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

Abstract

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.