Policy movement in housing research: a critical interpretative synthesis

Figures & data

Table 1. Research process.

Steps		No.	Observations
S1	Retrieved	872	Searches were performed in ASSIA, SCOPUS, Web of Science and SOC Index in Nov 2017 by seven policy keywords (‘policy diffusion’, ‘policy transfer’, ‘policy mobility’, ‘policy translation’, ‘fast policy’, ‘lesson drawing’ and ‘policy failure’^a) and ‘housing’. No time, geographical or language restrictions were set.
S2	Unique references	833	By automatic removal of duplicates, we retained: 585 journal articles; 189 books; 51 chapters; 3 conference proceedings; 3 conference papers; 1 report; 1 PhD thesis.
S3	Manual check for thematic fit (in titles and abstracts)	247	212 references were rejected for unclear fit and lack of access to full text (mostly books) and others for thematic misfit;^b some were previously undiscovered duplicates; and a few had only the abstract written in English. We retained 223 articles, 11 books, 12 chapters and 1 conference paper.
S4	Assessed for strength of engagement (full text checked)	247	We operationalized: Strong engagement if publications mentioned any of our policy keywords and/or ‘housing’ in title, keywords, abstract and/or section headings. Moderate engagement if publications mentioned any of our policy keywords and/or ‘housing’ in full text only (NOT as above). However, we upgraded two references for obvious ‘strong’ engagement (Murphy 2014, 2016). Weak engagement if publications mentioned our policy keywords and/or ‘housing’ only in the reference list (these were de-facto rejected at S3).
S5	Included in review	48	Given our research aim, we focused on references deemed to be ‘strong’ on both policy movement and housing themes (43 articles, 4 chapters and 1 conference paper).^c
S6	Updating the sample	7	We replicated the process (except we looked for journal articles only) to extend the timeline to March 2020.
S7	Reviewed references	55

^a ‘Policy failure’ was added later, with additional, comparable searches executed 7-March-2018. This returned 45 unique references, of which one passed to stage 4 (but was already captured in our sample of 247).

^b E.g., the phrase ‘…transports policy, transfer of passengers’ was discovered as ‘policy transfer’.

^c Five papers, however, proved to advance a moderate engagement with policy movement (Anderson & Collins 2014; Blessing 2016, Osypuk 2015, Van Vliet 2003) or housing (Sheppard & Beck 2018). For full reference, see the Annex.

Figure 1. Features of the reviewed literature. Source: the authors.

Table 2. What is mobile? Examples of agents and devices in three planning studies.

PD: Nishita et al (2007) On law enactment regarding the provision of disability access in single-family homes in the US	PT: Warwick (2015) On the formation and implementation of eco-towns planning policy in England	PM: Jacobs and Lees (2013) On the concept of 'defensible space' and related design interventions in British public housing in the 1990s
Proponents: key policy entrepreneurs (Eleanor Smith), interest groups (i.e. disability groups, other grassroots organisations), bureaucrats, policymakers, specialised media. Opponents: builders associations, builders, the building industry, bureaucrats. Mobilised devices: conference presentations, magazine articles, leaflets on available federal funding; research, feasibility studies; disability social networks, emails, list servers, Internet; ordinances, bills, laws, lawsuit; Key strategies to enactment: negotiation, compromise, education, awareness	Actors: political elite (three Prime Ministers), civil servants and policy-makers in various national and local agencies, architects, urban designers, house builders, admin staff, authors of best practice, delivery partners, industry and professional groups, NIMBY campaigners, media Mobilised devices: meetings’ notes, minutes, verbatim; papers, reports, written assessments; government announcements, best-practice guidance; master plans, drawings; printed output of inspirational past and present programmes (the Garden City Movement, Swedish policy), criteria and targets; expert networks of professionals, academics, researchers and policy actors; advisory panels; Key strategies to enactment: meetings	Agents: Alice Coleman, Oscar Newman, powerful elite (e.g. Margaret Thatcher) experts, academics, civil servants, government agencies Mobilised devices: ‘disaggregated series of expert knowledge transfers and localized translations of pre-policy expert knowledge, generated through university-based research work and networks’ (p.1559), persuasive books; scientific ‘proofs’, methods of analysis; concepts (i.e. defensible space), bookshops, tools of visual science (mapping surveys and persuasive graphs); choice of indicators; choice of words (discourse); academic journals, magazines; dedicated conferences; agents’ bodies and persuasive self; Key strategies to enactment: relational, contingent coalitions

Murphy, L. (2014) Houston, We've Got a Problem’: The Political Construction of a Housing Affordability Metric in New Zealand, Housing Studies, 29, pp. 893–909.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Murphy, L. (2016) The Politics of Land Supply and Affordable Housing: Auckland’s Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas, Urban Studies, 53, pp. 2530–2547.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blessing, A. (2016) Repackaging the Poor? Conceptualising Neoliberal Reforms of Social Rental Housing, Housing Studies, 31, pp. 149–172.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nishita, C.M., Liebig, P.S., Pynoos, J., Perelman, L. & Spegal, K. (2007) Promoting Basic Accessibility in the Home Analyzing Patterns in the Diffusion of Visitability Legislation, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18, pp. 2–13.

 Google Scholar

Warwick, E. (2015) Policy to Reality: Evaluating the Evidence Trajectory for English Eco-Towns, Building Research & Information, 43, pp. 486–498.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jacobs, J.M. & Lees, L. (2013) Defensible Space on the Move: Revisiting the Urban Geography of Alice Coleman, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37, pp. 1559–1583.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar