The thesis title clearly establishes my research focus — not-for-profit housing systems and related policy interventions designed to enable improved and socially-diffuse outcomes. The research approach is ‘practice’ rather than ‘theory’ oriented and examines exemplar not-for-profit cooperative housing systems and policies that have been successfully implemented in selected European countries — comparing these against New Zealand policy and that in nearby Asia-Pacific countries.

The thesis is an exploratory study of; (1) not-for-profit cooperative housing systems in selected countries, (2) the policies that enabled their emergence and growth, (3) how those systems and policies have contributed to improved housing access, affordability and quality outcomes, especially for people where conventional property ownership or market pricing is out of reach and (4) how such systems and policies can be enabled here to positively disrupt the housing ecosystem.

I’m undertaking this research for a Master of Philosophy at Auckland University of Technology School of Future Environments — as a foundation year for a Doctor of Philosophy research project.

In this section the current state of play in New Zealand’s housing sector is examined — analysing house price data between 2000 and 2023 and traversing the laissez-faire housing policies which have accompanied some of the worst housing affordability statistics in the OECD. The disconnect between ideology-based housing policy and market reality is explored — offering obvious commercial rationale for why simply zoning more and more greenfield land for mainly market-led and priced housing will not achieve better housing outcomes — especially improved affordability. The readiness of the country to fund the economic and social infrastructure required to support a high growth urban development political agenda and the back-to-front order of zoning informing infrastructure decisions, is questioned. The reliance on property capital gain as the main means of getting ahead in society, the very two-dimensional private ownership and private rental market structure and limited housing tenure options, and how to change the conversation on all this are also tentatively articulated. Finally the potential for the kind of not-for-profit cooperative housing systems and related policies successfully implemented in many European countries to positively disrupt our housing ecosystem — the main focus of this research — is touched on. This sets the scene for sections that follow.

The research architecture reflects the multi-dimensional and complex nature of the exploratory study subject matter. A scoping literature review covering a wide range of sources has been undertaken to inform the research components and distill key characteristics — the evidence for cooperative housing. Research into cooperative housing policy and systems focuses on the triangular relationship between the state, the cooperative and the market. The research framework is appropriate for what is intentionally very much a ‘qualitative’ and wide-ranging exploratory study. The research is focused mainly on the ‘perspective’ of low to middle income households seeking affordable, good quality housing with security of tenure — because this cohort of households is experiencing the poorest housing outcomes in New Zealand. The ‘interventions’ of primary interest are ‘not-for-profit’ ‘cooperative housing’ systems and the related policy and legislative frameworks that have enabled these. The reasons for focusing on the ‘not-for-profit’ sector are, firstly, because this has largely been ignored in New Zealand as a potential important contributor to a vibrant and multi-faceted housing sector and, secondly, the ‘for-profit’ housing sector is already well enabled by government policy here — akin to a form of corporate welfare.

This section forms the largest component of the research literature review — and traverses a wide range of material identifying and describing key features of cooperative housing. It examines the sociological tradition that informed the principles at the core of the cooperative movement and cooperative housing systems in European countries that comprise the research reference area. The research explores the link between socially-focused housing policy and improved housing outcomes — to be explored in more detail in Section 5. Key features examined include; wider access through alternative tenure models, policy interventions focused on housing affordability, market stability and systemic risk diversification, spatial quality and efficiency, security of tenure, social health, and democracy in decision-making. Affordable housing policy interventions of particular interest include; state and municipal enablement, capital supply/cost, spatial planning/law, population growth and inward net migration, weighting of social housing stock, building capability/cost, and land supply/cost.

This section explores the New Zealand housing ecosystem — past to present. Our poor housing affordability outcomes touched on in Section 1 are revisited in comparison to the research reference group of countries. The research explores our current housing typologies and tenure systems, our housing stock (including vacant housing), and household composition, numbers and growth. The impact of inward net migration on housing pressure is explored and contrasted against the research reference group. The research takes a look at our public social housing sector (which is comparatively small in comparison to many OECD countries), how commercial imperatives have pervaded our once progressive social tradition and our inchoate not-for-profit housing sector. Key public and private sector actors are identified — with some the subject of interviews. The research examines the evolution of New Zealand’s housing policy interventions over time and the political landscape that informed those. The present housing-related legislative suite and purpose is examined in detail and past and future challenges identified and discussed.

Cooperative housing comes in many forms but the research focus is mainly on ‘equity’ and ‘limited equity’ not-for-profit cooperative housing systems in the reference group countries comprising Austria, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. The definition and choice of countries is outlined in Section 2 — but generally these are countries that have performed better (at the median) than the total OECD member cohort, or New Zealand, since 2000 — when measured against nominal and real house prices, price-income (affordability) and housing cost overburden metrics. Europe also has a long history and diversity of social housing systems that may provide valuable insights on how to improve housing outcomes in our heavily market weighted local context. Through a mix of desk research and fieldwork, this section examines the contribution of cooperative housing systems and policy interventions in each reference group country, its major municipality and one housing case study — in improving affordability and quality outcomes. Past and future challenges are explored to inform how not-for-profit housing policies and systems could be applied locally.

Given our Pacific island location and proximity and housing market similarity to Australia, the research architecture has been expanded to also describe and then compare, synthesise and discuss the literature findings in the context of housing sectors in Australia and Singapore. Housing ecosystems, policies, challenges, insights, trends and case studies are examined in each of these countries, applying an adjusted template, comprising; the housing ecosystem, affordable housing policy interventions, past and future challenges, one housing case study, insights and trends. Given the less developed extent of cooperative housing systems in these countries the research focus is on ‘affordable housing’ policy interventions.

Some future challenges are already evident and others will emerge from a literature review plus the desk and field research in prior sections. Emergent themes are diverse and include; policy limited by political ideology and how to gain pan-political consensus, economic ideology and the gap between theory and the real world, the withdrawal of the state from social housing and deference to the private sector with consequent (and obvious) poor housing affordability outcomes, how to change the conversation around property and especially the expectation of unearned capital gain, how to plan for sustainable population and inward net migration growth, the commodification of housing, building under-capacity and high cost and perhaps most importantly, continued access to low cost capital and land.

Part of the ‘evaluation’ component of the research involves empirical research conducted via survey and interview capturing the views of peak public and not-for-profit housing actors, industry practitioners and housing occupiers — in both New Zealand and comparison reference group countries. The research approach reflects key themes derived from the literature reviews in Sections 3 and 7 (the evidence for cooperative housing), together with those arising from the research and discussions in Sections 4-6. This section details survey/interview methodologies and structure, the sample audience definition and choice and the actual questionnaires. A summary and analysis of respondents’ views is accompanied by a discussion on emergent themes.

Based on synthesis of the entire body of research findings, discussions and insights from Sections 3-8, this section postulates a not-for-profit housing policy intervention model that can be applied and/or adapted for the local context. It is anticipated the content will traverse; (1) achieving pan-political consensus on the basic right to affordable good quality housing enshrined both constitutionally and in key legislation, (2) a multi-decade housing manifesto founded on improving housing affordability and quality outcomes, (3) rationalisation and consolidation of the suite of housing related policy and state institutions, (4) state and municipal involvement and enablement mechanisms focused on not-for-profit housing providers, (5) provision of low cost capital funding mechanisms and public land development opportunities, and (6) community-led planning and decision-making mechanisms.

The thesis will wrap-up with final conclusions and recommendations for ongoing focused research.

Important note

The full body of research and components thereof are subject to copyright and will be made available to researchers and others with appropriate citation. Components of the research may be published by myself from time to time in academic journals, sector reports, and other online media.

This research description is drawn from an iterative and much more detailed framework currently comprising ten sections and over 100 sub-sections. This framework is intended as a research guide which will undoubtedly evolve over the duration of the project. Currently I’m in the middle of Section 3 which seems to be ever expanding in scope and size. My current research output already sits at 40,000+ words and 100+ pages just part-way into the first year of what is anticipated to be a three year study programme and final output well in excess of 100,000 words.