TY - JOUR
T1 - The Importance of Institutional Capacity and Negotiation Capacity in Affordable Housing Agreements
T2 - The Potential for Collective Action in Melbourne, Australia
AU - Raynor, Katrina
AU - Warren-Myers, Georgia
AU - Paladino, Angela
AU - Palm, Matthew
AU - Judge, Madeline
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the University of Melbourne’s Hallmark Research Initiative for Affordable Housing.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 IBF, The Institute for Housing and Urban Research.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - New legislation was introduced in 2018 in Victoria, Australia to encourage the negotiation of affordable housing agreements. This change resulted in the expansion of formal and informal mechanisms for cross-sectoral affordable housing delivery. In this paper we draw on 20 interviews with housing stakeholders, focusing on the process of negotiation. We propose a novel theoretical framework to interpret capacity for collective action in a loosely regulated policy area, combining insights from negotiation theory and Institutional Capacity Development (ICD) literature. We find widespread concerns about the opaque, inefficient and potentially exploitative nature of outcomes. We also find that agreements varied across projects based on levels of trust; access to information; political capital; capacity for mutual gain; and the presence of shared rules for interacting. We conclude that competition-based negotiations may lead to increased institutional capacity while also highlighting the challenges of housing delivery in the context of institutional uncertainty.
AB - New legislation was introduced in 2018 in Victoria, Australia to encourage the negotiation of affordable housing agreements. This change resulted in the expansion of formal and informal mechanisms for cross-sectoral affordable housing delivery. In this paper we draw on 20 interviews with housing stakeholders, focusing on the process of negotiation. We propose a novel theoretical framework to interpret capacity for collective action in a loosely regulated policy area, combining insights from negotiation theory and Institutional Capacity Development (ICD) literature. We find widespread concerns about the opaque, inefficient and potentially exploitative nature of outcomes. We also find that agreements varied across projects based on levels of trust; access to information; political capital; capacity for mutual gain; and the presence of shared rules for interacting. We conclude that competition-based negotiations may lead to increased institutional capacity while also highlighting the challenges of housing delivery in the context of institutional uncertainty.
KW - affordable housing
KW - affordable housing agreements
KW - Institutional capacity development
KW - negotiation
KW - planning gain
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137013867&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/14036096.2022.2116477
DO - 10.1080/14036096.2022.2116477
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85137013867
SN - 1403-6096
VL - 40
SP - 133
EP - 151
JO - Housing, Theory and Society
JF - Housing, Theory and Society
IS - 2
ER -