribution of family income: measuring and explaining changes in the 1980s for Canada and the United States, in: D. Card and R.B. Freeman (Eds) Small Differences That Matter: Labour Markets and Income Maintenance in Canada and the United States, pp. 233-266. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.
3.
Blank, R.M. and Hanratty, M.J. (1993) Respondin g to need: a comparison of social safety nets in Canada and the United States, in: D. Card and R.B. Freeman (Eds) Small Differences That Matter: Labour Markets and Income Maintenance in Canada and the United States, pp. 191-232. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
4.
Canada (1994) Government of Canada Tax Expenditures. Ottawa: Government of Canada.
5.
Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation (1994 ) Canadian Housing Statistics 1994. Ottawa : CMHC.
6.
Card, D. and Freeman, R.B. (1993) Introduction, in: D. Card and R.B. Freeman (Eds) Small Differences That Matter: Labour Markets and Income Maintenance in Canada and the United States, pp. 1-20. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
Carter, T. (1991) Neighbourhood improvement: the Canadian experience , in: R. Alterman and G. Cars (Eds) Neighbourhood Regeneration, An International Evaluation, pp.9-27. New York: Mansell.
8.
Crowe, D.A. (1993) Comment on James R. Follain, David C. Ling, and Gary A. McGill' s "The preferential income tax treatment of owner-occupied housing: who really benefits?", Housing Policy Debate, 4(1), pp. 25-32.
9.
Daniels, B.C. (1990) American history, foreign fears, and the hidden realities of a free trade area in North America, in: G. Lynch and J. McKinney (Eds) Region North America: Canada, United States, Mexico, pp. 33-46. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
10.
Dreier, P. and Atlas, J. (1995) Housing Policy' s moment of truth, The American Prospect, Summer, pp. 68-77.
11.
Dreier, P. and Bernard, E. (1992) Canada: a kinder, gentler nation, Social Policy, 23(1), pp. 6-19.
12.
Dreier, P. and Hulchanski, D. (1993) Affordable housing: lessons from Canada, Housing Policy Debate, 4(1), pp. 43-80.
13.
Ewing, G.O. (1992) The bases of differences between American and Canadian cities, The Canadian Geographer, 36(4), pp. 266-279.
14.
Follain, J.R., Ling, D.C. and McGill, G.A. (1993) The preferential income tax treatment of owner-occupied housing: who really benefits?, Housing Policy Debate, 4(1), pp. 1-24.
15.
Franks, C.E.S. and Olson, D.M. (1993) Representation and the policy process in federal systems: introduction, in: D.M. Olson and C.E.S. Franks (Eds) Representation and Policy Formation in Federal Systems, pp. 1-32. Berkeley : Institute of Governmental Studies Press, University of California, Berkeley and Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen' s University .
16.
Goldberg, M.A. and Mercer, J. (1986) The Myth of the North American City: Continental-ism Challenged. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
17.
Grisgby, W.G. and Hosier, A.L.W. (1993) Comment on James R. Follain, David C. Ling, and Gary A. McGill' s "The preferential income tax treatment of owner-occupied housing: who really benefits?", Housing Policy Debate, 4(1), pp. 33-42.
18.
Hanratty, M.J. (1992) Why Canada has less poverty, Social Policy, 23(1), pp. 32-37.
19.
Jackson, A. (1992) Government activism: building a national economy , Social Policy, 23(1), pp. 20-31.
20.
Kuehn, L. (1992) Mosaic vs. melting pot, Social Policy, 23(1), pp. 65-72.
21.
Ling, D.C. and Mcgill, G.A. (1992) Measuring the size and distributional effects of homeowner tax preferences, Journal of Housing Research, 3(1), pp. 273-303.
22.
Lipset, S.M. (1990) Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada . New York: Routledge.
23.
Myrdal, G. (1944) The American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, 1962 edn. New York: Harper & Row.
24.
Riddell, W.C. (1993) Unionization in Canada and the United States: a tale of two countries, in: D. Card and R.B. Freeman (Eds) Small Differences That Matter: Labour Markets and Income Maintenance in Canada and the United States, pp. 109-148. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.
25.
Rocher, F. (1993) Dividing the spoils: American and Canadian federalism , in: D. Thomas (Ed.) Canada and the United States: Differences That Count, pp. 127-148. Peterborough , Ont.: Broadview Press.
26.
Thomas, D. (Ed.) (1993) Canada and the United States: Differences That Count. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press.
27.
Thompson, J.H. and Randall, S.J. (1994) Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies. Montreal and Kingston: McGill University Press.
28.
Urban Institute (Center For Public Finance And Housing Community And Economic Development Program) (1995) Status and Prospects of the Nonprofit Housing Sector. Washington, DC: HUD.
29.
Walker, C. (1993) Nonprofit housing development: status, trends, and prospects, Housing Policy Debate, 4(3), pp. 369-416.
30.
Wallace, J.E. (1995) Financing affordable housing in the United States , Housing Policy Debate, 6(4), pp. 785-814.
31.
Wallace, J.E., Finkel, M., Sullivan, J. and Rich, K. (1993) Assessment of the HUD-insured Multifamily Rental Housing Stocking Stock, Final Report, Volume I: Current Status of the HUD-insured (or -held) Multifamily Rental Housing Stock. Washington, DC: HUD.
32.
Weiss, M.A. (n.d.) The United States Housing System. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae.
33.
Wolfe, J.M. (1992) Canada's liveable cities, Social Policy, 23(1), pp. 56-64.
