The right to housing and the right to property are often understood as being in conflict, with the protection of one right requiring the restriction of the other. In her recent publication, Hohmann challenges this perspective, exploring how these rights may not only coexist but also complement each other. Drawing on the social function of property doctrine, she argues that property has a social function to fulfil broader social aims, including the protection of the right to housing. Hohmann’s approach offers a broader understanding of property and its relationship to social inequality, highlighting how property rights can provide a framework through which these inequalities might be challenged. This blog reflects on Hohmann’s proposal by examining how the social function of property can help address the financialisation of housing and its relationship with touristification.

Financialisation, Touristification and the Transformation of Residential Space

Touristification has been described “as a process in which space is produced for tourist purposes, involving a shift in the nature and use of entire neighbourhoods.” This can transform residential spaces into infrastructures designed primarily for tourism, changing the character and function of neighbourhoods, and impacting “the services that a more permanent population need for their everyday lives.”

These developments are closely connected to the financialisation of housing, a process that Hohmann notes is increasing in the global political economy. Financialisation represents a shift from understanding housing as a home and a basis for community, towards treating it as a means of generating and storing financial wealth. This transformation can weaken the role that residential property plays in sustaining families and communities. Cities such as Barcelona, Athens, and Venice have received considerable academic attention in this context.

Similar dynamics can also be observed in Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, where the growth of tourism has contributed to the transformation of residential neighbourhoods into areas increasingly oriented towards visitors. This has been accompanied by an overabundance of souvenir shops and a decline in everyday life for permanent residents.

These issues are not confined to urban areas. Rural communities are also increasingly affected by the overlapping processes of touristification and financialisation, with implications that extend beyond housing affordability to the cultural and linguistic sustainability of communities.

Touristification and Linguistic Communities

The financialisation and ensuing touristification of regions which have historically been centres of minoritised languages raise concerns regarding linguistic heritage. Where housing becomes increasingly oriented towards holiday accommodation or investment, people who wish to live and work in these communities permanently face greater difficulty accessing affordable housing. This can affect the capacity of communities to sustain their linguistic and cultural practices.

An example can be seen in the Gaeltacht regions of Ireland, where the Irish language is the main community language. In these areas, the prevalence of holiday homes and the financialisation of housing is limiting the availability of residential properties. When members of Irish-speaking communities are unable to access housing, the capacity of those communities to sustain Irish as a living community language may be affected.

Similar concerns arise in parts of the UK, particularly in Wales, where the purchases of second homes and the conversion of residential homes into short-term tourism accommodation have contributed to pressures on the local community as they struggle to access affordable, adequate housing.

Reconsidering Property Through Its Social Function

These examples demonstrate the need to reconsider the relationship between property rights and housing rights. In her excellent book, Hohmann interrogates the relationship between housing and property rights and provides a strong basis for examining property through the lens of its social function. Her analysis also resonates with broader arguments in this debate, particularly those advanced by the UN Special Rapporteur Koldo Casla.

According to Hohmann, the social function of property conceives of property not as itself a right, but as a social function that exists to fulfil social aims, such as the right to housing. This challenges the understanding of property as an absolute right which is “internally unfettered”, but instead argues that property is “inherently limited.” In light of Hohmann’s contribution, we can consider the extent to which financial and touristic uses of residential property may find a limit in the sustainability and viability of the social, cultural, and economic life of communities.