Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings

Responsibility for affordable housing delivery is increasingly being delivered through collaborations between private, nonprofit, and state actors and operationalized through voluntary negotiations. Negotiation theory provides a lens for understanding why outcomes are often limited by highlighting the impact of stakeholder interests, the potential for mutual gains, trust between negotiating partners, and access to information. We surveyed 148 housing stakeholders in the state of Victoria (Australia) shortly after the passage of legislation that supported the negotiation of voluntary affordable housing agreements. We found that stakeholders share a belief in the necessity of affordable housing. However, the current institutional context often precludes opportunities for mutual gain because there is little incentive to engage in negotiations, provision of sufficient incentives is problematic, and contributions are difficult to enforce. We found large discrepancies in levels of training in development feasibility across sectors and low trust between negotiation participants. We argue that these factors are likely to reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of voluntary affordable housing negotiations in Victoria and other jurisdictions with weak institutional arrangements for affordable housing negotiations.

Takeaway for practice

Across sectors, respondents prefer mandatory rather than voluntary affordable housing provisions. Voluntary affordable housing negotiations are unlikely to be effective without institutional scaffolding to ensure that negotiations result in mutual gains for stakeholders. Planners should pair the introduction of voluntary affordable housing negotiations with training resources for the stakeholders who will participate in negotiations as well as mechanisms for enforcing negotiated agreements.

中文翻译：

---

“模棱两可、令人困惑且没有提供足够的住房”

摘要

问题、研究策略和发现

提供负担得起的住房的责任越来越多地通过私人、非营利组织和国家行为者之间的合作来履行，并通过自愿谈判得以实施。谈判理论通过强调利益相关者利益的影响、互惠互利的潜力、谈判伙伴之间的信任以及信息的获取，为理解为什么结果往往受到限制提供了一个视角。在支持自愿性经济适用房协议谈判的立法通过后不久，我们对维多利亚州（澳大利亚）的 148 名住房利益相关者进行了调查。我们发现利益相关者都相信经济适用房的必要性。然而，目前的制度环境往往排除了互惠互利的机会，因为参与谈判的动力很小，提供足够的激励措施是有问题的，而且捐款难以执行。我们发现跨部门的开发可行性培训水平存在巨大差异，谈判参与者之间的信任度低。我们认为，这些因素可能会降低维多利亚州和其他司法管辖区的自愿经济适用房谈判的效率和有效性，这些司法管辖区的经济适用房谈判制度安排薄弱。

外卖练习

跨部门，受访者更喜欢强制性而非自愿性的经济适用房条款。如果没有制度框架来确保谈判为利益相关者带来共同利益，自愿的经济适用房谈判就不太可能有效。规划者应将自愿负担得起的住房谈判的引入与为将参与谈判的利益相关者提供的培训资源以及执行谈判协议的机制相结合。