Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom: Innovation and Diversity in Australian Not-for-Profit Housing Organisations

Gilmour, Tony; Milligan, Vivienne

doi:10.1080/02673037.2012.677019

Cited by 34 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Endnotes 1 See Darcy (2009); Gurran & Phibbs (2014); Nicholls (2014); and Rogers & Darcy (2014), for four recent exceptions. 2 See for example, Milligan & Pinnegar (2010); Gilmour & Milligan (2012); and Tomlinson (2012) for approaches that broadly support this attribution. 3 For a similar wide-ranging discussion on comparative approaches to welfare regimes, see Castles (1998).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reverse form of welfarism: some reflections on Australian housing policy

Jacobs¹

2015

Aust J Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I argue that we have been amiss in diagnosing the role played by government, which has exacerbated the housing problems afflicting low‐income households in Australia. However, I argue further we have placed too much faith in the capacity of managerial interventions to ameliorate what are far more deep‐rooted and systemic challenges. It is suggested that researchers need to adopt a more critical account of the conduct of contemporary government policy making, one that casts aside a view of the State as a benevolent agency whose primary objective is to ameliorate the conditions of the disadvantaged. Instead, the State should be understood as an agency that sustains the conditions necessary for the finance industry, developers and real estate agents, along with well‐off householders and landlords, to reap profits. The political economy of Australian housing, in its current incarnation, performs a form of reverse welfarism that exacerbates social inequality.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reverse form of welfarism: some reflections on Australian housing policy

Jacobs¹

2015

Aust J Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would contribute to the extant work that examines if and how the clear distinctions among affordable rental housing providers may be blurring, and more specifically, if third sector organizations may be changing. For example, third sector organizations have been identified as becoming more for-profit like in their pursuit of commercial activities and financing through commercial lenders (Gilmour and Milligan 2012;Mullins and Pawson 2010;Mullins and Walker 2009), constrained and challenged as they attempt to pursue multiple bottom lines (Bratt 2012), more public-like as they adhere to government regulation (Mullins and Pawson 2010;Sousa and Quarter 2003), and less focused on grassroots initiatives and concerns as they consolidate with newer and larger non-profit organizations which are more corporate in nature (Sacranie 2012). With respect to future studies, we also recommend expanding the focus of research to include public providers and additional outcomes such as ones pertaining to efficiency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Organizational Form in the Affordable Rental Housing Sector

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nature and benefits of different kinds of affordable rental housing providers, and particularly for-profit housing developers, have been contested by practitioners and scholars. We contribute to this debate by exploring whether the missions, the resources harnessed to build housing, the human resources, and the involvement of residents in decision-making differ based on organizational form. Using case study design, we examine two third sector organizations (a zero equity cooperative and a community-based non-profit) and a for-profit located in Canada. The two third sector organizations had less knowledge of housing construction and harnessed in-kind contributions compared to the for-profit. These organizations, and again in contrast with the for-profit, also pursued social missions, including supporting other organizations and sharing their experiences related to housing construction. The zero equity cooperative featured greater resident involvement in the development and the management of the housing compared to both the communitybased non-profit and the for-profit.Résumé La nature et les avantages des différents types de fournisseurs de logements locatifs abordables, et en particulier des promoteurs d'organisations à but lucratif, ont été contestés par les professionnels et les chercheurs. Nous contribuons à ce débat en étudiant si les missions, les ressources exploitées pour construire des logements, les ressources humaines et l'implication des habitants dans la prise de & Catherine Leviten-Reid

show abstract

“…A number of studies have examined aspects of innovation in affordable housing delivery (Davison, Gurran et al 2012, Wiesel, Davison et al 2012, Milligan, Hulse et al 2015. Innovation has been explored in relation to the role of the NFP sector in delivering affordable housing supply (Milligan, Phibbs et al 2004, Milligan, Gurran et al 2009, Gilmour and Milligan 2012, and in the different mechanisms for securing affordable homes in particular markets, for instance through infill developments Phibbs 2012, Rowley, Costello et al 2014) and planning system levers (Gurran, Milligan et al 2008, van den Nouwelant, Davison et al 2014. Leadership and organisational dynamics have been found to be important elements of successful delivery strategies in the NFP sector (Milligan, Hulse et al 2013, Milligan, Hulse et al 2015.…”

Section: Governance Innovation and Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%