Urban Studies

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Batten, D. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Urban Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, 137-151 (1999)
DOI: 10.1080/0042098993781
© 1999 Urban Studies Journal Limited

The Mismatch Argument: The Construction of a Housing Orthodoxy in Australia

David C. Batten

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Level 7, 20 Queen Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia, dbatten{at}geocode.com.au

Australia's housing policy discourse contains many orthodoxies. While orthodoxies are never totally accepted within a discourse, they are the dominant notions within them and as such carry significant symbolic authority. One orthodoxy that has particular authority in Australia is the notion that there is a 'mismatch' in the housing system between the available stock and the size of households to the extent that there is significant underutilisation and underoccupancy of housing. The mismatch argument's power as orthodoxy is such that the idea is assumed in much housing policy discussion. Criticism of the mismatch orthodoxy can take many approaches, such as empirical, conceptual and discursive. The discursive critique focuses not on the empirical relationship between households and dwellings, but on the statements about that relationship. The resulting analysis shows how the mismatch orthodoxy arose in Australia and its effects on housing discourse. This paper examines the construction of the mismatch orthodoxy, from its first uses in the early 1970s to its entrenchment in national and state housing policy research in the early 1990s. It shows how the structures of the discourse construct the orthodoxy, despite empirical and conceptual criticisms of it. Of particular importance is the effect the orthodoxy has on people deemed to be underutilising their dwellings, and on how the orthodoxy affects policy interpretations, such as occupancy standards.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?