The Agency Of Change: Conceptualizing Pathways Towards An Affordable Housing Future
Introduction
For decades, developed economies have grappled with a seemingly intractable crisis: unaffordable housing. From Sydney to London, San Francisco to Toronto, the dream of a secure, reasonably priced home has slipped further from reach for millions. Governments have convened inquiries, researchers have produced mountains of data, and yet the problem persists and in many places, worsens. Why, after so much analysis, has progress been so elusive?
According to a pivotal 2025 paper published by Taylor & Francis, the answer lies not in a lack of diagnosis, but in a profound failure of implementation. The authors Andrew Beer, Emma Baker, Rachel Ong Vifor, Ralph Horne, and Nicole Gurran argue that housing research has focused overwhelmingly on the causes and consequences of high affordable housing costs. What’s missing is a systematic understanding of how to bring about change in complex, market-oriented systems.
This article provides a comprehensive summary of that groundbreaking work, which introduces the concept of the "agency of change" borrowed from regional studies and socio-technical transition theory, to unlock new pathways toward an affordable housing future. By shifting focus from what is wrong to how to fix it, the authors offer a fresh, actionable lens for policymakers, community leaders, and industry stakeholders.
The Core Argument: A Paradigm Shift in Housing Theory
The central thesis of the paper is both simple and radical: the greatest priority for affordable housing research is no longer further insight into root causes. Instead, it is advancing our understanding of how to mobilize change. Traditional housing studies have drawn on neo-classical economics, actor-network theory, and political economy to explain housing markets. While valuable, these frameworks have shed little light on the process of transformation.
The authors point to other fields specifically, the study of socio-technical transitions (e.g., the shift to green energy) and regional economic transformation, as sources of practical wisdom. These disciplines have already grappled with how to break away from established trajectories in the face of crises like climate change or industrial decline.
The key insight is that change rarely happens at the macro level first. Instead, innovations emerge in niches small-scale environments protected from mainstream market pressures. From there, they diffuse outward. To achieve affordable housing, we must identify, nurture, and scale up local affordable housing innovations, driven by deliberate change agency.
The Theoretical Framework: Trinity of Change Agency and Opportunity Spaces
To make this concrete, the paper builds on the work of Grillitsch & Sotarauta (2020), who proposed a "trinity of change agency" :
Entrepreneurial agency – Innovators and firms that spot and exploit new opportunities.
Governmental agency – Public sector bodies that can trigger transformation through policy, funding, and regulation.
Place-based leadership – Local groups, community organizations, and networks that advance the future of their specific locality.
These three forms of agency do not operate in a vacuum. They interact within "opportunity spaces" time-limited or location-specific windows for change. An opportunity space might arise from a new technology (e.g., prefabricated construction), a shift in government priorities, or a sudden local crisis like a mine closure or housing shortage.
Crucially, the authors add a fourth dimension: narrative. Change does not happen without a story that motivates action. Effective leaders articulate a shared vision of the future, whether it emphasizes state-led solutions, market-based responses, or cross-sector partnerships. Narrative, agency, and opportunity space together form a dynamic framework for understanding and enabling housing transformation.
Why Rural and Regional Australia? The Case Study Method
To test this framework, the researchers applied it to five non-metropolitan affordable housing markets in Australia. They deliberately avoided major cities to find smaller "niches" where innovation might be emerging. The case studies were selected for diversity: from remote mining towns to agricultural centers, from coastal tourism hubs to inland settlements facing decline. The five locations were:
The Wimmera region (Victoria)
The Shire of Ashburton (Western Australia)
The Whitsunday Coast (Queensland)
Murray Bridge (South Australia)
Karoonda (South Australia)
Each case was examined through semi-structured interviews with key informants local government officials, social affordable housing providers, mayors, and economic development leaders. The goal was to identify who led change, what opportunities they exploited, which narratives they used, and whether transformation was likely.
Case Study Summaries: Pathways and Dead Ends
1. The Wimmera: Community-Led Innovation
The Wimmera is a broadacre farming region facing population decline and poor housing quality. Instead of waiting for state or federal help, a local economic development organization Wimmera Southern Mallee Development Ltd took the lead. They created special purpose vehicles (e.g., Minyip Housing Innovations Pty Ltd) owned by community shareholders. These entities used innovative finance models to develop land and build dwellings in small towns.
Opportunity: Underutilized local assets and dynamic institutions.
Agency: Community-based, with strong place-based leadership.
Narrative: Local action, innovative governance, and finance.
Scale: Niche (only a few towns).
Potential for transformation: Yes, but scaling up is uncertain.
2. Shire of Ashburton: High Needs, Limited Central Support
Located in Western Australia’s remote Pilbara region, Ashburton is dominated by iron ore mining. Housing is acutely unaffordable, with a three-bedroom prefabricated house costing over AUD 1.5 million 50% more than Sydney’s median. Local government has led efforts, using modular construction, but has been constrained by lack of state and federal funding. Offsite construction remains expensive and stigmatized.
Opportunity: High incomes and high needs, but no central government engagement.
Agency: Local government, but resource-limited.
Narrative: Workforce shortages necessitate action; dependence on distant funding.
Scale: Landscape-level problem, but no clear pathway.
Potential for transformation: No, without external support.
3. Whitsunday Coast: Multi-Agency Collaboration
This coastal region relies on tourism, agriculture, and coal mining. A severe housing affordability crisis has caused labour shortages across all sectors. Two organizations Greater Whitsunday Communities (a not-for-profit) and Regional Development Australia partnered to create a Housing Alliance Project. They developed a "Playbook," held summits, and secured funding for a build-to-rent project and fast-tracked higher-density affordable housing.
Opportunity: Economic growth and inter-agency collaboration.
Agency: Community and regional organizations working together.
Narrative: Housing is essential for economic development.
Scale: Niche, but growing.
Potential for transformation: Yes, through sustained advocacy.
4. Murray Bridge: Leveraging Metropolitan Sprawl
Murray Bridge is a small city 80 km from Adelaide. Historically affordable, it now faces rapid population growth as Adelaide expands. The local government proactively created a new urban development plan, coordinated with the state government, and attracted private investment. The city is set to double in size over 20 years.
Opportunity: Metropolitan expansion and national housing discourse.
Agency: Local government facilitating private investment.
Narrative: Residential development as valued and inevitable.
Scale: Niche and landscape (linked to state and national processes).
Potential for transformation: Yes.
5. Karoonda: A Small Town Doing What It Can
Karoonda is a tiny town (517 residents) with very low incomes but also very low housing costs. To prevent decline, the local council has become a direct developer of "turnkey" homes sold for ~AUD 300,000. However, financial constraints mean they can only build one dwelling at a time. They cannot achieve economies of scale or access national funding programs designed for large projects.
Opportunity: Low land and housing costs.
Agency: Local government, but severely resource-constrained.
Narrative: Housing development builds and sustains the community.
Scale: Niche, but too small to be sustainable.
Potential for transformation: No, without partnership or scaling.
Key Findings: What Drives or Blocks Change?
Across the five cases, several clear patterns emerge regarding affordable housing pathways:
Market or central government alone are insufficient. In every case, relying solely on private markets or waiting for federal/state action failed. Positive change required proactive agency at the local or regional level.
Opportunity spaces vary dramatically. Some regions (Murray Bridge) benefit from external forces like city sprawl. Others (Wimmera) create internal opportunities through strategic planning. Some (Ashburton) are trapped by remoteness and high costs.
Narratives matter. The most successful cases had compelling stories: housing as essential for economic survival (Whitsunday), housing as community building (Karoonda), or housing as inevitable growth (Murray Bridge). Weak or absent narratives correlated with stagnation.
Scale is a double-edged sword. Niche innovations (Wimmera’s community model) are impactful locally but struggle to scale up. Those that connect to broader state or national processes (Murray Bridge, Whitsunday) are more likely to achieve lasting transformation.
Technology is not the star. Contrary to common assumptions, emerging construction technologies (e.g., prefabricated housing) were not central to most successes. Instead, governance innovations new financial vehicles, cross-agency coordination, strategic planning were the real drivers of change.
Leadership is local. In every positive case, the agency of change rested with people and organizations rooted in the place itself. Distant central governments were often absent or unhelpful, reinforcing a narrative of "places left behind."
Implications for Policy and Practice
The agency of change perspective offers concrete lessons for anyone working to improve affordable housing:
Foster niches. Governments should deliberately create and protect small-scale experiments whether in specific towns, market segments (e.g., housing co-ops), or construction methods (e.g., modular housing). These niches are the birthplaces of transformative ideas.
Support place-based leadership. Funding and capacity-building for local governments, community development corporations, and regional alliances is essential. These actors are the real agents of change.
Connect the small to the large. Successful niche innovations need pathways to scale up. This requires intermediary organizations (like the Wimmera’s development corporation) and funding programs that accommodate small as well as large projects.
Invest in governance innovation, not just bricks and mortar. New legal structures, financing models, and partnership arrangements are often more impactful than new construction technologies. Policy should reward institutional creativity.
Craft compelling narratives. Change requires a story that motivates action. Narratives of resilience, local control, and economic survival resonated strongly in the Australian case studies. National and state governments should align their messaging with these local stories.
Don’t wait for a silver bullet. There is no single point of leverage. Transformation arises from the interplay of multiple agents, opportunities, and narratives. Patience and persistence matter.
Broader Relevance: Beyond Rural Australia
While the empirical focus is on non-metropolitan Australia, the authors argue that the agency of change framework applies equally to metropolitan affordable housing systems and other nations. They point to existing examples of successful niche-to-scale diffusion: the Common Ground housing model (originating in New York, spreading across the US and Australia) and Foyer housing for young people (originating in France, adopted in the UK, Australia, and the US).
In each case, a small-scale innovation was championed by leaders who articulated its benefits, protected it from market pressures, and eventually scaled it through policy adoption. The same process can work for affordable housing, but only if researchers and policymakers shift their attention from diagnosis to mobilization.
Conclusion: A New Research Agenda for Housing Affordability
The paper concludes with a bold call to action. The affordable housing crisis will not be solved by more reports on its causes. It will be solved by understanding how to bring about change in complex systems. The agency-of-change perspective, integrating entrepreneurial, governmental, and place-based leadership within opportunity spaces and guided by compelling narratives, offers a powerful new lens.
For researchers, this means studying not just housing outcomes, but the processes of innovation, diffusion, and scaling. For policymakers, it means creating the conditions for local experimentation and connecting successful niches to broader systems. For communities, it means recognizing their own power as agents of change.
As nations continue to struggle with unaffordable housing and its devastating impacts on health, labor markets, and social equity, this framework provides both a diagnosis and a prescription. The future of affordable housing will not be built by waiting for markets to correct themselves or central governments to act alone. It will be built by change agents local, regional, and national working together within opportunity spaces, telling new stories, and scaling what works. The pathway is now clearer. The question is whether we have the collective will to walk it.
Also Read: Dangiwa Harps On Innovative Housing Finance To Tackle Africa’s Affordability Crisis