Terry Burke

The institutional structure of housing and the sub-prime crisis: an Australian case study

The global financial crisis was both precipitated by and had major effects on the performance of housing markets around the world. Australia was one of the few Western countries where the housing market was barely affected. There was a slight hiccup and then borrowing, construction and house price inflation continued on its pre-crisis course. For a country that on the surface is very similar to the USA and which had one of the worst affected housing markets, what could explain the difference? This paper is a broad-ranging, reflexive study which draws on an institutional framework to explore some distinguishing characteristics of housing provision in Australia which explain the paradox of the relative stability of the Australian housing system simultaneous with deepening housing affordability problems.

Housing Markets and the Global Financial Crisis: The Uneven Impact on Households

described in this book – project and risk management, competitive funding rounds, the emphasis on timely delivery of “deliverables”, and involvement of researchers on “user groups” which involve regular discussions with policy makers by teleconference. AHURI researchers have been under pressure to have research delivered to shorter time scales with less time to reflect before writing up research. However the experience of engaging with policy makers has probably helped develop ideas and sharpen the relevance of research for policy. Researchers have still been critical of current government government policy (policy makers are not always averse to criticism or different perspectives – for example some State government and federal line department funders often appreciate evidence or argument that supports change for their debates with treasuries). Policy makers once sought tight control over research agendas, but researchers are now in greater control of devising topics, research questions and methodologies when they submit funding applications, suggesting that the relationship is not all one way. Allen and Imrie wish to hold the line against the incursion of outside interests into the academy by creating independent universities that might safeguard the interests of the public intellectual. However even they are pessimistic about the prospects of this occurring in the UK in the context of government budget cuts. A more realistic alternative is to accept that the research academic might need to draw funding from a range of sources, including drawing on the financial support, information and perspectives provided by business or government when it makes sense to do so. The example of AHURI in Australia suggests that there are models of joint funding that mediate government interests while also widening the discretion of researchers in their areas of expertise, so that the academic researcher can find it in his or her interest to collaborate with other partners including government without necessarily compromising the quality or orientation of the research.