This paper contributes to debates on the financialisation of social housing and the related development of affordable housing, which has been shown to expand in relation to the increasing role of capital, actors, and instruments of financial markets. Building on housing studies, we develop a relational approach that takes into account the context-specific, complex interactions that exist beyond the dominant pattern of substitution of social by affordable housing found in the literature. Our case-study focuses on France, where policymakers have framed capital markets as a solution to the destabilisation of the traditional ‘generalist’ model of social housing by austerity. We show that governmental attempts to unlock access to capital markets through equity investment have been met with contestations, resulting in very limited experiments. However, capital markets have made their way through intermediate housing (logement locatif intermédiaire, LLI), a bespoke tax regime created to stimulate institutional investment into the production of ‘affordable’ housing for the ‘middle class’. We discuss three modes of interrelations between social and intermediate housing (substitution, cross-subsidisation, and competition), and reflect on the long-term destabilising effects of peripheral financialisation on the social housing sector and policies.

Homeownership has long been a cornerstone of Australia’s retirement policy yet is under strain. A financialised housing market and population ageing leaves more people facing retirement with mortgage debt or reliance on the private rental sector. Despite these shifts, housing policy responses to support older households have remained largely stagnant. Our focus is on older adults experiencing or at risk of housing precarity who lack adequate housing assistance and sufficient wealth to secure housing. This study presents a new conceptualisation of this group, quantifies the scale of the issue, identifies those most affected, and analyses the distribution of wealth among older Australians. Among 955,513 low-income people aged 55 and older with wealth below $500,000, 46.2% rent privately, 25.0% own their home with a mortgage, and 28.8% have other tenure arrangements. Without policy reform—whether through policy shifts, political will, or advocacy—these disadvantages will persist. A mix of tenure-specific solutions for older adults are urgently required, including expanded social housing and well-regulated, affordable private rental options.

For older adults, ageing in place is a life aspiration centred on maintaining independence and autonomy. Adverse housing outcomes can be seen as structural constraints on the realisation of this aspiration. Focused on the European context, this study investigated the factors affecting adverse housing conditions among low-to-moderate income older adults with limitations in daily activities living in single-person households. Using linear probability models, the multilevel analysis drew on microdata from 34,281 older adults, derived from the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. The study identified the characteristics that increase the risk of experiencing multiple adverse housing outcomes. Findings show that stronger regulations on security of tenure and higher housing allowance coverage are associated with lower risks of housing affordability problems. Conversely, increases in rental tenure rates—including below-market rentals—are linked to a higher risk of housing affordability problems but a lower probability of neighbourhood-related issues. The study contributes to the debate on the role of housing for ageing in place by showing how specific housing policy instruments shape the likelihood of adverse housing outcomes.

This article explores the drivers of transitions into and out of precarious housing. Using the 2001–2021 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, we examine four precarious housing dimensions – housing stress, late housing payments, overcrowding and forced moves. We uncover several temporal dimensions to precarious housing pathways, including positive and negative duration dependence. In the former case, the longer people remain in secure housing, the more likely they avoid future experiences of precariousness. In contrast, an episode of precarious housing in the past year increases the odds of remaining in precariousness in the current year. By distinguishing across different precarious housing dimensions, we find one form of precariousness can precipitate another form of precariousness. Late housing payments lead to housing stress and forced moves, and forced moves can result in overcrowding. Precarious housing experiences can cause scarring effects, such that even those who escape are susceptible to cycling in and out of precariousness. Importantly, prevention or early intervention of housing precariousness can have a protective effect, while late intervention can be less effective.

In this special issue, we aim to reconceptualise incremental housing, acknowledging its embeddedness within industries, markets, institutions and practices of city-making, based on a diversity of cases from around the world, with varying degrees of state, citizen, market and civil society involvement. In this introduction, we first shed light on the dilemmas and paradoxes involved in the complex forms and manifestations of state involvement in relation to bottom-up practices and ‘self-organizing logics’ that are often considered informal. We also discuss three key themes related to ongoing debates and agendas on incremental housing: temporality, relationality, and urban systems, suggesting the need to reimagine the role of incremental housing within broader debates on city-making. Putting temporality centre stage in the debate means paying more attention to longitudinal development; speculation and waiting time; issues of maintenance and repair; and the possibility of upward but also downward mobility. Relational, feminist and intersectional approaches to incremental housing bring important new angles of care, plurality and heterogeneity of actors and needs. Connecting such relational approaches to urban systems thinking further allows us to consider precarious (paid/unpaid) labour, income generation and power. Thinking through citywide issues of land scarcity, labour, financial markets, and building materials involves many complex networks of actors, and in particular, highly complicates the formal-informal divide. Therefore, as we suggest in this special issue introduction, taking forward debates on incremental housing must pay attention to the critical role of temporality, relationality and broader urban systems.

Governments worldwide are reconfiguring social housing as ‘affordable’ housing delivered by private landlords. The Belgian version of this ‘market social housing’ are social rental agencies (SRAs), which manage below-market rental housing on behalf of private owners. In exchange for offering reduced rents, landlords benefit from state de-risking. In Brussels, 24 SRAs manage nearly 8,000 units. Over the past decade, the private real estate sector has increasingly recognized SRA housing as a viable investment model. Developers construct Build-to-Rent projects for SRAs, agencies sell apartments managed by SRAs, and Buy-to-Let (BTL) and institutional investors let their properties through SRAs. Although the SRA model was not designed to assetise and financialise affordable housing, its current design does result in the financialisation of affordable rental housing. However, this process remains partial and limited, rendering market social housing a constrained financial asset. The state plays a multifaceted role—as regulator, market maker, mediator, and sometimes investor—highlighting its centrality in both enabling and sustaining housing financialisation. Investment returns rely heavily on public support, and in periods of economic strain, expanding subsidies becomes essential. The Brussels case thus illustrates how market-based social housing models can advance financialisation, even while relying on continuous and active state involvement.

This article investigates the relationship between construction activity, property concentration, and homeownership in Buenos Aires City and Santiago de Chile Metropolitan Area, two Latin American capitals with distinct housing finance systems and investor landscapes. Despite institutional differences, both cities exhibit parallel declines in homeownership, especially among low-income and younger households, indicating a broader trend of housing inequality linked to financialisation. By analysing the spatial distribution of construction and demographic change, the article identifies how increased investor activity reshapes housing tenure, concentrating property ownership and marginalising non-owners. In investor-driven markets, housing becomes less affordable as prices detach from household incomes, turning real estate into a wealth accumulation or preservation vehicle rather than shelter provision. The study challenges the notion that increasing housing supply inherently improves access, showing that construction instead often aligns with investor interests rather than population needs. Methodologically, the article offers a novel approach to examining property concentration in opaque markets. Ultimately, the article demonstrates that housing inequalities are increasingly shaped by the logic of asset-based social reproduction and spatial investment patterns, contributing to intergenerational inequality and precarious urban conditions. These findings are relevant for understanding housing financialisation beyond the Global North.