Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 26 October 2014, At: 13:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Housing, Theory and SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/shou20
Shaky Foundations: Moving Beyond“Housing Tenure”Kath Hulse aa Institute for Social Research , Swinburne University ofTechnology , Melbourne, AustraliaPublished online: 18 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Kath Hulse (2008) Shaky Foundations: Moving Beyond “Housing Tenure”,Housing, Theory and Society, 25:3, 202-219, DOI: 10.1080/14036090802117572
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14036090802117572
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Shaky Foundations: Moving Beyond‘‘Housing Tenure’’
KATH HULSE
Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT Housing tenure retains a ‘‘taken for granted’’ status in much writing on housing,despite some previous critical analysis. This article reviews theoretical perspectives on housingtenure, and re-examines the construction of housing tenure in Australia as it relates to changingland tenure arrangements and institutional settings which affect housing occupancy. It assertsthat the construction of housing tenure as a series of unchanging and mutually exclusivecategories, centred on ‘‘usual residence’’, creates a barrier to understanding changes in howhouseholds occupy and buy/sell housing, using the examples of increased investment in residentialproperty and a proliferation of market housing arrangements for older people. A suggested wayforward is to distinguish questions about housing occupancy, which affect the daily life andcircumstances of households, from questions relating to investment in residential property as anasset and potential generator of capital and income for households, particularly as they becomeolder.
KEY WORDS: Housing tenure, Land tenure, Housing occupancy, Residential property
Introduction
Almost all research and writing on housing in Australia, and internationally, uses
‘‘housing tenure’’ as a key element – arguably the key element – in conceptualizing
the field of study and in framing and undertaking research centred on housing. As a
concept, it is assumed to have explanatory value but is often used in an uncritical and
unquestioning way. The operationalization of housing tenure as a variable for
research purposes is viewed predominantly as a technical issue, usually following
definitions of the relevant national statistics agency. That housing tenure continues
to be such a ‘‘taken for granted’’ concept in much academic writing on housing and
applied housing research is despite some previous work which highlighted
considerable difficulties both with the concept itself and its use in housing research
(Barlow & Duncan 1988, Ruonavaara 1993, Somerville & Knowles 1991) and a
Correspondence Address: Kath Hulse, Institute for Social Research, Mail H53, Swinburne University of
Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn, Vic. 3122, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Housing, Theory and Society,
Vol. 25, No. 3, 202–219, 2008
1403-6096 Print/1651-2278 Online/08/030202–18 # 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14036090802117572
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
burgeoning of comparative housing research which demonstrates that housing
tenure is historically and culturally contingent (Doling 1997, Kemp 1997).
Kemeny (1992:60) in his seminal work on housing and social theory warned of
epistemic drift in the field of housing studies, away from theory and down to the
lowest common non-disciplinary denominator of social analysis. He further argued
that this leads to conceptual decomposition in which housing research emphasizesempirical outcomes but neglects the theoretical explanations for these outcomes,
such that concepts degenerate from a theoretically grounded and dynamic
explanation into a static and sterile descriptive category. This article contends that
housing tenure has become a static and sterile descriptive category which must be re-
examined in two ways: by reviewing theoretical perspectives on housing tenure and
taking into account historical and cultural factors, and by reconsidering the
applicability of both the concept and variable of housing tenure in the light of
considerable dynamism in housing markets driven by economic and social changesover the past 15 years.
The article proceeds as follows. It re-examines some previous, and more critical,
work on housing tenure to identify key theoretical perspectives that appear to have
value in reconsidering the concept. Secondly, it uses one of these perspectives in
examining housing tenure as a concept and a variable in the Australian context.
Thirdly, it explores whether recent developments in housing markets, reflecting
social and economic changes, require development of new concepts and a different
set of variables for housing research. Whilst the article focuses on Australia, theissues raised may have more general applicability.
Theoretical Perspectives on Housing Tenure
Barlow and Duncan (1988:220–221) asked why housing tenure, which had a
particular legal genealogy, had been appropriated into much broader, ‘‘quasi-
scientific’’ usage by housing researchers, encompassing a range of financial, social,
political and economic relations around housing. They argued that housing tenure isused as ‘‘a basic statistical and conceptual shorthand in housing research’’, sitting
uneasily between a ‘‘taxonomic collective’’ (a category whose members were
characterized as sharing similar formal attributes, e.g. tenure as defined by a census
organization) and a ‘‘substantive collective’’ (a group whose members relate to each
other in some causal or structural way). Other authors writing contemporaneously
also raised significant issues about housing tenure (e.g. Kemeny 1981, Gray 1982).
A key question of interest to scholars in the 1970s and 1980s was whether housing
tenure constitutes a set of material interests such that households have sharedinterests which they seek to progress, sometimes in opposition to the interests of
other tenure groups. This question was stimulated by Rex and Moore’s (1967) study
which postulated that housing classes centred on tenure were at the heart of racial
conflict in an inner suburb of a large UK city, an idea that provoked much debate.
Subsequently, Saunders (1980) argued for a Weberian concept of ‘‘domestic property
classes’’ in which owner occupiers not only have shared interests as housing
consumers but also in capital accumulation, such that they have class interests, for
example, in protecting property values. These interests may be independent of thosegenerated through position in the labour market (‘‘acquisition classes’’). Saunders
Moving Beyond ‘‘Housing Tenure’’ 203
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
(1990) later found this distinction between tenure position and labour market
position difficult to maintain and emphasized instead the greater ontological security
which he asserted was a feature of owner occupation compared to renters.
Others criticized what was referred to as the ‘‘fetishism of tenure’’ (Gray 1982) or
the ‘‘reification of tenure’’ (Barlow & Duncan 1988), arguing that housing tenure
reflected and reinforced social class or social status, which derived from labourmarket position. Thus, political participation and voting behaviours reflected
differences in income/wealth derived from employment which led to differences in
tenure position. Similarly, ontological security might be more affected by the nature
of attachment to the labour market with tenure reflecting, and possible compound-
ing, such attachment. For example, those with higher incomes and greater security of
employment might be secure enough financially to become owner occupiers which in
turn might reinforce their sense of security more broadly.
A third position was posited by Somerville and Knowles (1991) who contendedthat tenures cannot be simply reduced to position in the labour market but also that
they are analytically distinct from consumption relations. They argued that the social
relations of tenure do contribute to class formation (in the UK), suggesting that both
classes and tenures are sets of social relations which are not given but which are
continually being reformed and remade through dynamic interactions. However,
underlying these interactions was a view that ‘‘tenures are best understood as
relatively stable and enduring ways of distributing housing products to housing
consumers’’ (Somerville & Knowles 1991:118, 123). The authors discuss the ‘‘dualtenure’’ structure of UK housing (owner occupation and council housing) which,
with the benefit of hindsight, has changed significantly through a combination of
housing market changes and government policy settings since the early 1990s.
The increase in comparative housing research since these debates (e.g. Doling
1997, 1999, Kemp 1997) has highlighted that conceptions of housing tenure are
historically and culturally contingent. A realist perspective on housing tenure,
without taking into account perception and cognition, appears unsatisfactory, and
other perspectives appear to offer more critical frameworks for examining housingtenure. The practical difficulties of undertaking comparative research stimulated
Ruonavaara (1993:4), drawing on the work of Kemp (1987), to suggest that critical
realism might provide a way forward in dealing with the ‘‘the messy real world of
housing tenure’’; that is an approach which distinguishes between necessary and
contingent relations. In terms of tenure, a necessary relation might be that in
‘‘renting’’ there is always a landlord and a tenant, whereas a contingent relation
might be the way in which this relationship varies over time and between places.
Ruonavaara suggests that a way forward for researchers is to distinguish betweentypes of housing tenure which refer to necessary properties of tenure and forms of
housing tenure which are historically and geographically contingent.
Developing this approach into a typology for use in comparative research,
Ruonavaara (1993:12–16) suggests that there are basically only two types of housing
tenure in modern societies – owner occupation and renting – which are distinguished
by qualitatively different modes of possession of housing as indicated by the rights of
disposal, of use (particularly security) and of control (e.g. in altering the dwelling).
However, within each of these ideal types there may be sub-types of different tenureforms which can be distinguished by institutional arrangements that vary both over
204 K. Hulse
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
time and between societies. For example, owner occupation may include sub-types
such as individual owner occupation, shared equity occupation and collective owner
occupation and, within renting, ‘‘permanent contract renting’’ typically associated
with the social housing sector and ‘‘temporary contract renting’’ associated with the
private rental sector.
Doling (1999:158) draws on Ruonavaara’s work in arguing that tenure has both a‘‘central core that is invariable’’ and a variable part that is defined by institutions,
subsidy systems and levels, and legislation that differ from place to place and over
time. Thus within the two tenures (owning and renting), he examines differences in
rules of access and rules of exit across countries as a means of indicating the degree
of commodification of housing. He concludes that ‘‘tenure is something of an
analytical red herring’’ and that it is more important to examine the form of tenure
rather than tenure type, such as the structure and level of subsidies and specific
institutional arrangements (Doling 1999:163).In recent years, there has been a distinct ‘‘social constructionist’’ turn in housing
studies in reaction to the realism and positivism of much housing research. Social
constructionism posits that our access to the material world is mediated through
language and discourse. Thus, attention is focused on concepts that we use, the ways
in which these have been constructed and the types of explanations that they
generate. From this perspective, tenure, which is often considered critical to most
analyses of housing systems, differs significantly in its social construction between
different countries (Haworth, Manzi & Kemeny 2004:170).Within this perspective, Blandy and Goodchild (1999) provide a useful
contribution to debates about tenure, which they see as a language rather than a
subject, with three main discourses centring on property law, housing status and
housing policy. The first of these derives from (English) property law which refers to
tenure simply as the manner in which a person holds land and the terms and
conditions on which they hold it (Blandy & Goodchild 1999:33). However, the
emergence of ‘‘housing law’’ (i.e. the interaction among property, statutory
regulation and administrative law) led to a new term ‘‘housing status’’ to describean occupier’s legal status which is at the centre of a second discourse. The third
discourse is that of housing policy which focuses on the dichotomy between
owning and renting, and which is prevalent in the housing research literature.
Blandy and Goodchild assert that the housing policy discourse on tenure obs-
cures legal relationships that can be understood in terms of the property law and
housing status discourses. A suggested way forward from this work is to examine
the bundle of rights associated with property rather than tenure, with further
distinction between rights of access and rights of occupation, and between tenureconversion (or exit) rights and other types of consumer rights (Blandy & Goodchild
1999:41).
In summary, whilst much housing research continues to use housing tenure
uncritically as a key explanatory concept, some more critical analysis has questioned
the way in which it is both conceptualized and applied in housing research, although
not recently. At the same time, comparative housing research has confirmed that
what is meant by tenure varies considerably between countries as well as over time.
Together these make a realist perspective on tenure difficult to sustain in terms ofontology, and epistemologically a positivist approach to identifying tenure appears
Moving Beyond ‘‘Housing Tenure’’ 205
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
inadequate. This brief review of the relevant literature indicates that a critical realist
perspective may be helpful, at least in enabling comparative housing research, since
this focuses on the different forms of tenure (institutional arrangements, subsidies,
etc.), although it still posits an essentialist dichotomy between owning and renting
which can be questioned. A social constructionist perspective also enables us to move
beyond fixed views on what constitutes housing tenure and to ask different types ofquestions about households and property, such as identification of bundles of rights
as in Blandy and Goodchild’s work. Whilst appreciation of different ways in which
housing tenure is socially constructed is valuable, it is important that housing
research does not only provide an account of the social construction of tenure but is
also able to provide explanations about the nature of the relationships between
households and dwellings and how these relationships vary as a result of economic
and social changes.
Land Tenure, Housing Occupancy and Housing Tenure in Australia
The more critical analyses of housing tenure discussed above have been part of a
predominantly European debate. Research into housing tenure in Australia has been
located primarily within a housing policy context, with a limited amount of more
critical work (e.g. Berry 1984, 2000). This section examines the development of land
tenure and housing occupancy arrangements in Australia, taking into account
historical and cultural factors, as a precursor to considering the concept of housingtenure developed in a housing policy context. It draws on, and extends, the ‘‘three
discourses’’ identified by Blandy and Goodchild (1999).
Land Tenure
Barlow and Duncan (1988:219–220) traced the development of the legal concept of
tenure in Europe from the conditions of occupation and usage of land in feudal
society to a concept which referred to property ownership more generally. The finalstage of this genealogy, by their account, was the application of tenure to housing
occupancy more specifically. They note that this idea of tenure was then transferred
to settler societies like Australia which had adopted the UK legal system, but do not
pursue this idea further.
Legal arrangements about rights of use, occupancy and alienation of land in
settler societies such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US have, however,
a different and more complex history than in Europe due to the existence of
Indigenous communities which predated European settlement. Indigenous peoplehad occupied land prior to European settlement for almost 40,000 years in the case
of Australia, using its resources for shelter, food and other necessities, as well as
having a cultural and spiritual connection (Neutze 2000). After European settlement
in 1788, however, all land was claimed for the (UK) Crown and was initially
‘‘alienated’’ by way of grants and orders made by successive governors, as
representatives of the Crown, to both ‘‘free settlers’’ and freed prisoners and,
subsequently, under sales of freehold land and different types of lease arrangements
(ABS 2006 (1910)). No account was taken of prior rights of Indigenous communitiesin respect of the land.
206 K. Hulse
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Australian land tenure arrangements have developed over time, often as a result of
conflict over various rights. They recognize that bundles of rights are distinguishable
and, importantly, can coexist over the same piece of land, as the following examples
indicate. Firstly, pastoral leases are granted on land owned by the Crown but leased
to individuals and companies over very long periods for pastoral (agricultural)
purposes. These are unique to Australia and cover extensive areas of land in non-urban Australia. Secondly, mineral leases and licences may be granted over land,
including that covered by pastoral leases, which give the lessee rights to explore,
develop and extract minerals of various types which are owned by the Crown rather
than land owners or lessees. Thirdly, Indigenous communities can apply through the
courts for recognition of native title,1 which is a set of rights recognized under the
common law over land or waters, from ‘‘laws and customs acknowledged and
observed by the claimant’s ancestors at the time when sovereignty was asserted over
the area by the British’’ (National Native Title Tribunal 2006). Native title mayencompass a number of rights including possession, right to control access to and use
of an area, visiting and protecting important places, and hunting and gathering food.
The main types of land tenure in existence in Australia are set out in Table 1.
The importance of this history is that land tenure arrangements in Australia since
European settlement have evolved through statutory and common law over time in
response to assertion of various interests: pastoralists, miners, Indigenous commu-
nities and others. Further, rights over land are not categorical and mutually exclusive
but can coexist in terms of access, occupancy, use and control, although owners offreehold land in urban areas have the most exclusive rights including the ability to
buy and sell land. Land tenure arrangements in Australia have been overlaid with a
different concept of housing occupancy which is examined in the next section.
Housing Occupancy
Blandy and Goodchild (1999) refer to a distinct ‘‘housing law discourse’’ which
encompasses legislation that confers particular rights and responsibilities associatedwith occupancy of housing, which they term ‘‘housing status’’. Relevant laws include
specific housing laws, contract law, laws relating to housing finance, legislation
about residential tenancies, criminal law about trespass, and the common law. In the
context of English law, five main types of housing status are identified: owner
occupation (with and without a mortgage over the property), leasehold, licensee
arrangements, trespassers and homeless people.
In Australia, there is not a specific body of ‘‘housing law’’ or ‘‘homelessness law’’
as in England and, in this sense, it is preferable to refer to the nature and conditionsof ‘‘housing occupancy’’ rather than the more specific term ‘‘housing status’’. Both
statutory and common law have been used to determine the rights of households to
occupy property (land and dwellings) and the terms and conditions which affect their
control and use of the dwelling. In the Australian federal system, both federal and
state governments have legislation which affects housing occupancy. For example,
the federal government regulates financial institutions lending money for purchase of
residential property. Legislation affecting occupation on a freehold, leasehold or
licence basis is, however, predominantly a matter for state governments which haveconstitutional responsibility for land management.
Moving Beyond ‘‘Housing Tenure’’ 207
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Traditionally, the law has been regarded as having more impact on the conditions
of occupancy of households occupying with leases and licences than for owner
occupiers; in the latter case, the law is important in enabling a contract of sale and
providing some initial protection for the purchaser. However, owner occupation
with a freehold title for a single lot of land and no mortgage may not mean
unrestricted control and use of the premises. For example, covenants may have been
placed on titles at the time of subdivision which impose conditions, such as erection
of single detached dwellings only, specification of building material (e.g. brick ratherthan timber construction) or a ban on the erection of front fences. These covenants
Table 1. Land tenure arrangements in Australia, 2007
Types of land tenure Description Examples/notes
Freehold (fee simple) All interest in the land(other than minerals) haspassed from the Crown tothe land owner, althoughthere are limitationsincluding covenants ontitles
Land owned by various individualsand parties, including some landowned by Indigenous communities.Private ownership does not includerights to minerals on or under theland. There are different types offreehold titles including strata titlesfor ownership of part of a multi-unitbuilding.
Leasehold Lease of land which isowned by the Crown
Pastoral leases (right to use land andgraze animals but no transfer ofownership); lease of buildings onCrown land, and some land leased toIndigenous communities.
Native title Right to occupy and useCrown land (not freehold)by Indigenous people oncecertain conditions havebeen established
Traditional occupation of andconnection to the land which wasnot extinguished by Europeansettlement recognized by thecommon law and subsequentlegislation. Can coexist with pastoralleases but not with freehold.
Mineral licences (andleases)
Licences which can beobtained over land,including privately ownedland, for exploration,mining and developmentof minerals
A form of lease or licence specificallyto enable exploration and extractionof minerals by people andcompanies. Can coexist with allother forms of land tenure.
Notes:1. Pastoral leases appear to be unique to Australia and were introduced in the mid-19th century to stoplarge-scale and unauthorized occupation and use of land by ‘‘squatters’’ such as occurred in the 1840s and1850s. [The well known Australian song ‘‘Waltzing Matilda’’ concerns a squatter’s treatment of anitinerant worker who stole one of his sheep for food. The song’s lyrics written in 1895 reflect the animosityin popular culture towards squatters who had originally obtained vast tracts of agricultural land throughde facto possession rather than any legal land tenure arrangement, becoming very wealthy from their useof the land for pastoral purposes and subsequently having their possession ratified in the form of pastoralleases.]2. Native title rights vary considerably and are determined by the courts, not granted by governments.They can range from a limited right of access to visit important places, to a right to possess, occupy, useand enjoy the land in a way similar to freehold ownership.
208 K. Hulse
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
are a key feature of ownership in ‘‘lifestyle’’ estates to maintain the aesthetics of the
estate and/or to improve property values.
An increasing number of households own with strata titles,2 which are only
possible where freehold exists and which are intended to provide occupants of units
within multi-unit buildings/developments with security of occupation and the ability
to buy and sell their property. Owners have individual possession of, and controlover, the area within the interior walls of the unit and common ownership of the
exterior structure of the building as well as stairwells, roof tops, driveways and
gardens. Management of common property is by a body corporate/strata company
in which unit owners are members. The practical implications of this type of
ownership are some ongoing fees and levies to maintain common property, together
with rules about its use.
Leases and licences in the rental sector entail an ongoing relationship between
landlords and tenants which affect conditions of occupancy including rent setting,housing quality (repairs, redecoration, etc.), use of premises (working at home, pets,
etc.) and security of occupation. The effects of legislation on the daily lives of renters
are particularly significant as it has been established since the work of Wulff and
Maher (1998) that many Australian households do not rent on a short-term or
transitional basis but are continuing longer-term renters or are returning to renting
for a variety of reasons, including divorce and separation.
Legislation on residential tenancies is a state responsibility and was originally
based on laws imported from England which encompassed short leases and gavefew rights to tenants, rather than the Scottish system which retained provision
for longer leases until much later (Burke 1998:10). They remained relatively
unchanged over almost two hundred years until they were the subject of highly
critical reports in the 1970s (Bradbrook 1975, Sackville 1975) as part of an
investigation into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia. As a result of these
reports, the states reviewed and updated their residential tenancies legislation to
improve rights for tenants in respect of security deposits (bonds), housing quality
and repairs, privacy and enjoyment of premises, and frequency and level of rentincreases.
Such legislation, however, still provides for short-term leases (six to 12 months)
and enables landlords to give tenants notice to quit without any reason relating to
their tenancy after a prescribed period of notice (typically 90 days) and differs
substantially from the conditions of occupancy in the rental sector in many
European countries, particularly those which Kemeny (2006) refers to as ‘‘integrated
rental markets’’ where leases generally allow for longer-term security of occupancy
and more control over use of the premises. Whilst tenant rights have graduallyimproved, there is little security of occupancy for tenants in Australia, except where
they pay rent to public landlords, although this greater security has its basis in policy
rather than legislation. In addition, residential tenancies legislation generally applies
to ‘‘self-contained premises’’ and not to arrangements where people pay to occupy a
single serviced room such as in a private home, boarding house, hotel, crisis
accommodation centre, hospital or aged care facility, although in some cases there is
specific state government legislation to remedy this. Most residential tenancies
legislation also excludes holiday or second homes and employee housing, which arelocated in coastal and remote areas respectively.
Moving Beyond ‘‘Housing Tenure’’ 209
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Since a major national housing strategy exercise in the early 1990s there has been
little attention to the institutional settings, including legislation, which structure
rental arrangements in Australia. The primary forum for discussion of such matters
is the biannual Australasian Residential Tenancies Conference, usually hosted by a
state government tribunal which hears disputes between landlords and tenants.
Where rental housing other than that owned by governments is considered in a
housing policy context, the framework for analysis has generally been an economic
one, with research into the interaction of supply and demand and its effect on price
(affordability) (Yates & Wulff 2000, 2005). There has been little recent research
investigating the ongoing conditions of occupancy of households renting in the
private market, which would direct attention to the institutional settings, including
legislation, in which private rental markets are embedded. In contrast, much research
into housing rented from social landlords has concentrated on the institutional
settings that shape ongoing occupancy (rent subsidies, security of tenure, ‘‘over-
occupancy’’, ‘‘anti-social behaviour’’, etc.) and paid little attention to supply and
demand factors or to price.
Housing Tenure
Housing tenure has been the pivot around which housing policy in Australia has
revolved for decades. The concept posits a primary dichotomy between ‘‘owning’’
and ‘‘renting’’ overlaid by two other distinctions: between owning with and without
a mortgage secured against the property; and between renting form a public
authority landlord and renting from other landlords (renting ‘‘privately’’). Thus in
the housing policy discourse there are currently two types of housing tenure (owning
and renting) and four main tenure forms: owner (owner without a mortgage),
purchaser (owner with mortgage secured against the property), private renter and
public renter. As shown in Table 2, these categories reflect a combination of the legal
and financial arrangements under which households occupy dwellings.
The difference between renting and owning in this classification is not about any
essential difference in rights of occupancy (use and control), since as we have seen
Table 2. Criteria for delineating housing tenure type in Australia, 2007
Housing tenure Legal status Financial status
Owner Legal rights to access, occupy,use and control; and buy/sellland and dwelling
No debt secured against the propertygiving rights to third parties
Purchaser Legal rights to access, occupy,use and control, and buy/sellland and dwelling
Debt secured against property givingrights to third parties in respect ofsale/disposal of dwelling
Private renter Legal rights to access, occupyand use dwelling and associatedland through lease arrangements
Payment of rent or other considera-tion for occupancy of dwelling toprivate landlord
Public renter Legal rights to access, occupyand use dwelling and associatedland through lease arrangements
Payment of rent or other considera-tion for occupancy of dwelling tostate or territory housing authority
210 K. Hulse
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
rights associated with land tenure and housing occupancy can coexist and are not
mutually exclusive and there is a continuum of rights/responsibilities in respect of
conditions of occupancy. The key difference lies in the right to buy and sell land
(alienation rights) of owners and purchasers. However, even this right is qualified in
the case of purchasers with debt secured against the property by the rights of third
parties, such as housing finance lenders, who may sell the property if debt is notrepaid. In extreme situations, a property which has no mortgage held against it may
be sold to recover debt (such as excessive arrears in municipal council rates) or as
part of confiscation of assets in serious criminal matters, or compulsorily acquired if
required for essential infrastructure.
Households paying rent to public (state or territory) landlords have been
categorized as a distinct tenure form since 1954, when the national census first
collected data on such households. Historically, public housing leases in some states
fell outside of residential tenancies legislation, although all rental housing is nowcovered by the same legislation, and public renting cannot be distinguished from
other renting in terms of rights associated with land tenure or housing occupancy.
There remain, however, differences in conditions of occupation, use and control of
housing which are determined by policies in respect of the public housing sector,
such as rents based on incomes, and continuing or longer-term leases. Thus
differences in types of rental (public and private) can be regarded as social
constructions within a housing policy discourse, rather than representing any
essential difference between the two tenure forms.Using this classification, in 2003–2004 35% of Australian households were
classified as owners (without a mortgage), another 35% were purchasers (with a
mortgage), 21% were private renters and 5% were renting from a state or territory
housing authority. The main change since the early 1990s has been a gradual decline
in the number of owners and a corresponding increase in purchasers, but the overall
rate of ownership has remained relatively constant (ABS 2007).
The widespread acceptance and use of these categories in a housing policy context
in Australia raises a number of issues. Firstly, some types of housing occupancy aredifficult to classify because they cross the owning–rental divide, for example, rent-
purchase and shared ownership/shared equity arrangements. Households in some
housing types such as caravans or mobile homes and some retirement complexes
own the dwelling structure but rent the land on which it is positioned. Not all
households are classifiable in terms of these categories, for example, people living in
‘‘non-private’’ dwellings such as hostels, boarding houses or aged care facilities.
Difficulties such as this can be expected with any classification system, although they
could be expected to increase as both governments and markets respond to problemsof affordability with mixed tenure arrangements.
Secondly, these housing tenure categories are applicable to settled areas of urban
Australia, and housing occupancy is difficult to classify in these terms in remote areas.
Indigenous households often live in a community which has a reasonably secure
title over the land (community freehold or community leasehold) but where the
community is encouraged to collect rents from residents to cover maintenance and
other operating costs, which has led to the term ‘‘community rental’’ even though
the community owns the land. Further, in such communities, non-Indigenoushouseholds usually live in accommodation supplied by employers (Sanders 2005).
Moving Beyond ‘‘Housing Tenure’’ 211
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Thirdly, as acknowledged by a number of authors, these four tenure forms are not
‘‘essential’’ but developed in the context of housing policies between the late 1940s
and the early 1980s which heavily supported owner occupation (e.g. Berry 1999,
Bourassa, Greig & Troy 1995). Housing tenure forms have been defined in terms of
the policy preoccupations of the time which are reflected in changes in the ways in
which data are collected and reported upon. For example, between 1947 and 1961,census collections enumerated three main types of occupancy: ‘‘owners and
purchasers’’, ‘‘tenants and sub-tenants’’ and ‘‘caretakers and managers of establish-
ments’’. In 1981, a distinction was made between ‘‘owners’’ and ‘‘owners with a
mortgage’’. In 1996, the latter was extended to include debt secured against the
property for other purposes, in recognition that households were taking out loans
against their primary residence for a variety of purposes.3
Finally, and most significantly, the concept of housing tenure is a categorical one
which connects one household with one dwelling, the one where they usually live atthe time of a census or other data collection. It does not include other dwellings that
the household may own, have access to or occupy on occasions, such as holiday or
second homes. It does not enable a household to have a dual status; for example, it
cannot be both a renter and an owner of residential property. The next section
argues that over-reliance on housing tenure as a series of categorical and mutually
exclusive categories poses a barrier to asking questions about changes in the ways in
which households access, occupy (use and control) and buy/sell residential property,
as part of significant economic and social changes in Australia.
Economic and Social Changes Affecting the Relationships Between Households’
Occupancy of Housing and Their Financial Position
A long-running scholarly debate was stimulated by Kemeny’s thesis, based largely
on his study of Australia in the late 1970s, that in societies where there are low levels
of income support and welfare provision for old age, households are forced to make
private provision for this, in particular, through owner occupation (see Kemeny 2005for a recent review). Although the causality of the relationship has generated a
robust debate over 25 years, a key idea was that owner occupation is a primary
means by which households in liberal societies with low social expenditures like
Australia attempt to provide privately for their financial and other security in older
age.
Beck (1992) has suggested that the logic of risk plays a more central role in the
organization of social relationships than in the past. Although this work does not
explicitly include risk in respect of housing, it implies additional risk for householdsas they seek their own solutions rather than relying on the welfare state. There have
been fundamental changes in how Australians have attempted to minimize risk since
the early 1990s in response to removal of government controls, such as deregulation
of labour and housing finance markets, and government policies have also strongly
encouraged self-provision for old age. These changes in policy settings have
stimulated changes in the quantum and type of household investment in assets. In
2004, 90% of all employees had (occupational) superannuation paid by their
employer (ABS 2005), although the average amount of contributions is relativelylow; 55% of adult Australians owned shares directly or indirectly via managed funds
212 K. Hulse
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
or superannuation funds (Australian Stock Exchange 2005); and there has been an
upsurge in investment in residential property (RBA 2004a). Promotion of financial
self-sufficiency in older age has also stimulated market responses, for example,
through an upsurge in private investment in housing for older people, an area where
traditionally church and charitable organizations had been the main providers. This
section explores two of these changes – increased household investment in residential
property for purposes other than primary residence, and a proliferation of private
housing arrangements for older people – arguing that reliance on four housing
tenure forms in the Australian housing policy discourse does not facilitate an
understanding of such changes.
Increased Investment in Residential Property: Ownership of Multiple Properties and
Renters Who Own
Since the mid-1990s, there has been a rapid increase in household investment in
residential property for a variety of purposes other than owner occupation, including
holiday houses and ‘‘investment properties’’ for rental income and/or capital growth.
Between 1996 and 2003, the value of outstanding loans for rental investment in
Australia increased at an average annual rate of 23% (RBA 2004a:6). This increase in
investment has been identified in housing research due to its effects on the supply
and demand for rental accommodation (Yates & Wulff 2000, 2005) but has
generated rather less interest in terms of the changing profile of investors, with some
notable exceptions (e.g. Berry 2000, Berry & Hall 2005). Indeed, the Reserve Bank of
Australia has noted that there is ‘‘relatively little hard data on this important aspect
of household behaviour’’, referring to investment in residential property more
generally (RBA 2004b:56).
The focus in housing research on residence of one household in one dwelling has
not facilitated questions on the implications of household investment in other
residential property. Rather, work in this area has been undertaken for the Reserve
Bank of Australia (RBA) due to a concern with ‘‘over-investment’’ in housing assets
and household debt levels which are of relevance to the RBA as part of its mandate
to ensure the stability of the financial system. The RBA analysed data from the
‘‘wealth module’’ of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics of Australia
(HILDA) 2002 survey, a national sample survey of 7,245 households, and found that
just under 17% of households owned residential property other than the dwelling
they usually lived in: 10.3% received rental income whilst a further 6.5% did not
report any rental income. The latter could include holiday homes, vacant dwellings
or dwellings occupied without rent by relatives or other people. In addition, 3%
reported receiving rental income but did not report owning a rental property,4 so the
percentage of households owning residential property other than their primary
residence could well be greater than 17%.
The RBA (2004b:53) suggests that ‘‘these figures confirm the general view that
investment property ownership in Australia is widespread, and is considerably higher
than that in other countries, such as the US, Canada or the United Kingdom’’.
Rental investment has further increased since 2002, with a new survey of recent home
purchasers (that is, those purchasing for the first time within the previous five years)
Moving Beyond ‘‘Housing Tenure’’ 213
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
finding that 15% owned residential property in Australia other than the dwelling that
they currently live in (Burke & Pinnagear 2007).5
The concept of housing tenure as currently understood in Australia does not take
into account a distinction between households who own or are purchasing only the
property they live in and those who own or are purchasing multiple properties.
Focusing on the legal/financial arrangements of households’ current residence doesnot encourage questions about their overall situation in relation to equity and debt
on residential property and the degree of financial security and risk they are exposed
to. Nor does it enable an understanding of the way in which households use
properties they own, for example, those who move between a main residence and
another property as they begin a transition from full-time employment to part-time
employment or retirement.
The analysis discussed above from the RBA found that whilst 85% of investor
households owned their own homes (owner-occupier investors), a ‘‘surprisingly largeshare’’ – 15% – were themselves renters (renter investors). Renter investors were
younger than owner-occupier investors (median age 39 years compared with 49
years), more likely to have debt on their investment property (85% compared to
50%), and with slightly higher debt to asset ratios (58% compared to 51%) (RBA
2004b:53–54). The median value of residential properties owned by renters was lower
than those owned by owner occupiers ($160,000 compared to $200,000) (RBA
2004c:5).
Overall, the analysis of HILDA data suggests that that 10% of renter householdsowned a residential property (RBA 2004c:4–5). This is supported by a new study of
housing affordability in Australia which found that 6.5% of private renters on low
and moderate incomes owned a residential property that they did not live in (Burke
and Pinnegar 2007).6 These data, although limited, affirm that a significant number
of households defined as renters in conventional analyses of housing tenure are
owners of residential property that, for various reasons, they do not to live in. In
other words, they are both renters and owners of residential property; this dual
status is not identifiable from census and other data which define such households asrenters.
In this example, housing tenure has been a relatively static and descriptive
category which has not enabled identification of dynamism of housing markets and
significant underlying social and economic changes. A focus on owner occupation in
terms of ‘‘usual residence’’ has not encouraged investigation of whether, and why,
some households appear to be disentangling decisions about residence from
decisions about investment in residential property. In consequence, there are
unanswered questions about households’ residential property ownership and theirdebt and equity position, as well as broader issues about the meaning of residence(s)
for them, and a lack of questions means a lack of data.
Increasing Diversity in Housing Arrangements for Older People
Another area in which there is considerable dynamism is in diversity of market
provision of housing for older people through markets, rather than as a result of
government policies. This can be contrasted with, for example, the UK, where therehas been a call for local councils to engage with prospective private partners to
214 K. Hulse
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
stimulate the development of more diverse housing arrangements for older people
(Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2004).
The way in which housing tenure has been defined in Australia has always caused
some problems in terms of understanding the living arrangements of older people.
For example, residence in ‘‘non-private’’ dwellings, such as residential aged care
homes, is not included in the four tenure forms used in much housing research (see
also Jones, Bell, Tilse & Earl 2007). Even where residence is in dwellings categorized
as ‘‘private’’, some of these arrangements are not easy to categorize in terms of an
owning/renting dichotomy, as highlighted in Table 3.
The proliferation of housing arrangements involving older people raises issues in
terms of both land tenure and housing occupancy. Older households see owner
occupation as their greatest financial asset, and see the equity they have accumulated
as a means of providing for more choice as they age (Olsberg & Winters 2005). They
Table 3. Examples of housing arrangements (independent living) for older people in Australia
Housing arrangements Legal status Implications for occupancy
Home equity conversionschemes (reversemortgages)
Freehold title withmortgage securedagainst the property
No repayments made and interestaccrues but is usually repaid on moveor death of resident
‘‘Granny flat’’ Secondary, self-contained unit, either:
Ownership, or joint ownership of land,with relative living in main dwelling onproperty, or
N on land owned orpart-owned by residentwith freehold title, or
Transfer land wholly to relative wholives in main property or pay to live inunit on land owned by another person,e.g. a life interest through informalarrangement
N on land owned bysomeone else
Ownership of unit inretirement complex
Strata title Ownership of unit, defined in terms ofbuilding structure rather than land,and right of use of common propertywithin rules
Right to occupy unitin retirementcomplex – requiresentry contribution,loan or donation
Lease, e.g. for life or adefined period
Lease: often registered on title and setsout rights to occupy units and usecommon areas and facilities
Licence Licence: not usually registered on titlebut sets out rights to occupy unit anduse common areas and facilities
Indirect ownershipof unit in retirementcomplex
Ownership of shares incompany or unit trust
Right to occupy a unit in a complexowned by the company or trust and touse common areas and facilities
Rental unit inretirement complex
Lease or licence Right to occupy a unit for a definedperiod and to use common area andfacilities
Mobile home inresidential park
Lease or licence Ownership of mobile home structureand rental of land from residentialpark owner, including use of commonfacilities
Moving Beyond ‘‘Housing Tenure’’ 215
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
typically ‘‘buy into’’ a privately owned and operated retirement complex, but the
legal arrangement is commonly a lease or licence rather than strata title, and the
contribution is termed ‘‘rent in advance’’ in the contract. When exiting the complex,
the resident may get their contribution back by way of ‘‘refunded rent’’ with
deductions for weekly operating costs during the period of residence and there may
be other restrictions on sale. Arrangements for allocation of any capital growth inthe value of the unit vary, with some contracts sharing this growth between the
resident and the operator, whilst in others the operator retains the capital increase.
These conditions affect financial security and risk in ways which are not well
understood by many residents who have sold their home and paid a substantial entry
contribution under the mistaken belief that they ‘‘own’’ their unit (Ellison, Schetzer,
Mullins, Perry & Wong 2004).
Whether occupying on a strata title, leasehold or licensee arrangement, older
households face ongoing fees and levies which may be of concern if their incomes arelow and fixed. Further, since most of these arrangements involve access to common
property, there are rules which affect day to day experiences of occupancy, such as
the right to have (younger) visitors staying with them and to personalize/redecorate
the dwelling. A recent review in New South Wales found that older people have
particular concerns about rules regarding pets, gardening and noise (Ellison,
Schetzer, Mullins, Perry & Wong 2004). Federal and state governments provide
information on options within a framework of consumer rights, but legislation on
retirement villages is a state matter, varies between states and does not cover alltypes of retirement complexes. The industry body, Retirement Village Association
Ltd Australia, runs a voluntary system of accreditation that meets minimum
standards.
Such arrangements are not well understood in terms of the four tenure forms
within a housing policy discourse; indeed, housing policies struggle to deal with such
arrangements. For example, entry contributions when people buy into retirement
complexes are taken into account when assessing eligibility for federal government
payments to assist with rent, called Rent Assistance. Where the contribution is morethan a set dollar amount, the arrangement is treated as home ownership, even if the
legal basis is a lease or a licence. If the contribution is less than this amount, the
arrangement is deemed to be rental, and Rent Assistance may be payable to assist
with weekly operating costs. This distinction implies that equity investment and the
ability to realize at least some of this equity on exit are at the heart of ‘‘ownership’’
rather than the legal basis of housing occupancy, although the nature of occupancy
is the same for both types of household.
In brief, the four tenure categories used in housing policy and much housingresearch in Australia do not facilitate an understanding of significant changes in
market provision of housing arrangements for older people. The discussion above
suggests that two primary foci for understanding such arrangements may be more
relevant: firstly, a framework which enables investigation of the current and longer-
term financial status of older people in terms of equity/debt and ongoing income/
expenditures, which is affected by rights and conditions of entry and exit into such
housing: secondly, a focus on housing occupancy and, in particular, on the
conditions that affect the daily lives of older residents including security, restrictionson use of their dwelling, and access to common property and facilities.
216 K. Hulse
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Conclusion
A review of the literature suggests that once-robust debates about the linkages
between housing tenure and economic status, political behaviours and social
relations have diminished. Housing tenure, at least in Australia, has become a sterile
and descriptive category that enables categorization of data, although not without
some difficulties, but which lacks rigour as an explanatory concept.
The article uses Blandy and Goodchild’s (1999) three social constructionist
discourses of housing tenure in terms of land tenure (property law), housing
occupancy (other statutory law and common law) and housing policy as an a means
of reviewing tenure in the Australian context. Analysis of historical and cultural
factors finds that Australian land tenure arrangements have evolved over time to
deal with conflict over rights of occupancy of land (possession, use and control).
Land tenure rights are not categorical and mutually exclusive but can coexist within
institutional settings which clarify the nature and extent of various rights, as well as
processes for resolving them. Housing occupancy (which is preferred to ‘‘housing
status’’) is based on various laws which acknowledge different types of rights and
institutional structures and processes for determining the rights of households and
other parties. It is important to consider how these rights translate into conditions of
occupancy in practice. Viewing conditions of occupancy as a continuum, and with
regard to specific conditions, would enable a better understanding of the relation-
ships between households and their current dwelling and its environment than
assumptions about housing occupancy which rest on a dichotomy between owning
and renting.
The forms of housing tenure developed and used within a housing policy discourse
in Australia have changed over time, reflecting contemporaneous policy considera-
tions. The article suggests that the position of housing tenure as the key explanatory
concept in housing research is at best inflated and at worst can obscure the
relationships between households and housing. Reliance on housing tenure as a
series of categorical and mutual categories has posed a barrier to understanding
significant changes in the ways in which households access, occupy (use and control)
and buy/sell residential property. In the examples discussed in this article –
investment in residential property and housing arrangements for older people – a
focus on housing tenure has not facilitated asking important questions, such that we
have little data.
A suggested way forward is to distinguish questions about housing occupancy,
which affect the daily life and circumstances of households, from questions relating
to investment in residential property as an asset and potential generator of capital
and income for households, particularly as they become older. The first of these
would include consideration of the ways in which institutional settings articulate
rights of occupancy and the processes for dealing with different and often competing
rights in various housing arrangements. Further, it is important to identify how these
rights translate into experiences of daily living, such as safety and security and ability
to personalize and make a dwelling a home without undue restrictions. Such work
would complement ongoing analyses of supply and demand and avoid too narrow a
focus on price (affordability). The second would enable more accurate identification
of households’ financial status in terms of equity and debt, and current and future
Moving Beyond ‘‘Housing Tenure’’ 217
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
position in terms of income and expenditures. It would generate research that would
enable a better understanding of household motivations, expectations and
behaviours in terms of residential property, to include not only where households
‘‘usually reside’’ but also other property they may own and/or be able to occupy.
Notes
1. In 1992, the High Court of Australia recognized that the Meriam people of the Torres Strait Islands
held native title over some of their traditional lands, overturning the notion of terra nullius,
recognizing systems of occupation and use of land prior to European settlement in 1788. The federal
government’s Native Title Act 1993 and subsequent legislation clarified these rights and processes
for claiming them.
2. Strata titles were first introduced in New South Wales in 1961 and subsequently extended to other
Australian states, Canada and some countries in Asia.
3. ABS, Census of Population and Housing, Data Dictionaries (various years). The term ‘‘tenure type’’
was not used by the ABS until the 1996 census. Prior to that date, the derived variable was ‘‘nature
of occupancy’’.
4. The RBA (2004b:53) suggests that this group could include households receiving rent from lodgers
or letting non-residential properties, but could also include an additional group of investors in
residential property.
5. Data used with permission from research by Burke and Pinnegar (2007). The data are from a sample
of 396 households who had purchased the home that they are living in within the previous five years
(2001–2006).
6. The renter data are from a sample of 1,726 respondents in selected areas chosen according to
indicators of socio-economic disadvantage who answered ‘‘Yes’’ to the question ‘‘Do you currently
own a residential property that you do not live in?’’ See Burke and Pinnegar (2007).
References
ABS (2006 (1910)) Year book Australia, 1910, Cat. no. 1301.0 (Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics).
ABS (2005) Employee earnings, benefits and trade union membership, Australia, Cat. no. 6310.0 (Canberra:
Australian Bureau of Statistics).
ABS (2007) Year book Australia, 2007, Cat. no. 1301.0 (Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics).
Australian Stock Exchange (2005) 2004 Australian share ownership study (Sydney: Australian Stock
Exchange).
Barlow, J. & Duncan, S. (1988) The use and abuse of tenure, Housing Studies, 3(4), pp. 29–31.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity (London: Sage).
Berry, M. (1984) The political economy of Australian urbanization, Progress in Planning, 22(1), pp. 5–83.
Berry, M. (1999) Unravelling the Australian housing solution: the post-war years, Housing, Theory and
Society, 16(3), pp. 106–123.
Berry, M. (2000) Investment in rental housing in Australia: small landlords and institutional investors,
Housing Studies, 15(5), pp. 661–681.
Berry, M. & Hall, J. (2005) Institutional investment in rental housing in Australia: a policy framework and
two models, Urban Studies, 42(1), pp. 91–111.
Blandy, S. & Goodchild, B. (1999) From tenure to rights: conceptualizing the changing focus of housing
law in England, Housing, Theory and Society, 16(1), pp. 31–42.
Bourassa, S., Greig, A. & Troy, P. (1995) The limits of housing policy: home ownership in Australia,
Housing Studies, 10(1), pp. 83–104.
Bradbrook, A. (1975) Poverty and the residential landlord-tenant relationship (Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service).
Burke, T. (1998) Housing reform and disputation, in: T. Burke (Ed.), Responsive jurisdictions for changing
times: papers from the Third Australasian Conference of Tenancy Tribunals and Associated Bodies
(Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology).
218 K. Hulse
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Burke, T. & Pinnagear, S. (2007) Experiencing the housing affordability problem: blocked aspirations, trade-
offs and financial hardships, NRV 3 Research Paper No. 9 (Melbourne: Australian Housing and
Urban Research Institute).
Doling, J. (1997) Comparative Housing Policy: Government and Housing in Advanced Industrialized
Countries (London: Macmillan).
Doling, J. (1999) De-commodification and welfare: evaluating housing systems, Housing, Theory and
Society, 16(4), pp. 156–164.
Ellison, S., Schetzer, L., Mullins, J., Perry, J. & Wong, K. (2004) The Legal Needs of Older People in NSW
(Sydney: Law and Justice Foundation of NSW).
Gray, F. (1982) Owner occupation and social relations, in: S. Merrett (Ed.), Owner-Occupation in Britain
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
Haworth, A., Manzi, T. & Kemeny, J. (2004) Social constructionism and international comparative
housing research, in: K. Jacobs, T. Manzi & J. Kemeny (Eds), Social Constructionism in Housing
Research (Aldershot: Ashgate).
Jones, A., Bell, M., Tilse, C. & Earl, G. (2007) Rental housing provision for lower-income older Australians,
final report (Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute).
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2004) From Welfare to Well-being: Planning for an Aging Society (York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation).
Kemeny, J. (1981) The Myth of Home Ownership: Private versus Public Choices in Housing Tenure
(London: Routledge).
Kemeny, J. (1992) Housing and Social Theory (London: Routledge).
Kemeny, J. (2005) The really big trade-off between home ownership and welfare: Castles’ evaluation of the
1980 thesis and a reformulation 25 years on, Housing, Theory and Society, 22(2), pp. 59–75.
Kemeny, J. (2006) Corporatism and housing regimes, Housing, Theory and Society, 23(1), pp. 1–18.
Kemp, P. (1987) Some aspects of housing consumption in late nineteenth century England and Wales,
Housing Studies, 2, pp. 3–16.
Kemp, P. (1997) A comparative study of housing allowances, Department of Social Security, research report
no. 60 (London: Stationery Office).
National Native Title Tribunal (2006) About native title: resolution of native title issues over land and waters
(Canberra: National Native Title Tribunal).
Neutze, M. (2000) Housing for Indigenous Australians, Housing Studies, 15(4), pp. 485–504.
Olsberg, D. & Winters, M. (2005) Ageing in Place: Intergenerational and Intrafamilial Housing Transfers
and Shifts in Later Life, final report (Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute).
RBA (2004a) Financial Stability Review, March 2004 (Canberra: Reserve Bank of Australia).
RBA (2004b) Residential property investors in Australia, Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin, May
(Canberra: Reserve Bank of Australia).
RBA (2004c) The composition and distribution of household assets and liabilities: evidence from the 2002
HILDA survey, Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin, April (Canberra: Reserve Bank of Australia).
Rex, J. & Moore, R. (1967) Race, Community and Conflict: a Study of Sparkbrook (London: Oxford
University Press).
Ruonavaara, H. (1993) Types and forms of housing tenure: towards solving the comparison/translation
problem, Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 10(3), pp. 3–20.
Sackville, R. (1975) Law and Poverty in Australia (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service).
Sanders, W. (2005) Housing tenure and Indigenous Australians in remote and settled areas, discussion paper
no. 275/2005 (Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National
University).
Saunders, P. (1980) Urban politics: a sociological interpretation (Harmondsworth: Penguin).
Saunders, P. (1990) A Nation of Home Owners (London: Unwin Hyman).
Somerville, P. & Knowles, A. (1991) The difference that tenure makes, Housing Studies, 6(2), pp. 112–130.
Wulff, M. & Maher, C. (1998) Long-term renters in the Australian housing market, Housing Studies,
13(1), pp. 83–98.
Yates, J. & Wulff, M. (2000) W(h)ither low cost private rental housing? Urban Policy and Research, 18(1),
pp. 45–64.
Yates, J. & Wulff, M. (2005) Market provision of affordable rental housing: lessons from recent trends in
Australia, Urban Policy and Research, 23(1), pp. 5–19.
Moving Beyond ‘‘Housing Tenure’’ 219
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
25 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
