The lone person household demographic: Trends and implications
Darian Clark
Strategic Policy and Knowledge Branch, Department of Family and Community Services
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Trends in lone person households
- 3. Understanding the rise of lone person households
- 4. Economic and social participation of lone person households
- 5. Policy challenges
- 6. Conclusion
- Endnotes
- References
1. Introduction
Connections with others sustain and enrich us. Surveys asking what is most important in life routinely find relationships at the top of the list (Clark 2002). Families are a major source of emotional, social and financial support, forming the basic unit of home life for many. Yet since 1971 the average number of residents in a household has been in steady decline in Australia. Much of this can be attributed to the growth in the number of small households (one or two residents) and the decline in the number of large households (six or more residents). In particular, the proportion of lone person households grew from 13.6 per cent to 22.9 per cent of all households between 1971 and 2001; conversely, family households fell from about 83 per cent to 68.8 per cent as a proportion of all households (ABS 1998a, p. 157).1 Australians are increasingly living alone and hence spending more time alone, and on all projections this will only increase (as in other developed countries). 2
In the context of an ageing population, a burgeoning number of elderly widows might largely appear to explain this phenomenon. Certainly this is an important contributory factor, but this paper shows that various social and demographic trends at play—described in the sociological literature as 'individualisation'—are also seeing adults in their middle years begin to rival numerically the life course stage of elderly widowhood typically associated with living alone. Of interest, therefore, is both the growth in, and changing composition of, lone person households, and the arising implications for social policy and government. Indeed, the rise of more individualised lifestyles is possibly leading to a paradoxical situation of greater reliance on income and other social support among many lone person households.
This paper adopts a macro-level approach to the issue. It is interested in recent and future trends in lone person households, the causes of their escalating growth and shifting composition, the patterns of their social and economic participation, and the arising social policy issues and implications. 3 It does not look at questions like the average amount of time spent alone per day, attitudes to spending time alone, and the influence that time alone has on personal well-being in Australia (see ABS 1999a, pp. 5-39). Following the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), this paper defines a 'lone person household' as someone who makes provision for his/her food and other essentials for living, without combining with any other person to form part of a multi-person household (she/he may live in a dwelling on their own or share a dwelling with another individual or family).4
2. Trends in lone person households
It has been projected that the number of households in Australia in the period 1996-2021 is likely to grow between 38 per cent and 46 per cent. At the same time, however, the ABS projects average household size to decline from 2.6 persons in 1996 to between 2.2 and 2.3 persons per household by 2021. This will primarily be driven, in its view, by a growing proportion of both lone person households and couples without children. Specifically, lone person households are expected to grow by between 1.7 per cent and 3.1 per cent per year between 1996 and 2021, to comprise between one-quarter and one-third of all household types by 2021 (ABS 2002a, p. 103). Of all living arrangement types, the number of people living alone is projected to increase most rapidly over the period 1996-2021, from 1.6 million people in 1996 (representing 9 per cent of the population) to between 2.4 million and 3.4 million in 2021 (representing between 11 per cent and 15 per cent of the population). Admittedly, while lone person households are projected to grow the fastest of all household types, family households are likely to remain the predominant household type, still comprising between 62 per cent and 71 per cent of household types in 2021, compared to 73 per cent of all households in 1996 (ABS 1999b).
The number of lone women is projected to increase from 876 000 in 1996 to between 1.4 million and 1.8 million in 2021, a rise of between 61 per cent and 107 per cent. The number of men who live alone is projected to increase from 712 000 in 1996 to between 996 000 and 1.6 million in 2021, a rise of between 40 per cent and 119 per cent. In all three ABS (1999b) population series, women are projected to represent over half of the population living alone.
Under the age of 50, men are more likely to live alone than women, but beyond this age, women are much more likely to live alone than men. In 2001, 6 per cent (395 997 men) of all males aged less than 50 years lived alone, compared to 3.9 per cent (255 691 women) of all females in this age group. In contrast, 13.7 per cent (336 550 men) of all males aged over 50 lived alone, compared to 23.3 per cent (627 975 women) of all females in this age group. In short, while women are more likely to live alone in old age, the tendency for men to live alone is more evenly distributed across the age groups, reflecting both the likelihood of young men to live alone and the effects of divorce, among other things.
Although the majority of younger people still live in family households, the number of people aged 20-29 years living alone has almost doubled in the past 30 years. Over two thirds of younger people (71.2 per cent) were living in family households in 2001 (compared to 71.8 per cent in 1996 and 88.2 per cent in 1971). The proportion of younger people living alone in 2001 was 7.1 per cent and, although relatively stable since 1996, this is a rise from 4.7 per cent in 1971. 5
3. Understanding the rise of lone person households
This section looks at possible explanations for the phenomenon of a rising number of lone person households in Australia. In all likelihood, there is a blend of (intensified) old and more recent factors underlying the rise of lone person households (see Hugo 1999). Many of these factors are also, to some degree, interrelated.
There are a number of distinct social trends underlying the trend towards more people living alone. One concerns what has been described as the 'new individualism'. As the sociologist Ulrich Beck observes, the new individualism (cited in Giddens 1998, p. 36):
…is not market individualism, not atomisation. On the contrary, it means 'institutionalised individualism'. Most of the rights and entitlements of the welfare state, for example, are designed for individuals rather than families. In many cases they presuppose employment. Employment in turn implies education and both of these presuppose mobility. By all these requirements people are invited to constitute themselves as individuals: to plan, understand, design themselves as individuals.
The contemporary politico-economic paradigm emphasises individual responsibility and success, thereby perhaps contributing to a perceived imperative of self-reliance. In this context, it is less clear what material security and social benefits a traditional family unit or relationship would provide to the individual. Indeed, such ties may be construed as compromising personal aspirations, independence and freedom.
Another social trend is what has been referred to as the 'social revolution'— namely, changes in social attitudes regarding the roles and responsibilities of men and women since the latter part of the 20th century. Thus it is now socially acceptable for women to work and pursue education. But the roles and responsibilities of men have equally been transformed. The average age of marrying men has been rising, as has the fall in number of men marrying, both in largely similar proportions to that of women. This is more than a mere function of changes to female patterns of partnering. Just as it is by and large socially acceptable for women to live alone and remain childless, there is less expectation on men to marry and have a family. Indeed, young men (aged 20-29 years) have a higher likelihood than women to be living alone, and this is projected to rise.
Since the 1970s, women in particular have established growing levels of financial and social independence. As Figure 1 shows, women today participate in far greater numbers in the labour force than their mothers. In the past, labour force participation was highest amongst teenage girls, before falling steeply for women in their twenties and early thirties and then steeply rising among women in their mid-thirties.
Figure 1: Female labour force participation by age (select birth cohorts)(a)
Source: FaCS, Women and Work Fact Sheet, no. 1.1, FaCS intranet site.
Note: (a) The lines represent the rate of labour force participation of women born at different times when they were at the age indicated on the bottom axis.
With growing labour force participation by women comes less reliance on another wage earner, traditionally a husband. Thus women are no longer compelled to enter a relationship for largely financial reasons. Among other things, this can in part explain the rising average age of marrying women, and the fall in number of women marrying altogether.
With growing labour force attachment and less family orientation, women are likely to want, and are indeed having, fewer children and later in life, while an increasing number will remain childless. The total fertility rate, which has progressively declined since the 1960s to reach a historic low of 1.73 babies per woman in 2001, is anticipated to continue to fall during this decade to 1.6. The introduction in the 1960s of the contraceptive pill has facilitated this development.
With the changes to the Family Law Act in 1975, there has been a steady (but stable) rise in the proportion of divorced people in the population since the 1971 Census. In 2001, 7.4 per cent of people aged 15 years and over were divorced, up from 6.4 per cent in 1996 and less than 2 per cent in 1971. If the 1997-99 rates for marriage, widowing, divorce, remarriage and mortality were applied to a newly-born group of babies, 32 per cent of their marriages would end in divorce. This is a growth of 28 per cent in the proportion expected if 1985-87 rates were applied (ABS 2002b, p. 49).
The decline in the traditional family with children can be less attributed to the rise in the rate of divorce and separation, and more to the fall in the number of people getting married, and to the rise in those delaying marriage and those entering de facto partnerships (ABS 2002a, p. 100). 6 The proportion of men and women who will ever marry is declining. If the 1997-99 first marriage rates were to continue into the future, it is estimated that 29 per cent of all men and 23 per cent of all women will never marry. The corresponding proportions based upon 1985-87 rates were 21 per cent and 14 per cent, respectively (ABS 2002b, p. 9). 7
Like many other developed countries, Australia's population is ageing. This is due to a combination of growing life expectancy, falling fertility rates and the 'baby boom' generation entering retirement. The proportion of the population aged 65 years and over is expected to increase substantially, from 12.4 per cent in 2001 to 26.1 per cent in 2051 (FaCS 2002a, p. 3). As people age, there is an increased likelihood of living alone through the death of a partner or separation due to illness or disability. A related issue here is the decline of extended family living arrangements, with more unattached grandparents, aunts and uncles who previously would have cohabited with relatives. All this is underpinned by policy over the past 15 years designed to assist older people to remain in their own homes and support themselves as much as practicable ('ageing in place'). Thus, at any given age, older people have been less likely to move in with children and less likely to move to a nursing home.
In an increasingly skills-based labour market, more people are studying and longer. People are still most likely to undertake their initial vocational or higher education qualification during their late teens and early twenties. Yet, between 1990 and 2000, the proportion of people with a non-school education qualification increased for all age groups (ABS 2002c, p. 61). With changing social values, the differences between males and females in regard to educational attainment have become less pronounced. For example, the proportion of women studying at university has more than doubled since 1951, from 20 per cent to 56 per cent of all people enrolled in 2001 (FaCS 2002b). The growing emphasis on post-secondary qualifications is important as both men and women tend to defer family formation while studying. As well, the shift towards life-long learning and the need to develop and update knowledge and skills in a changing labour market may also account for the tendency to prefer living alone without family pressures and demands on time.
A variety of factors can be identified in the growth of lone person households. Both the growth and evolving composition of lone person households represent challenges for future policy. It is thus instructive to look at the economic and social participation patterns of lone person households in Australia, particularly in light of the growth of adults in their middle years living alone.
4. Economic and social participation of lone person households
This section looks at the levels of economic and social participation of lone person households, and other relevant indicators. It is organised into four subsections. It first examines patterns of economic participation among lone persons, and then turns to associated issues of income poverty and hardship. The third section examines their patterns of social participation, while the final section describes the prevalence of mental health by living arrangement.
Economic participation
In a June 2000 survey, the ABS explored the labour force characteristics of Australian families. It estimated that persons living alone accounted for 12 per cent (1 672 200) of the population 'where relationship in household was determined'. Of these persons, 44 per cent (732 600) were employed, 3.9 per cent (65 200) unemployed, and 52 per cent (874 500) not in the labour force (ABS 2000a, p. 8).
Of those living alone and employed, 58.5 per cent were male and 41.5 per cent female. More males than females were employed across most age groups, apart from the 20-24 years age group (23 900 versus 25 000) and 55-64 years age group (51 700 versus 52 600). Of all employed males, 88.5 per cent were in full-time work compared to 74.5 per cent of all employed females. This is instructive, because women living alone (with presumably no immediate family responsibilities, and so on) reflect wider 'gendered' patterns of economic participation. In the context of an ageing Australia, it is further useful to consider the proportions of those aged 65 years and over who work across family types. For those in this age group and working, 3.9 per cent were living alone, 8.3 per cent were in couples (with or without dependants) and 2.9 per cent were sole parents (with or without dependants). 8 This indicates that there seems to be scope to improve economic participation among older workers living alone.
Of those people aged 15 and over who were living alone and unemployed in 2000, 69 per cent were male and 31 per cent were female. At June 2000, the unemployment rate for men living alone stood at 9.2 per cent, compared to 3.8 per cent for coupled men, 8.8 per cent for sole fathers and an average of 6.3 per cent for men across all families. The unemployment rate for women living alone was 6.6 per cent, compared to 4.1 per cent for coupled women, 12.5 per cent for sole mothers and an average of 6.1 per cent for women across all families. The overall unemployment rate for lone persons in June 2000 was 8.2 per cent, compared to 3.9 per cent for couples, 11.8 per cent for lone parents, and an average across all families of 6.2 per cent (ABS 2000a, p. 30). Thus, in all cases (male, female, overall), the unemployment rate for lone persons was above the average across all families. All of this is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Unemployment rate, gender and family type, 2000
Source: ABS, Labour Force Statistics and Other Characteristics of Families, cat. no. 6224.0.
Women living alone may have had a lower unemployment rate than men living alone, but this is not the full picture. While men aged 15 and over and living alone had a participation rate of some 62 per cent, their female counterparts had a participation rate of only 36 per cent. Thus not only did women living alone pursue less full-time work, they participated less in the workforce more generally. Overall, lone persons had the second lowest participation rate among all households—their rate of 47.7 per cent compared to 66.6 per cent for coupled households, 53.7 per cent for lone parent households, and an average household participation rate of 65 per cent (ABS 2000a, p. 26).
The unemployment issue was compounded by duration. The median duration of time in unemployment for men living alone was 39 weeks in 2000, the second highest after lone male parents (40 weeks) and above the median male duration of unemployment of 23 weeks. The median duration of time in unemployment for women living alone was 26 weeks in 2000, equal highest with lone female parents and above the median female duration of unemployment of 13 weeks. For all persons, lone persons had an overall median duration of time in unemployment of 32 weeks, higher than all other household types and well above the overall median duration of unemployment of 18 weeks for all household types (ABS 2000a, p. 31). The issues of participation rates and unemployment duration possibly raise implications for the process of welfare reform.
Lastly, the situation of those persons living alone and not in the labour force deserves attention, since over half of all lone person households falls into this category. Of these persons, some 67 per cent were female. Moreover, over 70 per cent of these persons were aged 65 years or more (ABS 2000a, pp. 27-8). This raises more important issues in the area of social than economic participation for older Australians.
Income poverty and hardship
In light of economic participation patterns among lone person households, it is useful to take a closer look at comparative levels of income poverty between this and other household types. Any discussion of income poverty will always be complex and contested, especially given the various limitations to traditional income poverty measures as identified in the March 2003 submission by the Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) to the Senate Inquiry into Poverty and Financial Hardship, including the importance of equivalence scales. 9
Importantly, the adequacy of income support payments needs to be considered against various estimates of poverty lines. Analysis by FaCS (2003, p. 86) found that income support payments, taking into account Rent Assistance (RA), are in most cases above the various poverty lines. The main exception to this finding is in the case of persons living alone (apart from pensioners), exacerbated for students on Austudy Payment as it is not a RA eligible payment. Nonetheless, it bears pointing out that where single people share accommodation, their payments are generally above the various poverty lines.
More generally, in his analysis of financial stress and hardship in Australia, Bray (2001, p. 29) shows that lone person households experience higher than average levels of financial stress and multiple hardship. 10 In particular, analysis of the 1998-99 ABS Household Expenditure Survey revealed that 52 300 (or 6.8 per cent of) households comprising a single person aged between 25 and 54 years experienced 'multiple hardship'—that is, where households record two or more negative responses to specific questions on missing meals and heating, selling or pawning items, or seeking assistance from community organisations—the second highest incidence of all family types after lone parents. Similarly, young (aged under 25 years) single households were well above average in the incidence of hardship (although there are some age-specific factors to be taken account of here—see Bray, 2001 pp. 32-3).
A number of factors would join together to produce this situation of financial stress and hardship among lone person households. Other analysis suggests that persons living alone experience higher levels of housing stress than other household types, a likely combination of high housing costs (no economies of sharing) and limited income given relatively low levels of economic participation (Burke et al. 2002, p. 14). With the projected increase in lone person households, these statistics reinforce a picture of economic exclusion among this group (though less so for pensioners, who constitute a reasonable proportion of lone person households).
Social participation
There is no single agreed understanding of the term 'social participation'. It 'has been variously described as a way of maintaining engagement with the community, as a pathway into employment, as a vehicle for the development of skills and attitudes that are transferable to the workplace, or as a mechanism to actually assist people to overcome their personal barriers'. 11 Notwithstanding more complex conceptualisations (see Clark, 2003), this subsection will focus upon social participation in terms of volunteering and caring activities.
The ABS conducted two surveys on volunteering in Australia, in 1995 and 2000. In 1995, persons living alone who participated in some form of volunteering constituted 8.25 per cent of the Australian volunteering population; this increased to 9.5 per cent by 2000. For males living alone, there was a small rise in the level of volunteering over this period from 7.5 per cent to 8.3 per cent. Similarly, for females living alone, there was a small rise from 9 per cent to almost 10.7 per cent (ABS 2001, p. 12). Clearly, more women than men living alone volunteered in both an absolute and relative sense in 1995 and 2000 (consistent with other family types).
The above compares the absolute and relative number of lone persons who volunteer against all other family types and by gender. Yet it is also useful to know the level of volunteering among a given population group alone. This is known as the 'volunteer rate', which refers to the number of volunteers in that group expressed as a percentage of the total population in the same group. Between 1995 and 2000, the volunteer rate for males living alone increased from 15.6 per cent to 23.2 per cent, and from 21.2 per cent to 29.3 per cent for females living alone. Overall, the volunteer rate for lone persons therefore rose from 18.3 per cent to 26.5 per cent in 2000. This needs to be understood in the context of the volunteer rate of other family types. In 2000, there was a volunteer rate of 33.7 per cent for partnered males, 35.4 per cent for partnered females, 30.9 per cent for sole fathers and 33 per cent for sole mothers. The overall average volunteer rate was 30.5 per cent for males, 33 per cent for females, and 31.8 per cent for all persons. Thus, despite a small increase in the level of volunteering among lone persons between 1995 and 2000, both men and women living alone volunteered less than all other family types by gender and overall. All this is shown in Figure 3.
The story of weaker than average levels of social participation among lone persons is reinforced by ABS (2000b) survey data on caring activity. Of all carers, 10 000 persons living alone were identified as primary carers and 95 200 as other carers, amounting to 4.5 per cent of the caring population in 1998. As a proportion of all persons living alone, this was about 6.5 per cent of that group. This compares to 17.9 per cent for a carer (primary or other) living with a partner, 8.3 per cent for a carer living with a relative, and 6.6 per cent for a carer living with non-relatives. Thus, as a proportion of their group, lone persons were least involved in caring activity. This is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 3: Volunteer rate by gender and family type, 2000
Source: ABS, Voluntary Work, cat. no. 4441.0.
Figure 4: All carers by living arrangement as group proportion, 1998
Source: ABS, Caring in the Community, cat. no. 4436.0. 'Primary' carers are those who provide the most assistance with one or more of the core activities of self-care, mobility or communication, while 'other' carers provide occasional assistance.
Given the fact that 52 per cent of all lone persons were not in the labour force in 2000, and that many (70 per cent) of these persons were 65 years or over (and female), this engenders an important role for social participation. The above survey data on volunteering and caring activities suggests that lone persons have less than average participation levels, but it is also important to look at the dimension of age in this context. The voluntary work survey did not break down categories by age and living arrangement, though it was shown that women volunteered more than men, an important finding since some 67 per cent of women are not in the labour force (and most aged 65 years or more). In terms of caring, the ABS survey does offer data by age and living arrangement. The proportion of carers by age and living arrangement is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: All carers by age and living arrangement, 2000
Source: ABS, Caring in the Community, cat. no. 4436.0.
Notes: Group total does not add up to 100 per cent as 'carers living with non-relatives' category excluded. Group total is out of those in private dwellings.
The picture of caring activity by lone persons is more positive than that for volunteer activity. While caring among those living with a partner clearly increases across ages, the inverse holds true among those living with relatives. Like carers who live with a partner, there is a small but noticeable increase across ages for persons living alone, from 2.2 per cent for those aged 0-34 years, to 4.7 per cent for those aged 35-64 years, and almost 8.2 per cent for those aged 65 years and over. 12
Mental health and lone person households
Mental illness has major economic, social and personal costs. It is thus appropriate to consider it separately as it influences patterns of economic and social participation.
Mental health relates to emotions, thoughts and behaviours, with implications for a person's interactive and functionality skills. The stigma and ignorance surrounding mental disorder can sometimes lead to isolation, and lack of social contact can be as damaging and painful as the disorder itself. In this context, it is useful to look at the association of living arrangements with the prevalence of mental disorder. Table 1 shows both the prevalence rate and age standardised prevalence rate of mental disorder by living arrangements.
| Prevalence rate | Age standardized rate(b) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Males |
Females |
Males |
Females | |
% |
% |
% |
% | |
No. persons in household | ||||
1 |
20.7 |
14.6 |
24.0 |
27.2 |
2 |
15.5 |
16.9 |
19.6 |
19.2 |
3 |
17.1 |
21.2 |
15.7 |
19.1 |
4 |
18.8 |
19.8 |
15.5 |
16.5 |
5 or more |
17.6 |
17.1 |
15.8 |
16.6 |
Marital status | ||||
Married |
13.4 |
15.8 |
15.2 |
16.7 |
Separated/divorced |
25.4 |
29.6 |
23.7 |
27.4 |
Widowed |
9.1(c) |
7.8 |
9.7(c) |
19.4 |
Never married |
26.8 |
24.5 |
23 |
20.8 |
Source: ABS, Mental Health and Wellbeing: Profile of Adults, cat. no. 4326.0.
Notes:
(a) Mental disorders from across the major groups—anxiety, affective and substance abuse disorder.
(b) Because mental disorder is age-related, when examining the effect of factors such as household size, marital status and labour force status (all of which are also age-related), it is useful to adjust the data to control for age. This is done by calculating age standardised prevalence rates. For further information on this, refer to the Explanatory Notes (paragraphs 32-4) of the source.
(c) Estimate has a relative standard error of between 25 per cent and 50 per cent and should be used with caution.
After adjusting for age, the prevalence of mental disorder was highest for both men and women living alone (24 per cent and 27.2 per cent respectively). This was the case for anxiety, affective and substance abuse disorders individually. Overall, the prevalence rates of mental disorder decreased as the number of people living in the household increased. In light of the projected increase in lone person households, this data presents a new challenge to social policy. In particular, any strategies to assist economic and social participation among lone persons will need to address mental health issues among this group.
The mental health data by marital status is equally important given earlier discussion showing increasing rates of marriage avoidance and delay among young people, and very high levels of separation and divorce, all leading to a greater likelihood of living alone. After adjusting for age, the prevalence of mental disorder was highest for both men and women who had separated or divorced (23.7 per cent and 27.4 per cent respectively). This was followed by those who had never married (23 per cent for men and 20.8 per cent for women). Strategies to help lone persons establish and sustain relationships hence also need to integrate a strong mental health dimension. The comparatively lower level of mental disorder prevalence among widowed persons augurs well in the context of an ageing society where increasing numbers of people will live alone through the death of their partner, though the rate of prevalence is still quite high for widowed women (19.4 per cent) who will form the majority of older people living alone.
5. Policy challenges
This section explores how current social policy conceives and responds to lone person households. It also traces some future possible directions for social policy and research work in this area by FaCS.
Current FaCS policies and perspectives
The FaCS portfolio focuses on three essential social policy outcomes: individuals reach their potential, families are strong and communities are strong. FaCS takes the lead and works with others to help families, communities and individuals build their self-reliance and make choices through economic and social participation, prevention and early intervention, and a responsive and sustainable safety net. It is unclear how the growth and changing composition of lone person households fits with government directions in social policy.
Housing policy
The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) represents a contribution by the Australian Government to achieve specified housing outcomes. The agreement also reflects the fact that the states and territories have ultimate control over delivery of the relevant goods and services. At present, 346 000 households rely on public housing, 90 per cent of public housing tenants are on income support, and 60 per cent of tenants are age and disability support pensioners.
The previous CSHA, which expired in June 2003, had been negotiated to support states and territories undertaking stock reconfiguration to meet changes in demographics. The newly agreed CSHA, effective from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2008, also includes a clause to this effect. Although the CSHA does not specifically outline various demographic changes, states and territories have been aware of the shift to smaller household sizes over recent years and attempting to realign their stock. This process, however, is inevitably hampered by what is available for purchase on the open market.
The states and territories outline their key priorities and priority groups for housing in their bilateral agreements with the Australian Government. In the past, the Australian Government has largely agreed with the state-defined priorities. In terms of public housing, the issue is not about single people's eligibility so much as stock availability. To house sole person households can cost much the same as a family or couple in terms of capital. The advent of more sole person households does, however, mean a greater demand for more dwellings, and the cost and maintenance of dwellings will be factors in the availability and cost of public housing options in the future. This equates to greater capital cost per person housed than perhaps for a different household configuration.
Another relevant issue is that single people in public housing can sometimes inhabit dwellings of far greater size than required (that is, when children or a partner cease to live there). Any changes in the concept and enforcement of 'housing for the duration of need' versus 'security of tenure' require the housing authority to have a viable and attractive form of alternative accommodation for the sole person. This will be costly and possibly affect the sense of community a long-term tenant experiences, a problem given FaCS' outcome of 'stronger communities'. In the public rental sector now, sole people are often being allocated two-bedroom dwellings as that is all that is available for purchase in the open market.
For sole person households in the private rental and purchase markets, the question of what the market will provide in terms of stock is equally complex. The market seems to continue to prefer providing two to four-bedroom accommodation, which is limiting to sole person households in terms of potential rental/mortgage payments. Certainly, the rise of the studio apartment seems to be limited to the gentrified inner-city areas.
Wulff (2001) provides a valuable and unique insight into the housing demand characteristics of the growing number of people living alone in Australia. She broadly finds that the relationship between housing requirements and household size in the case of lone persons are particularly complex: while people living alone would prefer flats to separate detached houses, those with the income or particular lifestyle preferences (that is, a home office, entertaining, visiting children) seek more bedroom space. What is more, the demographic and social trends surrounding this phenomenon 'signal that a spell as a one person household may come to form a part of each person's life course housing career, possibly once and perhaps multiple times' (Wulff 2001 p. 487).
Another relevant Australian Government-State agreement is the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP). Its homelessness service system does not specifically record data on households, whether they be lone person or otherwise, but records the support periods provided by the SAAP system to individuals who are homeless, and whether the individual is accompanied by children or a member of a homeless couple or family. In 2000-01, some 73.8 per cent of SAAP client periods were provided to single homeless people. This percentage dropped slightly in 2001-02 to 72.5 per cent. The characteristics of single homeless people accessing SAAP services vary across jurisdictions. In 2001-02 in New South Wales, single unaccompanied males comprised 57.4 per cent of client support periods, whereas in Victoria the figure was only 32.9 per cent. Factors influencing the characteristics of SAAP client data include local social and economic conditions, and configuration of the SAAP service system.
FaCS also administers the Rent Assistance (RA) scheme. RA provides a non-taxable payment to low-income recipients who rent privately. It is subject to both individual and parental means tests and is paid as a supplement to other income support payments. The definition of private rental includes boarding schools and halls of residence type accommodation. Young people living at home with their parents (even if they are paying rent) are not eligible for RA. Young people do not have to be classified as 'independent' in order to qualify but, if they are not, they must be living away from the parental home for approved reasons. Unlike equivalent programs in many other countries, RA in Australia is not explicitly a housing program. It is payable to private renters (not the landlord) whose income and rent meet eligibility conditions, and the expenditure is not tied to housing outcomes; a recipient could use it to reduce rent, but it could be used for other expenditures (and may thus be better described as an income supplement). The interaction between RA and Youth Allowance (YA) is looked at in greater depth in the next subsection.
Table 2 describes selected current RA rates. Notably, there is a lower maximum rate of assistance for couples than singles. Further, there is a lower maximum rate of assistance for singles without children who share accommodation.
| Family situation | Maximum rate of RA | Rent threshold | Rent at which maximum rate of RA payable |
|---|---|---|---|
Single, no children |
$93.20 |
$82.80 |
$207.07 |
Single, no children, sharer |
$62.13 |
$82.80 |
$165.64 |
Couple, no children |
$88.00 |
$134.80 |
$252.13 |
Source: FaCS Internet site.
Despite the higher RA rates for single renters, they experience far greater affordability problems than young people in shared accommodation. Of young renters living alone, 66 per cent paid more than 25 per cent, and 45 per cent paid more than 40 per cent, of income on rents. A third of young renters living alone paid more than half their income in rent. This compares to young renters in multi-person households (single sharers and couples) where 35 per cent paid more than 25 per cent, and 14 per cent paid more than 40 per cent, of income on rents, with only 8 per cent paying over half their income in rent (Burke et al. 2002, p. 14).
The shift from single to shared arrangements among 20-24 year-olds between 1980 and 2000 should be seen in this light. The lower rates for single sharers tend to be justified on the basis that sharers enjoy 'economies in housing' similar to those for partnered persons. However, an alternative way to articulate this is that housing costs and affordability underlie the trend away from living alone among young people, especially as they tend to have low incomes. Overall, it can be said that RA best supports couples living together in the sense that they face lower housing affordability problems and receive higher rates. They are nonetheless still a falling household type among young people, from 46.9 per cent in 1980 to 36.5 per cent in 2000, probably though for more non-financial reasons.
Rent Assistance does not distinguish between younger and older persons living alone. The maximum rates of assistance, and minimum rent required to receive assistance are the same for all single persons living alone. An older and younger person paying the same rent would each receive the same RA amount. Yet the different basic rates for pensions and allowances mean that older persons, who are more likely to live alone, tend to have higher incomes than young persons and hence more affordable housing. As such, there is a sense in which the existing RA program delivers better housing for older persons. Against this, it could be argued that RA represents a greater proportion of total government payments provided to younger persons. Nevertheless a key unacknowledged policy challenge in this context is how RA meets the different needs of young and old lone person households: where the needs of youth tend to be transitory, and the issues for the aged can be acute and ongoing (that is, access to public transport, proximity of shops and housing quality).
Table 3 shows results of a 1999 survey conducted for FaCS by the Swinburne Institute for Social Research, which found that 23 per cent of income units receiving RA were lone person households, representing the predominant form. 13 Interestingly, ABS data looked at earlier also showed that 23 per cent of households are now lone person. The 1999 survey further found that a majority (81 per cent) live in one or two-bedroom homes.
The RA survey did not enquire about reasons for living alone, but it did include some questions about level of satisfaction with size, condition and locational aspects of the accommodation. Further analysis could look at this as well as the age structure of lone person households getting RA.
| Single income unit households |
Bedsitter | 1 br | 2 br | 3 br | 4 br | 5+ br | All | Percentage of all |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% | ||
Lone person |
3.2 |
39.4 |
41.6 |
13.2 |
2.2 |
0.3 |
204 478 |
23 |
Sole parent 1 child |
1 |
3 |
50 |
44 |
3 |
- |
61 703 |
7 |
Sole parent 2 children |
- |
1 |
15 |
72 |
11 |
- |
53 709 |
6 |
Sole parent 3 children |
- |
- |
10 |
63 |
27 |
- |
17 751 |
2 |
Sole parent 4+ children |
- |
- |
2 |
51 |
37 |
10 |
8227 |
1 |
Couple no children |
0.9 |
10.8 |
48.5 |
37.0 |
2.8 |
- |
56 120 |
6 |
Couple 1 child |
- |
3 |
36 |
55 |
6 |
1 |
34 337 |
4 |
Couple 2 children |
- |
- |
22 |
69 |
9 |
0 |
47 812 |
5 |
Couple 3 children |
- |
0 |
9 |
64 |
23 |
3 |
24,503 |
3 |
Couple 4+ children |
0 |
- |
1 |
55 |
38 |
6 |
14 537 |
2 |
Sub-total |
1 |
17 |
34 |
39 |
7 |
1 |
522 997 |
59 |
Source: 1999 National Survey of Rent Assistance Recipients. A person is treated as a child if they are a child or stepchild of the respondent and either under 16 years of age or a full-time secondary student.
Note: Multiple income unit households totaled the remaining 41 per cent of the survey. This clearly does not affect the number of lone person households.
Family policy
The Australian Government is committed to supporting and strengthening family relationships and this is reflected in services and programs administered by FaCS. The growth of lone person households has not been actively fostered as a policy goal.
FaCS administers a range of programs designed to assist individuals, couples and families to reach solutions to family relationship problems. The Family Relationships Services Program (FRSP) is central in this respect. The FRSP initially focused on marriage guidance services, but it now aims to enable children, young people and adults in all their diversity to develop and sustain safe, supportive and nurturing family relationships, as well as minimise the emotional, social and economic costs associated with any disruption to family relationships.
The FRSP also provides funding for various programs. One is the Men and Family Relationships Program, established in 1997, which has piloted services designed to take men's and fathers' particular help-seeking and problem solving strategies into account. The aim is to help men manage a range of relationship difficulties with partners and ex-partners, children and step-children and to enable organisations to develop more sensitive and responsive approaches to working with male clients. The funded services target men at a range of relationship stages, including pre- and post-separation, and at particular life and relationship transitions, such as following the birth of a first child or the breakdown of a relationship. As a part of the 2003-04 Australian Government Budget it was announced that the program would be extended for a further four years.
Of the arising policy implications of lone person households in the context of family policy, much relates to men's involvement in relationships and their wellbeing more generally. That many younger men live alone may, to some extent, be explained by relationship breakdown. Evidence clearly shows that women are more likely to seek help than men and that women perceive relationship problems when men do not, as shown by the number of women seeking relationship support services and applying for divorce compared to men. An emergent policy challenge is thus how to provide greater support for men in continuing relationships. That said, women are more likely to live alone than men beyond the age of 50, largely because of their greater life expectancy. Therefore, in the wider context of ageing, families are increasingly best placed to offer basic support into old age.
Youth policy
The primary income support payment in the area of youth policy is Youth Allowance (YA), along with RA. The Australian Government introduced YA on 1 July 1998 as a means-tested payment replacing a range of existing allowances for young people (broadly defined as those aged 15-24 years and studying full-time, and those aged 16-20 years and looking for full-time work).
Of particular importance in this case are the changes to the eligibility criteria for the 'away from home' rate. Under YA, independent status no longer carries automatic access to the higher level of payment. Rather, this is to be decided on the living arrangements of the young person, namely whether they are living 'at home' or 'away from home'. Even if classified as 'dependent', young people living away from home for approved reasons, like study or job search purposes, are now eligible for the higher rate of YA. Many of the changes introduced under YA are attempts to make education a more attractive option for young people dependent on income support and, conversely, make unemployment less attractive.
To better align entitlements between students and jobseekers, further changes were made to the RA eligibility criteria. Since its introduction in 1996, young people on unemployment benefits living away from parents have had relatively broad access to RA, while, prior to YA, Austudy recipients were able to qualify for RA only if they could demonstrate 'homeless' status or if they were orphans or refugees. Under YA, similar conditions of access to RA have been extended broadly to full-time students under the age of 25 who are renting privately. With the introduction of YA, Austudy (now called Austudy Payment) has remained for full-time students over the age of 25, but RA is not available to such recipients. Given affordability issues, the importance of RA to all young renters is evident, even though only a proportion of young people are eligible.
Earlier analysis showed that the growth in lone person households among 'young' people is best seen as concentrated among 25-29 year olds. While for those under 25 years of age in receipt of welfare assistance, it is more common for jobseekers to be living alone than students (27.2 per cent compared to 14.1 per cent). There thus appears to be a need to develop targeted strategies to reconnect young unemployed people living alone to work opportunities and routines, and their families and communities.
Economic and social participation among young lone person households is currently only incidentally addressed through the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (discussed in depth below) and, for those aged 11-16, through the Youth Activities Services and Family Liaison Worker programs. Increasingly, young people view volunteering as a valuable way to acquire skills and workplace experience and have social contact, and there thus appears to be scope to promote volunteering among those aged 16-24 and living alone. In particular, FaCS manages the Volunteer Management Program, which in turn funds Volunteer Resource Centres to provide matching and referral services, and assistance to organisations using volunteers. Through these centres, the level of awareness among young lone persons of the benefits of volunteering as well as the opportunities could be enhanced.
Welfare reform
Analysis above suggests that lone person households generally have lower levels of economic and social participation than other household types. As a part of its welfare reform process, the Government is currently reviewing the income support system for working-age people to ensure that it supports participation and self reliance, provides stronger incentives for paid work and does more to tailor requirements and assistance to individual circumstances. A consultation paper, Building a Simpler System to Help Jobless Families and Individuals, was released in late 2002 to this end. It raises issues both directly and indirectly relevant to the problems facing lone person households.
The consultation paper notes that the differences between the single and partnered rates are not consistent across pensions, allowances and student payments, and thus suggests two approaches to establishing a common basis for rates, with allowances for the costs of living for lone person households. One maintains a primary distinction between single and partnered people. The second extends the principle that anyone who shares housing with other adults pays less for housing than adults who live alone or only with children. As such, people with partners and single 'sharers' would get similar amounts of assistance, while people who do not live with any other adult (including lone parents living only with their dependent children) would get a higher rate of assistance with housing. Under this second approach, the rate structure could include a standard payment rate for everyone, with an extra module for lone adults.
To the extent that living alone is correlated with poor social and economic outcomes, it is desirable to minimise incentives to living alone among persons with weak levels of workforce attachment. There is a tension between helping lone persons meet living costs and reinforcing poor social and economic outcomes.
The extra costs of living alone should be recognised, as both approaches appreciate. Yet there is a danger that in making the 'lone adult add-on' explicit, some may seek to leave group housing or couple arrangements for perceived or actual financial gain. Against this, a standard rate of payment would reduce incentives to shift payment to maximise financial gain (rather than pursue economic and social participation). Ultimately, the point is that there is nothing amiss per se in (wanting to) living alone; it becomes an issue when this preference is correlated with poor economic and social outcomes.
Another particular issue in the context of welfare reform arising from this analysis of lone person households relates to mental health as a barrier to economic participation. As Butterworth (forthcoming) describes it, the presence of mental disorders decreases the likelihood of finding or maintaining employment, makes it more difficult to meet participation requirements, makes participation in programs and interventions less effective, and makes many recipients more likely to be sanctioned and leave welfare without employment or other financial support. Researchers have begun to identify policies and interventions to address mental health barriers to economic participation among its clients. This paper further suggests the need for an awareness of the 'household dimension' to common mental health problems.
Ageing policy
Older Australians have much to offer towards fostering social capital within their communities with a lifetime of experience in developing and maintaining strong family and community relationships. Yet, major life events such as loss of partner or friends through bereavement, moving house or becoming ill can impact on a person's ability to be part of their community. Australian Government policy for older Australians aims to promote active and healthy ageing—that is, fostering social participation and ensuring appropriate care.
Certain trends have increased the likelihood of family support for older people, living alone or not. First, with falling mortality rates and rising longevity, the proportion of older people in a couple relationship has grown. For adults in couple relationships, the spouse tends to be the primary carer. Second, over the next 30 years, older people are more likely to have surviving children than the current and more recent generations of older people. After a spouse, adult children are the primary carers.
Yet these trends will be countered to some extent by an increase in family breakdown. The proportion of those aged 45-54 years not living with a partner has been growing and is now above 20 per cent. Most have had children, though, if their relationship with their children has become distant, care at older ages from children may not be forthcoming. This is chiefly an issue of relationships between fathers and their adult children, with implications for family policy. There is also the situation of older people living alone through the death of a partner, and again the role of children may be important (McDonald & Kippen 2001, p. 62). The potential for mutuality between private and public support of older people, according to Peter McDonald, will be even greater in the future than now.
Although most older Australians lead active, busy lives, numerical ageing is likely to increase the number (if not proportion) of older people living alone and experiencing social isolation and loneliness, especially among women given their propensity to live longer than men. Other contributing issues include lack of awareness of information about community services, and cultural and/or religious or language barriers. Around one in three older Australians were born overseas, and some lack sufficient English skills. The number of older overseas-born Australians is expected to grow in coming decades as today's working-age cohorts, with higher concentrations of people born overseas, move into older age (see Clark, forthcoming).
Increased social participation among older Australians has the potential to strengthen communities and reduce the risk of isolation for older people. Volunteering is one key aspect in this respect. Voluntary work meets needs within the community and helps to develop and reinforce social networks and cohesion. In response to population ageing, the nature of volunteering has been changing more recently. With people living longer in retirement, the elderly are devoting more of their skills and knowledge to voluntary organisations. In 2000, around 530 000 people over the age of 65 undertook volunteer work, contributing to the community, welfare, religious and health sectors. Education, training and youth mentoring also offer opportunities for fostering intergenerational bonds, where the life skills of older people can be shared with younger generations (AURA 2002).
This paper has highlighted that the issue of the growth in lone person households deserves increased policy attention. In particular, a better understanding of the actual situation of those living alone is needed, as well as an assessment of pathways for effective policy intervention. In the end, policy needs to be consistent with promoting cohesiveness and self-reliance among individuals, families and communities.
6. Conclusion
Not only is the lone person household on the rise in Australia (like other developed countries), but the various social and demographic trends at play are seeing adults in their middle years begin to rival numerically the life course stage typically associated with living alone, the elderly widow. Further, as this analysis has shown, living alone appears to be correlated with lower levels of social and economic participation, along with a higher prevalence of mental health disorders, than other household types.
The implications of all this for government and social policy may not be clear, but there is a need for greater understanding, particularly from a longitudinal perspective. This paper has begun to explore the implications for housing, families, welfare reform, the aged and young people. The broader social consequences of the rise of the lone person household demographic remain still more ambiguous: What changes will occur in the leisure and entertainment industries as our society moves away from families? Will paid (and voluntary) work become an even more central life-interest? How will the retail market be affected by the increasing emphasis on the individual? This paper will hopefully provoke a deeper conversation in this area.
Endnotes
1. Including calculations from the ABS 2001 Census of Population and Housing. The other main household type—group households—grew marginally from about 3 per cent to 4 per cent over this period (though between 1996 and 2001 there was a fall in this type from 4.1 per cent to 3.7 per cent).
2. The trend of a rising number of lone person households is not isolated to Australia. It is part of a broader trend among OECD countries. Research, for example, has equally revealed that more Canadians are living on their own than ever before and that they are spending more time alone, even if they live with others (Clark 2002).
3. Over the past two decades there has been a proliferation of literature on the issue of homelessness. It should be noted that this paper on lone person households refers to non-homeless Australians, unless it is otherwise stated. There is some discussion of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, (SAAP), but it is not possible to do justice to the issue of homelessness here. For research and strategies regarding this issue, refer to <http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publish/page.cfm?contentID=48>. For specific FaCS policies, look at the SAAP and the Reconnect program at <http://www.facsia.gov.au/>.
4. The ABS definition could be construed as slightly broader than that in the Social Security Act 1991. According to relevant sections in the Act, all single customers without dependants who share a major area of their accommodation with others (including non-dependent members of their own family) are potentially sharers for the purposes of income support and other payments. A single person who has the exclusive right to use a bathroom, a kitchen and a bedroom and has the right, in common with others, to use other major areas of accommodation is not, however, to be treated as a sharer. Nonetheless, the ABS does recognise group households, which it describes as a household consisting of two or more unrelated people where all persons are aged 15 years or over.
5. Derived from various ABS censuses of Population and Housing.
6. De facto partnering has arisen as an alternative living arrangement prior to or instead of marriage, and following separation, divorce or widowhood. Between 1992 and 1997, the number of people in de facto relationships rose by 6.4 per cent from 710 800 to 756 500 people.
7. The trend towards older age at marriage continued in 2001. In 2001, 75.6 per cent of 20-29 year olds (1 981 247 people) had never been married, increasing from 70.3 per cent in 1996, and a significant increase since 1971 when only 35.7 per cent (725 116 people) had never been married. The median age at marriage for men was 31 years, rising from 26 years in 1981. For women the median age rose to 29 years in 2001 from 23 years in 1981. The median age at first marriage also rose. In 2001 it was 29 years for men, increasing from 24 years in 1981. For women, the median age at first marriage was 27 years in 2001, increasing from 22 years in 1981 (ABS 2002b, p. 9).
8. See ABS, 2000, p. 28. The estimate for sole parents aged 65 years or over has a relative standard error of between 25-50 per cent.
9. As FaCS (2003, p. 81) states: 'The needs of households vary, with the most easily measured determinant being the size of the household. To take account of these differences analysts use "equivalence scales". These allow the incomes of households with different household compositions to be compared with each other and with any benchmark income poverty line. As with other areas of income distribution, there is little agreement on what such scales should be, and there are a number of ways in which they can be derived. Notwithstanding this lack of agreement on what to use, there is relatively strong agreement that income data does need to be equivalised for inter-household comparisons to be valid'. Since the poverty line is ultimately a construct, what determines the line for those living alone is the implicit equivalence scale.
10. Bray's analysis is based on the 1998-99 ABS Household Expenditure Survey, which includes a number of questions measuring the 'financial stress' of households. Bray categorises these questions into three specific groups— missing-out, cash-flow and hardship. The concept of 'multiple hardship' is where households record two or more negative responses to the specific questions on missing meals and heating, selling or pawning items, or seeking assistance from community organisations.
11. P. Butterworth Unpublished Manuscript, 'Evaluating the More Intensive and Flexible Services Pilot: Important Lessons for the Personal Support Programme and welfare reform', to be published in Australian Social Policy 2002-03, p.4.
12. This includes all carers (primary and other). Also note that for the age categories 35-64 years and 65 years and over, the estimate for lone persons has a relative standard error of between 25-50 per cent.
13. The nationwide survey in 1999 was designed to provide FaCS with information on the extent to which eligibility for Rent Assistance (RA) impacts on young people's decisions to study and how it influences choice of educational institution, living arrangement, and engagement in paid employment—in other words, the non-shelter aspects of housing assistance. A second objective of the research was to develop a dataset to supplement the existing RA database and to provide initial information on students on Youth Allowance (YA) as a new RA client group (students under 25 became eligible for YA, and therefore RA from 1 July 1998). The study surveyed over 8000 young people with a response rate of 42 per cent yielding some 3000 responses.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002a, Year Book Australia 2002, cat. no. 1301.0.
—— 2002b, Marriages and divorces Australia, cat. no. 3310.0.
—— 2002c, Measuring Australia's progress, cat. no. 1370.0.
—— 2001, Voluntary work, cat. no. 4441.0.
—— 2000a, Labour force statistics and other characteristics of families, cat. no. 6224.0.
—— 2000b, Caring in the community 1998, cat. no. 4436.0.
—— 1999a, Australian social trends, cat. no. 4102.0.
—— 1999b, Household and family projections, Australia, 1996 to 2021, cat. no. 3236.0.
—— 1998a, Australian social trends, cat. no. 4102.0.
—— 1998b, Mental health and wellbeing: Profile of adults, Australia 1997, cat. no. 4326.0.
ALMA Unit for Research on Ageing (AURA) 2002, Building intergenerational capacity: A national study of intergenerational programs, Victoria University, Melbourne.
Bray, JR 2001, Hardship in Australia: An analysis of financial stress indicators in the 1998-99 Australian Bureau of Statistics Household Expenditure Survey, Occasional Paper no. 4, FaCS, Canberra.
Burke, T, Pinkney, S and Ewing, S 2002, 'Rent assistance and young people's decision making', Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).
Butterworth, P Unpublished Manuscript, 'Evaluating the More Intensive and Flexible Services Pilot: Important Lessons for the Personal Support Programme and welfare reform', to be published in Australian Social Policy 2002-03.
Butterworth, P Forthcoming, Estimating the prevalence of mental disorders among income support recipients: Approach, validity and findings, FaCS policy research paper no. 21.
Clark, D 2003, 'Ageing among overseas-born Australians—Challenges for social policy and participation', paper presented to Ageing Well: The Multicultural Challenge, International Symposium, Melbourne, 9 October.
Clark, W 2002, 'Time alone' in Canadian Social Trends Autumn 2002, Statistics Canada, cat. no. 11-008.
FaCS 2003, Submission to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee into Poverty and Financial Hardship at <http://www.aph.gov.au> accessed on 25 June 2003.
—— 2002a, Submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ageing, accessed at <http://www.aph.gov.au> on 16 June 2003.
—— 2002b, Women and work fact sheets, no. 1.1 and 2.4, accessed at <http://www.facsia.gov.au> on 24 May 2003.
—— 1999, National survey of Rent Assistance recipients, conducted by the Swinburne Institute for Social Research.
FaCS and DEWR 2002, Building a simpler system to help jobless families and individuals, a consultation paper.
Giddens, A 1998, The third way, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hugo, G 1999, Demographic trends influencing housing needs and demands in Australia, paper presented to AHURI Workshop on Innovation in Housing, Melbourne.
McClure Report (Final Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform) 2000, Participation support for a more equitable society, FaCS.
McDonald, P and Kippen, R 2001, 'Ageing: The social and demographic dimensions' in Policy Implications of the Ageing of Australia's Population Conference, Productivity Commission and Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, Canberra.
Wulff, M 2001, 'Growth and change in one person households: Implications for the housing market' in Urban Policy and Research, vol. 19, no. 4.