Inclusionary Zoning Theory

A great many interest groups are at play in discussions of inclusionary zoning and affordable housing more generally. However, some appear to have more influence over outcomes than others. In particular, in NSW and Australia more broadly, property developers and the organisations that advocate on their behalf have been successful in defining the contours of the discursive regime discussed above.
Property developers and developer advocacy organisations have long argued that inclusionary zoning has a disincentive effect on private-sector investment in dwelling construction which increases house-sale prices by constricting supply. Recent comments contained in a media release from the Property Council of Australia (PCA) epitomise this position:
Inclusionary zoning policies have been repeatedly proven to be counterproductive at lifting overall housing affordability. In fact, there is no housing market in the world where inclusionary zoning has led to an
Regime theory explains that, irrespective of the evidence, a policy intervention which conflicts with the dominant discursive regime will face significant challenges. Conflicting with the dominant discursive regime diminished the legitimacy of inclusionary zoning as a policy response to providing affordable housing. This was reduced further by a legal challenge by Meriton. On the other hand, elite capture theory emphasises the role of networks of powerful groups who develop and disseminate the ideas underlying the discursive regime and informing public policy more broadly. The field of cognitive psychology provides insights into how these processes are translated by individuals into thoughts and beliefs, and political support. It also explains the power of repetitive framing in influencing individual perceptions of the validity of certain policy