Housing Transitions Through The Life Course: Aspirations, Needs and Policy

housing Transitions
through the LIFE COURSE

ASPIRATIONS, NEEDS AND POLICY
Andrew Beer and Debbie Faulkner

with Chris Paris and Terry Clower
HOUSING TRANSITIONS
THROUGH THE LIFE COURSE
Aspirations, needs and policy
with
Chris Paris and Terry Clower
First published in Great Britain in 2011 by
The Policy Press

University of Bristol
Fourth Floor
Beacon House
Queen’s Road
Bristol BS8 1QU, UK
t: +44 (0)117 331 4054
f: +44 (0)117 331 4093
[email protected]
www.policypress.co.uk
North American office:

The Policy Press
c/o International Specialized Books Services (ISBS)
920 NE 58th Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, OR 97213-3786, USA
t: +1 503 287 3093
f: +1 503 280 8832
[email protected]
© The Policy Press 2011
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested.
ISBN 978 1 84742 428 0 (hardcover)
The rights of Andrew Beer and Debbie Faulkner to be identified as authors of this work have
been asserted by them in accordance with the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.
All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise without the prior permission of The Policy Press.
The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the author and
not of the University of Bristol or The Policy Press. The University of Bristol and The Policy
Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material
published in this publication.
The Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender,

race, disability, age and sexuality.
Cover design by The Policy Press

Front cover: photograph kindly supplied by plainpicture/René Wolf
Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ International, Padstow
The Policy Press uses environmentally responsible print partners
Contents
List of figures and tables iv
Notes about the authors vi
Acknowledgements vii
Preface viii
one Housing markets and policy in theÂ€21stÂ€century 1
two Housing over the life course: housing histories, careers, pathways
andÂ€transitions 15
three Housing transitions and housing policy: international context and 39

policyÂ€transfer
Chris Paris,Terry Clower, Andrew Beer and Debbie Faulkner
four The housing transitions ofÂ€youngerÂ€adults 61
five Housing in mid life: consolidation, opportunity and risk 75
six Housing transitions in later life 93
seven Housing and disability: aÂ€21st‑centuryÂ€phenomenon 113
eight Housing transitions, economic restructuring and the marginalised 135

Andrew Beer, Debbie Faulkner and Chris Paris
nine Conclusion: negotiating the housing market over the next decades 155
References 169
Index 193
iii
List of figures and tables
Figures
1.1 Processes contributing to change in 21st-century housing careers 11
2.1 Changed life histories and changing housing careers 19
2.2 The housing career ‘ladder’ 21
2.3 The board game of snakes and ladders 22
2.4 The housing decision framework 32
2.5 The capacity to express choice within housing over time 34
2.6 Housing decision making over time, the variable influence of lifecycle, 35
labourÂ€market, wellbeing, tenure, and lifestyle aspirations
2.7 Housing outcomes through the life course 36
3.1 House building: permanent dwellings completed, by tenure, England 41
3.2 UK dwelling stock, by tenure, 1951–2007 41
3.3 UK house price change, 1992–2010 46
3.4 US occupied housing units, by tenure, 1900–2008 49
3.5 Sub-prime mortgages as a percentage of all US mortgages, 1998–2008 52
4.1 Reasons for leaving the family home by age 64
4.2 Age at which entered home purchase, all respondents 70
4.3 Percentage of the population to have entered home purchase, by cohort, 71
atÂ€age 30, 34 and 44
5.1 Mid-life households and the use of money from refinanced loans 86
6.1 Ownership of property other than the principal dwelling 103
7.1 Conceptualising disability and its impact on housing careers 114
7.2 Indicative housing career for a person with mobility impairment 116
acquiredÂ€through injury
7.3 Indicative housing career for a person with mobility impairment 117
presentÂ€sinceÂ€birth
7.4 Indicative housing career for a person with a developmental disability 118
7.5 Indicative housing career for a person with a psychiatric disability 119
7.6 Indicative housing career for a person with a sensory impairment 119
7.7 Housing affordability for tenants aged less than 65 years, by presence 122
of a disability
7.8 Housing affordability for home purchasers aged less than 65 years, 123
by presence of a disability
7.9 Number of times moved, by presence of a disability, all households, 124
1996–2006
8.1 Decade of arrival in Australia of persons born overseas 149
8.2 Household type, by selected birthplace groups 150
8.3 Decade of arrival in Australia of immigrants from mainly 151
English-speaking countries, by tenure
iv
List of figures and tables
8.4 Decade of arrival in Australia of immigrants from mainly non-English- 152

speaking countries, by tenure
Tables
3.1 UK dwelling stock by tenure 45
5.1 Census and projected age-specific homeownership rates, Australia 87
5.2 Selected economic and housing characteristics of selected household 89
types,Â€Australia, 2005–06
6.1 Community and flexible care programmes: services provided, and clients 109
agedÂ€65 years and over receiving programmes, 2007–08
8.1 UK households, by tenure 145
8.2 Tenure by ethnicity of household reference person (HRP), England 146
2007–08
v
Notes about the authors
Andrew Beer is a Professor in Geography at the University of Adelaide and

was previously based at Flinders University. His interests include the relationship
between housing and the life course, regional economic development policies
and homelessness.
Debbie Faulkner is a Research Fellow in the Department of Geography and

Environmental Studies at the University of Adelaide. Debbie has research interests
in population issues including housing, ageing, homelessness and at risk groups
in the community.
Terry Clower is director of the Center for Economic Development and

Research at the University of North Texas (UNT) and an associate professor of
applied economics. Dr Clower has served as project manager, staff researcher
and statistical analyst on numerous projects reflecting experience in economic
and community development, economic and fiscal impact analysis, survey
research design, housing market issues, land use planning, labour market analysis,
transportation, and forecasting.
Chris Paris was Professor of Housing Studies at the University of Ulster from
1992 to 2008. He has held visiting professorships at the RMIT and Hong
Kong Universities and visiting fellowships in many other universities including
Cambridge and Oxford in the UK, and the ANU, La Trobe, Flinders and QUT
in Australia. His current research includes multiple home ownership in affluent
societies and the housing needs of older people.
vi
Acknowledgements
The support, assistance and encouragement of many people made possible the
writing of this book. Many of our colleagues at Flinders University – Michael
Kroehn, Emma Baker, Selina Tually, Louise O’Loughlin, Kate Deller-Evans and
Cecile Cutler – helped us undertake the research presented in this publication
and turn it into a finished monograph. Thanks also are due to other colleagues
including Michelle Gabriel, Maryann Wulff, Gabriel Gwyther, Joe Flood, John
Minnery, Robin Zakharov and Lise Saugeres. Much of the research that underpins
this book was made possible through the the financial assistance of the Australian
Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) Ltd and the Australian Research
Council’s Linkage Program (LP 0776660). Several staff within AHURI made
important contributions to this research with thanks going to Ian Winter,Andrew
Hollows, Sonia Whitely, Simone Finch and Grania Sheehan.AHURI provided the
financial resources necessary to undertake the large scale survey analysed in this
monograph. Acknowledgement is also due to Flinders University for facilitating
the study leave that made the writing of this manuscript possible.
Finally we need to thank all the people who gave freely of their time to
participate in the Housing 21 Survey.
vii
Preface
Housing and housing markets across the developed world have been in a state of
considerable flux since 2005 when the ideas for this book first began to take shape.
In many parts of the developed world it was a time of economic growth, financial
stability, booming housing markets and policy reformation, but that environment
has both changed and become more fragmented over the past five years. These
external shocks have inevitably influenced the development of this book.
In common with much contemporary social science, Housing Transitions has
its origins in research undertaken for the public sector, albeit a public sector
attracted to, and intrigued by, the long-running academic literature on ‘housing
careers’. Through discussions with the Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute (AHURI), Australian government housing bodies began to ask, ‘how
are housing careers changing in the 21st century, and what are the implications
for the forms of government assistance that will be needed now and into the
future?’ In particular, government bodies in Australia were concerned about
three questions of policy relevance. First, over the coming decades what will
be the impact of the ageing of the ‘baby boom’ cohort in terms of housing and
the demand for housing assistance? Second, is the apparent decline in entry into
homeownership amongst 25- to 34-year-olds robust, and what are the implications
of this for the demand for housing assistance in the long term? Third, what forms
of government housing assistance will be necessary and appropriate in the 21st
century given changes in household structure, labour markets and philosophical
shifts in attitudes to government intervention?
One of the public sector drivers for establishing research into 21st century housing
careers was recognition that the ageing baby boomer cohort had the potential to
challenge the future stability of the housing system. There was a perception that
the decisions this generation took upon leaving paid work, and potentially seeking
new housing in retirement, carried risks for society, governments and individuals.
Older people make substantial use of public assistance, including in the housing
sector, and the rapid escalation in the population aged over 60 could lead to an
exponential growth in demand for housing support. Moreover, the ‘leading edge’
of the baby boom those – aged 55 to 60 – was seen to be a significant indicator of
trends and developments likely to take place over the next two to three decades.
The second major challenge exercising the minds of public sector policy
makers was the apparent decline in the number of younger Australians entering
homeownership. Australia has been a nation of homeowners since 1945,
recording one of the earliest increases in the owner occupation rate amongst the
developed economies. The owner occupation rate has, however, been relatively
static since 1966, moving in a narrow band of around two-thirds of households
in homeownership. Australia’s rate of homeownership has been surpassed by
a number of other nations including Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom
(UK) (Badcock and Beer, 2000). More importantly, the economist Judy Yates
viii
Preface
has documented that since the mid 1990s (Yates, 1996) younger generations
have become less likely to enter homeownership than either their parents’ or
grandparents’ generation. More recent work by Flood and Baker (2010) has
confirmed this trend and highlighted the ongoing difficulties younger Australians
face in seeking to enter home purchase. Australian governments have been
concerned about this trend because homeownership has been an important
pillar of the nation’s welfare state, with Castles (1998) arguing that promotion of
homeownership, rather than the development of a more comprehensive welfare
state, was the ‘Really Big Tradeoff ’ implicit within Australian social democracy.
High rates of homeownership amongst the aged have reduced the cost of income
security to Australian governments (Yates and Bradbury, 2010) and enabled a
range of other social policy innovations. It is important to acknowledge that
similar systems of asset-based welfare apply in many European and Asian nations
(Doling and Ronald, 2010).
Ongoing change in the philosophies of assistance connected with housing was
a third major imperative for research into housing careers in the 21st century.
Australia has a 60-year history of substantial direct government intervention in
the housing market, most notably in the form of public sector provision for low
income households (Neutze, 1978). But over recent decades housing assistance
has become much more tightly targeted to the very poor within society, partly
as a result of a broader shift to neoliberal philosophies of government (Beer and
Paris, 2005; Larner, 2005; Dodson, 2007). Other shifts within society have also
driven change in the interactions between individuals and housing assistance,
namely change in household composition (with the increased presence of
households who do not conform to conventional ‘family’ models), the ageing of
the population and shifts in the labour market. In addition, high levels of migration
have also called into question conventional forms of policy action. Finally, it is
important to acknowledge that the ‘mainstreaming’ of services to particularly
disadvantaged groups, such as persons with a disability and family members with
care responsibilities, has created new challenges for government housing providers
and policy makers. Fresh solutions are needed for these evolving dilemmas.
The origins of this work lie in research undertaken in Australia, but the themes,
issues and concerns are common across the developed world, and especially for
English-speaking nations. The ageing of the baby boom generation has affected
many nations, as has the rise in homeownership rates and shifts in government
philosophies. It is important to acknowledge that under Epsing-Anderson’s (1990)
schema of ‘welfare capitalism’Australia is grouped with the United States (US) and
New Zealand as a ‘neoliberal’ nation, but it has much in common with the UK
and some other European nations. Importantly, the rising tide of global affluence
in developed economies has had comparable impacts on housing markets across
nations and has fundamentally reshaped attitudes to, and expectations of, housing.
There are, therefore, strong commonalities across nations in their attitudes to the
use and consumption of housing across the life course. It is, however, important
to acknowledge the differences. In Australia, for instance, the small but significant
ix
Housing transitions through the life course
Indigenous population generates housing market dynamics and patterns unknown

in Europe and even in other nations, such as New Zealand, Canada or the US,
with comparable communities.
Ensuring the ideas presented in a book are relevant to both the current and
future environment is a challenge for all authors. In this instance, the task was
all the greater because work on the manuscript began in a period of economic
prosperity.The financial market turmoil commonly referred to in Australia as the
global financial crisis (GFC) unfolded as work continued. For this book there is a
danger that the housing market conditions that have been documented are seen
to be part of the past and not relevant to a more economically challenged present
or future. There are two responses to this concern: first, we would argue that the
attitudes, behaviours and market conditions discussed in this work are the product
of long-term structural trends – demographic, labour market and economic – and
that they represent the inevitable future for housing in developed economies.
Second, we would argue there is mounting evidence that the economic tide has
already turned. We can conclude that in early 2010 the global economy appears
to have entered a period of post financial crisis with some nations recovering
much more quickly than others. Parts of Europe (Germany and France) appear
to be relatively robust, while the Australian economy is booming on the back of
strong demand for resources from China (Uren, 2010). Elsewhere, New Zealand,
Ireland and the UK remain mired in recession, while growth in the US is low
but picking up pace. This book is not primarily concerned with the difficulties
confronting the global financial system in 2007 through to 2009. It does touch,
and shed light upon, the crisis because housing market conditions were the pivotal
trigger. We can also be confident that economic cycles will turn and that those
economies currently in a downturn will revive and their housing markets – and
the aspirations of their consumers – will re-emerge.

July 2010
x
ONE
Housing markets and policy in

theÂ€21stÂ€century
Housing through the life course: questions, challenges and

opportunities
Housing remains one of the fundamental pillars of both life and lifestyle for us
as individuals. Housing is also important within our economies and societies as
it is a source of employment within the building industry, an object of public
policy attention and action, and a focus of concern for debates around fairness
or inclusion within society. This book considers the role housing plays in the
lives of individuals and households through their life course, and along the way
it confronts issues about the part housing plays within society, economy and
culture. Most writing on housing takes a cross-sectional view that considers the
housing market or the system of social provision at a single point in time. This
may be during a census or other period of data collection, or as a generalised set
of conditions lacking a temporal reference. But this is not our lived experience
of housing: at a personal level we know housing through our engagement with
the housing system; as a child being raised by parents or carers; as a young person
searching for our first accommodation; as an adult entering a relationship and
seeking a home to share; and as a household decision maker seeking a dwelling that
is convenient to employment, recreation and, potentially, schooling for children.
There is a substantial body of work on housing through the life course that
spans more than four decades. Research in this vein has discussed housing
histories (Farmer and Barrell 1981), housing careers (Kendig, 1990a), housing
pathways (Clapham, 2002; 2004; 2005a), housing biographies (Clark et al, 2003)
and more recently, housing transitions (Beer and Faulkner, 2009), but in all
instances the objective focus of analysis and discussion has been on the series of
housing circumstances occupied by an individual or household over their life
course. Much of this work has focused on critical points of transition – such as
moves into homeownership or the impact of the death of a partner – as well as
the differing trajectories of groups from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds.
There is, for example, a considerable North American literature on pathways into
homeownership for minority groups such as African and Hispanic Americans.
However, as Clark et al (2003, p 144) have observed, much of this broad body
of work has paid far greater attention to ‘only one move or one change in the
housing career’ whereas the housing careers they observed were commonly
comprised of five to nine moves over a lifetime. Moreover, Clark et al (2003)
1
noted that mobility and other studies within this research tradition have tended
to place a greater emphasis on the processes of change, while largely ignoring the
periods of stability between housing shifts. For Clark et al (2003) it is important
to think of housing over the life course as a sequence, with periods of stability
interspersed by often significant change.
Understanding how the sequence of housing plays out in the life course
of individuals and households presents significant technical and conceptual
challenges. Technically, it is difficult to find aggregate measures or indicators of
significant housing careers. Kendig (1979) presented an idealised housing career
for young households in Australia, while Farmer and Barrell (1981) sketched out
a comparable scenario for public housing tenants in Scotland. From their analysis
of housing markets in the US Clarke et al (2003) identified a limited number
of frequently observed housing sequences, though noted there is considerable
variation in housing trajectories across the population. To a degree, time acts
independently of other processes and adds to the complexity evident in housing
over the life course. It does so with respect to the period in which events may
take place, the variable duration or timing of changes, and with respect to the
maturation of the household.These are critical factors as each shapes the housing
transitions of individuals and those of the population as a whole. Events that
happen at a specific time or period may affect a whole cohort of households, as
evidenced by the rise in the number of foreclosures in the US associated with the
sub-prime crisis.This event will have a generational impact that will permanently
mark the housing careers of those affected. By contrast, the maturation of the
household is largely independent of external processes and reflects an internal
demography that potentially includes the arrival and departure of children, the
ageing of the residents, and the eventual dissolution of the household.
Conceptually, it is important to avoid a monochromatic view of housing
market processes and recognise that an individual’s experience of housing over
a life course will be affected by location (Clarke, et al, 2003), but also by race,
socioeconomic status, wealth and position within the labour market. For many
households in advanced economies, occupying or consuming housing is an end
in itself (Allon, 2008): the quality, quantity and nature of housing occupied is seen
to make a statement about the individual’s position within society and provide a
source of psychological security or comfort (Clapham, 2005a). In any discussion
of housing there is, perhaps inevitably, a tension between housing’s role in meeting
a basic human need and its status as a ‘want’ – a commodity embedded with
social, personal and economic meanings that can serve to encourage increased
consumption regardless of real needs. Our understanding of housing over the
life course has to acknowledge that housing performs different roles for different
groups within society and may serve different roles over the life course of
individuals and households. Housing is central to both human ‘wants’ and ‘needs’
and for many middle class and affluent households the sequence of homes they
occupy reflects their social, economic and other aspirations. For many poorer
households, housing is an essential need. For these individuals, movement through
2
Housing markets and policy in theÂ€21stÂ€century
the housing market is a matter of requirement not choice and is a consequence

of eviction, escalating housing costs, or mortgage default. The dualistic nature of
housing as a ‘good’, in combination with market processes, means that in many
regions it is possible to simultaneously have both a housing shortage and excess
supply.
Research into housing through the life course has a long history and a promising
future as researchers and governments grapple with questions of social constitution
and policy dilemmas. The challenge for both individual researchers and the
academic community is to develop better understandings and then communicate
those insights to as wide an audience as possible. Work in this area needs to be
informed by the economic and social environment of the 21st century, and mindful
of the differences between places and groups within society. It is also important
to shed light, where possible, on key issues of public concern, including critical
transitions. These key questions include: Will housing in the 21st century follow
the same trajectories as those evident in the 20th century? Or will economic,
social and demographic changes usher in substantial transformations in the
relationship between housing and households over their life course? In response
to large-scale changes in the social, economic and physical environment, will
lifetime housing outcomes become more or less equal between individuals and
localities? And if they change, what will be the implications for the well-being
of individuals and society in the context of mounting evidence of the impact
of housing circumstances on employment outcomes, health, social capital and
educational attainment? How will governments constitute and deliver housing
policy in the 21st century in light of the sub-prime crisis, changes in philosophies
of social assistance, competing demands for attention and resources from other
policy domains, as well as shifts in demographic structure? How will housing
demand and provision over the life course be integrated with other areas of social
and economic intervention? Finally, given recent trends in housing scholarship,
how can this research work to inform our wider theoretical understanding of
housing and housing markets?
Demographic, economic and political challenges in housing

through the 21st century
One of the most basic questions about housing over the life course in the 21st
century is whether it will follow the same pathways as those evident in the 20th
century? It is a critical question because many of the key actors in the housing
market use their explicit or implicit understanding of lifetime housing outcomes
to underpin their investment and expenditure decisions. Home builders, real
estate developers, social housing providers, rental investors and land development
companies all operate with a set of a priori assumptions on the nature and drivers
of the housing market.These assumptions are grounded in observations that link
stage in the life course to various forms of housing need or demand. Kendig
(1981, p 1) was able to articulate late 20th-century Australia’s expectations about
3
housing and the life course, recording the view:

…that nearly everybody follows the same housing progression or
‘career’. It is usually supposed that young adults with their own income
leave the family home to rent a flat and enjoy the single life. After
marriage, both partners work and economise on rent so they can save a
deposit to buy a house in which they will rear their children.Although
a few move later to bigger houses before their children grow up or to
own their flat after children leave home, it is usually assumed that most
households remain in their first owned home into old age, enjoying
the lost costs and security of outright ownership.
There is, however, strong evidence to suggest that the social and economic
conditions which underpinned that set of housing relationships have changed
profoundly. Over the last 40 years there have been substantial shifts in demographic
structure and population processes – with the structural ageing of most advanced
economies such as the UK, Italy, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Japan
– and declining fertility rates. In many nations the rate of divorce or separation
has increased (for example, Australia, US, Canada, Ireland) and there has been a
consequent rise in the number of households comprised of one person and of sole
parents. Life expectancies have continued to increase within developed economies,
with those commonly classified as the ‘old, old’ (those over 85 years of age), one
of the fastest growing segments of the population. Moreover, many older people
now enjoy levels of health and well-being that were rare within previous older
generations.The growth in the older population has both changed the nature of
demand or need for housing, and the relationship between households and their
accommodation.
Significant shifts in social attitudes have contributed to the changing relationship
between the life course and housing outcomes. In many developed economies
rates of female participation in the formal labour market have grown over the past
40 years, with a more recent rise in educational attainment, and consequent career
opportunities, for women. Many societies have also become more accepting of
alternative lifestyles and values, including gay and lesbian relationships, and these
shifts have opened up new housing and lifestyle opportunities for these groups.
There have been fundamental changes in attitudes to persons with a disability,
with a decline in support for institutional forms of accommodation and a more
positive attitude to housing that is integrated within the community (Quibell,
2004). This restructured approach to the housing of persons with a disability
creates a new set of relationships within the dwelling stock that at a societal
and individual level fundamentally reshapes the relationship between housing
outcomes and life course.
Changes in labour markets are another dimension of social and economic life
where there have been significant shifts that affect the relationship between life
course and housing. In many developed economies labour market growth has been
concentrated among persons employed part time or on a casual (non-permanent)
4
basis. These new forms of employment create different opportunities and

limitations with respect to access to home purchase and, potentially, the need for
greater mobility within the labour market. More generally, economic restructuring
in the advanced economies – with the hollowing out of manufacturing in many
nations – has directly intervened in the employment careers of individuals and
households, which in turn has affected housing outcomes. Shifts within the global
automotive industry are indicative of this larger-scale trend with an observable
preference for moving vehicle production to the global south and east (Kim and
McCann, 2008). For workers made redundant at General Motors plants in Flint,
Michigan; the MG Rover factory in Birmingham, England; or the Mitsubishi
facilities in Adelaide, Australia, the loss of well-paid, permanent employment may
result in forced relocation, a downward shift in tenure, overcrowding or reduced
housing quality.
The recent evolution of real property markets has also affected the lifetime
housing outcomes of many households. In South East England, Australia, New
Zealand and some parts of the US, escalating house prices through the late 1990s
and first decade of the 21st century have created a cohort of homeowners with
significant housing wealth. While asset values have fallen in New Zealand and
some parts of England and the US, considerable wealth remains and provides
an asset that some households use to leverage additional housing opportunities
or lifestyle aspirations (Ellis et al, 2003). In this sense the property market per
se has emerged as a factor influencing the life course of some individuals and
households. On the other hand, over the last decade some regions have evidenced
low demand for housing and consequent low house prices. In the UK there is a
considerable literature on ‘low demand’ housing estates, with many concentrated
in the ‘North’. In the US, the ‘rustbelt’ regions of some parts of the Mid West have
experienced depressed housing markets for decades (Glaeser and Gyourko, 2005),
while some of the prairie settlements in Canada have stagnated economically and
demographically (Leo and Brown, 2000; Leo and Anderson, 2006). In Australia,
the restructuring of agricultural production and the workforce has resulted in
substantial population declines which have effectively ‘trapped’ homeowners
(Econsult, 1989) whose only asset may be insufficient to support a move to another
centre. For households from these regions, the downward movement in the local
economy and housing markets effectively limits their housing experiences over
the life course.
Over the last decades increased affluence in many developed economies has
resulted in a strengthening of the role housing often plays as a site of luxury
consumption and this in turn has reshaped the relationship between housing
and the life course for a significant section of the population. The development
of luxury housing estates and ‘gated’ communities (Blakely and Snyder, 1999;
Atkinson and Flint, 2004) provides tangible evidence of the changing mores
and social expectations attached to housing. At another level, the burgeoning of
‘second’ or ‘holiday’ homes across Europe, North America and Australasia (Dijst
et al, 2005; Gallent et al, 2005) reflects both a new emphasis on the recreational
5
potentials of housing and significantly increased personal mobility.As Paris (2010)

has noted, second or holiday homes are both a trans-regional and trans-national
phenomenon with second homes in locations such as Thailand, Ireland, Spain
and the Gulf States targeted to a global market. For a growing percentage of
individuals, therefore, their lifetime experience is not one of home, but of homes.
This is perhaps best exemplified by the 2008 US Presidential candidate, Senator
John McCain, who was originally unable to number the homes he owned before
his office confirmed, after some days, his ownership of nine homes for his own use.
Discussion of the luxury nature of some housing consumption brings into focus
questions of equity or inequality in housing consumption over the life course. It
is important to question whether lifetime housing outcomes will become more
or less equal between individuals or localities, both when compared with the
past and in the coming decades. Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD, 2009) suggests that advanced economies
are becoming less equal over time with substantial increases in income inequality
since the mid 1980s in New Zealand, Finland, Germany, Portugal and the US.
The UK, Canada, Belgium and Norway recorded smaller, but still significant,
increases in income inequality, while income inequality increased in Ireland
from the 1980s to the 1990s, but then reduced sharply from the mid 1990s
to the mid 2000s to end up with a more equal income distribution overall. In
Australia, increased inequality from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s was offset
by a more even income distribution through the following decade, resulting in
no measurable change overall. In contrast, across developed economies (OECD,
2009) this trend in income inequality has been heightened by the recession
that affected many economies from late 2007. Increased income inequality will
result in much less equal housing outcomes over the life course as households or
individuals are forced to share accommodation, accept poorer quality housing,
do not enter home purchase or fall out of owner occupation. These unequal
outcomes are then reinforced by the housing market processes referred to above,
as those fortunate enough to own residential property gain access to a significant
avenue for wealth accumulation.
More unequal housing outcomes over the life course are not only of academic
interest as they can contribute to other dimensions of inequality and limited well-
being for vulnerable groups.Work by Mallett et al (2011) suggests that individuals
forced to live in precarious housing face greater levels of housing stress and
score significantly lower on objective measures of mental health.The greater the
frequency of forced moves the larger the impact, and this is further exacerbated
if the household is required to move to less secure or inappropriate housing.The
cumulative impact of this sequence of household relocations is to undermine
the mental and physical health of individuals and further marginalise already
vulnerable groups. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the homeownership rate
for Indigenous Australians is half that of the mainstream Australian population and
that their lifetime experience of housing is often marked by impermanence, forced
moves and a lack of control (Birdsall-Jones and Christensen, 2007). Indigenous
6
Australians have an average life expectancy some 15 years less than that of non-
Indigenous Australians and while their housing is not the sole cause of this gap,
it is an important part of the suite of social conditions leading to disadvantage.
Similar observations about impermanent housing could be made for ‘travellers’
in Ireland (Helleiner, 2000), low-income tenants in the US and marginalised
immigrant groups in Europe.
The role governments play now, and into the future, raises significant questions
for our understanding of housing over the life course. In all advanced economies
the public sector plays an important role in regulating housing markets, creating an
economic framework that guides investment in housing, and, in many instances,
intervening directly to meet the housing needs of some groups within society.
Governments, and government policies, are a pivotal influence – and often the
central focus – of lifetime housing outcomes. Over the last two decades, there
have been substantial shifts by governments in how they seek to achieve their
social and economic objectives in housing and related fields.A key trend has been
the rise of approaches to the development and delivery of government policies
and services that are perceived to be derived from neoliberal philosophies of
government (Dodson, 2007; O’Neil and Argent, 2007). Importantly, policies that
are identifiable as neoliberal are not standardised across nations, or indeed regions
within nations, but instead reflect a tendency towards a market orientation. Jessop
(1990; 1997; 2002) has identified a number of tendencies within contemporary
approaches to government that capture much of what is understood to be the
significant developments in how governments engage with the economy and
society.
From the perspective of housing policy and lifetime housing outcomes one of
the key governmental transformations over the past 30 to 40 years has been the
subordination of social policy to economic policy (Jessop, 2002). This trend was
especially evident as neoliberalism first emerged (Peck and Tickell, 2002) and
involved promoting policies predicated on the notion that the primary problems in
housing were economic, in particular market and policy failure, with government
intervention said to distort market signals to individuals and to businesses. As
neoliberalism evolved it became increasingly clear how untenable aspects of this
approach were and that not all social problems could be solved by ‘fast tracking’
economic growth or participation in the labour market. Governments in advanced
economies adopted neoliberalist housing policies in varying degrees: with the
UK government promoting the sale of social (council) housing from the late
1970s through to the late 1990s; the New Zealand government de-regulating
their financial markets and selling off public housing; and the Netherlands – a
nation with a strong tradition of social policy support – changing the relationship
between the state and social housing providers in the 1990s (Dieleman, 1994).
In many ways, the shifts in government philosophies of assistance directly
impinged upon the lifetime housing careers of individuals and households,
especially those on low incomes or otherwise vulnerable. In a number of nations,
such as Australia, New Zealand and the US, government-provided housing support
7
is no longer seen as a long-term commitment to the well-being of the household,

but instead has been couched as point-in-time assistance during a (limited)
period of need (Beer and Paris, 2005). Measures to reinforce this policy direction
have included the introduction of limited-term tenure in social housing, greater
targeting of access to housing assistance and the effective rationing of assistance.
What this has meant is that households who in previous generations may have
spent some, or all, of their lives in social housing are no longer able to enter the
tenure. This affects the trajectory of their lives and fundamentally reshapes their
experience of housing over their lifetime.
The move away from hierarchical forms of government to more porous forms
of governance has been one of the key shifts in philosophy of public assistance
over the last two decades and one which has reshaped the lifetime experiences
of housing in some nations, and has the potential to do so in others.The concept
of governance lies at the centre of much contemporary theory concerned with
the role of the state, and the implementation of urban and housing programmes
(see, for example, Kearns and Turok, 2000; Jordan et al, 2005). Jordan et al (2005,
p 478) observed that ‘there is no universally accepted definition of governance;
there is not even a ‘consensus on which set of phenomena can be properly
grouped under the title of governance’. While there is merit to this argument,
much of the literature recognises common elements as typical of governance,
including a shift from the formal structures of government to the incorporation of
a wider range of interests in decision making and the achievement of programme
objectives (Whitehead, 2003). Typically, governance is associated with the rise
of partnership arrangements and a reduced ability of governments to directly
determine outcomes. Governance takes different forms in different nations
and Blatter (2004) notes that within federal systems, such as the US, Canada,
Germany and Australia, governance is marked by both horizontal links between
agents and institutions, and also hierarchical, competitive and cooperative modes
of interaction. Governance, therefore, can lead to complex forms of interaction
within federations, with both positive and negative relationships possible. The
impacts of governance arrangements are more straightforward in unitary systems
of government such as the UK or France, where the national government retains
a determinant influence. Importantly, policy approaches and initiatives that are
ostensibly decentralised often reveal very little decentralisation of power and
resources (Smyth et al, 2004).That is, governments continue to exert a dominant
controlling influence, even if they are no longer directly involved in the provision
of services or supports.
Governments in a number of nations, including Australia and the UK, have
sought to expand non-state forms of assisted housing provision and involve private
and other non-government sources of finance and expertise in the development of
subsidised rental housing.The introduction of housing benefit in the UK marked
a substantial shift away from the direct subsidy of housing supply to subsidising
the consumption of rental housing, with the payment of benefit decoupled from
the provision of housing by specific forms of landlords. Housing benefit became
8
payable to tenants of non-state landlords, especially housing associations, but

also private landlords. Housing associations in the UK, moreover, increasingly
made use of private sector finance for capital development projects, while the
availability of private finance was underpinned by a housing benefit system that
guaranteed the repayment of such loans (Beer and Paris, 2005). In real terms,
the shift to governance arrangements in the delivery of housing assistance has
meant that not only are low-income households less likely to receive long-term
assistance with their accommodation, but the assistance which is available will
be provided by a different type of agency when compared with the past. In all
likelihood that new form of assistance will come with altered terms, conditions
and management practices.
More recently, debates on market-led social policies have been supplanted by
a discourse focused on a ‘Third Way’ of approaching government and politics.
The Third Way is seen to have been derived from the work of Giddens (1998,
2000) and was popularised by the incoming Blair Labour government in the
late 1990s (Powell, 2000). This philosophy was presented as constituting a new
relationship between society (government) and citizens, advocating an approach
that was focused on neither the ‘market’ or the ‘state’ but, instead, a new Third
Way. Key features of the Third Way include a focus on individual responsibility;
social inclusion, rather than equality; strengthening education and engagement
with the labour market; partnerships between the public and private sector to
achieve social and economic objectives; and a commitment to limiting public
expenditure – while encouraging those outlays it sees as social investment.While
some commentators have noted that the Third Way represents a continuation of
a number of previous ideologies of government (Rose, 2001), there can be no
denying its adoption by other nations in Europe, North America and Australasia
(Green-Pederson et al, 2001; Peck and Theodore, 2001) and across social policy
fields, including public health (Muntaner et al, 2000), education (Power and Whitty,
1999) and labour market programmes. Peck and Theodore (2001) note that Third
Way policies emphasise the need to boost the productive capacity of societies
through micromanagement of labour markets.Their observation lends weight to
Powell’s (2000) claim that this is a philosophy of the political Right, rather than,
as claimed by its advocates, a Centrist policy. It is important to acknowledge that
many policy frameworks that could be interpreted as neoliberal in their orientation
are entirely consistent with the Third Way.
Third Way perspectives on the relationship between the individual and society
have the capacity to shape lifetime housing outcomes in a number of ways, now
and into the future. First, this philosophy deliberately rejects an extensive welfare
state and the level of public sector involvement in economy and society that
characterised some nations in the latter half of the 20th century. From this it follows
that in the future few, if any, individuals or households are likely to have a history
of housing over their life course that is dependent on the public sector.The types
of housing biography that were evident amongst council housing tenants in the
UK or public housing tenants in Australia from the 1950s onwards will gradually
9
disappear. Some individuals will remain long term in social housing, but they will
be the tenants of non-government housing providers, such as registered social
landlords in the UK and non-government organisations in Australia. Second, the
emphasis placed within Third Way philosophies on educational attainment and
engagement within the labour market will reinforce the determinant role played
by position within the labour market in shaping lifetime housing outcomes.
Upwardly mobile households from low socioeconomic status backgrounds
will have access to more and better quality housing, but those in poorly paid
positions will have constrained opportunities and limited prospect of government
intervention to improve their circumstances.The emphasis given by the Third Way
(Powell, 2000) to the opportunity to participate in society, rather than equality
of outcome, effectively rules out many of the redistributive programs previously
enacted.Third, the focus on personal responsibility as part of an implicit contract
between the citizen and society empowers a managerialist approach to housing
that can fundamentally transform housing outcomes for those in social housing.
Key features include a greater use within the social housing sector of punitive
measures, such as eviction and the regulation of behaviour, as well as the application
of tenant incentive schemes (Jacobs, 2008).
Contemporary public policies affecting the lifetime housing outcomes of
individuals and households display a number of characteristics that are consistent
with both the neoliberal interpretations of government action and the Third
Way perspective. What we can conclude definitively, however, is that while the
nature of government involvement has changed in appearance, the magnitude
of that influence has not. As Jessop (1997) observed, the state has retained its
influence through its ability to set the context for social and economic change.
It is increasingly strategic in the nature and direction of its involvements, with
priority given to those areas of social and economic policy privileged by the
Third Way perspective: social inclusion, labour market engagement, educational
attainment, and discipline in public finance. At the same time there has been a
shift in the preferred model of intervention away from direct intervention to
one in which governments enunciate the regulatory and policy frameworks for
others. In short, the public sector increasingly seeks to ‘steer’ not ‘row’, or it sets
out to direct rather than implement. How the Third Way has intersected with the
outcomes of the global financial crisis evident from 2007 will be considered in
Chapter Three, but it is important to acknowledge that the depth and nature of
government intervention owes much to this institutional framework and to the
philosophical convergence among national leaders it has helped create.
Importantly, housing per se is not central to the Third Way agendas of
government, except in the case of particular groups who are perceived to be
socially excluded because of their housing, or lack of housing. A characteristic
of Third Way governments is a preoccupation with – often narrowly defined –
homelessness (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008a) and the accommodation of
groups whose needs cannot be met through the combination of the labour and
housing markets. This includes persons with a long-term disability. The lifetime
10
housing outcomes of persons with a disability are likely to be both substantially

different to those of the wider population (Beer and Faulkner, 2009) and more
likely to be the subject of ongoing policy attention. For these reasons the housing
of persons with a disability can be expected to experience a greater depth and
pace of change than was evident in the past, and they are likely to be some of
the beneficiaries of the new policy levers (Shorten, 2008). The lifetime housing
experiences of persons with a disability are considered in greater depth later in
this book, but it is important to note that in many nations there has already been
a significant shift away from institutional care to integration within the broader
community. In addition, there has been substantial reorganisation of the ways
in which publicly-funded services and supports are provided, as well as a new
emphasis on the rights of disabled persons (Quibell, 2004). At the broadest level,
the process of ‘de-institutionalisation’ has contributed to a widening of the range
of lifetime housing outcomes for this group within advanced economies.
In advanced economies the relationship between an individual or household’s
life course and their housing outcomes has been transformed over the past
30-40 years and, as discussed above, this shift has been driven by a number of
powerful processes.The drivers of change have included economic restructuring;
developments within the labour market; shifts in social and economic policy;
changing social attitudes with respect to gender, disability, and tolerance; movement
in housing markets; specific developments in housing policy; and demographic
change (Figure 1.1).This catalogue of processes is important as it raises a challenge
to conceptualise and, if at all possible assess, the influence of each. Understanding
the interplay between these factors is important, as is the way in which there are
both commonalities and differences in processes across nations.
Figure 1.1: Processes contributing to change in 21st-century housing

careers
Labour market change Movements in

Economic change
housing markets
Demographic Lifetime housing Changing values, means

change outcomes and aspirations
Change in broad- Changed roles

scale social and in society,
economic policy Housing policy eg gender, disability
Source: Designed by authors of book
11
Evidence and theory in understanding housing over the life

course
Finally, it is important to ask, how can a renewed focus on housing over the life
course inform our wider theoretical understanding of housing and the dynamics of
housing markets? Kemeny (1992) noted that much housing research appeared to
be atheoretical in its orientation, with a strong emphasis on empirical description
and measurement. Clapham (2002, 2004, 2005a) has acknowledged this critique
and has argued that social constructionist approaches allow for the development
of fresh, and theoretically connected insights into housing and its role within
society. Clapham’s preferred theoretical orientation has been to the application
of a social constructionist framework to the analysis of housing where:
...social constructionism is a broad church, with many different
emphases within it. Therefore, it is necessary to define the particular
approach taken before engaging in the main task of devising a
conceptual armoury for the study of housing.The fundamental tenet of
social constructionism is that reality is constructed by people through
interaction. It is through interaction that people define themselves and
the world they inhabit so it is through interaction that the nature of
the individual becomes apparent to themselves and to others. (Clapham
2004, pp 94-5)
The detail of Clapham’s (2002, 2004, 2005a, 2005b) pathways framework will be
discussed in the next chapter, but it is important to consider the broader theoretical
shifts impinging upon our understanding of housing and housing outcomes
over the life course, including social constructionism. Social constructionism
emphasises the subjective knowledge of our understanding of the world and that
this understanding is developed in interaction, and competition, with others or
other groups (Clapham 2004, p 95). Critically, language and discourse is central
to the emergence of socially-constituted and agreed ‘meaning’, and the subjective
meaning actors attach to a phenomenon or state – such as homelessness – is
placed at the centre of the analysis. Homelessness, from this perspective, is not an
objective state but, instead, is a set of understandings that emerges from debate
and interaction between a range of actors stretching from those without a roof
through to service providers, policy makers and the media. Jacobs et al (2004)
and others have implicitly or explicitly advanced a social constructionist agenda
through their use and promotion of discourse analysis. However, there has not
been universal acceptance of this approach, with some researchers questioning the
value of a social constructionist perspective. Fopp (2008, p 167) noted that in an
unadulterated or ‘strong’ form social constructionism leads to a position where all
knowledge is seen to be subjective and that ‘not only is it impossible to adjudicate
between competing values but it is impossible to arbitrate between competing
facts’. Further, Fopp recognised that ‘weak’ forms of social constructionism, as
advocated by Jacobs et al (2004), are faced by an inevitable contradiction in
12
attempting to privilege some forms of knowledge as objective and material, while

others are construed to be subjective and socially constructed.
Fitzpatrick (2005, p 2) has argued that critical realism offers a potentially valuable
alternative to both ‘interpretivist’ approaches (as evident in social constructionism)
and ‘positivist’ philosophies with their emphasis on statistically significant
correlations between variables. Realist approaches attempt to identify underlying
causes (Sayer, 1992) while recognising that outcomes are the product of complex
processes and that the impact of many of these drivers are highly contingent upon
circumstances. Somerville and Bengtsson (2002, p 124) developed an approach
they referred to as ‘contextualised rational action’, which they characterised as
‘accepting that a real world exists independently of our knowledge of it, and it is
critical in the sense that we regard our knowledge of that world as wholly fallible
and always open to alteration through criticism’.They also redefined the concept
of ‘necessity’ (Sayer 2000) within realist theory to one in which the elucidation
of logical relationships was central to the discussion of causality. Somerville and
Bengtsson (2002) tied this philosophical position to the concept of ‘thin rationality’
‘where individual actors are assumed to have some logical consistency in the
pursuit of their goals’ and that these goals are open to empirical investigation.
Debates around the epistemology of housing research are of fundamental
significance in shaping how the research community and policy makers examine
and discuss housing outcomes and transitions over the life course. Social
constructionist methods emphasise the meanings and values attached to housing
by different groups and by individuals at different stages in their lives (Clapham,
2005a).This approach stands in stark contrast to conventional research into housing
careers with its empirical focus on enumerating and describing the number
and direction of moves through the housing stock. By contrast, a critical realist
approach would map out a different pathway of analysis and explanation, with a
greater focus on empirical investigations to unearth the motivations of individuals
and other actors, as well as underlying causality. To a certain degree, Clapham’s
(2002; 2005a) work has placed research on housing careers or housing pathways at
the forefront of debates on epistemology and the development of housing theory.
But as Franklin (2002) noted, grand theory in housing research remains elusive,
and scholarly debates continue to move at some pace. Jacobs and Atkinson (2008),
for example, observed a range of theoretical concerns of interest to housing and
urban scholars, some of which were more practical in orientation while others
were derived from core philosophical and sociological concerns. Importantly, there
is no consensus on theoretical development in housing research, nor even on the
types of issues that should be the subject of such development. In this context,
the challenge for Housing Transitions is to provide a comprehensive account of
housing outcomes over the life course in the 21st century, while simultaneously
providing insight into the key processes, perspectives and issues that surround
this component of social and individual life. How we contribute to the empirical
and theoretical traditions embedded in housing research will become apparent
over the subsequent chapters.
13
The Housing 21 Survey
Large-scale surveys or data sets are one of the ways researchers have traditionally
sought to understand the relationship between the life course and housing.While
not consistent with a social constructionist perspective, the attraction of quantified
outcomes cannot be denied.Throughout this book we will make use of the results
of our own large-scale survey, The Housing 21 Survey, to shed light on the key
issues and conceptual challenges confronting our understanding of housing over
the life course. The Housing 21 Survey is very much a product of Australian
conditions and circumstances, but we would argue that there are substantial
similarities between housing conditions in Australia and those evident in the UK,
the US, New Zealand, Canada, France, Germany, and other developed economies.
In a global economy ruled by free markets and consumption, differences between
nations are often a matter of degrees not substance.
The Housing 21 Survey was developed through 2006 and sought to investigate
the relative importance of the potential drivers of lifetime housing. The survey
was undertaken using a computer-aided telephone interviewing (CATI) method
with 2,600 interviews undertaken across all Australian states and territories. Data
collection commenced in October 2007 and ended in January 2008 and there
was a 38 per cent response rate. The full details of the methods employed are
provided in Beer and Faulkner (2009).
14
TWO
Housing over the life course: housing

histories, careers, pathways and
transitions
Change in the way individuals and households live in, use and consume housing
over the course of their lives has been, and remains, a dynamic field of housing
research.While Kemeny (1992) and others (Clapham, 2005a; O’Neil, 2008) have
decried the failure of housing studies to engage with contemporary sociological
theory, researchers from across the globe have quietly amassed a significant body
of work that sheds light on the changing relationship between households and the
dwellings in which they live over their life course (see, for example, Abramson,
2008; Gram-Hanssen and Bech-Danielsen, 2008; Mandic, 2008).This chapter sets
out to review this body of published work and begins with a discussion of the role
of risk within contemporary society before moving on to examine debates around
housing careers, housing histories, housing biographies and housing pathways.
The chapter concludes that there is a need to recast our thinking around this
issue and that in the 21st century it is now more appropriate to consider the way
individuals move through the housing stock as a set of transitions that embraces
both permanent and temporary relocation and the simultaneous occupancy of
multiple dwellings. There is also a need to consider the adverse, as well as the
positive, outcomes that result from participation in the housing market, explicitly
recognising that for many individuals their experience of housing over their life
course is not an upward ‘ladder’ of increasing opportunity and consumption.
Risk, the life course and housing

Over the last decade or so a number of sociologists such as Beck (1992; 2000)
and Giddens (1999) have written extensively on the concept of a ‘risk society’.
They argue that change within economic and social structures has eroded the
certainties of the previous ‘Fordist’ or industrial society and resulted in a process
of ‘individualisation’ where individuals and households are increasingly confronted
by the risks – and opportunities – of a rapidly changing social and economic
environment. Giddens (1999) argues that social organisation increasingly avoids
risk and seeks forms that are responsive to risk. It is argued that in the past
governments and institutions mitigated the level of risk within society through a
comprehensive welfare state, strongly developed social institutions (such as family
and marriage), and widespread wage employment. By contrast, contemporary
society has been marked by a reduction in welfare provision (Beck, 2000), a
15
weakening of some social institutions and traditional roles, and new forms of paid
work, including the contracting out of work previously performed by employees.
There are links also with contemporary debates around neoliberalism (Peck,
2001; Larner, 2005).
There are many dimensions to ‘risk society’ theory but only a few will be
considered here. The concept of individualisation is important because it
suggests that both life course and housing careers will come to encompass a
greater range of outcomes as the differences between individuals become more
pronounced. Importantly, as Beck (2000) noted, the rise of a risk society gives
individuals the opportunity to ‘script their own lives’. For some individuals a
post-industrial society offers greater choice with respect to lifestyle and living
arrangements, as well as enhanced opportunities to accumulate wealth. Others are
left exposed within a relatively insecure labour market, where social institutions
and government- and community-provided supports are less comprehensive than
in the past. Social theorists such as Beck and Giddens have also introduced the
concept of ‘manufactured uncertainty’: that is, recognition that the critical risks
faced in the contemporary world are those generated through human action, rather
than as a consequence of the natural environment. Importantly, the ‘risk society’
identified by Beck and others should not be seen as a temporary phenomenon
in place until the certainties of the past have been regained. Indeed:
…the specificity of the risk regime is that it firmly rules out, beyond
a transition period, any eventual recovery of the old certainties of
standardised work, standard life histories, and an old-style welfare
state, national economic and labour policies. Rather, the concept of a
risk regime refers to a key principle of the second modernity, whose
‘logic’ leads to new forms and images of economy and work, society
and politics. (Beck, 2000, p 70)
The impact of a risk society on contemporary housing is evident in many ways.
Increasingly, household formation, and the housing consumption decisions of
existing households, is shaped by a greater level of uncertainty. Previously young
men and women could anticipate finding work, leaving the family home, marrying
in their early 20s and raising children in the security of long-term employment
(Neutze and Kendig, 1991; Badcock and Beer, 2000). By contrast, young adults
in developed economies today tend to delay entry into the labour force as they
complete higher education. In addition, there has been a rescripting of relationships
with many now partnering later in life and/or establishing a second, third or fourth
long-term relationship over their life course. In addition, in the contemporary
era long-term relationships may or may not involve marriage; and entry into
homeownership may be delayed – or cancelled altogether – because of an insecure
relationship, the high cost of housing, or as a consequence of part-time, casual or
contract employment. As a number of authors have noted (Williams 1984; Paris
1992), across a range of advanced economies the period from the late 1940s to the
mid 1970s was marked by a strong and causal relationship between the growth of
16
Housing over the life course: housing histories, careers, pathways and transitions
manufacturing industry and the expansion of owner occupation. The relatively

high and secure wages offered by manufacturing employment provided the
foundation for mass homeownership in places such as the US, Canada, Australia
and New Zealand. The shift to a post-industrial society – with greater levels of
inherent risk for individuals – has profound implications for housing tenure,
housing form and housing consumption preferences over the life course.
Both prosperity and economic crisis have shaped housing experiences through
the first decade of the 21st century and helped recast the relationship between
individuals, households and lifetime housing outcomes. While much current
attention is focused on the outcomes and impacts of the global financial meltdown
of 2007 and 2008 (Blyth 2008; Schwartz 2008), most developed economies have,
with some perturbations, grown strongly since the early 1990s. Both economic
expansion and contractions were, in large measure, driven by the ‘financialisation’
of the economy that directed additional funds into all segments of the economy,
including the housing sector, restructured large parts of the labour market, and
generated considerable wealth for some within society. The ‘spillover’ effects
into the housing sector have been considerable and for a significant proportion
of the population in advanced economies, homes have become sites of luxury
consumption rather than places for the satisfaction of basic needs such as shelter,
warmth or security.This combination of economic cycles and social realignment
has generated new dimensions to the relationship between housing and the life
course of individuals, with some of the key developments being:
• greater mobility within the housing stock with people shifting tenure and
location more frequently than in the past;
• entry into homeownership occurring later in life;
• an increasing prevalence of owning a second home during the later adult years,
either as an investment property, a holiday home or both;
• an increasing impact associated with inheritance, and especially housing
inheritance, as current generations inherit from those born in the 1920s, 1930s
and 1940s;
• a reduced propensity to enter aged care housing in the later years of life and a
greater likelihood of ageing in place;
• greater diversity in housing outcomes as a consequence of the widening of the
income distribution, as a result of social change and as an outcome of greater
diversity in the ethnic and cultural constitution of many developed economies.
Economic change and the restructuring of labour markets have had a profound
impact on the life course of both individuals and households. Work and labour
markets influence the ability of households to purchase different kinds of housing
services; affect investors’ propensities to buy/let/sell housing in relation to other
investment opportunities and shape differences between households’ capacities.
Key issues have included the shift away from ‘Fordist’ large-scale production
with big factories and long production runs, to ‘Post-Fordist’ production units,
17
flexible production and service provision (Beck, 1992). Much large-scale

manufacturing has moved, or is moving, to cheaper labour countries and these
processes have affected places including industrial towns and suburbs, which
have been transformed or abandoned, while in many nations large public sector
housing estates have been sold, become places of concentration of disadvantaged
households, or have been demolished.
The idea of a ‘job for life’ with individuals having single ‘careers’ through their
lifetime has, in many instances, been replaced by serial contracts, interspersed
with periods of non-employment, and mobility between occupational groups
and types. The transformation of labour markets has had highly differentiated
and still changing social effects, including the transformation of manufacturing
in advanced economies from a mass employer of largely unskilled male labour
to a highly mechanised complex production system with few workers but
more highly skilled specialists. This transformation is evident across a range of
sectors from automotive manufacturing to biotechnology and food production.
The evaporation of opportunities for lifetime manual work has displaced older
unskilled men. The labour market position of women has changed as more have
entered graduate professions. For many women, as well as men, the new labour
market structures offer only part-time, insecure jobs, with serial negotiation and
re-negotiation of contracts.
The changing complexion of the life course can be presented diagrammatically
as a shifting relationship between household income, expenditure and tenure
(Figure 2.1).As the image suggests, contemporary and anticipated life courses have
become more complex than 30 years ago, with substantial implications for the
relationship between the individual and housing outcomes.There are now more
opportunities to accumulate wealth, but there is a new potential for substantial
costs at critical phases in the life course. Among the aged, for example, there have
been substantial shifts in post-retirement housing. In many advanced economies
increasingly older people will choose to ‘age in place’ rather than spend long
periods in specialist aged accommodation (Brink, 2002).While staying within the
community presents new opportunities for successful ageing, it also brings with it
previously unknown challenges as older persons may enter and leave specialised
accommodation several times and may need to draw upon – and pay for – a range
of services to maintain them in their home. There is an important geographical
dimension to these new interactions between life course and housing outcomes
as the set of opportunities and constraints affecting any individual will be shaped
by spatially differentiated labour markets, trends within local housing markets,
and opportunities for government assistance that vary place by place.
Housing histories, housing careers and housing pathways

The concepts of housing careers, housing pathways and housing histories first
received widespread attention within the academic literature in the 1970s and
early 1980s (Pickvance, 1974; Payne and Payne, 1977; Kendig, 1984; Forrest,
18
Figure 2.1: Changed life histories and changing housing careers

Industrial society
$
Family formation Children leave home Retirement
Income
Expenditure
Rent- Outright Aged

Home purchase
ing ownership care
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Age
Post-industrial society
$
Divorce Providing care Being cared for

Inheritance
Income
Expenditure
Home Outright Living in

Renting purchase Renting Home purchase ownership aged unit
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Age
Source: Adapted from Williams (2003, p 166)
1987).This body of research noted that there is a strong correlation between stage
in the life cycle and the type of housing an individual occupies. Households, it
was argued, progress through the housing market in response to their changing
demographics, economic and social circumstances. Households were seen to ascend
simultaneously three discrete but related ladders: an employment career; a life
stage progression (implicitly raising children); and a housing career. The pattern
of housing consumption was also seen to reflect local housing market conditions
as the specific circumstances in any place – such as the cost of housing, the type
of stock available and tenure structure – influenced outcomes. Importantly, this
19
body of work recognised that housing careers or housing histories reflected the
balance of constraints and opportunities that directed households into particular
situations within the housing system.
Housing careers
Conventionally, the concept of a housing career has been used to explain the
strong correlation between the type of dwelling a household occupied and its
stage in the life cycle. Through the 1980s the concept of a housing career was
associated with the owner occupied sector (Thorns, 1981; Forrest and Kemeny,
1983; Kendig, 1984; 1990a; Myers, 1999) and for many writers ‘homeownership
was the peak, the apogee of the housing career’ (Clark et al, 2003). Socially and
economically aspiring households were considered to possess a housing career that
paralleled their career within the work place (Saunders, 1990). A series of moves
into progressively more expensive housing generally accompanied occupational
success. Dwellings were seen to be exchanged either to improve the level of
housing amenity enjoyed by the household, increase opportunities for capital
gains through housing, or as a consequence of the movement to a new housing
market as a result of a job transfer. Thorns (1981) considered the latter to be a
significant influence within the housing market in Christchurch, New Zealand,
while Forrest and Kemeny (1983) outlined a typical housing career for owner
occupants in Britain in their discussion of the relationship between furnished
private rental housing and homeownership. They argued that owner occupants
became investors in that section of the rental market as their economic position
changed and as they took advantage of the housing circumstances around
them. In many respects this conventional view of a ‘housing career’ implies an
upward and ordered trajectory of increasing opportunity, comfort and wealth.
Kendig et al (1987) represented this graphically as a ladder (Figure 2.2), with
individual households pursuing upward movement through the housing market,
while the arrows to the sides respectively indicate both pathways ‘forward’ and
the mechanisms for slipping ‘backward’. The figure implies a start point and a
destination and also suggests a hierarchy of tenures, as well as a household structure
amenable to repaying a mortgage.
Throughout the 1980s research on housing careers was often explicitly linked
to the wider debate on domestic property classes (Saunders, 1978, 1979, 1981,
1984) and this connection is illustrated by the work of Farmer and Barrell (1981).
Their work focused on the opportunities hypothetically available to middle class
British households seeking to maximise their returns from housing. Farmer and
Barrell (1981) examined the conditions in Britain’s housing and financial markets
between 1965 and 1979. They concluded that owner occupants would have
received the greatest possible gains from their participation in the housing market
if they followed a deliberate career involving the sale and repurchase of a dwelling
every three years, at high rates of borrowing.They estimated that households that
moved frequently and purchased dwellings at low capitalisation rates received
20
Figure 2.2:The housing career ‘ladder’

‘Up’ ‘Down’
moves moves
Outright owner
Mortgage paid
Second-time buyer
Two incomes
High wages Unemployment
Savings First-time buyer Divorce
Subsidy Personal problems
Public tenant
Moderate
income
Private tenant
First job
Living with parents
Source: Based on Kendig et al (1987, p 30)
a return of 15.7 per cent on their initial outlay. Non-movers and persons who
moved infrequently received slightly lower returns of 11.7 per cent and 14.7 per
cent. Significantly, Farmer and Barrell showed that, in theory at least, the choice
of housing career affected the financial returns arising out of homeownership.
Households that adopted a conservative strategy accumulated capital through
the establishment of equity in their home. Households who moved frequently
accrued benefits through a rise in the capital value of their dwellings.
Badcock and Beer (2000) presented their understanding of housing careers
as a set of processes akin to a game of ‘snakes and ladders’ (Figure 2.3). They
argued that ‘it is no longer good enough to presume that homeownership is an
escalator for everyone, or to assign homeowners to a class position and leave it
at that’ (p 9), noting that ‘not everyone enjoys the fruits of capital accumulation’
(p 10). Badcock and Beer’s (2000) understanding of, and imagery for, the way
individuals interact with the housing market was a reflection of its time, with a
greater appreciation of households falling out of homeownership (AHURI, 1998)
and the busts as well as the booms of the housing market. In many ways ‘snakes
and ladders’ constitutes an intuitively attractive metaphor for the housing market
because it does not imply one pathway or direction, and captures some of the
complexities many people face as they seek to balance their housing aspirations
with other dimensions of life. However, it is a flawed representation because it
21
Figure 2.3:The board game of snakes and ladders
Source: Badcock and Beer (2000, p 90)
implies a single start point and destination – ‘home’ – and because it suggests that
all participants eventually achieve a single goal.
Housing histories
The concept of a housing career provides a useful perspective on the position of

individual households within the housing systems of a diverse range of nations.
The insights offered into the relationship between household demography and
housing outcomes has added greatly to the housing studies literature, but the
concept of a housing career can be challenged on a number of grounds. First,
the conventional definition of a housing career is limited in that it assumes
households move to achieve greater levels of housing satisfaction in their housing
or to realise a capital gain. Individuals and households are seen to advance their
material position, choosing only to consume less housing during the later part
of their life when a substantial dwelling may no longer be appropriate. Second,
the concept of a housing career explicitly emphasises choice within the housing
22
market and the individual household’s ability to achieve its aspirations. It presents
an interpretation of personal experiences which suggests that housing outcomes
are a product of the relatively unconstrained preferences of individuals. Each
household is seen to be linked causally with a dwelling because that structure has
matched their housing and lifestyle requirements.Third, demographic factors alone
have been related to the accommodation of the household. Housing and stage
in the life cycle have been related in a purposive manner without reference to
other influences, such as the values or aspirations of household members, broader
social development and position in the workforce.
Forrest (1987) discussed the definition of housing histories and their relationship
to the specific processes shaping housing markets. He distinguished the term
housing history from the alternative notions of housing career and housing pathways
(Payne and Payne, 1977). Forrest (1987) argued that there are sets of housing
experiences shared by persons on the basis of class, gender, race and locality.
Groups of households, he argued, will experience particular outcomes with respect
to their housing on the basis of where they live, what they are able to earn and
the accommodation subsidies available to them. In this conceptualisation, actors
and influences external to the housing market will, in large measure, determine
outcomes, with the household’s position within the labour market exerting the
single greatest influence. Other factors, such as location, ethnicity and gender,
may serve as additional determinants of housing opportunities.
The concept of housing histories recognises that structural influences have a
substantial impact on the types of dwellings households occupy and the nature
of their occupancy. Payne and Payne (1977) argued from their study of tenure
change in Aberdeen, Scotland, that a household’s accommodation is a function
of the householder’s ability to gain access to housing first, and stage in the life
cycle a distant second. In their study, the household’s economic resources dictated
the type of housing they occupied and the researchers noted that there was little
movement between public tenancy and owner occupancy amongst their subjects.
Life cycle characteristics altered merely the household’s position within this tenure
framework. Couples who could not afford to purchase a home languished in
private rental as public housing was usually denied childless families.The majority
of households renting from the council in Aberdeen were only able to move
into public housing after the birth of the first, or more commonly the second,
child. Similar limiting influences operated within the private sector. Households
did not enter owner occupation after the birth of the first child because of the
substantial costs associated with raising a family. In short, owner occupation in
Aberdeen was a ‘closed shop’ in which economic resources were the key to access
and household characteristics played a peripheral role. A compatible argument
can be developed with respect to other processes operating in housing markets.
Forrest (1987) noted that a homeowner in the English Midlands was in a very
different position from an outright owner in London.The substantial discrepancy
in dwelling prices between the two areas meant that a house in the Midlands could
not be substituted for a comparable dwelling in London.The spatial characteristics
23
and structure of the British housing market was the limiting influence and one
which dictated the ongoing opportunities available to individual households.
The importance of constraints within the housing market cannot be denied.
Forrest (1987) recognised that while many housing histories contained a strong
career element, ‘others are chaotic and characterised by constraints and coping
strategies’ (p 1624). Kendig (1984) found similar evidence with fully 43 per cent
of movers in Adelaide, South Australia in 1975-76 changing their residence for
reasons that had little to do with dissatisfaction with their previous dwelling
(p 274). Moves compatible with the concept of ‘a housing career’ did occur,
especially among young people. Other influences, however, also precipitated
moves between dwellings and localities. Housing careers per se were lost amidst
the multitude of social processes shaping the housing market and the trajectory
of individuals through that market. Clearly, the notion of a housing career does
not provide an adequate explanation of movement through, or outcomes within,
the housing market and it is important to incorporate structural factors in our
understanding of the determinants of lifetime housing outcomes.
‘Housing careers’ and ‘housing histories’ as conventionally understood, are
diametrically opposed in some key respects but similar in the focus they place
on movement through the housing market, and a link with the life course. The
concept of a housing career emphasises free choice within the market and implies
an upward trajectory. Households within this paradigm are seen to move to better
their situation with respect to tenure or the quality and quantity of housing
consumed. Housing histories, by contrast, relate households to the social and/or
economic constraints on their housing, especially their position within the labour
market. Clearly, both perspectives must be considered and have something to offer
our understanding of lifetime housing outcomes. Individuals act according to their
free will and attempt to satisfy their personal needs and wants.They act, however,
within a range of limiting constraints, which may proscribe the outcomes available
to them. Clark et al (2003) acknowledged this interplay between constraints
and opportunities and applied a life course perspective to their research into
what they characterised as the ‘complex process of how households bring their
housing consumption into balance with their housing needs’ (see also Deurloo
et al, 1994). Their research focused on the sequence of housing states occupied
by individuals and households over time, as defined by tenure and the quality
of dwellings occupied. Importantly, Clark et al (2003) drew a conceptual link
between housing circumstance, progress through the housing market (which they
labelled housing career), and family status.
The idea of an irregular or spasmodic sequence lies at the heart of Clark et al’s
(2003) research, as they noted that:
…the emphasis on sequences and on housing states in this paper serves
to rebalance the focus in much of the literature, which pays greater
attention tothe analysis of only one move or one change [original
emphasis] in the housing career. We know that a complete housing
24
career can be made up of 5-9 moves with often relatively long stable
periods in between these moves. The more limited ‘short window’
studies of mobility itself probably overemphasise the event of moving
and give relatively little attention to the periods of stability. (p 144)
Clark et al (2003) hypothesised that housing careers were likely to be affected by
the life stage of individuals and households, with higher rates of movement or other
change in early adulthood and greater stability later in life.They also expected to be
able to identify pronounced regional differences, with the composition and price
of dwellings in different parts of the US influencing the number and direction of
moves through the housing stock.They also noted that previous researchers such
as Kendig (1981) and Harts and Hingstman (1986) observed substantial variation
in housing careers within a population with respect to both the number of moves
through the housing market and the final housing occupied by a household.
Clark et al (2003) used data from the US Panel Study of Income Dynamics
for the period 1968 to 1993 to examine patterns in the sequencing of housing
over life course across continental US. In total this analysis provided them with
some 8,663 housing careers to analyse against a matrix of tenure (renting versus
owning) and price (high cost or low cost).They found that many of the observed
housing careers were, in fact, remarkably simple, with one or fewer changes in
state over the 26 years of observations. The authors found that some 26 ‘typical’
housing sequences accounted for the vast majority of housing careers, and just
11 sequences accounted for 75 per cent of the total.They were also struck by the
fact that 63 per cent of all housing careers over this period ended with owner
occupation and that:
The many sequences with a dominantly stable situation in the housing
market exceed our expectations.The emphasis on the whole housing
career...brings forward these long periods of stability in the housing
market for many households. (Clark et al, 2003, p 153)
Interestingly, 77 per cent of housing careers showed an ascending pattern with
respect to tenure and the price/quality of the housing, but that almost one quarter
of two or more stage careers had a descending trajectory and this was consistent
with the authors’ earlier work (Clark et al, 2000) on overcrowding. Overall, Clark
et al (2003) concluded that income level and the growth of incomes were the
major drivers of tenure and housing quality over the long term and that ‘these
variables play a determining role in the development of the housing careers
of households over longer stretches of their life course’ (p 155). Geography or
location was seen to play a role, but it was a more limited impact and one which
added nuance to the larger national trends.
Clark et al’s (2003) contribution to this literature is important because it
emphasises the interplay between structural processes and household dynamics,
especially the career trajectories and incomes of household members. At a
substantive level, their work provides concrete evidence of the reality of housing
careers and the capacity to identify meaningful patterns or sequences amidst
25
a wealth of observations. The fact that there is both a considerable diversity

of sequences or careers and a tendency towards a limited number of relatively
simple careers is significant, as it reinforces the utility of this concept within
housing analysis. In addition, their work acknowledges the importance of location
in shaping opportunities for movement through the housing market, while
recognising that not all households enjoy an ascending housing career.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that a housing career is essentially an
Anglo-Celtic construct and some researchers have criticised the concept for
relating to a specific generation or generations with relatively stable housing
circumstances (Watt, 2005). Households and individuals from other backgrounds
may have very different relationships with their housing over their life course,
and increasing cultural diversity in many developed economies has contributed
to a widening of housing outcomes, both at a point in time and over the life
course.We also need to recognise that the housing careers of indigenous peoples
vary considerably from those of the remainder of the population. Birdsall-Jones
and Christensen (2007) have documented the relationship between housing and
the life course for Indigenous Australians in Western Australia. Their research
showed that the housing careers of many urban Indigenous households were
shaped by long-term poverty, incidences of family and neighbourhood conflict,
and impeded access to social housing, partly as a consequence of management
practices. In addition, research across Australia has shown that cyclical mobility is
a feature of the housing careers of some Indigenous households (Taylor, 1997),
while others are confronted by problems of homelessness (Allwood and Rogers,
2001), discrimination (Paris, 1992), eviction from public and private rental
accommodation (Flatau et al, 2004) and limited housing options. Many Indigenous
households have successful housing careers in homeownership or community
based housing, though the home purchase rate amongst Indigenous Australians
is roughly half that of the population as a whole (Roberts et al, 2005).
Housing pathways
More recently Clapham (2002; 2004) has argued that research needs to focus on
housing pathways that explicitly link the objective analysis of movements through
the housing market with the subjective examination of individual experience.
Clapham explicitly links this paradigm to both social constructionism (see Jacobs
et al, 2004) and Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration. Clapham’s (2002; 2004)
housing pathways need to be interpreted with reference to these other, very
substantial, bodies of scholarship.
In common with some other commentators (Kemeny, 1992), Clapham (2002;
2004) argues that much housing research is both atheoretical and overly focused
on government policy. He considers this to be a major failing on two levels: first,
governments do not directly influence housing outcomes for the vast majority
of the population within advanced economies, and research is inadvertently
skewing our understanding of housing market processes and outcomes. Second,
26
housing researchers have distanced themselves from conceptual developments in

other areas of social sciences, especially sociology. This latter argument echoes
a common theme in Kemeny’s (1992) writing. For Clapham the key failing in
contemporary housing scholarship is the failure to address both structure (the
set of institutional arrangements that shape behaviours in the housing market)
and agency (the decisions, values and subjective experiences of individuals and
households). The failure to address agency is seen to be a particular gap because,
as authors such as Giddens (1990) and Beck (2000) argued, globalisation and
the emergence of new technologies and production processes have encouraged
individualism and eroded the institutions that previously shaped people’s lives
(Clapham 2002, p 59). Individuals and individual households are now better
placed than in the past to shape their own lives. Clapham (2002) concurs with
Giddens’ (1991) argument that there has been an:
‘opening out’ of social life in which individuals are more able to make
their own lives by actively making choices.This is encapsulated by the
concern with ‘lifestyle’, by which is meant the desire to choose an
individual identity, which leads to self fulfilment. (Clapham, 2002, p 59)
Housing, it is argued by Clapham (2002; 2004), is a critical part of the search
for a lifestyle that leads to self fulfilment and that housing ‘is a means to an end
rather than an end in itself ’ (Clapham, 2002, p 59). Housing is seen as a place of
security and enabling for a household (King, 1996), an essential ingredient in the
search for Mazlow’s ‘self actualisation’.
Clapham (2002) recognises that not all households can achieve self fulfilment
through their housing. Individualisation carries with it greater levels of risk: risk
of unemployment, risk of short-term contracts, and risk of divorce. There is also
variable risk according to stage in the life course.Young adults may be at risk of
not securing appropriate housing while older people may not find appropriate
accommodation when specialist supports and services are needed to assist them
with ill-health or disability. Persons with a disability may be at risk of not finding,
or not affording, appropriate accommodation in an era when governments no
longer provide large-scale targeted investments directed at meeting their housing
needs. Within Clapham’s pathways paradigm, housing is seen to contain many
sets of meanings and it is these meanings that need to be located at the centre
of any analysis. This is a significant departure from both the housing history and
housing career perspectives discussed earlier, as they focus on measuring change
in housing circumstances and assessing the structural influences that have shaped
those movements. By contrast, Clapham’s (2002; 2004) framework of analysis
focuses on how individual households interpret and understand their progression
through the housing system.
Housing pathways research, Clapham (2002; 2004) suggests, should be thought
of as a ‘framework for analysis – a way of framing thought’ (2002, p 63) that focuses
upon the concept of a housing pathway, which is defined as:
27
…patterns of interactions (practices) concerning house and home over

time and space (2002, p 63)
and
…the continually changing set of relationships and interactions
which it (the household) experiences over time in its consumption of
housing.... a housing pathway….seeks to capture the social meanings
and relationships associated with this consumption in the different
locales. (2002, p 64)
Critically, housing pathways research is seen to embrace all the elements of
conventional housing career research, but extends its reach to explore the
meanings attached to the home, the relationship with other life events, and
interactions within the neighbourhood. Clapham (2002) argues that his approach
accommodates the fact that a household’s residential circumstances change, even
if the members don’t move dwelling or tenure. For example, social rental housing
no longer carries the same set of meanings as a decade ago, a fact highlighted by
the abolition of lifetime tenure in government-owned housing within a number
of Australian jurisdictions, and the shift from council-owned housing to registered
social landlords in parts of the UK. A housing career perspective would see these
households as not having experienced change, while a pathways approach would
seek to investigate how their circumstances have shifted as a result of the new
tenure arrangements, and would endeavour to investigate the views of tenants
on the impact of this transformation on their lives. Similarly, as Clapham (2005a)
explicitly notes, ‘home’ carries a different set of meanings for older people than
it did ten, 20 or 30 years previously when they were working. From Clapham’s
(2005a) perspective, the challenge is to understand how these meanings have
changed and what implications that change carries for the individual or individuals.
Clapham (2002; 2004) ties his housing career paradigm to concepts of life
planning and identity, with the former drawing heavily on the work of Giddens
(1984). In essence, the concept of life planning recognises that households do not
consume housing in isolation from other dimensions of life and that ‘households
undertake life planning in search of identity and self fulfilment’ (Clapham, 2002,
p 65). A housing pathway follows a life course pathway that includes education,
employment, the decision to have children (or not), housing and relationships.
Moreover, households recognise this fact and
…develop a long term view of where they would like to be in the
future and formulate a strategy to achieve this that will frame individual
decisions.The existence of a strategy is a guide to the extent to which
they engage in what Giddens calls life planning by actively seeking to
organise and control their lives. (Clapham, 2004, pp 99-100)
In support of his argument, Clapham (2004) cites other researchers (Anderson
et al 1994; McCrone, 2004) who reported that a significant fraction of households
28
in their surveys had explicit and deliberate housing strategies that were integrated
with lifetime goals.
Identity is an important part of the subjective inquiry that distinguishes the
pathways framework from other perspectives. Clapham recognises both ontological
identity – self-identity – and categorical identity,‘the labels which are ascribed to
us by ourselves, and by society’ (Clapham, 2002, p 65). Housing clearly affects both
ontological and categorical identity: we are a ‘homeowner’, a ‘home purchaser’,
or a ‘tenant’; and, the housing we occupy may shape how we perceive our place
in the world. Importantly, Clapham (2002) recognises that ‘disability’ is one of the
categories around which discourse and conflict is constructed, with competing
views presented by various parties. He notes that:
…the discourses associated with physical and mental disability have
been actively contested by professions, government agencies and
interest groups in what has been called the politics of identity. It is
here that the power games outlined earlier are played in which the
actors attempt to mobilise their resources to ensure their discourse
is the one adopted in public policy and in general discourse. (p 65)
Clapham (2002) therefore urges researchers to investigate the politics of identity
associated with particular housing pathways followed by identifiable groups.
Clapham’s (2002; 2004) ideas on housing pathways are original and stimulating.
The challenge is to translate this framework into concrete research and he suggests
researchers need
…to employ ethnographic or biographic methods to understand the
meaning of individuals and households and the conscious aspects of
behaviour. However, the unconscious aspects need to be explored
bearing in mind the constraints and opportunities, which structure
them and are reproduced by them. (2002, p 66)
The focus of research, he suggests, must be on the factors that are associated with
a change in the pathway, with the life plan either being redrafted or edited for
external reasons. He also suggests that it is important to generalise from individual
pathways to the broader population by focusing on the meanings households
attach to their housing; recognising how individuals create their own life plan in
association with their lifestyle decisions; and, by recognising the dynamic nature
of pathways and how they change over time.
Intuitively, the housing pathways approach is attractive, but we need to recognise
that attempts to put into effect social constructionist and/or structuration
perspectives are confronted by very real challenges associated with the
transferability of the results and the emphasis given to the debates or discourses
around housing. Somerville (2002), for example, commends the pathways
framework but challenges the need to ground it within a postmodern social
constructionist perspective, arguing instead it should be framed within more
substantial social theory. Jacobs (2002) points out the impossibility of measuring
29
‘unconscious meanings and actions’ (p 75) while King (2002) critiques Clapham
for linking housing pathways to social constructionism, a theoretical position, he
argues that is now disappearing from other areas of sociological research. King
(2002) suggests that a ‘postmodern analytical framework’ is an oxymoron and
echoes Somerville’s (2002) contention that structuration theory simultaneously
explains everything and nothing.
It is important to ask whether the housing pathways approach adds valuable
insights beyond the more conventional discussion of housing careers, whether it
can be disentangled from a social constructionist approach, and whether it can be
put into operation in a way that results in generalisable outcomes rather than a
series of insights into the values and meanings held by a select group of individuals.
In large measure we should accept that the housing pathways perspective does
add to our understanding of housing processes: its focus on people’s perception of
their housing circumstances, its concern with the ‘fit’ between housing outcomes
and life plan, and the role of housing in shaping identity is important. It could,
for example, be argued that shifts in tenure patterns amongst some groups could
be attributed to shifts in their sense – and construction – of identity. Second, it is
important to question whether it is possible to fuse a housing pathways perspective
with a housing careers perspective.That is, can we successfully integrate the analysis
of the subjective meaning of housing when examining more objective measures
of movement through the housing stock?
Housing transitions
The concepts of housing careers, housing histories and housing pathways all
add to our understanding of the changing relationship between individual
households and housing outcomes over the life course. Determinant factors in
this relationship include age, household income, region or locality, the personal
and social ‘meanings’ attached to housing, the presence or absence of children
in the household, and the impact of policy frameworks that may influence
access to resources such as social housing, subsidised private rental housing or
homeownership. The work of Clapham (2005a) on the subjective dimension of
housing through the life course has added greater depth to our comprehension of
how individuals interact with the housing market. At the same time, there is now
a greater appreciation of diversity in housing outcomes, with some individuals
and groups following trajectories that differ greatly from assumed social ‘norms’.
It is no longer possible to identify a ‘typical’ housing career as lifetime housing
outcomes are differentiated by gender, ethnicity, region, nation and social class.
This more nuanced understanding of housing outcomes matches increasing
complexity within society and the life course of individuals.
The terms housing career, housing pathways and housing history all carry
intellectual baggage that impedes the further development of our understanding of
the relationship between households and their lifetime housing outcomes. In the
past, a small number of researchers (May, 1999; Rugg and Ford, 2004) have used
30
the term ‘housing biographies’ to reflect the life histories of individuals and their
housing. While attractive at some levels, this term implies a subjective, anecdotal
perspective on housing over the life course that does not reflect the broader-scale
patterns evident in analyses across populations. We consider the term housing
transitions better reflects the complex and fluid relationship between individuals
in developed economies and their housing in the 21st century. It places a focus
on ongoing change – potential or real – in housing circumstances and leaves
open the possibility of identifying common housing ‘sequences’ that may shift
over time in response to social, economic and cultural developments. It is to be
expected that in all nations there will be a limited number of common housing
sequences with differences between nations reflecting both cultural values and
the impact of government policy settings. Importantly, it leaves scope for both
the subjective and objective analysis of change in housing circumstances while
having scope to incorporate both structural processes and individual decision
making.The term housing transitions does not imply a particular direction or set
of dynamics over the life course – a critique levelled at the concept of housing
careers – but neither does it privilege the subjective dimensions of housing over
quantitative assessment.
A housing transitions framework emphasises the tendency of individuals to make
decisions about their housing throughout their life course that are affected by
• their stage in the life course (age, household structure, fertility);

• economic resources (position within the labour market, wealth, access to
government assistance);
• health and well-being (presence or absence of a disability within the household);
• tenure (history of prior occupancy in one or more tenures); and
• lifestyle values and aspirations (cultural norms, consumption preferences, relative
significance attached to housing).
It is helpful to think of a lifetime of housing transitions as a series of housing

decisions about whether to move or not move, the quality and quantity of housing
to occupy, location relative to employment and social networks. These decisions
are shaped by both opportunities and constraints, with the five dimensions listed
above playing a determinant role. A schematic of this perspective on the factors
affecting housing decisions is presented in Figure 2.4. It reflects the potential
complexity of that decision making environment and the intersection with aspects
of individual and household life course. Critically, decisions about housing are
undertaken within the context of housing systems that are structured by geography,
the balance between social and private systems of supply, and the quality of the
housing stock.
Each of these five dimensions – life course; economic resources, well-being,
tenure history and values and aspirations – is seen to exert an influence, potentially
or in fact, on housing decisions at any point in time. Housing decisions reflect
the relative balance and standing of each of these dimensions at that stage in
31
Figure 2.4:The housing decision framework

De
mo
gr lth
ap Rela
tion ea
shi
ilit
y H
hi
Arr pf b ess
c
ival or is a
of D f illn
m
Relatio ch so port
at
ns h il od sup
io
d
ip
ri
n r
Pe
dis
en
Death o
of tf of c
are
ip
so
ce
ap n
l ut
io
Re
vis
ar
ion
Pro
tn er
Sense of identity a
Locational p
rental
istory
Lifetime
rental
pation
ase
Histo
Aspira
purch
blic
ry
vate
occu
g
ng h
Pu
refe
oal
me
Pri
nd
ner
Un e
ren
tion
mployment
Ho
c om
usi
Ow
ce
s
mu
s
Retirement
Ho
y
nit
Education
Employment
Employment
Source: Designed by authors of book
the life course and at that point in history. Early in the life course, for example,
demographic factors such as marriage and the birth of a child can be an important
influence on decisions taken about housing, but position in the labour market,
and the type and quality of housing aspired to will be important also. In mid life,
demographic factors may have relatively little influence on housing decisions, but
tenure may exert a greater influence through the prior accumulation of housing
wealth that effectively opens up a greater range of housing options.
The housing transitions perspective acknowledges that many individuals in
developed economies are relatively unconstrained by financial impediments
and that demographic processes no longer exert the sway they once held. Some
individuals and households have far greater capacity to enact their preferences
than others and it is not assumed that all start from an equal basis. At the same
time, not all housing outcomes are the product of conscious choice, as some
individuals have no or few options in their housing.We should not overemphasise
the ability of individuals to choose, because while on the one hand a very small
minority is confronted by no choice – even the homeless select between a range
of options (Beer et al, 2006a) – an equally small minority enjoy unfettered choice.
Decisions are therefore made within architecture of often quite rigid constraints.
However, even those on very low incomes who lack the resources or capacity
32
to participate in the housing market are likely to have accommodation offered

to them on the basis of these five dimensions of housing. The application of
formal programmes of Medical Priority Housing in the UK (Dunn 2000) brings
into focus the significance of well-being (disability or ill-health) in determining
access to social housing, while the importance of stage in the life course for social
housing systems is evidenced by the fact that the presence of young children in
the household can result in the priority allocation of government-owned housing
in Australia. Similarly, prior tenure history (including periods of homelessness)
can be a catalyst for housing assistance, and social housing generally includes an
aspirational or lifestyle dimension, with a number of jurisdictions around the
globe implementing systems of choice-based letting.
From a housing transitions perspective, the focus of analysis is not solely directed
to the sequence of housing circumstances occupied by a household over its life
course, but instead it also gives priority to decisions taken by a household at a
point in time and how those critical junctures are reached. Housing decisions are
affected both by subjective factors – the meaning attached to home or housing – as
well as more readily measured processes such as change in financial circumstances.
Importantly, the processes of transition through the housing market have
cumulative impacts and are affected by all five housing dimensions. For example,
the housing decisions of individual baby boomers over the forthcoming decades
will, in part, reflect their accumulated experience, and wealth, in the housing
market. Those who have been homeowners for the major portion of their adult
life will have far greater capacity to meet their lifestyle aspirations – and potentially
retire earlier – than those who have lived in rental housing.The cumulative aspect
of lifetime housing decisions is reflected in Figure 2.5, which attempts to show
how the capacity of individuals to express choice in the housing market varies
over time and in ways that reflect a broader life path. The three illustrative cases
highlight the way in which an individual has variable power within the housing
system and how the culmination of events over the passage of time shapes housing
outcomes.
The example of the ‘successful’ baby boomer highlights the way in which the
accumulation of financial assets, in combination with the arrival and eventual
departure of children, results in a rapid increase in the capacity to express choice
within the housing market in later life. In this instance, the ability of individuals
and households to realise their housing aspirations after age 50 is not simply a
factor of income at that point in time: it is a reflection of lifetime savings; access
to superannuation or pension income; capital gains through the housing market;
and the restructuring of the household from a family to a couple-only household.
Similarly, the illustration of a person affected by the onset of disability in mid life
emphasises the impact of key life events such as disability or ill-health.The figure
suggests a lifetime housing trajectory very similar to the successful boomer up
until mid life, followed by a dramatic reduction in the capacity to realise aspirations
within the housing market. Significantly, we would suggest that even with the
onset of a disability, previous life events and participation in housing and labour
33
Figure 2.5:The capacity to express choice within housing over time
Adult onset of disability

Low income, non home owner
The succesful baby boomer
Capacity to express choice
Young adulthood Adulthood Old age
Source: Devised by authors of book, based on Williams (2003)
markets continue to be important as the accumulation of resources at an earlier

age serves as a cushion or buffer post. As will be discussed later, persons who have
acquired a disability in adulthood often have a greater range of housing options
available to them when compared with those born with a disability. The final
example provided in Figure 2.5 is of a low-income tenant, whose participation
in paid employment is insecure and who is marginal financially. Once again, life
cycle events such as the birth of children, marriage and separation can be seen
to affect movement through the housing market and these processes operate in
combination with periods of employment and unemployment. In this instance,
the capacity to make choices within the housing market is seen to fall with older
age, as hours worked decline, income falls and there is an absence of capital, in
the form of housing or other assets, to soften the impact of falling income.
Housing transitions as an integrated concept attempts to bring together point
in time decisions within the context of broader social structures and processes
that emerge over the longer term, including stage in the life course. In common
with Clark et al (2003), the market acknowledges and awards importance to
the periods of stability as well as the moments of change, while agreeing with
Clapham (2002) that the passage of time means that the relationship between the
household and the dwelling is inevitably transformed, even in the absence of a
move. This perspective is reflected in Figure 2.6, which shows how complex life
trajectories can result in shifts in the influences that shape the housing decisions
individuals and households make over the life course. In the first period, when
the household is establishing itself, housing decisions are heavily influenced by
lifestyle factors and the aspiration for homeownership, as well as the arrival of the
first child. Location or consumption aspirations are relatively insignificant, while
34
Figure 2.6: Housing decision making over time, the variable influence of
life cycle, labour market, well-being, tenure, and lifestyle aspirations
Strong locational preferences
High personal wellbeing
Indifference to location Re-partnered
$ High personal wellbeing Established career
Birth of first child Re-entered home ownership
Full-time employment Desire to live close
Aspire to home ownership to services
Significant health risks
Stable, couple household
Retired
Seeks security of tenure
Income
Expenditure
Home Outright Living in

Renting purch. Renting Home purchase ownership aged unit
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Age
Source: Adapted from Williams (2003, p 166)
personal well-being (long-term health and/or disability) exerts virtually no impact.

In mid life the individual is shown as attempting to re-enter homeownership, and
is able to do so with the benefit of previously accumulated housing wealth. An
established career means that labour market factors are an important enabler within
the housing market and this, in combination with housing wealth, assists in the
movement into a desirable location and/or dwelling. In the third period, health
and well-being is seen to exert a considerable influence on housing decisions,
with resources previously accumulated through the housing market and the labour
market allowing these needs to be met. In this instance health and well-being
has both a direct impact on the decision making of individuals – the type of
dwelling occupied, the design of the dwelling, access to care and other support
services – as well as an indirect influence with respect to locational preferences.
Finally, it is important to consider how housing outcomes through the life
course are affected by class or socioeconomic status. Figure 2.7 attempts to
capture the housing opportunities and outcomes available to three individuals
of differing backgrounds who commence their transect of the housing system
with differing capacities in respect of education, labour market resources, health,
lifestyle aspirations and values, and experience of the housing market.The position
of the three individuals is influenced by their current circumstances, as well as
the decisions and events in their past. Long-term outcomes are not equal and
35
Figure 2.7: Housing outcomes through the life course

Some people start The decisions and Their participation And some do better
their housing events in someone’s is cumulative, than others in
career better or life shape their both positively the long run
worse off capacity in the and negatively
housing market
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Person
$
$
$
1
$
$
$
$
$
$
Person
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Person
$
$
3
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4
Source: Devised by authors of book
those who enter the housing market with a greater stock of enablers within the
housing market are seen to fare better.
Conclusion
Terminology is always critical in social analysis because the terms we use and
the language that we apply to the discussion of those concepts carries implicit
meaning and shapes further debate.The term housing career is commonly used in
academic work but has been critiqued for its implied uni-directional perspective
and the Anglo-Celtic nature of the concept. Some authors have used the term
housing histories, housing biographies or even housing trajectories in order to
better capture the multi-directional nature of change in housing over the life
course and provide adequate recognition of the impact of structural processes
in shaping housing outcomes. The term, however, implies a focus on individuals
and their outcomes that denies system-wide trends or tendencies. Clapham’s
(2005a) work on housing pathways has been a useful contribution to this set
of debates by emphasising the meanings attached to housing by individuals and
how those meanings can change over the life course, even in the absence of
formal movement through the housing stock. He highlights the fact that different
individuals or groups will attach widely variable meanings to the same housing
stock. Most importantly, however, Clapham (2005a) drew our attention to the fact
36
that certain aspects of housing are frequently part of the ‘life plan’ of individuals
and households and that these consumption aspirations increasingly determine
housing decisions and lifetime housing outcomes.
This chapter has argued that the term housing transitions better reflects the
movement of individuals and households through the housing market over time
and across the life course. We believe the term is more helpful than the more
commonly used ‘housing careers’ because it implies change but does not suggest a
single source or destination. It is also free of the social constructionist connotations
embedded within Clapham’s (2002; 2004) account of housing pathways. The
term is entirely consistent with the findings of other research, including work
by Seelig et al (2005) on the housing consumption patterns of income support
recipients.That research found considerable mobility within the housing market,
but this activity was marked by an ongoing directionless ‘churn’ rather than
purposive steps up a housing career ladder. A housing transitions perspective also
accords with the conclusions of Minnery and Zacharov (2006, p 56) that housing
careers or pathways are changing, but not from a relatively simple past to a more
complex present and future: instead, housing pathways in the past (as exemplified
by a group of 55- to 64-year-olds) demonstrated considerable complexity, in
addition to uncertainty and chance. This complexity is likely to remain. From
a policy perspective it is worth noting that the transitions framework carries
no implications as to long-term housing outcomes – positive or negative – and
therefore challenges both the delivery of housing interventions that are sustained
in the long term, as well as a reliance on short-term measures that explicitly
assume a transition to a ‘better’ housing state.
37
THREE
Housing transitions and

housing policy: international
context and policy transfer
Chris Paris,Terry Clower, Andrew Beer and Debbie Faulkner
In the late 1980s and early 1990s the American philosopher and political economist
Francis Fukuyama triggered considerable debate with his argument that with the
advent of Western liberal democracy humanity had reached the ‘end of history’
as further sociocultural evolution appeared unlikely. Fukuyama’s (1992) work
has been critiqued heavily, but his ideas highlight the ways in which policies and
social practices appear to have converged across nations. Similarly, there are strong
international parallels in many aspects of housing policy and the operation of
housing markets. The globalisation of financial markets has contributed to the
apparent integration of housing markets around the globe, but other contributing
factors have included broader shifts in global economic prosperity – at least for the
developed world – and deliberate strategies of policy transfer across international
borders. It is important to acknowledge that cross-national research plays a valuable
role within the social sciences and can lead to robust, transferable conclusions
that can be applied in a variety of contexts, and not just those discussed in any
one work or research study (Przeworksi and Teune 1970). In many respects the
countries discussed in this chapter constitute a ‘most similar systems’ approach
where attention is focused on the differences between otherwise very similar
systems. There are strong convergences among the nations discussed here, as
each is predominantly English speaking and occupies a ‘liberal’ position within
Epsing-Anderson’s (1990) categorisation of welfare regimes.
This chapter sets out to consider the evolution of housing policy in three
nations: the UK, the US and Australia. It does so in order to understand the
geographical and historical settings for lifetime movements through the housing
market.These insights then shed light on the transferability of the understandings
we develop between nations and the balance between universal and nationally
specific processes in shaping housing transitions. It is important to acknowledge
that we need to comprehend the evolution and articulation of housing policies
over a relatively long time frame, as past housing policies often have a greater
influence on lifetime housing than current government frameworks.
39
The UK
Housing provision in the UK changed enormously during the 20th century in
terms of quality, the balance of tenures and dwelling types (Lund, 2006; Mullins
and Murie, 2006). There was never a settled structure of provision, with regular
predictable patterns of access to housing and a single set of routine transitions
during life courses. Some trends were sustained over very long periods, especially
the rise of homeownership from around 10 per cent of households in 1900 to
nearly 70 per cent of households in 2000. Other developments were more variable.
Public rental housing, conceived as a secure lifetime form of accommodation,
expanded considerably from the end of World War I (WWI) through to the 1970s,
when it accommodated around one third of UK households. It was initially a
prized form of housing for better-off ‘respectable’ working families, and grew
through the construction of suburban council housing estates from the early 1920s.
It also grew through the replacement of inner city slums, starting in the 1930s,
and more extensively after 1955 through large-scale redevelopment with mainly
high-rise Council housing. Subsequently, the council sector has fallen considerably
and other ‘registered social landlords’ (RSLs), predominantly housing associations
(HAs), provide an increasing proportion of subsidised rental housing, but in 2010
this only accommodates about one sixth of UK households.
Overview of post-war housing policy and provision 1945–79
New housing construction after 1945 was initially dominated by council housing but
private sector house building picked up during the 1950s and the peak years of new
construction during the late 1960s included high levels of both public and private new
house building (see Figure 3.1 for England)1. Slum clearance, delayed by the need
to build up overall supply, surged from the mid 1950s and the inner rings of large
UK cities were transformed by the clearance of slums and subsequent construction
of public housing, mainly high-rise flat blocks. Much private building was outside
the metropolitan areas, in expanding suburban areas and non-metropolitan areas,
and in the first wave of new towns around London (Hall et al, 1973).
Cross-party consensus over the aims of housing policy dissolved during the
1970s, and there was a shift towards different policy priorities and mechanisms.
The changes marked the culmination of developments that had already begun
plus some key economic and other changes. The period since the late 1970s in
the UK has been one of government withdrawal from direct housing provision,
deregulation of many elements of housing markets and finance, and the promotion
of homeownership almost at all costs. As a result of the combined effect of
slum clearance and new building to higher standards there had been a massive
improvement in overall housing conditions by the 1970s. Overall supply had
grown considerably and there had been major shifts in tenure. Figure 3.2 shows
how private renting had contracted dramatically by the early 1970s, whereas both
council renting and homeownership expanded.
40
Housing transitions and housing policy: international context and policy transfer
Figure 3.1: House building: permanent dwellings completed, by tenure,

England
400
Private enterprise
350
Number of dwellings (thousands)
Registered social landlords

300
Local authority
250
200
150
100
50
0
1946
1951
1956
1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
2006
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government (2009)
During the 1970s there were three main pathways into housing in the early
years after household formation (which was still typically marked by marriage):
queuing for council accommodation, while living with parents or renting privately;
saving to purchase a home, again while living with parents or renting privately;
or, for those with low eligibility for council housing and low incomes, especially
Figure 3.2: UK dwelling stock, by tenure, 1951–2007

Owner occupied Rented privately RSL Local authorities
100
80
Percentage of all dwellings
60
40
20
0
1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
41
recent immigrants, renting privately in largely run-down and often multi-occupied

older housing.Young households with higher incomes, savings or parental help
could move directly into owner-occupation and some poorer households could
‘leap frog’ council waiting lists if they were in slum housing that was redeveloped,
leaving them eligible for permanent rehousing by the council. Council tenancies
had been ‘for life’ since the 1920s, and although some tenants were allowed by
councils to purchase their homes, most had to leave council housing if they
wanted to become homeowners.
The changing context for housing policy and provision
As in the other countries examined in this book, the 1970s marked the end
of the long post-war boom and movement from ‘Fordism’ to ‘post-Fordism’ in
the UK. In common with the other countries examined here, many changes in
housing provision were driven by changes in civil society rather than being a
direct outcome of public policy initiatives and programmes.
Some aspects of economic restructuring and labour market transformation
were strongly encouraged by governments, especially running down the coal
mining industry. But most change was driven by wider processes of globalisation
with the relocation of production away from older industrial societies to newly
industrialising economies, especially China, India and Brazil since the early
1990s. As manufacturing contracted, growing service sector activity resulted in
transformations in labour markets, including much greater female participation
in labour markets. Capital and finance markets were transformed from national
into international and then global circuits of capital. Globalisation also reshaped
the capacities of governments to direct economies and the Thatcher and Major
Conservative governments chose to withdraw from direct regulation of economic
activities.
Other sociodemographic changes, only indirectly related to economic
restructuring and globalisation, have profoundly influenced the numbers and
nature of households.These trends are reviewed in an ESRC report (Stewart and
Vaitilingam, 2004), which uses a variety of data sources2 to chart what the Chief
Executive of the ESRC described as ‘dramatic changes in our society in just the
past few decades’ (Diamond, 2004, p 5). Such changes have been accompanied
by growing diversity of living arrangements that cannot sensibly be captured by
one ‘life course’ or ‘household life cycle’ model.
Falling birth rates and growing longevity in the UK have followed a similar
pattern to many other affluent countries; in 2008 for the first time there were more
people over 65 years old than under the age of 16. Average household size has
been falling since the 1960s and much additional housing demand is generated by
household formation rather than population growth.There have been significant
falls in marriage rates, growing cohabitation, increased proportions of children
born outside marriage and increased ‘blending’ of families.
42
Ferri (2004, p 22) suggested that there has been ‘an increasing prolongation
of youth and dependency’ and striking changes in the advancement of women,
especially in terms of educational achievement and workforce participation. More
30-year-olds remain single and ‘delays in partnering have led to delays in starting
a family’ (Ferri, 2004, p 21). Better-educated women have tended increasingly
to have their (fewer) babies later in life whereas the growing proportion of sole
mothers with poor levels of educational attainment still tend to have their babies
before 20 years of age. The number of lone mothers increased from one in eight
among those born in 1958 to nearly one in five of those born in 1970. However,
‘the most rapidly growing family type is the stepfamily, created when a new
partnership is formed by a mother and/or father who already had dependent
children’ (Ferri, 2004, p 22). Ferri also emphasised the novelty of growing ‘social’ as
opposed to ‘biological’ parenting ‘as more and more men raise other men’s children,
while, in many cases, their own children grow up elsewhere’ (Ferri, 2004, p 24).
The age group now coming up to retirement appears to be in a relatively
fortunate position compared with many 30-year-olds.They ‘will receive the most
generous state pensions of any generation and will also have gone through their
working lives in a period of high growth in real wages and real asset prices, both
in housing and the stock market’ (Banks et al, 2004, p 28). Life expectancy has
grown much faster since the 1960s than in the preceding 120 years and most
older people ‘report good health, little difficulty with functioning or carrying out
activities of daily living and high rates of social participation and engagement’
(Banks et al, 2004, p 28).A growing proportion own their homes outright: in 2001
around 60 per cent of households aged over 65 in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland and 50 per cent in Scotland (Paris, 2008a). Outright homeownership,
which insulates owners against most possible housing market shocks, has been
growing among all age groups, thus indicating the likelihood of higher levels in
future. Not all older households are affluent, of course, and within the UK there
has been widespread polarisation of wealth and income (Dorling et al, 2007).
The changing content of UK housing policy after the 1970s
The election of the first Thatcher government in June 1979 symbolically marked
the decisive shift away from the previous period of housing policy and provision,
especially regarding the role of council housing (Mullins and Murie, 2006).
Although some council houses had been sold to tenants before 1979, this had
been a matter of local discretion and many local councils had chosen not to sell
their housing. The Housing Act 1980 compelled recalcitrant local authorities
to sell council houses to sitting tenants so tenants were given a ‘right-to-buy’
their homes. Successive Conservative governments during the 1980s introduced
measures designed to change other settings and operations of housing policy and
provision in the UK.The broad parameters did not change substantially after the
prime ministerial transition from Thatcher to Major in November 1990, nor
43
were there any significant changes for some years after the election of Blair’s ‘new’
Labour government in 1997.
The growth of HAs through the 1980s, together with mass sales of council
housing under the ‘right-to-buy’, led to changes in the nature of subsidised rental
housing. The construction of council housing fell rapidly from the early 1980s,
virtually ceasing altogether in the mid 1990s and HAs became the only provider
of new subsidised rental housing.The term ‘social housing’ was introduced during
the 1980s to refer to both council housing and HA accommodation and it has
subsequently become widely used, though government has created the category of
‘registered social landlords’ to include all non-government providers of subsidised
rental housing (which could even include some private companies). As much of
the better council stock was sold, the remainder was stigmatised as a ‘residual’
tenure, characterised by unpopular dwelling forms, often systems-built high-rise
flats, and occupied by an impoverished clientele.
The decline of the council sector was accelerated by changes in housing
finance with a switch away from construction subsidies to rental assistance in
the form of ‘Housing Benefit’ (HB). Housing associations continued to grow,
despite reductions in grants, through using private finance to expand their
production. Stock transfers from councils to HAs, increasingly stimulated by
central government funding incentives, resulted in a further shift away from council
provision towards ever-larger HAs, (Mullins and Pawson, 2009).The allocation of
subsidised rental housing focused increasingly on ‘need’ following homelessness
legislation in 1977 and subsequent developments in central government priorities
and local allocations systems. By the early years of the 21st century, most social
housing – as it had become universally described – housed workless households
and minority ethnic groups.
Conservative governments also sought to revive private renting. The Housing
Act 1988 ‘modernised’ landlord-tenant relations by abolishing much of the
security of tenure and rent regulation that had been set in place during WWI.
There was a modest revival of private renting in the early 1990s, partly stimulated
by non-housing policy factors, especially the Business Expansion Scheme (BES)
(Kemp, 2009). Further expansion was driven by new lending practices of financial
institutions in the late 1990s that stimulated the growth of ‘buy-to-let’ (BTL)
mortgages. The number of BTL mortgages increased from around 44,000 in
1999 to 330,000 in 2006, thus increasing from 4 per cent of all mortgages to
29 per cent during the same period. This growth was associated with a surge of
flat development in inner cities across the UK, a disconnection between house
prices and household formation, and was a major driver of speculative house
and land price inflation in the increasingly volatile deregulated housing finance
sector (Sprigings, 2008).
Homeownership continued to grow across the UK throughout the 1990s (see
Table 3.1). Although growth in the proportion of owner-occupiers slowed after
2001, the total number of homeowners had increased by nearly two million
households by 2007. The relatively static proportion of owner-occupiers reflects
44
Table 3.1: UK dwelling stock by tenure
Owner- Privately Rented from Public

occupied rented1 RSLs rental2 Total
Expressed as percentage of all dwellings (000)
1991 65.9 9.2 3.0 21.8 23,550
2001 69.6 9.9 6.6 13.8 25,619
2007 (r) 69.9 11.9 8.5 9.7 26,652
Notes: 1 includes dwellings with job or business; 2 includes Northern Ireland Housing Executive and other
statutory bodies; r = figure revised from previous estimate.
Source: DCLG live table 101, as on 10/02/09
the growing number of households overall, with an increasing proportion being

accommodated in the private rental sector. The most dramatic changes in terms
of the proportion of households by tenure were in the growth of private renting
after 2001 and the shifting balance between Registered Social Landlords and local
authorities. There is no immediate prospect of a reversal of the changing roles
of RSLs and local authorities and it is expected that council housing will be the
smallest rental tenure by the time of the 2011 Census.
The combined effect of increased homeownership, the revival of private rental
and the increasingly residual status of social renting had created a much more
market-dominated structure of housing provision. This has inevitably opened
households to greater risk during periods of market recession, especially between
1989 and 1992 when negative equity and mortgage repossessions were widespread
across southern England and much of Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland),
raising concerns whether growing homeownership was ‘sustainable’. Such
concerns faded from popular consciousness as house prices began to increase again,
rapidly so during the late 1990s and between 2002 and 2007. Instead, from the
late 1990s onwards there was growing concern about a problem of ‘affordability’,
especially for first homebuyers. Government became convinced of the need for
a ‘step-change’ in housing production following reports by the economist Kate
Barker (Barker, 2004). There had been no significant increase in house building
since the mid 1990s, despite growing housing demand.There was some growth in
new building between 2002 and 2006 and a marked shift in the mix of dwelling
types. Government policies had come to favour new housing development on
‘brownfield’ sites and builders increased the proportion of flats from about 20 per
cent of building in the early 1990s to over 40 per cent after 2002.
The housing market crash of 2007–09
The period 2006–07 was the high watermark of the tide of rampant deregulated
pro-market policies that had been running since the end of the 1970s. The
nationalisation of the failing Northern Rock bank in August 2007 became a
symbolic marker of the end of an era in housing policy and provision, just as the
45
election of the Thatcher government in 1979 symbolised the end of the post-
war housing consensus and the start of a new era (Malpass and Rowlands, 2009).
Northern Rock had been an old-fashioned building society, managed prudently,
carefully gathering together the savings of working people and judiciously
allocating home purchase mortgages within local communities. It became a bank
after the deregulatory urges and purges of the 1980s and 1990s and switched
investments into the US sub-prime market. It was one of the first UK institutions
to be caught in the great housing collapse of 2007–10.This was not unexpected.
Many commentators had warned of growing volatility, increasing risks of sub-
prime lending, of the disconnection between house prices and incomes, and of
an impending ‘correction’, possibly of an unprecedented magnitude.
UK house prices have been falling since mid 2007, most dramatically in
Northern Ireland, which had boomed remarkably from 2004 to 2007 (see Figure
3.3). At the time of writing, there is no objective evidence of any cessation in the
decline, despite the bravura of some estate agents. Dwelling completions had also
fallen from a peak of 219,000 in 2006–07 to 214,000 in 2007–08 across the UK
but in Northern Ireland completions in 2007–08 were down by a third. Dwelling
starts have declined much more dramatically: from a peak of 235,000 in 2005–06
to about 204,000 in 2007–08, the lowest since 2002 (DCLG 2009). In England,
commencements in the last six months of 2008 (around 38,000) were the lowest
ever recorded for the period 1990 to 2008.
The situation at the start of the second decade of the 21st century is one
of great uncertainty both in terms of overall housing markets and the future
Figure 3.3: UK house price change, 1992–2010

300
England
Wales
250 Scotland
Northern Ireland
200
Pounds (thousand)
150
100
50
0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year
Source: Northern Ireland Housing Executive (2009)
46
housing transitions of many UK households. There is no prospect of a reversal

of the long-term residualisation of social housing, despite continuing changes in
the pattern of ownership of such dwellings and nomenclature of the sector. The
growth of RSLs has reflected central government determination to run down
the political role of local authorities in housing provision: council housing may
soon be a subject of interest only to historians.The private rental sector has been
transformed and become more diverse. It offers a relatively attractive transitional
tenure as part of pathways into homeownership. The ‘new’ private rental sector
contains considerably less of older, poor quality stock, though conditions in some
parts of the sector are the worst of any in the UK.
Many would-be first-time buyers are currently facing a much more restrictive
lending market: banks increasingly require much more substantial deposits than
they did between 2000 and 2007, but current interest rates are at an all-time low,
so many will not be able to make the move into homeownership. Ferri (2004,
p. 21) argued that ‘for those born in 1970, prolonged economic dependence and
steeply rising house prices relative to incomes mean that homeownership has
become an unattainable goal for many’. By 2010, however, the issue had become
one of access to mortgages rather than rising house prices. First-time buyers have
recently had to compete with buoyant ‘buy-to-let’ investors (Sprigings, 2008)
but investor activity may be reduced, though it is unlikely to go away altogether.
Overall, UK housing provision and policy have changed dramatically since the
1970s but the present situation is one of such turbulence and uncertainty that
future housing pathways are hard to predict. There is no prospect of a return to
slum clearance or mass public housing construction.There cannot be a repeat of
the mass transfer of stock from council rental to homeownership through right-
to-buy legislation as that was a once-only event. Future housing transitions will be
predominantly through housing market mechanisms, combined with household
and individual preferences, choices and life planning.
The US
Housing policy in the US, in general, has focused on homeownership and assistance
to low-income and very low-income households. Though it is readily apparent
that some policies supporting homeownership were enacted for different purposes,
such as stimulating macroeconomic activity, providing support for politically
influential industry sectors, and promoting ideologically based regulatory schemes,
homeownership rates have increased, with a majority of households living the
‘American dream’ of owning their home. In this section we will briefly describe
some of these policies, their impact on homeownership, and the series of market
and legislative events that sparked the sub-prime lending crisis that spiralled into
a near global financial meltdown.
47
1900s–1960s: early policy, the new deal, and post WWII
Perhaps the most unique feature of US ‘housing’ policy is the tax deductibility
of mortgage interest. In general, US homeowners may deduct the amount of
interest they pay on their mortgages from their taxable income. This policy was
not put in place to spur homeownership, but rather it was a holdover from nascent
income tax calculations. The US did not have a tax on personal income until
1913.3 The income tax did not apply until personal income exceeded US$4,000,
affecting about 1 per cent of the population. Over time, the deductibility of
mortgage interest payments became increasingly important in housing policy, at
least according to realtors and homebuilders.4 In theory, the mortgage interest
deduction allows one to purchase a more expensive home than could be afforded
otherwise. However, in practice, only about half of US homeowners deduct their
mortgage interest because of the size of ‘standard’ deductions and the structure
of US marginal tax rates. Nevertheless, the several attempts to take this provision
out of US tax law have been dashed on the rocks of well-funded lobbying and
an almost visceral negative reaction from voters.
A much larger influence on homeownership in the US came through the
creation of mortgage insurance programmes (guarantees) administered by the
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in 1934 and the establishment of the
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) in 1937. Fannie Mae, which
is now the legal name of FNMA, is a government-supported enterprise (GSE)
providing mortgage lenders with an opportunity to sell mortgages held, thereby
replenishing the bank’s capital and promoting new mortgage lending (Carliner,
1998).While the stated policy goal was to promote the availability and affordability
of mortgage lending for expanded homeownership, these policies helped boost
economic activity through residential construction and consumer purchases
related to homeownership (furnishings and the like). Fannie Mae became the
first effective secondary market for residential mortgages in the US. It was also
during this time that the US federal government settled on its major approach
to low-income housing through the Housing Act of 1937, which provided loans
to locally operated public housing authorities for the construction of rental units
reserved for low-income households (Carliner, 1998).
Concerned about the reintegration of soldiers returning home from WWII,
the US Veterans Administration (VA) offered loan guarantees to underwriters
of qualifying mortgages, resulting in lower deposit requirements and interest
rates. Even though the guarantees were limited to 50 per cent of the loan value,
this greatly reduced the risk profile of the loan. Since its inception, the VA
programme has guaranteed over 18 million loans (US Department of Veterans
Affairs 2009). Rising personal income in the aftermath of WWII, combined with
federal mortgage guarantees by the FHA and VA, sparked an unprecedented rise
in homeownership rates in the US. In 1940 some 43.6 per cent of all residential
dwelling units were owner-occupied but 20 years later, that figure had risen to
61.9 per cent (see Figure 3.4) and has risen only modestly since then.
48
Figure 3.4: US occupied housing units, by tenure, 1900–2008

70
60
50
40
%
30
% Owners occupied
20
% Renter occupied
10
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Source: US Bureau of the Census historic housing data – ownership; US Bureau of the Census
homeownership rates for the US and Regions: 1965 to present
The civil rights era of the 1960s brought important changes in housing policy
including anti-discrimination laws focused on race and religion (Fair Housing
Act of 1968)5 and the creation of the forerunner of the ‘Section 8’ housing
program. The Section 8 programme, which was formally named the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974, expanded low-income housing
assistance to include payments (vouchers) towards rent in privately owned
dwellings. It allowed low-income households to move into middle-income
neighbourhoods sparking controversy about the impacts on neighbourhood
property values and school ratings. For all of the angst felt by residents in middle-
income neighbourhoods that became host to Section 8 households, research has
shown that when Section 8 units are not highly concentrated and are located in
middle-income areas, nearby residential property values rise (Galster et al, 1999).6
By 1968 Fannie Mae had a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market
as it had a direct line of credit with the US Treasury; it was exempt from state
and local income taxes, and not subject to regulatory oversight by the Securities
and Exchange Commission. However, this success came at a price to the federal
government in the form of large liabilities posted to government balance sheets.
The Johnson Administration, needing borrowing power to finance the Vietnam
War, decided to ‘privatise’ Fannie Mae to get these liabilities off its books (Pickert,
2008). Shortly thereafter, two other GSEs were created to provide competition
for Fannie Mae, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Freddie Mac) and
the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). Ginnie Mae
and Fannie Mae back FHA and VA loans, effectively reducing the interest rates
49
needed to fund these mortgages by pledging the full faith and credit of the US
government in the case of default.7 Freddie Mac served a similar function for
‘conventional’ mortgages, holding about 90 per cent of the secondary market
by 2003 (US Department of Housing and Urban Development – HUD, 2009).
Since the late 1970s, federal legislation supporting homeownership could be
characterised as circumstantial – directly addressing specific homeownership
challenges given a particular set of market conditions. Combined with a series of
changes in financial services regulations, the stage was set to move the US housing
market down a path that nearly led to global financial disaster in 2007 and 2008.
Setting the stage for crisis: 1970s–1990s
In a report prepared in early 2010, HUD’s Office of Policy Development and

Research (HUD, 2010) places the lion’s share of the blame for the sub-prime
lending crisis on risky lending practices supported by a series of legislative changes
directly impacting mortgage lending, automated lending processes, and a lack of
regulation in asset-based securities (ABS) markets. The legislative changes span
every presidential administration from Carter through to the younger Bush.
In the late 1970s, the US economy was mired in stagflation – high rates of
inflation – but little economic growth. Interest rates were quite high, but banking
and thrift regulations included interest rate ceilings on residential mortgages,
which discouraged mortgage lending.The Depository Institutions Deregulation
and Monetary Control Act of 1980, though addressing much broader issues of
financial deregulation, included provisions removing interest rate ceilings on first
mortgages. By the second year of the Reagan Administration (1982), the housing
market was still severely constrained, but now it was mortgage interest rates,
which had risen to as much as 18 per cent, that kept many households out of the
home-buying market. The Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982
(AMTPA) nullified state laws that prohibited ‘exotic’ mortgages such as variable
interest rates, balloon payments, and negative amortisation on first and second
notes. After addressing regulatory restrictions on innovations in home loans, the
US Congress wanted to promote homeownership by increasing the supply of
money available for mortgage lending.
In hindsight, the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act of 1984
(SMMEA) may turn out to have been one of the most influential pieces of financial
regulation in the 20th century. This legislation supported the expansion of the
market for mortgage-backed securities by allowing federal depository institutions,8
thrifts, pension funds, and insurance companies to invest in mortgage-backed
securities (MBS) possessing high credit ratings from a recognised agency such as
Standard and Poor’s. Just a few years later, a new tool appeared in the consumer
credit market that sparked the flame of sub-prime mortgage lending.
If we think of the AMTPA as the oxygen, and SMMEA as providing the fuel,
the FICO credit score, developed by the Fair Isaac Corporation and introduced to
the market in 1989, ignited the flame that became sub-prime mortgage lending.
50
The credit score provided a new, sophisticated modelling tool for predicting the
likelihood that a borrower would pay back a loan. This tool allowed lenders to
move away from traditional, very conservative rules-of-thumb in lending standards
and this opened the door of homeownership to a much broader segment of the
population. By the early 1990s, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were using FICO
scores in both manual and automated mortgage underwriting (HUD, 2010).
Almost immediately, consumer advocates and some legislators became
concerned that sub-prime lending could harm lower-income borrowers more
than help them achieve the American dream of homeownership. Sub-prime
mortgages often had multiple features that increased risk to both borrower and
lender.Among the features shown to be especially risk enhancing were adjustable
rates (payments increase later in the note to unaffordable levels), prepayment
penalties (making it impractical to refinance), balloon terms (unaffordable lump
sum payments after a few years), negative amortisation, and the Alt-A class of
loans that require borrowers to provide little or no documentation of income or
savings, which contributed to mortgage fraud (Ashcraft and Schuermann, 2008;
Daglish, 2009; Mayer et al, 2009; HUD, 2010). In the US, mortgage transactions are
regulated by the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act. Both required disclosure of information to borrowers, but neither guaranteed
that homebuyers actually understood the terms and conditions of financially and
legally sophisticated mortgage contracts. In response to these concerns, President
Clinton signed the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) that
prohibited many of these riskier features in ‘high cost’ loans.9 However, very few
mortgages met the high-cost loan criteria and the Act was effectively useless in
regulating the sub-prime lending market (HUD, 2010).
Breaking the bank
A series of rules put in place by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) in 1996
and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in 2004 exempting
banking and savings institutions from state regulations (HUD, 2010) contributed
to the regulatory failure surrounding the sub-prime crisis. Effectively, a bank
holding company could buy a mortgage bank and these banking affiliates were
not regulated by either the OTS or OCC.Therefore, at a time when the financing
of mortgages was becoming more complex, regulatory oversight was effectively
being diluted.
The final regulatory issue involved the credit rating agencies. Depository
institutions were required to invest only in mortgage-backed securities with
high credit ratings. However, there was no regulatory oversight of credit agency
practices and standards. Demand for asset-backed securities (ABS) rose dramatically
throughout the 1990s and 2000s. In 1985, the ABS market, which includes
mortgage-backed securities, was about US$1.2 billion. By 1991 that figure had
risen to US$50.6 billion and to US$1.9 trillion by 2005 (HUD, 2010). Demand
for the mortgage-backed segment of these securities also exploded, which led to
51
demand for mortgages not from homebuyers, but from investors seeking returns
in perceived safe investments.This translated into additional mortgage lending that
reached down to homebuyers with weaker credit. According to Inside Mortgage
Finance (HUD, 2010), the issue of non-traditional loans rose from 7 per cent of
all mortgages in 2004 to 29 per cent in 2006. Some writers have suggested that
credit agencies faced moral hazards (Khasawneh, 2008; Dorn 2009; Tarr, 2009).
Credit agencies’ biggest customers were demanding ratings for mortgage-backed
securities perceived to be highly profitable, and if they downgraded their ratings,
these customers could take their business elsewhere.Without regulatory oversight,
there were few influential voices calling into question the ratings being given to
MBS products.
As demand for US-based mortgage-backed securities turned global, the
secondary mortgage market sought loans in areas with rapid price escalation,
exacerbating a real estate bubble that was being fuelled in part by sub-prime
lending. Innovations in packaging asset-based securities led investors to believe
that they were shielding themselves from risk (DiMartino, et al 2007), with the
perverse result that many financial institutions shed other risk-hedging strategies
and instruments in favour of MBS products (Nadauld and Sherlund, 2009). The
share of the sub-prime lending market rose from a little over 2 per cent in the
late 1990s/early 2000s, to more than 13 per cent by 2005 (see Figure 3.5). The
inevitable bursting of the real estate/financial bubble exposed lending institutions
across the globe to losses reaching several trillion dollars. As of January 2010,
homeownership rates in the US had fallen back to year 2000 levels.
Figure 3.5: Sub-prime mortgages as a percentage of all US mortgages,

1998–2008
16
14
12
10
% 8
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Source: HUD (2010, p 6)
52
The US has promoted homeownership as an essential component of the

American dream. With the help of New Deal policies and post-war economic
expansion, homeownership rates in the US rose rapidly from the late 1940s
through to the mid 1960s. Subsequent decades have seen a levelling off in the
growth of homeownership, which has served as an impetus for administrations
on both sides of the political spectrum to continue introducing policies intended,
at least in part, to expand the ranks of homeowners in the US. However, some of
these legislative efforts set the stage for unwise choices for consumers and lenders.
Financial market deregulation occurred concomitantly with the introduction of
asset-based securities.The demand for mortgage-backed securities drove lending
policies that were increasingly divorced from conservative assessments of buyers’
ability to repay loans.The subsequent demand for housing created an unsustainable
asset bubble. When default rates started to rise, housing prices plummeted in
many US markets and the financial system teetered on the brink of collapse. At
the end of the day, the modest gains in homeownership rates associated with the
policies implemented in the 1980s through to the 2000s have failed to provide
the desired boost to homeownership rates, while sparking a financial crisis that
removed trillions of dollars from US household wealth – hardly a good trade-off.
Australia
Housing has long occupied an important place in the Australian psyche, with
many suggesting that it represents the ‘Great Australian Dream’, although
Kemeny (1983) characterised it as the Great Australian Nightmare. For many
Australians the primary role of homeownership within Australia’s housing
system is unquestioned; however, its pre-eminent position was a feature of the
second half of the 20th century, but not the first. It is true that homeownership
was far more widespread in Australia in the 19th century than in the UK, the
source of most migrants to the Australian colonies (Beer, 1992). Urban housing in
the UK was dominated by widespread tenancy, particularly among working-class
households, with fewer than 20 per cent owning their home. Owner-occupancy
rates were also comparatively low in Australia up to the 1840s (Troy, 1991), but
rose to somewhere between 40 and 50 per cent of houses in Australia’s cities
from the 1850s onwards (Williams, 1984). Rates of homeownership varied
substantially by location, and the number of homeowners tended also to shift
in line with national prosperity. Working-class households were more likely to
own their home in Australia than in Britain, but owner-occupation was still
largely the preserve of the middle classes.
By 1911, owner-occupation accounted for one half of the housing stock
nationally. However, only 36 per cent of housing in the cities was owner-
occupied, compared with 57 per cent in country areas (Jackson and Bridge,
1988).The older and larger cities of Sydney and Melbourne had lower rates
of ownership compared with cities such as Adelaide and Brisbane, where the
industrial base was limited. Importantly, homeowners in Australia in the first
53
decades of the 20th century were literally that: outright owners. At the 1911
Census just 4 per cent of dwellings were being purchased via a mortgage, and
this reflected the shortage of a well-developed housing finance sector. By 1947
owner-occupation had expanded to 53 per cent of households but the
number of households purchasing their home remained at just 8 per cent.
Overview of post-war housing policy and provision
Owner-occupation grew rapidly after 1945 and its expansion was made
possible by its transformation from a tenure dominated by homeownership to
one predominantly of home purchase. The proportion of Australian households
buying their homes rose to 36 per cent by 1976. While the housing policies of
governments were important, many of the most significant government actions
were directed at improving the performance of the economy as a whole rather
than at specific housing interventions. The growth of Australia’s population
and ongoing economic prosperity from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s set
the preconditions for the growth in homeownership as the majority tenure
in Australia. The number of households in Australia grew from 1.9 million in
1947 to 2.4 million in 1954, with most of this growth among families. There
were 0.5 million more births in the 1940s than in the previous decade, and the
‘baby boom’ continued throughout the 1950s.
State and Commonwealth government policies triggered the growth of owner-
occupation in Australia through a range of policies that directly promoted that
tenure. The most important initiatives were the War Service Loans Scheme, the
Commonwealth State Housing Agreements, and changes to the retail banking
sector. The provision of adequate and affordable housing was a priority of the
Curtin and Chifley Labor governments, which held power from 1942-49.They
introduced the first Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA), which
was signed in 1945. Under this Agreement, the Commonwealth assumed
responsibility for the provision of funds with which the states were to develop
a public housing sector (Kemeny 1983). In addition, funds were made available
for home mortgages through the Commonwealth and state savings banks.
The public sector directly dominated the provision of housing in the decade
after WWII.The Commonwealth government provided finance for the private
housing industry through the War Service Homes Division, which arranged loans
for men and women who served in the Australian Armed Forces. Between 1945
and 1956 the War Service Homes Division provided 113,000 loans, accounting
for 10 per cent of new dwelling completions (Hill, 1959). Almost 120,000
government rental dwellings were built in Australia between 1946 and 1956
(Hill, 1959) as the original CSHA envisaged the development of a strong public
rental sector to serve as an alternative to privately financed housing. State
government finances, however, could not sustain the sector and from 1956 the
re-negotiated CSHA emphasised the promotion of owner-occupation with
state authorities encouraged to sell their stock, while other funds were directed
54
into cooperative building societies. In 1956 the Commonwealth government

provided almost 30 percent of all funds for home ownership.
The importance of state and Commonwealth government policies in this period
cannot be overemphasised. Commonwealth subsidies for homeownership were
an important part of the expansion of the tenure. Jones (1972) estimated
that 36 per cent of all new homes and flats completed in Australia between
1945 and 1970 were funded on terms and conditions that made them much
cheaper than if they had been produced by the private sector alone.
The major financial changes which enabled the expansion of homeownership
after WWII were centred on the savings banks and building societies.The rapid
growth of savings banks was a product of post-war financial legislation. Up
until the 1950s government-owned savings banks dominated retail lending,
providing over 50 per cent of finance for homeownership (Kemeny,1983).
Regulatory reform in the middle of that decade encouraged the emergence of
new retail banks, albeit under heavy regulation. Home loan interest rates were
subject to regulation by the Reserve Bank, a power which passed to Cabinet
after 1973.The private banks established themselves quickly and the sector grew
rapidly.There was a continuing demand for home loans, which saw many banks
ration funds. One measure of the success of the private savings banks was their
share of the market: in 1945 savings banks accounted for only 14 per cent of
outstanding housing advances; by 1972 they were the single largest lender, with
31 per cent of loans (Hill, 1974).
Building societies were a second important source of housing finance in
Australia from the 1950s to the 1980s and the sector benefited from fewer
regulations when compared with the banks.They also had the capacity to charge
higher mortgage rates. Building societies, however, largely disappeared as a force
within the Australian housing market in the 1980s as a result of reviews of the
Australian financial system. Following the Martin and Campbell Reports
into the banking sector (Australian Financial System Inquiry, 1981, 1984), the
Australian Government reviewed direct controls on the sector and placed a
greater emphasis on market-based approaches. These changes were part of a
wider impetus to open up the Australian financial system, and encourage
greater efficiency in the operation of capital markets.
Deregulation of the market for housing finance resulted both in a greater supply
of funds and the restructuring of the housing finance industry. In the early 1980s,
banks provided roughly 60 per cent of loans, building societies 30 per cent, and
finance companies 4 per cent. By the early 1990s, banks had 80 per cent of
the market for housing finance (partly through the transformation of building
societies into banks), with the building societies’ share halved to 15 per cent
(HIA, 1990).
55
Affordability, housing finance and policy
By the beginning of the 21st century Australia’s housing market had both changed
and remained constant in its structure and functioning. It remained constant in
that many of its headline features appeared set in concrete: approximately two
thirds of households were in owner-occupation, some 20 per cent of households
were private tenants and the public housing sector represented five per cent of
the total. However, these broad-scale features masked substantial change: the rate
of outright homeownership was rising as the percentage of home purchasers fell;
the position of the private rental sector had shifted as it no longer represented
a tenure of transition, but instead a long-term option for many low-income
households (Wulff and Maher, 1998); and – paralleling the UK experience – the
public housing sector had been reshaped into a tenure of last resort for those on
the margins of society.
With the beginning of the new century Australia’s residential property markets
boomed. The triggers for house price growth included the general inflationary
impact of the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST), the introduction
of a First Home Owners Grant (FHOG), ongoing economic growth, higher
rates of immigration and changes to the taxation treatment of capital gains that
reinforced the attractiveness of residential property as an investment vehicle.
Growth in the demand for housing was not matched by supply, with inadequate
land holdings, planning regulations, skill shortages, infrastructure pricing regimes
and inappropriate standards all held accountable for the consequent increase in
house prices (Beer et al, 2007). By 2006 the Demographia International Housing
Affordability Survey reported that Australia had some of the least affordable
housing in the developed world, with the ratio of house prices to average earnings
in some cities exceeding nine to one (Demographia, 2006). The Australian
government was sufficiently concerned to instruct the Productivity Commission
(2004) to investigate housing affordability, but decided – against the Commission’s
findings – that it was simply a matter of property market cycles and that current
house price pressures would resolve themselves.
Movements in the housing market after the year 2000 affected both housing
finance, as well as the position of individuals and households. Rapidly escalating
house prices generated a housing affordability crisis that affected up to 1.1 million
households (Yates et al, 2007). And while mortgage holders felt this impact, the
greatest consequences were for low-income tenants in the private rental market,
many of whom were forced to pay up to 60 per cent of their gross household
income for accommodation. By 2006, 26 per cent of low-income tenants in
Australia were in housing stress, as were 7 per cent of low-income home purchasers.
Many households were effectively excluded from access to home purchase because
of the high cost of homes and their inability to save a deposit because of high rents.
Regulatory reform in the 1990s opened the way for the emergence of non-bank
lenders within the mortgage market. Beginning with a relatively small market
share, the non-bank lenders expanded from 2000 and placed pressure on bank
56
lenders who in turn reduced their prudential margins (Gottliebsen, 2002). By

2006 non-bank lenders accounted for a rapidly growing share of all home loans
with a suite of new housing finance arrangements – including low documentation
loans – and institutions, such as mortgage brokers, flooding the market. As Berry
et al (2009) noted in their work on mortgage defaults in Australia, the number of
home loans in arrears increased rapidly from 2000, primarily because of high levels
of debt relative to the capacity to service that debt. However, the total percentage
of loans in arrears by more than 90 days never exceeded 0.6 per cent of the total.
In addition, mortgage arrears were concentrated among ‘non conforming’ loans,
and especially within ‘wholesale originators’ rather than the banks. In summing
up this period, Berry et al (2009, p 20) concluded that:
over the last decade lenders had relaxed their lending standards in
terms of the range of acceptable borrower profiles and the size of loans
for home purchase, renovation and extension, and for non-housing-
related purposes. The range of mortgage lenders and products had
expanded substantially, with increasingly aggressive lending by poorly
regulated non-bank entities, i.e. non-ADIs (non-Authorised Deposit-
taking Institutions) that are not regulated by the Australian Prudential
Regulation Authority (APRA).
Importantly, mortgage defaults have had a distinctive geography, being concentrated
in the low-income western suburbs of Sydney where house prices are high and
incomes low or modest.
The advent of the financial crisis from 2008 ushered in large-scale changes to
the system of housing finance. The non-bank institutions disappeared from the
market because of a shortage of credit, buyouts from the banks, exclusion from
the financial guarantees provided by the Australian government to the banks, and
an aversion to such experiments within housing finance within the market. By
2009 the banks, and especially Australia’s ‘Big Four’ banks, once again dominated
the housing finance sector. Lending criteria returned to the 1970s, with banks
once again requiring both a substantial deposit – often in excess of 20 per cent
– and a secure income stream. Access to home purchase has once again become
difficult because of deposit requirements and the conservative lending practices
of the banks.
Australia’s recent history of housing finance innovation has been both similar
and different from the experience of the UK and the US.Australia is a nation that
was brought up on property booms and busts (Daly, 1982) and in consequence
it retained a strong regulatory framework for its major financial institutions.This
strength was further reinforced by a highly concentrated banking sector, and
the limited development of alternative mortgage instruments; for example, no
large-scale secondary mortgage market has emerged in Australia. In this respect
Australia’s experience more closely reflects that of Canada. The US sub-prime
lending crisis did not create the depth or breadth of problems for the Canadian
financial sector evident across the border.
57
There were market, regulatory, and cultural differences that insulated the
Canadian market from the worst of the US sub-prime lending crisis. These
included different standards of deposit requirements on mortgages, comparatively
low rates of selling mortgages on the secondary market, differing appetites for
risk among financial institutions, a comparatively smaller and simpler financial
industry and differing cultural perspectives on regulation (Wilson Center, 2009).
Canadian lenders continued to require either a 20 per cent deposit on a mortgage
or a mortgage insurance policy covering any deficit between the deposit and the
20 per cent mark.This had been traditional practice for conventional mortgages in
the US until the 1990s, when it became the trend to allow borrowers to take an
immediate second mortgage to make up any deposit shortfall. In common with
Australia, Canada has not had government-supported enterprises boosting the sale
of mortgages, and thus Canadian lenders have tended to hold onto their mortgages
(75 per cent held in Canada compared with less than 50 per cent in the US).This
limited the lender-driven demand for mortgages that pushed aggressive lending
in the US. Moreover, in Canada banking executives are not commonly issued
stock options and other incentives for taking on excessive risk (Wilson Center,
2009). While there are providers of alternative mortgages, including sub-prime
mortgages in Canada, the housing finance market has remained dominated by
the largest banks, holding more than 90 per cent of assets (Wilson Center, 2009),
which is much easier to monitor than the several hundred lenders in the US
market. Like Australia, the sub-prime mortgage market simply did not achieve the
scale evident in the US. At is peak, sub-prime mortgages in Canada represented
less than 7 per cent of the Canadian mortgage market (Globe and Mail, 2009)
and as the default rate on these mortgages started to rise in the US, Canadian
regulators moved to tighten lending standards (MacGee, 2009).
Convergent and divergent policy futures

The period since the 1990s witnessed a remarkable shift in the ways in which
governments sought to affect housing markets and the quality and quantity of
housing individuals consume over their lifetime. In each of the three nations
considered here innovation in mortgage financing was either an implicit or explicit
tool of governments to promote access to homeownership. Similar stories could
also be told for other nations, including New Zealand, Ireland and parts of Europe.
Governments bereft of other policy levers saw new forms of housing finance as a
low-cost strategy for boosting homeownership while building political support. It
was a strategy in tune with its political times and welcomed by an ever-expanding
global financial industry. The US followed this strategy most aggressively of the
three nations considered here and suffered the greatest consequences when events
unravelled. Importantly, the history and culture of each nation was responsible for
this divergence. Australia and Canada, as culturally similar nations with relatively
long histories of mass homeownership, retained a greater degree of regulation in
their housing markets and thereby quarantined the impact of crisis within the
58
finance system.The US, by contrast, sought more radical deregulation, while the
UK’s housing system was caught between a strongly social housing past, and an
emerging, but not yet fully developed, tradition of mass homeownership.
This examination of housing policy and the history of housing finance in
the UK, the US and Australia provides the context for understanding the lived
experience of housing.The changes described in this chapter have had profound
impacts on the life course of many individuals and households and these effects will
continue to reverberate for decades to come. Most starkly, some who have lost their
homes due to mortgage default since 2007 will never re-enter homeownership,
while others will remain in rental housing for a longer period or face precarious
housing circumstances over the years to come.
Notes
1
Data and figures are drawn from the Department for Communities and Local
Government (DCLG) housing statistics live tables; last accessed 10 March 2009.
2
The study draws on large-scale datasets including census data, three birth cohort studies of
1958, 1970 and 2000/01, the British Household Panel Survey, the Workplace Employment
Relations Survey, and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.
3
An earlier attempt at taxing income at the national level had been ruled unconstitutional
by the US Supreme Court in 1894. Subsequently, the 16th amendment to the US
Constitution was passed allowing the creation of a federal income tax.
4
One estimate places the average value of the mortgage interest deduction at less than
US$2,000 per year.
5
Laws prohibiting housing discrimination based on familial status and disability were
added in 1988.
6
However, when high densities of Section 8 housing are located in lower-income areas,
the presence of the Section 8 properties brings down nearby property values. Galster et
al (1999) reported that local focus groups place the blame for lower property values on
property managers rather than tenants.
7
Ginnie Mae also provides backing for mortgages and loans issued under the Rural
Housing Service and the Office of Public and Indian Housing.
8
Federal depository institutions are banks that accept consumer deposits, which are
insured by the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
9
High cost is defined as having an interest rate 8 percentage points above US Treasury
securities of similar duration, or with fees (points, origination fees, etc) exceeding 8 per
cent of the loan value.
59
FOUR
The housing transitions

ofÂ€youngerÂ€adults
The transition from the parental home to independent living is one of the most
significant changes to occur in the housing circumstances of any individual. For
some, the first living arrangements away from the family are a staging point toward
further change, while others move directly from the parental household to housing
that will be prominent over much of their lives.There is evidence that the housing
decisions and circumstances of younger households are changing: as more young
adults stay in the parental home for longer, access to home purchase is delayed,
and relationship formation is postponed – especially when compared with the
generation of their parents or grandparents. This chapter canvases contemporary
trends in first housing transitions and places these movements within the context
of a generation that is increasingly mobile with respect to social values, labour
market attachment and the locations in which they live.
Moving out, moving on

Leaving the parental home is one of the reference points in young people’s lives
to mark the transition to adulthood. A growing literature has examined a number
of factors associated with leaving home including the timing of the event, its
determinants, its variation across time and space, and the demands such transitions
place on the housing system. Over the last two to three decades this research has
highlighted major shifts in when this transition takes place and the sequence of
housing opportunities pursued by young people. A key outcome has been the
recognition that the steps toward independent living are no longer predictable and
linear. Moreover, instead of being viewed as a one-off event, moving out of home
has become a process of gradual transition. Since at least the 1980s commentators
have noted an increasing proportion of young people returning to the family
home for an extended period, particularly within a year or two of leaving. This
shuttling from and to the parental home effectively prolongs the transition to
adulthood. This delay in moving out and moving on, a ‘hiatus in the life-course’
as described by Cote and Bynner (2008) has resulted in the 18–25 age period
being described by the much debated term ‘emerging adulthood’.
The early adult years are a period of major upheaval in housing and the life
course.As Billari et al (2001, p 340) notes, leaving home is ‘one of the crucial nodes
of the life course and a crucial event in the transition to adulthood’ as it ‘generally
implies not only household independence but also greater social autonomy for
young people.’ Such a decision can often be emotionally charged as it is often
61
accompanied by a range of feelings that span excitement, a sense of freedom and

hopefulness, through to fear and anxiety (Rochman and McCampbell, 1997).
Therefore while greater autonomy is welcomed by some, for others leaving
the parental home for the first time can be difficult, particularly if the move is
involuntary (Jones, 2004).
A major issue in the literature is the timing or age at which young people leave
the parental home.Attention in this topic has been pronounced in Europe (Billari
et al, 2001; Guerrero, 2001; Iacovou, 2002; Billari and Liefbroer, 2007; Mandic,
2008) but it has also drawn the attention of researchers in the UK (Patiniotis and
Holdsworth, 2005; Cote and Bynner, 2008), the US (Whittington and Peters,
1996), Canada (Cote and Bynner, 2008), Australia (Young, 1987; Kendig, 1990a;
Weston et al, 2001; Cobb-Clark, 2008) and, more recently, in Japan (Fukuda,
2009). While in the past leaving home was closely connected to marriage or
employment, today young people leave home for a variety of reasons.
The theoretical framework implicitly and explicitly favoured in examining the
transition from dependent to independent living is the life course approach, ‘in
which transitions are conceived to be shaped by the time of birth, circumstances
and experiences to which each new generation in each country is exposed’ (Cote
and Bynner, 2008, p 256). As noted earlier, leaving the parental home is now a
more complex transition than it was for previous generations.The age of leaving
home has been strongly influenced by a range of structural features that have
transformed society in the later half of the 20th century and the first decade of
the 21st century.These include trends in marriage, household formation patterns,
the demand for higher levels of educational achievement, later age of entry into
the workforce (Billari et al, 2001), the changing structure of the labour market,
changing housing markets, reformation of welfare provisions, shifts in societal
expectations about the transition to independence (Iacovou, 2004), greater
individual choice and changing parental expectations and attitudes about young
adult behaviour and parental support.
Changes in the structural factors underpinning the transition to independent
living have reshaped the decision framework of young people. This has included
change to personal income and job status, parental income and employment,
financial help received from parents, the circumstances within the parental home
– including personal conflict within the family – and, most importantly, gender
(Mandic, 2008). Numerous studies (Mandic, 2008; Furlong and Cartmel, 2007)
highlight gender differences in leaving home, with women leaving at an earlier
age than men. In broad terms, across many developed nations the restructuring
of economies and labour markets has made financial independence at an early
age difficult, resulting in a situation where remaining within the parental home
has become an accepted norm.
62
The housing transitions ofÂ€youngerÂ€adults
The structural drivers of, and impediments to, independence
The age at which young people leave home is mediated by the way in which
these social and economic factors interact.There would also appear to be a strong
regional dimension, as European studies have identified a clear distinction between
Southern and Northern European countries with young people leaving home
at a much later age in Southern Europe (for example in Italy, Spain, Portugal)
(Billari et al, 2001; Iacovou, 2002). Mandic’s analysis of 24 member states of
the EU found that only 17 per cent of men aged 18-34 in Denmark were still
living with their parents compared with 67 per cent of men in Malta and 61
per cent of men in Italy (Mandic, 2008, p 627). Mandic’s analysis is one of the
few studies to examine the enlarged EU and build upon the existing analyses
of home-leaving in Western European countries. His finding generally reflects
those of previous studies in that ‘three distinctive clusters of countries emerged,
indicating specific constellations of how structural factors of leaving home appear
and interact, resulting in diverse, regionally specific incidence of home-leaving’ – a
north-western cluster of countries, a south-western cluster and a north-eastern
cluster (Mandic, 2008, p 632).The patterns identified reflected the age of leaving
home: with home-leaving occurring earliest in the north-western cluster of
countries; living with parents was more widespread in the north-eastern cluster;
and, independent living was considerably delayed in the south-western cluster.
In explaining this variation, Mandic examined structural factors, in particular
welfare regimes, and while his explanatory model was, in his own words, ‘far
from comprehensive’, he argued that countries in north-west Europe, including
the UK, had the best ‘opportunity structures for independent housing’, including
an extant private rental sector, strong support from the family for leaving home
and late parenthood. The north-eastern countries were characterised by early
childbearing and ‘outstandingly unfavourable opportunity structures in terms
of all components of the welfare mix’ (p 632). These unfavourable conditions
included high unemployment, an underdeveloped private rental sector, limited
family support and restricted social welfare. For the southern cluster of countries,
a number of factors restricted home-leaving to the latest ages: restricted social
housing provision, strong family-cultural supports and very late parenthood. In
Italy, for example, where young people leave home at the oldest ages in Europe,
marriage is still the strongest influence on the age of leaving home and even
when people leave home they usually live very close to their parents (Santarelli
and Cottone, 2009).
The timing of leaving home in Britain, the US, Canada and Australia matches
the patterns identified for north-west Europe. In the past relationship formation,
especially marriage, as well as childbearing and employment were the driving
forces for young people setting up a new household. In the 21st century, the
reasons for leaving home are more varied. Research from the Housing 21 Survey
in Australia was able to shed light on the major motivations for leaving home in
the first decade of this century, as well as for earlier generations.While partnership
63
formation remains important for the younger generations, its importance has
declined significantly. Whereas 48 per cent of 65- to 74-year-olds originally left
home to enter marriage, just 22 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds left home in order
to establish a relationship (Figure 4.1). Similarly, while an additional 26.9 per cent
of 65- to 74-year-olds left for employment reasons, only 13.8 per cent of 25- to
34-year-olds left the family home for this reason. The transition to independent
living amongst the younger cohorts was driven by a diverse array of processes,
including the desire to live independently or with friends (26.2 per cent compared
with 4.9 per cent for those aged 65–74), in response to educational opportunities
(20.1 per cent compared with 4.6 per cent) and as a consequence of personal
circumstances (12.0 compared with 4.4 per cent). In many instances ‘personal
circumstances’ can be interpreted as conflict with parents or other guardians.
Boomerang children
Returning to the parental home has become an increasing phenomenon over

the last few decades across many advanced economies with some commentators
labelling this group ‘boomerang children’ for their propensity to come back to
their origin (Molgat, 2002). This phenomenon has had an impact both on how
we think about the age at which young people leave the parental home as well
as the dynamics of contemporary family life. Some have argued that the parents
of such ‘boomerang children’ are ‘baby gloomers’ rather than baby boomers,
because of the expectation that they will continue to support their offspring.
Whatever the impacts at a personal level, the reality cannot be denied. Analysis
of cross-sectional data has identified a trend towards young people remaining in
Figure 4.1: Reasons for leaving the family home by age

%
60
18-24 years
50 25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
40 55-64 years
65-74 years
30 75 years+
20
10
0
Education Employ- Relation- To live To live Military Personal Travel
ment ship with on own service circum-
formation friends stances
Source: Housing 21 Survey
64
the parental home longer than was the case for previous generations. For example,
data for the UK indicates that in 2008 29 per cent of men and 18 per cent of
women aged 20–34 were residing with their parents, compared with 27 per cent
and 15 per cent respectively in 2001 (Office of National Statistics, 2009, p 17).
Similarly in Australia, 23 per cent of young people aged 20–34 were living with
their parents in 2006 compared with 19 per cent in 1986 (ABS, 2009a, p 24).
Such trends led Côté and Bynner (2008, p 253) to state ‘one of the least contested
issues in contemporary youth studies is that the transition to adulthood is now
taking longer on average than in the past’.
Young (1996) observed that establishing trends on the percentage of young
people still living at home with their parents does not necessarily provide a true
indication of the age at which young people first left home.Analysis of longitudinal
data allows for a more accurate analysis of the timing and synchronicity of
leaving home and may tell a different story (Holdsworth and Morgan, 2005).
For example, in Australia in 2006–07 the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
conducted a survey to examine more specifically trends in living arrangements
of people aged 18 years and over, including experiences of leaving the family
home. The examination showed that for males aged 18-34 years the median
age of first leaving the family home was 20.9 years and for females the median
age was 19.8 years, representing little change over around 50 years (Baxter and
McDonald, 2004; Flatau et al, 2004). The ABS survey also indicated that by the
age of 28 some 94 per cent of people had left the family home, whether they
had returned or not. Moreover, 31 per cent of people aged 20–34 years had left
and then returned, and the probability that a young person would return home
at least once before turning 35 was close to 50 per cent (ABS, 2009a).
The Housing 21 Survey provided a comparable set of insights into the housing
transitions of younger people in the first part of the 21st century. When asked,
persons aged 18–24 were much more likely to report that their household had
changed composition through a child leaving home than those aged 25–34, once
again reinforcing the interpretation that most young Australians leave the parental
home in their early 20s. Some 26 per cent of respondents aged 18–24 indicated
that the composition of their household had changed through a partner, parent
or adult sibling leaving home. By contrast, only 4 per cent indicated one or more
adult offspring had returned to the family home. Importantly, while 41 per cent
of 18- to 24-year-olds still lived in the family home, only 4 per cent of 25- to
34-year-olds still lived with their parents. Most young Australians leave home in
their late teenage years through to their mid 20s (see Figure 4.2). The process
appears more concentrated for the 18–24 cohort because the figure does not –
and cannot – include the moves of persons still resident in their parent’s home.
It is worth noting, however, that the departure of young people from the family
home stretches over 15 years, and that those who left the family home first had
already spent half their life away from the family home by the time the last person
departed. We can, however, conclude that the percentage of offspring remaining
in the family home until well into their adult years is small: just 12 per cent of
65
respondents to the Housing 21 Survey aged 25–34 left the family home at age
24 or older.While some young adults return to the family home, it appears to be
a small-scale and transient phenomenon.
One of the most influential factors contributing to the rise of boomerang
children has been growing rates of participation in post-school education. Over
the last three to four decades growing proportions of young people have remained
within the education system. There has been a marked rise in many nations in
participation in higher education. Education can have one of two completely
contrasting effects: for some young people ongoing participation in education
delays the departure from the family home by postponing the start of their
working careers; for others, it precipitates leaving home earlier simply because
the university or educational institution they attend is distant from the family
home. In the UK, for example, Patiniotis and Holdsworth (2005) estimate that
around 75 per cent of students attending higher education ‘live away’ from home.
The pattern in the US is similar, but conversely very few Australian students
leave the family home in order to obtain a first degree. This phenomenon adds
complexity both to our understanding of the transition away from the family
home and the academic debate around its incidence and character. In discussing
trends in the US, Furlong and Cartmel (2007) stressed that children leaving
home to further their education are only ‘moving away’, not ‘leaving’ the family
home. The overwhelming majority of students return during holidays and over
40 per cent return to the family home upon completion of their college courses.
In Europe, however, students in similar circumstances are treated by researchers
as having left home (Mulder, 2000). In some respects, therefore, independent
or quasi-independent living associated with education can be thought of as an
intermediate step in the transition to adult life.The growing rate of participation
in higher education is one of the ways in which the path to adulthood and adult
housing has become more complex over recent decades.
For many young people in the 21st century moving out does not necessarily
mean moving on – emotionally, intellectually and often physically. Instead of
being a one-off event, moving out of home has become a sequence of limited
moves that are often time limited, linked to specific opportunities and, importantly,
often supported by parental finances. Critically then, it is important to distinguish
between leaving home for the first time (moving out), and leaving home for the
last time (moving on), and the experiences and directional changes that occur
between these two points in the life course.
The motivations for independence
The housing young people first occupy is commonly dependent on the

precipitating factors that triggered departure from the family home. As these
initiating factors or circumstances have become more varied over time, so have the
housing options sought by, or available to, younger people. Using the experiences
of young people in the UK, Ford et al (2002) showed that how young adults left
66
the family home resulted in significant differentiation in subsequent housing.They

noted that in the past young people moved into the same housing market as their
parents, albeit entering at the bottom of this market, before gradually working
their way towards greater permanence and quality. Change in housing markets, in
particular affordability, has meant that young people now enter what they term as
a ‘youth housing market’ – ‘characterised by shared housing, precarious housing,
temporary housing and frequent mobility, and which is clearly distinct from
accessing and holding housing in a ‘mature’ or ‘adult’ market’ (Ford et al, 2002,
p 2456). This description can be aptly applied to the housing situation of young
people in many countries. For example, in countries such as the Netherlands,
Australia, the US and the UK, private renting is frequently the first destination
of young people leaving home. Sharing is often the first step in an ‘independent’
housing career, particularly for those attending university (Mulder and Hooimeijer,
2002). Young people who are working and leave home are also likely to be
renting in the private rental sector but are less likely to share accommodation,
while homeownership is only likely to be an option for those who leave home
to live with a partner, though as a first entry point into the housing market this
has become increasingly difficult (Mulder and Hooimeijer, 2002).
Family-specific factors can be important in shaping the initial housing of young
people, with Mandic (2008) arguing that in southern Europe and some eastern
European countries construction of housing by the family network is an important
avenue for independent living for young people. In all countries an absence
of family support means some young people leave home under questionable
circumstances and the risk of homelessness is considerable. For many young
people homelessness, or the risk of homelessness, can be a recurring nightmare.
That homelessness could be part of the lifetime relationship between an
individual and their housing would appear to be an oxymoron, but this is the
case for increasing numbers of young people in many advanced economies. It is
estimated that on any night, some 75,000 young people in the UK are homeless
(Wincup et al, 2003), while Australian estimates suggest 32,000 youth are homeless
at any time (Chamberlain and MacKenzie 2008, p 27). The drivers of youth
homelessness are reasonably well understood and they reflect a combination of
social, demographic, legal and housing market processes. Key factors include the
incidence of substance abuse; conflict with parents; low and/or insecure parental
income; interaction with the judicial system, including periods of incarceration;
the inability to secure affordable housing; and leaving guardianship arrangements
after being fostered or cared for by the state. Many of these risks have been present
for decades but their impacts appear more acute in the 21st century because of
ongoing crises in the provision of welfare services and the demise of many low-
cost housing options. Moreover, most developed economies now have relatively
few jobs that can be filled by young people with relatively low levels of education
or skills. Demographic change has also exerted a profound impact. Higher rates of
divorce or relationship breakdown across society have contributed to an escalation
67
in the number of ‘blended’ households, and conflict with step-parents pushes

some out of the family home at a young age.
Young people are generally the most mobile group within the housing market,
with many moves across many dwellings and types of accommodation. In
conceptualising the housing transitions of young people in England at the turn
of the 21st century, Ford et al (2002) were able to identify five typical housing
pathways, which they classified as chaotic, unplanned, constrained, planned (non-
student) and a student pathway.This classification was based on four main factors:
the ease with which young people were able to plan and control their move into
independent living, the nature and character of the local housing market, access
to benefits, and the degree of family support available. These processes have an
influence on the long-term housing trajectories of young people. Mulder’s (2003)
analysis of two retrospective life course surveys conducted in the Netherlands
in the 1990s found young people who left home initially to live with a partner
or marry were more likely to become homeowners and less likely to share, and
this remained significant after eight years. Interestingly, Mulder (2003, p 717)
also observed that while highly educated young adults may start off in a less
favourable housing situation when they first leave home, after eight years they are
more likely to be homeowners than the less well educated and this reflects their
greater earning capacity. Rugg and Ford (2004) would also argue that the student
pathway allows young people to obtain housing knowledge in a progressive way
in a supportive context, where young people can learn about living independently
and budgeting within sheltered environments (university halls, for example).They
see the student pathway into housing as constituting ‘an essential education in
housing that enhances the housing and labour opportunities of graduates’ (Rugg
and Ford, 2004, p 19).
Entering the homeownership market
Homeownership in many western societies is an expected, almost unquestionable,

stage in the sequence of housing young adults occupy and the broader transition
to adult life. In many nations homeownership remains a highly desirable goal
and, as discussed in previous chapters, homeownership is increasingly central to
people’s sense of identity and well-being.The purchase of the first home, therefore,
is perceived as an important ‘rite of passage’ or, as Mulder and Wagner (1998,
p 687) see it, a crucial step in the life course, arguing that ‘the effect of this step
on people’s housing situation, accumulation of wealth and disposable income
can hardly be overstated’.
Since 1945, homeownership rates have risen in almost all OECD countries and
in the last 20 years or so homeownership as a tenure has become more popular
than rental (Atterhog 2005; Havet and Penot 2010). Chiuri and Japelli’s (2003)
comparative study of owner-occupancy rates across OECD countries highlights
the considerable variation in the age of entry into this tenure. In Anglophone
countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and Canada, as well as in Finland, the
68
Netherlands and Sweden, young people generally enter homeownership in their

20s or early 30s. In Germany,Austria, Italy and Spain, on the other hand, movement
into homeownership has tended to occur much later, in the 30s and even 40s.
Movement into homeownership has been explained in terms of family life
cycle models, with the timing of homeownership connected to marriage and
childbearing as well as of socioeconomic circumstances (employment status,
income, and parental resources, for example). Though the relative importance of
factors vary regionally, in essence the overwhelming weight of research indicates
that married people have a greater probability of becoming homeowners, that
higher education is positively associated with homeownership, as is employment
and length of employment, and that parental homeownership and resources favour
the probability of homeownership. Degree of urbanisation also has an influence
on homeownership possibilities, with the likelihood of homeownership decreasing
with increasing levels of urbanisation (Mulder and Wagner, 1998, 2001; Hillman
and Marks, 2002; McDonald and Baxter, 2005).
In addition to events in the family life course, contextual factors are of
significance and may be of even greater importance than individual demography.
The decision to enter the homeownership market needs to be examined within
the pricing and political framework of the housing market of the time (Mulder
and Wagner, 1998; Atterhog, 2005; Kupke, 2007). Factors including the price
of housing, homeownership subsidies, interest rates, rental shortages, property
taxation, loan deposits and lending regulations and practices can all be influential
in the decision to enter homeownership. In Canada, for example, from the early
1980s through to the mid 1990s ownership rates for young households decreased
as a result of high interest rates, recession and an unfavourable labour market for
young males. By the mid to late 1990s homeownership rates for younger age
groups increased as interest rates decreased, employment conditions improved
and changes in mortgage regulations made it easier for young people to obtain
finance and safeguarded loans (Hou, 2010).
In Australia and the UK, the ability of young people to enter the homeownership
market is under increasing pressure, with official data indicating a trend towards
declining homeownership for young people.The Office of National Statistics in
the UK reports that the proportion of people aged under 30 buying a home with
a mortgage declined from 43 per cent in 1997 to 27 per cent in 2009, while in
2008 only 18 per cent of first-homebuyers were aged under 25 years, compared
with 30 per cent in 1990 (Office of National Statistics, 2009). In Australia, ABS
data indicates a significant decline in the homeownership rate of people aged
25–34 (ABS, 2004a;Yates et al, 2007; Flood and Baker, 2010).
Of necessity, census data reflects conditions at a point in time, does not provide
insights into the past housing of individuals, and is analysed from a household rather
than individual perspective. In Australia there have been two concurrent debates
about homeownership: first, whether the decline in homeownership rates is an
actual decline or is simply a reflection of the fact that entry into homeownership
has been delayed to a later age; and, second, whether the reason for the fall in
69
homeownership rates is a consequence of a lack of affordable housing or delays in

family formation among young Australians (Yates, 2002; Baxter and McDonald,
2005). In relation to the first debate, a life course approach suggests that more
Australians have been able to enter homeownership at younger ages over recent
decades than was historically the case (Baxter and McDonald, 2005; Beer and
Faulkner, 2009). Over the last five decades most Australians who become owner-
occupiers did so early in their adult lives with 67 per cent of respondents to the
Housing 21 Survey doing so by age 30 (Figure 4.2). These data, however, reflect
all of the approximately 1,900 respondents who had entered home purchase
regardless of current age.The more important question, however, is the percentage
of each cohort to enter home ownership by a particular age, and especially age
34 and age 44, the traditional and emerging thresholds for measuring recruitment
into owner occupation.
The Housing 21 Survey permitted the calculation of the age at which the
respondent first entered homeownership: for the total population (including
persons currently tenants) 51 per cent had taken out their first mortgage on a
home by age 30 and 16 per cent of those aged 18–24 were already homebuyers.
The more telling set of figures is the percentage of each cohort to become home
purchasers or homeowners at a benchmark date, and Figure 4.2 reveals that the
results contradict the conventional interpretation that younger cohorts have found
it more difficult to enter home purchase than older groups did at the same age
Figure 4.2: Age at which entered home purchase, all respondents

%
9
0
18
27
36
39
48
57
69
21
24
30
33
42
45
51
54
60
63
82
Age
70
(Figure 4.3). For those aged 25–34, fully 56.7 per cent had entered home purchase
by the age of 30, compared with 56.8 per cent of the 35–44 cohort, 52.6 per cent
of the 45–54 age group, 53.9 per cent of those aged 55–64, 50.8 per cent of the
cohort aged 65–74 and 41.9 per cent of those aged over 75. Similar trends are
evident at the other benchmark ages of 34 and 44 years, and it is worth noting
that the percentage of households to have entered home purchase by age 44 is
broadly comparable between 35- to 44-year-olds and 45- to 55-year-olds, even
though the majority of the former group had not achieved that age at the time the
survey was conducted. Put simply, the Housing 21 data show that more Australians
have been able to enter homeownership at younger ages over recent decades.
The introduction of the First Home Owners Grant by the Australian
Government (FHOG) in 2000 played an important role in encouraging many
young Australians to enter home purchase. Wood et al (2003) showed that the
FHOG ‘brought forward’ home purchase decisions for a significant number of
households. Kupke and Marano (2002) concluded that for those households able
to secure the FHOG, the timing of home purchase was determined by access to
the grant. However, the FHOG alone does not explain the younger ages for entry
to home purchase because of the relatively modest level of assistance provided and
the high rates of entry to home purchase amongst those currently aged 35–44
years.While the overall finding appears to be at odds with earlier analyses (Yates,
1996, 2003; Baxter and McDonald, 2005), it is consistent with the outcomes we
Figure 4.3: Percentage of the population to have entered home purchase,

by cohort, at age 30, 34 and 44
%
80
70
60
50
40
Percentage entered home ownership by age 30
30
20
10
0
35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Age in categories
71
would expect within a liberalising housing market and an increasingly prosperous

economy. The older generations were confronted by the need to save for an
extended period in order to secure a home loan, had lower household incomes
and had higher rates of entry into public housing. Moreover, some groups, such
as women, were effectively excluded from entry into the housing market by
discriminatory lending and employment practices (Watson, 1988).
It is important to consider why the results on entry into home ownership by
age from the Housing 21 Survey appear to contradict earlier research. Critically,
the data discussed here report on the age at which the respondent entered
homeownership, regardless of their current tenure. A significant percentage of
those who have entered home purchase subsequently leave the tenure. Other
research has simply considered tenure and age of the population at a point in
time and ignored previous tenures. The Housing 21 data show that younger
Australians are both more likely to enter home purchase and more likely to
exit from that tenure when compared with their parents’ or grand-parents’
generations. Analysis of the Housing 21 data for people aged 18–34 showed that
25 per cent of tenants had previously been homeowners.This movement between
tenures was due to a number of factors including work related moves, temporary
renting while looking for another residence or building a home, affordability
issues, and relationship breakdown. The results already discussed suggest that for
governments concerned to maintain relatively high rates of homeownership in
current and future generations, the major policy challenge is in assisting people
to retain owner-occupation rather than increasing the rate of entry.The findings
also indicate that divorce and relationship breakdown have a comparable impact
on housing transitions in the 21st century to that held by marriage in the 20th
century but with the opposite impact on tenure. It is a pivotal life course event
that is likely to be associated with change in an individual’s housing circumstances.
There is no doubt that housing affordability (or the lack thereof) and housing
stress are issues for young households in the 21st century in the UK (ECOTEC
and Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2009), New Zealand (Ministry of Social
Development, 2009) and Australia (Richards, 2008). Housing affordability in
these countries has received considerable attention within research and policy
environments.The ability of first-homebuyers to enter the market is, as Yates et al
(2007) note, predicated on the interaction of house prices, incomes and the cost
of mortgage finance, together with a household’s savings and deposit assistance.
These factors fluctuate over time but the relationship between house prices and
incomes has worsened, with prices rising significantly faster than incomes.While
incentives in the form of government assistance encourage and help young people
enter homeownership, shifts in interest rates or personal circumstances make
people who may not have entered the market but for these incentives vulnerable
to housing stress. This is clearly highlighted in a news report by Gardner (2010)
describing the outcome of an Australian government incentive of A$14,000 to
enter the market:
72
Just weeks after the grant was withdrawn a survey of more than 26,000
borrowers conducted by Fujitsu Consulting has found 45 per cent of
first-home owners who entered the market during the past 18 months
are experiencing ‘mortgage stress’ or ‘severe mortgage stress’.
Younger households not only have to contend with the growing inequity between
house prices and incomes, but their ability to enter the market or maintain their
tenure, is compromised by the burden of a higher education debt. Investigation
of the impact of student debt on first-homebuyers in Britain concluded that
increasing debt levels among students coupled with a new repayment profile and
mortgage lender imposed borrowing restrictions delayed first-homebuyer entry
into the market (Andrew, 2010). A number of authors in Australia have argued
that the Higher Education Contribution Scheme may work to discourage family
formation (Jackson, 2002) and act as an impediment to home purchase (Badcock
and Beer, 2000; Pearse, 2003) by reducing both the capacity to save for a deposit
and by producing a lower mortgage repayment capacity.
Housing aspirations and expectations

There is limited research on the aspirations and expectations of younger households
in terms of housing preferences, tenure, quality and location. In countries where
homeownership has been the dominant tenure for decades and in other countries
where homeownership has relatively recently gained precedence over renting,
homeownership is the tenure of choice for young households (Casells and Harding,
2007; Beer and Faulkner, 2009; ECOTEC and Joseph Rowntree Foundation,
2009).This desire for homeownership changes people’s aspirations regarding the
quality and location of housing.
In the UK, practitioners and policy makers are increasingly questioning the
rationality of homeownership as a lifetime goal. Research undertaken by ECOTEC
and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2009, p 6) indicates that homeownership
remains a strong aspiration, an ultimate objective, among younger people in the
UK, despite the increasing difficulty they face in accessing homeownership.There
was a realisation among the young groups interviewed that this ambition was
becoming an increasingly unobtainable reality.Young people were consequently
looking at alternatives, including socially rented accommodation.This tenure was
also difficult to enter because of a lack of supply and an apparent lack of flexibility.
Shared purchase was seen as an option but remains untested in the UK market.
The research canvassed the possibility of long-term occupancy of private rental
housing, but noted that while there are some benefits in terms of flexibility and
choice of location, high rents, poor quality housing and a lack of security make
this tenure unattractive.
In Australia where homeownership has a strong tradition, survey data indicate
a strong preference for homeownership. The Housing 21 data suggest that fully
60 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds who were renting believed they would enter
home purchase within the next five years, while the Household Income and
73
Labour Dynamics of Australia Survey indicated that in 2004, 94 per cent of 15- to
29-year-olds anticipated they would own their own home, many by the age of
30 (Cassells and Harding, 2007). In common with their counterparts in the UK,
young Australians are concerned about their ability to achieve this goal in life
with 55 per cent reporting that they were somewhat worried or very worried
about their ability to buy a home by the age they planned to do so (Cassells and
Harding, 2007). Indeed in most Anglophone countries the desire to own a home
is greater than the rates of lifetime achievement of this aspiration. In assessing
the confluence between aspiration and achievement for Australian households,
studies by Merlo and McDonald (2002) and Baum and Wulff (2003) found that
expectation of entry into homeownership has a low predictive value. Merlo and
McDonald concluded that considerable caution needs to be taken in the use of
aspirations in projecting future behaviour.
The future for young people and housing

Younger people in the majority of advanced economies have and will experience
radically different housing sequences through their life course when compared
with their parents’ or grand-parents’ generations. They will be more likely to
enter homeownership at a young age and much more likely to fall out of it once
they get there. If homeownership was the apogee of a ‘housing career’ for earlier
generations and in previous conceptualisations of the relationship between housing
and the life course, now it is much more likely to be a tenure occupied for a
defined stage in the life course. Ironically, the evidence suggests that governments,
in their eagerness to maintain high rates of owner-occupation, have contributed to
the tenure’s instability: the programmes and policies intended to support access to
home purchase have encouraged at-risk households into the tenure, from which
measurable proportions then exit. Of greater concern is the fact that there is no
‘natural’ tenure, or progression of tenures, for young people in many advanced
societies: homeownership is unaffordable for many, social housing is inaccessible
and private rental housing is unattractive. It is little wonder, therefore, that many
young people continue to return to the family home as they journey through
an extended transition to adulthood.
The current generations of young people are also much more likely to
experience homelessness, both because of changes affecting their generation, and
those affecting their parents’ generation–especially the increase in relationship
breakdowns and divorce. Over the coming decades many people will have had
firsthand experience of homelessness and its consequence, and this will have
long-term detrimental impact. As the research discussed earlier has shown, how
young people first enter the housing market affects their longer-term outcomes
and creates the conditions for housing success or failure later in life.
74
FIVE
Housing in mid life: consolidation,

opportunity and risk
In the traditional representation of a housing career a discussion of mid-life

housing transitions would almost seem unwarranted. Mid life has conventionally
been seen as a period of consolidation and stability in the housing of individuals
and households. In the past, at this stage of life, traditional patterns of behaviour,
stable employment careers, and the demands of childrearing contributed to
limited movements within the housing market.The middle years of life have been
associated with the gradual transition from home purchase to outright ownership,
accompanied by some limited upward movement through the housing market
to better accommodate the needs of the family. Mid life in this representation of
the relationship between housing and the life course is seen as the culmination of
a household’s housing aspirations and needs, where many households maximise
their consumption of housing.
There is relatively little known about the housing position of persons in the
middle years of their life, as the apparent stability of these households has not made
them an attractive subject for research. Over the last few decades, however, the life
course has become much more complex, differentiated and de-standardised as a
result of economic growth, affluence, more mobile labour markets and in some
households, growing instability.These changes have eroded traditional conceptions
of stability in housing in mid life and while some households go through a period
of quiescence relative to the housing market, a growing minority do not. Events
and changes in the family life course have substantially reshaped mid-life housing
transitions, resulting in widening differentials in the housing trajectories. Some
households have taken advantage of their opportunities to accrue considerable
wealth while others have experienced a less favourable life course that has
interrupted, or significantly altered, their housing aspirations.
Family and the consumption of housing

Marriage and the birth of children have conventionally been seen as pivotal
markers of the move from rental accommodation to home purchase (Neutze
and Kendig, 1991). While societal change has meant that marriage per se and
the arrival of the first child are not as universally important in the 21st century
as previously, relationship formation and the birth of children remain critical
to shaping transitions. Baxter and McDonald (2005) argue that in Australia the
most significant factor in predicting a move to owner-occupation is formal
marriage, while internationally it has been argued that the birth of children or
75
the anticipation of childbearing is critical (Mulder and Wagner, 2001; Feijten and
Mulder, 2002). Evidence suggests that delays in both of these processes, marriage
and childbearing, have resulted in the postponement of entry into homeownership
(Baxter and McDonald, 2004; Mulder, 2006a, 2006b), but both marriage and the
arrival of a child clearly increase the likelihood of a change in housing circumstance
(Deurloo et al, 1994; Mulder and Wagner, 2001; Clark and Huang, 2003).
The evidence from the Housing 21 Survey on the impact of the birth of
children on housing transitions is mixed. In establishing the primary reason for
moving from one dwelling to another over the period 1996 to 2006, relatively
few households suggested the arrival of children was their primary reason.Analysis
of the Housing 21 Survey data on the relationship between the first entry of
respondents into homeownership and the birth of the first child (who at the time
of the survey was under 20 years of age) tells a different story.These data strongly
suggest that, in Australia at least, the birth of children or the expected birth of
children remains highly instrumental in the decision to enter homeownership.
Fully 67 per cent of the 610 respondents who had entered homeownership at
some stage in their life, and who also had children, did so prior to the year of birth
of their first child (Beer and Faulkner 2009). In the five years prior to the arrival
of the first child, 36 per cent entered home purchase, while 10 per cent became
homebuyers in the year their first child was born and 13 per cent entered home
purchase in the five years after the arrival of their firstborn. Overall, approximately
60 per cent of households entered homeownership in the five years before or
five years after the arrival of their first child. The year the first child was born
was also the single most common year for entering owner occupation. Clearly,
the arrival of children remains an important driver of first-home purchase even
though relationship breakdown and lower fertility rates have reduced its overall
significance. It should also be acknowledged that there is a growing lag between
relationship formation and the arrival of the first child, such that many households
may enter home purchase in the expectation of children at some stage, even if
it is not the primary driver for residential relocation (Beer and Faulkner, 2009).
The qualitative interviews with families with children (54 households)
undertaken as part of the research into 21st-century Australian housing careers
(Tually, 2008) provides a rich source of evidence on the impact the arrival of
children has on housing needs and preferences. The birth of a child or the
impending birth of a child was for all of the respondents a significant motivator
for change. For many respondents, both those who had formally married and
those in an informal relationship, the transition to parenthood prompted them
to move into homeownership (Tually, 2008, p 51):
…the reason we originally wanted to buy was because we wanted to
start a family and have them in a secure environment and I think you
always want to have a secure home when you’ve got children so that
they can settle somewhere and if you want to get sand pits for them
76
Housing in mid life: consolidation, opportunity and risk
and things like that, you can do that if it’s your own home.You can’t
always do it if it’s a rental property.
People in rental accommodation were also influenced by the arrival of children.
For the private renters in the group, having a child or children spurred many to
move out of shared housing into a larger private rental property or to move from
one private rental property to a larger, more family-friendly, property.
Regardless of tenure and income, children appear to be a motivating force for
mobility, especially in the desire to provide stable and secure housing. For those
who could afford it, stability meant homeownership, while for renters it meant
seeking a larger house and hopefully a landlord who would provide a measure
of certainty. These sentiments were clearly enunciated by a lone female parent
(Tually, 2008, p 51):
I think when you’re a single person or even…like a couple without
children, it’s much easier to just kind of pack up and move because
you don’t have to think about schools or their friends and stuff like
that. So I’d really just like to have a stable base.
Households with children also voiced a need for more space (both inside and
outside the dwelling) and this appeared to be a significant factor in households
seeking alternative accommodation. From their perspective, housing needed to
cater for both immediate and future needs. Tually (2008, p 52 ) noted that many
interviewees discussed the importance of living in a ‘good area’, near a ‘good
school’ and public transport, as well as other facilities such as parks, sporting clubs
or grounds and childcare facilities. The need for parents to cater for the needs of
their children was voiced by one parent who said:
She governs all my decision making. I suppose I didn’t want to live
in a flat because I wanted her to have enough space and not that we
always use the yard but the older she’s gotten so – and also I suppose
it affected where – our location. So I wanted to live [in]…an area that
had lots of parks around us and was close…to getting to her childcare
and all that sort of thing. (Tually, 2008, p 51).
Establishing a household and consolidating one’s housing in mid life is challenging
for many, as it is the stage in the life course with the greatest commitment of
resources.The combined tasks of raising children and purchasing/renting housing
places pressure on mid- life households. Research in Australia on the costs of
raising children indicates that the lifetime (birth to age 21 years) costs of raising
two children represent around 23 per cent of a household’s income (Percival et al,
2007, p 20). In addition, many of the mid-life population – whether buyers or
renters – have more than 30 per cent of their income committed to housing. For
homebuyers this situation improves in their late 40s and at older ages as the real
cost of their mortgage falls; as a group they begin to achieve outright ownership
and their children begin to forge their own independence. Risks, however, remain
as the proportion of people aged 45–54 achieving outright homeownership has
77
declined over time (Tanton et al, 2008) and the return of children to the family
home after initially leaving for a period (Young, 1987) has added complexity to
established household structures.
Achieving stability in one’s housing situation in mid life is affected by a range
of factors, specifically attachment to the labour force, household income, family
composition and tenure type. Some mid-life households have built considerable
wealth in housing and non-housing assets (Headey et al, 2008). However, as the
cost of housing relative to incomes has increased over time (Yates et al, 2008)
some low- and moderate-income households have been excluded from this
avenue for wealth creation.
Housing shocks and successes

For some people, mid life represents the pinnacle of their position within the
labour market and the high point in their lifetime of housing consumption. It
can be a period of high incomes, growing wealth, falling household expenditures
as children begin to leave home and an expanding horizon of opportunities for
investment and consumption. For others, mid life is a period of vulnerability, some
of which is anticipated and some of which arrives as a shock.These interruptions,
or housing shocks, can occur for a number of reasons including unemployment,
retrenchment, illness, the onset of disability and, increasingly, partnership
breakdown leading to separation and divorce. These shocks often have adverse
outcomes for households, in particular those who ‘fall’ out of homeownership.
Both sets of processes need to be understood if we are to fully comprehend
housing transitions in the 21st century.
From his work in the Netherlands, Feijten (2005) observed that once people
have become homeowners they tend to stay within this sector except if disrupting
life events such as separation or unemployment force them to make a ‘backward’
or ‘negative’ move to rental housing.The Housing 21 Survey explored the degree
to which respondents had moved from homeownership to rental housing and
the reasons behind that change in tenure. Amongst the respondents aged 35-54
years (1,104 persons) 9.8 percent were renting, although they had previously
been outright homeowners or in the process of purchasing a home.The rate was
slightly higher for women at 10.3 per cent compared with men at 8.9 per cent,
but in both instances roughly one in 10 people within this age group had fallen
out of homeownership. The reasons for currently being in the rental market
varied: for some the rental market was a planned temporary transition while
they worked to improve their long-term housing position but for the majority
it appears to have been an unplanned, and almost certainly unwelcome, move. It
is a phenomenon that reflects social and economic change and may foreshadow
a longer term trend. Certainly this was the inference drawn by Berry et al (2010,
p 66) from their study of mortgage defaults; they argued that ‘more Australians
are going to be affected by involuntary exit from home ownership more often
in their lives than in the second half of the twentieth century’.
78
Partnership dissolution
Demographic processes continue to shape the relationship between housing

and the life course through the 21st century, but in this century the impact of
household formation is equalled by the influence of household dissolution. The
breakdown of relationships, whether formally married or de facto, is a common
feature of western societies. The probability that a marriage will end in divorce
has been increasing over time. For marriages in Australia that began at the start
of the 21st century, there is an expected probability that one third will end in
divorce (ABS, 2007a, p 3) and mid life is the stage of life with the highest rates
of marriage breakdown (Bracher et al, 1993; Hewitt et al, 2005). Official divorce,
statistics, however, are not a true reflection of partnership dissolution as many
formal marriages result in permanent separation and never proceed to divorce,
or it is many years before divorce proceeding are instigated (Hewitt et al, 2005).
In addition, official statistics do not capture the formation and dissolution of de
facto relationships. As marriage rates have fallen in Australia and other developed
economies, cohabitation rates have increased, and de facto relationships are
associated with higher rates of relationship breakdown (Hewitt et al, 2005; Qu
and Weston, 2008) and therefore greater levels of risk for the partners. Partnership
dissolution has a considerable impact on many facets of life, including a measurable
influence on housing transitions. It has become a key driver of households ‘falling
out’ of homeownership.
The Housing 21 Survey sheds light on the impact of relationship breakdown
on the housing of contemporary Australians. Some 35.1 per cent of males and
40.8 per cent of females aged 35-54 years who were renting because they had
fallen out of homeownership did so because of marriage/partnership breakdown.
The males were evenly divided in the reasons they fell out of homeownership
between ‘partner received dwelling’ and ‘couldn’t afford mortgage costs associated
with dwelling’, while 75 per cent of women who left homeownership did so
because they could no longer service the mortgage. These findings reflect those
of international studies (Feijten and Mulder, 2002; Feijten, 2005; Feijten and van
Ham, 2007) showing that, for one partner at least, separation causes an immediate
housing move while for the other the challenge is to maintain housing stability
in the face of high costs and diminished resources. Generally, this lagged effect
is gendered because of women’s more marginal attachment to the labour force
and consequent lower incomes. In the Netherlands, Feijten (2005) tested the
probability of separated persons leaving homeownership. He found that within
three months of separation the odds of moving from owner-occupation were
high for both men and women. Over time, however, the trends diverged. In the
second and following years post separation there was hardly any difference in
homeownership trends for separated men and male homeowners. By contrast, the
probability of moving remained strong and significant for women.The probability
that women would leave owner-occupation was almost 4.5 times higher than
for men in the second and subsequent years post separation (Feijten, 2005, p 67).
79
In Australia, Flatau et al (2004) used econometric modelling to predict the

probabilities of a household being in owner-occupation after separation and
divorce.Their findings indicated that for people aged 35–64 years divorce results
in a 9 percentage point lower probability of homeownership when compared
with the continuously married. Separation has an even greater negative impact
on homeownership prospects. Separated individuals have a 21 percentage point
lower probability of attaining or retaining homeownership when compared to
the continuously married.
Divorce brings with it the risk of substantial financial hardship. Those most
affected are generally women and, as Smyth and Weston (2000) argued, this is
the case despite the introduction of income support measures and changes in
the labour market. As women are more likely to be responsible for the care of
children, their labour force participation, and therefore earning capacity, is limited
when compared with fathers.The distribution of a household’s assets post divorce
also differs between males and females, with women in Australia losing access to
superannuation savings for retirement.A study by Sheehan and Hughes (2001) on
the distribution of a couple’s assets post divorce showed that on average women
receive two thirds of the household’s basic assets (family home, bank savings
and the like) but only one fifth of the non-basic assets (such as superannuation).
Similar findings were reported by Kelly and Harding (2005).They found women
received the house but relatively few other assets such as superannuation. This
meant that divorce, financially, had relatively little impact on men but resulted in
a significant reduction in the income of women.
Research in Australia (Smyth and Weston, 2000; Flatau et al, 2004) and
internationally (Lewis, 2006) demonstrates that re-partnering – effectively the
establishment of a new household and a new stage in the housing of an individual
– was an important pathway out of poverty for many divorced people, especially
women. Flatau et al (2004) found that remarried couples had the same likelihood
of homeownership as continuously married couples.While at an individual level
this is a positive outcome, remarriage rates in Australia and many other developed
economies are not rising (ABS, 2007a), and those who were previously divorced
and subsequently remarried are slightly more likely to divorce than those who
had not previously been married (Carmichael et al, 1996).
Qualitative research in Australia has shown that there are a number of possible
pathways for people affected by divorce or separation: moving in with family or
friends, remaining in the owner-occupied family home, using the proceeds of
the sale of the family home to downsize to another home, moving from owner-
occupation into private rental, moving into social housing, and experiencing
homelessness (Gwyther, 2007;Tually, 2008).Those ‘forced’ out of homeownership
often see a significant decline in the quality and quantity of their housing and may
occupy housing that does not meet all their family’s needs (Feijten and Mulder,
2005). Consequently, separation and divorce often lead to a change in housing
aspirations and a realignment of housing priorities in both the short term and
longer term (Tually, 2008).While many still aspire to homeownership, a significant
80
proportion quickly recognise that it is beyond their reach. Many women consider
that homeownership is a housing option permanently shut off to them. As one
respondent, a separated mother of two commented:
Homeownership…It’s not the be all and end all, I admit that. As long
as you’ve got something to keep you warm at night, a roof over your
head. That’s the most important thing, but as far as meeting those
goals that you set for yourself in life. Having my name on a mortgage
document and eventually having the papers in my hand will mean a
lot. Having the deeds to the house…knowing that my children have
got something at the end of the day. (Tually 2008, p 44).
Retrenchment, unemployment and underemployment
Employment largely determines the income and wealth of households and

therefore acts as a determinant of housing outcomes both with respect to tenure
and the realisation of housing market aspirations. Unemployment and retrenchment
in mid life can significantly interrupt the lifetime housing experience and the
realisation of long-term housing aspirations.
While unemployment and retrenchment can occur at any age, mature-aged
workers are disadvantaged within the labour market with a much lower rate of
re-employment compared with younger job seekers. Mature-age workers are over
represented in the long-term unemployed and underemployed. In comparison
with younger persons, many older workers spend one or more years finding
employment (ABS, 2010). Often, when they do find employment it is at a lower
level of seniority and pay and/or they may have fewer hours of work, the work
they may be able to secure is of a casual or short term nature, and the salary may be
less than their previous position.The difficulties of re-entering the labour market
are ascribed to a mismatch between the skills demanded in a 21st-century labour
market and those held by the employee. Mature workers are also confronted by
ongoing discrimination in the workplace (Encel, 1993). Job search experience
surveys conducted by the ABS in Australia (for example ABS, 2005, 2007b, 2009b)
indicate that the dominant reason given to people aged 45 years and over why
they were not successful in a job application was that they were ‘considered too
old by employers’.This occurred three to four times more frequently than being
told that they ‘lacked necessary skills or education’. Mature-age workers are very
susceptible to the ‘discouraged worker effect’ that leads to many leaving the work
force involuntarily in the guise of early retirement (Encel, 1993).
Losing one’s job may not initially exert an impact on housing outcomes.
As savings diminish with long-term unemployment, or underemployment, a
household’s susceptibility to housing stress increases, compromising immediate
housing options as well as future housing aspirations and retirement prospects.
One-income families with a mortgage are particularly vulnerable, while two-
income families whose commitments are predicated on those two incomes may
81
also face hardship if either income earner becomes unemployed (McDonald and
Brownlee, 1992).
A survey of 54 low- to middle-income families in a rapidly expanding outer
area of Melbourne affected by the recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s
highlighted the hardships mid-life families face when retrenchment is common
and unemployment levels are high. McDonald and Brownlee (1992, p 12) reported
about the difficulties of sustaining day-to-day life:
Several families talked about cutting back on food, clothing and basic
necessities. Sixteen families, who were buying a home or renting
privately, were having great difficulty making mortgage or rent
payments.‘It is just very hard to meet the mortgage payments, leaving
us with hardly enough money for other things’, one respondent said.
Six families said that due to unemployment they may have to sell the
family home.
Unemployment is one of the major triggers of mortgage default. Berry et al’s
(2010, p 24) study of mortgage default in Australia found of 87 mortgagors who
had been subject to claims of possession on their property during 2008, over 60
per cent indicated the initial trigger of mortgage delinquency was ‘loss/reduced
income/work’. Overall, mid-life households (couples with children, single-parent
families, blended family households) are over-represented amongst those in
mortgage default (Berry et al, 2010).
Illness and disability
Unexpected illness or disability within a household serves as a significant housing

shock. The impact on housing may not be immediate but be expressed over the
longer term. Illness and disability brings extra costs to the household in terms
of the direct costs of healthcare and/or equipment as well as the indirect costs
associated with a loss of income or reduced income. In addition, illness or disability
to one household member may jeopardise the employment capabilities and career
advancement opportunities of other household members, typically a partner, as
they take on caring responsibilities.
As an interviewee involved in a qualitative study commented:
Your whole life changes, everything changes. If anybody wants to
see a big change they go from earning a wage to a disability and you
know that’s what you’ve got and you’ve got no more, there isn’t I’ll nip
down to the bank or I’ll take out a loan, that’s it. (Tually, 2008, p 64)
For others in this study the onset of disability, combined with low incomes or
limited earning capacity, resulted in priority access to social housing.This outcome
is consistent with international experience, with Smith et al (1997) reporting on
the outcomes of an explicit programme of medical access to social housing.Tually
(2008) observed that some tenants in social housing had been forced to sell their
82
homes because of illness-related financial hardship. For many of those interviewed,

private rental was untenable as the illness/disability resulted in a substantial loss of
income at a time when they faced significant medical costs. Accordingly, as Tually
summarised,‘they all considered social housing was the best and most appropriate
housing option for them’ (Tually 2008, p 64).
Clearly there is a range of life events that can result in significant interruptions
to a household’s housing. The degree of vulnerability households face and the
housing options available to them are closely tied to labour force status, income
earning potential, accumulated savings and the nature of the housing market.
Depending upon the state of the housing market in their region at that point in
time, it can be very difficult for those who have suffered a housing shock to re-
enter homeownership or continue on the housing pathway they once aspired too.
Success in the housing market
For some households mid life represents the apogee of their housing career – in
the traditional sense of a housing career. It is a period in their lives of relatively
high incomes, of potentially more rapid accumulation of wealth and of relatively
few non-economic barriers, such as health or disability, to increasing housing
consumption. At this stage in their life course many households occupy larger
and more expensive housing than at any other period in their lives. Housing also
becomes an important setting for successful careers and the lifestyles that support
them. McDowell (1997) discussed the ways in which proximity to ‘The City’ was
central to success as a high-earning banker in London. Owning a home close to
the centre of London gave access to the social networks, luxury retail outlets and
grooming businesses that are central to the image of success amongst bankers. For
other high-income-earning occupations, homes are simply one of the stepping
stones they pass over during the course of their glittering career, and for some
geographically and economically mobile workers housing may offer prestige value
but little other sense of ‘home’.
For the majority of middle-class households in the developed world there is a
high likelihood that income will peak and expenditures begin to decline in mid
life. By mid life a significant proportion of households, particularly those aged 45
years and over, have considerable wealth. For Australians, much of this wealth is tied
to, or dominated by, housing investment (Headey et al, 2008) and this tendency
has gathered pace over the last decade.While at ages 35–39 the majority of people
in the home ownership market are mortgagors, by the ages of 50–54 and 55–59,
48 per cent and 63 per cent respectively had achieved outright ownership. The
combination of greater prosperity (rising employment and incomes) and reduced
fertility has raised disposable incomes for many sections of the population and
given households greater choice within the housing market. Many have chosen
to exercise their greater power by purchasing more housing and/or housing of
higher quality. In Australia it has been suggested that it is the willingness of mid-
life owner-occupier households, in particular those with high incomes, to borrow
83
and spend more on housing that has been responsible for the growth in house
prices in Australia since 1996 (Ellis et al, 2003; Productivity Commission, 2004).
As children age and equity increases many mid-life households re-evaluate
their housing. Many households consider the option of renovating their current
residence or upgrading to a larger and/or better located home, more suitable to
the evolving needs of the household. For at least the last 20 years, new housing
construction on the fringe of Australia’s cities has been dominated not by the
building of new affordable homes for young households, but instead dominated
by the second-, third-, fourth-, fifth- or sixth-time homebuyers in their late 40s
through to their 60s building their ‘dream’ home. In some instances these are
five or six bedroom homes, with four or more bathrooms and parking for up to
six vehicles. It is little wonder that the average size of new homes constructed
in Australia has been increasing steadily. At the same time, those who do not
build their dream home renovate and extend to a comparable degree (Allon,
2008). Data from the 2005–06 ABS Survey of Income and Housing indicates
that around one quarter of recent homebuyers (built or purchased a home in
the three years prior to the survey) aged 35–54 years were, as the ABS classifies
it, ‘changeover buyers’. Couple families with children accounted for 35 per cent
of changeover buyers (ABS, 2008a, p 321). Families who upgrade are able to use
the considerable equity they have built up in their current dwelling, which acts
as a substantial deposit on a more expensive home.This substantial downpayment
means many are able to make the changeover with a manageable mortgage and
some do so without any borrowings at all (ABS, 2008a).The 2005–06 Survey of
Income and Housing for Australia showed average housing costs were lower for
changeover buyers and such buyers were less likely to have a mortgage than first
homebuyers (ABS, 2007c).
The Housing 21 Survey focused on the housing transitions of respondents for
the period 1996 to 2006. It asked respondents to list all their movements through
the housing market – that is, the relocation from one dwelling to the next – and
asked them to identify the primary reasons for the move. For home owners
aged 35-54 the primary reasons for moving were ‘bought house’, accounting for
at least 25 per cent of responses, followed by ‘moved to better home/location’
(around 20 per cent). Movements through the housing market for ‘employment
or study reasons’ came third. These findings concur with the latest Australian
data on housing mobility available from the ABS. For couple households with
dependent children, 13.4 per cent stated the main reason for their last move was
‘employment reasons’, 20.6 per cent stated it was ‘purchased own dwelling’ while
the most popular choice at 27.7 per cent was because the family ‘wanted a bigger
or better home’ (ABS, 2009c).Trading up in the market has become an important
driver of housing transitions in the late 20th century and early 21st century.
In addition to the trend to moving house, there has been substantial growth
in the renovations and additions market, as middle-aged couples seek to extend
or renovate their properties rather than move. In the late 1970s, when housing
represented 6 per cent of Gross Domestic product (GDP) in Australia, investment
84
in home renovations represented just over 2 per cent of GDP. Now Australians
are spending as much on alterations and additions to their homes as they do
on new housing, with each accounting for 3 per cent of GDP in 2009 (Lowe,
2010; Stutchbury, 2010). The Housing 21 Survey asked respondents questions
on renovations they had undertaken. For households aged 35–54 years, 26.7 per
cent stated that they had undertaken renovations, and the main reason given
for renovating (73.4 per cent) was that the house was not appropriate to their
needs; they needed more room or an extra bedroom. An additional 11 per cent
stated that they intended to renovate the house when they bought it. Of those
that had not renovated their home at the time of the survey an additional 30.7
per cent indicated they intended to do so. Astoundingly, then, over 57.4 per cent
of home owners aged 35–54 captured in the Housing 21 Survey had renovated
their home or intended to do so.
To undertake renovations many households restructure their loans and this
practice has become an increasing phenomenon over the last two decades.While
it may be expected that households refinance to service their initial or original
loan, increasingly restructuring has taken advantage of the equity built up in the
family home.This equity is put to a range of uses, including renovations, providing
additional cash for consumer goods and/or for other forms of investment, such as
property or shares. Investigations in the Housing 21 Survey into the refinancing of
loans found that 51 per cent of those aged 35–54 years (273 of 535 persons) had
refinanced their loans at some stage with the majority (72.2 per cent) doing so to
receive cash or increase the outstanding balance of the loan. Respondents were
quizzed on the two main uses for the money and the most significant reason was
to undertake ‘additions, improvements or repairs to property’, followed by ‘other
purchases’ (16.8 per cent) and ‘to consolidate debt’ (10.6 per cent) (see Figure 5.1).
Besides investing in the family residence, increasingly Australians, like the
residents of many other nations, are investing in other real estate. In 2008 the ABS
reported that approximately 20 per cent of Australians owned holiday homes and
investment properties (both residential and non-residential) for rent (ABS, 2008a,
p 279). For the population aged 35–54 years in the Housing 21 Survey, 23.7 per
cent of households owned holiday homes or other investment properties. While
for a limited few this ownership arose through inheritance (1.2 per cent), or the
property was a previous home (5.0 per cent), a future home (3.1 per cent), or a
holiday home (7.7 per cent), for the overwhelming majority the reason for owning
property other than the family home was purely for investment (77.7 per cent).
Clearly it appears that for many mid-life households the accumulation of
equity afforded to them by homeownership has resulted in further expenditure
on housing consumption, even if part of their commitment could be viewed as
investment (Reserve Bank of Australia, 2005). In the 21st century, homes have
become much more than just a place of shelter and security. The changing role
and meaning of housing is clearly expressed by households in the middle years
of life, when lifetime earnings peak; not only do these households consolidate
85
Figure 5.1: Mid-life households and the use of money from refinanced
loans
40
35
30
25
% 20
15
10
5
0
Additions/improvements/
repairs to property
Consolidate debt
Investment in real estate
Other types of investment
Education/medical
expenses
Business related reasons
Settle divorce
Other purchases
(car, furniture)
To save money
Other
Don’t know/refused
Use of money from refinanced loan
the ownership of the family home but they also ‘over-consume’ housing as a
mechanism for investment.
Housing success among mid-life affluent households has a measurable impact on
the housing market in many developed economies and it also generates previously
unseen social and economic processes.Tomaney and Bradley (2007) have shown
that increasingly regions need to be able to offer an attractive housing stock to
affluent workers in the global knowledge economy if they are to enhance their
prospects for economic success.Tomaney and Bradley (2007) tied their analysis of
North East England to Florida’s (2002) ideas on the creative class and emphasised
the way in which an absence of housing attractive to this mid-life group could
serve as an impediment to both investment and the relocation of key staff.
Housing affordability in mid life

Over the past decades, as housing prices have increased more rapidly than incomes,
housing costs have consumed an increasing proportion of household income
(Yates et al, 2008). In consequence, housing affordability has been a serious issue
in many nations, including Australia, the UK, and Ireland. In Australia the majority
of households in housing stress are private renters but a significant number are
purchasers. Overall housing costs as a proportion of household income in Australia
have increased by over 30 per cent since the late 1970s to 15 per cent. Average
figures mask differences between tenure types.Average housing costs for outright
86
owners in the highest income quintile in 2003–04 averaged just 1 per cent while
for private renters or purchasers in the lowest income quintile average costs were
close to 50 per cent of gross household income.
In many nations and many regions access to home ownership requires two
incomes. The absence of affordable housing affects all age cohorts, including
those in mid life. In Australia, homeownership rates are falling and are projected
to continue to fall for mid-life households (Table 5.1). While Yates et al (2007)
suspected that some in the early phases of mid life may be delaying entry into
homeownership, they agreed that it was unlikely many would purchase housing
for the first time once past 40 years of age. Declines or delays in entering the
homeownership market put increasing demands on the private rental system.
Over the past decade rents have increased and higher-income households have,
according toYates et al (2007), displaced lower-income households from the more
affordable housing stock.
The decline in homeownership rates among mid-life households has significant
implications as the residents of these households age. Australia’s welfare system is
predicated on the assumption that older people will own their homes (Yates and
Bradbury, 2009), and in this respect Australia is typical of a number of nations
reliant upon asset-based welfare systems. In addition, private rental accommodation
is commonly seen as unsuitable tenure for older low-income persons (Faulkner
et al, 2007; Morris, 2007).
Responses to attitudinal questions within the Housing 21 Survey suggest that
the affordability of housing, especially entry into home purchase (via a deposit)
and the ability to meet mortgage repayments is shaping housing aspirations
and expectations. For mid-life households in the rental market interviewed in
the Housing 21 Survey (104 households where interviewees were aged 35–54
years) 40 per cent indicated they had not purchased a home because they could
not afford the mortgage repayments. Another 21 per cent had not entered the
homeownership market because they could not save a deposit. Homeownership
remained a significant aspiration for renters, with 62.7 per cent stating it was
important or very important to own a home some day, while another 11 per cent
considered it somewhat important. Many of those who stated that homeownership
was of little importance or unimportant were disheartened about the prospect of
Table 5.1: Census and projected age-specific homeownership rates,

Australia
Census date Projection

1981 2001 2006 2046
Age group Percentage of homeownership
35-44 75 69 68 67
45-54 79 78 77 68
Source: Adapted from Yates et al (2008)
87
ever buying a home.When asked why they saw owning a home as not important
they replied they couldn’t afford it or their future was too uncertain. Of those
renters who considered homeownership to be worthwhile, however, many (80 per
cent) were concerned about their ability to buy a home. Asked if they expected
to buy a home in the next five years, only 30 per cent remained optimistic.
Whether purchasing or renting, housing stress is considerable for many mid-life
households.Yates and Gabriel’s (2006) analysis of a national Income and Housing
Survey from 2002–03, showed that more than 40 per cent of all households in
housing stress were couples with children and sole-parent families. Similar findings
were recorded in a 2005–06 Survey of Income and Housing, where 33.8 per
cent of sole-parent families were paying more than 30 per cent of their income
in housing costs (Tanton et al, 2008, p 16). This situation, particularly for sole-
parent families, is not expected to improve. Projections produced by Yates et al
(2008) show that in Australia the percentage of lone-parent families in housing
stress will increase rapidly over the next 30 years.
Sole- or lone-parent families have considerable difficulty establishing stable
housing. Such households are compromised by the need to find housing suitable
for children, have considerably less wealth than other similarly aged family types,
are more likely to be living in public or private rental accommodation, and tend
to be reliant on a government pension or allowance. As Table 5.2 highlights,
one-parent families with dependent children differ significantly in all measures of
economic wealth and housing stability, with 40 per cent living as private tenants.
Overwhelmingly this depiction of lone- or sole-parent families is about the
disadvantaged position of women, as 83 per cent of such households are headed
by women (ABS, 2007e).
The Housing 21 Survey allowed an in-depth examination of sole-parent families.
Sole-parent households constituted 5 per cent of Housing 21 Survey households
(97 females; 26 males). Sole-parent families in the survey were financially
disadvantaged relative to other households with a much greater reliance on a
government pension or allowance than couple families (61.3 per cent compared
with 8.2 per cent respectively) and this was particularly the case for women. For
those sole parents within the workforce, women worked many fewer hours than
men, with 36 per cent of female sole parents working less than 24 hours a week
and 62 per cent working under 34 hours per week. By contrast, 34 per cent of
males in this category worked more than 49 hours a week. The difference in
workforce participation results in significant variations in household income for
men and women. Women’s annual household income was concentrated in the
lower income categories while male sole parent’s income was clustered at the top
of the range.Two thirds of female sole-parent households in the Housing 21 Survey
reported an income of less than A$41,599 per annum and 46 per cent were living
on less than A$25,999 per annum. Over 40 per cent of male sole parents enjoyed
household incomes greater than A$62,499 per annum (Beer and Faulkner 2009,
p 71).The gap in household earnings was also reflected in the wealth of male and
female sole-parent households. Fully 15 per cent of female-headed households in
88
Table 5.2: Selected economic and housing characteristics of selected

household types, Australia, 2005–06
Family/household type
One-
parent Couple
family family
with with
Unit dependent dependent All
Household characteristics measure children children households
Financial assets
(Value of: accounts with financial $000 21.6 123.0 108.5
institutions, shares, trusts, debentures,
bonds, own incorporated business}
Superannuation $000 26.1 100.2 84.5
Non-financial assets
Value of owner-occupied housing $000 141.1 376.2 286.1
Value of other property assets $000 42.2 130.1 90.7
Value of other non-financial assets $000 49.4 339.2 85.6
(contents of building, car etc)
Gross household income
Median income per week $ 724 1,637 1,040
Source of income
Government pensions and allowances % 50.9 6.9 26.1
Wages and salary % 43.6 80.9 59.3
Tenure and landlord type
Owner without mortgage % 12.8 17.0 34.3
Owner with mortgage % 27.0 61.8 35.0
Renter State/Territory Housing % 14.8 2.0 4.7
Authority
Private landlord % 40.1 16.3 22.0
Source: ABS (2007d)
the Housing 21 Survey had wealth – exclusive of housing – of less than A$10,000
and 50.6 per cent had assets of less than A$50,000. Male sole-parent households,
by contrast, had much greater wealth, with just 7 per cent holding wealth apart
from housing of less than A$10,000 and three quarters holding assets in excess
of $A50,000 (Beer and Faulkner, 2009, p 71).The Housing 21 Survey allows a
greater exploration of the housing circumstances and aspirations of sole-parent
families than is available elsewhere. Female-headed sole-parent households were
more likely to have children resident in the household and women sole parents
were more likely to live in a house (83.5 per cent) than male sole parents (75.9 per
cent). Both groups were slightly over-represented in semi-detached housing and
flats/units relative to the general survey population. The greater concentration
of female-headed sole-parent households in separate households is an outcome
89
of the distribution of assets following the breakup of a relationship and the need
for housing to accommodate children (Beer and Faulkner, 2009). Sole-parent
households of both genders were over-represented in rental housing and under-
represented in homeownership. Of female-headed sole-parent households who
had moved from home purchase into the private rental market, 67 per cent
indicated that they did so because of a relationship breakdown. Most female sole
parents fell out of homeownership because they could not afford the mortgage,
while just one female sole parent moved to private rental because their ex-partner
received the dwelling. By contrast, just one male sole parent left owner-occupation
because he could not afford home purchase (Beer and Faulkner, 2009).
Among sole-parent households in the rental sector, men placed greater
importance on entering home purchase, with 67 per cent reporting that they
felt it was very important for them to buy a home, compared with 47 per cent
of women sole parents. Male sole parents also had a far higher expectation that
they would be able to buy in the next five years, with 73 per cent in this group,
compared with just 32 per cent of women. Female sole parents were more likely
to be concerned about their capacity to afford to enter into homeownership,
with 40 per cent reporting that homeownership was unimportant to them simply
because they could not afford the mortgage.Women sole parents were more likely
to have applied for public housing than men, and of those who applied just over
one quarter were on the public housing waiting list (Beer and Faulkner, 2009).
While most sole-parent households felt that it was unlikely or very unlikely that
they would move in the 12-month period post interview, data collected on the
number of times respondents had moved home since 1996 suggests sole parents
are mobile. Female-headed sole-parent households were much more mobile than
male sole-parent households; a reflection of the insecurities of the private rental
market, as well as their changing household circumstances.
The Housing 21 data show that male and female sole parents had differing
attitudes to their housing decisions and careers. For example, female sole parents
were less likely to believe that their housing choices had been part of a longer-
term plan (59 per cent for male sole parents and 50 per cent for female sole
parents).Women in the Housing 21 Survey were more likely to report that their
relationship had affected their housing, while men considered their financial
circumstances had been more important. By contrast, male sole parents placed a
greater emphasis on entering homeownership as a lifetime housing goal. These
results suggest that the stronger financial circumstances of most male sole parents
have given them greater capacity within the housing market when compared
with female sole parents and therefore differing aspirations. Women sole parents
in the Housing 21 Survey, while viewing home as an investment, also saw home
purchase as a risk. It is clear that the low incomes of female sole-parent households
have significantly shaped their attitudes to housing as both a desirable and a ‘risky’
investment (Beer and Faulkner, 2009).
Clearly housing affordability is an issue currently touching mid-life households.
It affects both their current housing circumstances but also future housing
90
prospects and aspirations. These outcomes would be transferable to many

developed economies around the globe, and unless governments can find a way
to improve the sustainability of their housing systems these results will have
significant consequences for the well-being of such households into the next
stage of the life course – older age.
Housing in mid life: success, challenges and transitions

This chapter has highlighted the diversity in housing sequences amongst current
mid-life households. In many respects a dichotomy exists between those who
have suffered an interruption to their housing at a crucial juncture in their life
course compared with those who have followed a more conventional sequence
of housing transitions. For the former group, housing in mid life is an issue of
risk and shocks, with changes in personal household demography spilling over
to long-term implications for their housing aspirations and their capacity to
meet those goals. There is a significant gender dimension to the distribution of
‘risky’ mid-life housing, with women who are sole parents at considerable risk.
By contrast, in Australia and many other developed nations, homeowners who
remain in stable relationships consolidate their position in the housing market
during this stage of life and many are able to enhance both their consumption
of housing and their opportunities to accumulate wealth.
91
SIX
Housing transitions in later life
Stereotypically, old age has been viewed as a time of reduced income, incapacity,
frailty and dependency.This perspective has directed the development of policies
and planning for an older population and resulted in a focus on the provision of
retirement incomes and the delivery of care. Often, little attention has been directed
to other aspects of life, such as the suitability of housing and the functioning of
the communities in which older people live.This common image of old age is at
odds with contemporary trends, as the citizens of advanced economies live longer
than ever before, enjoy a better quality of health, are wealthier, more active and
more aspirational than previous generations of older people.These trends will only
accelerate over the next two to three decades. Older age in the 21st century will
be very different from older age in the 20th century and there is consequently
a pressing imperative to move away from a view of old age as a period of frailty
and dependency and instead focus on understanding the needs and wants of older
individuals. For many in older age, housing decisions are likely to be governed
by consumption factors and choices rather than ill-health, disability and social
isolation. Overall, the housing market positions and transitions of those in later
life are changing, and this transformation is increasingly important for the whole
of society as the housing demanded by the older population will drive housing
markets, housing policy and welfare support measures.
Conventional and emerging housing transitions for older

households
For much of the 20th century older people who had left the workforce were
either seen as not having a housing career or were considered to be at the end
of their engagement with the housing market, with only retrograde movement
in prospect. The circumstances of the time-limited lifespan after retirement, few
resources and therefore modest aspirations, generally meant housing in older age
was a matter of staying put and effectively ageing in the family home. Housing
and care of older people was the domain of the family and those with no or
limited resources had to rely on charitable organisations and state institutions
where the quality of accommodation and care was of variable quality (McNelis
and Herbert, 2003).
In the 1950s and 1960s in Australia, the US and the UK other options emerged,
mainly to cater to those in need: retirement homes, independent living units,
cottage homes, sheltered housing, assisted living, and convalescent or nursing
homes. In Australia in 1954 the Commonwealth government entered into aged
care through the Aged Persons’ Homes Act 1954. Dargavel and Kendig (1986)
93
believe this Act was instrumental in establishing the basic foundation and directions
to guide the development of aged housing and aged care in Australia. As noted
by McNelis and Herbert (2003, p 8), the objective and purpose of the Act was
the provision of independent housing for older people, ‘in particular homes at
which aged persons may reside in conditions approaching as nearly as possible
normal domestic life, and, in the case of married people, with proper regard to the
companionship of husband and wife’.The Act sought to achieve these objectives
through the provision of capital subsidies to voluntary/not-for-profit/charitable
organisations. By 1969, however, the subsidies were being used increasingly to fund
residential care – hostels, nursing homes and personal care – at the expense of the
provision of independent housing. Rapid growth occurred in the establishment
of residential facilities such that by the late 1970s Australia had many more
nursing home places in relation to population size than comparable countries
(Hogan, 2003; Fine, 2007).This trend in residential care facilities in Australia was
mirrored in countries such as the US and the UK (Rowles, 1993; Peace, 2003).
An outcome of the availability of residential care places was that, in Australia at
least, some older people found themselves in hostels and nursing homes mainly
because their housing was inappropriate rather than because of their need for
acute care (McIsaac, 1997; Faulkner, 2001).
The growth of residential care homes was supported intellectually by a focus
within gerontological theory on decline, dependency and disengagement among
older persons (Rowles, 1993; Heywood et al, 2002) leading to the general belief
that these residences ‘were the normative final destination for the elderly’ (Rowles,
1993, p 68). Housing developed for older people was customarily thought of as
housing for people with special needs (Hanson, 2001, p 29).These developments
reinforced a negative image of the elderly as ‘vulnerable and needy’ and requiring
relocation to specialist services and housing.These beliefs, however, persisted at a
time when the overwhelming majority of older people in Australia (over 90 per
cent) and throughout the developed world, continued to live in their homes in
the community (Howe, 2003).
In the mid 1980s the demographer Hugo (1986, p 33) examined the social and
economic implications of population ageing in Australia and commented that
‘Today there is considerable debate and concern in Australia about the lack of
intermediate accommodation available to the aged between two extremes: the
detached three-bedroom house in which the aged originally raised their children,
and some form of institution’.
In Australia growing interest in housing for the older population arose out
of a series of reforms that began in the mid 1980s, in particular the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure (1982) In a Home or at
Home: Home Care and Accommodation for the Aged. This report calculated the
escalating cost to government of continuing to provide residential care and how
this contrasted with people’s wishes to remain at home in the community. This
report resulted in a rapid move away from residential care to community care
and contributed to growing interest in ageing in place.The term ‘ageing in place’
94
arose from humanistic research in the 1970s and 1980s that investigated the deep
attachment that older people have with home – a place of special meaning –
providing people with not only a physical but emotional sense of self identity
(Davison et al, 1993; Dupuis and Thorns, 1996;).
Ageing in place has become the cornerstone of policy for the older population in
Europe, North America, Japan,Australia and other countries with a rapidly ageing
population. It has led to a reorientation of the way housing and social policy for
the older population is conceived (Pastalan, 1997; Bochel et al, 1999).The policy
recognises the desire of older people to remain in familiar environments and is seen
to optimise opportunities for well-being and healthy ageing. Brink (1990, 1998,
2002) also notes that ageing in place policies are also attractive to governments
because they reduce public sector outlays on specialist aged housing. Indeed,
Brink (1990, 1998) argues that such policies are inevitable in an ageing society,
given the potentially high cost of alternative policies (James, 2009). Regardless
of the fiscal drivers for the recasting of policy, housing constitutes an important
part of the complex and interrelated factors that influence well-being. However,
this policy framework was not supported by a substantial evidence base; relatively
little research on the housing of older people existed at the time either in Australia
or internationally (Tinker, 1997). This absence was highlighted by The Mid Term
Review of the Aged Care Reform Strategy Stage Two (DHHLGCS, 1993, pp 133-4).
The review found that ‘surprisingly little primary research has been carried out
into any aspects of aged persons housing over the last decade’. In particular it
highlighted the absence of evaluations of residents by housing type, measures of
resident satisfaction, costs of different housing options and a lack of understanding
of housing transitions. Since that time there have been much greater research
efforts into the housing issues, needs and aspirations of the older population, as
well as policy attention directed toward ageing and housing.
As is the case for many countries, Australia’s population is undergoing
fundamental change with the ageing of the population. Over the coming decades
older people will make up an increasing proportion of Australia’s population such
that by 2056 people aged 65 years and over will represent between 23 and 25
per cent of the country’s population (ABS, 2008b)1. In addition between 2001
and 2026 in Australia, older people will account for between 53 and 57 per cent
of the projected increase in the total number of households (calculated from
ABS, 2004a). Similar increases are expected or are coming to realisation in other
developed nations and even China has a rate of population ageing that matches
that of Australia. Like all age groups the older population are not a homogenous
group: they have different lifetime experiences, characteristics, abilities, needs and
behaviours that result in a diversity of views and expectations about the suitability
of housing and the communities in which they live. The choices people make
regarding their housing are heavily dependent on the options available to them,
including the housing types available and the capacity to take advantage of the
choices on offer. Tenure is one of the most significant factors influencing older
people’s ability to make choices.
95
Homeownership, home purchase and rental housing in older

age
Homeownership and purchase
Homeownership remains a near-universal aspiration in many nations, including

New Zealand, the US, the UK, Ireland and Canada. In Australia, one of the
outstanding features of the housing characteristics of the older population is the
very high level of homeownership and the stability in this level over the last two
decades (Howe, 2003).At the 2006 Census, 83 per cent of the population aged 65
years and over were homeowners, with 75 per cent outright owners. This is one
of the highest rates of homeownership in the world (Yates and Bradbury, 2009).
The baby boom generation (those aged 50–64 years at the 2006 Census) have
followed this trend with 83 per cent owning, or currently purchasing, their home.
Homeownership is generally viewed as an advantage in older age as it provides
security of tenure, reduced housing costs in retirement, and the means to alter
through the housing market a person’s housing situation to suit their needs.
However, there is considerable diversity in the situation of older homeowners and
this diversity will intensify with the entrance and passage of the baby boomers
into, and through, older age.Australia’s current aged population have considerable
wealth when compared with the rest of the population.Those aged 65 years and
over have almost double the wealth of the population aged 15–64 years (Kelly,
2003, p 8). Most of this wealth is tied up in the family home and they have limited
alternative forms of wealth accumulation available to them, especially if they are
no longer attached to the workforce. In consequence, the current generations
of the aged population are heavily dependent on a government pension (78 per
cent of older Australians) (Kelly, 2003, 2009; AIHW, 2009). Being asset rich but
income poor influences the ability of older people to maintain their homes, or
modify them according to need. The situation for the baby boomers, however,
will be more variable. Like the previous generations of older people, the home
will be the major asset for many, but there will be greater variation within the
baby boomer cohort with respect to assets and income (Heady et al, 2008, p 16).
Economic theories such as the life cycle and permanent income hypotheses
(VanderHart, 1995) suggest that homeowners will use their accumulated assets to
support themselves in later life. As the home generally forms the major asset then
it is expected that older home owners will become renters or downsize.Wood et
al’s research (quoted in Flatau et al, 2003, p 15) suggests that older homeowners
would be financially better off if they became renters. The evidence in Australia
and overseas, however, suggests that older people do not draw down on their
housing wealth (Crossley and Ostrovsky, 2003; Dolan et al, 2005; Olsberg and
Winters, 2005). Possible reasons for the reluctance of older people to consume
housing wealth vary from country to country but include high transaction
costs associated with moving, uncertainties within the rental market, the lack
of readily available information on products, mismatch between saleable price
96
of the family home and the purchase price of a smaller home in the same area;
the conservative nature of older persons and the desire to pass on this wealth to
children or grandchildren (Olsberg and Winters, 2005; Bridge et al, 2009). For the
current generation of older persons in Australia another possible reason may be
their attachment to their current homes (Davison et al, 1993; Faulkner, 2001) but
it is more likely to be linked to the asset tests associated with the Aged Pension
and Veterans Affairs Pensions. The value of one’s home (principal dwelling) is
exempt from the assets test associated with income support payments (pension)
but the net returns of the sale of a home are subject to this test and would affect
the eligibility for these payments.
Survey research in 2005 (Olsberg and Winters, 2005) suggested community
attitudes to the use of housing wealth were little different amongst the first wave
of the baby boomers, those aged 50–59, when compared with earlier generations.
In the early to mid 2000s there were indications that equity release products
were being increasingly considered by older people (Sheen, 2002), but the global
financial crisis has seen a reversal in this trend, with a decline in products and
providers and increased wariness amongst consumers (Bridge et al, 2009).
There is a strong probability that the current pattern of high rates of
homeownership among older age groups will decline in Australia, and may well
fall in other nations such as the UK, the US and New Zealand.Yates et al (2008,
p 43) suggest that by 2045 homeownership rates among those aged 65 years and
over will have declined from 82 per cent in 2006 to 72 per cent.This decline will
result in increased pressure on the rental sector and older Australians, for whom
homeownership has served a hedge against rising living costs in retirement.
Rental housing
Rental accommodation is significant for a small proportion of the older population

in Australia. Depending on landlord type and individual circumstances, rental
housing can be either a suitable housing option or an inappropriate type of
housing for people as they age.Around 13 per cent of the population aged 65 years
and over in Australia live in rental accommodation: 35 per cent in government-
provided housing, nearly 8 per cent in community/cooperative/church-provided
housing and the remainder (57 per cent) in private rental housing. Within the
older population the proportion renting has been relatively stable over time. One
of the characteristic features of the majority of older renters in Australia, however,
is that it is not tenure of first choice, but instead it is one of necessity.
As always, projections vary, but Jones et al (2007, p 39) estimated that the
number of low-income older people requiring rental accommodation will more
than double from 195,000 persons in 2001 to 419,000 people in 2026, while the
number of low-income households is expected to rise from 154,000 to 336,000
over the same period. It is projected that much of the demand will be in lone-
person households, which will themselves double in number between 2001 and
97
2026 to 243,000 households.Two thirds of these lone-person households will be

sole women (Jones et al, 2007).
McNelis (2007a) provides a different series of projections based on eligible
demand from older people for social housing. Eligible demand, he suggests, can
come from three different sources: households in public housing, households in
other rented dwellings, and households living in non-private dwellings. McNelis
assumes that all older persons renting or in non-private dwellings constitute eligible
demand as the proportion of this older age group on high incomes is relatively
low (p 55). Consequently, he projects a significantly higher number of households
will require rental housing than Jones et al’s study. Under his criteria, in 2001
eligible demand for rental housing from older persons was 249,315 persons in
209,210 households. This is projected to increase to 436,058 persons aged 65
years and over in 365,914 households by 2016 (p 54). Clearly, no matter which
projections are used, the overwhelming outcome is considerable growth in the
demand for, and pressure placed upon, the rental sector.
The increase in the number of older renters is not simply a consequence of the
overall ageing of the population and the passage of the baby boomers into older age.
It is, and will continue to be, the consequence of a number of processes including
choice, the inability to enter the homeownership market earlier in the life course
and unanticipated changes in personal and financial circumstances. Though the
number of renters aged 55 years and over captured in the Housing 21 Survey
was small, 82 per cent had previously been in the homeownership market. The
reasons given for leaving homeownership were both voluntary and involuntary,
with relationship breakdown accounting for over one quarter of responses.
Social housing
Social housing has traditionally been provided in Australia as a long-term alternative
to private ownership and it has been an important avenue of accommodation
for single older people, especially women. It has been able to provide housing
that specifically caters for the needs of older people. Many older persons who
are currently resident in this tenure entered the system as part of a young family
and over time have aged within the public housing system. Data from Australia’s
2005 National Social Housing survey show that 75 per cent of tenants aged 75
years and over had lived in public housing for more than 10 years with nearly
two thirds of the group aged 65–74 years having lived within the public housing
system for more than 10 years (McNelis, 2007a). Many of these tenants had
also lived in the same house for most if not all of this time (59 and 50 per cent
respectively had lived at their current address for more than 10 years), and when
asked where they saw themselves living in five years, the majority believed it
would be within public housing (74 per cent of those aged 65–74 and 62 per
cent of those aged 75 years and over).
Older social housing tenants in Australia view their housing very positively
and surveys indicate tenant satisfaction is high or very high among older people
98
(Faulkner and Bennett, 2002; Faulkner et al, 2007; McNelis, 2007a). There are a
range of reasons as to why this tenure is so well regarded, including the affordability
and security the tenure offers, as well as the availability of maintenance and
modification services when needed. The high degree of satisfaction enunciated
by the respondents also reflects, in large measure, their gratitude for secure and
affordable housing. Older tenants acknowledge that their tenure in public housing
has had a positive impact on their well-being.The 2005 National Social Housing
Survey found 65 per cent of 65- to 74-year-olds and 61 per cent of those aged
75 years and older believed public housing had improved their overall quality
of life (McNelis, 2007a). Despite their high levels of satisfaction with this tenure
type and their age, the Australian ideal of homeownership still persists, with over
one third of tenants aged 65–74 and nearly one quarter of those aged 75 and
over indicating in the National Social Housing Survey that they would like to
buy their current home.
Social housing as a long-term option for older low-income residents is under
pressure in Australia. At present, public housing meets well under half the eligible
demand from older persons. Over the last few years state housing authorities in
Australia, as in the UK, Ireland and New Zealand, have been selling publicly
owned assets. In Australia, since 2001 there has been a 20 per cent decline in
publicly owned stock (Atkinson and Jacobs 2008; Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 2009) and a reorientation
of policies in relation to access. It is now unlikely that social housing will be able
to maintain its current levels of provision, let alone account for the expected
increase in demand. While there are other social housing options, the reality is
that many older low-income people in the coming years will have to seek other
options, particularly the private rental market.
Private rental housing

While private rental housing in Australia may provide greater choice for some,
very few older tenants benefit from this broader housing stock as their incomes
and assets are inadequate to provide choice within the market. Unlike public rental
tenants, whose rents are set at a maximum fixed percentage (25 per cent) of their
income, private tenants are at the whim of the market, a market in Australia that is
tight and becoming tighter. Many older people are confronted by accommodation
that is inaccessible, inappropriate, unaffordable and/or insecure. Security of
tenure is a significant problem for older renters as it means they are vulnerable
to frequent relocation and the associated social and emotional disruption. It is
difficult to provide a continuum of care in such circumstances and consequently
aged persons living in the private rental sector have long been identified amongst
those in greatest housing need (Kendig, 1990b; Roberts, 1997).
Research by Faulkner et al (2007) into older private renters in Elizabeth – one
of Australia’s most deprived areas – highlights the daily struggle some householders
face financially and socially. For example, older renters in Elizabeth paid a
99
substantial proportion of their limited income each week in rent – up to 60 per

cent – leaving them with little for bills and other daily living expenses. Most did
not have strong family and friendship networks and social isolation was a pressing
issue.What relationships they did have were jeopardised by the instability inherent
to their tenure. Mobility was a constant fact of life. Period of residence in the
current house for most participants in the study varied from just six weeks to
15 months and many had moved five or six times over the previous four years.
Relocation because of the end of a lease, because of increases in rent or abusive
neighbours was a financial burden and source of stress. While government rent
assistance helped offset the impact of private rental costs, it is, according to Yates
and Bradbury (2009, p 16) ‘often inadequate to protect households from after
housing poverty’.
Income, wealth, and bequests

Despite the focus of world ageing agendas on ‘positive ageing’, ‘healthy ageing’
and ‘active ageing’, the impact of an ageing population on individual nations
and the world as a whole has often been framed in negative and alarmist terms.
Commonly it is presented as a crisis that will result in the collapse of public
pension systems, overwhelmed healthcare systems and create intergenerational
conflicts (Merette, 2002). However, the impact of the ageing of the population is
likely to be mitigated by a number of other factors, including the wealth holdings
of the older population.
In Australia there have been concerns about the capability of the government
to provide the healthcare, aged care and welfare services necessary to sustain
the level of personal well-being expected by the population. Concerns about
Australia’s ageing population and its impact on the government’s fiscal outlook into
the 21st century have resulted in the release of three Intergenerational Reports
(Commonwealth of Australia 2002 2007, 2010).The findings of the 2010 report,
Australia to 2050: Future Challenges, raised concerns for the then Prime Minister,
Kevin Rudd, who worried about Australia’s ageing population because ‘public
finances will be burdened with the increased costs of looking after the needs of
older Australians – in health, aged care and age pensions …[and] tax revenues
won’t keep pace with those rising costs’ (Rudd, 2010).
Income and wealth

Retirees
As with other developed economies,Australia’s population aged 65 years and over
has considerable wealth relative to other age groups, with much of this wealth tied
up in the family home. The majority of the population aged 65 years and over
have retired from the workforce. In 2007 this equated to 85 per cent of the aged
population (AIHW, 2009) and this group have few other assets. In consequence,
around 78 per cent of those aged 65 years and over receive an aged pension or
100
a similar means-tested payment from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Unlike

many European nations not all older persons in Australia are eligible for income
support, as access is contingent on demonstrable low income and limited income-
producing assets. One reason for the reliance on government benefits is the low
level of superannuation2 funds available to this group. In 2007 only 46 per cent
of those aged 65–69 and just 21 per cent of people aged 70 years and over had
superannuation. This compares with 87 per cent of people aged 25–54.3
In Australia, establishing estimates of the wealth of people is reliant in the
most part on survey data. Research by Headey et al (2008) on the structure and
distribution of household wealth in Australia using 2002 data indicates that at
the time the median net worth of the population aged 65-74 was A$318,000 and
this declined to A$244,500 for those aged 75 years and over.Within each of these
cohorts there was considerable disparity.At the 10th percentile of the distribution
for people aged 65–74, net worth stood at just A$19,900 and for those aged 75
and over a net worth was just A$15,300. At the other end of the spectrum – the
90th percentile – the corresponding figures were $1.1 million and A$768,000.
Kelly (2009) examined the income and non-housing wealth of older Australians
and found that if the home is excluded the average savings of older people
diminished considerably. This research found that in 2009 the average non-
housing wealth for the population aged 65 years and over was A$146,600 and
was greater for couple households at A$190,100.The lowest figure was for lone-
female households at just A$98,900 (Kelly, 2009, p 13)4 and slightly lower again for
those no longer in the workforce: A$107,500 for men and A$81,600 for women.
These data are averages and mask within cohort differences.The assessable assets
of those receiving government support payments are considerably less. In 2008
the average value of assessable assets for people receiving the full pension was
just over A$32,000 and for those receiving a part pension A$133,000 (AIHW,
2009). Incomes displayed a similar pattern, with those receiving a part pension
having an average accessible income of A$9,988 per year and those receiving a
full pension just A$983 per year.
The age of eligibility for the Aged Pension in Australia has changed over time
and will continue to do so in the coming years. In June 2008 the age of eligibility
for women was 63.5 years, increasing to 65 years by 2014, and for men it was 65
years. Government policy is that the eligibility age will rise to 67 years by 2023
(AIHW, 2009). Until recently the full rate pension for a single person was set at
25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. An inquiry into the cost of
living pressures on older Australians (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008b) and
a subsequent comprehensive review of the pension in 2008 (Harmer, 2009)
concluded that ‘the rate of pension for single people living by themselves …is
too low’ (Harmer, 2009, p xiii) to provide ‘a basic acceptable standard of living,
accounting for prevailing community standards’ (Harmer, 2009, p xii). As a result
of this review the government increased pensions to 27.7 per cent of male average
weekly earnings in September 2009 (Macklin, 2009). Clearly inadequate incomes
101
on limited assets shape the housing decisions of older persons in Australia and
other nations.
The baby boomers: wealth in old age?

In Australia the baby boom generation is commonly seen to be comprised of those
born between 1946 and 1965, although debate around the precise boundaries
continues (Beer et al, 2006a). Importantly, while baby boom generations have been
identified in many developed economies, their size and timing has varied. The
baby boom generation emerged earlier in the US than in Australia, and continued
for longer in New Zealand (Hugo, 1986). Regardless of their precise timing, baby
boomers are seen to represent a sea change in demographic profile and to have
transformed economies with their greater numbers, social experimentation and
enhanced wealth. Potentially, baby boomers will reshape aged housing across the
developed world over the coming decades, with the cohort’s leading edge already
exerting a considerable impact.
The baby boom generation comprises around one quarter of the population
in Australia and holds most of the nation’s household wealth (Kelly and Harding,
2007). In common with the generations before them, much of their wealth is
invested in homeownership, but in addition they are more likely to have other asset
sources they can access. Kelly and Harding (2007) detailed the income and wealth
characteristics of Australia’s baby boomers and argued that while this generation is
more comfortable with debt and hold higher debt levels than previous generations,
baby boomer households appear to be the wealthiest households in Australia.
Based on 2004 data each baby boomer had, on average, accumulated A$381,100
compared with A$292,500 for all Australians.The average household headed by a
baby boomer in 2004 had a net worth of A$650,000: 42 per cent of this household
wealth was held in housing with another 17 per cent in superannuation. As with
those aged 65 years and over there are significant disparities within the cohort,
with Kelly and Harding (2007, p 180) finding ‘the poorest one-quarter of baby
boomers possess 4.4 per cent of the group’s net worth while the wealthiest one-
quarter enjoy 60 per cent of the boomers’ A$1,648 billion net worth’. Headey et
al (2008, p 16) found similar results with data from 2002, suggesting that while
those aged 55–64 were the wealthiest cohort the disparities between households
was enormous. The net worth of the bottom 10 per cent of the cohort was just
A$17,100 and the net worth of those in the top 10 per cent was $1.5 million.
In contrast to the current population aged 65 years and over, a greater proportion
of the baby boom generation will be better able to support themselves through
old age. In addition to superannuation and other investments, the assets of the baby
boomer generation have been boosted considerably by ownership of a second
property. Much of the blame for the present housing affordability problem has
been directed at the baby boomer generation and older, wealthier people.
102
A large proportion of the debt increase comes from older and wealthier
people buying bigger houses in better areas, or purchasing investment
properties. That exuberance has had a ripple effect on housing prices
everywhere, including among those who can afford it less. (Hewett,
2007, p 21)
Figure 6.1 provides evidence from the Housing 21 Survey of the extent of
ownership of property other than the principal dwelling. For the population
aged 75 years and over, ownership of a second home was low and indicative of
the traditional reason for owning a home – as a place to live. Many also do not
have, and would not have had through their lives, the disposable income and
opportunity to invest in another property. The proportion increases significantly
(nearly 80 per cent) for the population aged 65–74, but it is for those people
aged 55–64 years that housing has become a consumer item, not just a place of
residence. Nearly 31 per cent owned a property other than their residence.
It is clear from the Housing 21 Survey that the overwhelming reason for baby
boomers to own a property other than the principal dwelling was as an investment.
These data support the notion that financially able baby boomers moved into the
property market in the late 1990s and early part of the 21st century in order to
boost their wealth in preparation for retirement.
Figure 6.1: Ownership of property other than the principal dwelling

Yes No Don’t know/refused
100
90
80
70
60
% 50
40
30
20
10
0
55-64 65-74 75 and over
Age group
103
Bequests
Bequests to children or grandchildren are a long-standing tradition in many nations
and have a considerable impact in countries with a history of mass homeownership.
This practice has involved a sense of obligation on the part of parents and ‘rightful’
expectation of inheritance on the part of children.Though there is limited research,
there are a number of indications that a growing percentage of older people are
changing their attitudes and ‘spending the children’s inheritance’. As one person
noted in a qualitative interview for the Housing 21 Survey:
I think the difference there is that now you do it for yourselves, you
don’t do it for the kids, because you know they will grow up and they
will get on and they will manage, and eventually they will leave home,
so who cares?Very much, you spend your kid’s inheritance, and I think
it’s the only way to go, because if you’ve brought the kids up properly,
they won’t need the inheritance. (Minnery and Zacharov, 2006, p 46)
In part, these changes reflect the greater range of lifestyle opportunities and
choices available to older persons – including growth in luxury accommodation
for aged persons, expansion of privately provided services to the older population
and increasing longevity. In a more mobile and affluent society, fewer children and
grandchildren will develop an expectation of inheriting the ‘family home’.These
changes also reflect a market reality: whereas once older persons may have retired
owning a property valued at one or two times average annual wages, rampant
house price inflation has meant that many older outright owners now own an
asset of considerable value. These opportunities for an enhanced quality of life,
as well as constraints – such as increased longevity; lack of adequate financial
planning; increased government expectations of self-financing among the aged;
and user pay policies for health, community and residential care – are causing
older people to question their ability or desire to bequeath assets.
Research involving 6,000 Australians aged 50 years and over in 2004 (Olsberg
and Winters, 2005) showed that when asked ‘Do you expect to use up all of your
assets while you are alive?’, 28 per cent expected to do so.This belief was strongest
amongst those aged 50–59 years, with 35.2 per cent expecting to need to use all
their assets.The findings varied by housing tenure (70 per cent of renters expected
to have no assets left) and income (83 per cent of self-funded retirees expected
to have surplus assets). There is no qualification in the research of what is meant
by ‘assets’ but it appears to have been interpreted by respondents as liquid assets,
not housing.
One emerging pattern is a trend towards parents providing financial assistance to
children and grandchildren while the parents are still alive.The research by Olsberg
and Winters (2005) found that over one third of respondents had provided their
children or other younger family members with financial assistance to purchase
a home. Data from the Housing 21 Survey confirms this trend, identifying over
20 per cent of respondents aged 55 years and over providing assistance to their
children.While those in a better financial position are more able to provide help,
104
even those with few assets had assisted their children, as many believed their
children would be unable to enter the housing market without their help. Other
respondents provided financial assistance so that their children could purchase
investment properties.
Housing and locational preferences

The impact of an ageing population in the 21st century requires planning for
substantial shifts in the lifestyles, aspirations and demands of older people. The
stereotypical view of old age as a time of dependence and care is not an accepted
view of older age held by the incoming groups – the baby boomers – into later
life. The lifetime experiences of the young old and the baby boomers (greater
education and employment opportunities, changing family structure, greater
affluence, increased consumerism, greater mobility and varied housing experiences,
for example) coupled with increasing life expectancy, an extended period of
retirement, and new opportunities, have spawned a generation of older people
unlike any previously known. The social, demographic and economic changes
that have accompanied the baby boom generation have provided the means and
desire to structure their own identity through lifestyle choices, and, as Clapham
(2005a) has argued, housing is a critical part of this search for fulfilment. For this
generation of older persons, housing ‘is a means to an end rather than an end in
itself ’ (Clapham, 2005a, p 213).This changes the nature of housing transitions in
later life and has significant implications both in defining ageing in place as well
as a number of other policy arenas.
As Phillipson (2007) highlights, older people and the baby boomers are
increasingly able to make choices about where they want to live, how they want
to live and with whom they want to live, as well as the lifestyles they wish to lead.
This is not new, but ‘the idea that substantial groups of older people are able to
control and shape their environment is relatively new’ (Phillipson, 2007, p 330).The
traditional sequencing of housing in older age assumes that older households have
limited aspirations for future housing, and mobility has been assumed to be low
and infrequent. Current research suggests this is changing. Research by Olsberg
and Winters (2005, p vii), from a survey of 7,000 Australians aged 50 years and
over, found that the baby boomers (respondents aged 50–59 years) were the least
likely of all the respondents to wish to age in place and were comfortable with
moving. Olsberg and Winters (2005, p ix) concluded that ‘for them the notion
of ageing in place was likely to conjure up images of immobility and old age,
something which is not yet part of their cultural vocabulary’. A high degree of
mobility among those people on the cusp of the baby boomer years (people aged
55–64) was also evident from the Housing 21 Survey (Beer and Faulkner, 2009).
In the decade prior to the survey a surprising 41.5 per cent of people aged 55-64
had moved at least once, with 25.7 per cent moving three or more times. In both
studies the younger age groups (baby boomers) were the most likely to indicate
they were likely to move again. Clearly the residential mobility patterns of the
105
baby boomer generation will be different from those of earlier generations but
exactly what the new residential strategies of the older population will be is yet to
be determined (Bonvalet and Ogg, 2008).Already for those older people seeking
particular lifestyles post retirement, the terms ‘sea change’, ‘tree change’ and even
‘tee change’ have become associated with the movement of those approaching
retirement to seaside locations, rural scenic locations and golf courses.
Like all age groups in society the older population is not homogeneous. They
have different lifetime experiences, characteristics, abilities, expectations, desires,
needs and behaviour. Consequently, there are a wide range of views about housing
as people age, and a wide array of factors that are likely to influence housing
choice. However older people’s aspirations and expectations evolve with society’s
changing expectations, desires and aspirations. Consequently, while they are a
very diverse group, detailed research in South Australia indicates there are some
commonalities in what older people are looking for. Often they are looking for
housing with two to three bedrooms, which is well designed, easy to manage,
adaptable if necessary, affordable and incorporates environmental design features.
This housing would preferably be in small clusters of 10 to 20 houses located
within the communities in which older people are familiar, whether this is an area
they have always lived or a place that is more aesthetically pleasing, such as the
hills or coast. It would be close to public transport, key shops and other services.
The overriding preference of older people is to remain in their own home in the
community with which they are familiar for as long as possible (Beer et al, 2009).
The development of housing specifically to cater for the needs of older people
has a long tradition in the UK, Europe, the US, New Zealand and Australia. In
the UK much of the development has been around the provision of integrated
housing with care and support, so-called sheltered and extra sheltered housing. In
Europe, the US and Australia the focus has been on the development of retirement
villages. In the US retirement villages tend to be provided by the private sector,
whereas in Australia retirement villages have generally been the province of
government and the not-for-profit sector, catering to the needs predominantly
of low-income households. Recently, however, there has been a rapid increase in
private and public for-profit corporations that recognise the potential of catering
to the changing aspirations of the baby boomers and the financial means of this
group. Profit margins within the retirement village industry are best achieved
by targeting wealthy baby boomers and offering luxury retirement village
accommodation. While such developments are affordable to a section of the
baby boom population, the increasing polarisation of wealth among the older
age groups means that many miss out on this style of housing.
Support services in advanced ages

Policies in Australia and many other nations support the desire to remain within
the community but with increasing age this wish becomes, for many, problematic
because of the increasing need for some type of help or support. In Australia,
106
around one third of people aged 85 years and over lives in some form of cared
accommodation (AIHW, 2009, p 89). One of the realities of ageing is the probable
need for people to contend with some form of disability in their advanced ages.
These disabilities restrict activities of daily living and raise questions about the
suitability of their accommodation arrangements.
Population surveys measuring levels of disability within the Australian
population clearly indicate the significance of disability with increasing age
(AIHW, 2003, 2009). In the survey of disability, ageing and carers undertaken in
Australia in 2003 (ABS, 2004b), 51 per cent of the population aged at least 60
reported a disability that lasted or was likely to last for at least six months and
restrict everyday activities. Of people aged 60 years and over, 19 per cent had a
profound or severe core activity limitation, but this was much more prevalent at
the oldest ages, affecting 58 per cent of those aged 85 years and over.
In 2006 the Australian Census included questions on the need for assistance in
day-to-day activities due to a profound or severe disability.The data showed that
the proportion of the population needing assistance increased considerably with
increasing age: just over one fifth of those aged 75–84 needed assistance.The rate
doubled for those aged 85 years and over, to 47.4 per cent. Disability levels were
higher for women than men from the age of 65 years onwards. At age 85 and
over 57.5 per cent of women needed assistance because of a disability compared
with 43.5 per cent of men (Hugo, 2007).
As the overall health status of a population improves there are questions about
trends in the incidence of morbidity and disability, particularly within the older
population.Within some OECD countries, there is evidence to suggest a decline
in disability prevalence among older age groups. Mathers (2007) suggests that
at present there is no clear evidence of this trend in Australia. He notes that
even if age-specific rates were to fall over the next 10–20 years, it is likely that
prevalence and severity rates will increase with the ageing of the population as
a higher proportion of the population will be in the oldest age groups where
disability levels are greatest. Health and disability, therefore, are likely to exert a
considerable influence on housing decisions.
The Housing 21 Survey enquired about the provision of care and assistance
on a regular basis by any member of the household to any person who has a
long-term health condition, is elderly or has a disability. Households where the
respondent was aged 55 years and over were more likely to be providing care on
a regular basis than households where the respondent was aged 18 to 54 years.
For households where the respondent was aged 55 years and over, 17.6 per cent
of households were providing care compared with 11.3 per cent of households
where the respondent was aged less than 55 years of age. For persons aged 55–74
provision of care was evenly split between caring for someone in the household
and caring for someone outside the household. In many instances this would be
caring for elderly parents living elsewhere. By the age of 75 years more people
provided care for someone in the household than for people living elsewhere,
and this responsibility generally fell on women. In addition, and increasingly
107
with age, many older people with a disability (particularly women) lived on their
own and were therefore reliant on the provision of informal care from family or
friends or formal support services. This group was most vulnerable to moving
to residential care.
The availability and provision of informal care is central to the ability of many
people to remain living in the housing of their choice. It also underpins Australia’s
community care system (AIHW, 2009).The availability of informal care, however, is
expected to diminish as the baby boomers age (Percival and Kelly, 2004). Informal
carers are increasingly in the workforce and are themselves ageing and hence may
become less capable of intensive caring responsibilities. In addition, baby boomers
have fewer children to take on care responsibilities and these children are likely
to live at greater distances from their parents than has been the case for previous
generations (Hugo, 2003; Percival and Kelly, 2004).
As the baby boomers move into the older age groups greater numbers of
older people will need to purchase services privately if their needs are going to
be met. Many will need to rely on publicly funded services. There are a number
of programmes currently in Australia (Table 6.1), the largest of which is the
Home and Community Care Program (HACC) that provides ‘a comprehensive
coordinated and integrated range of basic maintenance and support services for
frail aged people, people with disability and their carers’ (Department of Health
and Ageing, 2008). This programme is supported by a similar one operated by
the Department of Veteran Affairs to service veterans, war widows and widowers.
Recognising the need to provide greater levels of care similar to that available
in low-care and high-care residential facilities (previously known as hostels and
nursing homes), more flexible care programmes were introduced by the federal
government in the 1990s. These programmes – the Community Aged Care
Package, Extended Aged Care at Home package and Extended Aged Care at
Home for Dementia package – provide more intensive support and are designed
as a community-based alternative to residential care.
These publicly funded programmes are targeted at those most in need and are
already overstretched. A Report on Government Services by the Productivity
Services (2006) found that the needs of over one third of people aged 65 years
and over who required assistance with at least one everyday activity in 2003 were
not met. In addition, organisations are already finding it difficult to recruit and
retain staff to provide existing services.
While the more intensive packages are highly valued (Table 6.1) they are in
limited supply and this means many older frail people, particularly women, have
no choice but to enter a residential care facility if they require support regardless of
their desire to do so or not. As of 30 June 2008, 150,481 people aged 65 years and
over in Australia were permanent residents in aged care homes and The Australian
Nursing Federation predicts an increase of 56 per cent in such residents by 2020.
Residential care, while a necessary part of the care system, is seen as a last resort
by older people.This point of view and the targeting of community care services
to those in greatest need is leading to a push for the development of supported
108
Table 6.1: Community and flexible care programmes: services provided,

and clients aged 65 years and over receiving programmes, 2007–08
Funding Number
Programme type Services provided organisation of clients
Home and Domestic assistance, Federal government 638,218
Community Care meals, other food services, (60 per cent),
(HACC) transport services, home or state and territory
garden maintenance, activity governments (40 per
programmes (home or centre cent)
based), social support, personal
care, counselling (care recipient
and carer), goods and equipment,
home modifications, respite care,
linen services, nursing (home
and centre based), allied health/
therapy (at home or centre)
Veterans’ Home Care Domestic assistance, home or Department of â•⁄ 77,284
garden maintenance, personal Veteran Affairs
care, respite care
Veterans’ Community Personal care, nursing Department of â•⁄ 32,625
Nursing Veteran Affairs
Community Aged Domestic assistance, Department of â•⁄ 33,411
Care Package (CACP) meals, other food services, Health and Ageing
transport services, home or
garden maintenance, activity
programmes (home or centre
care, respite care, linen services
Extended Aged Care Domestic assistance, Department of â•⁄â•⁄ 3,354
at Home (EACH) meals, other food services, Health and Ageing
transport services, home or
care, counselling, respite care,
Extended Aged Domestic assistance, Department of â•⁄â•⁄ 1,314
Care at Home for meals, other food services, Health and Ageing
Dementia (EACHD) transport services, home or
care, counselling, respite care,
Source: Adapted from AIHW (2009, p 120)
109
type accommodation in Australia, a housing option that has been available in

the UK, the US and parts of Europe for some decades. While the government
has paid considerable attention to the development of a community-based aged
care system, the development of supported or integrated housing with care and
support has been neglected (Jones et al, 2010).
Older persons and their housing in the 21st century

This chapter has reviewed, predominantly in the Australian context, the housing
circumstances and housing transition patterns of the current older population and
of the baby boomers about to be classified as older persons.While in the past the
older population was considered to be a reasonably homogeneous group with
limited demands in terms of their needs, expectations and aspirations in late life,
the movement of the baby boomers – a group who have been described as ‘re-
writing’ life histories and ushering in substantial social, economic change – into
the older age groups is causing a reorientation of older people’s housing transitions.
The leading edge of the baby boomers is differentiated from previous generations
entering retirement age by their much greater asset base, especially housing wealth,
but also superannuation.This means that unlike previous generations, a significant
proportion of this group has the means to engage in consumer-led retirement
lifestyles involving much greater mobility and a willingness to change housing
to meet preferences.
It is clear that the older population of the 21st century will require and
expect a range of housing options and support systems that enable them to
live independently, in the communities of their choosing, no matter what their
economic circumstances. An ageing population inevitably focuses attention not
only on the suitability of housing but the communities in which members of
the community live.
Notes
1
In 2007 the population aged 65 years and over comprised 13 per cent of Australia’s
population (ABS, 2008a).
2
In Australia the term superannuation is used to refer to private retirement savings. The
same savings – and their consequent income stream – would be referred to as a pension in
the UK. Modest compulsory superannuation was introduced for all persons in Australia’s
paid workforce in 1990.
3
Prior to 1992 the availability of superannuation to employees was reliant on the employer
having such a scheme. In 1992 the government instituted compulsory superannuation,
the Superannuation Guarantee. Under government legislation employers are required to
contribute superannuation for employees. The level of contribution began at 3 per cent
of an employee’s earnings and this was then incrementally raised to the current 9 per cent.
(Kelly et al, 2002). Research indicates that government spending on pensions into the
110
future would be reduced by 2.3 per cent over 30 years if the superannuation guarantee
was raised to 12 per cent (Kelly, 2009).
4
Personal savings are defined as the estimated sum of the value of cash deposits, shares,
superannuation and net business assets (Kelly, 2009).
111
SEVEN
Housing and disability:

aÂ€21stâ•‚centuryÂ€phenomenon
Conventional accounts of housing careers and even housing pathways present, in

some ways, a monochromatic view of households and the housing they occupy.
The concept of a housing career holds cogency for young, middle-class household
members of Anglo-Celtic backgrounds born in the 1950s, but sheds little light
on the more complex realities of households in the 21st century. One of the
areas where this gap is most acute is in our understanding of the relationship
between disability, households and housing. In most developed economies over
the last 30 years there has been a profound move away from institutional housing
for persons with a disability to accommodation within the broader community.
In some instances this accommodation has been appropriately funded, but in
many cases it has not. The relationship between disability and housing is not a
niche issue: in Australia 22 per cent of households have one or more household
members affected by a disability (Beer and Faulkner, 2009), and similar rates of
prevalence are evident in comparable nations.The AIHW (2003, 2007) estimates
that some 6 per cent of the Australian population is affected by a profound
disability – defined as ‘a severe or profound core activity limitation’ where the
individual requires assistance with meeting his/her daily needs. Under current
population estimates, this equates to 1.3 million persons, and if similar rates of
prevalence apply in the US and the UK, 21.6 million persons and 3.6 million
persons respectively are affected.
The impact of disability on the housing sector in the 21st century is not
simply a matter of scale; the care and other needs of persons with a disability are
profoundly reshaping the relationship between households and their housing.
In the latter part of the 20th century ‘home’ was an important place for caring
for children. In the 21st century ‘home’ will be increasingly important for the
provision of care for adults. The Housing 21 Survey found that 13 per cent of
households provided care for a person living within their home and 9 per cent
provided care for a person living in another household. Critically, disability does
not simply reshape the housing of the affected individual; instead it recasts the
housing opportunities, movements and costs of all members of the household
and often the outcomes of family members or care providers living elsewhere.
To add to this complexity, the housing circumstances of individuals affected by
different types of disability vary considerably and those with a sensory disability,
mobility impairment, psychiatric disability or cognitive impairment all move
through the housing market in different ways.This chapter considers the ways we
should conceptualise the housing transitions of persons with a disability and their
113
households, before moving on to consider the evidence on both the housing of

persons with a disability and the housing of family members who provide care.
Housing transitions and disability: conceptualising

theÂ€relationships
In many ways the concept of disability is problematic within a discussion of
housing transitions and there are two fundamental challenges. First, it can be
argued that while individuals may have an impairment, it is society – and the
inappropriateness of its institutions, built forms, transport arrangements and so
on – that creates disability. Second, the discussion of disability and housing creates
an expectation that impairment results in a relatively uniform impact on both
housing outcomes and movement through the housing market, with all persons
affected by disability sharing a single set of housing outcomes and affected by
uniform processes. The reality is that disability is not uniform and the housing
market impacts vary significantly according to the source, nature and severity of
the disability (Figure 7.1). Each can be thought of as a significant determinant of
housing achievement for persons with a disability, with an individual’s position
on each axis shaping their landscape of housing opportunities and constraints
and acting independently of the broader set of factors shaping housing outcomes
for the population as a whole. For example, a person with mobility impairment
acquired through an accident for which they can be compensated (such as a
work-related injury or a motor vehicle accident) will have a very different housing
Figure 7.1: Conceptualising disability and its impact on housing careers

Severity of disability
Better housing outcomes

y
lit
bi
sa
Poorer housing outcomes

di
of
pe
Ty
Source of disability
114
Housing and disability: aÂ€21stâ•‚centuryÂ€phenomenon
career when compared with someone who has had identical mobility impairment
(such as paraplegia) since birth.
The impact of disability on housing transitions varies considerably according
to the severity of the impairment: a person in a wheelchair may have a very
different set of housing needs from a person who relies on a walking frame. In
addition, some disabilities, such as a mobility impairment associated with polio,
worsen over the life course, so that potential and actual housing needs change.To
further complicate the analysis, many persons have more than one condition; they
may, for example, have both a hearing disability and an intellectual disability, or
they could have suffered a stroke and experienced both the loss of mobility and
cognitive function. Importantly, we have to acknowledge that housing transitions
vary considerably for persons with a disability, and that while there are common
elements between and across disability groups, an individual’s housing transitions
will be determined by the nature, scale and source of the disability.
Prior to moving to consider the ways in which disability shapes housing
transitions in the 21st century, it is important to examine how households as a
whole are affected by disability. The household rather than the individual is the
primary unit of analysis in the overwhelming majority of housing research, because
it is the household as a whole that occupies the dwelling; it is the household which
takes decisions to move or relocate; and, it is the household as an entity which
pays for accommodation.There is substantial discussion in the published research
around the impact of disability on the housing careers of family members (Beer
et al, 2006a) and this work has noted that parents with care responsibilities face
higher housing costs and greater transport expenses as a consequence of disability;
that one or more adult members of the household is often unable to engage in
paid work due to their care responsibilities, thereby reducing household income;
and that care givers will often choose housing that meets the needs of the person
with a disability, rather than optimise their own preferences. Lower household
income reduces the level of choice within the housing market and may truncate
housing aspirations. Society, however, relies upon the efforts of unpaid carers to
meet the needs of those affected by disability (Jenkins et al, 2003). Importantly,
we can conclude that it is the housing career of the household as a whole that is
affected by the presence of a disability.
Indicative housing careers by type of disability
As discussed earlier, disability or impairment type significantly affects the interaction

between the individual and/or household and the housing market. Figures 7.2
to 7.6 provide indicative housing transitions for persons and households affected
by disability. The figures draw upon the outcomes of focus groups undertaken
by Kroehn et al (2007) and are meant to illustrate outcomes rather than provide
a definitive account. A more detailed discussion of housing transition by type of
disability will be provided later, alongside an examination of the factors shaping
housing for persons with a disability.The figures have deliberately been drawn to
115
Figure 7.2: Indicative housing career for a person with mobility

impairment acquired through injury
Mobility impairment through injury
• Few or no moves through the housing stock post mobility impairment
• Home modification through compensation
$
Full-time
employment Part-time employment Statutory income
Australian
average
earnings over
lifetime
Income
Expenditure
Home Modification to home, Outright

Renting purchase purchase maintained ownership
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Age
provide a point of contrast to the housing transitions of the mainstream population.

A line indicating average earnings over the lifetime has been added to highlight
the income constraints affecting persons with a disability and their households.
The housing career of a person affected by mobility impairment as a
consequence of an accident is presented in Figure 7.2. In the figure the housing
career is seen to track the trajectory for the mainstream population, after which
income falls, expenditure falls and the individual maintains their position within
the housing market through modification of the home they are purchasing – paid
for by a compensating body such as a motor accident compensation authority or
work-related insurance – and then remains in that dwelling through to old age.
Implicit within the figure is a high degree of immobility because of the challenge
of finding an accessible dwelling in combination with limited income.
Figure 7.3 offers an indicative housing career for a person with mobility
impairment present since birth and differs substantially from its predecessor even
though the disability is the same.The figure highlights the potential significance of
the source of disability with both the end point and stages in the housing career
varying significantly. Key issues include: lower lifetime earnings because of an
inability to secure well-paid employment and periods of un- or underemployment;
a longer period living in the parental home, when compared with societal norms;
116
Figure 7.3: Indicative housing career for a person with mobility

impairment present since birth
Mobility impairment from birth
$
Australian average earnings over lifetime
Loss of employment Death of parents

Enter paid
employment Enter full-time
employment
Income
Expenditure
Living in Private Living in Public rental

parental home rental parental home
10 30 40 50 60 70 80
Age
a return to the parental home in adult life due to the absence of appropriate and
affordable alternatives; the impact of the death of parents who have had substantial
care responsibilities; and housing outcomes that terminate in public rental housing
rather than owner occupation.
The two figures, therefore, emphasise the way in which the source of disability
affects housing career and demonstrate the ways in which disability per se can
be seen to shape housing outcomes through the life course. There is not a single
set of housing transitions for persons affected by mobility disability but there are
common drivers in terms of lower income and the need to live in an accessible
dwelling. These factors have a demonstrable impact on housing outcomes.
Figure 7.4 offers a different perspective on the housing careers of persons
with a disability, focusing on the housing of persons born with a cognitive
impairment. In this instance the individual has a flat employment history and set
of housing transitions: living with their parents until late middle age (when the
parents either die or are unable to continue to provide care) and then living in
a community facility. The individual’s income is low throughout their life, with
employment provided through a specialist facility or activity centre.There is only
the one significant transition through the housing market and it is precipitated
by demographic processes outside the control of any individual and one which
generates substantial angst for many care givers, as well as significant challenges
for policy makers. Persons with a developmental disability may have a housing
117
Figure 7.4: Indicative housing career for a person with a developmental

disability
Developmental disability
$
Being cared for by family member
Death of parents
Income
Expenditure
Living in parental home Community living (CRUs)
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Age
career that is largely determined by the housing opportunities family members

are able to provide. The inability of family members to continue to offer care,
through death or their own ill-health, can force a transition in the housing of this
group. Family members with care responsibilities are aware of the need to plan
for the housing of their family member for when they are no longer able to care
for them, but find it difficult because the alternatives are unattractive.
Persons with a psychiatric disability are likely to have a much more variable
housing career than persons affected by other disabilities (Figure 7.5).The episodic
nature of much mental illness results in both periods in and out of employment, as
well as significant transitions through the housing market. Unlike the previously
discussed disabilities, persons affected by a psychiatric disability are likely to report
periods of homelessness, and incidences of living in caravan parks or other insecure
accommodation. There is also a high probability of eviction and/or ongoing
transition from one tenure to the next. Figure 7.5 reflects the lag-effect periods of
mental illness have on the transitions an individual makes in the housing market.
Importantly, homeownership is not represented as the outcome of the housing
‘career’ for this group, instead social rental housing is suggested.
Finally, Figure 7.6 illustrates the likely housing career of a person affected
by a sensory impairment, and in this instance it draws upon the experiences
of the deaf. They are represented as having both a stable housing career and
stable employment, though the latter is not necessarily well paid. Significantly,
118
Figure 7.5: Indicative housing career for a person with a psychiatric

disability
Psychiatric disability
$ Unemployment:
Income
statutory
income Employment Expenditure
Employment
Australian average
earnings over lifetime
Living with Private Home- Home- Cara-

family rental less Public rental less van Public rental
park
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Age
Figure 7.6: Indicative housing career for a person with a sensory impairment
Sensory disability
$
Enter paid Retire from paid employment

employment
Income
Expenditure
Inherit dwelling
Family Public
Private rental Owner occupied
home housing
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Age
119
in Australia persons born profoundly deaf often live within the private rental
market because their disability is insufficient to secure access to social housing
and they are unable, for a range of reasons, to enter home purchase easily. Those
unable to hear have relatively restricted employment opportunities; this limits
their income and therefore their capacity to repay a mortgage.The figure suggests
that homeownership is eventually achieved through the inheritance of a dwelling.
The figure also assumes that family members provide significant assistance to the
person with a hearing impairment, even though the hearing-impaired enjoy a
high level of independence.
The five figures present an abstract ‘ideal type’ based in large measure on
insights garnered from qualitative data collections. The diagrams suggest both
similarities and differences across circumstances, and also indicate drivers of
housing transitions for persons with a disability that are very different from those
evident for the population as a whole. Key issues include the fact that in four of
the five figures persons with a disability are seen to have less variability in their
housing transitions than the population as a whole.This inertia is a consequence
of the limited options available to many persons with a disability and their limited
capacity to express their housing needs within the market place. Low incomes –
and potentially truncated working careers – result in a limited capacity to express
choice. This immobility is significant because individuals with a disability have
little opportunity to adjust their housing to meet their current needs or as they
proceed through stages in their life course.
A second critical concern is the need to recognise that persons with a psychiatric
disability may have complex housing careers that reflect episodes of profound ill
health and associated difficulties in maintaining employment. Importantly, persons
with a psychiatric disability are more likely than other groups to experience
periods of homelessness or inadequate housing as part of their long-term sequence
of housing circumstances (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008a).This may, in part,
reflect difficulties in remaining in the family home, sustaining relationships or
remaining well.A third concern is that social housing is much more prominent in
the housing of persons with a disability than for the general population. Persons
with an impairment or long-term health condition are more likely to gain
access to this tenure because of the considerable disadvantages confronting them,
including low income, discrimination and higher living costs. These figures do
not offer a definitive account of the housing careers of persons with a disability,
but they do suggest themes that deserve further exploration. They raise issues of
policy importance because the stability of the housing circumstances of many
persons with a disability suggests that it should be possible to engage in long-term
planning for their needs.
The impact of disability on housing transitions

The presence of a disability has the potential to affect an individual’s transitions
through the housing market.The Housing 21 Survey asked all respondents a suite
120
of questions that related to disability and the provision of care for persons with
a disability. Through these questions it was possible to identify all households
where one or more persons had a disability or long-term health condition, and
where one or more household members provided care. Of the 2,698 households
who participated in the Housing 21 Survey, some 595 households (22 per cent)
reported that one or more household members had a long-term health condition,
disability or impairment. This rate of self-reported disability is consistent with
both the 2006 Census (Hugo, 2007) and earlier ABS collections on the prevalence
of disability. In the Housing 21 Survey in most instances only one household
member had a disability, but in 74 cases two persons were reported as disabled and
in three instances there – seven per cent of the total population and 30 per cent
of households living with a disability – respondents reported that a household
member needed assistance with self-care, mobility or communication.This figure
is compatible with the AIHW’s (2003) estimate of the incidence of disability to
the extent that it represents a ‘core activity limitation’. Some 381 respondents
reported that they or a member of their household provided care and assistance
to a person with a health condition or disability. Of this group, just over half (53
per cent) were assisting a person living within their household, while 54 per cent
reported that a household member was assisting a person living outside their
household. In approximately 10 per cent of cases, household members assisted
both a person within their household and a person living elsewhere.
The presence of a disability within a household can have a profound impact on
housing careers. Over 40 per cent of disability-affected households in the Housing
21 Survey reported that health and disability factors had a very important impact
on their lifetime housing decisions, and this insight applied only to households
where the respondent was under 65 years of age, thereby controlling for age-
related disabilities and health conditions. Overall, households where one or more
persons had a disability tended to be smaller than households where no disability
was present, with two-person households accounting for 43.4 per cent of the total.
The smaller number of conventional ‘families’ would account for this difference.
Analysis of the Housing 21 data revealed significant variation between the tenure
of households where the respondent was under 65 years of age and one or more
persons had a disability, on the one hand, and the tenure of households where
no member of the household reported a disability, on the other. The former
households were, in percentage terms, less likely to be home purchasers, and
more likely to be outright homeowners. At the same time, households where a
disability was present were more likely to be renting or paying board.
Importantly, the source of tenancy varied between households affected by
disability and those where disability was not reported. While 22 per cent of
respondents to the Housing 21 Survey were tenants within the public rental
sector, fully 39 per cent of households where a disability was present rented from a
government agency, compared with 16.1 per cent of the population of households
where disability was not recorded.These data are consistent with information on
121
new housing allocation released by the AIHW (2007). Persons with a disability
were also over-represented in community housing.
Just fewer than 50 per cent of private rental tenants from across the general
population rented from a real estate agent, compared with 24 per cent of
households where a disability was present. Overall the tenure data suggest a
significant dependence on the social housing sector when one or more persons
have a disability. This outcome reflects contemporary allocation policies and the
tight rationing of the social housing stock (Parkin and Hardcastle, 2004).
Housing affordability and disability
Households where one or more persons are affected by a disability tended to

have both lower mortgage payments and lower rents than the general population.
Significantly, while the lower rents paid by households affected by disability
reflected the more modest cost of housing in the public rental sector, mortgage
payments did not.
It is important to acknowledge that lower incomes and lower housing costs
than the general population may result in a greater incidence of unaffordable
accommodation for households where one or more members has a disability.The
data presented in Figure 7.7 and Figure 7.8 suggest that housing affordability is
a major challenge for households affected by disability, especially within rental
housing. Just fewer than 15 per cent of households paying rent and where one
Figure 7.7: Housing affordability for tenants aged less than 65 years, by
presence of a disability
%
35
30 Presence of disability within

the household
25 No persons with a disability
within the household
20
15
10
0
Less than 11 to 21 to 31 to 41 to 51 to More than
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 60%
Percentage of income spent on rent
122
Figure 7.8: Housing affordability for home purchasers aged less than 65
years, by presence of a disability
%
45
Presence of disability within
40 the household
35 No persons with a disability
within the household
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Less than 11 to 21 to 31 to 41 to 51 to More than
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 60%
Percentage of household income spent on mortgage costs
or more person was affected by a disability or long-term health condition paid

more than 60 per cent of their gross income for their housing.1 Fully 36 per cent
of households affected by disability and accommodated within rental housing
(including public rental housing, which is capped at approximately 25 per cent
of household income) paid more than 30 per cent of their income for housing.
Disability and movement through the housing market
For a range of obvious, and also not so apparent, reasons, movement through the
housing market is much more difficult for households affected by the presence
of a disability than for the general population. The Housing 21 Survey showed
that households where one or more persons was affected by a disability had
much lower relocation rates than the general Australian population (Figure 7.9),
with fully 40 per cent of households affected by disability not moving or only
moving once over the decade prior to the survey, compared with 30 per cent
of households unaffected by disability. Many households affected by disability
have simply been priced out of the housing market and this was reflected in a
lower rate of take-up of the Australian government’s First Home Owners Grant
(FHOG) among persons with a disability than for the population as a whole
(Beer and Faulkner, 2009).
Overall, many persons with a disability were ‘trapped’ residentially by a complex
set of processes that limit their capacity to relocate to better or more appropriate
123
Figure 7.9: Number of times moved, by presence of a disability, all

households, 1996–2006
%
40
One or more persons with a
35 disability within the household
No persons with a disability
30 within the household
25
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of moves, 1996–2006
housing. For example, a female interviewee living in inner Melbourne noted

that her current dwelling did not meet her aspirations or those of her partner.
However, she was reluctant to move because she did not believe she could find a
dwelling in a more attractive neighbourhood that was affordable, offered access to
public transport equal to that available from her current home and was accessible
for a person in a wheelchair. She also noted that she had modified her current
home to make it appropriate for her disability. Any relocation would require an
equivalent additional investment in the new dwelling and she expected such
expenditure would be beyond her means.
Finally it should be recognised that the relative immobility of households
affected by disability should be a matter of policy concern because, as Baker
(2007) notes, residential relocation is one of the most important ways in which a
population adjusts its housing to better meet its needs, including its health needs.
A population unable to move through the market because of unaffordable housing
may be forced to live in accommodation that does not suit its circumstances or
adversely affects its health.
Housing transitions by type of disability

As discussed previously, the type of disability and when and how it was acquired
can significantly affect a household’s housing career. This section examines the
variability in the housing careers of people with a psychiatric disability, mobility
124
impairment, cognitive impairment and sensory impairment. The Housing 21

Survey provides some indications of the way in which disability shapes housing
outcome, but it provides no indication on any of these four dimensions. To
overcome this gap, a specialised disability survey was undertaken in Victoria,
focused on three regions: Gippsland, as an example of a non-metropolitan region;
the region in and around Darebin, an inner metropolitan area; and Melton/
Brimbank, as an example of an outer metropolitan region. In all instances a
modified version of the Housing 21 Survey was applied in order to facilitate
comparison with that national data collection instrument.The survey instrument
had to be truncated considerably for those with a cognitive disability, and in
other instances the questionnaire was modified to reflect the potential impact
of disability on housing experience. Some 417 interviews were completed with
persons with a disability and with carers in the target groups.
Psychiatric disability
Psychiatric disability can have an enormous impact on every aspect of a person’s

life. The episodic nature of the illness, resulting in high levels of unemployment,
dependency on government-provided income support, and consequent low
incomes restricts choice within the housing market. Moving house for this group
is a recurring theme and many find it difficult to maintain good relationships
with others, including family members. In consequence, they do not have strong
networks of support, as is often the case for others with a disability. Saugeres
(2008) found many with a psychiatric disability could not turn to their families
for support. The lack of interaction with family and friends, poor engagement
with welfare agencies and often an inability to make responsible decisions, makes
this group particularly vulnerable to social isolation and poor housing outcomes.
This in turn had the potential to heighten the impacts of their illness and place
them at jeopardy of homelessness. Their lack of financial and human resources
makes them particularly vulnerable to living in situations of risk – abuse as well
as vulnerability to drugs and alcohol.
A total of 77 persons with a psychiatric disability responded to the specialist
survey of persons with a disability, with most respondents aged 25 to 55 years.
Some 55 per cent of respondents lived by themselves and a further 31 per
cent lived in a household with just one other person. Half lived in a flat, unit
or caravan park, while 39 per cent lived in a separate house; 71 per cent were
renting.These results are partly a function of the way in which participants were
recruited – with several accommodation and service providers collecting the
data on our behalf – but are also likely to reflect a more general trend among the
population affected by psychiatric disability. Fully 61 per cent of tenants (and 42
per cent of all respondents) rented from the social housing sector, with a further
22 per cent renting from real estate agents and 5.6 per cent from a parent or
other relative. Over 27 per cent of respondents with a psychiatric disability had
applied for social housing at some stage and 13 per cent were currently on the
125
public housing waiting list. Over 55 per cent of tenants reported that they rented
because they could not afford mortgage payments; only 8 per cent of respondents
were homeowners and 9 per cent were paying off a mortgage.
Some 20 per cent of persons affected by a psychiatric disability lived with at
least one other person with a disability. However, 40 per cent of persons with a
psychiatric disability lived by themselves and this is a much higher rate of lone-
person living than for the Australian population as a whole. Some 47 per cent of
persons with a psychiatric disability had never married or formed a permanent
relationship, 13 per cent were separated from their partner, and 19.5 per cent were
divorced. Only 16 per cent of respondents were currently married and 4 per cent
were living in a de facto relationship.This is a very distinctive household structure
and one which inevitably generates housing transitions that are not shared with
the broader community. Incomes for this group were very low, with 34.5 per
cent of respondents with a psychiatric disability reporting a household income
of less than A$12,999 per annum and 90 per cent reporting a household income
less than A$26,000 per annum.
Mobility impairment
Data collected through the disability-focused survey provides quantitative insights

into the housing transitions of people with mobility impairment. Approximately
half the respondents had mobility impairment for all or most of their lives,
with the remainder acquiring impairment in adulthood. Persons with mobility
impairment were much under-represented in home purchase, with just 14 per
cent buying a home, compared with 39 per cent outright owners and 37 per
cent renting. Some 4 per cent lived rent free and a further 4 per cent lived as a
dependent with parents. Fully 56 per cent of tenants with a mobility impairment
rented from a state housing authority and a further 6 per cent rented from a
cooperative or equivalent organisation. Just 18 per cent of tenants with a mobility
impairment rented from a real estate agent and 35 per cent had applied for public
rental housing at some stage of their life. A total of 32 per cent of tenants with
mobility impairment had been owner-occupiers at some stage in their life and
this group has had a high rate of departure from owner-occupation. Just under
half of tenants with a mobility impairment reported that owning their home
one day was important or very important to them, but 20 per cent said it was
unimportant. However, 90 per cent of tenants with mobility impairment did not
expect to enter homeownership in the next five years, and the contrast with the
expectations of the general population of tenants is stark.
Just over one quarter of respondents with a mobility impairment had undertaken
major renovations of their home because ‘the house was not appropriate to needs’
(eight respondents), to ‘avoid the costs of moving’ (one respondent) and ‘to adjust
the house for a person with a disability’ (nine respondents). Clearly, the challenges
of living in the housing stock drove many households to modify their dwelling.
Half the respondents reported that their current dwelling fitted their needs very
126
well, and a further 28 per cent said it met their needs well. However, 19 per cent
believed that their home did not meet their needs well at all. Participants were
more concerned about how well their present home would meet their needs into
the future, with 19 per cent indicating that they did not believe their home would
meet their needs very well in five years, and 9 per cent indicating that their home
would not meet their needs at all. Respondents indicated that insufficient finances,
the absence of continuing employment and the lack of suitable housing options
prevented them from moving to more appropriate housing. Significantly, 42 per
cent of households affected by a mobility disability had not moved dwelling in
the decade to 2006 and 71 per cent had moved once or not at all over the decade.
These data reinforce the argument that households where mobility impairment is
present have a limited capacity to move through the housing market and secure
housing that better meets their circumstances.
Mobility impaired respondents to our survey reported attitudes to housing
through their life course that differed from the general population: they were less
likely to attach value to the material/asset dimension of housing, but were more
likely to value highly the physical environment of the dwelling and the access it
offered to services. Among the mobility impaired, only 31 per cent rated as very
important the capacity to live close to work, but 63 per cent considered living
close to services and support a very important feature of housing. In addition,
78 per cent of the mobility impaired acknowledged that their disability had been
a very important determinant of their lifetime housing goals and 66 per cent
felt that their health had been very important in shaping their housing decisions.
Cognitive impairment
A total of 29 persons with a cognitive disability participated in the disability

survey and they ranged in age from 22 to 61 years, with a mean age of 40 years.
Members of this group had either a developmental disability or a cognitive
impairment acquired later in life. Just fewer than half this group lived in a house;
16 per cent lived in a flat, unit or apartment; 20 cent lived in a community
residential unit (CRU); and 7 per cent lived in other supported accommodation.
Of the respondents affected by a cognitive impairment, 70 per cent paid rent
or board, 40 per cent lived with their family, 20 per cent lived with friends, and
a further 20 per cent lived with other unrelated adults. Only 13 per cent lived
by themselves. Many reported very stable housing careers: only 22 per cent had
lived in their current dwelling for less than five years and 6 per cent had lived
in the same dwelling all their life. Just over 55 per cent of respondents had not
moved at all within the last 10 years, and 96 per cent had moved three times or
less over the last decade. These data support the conclusion that this population
group typically experiences a very stable or ‘flat’ set of housing outcomes. For
them transition through housing is largely a matter of lived change within the
same dwelling and/or household.
127
Respondents reported very favourable attitudes to their current housing, with

few looking to move and most valuing their home for the people and relationships
embedded in that place. Only 12 respondents worked and they mostly worked one
or two days a week only. Family members were nominated as the most important
care givers in their life, with staff from support organisations the second most
important source of care and assistance. Cooking, assistance with transport and
help with craft activities were the most important forms of assistance reported.
Sensory impairment
A total of 52 persons with a sensory disability participated in the focused survey,

with almost 90 per cent of interviewees affected by vision impairment. The
population interviewed was an older group, with 47 per cent aged over 75 years
and 72 per cent aged over 54 years. Outright homeownership was the largest
single tenure amongst the sensory impaired, accounting for 47 per cent of the
total, with 11 per cent paying off a mortgage, followed by 33 per cent in rental
housing. Just 5.5 per cent had been given life tenure of their property by a relative
and 3.6 per cent were living rent free. No other disability group reported similar
levels of direct family assistance with housing. Only a small percentage of persons
with a sensory disability had renovated their property or intended to do so in
the foreseeable future.
Exactly half the persons with a sensory disability who were renting their property
rented from the social sector, with 25 per cent renting from a private agent,
18 per cent renting from a relative and 6 per cent from a community group. Of
the 16 sensory impaired persons renting their housing, nine had previously been
owner-occupiers and seven of these were now renting rather than purchasing
a dwelling because of the difficulty of affording mortgage repayments: 85 per
cent of this group did not expect to enter home purchase in the next five years.
Most persons with a sensory disability believed their present home suited their
needs well (38.8 per cent) or very well (57.1 per cent).They anticipated that their
housing would continue to meet their needs over the next five years. That said,
one quarter of respondents indicated that they would like to move to a different
home, though few expected that this would happen. Finances and the lack of
ongoing work were the major impediments to relocation. Overall, the sensory
impaired, consistent with their age profile, were a stable population, with 61 per
cent not moving at all over the previous decade and 24 per cent moving once only.
Persons with a sensory disability placed a great emphasis on the location and/
or environment of their housing.A total of 41 per cent of respondents considered
location had been very important in shaping their lifetime housing goals and
34 per cent believed it had been important. For all disability groups, the ability
to gain ready access to services is one of the key drivers of their lifetime housing
decisions. Persons with a sensory disability also recognised that their impairment
had shaped their lifetime housing goals, with 39 per cent assessing it as a very
128
important influence and 32 per cent as an important influence. Significantly, 73 per

cent believed they had been very successful or successful in achieving these goals.
Carers
Family members who provide support for people with a disability have housing
careers shaped by their care responsibilities. Providing care can have a significant
impact on families and individuals with respect to their social networks and
mental health (Edwards et al, 2007), financial resources (Hughes, 2007) and
other relationships (Spicer, 2007). Carers participated in the disability-focused
survey and 80 per cent were female. This gender imbalance reflects the unequal
distribution of care responsibilities, with women much more likely to take on
the role of unpaid carer than men. The respondents were also aged between 45
and 74, with 55–64 the modal age. Most lived in households of two or three
people and 22 per cent reported the presence of children under the age of 18
in their home. A total of 74 per cent of respondents described their household
as a family, but 14 per cent were sole parents and this reflects the relatively high
rate of relationship breakdown amongst households where a disability is present.
Couple-only households accounted for 9 per cent of the total, while lone-person
households accounted for 2.5 per cent. A total of 24 per cent of respondents
provided care to their partners, but children were the greatest recipients of care,
with 36 per cent of respondents providing care for a son or sons and 31 per cent
caring for one or more daughters.
Carers were concentrated in owner-occupation, with 65 per cent being outright
homeowners and a further 20 per cent home purchasers. Just 13 per cent were
tenants and 2 per cent lived rent free. This tenure distribution is consistent with
the age distribution of the carers included in the survey and highlights the fact
that the provision of unpaid care is strongly associated with homeownership. It
is interesting to speculate whether a decline in the homeownership rate has the
potential to trigger a fall in the rate at which family members are willing and
able to provide unpaid care for their relatives or partners. Just fewer than 15 per
cent of carers received assistance with the purchase of their home, and while 6
per cent of carers received government assistance, 7.6 per cent received assistance
from family with the purchase of the home. A loan from a parent or other relative
was the most common form of assistance received, but other forms of assistance
included loan guarantees, gifts from parents and inheritance of a house. Family
assistance is an important part of the housing career of family members with care
responsibilities in Australia.
Carers in rental housing most commonly leased their property from a real estate
agent (40 per cent of cases), followed by social housing providers (27 per cent)
and other private landlords (13 per cent). Some 44 per cent of carers who were
tenants had previously been owner-occupiers, and of those to fall out of home
purchase two thirds did so because of relationship breakdown. A further 17 per
cent fell out of homeownership because of the cost of providing care, and an
129
equivalent percentage were forced to return to rental housing because of the loss
of employment. Interestingly, no carers who were in the rental market expected
to enter homeownership in the next five years.
Fewer than 30 per cent of respondents indicated that they provide less than 40
hours of care per week. A total of 45 per cent of respondents indicated that they
provided more than 100 hours of care per week, and the single biggest response
to the ‘How many hours of care do you provide each week?’ was 168 hours, that
is ‘24/7’.
Only 10 per cent of carers were in full-time employment, while 22 per cent
were employed part time. In addition, 28 per cent reported that they had retired
from the formal labour market, while 21 per cent nominated ‘home duties’ as
their current work.
Public policy and the housing transitions of persons with a

disability
Health and disability issues have emerged as an important driver of housing careers
in the 21st century in developed economies. Fully 22 per cent of households
included in the Housing 21 Survey, and 19 per cent of those where the respondent
was aged under 65, had one or more household members affected by a disability
or long-term health condition. Some 36 per cent of respondents to the same
survey reported that health or disability concerns had shaped their lifetime
housing decisions. These issues are not a matter of concern in Australia alone;
instead they reflect a set of global concerns and calls for action by governments.
The US National Council on Disabilities estimates that 35 million households
in America contain one or more persons affected by a disability (NCD, 2010).
Moreover, the NCD estimates that 41 per cent of all households with one or more
persons with a disability cannot afford their accommodation and that persons
with a disability constitute almost 40 per cent of ‘worst case’ housing nationally.
The NCD identifies the major policy priorities as housing affordability, physical
accessibility of the housing stock, homelessness, environmental sensitivities, and
limited access to public and private sector housing. Key issues across nations
include the need to better integrate housing with support services, enhance the
accessibility of the housing stock and ensure the provision of appropriate volumes
of affordable housing.
Integration of housing with support services
One of the challenges for governments and policy makers into the 21st century
is to better integrate accommodation requirements for persons with a disability
and other forms of assistance, including care or assistance packages. The housing
policy environment for disability has moved beyond a stage where the processes
of de-institutionalisation have unfolded (Quibell, 2004). The challenge over the
130
coming decade is to develop and implement programmes that meet the needs of
a disability-affected population living within the broader community.
Bridge et al (2003) noted in Australia that effective linkages between housing
and other services for people with a disability have not been established, while
the Allen Consulting Group (ACG, 2007, p 10) observed that:
This lack of co-ordination is partly a function of the involvement of
different levels of government. Commonwealth programs provide
some services, while others are funded and provided at the state level.
This can lead to a fragmented service offering where either people
with a disability or their families must acquaint themselves intimately
with the details of both State and Commonwealth Government
policy arrangements. This fragmentation can, as Bridge et al (2003,
p 3) observes, ‘hinder efficient and fair service delivery’.
This comment highlights the multiple policy challenges to be overcome in order
to produce better housing for persons with a disability. For many individuals
affected by disability, it is not simply a matter of maximising support from one tier
of government or the other, or even of extracting housing programmes relative
to support services; instead the capacity to secure appropriate housing lies at the
intersection of all these elements. In Australia and other nations, this complexity
becomes more acute when we recognise the need also to integrate policies on
ageing. The impacts of structural ageing within the population have to be seen
to be part of the broader policy mix, as persons with a disability age and many
persons acquire a disability later in life.
Ultimately, the failure to link support and housing effectively limits the scope
of people with a disability to live on their own. Regardless of the direction of
public policy towards encouraging independent living, if support does not allow
people to take up the opportunity to live independently, policy will not succeed.
This insight has been reinforced by research from the US and the UK. In the US,
the NCD (2010, p 15) observed that:
One of the most promising trends has been the increasing cross-
coordination of housing with community living and support systems,
funding, and service delivery. Referred to as Single Access Points,
One Stop Shop, No Wrong Door, and Comprehensive Entry Point,
these systems enable consumers to enter through many different
‘doors’ in order to receive coordinated housing and community living
supports and services. Many of these initiatives, which often require
new policies to enable coordinated service delivery, are based on a
Money Follows the Person (MFP) framework to offer cross system,
consumer-directed choice.
In the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, this philosophy of assistance and
service provision is referred to as ‘individualised’ funding and the rate of take-up
131
and application varies considerably across and within nations (Bleasdale, 2001;
Lord and Hutchinson, 2003).
Appropriate housing supply for persons affected by disability
Research undertaken by Tually (2007) showed that state governments across

Australia viewed public rental housing as the most appropriate vehicle for
responding to the housing needs of those affected by disability. However, as the
ACG recently noted (2007), the stock of public housing in Australia has fallen,
with the AIHW (2007, p 103) observing that the number of public housing
dwellings in Australia declined from 359,000 in 2001 to 341,500 in 2006. New
investment in social housing by the Australian government announced in 2008
and 2009 may well see a reversal of this trend, but even then significant shortfalls
are likely. Moreover, the impacts of a tightening supply of public rental housing
are exacerbated by other factors, including the difficulties people with a disability
have in finding accessible and appropriate public housing and ‘the fact that their
rents are not adjusted to reflect the higher costs of tailoring their homes to their
particular needs’ (ACG, 2007, p 12). Comparable declines in access to housing
assistance are evident in the UK and other nations.
In Australia, current policy frameworks view social rental housing as the most
appropriate mechanism for directly assisting persons affected by disability (Tually,
2007).This has contributed to a concentration of persons with a disability in the
public housing stock, with fully 40 per cent of new entrants to public housing
disabled (AIHW, 2003). Much of the publicly owned housing stock is seen to
be physically inappropriate for persons with a disability because of the design of
the dwelling, distance from public transport, and poor quality maintenance, for
example. It is also appropriate to question whether the systems of public housing
management are sufficiently focused on the needs of persons with a disability,
given the current and growing demand from this group.
International experience can suggest ways in which social housing can become
better focused on the housing needs of a population with disabilities. UK
experience suggests that housing will need to change with respect to allocation
processes, and the quality and design of the stock. In their work on Medical
Priority Rehousing in England, Smith et al (1997) emphasised the positive impact
of housing on the well-being of persons relocated for medical or disability-related
reasons, including psychiatric disability. It is important to acknowledge that
this housing stock is of a high quality; it has been designed for persons with a
disability, and it is often clustered into groups and includes contact with a warden
who can assist with a range of needs. Such a model appears to better recognise
the circumstances of persons with a chronic health condition or disability who
need assistance.
Over the last five years, and increasing in pace since 2007, state governments
across Australia have established either new institutions for social housing provision
or created the conditions for their expansion. In many instances these new
132
entities are focused on the needs of persons affected by disability. For example,
the Disability Housing Trust (DHT) was established by the Victorian government
‘to promote and develop new housing options and encourage new investment
in housing for people with disabilities’ (ACG, 2007, p v). This initiative has
subsequently grown and emerged as Housing Choices Australia but has maintained
its mandate to build and let social housing units for persons with a disability, while
encouraging the development of new vehicles for private investment – including
family members – in disability housing. Other policy options include the use
of government home-lending agencies to support access to homeownership for
people with a disability. Both Keystart in Western Australia and HomeStart in
South Australia have specialist packages for persons with a disability.
In the US the housing options available to persons with a disability are limited
by the small size of the public rental sector, the uneven geographical spread of
those public rental units that exist, the fact that much of that stock is inaccessible
to persons with a disability and the failure to formally designate much of the
federally subsidised private and not-for-profit housing for persons with a disability
(NCD, 2010). Though Housing Choice vouchers are available to households
affected by a disability, the rate of uptake varies by state (NCD, 2010).
Universal design and the appropriateness of housing
Whether it is the NCD in the US, or a disability organisation in Europe, the

physical appropriateness of the housing stock remains an issue of society-
wide concern. Universal design principles in housing simply allow a greater
percentage of the population to live comfortably within the housing stock. In
many instances the application of universal design principles involves relatively
minor modifications to built forms, for example the inclusion of grab rails (or
planning for their later installation), the widening of corridors, and the removal
of steps in the design of the home. In the US, Australia and the UK government
sector housing providers and regulators have set targets for either the percentage
of housing designed as accessible, or the proportion of new builds designed
according to universal design principles. To date, however, the implementation
of such standards in private construction has been limited, although there have
been notable exceptions. Importantly, innovation in this area has the potential to
transform substantially the housing transitions of persons with a disability over
the coming decades, as more housing stock becomes accessible and the range of
choice opens out for those with specific housing needs.
Housing and disability in the 21st century: innovation or

reaction?
How people with a disability move through the housing market has been one of
the unexplored issues in research into housing markets in developed economies.
As this chapter has shown, the housing transitions of those with a disability are
133
not a niche issue, with almost one in five households affected. Moreover, it is not a
problem limited to one nation or one point in time. It is a challenge that impinges
upon all developed economies and it generates issues that will become more acute
over time as the population ages, and as institutional forms of accommodation
for persons with a disability become a distant memory.
The available evidence suggests that in the 21st century the housing careers of
households affected by disability are flatter, more focused on the social rental sector
or government-subsidised housing, and more challenged by health and disability
concerns than for the general population. It is essential to acknowledge that in
many important respects the housing transitions of persons with a disability are
significantly different from those evident in the second half of the 20th century,
when support for independent living was largely unknown and institutional
forms of accommodation were common (Quibell, 2004). It could be argued that
there has been policy innovation in bringing the population of persons with a
disability into the mainstream of society but that transition has not translated into
opportunities to participate fully in the housing market.
There are significant variations in the housing careers of persons affected by
different disabilities.The housing careers of persons affected by sensory disability,
mobility impairment, psychiatric disability and cognitive impairment all vary,
and the source of disability can also exert a determinant influence on housing
outcomes. Persons disabled through an accident or event for which they can be
compensated (for example employment-related injury or road accident) may have
more housing options available to them than those available to persons disabled
at birth or through ill-health. In addition, housing careers of many persons with
a disability are significantly constrained by their limited participation in the
labour market.
Notes
1
It is important to discount the argument that those paying 60 per cent or more of their
income on housing were living in an institutional or community care setting where
living costs and housing are provided as a bundle. In common with other computer-aided
telephone interview (CATI) surveys, such living arrangements were under-represented
in the Housing 21 Survey.
134
EIGHT
Housing transitions, economic

restructuring and the marginalised
Andrew Beer, Debbie Faulkner and Chris Paris
In his path-breaking book Social Justice and the City the eminent geographer
David Harvey (1973) observed that ‘the rich command space; the poor are
trapped by it’. A similar observation applies to contemporary housing markets:
those able to command resources have unprecedented levels of choice and
opportunities for consumption, while the poor and marginalised within society
are confronted by an increasingly regressive system of housing provision. The
retreat from direct government intervention in housing supply is evident in
many nations (already discussed in Chapter Three), and the move to ‘workfare’
models of welfare has coincided with a crisis of housing affordability in many
nations that has squeezed the most vulnerable within society. The consequences
for individuals and households have been devastating, with large-scale mortgage
default and foreclosure in the US, a growing incidence of eviction in Australia, the
persistence of inadequate and unhealthy housing in New Zealand, and ongoing
social exclusion on large social housing estates in the UK.
For many at the bottom of the housing market or system of social housing
supply there are no good choices available and they are confronted by an ongoing
churn through the housing market as they shift from one precarious housing
arrangement to the next. Whole groups within society are affected by these
processes, and this chapter examines the housing transitions of the marginalised
within contemporary developed economies. In particular, it considers those
trapped within precarious housing before moving on to consider the housing
fate of workers made redundant from the automotive sector. Finally, the chapter
examines the housing transitions of immigrants in the UK, Ireland and Australia
in order to shed light on the intersecting impacts of social policies, cultural factors,
social mobility and the structure of housing markets.
Precarious housing and movement through the market

Precarious housing has received relatively little direct attention from housing
researchers, although the individual components of precariousness have been
examined in detail. In part, the issue of precariousness has been examined as a
matter of security of tenure, and prior research on this topic has considered the legal
entitlements and obligations associated with differing tenures across jurisdictions.
135
Precariousness, however, is much larger than the simple presence or absence of

a set of legal protections. Instead it reflects a history of movement through the
housing market that is marked by frequent, involuntary relocation, often into
housing that is insecure, of poor quality and/or unaffordable. Precariousness
is a matter of housing transitions that are involuntary rather than voluntary, of
living arrangements that do not necessarily improve and of repeated exposure to
complex risks. Research in Australia by Hulse and Saugeres (2008, p 20) argued
that it is possible to identify six dimensions of housing insecurity:
mobility, housing instability, lack of privacy (within the dwelling and
between the dwelling and the outside), feeling unsafe (inside and
outside the dwelling), lack of belonging and lack of physical comfort …
a common thread in all of these is a lack of control over one’s housing
… these dimensions are not discrete, and several interact in complex
ways to contribute to, and reinforce, housing insecurity.
Persons who are precariously housed are at the threshold of entry into
homelessness and, as Saegert and Evans (2003) noted, their circumstances reflect
prolonged exposure to cumulative risks. Risks, for this group ‘come in big
bundles’ and many individuals are affected by a ‘cascade of troubles’ rather than
needing to deal with one challenge – such as unemployment – alone. Persons at
risk of losing their home may be simultaneously providing care for a sick relative,
working in an insecure, low-paid job, and dealing with the consequence of sole
parenthood. Hulse and Saugeres (2008) reinforced the multi-dimensional nature
of precariousness, noting that it had consequences for individuals that found
expression in family insecurity, insecurity of the self, health insecurities, financial
insecurity and employment insecurity. They noted that:
It is this complex of interrelated insecurities that constitutes precarious
living. Precarious living entails surviving from day to day. Trying to
make a home in the present against the odds takes time and effort
which can make it more difficult to make decisions about the longer
term, such as improving educational qualifications or getting a job.
The complex of insecurities means that it is difficult to single out
one action which will ‘untangle the web’. However, the respondents
did see improving their housing security as a key to moving away
from precarious living for themselves and their children. (Hulse and
Saugeres, 2008, p 37)
The extent of precariousness within the housing market should not be
underestimated.The Housing 21 Survey collected data on the reasons why people
moved over the period 1996 to 2006. While lifestyle/aspiration factors – such
as moving to a larger home or building a new home – dominated, 7 per cent of
the 2,700 relocations documented were evictions or forced moves from rental
housing. A further 3.5 per cent of moves were shifts to less expensive housing,
and a further 2.5 per cent were as a consequence of the impact of a disability or
136
Housing transitions, economic restructuring and the marginalised
ageing. Overall, therefore, involuntary transitions in the housing market comprised

10–12 per cent of all movement, with many moving to housing that was little,
if any, better than the accommodation they had left. Over the decade to 2006,
74 per cent of all households moved three times or less and just 2.5 per cent
moved more than eight times. By contrast, 60 per cent of tenants moved three
times or less and 11.6 per cent moved more than eight times over that period.
Clearly, there is a strong tenure dimension to frequent movement within the
housing market and those households whose income or assets are insufficient to
enter owner-occupation are most at risk. Age is also a critical issue, with persons
aged 25–34 the most mobile, but individuals with high levels of movement come
from all age groups (Beer and Faulkner, 2009, p 106).
The incidence and impact of precarious housing in contemporary society should
not be underestimated. Slatter and Beer (2003a, 2003b) noted that bailiff-assisted
eviction was relatively common in Australia, with approximately 1,000 such
evictions per year in a jurisdiction with 80,000 private rental properties. What
makes this figure more remarkable is that many people are effectively forced out
of their rental homes much earlier in the legal process, such that the true rate
of eviction may be 10 times that figure. Rates of eviction will clearly vary on
a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis, with some nations more, or less, punctilious
in enforcing the rights of landlords. Many states in the US, for example, are
supportive of landlord rights, while parts of Europe stridently protect the position
of tenants. Overall, however, tenants are vulnerable, with many cycling through a
range of unattractive housing options.This was the conclusion drawn by Seelig et
al (2005) on the housing consumption patterns of income support recipients in
Australia. They found considerable mobility within the housing market, but this
activity was marked by ongoing directionless ‘churn’ rather than an identifiable
progression to housing that was more secure, of better quality or better located.
Beer et al (2006b) examined the impact of eviction on both individuals and
the system of housing provision. In many respects the findings of this study are
surprising, because while 55 per cent of those interviewed were evicted from
private rental housing, the remainder were not, and had in fact been ejected from
either social housing or specialist homelessness services. Psychiatric disability,
antisocial behaviour and substance abuse would almost certainly have contributed
to this suite of terminations. Across the board, the first move of most evictees
was to informal arrangements, staying with friends or relatives (‘couch surfing’),
with subsequent progression into either specialist homelessness accommodation
or into the social housing sector. While not all evictees subsequently occupied
‘welfare’ housing, many did, and some 8 per cent moved immediately to more
certain forms of institutional accommodation, including prisons and hospitals.
This trajectory is a marker of the marginal position within society of those groups
at risk of eviction.
137
Economic restructuring and housing

The processes of macroeconomic restructuring can intrude rudely on the lives
and housing prospects of households from across the social spectrum. Low-
income and/or marginalised households are, of course, more vulnerable to these
changes because they have fewer resources to sustain them in the short term,
more limited opportunities for further employment, fewer skills and often more
susceptible household structures. Redundancy, moreover, is an established feature
of the labour markets in developed economies and this reflects both the varying
fortunes of individual enterprises, cycles of prosperity and loss in some sectors and
the more fundamental shifts in the well-being of some industries. For example,
manufacturing industries across the developed world have witnessed wholesale
employment loss as businesses have either relocated or outsourced manufacturing
to the developing world, where wages are lower. In consequence there have been
a series of plant closures that have pushed many out of the workforce entirely, into
unemployment or into a marginal position within the labour force. For many, the
housing impacts of such employment loss have been profound. The relationship
between economic restructuring and subsequent housing transitions is explored
here with reference to two plant closures with a high profile locally: the closure
of Mitsubishi’s plant at Lonsdale, South Australia in 2004 and the collapse of MG
Rover in Birmingham, UK, in 2005.
Employment loss at Lonsdale, South Australia
In April 2004 Australia’s then Prime Minister John Howard announced that
the Lonsdale plant of Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited (MMAL) would
be closed with a loss of 700 jobs, with a further 400 voluntary redundancies
from MMAL’s Tonsley Park assembly plant. The loss of just over 1,100 direct
jobs in the southern part of metropolitan Adelaide was recognised as a major
shock to the regional economy. Other losses were expected as businesses in the
automotive supply chain felt the impact of declining demand for their products.
The Australian government responded by announcing a A$45 million assistance
package for the region – called the Structural Adjustment Fund (SAF) – as well
as enhanced employment assistance for retrenched workers.This assistance was to
be delivered via the Jobs Network, Australia’s network of federally funded labour
market providers. Importantly, the job losses announced in 2004 foreshadowed
the complete closure in 2008 of Mitsubishi’s manufacturing history in Australia.
The final closure resulted in 800 redundancies, but it is important to note that
the firm had been steadily shedding labour over the previous decade. All 7,000
jobs associated with this employer in the year 2000 had disappeared by 2009,
and there is speculation that the head office sales functions could relocate out of
South Australia in the near future.
In addition, the South Australian government committed A$10 million of
assistance to displaced workers, mainly in the form of enhanced access to services.
138
The loss of jobs from MMAL in 2004 should be seen as part of the longer-term
restructuring of the automobile industry, and manufacturing more generally,
in Australia. In the mid 1970s manufacturing accounted for 25 per cent of the
workforce but by 2001 it had declined to 12 per cent, even though the value
of production had increased. Where once car-making plants could be found in
all state capitals except Perth, by the year 2000 motor vehicle production had
consolidated into a limited number of sites, with Toyota and Ford assembling
vehicles in Melbourne, Mitsubishi and General Motors Holden (GMH) building
cars in Adelaide and GMH also constructing engines in Melbourne.
The redundancies announced in 2004 saw workers made redundant involuntarily
at the Lonsdale plant, while voluntary redundancy packages were made available
at the Tonsley Park facility.The nature of the redundancy process was significant,
as those in receipt of an involuntary redundancy package received five weeks of
pay for every year of service up to 20 years and then one week of pay for every
additional year. Workers who took a voluntary package received three weeks
pay for every year of service up to 20 years and then one week of pay for every
additional year of employment. Critically, redundant employees had worked
an average of 19 years with the manufacturer (Beer et al, 2006c), so that many
employees left with two years of salary. This payout was generous by Australian
standards.The overwhelming majority of those made redundant were mature men
aged from their mid 40s to late 50s who lived locally, with the majority either
homeowners or home purchasers.
Interviews undertaken within six months of the redundancy (Beer et al, 2006c)
with 374 of the displaced workers revealed that while 40 per cent were outright
homeowners, 43.5 per cent were mortgagors, 10 per cent were renting privately
and just 2 per cent were renting from the public sector. Some 141 workers, or
54 per cent of those who held a mortgage, indicated that they would use their
payout to discharge all or part of their mortgage. As one ex-employee who paid
off his mortgage said:
It’s the working man’s dream.
While another noted:
I had a mortgage and I thought any money that they give me I [will]
pay the mortgage off. That’s the best financial thing that I can do
with the money, because that’s a debt that’s costing me, so the best
thing I could do is pay that. And not that it paid it off, but it took a
big chunk out of it.
A second round of interviews was completed one year after the initial interviews
and during that period a further 70 displaced workers used their redundancy
to pay off all or part of their mortgage. In total, therefore, some 210 of the 374
retrenched workers interviewed invested their redundancy in acquitting some
or their entire mortgage.
139
In the first set of interviews post redundancy only 37 retrenched workers

indicated that they had moved home since leaving the automotive sector, and just
69 respondents (20 per cent of the total) expected that they would need to move
home as a result of their changed employment circumstances.At the second wave
of interviews just 29 respondents had moved home in the previous 12 months
and fully 81 per cent of workers interviewed believed that they would not need
to move home or change their housing circumstances over the next 12 months.
Overall the interviews showed that retrenched workers were both committed to
homeownership and embedded within their region. Many had lived all their lives
in southern Adelaide and one third had lived in their current neighbourhood
for more than 15 years.
The Oswald (1996, 1997) thesis suggests that owner-occupation raises
unemployment rates by reducing the willingness to relocate to find employment.
This observation appears to hold true in the case of workers made redundant
in Lonsdale, although there is a voluminous literature to show that this is not
always the case. In percentage terms private tenants were more likely to be in
paid employment one year post redundancy, with 51 per cent employed full
time, compared with 27 per cent of outright homeowners and 32 per cent of
mortgagors. Private tenants also had higher rates of employment in casual work
than outright homeowners and a comparable rate with mortgage holders. The
percentage of private tenants unemployed was appreciably lower than for the two
owner-occupation categories, with 7.3 per cent of tenants unemployed, compared
with 16 per cent of outright homeowners and 13 per cent of homebuyers.
The percentage that left the formal labour force varied appreciably by tenure:
some 22 per cent of outright homeowners had left the labour force, 11.5 per cent
of mortgagors had done so, but only 7.3 per cent of tenants had left the world
of paid work. The age of persons in each tenure explains a proportion of the
difference, but the gap between the tenures is so profound that we must conclude
that there is an appreciable tenure effect. The same argument can be made with
respect to those remaining in the labour market: there were real differences in
employment outcomes by tenure, with private tenants more likely to find full-
time employment and as likely as mortgagors to find casual employment.
The quality of employment on offer following redundancy is a critical factor
in understanding why the increased incidence of owner-occupation may raise
unemployment rates and discourage active participation in the labour market.
Many workers, especially those with fewer formal qualifications, reported
difficulties in finding work and poorer working conditions once they found
work. Whereas MMAL engaged full-time permanent staff, only 107 of the 316
surveyed 18 months post redundancy were employed on a full-time basis, while
61 were employed casually and 10 were employed part time. The remainder had
either left the labour force, were unemployed or were self-employed. Fully 225
of the 316 respondents (72 per cent) in the second round of interviews reported
they now earned less when compared with their income prior to redundancy;
only 11 per cent had incomes that matched their wages prior to redundancy and
140
15 per cent earned more. In many instances those who received higher wages post
redundancy were the more skilled workers, such as electricians. One automotive
engineer reported that his income fell from A$150,000 to A$71,000.
Finally, it is worth considering the location of employment available to
retrenched workers from the automotive sector and how that has influenced
labour market outcomes. MMAL was based in southern metropolitan Adelaide,
a region that offers an attractive living environment distinguished by proximity
to high-quality beaches, low-density suburbs with well-developed public and
private gardens, and access to the Southern Vales wine region. It does not have
any major large-scale industry, and the redundancies from the automotive sector
announced in April 2004 significantly reduced the total stock of manufacturing
employment in the region. Those seeking further work in the industry, through
choice or skills, must inevitably consider employment in northern Adelaide, where
blue-collar employment is both growing and available on a larger scale. Travel
to the region from southern Adelaide takes a minimum of an hour or more in
peak traffic periods.
Employment loss at Longbridge, Birmingham
Roughly one year after the closure of the MMAL’s Lonsdale plant, MG Rover
collapsed in Birmingham, UK. The demise of MG Rover has been thoroughly
documented by Bailey et al (2008). Unlike the carefully planned closure of
MMAL’s Lonsdale plant, MG Rover collapsed overnight and approximately
5,500 workers were made redundant with no notice. Importantly, the company’s
demise was part of the longer-term structural decline of automotive manufacture
in the West Midlands and had followed a period of foreign purchase and then
management buyout, sub-optimal production volumes and an extended period in
which the currency was strong, thereby eroding the company’s competitiveness.
In contrast to events at Lonsdale, workers forced to leave MG Rover did not
receive substantial redundancy payments but instead were forced to rely upon
government-provided assistance. As Armstrong et al (2008, p 349) observed, the
UK government responded in an immediate and comprehensive fashion:
Much of the immediate policy response to the closure of MGR
was that of ‘crisis management’, focusing on jobs and short term
financial assistance … An aid package worth £176 million was made
available, including £50 million for retraining … up to £40 million
for redundancy payments, a £24 million loan fund to help otherwise
viable businesses, and £41.6 million to support ex-MGR suppliers
to remain viable.
Importantly, when compared with Australia, the public sector took a much more
active role in the adjustment of workers, with a more effective role in labour
market training and employment assistance. Redundancy payments were a much
less important part of the mix of adjustment measures.
141
The MG Rover plant was located at Longbridge, in Birmingham’s south west,

and as Bailey et al (2008) observed, its workforce – and consequently those
subsequently made redundant – was highly concentrated in and around the
plant. Many workers continued to live in extensive council housing estates and
as a group they displayed a demography that resembled MMAL’s Lonsdale plant:
they were predominantly male, middle aged, blue-collar workers living in family
households and with relatively low skill levels. Moreover, the average number of
years worked was 19 (an exact match with Lonsdale) and roughly 40 per cent of
all households were outright homeowners.
Workers made redundant by MG Rover had, on average, better outcomes than
those made redundant in South Australia. As Bailey et al (2008) showed, by 2008
some 90 per cent of former MG Rover workers were employed, with 74 per
cent employed full time. This brings into sharp relief the outcomes in southern
Adelaide three years after MMAL’s closure, where one third of workers were now
under-employed (casual or part-time work) and one third had left the labour
market. Moreover, outright homeowners in Birmingham were more likely than
the other tenures to be employed immediately after redundancy, eight months
after closure and three years post redundancy. Of course not all outcomes were
positive: workers from Birmingham tended to report lower incomes and less job
satisfaction in their new employment, but critically they remained employed.
Economic restructuring and marginalisation: what role housing?
Despite their obvious similarities, the redundancy experiences of workers from

Lonsdale and Longbridge tell very different stories: one was a planned withdrawal
by a continuing company while the other took place without notice and as a
result of the collapse of a firm. Government investment in the recovery from
redundancy was greater in the UK, while the company-funded redundancies
in Australia were substantial. Perhaps most importantly, very different labour
market impacts were evident in the UK and Australia: workers in Birmingham
were more likely to be in employment after three years, and twice as likely to
be in full time employment. Homeownership appeared to be an impediment to
re-employment in Australia but this was not the case in Birmingham; if anything,
the opposite was true.
The contrasting outcomes in Longbridge and Lonsdale bring into focus the
complex interplay between ranges of factors in determining the outcomes of
large-scale redundancies. In both instances workers reported relatively low levels
of residential mobility following their redundancy, but in Birmingham this was
an advantage for re-employment because sustained government intervention by
both the regional development agency (Advantage West Midlands) and central
government had contributed to urban renaissance and the emergence of new
industries (Barber and Hall, 2008). In South Australia there was less government
intervention in the economy as a whole; public sector investment was focused
elsewhere and, in consequence, re-employment opportunities simply did not
142
emerge (Beer and Thomas, 2007). Whereas homeownership in Birmingham

ensured that redundant workers kept their place in a revitalising labour market, in
southern Adelaide workers were shackled by the bricks and mortar of their homes
to a declining labour market with limited opportunities for growth. Redundancy
payments simply exacerbated the problem, as many sank their payouts into their
mortgages and increased their stake in a region with lifestyle benefits, but few
others. Importantly, this is as much an issue of the locational dimensions of housing
as the psychosocial benefits of housing: the sense of ‘home’.
Clapham (2005a) noted that households can progress along a housing ‘pathway’
while remaining residentially inert. A comparable argument extends to the
housing transitions of those made redundant: their loss of employment represents a
significant shift for many in their position within the housing market. For some it
will precipitate relocation.Whether housing serves as a ‘buffer’ during redundancy,
an impediment to re-employment or as a gateway to new opportunities will not
be determined by housing circumstances alone, but instead reflect the intersection
of a range of personal factors and social processes.We can, however, conclude that
housing will be important and that governments need to consider both regional
and individual impacts.
The housing transitions of immigrants
Housing transitions and immigrants in the UK
Most ethnic diversity in the UK and Ireland derives from the net effects of
migration, including emigration of British- and Irish-born citizens, return
migration of previous emigrants, and immigration by others, as well as subsequent
out-migration of some previous immigrants. Such flows have varied enormously
over time both in their composition and volumes. Most immigrants to the UK
between 1850 and 1950 came from Ireland, although that was part of the UK
until 1921. The main other 19th-century immigrant group was Jews escaping
persecution in Europe. Both Irish and Jews have been largely assimilated into the
UK, despite some discrimination and prejudice, and were included within the
‘white’ ethnic group in the 1991 and 2001 Censuses. From the late 1950s, however,
successive waves of immigrants came to the UK, initially from the Caribbean and
Indian sub-continent, and more recently from almost every corner of the globe.
The non-European ethnic minority population was under 100,000 in 1951 but
was recorded in the 1991 Census, the first to include questions about ethnicity,
at around 3 million or about 5 per cent of the total population (Peach, 1998).
Changing patterns of migration as well as the growth of minority ethnic
communities occurred within changing socioeconomic, demographic and
housing contexts (see Chapter Three).Thus the pattern of housing opportunities
and constraints facing immigrants in the 1960s was different from those facing
newcomers in the 1990s. In the meantime the children of those who arrived in the
1960s grew up through a period of profound changes, one of which was growing
143
ethnic diversity within the UK and the emergence of ‘ethnic minorities’, including
non-white British-born citizens, often identified collectively as ‘minority ethnic
groups’.The foreign-born population of the UK more than doubled between 1951
and 2001, to a total of 5 million (Rendall and Salt, 2005). Changes in employment
structures and labour markets have had important implications for the work and
housing market situations of immigrants and British-born ethnic minorities. More
recently, the outcomes of long-term economic restructuring have combined with
the recession of 2007–09 to raise further uncertainties about the future housing
opportunities and transitions of an increasingly diverse mix of ethnic minority
groups (Perry, 2008), with rapid growth in numbers and proportions from recent
EU accession countries and from Africa and Asia.
Migration before 1945 had very little impact in terms of early 21st-century
‘ethnic’ categories as most in-migration was from Ireland or ‘Old Commonwealth’
countries including Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Despite growing
immigration, there was a net outflow of migrants between 1945 and the early
1980s.There were similar sized inflows and outflows between 1983 and 1993 but
strong net inward migration after 1994 (Horsfield, 2005).The first main wave of
post-war new Commonwealth immigrants came from the Caribbean islands and
the Indian sub-continent. They included large numbers of single men seeking
employment in factories or public services such as the London Underground. But
many families also came to work and settle in areas of labour demand, especially
London and industrial cities in the Midlands and North. These newcomers
entered the housing system during a period of transition, usually renting within
the declining private rental sector, in ‘twilight zones’ around inner cities, often
occupying dwellings that were then thought likely to comprise the next phase
of slum clearance. They had little access to council housing, then a much more
highly prized form of tenure, due to restrictive eligibility criteria and allocation
procedures. Many purchased their own homes, especially immigrants from India
or Pakistan, initially often older run-down inner city terraced housing. Some
became landlords of sub-divided multi-occupied larger old dwellings that had been
abandoned by the English middle classes on their move to leafier suburbs (Rex
and Moore, 1967; Lambert et al, 1978; Henderson and Karn, 1984; Peach, 1998).
The stream of immigrants from the Caribbean, India and Pakistan reduced
during the 1970s, partly due to tighter restrictions on access and partly due
to the worsening economic situation. There was a noted increase in access to
council housing tenancies among these groups, partly through changing eligibility
criteria and allocation practices, through increased length of residence enabling
them move up waiting lists, and due to growing unpopularity of council housing
within the UK-born population. Homeownership grew among the Indian and
Pakistani ethnic groups, but much less so among those from the Caribbean and
Bangladesh. By the 1990s, therefore, there were significant differences between the
housing circumstances of different ethnic groups, as well as diversity of outcomes
for members of each group due to differences in socioeconomic status and
income (Peach, 1998).There was no single ‘minority ethnic’ housing experience
144
or sequence: rather, members of minority ethnic groups shared many of the

circumstances of the majority population, differentiated by class, status, wealth
and income.The diversity of opportunity and achieved housing status within the
majority population ranged from a growing proportion of affluent homeowners
at one extreme, to a residual underclass, often in second- or third-generation
workless households, with high levels of sole parenthood. Some immigrant groups,
it appeared, were more likely to be among the former category, whereas others
were more likely to be included in the latter, especially following economic
restructuring after 1975, with unemployment rates in the 1990s ‘devastatingly
high for young minority men’ (Peach, 1998, p 1659).
Patterns of migration into and out of the UK changed from the mid 1980s,
with population gain through net international migration increasing rapidly
from 1993, adding over 100,000 people a year after 2000 to a peak of 250,000
in 2005 (Matheson, 2009). Most net additional population came from New
Commonwealth countries (especially India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), recent
EU accession states (especially Poland), and diverse countries in Africa and Asia,
including a surge of asylum seekers and refugees (Horsfield, 2005).There was little
growth in the Caribbean population: 60 per cent of the Caribbean population
in 2001 had been born in Britain (Connolly, and White, 2006). During the same
period, moreover, there was growing net migration loss of British-born citizens,
from 50,000 in 1998 to over 100,000 a year after 2003 (Office of National
Statistics, 2008). The overall impact has been to create an ethnic mix within the
UK that has been characterised as ‘super diversity’, with immigrants from a vast
number of countries, including destitute refugees and members of super-rich
global elites (Vertovec, 2005). Unlike earlier migrant streams into the UK, most
recent migrants have come from places with no colonial associations with Britain
(Vertovec, 2005).
The combination of a changing housing system and an increasingly complex
and diverse ethnic mix cannot be described fully here, but Tables 8.1 and 8.2
identify two key dimensions: overall change in the housing system and the
Table 8.1: UK households, by tenure
Owner- Privately
occupied rented1 Social renters2
Expressed as percentage of all dwellings Total (000)
1953 32.0 52.0 18.0 12,840
1971 50.0 20.0 29.0 15,940
1991 67.6 â•⁄ 9.4 23.0 19,309
2001 70.4 10.1 19.5 20,403
2007 69.6 12.7 17.7 21,178
Notes: 1 includes dwellings with job or business; 2 rented from councils, other public bodies and other
social landlords.
145
dissimilar housing circumstances of different ethnic groups. Table 8.1 provides

a broad picture of the changes in the tenure of households in the UK between
1953 and 2007: the rise and fall of social renting, the fall and rise again of private
renting and relative stability of the proportion of home owners since 1991. The
first waves of immigrants entered a changing housing system during the 1950s
and 1960s and raised their children as the system continued to change. More
recent entrants, especially since the early 1990s, came into a situation where
homeownership was the norm, social renting was heavily residualised and private
renting had been transformed.
Between 1991 and 2001 the British immigrant population increased by over 50
per cent to around 4.6 million, or 8 per cent of the total population of 59 million.
Table 8.2 shows that in 2007–08 there were nearly 2 million immigrant households
in England, representing some 9 per cent of all households, with strong tenure
contrasts between ethnic groups. Indians had the highest level of homeownership
(74 per cent), slightly above white British (72 per cent) and Pakistanis (68 per
cent). In contrast, Africans were strongly concentrated in social and private rental
housing. Caribbean and Bangladeshi households also had high levels of social rental
housing and low levels of home ownership. Such variations reflect preferences as
Table 8.2:Tenure by ethnicity of household reference person (HRP),

England 2007–08
Owner-occupiers
Buying
Own with Social Private Percentage
Ethnic group outright mortgage All tenants tenants Total ethnic
of HRP1 Percentage households by tenure (000) group HRP
British 34 38 72 17 11 17,936 86
Other
22 27 49 14 37 1,125 5
European
All European 33 37 70 17 11 19,062 91
Caribbean 14 35 49 41 11 269 1
African â•⁄ 4 24 28 44 28 246 1
Indian 28 45 74 â•⁄ 7 20 387 2
Pakistani 29 40 68 16 16 221 1
Bangladeshi2 â•⁄ 9 29 38 47 15 92 <0.5
Chinese2 15 37 52 13 35 100 <0.5
Mixed 11 29 39 33 28 121 1
Other â•⁄ 9 28 37 28 35 466 2
All ethnic
16 34 50 26 24 1,902 9
minority
All 31 37 68 18 14 20,964 100
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government (2009, Table 1.13)
Notes: 1 excludes cases for which ethnic group is unknown; 2 high sampling error due to small size and
population clustering
146
well as relative positions within class and labour market structures, with Caribbean
and Bangladeshi household members more likely to be unemployed or in low-
wage manual employment than Indians, who were well represented in business
and professional occupations (Clark and Drinkwater, 2007). Bangladeshis arrived
in the UK significantly later than Pakistanis and Indians, mainly during the 1980s,
‘when it may have been easier for those on low incomes to access social housing
and (paradoxically) more difficult to get onto the homeownership ladder’ (Housing
Corporation and CIH, 2008, p 4). Many recent arrivals have few opportunities
except in low-paid jobs or, in some cases, the informal economy.
Household structures also affected tenure circumstances, most notably the
extremely high proportion of Caribbean sole parents. The surge in immigration
from the mid 1990s resulted in a number of non-European groups moving into
privately rented accommodation. At the same time, the high proportion of non-
European residents in social housing reflects its relatively undesirable status among
the mainstream population, which has a higher level of homeownership, especially
outright ownership.The Housing Corporation and CIH (2008) expected that the
high proportion of non-European households in social housing would increase
over the next decade due to inter-related factors: continuing immigration and
international marriages; economic disadvantage among some non-European
groups leaving them dependent on social housing; limited or no opportunity for
new non-European households to use parental equity to enter home ownership;
greater likelihood of living in areas of more plentiful social housing; and being
in housing need, especially through overcrowding.
The emergence of super-diversity in ethnic terms has made it harder than
ever to generalise about ‘ethnic’ housing circumstances and transitions in the
UK (Robinson et al, 2007; Perry, 2008). Whereas refugees, asylum seekers and
especially illegal migrants will continue to experience the most stressful housing
circumstances, other non-European group members are members of the global
super-rich with one or two of their many homes in England. In October 2007,
for example, almost half of the country homes in south-east England valued
at £5 million and over were purchased by foreigners as ‘Russian oligarchs and
tycoons from Asia and the Middle East emulate the lifestyle of Britain’s landed
gentry’ (Gadher and Davies, 2007).
Housing transitions and immigrants in Ireland
At the start of the 1990s Ireland was among the most ethnically homogeneous
countries in the world, with a demographic history over 150 years characterised
by emigration of native-born citizens and virtually no inward migration. Housing
provision was dominated by homeownership within a largely agricultural
economy that had never undergone significant industrialisation. That changed
dramatically from the early 1990s with the economic boom and a switch from
net out-migration to booming in-migration, including many overseas-born
147
persons with Irish citizenship by virtue of their parents or grandparents who had
emigrated from Ireland during previous generations (Paris, 2005).
There was no significant ethnic minority immigration into Ireland until the
‘Celtic Tiger’ economic boom of the 1990s. Surging growth in jobs and incomes
attracted a flood of immigrants, including returning Irish-born citizens as well as
economic migrants from across the globe, refugees and asylum seekers.The boom
included rapid growth in housing construction and prices and strong demand
for private rental housing and home purchase. The ethnic composition of the
population changed rapidly during this turbulent period, though to a lesser extent
overall than in the UK. Around 4 per cent of the population was recorded as
black and minority ethnic in 2006, the first time that the Irish Census included
a question on ethnicity.
The recent migrant stream into Ireland was very similar to the post-industrial
and post-colonial movement into the UK from the early 1990s – highly diverse,
from many origins, including especially recent EU accession countries, with
large numbers of asylum seekers and refugees and uncertain numbers of illegal
immigrants. The migration surge occurred within a booming housing market
and strong growth in private renting.
The rapid growth of the overseas-born population in Ireland has been too
recent for large spatially defined ethnic communities to have emerged by the
latest Census in 2006. The population remained predominantly white across the
country as a whole (94 per cent), with around 3.5 per cent in immigrant groups
and 0.5 per cent Irish Travellers concentration.There was no spatial equivalent to
the UK concentrations of immigrants during the 1950s and 1960s into former
industrial areas, because there were no equivalent areas, but there was a high
concentration of work in the Dublin metropolitan region and other major cities,
especially Cork, Galway and Limerick. Recent migrants tended to concentrate in
private rental housing. Many refugees and asylum seekers were accommodated
in council-owned dwellings, especially in unpopular estates, and some migrants
gained access to homeownership.
Ireland has been massively affected by the global financial crisis, with extensive
job losses, deteriorating public finances and massive falls in new housing and
other construction. Thousands of new homes remain unsold, negative equity is
widespread among homebuyers who purchased after 2003, and house prices are
expected to fall by 40–50 per cent from their peak of 2007 (O’Halloran, 2010).
Many recent immigrants have left, especially those from recent EU accession
countries, and there has been a resumption of net out-migration since 2007.
The Irish government has taken draconian measures, cutting public sector pay,
imposing job caps, raising new taxes and creating a new institution to take over
much of the debt of banks and property developers. Future housing transitions
remain uncertain especially for non-European groups, many having little choice
but to remain in Ireland, dependent on public resources while hoping for an
upturn in the economy. Longer-established citizens and residents retain high
levels of homeownership, and for those in work there is no longer a significant
148
affordability issue regarding homeownership, though loan finance remains severely

restricted.This extremely turbulent environment is unlikely to change significantly
for possibly many years to come.
Housing transitions and immigrants in Australia
Immigration has been integral to Australia’s growth and development resulting

in Australia being one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world.
Numerous waves of immigration have occurred since 1945. In the immediate
post-war period the major influx of immigrants was from Europe in particular
the countries of Italy, Greece, Germany and the Netherlands followed soon by
immigrants from the UK and Ireland (Figure 8.1). In the 1970s and 1980s these
groups declined as new groups of immigrants arrived, particularly from South
East Asia and New Zealand. In the 1990s and the first years of this century
countries in the Middle East, such as Iraq, Asian countries such as China, India
and Indonesia and African countries such as Sudan and South Africa have all
contributed significant numbers to Australia’s population growth (ABS, 2007f).
The timing of these different waves of immigration influence household
type (Figure 8.2). As revealed in the Housing 21 Survey, a greater proportion of
respondents of European origin are in single-person households or couple-only
households (21 and 39 per cent respectively), while more recent immigrants
Figure 8.1: Decade of arrival in Australia of persons born overseas

Europe UK and Ireland Asia
New Zealand Other
40
35
30
25
% 20
15
10
0
Before 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Post
1950s 2000
Decade of arrival
149
Figure 8.2: Household type, by selected birthplace groups

Single person household
Couple only household
Family household
Sole parent household
Group household of unrelated people
60
50
40
% 30
20
10
0
Australia Europe UK and Asia New Zealand
Ireland
Birthplace
(originating from Asia or New Zealand, for example) are likely to form family
households.
There is a clear consensus within the literature that owner-occupation is
the preferred tenure of many immigrant groups (Coughlan, 1991; Hassell with
Hugo, 1996; Burnley et al, 1997), and this is reflected in the high levels of
homeownership or purchase among migrants to Australia in the post-war period.
Rates of homeownership are affected by a range of factors including length of
residence in Australia, with longer established immigrants likely to have higher
rates of homeownership than more who arrived more recently. Many immigrants
who settled in Australia in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s have higher rates of
homeownership than the Australian-born.
Beer and Cutler (1999) found that some groups of immigrants were more
likely to progress to homeownership than arrivals from other source countries.
Their analysis of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia (LSIA)
found that the UK-born were most likely to become owner-occupiers, with 38
per cent entering this tenure within 18 months of arrival in Australia.They were
150
followed by the North and Western Europe-born (34 per cent), the North and
Central America-born (31 per cent) the Eastern Europe-born (24.6 per cent)
and the South-East Asia-born (22 per cent). At the other end of the spectrum,
just 10.1 per cent of South Asia-born arrivals, 10.6 per cent of Middle East- and
North Africa-born settlers and 10.9 per cent of South America-born immigrants
were owner-occupiers within 18 months of arrival. However, it is important to
recognise that this tenure distribution does not reflect preferences but is heavily
filtered by the ability to enter home purchase, and this in turn is a function of
visa category, resources, support networks and other factors.
Similar trends are evident from the Housing 21 Survey, with homeownership
rates higher among longer-established immigrants (Figures 8.3 and 8.4). Migrants
who settled in Australia prior to the 1960s had very high rates of outright
ownership. For those from mainly English-speaking countries, 76 per cent were
outright owners and another 8 per cent were paying a mortgage. Slightly fewer
immigrants from non-English-speaking countries were outright owners at the
time of the survey (73 per cent), but many more (19 per cent) were mortgage
holders. These data suggest that 92 per cent of immigrants from non-English-
speaking backgrounds would become outright owners compared with 84 per
cent of persons from mainly English-speaking backgrounds. A small proportion
of immigrants appear to have remained in rental accommodation.
The change in this pattern over the last 15 or so years is striking. In the 1990s
and since the year 2000 it has become increasingly difficult for people from non-
English-speaking backgrounds to enter the homeownership market. At the time
Figure 8.3: Decade of arrival in Australia of immigrants from mainly

100
Mainly English speaking paying mortgage
90
Mainly English speaking outright owner
80
Mainly English speaking renting
70
60
% 50
40
30
20
10
0
Prior to 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Post
1960s 2000
Decade of arrival in Australia
151
Figure 8.4: Decade of arrival in Australia of immigrants from mainly non-

100
Mainly non-English speaking paying mortgage
90 Mainly non-English speaking outright owner
Mainly non-English speaking renting
80
70
60
50
%
40
30
20
10
0
Prior to 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Post
1960s 2000
Decade of arrival in Australia
of the Housing 21 Survey only 27.3 per cent of persons who arrived in Australia
in the 1990s from a non-English-speaking background were paying a mortgage
and only 18 per cent were outright owners.This compares with 54.8 per cent of
persons who arrived in the 1990s from a mainly English-speaking country who
were paying a mortgage and another 29 per cent who were outright owners.
Immigrants in the rental market reported that they remained in rental housing
because of cost barriers: either the difficulty of saving a deposit or the inability
to afford mortgage payments. In fact, 45.6 per cent had not been able to save
a deposit, while an additional 21.1 per cent believed they could not afford the
repayments on a mortgage. An additional 8.9 per cent stated they were recent
immigrants and therefore renting was a first option.
One of the clear messages to emerge from the published literature on the
housing transitions of new arrivals to Australia is the effect of visa category of
arrival. Significantly, a number of studies (Burnley, 1976; Tonkin et al, 1993;
Beer and Cutler, 1999) have shown that success in settlement and housing
outcomes in Australia is directly related to visa category of immigration: business-
nominated and employer-nominated immigrants and family reunion immigrants
tend to have better housing outcomes – and more productive housing careers
– than independent immigrants, particularly in comparison with refugee and
humanitarian arrivals.
152
Over time, changes in government policy and structural conditions have

influenced the ability of refugee and humanitarian arrivals to become established
in the housing market.While achieving success in the housing market has always
been difficult for refugees and humanitarian migrants, in the past the government
has provided ‘on arrival’ subsidised accommodation and even interest-free home
loans (Cox, 1996). While relatively few get access to public and community
housing, since the late 1990s refugee and humanitarian migrants have been
exposed to the vagaries of the private rental market. According to the Refugee
Council of Australia (2009, p 51) ‘…complete reliance on the private rental
market to meet the housing needs of new refugees has created a number of serious
and complex challenges’. At all stages of the process of finding and maintaining
accommodation refugee and humanitarian settlers face challenges: knowledge of
available properties, inspecting properties, applying for properties, competing in
an auction-type market, a lack of rental history, unemployment, discrimination
by real estate agents, discrimination and exploitation by landlords, a lack of
understanding of the responsibilities of landlords and the rights of tenants, rents
in excess of 50 per cent of weekly income, and overcrowding and poor-quality
housing. In addition, access to the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy,
the government’s assistance programme for new arrivals, is limited to the first six
months post arrival (Refugee Council of Australia, 2010), a period of time often
shorter than the first lease on a property. Many immigrants face housing stress
and increased vulnerability to homelessness, and in the current crisis in housing
affordability affecting all Australians their ability to enter homeownership or
secure good-quality rental housing is restricted.
Marginalised groups and housing: mobility, immobility and

adverse outcomes
Housing is a primary determinant of well-being in developed economies, and
while its influence may not be as profound as that of position in the labour
market or health, it is pervasive, cumulative and ongoing. The ability to make
successful transitions through the housing market is critical as the failure to do
so can reinforce dependence on welfare payments, expose the individual to
discrimination, make it more difficult to find employment and rule out avenues
for wealth accumulation or even reduced living costs. Market-based economies
tend to punish the disadvantaged, and those who ‘fail’ within the housing market
are no exception. In Australia, for example, in several states the use of formal and
informal databases by landlords to check on the rental history of low-income home
seekers effectively excludes some households from tenancies. The discussion in
this chapter has shown that a percentage of households in developed nations are
precariously housed and their housing market transitions are marked by frequent
moves, the risk of eviction and unaffordable housing. In key respects the concept
of a housing transition speaks most clearly to the circumstances of this group, as
there is no sense of a housing ‘career’ or progression.
153
Economic restructuring can mean that groups that previously occupied a stable
position within the housing market suddenly find themselves vulnerable. The
analysis of labour market outcomes from Longbridge and Lonsdale shows that
these events completely reframe a household’s position within the market and
could well generate the need to relocate. Critically, however, the impact housing
plays in mediating redundancy largely reflects its location.Therefore its impact is
either positive, ensuring access to a growing labour market, or negative, handcuffing
the household to a region with limited prospects. Economic restructuring also
influences the housing transitions of immigrant groups because, as this chapter
has shown, economic circumstances fundamentally shape rates of immigration,
economic opportunities upon arrival, the capacity to gain access to a range of
tenures and the chance to enter homeownership. Importantly, there is no one
sequence of housing transitions for immigrants in any of the nations considered
here. Some immigrant groups fare better than others, and these outcomes are
a function of the timing of arrival, the period of residence, language ability,
educational attainment, position in the labour market and cultural preferences.We
can, however, conclude that some immigrant communities arrive into migrant-
receiving countries at risk and that their disadvantages are then compounded
within the housing market.
154
NINE
Conclusion: negotiating the housing

market over the next decades
Housing remains central to life in the 21st century: it is a major determinant of

well-being, it provides a mechanism for wealth accumulation, it offers an avenue
for self-expression, it is a carrier of social status and it carries significant costs for
both individuals and society. It can also serve to reinforce inequality in society and
either catapult individuals into adversity or further reinforce the marginal position
of disadvantaged groups.Throughout Housing Transitions we have argued that the
relationship between households and their housing has changed over the last four
decades and that an ongoing recasting of this relationship is to be expected. This
chapter re-examines the assumptions that led to the major research project that
underpins this book and draws out the key lessons we have uncovered on the
dynamics between housing and the life course in the 21st century. It also casts
light on how housing markets and systems of housing supply are likely to evolve
over the coming decades and what this will mean for populations.
From housing careers to housing transitions

As noted in the Preface, the research that led to this monograph arose out of
discussions between policy makers and an Australian research institution on the
issues of housing careers and how such housing careers may change in the 21st
century. Policy makers were concerned to understand how housing careers may be
transformed and what that may mean for the provision of government assistance
into the future. In particular, government bodies in Australia were concerned
about three questions of policy relevance. First, over the coming decades what will
be the impact of the ageing of the ‘baby boom’ cohort in terms of housing and
the demand for housing assistance? Second, is the apparent decline in entry into
homeownership among 25- to 34- year-olds robust, and what are the implications
for the demand for housing assistance in the long term? Third, what forms of
government housing assistance will be necessary and appropriate in the 21st
century given changes in household structure, labour markets and philosophical
shifts in attitudes to government intervention? All three were pertinent questions
and were subsequently answered through the research programme (Beer and
Faulkner, 2009).
Policy-focused analysis of this nature and extent inevitably throws up more
fundamental questions of a conceptual nature. Importantly, mounting evidence
of the sequence of housing occupancies now found across developed economies
challenged the concept of a ‘housing career’ that had served as a foundation stone
155
of housing research in the developed world for at least 40 years. At the same time,
the continuation of empirical relationships between labour market position, stage
in the life cycle, region and policies undermines the value of a ‘housing pathways’
approach founded on the subjective position of individuals. If what we think
about housing is the only reality worth knowing, why do so many groups exhibit
common consumption patterns? Clearly, there are objective policy processes and
housing market drivers leading to observable commonalities and these need to be
recognised, accepted, understood and built into our future understanding of the
role of housing within society and its dialectical relationship with the economy,
demography, cultural values, public sector policies and health.
Other researchers have previously used the term transitions to reflect upon
and highlight stages in the life course and their relationship with one or more
dimensions of the housing system. McNaughton (2008) examined the empirical
and theoretical dimensions of the transitions into homelessness and, in common
with this book, explicitly linked changes in housing outcomes to the emergence of
a ‘risk’ society. Importantly, she recognised that both structure and agency remain
pivotal in understanding housing and homelessness outcomes in contemporary
society:
Whilst it may be argued that there has always been a degree of
complexity to the transitions people made over their life course
(Goodwin and O’Connor 2005), it is now also recognised that there
are more options, choices, and unpredictability (Furlong and Evans
1997). So to what degree has individualisation really taken hold or
changed the ontological experience of social life in late modernity?
There may be more ‘choice’, fluidity, or options, however there are also
still clear ‘plots’ or ‘scripts’ that are collectively recognised in different
societies and cultures.... Ezzy (2001) argues that transitions over the
life course should take an ‘integrative’ course – for example, someone
moving from the parental home to their own, moving into a larger
home to have children, or move somewhere for new employment,
are all transitional stages that maintain an individual’s integration to
society over their life course’ (McNaughton, 2008, p 30).
Ezzy’s (2001) observation on the integrative role of transitions over the life course
speaks directly both to Clark et al’s (2003) observation that a limited number of
housing sequences accounted for 75 per cent of lifetime housing in the US. It
also reflects our findings on trends in Australia’s housing market. Structural factors
clearly shape the decisions of individuals.These factors result in convergence for
large sections of the population, but the same processes increasingly generate
a greater diversity of outcomes for at least some groups in society. In Housing
Transitions, the experiences of persons with a disability and those living precarious
lives illustrate the widening gaps between some population groups.
McNaughton (2008) also situated her analysis of homelessness within critical
realism and noted that the objective of a realist ontology is to generate causal
156
Conclusion: negotiating the housing market over the next decades
explanations and theories on how particular outcomes arose. Causation, from

this perspective, however
... is not viewed positivistically – as something that occurs in a linear
relationship: that A causes B. Rather it is recognised that events occur
due to a complex relationship of causation embedded in an entire
interconnected social system.... Uncovering causation from a critical
realist perspective is about uncovering the different mechanisms that
can explain certain outcomes, without asserting that these same factors
will necessarily always lead to that outcome, for all people (Fitzpatrick
2005). (McNaughton, 2008, pp 40-41)
McNaughton’s (2008) research was based on 28 in-depth interviews with homeless
persons and therefore diverges fundamentally from the research reported in Housing
Transitions, where the major body of evidence is quantitative in nature.We would
argue, however, that both perspectives are consistent with critical realism as each
provides a foundation that permits theory building that sheds light on the multiple
and hidden structural forces shaping society.Within this philosophy of knowledge
Housing Transitions illuminates the structural processes – demographic, economic,
governmental, social, historical and aspirational – that have fundamentally recast
the relationship between housing and the life course in Australia and many other
developed economies. On the other hand, we would acknowledge that further
work is needed in this area to strengthen the account of agency in 21st-century
housing transitions and the ways in which individuals and households, negotiate,
broker and attach meaning to their movements through the housing stock. Such
analysis is necessary, but unfortunately it was beyond the scope of our already
substantial research programme. That said, we remain firm in our belief that the
term housing transitions and its conceptualisation is of considerable value to
contemporary scholarship on housing because of the way it unshackles researchers
from a focus on linear progression, while acknowledging both convergence across
society and divergence between groups.
The concept of housing transitions represents the multiple, and often conflicting,
processes in the 21st century shaping movement through the housing market
over the life course. Key determinants of an individual’s decision at all life stages
include their demography (that is, their stage in the life course), their labour
market position, their consumption aspirations, their health or disability status, and
their previous housing history. Importantly, the relative impacts of each of these
factors will vary both over time and over the life course and this variation will
find expression at both the individual and societal levels. For example, in many
developed economies the global financial turmoil from 2007 onwards emphasised
position in the labour market in determining housing outcomes. But over coming
years, as financial markets return to a measure of stability, demographic factors
such as the ageing of the baby boomer generation may, once again, overshadow
other drivers in the housing system.At an individual level, consumption aspirations
157
are present at all stages in the life course, but may only play a determining role
in mid life when wealth and income peak.
In recognising the movement away from 20th-century housing careers to
21st-century housing transitions it is important to acknowledge the capacity
of individuals to express choice within the housing market. We recognise, of
course, that ‘choice’ is a problematic concept because not everyone is able
to exert choice over their housing circumstances, and choice is itself socially
constructed.While acknowledging these difficulties we argue that the concept of
choice – as problematic or messy as it is – remains fundamental to understanding
housing outcomes and their relationship to the life course in the 21st century.
At a conceptual level it is important for a number of reasons. First, in virtually
all developed economies the overwhelming majority of housing is allocated
according to market processes, either through the purchase of housing or
through rental markets. This trend has in fact strengthened over the last two to
three decades, with the winding back in many nations of social housing supply
and direct government intervention in the market. Put simply, for most people,
for most of their lives, it is the market that determines where they live, in what
type of housing and in which type of household structure. There are, of course,
exceptions but they are limited, and in some nations even social housing systems
now use ‘choice based letting’. Second, by focusing on the decisions households
make we must inevitably acknowledge that ‘choice’ is constrained, which in turn
focuses attention on the processes limiting the range of possibilities available to
various groups within society.Third, the issue of choice speaks to the ethnography
of individual accounts of individual housing experiences. Clapham (2005a)
contended that ethnographic approaches were necessary to put into practice his
‘housing pathways’ framework. Significantly, such qualitative research inevitably
canvases the choices, or restrictions on choice, confronting individuals and their
households.
The housing transitions perspective represents both a departure from previous
theoretical constructs and the evolution of established scholarship in this area.
Inevitably there remains a tension between the idea of individuals ‘progressing’
up a ladder of housing opportunities and situations on the one hand and, on the
other, a perhaps less optimistic focus on changing position within the housing
market per se. We would suggest that this tension can be overcome by focusing
on the sequence of housing that individuals and households occupy over the life
course. From this perspective, it is possible to recognise that some households
exhibit housing careers marked by upward mobility, increasing consumption and
opportunities for wealth accumulation, but these represent a subset of a much
wider set of housing sequences evident within society.
Alternative housing sequences observed and now understood within the
21st century include pathways into and out of homelessness, the ‘churning’ of
marginalised individuals and groups through precarious housing, the movement
of the older population to purpose-built aged accommodation and the potential
succession of accommodation they will occupy at the end of life, and the trans-
158
continental housing arrangements of those working in global enterprises and

industries. Each of these sets of housing transitions is important and in many
ways reflects different class or labour market positions. We should acknowledge
that earlier work, such as that of Clark et al (2003), recognised considerable
fragmentation in the way in which households moved through the market but
chose to set aside the ‘outliers’ within the data and instead focused on describing
and understanding the major transitions. We would argue that such an approach
can no longer be sustained and that instead it is important to develop a better
understanding of the full spectrum of housing outcomes.Whereas housing careers
made sense in a society and a time of middle-class stability, a more diverse economy
and polity throws such propositions into question. Importantly, the latter part
of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century have witnessed a
widening of housing outcomes, with more advantageous consequences for some
and deleterious conditions for others. In turn, these housing outcomes have
implications for our understanding of the lifetime relationship between housing
market position and the life course. They are reviewed in the following section.
Housing transitions in the 21st century: risk, opportunity and

policy challenges
Over the past two decades there has been an evident increase in the range of
housing outcomes in developed economies. In large measure this has been part
of a much broader shift to a ‘risk society’, which has entailed the erosion of
established institutions and social supports that underpinned the industrial-era
society and at the same time emphasised ‘individualisation’, with a greater range
of opportunities available for some. This transformation has resulted in greater
complexity within housing markets and in the sequence of housing over the life
course. Increasing income inequality has contributed to this complexity, as has
the ageing of the population, widespread immigration in developed economies,
economic restructuring, the incidence of disability within the population and, in
many nations, a movement away from direct welfare provision to more targeted
and market-based approaches.
The impact of disability on housing transitions in the 21st century highlights
the ways in which housing outcomes over the life course have become more
complex. As the Housing 21 Survey showed, some 22 per cent of households
in Australia included at least one person with a disability, and 19 per cent of
households with a respondent aged under 65 reported at least one member with
a disability or long-term health condition. Broadly comparable rates of incidence
are evident in other nations. Disability, therefore, is an unavoidable feature of
housing in contemporary societies, but it is important to ask how this has changed
over the last 20 or 30 years.The answer to this is multi-faceted and includes both
shifts in public policies and in societal norms. Importantly, there has not been a
substantial increase in the rates of lifetime disability within the population. The
rates of disability associated with ageing have increased as more people live for
159
longer, but the percentage of the population affected by lifetime disabilities has
been relatively static. Innovation in healthcare and medical technology may have
reduced the incidence of some specific disabilities, but increased the occurrence
of others.There has, however, been a substantial shift away from institutional forms
of care to housing within the broader community. This shift has been driven by
both the demands of the population affected by disability and the priorities of
government with respect to welfare outlays and the quality of services they offer.
In the 21st century, therefore, a higher percentage of persons with a disability live
within the broader community and therefore within the stock of housing available
to the population generally. This has implications for the population affected by
disability – including carers and other family members – who must compete for
accommodation with households in which all adults are able to work.They must
also select from among a housing stock that was essentially designed and built
without any thought as to how individuals may be impaired.
Disability, of course, does not simply affect the housing of those with lifetime
impairment.Virtually all individuals within society will experience impairment
at some stage in life, and the overwhelming majority of the aged live with some
form of disability. Complexity in housing outcomes, therefore, is apparent both
across the population as a whole and in the individual’s experience of housing
through their life course.
Risk within the housing market can, of course, be derived from a range of
social, demographic, economic, and environmental sources. In contemporary
Australia, for example, climate change appears to have increased the risk associated
with bushfires, with some households in locations previously assessed as being
in marginal risk now confronted by a much greater threat to both property and
life. More commonly, however, households are confronted by socially constructed
risks, of which the recent turmoil in global financial markets is a telling example.
Many of the households that have fallen out of homeownership in the US, the
UK, New Zealand and Australia since 2007 will never re-enter owner-occupation.
The financial crisis of the past three years will have a permanent impact on their
housing market circumstances and completely recast their housing transitions for
the remainder of their lives.
The changing profile of risk in housing markets in the 21st century calls into
question the nature of government intervention in housing and the philosophies
of assistance they pursue. In broad terms, the last two decades have witnessed a
movement away from direct government engagement with housing markets and
at the same time more limited welfare support for disadvantaged individuals and
groups. In the past, housing policy in nations such as Canada, the UK, Australia
and New Zealand was based on the provision of social housing for households in
need, with support often provided indefinitely. In some jurisdictions this policy
framework has changed, with New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland,
for example, introducing limited tenure within social housing. At the same time
governments have pursued housing policies that are broadly consistent with ‘third
way’ philosophies of government, and these interventions place greater emphasis
160
on providing ‘point in time’ assistance. That is, governments seek to offer help
that is seen to allow households to ‘get back on their feet’.
Our analysis suggests that both philosophies of housing assistance are misplaced
and out-of-step with 21st-century realities. On the one hand, many households
do not have a ‘housing career’ to resume, and a reliance on short-term policy
levers results in some households in indefinite receipt of ‘short term’ housing
assistance. On the other hand, the conventional policy framework, based on
indefinite residence in social housing, appears blind to the demographic realities
of the 21st century. For example, only 10 per cent of respondents to the Housing
21 Survey (250 households) had ever applied for public housing and some 160
households had been offered social housing at some stage. Only 22 households
(less than 1 per cent) were currently on the waiting list and approximately 5 per
cent of respondents lived in social housing at the time of the interview. Critically,
social housing is a small tenure and the stock of households assisted is minute
relative to the level of need within the community. Moreover, households do
not necessarily remain in social housing for extended periods as they relocate to
other living and tenure arrangements (Seelig et al, 2005). More broadly, in the 21st
century government interventions need to be better attuned and more sensitive
to the processes of household dissolution. There is a need, therefore, for a more
fine-grained approach to housing assistance, with policies that can accommodate
a range of outcomes that match the breadth of circumstances affecting persons
of low income in housing need.
The broad-scale social, economic and demographic processes that have been
documented in Housing Transitions provide grounds for specific policy changes
that in many respects fundamentally refocus housing programmes. It is inevitable
that over the coming years there will be a growing demand for housing policies
and programmes that better meet the needs of persons with a disability. We
have argued through the course of this book that one of the most fundamental
differences between housing transitions in the 21st century and housing careers in
the 20th century is the large scale and acknowledged presence of disabled persons
in the home. Whereas in the 20th century home was a place for the provision
of care to children, demographic and policy change has meant that in the 21st
century home will be a place for the provision – and receipt – of care for the
adult population. Ageing is part of this equation, as is the trend to accommodate
persons with a lifetime disability in the community. Some of the responses that
governments will need to investigate include the development of a cohort of
specialist housing providers, and their subsequent strengthening; the mandated
application of universal housing design principles in new housing construction;
and a repositioning of priorities for housing assistance. In the medium to longer
term governments will need to investigate and implement programmes that
assist persons with a disability, and family members with care responsibilities,
into home ownership.
The ageing of the population will constitute a second key driver of housing
policy reform in most developed nations over the coming decades. In most
161
developed economies the percentage of the population aged over 65 will double
over the next three decades and this will have enormous impacts on both
government budgets and the housing stock. For some, older age will present
few housing challenges, but others will be confronted by significant difficulties,
especially if they enter older age while resident in an insecure tenure such as
private rental housing. The research presented in Housing Transitions has shown
that already 11 per cent of persons aged over 65 in Australia live in the private
rental market where they are confronted by insecure leases, high housing costs
and often poor-quality housing. Both the number and percentage of older
persons in this circumstance will rise in the near future as the first waves of the
baby boom generation passes the age of 65. Inevitably there will be an increased
demand for housing assistance, as well as other forms of support. The coming
generations of older persons, for example, are much more likely to be affected
by social isolation because of their more fluid household structures and greater
levels of residential mobility. In the future housing policies will need to be better
integrated with other government services in order to create communities that
better meet the needs of a population that has a greater percentage of members
at home rather than at work.
Demographic change has been an important determinant of social change in
many advanced economies over the previous two decades and it is likely that
many of the evident trends will either be sustained or gather pace. One of the key
challenges for government policy will be the ways in which existing programmes
are adapted to take account of these changes. Household dissolution offers a
case in point: in many ways the processes and outcomes associated with the
breakup and dispersion of households are as important for the housing market
as household formation. Household dissolution generates additional demand for
housing, affects the disposable incomes and resources of the affected individuals
and may trigger a departure from homeownership. Governments will need to
consider this suite of processes and develop policy solutions that better meet the
demands of a 21st-century population.
In Australia and many other nations one way of resolving the looming
demographic challenges will be to strengthen programmes that maintain existing
home purchasers in that tenure. Governments currently subsidise owner-
occupation in a number of ways, ranging from mortgage deductibility in the US,
to home purchase assistance grants in Australia and specialised loans in the UK.
However, relatively little attention is paid to maintaining households in that tenure
once they have gained a foothold.This focus on entry into the tenure rather than
its maintenance is myopic in the extreme, as it ignores the substantial personal
and financial costs associated with falling out of homeownership. The nations
that have served as the focus of analysis in this book – Australia, the US and the
UK – have all promoted home purchase over an extended period and it is now
time to recognise that in some instances further investment is both justified and
necessary. Baker et al (2010) noted in their study of low- and modest-income
recipients of housing assistance in Australia that many home purchasers reported
162
that they were worried because they could not afford to maintain their home and
felt that they were at risk of dispossession. The costs to society and government
of these households leaving homeownership are substantial and amply justify
additional assistance to maintain them in their tenure.
Global housing transitions: linkages, convergence and

divergence
In the 21st century it is self evident that we live within a global economy. The
near instantaneous flow of information and financial transactions has contributed
to greater levels of economic integration between economies, as has the reduction
of tariff and other trade barriers. Economic integration has contributed to a
growing convergence in some dimensions of the housing market and housing
market experiences, while significant differences remain because of regulatory
frameworks, historical legacies and the nature of the local environment.
Financial markets – turmoil, recovery and status quo
The turmoil within financial markets that has been evident across developed
economies since 2007 has reinforced once again the ways in which housing
markets are linked globally.The sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US precipitated
much of the instability in the finance sector as lending institutions and investors
discovered that many assets were now without value and house prices had been
inflated by questionable lending practices. In many developed economies the
financial crisis precipitated at that time – and the consequent crisis associated with
the collapse of Lehman Brothers – resulted in a dip in housing markets. In the
US, the UK, New Zealand and parts of Europe (including, notably, Spain) house
prices fell, while in Australia house prices first stalled and then remained quiescent.
Significant house price declines were not recorded in Australia because of the
continuing shortfalls in supply, the economic stimulus measures introduced by the
Australian government and the ongoing strength of the economy. Critically then,
while there was convergence in some parts of the globe, there was also divergence,
with local conditions and opportunities exerting a determinant influence.
The financial crisis first evident from 2007 will eventually come to a conclusion
and the affected economies should return to economic growth.What then are the
implications for the housing transitions in the affected economies? We would argue
that the financial crisis will have a profound and lasting impact on some groups
within the economy, especially those who have lost their homes or are otherwise
disadvantaged. One of the outcomes of housing and finance sector turmoil has
been a tightening of the regulatory environment and more limited access to
housing finance – especially for the less well off in society. This trend is likely to
continue, though weaken over time, as demands for both economic growth and
better access to housing finance begin to overwhelm more cautionary approaches.
However, for the majority of housing consumers the recent perturbations in
163
financial markets are likely to be a mere hiccup in their lifetime consumption

patterns. These economies remain fundamentally affluent and many households
continue to hold significant wealth in housing and other assets. We foresee that
their engagement with the housing market will resume a comparable trajectory
to that evident in the recent past.
Housing consumption across the globe
Housing markets and housing systems have also experienced greater levels of
integration at a global scale. For some this integration has taken place directly and
at a very personal level, with Paris (2008a, 2008b) and others documenting the
growing incidence of individuals owning a second home in other nations. Entire
urban developments in the Middle East, South East Asia, and the warmer parts
of Europe have been established for the international market. The implications
for local economies are profound, as are the flow-on effects for the housing
experiences of the purchasing individuals or households.At one level it represents
a simple case of ‘hyper consumption’ and the capacity of individuals to express
housing choice at a global scale, but at the same time it reflects a set of historically
and culturally specific circumstances and conditions. It implies, for example, an
ongoing capacity to meet the cost of more than one home; continuing access to
low-cost travel, especially airfares; a sense of dislocation from the local community,
both within the host and origin countries; and household arrangements that are
sufficiently flexible to allow cyclical relocation. Households where one or more
persons provide primary care for someone in another household would not be
able to engage in the requisite ongoing travel.
The growth of the international second-home market has contributed to
convergence in housing markets across the globe both by strengthening financial
ties and creating personal experiences of housing and/or homeownership that span
international borders.Whether this market persists, however, is open to question
as the weakening since 2007 of many European currencies, including the euro
and the pound sterling, as well as economic downturn, will have reduced the
spending capacity of many actual and aspirational second-home owners. As will
be discussed below, environmental concerns may also impinge upon this market
in coming years.
There are other ways in which individual housing transitions find expression on
a global scale: for a growing proportion of both upwardly mobile young people and
those in middle age at the peak of their career. In the past, migration to another
country to find work was a long-term prospect, but increasingly those who work
in the financial services sector, biotechnology, computing science, health or other
key components of the knowledge economy cycle through international labour
markets as they build their work portfolio. Some 6 per cent of moves through
the housing market recorded in the Housing 21 Survey were associated with
immigration and/or a return from a period spent overseas. The latter was more
significant numerically than the former, with large numbers of both young adults
164
and mid-age adults from Australia spending periods in Europe, North America
and other parts of the world. This is a new driver within contemporary housing
markets and one that may have unexpected spillover effects. It was notable that
the economic downturn in the UK from 2007 resulted in the involuntary return
to Australia of many who had previously worked in London’s financial markets. In
most cases they returned to Sydney, Melbourne or one of the other metropolitan
centres, where they resumed the housing they owned and consequently evicted
the tenants who had lived in their homes while they had worked in the UK.
Comparable experiences would potentially have been evident in other parts of
the global economy, as individual businesses closed branch offices and repatriated
staff to headquarters, while in other cases staff were shed from the labour force
and returned home. Unlike the global market for second homes, it is difficult to
believe that this trend will not recur once global economic prosperity is restored,
or at least re-emerges on the horizon. This conclusion is based on recognition
that there is a global demand for skilled labour and that in many labour markets
there is under-supply.There are also strong personal reasons why individuals would
seek out these opportunities. The implication is that global housing transitions
will continue and so an increasing proportion of the non-immigrant population
will include significant international experience in the sequence of housing they
occupy through their lifetime.
Prospects: housing transitions over the coming decades

In their fundamental dynamics housing markets and the various components that
constitute them are remarkably stable. Change is a constant feature of housing
markets but it tends to be gradual, incremental and cumulative. In part this stability
is a consequence of the importance of housing to the economy, to society and
individuals. It is simply too important to be subject to radical change, and a
society where housing is primarily provided through the market has too many
decision makers to bring about wholesale change in a short period. Regulatory
reform can have a profound impact but the consequences often take some time
to emerge. For example, as discussed in Chapter Three, the sub-prime crisis in
the US was the consequence of decades of regulatory reform. Even then, the
housing market collapse triggered by the sub-prime crisis resulted in a return
to previous conditions – with many low income households in the US forced
back into low-rent accommodation – rather than precipitating the emergence
of fundamentally new housing forms. Systems that are heavily reliant on direct
government provision are more susceptible to substantial change in direction,
but even the effects of the sale of council housing in the UK took decades to
become fully evident.This stability in housing markets suggests that future change
in the housing transitions of the residents of developed nations are likely to take
place over an extended period. This in turn implies that it is more difficult to
identify the key drivers of future housing experiences because their full impact
is only evident after a prolonged period. Despite this caveat, we will conclude
165
with a discussion of two factors that we consider will exert a critical influence
on individuals and their housing through their life course.
Housing and environmentally sustainable development
Across the globe, and especially in developed economies, there is a growing

awareness of the need to move towards environmentally sustainable development.
In part this reflects the growing debate on climate change and carbon pollution,
but it should be acknowledged that there are other environmental debates relevant
to housing, including the consumption of agricultural land, the impact of storm
water run-off, and locally the generation of air pollution, water contamination
and the proliferation of solid waste.
Housing is important both in terms of the consumption of resources and in
the generation of waste. It exerts an impact in its construction and in its ongoing
occupation. Housing also contributes indirectly to transport-related energy
consumption; in particular the desire for low-density housing has contributed
to urban sprawl in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and parts of Europe.
Many of the key shifts in housing consumption evident over the last two decades
documented in this book result in greater levels of resource consumption for an
increasing percentage of the population. The environmental consequences are
clear: a faster rate of resource depletion, additional pollution and a built form
increasingly out of step with community expectations on sustainability.
The concern for environmental sustainability will exert a number of impacts
on the lifetime experience of housing in the coming decades. Most importantly,
it is likely to contribute to increasing housing costs as the supply of land for urban
development is restricted and as new housing construction is required to meet
increasingly stringent standards. The same price pressures will also discourage
the building of larger dwellings or the large-scale extension of housing. At the
same time, the increasing cost of energy will result in higher house prices in
more accessible locations, potentially reducing affordability in neighbourhoods
currently occupied by low-income households.These are fundamental shifts that
in large measure challenge our current understanding both of housing markets
and the operation of cities. Over recent decades the trend in many nations, such
as the US, Ireland and Australia, has been to larger homes, and we suggest that
this will be reversed. In the US, many inner-city areas have been abandoned by
the middle classes, but increasing fuel costs and the ongoing need to gain access
to employment will create an inexorable push for centralisation. Such pressures
are inevitable even in nations that do not take measures to address climate change
because the days of relatively inexpensive energy, especially liquid fuels, are limited.
The restructuring of cities and housing markets over the coming years as a
consequence of environmental concerns will have a profound impact on the
relationship future generations will have with their housing. In all likelihood
they will find entry into the home purchase market more difficult, they will be
more likely to live both in smaller housing and in higher-density housing than
166
currently, they will probably not engage in additional housing consumption at

mid life, and they will be most unlikely to own a second home for their own use.
It is inconceivable that, except for the wealthiest, they would own a home in a
second country. Their housing preferences will be shaped by these expectations,
with a greater focus on access to local services and increased preferences for well-
designed housing and neighbourhoods.
The ageing of the population

The populations of all developed economies are ageing rapidly, and the structural
ageing of populations will have a profound impact on housing markets and the
lifetime experiences of housing over coming decades. Demographic processes
are an example, par excellence, of long-term structural change that is in many
ways immutable. The reality is that for most developed nations their short- to
medium-term demographic futures have already been determined because the
scale of population processes is so great while the rate of change in these dynamics
is relatively slow. Of course, not all nations will be affected equally, with the US,
for example, having a younger age profile than the majority of the developed
world. However, the ageing of the population will affect most nations. Large-
scale immigration will not offer a solution to structural ageing in the longer term
because over coming decades there will be increasing competition for immigrants,
especially as global population moves towards a peak mid 21st century.
The ageing of the population is not simply a matter of the progressive ageing of
the baby boom population. In many developed economies Generation X, which
followed the baby boom generation, is as large, if not larger, and therefore nations
will be confronted by at least 50 years with older populations. The implications
for housing markets are profound. Key questions include:
• Will there be a demand for the larger housing that older residents seek to
vacate in later life?
• What forms of housing assistance will governments be able to afford given
increasing demands for healthcare and income support for aged residents?
• Will new housing forms be developed to meet the needs of the aged population?
• Will there be a need for innovation in tenure arrangements or in the financing
of housing in older age?
The ageing of the population and their consequent demand for housing will
have a significant impact on the lived experience of housing, on the housing
industry and on governments. The impact of population ageing on the lived
experience of housing will be profound: girls born in the year 2008 in Australia
had a life expectancy at birth of just less than 84 years while boys born in the
same year had a life expectancy at birth of 79 years. By the time both sexes reach
the age of 20 their life expectancies will have risen by another five years or so.
Similar life expectancies are recorded in other nations, and especially outside their
167
disadvantaged groups. If achieved age continues to rise, albeit at a declining rate,

by 2060 or 2070 a large percentage of the population will have spent the major
part of their lives as older people, potentially living in purpose-built aged housing.
This has implications for the built form of the housing stock, the way housing
is funded and the need to offer services in addition to accommodation. One of
the consequences will be the need to build ‘lifetime housing’, that is, dwellings
that are able to accommodate persons in every housing transition, including those
when they may be affected by a disability. The challenge for governments will
be to fund and provide services and housing that support all sections of the aged
population.While many will be able to meet their needs from their own resources,
others will not, and for many disadvantaged older people direct government
provision of housing may be the only workable solution. Potentially we may see
a situation emerge whereby governments across the developed world re-engage
with the direct provision of housing, but unlike the 1950s and 1960s, when they
were concerned to provide housing for families, on this occasion housing will
be targeted to the aged.
The role and scope of further research
It is not possible to forecast all the processes and outcomes that will reshape the
relationship between persons and their housing over their lifetimes. However,
we can be sure that it will remain an important and dynamic relationship and
one which reflects a full range of social, economic and environmental pressures.
Housing transitions in the first decade of the 21st century differ from those
acknowledged and understood a generation previously.There will be a continuing
need to examine this issue to better inform public policy, assist communities
with their housing needs and, perhaps most importantly, continue to contribute
to the understanding of society. Over time the need for cross-national research
and scholarship in this area will grow as the differing policy positions nations
adopt on climate change adaptation and amelioration, income support, economic
development and the taxation of housing will exert a subtle but powerful influence
on housing outcomes. Both large-scale quantitative analysis and more detailed
qualitative investigations will be needed to realign our understanding of the
relationship between housing outcomes and the life course, as well as capture new
patterns within the housing market. Researchers have long been fascinated by the
intersection between the life course and housing processes and the durability of
this research tradition suggests a further wealth of insights over the coming years.
168
References
Abramson, M. (2008) ‘Housing careers in a changing welfare state – a Swedish

cohort study’, Housing,Theory and Society, vol 25, no 4, pp 231-54.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2004a) Household and family projections
Australia 2001-2026, Cat No 3236.0, Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2004b) Disability, ageing and carers: summary
of findings Australia, Cat No 4430.0, Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2005) Job search experience Australia, Cat
No 6222.0, Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2007a) ‘Lifetime marriage and divorce
trends’, Australian Social Trends, Cat No 4102.0, Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2007b) Job search experience Australia, Cat
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2007c) Housing occupancy and costs 2005-06,
Cat No 4103.0.55.001, Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2007d) Household wealth and wealth distribution
Australia, Cat No 6554.0, Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2007e) Basic community profile Australia,
Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2007f) Migration 2005-06, Cat No 3141.0,
Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2008a) Yearbook Australia, Cat No 1301.0,
Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2008b) Population projections Australia 2006-
2101, Cat No 3222.0, Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2009a) ‘Home and away; the living
arrangements of young people’, Australian social trends, Cat No 4102.0, Canberra:
ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2009b) Job search experience Australia, Cat
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2009c) Housing mobility and conditions
Australia, Cat No 4130.0.55.002, Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2010) Australian labour market statistics, Cat
ACG (Allen Consulting Group) (2007) ‘Development of a model for families
and individuals to invest in housing provided by the disability Housing Trust’,
Sydney, unpublished.
AHURI (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute) (1998) ‘Who’s
moving from home ownership into rental’, Quarterly Housing Monitor, vol 3, p 3.
AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) (2003) Disability prevalence and
trends, disability series, AIHW Cat No DIS 34, Canberra: AIHW.
169
AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) (2007) Current and future
demand for specialist disability services, Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) (2009) Australia’s welfare 2009,
No 9, Cat No AUS 117, Canberra: AIHW.
Allon, F. (2008) Renovation nation: our obsession with home, Kensington: UNSW Press.
Allwood, D. and Rogers, N. (2001) Moving yarns: aboriginal youth homelessness in
Metropolitan Adelaide, Adelaide: Department of Human Services.
Anderson, M. Bechhofer, F. and Kendrick, S. (1994) ’Individual and households
strategies’, in M. Anderson, F. Bechhofer and J. Gershundy (eds) The social and
political economy of the household, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Andrew M (2010) ‘The changing route to owner occupation: the impact of
student debt’, Housing Studies, vol 25, no 1, pp 39-62.
Armstrong, K., Bailey, D., de Ruyter,A., Mahdon, M. and Thomas, H. (2008) ‘Auto
plant closures, policy responses and labour market outcomes: a comparison of
MG Rover in the UK and Mitsubishi in Australia’, Policy Studies, vol 29, no 3,
pp 343-55.
Ashcraft, A. and Schuermann, T. (2008) ‘Understanding the securitization of
subprime mortgage credit’, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Staff Report
no. 318 (available at www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr318.pdf).
Atkinson, R. and Flint, J. (2004) ‘Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial
revolt of the elites and time-space trajectories of segregation’, Housing Studies,
vol 19, no 6, pp 875-92.
Atkinson, R. And Jacobs, K. (2008) Public housing in Australia: stigma, home and
opportunity, Housing and Community Research Unit, Paper No 1, University
of Tasmania, Hobart: Housing and Community Research Unit.
Atterhog, M. (2005) Importance of government policies for home ownership rates,
an international survey and analysis, Working Paper No 54, Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm: School of Architecture and the Environment.
Australian Financial System Inquiry (1981) Final report (Campbell Committee),
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Australian Financial System Inquiry (1984) Final report (Martin Committee),
Badcock, B.A. and Beer,A. (2000) Home truths: property ownership and housing wealth
in Australia, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Bailey, D., Chapain, C., Mahdon, M. and Fauth, R. (2008) Life after Longbridge:
three years on. pathways to re-employment in a restructuring economy, Birmingham:
The Work Foundation.
Baker,A. (2007) ‘Generational reform: the health implications of housing change’.
Paper presented to the ENHR 2007 International Conference, ‘Sustainable
Urban Areas’, Rotterdam, unpublished.
Baker, E. Beer, A.Wood, G. and Raftery, P. (2010) ‘Gatekeepers and pathways: the
impact of administrative processes in shaping access to housing assistance’, paper
presented to the Australasian Housing Researchers Conference, November,
Auckland.
170
References
Banks, J., Emmerson, C. and Oldfield, Z. (2004) ‘Not so brief lives: longevity and
wellbeing in retirement’, in I. Stewart and R.Vaitilingam (eds) Seven ages of man
and women, Swindon: ESRC, pp 28-31.
Barber,A. and Hall, S. (2008) ‘Birmingham: whose urban renaissance? Regeneration
as a response to economic restructuring’, Policy Studies, vol 29, no 3, pp 281-93.
Barker, K. (2004) Review of housing supply, delivering stability: securing our future
housing needs, final report. London: HM Treasury.
Baum, S. and Wulff, M. (2003) Housing aspirations of Australian households, Final
Report, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Baxter, J. and McDonald, P. (2004) Trends in home ownership rates in Australia: the
relative importance of affordability trends and changes in population composition, Final
Baxter, J. and McDonald, P. (2005) Why is the rate of home ownership falling in
Australia? Research and Policy Bulletin 52, Melbourne: Australian Housing and
Urban Research Institute.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity, London: Sage.
Beck, U. (2000) The brave new world of work, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beer, A. (1992) ‘A dream won, a crisis born? Home ownership and the housing
market’, in C. Paris (ed) Housing Australia, Melbourne: Macmillan, pp 147-72.
Beer, A. and Cutler, C. (1999) ‘Housing needs and preferences of immigrants’,
Canberra: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, unpublished.
Beer, A. and Faulkner, D. (2009) 21st century housing careers and Australia’s housing
future, Final Report, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute.
Beer, A. and Paris, C. (2005) ‘Sustainable housing paradigms? The impact of
reforms on the social housing sector in South Australia and Northern Ireland’,
South Australian Geographical Journal, vol 104, pp 38-50.
Beer,A. and Thomas, H. (2007) ‘The politics and policy of economic restructuring
in Australia: understanding government responses to the closure of an automotive
plant’, Space and Polity, vol 11, no 3, pp 243-62.
Beer, A., Faulkner, D. and Gabriel, M. (2006a) 21st century housing careers and
Australia’s housing future, Positioning Paper, Melbourne: Australian Housing and
Beer, A., Slatter, M., Baulderstone, J. and Habibis, D. (2006b) Evictions and housing
management, Final Report, Melbourne:Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute.
Beer, A., Baum, F., Thomas, H., Lowry, D., Cutler, C., Ziersch, A.,Verity, F., Jolley,
G., McDougall, C. (2006c) An evaluation of the impact of retrenchment at Mitsubishi
focussing on affected workers, their families and communities: implications for human
services policies and practices, Adelaide: Department of Health.
Beer, A., Kearins, B. and Pieters, H. (2007) ‘Housing affordability and planning
in Australia’, Housing Studies, vol 22, no 1, pp 11-24.
171
Beer, A., Faulkner, D., Baker, E., Tually, S., Raftery, P. and Cutler, C. (2009) Our
homes, our communities, the aspirations and expectations of older people in South Australia,
Adelaide: ECH.
Berry, M., Dalton, T. and Nelson, A. (2009) Mortgage default in Australia: nature,
causes and social and economic impacts, Positioning Paper, Melbourne: Australian
Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Berry, M., Dalton, T. and Nelson, A. (2010) Mortgage default in Australia: nature,
causes and social and economic impacts, Final Report No 145, Melbourne: RMIT
Research Centre, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Billari, F.C. and Liefbroer, A.C. (2007) ‘Should I stay or should I go? The impact
of age norms on leaving home’, Demography, vol 44, no 1, pp 181-98.
Billari, F.C., Philipov, D. and Baizan, P. (2001) ‘Leaving home in Europe: the
experience of cohorts born around 1960’, International Journal of Population
Geography, vol 7, pp 339-56.
Birdsall-Jones, C.L. and Christensen,W.J. (2007) Aboriginal housing careers in Western
Australian towns and cities, Positioning Paper, Melbourne:Australian Housing and
Blakely, E. and Snyder, G. (1999) Fortress America: gated communities in the US,
Chicago: The Brookings Institute.
Blatter, J. (2004) ‘“From places of place” to “spaces of flows”? Territorial and
functional governance in cross-border regions in Europe and North America’,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, no 28, vol 3, pp 530-48.
Bleasdale, M. (2001) ‘Empowerment through individualised funding’, paper
presented to the ‘Sharing the Road’ Conference, Brisbane: Griffith University.
Blyth, M. (2008) ‘The politics of compounding bubbles: the global housing bubble
in comparative perspective’, Comparative European Politics, vol 6, no 3, pp 387-406.
Bochel, C., Bochel, H. and Page, D. (1999) ‘Housing: the foundation of community
care’, Health and Social Care in the Community, vol 7, no 6, pp 492-501.
Bonvalet, C. and Ogg, J. (2008) ‘The housing situation and residential strategies
of older people in France’, Ageing and Society, vol 28, part 6, pp 753-78.
Bracher, M., Santow, G., Morgan, S.P. and Trussell, J. (1993) ‘Marriage dissolution
in Australia: models and explanations’, Population Studies, vol 47, no 3, pp 403-25.
Bridge, C., Cockburn-Campbell, J., Flatau, P., Whelan, S., Wood, G. and Yates, J.
(2003) Housing assistance and non shelter outcomes, Melbourne:Australian Housing
and Urban Research Institute.
Bridge, C., Mathews M., Phibbs P., and Adams T. (2009) Reverse mortgages and
older people: growth factors and implications for retirement decisions, Positioning Paper
No 123, UNSW-UWS Research Centre, Melbourne: Australian Housing and
Brink, S. (1990) ‘International policy trends in housing the elderly in developed
countries’, Ageing International, vol 17, no 2, pp 13-20.
Brink, S. (1998) Housing older people: an international perspective, New Brunswick,
New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
172
References
Brink, S. (2002) The ageing population challenge for policy makers. Submission
to the Australian Parliamentary Inquiry into Ageing (available at www.aph.gov.
au/house/committee/ageing/strategies/subs/sub49.pdf).
Burnley, I. (1976) ‘Greek settlement in Sydney 1947-71’, Australian Geographer,
vol 13, no 3, pp 200-14.
Burnley, I., Murphy, P. and Fagan, R. (1997) Immigration and Australian cities, New
South Wales: The Federation Press.
Carliner, M. (1998). ‘Development of federal homeownership policy’, Housing
Policy Debate, vol 9, no 2 (available at www.mi.vt.edu/data/files/hpd 9(2)/hpd
9(2)carliner.pdf).
Carmichael, G.A., Webster, A. and McDonald, P. (1996) Divorce Australian style: a
demographic analysis, Canberra: Research School of Social Sciences, Australian
National University.
Cassells, R. and Harding,A. (2007) Generation WhY?, AMP. NATSEM Income and
Wealth Report issue 17, Canberra: National Centre for Social and Economic
Modelling.
Castles, I. (1998) ‘The really big trade off: home ownership and the welfare state
in the new world and old’, Acta Politica, vol 33, no 1, pp 5-9.
Chamberlain, C. and MacKenzie, D. (2008) Australian Census Analytic Program,
Counting the Homeless, Australia, 2006, Cat No. 2050.0, Canberra: Australian
Bureau of Statistics.
Chiuri, M.C. and Jappelli, T. (2003) ‘Financial market imperfections and home
ownership: a comparative study’, European Economic Review, vol 47, pp 857-75.
Clapham, D. (2002) ‘Housing pathways: a post modern analytical framework’,
Housing,Theory and Society, vol 19, no 2, pp 57-68.
Clapham, D. (2004) ‘Housing pathways – a social constructionist research
framework’, in K. Jacobs, J. Kemeny and D. Manzi. (eds) Social constructionism in
housing research, Basingstoke: Ashgate, pp 93-116.
Clapham, D. (2005a) The meaning of housing: a pathways approach, Bristol: Policy
Press.
Clapham, D. (2005b) ‘The “really big tradeoff ” between home ownership and
welfare: Castle’s evaluation of the 1980 thesis and a reformulation 25 years on’,
Housing Theory and Society, vol 22, no 2, pp 59-75.
Clark, K. and Drinkwater, S. (2007) Ethnic minorities in the labour market: dynamics
and diversity,York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Clark, W.A.V. and Huang, Y. (2003) ‘The life course and residential mobility in
British housing markets’, Environment and Planning A, vol 35, pp 323-39.
Clark, W., Deurloo, M. and Dielemann, F. (2000) ‘Housing consumption and
residential crowding in US housing markets’, Journal of Urban Affairs, vol 22,
no 1, pp 49-63.
Clark, W., Deurloo, M. and Dielemann, F. (2003) ‘Housing careers in the United
States: modelling the sequencing of housing states’, Urban Studies, vol 40,
pp 143-60.
173
Cobb-Clark D.A. (2008) ‘Leaving home: what economics has to say about the
living arrangements of young Australians’, The Australian Economic Review, vol 41,
no 2, pp 160-76.
Commonwealth of Australia (2002) Intergenerational Report 2002-03, Budget Paper
No 5, Canberra: Treasury.
Commonwealth of Australia (2007) Intergenerational Report 2007, Canberra:
Treasury.
Commonwealth of Australia (2008a) ‘The road home: the homelessness white
paper’, Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs.
Commonwealth of Australia (2008b) A decent quality of life: inquiry into the cost of
living pressures on older Australians, Canberra: The Senate Standing Committee
on Community Affairs.
Commonwealth of Australia (2010) Australia to 2050: future challenges, Canberra:
Treasury.
Connolly, H. and White, A. (2006) ‘The different experiences of the United
Kingdom’s ethnic and religious populations’, Social Trends 36th edition, Office
of National Statistics, Basingstoke: Palgrove Macmillan, pp 1–8, accessed on
25 January at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Social_
Trends36/Social_Trends_36.pdf
Côté, J. and Bynner, J.M. (2008) ‘Changes in the transition to adulthood in the
UK and Canada: the role of structure and agency in emerging adulthood’, Journal
of Youth Studies, vol 11, no 3, pp 251-68.
Coughlan, J. (1991) Housing characteristics of Australia’s three Indo Chinese communities,
1976-86, Brisbane: Griffith University.
Cox, D. (1996) Understanding Australian settlement services, Canberra: Bureau
of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research, Department of
Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.
Crossley, T.F. and Ostrovsky, Y. (2003) ‘A synthetic cohort analysis of Canadian
housing careers, social and economic dimensions of an ageing population’,
(SEDAP) Research Paper No. 107, Ontario, Canada: McMaster University.
Daglish, T. (2009) ‘What motivates a subprime borrower to default?’ Journal of
Banking and Finance, vol 33, pp 681-93.
Daly, M. (1982) Sydney boom, Sydney bust, the city and its property market, 1850-
1981, Sydney: George Allen and Unwin.
Dargavel, R. and Kendig, H. (1986) ‘Political rhetoric and program drift: House
and Senate debates on the Aged and Disabled Persons’ Homes Act’, Australian
Journal on Ageing, vol 5, pp 23-31.
Davison B., Kendig, H., Stephens, L. and Merrill,V. (1993) My place: older people
talk about their homes, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Demographia, (2006) Second annual Demographia international housing
affordability survey (available at www.demographia.com).
174
References
Department for Communities and Local Government (2007) Homes for the future:
more affordable, more sustainable, London: Department for Communities and Local
Government.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2009) Live tables (available
at www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/researchandstatistics/publicdatasources/
housing/livetables/).
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
(2009) Housing Assistance Act 1996 annual report 2006-07, Canberra: Department
of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Department of Health and Ageing (2008) Home and community care program
minimum data set 2007-08 annual bulletin, Canberra: Australian Government
Department of Health and Ageing.
Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services
(DHHLGCS) (1993) Aged care reform strategy mid term review, stage two report,
Deurloo, M.C., Clark, W.A.V. and Dieleman, F.M. 1994) ‘The move to housing
ownership in temporal and regional contexts’, Environment and Planning A,
vol 26, pp 1659-70.
Diamond, I. (2004) ‘Foreword’, in I. Stewart and R.Vaitilingam (eds) Seven ages
of man and women, Swindon: ESRC, p 5.
Dieleman, F. (1994) ‘Social rented housing: valuable asset or unsustainable burden?’,
Urban Studies, vol 31, no 3, pp 447-63.
Dijst, M., Lanzendorf, M., Barrendregt, A. and Smit, L. (2005) ‘Second homes in
Germany and the Netherlands, ownership and travel impact explained’, Tijdshrift
voor Economishe en Sociale Geografie, vol 96, no 2, pp 139-52.
DiMartino, D., Duca, J. and Rosenblum, H. (2007) ‘From complacency to crisis:
financial risk taking in the early 21st century’, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,
Economic Letter, vol 2, no 12.
Dodson, J. (2007) Government discourse and housing, Basingstoke: Ashgate.
Dolan, A., McLean, P. and Roland, D. (2005) ‘Home equity, retirement incomes
and family relationships’, paper prepared for the 9th Australian Institute of Family
Studies Conference, 9-11 February, Melbourne.
Doling, J. and Ronald, R. (2010) ‘Home ownership and asset based welfare’,
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol 25, pp 165-73.
Dorling, D., Rigby, J., Wheeler, B., Ballas, D., Thomas, B., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D.
and Lupton, R. (2007) Poverty, wealth and place in Britain, 1968 to 2005, York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Dorn, N. (2009) ‘Ponzi finance, regulatory capture and the credit crunch’, SSRN
(available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1365250)
Dunn, J. (2000) ‘Housing and health inequalities: review and prospects for research’,
Housing Studies, vol 15, no 3, pp 341-66.
Dupuis A. and Thorns D. (1996) ‘Meaning of home for older home owners’,
Housing Studies, vol 11, pp 485-501.
175
Econsult (1989) Rural centres housing study, Canberra: Australian Government

Publishing Service.
ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation
(2009) Young people’s housing transitions,York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation (also
available at www.jrf.org.uk).
Edwards, B., Higgins, D. and Zmijewski, N. (2007) ‘The families caring for a
person with a disability study and the social lives of carers’, Family Matters,
vol 76, pp 8-17.
Ellis, L., Lawson, J. and Roberts-Thomson, L. (2003) ‘Housing leverage in
Australia’, Research Discussion Paper, Sydney: Reserve Bank of Australia.
Encel, S. (1993) ‘Work and opportunity in a changing society’, in K. Sanders (ed)
Ageing: law, policy and ethics, directions for the 21st century, Proceedings of a Symposia
held at the University of Melbourne, 1992, pp 122-8.Epsing-Anderson, G.
(1990) Three worlds of welfare capitalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ezzy, D. (2001) Narrating unemployment, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Farmer, M. and Barrell, R. (1981) ‘Entrepreneurship and government policy:
the case of the housing market’, Journal of Public Policy, vol 1, no 3, pp 307-32.
Faulkner, D. (2001) Linkages among housing assistance, residential (re)location, and use
of community health and social care by old-old adults, Positioning Paper, Melbourne:
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Faulkner, D. and Bennett, K. (2002) Linkages among housing assistance, residential (re)
location, and use of community health and social care by old-old adults, Final Report,
Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Faulkner D.,Tually S., Baker E., and Beer, A. (2007) ‘Report on the outcomes of
focus groups for the South Australian Ageing Atlas: ageing and its implications
for social and planning policy’, Report prepared for Planning SA, unpublished.
Feijten, P. (2005) ‘Union dissolution, unemployment and moving out of home
ownership’, European Sociological Review, vol 21, no 1, pp 59-71.
Feijten, P. and Mulder, C.H. (2002) ‘The timing of household events and housing
events in the Netherlands: a longitudinal perspective’, Housing Studies, vol 17,
pp 773-92.
Feijten, P. and Mulder, C.H. (2005) ‘Life-course experience and housing quality’,
Feijten, P. and van Ham, M. (2007) ‘Residential mobility and migration of the
divorced and separated’, Demographic Research, vol 17, Article 21, pp 623-54.
Ferri, (2004) ‘Thirty-something: time to settle down?’, in I. Stewart and R.
Vaitilingam (eds) Seven ages of man and women, Swindon: ESRC, pp 20-3.
Fine, M. (2007) ‘Uncertain prospects: aged care policy for a long-lived society’, in
A. Borowski, S. Encel and E. Ozanne (eds) Longevity and social change in Australia,
Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, pp 265-95.
Fitzpatrick, S. (2005) ‘Explaining homelessness, a critical realist perspective’,
176
References
Flatau, P., Hendershott P., Watson, R. and Wood, G. (2003) What drives housing
outcomes in Australia? Understanding the role of aspirations, household formation, economic
incentives and labour market interactions, Positioning Paper, Melbourne: Australian
Flatau, P., Hendershott, P.,Watson, R. and Wood, G. (2004) What drives Australian
housing careers? An examination of the role of labour market, social and economic
determinants, Final Report, Melbourne:Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute.
Flood, J. and Baker, E. (2010) Housing implications of economic, social and spatial change,
Final Report, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Florida, R. (2002) The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure
and everyday life, New York: Basic Books.
Fopp, R. (2008) ‘Social constructionism and housing studies: a critical reflection’,
Urban Policy and Research, vol 26, no 2, pp. 159-76.
Ford, J., Rugg, J. and Burrows, R. (2002) ‘Conceptualising the contemporary
role of housing in the transition to adult life in England’, Urban Studies, vol 39,
no 13, pp 2455-67.
Forrest, R. (1987) ‘Spatial mobility, tenure mobility and emerging social divisions
in the UK housing market’, Environment and Planning A, vol 19, pp 1611-30.
Forrest, R. and Kemeny, J. (1983) ‘Middle class housing careers: the relationship
between furnished renting and owner occupation’, Sociological Review, vol 30,
pp 208-22.
Franklin, B. (2002) ‘On the elusiveness of grand theory’, Housing, Theory and
Society, vol. 19, no 3, pp 140-2.
Fukuda, S. (2009) ‘Leaving the parental home in post-war Japan: demographic
changes, stem-family norms and the transition to adulthood’, Demographic
Research, vol 20, article 30, pp 731-816.
Fukuyama, F. (1992) The end of history and the last man, New York:The Free Press.
Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F. (2007) Young people and social change: new perspectives
(2nd edn), Buckingham: Open University Press.
Furlong,A. and Evans, K.( 1997) ‘Metaphors of youth transitions: niches, pathways,
trajectories or navigations’, in J. Bynnner, L. Chisholm and A. Furlong (eds) Youth,
Citizenship and Social Change in a European Context, Aldershot:Avebury (Ashgate).
Gadher, D. and Davies, H. (2007) ‘Shires fall to foreign land rush’, The Sunday
Times, 28 October.
Gallent, N., Mace,A. and Tewdr-Jones, M. (2005) Second homes: European perspectives
and UK policies, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Galster, G., Tatian, P. and Smith, R. (1999) ‘The impact of newcomers who use
Section 8 certificates on property values’, Housing Policy Debate, vol 10, no 4,
pp 879-912.
Gardner, N. (2010) ‘First-home buyers struggle as interest rates rise’, The Sunday
Mail (Qld), 31 January.
Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1990) The consequences of modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.
177
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age,
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1998) The third way: the renewal of social democracy, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Giddens, A. (1999) ‘Risk and responsibility’, Modern Law Review, vol 62, no 1,
pp 1-10.
Giddens, A. (2000) The third way and its critics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Glaeser, E. and Gyourko, J. (2005) ‘Urban decline and durable housing’, Journal
of Political Economy, vol 113, no 2, pp 345-75.
Globe and Mail (2009) ‘Subprime lending market’, The Globe and Mail (available
at www.canadamortgagehub.com/Mortgage_News/)
Goodwin, J. and O’Connor, H. (2005) Exploring complex transitions: looking
back at the ‘golden age’ of ‘from school to work’, Sociology, 39:2, pp 201-220.
Gottliebsen, R. (2002) ‘Living on a leveraged edge’, The Weekend Australian, 18-
19 May.
Gram-Hanssen, K. and Bech-Danielsen, C. (2008) ‘Home dissolution: what
happens after separation?’, Housing Studies, vol 23, no 3, pp 507-22.
Green-Pedersen, C., Van Kersbergen, Km and Hemerijck, A. (2001)‘Neo-
liberalism, the ‘third way’ or what? Recent social democratic welfare policies
in Denmark and the Netherlands’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol 8, no 2,
pp 307-25.
Guerrero,T.J. (2001) Youth in transition: housing, employment, social policies and families
in France and Spain, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Gwyther, G. (2007) ‘Women’s housing transitions after significant relationship
breakdown: A qualitative approach’, Sydney: University of Sydney, unpublished.
Hall, P., Thomas, R., Gracey, H. And Drewett, R. (1973) The containment of urban
England, 2 vols, London: Allen and Unwin.
Hanson J. (2001) ‘From “special needs’ to “lifestyle choices”: articulating the
demand for “third age” housing’, in S. Peace and C. Holland (eds) Inclusive housing
in an ageing society, innovative approaches, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp 29-53.
Harmer, J. (2009) Pension review report, Canberra: Department of Families, Housing,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Harts, J. and Hingstman, L. (1986) Verhuizin-gen op eenrij: een analyse van individual
everhuis geschiedenissen, Utrecht: University of Utrecht, Department of Geography.
Harvey, D. (1973) Social justice and the city, London: Edward Arnold.
Hassell, in association with Hugo, G. (1996) Immigrants and public housing,
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Havet, N. and Penot, A. (2010) Does homeownership harm labour market performance:
a survey,Working Paper 1012, St-Etienne, Lyon: Groupe d’analyse et de theorie
economique.
178
References
Headey, B., Warren, D. and Wooden, M. (2008) The structure and distribution of
household wealth in Australia: cohort differences and retirement issues, Social Policy
Research Paper No 33, Melbourne: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic
and Social Research, University of Melbourne.
Helleiner, J. (2000) Racism and the politics of culture,Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Henderson, J. and Karn,V. (1984) ‘Race, class and the allocation of state housing
in Britain’, Urban Studies, vol 21, pp 115-28.
Hewett, J. (2007) ‘Under mortgage pressure’, The Australian, 20 October (available
at www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/under-mortgage-pressure/
story-e6frg9gx-1111114684241).
Hewitt, B., Baxter, J. and Weston, M. (2005) ‘Marriage breakdown in Australia:
the social correlates of separation and divorce’, Journal of Sociology, vol 41, no 2,
pp 163-83.
Heywood, F., Oldman, C. and Means, R. (2002) Housing and home in later life,
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hill, M. (1959) Housing finance in Australia, 1945-56, Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press.
Hill, M. (1974) ‘Housing finance’, in R. Hirst and R.Wallace (eds) The Australian
capital market, Melbourne: Cheshire.
Hillman, K.J. and Marks, G.N. (2002) ‘Becoming an adult: leaving home,
relationships and home ownership among Australian youth, longitudinal surveys
of Australian youth’, Research Report No 28,Victoria: Australian Council for
Educational Research and Commonwealth Department of Education, Science
and Training.
Hogan, W. (2003) Historical perspectives: the evolution of the Australian government’s
involvement in supporting the needs of older people. Review of pricing arrangements in
residential aged care (Background Paper no. 4), Canberra: Department of Health
and Ageing.
Holdsworth, C. and Morgan, D. (2005) Transitions in context: leaving home,
independence and adulthood, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Horsfield, G. (2005) ‘International migration’, in Chappell, R. (ed) Focus on people
and migration, Basingstoke: Office of National Statistics (Palgrave Macmillan),
pp 115-129, accessed on 25 January 2011 at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/
statbase/product.asp?vlnk=12899
Hou, F.(2010) ‘Homeownership over the life course of Canadians: evidence from
Canadian censuses of population’, Research Paper in the Analytical Studies
Branch Research Paper Series, Cat No 11FOO19M-No 325, Ontario: Statistics
Canada.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, (1982) In a
home or at home: accommodation and home care for the aged, Report from the House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, October, Canberra:
Australian Government Publishing Service.
179
Housing Corporation and CIH (Chartered Institute of Housing) (2008) Housing

needs and aspirations of minority ethnic communities, Coventry: CIH (available at
www.housingcorp.gov.uk/upload/pdf/Housing_ethnic_minorities.pdf).
HIA (Housing Industry Association) (1990) Housing towards 2000, Canberra: HIA.
Howe, A. (2003) ‘Housing an older Australia: More of the same or something
different?’Housing Futures in an Ageing Australia Conference, Melbourne:
Australian and Housing and Urban Research Institute and The Myer Foundation.
HUD (US Department of Housing and Urban Development) (2009) HUD
historical background (available at www.hud.gov/adm/about/admguide/
history.cfm)
HUD (US Department of Housing and Urban Development) (2010) Report to
Congress on the root causes of the foreclosure crisis, Office of Policy Development
and Research (available at www.huduser.org/portal/publications/hsgfin/
foreclosure_09.html)
Hughes, J. (2007) ‘Caring for carers: the financial strain of caring’, Family Matters,
vol 76, pp. 32-3.
Hugo, G. (1986) ‘Population aging in Australia: implications for social and
economic policy’, Papers of the East-West Population Institute, No 98, Honolulu:
East-West Center.
Hugo, G. (2003) ‘Australia’s ageing population’, Australian Planner, vol 40, no 2,
pp 109-18.
Hugo, G. (2007) ‘New questions in the 2006 population census: some initial
findings’, People and Place, vol 15, no 3, pp 53-6.
Hulse, K. and Saugeres, L. (2008) Housing insecurity and precarious living: an Australian
exploration, Final Report, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute.
Iacovou, M. (2002) ‘Regional differences in the transition to adulthood’, The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, vol 580, pp 40-69.
Iacovou, M. (2004) ‘Patterns of family living’, in R. Berthoud and M. Iacovou
(eds) Social Europe, Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar, pp 21-45.
Jackson, N. (2002) ‘The Higher Education Contribution Scheme – a HECS on
the family?’Joint Special Issue, Journal of Population Research and NZ Population
Review, pp 105-19.
Jackson, R. and Bridge, H. (1988) ‘Housing’, in W.Vamplew (ed) Australian historical
statistics, Sydney: Fairfax Syme.
Jacobs, K. (2002) ‘Useful in some approaches but not others’, Housing,Theory and
Society, vol 19, no 2, pp 74-6.
Jacobs, K. (2008) ‘Contractual welfare ideology and housing management practice:
the deployment of tenant incentive schemes in Australia’, Urban Policy and
Research, vol 26, no 4, pp 467-81.
Jacobs, K. and Atkinson, R. (2008) ‘Theoretical concerns in Australian housing
and urban research’, Housing Theory and Society, vol 25, no 3, pp 157-63.
Jacobs, K., Kemeny, J. and Manzi,T. (2004) Social constructionism in housing research,
Aldershot: Ashgate.
180
References
James, A. (2009) ‘Growing old in non metropolitan regions: intentions and

realities’, Melbourne: Flinders University, School of Geography, Population and
Environmental Management, unpublished PhD thesis.
Jenkins, A., Rowland, F., Angus, P. and Hales, C. (2003) The future supply of informal
care, 2003 to 2013, Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Jessop, B. (1990) State theory: putting the capitalist state in its place, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Jessop, B. (1997) ‘The entrepreneurial city: re-imaging localities, redesigning
economic governance, or restructuring capital?’, in N. Jewson and S. MacGregor
(eds) Transforming cities: contested governance and new spatial divisions, London:
Routledge, pp 28-41.
Jessop, B. (2002) ‘Liberalism, neoliberalism and urban governance: a state theoretical
perspective’, Antipode, vol 34, no 2, pp 452-72.
Jones, A. Howe, A. Tilse, C., Bartlett, H. and Stimson, B. (2010) Service integrated
housing for Australians in later life, Final Report, Melbourne: Australian Housing
Jones, A., Bell, M., Tilse, C. and Earl, G. (2007) Rental housing provision for lower
income older Australians, Positioning Paper, Melbourne: Australian Housing and
Jones, G. (2004) ‘A risky business: experiences of leaving home among young
rural women’, Journal of Youth Studies, vol 7, no 2, pp 209-20.
Jones, M. (1972) Housing and poverty in Australia, Melbourne: Melbourne University
Press.
Jordan, A.,Wurzel, R. and Zito, A. (2005) ‘The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in
comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government?’, Political Studies,
vol 53, pp 477-96.
Kearns, A. and Turok, I. (2000) Power, responsibility and governance in Britain’s
new urban policy, Journal of Urban Affairs, vol 22, no 2, pp 175-91.
Kelly, S. (2003) ‘Self provision in retirement? Forecasting future household wealth’,
Canberra: University of Canberra, National Centre for Social and Economic
Modelling (NATSEM).
Kelly, S. (2009) Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow, Canberra: AMP. NATSEM.
Kelly, S. and Harding, A. (2005) Love can hurt, divorce can cost, financial impact of
divorce in Australia, AMP. NATSEM Income and Wealth Report No. 10, Canberra:
AMP. NATSEM.
Kelly, S. and Harding, A. (2007) Baby boomers – doing it for themselves, AMP.
NATSEM Income and Wealth Report, no 6, Canberra: AMP. NATSEM.
Kelly S., Harding A. and Percival R. (2002) ‘Live long and prosper? Projecting
the likely superannuation of the baby boomers in 2020’, Paper presented at the
2002 Australian Conference of Economists Business Symposium, 4th October,
Canberra: NATSEM.
Kemeny, J. (1983) The great Australian nightmare, Melbourne: Georgian House.
Kemeny, J. (1992) Housing and social theory, London: Routledge.
181
Kemp, P. (2009) ‘The transformation of private renting’, in P. Malpass and R.

Rowlands (eds) Housing, markets and policy, London: Routledge.
Kendig, H. (1979) New life for old suburbs, Sydney: George Allen and Unwin.
Kendig, H. (1981) Buying and renting: household moves in Adelaide, Canberra:
Australian Institute of Urban Studies.
Kendig, H. (1984) ‘Housing careers, life cycle and residential mobility, implications
for the housing market’, Urban Studies, vol 21, no 3, pp 271-83.
Kendig, H. (1990a) ‘A life course perspective on housing attainment’, in D. Myers
(ed) Housing demography: linking demographic structures and housing markets, Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, pp 133-56.
Kendig, H. (1990b) ‘Ageing, policies and politics’, in H. Kendig and J. McCallum
(eds) Grey policy, Australian policies for an ageing society, Sydney: Allen &Unwin.
Kendig, H., Paris, C. and Anderton, N. (1987) Towards fair shares in Australian
housing, Canberra: Highland Press.
Khasawneh, R. (2008). ‘Ratings, regulation and risk’, Risk, vol 21, no 7, p 69,
Retrieved 7 February, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global (Document
ID:1528216011).
Kim, H. and McCann, P. (2008)‘Supply chains and locational adjustment in the
global automotive industry’, Policy Studies, vol 29, no 3, pp 255-67.
King, P. (1996) The limits of housing policy: a philosophical investigation, London:
Middlesex University Press.
King, P. (2002) ‘Who needs postmodernism?’, Housing,Theory and Society, vol 19,
no 2, pp 76-8.
Kroehn, M. Hutson, K. Faulkner, D. and Beer, A. (2007) The housing careers of
persons with a disability and family members with care responsibilities for persons with a
disability, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Kupke, V. (2007) ‘Factors important in the decision to buy a first home’, paper
presented at the 14th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Kuala Lumpur.
Kupke,V. and Marano, W. (2002) The implications of changes in the labour market for
the owner aspirations, housing opportunities and characteristics of first home buyers, Final
Lambert, J, Blackaby, B. and Paris, C. (1978) Housing policy and the state: allocation,
access and control, London: Macmillan.
Larner, W. (2005) ‘Neoliberalism in (regional) theory and practice: the stronger
communities action fund in New Zealand’, Geographical Research, vol 43, no 1,
pp 9-18.
Leo, C. and Anderson, K. (2006) ‘Being realistic about urban growth’, Journal of
Urban Affairs, vol 28, no 2, pp 169-89.
Leo, C. and Brown,W. (2000) ‘Slow growth and urban development policy’, Journal
of Urban Affairs, vol 22, no 2, pp 193-213.
Lewis, J. (2006) ‘Repartnering and the management of risk’, International Journal
of Law, Policy and the Family, vol 20, no 2, pp 151-68.
182
References
Lord, J. and Hutchinson, P. (2003) ‘Individualised support and funding: building

blocks for capacity building and social inclusion’, Disability and Society, vol 18,
no 1, pp 71-86
Lowe, P. (2010) ‘Some challenges for the future’, address to the UDIA National
Congress 2010 by Assistant Governor’, Sydney, 10 March.
Lund, B. (2006) Understanding housing policy, Bristol: Policy Press.
MacGee, J. (2009) ‘Why didn’t Canada’s housing market go bust? Economic
commentary’, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (available at www.clevelandfed.
org/research/commentary/2009/0909.cfm)
Macklin, J. (2009) ‘Improved indexation for Australia’s pensioners’, media release,
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs,
Commonwealth of Australia, 24 August.
Mallett, S., Bentley, R., Baker, E., Mason, K., Keys, D., Kolar,V. and Krnjacki, L.
(2011) Precarious housing and health inequalities, Melbourne:VicHealth.
Malpass, P. and Rowlands, R. (eds) (2009) Housing, markets and policy, London:
Routledge.
Mandic, S. (2008) ‘Home-leaving and its structural determinants in Western and
Eastern Europe: an exploratory study’, Housing Studies, vol 23, no 4, pp 615-37.
Mathers, C.D. (2007) ‘The health of older Australians’, in A. Borowski, S. Encel,
and E. Ozanne (eds) Longevity and social change in Australia, Sydney: University
of New South Wales Press.
Matheson, J. (2009) ‘National statistician’s annual article on the population: a
demographic review’, Population Trends, 138, pp 7-21 (available at www.statistics.
gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Pop-trends-winter09.pdf).
May, J. (1999) ‘Housing histories and homeless careers: a biographical approach’,
Mayer, C., Pence, K. and Sherlund, S. (2009) ‘The rise in mortgage defaults’, Journal
of Economic Perspectives, vol 23, no 1 (accessed through Proquest ABI/Inform).
McCrone, D. (2004) ‘Getting by and making out in Kirklady’, in M. Anderson, F.
Bechhofer and J. Gershundy (eds) The social and political economy of the household,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonald, P. and Baxter, J.(2005) ‘Home ownership among young people in
Australia: in decline or just delayed?’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol 40,
no 4, pp 471-87.
McDonald, P. and Brownlee, H. (1992) ‘Living day to day: families in the recession’,
Family Matters, no 31, pp 8-13.
McDowell, L. (1997) ‘The new service class: housing, consumption and life style
among London bankers in the 1990s’, Environment and Planning A, pp 2061-78.
McIsaac, S.J. (1997) ‘Identity in the institutional setting: a status passage analysis’,
paper presented at the 16th Congress of the International Association of
Gerontology, 19-23 August, Adelaide, Australia.
McNaughton, C. (2008) Transitions through homelessness: lives on the edge, Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
183
McNelis, S. (2007a) Older persons in public housing: present and future profile, Research
Paper, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
McNelis, S. (2007b) ‘Independent living units: managing and renewing an ageing
stock’, Australasian Journal on Ageing, vol 26, pp 109-114.
McNelis, S. and Herbert, T. (2003) Independent living units: clarifying their current
role as an affordable housing option for older people with low assets and low incomes,
Final Report, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute
and Swinburne Monash Research Centre.
Merette, M. (2002) ‘The bright side: a positive view on the economics of aging’,
Choices, vol 8, no 1, Montreal, Quebec: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
Merlo, R. and McDonald, P. (2002) Outcomes of home-ownership aspirations and
their determinants, Final Report, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban
Research Institute.
Ministry of Social Development (2009) The social report, Wellington: Ministry of
Social Development.
Minnery, J. and Zacharov, R. (2006) The quality of housing careers, Melbourne:
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Molgat, M. (2002) ‘Leaving home in Quebec: theoretical and social implications
of (im)mobility among youth’, Journal of Youth Studies, vol 5, no 2 pp 135-52.
Morris, A. (2007). ‘On the edge: the financial situation of older renters in the
private rental market in Sydney’, Australian Journal of Social Work, vol 42, no 3,
pp 337-50.
Mulder, C. (2000) ‘Leaving home in the Netherlands: when and in which housing’,
paper for Leaving Home : a European Focus workshop, September, Rostock,
Germany.
Mulder, C. (2003) ‘The housing consequences of living arrangement choices in
young adulthood’, Housing Studies, vol 18, no 5, pp 703-20.
Mulder, C.H. (2006a) ‘Home-ownership and family formation’, Journal of Housing
and the Built Environment, vol 21, no 3, pp 281-98.
Mulder, C. (2006b) ‘Population and housing: a two-sided relationship’, Demographic
Research, vol 15, no 13, pp 401-12.
Mulder, C.H. and Hooimeijer, P. (2002) ‘Leaving home in the Netherlands: timing
and first housing’, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol 17, pp 237-68.
Mulder, C.H. and Wagner, M. (1998) ‘First-time home-ownership in the family
life course: a West German-Dutch comparison’, Urban Studies, vol 35, no 4,
pp 687-713.
Mulder, C.H. and Wagner, M. (2001) ‘The connections between family formation
and first-time home ownership in the context of West Germany and the
Netherlands’, European Journal of Population, vol 17, pp 137-64.
Mullins, D. and Murie, A. (2006) Housing policy in the UK, Bristol: Policy Press.
Mullins, D. and Pawson, H. (2009) ‘The evolution of stock transfer in the UK:
privatisation or re-nationalisation?’, in P. Malpass and R. Rowlands (eds) Housing,
markets and policy, London: Routledge.
184
References
Muntaner, C., Lynch, J. and Smith, G. (2000) ‘Social capital and the third way in
public health’, Critical Public Health, vol 10, no 2, pp 107-24.
Myers, D. (1999) ‘Cohort longitudinal estimation of housing careers’, Housing
Studies, vol 14, no 4, pp 473-90.
Nadauld, T. and Sherlund, S. (2009) ‘The role of securitization process in the
expansion of subprime credit’, Finance and Economic Discussion Series,
Divisions of Research and Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board
(available at www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/Feds/2009/200928/200928pap.pdf).
(NCD) (National Council on Disability) (2010) ‘The state of housing in America’,
Washington DC: NCD.
Neutze, M. (1978) Australian urban policy. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.
Neutze, M. and Kendig, H. (1991) ‘Achievement of home ownership amongst
postwar Australian cohorts’, Housing Studies, vol 6, no 1, pp 3-14.
Northern Ireland Housing Executive (2009) Housing research bulletin, issue 8,
Spring, Belfast: NIHE.
OECD (2009) Society at a glance: OECD social indicators, Paris: OECD (available
at www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG).
Office of National Statistics (2008) Social Trends 38th edition, the Office of National
Statistics, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan (available at www.statistics.gov.uk/
downloads/theme_social/Social_Trends38/Social_Trends38.pdf).
Office of National Statistics (2009) Social trends 39th edition, Office for National
Statistics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (available at www.statistics.gov.uk/
socialtrends39/)
O’Halloran, B. (2010) ‘Property prices continue to fall’, The Irish Times (available
at www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/0705/1224274034754.html)
Olsberg, D. and Winters, M. (2005) Ageing in place: intergenerational and intrafamilial
housing in transfers and shifts in later life, Final Report, Melbourne: Australian
O’Neill, P. (2008) ‘The role of theory in housing research: partial reflections on
the work of Jim Kemeny’, Housing,Theory and Society, vol 25, no 3, pp 164-76.
O’Neil, P. and Argent, N. (2007) ‘Neoliberalism in Antipodean spaces and times’,
Geographical Research, vol 43, no 1, pp 2-8.
Oswald, A. (1996) ‘A conjecture on the explanation for high unemployment
in the industrialised nations: Part 1’, Working Paper 475, Warwick Economic
Research Papers, Warwick: Warwick University.
Oswald, A. (1997) ‘A theory of homes and jobs’, Warwick Economic Research
Papers, Warwick: Warwick University.
Paris, C. (1992) Housing Australia, South Melbourne: Macmillan.
Paris, C. (2005) ‘Housing and the migration turnaround in Ireland’, Urban Policy
and Research, vol 23, no 3, pp 287–304.
Paris, C. (2008a) Second homes in Northern Ireland, Final Report, Belfast: Northern
Ireland Housing Executive.
185
Paris, C. (2008b) ‘Re-positioning second homes within housing studies: household

investment, gentrification, multiple residence, mobility and hyper-consumption’,
Paris, C. (2010) Affluence, mobility and second home ownership,Abingdon: Routledge.
Parkin,A. and Hardcastle, L. (2004) The impact of targeting housing assistance,Adelaide:
Department of Families and Communities.
Pastalan, L.A., (1997) ‘An introduction to international perspectives on shelter
and service issues for aging populations’, in L.A. Pastalan (ed) Shelter and service
issues for aging populations: international perspectives, Binghamton, New York: The
Haworth Press, p 38.
Patiniotis, J. and Holdsworth, C. (2005) ‘Seize that chance! Leaving home and
transitions to higher education’, Journal of Youth Studies, vol 8, no 1, pp 81-95.
Payne, J. and Payne, G. (1977) ‘Housing pathways and stratification: a study of
life chances in the housing market’, Journal of Social Policy, vol 23, pp 125-156.
Peace, S. (2003) ‘The development of residential and nursing home care in the
United Kingdom’, in J. Katz and S. Peace (eds) End of life in care homes: a palliative
care approach, Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp 16-42.
Peach, C. (1998) ‘South Asian and Caribbean ethnic minority housing choice in
Britain’, Urban Studies, vol 35, no 10, pp 1657-80.
Pearse, H. (2003) The social and economic impact of student debt, Carlton South,
Victoria: Council of Australia.
Peck, J. (2001) Workfare states, New York: Guilford Press.
Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2001) ‘Exporting workfare/importing welfare to work:
exploring the politics of Third Way policy transfer’, Political Geography, vol 20,
no 4, pp 427-60.
Peck, J. and Tickell,A. (2002) ‘Neoliberalizing space’, Antipode, vol 34, pp 380-404.
Percival, R. and Kelly, S. (2004) Who’s going to care? Informal care and an ageing
population, Canberra: National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling.
Percival, R., Payne, A., Harding, A. and Abello, A. (2007) Honey I calculated the kids
… it’s $537,000 – Australian child costs in 2007, AMP. NATSEM Income and
Wealth Report No. 18, Canberra: AMP. NATSEM.
Perry, J (2008) The housing and neighbourhood impact of Britain’s changing ethnic mix,
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Phillipson, C. (2007) ‘The “elected” and the “excluded”: sociological perspectives
on the experience of place and community in old age’, Ageing and Society, vol
27, part 3, pp 321-42.
Pickert, K. (2008) ‘A brief history of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’, Time, 14 July
(available at www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1822766,00.html).
Pickvance, C. (1974) ‘Life cycle, house and residential mobility: a path analytic
approach’, Urban Studies, vol 11, pp 171-88.
Powell, M. (2000) ‘New labour and the third way in the British welfare state: a
new and distinctive approach’, Critical Social Policy, vol 20, no 1, pp 39-60.
Power, S. and Whitty, N. (1999) ‘New labour’s education policy: first, second or
third way’, Journal of Education Policy, vol 14, no 5, pp 535-46.
186
References
Productivity Commission (2004) First home ownership, Report no. 28, Melbourne:
Productivity Commission Australian Government.
Productivity Commission (2006) Report on Government Services, Canberra: Steering
Committee for the Review of Government Services Provision.
Przeworksi, A. and Teune, H. (1970) The logic of comparative social inquiry, New
York:Wiley.
Qu, L. and Weston, R. (2008) ‘Snapshots of family relationships’, report for the
2008 National Families Week, Melbourne:Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Quibell, R. (2004) ‘The living history project: the lived experiences of people
with disability and parents of people with disability in the period 1981-2002’,
Victoria: Scope Vic Ltd.
Refugee Council of Australia (2009) Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian program
community views on current challenges and future directions, Canberra: Refugee
Council of Australia.
Refugee Council of Australia (2010) Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian program
2010-11 community views on current challenges and future directions, Canberra:
Refugee Council of Australia.
Rendall, M. and Salt, J. (2005) 'The foreign-born population', in Chapell, R (ed)
Focus on people and migration, Basingstoke: Office of National Statistics, chapter 8,
pp 132-152, accessed on 25 January 2011at http://212.58.231.23/downloads/
theme_compendia/fom2005/08_FOPM_ForeignBorn.pdf 9
Reserve Bank of Australia (2005) Survey on housing equity and injection, Reserve
Bank Bulletin, October, pp 1-12.
Rex, R. and Moore, J. (1967) Race, community and conflict: a study of Sparkbrook,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards A. (2008) ‘Some observations on the cost of housing in Australia’, address
to The Melbourne Institute 2008 Economic and Social Outlook Conference,
Reserve Bank of Australia, Melbourne, 27 March.
Roberts, D., Hugo, G., Bradley, H., Coffee, N. and Golan, S. (2005) The emerging
housing needs of indigenous South Australians, Adelaide: Department for Families
and Communities.
Roberts, M. (1997) ‘Housing with care: housing policies for an ageing Australia’,
Ageing International, vol 23, no 3-4, pp 90-106.
Robinson, D., Reeve, K. and Casey, R. (2007) The housing pathways of new
immigrants, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation (available at www.jrf.org.uk/
publications/housing-pathways-new-immigrants).
Rochman, H. and McCampbell D.Z. (1997) Leaving home: stories, New York:
Harper Collins.
Rose, N. (2001) ‘Community, citizenship and the third way’, in D. Meredyth and
J. Minson (eds) Citizenship and cultural policy, London: Sage, pp 1-17.
Rowles, G.D. (1993) ‘Evolving images of place in aging and “aging in place”’,
Generations, vol 17, no 2, pp 65-70.
187
Rudd, K. (2010) Building Australia’s future: beginning a building decade for

a stronger Australia, speech to Australia Day Reception, National Gallery of
Victoria, Melbourne, 18 January (available at www.pm.gov.au/node/6416).
Rugg, J. and Ford, J. (2004) ‘Housing advantage? The role of students renting in
the constitution of housing biographies in the United Kingdom’, in J. Rugg
and J. Ford (eds) Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 7, no 1, pp 19-34.
Saegert, S. and Evans, G. 2003 ‘Poverty, housing niches and health in the United
States’, Journal of Social Issues, vol 59, no 3, pp 569-89.
Santarelli, E. and Cottone, F. (2009) ‘Leaving home, family support and
intergenerational ties in Italy: some regional differences’, Demographic Research,
vol 21, article 1, pp 1-22.
Saugeres, L. (2008) ‘21st century housing careers of people with a disability and
carers: a qualitative study’, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute.
Saunders, P. (1978) ‘Domestic property and social class’, International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, vol 6, no 2, pp 205-22.
Saunders, P. (1979) Urban politics, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Saunders, P. (1981) Social theory and the urban question, London: Hutchinson.
Saunders, P. (1984) ‘Beyond housing classes: the sociological significance of private
property rights and means of consumption’, International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, vol 8, no 3, pp 202-27.
Saunders, P. (1990) A nation of home owners, London: Unwin Hyman.
Sayer, A. (1992) Method in social science: a realist approach, London: Routledge.
Sayer, A. (2000) Realism and social science, London: Sage.
Schwartz, H. (2008) ‘Housing, global finance and American hegemony: building
conservative politics one brick at a time’, Comparative European Politics, vol 6,
no 3, pp 262-85.
Seelig,T., Hoon Han, J., O’Flaherty, M., Short, P., Haynes, M., Baum, S.,Western,
M. and Jones,A. (2005) Housing consumption patterns and earnings behaviour of income
support recipients over time, Positioning Paper, Melbourne:Australian Housing and
Sheehan, G. and Hughes, J. (2001) ‘Division of matrimonial property in Australia’,
Australian Institute of Family Studies Research Paper No 25, Melbourne: AIFS.
Sheen, V. (2002) ‘Home equity conversion: getting the policy right and getting
the product right for older Australians’, paper presented to Changing Needs,
Growing Markets Conference, Sydney, 18 February.
Shorten, B. (2008) ‘National disability strategy’, discussion paper’, Canberra:
Department of Families, Communities, Housing and Indigenous Affairs.
Slatter, M. and Beer, A. (2003a) ‘Evictions and housing management’, Adelaide:
Australian Centre for Social Science Research.
Slatter, M. and Beer, A. (2003b) Housing evictions in South Australia: a study of bailiff
assisted evictions, Adelaide: Australian Centre for Community Services Research.
Smith, S., Alexander, A. and Easterlow, D. (1997) ‘Rehousing as a health
intervention: miracle or mirage?’, Health and Place, vol 3, no 4, pp 203-16.
188
References
Smyth, B. and Weston, R. (2000) ‘Financial living standards after divorce: a

recent snapshot’, Australian Institute of Family Studies Research Paper No 23,
Melbourne: AIFS.
Smyth, P., Reddel, T. and Jones, A. (2004) ‘Social inclusion, new regionalism and
associational governance: the Queensland experience’, International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, vol 28, no 3, pp 601-15.
Somerville, P. (2002) ‘But why social constructionism?’, Housing,Theory and Society,
vol 19, no 2, p 80.
Somerville, P. and Bengtsson, B. (2002) ‘Constructionism, realism and housing’,
Spicer, I. (2007) ‘Disability and family carers’, Family Matters, vol 76, pp 30-1.
Sprigings, N (2008) ‘Buy-to-let and the wider housing market’, People, Place &
Policy Online, no 2 (available at http://extra.shu.ac.uk/ppp-online).
Stewart, I. and Vaitilingam, R. (eds) (2004) Seven ages of man and women, Swindon:
ESRC.
Stutchbury, M. (2010) ‘Renovation boom masks shortage of new houses’, The
Australian, 11 March (available at www.theaustralian.com.au/business/renovation-
boom-masks-shortage-of-new-houses/story-e6frg8zx-1225839329178).
Tanton, R., Nepal, B. and Harding,A. (2008) Wherever I lay my debt, that’s my home,
AMP. NATSEM Income and Wealth Report No 19, Canberra:AMP. NATSEM.
Tarr, D.G. (2009) ‘The political, regulatory and market failures that caused
the US financial crisis: what are the lessons?’ (available at http://ssrn.com/
abstract=1322297).
Taylor, J. (1997)‘The contemporary demography of Indigenous Australians’, Journal
of the Australian Population Association, vol 14, no 1, pp 77-115.
Thorns, D.C. (1981)‘The implications of differential rates of capital gain from
owner occupation for the formation and development of housing classes’,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol 5, no 2, pp 205-17.
Tinker A. (1997) ‘The environment of ageing’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, Series B Biological Science, vol 352, Issue 1363, pp 1861-69.
Tomaney, J. and Bradley, D. (2007) ‘The economic role of mobile professional and
creative workers and their housing and residential preferences: Evidence from
North East England’, Town Planning Review, vol 48, no 4, pp 511-30.
Tonkin, S. and Williams, L with Ackland, R. (1993) The relationship between visa
category and the demand for housing. Results from the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants
to Australia (LSIA) Pilot, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Troy, P. (1991) The benefits of owner occupation, urban research program,Working Paper
No 29, Canberra: Australian National University.
Tually, S. (2007) A brief review of the integration of state and territory housing and disability
policies in Australia, Melbourne:Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Tually, S. (2008) Overview of findings: housing 21 qualitative survey,Adelaide: Southern
Research Centre, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Uren, D. (2010) ‘Nation back on growth track’, The Australian, 2 March, p 1.
189
US Bureau of the Census, Historic housing data – ownership (available at www.

census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html).
US Bureau of the Census, Homeownership rates for the US and Regions: 1965
to present (available at www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/historic/
index.html).
US Department of Veterans’ Affairs (2009) Legislative history of the VA home
loan guaranty program (available at www.homeloans.va.gov/pdf/history.pdf).
VanderHart, P.G. (1995) ‘The socioeconomic determinants of the housing
decisions of elderly homeowners’, Journal of Housing for the Elderly, vol 11, no 2,
pp 5-35 and co-published in L.A. Pastalan, Housing decisions for the elderly: to move
or not to move, Binghamton, New York:The Hawthorn Press, Chapter 2, pp 5-35.
Vertovec, (2005) The emergence of super-diversity in Britain, Working Paper 25,
Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society.
Watson, S. (1988) Accommodating inequality. gender and housing, Sydney: Allen and
Unwin.
Watt, P. (2005) ‘Housing histories and fragmented middle class careers’, Housing
Studies, vol 20, no 3, pp 359-82.
Weston, R., Stanton, D., Qu, L., and Soriano, G.(2001) ‘Australian families in
transition’ Family Matters, no 60, pp12-23.
Whitehead, M. (2003) ‘In the shadow of hierarchy: meta-governance, policy
reform and urban regeneration in the West Midlands’, Area, vol 35, no 1, pp 6-14.
Whittington, L.A. and Peters, H.E. (1996) ‘Economic incentives for financial and
residential independence’, Demography, vol 33, pp 82-97.
Williams, P. (1984) ‘The politics of property: home ownership in Australia’, in
J. Halligan and C. Paris (eds) Australian urban politics, Melbourne: Longman
Cheshire, pp 167-92.
Williams, P. (2003) ‘Home ownership and changing housing and mortgage markets:
the new economic realities’, in R. Forrest and J. Lee (eds) Housing and social
change: east west perspectives, London: Routledge, pp. 162-182.
Wilson Center (2009) ‘Weathering the economic crisis: lessons from Canada’,
Centerpoint (available at www.wilsoncenter.org).
Wincup, E., Buckland, G. and Bayliss, R. (2003) Youth homelessness and substance
abuse, London: Home Office.
Wood G.,Watson R., and Flatau P. (2003) A microsimulation model of the Australian
housing market with applications to Commonwealth and State policy initiatives, Final
Report, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute..
Wulff, M. and Maher, C. (1998) ‘Long term renters in the Australian housing
market’, Housing Studies, vol 13, no 1, pp 83-98.
Wyn, J. and Dwyer, P. (1999) ‘New directions in research on youth in transition’,
Journal of Youth Studies, vol 2, pp 5-21.
Yates, J. (1996) ‘Towards a reassessment of the private rental market’, Housing
Studies, vol 11, pp 35-51.
Yates, J. (2002) Housing implications of social, spatial and structural change, Final Report,
Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
190
References
Yates, J. (2003) Tax concessions and subsidies for Australian homebuyers and home
owners, Research and Policy Bulletin No 27, Melbourne: Australian Housing
Yates, J. and Bradbury, B. (2009) ‘Home ownership as a (crumbling) fourth pillar
of social insurance in Australia’, Luxembourg Wealth Study Working Paper
Series, Working Paper No 8, Luxembourg: Luxembourg Income Study (LIS).
Yates, J. and Bradbury, B. (2010) ‘Home ownership as a crumbling fourth pillar
of social insurance in Australia’, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,
vol 25, pp 193-211.
Yates, J. and Gabriel, M. (2006) Housing affordability in Australia, National Research
Venture 3, Housing Affordability for Lower Income Australians, Research
Paper 3, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Yates, J. and Milligan,V., with Berry, M., Burke,T., Gabriel, M., Phibbs, P., Pinnegar,
S. and Randolph B. (2007) Housing affordability: a 21st century problem, Final
Yates, J., Kendig, H., and Phillips, B., with Milligan V. and Tanton R. (2008)
Sustaining fair shares: the Australian housing system and intergenerational sustainability,
Research Paper No 11, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute.
Young C. (1996) ‘Are young people leaving home earlier or later’, Journal of
Population Research, vol 13, no 2, pp 125-152.
Young, C.M. (1987)‘Young people leaving home in Australia: the trend towards
independence’, Australian Family Formation Project, Monograph No 9,
Department of Demography, Research School of Social Sciences, Canberra:
Australian National University.
191
Index
Index
Page references for figures and tables are in italics
A Bailey, D. 142
Baker, A. 124
Aberdeen 23
Baker, E. ix, 162
Adelaide 24, 138–41, 142–3
Banks, J. 43
affordability see housing affordability
Barker, Kate 45
aged see older people
Barrell, R. 2, 20–1
Aged Persons’ Homes Act 93–4
Baum, S. 74
ageing in place 94–5
Baxter, J. 75
Allen Consulting Group (ACG) 131, 132, 133
Beck, U. 15, 16, 27
AMTPA (Alternative Mortgage Transaction
Beer, A. 21, 22, 137, 139, 150–1
Parity Act) 50
Belgium 6
Armstrong, K. 141
Bengtsson, B. 13
aspirations
bequests 104–5
and housing decisions 31–5, 32, 35
Berry, M. 57, 78, 82
young people 73–4
Billari, F.C. 61
Atkinson, R. 13
Birdsall-Jones, C.L. 26
Australia
Birmingham 141–3
bushfires 160
Blatter, J. 8
disability 113, 120–30, 131, 132–3
boomerang children 64–6
economic restructuring and housing 138–41,
Bradbury, B. 100
142–3
Bradley, D. 86
family and the consumption of housing 75–8
Bridge, C. 131
homelessness 67
Brink, S. 95
house prices 5, 163
Brownlee, H. 82
Housing 21 Survey 14
buy-to-let (BTL) mortgages 44
housing affordability 56, 86–91, 87, 89
Bynner, J.M. 61, 62, 65
housing careers 26
housing finance and policy 56–7
housing histories 24 C
housing policy and provision 53–5, 58–9, 160
Canada
immigrants 149–53, 149, 150, 151, 152
housing finance 57–9
income inequality 6
housing market 5
Indigenous population 6–7
housing policy 160
life expectancy 167
income inequality 6
mid life 83–6, 86
young people 69
older people 93–5, 96–110, 109, 162
carers 129–30
owner occupation viii–ix, 162
Cartmel, F. 66
precarious housing 136–7
Castles, I. ix
relationship breakdown 79, 80–1
childbearing 75–8
rental history checks 153
Chiuri, M.C. 68–9
social housing 33, 161
choice 158
young people 63–4, 64, 65–6, 67, 69–73, 70,
Christensen, W.J. 26
71, 73–4
Clapham, D. 12, 13, 26–30, 34, 36–7, 105,
143, 158
B Clark, W. 1–2, 20, 24–6, 34, 156, 159
class 35–6, 36
baby boomers viii, 33, 34
cognitive impairment 117–18, 118, 127–8
Australia 54
Côté, J. 61, 62, 65
homeownership and purchase 96, 97
council housing see social housing
housing and locational preferences 105–6
credit rating agencies 51–2
wealth in old age 102–3, 103
critical realism 13, 156–7
Badcock, B.A. 21, 22
193
CSHA (Commonwealth State Housing Ferri, E. 43, 47

Agreement) 54–5 FHOG (First Home Owners Grant) 71
Cutler, C. 150–1 FICO credit score 50–1
financial crisis see global financial crisis
Finland 6
D Fitzpatrick, S. 13
Davies, H. 147 Flatau, P. 80
demographic change viii Flood, J. ix
and homelessness 67–8 Florida, R. 86
and housing policy 162 Fopp, R. 12–13
population ageing 4, 95, 100, 167–8 Ford, J. 66–7, 68
UK 42–3 Forrest, R. 20, 23–4
Diamond, I. 42 Franklin, B. 13
disability 4, 10–11, 113–14 Freddie Mac (Federal National Mortgage
and housing affordability 122–3, 122, 123 Association) 49, 50, 51
and housing policy 161 Fukuyama, Francis 39
as housing shock 82–3 Furlong, A. 66
and housing transitions 114–24, 133–4,
159–60
and identity 29 G
and movement through the housing market Gabriel, M. 88
123–4, 124 Gadher, D. 147
older people 107 Gardner, N. 72–3
divorce 4, 79–81 gated communities 5
Germany 6
Giddens, A. 9, 15, 16, 26, 27, 28
E Ginnie Mae (Government National Mortgage
economic restructuring 4–5, 138, 142–3, 154 Association) 49–50
Longbridge 141–2 global financial crisis x, 157
Lonsdale 138–41 and housing transitions 160, 163–4
Elizabeth, Australia 99–100 Ireland 148–9
employment Northern Rock 45–6
economic restructuring and housing 4–5, sub-prime mortgages 50–3, 52
138–43 globalisation 42
and housing decisions 31–5, 32, 35 governance 8
r e t r e n c h m e n t , u n e m p l oy m e n t a n d government policy see housing policy
underemployment 81–2
and risk society 18
environmentally sustainable development 166–7 H
Esping-Andersen, G. ix, 39 Harding, A. 80, 102
Evans, G. 136 Harmer, J. 101
eviction 137 Harvey, David 135
Ezzy, D. 156 Headey, B. 102
health 31–5, 32, 35
Herbert, T. 94
F Hewett, J. 103
family higher education 66, 68
and consumption of housing 75–8 debt 73
support for disabled people 129–30 Holdsworth, C. 66
support for older people 93, 107–8 holiday homes 5–6, 85
support for young people 63, 64–6 homelessness 10
Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage social constructionism 12
Association) 48, 49–50, 51 young people 67–8, 74
Farmer, M. 2, 20–1 homeownership see owner occupation
Faulkner, D. 99–100 house prices 5, 72, 163
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 48 Australia 56
Feijten, P. 78, 79 Ireland 148
194
Index
UK 46, 46 global linkages, convergence and divergence

household dissolution 4, 79–81, 162 163–5
Housing 21 Survey 14 immigrants 143–53
affordability in mid life 87–90 mid life 75–91
bequests 104–5 older people 93–110
disability 113, 120–4, 159 prospects 165–8
family and the consumption of housing 76 risk, opportunity and policy challenges
housing shocks 78 159–63
immigrants 149–50, 149, 150, 151–2, 151, 152 young people 61–74
mid life 84–6, 86 Hughes, J. 80
older people 107–8 Hugo, G. 94
precarious housing 136–7 Hulse, K. 136
relationship breakdown 79 humanitarian migrants 153
second homes 103, 103
social housing 161
young people 63–4, 65–6, 70–2, 70, 71, 73 I
housing identity 29
demog raphic, economic and political illness 82–3
challenges 3–11 immigrants 154
and disability 113–14 Australia 149–53, 149, 150, 151, 152
and environmentally sustainable development Ireland 147–9
166–7 UK 143–7, 146
and life course 17, 19 income inequality 6
and risk society 16–19 Indigenous Australians 6–7, 26
through the life course 1–3 individualisation 15, 16, 27, 159
housing affordability inequality 6–7
Australia 56, 72–3 informal care 107–8
and disability 122–3, 122, 123 Ireland
in mid life 86–91, 87, 89 emigrants 143, 147
UK 72, 73 financial crisis x
housing assistance viii, ix, 7–9 immigrants 147–9
housing associations (HAs) 9, 40, 44 income inequality 6
housing benefit 8–9, 44 owner occupation viii
housing careers 1, 18–20, 19, 20–2, 21, 22, travellers 7
36, 113
and disability 115–20, 134
and housing histories 22–6 J
and housing transitions 155–9 Jacobs, K. 12, 13, 29–30
housing finance 163 Japelli, T. 68–9
Australia 55, 56–7 Jessop, B. 7, 10
Canada 57–8 Jones, A. 97–8
restructuring 85, 86 Jordan, A. 8
US 48–53
housing histories 22–6, 36
housing pathways 1, 26–30, 36–7, 68 K
housing policy 7–11, 26, 155 Kelly, S. 80, 101, 102
Australia 53–8 Kemeny, J. 12, 15, 20, 27, 53
challenges 160–3 Kendig, H. 2, 3–4, 20, 21, 24
convergent and divergent futures 58–9 King, P. 30
disability 130–3 Kroehn, M. 115
immigrants 153
UK 40–5, 41, 45
US 47–53
housing research 12–14, 168 L
housing transitions 1, 30–6, 37, 155–9 labour market see employment
and disability 114–34 life course
and economic restructuring 138–43, 154 and housing 1–3, 17, 19
195
and housing decisions 31–5, 32, 35 O

and housing transitions 157–8
older people viii, 4, 93, 100, 110
mid life 75–91
bequests 104–5
older people 93–110
conventional and emerging housing transitions
and risk society 17–18
93–5
young people 61–74
homeownership and purchase 96–7
life expectancy 167–8
housing and locational preferences 105–6
life planning 28–9
and housing policy 161–2
London 83
income and wealth 100–3, 103
lone-parent families 88–90, 89
population ageing 167–8
Longbridge 141–3
post-retirement housing 18, 19
Lonsdale 138–41, 142–3
private renting 99–100
rental housing 97–8
M social housing 98–9
support services 106–10, 109
Mallett, S. 6 UK 43
Mandic, S. 63, 67 Olsberg, D. 104, 105
marriage 75–6 one-parent families 88–90, 89
see also divorce Oswald, A. 140
McCain, John 6 owner occupation
McDonald, P. 74, 75, 82 affordability 86–8, 87
McDowell, L. 83 Australia viii–ix, 53–7
McNaughton, C. 156–7 and economic restructuring 140, 142, 143
McNelis, S. 94, 98 government assistance 162–3
men, sole-parent families 88–90 housing careers 20–2
Merlo, R. 74 immigrants 144, 146–7, 146, 148, 150–2,
MG Rover 141–2 151, 152
mid life 75, 91 and manufacturing employment 16–18
family and the consumption of housing 75–8 marriage and childbearing 75–6
housing affordability 86–91, 87, 89 mid life 83–4
housing shocks and successes 78–86, 86 older people 96–7
migration ix, 164–5 UK 40–2, 41, 43, 44–5, 45, 47, 53, 145–6, 145
see also immigrants US 47, 48–53, 49, 52
Minnery, J. 37, 104 young people 68–74, 70, 71
Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited (MMAL)
138–41
mobility impairment 116–17, 116, 117, 126–7 P
mortgages see housing finance
Paris, C. 6, 164
Mulder, C.H. 68
partnership dissolution 4, 79–81
Patiniotis, J. 66
N Payne, G. 23
Payne, J. 23
National Council on Disabilities (US) 131, 132 Peach, C. 145
neoliberalism 7, 9 Peck, J. 9
Netherlands pensions 101–2
housing policies 7 Phillipson, C. 105
housing shocks 79 population ageing 4, 95, 100, 167–8
young people 68 Portugal 6
New Zealand ix, x
Powell, M. 9
house prices 5, 163
precarious housing 135–7, 153
housing policies 7
private renting
income inequality 6
affordability 86–7
Northern Rock 45–6
Australia 56
Norway 6
childbearing 77
evictions 137
immigrants 144, 146–7, 146, 148, 151, 151,
152, 152
196
Index
older people 97–8, 99–100 Tually, S. 76–7, 81, 82–3, 132

UK 40–2, 41, 44, 45, 45, 47, 145–6, 145
and unemployment 140
young people 67 U
psychiatric disability 118, 119, 120, 125–6, 137 UK
public rental housing see social housing economic restructuring and housing 141–3
financial crisis x
homelessness 67
R housing benefit 8–9
refugees 153 housing histories 23–4
relationship breakdown 4, 79–81 housing market crash 5, 45–7, 46, 163
renovations 84–5 housing policy and provision 7, 40–5, 41, 45,
rental housing 97–8 47, 59, 160
see also private renting; social housing housing tenure 145–6, 145
residential care homes 94 immigrants 143–7, 146
retirement villages 106 income inequality 6
right to buy 44, 165 Medical Priority Housing 33
risk 15–18, 27, 136, 156, 159, 160 older people 106
Rowles, G.D. 94 owner occupation viii, 162
Rudd, Kevin 100 social housing and disability 132, 133
Rugg, J. 68 Third Way 9
young people 65, 66–7, 68, 69, 72, 73
unemployment 81–2
S universal design 133
Saegert, S. 136 US
Saugeres, L. 125, 136 disability 130, 131, 133
second homes 5–6, 103, 103, 164 house prices 5, 163
Section 8 housing programme 49 housing policy 47–51, 49, 58, 59
Seelig, T. 37, 137 income inequality 6
sensory impairment 118, 119, 120, 128–9 landlord rights 137
Sheehan, G. 80 low-income tenants 7
Slatter, M. 137 neoliberalism ix
Smith, S. 82, 132 older people 106
SMMEA (Secondar y Mor tgage Market owner occupation 162
Enhancement Act) 50 sub-prime mortgage crisis 2, 51–3, 52, 163,
Smyth, B. 80 165
social constructionism 12–13 young people 66
housing pathways 26–30
social housing 9–10, 33, 160, 161
Australia 54, 56 W
and disability 120, 132–3 Wagner, M. 68
immigrants 144, 146–7, 146, 148 Weston, R. 80
neoliberalism 7–8 Winters, M. 104, 105
older people 97, 98–9 women
UK 40–2, 41, 43–4, 45, 45, 47, 145–6, 145, 165 as carers 129
sole-parent families 88–90, 89 divorce 79, 80
Somerville, P. 13, 29, 30 in labour market 4
Spain viii, 163 leaving parental home 62
structuration 26–30 sole-parent families 88–90
sub-prime mortgages 50–3, 52, 58, 163 UK 43
Wulff, M. 74
T
Theodore, N. 9 Y
Third Way 9–10, 160–1 Yates, Judy viii–ix, 72, 87, 88, 97, 100
Thorns, D.C. 20 Young, C. 65
Tomaney, J. 86 young people 61–2
197
boomerang children 64–6

drivers and impediments to independence
63–4, 64
future 74
homeownership viii, ix, 68–73, 70, 71
housing aspirations and expectations 73–4
motivations for independence 66–8
Z
Zacharov, R. 37, 104
198
HOUSING TRANSITIONS THROUGH THE LIFE COURSE • Beer and Faulkner with Paris and Clower
“A hugely impressive book. Housing transitions through the life course not
only offers a valuable comparison of lifetime attitudes towards housing
across different countries but also highlights how the global financial crisis
housing Transitions
has impacted on such markets. Bang up-to-date and highly readable. A much
recommended read.”
Professor David Bailey, Coventry University Business School, UK
through the LIFE COURSE
For decades housing researchers and policy makers have considered the relationship
between housing and the life course. The housing we live in shapes individual access to jobs,
ASPIRATIONS, NEEDS AND POLICY
health, well-being and communities. There are substantial differences between generations
regarding the type of housing they aspire to live in, their attitudes to housing costs and the
nature of their households.
This important contribution to the literature presents a fresh perspective on these ideas. It draws
upon research from the UK, Australia and the US to show how lifetime attitudes to housing have
changed, with new population dynamics driving the market and a greater emphasis on consumption.
It considers how the global financial crisis has differentially affected housing markets, with variable
impacts on the long-term housing transitions of different populations. The authors argue that how
we think about households and their housing needs to be recast to acknowledge this changed
environment and provide a more powerful conceptual framework.
Andrew Beer is a Professor in Geography at the University of Adelaide. His interests include the
relationship between housing and the life course, regional economic development policies and
homelessness.
Debbie Faulkner is a Research Fellow in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies
at the University of Adelaide. She has research interests in population issues including housing, ageing,
homelessness and at risk groups in the community.
URBAN STUDIES / GEOGRAPHY

ISBN 978-1-84742-428-0

www.policypress.co.uk 9 781847 424280 with Chris Paris and Terry Clower
BHCON_Beer_PPC_3.1.indd 1 23/05/2011 09:27:48

Housing Transitions Through The Life Course: Aspirations, Needs and Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Housing Transitions Through The Life Course: Aspirations, Needs and Policy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Housing Transitions Through The Life Course: Aspirations, Needs and Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

housing Transitions

through the LIFE COURSE

Andrew Beer and Debbie Faulkner

The Policy Press

North American office:

© The Policy Press 2011

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 978 1 84742 428 0 (hardcover)

The Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender,

Cover design by The Policy Press

one Housing markets and policy in theÂ€21stÂ€century 1

three Housing transitions and housing policy: international context and 39

four The housing transitions ofÂ€youngerÂ€adults 61

five Housing in mid life: consolidation, opportunity and risk 75

six Housing transitions in later life 93

seven Housing and disability: aÂ€21st‑centuryÂ€phenomenon 113

eight Housing transitions, economic restructuring and the marginalised 135

8.4 Decade of arrival in Australia of immigrants from mainly non-English- 152

Andrew Beer is a Professor in Geography at the University of Adelaide and

Debbie Faulkner is a Research Fellow in the Department of Geography and

Terry Clower is director of the Center for Economic Development and

Indigenous population generates housing market dynamics and patterns unknown

Andrew Beer and Debbie Faulkner

Housing markets and policy in

Housing through the life course: questions, challenges and

the housing market is a matter of requirement not choice and is a consequence

Demographic, economic and political challenges in housing

housing and the life course, recording the view:

basis. These new forms of employment create different opportunities and

potentials of housing and significantly increased personal mobility.As Paris (2010)

is no longer seen as a long-term commitment to the well-being of the household,

payable to tenants of non-state landlords, especially housing associations, but

housing outcomes of persons with a disability are likely to be both substantially

Figure 1.1: Processes contributing to change in 21st-century housing

Labour market change Movements in

Demographic Lifetime housing Changing values, means

Change in broad- Changed roles

Source: Designed by authors of book

Evidence and theory in understanding housing over the life

attempting to privilege some forms of knowledge as objective and material, while

The Housing 21 Survey

Housing over the life course: housing

Risk, the life course and housing

manufacturing industry and the expansion of owner occupation. The relatively

flexible production and service provision (Beck, 1992). Much large-scale

Housing histories, housing careers and housing pathways

Figure 2.1: Changed life histories and changing housing careers

Family formation Children leave home Retirement

Rent- Outright Aged

Divorce Providing care Being cared for

Home Outright Living in

Source: Adapted from Williams (2003, p 166)

Figure 2.2:The housing career ‘ladder’

Living with parents

Source: Based on Kendig et al (1987, p 30)

Figure 2.3:The board game of snakes and ladders

Source: Badcock and Beer (2000, p 90)

The concept of a housing career provides a useful perspective on the position of