What Future for Evidence Based Housing Policy Under Neoliberalism? Insights from Australian Experience Andrew Beer Centre for Housing Urban and Regional Planning The University of Adelaide Agenda • • • • Australia as a neoliberal nation Housing under neoliberalism Australian housing policy under neoliberalism The future of evidence based policy Australia as a Neoliberal Nation • Australia – A ‘liberal’ welfare regime (Epsing Anderson 1990) • And a Federation, not a unitary state – Deregulation of the economy and working conditions from the mid 1980s under the Hawke/Keating Governments – Election of the deeply conservative Howard Coalition Governments from 1996-2007 – Limited political or Treasury ‘buy in’ to housing programs and assistance despite the programs of the Rudd Labor Governments from 2007-10 • Australia therefore as a model for the UK, post the Cameron election Australia as a Neoliberal Nation: Public Sector Outlays as a Percentage of GDP 45 40 Per Cent of GDP 35 30 25 20 Australia 15 OECD Total 10 OECD America 5 OECD Europe 0 1997 1995 1993 1991 1989 1987 1985 1983 1981 1979 1977 1975 1973 1971 1969 1967 1965 Year Australia as a Neoliberal Nation • Key dimensions of Australian neoliberalism – A preference for market based solutions to questions of economy and society • Eg outsourcing of employment services • A ‘workfare’ state that does not accept persons out of paid employment • Larner (2005) notes that neoliberalism does not reduce public sector outlays, simply reshapes those outlays – Importantly, a reliance on the housing market to accommodate the population, and limited direct intervention • Unless forced by politics • Public housing as anathema, as seen to discourage labour force participation Australian Housing Policy Under Neoliberalism • Where Have all the Houses Gone? Mal Brough, Minister for Family and Community Services, 2007 Where Have all the Houses Gone? Mal Brough, Minister for Family and Community Services, 2007 Figure 1. Total Stock of Public Housing in Australia, 1999-2000 to 2004-05. 410000 Total Stock of Public Housing 405000 400000 395000 390000 385000 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Year Source: Department of Family and Community Services, Housing Assistance Act 1996, Annual Report, Various Years. Australian Housing Policy Under Neoliberalism • Significant policy failures: – Reduction in social housing supply and escalating waiting lists – Rampant affordability problems in the major Australian capital cities – Significant under-supply of housing relative to need/demand (NHSC 2009 & 2011) – Indigenous housing • Overcrowiding • Home ownership rate half that of non Indigenous Australians Policy Failure: Percentage of Households in the Bottom 40 Per Cent of the Income Distribution Paying 30 Per cent or More for their Housing 30 25 Per Cent of Low Income Purchasing Households Per Cent of Low Income Tenant Households Per Cent 20 15 10 5 0 1996 2001 Census Year 2006 Policy Failure: Percentage of Households in the Top 60 Per Cent of the Income Distribution Paying 30 Per cent or More for their Housing 25 Percentage of Households 20 Number of Upper Income Purchasing Households Number of Upper Income Tenant Households 15 10 5 0 1996 2001 Census Year 2006 Australian Housing Policy Under Neoliberalism • Neoliberalism only allows one solution – But what happens when that solution fails? – Productivity Commission (2004) noted structural causes underpinning affordability problems • But rejected by Treasury • Anne Tiernan and Terry Burke – Kingdon’s Garbage-Can theory of policy • But who is to take out the garbage? • Who is to replace the garbage? Australian Housing Policy Under Neoliberalism • Case study - the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) – Government subsidies to private landlords to provide new rental properties at 80% of market rent • Subsidies for 10 years • Loosely based on an Australian interpretation of European models • Much researched topic – Gavin Wood, Nicole Gurran etc Australian Housing Policy Under Neoliberalism • NRAS – Product of a coalition of industry groups, academics and social welfare activists who united under the title “Australians for Affordable Housing” • Fronted by Julian Disney – Kevin Rudd in 2007 committed to providing 50,000 NRAS dwellings by 2010 • Added another 50,000 as part of the Nation Building Economic Stimulus package of 2008-09 – With Treasury as the leading proponent Australian Housing Policy Under Neoliberalism • High level of take up of NRAS properties – Pressure to extend the scheme and concerns over the 10 year time horizon – But current pressure comes from outside government, not from internal voices • Current priority of the Federal Government is to return the budget to surplus (May) in 2012-13 • But other opportunities for initiatives will arise in later fiscal years, especially 2013-14 as the government moves to elections The future of evidence based policy • Context – Neoliberalism contains an embedded paradox: the more it emphasises market based solutions, the more likely public expenditure decisions will be based on political imperatives – Neoliberal governments enter government with ideological positions that fail • There is no Plan B The future of evidence based policy • Where does the future lie for evidence based policy and research in housing: – In being part of the process that takes garbage in and out • HomeStart – In working with a coalition of like-minded actors • Industry, civil society institutions, academia • In anticipating the deficits in current policy settings and in anticipating the need to both monitor and develop alternatives The future of evidence based policy • From a researcher’s perspective – It is an environment that is more chaotic but with greater opportunities • Number of housing researchers in Australia has grown – Greater diversity of research partners as ‘big society’ policies generate larger welfare institutions Conclusions • Neoliberalism changes housing policy – It is not a change for good • It generates new opportunities for researchers, but fewer for policy makers in government service • It is possible to get good outcomes for those in housing need, but the pathways are now more arduous, complex and requires multiple partners