Rethinking Professional Practice: The Logic of Competition and the Crisis of Identity in Housing Practice

The relationship between professionalism, education and housing practice has become increasingly strained following the introduction of austerity measures and welfare reforms across a range of countries. Focusing on the development of UK housing practice, this article considers how notions of professionalism are being reshaped within the context of welfare retrenchment and how emerging tensions have both affected the identity of housing professionals and impacted on the delivery of training and education programmes. The article analyses the changing knowledges and skills valued in contemporary housing practice and considers how the sector has responded to the challenges of austerity. The central argument is that a dominant logic of competition has culminated in a crisis of identity for the sector. Although the focus of the article is on UK housing practice, the processes identified have a wider relevance for the analysis of housing and welfare delivery in developed economies.

The paradox of competition for airline passengers with reduced mobility (PRM)

Airline competition with customer service as product differentiator has forced down costs, air fares and investor returns. Two passenger markets operate in aviation: (a) able-bodied passengers for whom airlines compete and (b) passengers with reduced mobility (PRMs) – disabled by age, obesity or medical problems – for whom airlines do not compete. Government interference in the market intended to protect a minority of narrowly-defined PRMs has had unintended consequences of enabling increasing numbers of more widely-defined PRMs to access complimentary airline provisions. With growing ageing and overweight populations and long-haul travelling medical tourists such regulation could lead to even lower investors’ returns. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2013) examined the air transport value chain for competitiveness using Porter’s (2008) five forces but did not distinguish between able-bodied passengers and PRMs. Findings during an investigation of these two markets concurred with IATA-Porter that the markets for the bargaining powers of PRM buyers and PRM suppliers were highly competitive. However, in contrast to the IATA conclusions, intensity of competition, and threats from new entrants and substitute products for PRM travel were low. The conclusion is that airlines are strategically PRM defensive by omission. Paradoxically, the airline which delivers the best PRM customer service could become the least profitable.

The paradox of competition for airline passengers with reduced mobility (PRM)

Airline competition with customer service as product differentiator has forced down costs, air fares and investor returns. Two passenger markets operate in aviation: (1) able-bodied passengers for whom airlines openly compete and (2) passengers with reduced mobility (PRMs) – disabled by age, obesity or medical problems – for whom airlines do not compete. Government interference in the market intended to protect a minority of narrowly-defined PRMs has had unintended consequences of enabling increasing numbers of more widely-defined PRMs to access complimentary airline provisions. With growing ageing and overweight populations and long-haul travelling medical tourists such regulation could lead to even lower investors’ returns. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2013) examined the air transport value chain for competitiveness using Porter’s (2008) five forces but did not distinguish between able-bodied passengers and PRMs. Findings during an investigation of these two markets concurred with IATA-Porter that the markets for the bargaining powers of PRM customers and PRM suppliers were ‘highly competitive’. However, in contrast to the IATA conclusions the threats posed by new entrants, substitute products and intensity of competition for PRM passengers were all ‘low’. The conclusion is that airlines are strategically PRM defensive by omission. Paradoxically, the airline which delivers the best PRM customer service could become the least profitable.

As assessment of the Competition Commission Report and subsequent outcomes

Following the Office of Fair Trading's review of the British deregulated bus market as a whole in 2009, the issues raised were referred to the Competition Commission. Its final report was published in December 2011. Subsequently, the House of Commons Transport Committee carried out an enquiry into the Commission's report, and reactions to it by the operating industry, user groups, and other bodies, which was published in September 2012. A number of major issues have been raised, including the extent to which price competition may be effective, the appropriate rate of return on capital that would be expected within the industry (and appropriate actions where this is excessive in practice), and industry structure. The importance of competition per se, as distinct from attributes of direct concern to users (such as reliability, frequency, and fares) has also been debated. This paper reviews the issues raised, and outcomes to date, in the light of further evidence on the industry's performance. It is demonstrated similar rates of return could be attained through very different operating strategies, which in turn have very different implications for changes in consumer surplus. The alternative uses made of such profits (for example through reinvestment) may also have markedly different impacts effects on users. Rather than focussing on the dangers of excessive rates of return on capital, the outcomes for service users should be the main issue.

Politics vs economics: unintended consequences of Governments’ interventions in airlines’ markets

Overlaying theories of market inefficiencies and/or failure onto airline economics indicates that the industry encounters at least seven of the indicators which have triggered interventions by national, multi-national or supranational governments (NMSGs) trying to resolve political, social or environmental problems. The NMSGs’ interventions aimed to resolve lack of competition, fill missing markets, and neuter the presence of negative externalities, free riders, social inequalities and moral panic. Desk research showed that their interventions (many lacking preliminary economic analysis) either intentionally solved and/or unintentionally triggered market inefficiencies or failures. It is possible that some of the interventions could eventually make advanced world airlines subsidise their advancing world competitors.