This article was to be a pre-election update on trends in poverty, based on new research looking at our most vulnerable sector, private renters. I'm still working on that paper, so instead this article focuses on the more political conclusions I came to while writing it. The sad truth is that political issues are usually left out of published research, partly because everything has to be precise and referenced, and partly because a lot of the money which funds research is market-driven.

That last statement is a classic example. I feel it's true, but how do I prove it? Let's ask Google Scholar, which is more research-oriented than Google's search algorithm... My first result hints there won't be an easy answer: "Heart Of Darkness: Modelling Public-Private Funding Interactions Inside The R&D Black Box".

So, I turned back to Google, where I learned that research and development (i.e., business investment) is definitely dominated by private spending, and pharmaceuticals research is overwhelmingly privately funded, while publicly funded research is less likely to be patented (monetised) and more likely to create a start-up (competition). No surprises there. But in "basic" research, defined as expanding general knowledge without a specific application, the funding split is closer to even, with the publicly funded research much more likely to be released and to increase public knowledge and debate.

Here's another example of obvious stuff which doesn't get researched, and the starting point for my research project: "households in private rental are the most likely to be in poverty". Obvious, isn't it? Everyone knows that's true, but you can't say just what you think in a published paper. You either have to prove it yourself or reference it. And there's not much research on this obvious question out there. Luckily for me the Children's Commissioner had researched and confirmed that renters are most likely to be in poverty.

What about good research adding up the value of owning a house over a lifetime, compared to renting? This is pretty obvious, and if proved and talked about more, would drive down spending on unnecessary consumer disposables in favour of saving for a home. Again, hard to find - no private funding for that, no money to be made.

What about research on the topical issue of rising rents? OK, there is lots of research and media commentary on rents - but I found the market data is biased upwards. Every published rent you'll find on the Internet is based on tenancies which began in the last three or six months. Those new rents are much higher than in continuing tenancies, and they are used to justify rent increases for everyone. Market players aren't looking for the inconvenient truth.

And here is another fact the market commentators don't bother with. Beyond the "private market" which gets all the publicity, we have a large informal rental market where no bond is lodged. Our census doesn't ask the relationship between these tenants and the owners, but since the rents are lower, the houses larger and better quality, it's pretty likely this is family or friends helping the well connected. Then there's more homes which are provided rent-free. Then there's the 20% of all our owned homes which are in family trusts to reduce tax. On it goes...

Market Rules, Money Talks

The simple truth is the market has money, money talks, and most of what you hear is money talking these days. I was able to shine some light on the supply side of affordable rental in my project. The stock of affordable rentals is shrinking over the five years 2018-23, with the losses most dramatic in previously affordable suburbs. Nobody had done this research before - who is going to fund a study which questions the wisdom of markets?

Last time I was involved in similar research was in Queensland in 2003, just before developers pressured the State government to drop draft requirements to include affordable homes in large development projects. Both Australia and New Zealand have recently granted tax incentives for what they call "affordable build-to-rent", which is really high-end rental for the well off. The day we require developers to build mixed housing with truly affordable homes feels even further off today than it did in 2003.

Sorry about all this relentless bad news, but that's what you get when our rental affordability is officially the worse in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) 38 member countries. Yes, that's right, our private rental market is officially rock-bottom. One in four or 25% of all renters pay over 40% of net income for housing, compared to 7% in Germany or 11% in Australia, but 19% in the United States and 23% in the UK. That's the free market at work.

Where can we look for some good news then? To Government, not markets. To research rental affordability, I had to understand our complex social support payments system, because wages are too low here so top-ups are essential. After taking a close look at that system, credit is due to the Government since 2017 for making steady progress. Benefits, family tax credits and accommodation supplement have increased, the minimum wage is now closer to the Living Wage, and benefit rates are finally pegged to annual changes in wages.

Implementing these sorts of incremental improvements in Government systems is critical to building reliable and fair social supports for low-income renters. For example, National didn't bother to increase the accommodation supplement during its' entire term from 2008 to 2017. Indexing payments means they keep pace with inflation and politics is kept out.

And another more positive story I found while investigating housing; in the 1930s Māori had a higher level of home ownership than Pākehā, despite the traumatic loss of so much land during colonisation. Those homes were mainly rural, so a new transition to the cities followed as jobs near farm production moved to centralised companies and corporate growth.

Life Should Be More Than Just Adapting To Markets

In the 2020s, all of us are adapting in some way to unaffordable housing. We see this in the rise of shared housing, the increasing hours worked by primary carers of children, less children per family, declining home ownership, and the rise in intergenerational financial, housing and childcare assistance.

Aotearoa is a young country by OECD standards. From Te Tiriti o Waitangi and colonisation to a relatively wealthy and relatively egalitarian exporting nation, from Muldoon's Think Big to today's emphasis on market-driven economic policies, we have changed more than most nations.

But in the same way that colonisation transformed Aotearoa for the benefit of new settlers, market-driven economics is transforming our housing market at great cost to families. This can only end one way; with more young families and more retirees renting. Life should be more than just adapting to markets. To create a better future, we need a broader public debate and a new commitment to market regulation, taxing wealth and raising low wages.