We’re on the same page.

The urgent need to re-think our current housing policy is articulated in my eBook ‘Neo-Liberal Zombies, The Missing Middle, & The Third Sector’ (a pimped-up and more readable version of my thesis). This highlights the shocking reality of housing inequality and market dysfunction in New Zealand and explores alternative exemplar ‘third sector’ housing policy interventions and systems within selected European states achieving better and more socially-diffuse outcomes. The idea of ‘collective’ residential property ownership (which lies at the heart of cooperative housing) is not new and features historically in many countries (e.g. village commonage, collective Māori land ownership). This highlights the universal adaptability of third sector housing systems and their potential applicability in developed and emerging economies and those rebuilding after natural disasters or conflict (e.g. Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan) — an alternative pathway to market-led recovery. My ongoing research focus is exploring and defining the universal building blocks of housing affordability drawing on third sector housing exemplars in selected states, the implementation processes (i.e. law, policy, institutions etc.), what has gone well, what could be done better and what the future threats and opportunities are.

Third sector organisations occupy the space between the public sector and private ‘for-profit’ sector. They are ‘not-for-profit’ and community, environmentally, or socially focused. These characteristics make third sector organisations especially important as key stakeholders and actors representing those in lower income distributions of society ignored by the state and the market, and as advocates for change and catalysts for innovation. Housing associations, cooperatives, collectives, charities and municipal corporations are a very visible part of third sector housing ecosystems within socially-minded countries. Unlike conventional home ownership, cooperative housing typically involves buying shares with a right to occupy. The equity required is less than in the open market and occupiers also make regular payments to cover maintenance costs with any surpluses reinvested in the cooperative or sector. There are usually strict rules on the re-sale process and unit pricing and any borrowing is held collectively. The model by-passes the market, enabling affordable access to quality housing for low and middle income families and is very adaptable to the local context and fosters socio-economic diversity.

The value for any state of increasing the proportion of not-for-profit housing in relation to total housing stock to help improve housing affordability (and other outcomes) can be understood by conceptualising two housing ecosystems — where System A comprises say 96% market-priced housing (as in New Zealand) and System B comprises 50% market-priced and 50% non market-priced housing. System B will exhibit better housing affordability as it has a higher proportion of housing priced outside the open market (either at cost or near to it). As the proportion of non-market housing increases in relation to total housing stock the overall housing ecosystem becomes more affordable. The concept is simple — making it a reality is not. For example, OECD data for the period 2000-2023 shows the share of third sector housing to total stock at ~42% in Sweden (~67% in Stockholm), ~30% in Denmark (~49% in Copenhagen), ~24% in Austria (~42% in Vienna) and ~17% in Norway (~35% in Oslo). These countries exhibit lower house price inflation, housing overburden costs and market price volatility (risk) than New Zealand (where the share of not-for-profit housing is <4%) — but this has taken ~60 years of concerted effort.

Common across the diverse range of housing strategies in Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Norway is a pan-political modus vivendi that socially-diffuse access to lower cost, better quality housing is a public task. This is promulgated in law and implemented by specific housing institutions and policy interventions to enable third sector actors — not-for-profit housing providers and related stakeholders. Access to low-cost capital for third sector housing is facilitated by dedicated institutions. In Austria, six special social purpose housing construction banks embedded in commercial banks raise money through the bond market and, in the Netherlands, public bank BNG established to support the municipal sector and raise funds in the bond market for housing and environmental initiatives. The Netherlands also operates a cascading loan guarantee scheme through Waarborgfonds Sociale Woningbouw which is a state and municipal backed housing sector guarantee fund that enables housing corporations (legal entities permitted under the Housing Act to operate in public housing) to access commercial loans at lower interest rates. Denmark issues state-guaranteed mortgage bonds for the same purpose.

A consistent theme in the land policy approaches in Norway, Sweden, Austria and Denmark is the active role of the public sector in localised master planning and detailed development plans. Municipalities feature as the conduit between top-down policy and bottom-up needs ensuring the views of all stakeholders are heard and actioned.

A noticeable difference in land policy in Norway, Sweden, Austria and Denmark compared with New Zealand is in the strategic use of land-banking and planning monopolies to achieve wider ‘public good’ outcomes — whether for affordable housing, infrastructure or other uses. It is controlling master plans, detailed plans and especially land that provides the leverage in negotiations with key actors. The City of Stockholm began land banking about 150 years ago and this has influenced the location and form of ~70% to ~80% of housing through land allocations.

Housing policies utilised in Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Norway demonstrate that egalitarian not-for-profit housing systems can coexist with their capitalist counterparts. It is not a choice of one or the other. Rather, it is recognition that for-profit actors cannot adequately cater for those parts of society earning too much for subsidised housing but too little to afford market prices. Inspired political leadership, socially-focused objectives and carefully constructed legislation and policy have coalesced in these countries to widen access to better quality housing, improve affordability and dampen house prices — creating a self-sustaining socially-focused not-for-profit housing system with minimal impact on state finances to diversify the existing for-profit model.

Absence of the inspired leadership necessary for galvanising political and public opinion around the idea that housing equality is the bedrock of a well functioning society is perhaps our biggest challenge.