Modernization and Change in Social Housing: The Case for an Organizational Perspective

MODERNIZATION AND CHANGE IN SOCIALHOUSING: THE CASE FOR ANORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

DAVID MULLINS, BARBARA REID AND RICHARD M. WALKER

It is argued that past approaches to the research of housing policy and housingorganizations are now inadequate and unable to provide a clear explanation ofmodernization and change. The modernization of social housing is associated withchanging core organizational competencies and the movement towards a variety ofpartnership approaches. In response we develop a tripartite theoretical frameworkbased around new institutional economics, strategic management and institutionaltheory. An exploratory review of the evidence at a sectoral level (examining socialhousing as a field, regulation and the profession) and the organizational level(focusing upon changing organization behaviour) is used to illustrate the legitimacyof this approach. In conclusion a research agenda is outlined.

INTRODUCTION

There has been much debate within different professional and academicfields about the nature of the institutional and organizational changes asso-ciated with the modernization project, both prior to and since the electionof the first Blair government in 1997 (Blair 1997; Giddens 1998). Earliercommentators have focused on the ‘rolling back of the state’ associated withConservative government policies, and which is seen to have constitutedan irreversible diminution of the role of public sector institutions overall(Hood 1991; Rhodes 1994). Others set out how the ‘mixed economy of pro-vision’ presented an opportunity for the public sector to extend local andsectoral hegemony through regulatory regimes and other forms of struc-tured influence (Greer and Hoggett 1999). Other work has looked atchanges in governance and social co-ordination at local, sectoral and cor-porate levels, and the relationship between policy co-ordination and differ-ent modes of governance (Thompson et al. 1993).

Modernization is a contested theoretical term. The idea of modernizationwhich underpins the present government’s ‘modernization agenda’ focuseson the need to foster an ongoing appetite at institutional and organizationallevel to modernize in order to maintain or create competitive or collabor-ative advantage, or justify maintained public investment levels. In this con-text, modernization implies progress towards improved efficiency. It is not

David Mullins is at the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham. BarbaraReid is at the Faculty of the Built Environment, South Bank University. Richard M. Walker is at theDepartment of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University.

Public Administration Vol. 79 No. 3, 2001 (599–623) Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street,Malden, MA 02148, USA.

600 DAVID MULLINS, BARBARA REID AND RICHARD M. WALKER

the intention in this paper to explore the deeper theoretical roots of themodernization concept. Rather the aim of this paper is to highlight thedeficiencies in research associated with the traditional public administrationapproaches of central-local relations and principal:agent theory within thecontext of social housing. We argue the need for a theoretical refocusingaround a tripartite framework which draws upon new institutional eco-nomics, strategic management and institutional theory. An important facetof our approach is that it takes into account the modernization of socialhousing and the uncertainties and contingencies which define organiza-tions’ behaviour and structure their interactions with their operationalenvironment at the organizational, local and sectoral levels. The paper doesnot aim to come to definitive conclusions but to offer an exploration of thistheoretical framework within the social housing sector in England andWales.

In developing this approach to the research of housing we initially pro-vide further evidence of our understanding of the term modernization. Inthe second section we provide a critique of past research traditions andillustrate their limitations. The next section presents our tripartite theoreti-cal perspective, firstly exploring governance theory from a new institutionaleconomics perspective. Here we review the way in which organizationalactivity is structured at different levels by the relationships between differ-ent actors and agencies involved. Second, social housing’s ‘strategic role’is discussed to further demonstrate the changing management context,meanings and practices. Central in these two perspectives is the role ofinter-organizational relationships. Third we examine the ways in whichinstitutional theory can explain organizational behaviour at the sectorallevel. After this theoretical discussion the section that follows explores theseideas in three arenas to illustrate our case. At the sectoral level we initiallyexamine the role and operation of regulation and regulatory mechanisms toillustrate how regulation has been developed and to indicate the increasingcomplexity of social housing provision. Second, the limited success of the‘professional project’ in social housing is considered to again portray at thesectoral level how the profession has struggled to cope with the new ‘mod-ern’ agenda. Third, the focus shifts to changing patterns in the wider behav-iour exhibited at the organizational level. Having reviewed these areas, thepaper concludes by suggesting how this approach to analysing organiza-tional change might offer new perspectives on modernization and changein social housing and it offers a research agenda.

MODERNIZATION, POLICY CHANGE AND PAST RESEARCH INSOCIAL HOUSING

The modernization of social housingThe modernization of social housing has been driven by a number of factorsand is expressed through three facets. First has been the redefinition ofsocial housing organizations’ ‘core’ roles and responsibilities, and their

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

MODERNIZATION AND CHANGE IN SOCIAL HOUSING 601

redistribution between different organizations. Local authorities, and onoccasion housing associations, until relatively recently have been seen interms of the direct public sector response to meeting national housing needsand providing housing for the poorest and most vulnerable. These organi-zations to all intents and purposes were (traditionally) responsible fordirectly providing, distributing, and managing a publicly funded and pro-vided housing stock. By the end of the 1980s, this almost universallyaccepted precept of direct public sector provision gradually became dis-lodged, partly as a by-product of privatization policy, and the search for‘private sector solutions’. Associated with this change in orientation camefirst, increasing use of private sector funds as against a shrinking publicsector commitment; second, a shift in the financial burden away from pro-duction and capital subsidies towards consumption and personal subsidies;and, third, organizational and cultural changes resulting from cross-sectoralpartnerships and a progressive redefinition of what was understood as the‘social housing product’. The move away from direct provision has meantthat the ‘social’ dimension of social housing has come to be less associatedwith the inevitability of public sector funding and public sector manage-ment. Instead, it centres more on the social purposes which underpin pro-vision, and the ‘social’ characteristics of different patterns of use and man-agement. The traditional model of the single social housing organization,typically a local authority or publicly funded housing association, as directprovider, distributor and manager, along with the assumption that all ofthese roles automatically belong together has quickly given way to a widen-ing range of diverse organizational arrangements.

A second facet of modernization in social housing centres on the stepsbeing taken by social housing organizations to structure their operationalenvironment through the use of broadly defined partnership arrangements.Different organizations have embraced the notion of partnership todiffering degrees, and there is a wide variety of organization governancepractice emerging at local, sectoral and project levels. Partnerships andcollaborative relationships are built up in many different ways. First, theymay be formed on the basis of external decentralization or out-sourcing,both enforced, as was the case with compulsory competitive tendering(CCT); second, by initiatives to involve service users, such as those linkedto the Conservative government’s Citizens Charter initiative, and now tothe Best Value regime and the Tenants Compact; and third, in a range ofother forms of collaboration which characterize the ‘new public manage-ment’ (Ferlie et al. 1996). Across the social housing sector, organizationalresponses to partnership working have been both sophisticated and farmore diverse than are generally imagined. The emergence of coalitions andalliances, the creation of subsidiaries and arms-length agencies, preferredpartner arrangements, networking with specialist providers, and the devel-opment of inter-organizational project teams – all of which may involvegroups rather than pairs of organizations – are indicative of the range and



complexity of these organizational responses to their changing environment(Reid 1999). Indeed, such changes have promoted a major debate in thehousing association sector about the nature of the regulatory regime whichattempts to monitor their complex behaviour (see pp. 610–14, below).

A third facet of modernization has involved extensive ‘boundary-spanning’ activities across traditional public service sector boundaries, forexample, between housing, health and employment. Such activities, oftenreferred to within the social housing field as ‘housing plus’, have had andcontinue to have significant impacts on management practice, raising parti-cular issues around professional and operational ‘overlap’. On the onehand, cross-professional and inter-organizational working has challengedaccepted notions of professional ‘closure’, particularly within the pro-fessionally defined area of practice which constitutes ‘housing manage-ment’. On the other, more generic forms of managerialism and strategicmanagement have come to be seen as key to organizational effectivenessin an environment which necessitates more risk-taking and entrepreneurial-ism. As a consequence, managers within social housing organizations andthe management which they ‘do’ has begun to be seen less in terms ofspecific competencies, such as those recognized in Chartered Institute ofHousing (CIH) professional qualifications, and more in terms of the needto have at an organization’s disposal an eclectic mix of techniques andmethods. These are often competence-based, but reflect a much wider rangeof disciplines, management fields and models than do traditional CIHdefinitions of competencies. For example, one London-based housingassociation recently re-engineered its housing management, repairs andpublic contact functions into a new customer services function using callcentre technology and wider service sector competencies. Not only did asignificant proportion of existing staff fail to meet the required com-petencies, but the association also found it hard to recruit for those com-petencies through advertising in the traditional housing jobs media. Thisflexibility places particular emphasis on ‘creative management’ as a kindof modernization of organizational practice which in turn is seen as fuellingorganizational change and securing competitive advantage through theinnovation capacity which creative management is seen to bring.

Past researchWe cannot however understand these changes without close attention totheir extent, content, implications and impact. Close scrutiny of the way inwhich social housing organizations have ‘modernized’ over the years hasbeen underplayed in most housing policy and practice research. Researchin the housing policy field has instead tended to be dominated by the central-local relations and the public administration paradigms, and the associated‘principal:agent’ mode of analysis (Hughes 1994). Where the notion of mod-ernization has been discussed at all in relation to housing, the focus hasbeen on tenure restructuring and the ascendancy of home ownership rather



than on issues of interorganizational relations (Malpass and Murie 1990 andsubsequent editions; Malpass 1999; Harloe 1995). The ‘central-localrelations’ and public administration paradigms draw on the post-warmodel of a hierarchically regulated public sector with a dominant and directrole in public service provision and strong vertical system integration(Houlihan 1988). The emphasis is upon the formal organizations whichform part of the structures of public provision, and on finding the ‘correct’principles of public administration through which efficient co-ordination ofthe system can be achieved. In recent years, therefore, research has tendedto focus on the changing nature of the relationships between the agenciesof central and local government within this structure, and on the mech-anisms and instruments used to regulate these relations and delivernational and local policy (Malpass and Means 1993).

Policy implementation and strategic arrangements were largelyaccounted for by reference to the ‘principal:agent’ perspective (Hughes1994). This perspective casts local authorities and their partners as ‘agents’,whose function is to carry out the strategic intentions of the ‘principals’,or government agencies. In the housing sector, local authorities have beenresponsible for developing a local strategic plan for delivering housing ser-vices locally, something which formed the basis of their housing investmentprogramme bid to government. The design, implementation and, latterly,resourcing of the local plan required a degree of consultation or collabor-ation with other local public sector, private sector and voluntary sector ser-vice providers. Thus, the scope of housing organizations’ strategic role atthe organizational level has tended to be understood in terms of the localauthority operating as an agent of government, acting within a regulatoryframework, the primary purpose of which is to control public sector expen-diture on local housing projects.

In this context, housing organizations cannot be seen as having a genuinedirect strategic role themselves: instead, and this coheres with the publicadministration perspective, overall strategic responsibility rests with centralgovernment, along with accountability for policy development andimplementation. The example of privatization illustrates the inadequacy ofthis perspective. Contracting-out, market testing, and competitive biddingcannot simply be seen as a means of developing incentive-driven agencyrelationships. This is because privatization has led to institutional, organiza-tional and managerial changes in local authorities and housing associations(Lowndes 1999). While these changes have in part been thrust on the sectorby changes in public finance, which in turn have prompted more creativeuses of private sector resources, they have also involved repositioning byorganizations themselves, in the hope that this will allow them to becomemore effective in a rapidly changing and turbulent organizational environ-ment (Greer and Hoggett 1999). Organizations in this situation can be saidto be drawing on and applying stabilizing managerial repertoires, whichare an eclectic mix of elements drawn from practice in different sectors and



organizations (Reid 1999). In these paradigms, social housing organizations,both local authorities and housing associations, are seen as agents of statepolicy. Research informed by these paradigms has as a consequence maderelatively little reference to the extensive literature on institutions or organi-zational behaviour.

While the central-local relations and the public administration paradigmshelp to explain and analyse ‘structures’ and ‘systems’, they provide a lim-ited basis for analysing the changes at institutional and organizational lev-els which are associated with the process of modernization. This is becausethey do not sufficiently acknowledge the scope for substantial and complexinfrastructural and institutional change, triggered by measures such as theprivatization example given above. Furthermore, the models tend to mar-ginalize the role of human agency and the way in which social actionshapes organizational practice and organizational change. The moderniz-ation agenda however brings into sharp relief the contingent nature oforganizations. This contingent dimension can be understood in terms ofthe structures and patterns of organization which emerge as shifting sol-utions to the problem of finding the most efficient and effective organiza-tional means of dealing with shifting realities. These processes of organiza-tional problem-solving and positioning are rendered invisible by thecentral-local relations and public administration paradigms.

TOWARDS A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Having noted some weaknesses in past research into housing policy andhousing organizations we now go on to review three theoretical perspec-tives which offer a more valuable framework for understanding modernsocial housing organizations. These comprise the new institutional econom-ics, strategic management and institutional theory.

Governance: the contribution of new institutional economicsThere has been increasing interest in recent years in the ways in whicheconomic and political processes are mediated through networks of organi-zations and in the patterns of distribution of power, resources and decision-making functions which operate within networks. This interestencompasses broad brush analyses of overall patterns of social andeconomic organization (Campbell et al. 1991), the discussion of distinctprinciples of institutional organization such as hierarchies, networks andmarkets (Williamson 1985) and more specific concerns about the ways inwhich individual institutions are governed (Kooiman 1993). In a Britishcontext, Maidment and Thompson (1993) review what they refer to as ‘pol-icy co-ordination’ or the mechanisms for co-ordinating social life. This workhas a sectoral dimension. The relationships between local governance andthe ‘new management’ are the subject of a recent edited volume by Stoker(1999), which also includes a number of sectoral contributions relevant tohousing (Lowndes 1999; Pollitt et al. 1999; Reid 1999).



Until recently, housing research has made few connections with thiswork. As Malpass (1997) has argued, interest from housing quarters ingovernance can be said in part to stem from a growing concern over corpor-ate mismanagement in the private sector on the one hand, and on the other,concern over standards in public life. This needs to be understood onceagain against the context of the restructuring of housing services whichresulted from the Conservative governments’ commitment to privatization.Over the 1980s and 1990s this gave rise to a changing and more fragmented‘system’ of housing service provision, more of which fell outside the regu-latory control of the public sector. Governance theory offers a conceptualframework for interpreting the way in which policy co-ordination andimplementation has changed in social housing in recent years. The changeswhich are of particular interest include those which have affected the over-all mechanisms of governing within social housing, the patterns of govern-ing in which various organizations in social housing have a stake or arelinked to, and the roles of the various actors in the governing process(Kooiman 1993). Furthermore, governance theory can be applied to under-stand institutional, administrative and co-ordination arrangements at differ-ent levels: at the organizational or corporate level, at the local or communitylevel, and at the sectoral or functional policy level.

The governing activities of particular organizations, groups of localorganizations, or organizations belonging to a single policy sector or field,may be co-ordinated according to different organizing principles. Govern-ance theory identifies three main arrangements for institutional co-ordination (Stoker 1998; Maidment and Thompson 1993; Campbell et al.1991; Thompson et al. 1991; Williamson 1975); the characteristics of eachare summarized in Reid (1995) in relation to housing. Hierarchies are co-ordinating systems based on the principles of command and control whichwork in such a way that set operations are carried out to set standardswherever or whoever operates the procedures. They necessitate clear speci-fication of roles, responsibilities and functions, and relatively formalizedvertical communication and reporting procedures (Stoker and Young 1993).Markets as a co-ordinating system are based on the premise that efficiencysavings derived from competition between different sub-sectors will ulti-mately be reflected in lower prices for goods and services. System co-ordi-nation occurs through the links which exist between inter-connected sub-markets centred on different, differentiated products (Levacic 1993; Willi-amson 1985). In the public sector in England and Wales in the 1980s and1990s, the government, as part of its commitment to privatization, created‘quasi-markets’ using some market co-ordination mechanisms as devices tomimic the behaviour of the market (Le Grand and Bartlett 1993). Networksare groups of actors or organizations which act together and may poolselected competencies and resources in order to safeguard their position ina changing operating environment (Alter and Hage 1993). Networks sitsome way between hierarchies and markets in that they tend not to be



hierarchically organized; however, neither are they in conventional marketrelationships with their potential partner actors or organizations(Thompson 1993).

An interesting feature of the organization of social housing is that thesethree sets of arrangements can operate simultaneously in different ways,and they can be used purposefully to structure the field. A related obser-vation is made by Lowndes and Skelcher (1998) in relation to multi-agencypartnerships in urban regeneration which they explain in terms of the inter-action between organizational form and mode of governance. In socialhousing, the capacity of organizations to structure contingencies in theirenvironment means that governance itself can have a contingent quality,in that it becomes a tool which organizations use in inter-organizationalexchanges to structure their field. This is illustrated in two ways. First, dif-ferent governance arrangements may operate at different points in ‘the pol-icy chain’. Taking a large regional housing association as an example, thefunding and regulatory relationship which it has with the Housing Corpor-ation may be characterized as hierarchical. The same association may beinvolved in competitions at local level for sites, resources or preferred part-ner status. At the same time, it may have built and be maintaining a net-work of links with specialist service providers to provide a range of creativesolutions in the area of housing with care.

Second, and developing from this point, the governance arrangementsassociated with the internal governance of one organization do not auto-matically determine the governance mechanism it favours when it interactswith other organizations in its external environment. Thus, as Williamson(1975, 1985) suggests, though an organization may opt for a hierarchicalmode of governance for internal purposes, in the external environment itmay adopt other modes. One example of this would be a traditional, hier-archically organized local authority housing department, which developedjoint working arrangements with a range of external agencies by setting upoperational networks in the form of joint project management teams. Thisappears to reinforce Lowndes and Skelcher’s (1998) case for making a dis-tinction between organizational form and the governance modes operatedby organizations working in multi-agency settings.

The advent of managerialism in public sector services (Pollitt 1990) andin social housing (Walker 1998a) means that at its most developed, the inter-play between the three main modes of governance and their use as co-ordinating devices has led to the re-positioning of housing organizationsbetween hierarchy and market. In this position they consciously and selec-tively operationalize aspects of each of the governance arrangements toachieve concrete aims. Consequently, the behaviour of individual housingorganizations from an external perspective has begun to resemble some-thing of a ‘black box’. Policy implementation at the local or organizationallevel can no longer be understood solely either in terms of housing organi-zations acting as agents of government policy, or in terms of purchaser-



provider relationships (Reid 1999). Governance theory can contribute to ourunderstanding of the ‘housing system’ by providing a means of interpretingthe changing patterns of co-ordination and organizational arrangementswhich derive from organizations’ attempts to structure contingencies at thesectoral, local and organizational levels. It also helps with the interpretationof the governance ‘techniques’ which have come to be used instrumentallyby housing organizations as part of their managerial repertoires. It is inthis respect that housing organizations can be said to have extended theircompetence beyond the ‘new public management’ by equipping themselveswith ongoing adaptive strategies designed to maintain their collaborativeadvantage within the framework of the ‘new competition’ (Reid 1999).

Strategy: the contribution of strategic managementUntil recently, the scope of local authorities’ and housing associations’ stra-tegic role has been interpreted narrowly, in terms of their role as agents ofstate policy implementation. However, this is to ignore the extent to whichindividual social housing organizations in recent years have developedtheir own strategic awareness and practices as a component of their organi-zational development (Greer and Hoggett 1999). Discussion of the strategicrole of housing organizations needs to take account of both the institutionalframework in which organizations operate and the ways in which they seekto influence and restructure that environment.

The traditional ‘principal:agent’ model associated with the central-localrelations paradigm is limited in scope at this level because it places a highpriority on the control of public sector finances, bureaucratic and hier-archical modes of service delivery and standardization in service delivery.Instead, we may identify two distinct organizational approaches to the stra-tegic role assumed by housing organizations. These approaches draw on anumber of different contributions to the discussion about the changing nat-ure of organizational processes. In particular, they draw on Hughes (1994)who makes the distinction between ‘administration’ and ‘management’, onMintzberg (1994) and Mintzberg et al. (1998) who discuss the changing nat-ure of strategic planning and strategic management, and on Pollitt (1990)who has discussed the rise of managerialism within this broad context. Thetwo organizational approaches which are identifiable in relation to socialhousing are, first, the strategic planning approach; and, second, the strategicmanagement approach. Movement along a continuum between theseapproaches over the past 20 years has been partly in response to changinggovernment policy towards the public sector. Each of the approaches hasimplications for the way in which organizations exercise their strategic roleat the organizational level, at the local level, and at the sectoral level.

The strategic planning approach in social housing is set against the con-text of the ‘enabling’ culture and the ‘mixed economy’ of provision, whichhas come to be associated with fragmentation in the organizational infra-structure of public sector housing service provision and more recently Best



Value. At local level, now, there is a more explicit requirement for a rangeof statutory, non-statutory, private, voluntary sector and community sectororganizations to engage in strategic planning and co-operate in partner-ships and alliances to provide services. Competition, in relation to productinnovation and price, is well established, particularly within the housingassociation sector (Walker and Jeanes, 2001). Strategic planning approacheshave also provided a basis for stabilizing and structuring the collaborativepartnering arrangements which are formed at local level by local auth-orities, housing associations, private sector developers and others. Withinthe strategic planning approach, organizations focus on current and futuresituations, setting goals, setting out courses of action to achieve these, andmeasuring results. At organizational level, a basic strategic role for organi-zations is scanning their environment, though their capacity to act is sub-sequently set within a framework of local and sectoral parameters. At locallevel, organizations’ strategic roles may involve them in some work andrelationships which are of an agency character or are based on vertical inte-gration arrangements, but they are typically also involved in work whichentails a degree of competition, discretion and judgement. At sectoral level,the focus is on broad regulatory frameworks, the stated purpose of whichis to develop strategic planning.

The strategic management approach is associated with the growingemphasis towards the end of the 1980s on managerialism in the public sec-tor. This is linked with privatization, marketization and contracting outpolicies, including the establishment of ‘Next Steps’ agencies, market-testing and external decentralization, and initiatives bound up with theCitizens Charter and Best Value. These heralded the rise of strategicmanagement in the public services. The ‘strategic management’ perspectivediffers from the strategic planning perspective in that it is ‘action oriented’and places particular importance on the practical contributions individualmanagers can make to developing strategy and putting it into practice. Atorganizational level, the strategic management approach is characterizedby a cultural commitment to and belief in the organization’s strategic roleand the importance of this to the organization’s well being. Consequently,there is commitment to continuous environmental scanning, adaptation andreview, and organizational learning. At local level, organizations’ strategicrole revolves around competitive tactics, collaborative partnering and theformation of other strategic alliances. At sectoral level, there is a ‘tight-loose’ strategic framework, where there is a degree of fragmentation, whiledifferent organizational sub-groups within the sector pursue their sharedstrategic objectives as a sub-sector.

Despite the pre-eminence of the traditional British public sector adminis-tration template, housing organizations’ perceptions of their strategic role,and the way in which they interpret this role, have altered in recent years.In essence, the nature of social housing organizations’ understanding oftheir strategic role appears to have moved away from the ‘received wisdom’



of the public administration model which casts them as agents of govern-ment, to incorporate approaches which borrow from both strategic planningand management perspectives.

Social housing as a ‘field’: the contribution of institutional theoryDiscussion of organizational change in social housing needs, however, totake account of the way in which the progressive redistribution of powersand responsibilities has affected and been responded to by these differentgroups of social landlords. The organization studies literature provides anumber of concepts which help in exploring the extent and structure ofinter-organizational relations in this context (Child and Smith 1987; Whippand Clarke 1986). Di-Maggio and Powell’s (1983) conception of an organiza-tional field as a ‘stable status order with acknowledged centres and per-ipheries’ is a useful basic starting point. Well-structured organizationalfields are those where organizations share a strong sense of being engagedin a common enterprise, reinforced by extensive information flows, struc-tures of domination and coalitions. Such ‘fields’ may be structured by avariety of processes, including common legal frameworks, professionalassociations, educational, training and regulatory regimes, and, mostimportantly, common funding frameworks. The more recent ‘policynetworks’ literature provides further insights into the ways in whichorganizations may act collectively to influence and structure their operatingenvironments (Rhodes 1991).

Using these perspectives, some of the factors which have both structuredand fractured the ‘field’ of social housing can be identified. The funding,legal, institutional and regulatory frameworks present within social hous-ing have historically created a very significant fault-line, on one side ofwhich lies the local government housing sector. This flourished betweenthe 1919 decision to promote it as ‘cheaper than Peabody’ (Morton 1991),and 1979, after which its gradual decline in importance was hastened bythe New Right’s privatization project. On the other side of the fault-line,the housing association sector grew rapidly, stimulated by these sametrends which diminished the role of local government. The extent of thefracture is indicated by differences in the funding frameworks, regulatorysystems, and patterns of recruitment and organization which continue tooperate in the two sub-sectors. Homogenizing processes, such as attemptsto build common professional and educational frameworks, have onlyrecently begun to make an impact on the fracture.

Perhaps the most significant driver for unifying the two sectors has beenthe accelerating process of stock transfer from local authorities to the regis-tered social landlord (RSL) sector. This process of organizational and stafftransfers between the local authority and RSL sectors to escape from publicsector borrowing constraints on stock reinvestment has been interpreted byPollitt et al. (1998) as an example of decentralizing the management of pub-lic services with strong parallels to developments in the health and edu-



cation fields. While it had resulted in over 100 local authorities transferringnearly 350000 homes between 1988 and 1999 to RSL ownership, it was onlythe involvement of larger urban authorities in the programme after the 1997election, and the acceleration of demand for transfers (the 300000 homeprogramme for 1999/2000 alone was almost as great as that of the previousten years combined), that began to lead to tentative moves towards moreunified regulatory regimes. First in Scotland and later in England proposalswere advanced for a single social housing tenancy to reduce frictional dis-incentives on tenants to transfer. There were also increasing arguments formerging the long-established regulatory regime of the Housing Corporationwith the newly established local authority Best Value Housing Inspectorate.

At the same time, the complexity and uncertainty of the field is reinforcedby evidence, alongside these integrating influences, of increasing fragment-ation and diversification within the housing association sub-sector in parti-cular (Mullins and Riseborough 2000). While the social housing sector as awhole therefore has historically enjoyed relatively weak organizationalinter-linkages and common norms and does not constitute a single organi-zational field, there is evidence of a relatively high degree of cohesion atsub-sectoral level, with a common understanding in some areas, forexample on sub-sectoral values and purposes, common career patterns anda degree of field structure (Mullins 1997a). Decision networks linking hous-ing associations with funding and regulatory agencies are evident, andthere is also evidence of purposive activity designed to influence the fieldstructure through collective action. The distinct feature here is that withinthe social housing context these cross-sectoral policy communities and net-works operate best at a sub-sectoral, rather than a sectoral, level. This briefsummary demonstrates the importance of considering the overall patternof inter-organizational relationships within social housing as a field and thechanges to this over time.

SummaryThe above discussion of governance, strategic management and insti-tutional context of the housing field has served to indicate the role oforganizational analysis within social housing research. The range of theor-etical evidence presented highlights the extensive fracture and partial co-ordination of activities between social housing organizations and illustratesthe limitation of approaches which treat policy implementation as eitherunproblematic or as a simple ‘principal:agent’ problem. The value of thistripartite theoretical framework as a starting point for the analysis of hous-ing organizations is demonstrated below in our review of three central areasof housing research and practice.

REGULATION, PROFESSIONALISM AND CHANGINGORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR: EVIDENCE OF THE NEED FORA THEORETICAL REFOCUSThis section reviews the evidence at the sectoral and organization levels.Regulation and professionalism are taken as examples at the sectoral level



because the regulation of social housing can been seen to have increasedas governance arrangements have become more complex and organizationshave developed their own strategy capacities. Professionalism is exploredbecause of the ever-present but growing uncertainty about the nature ofthe professional housing manager. Evidence on organizational behaviour,taken from the authors’ research, is explored to demonstrate the complexityof the modernizing social housing field.

RegulationRegulation can be conceptualized in social and in economic terms (Francis1993). Social regulation is concerned with the imposition of boundariesbased around morals, risks or the definition of acceptable limits, whereaseconomic regulation focuses on prices, profits or the management of compe-tition (Mullins 1997b). In housing, regulation has traditionally been forsocial purposes, to ensure that housing is provided to a decent standardand that tenants are treated fairly. Economic regulation was limited to thefair rent system in operation under the pre-1988 housing associationfunding regime, and government intervention in local authority housing.However more recently, the government has increased the emphasis oneconomic regulation. For example, central government has powers to con-trol local authority rents and is increasingly concerned to depress these(Malpass 1996). The housing association regulator has also increasinglymoved towards economic regulation, controlling the costs of social housingto tenants, and consolidating its regulation role overall (Walker andSmith 1999).

Regulatory systems are important for a number of reasons. Historically,local authority social housing provision was regulated principally throughpolitical accountability and the democratic process of local governmentelections. Meanwhile, central government always had a range of inter-vention powers, including financial incentive structures and sanctionswhich extended to debarring councillors from office. These more directforms of intervention on the part of central government were progressivelystrengthened under the Conservative administrations of the 1980s and early1990s (Flynn 1997). A more formal approach to the regulation of localgovernment was instituted in the early 1980s when the Audit Commissionwas established. The Commission is responsible for auditing local govern-ment and has a wider remit to promote ‘value for money’ and ‘good prac-tice’. The powers of the Audit Commission are broad and can influence theoperations of a local authority housing department at a fundamental level.For example, if the Commission believes an authority is over-staffed orinefficient it has powers to alter its structure and operation.

The regulation of housing associations is extensive, though this variesbetween England (the Housing Corporation) and Wales (Housing for Walesfrom 1989–99 and the National Assembly for Wales since 1999) and Scot-land (Scottish Homes) (Day et al. 1993). The powers of these regulatorybodies, initially established in 1964, have been strengthened as associations



have become more central to the provision of housing. As in the local auth-ority sector, there has been a move from a predominately social form ofregulation to an increased emphasis on economic regulation and the controlof prices in the sector. The regulator seeks to ensure that associations meeta range of basic requirements in the development of new homes and theirongoing management. The basis for this is provided by Performance Stan-dards (Housing Corporation 1997b) which are drafted to reflect an overallorganizational regulation role and a specific service regulation role forsocial housing services. Minimum standards are set in relation to overallorganizational governance and finance, and quite detailed Social HousingStandards are set for housing services to residents; however, the documentfails to set similar standards for other services provided by associations. Asassociations have undergone ‘marketization’, they have been subject tomore extensive regulation (Pollitt et al. 1998). The private finance markets,from which they have now borrowed in excess of £14 billion, have theirown regulatory requirements while taking ‘comfort’ from the regulatoryregime to ensure the safety of their investments. In addition to the housingregulators, social housing organizations are also influenced to varyingdegrees by other regulatory bodies which are responsible for some of their‘non-housing activities’, such as social care, training and employmentinitiatives. This may involve, for example, Companies House, the Registrarof Friendly Societies, or the Charities Commission, depending on their legalstatus. The expansive nature of association regulation is often seen asrestricting innovation and leading to institutional isomorphism. Forexample, Mullins et al. (1995) demonstrate how associations which had beenset up to acquire homes (and staff) from local authority housing depart-ments rapidly acquired the style and culture of housing associations ratherthan retaining their local authority characteristics.

The increasing emphasis on economic regulation has been particularlyevident in the housing association sector. During and following the enact-ment of the 1988 Housing Act, the Housing Corporation as regulator tooka laissez-faire attitude towards rent levels. Associations’ rents rose by over120 per cent in the decade from 1988 to 1997 as they were encouraged tomove rents towards ‘market’ levels. As was mentioned at the start of thissection, regulatory action, initially in Wales and subsequently in England,has since moved to control rent levels (Walker and Smith 1999), partlybecause of growing central government concern about the unanticipatedimpacts of earlier policy. Increased rent levels linked to a shift in the balanceof subsidy away from production and towards consumption has led tospiralling increases in the cost of the national welfare benefit bill. The out-come of action on rents by the regulator has been that, for example inWales, average rents have fallen by 15 per cent over the four years to 1998.The regime in England now fixes annual rent increases across an associ-ation’s entire stock at an average of the retail price index plus one per cent.All associations are subject to this regime and even large and influential



associations have not successfully contested it. This is the first significantintervention into the arena of economic regulation by the industry regulatorand echoes the approach to price regulation adopted by the utilities sectorregulators. It will also have significant effects on the operations of associ-ations should they attempt to use subsidy or efficiency savings to reduceoperational costs. What is of particular interest here is that the regulator ispromoting a policy which may potentially in the longer term jeopardizethe financial viability of some associations.

The regulatory framework for social housing is currently being reviewedby the Labour government which, as part of the drive to ‘modernize’ localgovernment, has promoted the notion of Best Value. Though this ispresented as a new form of management, blending notions of performancemeasurement, competition, strategic planning, benchmarking, and user andemployee involvement, it nonetheless imposes performance standards onlocal government (Boyne et al. 1999). For example, if a local authority fallsbelow a given service threshold then there is likely to be some interventionwhich could include, for instance, enforced competition or the impositionof a new management team. The Best Value framework, which is currentlybeing piloted, is seen by some as undermining the traditional role of thelocal authority councillor, in that management information relating to ser-vice users and other providers is set to be transferred into the domain ofofficers. The Best Value regime also increases the regulation of local govern-ment through the ‘Housing Inspectorate’ to be run by the Audit Com-mission, with a brief to draw up and enforce basic standards of housingmanagement.

This regulatory regime is being ‘read across’ to the housing associationsector in an indirect way, mediated through the industry regulator, whichin the first instance defined Best Value as good practice rather than a regu-latory requirement (Housing Corporation 1998). This position graduallytransformed as guidance was issued, arguing that ‘the principles [of BestValue] are just as relevant to the way RSLs run their businesses and provideservices as they are to local authorities’ (Housing Corporation 1999a, p. 2)and requiring all RSLs with over 250 properties to provide a writtenresponse to the guidance by 30 September 1999. Early in 2000, an analysisof these responses was published (Housing Corporation 2000a) and a dis-cussion paper was issued (Housing Corporation 2000b) proposing a methodfor identifying RSLs who meet or exceed key performance standards, haveachieved improvements in performance indicators relating to these stan-dards and who have demonstrated a commitment to Best Value to secureservice improvements. These developments may be creating conditions forthe emergence of a more unified field of social housing as common frame-works and performance indicators for Best Value become superimposedon the regulatory framework to shape and control the nature, behaviour,direction, and ways in which social housing organizations cope with thediverse range of organizational and governance strategies. As increasing



volumes of stock transfer from the local authority to the RSL sector, thecase for a single regulatory regime is strengthened as well as the relation-ship between the Audit Commission’s Housing Inspectorate for local auth-ority housing and the Housing Corporation’s regulation of RSLs. Thepower of these external organizations and their regulatory frameworks canalso be traced through to developments within the housing profession.

ProfessionalismThe history of the housing profession and the ‘professional housing man-ager’ is one of dispute, conflict and uncertainty. Until the mid-1960s theprofession was represented by two separate bodies. The Society of WomenHousing Managers endorsed and practised a welfare-oriented approach tohousing management. The Institute of Housing, by contrast, promoted aproperty-based approach. The merger of the two organizations in the 1960sto form what is now the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) led to maleas opposed to female domination of the profession, and an emphasis onproperty as opposed to a focus on the personal, on welfare, and on training.

Continued uncertainty after the merger reflected the relatively weak pos-ition of housing management within local government, the main providerof social housing, and from which the CIH’s membership was substantiallydrawn. This potential professional arena for the CIH was already domi-nated by other groups, including accountants (for rents), engineers (forrepairs and maintenance) and architects (in the design and construction ofnew homes), which had succeeded in establishing their professional ‘pro-ject’ across a much wider domain. Moreover, housing management centredon what were perceived as low-level administrative tasks, such as allo-cations. Housing, consequently, was of a low status within local govern-ment, frequently not existing as a department in its own right, though therewas pressure to set up stand-alone ‘comprehensive’ housing departmentsafter the 1974 reorganization of local government.

Given this history, the status of housing management as a profession isquestionable. Stewart (1988 p. 39) provided a swingeing critique of housingmanagement, suggesting that the: ‘% very use of the word ‘management’to describe the profession suggests not a profession, but a particular man-agement role requiring specialist skills or knowledge’. Clapham (1997) hasargued that this bias has been reflected over the years in the CIH’s emphasisupon the tasks and skills of housing management work rather than seekingto define a wider knowledge base in which these activities might be located.Part of the reason why so little is known about the nature of housingorganizations and their management lies in the insularity of the approachadopted by the CIH, and its lack of attention, with a few notable exceptions,to the wider organizational setting.

Further complexity arises through the uncertain nature of the boundariesof housing management (Franklin and Clapham 1997), and its place inrelation to organizational behaviour and corporate operations. The histori-



cal tension reflected in earlier times by the two competing professional rep-resentative bodies continues to be played out. The marketization processin the sector has increased the emphasis given to adopting a business ethosand focusing on core functions, leading to a renewed focus upon propertymanagement and managerialism (Walker 2000). For example, there is arenewed focus on maintaining an income stream by ensuring rents are col-lected and properties let rapidly. At the same time as marketization, thetargeting of subsidies on those in greatest need has led social housingorganizations to house the most deprived households. Within the housingassociation sector, associations have responded to the difficulties their ten-ants face by developing a ‘housing plus’ agenda. This agenda is not wellspecified and is concerned amongst other things with the creation andmaintenance of sustainable communities, obtaining added value from hous-ing management and investment, and building partnerships with stake-holders in communities (Housing Corporation 1997). The ‘housing plus’initiatives identified in recent research embrace employment and training,care and support, youth schemes, participation and specific projects suchas furniture, health and transport services (Clapham and Evans 1998). Onetheme of this agenda is to provide community development services, and,again, this reflects a new dimension to the work of housing officers, wherethey potentially lack the necessary ‘professional’ skills. At the same time,the nature of some social housing organizations’ activities has also changed.For example, some now provide residential homes for older people, forpeople with learning difficulties or people with HIV/AIDS. Thus, at thesame time as there has been pressure to focus work on a narrowly boundedcore business, the growing welfare needs of tenants, and wider businessopportunities have tended to broaden the boundaries contested by thesocial housing ‘profession’.

Despite the conflict and uncertainty which characterizes the social hous-ing profession, Walker (2000) and others (Franklin 1988; Franklin and Cla-pham 1997) have argued that over the last two decades there has been amovement which might be described as a ‘professional project’ (Larson1977). The concept of a ‘professional project’ describes how occupationalgroups seek to establish and secure their market position to define and selltheir expertise and secure their social status and aspire to upward socialmobility. Professional projects are identified by reference to notions of mar-ket closure, specialist knowledge and discretion over the nature and contentof work. In the case of social housing it is possible to argue that the ‘pro-fessional project’ has been stimulated as much by central government asfrom within the profession itself.

In the late 1970s the Department of the Environment became concernedabout growing levels of poverty, stock condition and difficult-to-let homesin local authority estates (Laffin 1986). Intensive local management experi-ments were fostered in an effort to resolve these practical problems (Power1987) while also revitalizing the professional activity of housing manage-



ment by drawing upon its welfare and social control roots. During the 1980sthe CIH itself acted in response to privatization policies, seeking to extendits domain across the social housing field to include housing associationswhere it had previously had much less influence (Mullins and Riseborough1997). During the same period the residualization of social housing wasseen by some to strengthen the professional base (Franklin 1998), but ashas already been suggested, there were also increasing uncertainties aboutthe boundaries with other professional groups involved in tackling theissue of social exclusion. Nevertheless, the CIH increasingly sought to actas a professional body within a broadening social housing sector field. Pro-fessionalization and professionalism have been given increasing emphasisacross a range of the CIH’s published outputs: in its Charter, educationalprogrammes, codes of professional conduct and standards, and through its‘pressure group’ lobbying of government on policy issues. However, the‘profession’ as a whole has been relatively unsuccessful in achieving marketclosure. It has a membership of around 10000 out of a labour force ofaround 100000 (Walker 1998b). This lack of professional closure is animportant factor in explaining the continued fracture of social housing asa field. The complexity of the housing professions and the ‘professionalhousing manager’ further illustrates the need to understand organizationalstrategies which now focus upon many non-housing activities and lead tothe adoption of more complex internal and external modes of governance.

Organizational behaviourIn the previous sections of the paper it has been established that uncertaintyand turbulence increasingly characterize the operating environment ofsocial housing organizations, and some of the changes in organizationalbehaviour which have resulted from this have been hinted at. It is nowclear that social housing organizations are developing sophisticated reper-toires of behaviour as they borrow from ‘strategic management’ and othermanagement approaches. This creates a degree of unpredictability in boththeir internal and external behaviour, and a significant shift away from the‘principal:agent’ perspective is now required in order to shed new light ontheir operation. This discussion falls into three parts: organizational andgovernance form, external images and diversification.

Internally, housing organizations are increasingly abandoning bureau-cratic models of organization and instead adopting the tight/loose con-figuration of the ‘modern organization’ (Ferlie et al. 1996). Typically, astrong core controls the overall strategy and business plan, but there aremuch looser patterns of control over operational matters at local level. Asso-ciated with this organizational model are a range of change processesintended to promote organizational efficiency. Like many other public ser-vice agencies, housing organizations are ‘re-engineering’ their business pro-cesses, ‘de-layering’ their hierarchies, ‘empowering’ operational staff, andtaking decision making ‘closer to the customer’ (Walker 1998a). One



example of this is the re-designation of sheltered housing wardens asscheme managers with operational control over a facility with internal andexternal markets (Mullins and Riseborough 1997). Such developments haveled Walker (1998a) to conclude that housing associations are increasinglyconforming to private sector management models, while Mullins and Rise-borough (1998a) have questioned the implications of such changes for thestrong emphasis on an ethical value base still found in many housingassociation images and identities.

There is nonetheless a strong tendency within the sector and within indi-vidual organizations to seek to centralize control through tighter co-ordinating mechanisms tied into governance structures. Even organizationswhich place a strong emphasis on accountability and community involve-ment have tended to centralize key decision making on smaller groups ofofficers and small committees of key members.

Executive power has also increased through increasing levels of del-egation, and through the establishment of executive controlled subsidiarieswithin group structures and arms-length bodies with major decision mak-ing powers (Mullins and Riseborough 1998b). The importance attached tocentralized control is indicated by the emphasis on the monopoly positionof central services such as information and communication technology andfinancial control functions in the negotiation of mergers and group struc-tures (Mullins 1999). However, beyond these core areas there is an increas-ing tendency to rely on the ‘backseat driving’ (Carter 1989) facilitated byperformance indicators of output that are often based on externally drivenbenchmarks. These allow the corporate core of organizations to retain adegree of control over operational matters by adopting a similar relation-ship to the operational periphery to that of an external funder to the hous-ing association as a whole.

The increasingly loose co-ordination of operational matters is indicatedby the tendency for housing organizations to adopt different local struc-tures and approaches to equip them to adapt to local opportunities. Forexample, large housing associations may be willing to operate many differ-ent allocations policies at local level to meet the requirements of local auth-ority partners (Mullins and Niner 1996). Some housing organizations haveadopted a strong emphasis on ‘piloting’, whereby new local initiatives mayoften appear to contradict (or pre-figure) corporate strategy insofar as thisis represented by their business plan. Such opportunistic behaviour mayproduce problems of integration. For example, growth in a particular areaof activity may involve the absorption of large numbers of new staff withdifferent terms and conditions to ‘core’ housing staff. In some cases thishas led to the development of ‘group structures’, with different businessstreams such as home care services and economic regeneration activitiesacting as subsidiaries to the main housing organization’s holding company(Mullins and Riseborough 1997).

Second, external images and behavioural repertoires frequently involve



the simultaneous operation of hierarchy, market and network modes of co-ordination. For example, participation in local commissioning groups, SRBpartnerships or common housing registers, may superficially appear to bea form of collaborative behaviour but may be seen by the organization itselfas an aspect of its competitive strategy to secure resources, solidify relation-ships and maintain market position (Reid 1995).

A noticeable feature of recent organizational behaviour among somesocial housing organizations has been an increasing awareness of nichemarketing, branding, and image making (Riseborough 1997). In the housingassociation sub-sector the trade body, the National Housing Federation(NHF), secured a major competitive advantage in branding the sub-sectoras ‘value based’ in the face of potential competition from the profit-distributing sector in the run up to the 1996 Housing Act. By highlightingthe differences of emphasis accruing from not-for-profit status and mythol-ogizing a common sense of history and purpose, the NHF was able to unitetraditional housing associations with new forms of registered social land-lord such as local housing companies. Thus, the monopoly access to govern-ment capital funding enjoyed by such organizations was preserved(Mullins 1997b).

At the organizational level, there has been a similar emphasis on pro-jecting a value based image, but also more sophisticated and tailoredresponses to particular market opportunities. For example, an organizationspecializing in bringing empty properties into use may present itself inslightly different ways to different local authority customers to fit in withtheir known requirements: for example, as ‘a niche player in urban re-generation’, or ‘an active partner to help other agencies to gel together’ oras ‘a cost effective provider of temporary accommodation for homelesspeople’ (Mullins 1997a). Increasingly, organizations are commissioning‘image makeovers’ with consultants advising on how they are seen by theirvarious stakeholders, and on how to rebrand the organization to maximizecompetitive advantage. Press releases provide an interesting indicator ofthe ways in which image consciousness affects the re-presentation of cor-porate strategies to meet the conflicting requirements of different stake-holders. For example, it is rare for a merger to be promoted as a simplebusiness efficiency exercise. Inevitably the message focuses on how synergywill be created by the merging of these two compatible cultures and howthis will enhance the ability to meet government policy objectives such astackling social exclusion while, of course, benefiting existing tenants(Mullins 1998).

A final feature of external behaviour exhibited by housing organizationsin the 1990s has been a reducing conformity to a narrow range of existingmodels of operation across the sector. It is debatable whether the notion ofa ‘voluntary housing movement’ was ever an accurate depiction of a com-mon sense of purpose amongst housing associations as a whole. However,the turbulent environment of the 1990s has made the fractures between the



different types of organization much clearer. Similarly, as local authoritieshave become involved in new ways of working, they too have becomeincreasingly differentiated according to the types of internal transform-ations and external partnerships they have become involved in: sometimesthe same authority may operate very differently in different neigh-bourhoods. A key driver for these changes has been the redistribution offunding opportunities away from central government and the HousingCorporation to a much wider range of sources including private financeand public/private partnerships. This reduction in ‘resource dependency’(Aldrich 1976) has encouraged some organizations to become more activein asserting their independence.

Of particular importance at the inter-organizational or ‘field’ level is theimpact of diversification of funding sources on different organizations, ourthird area of organizational behaviour. The shift of activities to exploitalternative sources of funding, which often involve funds not designatedexclusively for housing activities, is beginning to produce some radicalredefinitions of organizational purpose. There has been a general playingdown of the word ‘housing’ in mission statements, and in corporate plansand strategy statements, and both local authorities and housing associationsare now presenting themselves and their housing function as ‘working toimprove the quality of life of tenants and the community’, or simply‘adding value to local communities’ (Mullins 1997a). For some organiza-tions, landlord activities have become a much less important element oftheir overall business portfolios or local strategy. Indeed, some organiza-tions no longer see themselves as housing focused at all: there are theexamples of one housing association which has rebranded itself as a ‘SocialInvestment Agency’, and another which has restated its purpose in termsof ‘an organization promoting independence and choice for older people’(Mullins 1997a). There are in addition numerous examples of localauthorities recasting their traditional housing departments as ‘CustomerServices’ or even ‘Personal Services’ departments.

Such diversification of activity presents challenges to any sectorally basedanalysis of organizational behaviour, and questions the validity of thenotion of a single ‘organizational field’. It produces similar challenges tothe regulation and professionalization projects discussed earlier in thepaper. The extent of overlap and gaps in the regulatory matrix for organiza-tions involved in housing, care, employment, and regeneration initiativesis currently exercising central government. The Housing Corporation(1999b) has published proposals to limit the putative risks of diversificationby imposing limits on the proportion of housing associations’ ongoing busi-ness accounted for by activities outside of ‘core social housing activities’.In an apparently contradictory draft statutory instrument, the DETR hasproposed extending the permitted purposes of social landlords to include‘providing amenities or services for residents who are or who include resi-dents of accommodation managed by themselves’ (DETR 1999). These two



responses indicate the dilemmas posed for regulators by diversificationstimuli and responses. Meanwhile, at the same time, diversification haspresented further challenges to the professionalization project as re-definitions of competencies are required and many organizations are takingthe view that attitude and aptitude are more important to staff recruitmentand selection for the modern housing organization than professionally vali-dated packages of knowledge and skills (Reid, Hills and Kane 2000).

CONCLUSIONS

The governance and organization of the sector has moved away from thesingle model of the traditional hierarchical form of organizing which typi-fied the British public sector towards a menu of new combined forms ofgovernance and co-ordination which draw on hierarchy, but also on marketand network principles. Options from this menu for organizing are purpos-ively selected to suit particular objectives and opportunities. This mayresult in patterns of organization which encapsulate all three modes ofgovernance and shape their approach to co-ordination. This is clearly evi-dent in the strategy process. Because housing strategies have traditionallybeen built on the back of hierarchical forms of organization, this accountssubstantially for the central place which the central-local relations literaturehas occupied within housing studies, and which has reinforced the ‘princi-pal:agent’ interpretation of public service delivery. However, complexityhas increased as local authorities have ceased to be the sole delivery ‘agent’for central government programmes. Instead, a complex network ofrelationships has developed as both central and local government haveadopted strategic management approaches, including the option for pro-viders to exit from the local government sector. Instead of a single local‘agent’ there are now looser alliances of agencies, engaged in both competi-tive and co-operative relationships with one another, and with varyingdegrees of allegiance to the local authority as strategist or enabler.

These changes are clearly seen in the fundamentally altered behaviourof housing organizations. However, the search for identity in the newcomplexity is resulting in complications in achieving accountability andmeeting regulatory requirements, as institutional change moves ahead at avariable pace. No longer are the regulators sure of what they are regulating,nor even if they should be regulating certain areas of activity at all. TheBest Value agenda, and the part it has to play in the process of the newLabour project of ‘Modernizing Local Government’, offers the prospect ofeven further variations in purpose as local authorities will be encouragedto go further to provide services that are responsive to the complex ‘well-being’ needs and demands of their users. However, alongside this diversi-fication process there are renewed pressures for conformity. One exampleof this is where Best Value and its associated management tools of totalquality management and benchmarking are encouraging organizations tolook to comparisons with their peers, typically within the sector, to achieve



continuous improvement. Rather than serving as a means of introducinginnovation and diversity, it is possible that new forms of isomorphismcould develop through this process.

Our argument has been that housing research has not yet criticallyaddressed this changing world. In order to advance our understanding ofthe link between the modernization agenda and institutional change,further research is needed. This research agenda, adopting a tripartiteorganizational perspective, would seek to further explore the nature of theinterorganizational relationships. In particular, it would be important tounderstand the models of strategic management adopted by organizationsand the relationship between models and governance modes. Furtherresearch would also need to examine the institutional pressures for changeto understand the factors that shape social housing as a field. The tripartitetheoretical framework could also be used to unpack the ‘modernization’rhetoric of the British Labour government. In addition to this it would alsobe important to undertake rigorous empirical work, beyond our exploratoryreview of the application of these theoretical ideas to three aspects of hous-ing organizations, to comprehensively assess the changing managementand organization of social housing.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, H. 1976. ‘Resource dependence and interorganisational relations’. Administration and Society 7, 4,419–54.

Alter, C. and J. Hage. 1993. Organisations working together. London: Sage.Blair, T. 1997. ‘Leading the way, a new vision for local government’, IPPR.Boyne, G.A., J. Gould-Williams, J. Law and R.M. Walker. 1999. ‘Best value in Welsh local government:

progress and prospects’. Local Government Studies 26, 3, 68–86.Campbell, J.L., J.R. Hollingsworth and L.N. Lindberg. 1991. The governnance of the American economy. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.Carter, N. 1989. ‘Performance indicators: “backseat driving” or “hands off” control?’, Policy and Politics, 17,

131–8.Child, J. and C. Smith. 1987. ‘The context and process of organisational transformation – Cadbury Limited

and its sector’. Journal of Management Studies 24, 4, 565–93.Clapham, D. 1997. ‘The social construction of housing management research’, Urban Studies 34, 5–6, 761–74.Clapham, D. and A. Evans. 1998. From exclusion to inclusion. Helping to create successful tenancies and communi-

ties. London: Hastoe Housing Association.Clegg, S.R. 1990. Modern organisations. London: Sage.Cole, I. and R. Furbey. 1994. The eclipse of council housing. London: Routledge.Day, P. et al. 1993. Home rules: regulation and accountability in social housing. York: Joseph Rowntree Foun-

dation.DETR. 1999. Draft Statutory Instrument: The Social Landlords (Additional Purposes or Objects) Order 1999.

London: DETR.Di-Maggio, P. and W.W. Powell. 1983. ‘The iron cage revisited. Institutional isomorphism and collective

rationality in organisational fields’, American Sociological Review 48, 147–60.Ferlie, E. et al. 1996. The new public management in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Flynn, N. 1997. Public sector management. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall Harvester Wheatsheaf.Francis, J. 1993. The politics of regulation. Oxford: Blackwell.Franklin, B. 1998. ‘Constructing a service: context and discourse in housing management’, Housing Studies

13, 201–20.



Franklin, B. and D. Clapham. 1997. ‘The social construction of housing management’, Housing Studies 12,7–26.

Giddens, A. 1998. The third way. The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Greer, A. and P. Hoggett. 1999. ‘Public policies, private strategies and local public spending bodies’, Public

Administration 77, 2, 235–56.Griffiths, M. et al. 1996. Community lettings. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Harloe, M. 1995. The people’s home: social rented housing in Europe and America. Oxford: Blackwell.Houlihan, B. 1988. Housing policy and central-local relations. Aldershot: Avebury.Housing Corporation. 1997a. A housing plus approach to achieving sustainable communities. London: Hous-

ing Corporation.——. 1997b. Performance standards. London: Housing Corporation.——. 1998. Best Value for registered social landlords. Consultation paper. London: Housing Corporation.——. 1999a. Best Value for registered social landlords. Guidance from Housing Corporation. London: Housing Cor-

poration.——. 1999b. Regulating diversity. Discussion Paper, London: Housing Corporation.——. 2000a. RSLs’ approaches to Best Value. London: Housing Corporation.——. 2000b. RSLs – next steps in Best Value and performance reporting. London: Housing Corporation.Hughes, O.E. 1994. Public management and administration, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Kooiman, J. (ed). 1993. Modern governance. London: Sage.Laffin, M. 1986. Professionalism and policy. Aldershot: Avebury.Larson, M.S. 1977. The rise of professionalism: a sociological analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Le Grand, J. 1990. Quasi-markets and social policy. Bristol: SAUS/University of Bristol.Levacic, R. 1993. ‘Markets as co-ordinative devices’, in R. Maidment and G. Thompson (eds), Managing the

United Kingdom. London: Sage.Lowndes, V. 1999. ‘Management change in local governnance’, in G. Stoker (ed.), The new management of

British local governance, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Lowndes, V. and C. Skelcher. 1998. ‘Multi-organizational partnerships’, Public Administration 76, 313–33.Maidment, R. and G. Thompson, (eds). 1993. Managing the United Kingdom. London: Sage.Malpass, P. 1996. ‘The unravelling of housing policy in Britain’, Housing Studies 11, 459–70.——. (ed). 1997. Ownership, control and accountability: the new governance of housing. Coventry: Chartered

Institute of Housing.——. 1999. ‘Housing policy: does it have a future’, Policy and Politics 27, 2, 217–28.Malpass, P. and R. Means (eds). 1993. Implementing housing policy. Buckingham: Open University Press.Malpass, P. and A. Murie. 1990. Housing policy and practice. Bastingstoke: Macmillan.Mintzberg, H. 1994. The rise and fall of strategic planning. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.Mintzberg, H., B. Ahlstrand and J. Lampel. 1998. Strategy safari. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.Morton, J. 1990. Cheaper than Peabody. Local authority housing 1890 to 1919. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Mullins, D. 1997b. ‘From regulatory capture to regulated competition’, Housing Studies 12, 301–19.——. 1998.‘Flocking to join mega-mergers?’, Housing Today 2.4.98, 13.——. 1999. ‘Managing ambiguity: merger activity in the non-profit housing sector’, Journal of Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Marketing 4, 4.Mullins, D. and P. Niner. 1996. Common housing registers, an evaluation and analysis of current practice. London:

Housing Corporation.Mullins, D. and M. Riseborough. 1997. ‘Managerial strategy and organisation purpose’, in D. Mullins and

M. Riseborough (eds), Changing with the times, University of Birmingham, School of Public Policy.Occasional Paper 12.

——. 1998a. ‘The search for identity’, Housing Agenda Dec 1997/Jan 1998, 16–17.——. 2000. What are housing associations becoming? Final report of changing with the times project, University

of Birmingham, School of Public Policy Housing Research at CURS Series, Number 7.Mullins, D., P. Niner and M. Riseborough. 1995. Evaluating large scale voluntary transfers of local authority

housing. London: HMSO.Mullins, D. 1997a. ‘Housing responses to a changing environment’, in D. Mullins and M. Riseborough (eds),

Changing with the times, University of Birmingham, School of Public Policy. Occasional Paper 12.Pollitt, C. 1990. Manageralism and the public services. Oxford: Blackwell.



Pollitt, C., J. Birchall and K. Putman. 1998. Decentralising public services management. Basingstoke: Macmillan.——. 1999. ‘Letting managers manage: decentralisation and opting-out’, in G. Stoker (ed.), The new manage-

ment of British local government, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Power, A. 1987. Property before people. London: Unwin.Reid, B. 1995. Interorganisational networks and the delivery of local housing services’, Housing Studies 10, 2, 133–49.——. 1999. ‘Reframing the delivery of local housing services: networks and the new competition’, in G.

Stoker (ed.), The New Management of British local governance. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Reid, B., S. Hills and S. Kane. 2000. Learning new tricks: education and training for organisational development

in rented housing. Report of research project for Key Potential U.K. and the Chartered Institute of Housing.Coventry: KPUK.

Rhodes, R.A.W. 1991. ‘Policy networks and sub-central government’, in G. Thompson et al., Markets, networksand hierarchies. London: Sage.

——. 1994.‘The hollowing-out of the state’, Political Quarterly 65, 138–51.Riseborough, M. 1997. ‘Private bodies working in the public interest?’, in D. Mullins and M. Riseborough

(eds), Changing with the times. University of Birmingham, School of Public Policy. Occasional Paper 12.Sarre, P., D. Phillips and R. Skellington. 1989. Ethnic minority housing: explanations and policies. Aldershot:

Avebury.Stewart, J. 1988. A new management for housing departments, Luton: Local Government Management Board.Stigler, G. 1991. ‘The theory of economic regulation’, Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2, 3–21.Stoker, G. and S. Young. 1993. Cities in the 1990s. Harlow: Longman.Stoker, G. 1999. The new management of British local governance, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Thompson, G. 1993. ‘Network co-ordination’, in R. Maidment and G. Thompson (eds), Managing the United

Kingdom. London: Sage.Thompson, G., J. Frances, R. Levacic and J. Mitchell (eds). 1991. Markets, hierarchies and networks: the co-

ordination of social life. London: Sage.Walker, R.M. 1998a. ‘New public management and housing associations: from comfort to competition’,

Policy and Politics 26, 1, 71–87.——. 1998b. ‘Social housing management’, in M. Laffin (ed.), Beyond bureaucracy? Understanding recent change

in the public sector professions. Aldershot: Avebury.——. 2000. The changing management of social housing: the impact of externalisation and managerialisa-

tion’, Housing Studies, 281–99.Walker, R.M. and E. Jeanes. 2001. ‘Innovation in a regulated service: the case of English housing associ-

ations’, Public Management.Walker, R.M. and R.S.G. Smith (1999). ‘Regulatory and organisational responses to restructured social hous-

ing finance in England and Wales’, Urban Studies 36, 4, 737–54.Whipp, R. and S. Clarke. 1986. Innovation and auto industry. Product, process and work organisation. London:

Paul Chapman.Williamson, O.E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press.——. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Zukin, S. and P. Di-Maggio (eds). 1990. Structures of capital. The social organisation of the economy. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Date received 14 May 1999. Dated accepted 28 November 2000.


Modernization and Change in Social Housing: The Case for an Organizational Perspective

Documents

Transcript of Modernization and Change in Social Housing: The Case for an Organizational Perspective