Collaborative Governance for Affordable Housing in Toronto and Melbourne

Carolyn Whitzman,Louise Frost,Katrina Raynor

doi:10.24908/cpp-apc.v2020i0.13272

Abstract

Policy formation and implementation have largely shifted from a top-down government-led process, to a collaborative governance approach characterised by complex and opaque partnerships, weakly steered by the state. We use 36 interviews, undertaken in Toronto and Melbourne between 2015 and 2018, to assess procedural accountability in these two cities: the extent to which policy outputs developed through a partnership approach are fair, transparent, rational, and intentional. We find that both cities fail the basics of procedural accountability, and that there is little shared understanding amongst key partners – local and provincial/state policymakers, non-profit and private sector housing providers, and philanthropic and private sector finance providers – about the definition and missing quantum of affordable housing, let alone a sense of how to move forward.

Highlights

In this article: we ask the question: “How well are collaborative governance processes working to develop policy serving the public good?” We use as case studies the housing regimes of two mid-sized cities of the Global North – Toronto, Canada and Melbourne, Australia – that have moved over the last 50 years from top-down housing policy formulation to largely privatised affordable housing delivery accomplished though diffuse partnerships
We begin by developing a conceptual framework for the evaluation of procedural accountability in policy formation through the discussion of the literature, drawing on evaluation frameworks derived from public administration and urban planning literatures
We provide an overview of the housing and governance contexts in Melbourne and Toronto before highlighting aspects of procedural accountability in housing policy in both cities

Summary

Introduction

In this article: we ask the question: “How well are collaborative governance processes working to develop policy serving the public good?” We use as case studies the housing regimes of two mid-sized cities of the Global North – Toronto, Canada and Melbourne, Australia – that have moved over the last 50 years from top-down housing policy formulation to largely privatised affordable housing delivery accomplished though diffuse partnerships.We begin by developing a conceptual framework for the evaluation of procedural accountability in policy formation through the discussion of the literature, drawing on evaluation frameworks derived from public administration and urban planning literatures. In this article: we ask the question: “How well are collaborative governance processes working to develop policy serving the public good?” We use as case studies the housing regimes of two mid-sized cities of the Global North – Toronto, Canada and Melbourne, Australia – that have moved over the last 50 years from top-down housing policy formulation to largely privatised affordable housing delivery accomplished though diffuse partnerships. We provide an overview of the housing and governance contexts in Melbourne and Toronto before highlighting aspects of procedural accountability in housing policy in both cities. While the institutional contexts of both cities are integral to analysis, our primary research question focuses on whether housing processes and policies are fair, transparent, legitimate and reasoned and whether collaborative governance is achieving its purported aims in these cities. We conclude with a discussion of how this analytic framework might be applied in other contexts

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Conclusion