HOW CULTURE, LAW & INSTITUTIONAL DECISION-MAKING DEFINE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY.

In Sweden, it is evident in the ethos of ‘good housing for all’, in Norway it is the ‘common good’ objective of its Arealpolitikk, in Denmark it is reflected in their ‘housing for all’ mantra and acceptance of the need for non-market interventions, and in Austria it is epitomised in the ‘Vienna model’ of “affordable housing as a public task”. This ‘social conscience’ permeates not only the foundation law and policy in those countries but also the public institutions empowered with implementing housing law and policy, the decision-making processes within those entities and the housing tenure systems adopted. In the absence of such structural mechanisms, any balance between individual property rights and wider ‘common good’ social, economic and environmental outcomes would disappear like quicksilver and instead be promptly replaced with outcomes favouring those with the most political or financial leverage.

Having a policy framework that engages all stakeholders is germane to achieving democratic decision-making and socially-diffuse housing and related outcomes. The idea of coming together in a cooperative manner and the structures around which this is achieved is one that has occupied scholars throughout history. Prof. John Rawls positions this idea at the centre of his theory of justice, where he says, “Thus we are to imagine that those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits.” In the absence of such social structures and processes equality would very quickly be diminished by a minority possessing more influence (power) through money, political connections and even coercion at the expense of the majority.

Such has been the societal pattern language for thousands of years — society favouring those born into certain economic and social circumstances and influencing their expectations of life and their place in it. Prof. Rawls put it as follows, “In this way the institutions of society favour certain starting positions over others. These are especially deep inequalities. Not only are they pervasive, but they affect men’s initial chances in life; yet they cannot possibly be justified by an appeal to the notions of merit or desert. It is these inequalities, presumably inevitable in the basic structure of any society, to which the principles of social justice must in the first instance apply.” The ‘justice’ Prof. Rawls is referring to is ‘social justice’ or more specifically, “the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation”.

Whatever system of collective public decision making is adopted within a political system (e.g. first past the post or mixed member proportional) or outside of politics in society (e.g. unanimous, majority, committee, delegated, proxy etc.) is arguably less important than ensuring such public choice exists in the first place and is enabled to be exercised through transparent rules. As far back as the 1970s Prof. Dennis Mueller stressed that such rules for collective decision making are needed because we live in concentrated socio-economic groups within which the need for collective action and decisions arises. He nicely sums up the risk of not having agreed democratic processes that involve all relevant stakeholders or leaving decisions to the politicians (or those that have their ear) by saying, “…the basic challenge facing a community is achieving a consensus, or the dilemma of decision-making in its absence”.

As highlighted above, similar notions of social justice and equality permeate the law in Austria, Denmark, Norway and Sweden and are especially visible in housing policy and the public institutions mandated with administration. An example of social equality in practice is in the membership of the board of the Danish National Building Fund which is required by law to be representative of the social housing sector itself. Two board members must be current social housing tenants (elected separately by the Tenants’ National Organisation), one member is elected by the National Association of Municipalities (as key actors in the Danish housing sector), one each is elected by the Copenhagen and Frederiksberg municipalities with the chair and four members elected by the National Association of Housing Associations. The structure provides stability, continuity, independence and reflects the parties actually involved in delivering the social housing — not a board that represents ministerial preferences or fluid political party agenda.

In contrast, not long after the current Sixth National Government was elected the Housing Minister replaced all but two members of the existing board of key public social housing agency Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities with a hand-picked board, few of whom appeared to have an active role in the social or not-for-profit housing sectors (certainly not as a current tenant representative). This is hardly consistent with the norms of institutional social justice or equality in decision-making. It is the antithesis of stability, continuity, independence, and fair sector representation and instead blatantly reflects ministerial preference and political party agenda manifested in a diminished state budget for social housing operations.