2021Housing Policy DebateOpen access

Evictions: The Comparative Analysis Problem

Kyle Nelson, Philip M. E. Garboden, Brian J. McCabe, Eva Rosen

Open full text 46 citations

Abstract

Since 2003, when Hartman and Robinson identified eviction as “the hidden housing problem,” a growing body of research has provided detailed, empirical analyses of the eviction process in specific locations. However, there has been little effort to systematically compare the legal regimes and institutional contexts governing eviction proceedings. Drawing on our research in four cities—Baltimore, Maryland; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; and Washington, DC—we consider how the legal regimes of landlord–tenant courts shape the eviction process for tenants and landlords. Specifically, we draw on fieldwork and administrative records from these four cities to identify how procedural and legal contexts differ by place, and the ways that these processes shape both eviction’s institutional life and its underlying social meanings. Although the problem of eviction is no longer hidden in the housing literature, the explosion of eviction research has introduced a comparative analysis problem.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Since 2003, when Hartman and Robinson identified eviction as “the hidden housing problem,” a growing body of research has provided detailed, empirical analyses of the eviction process in specific locations. However, there has been little effort to systematically compare the legal regimes and institutional contexts governing eviction proceedings. Drawing on our research in four cities—Baltimore, Maryland; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; and Washington, DC—we consider how the legal regimes of landlord–tenant courts shape the eviction process for tenants and landlords. Specifically, we draw on fieldwork and administrative records from these four cities to identify how procedural and legal contexts differ by place, and the ways that these processes shape both eviction’s institutional life and its underlying social meanings. Although the problem of eviction is no longer hidden in the housing literature, the explosion of eviction research has introduced a comparative analysis problem.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 46 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Since 2003, when Hartman and Robinson identified eviction as “the hidden housing problem,” a growing body of research has provided detailed, empirical analyses of the eviction process in specific locations. However, there has been little effort to systematically compare the legal regimes and institutional contexts governing eviction proceedings. Drawing on our research in four cities—Baltimore, Maryland; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; and Washington, DC—we consider how the legal regimes of landlord–tenant courts shape the eviction process for tenants and landlords. Specifically, we draw on fieldwork and administrative records from these four cities to identify how procedural and legal contexts differ by place, and the ways that these processes shape both eviction’s institutional life and its underlying social meanings. Although the problem of eviction is no longer hidden in the housing literature, the explosion of eviction research has introduced a comparative analysis problem.

Key concepts: Eviction, Landlord, Sociology, Political science, Criminology, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Evictions: The Comparative Analysis Problem — Research Paper | ScholarLens