State directed hybridity? – the relationship between non-profit housing organizations and the state in three national contexts

Abstract

This paper presents results from the first international comparative study of non-profit housing organisations in Australia, England and the Netherlands to engage with panels of organisational leaders. The study uses a 'modified Delphi method' with Likert-type scaled surveys, followed by indepth interviews. The paper introduces the concept of hybridity as a way of understanding the interaction of state, market and community drivers in steering non-profit housing organisations. In all three countries, findings indicate that there are clear limits to independence from continued state influence. In England this takes the form of state-directed cross-subsidy and welfare reform, in Australia business development strategies have had to respond to volatility and reductions in state funding, while in the Netherlands public policy has recently restricted the remit of associations to a low income niche and reduced commercial involvement. These findings lend support to 'contested logics' models of organisational hybridity rather than either 'out-of-control monstrous hybrids' or linear privatisation models.

The affordability of “affordable” housing in England: conditionality and exclusion in a context of welfare reform

“…This article has considered the ways in which welfare reforms and sector diversification impact on housing association practices in relation to tenancy access and renewal. Housing association diversification has already led some providers to argue that there will be less of a focus on low-income groups alone (Mullins et al, 2017). The research presented here highlights the significance of welfare reforms such as the 'bedroom tax', Benefit Cap and Universal Credit in compounding this issue, and the importance of considering the interaction of these policies with changing stock and tenancy types.…”

Collaborative Governance for Affordable Housing in Toronto and Melbourne

“…The shift from senior governments exerting 'command and control' for public goods, to a less efficient and poorly controlled set of funding relationships with local governments, private and non-profit providers, has been analysed as a contributory factor to increasing social inequality. In the case of housing, these indirect partnerships in the face of growing 'marketisation' of affordable housing has been described by many researchers as a case study of failure to secure a basic right (see Walks & Clifford (2015), and Kalman-Lamb (2017) for Canada; Mullins, Milligan & Nieboer (2018) and Power & Bergan (2018) for Australia).…”

‘Thou shalt be a (more) responsible tenant’: exploring innovative management strategies in changing social housing contexts

“…Social housing sectors across Europe benefitted from large state financial contributions in the post-war period, which started declining since the late 1970s, and sharply reduced as consequence of post-2007 GFC austerity measures (Scanlon et al 2015). Still, the state exercises remarkable influence and direction in social housing sectors (Mullins et al 2018).…”

“…In this regard, many non-profit housing providers have been defined as 'hybrid organisations' since they blend the characteristics of state, market, and community organisations. Hybridity can be reflected in the mix of public and private funding, public supervision of private institutions and tenant involvement in management decision-making (Mullins et al 2018).…”