1 / 18

DISCOURSE AND CONSENSUS OF INSTITUTIONAL PLAYERS IN SOCIAL HOUSING

Explore the discourse and institutional elements influencing the legitimation process of social housing institutional players. Delve into how mutual reinforcement of discourse and institutional components shapes authority perception, potentially masking conflicts of interest. Investigate the impact of financial imperatives on the marginalization of social policies, considering the coexistence of social and financial discourses and its implications for emerging institutional players such as the Australasian Housing Institute (AHI).

lillian-osborne
Télécharger la présentation

DISCOURSE AND CONSENSUS OF INSTITUTIONAL PLAYERS IN SOCIAL HOUSING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DISCOURSE AND CONSENSUS OF INSTITUTIONAL PLAYERS IN SOCIAL HOUSING by Associate Professor Mary Kaidonis Head of School of Accounting & Finance Research of accounting in its organisational, political and social contextsUniversity of WollongongFaculty of Commerce: inspiring social innovation

  2. The Australasian Housing Institute (AHI) • “a new institutional player” (Milligan, 2004: 3). • “help to build support for stronger and more relevant national and state housing policies” (Milligan, 2004: 3).

  3. “promote debate and advocate on social housing” • “engage and encourage all levels of government to value, seek and act on the advice of the AHI” (Australasian Housing Institute, 2005).

  4. Suggests • social acceptance of the AHI reflected at the government level. • Social acceptance enables the claim of legitimation by an institution – hence use of Theory of Legitimation

  5. Theory of legitimation • the discourse and institutional elements • crucial components of the legitimation process • interplay • mutually reinforcing

  6. Mutual reinforcing • impression of authority of a consensual process • could mask conflicts of interest

  7. Institutional element • broad level reflected by : • organisations or entities of the State • related legislative instruments • eg acts and agreements

  8. afforded authority • exercise power within the systems which its society created

  9. Discourse • specific vocabulary which is understood and shared between institutional players • implicit ideology – not readily challenged

  10. Suggests • Dominant discourse • Financial imperatives • marginalise social policies

  11. If so, then • UK impact of New Public Management “new business or commercial ethos” (Walker, 2000, p 281).

  12. Potential • Financial discourse privileged over social policy discourse? • Social policy expressed in financial discourse? • Coexistence of social and financial discourses?

  13. Impact on emerging institutional players? • Adopt the discourse to gain legitimacy? • Risk marginalisation?

  14. Level 1 & 2 – institutions of the state • Level 3 AHI • to be an institutional player • choice of discourse ? • too early? • potential for debate, advocacy, engagement of AHI ?

More Related