| Abstract: | Abstract This article is a case study of the National Commission on Manufactured Housing and its attempt to reform the regulatory system. It describes the importance of manufactured housing as an affordable alternative to site‐built housing and tells how efforts to reform the regulatory system through a consensus process initially succeeded but ultimately failed. The article shows that while the consensus process was essential to get agreement among conflicting parties, consensus will hold only when all parties are sufficiently dissatisfied with the status quo to endure the cost of change. While the short‐term prospects for reform are dim, the long‐term prospects are more promising, as a few large manufacturers offer better warranties and as programs devolve from the federal government to the states. |
