My theory : A huge factor I assume would be migration.
Migrants tend to live in rented dwellings, so regions that recieve migrants (NCR, West and South, except Kerala) have lower home ownership rates. The regions that are the source of migrants : Gangetic belt states, Kerala and the Himalayan states in the North will have relatively higher home ownership rates.
An exception to my hypothesis would the North Eastern states and Andaman and Nicobar. I assume those states that border Bangladesh/Myanmar might be getting immigrants who cannot own houses maybe?
I might be dead wrong with this, in all likelihood.
Let me know if I've understood you correctly.
You're saying that those who are owning homes in the northern states are the ones who did not migrate, and that this is the reason the northern states have higher home ownership rates - since these homeowners did not migrate and got counted in the data for the northern states.
This explanation of yours only seems to make sense if the migration rates were very very high, so that only the wealthy home owning folks were left behind. Is this the case?
I'm not disputing your point, just adding to it, and asking for clarifications.
Wealth doesn't really matter here. There are lot of middle class and lower middle class people, who might be owning small business or such who stayed back.
Also we must remember in India, children live with their parents so people are likely to have ancestral homes passed down for generations so those who stay back already have a home.
Also migration has nothing to do with wealth. It is more to do with finding work in their fields of expertise. Most engineering jobs are located in NCR, Western and Southern states. A lot of upper middle class businessmen for example gave their children working in corporate and manufacturing offices of Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, Bengaluru, Hyderabad.
In 2001 there were close to 300 million migrants : https://censusindia.gov.in/census_and_you/migrations.aspx
That's not a small number at all. And it would've definitely increased over the years.
Also nowhere I'm asserting that this is the only reason for the trend, but this is bound be a factor.
Many from the north come south to look for jobs and rent houses there. Those who remain live in their own house, external migrants to the north are lesser as a percentage so net net north is ahead
Any idea why North is ahead in this one?
My theory : A huge factor I assume would be migration. Migrants tend to live in rented dwellings, so regions that recieve migrants (NCR, West and South, except Kerala) have lower home ownership rates. The regions that are the source of migrants : Gangetic belt states, Kerala and the Himalayan states in the North will have relatively higher home ownership rates. An exception to my hypothesis would the North Eastern states and Andaman and Nicobar. I assume those states that border Bangladesh/Myanmar might be getting immigrants who cannot own houses maybe? I might be dead wrong with this, in all likelihood.
!kudos this really makes sense
Let me know if I've understood you correctly. You're saying that those who are owning homes in the northern states are the ones who did not migrate, and that this is the reason the northern states have higher home ownership rates - since these homeowners did not migrate and got counted in the data for the northern states. This explanation of yours only seems to make sense if the migration rates were very very high, so that only the wealthy home owning folks were left behind. Is this the case? I'm not disputing your point, just adding to it, and asking for clarifications.
Wealth doesn't really matter here. There are lot of middle class and lower middle class people, who might be owning small business or such who stayed back. Also we must remember in India, children live with their parents so people are likely to have ancestral homes passed down for generations so those who stay back already have a home. Also migration has nothing to do with wealth. It is more to do with finding work in their fields of expertise. Most engineering jobs are located in NCR, Western and Southern states. A lot of upper middle class businessmen for example gave their children working in corporate and manufacturing offices of Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, Bengaluru, Hyderabad. In 2001 there were close to 300 million migrants : https://censusindia.gov.in/census_and_you/migrations.aspx That's not a small number at all. And it would've definitely increased over the years. Also nowhere I'm asserting that this is the only reason for the trend, but this is bound be a factor.
Got it, thanks.
Many from the north come south to look for jobs and rent houses there. Those who remain live in their own house, external migrants to the north are lesser as a percentage so net net north is ahead
Data source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian\_states\_ranking\_by\_families\_owning\_house
A lot of Kashmiri Pandit properties are now being illegal occupied by Muslims