Abstract
Many developed economies, especially in ‘liberal welfare regimes’, have experienced a substantial growth in private rental housing. Bound up with this dynamic is the rising incidence of long-term private renting (private renting for ten years or more). Regulation of the private rental sector in liberal welfare regimes is light and post the written agreement residents are subject to constant de jure insecurity. Drawing on a questionnaire survey and in-depth interviews (the primary focus), this article investigates the impacts of perpetual de jure housing insecurity on long-term private renters in diverse housing markets (low-, medium- and high-rent) in Sydney and Melbourne. The results indicate that de jure insecurity does not necessarily translate into de facto insecurity. Long-term private renters typically respond to perpetual de jure insecurity in one of three ways – incessant anxiety and fear; lack of concern; and concern offset by economic/social capital and traded off against locational preference.
In many high-income countries the proportion of households residing in the private rental sector (PRS) has grown substantially (Crook and Kemp, 2014; Hulse et al., 2015; US Census Bureau, 2014). This is especially so in those countries – Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the USA – countries Esping-Andersen (1999) categorised as liberal welfare regimes. In these countries there is a strong emphasis on keeping regulation of the market to a minimum and consequently PRS regulation is light in terms of security of tenure and the frequency and size of rent increases. The power imbalance between landlords and tenants is substantial (Hulse et al., 2011; Kemeny, 2001). Thus, PRS expansion in such countries means growing numbers are exposed to constant de jure housing insecurity – legally they have minimal protection against rent increases or eviction once the written agreement between the landlord and tenant ends. Barriers to home ownership and the very limited access to scarce social housing means that for many private renters this status is no longer transitory as in previous decades, but a long-term or even life-long prospect (Stone et al., 2013).
Drawing on fieldwork undertaken in six paired localities in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, this study contributes to the modest literature on rental housing and (in)security. It focuses in particular on long-term private renters (LTRs), defined as tenants residing in the PRS for at least ten years, although not necessarily in the same dwelling. Although the rising number and proportion of LTRS in Australia has been documented (Stone et al., 2013; Wulff and Maher, 1998), the implications for tenants have remained largely unexplored. There has been little qualitative work in this space nor any examination of whether the experience of LTR status might vary in diverse housing market contexts and/or for different household types.
Key questions raised by the rise of long-term private renting in Australia and examined in this study are, first, how do LTRs in different housing markets perceive and experience their persistent de jure insecurity and, second, to what extent do other factors such as household income and household type influence LTRs’ experiences and perceptions of housing (in)security. We examine these questions mainly through the accounts of LTRs explored through in-depth interviews.
The next part of the article outlines a framework for understanding private renter perceptions of de jure insecurity. We then discuss the types of housing insecurity and security. The following section briefly quantifies and analyses the recent growth of private renting in Australia and in other high-income countries. Next, we outline the methodology used to investigate in/security among long-term and other private renters in Sydney and Melbourne. We then examine LTR perceptions and experiences of de jure insecurity.
A framework for understanding private renter perceptions of de jure insecurity
Bauman’s concept of ‘liquid modernity’ is useful for exploring private renters’ perceptions of security. Liquid modernity refers to the increasing transience and lack of permanence characterising late modernity (Bauman, 2000). It may be that the growth in long-term renting reflects a growing number of urban residents who value the flexibility and lack of commitment associated with private renting. Alternatively, transience may be involuntary rather than chosen or some combination of choice and constraint.
Within this broader context, in seeking to understand how different private renter cohorts might experience insecurity we draw on Bourdieu’s concepts of field, economic and social capital, and habitus. Bourdieu argues that within any field, agents and groups are in different positions with respect to the power they are able to wield:
The position of a given agent within the social space can thus be defined by the position he [sic] occupies in the different fields, that is in the distribution of powers which are active within each of them. (Bourdieu, 1985: 724)
An individual’s power is derived from the capital they have at their disposal:
The social field can be described as a multidimensional space of positions…. Thus, agents are distributed within it … according to the overall volume of the capital they possess, and, in the second dimension, according to the composition of their capital … (Bourdieu, 1985: 724)
The key types of capital for Bourdieu are economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital. For the purposes of this study we focus on his concepts of economic and social capital. Bourdieu defines economic capital as capital that ‘is immediately and directly convertible into money and may be institutionalized in the forms of property rights’ (Bourdieu, 1986: 242). A private renter with adequate economic capital would be in completely different position in the field of private renting (we would argue that the PRS can be described as a field, in that it has its own rules and regulations) to a private renter with minimal economic capital. The economic capital available to a private renter would fundamentally impact on their power to find affordable and adequate private rental accommodation and would shape their responses to the constant possibility of a rent increase or being asked to vacate.
While there are many definitions of social capital (see Portes, 2014), Bourdieu’s definition is particularly useful. For him it is ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance …’ (Bourdieu, 1986: 246). A private renter with well-developed social capital could draw on this capital in times of need; for example if requiring financial assistance or emergency accommodation after being given notice.
Bourdieu views the habitus as deeply internalised dispositions and ways of seeing the world, shaped by the context in which an individual is socialised. These ways of seeing the world become naturalised: ‘It is because the world has produced me, because it produces the categories of thought that I apply to it, that it appears to me as self-evident’ (Bourdieu 1992: 127–8 in Webb et al., 2002: 18). The habitus or dispositions an individual acquires reflects the capital the individual has had at their disposal historically.
The habitus is this generative and unifying principle which retranslates the intrinsic and relational characteristics of a position into a unitary lifestyle, that is, a unitary set of choices of persons, goods, practices. Like the positions of which they are the product, habitus are differentiated, but they are also differentiating. (Bourdieu, 1995: 15)
We investigated the economic and social capital available to LTRs and whether the habitus of LTRs shaped how they see their housing situation and future prospects.
In addition, David Clapham’s concept of housing pathways is useful for understanding the situation of LTRs: ‘The housing pathway of a household is the continually changing set of relationships and interactions which it experiences over time in its consumption of housing’ (Clapham, 2002: 64). He argues that ‘a housing pathway will run alongside and be closely associated with other types of pathways such as employment’ (2002: 65). It is evident that the housing pathways of LTRs who are dependent on government benefits or on irregular casual employment for their income, would be severely restricted. Alternatively, the housing pathway options for an LTR in a well-paid position would be diverse.
Types of housing insecurity and security
Housing insecurity is defined here as residents’ limited capacity to determine how long they may remain in their home. In Australia, protection against landlord-instigated ‘forced moves’ is negligible. The initial written agreement/lease rarely extends beyond a year and, once it ends, the tenancy typically shifts to a ‘periodic’ basis where notice to vacate without prescribed grounds and where the tenant is not in breach of tenancy agreement ranges from 42 days to 26 weeks – depending on the state or territory (Hulse et al., 2011).
This regulatory framework means that beyond the initial lease duration, and unless this is formally extended by an agreed term, all private tenants are subject to ongoing de jure insecurity. A key question that this article investigates is whether this de jure insecurity translates into chronic de facto insecurity (see Fitzpatrick and Pawson, 2014; Hulse and Milligan, 2014), that is, do private renters experience regular involuntary moves.
As well as their de jure and de facto insecurity, the literature suggests that ‘perceptual insecurity’ is also important. This is defined as the
security as seen and experienced by occupiers; thus people may think that they may lose their housing/land whether or not this happens or is even threatened, or they may feel secure in their occupation even if they do not have legal rights that are enforceable. (Hulse and Milligan, 2014: 640)
There appears to be a clear link between housing security (or lack of insecurity on these different dimensions) and ontological security as discussed in the literature (Dupuis and Thorns, 1998; Hiscock et al., 2001; Hulse and Saugeres, 2008; Padgett, 2007). With regard to housing, ontological security includes permanency, stability and continuity, as well as the ability to make changes contributing to a sense of control and creating a ‘comfortable’ home environment. It would appear that in the context of lightly regulated rental systems, a low level of de jure security would make it difficult to have ontological security and the capacity of private renters to make significant changes to their accommodation is limited, which can restrict their ability to make a home (see Easthope, 2014).
Building on earlier work (e.g. Somerville, 1998), an Australian study of mainly female private renters identified six features of housing insecurity – lack of privacy, lack of belonging, lack of physical comfort, housing mobility, housing instability and feeling unsafe (Hulse and Saugeres, 2008). This research added an understanding of the particular importance of safety as an element of housing security for women and the notion of housing instability; that is, concern about the possibility of a forced move, even if this is far from a certainty. For low-income renters, such concerns were often related to insecurities in employment, family relationships, their health and personal lives.
The value of secure housing has been illustrated in the more specific case of people with serious mental illness. In a New York study, Padgett (2007) showed that, when given secure housing, people with serious mental illness often made substantial progress – ‘housing can provide a fundamental building block for ontological security’ (Padgett, 2007: 1934).
A dominant assumption in the literature is that ontological security is inherently linked to home ownership, whereas private renting is characterised by persistent precarity (Saunders, 1990). However, in their interrogation of this assumption, Hulse and Milligan (2014) conclude that de jure insecurity experienced in the PRS does not necessarily translate into de facto or perceptual insecurity. Private renters can feel secure, even within the legal context of countries such as Australia. Whether they feel secure or not, and the effects of household type/size and income and type of housing market, are empirical questions investigated in this study.
The growth and regulation of private renting in Australia and internationally
Recent PRS growth has been driven by a deepening of neoliberal urbanism impacting on housing markets in all welfare regimes (Christophers, 2013; Forrest and Hirayama, 2015; Harvey, 2007). A central feature of this scenario has been a strong government preference for market housing provision, including promotion of home ownership and active facilitation of PRS expansion, and weakening of support for social housing (Elsinga, 2015; Hulse et al., 2011; O’Sullivan and De Decker, 2007; Scanlon et al., 2014).
Over the past 20 years Australia has seen a marked expansion of the PRS – from 18% of all households in 1994 to 26% in 2013–14 (ABS, 2015). About one in three private renters are LTRs (Stone et al., 2013) and this group accounts for at least one in twelve of all Australian households. A major factor underlying the increase has been house prices outpacing household incomes. Thus, a growing proportion of Australians, especially in major cities, have been priced out of home ownership (Burke et al., 2014). Since the mid-1990s, the national house price index has increased from a baseline of 100 in 1995 to 250 in 2015 (OECD, 2017) while the home ownership rate fell by four percentage points to 67% between 1994–95 and 2013–14 (ABS, 2015). A social housing tenancy is a realistic prospect only for a tiny minority. Now accounting for under 4% of all housing, access to this tenure is restricted to households with the most complex needs (ABS, 2015).
As in many other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, Australia’s private rental increase is also related to labour market restructuring, with employment security progressively undermined by shifts towards part-time, casual and other forms of ‘flexible’ working (Beer et al., 2015; Eurofound, 2015; Howe, 2012; Pratschke and Morlicchio, 2012). Households dependent on casualised and part-time jobs, or on government benefits, are rarely able to access home ownership in the capital cities and thus have little option but to rent in the private market. At the other end of the spectrum, flexible professionals are choosing to rent as it accords with their work and lifestyle preferences (Hulse et al., 2015). In explaining the recent expansion of UK private renting, the UK government boldly asserts ‘The [PRS] offers a flexible form of tenure … and is increasingly the tenure of choice for young people’ (DCLG, 2015). In their more nuanced analysis of the housing market in the United States and Japan post the global financial crisis (GFC), Forrest and Hirayama (2015: 239) conclude:
Home ownership suited the stability and security of the Fordist era. Private renting is better calibrated to the fluidity and ‘flexibility’ of the neoliberal and post-crisis eras.
They argue that in post-GFC Japan, the UK and the USA, ‘it is a reinvigorated private rented sector which is emerging from the “creative destruction” of post-crisis and post-bubble housing markets’ (Forrest and Hirayama, 2015: 240). They point to the profound turnaround in England where in 1999–2000, about 40% of newly formed households moved into the PRS and 34% into home ownership, whereas by 2008–9, 70% entered private renting, while only about 20% entered home ownership (Forrest and Hirayama, 2015: 240).
While these trends are especially apparent in jurisdictions where PRS regulation is light, it is also observable that in a wider range of OECD countries the PRS is becoming a critical part of the housing system, serving an essential function ‘for households, unable or unwilling to enter homeownership or social rented housing’ (O’Sullivan and De Decker, 2007: 95). In many contexts, the growth of the PRS has also been driven by a favourable tax regime, light regulation and easy access and exit that have attracted private investment (Hulse et al., 2011; O’Sullivan and De Decker, 2007). As a result an increasing number of people in high-income countries like Australia are residing for extended periods of time in an intrinsically insecure housing situation.
Methodology
Due to the lack of empirical evidence on perceptions of housing in/security, a customised face-to-face survey of 600 private renters was conducted in Sydney and Melbourne – 300 in each city. To achieve a sample broadly representative of private renters in the two cities, the sample was stratified by housing market characteristics – that is, low-, medium- and high-rent areas. For practical reasons connected with fieldwork efficiency, eligible areas (SA2s) were restricted to those with an above-average incidence of private rental housing. The standard geographical unit used here is Australian Bureau of Statistics statistical areas (SA2s) that aim to represent ‘a community that interacts socially and economically’ and have an average population of 10,000 people (ABS, 2011). The rental market classification of our survey areas corresponded with location: the two low-rent areas selected were outer suburbs, the middle-rent areas were middle suburbs closer to the central business district and the high-rent areas were expensive, highly sought-after inner suburbs. 1 Areas were selected using data from the ABS Census of Population and Housing, 2011. A spread of areas was considered particularly important to facilitate investigation of variations in the private rental experience in different rental markets.
A random sample of addresses for privately rented property for each selected site was drawn from State Government Rental Bond Board records. These encompass all ‘live’ private rental tenancies at a point in time. A random sample of 2996 private rental property addresses was issued to a research company to generate 600 face-to-face questionnaire surveys. Quotas were issued to ensure that at least a third of respondents were LTRs, reflecting the expected proportion of LTRs generally. Interviews were conducted in respondents’ homes in 2015. Questionnaire themes included suitability of accommodation; amenity, quality and condition of dwelling; terms of tenancy; rents and finances; housing experiences prior to moving to present accommodation; and future housing plans. Data were analysed using SPSS software.
Survey respondents who were LTRs were invited to participate in a follow-up in-depth, semi-structured interview. Sixty interviews were conducted, 30 in each city, evenly split between high-, medium- and low-rent localities. The following themes were covered: suitability of accommodation; factors underlying long-term renter status; advantages and disadvantages of being an LTR; the capacity to create a sense of home; perceptions of tenure/housing security; local place attachment; the impact of long-term private renting on capabilities and future housing plans. The interview material was coded according to key themes using NVivo software, which enabled analysis of LTRs in low-, medium- and high-rent areas.
The rest of this article provides some context using the survey data but relies primarily on the qualitative data to investigate how LTRs viewed their situation and experience of de jure insecurity. The focus for this article was an analysis of the responses to questions around the theme of tenure security in the survey and in the in-depth interviews.
Three types of responses by LTRs to persistent insecurity
Despite their limited de jure security, as Table 1 illustrates, three-quarters of LTRs and other renters surveyed perceived that they could stay in their present accommodation for as long as they desired. LTRs were more likely to report having been required to move by a former landlord; a third had experienced a landlord-instigated move from their last rental property, a substantially higher proportion than the18% of shorter-term renters, although the length of tenancy may have been a factor here. Despite the high cost of rented accommodation in Sydney and Melbourne, only a quarter of respondents reported their rent as difficult to afford. Overall, four in five were satisfied with their rented home.
Private renter housing experiences and perceptions of in/security.
Source: Authors’ survey. Note: The range of sample sizes reflects the fact that some questions were addressed only to certain respondents (being inapplicable to others).
There were surprisingly few differences between the responses of respondents in the different rental markets as indicated in Table 2. Noteworthy is that LTRs in low-rent areas were more likely to have had to move at their landlord’s instigation. One possible explanation is that their limited economic capital meant that they had far less financial capacity to choose to move of their own volition. As Table 2 shows, whereas only 6% of high-rent LTRs were dependent on government benefits for their income and 9% received rent assistance from government (only low-income households who draw a government benefit are eligible for rent assistance), 40% of LTRs in the low-rent areas were dependent on government benefits and 65% received rent assistance.
Private renter housing experiences and perceptions of in/security by rental market (%).
Source: Authors’ survey. Note: see note to Table 1.
Perceptions around housing insecurity were explored further in the in-depth interviews. In analysing perceived insecurity and its impacts we identified three main patterns of response to the persistent de jure insecurity LTRs face. The first response, especially common in the low-rent area in Sydney, was characterised by incessant anxiety and fear of having to move. The second response was de jure insecurity being viewed as of little or no concern. The third response was concern mitigated by social and economic capital and/or traded off against the attraction of living in an expensive, well-resourced area accessible only through renting. The three responses are analysed in turn.
Incessant anxiety and fear
For one group of interviewees their de jure insecurity was a persistent source of stress. They were constantly anxious about the possibility of being asked to leave their homes. The limited economic and sometimes social capital of interviewees in the low-rent areas meant that a landlord-issued notice to vacate invariably provoked great anxiety as they had minimal resources to find alternative accommodation. Their housing opportunities were severely constrained by their low income and stiff competition in the rental market. In 2015 (most of the data for this study was collected in 2015) in Sydney and Melbourne, the city-wide median rent for a two-bedroom home was close to or in excess of an individual’s income if they were dependent on government support for their income.
2
Interviewees solely reliant on government benefits for their income were especially vulnerable. Frieda,
3
a single parent with five children, described her perceptions and experiences:
At any minute I can get the letter to say, ‘Sorry, but you’ve got to move’.… The last house before this one … was supposed to be a long-term but he decided to sell that house. And then we got [another] one … and the owners were over the other side of the country … and then decided they’d had enough so were coming back so they wanted the house back.… We got notice [to vacate] but [were] still trying to you know find somewhere.… For a while there, I was thinking we’ll be out on the street.
Nigel (low-rent, Sydney) lived alone. He had been receiving workers compensation for a work-related injury, but when interviewed was solely reliant on the negligible unemployment benefit (‘Newstart’), which meant that his income had dropped substantially. Nigel was confident that his landlord would not ask him to leave. However, his intense insecurity was premised on his rent accounting for all of his income and he was not coping. He was fortunate to have some social capital:
I’m getting $661 a fortnight, my rent is $660 [a fortnight], so if it wasn’t for friends you know.… Stress is gone beyond a joke.… You don’t know what you’re going to do the next day.
Like Nigel, Christine (57) also depended on Newstart for her income. She had been renting the same home for 16 years in a low-rent area in Sydney and had lost her job a couple of years earlier after falling ill. Fear and anxiety were evident in her comments:
A renter – you’ve always got that fear that you’re not going to have a roof over your head at some stage. Yes, I’ve been here 16 years, but you never know. The house can be sold and new owners can say, ‘No. We want you to go.’ You don’t have money for a bond for another premises or you know Housing Department can’t help you because you’re not, what they consider to be [in] an urgent, desperate situation …
Some LTRs with school-going children found the perpetual insecurity particularly worrying. Gabrielle (low-rent, Sydney) was distressed that her children did not have a permanent base:
In the back of your mind you’re always wondering, when will I have to move? … And the main thing is for the children.… Like growing up you’d like to be able to have them in one home, you know, especially the little one.… She doesn’t understand the concept of renting. She thinks it’s her house and she sees the [For Sale] sign going up and … she just asks a million questions, ‘What’s going on?’ … She doesn’t like it … Like she’s six, she says this is her home.… Not having security is the biggest thing.
Fear and anxiety were not limited to low-rent area interviewees. Monica (high-rent, Sydney) is in a skilled position in the public service and her economic capital was clearly a lot greater than that of her counterparts in low-rent areas. However, it did not translate into greater security. A single parent (at the time of the interview her son was in high school), she had rented the same apartment for eight years, but after its sale she had experienced a period of intense insecurity:
We were just a classic example of the non-security of tenure that you have when you’re a renter and it is a total nightmare, especially if you’ve got children or family of some sort.
Perceptions of insecurity were often shaped by previous experience. Interviewees who had been forced to vacate on several occasions not surprisingly tended to be deeply affected by their experience, indicating the cumulative effects of de facto insecurity. Claire lived alone in a high-rent area in Sydney and had experienced numerous landlord-instigated moves. She was deeply concerned about what she perceived to be her constant insecurity:
I could be asked to leave at any time and that’s happened to me five other times, well four other times, once was my choice.
She spoke about the impact of having to find alternative accommodation:
It is stressful. My blood pressure goes through the roof and doesn’t really come down until I find out that I’ve got somewhere else to live.… In that sense it [private renting] has affected my health.
Housing insecurity not perceived as a concern
At the opposite end of the spectrum were interviewees for whom long-term private renting was a deliberate choice and who were unconcerned about the possibility of being asked to move or an untenable rent increase. They embraced the flexibility associated with liquid modernity. ‘Renters by choice’ tended to be single people or couples without children who lived in high-rent areas. They usually had ample economic and social capital, and their biographies and current circumstances contributed to them having a habitus / disposition that viewed the flexibility associated with long-term renting as advantageous. As Clapham (2002: 65) argues in his discussion of housing pathways, ‘the meaning attached to a house may be part of a personal identity and lifestyle which includes type of employment, choice of clothing, type of car owned and so’. Implicit in Clapham’s statement is the capacity to choose. Certainly, the renters by choice generally had the capacity to choose how they wanted to live. Sarah was living in a high-rent area in Melbourne:
And I do have enough money to buy quite a nice apartment, but I’d rather use the interest and the share money [dividends from shares] and stuff to travel.
The ability to vacate their accommodation at any point was viewed as a major advantage. Angela and her partner lived in North Melbourne (high-rent). They had no children and preferred not having a lease:
So the security doesn’t bother me.… It’s more to do with my freedom within that. It means that I can just leave whenever I want if I want to.
Astrid (high-rent, Sydney) felt totally at ease with her LTR status. In her late thirties and single, she had a reasonable income and strong social capital. She had rented for all of her adult life:
It doesn’t bother me [being asked to vacate].… If they come and say they’re going to sell. Well, there’s a reason. It was meant to be, so yeah … There’s always somewhere to stay. So it suits my lifestyle. I wouldn’t want to buy anything even if I had the money.
Pam lived alone in a high-rent area in Melbourne. She had inherited a third of a house but rather than using the proceeds to buy a property, she had decided to move to the inner city and continue renting:
So I thought rather than put money into a house … I would invest it and I could travel and go to concerts and live the life I wanted to lead, so that’s basically what I did and I’m still renting.
She felt secure in her accommodation and was confident that her economic and social capital meant that she would always have a place to stay:
Well I’m aware they could ask me to move, and then I would have to find somewhere else. I also know I’ve got friends. I’d be able to find somewhere else. I wouldn’t be homeless.
Sophie (high-rent, Melbourne), married with a young baby, saw renting as positive. She and her partner had been in their previous apartment for eight years and felt secure in their current home. Her personal history had encouraged a habitus that viewed renting as advantageous:
Maybe because I’ve always rented I feel like this is like the way that we live normal like.… We rent because we’ve sort of chosen to … and I think that does come back to that I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with renting because my parents were renters and … we were okay.
A number of the interviewees had been fortunate in their choice of landlord and believed that as long as they paid their rent they would not be asked to move and any rent increase would be reasonable. Their perceptual security was considerable:
So, like I said, my friend’s had it [the apartment] for six years. I’ve had it another four and it’s gone up maybe $200 a month over ten years. It’s like one of these little gems that you go, ‘Right, that’s it. I’m not moving.’ (Neil, high-rent area, Melbourne)
In brief, some LTRs had accommodated to an era of liquid modernity. Their habitus meant that they found freedom in renting privately unencumbered by the financial and other commitments associated with home ownership. In some cases, this was because they experienced de facto security despite their legal position. A key factor underpinning low levels of concern around their de jure insecurity appeared to be high levels of economic and/or social capital.
Concern offset to an extent by economic and social capital and traded off against locational preference
It was evident that interviewees in the high- and medium-rent areas typically were in a different position to those in the low-rent areas. The economic capital at their disposal enabled them to rent (but not buy) in an area with good public schools 4 and amenities, and to move if need be. However, many in this group were reluctant LTRs and strongly felt the insecurity of the PRS. This was especially so if they had school-going children. For these households, renting in a high-rent area was often motivated by the desire to ensure that their children obtained quality schooling. Their habitus meant that good schooling for their children was a high priority. Clapham (2002: 65) comments, ‘Households undertake life planning in a search for identity and self-fulfilment.’ For many of the private renters with children in high-rent areas, a key contributor to their self-fulfilment and identity was their child/ren doing well at school.
Moira (high-rent Sydney), married with two children, was pleased with her rental situation. For her large three-bedroom apartment she paid an unusually low rent. She had lived there for several years but local residence was possible only as a renter – house purchase would be unaffordable. Alongside the location’s natural beauty and its high-quality amenities, another major drawcard was the quality of the public schools. Not surprisingly she was keen to stay in the area and concerned about the possibility of having to vacate:
The fact that you don’t know how long you’re going to be there for and you know that was a massive thing when we were choosing a school. Well right, we’ve got this lovely school just around the corner where we are now but if we have to move are we going to be able to be within distance … to keep him there and I didn’t want to move him so that was a massive problem.… And it [the lack of security] is something, a cloud that’s there always …
The determination to ensure that their son had a good schooling was the primary reason for Glenn and his partner renting a small semi-detached house in a high-rent area in Sydney:
We need to stay in the area for our son and we balanced that against sending him to a private school so in that way it’s cheaper to live here even though the rent’s high.
The insecurity attached to private renting was a major issue for Glenn and he was acutely aware of the power imbalance between renter and landlord: ‘If you don’t have a long-term lease … the owners can say, ‘Well, see you later.’
Ann and her family had moved to North Melbourne (high-rent area) mainly for the schooling facilities:
There’s a good high school here.… We wanted to get into the local area, so we could attend there.
The findings suggest support for Clapham’s view of housing pathways to the extent that these LTRs are highly dependent on life planning. Long-term renting could provide a means of achieving life goals such as obtaining a good education for their children and / or living in an area rich in urban resources such as jobs, good public transport and high-quality amenities.
Discussion and conclusion
Our study reveals a complex range of responses to chronic de jure insecurity and that residing in a particular type of rental market does not necessarily determine LTR perceptions of their housing situation. The interviews indicated that the LTRs who found the de jure insecurity of private renting most challenging and stressful were single parents in low-rent areas dependent on government benefits for their income. Their domestic responsibilities combined with their paucity of economic capital (and often their social capital was minimal) meant that finding viable affordable alternative accommodation if required to vacate, was extremely difficult. Their choices were highly restricted, especially so in tight rental markets like Sydney and Melbourne. The precarious employment status of many interviewees in the low-rent areas or their dependence on government benefits meant that their housing pathways were severely limited. The chronic lack of de jure security was a fundamental feature of their everyday consciousness. They were constantly concerned about the possibility of having to move. Many had in the past experienced severe difficulty finding suitable accommodation.
Some LTRs in well-paid jobs who were renting in medium- or high-rent areas also experienced the constant de jure insecurity as concerning. Many had been unfortunate in the rental market and had received notice to vacate on several occasions. Yearning for stability, the insecurity of the PRS was an ongoing worry. However, their economic capital and employment status gave them the capacity to find alternative accommodation relatively easily compared to their counterparts in low-rent areas and they usually also had the social capital to tide them over emergencies.
A number of interviewees in all rental market contexts had by chance found landlords who they were confident would not ask them to vacate or impose an unreasonable rent increase. They therefore concluded that they could stay as long as they desired, and as a result their de facto and perceptual security was strong.
For another group of renters it was not so much contingency, but their own habitus combined with their social and economic capital that encouraged a perception that, despite the ever-present possibility of being given notice to vacate, to rent privately was a sensible and attractive housing pathway. Some interviewees declared home ownership stifling and conservative, whereas private renting was viewed as offering flexibility and freedom. This habitus accords with the world of many young professionals, who thrive on flexibility and transience and view private renting as in accord with their lifestyle. As Bauman and Tester conclude:
Transience has replaced durability at the top of the value table. What is valued today (by choice as much as by unchosen necessity) is the ability to be on the move, to travel light and at short notice. Power is measured by the speed with which responsibilities can be escaped. Who accelerates, wins; who stays put, loses. (Bauman and Tester, 2001: 95)
Another group of LTRs would have far preferred to be homeowners. However, despite awareness of the constant possibility of being asked to vacate, renting privately was considered advantageous as it allowed them to reside in an area with good schools and amenities. They lacked the means to purchase in the area concerned but could afford to rent. This group was often backed up by economic capital that helped mitigate their anxiety. Thus, if forced to vacate, they would be able to find alternative accommodation.
In conclusion, the survey and the in-depth interviews show that the de jure insecurity associated with private rental housing in a liberal welfare regime context such as Australia’s does not necessarily translate into de facto insecurity and that for some renters whether it does or not is immaterial. However, for at least one in four LTRs interviewed, the chronic de jure insecurity of the PRS imbued everyday life with ongoing anxiety. The continuing crisis around housing affordability in Australia’s major cities means that long-term private renting and its attendant consequences are set to expand and deepen in coming decades.
More broadly, the ongoing expansion of the PRS – especially in countries with lightly regulated PRSs – means that many more households will be exposed to a lack of control over their housing pathways and chronic insecurity. This lack of control may combine with precariousness in other aspects of their lives to undermine ontological security. However, responses to de jure insecurity vary, in ways that relate to different levels of economic and social capital. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is also useful in explaining some of the individual differences in perception. Whether de jure insecurity matters or not is related to these broader factors.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was funded by a grant from the Australian Research Council [DP140101685].