Measuring Housing Affordability: A Longitudinal Approach

Abstract

Poor housing affordability is of increasing concern for individuals and their governments across post-industrial countries. This article examines the measurement of housing affordability, to show that conventional point-in-time measures of housing affordability fail to capture the substantial movement that many individuals make into and out of poor affordability over time in our cities and regions. The analysis highlights two very different groups affected by housing affordability stress (HAS)—those who slip in and out for short periods (Slippers), and those who spend extended periods in HAS (Stickers). The article examines their characteristics and the relative urban concentration of housing affordability problems. The article concludes by reflecting on what this approach to conceptualising HAS might mean for future research and policy in our cities and regions.

后工业化国家的个人和政府都对房价上涨感到担忧。本文考察房价政策，指出传统的 时间点房价措施无法扑捉城市和地区个人在不同时间购房能力的变化。文章主要分析 了受购房能力影响的两个不同人群：短期购房能力弱的人，和长期购房能力弱的人， 指出了两类人的特点，并指出购房能力弱的问题相对集中于城市。本文最后指出，以 这种方法对购房能力进行理论研究，对我国城市和地区未来的研究和政策将有意义。

Keywords::

• Housing Affordability Stress (HAS)
• Housing
• Health
• Longitudinal
• Urban

Acknowledgements

This work is part of an ongoing programme of research into the relationship between housing and health. The authors are especially grateful to Dr Laurence Lester for his statistical and methodological advice during the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, an early draft of this article was presented at the European Network of Housing Researchers Conference in Lillehammer, Norway, and the authors also kindly thank the participants for their valuable suggestions. The article uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (Melbourne Institute). The findings and views reported in this article, however, are those of the authors and should not be attributed to either FaHCSIA or the Melbourne Institute.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

^1. For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics distinguishes a specific low-income population rather than the commonly accepted ‘bottom 40 per cent of the income distribution’. They focus on those with incomes only in the bottom 10–40 per cent of the equivalised disposable household income distribution. They rationalise that “the incomes of many of the people falling into the lowest decile are not an appropriate indicator of the economic resources available to them … and it is likely that many of them would inappropriately be regarded as in housing stress, were they to be included” (ABS, 2004, Cat. No. 4130.0.55.001).

^2. They further note that the experience of “long term low income private renters should be given careful examination to determine whether a lower, for example 25 per cent, benchmark would be more appropriate” (p. 41).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council [ARC Discovery Project DP120102974 and ARC Linkage Project LP100200182].