Inclusionary housing policies, aiming at creating both affordable housing and mixed neighbourhoods through land use regulation, do not have a long history in Scandinavia. Although Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have traditional welfare state perspectives on equal opportunities and housing, the use of the planning system to implement policy is hesitant. This article outlines the diverse political backgrounds and influences from housing and planning systems that explain this paradox. Further, differences between the housing and planning systems in the three countries are well illustrated by the varying interpretations of inclusionary housing policies. Policy results, in terms of affordability and social mix, play out very differently in the given contexts. The article in this sense adds to the scholarly conversations about barriers and opportunities for IH policy implementation, by contextualizing the conversation with implications from within systems that are relatively homogeneous and aiming for redistribution and equity. This raises questions about when, if, and how IH policy is the appropriate approach.

In Sweden, long queues to rental housing and high purchase prices on the ownership market increasingly exclude alsomid-income households without larger savings. This has prompted some housing developers to introduce intermediary tenures that have the potential to open up the housing market to a wider layer of the population. Among thesemodels, there are intermediary tenures of a longer standing which are deemed to have potential for up-scaling. Theaim of this paper is to analyse two shared ownership and two cooperative rental models from legal and economicperspectives to see to what extent, and subject to what risks, these models add to housing opportunities of the targetgroups. In doing so, we connect to the European literature on intermediary housing tenures and theories on institutions and property rights The study implies that the concepts have the potential to scale up and reach larger targetgroups but that access to buildable land, stable financial solutions, and continued institutionalization of the conceptsare essential. The concepts are largely based on existing tenures with existing legislation, potentially providing a saferand more predictable setting. However, financial literacy among buyers is limited, which is calls for attention andcontinued intense information work by developers.

The Swedish unitary housing regime entails that everybody should be included on the regular housing market and that there should be no housing reserved for vulnerable households. However, this regime presupposes certain additional measures such as municipal social contracts and priority in housing queues. Moreover, municipal housing companies are expected to play a larger role in housing the vulnerable than other lessors, although they formally do not belong to a social housing sector. This study describes the strategies of six Swedish municipalities to house the vulnerable. Most measures taken by municipalities in this study are in line with the unitary housing regime. However, the present tight housing market has put strategies under considerable pressure in some localities. This has resulted in restrictions of eligibility for various complementary solutions and the introduction of avoidance strategies. Alternative solutions such as an increased municipal housing ownership outside the traditional municipal housing companies are limited. The study might be of interest also to readers from other European countries, as it highlights the strengths and weaknesses of strategies within a unitary housing regime where the ideal is ‘good housing for all’ and there is no de jure social housing.

Mot bakgrund av en ökande bostadsbrist för hushåll med medel- eller lägre inkomster har ett antal länder och städer i Europa infört eller byggt ut markexploateringsmodeller för att styra mot bostadsbyggande i de lägre marknadssegmenten under 2000-talet. Dessa har fått samlingsnamnet ”inclusionary housing”, fritt översatt ”inkluderande bostadsbyggande”. Thaden och Wang (2017) sammanfattar inkluderande bostadsbyggande som ”program och policys med krav eller incitament att tillskapa billiga bostäder i nyproduktion”. Målen är både ett ökat utbud av billigare bostäder och socialt blandade bostadsområden.

På senare år har det också i Sverige diskuterats hur nyproduktionen av bostäder ska kunna nå bredare hushållsgrupper än i dag. Några svenska kommuner överväger eller testar modeller för att spränga in bostäder med lägre hyra eller sociala kontrakt i bostadsutvecklingsprojekt som i övrigt är helt marknadsbaserade. Fyra av dessa kommunala initiativ beskrivs i studien och diskuteras sedan i relation till varandra och internationella modeller. I texten analyseras och diskuteras kommuners och projektutvecklares motiv till att delta (eller inte) i denna typ av projekt, hur projekten i dagsläget är utformade, vilka osäkerhetsfaktorer som finns och hur modellerna eventuellt kan utvecklas. En översikt över denna typ av initiativ i andra länder ger insikt i modeller som funnits över längre tid och bidragit med större volymer bostäder. 

This paper aims to elucidate the sliding scale between usufruct and ownership by applyinga property rights framework to three Swedish forms of tenure in multifamily housing. The frameworkdeconstructs the bundles of rights of rental, tenant-ownership and ownership to highlightcommonalities and differences connected to the right to use and exclude, the right to transfer andthe right to the value. It is concluded that the three tenure forms have many traits in common butthat there are distinct differences in some areas, most notably in connection to the right to the value.The property rights framework applied in the study may be applicable also on a general level as amethod to analyze and compare tenures of different types in different countries. Further, ways toimprove the framework and cover more facets of outcomes of property rights patterns are suggested.

The focus of this publication is primarily on newbuilding for low-income and vulnerable groups, often referred to in English as ‘affordable housing’, that is, housing for groups on the market’s periphery who suffer from high barriers. The financial aspects of housing are central, especially as regards new-building costs, subsidies, social housing models, and affordability. Nordic cities are segregated, and new housing development, application of diverse forms of tenure, and housing subsidies are examples of tools that can either worsen or reduce segregation, depending on how they are used. The market seems unable, on its own, to supply enough suitable housing for students, young people, low-income groups, and newly arrived immigrants, among others. This is of political interest since it challenges the whole idea of the Nordic welfare model, and social cohesion and equality as characteristics of the Nordic region.