This paper aims to discuss current attempts to understand the housing crisis, in particular what are categorized as managerial and reformist approaches, and to examine the prescriptions for solution that such approaches produce. These concerns are illustrated by a description of the institutional allocation of credit for house purchase in a particular town. This description attempts to link the nature of the housing crisis to the structure of the housing market. It is suggested that neither the managerial nor the reformist approach to housing questions is sufficient to explain the nature of the housing market, and that any possible solution to the housing question lies outside the realms of ‘housing’ itself.

This paper tries to untangle the events and arguments leading up to (a) the statutory introduction of Community Resources Boards (CRBs) in Vancouver in 1974 and (b) their effective cancellation very shortly afterwards. The idea of introducing CRBs (that is, multi-purpose, community-based and community-elected social care agencies) was partly inspired by a local reading of the Seebohm report. The programme embarked upon by the New Democratic party's Minister of Human Resources, however, was not merely far more sweeping than anything Seebohm had envisaged; it was launched on a scale and at a speed sufficient to put off many fellow reformers, let alone opposition members of the British Columbia legislative assembly. Once the opposition (Social Credit) party had managed to regain provincial office, in December 1975, the days of the CRBs (the last few of which were just then being elected) were strictly numbered. This was a pity since, despite their very brief period of operation, CRBs had by this time begun to attract an unexpectedly wide range of popular support.

Technical experts frequently prescribe simple technical ‘solutions’ to complex social problems. In this article, the authors describe an experimental project which was designed to increase the take-up of means-tested benefits. The project incorporated a computer-based information system which provided individuals who supplied details of their financial and other household circumstances with personalized information about their entitlement to a wide range of benefits. Although the project was a technical success, it made little impact on take-up rates. In attempting to explain why this should have been so, the authors point to the complexity of the problems involved and advocate the need to examine and simplify existing administrative procedures at the same time as investigating the potential of computerization, rather than assuming that a technical device can of itself side-step the problems. They also point out that administrative simplification is itself no easy task and is fraught with political and organizational problems.