Advertisement

Multi-Owned Properties: Bringing It All Together

  • Erika Altmann
  • Michelle Gabriel
Chapter

Abstract

Rapid urbanisation, urban densification and the rise of neo-liberal policy programmes across the Asia-Pacific region have combined to fundamentally reshape property systems and housing opportunities. However, policy development timing, pace and impact has varied between and across societies and has been affected by economic conditions and financial reforms. In concluding, we explore the common and different consequences of these trends and their significance in terms of urbanisation, the growth of multi-owned property and the attendant rights, restrictions and responsibilities as demonstrated by our co-contributors. We highlight directions for future research.

References

  1. Altmann, E. 2006. In-Sourcing, Turning the Tide on Outsourcing. Masters by Research in Management Thesis, Faculty of Business and Law, Victoria University, Footscray.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2014. How Does High Density Living Impact Third Sector Organisations? An Exploration of Financial and Voluntary Workforce Implications for Non-profit Organisations. Australian and New Zealand Third Sector Review 20 (1): 185–205. ISSN 1323-9163.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2015. Policy Implications for Governing Australia’s Apartment Communities: Tenants, Committees of Management and Strata Managers. In Housing in 21st-Century Australia: People, Practices and Policies, ed. R. Dufty-Jones and D. Rodgers, 121–136. Franham: Ashgate. ISBN: 8171885721.Google Scholar
  4. Altmann, E., and Z. Yang. 2017. Why Chinese Investors Find Australian Real Estate So Alluring. The Conversation, 1 May 2017. https://theconversation.com/why-chinese-investors-find-australianreal-estate-so-alluring-76310.
  5. Beer, A., R. Bentley, E. Baker, K. Mason, S. Mallett, A. Kavanagh, and T. LaMontagne. 2016. Neoliberalism, Economic Restructuring and Policy Change: Precarious Housing and Precarious Employment in Australia. Urban Studies 53 (8): 1542–1558. doi: 10.1177/0042098015596922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beito, David T., Peter Gordon, and Alexander Tabarrok. 2002. The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society, Economics, Cognition, and Society. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 10: 0472088378; ISBN 13: 9780472088379.Google Scholar
  7. Brenner, N., J. Peck, and N. Theodore. 2010. Variegated Neoliberalization: Geographies, Modalities, Pathways. Global Networks 10: 182–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess, J., and I. Campbell. 1998. The Nature and Dimensions of Precarious Employment in Australia. Labour and Industry 8 (3): 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, D. 2003. From Welfare Benefit to Capitalized Asset: The Re-Commodification of Residential Space in Urban China. In Housing and Social Change, ed. R. Forrest and J. Lee. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Dore, R. 2000. Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism: Japan and Germany Versus the Anglo-Saxons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabriel, M., K. Jacobs, and K. Arthurson et al. 2005. Conceptualising and Measuring the Housing Affordability Problem, Research Paper. AHURI, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  12. Hackworth, J., and N. Smith. 2001. The Changing State of Gentrification. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 92: 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harloe, M. 1995. The People’s Home? Social Rented Housing in Europe & America. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Harvey, D. 2005. A Short History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Meusen, H., and R. Van Kempen. 1995. Towards Residual Housing? A Comparison of Britain and the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 10: 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ong, A. 2006. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pusey, M. 1991. Economic Rationalism and Canberra: A Nation Building State Changes Its Mind. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ronald, R. 2008. The Ideology of Homeownership. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van der Veer, J., and D. Schuiling. 2005. The Amsterdam Housing Market and the Role of Housing Associations. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 20: 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Whiteford, P. 2013. Australia: Inequality and Prosperity and Their Impacts in a Radical Welfare State. Canberra: Social Policy Action Centre, ANU.Google Scholar
  21. Whitehead, C., and K. Scanlon. 2007. Social Housing in Europe. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erika Altmann
    • 1
  • Michelle Gabriel
    • 2
  1. 1.Tasmanian School of Business and EconomicsUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  2. 2.School of SociologyUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations