Go Salary
MEDIA, JOBS & RESOURCES for the COMMON GOOD
Analysis  |  Social Affairs

Is Social Housing Essential Infrastructure?


Thursday, 7th February 2019 at 8:17 am
Contributor
How we think about it does matter, write Kathleen Flanagan, Chris Martin, Julie Lawson and Keith Jacobs, in this article which was first published in The Conversation.


Thursday, 7th February 2019
at 8:17 am
Contributor


0 Comments


FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

 Print
Is Social Housing Essential Infrastructure?
Thursday, 7th February 2019 at 8:17 am

How we think about it does matter, write Kathleen Flanagan, Chris Martin, Julie Lawson and Keith Jacobs, in this article which was first published in The Conversation.

We know that safe, adequate, affordable and appropriate housing is essential for our health, well-being and social and economic security. However, even as house prices subside from recent record highs, many Australians struggle to obtain the housing they need to be as healthy, well and secure as they could be. An unacceptable number of Australians have no home at all.

How Australian governments meet such housing challenges has changed over time. Decades ago, direct investment in publicly owned housing was the core of their response. In the 1950s, state housing authorities built more than 100,000 dwellings – one in eight of all new homes at the time.

Over time, however, social housing has been recast as a welfare service. Political support has dwindled. Social housing is starved of funds, stigmatised and residualised.

Could changing how we think about social housing serve as a starting point for a renaissance?

Policy advocates like the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) argue that social housing is actually a form of essential infrastructure. This is because it supports economic productivity and a range of other non-shelter outcomes.

Our research has examined whether changing how we think about social housing to see it as infrastructure might provide a pathway to increased investment.

What’s the evidence for this approach?

Conceptually, we found a link between social housing and infrastructure: both operate as forms of spatially fixed, durable capital that enable economies and societies to work better.

Governments need to be involved in providing infrastructure to realise its full benefits – because of the scale of investment needed and because effects are spread across the community. In the same way, realising all the benefits of social housing requires government involvement.

When we look at history, there is compelling evidence for this. For example, during Australia’s post-war public housing construction boom, governments recognised their investment as necessary to enhance economic productivity, improve public health, and support families to thrive.

Across Europe, especially in Finland, Austria and Scotland, we see social housing investment today undertaken in support of energy sustainability, economic stability, and social cohesion.

However, if social housing is to be considered as infrastructure, then proponents need to be more conversant with the practices and policies that sustain infrastructure investment. This includes developing credible, costed arguments to demonstrate the benefits of social housing relative to its cost. This isn’t easy – much that is relevant to the purpose of social housing and the people who live in it cannot be quantified or monetised.

Public infrastructure and private finance

An even more fundamental challenge arises from prevailing ideas about how infrastructure should be financed and funded.

In infrastructure-speak, “financing” is the provision of money to build and maintain an infrastructure asset, and “funding” is the means of paying the costs of finance. Even as governments pay more attention to infrastructure policy, the prevailing view is that it should be privately financed by institutional investors like banks or super funds. The role of governments, according to this view, should be limited to funding investments where user charges won’t deliver enough return to the investor.

This prevailing view comes from a deep-seated belief within Australian governments and the wider community that governments are always fiscally constrained and that the mark of a “good” government is a budget surplus.

These are not just surface beliefs – the norms and practices associated with them are embedded in the way bureaucracies and governments prepare and manage their budgets.

When there is not enough government money to go around, even with a rigorous, costed business case establishing beyond doubt the value of investment in social housing, it might not be recognised as high enough priority for any meaningful level of funding to result.

To change this belief, we need to do more than make a case for social housing as infrastructure. We need to make the case for social housing.

A vision for social housing

To make the case, we must confront the politics of housing. The prevailing narratives have benefited powerful interest groups and produced mounting debt and inequality.

But we can draw on the historical precedents of policies that created public wealth through public investment in rental housing and expanded opportunities for ownership. We need to make the case for government to take a stronger, more direct role in infrastructure investment by embracing its role as a patient investor and a deliberate co-creator and shaper of markets for specified public purposes.

Direct public investment is also the cheapest, most effective way to generate affordable housing supply that meets community needs and delivers vital economic and social benefits.

Engaging with this vision, and what it implies about the role of government in Australia today, offers us the chance to think differently enough about social housing to make not properly investing in it unthinkable.

AHURI is presenting the inaugural Discussion Series event, Is Social Housing Infrastructure?, at the State Library Victoria, Melbourne, on Monday, 11 February 2019. A second event examining the same research topic will be held in Brisbane in March. More details are available here.

About the authors: Kathleen Flanagan is a research fellow and deputy director at HACRU, University of Tasmania.

Chris Martin is a research fellow, City Housing, UNSW.

Julie Lawson is an honorary associate professor at the Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University.

Keith Jacobs is professor of sociology at the University of Tasmania.

 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation
the conversation logo




Got a story to share?

Got a news tip or article idea for Pro Bono News? Or perhaps you would like to write an article and join a growing community of sector leaders sharing their thoughts and analysis with Pro Bono News readers?

Get in touch at news@probonoaustralia.com.au

Get more stories like this

FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Mental health system failing vulnerable Aussies

Luke Michael

Friday, 1st November 2019 at 12:29 pm

Rising rents creating a ‘time bomb’ of homelessness for older Australians

Luke Michael

Wednesday, 30th October 2019 at 5:17 pm

Five charts on what a Newstart recipient really looks like

Contributor

Wednesday, 30th October 2019 at 3:56 pm

POPULAR

Our royal commission is not yet a safe place for people with disability

Emma Bennison

Wednesday, 6th November 2019 at 4:59 pm

Disability royal commission begins amid fears around support services

Luke Michael

Monday, 4th November 2019 at 12:58 pm

Report finds NFP boards lack leadership in fundraising

Luke Michael

Wednesday, 13th November 2019 at 2:30 pm

Why Australia needs more noisy charities!

David Crosbie

Thursday, 7th November 2019 at 8:58 am

Go Salary
pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook

Get the social sector's most essential news coverage. Delivered free to your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

You have Successfully Subscribed!