New public housing: a selective model disguised as universal? Implications of the market adaptation of Swedish public housing

Off the Beaten Track? Selectivity, Discretion and Path-Shaping in Swedish Public Housing

“…One might argue that low-income households would normally not be able to acquire brand new apartments. However, when connecting the characteristics of new housing construction with strict rental policies also in the existing housing stock, the results give evidence to the development of a more selective New Public Housing (Grander 2017), clearly not for the benefit of everyone. It is argued that this development could be explained by the changed strategic selectivity introduced with the new legislation and that such selectivity has dialectically favoured the selection of a certain economic imaginary among the MHCs -an imaginary based on the logics of a financialized economy -increasing the reliance on short-term yield calculations and estimated market values of real estate properties.…”

“…The 2011 changes in legislation which prompted MHCs to emphasize financial and operational developments (Lindbergh and Wilson 2016) have led to stricter rental policies (demands on e.g. specific income, stable employment and no social benefits) for a tenant to acquire an apartment in MHCs (Grander 2017). Similarly, the rate of construction of apartment houses with rents affordable for the average household has halted as a consequence of changed accounting practices in the wake of the legislation (Westerdahl 2015).…”

“…In contrast, Salonen (2015) shows how the empirical validity of the universal approach is debatable also from the other side, as public housing is going through a process of residualization; MHCs end up applying to the most poor households. One reason for this is, according to Grander (2017), that increased income thresholds among MHCs are compensated by an increase in "social contracts", where the municipalities' social services rent apartments from MHCs and, in turn, sublets them to households who cannot get access to regular housing -contributing to social housing "through the back door" (see also Magnusson and Turner, 2008). Thus, the current public housing model in Sweden stands out as an ambiguous hybrid, increasingly turning to the poorest and wealthiest households, albeit excluding a large, middle group of households.…”

“…Thus, the current public housing model in Sweden stands out as an ambiguous hybrid, increasingly turning to the poorest and wealthiest households, albeit excluding a large, middle group of households. This market-adapted management of dwellings for public good -referred to as "New Public Housing" (Grander 2017) -seems to be in contrast to the universal approach of providing "good housing for all" and it may consequently have implications regarding who can obtain a place to live.…”

“…Since 2011, new legislation has prompted MHCs to compete on the same terms as private rental companies on a level playing field, which involves what the legislation states as "market demand for return on investment". As a consequence of such financial demands, the universal approach has been questioned by housing researchers, who have found, for example, that financial barriers for tenants entering public housing have increased and that the construction of new apartment buildings in the low-cost segment has halted (Grander 2017;Westerdahl 2015). The scholars argue that these recent developments limit the possibility to provide "good housing for all".…”