Is Rent Regulation a form of Redistribution?

In Nancy Fraser’s, Justice interruptus: critical reflections on the "postsocialist" condition she begins by discussing how struggles for recognition occur in a world exacerbated by material inequality (Fraser 1997,11). These material inequalities exist in things such as income, property ownership, education, healthcare and leisure time. Frazer suggest that in order to mitigate these inequalities governments must develop a theory which is capable of identifying and defending cultural and social polices of equality. This is due to the fact that Fraser believes that economic disadvantages and cultural disrespect are interconnected and capable of producing cycles of subordination. For this reason, Fraser sets out to remedy both these inequalities with what she calls affirmation and transformation. Affirmation remedies the effects of unequal outcomes while transformation corrects cultural inequalities by restructuring the very foundation that causes it.

Although rent-regulation was not created for the economically disadvantaged, over the years, it has turned into policy that remedies unequal economic outcomes. This is shown by how rent regulation continues to provide housing for low-income earners in the city. Therefore, it follows that rent-regulation is a form of affirmation, as it corrects unequal outcomes but does not change the framework that creates those outcomes.

 In a world without economic inequalities, there would be no need for rent regulation. As Fraser mentions you cannot redistribute goods without fixing the framework that causes the disparity. For this reason, Fraser recommends that the framework of the institution be restructured. However, since the transformation of the institution is rather unlikely, rent regulation will continue to be the remedy at the surface.

Reference:

Fraser, Nancy. 1997. Justice interruptus: critical reflections on the "postsocialist" condition. New York: Routledge.