A conceptual analysis of social housing as infrastructure

Abstract

Related reports and documents Social housing as infrastructure https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/research-in-progress/ahuri-inquiries/evidence-based-policyinquiry-53140 This material was produced with funding from the Australian Government and state and territory governments. AHURI Limited gratefully acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from these governments, without which this work would not have been possible. AHURI Limited also gratefully acknowledges the contributions, both financial and in-kind, of its university research partners who have helped make the completion of this material possible. Disclaimer The opinions in this report reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of AHURI Limited, its Board, its funding organisations or Inquiry panel members. No responsibility is accepted by AHURI Limited, its Board or funders for the accuracy or omission of any statement, opinion, advice or information in this publication. AHURI journal AHURI Final Report journal series is a refereed series presenting the results of original research to a diverse readership of policy makers, researchers and practitioners. Peer review statement An objective assessment of reports published in the AHURI journal series by carefully selected experts in the field ensures that material published is of the highest quality. The AHURI journal series employs a double-blind peer review of the full report, where anonymity is strictly observed between authors and referees.

Inquiry into integrated housing support for vulnerable families

“…Strategies that seek to 'socialise' (Parkinson and Parsell 2018) the costs of the private rental market to make it affordable can provide some pathways to affordability and stability, but their cost to government is likely to increase, and their effectiveness is likely to decline over time. There is research emerging that demonstrates that investment in new social and affordable housing supply, planned in response to patterns of population growth, is a more sustainable and efficient option to meet widespread housing need than demand-side subsidies, and produces a range of other social and economic gains (Flanagan, Martin et al 2019b). While the rental market is an important part of the DFV policy response, a policy reliance on this form of housing tenure will be less effective than investment in social and affordable housing.…”

“…However, their cost to government is likely to increase, and their effectiveness is likely to decline, over time. Research demonstrates that investment in new social and affordable housing supply, planned in response to patterns of population growth, is a more sustainable and efficient option to widespread housing need than demand-side subsidies, and produces a range of other social and economic gains (Flanagan, Martin et al 2019b;Lawson, Pawson et al 2018).…”

The construction of social housing pathways across Australia

“…Social housing is relatively secure and affordable rental housing provided to eligible applicants by state and territory housing authorities (public housing), non-profit community organisations (community housing) and Indigenous organisations (Indigenous housing). First established in the early twentieth century in a small-scale, often experimental way, public housing became an established part of the policy landscape-and the landscape of Australian cities and towns-in the post-war period, when it was built at a large scale to house working class families (Flanagan, Martin et al 2019). For some of these households public housing was a secure, affordable alternative to owner-occupation; for many, it was a stepping stone to owneroccupation, effected by large programs of sales to tenants.…”

Social housing as infrastructure: rationale, prioritisation and investment pathway

“…The 19 stakeholders interviewed for this research espoused understandings of infrastructure consistent with the approach taken in the literature, but they put greater emphasis on economic or productivity gains as outcomes of infrastructure. These stakeholders were primarily senior officers in government departments (Treasury, infrastructure and social housing agencies) and statutory infrastructure authorities, while three were working as consultants or in the industry (for further detail, see Flanagan, Martin et al 2019). Their views provided evidence of current understandings within government of social housing and infrastructure policy and their potential areas of overlap.…”

“…Australian governments once supported a much larger social housing construction program, producing between 8,000 and 14,000 units per year from the 1950s to the 1990s (Troy 2012)this has declined to fewer than 3,000 units today (Flanagan, Martin et al, 2019). We now rely on the private rental sector, via CRA, to house the poorest households, but this has proven increasingly ineffective in reducing housing stress, especially amongst young people, singles and older single women, reliant on Commonwealth pensions.…”