(PDF) Commodifying Danish housing common

COMMODIFYING DANISH HOUSING COMMONS Henrik LARSEN, H. G. and LUND HANSEN, A. (2015): ‘Commodifying Danish housing commons’, Geografiska Annaler: Geography 97 (3): 263–274. ABSTRACT. Housing was a backbone of the Danish welfare state, but this has been profoundly challenged by liberal housing politics. In this article Danish model of association-based housing ket economy (and the state). From this, we in private cooperatives through political text of a booming real estate market have plunged into the mar- ket economy and been transformed into private but name, and we investigate how non-profit frontally and stealthily are attacked through This carries the seeds for socio-spatial polarization tually open the gate for commodification – of the little that is left of a socially just association-based model was an accessary to of cooperative housing, it can possibly be ing non-profit housing as a housing commons. Keywords: commodification, neoliberalization, ing, commons, social justice Introduction ‘Housing, housing and yet more housing’ was the election slogan of Urban Hansen, the social- democratic lord mayor of Copenhagen from 1962 to 1976 (quoted in Gaardmand 1993, p. 119). Like in many other countries, housing was a key component of the Danish welfare state, which struck roots in the late 1930s and unfolded in the post-war decades. In Sweden, once a bastion of the social-democratic welfare state, housing politics has been radically lib- eralized since the early 1990s (Clark and Johnson 2009; Hedin et al. 2012; cf. Christophers 2013). In Denmark, for better or worse often the Nordic strag- gler, the explicit and effectual neoliberalization of housing politics came with the rise to power of a liberal-conservative government in 2001. Yet, in spite of similarities, the Nordic countries are differ- ent in many ways – also when it comes to housing politics (Ruonavaara 2012; Bengtsson 2013). As a contribution to unfolding debates on neo- liberalizing urban politics, specifically emerging critical analyses of enclosures and commons tion to housing (notably Hodkinson 2012a, 2012b), we will in this article investigate the case of Danish housing. This provides insight into how, also in a © The authors 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish HENRIK Table 1. Tenure structure of Danish housing of housing units). 1960 1981 Owner-occupied 46 54 Private cooperatives 1 2 Private rental 39 25 Non-profit associations 10 15 State and municipal* 5 4 *State and municipal housing for 2012 is included non-profit associations. Source: Jensen (2013, p. 54). being treated as a common shall be both collec- tive and non-commodified – off-limits to the logic of market exchange and market valuations. While recognizing that housing politics in most countries mainly are correctives to market forces, we approach housing politics during the rise and reign of the classic Danish welfare state as processes of partial commoning, which in the recent decades wholly or partially have been superseded by pro- cesses of commodification. Following Hodkinson et al.’s (2013, p. 12) re- cent suggestion, we will in this article apply a per- spective in which ‘the commodification of housing is not regarded simply as following some kind of pre-determined iron law of history, but instead as something that is made and can thus be un-made by human beings.’ To this end, the first section traces the contours of Danish housing politics from the second half of the nineteenth century until about the year 2000. As Dikeç (2007) points out, it is essen- tial to consider how established political traditions affect forms of neoliberalization. In Danish hous- ing politics this can be said to be the ‘association- based model’ (L. Jensen 2005) of housing on the edge of the market (and the state), which in turn is one of the historical compromises between liber- alist and socialist forces in Danish (welfare) pol- itics. The rest of the article investigates in greater detail the significant if often stealthy changes to Danish housing politics over the past ten to fif- teen years. Here we focus on private cooperatives (andelsboligforeninger) and non-profit housing as- sociations (almene boligselskaber), which since the 1960s have replaced private rental housing as the main alternative to owner-occupied housing (Table 1). This shift can be interpreted as a partial de-commodification and commoning of housing as an integral part of the wider construction of the clas- sic Danish welfare state. But the 2001 assumption of 264 COMMODIFYING present where non-profit and cooperative associa- tions remain the main alternatives to private rental and owner-occupied housing (Table 1). Like in other West European countries, such associations for im- proving the living conditions of the working class emerged as philanthropic housing projects and building societies based on self-help principles. But even in Copenhagen, where such projects received some municipal support, building societies in 1890 merely accounted for some five per cent of tene- ments and were at best only residual measures in the still liberalist state (Bro 2009). Cooperative associations were the topic of heated debate in the labour movement and the asso- ciated Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratiet) in the decades around 1900 (Bryld 2003). (Here, and below, we use the current rather than histori- cal Danish names for political parties.) In relation to housing, this criticism was based on the Marxist analysis that the housing question should be seen as an integral part of capitalism, which could not be remedied by petit bourgeois strategies of own- ership; rather, poor housing had to be addressed through building regulations, public planning, rent regulations and, particularly, public housing. Such demands figured prominently in its politics when the Social Democratic Party entered parliament, in 1884, and this pitched the party against the Liberal Party (Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti) and the Conservative Party (Det Konservative Folkeparti). Yet, in a parliament that was still institutionally skewed to its disadvantage, the Social Democratic Party had very limited success. Instead, and often in some alliance with the Social-Liberal Party (Det Radikale Venstre), it tried to pursue social reforms and public housing through ‘municipal social- ism’ in the urban centres (Kolstrup 1996), but re- sults in terms of actual public housing were minor (Bro 2006, 2009). By the early years of the twenti- eth century, however, the Social Democratic Party gradually abandoned its opposition against work- ers cooperatives, and the labour movement was on the basis of a bank and building crisis in 1908 in- strumental in establishing Arbejdernes Andels- Boligforening (Workers’ Housing Cooperative) in 1912 and Arbejdernes Kooperative Byggeforening (Workers’ Cooperative Building Society) in 1913. Such cooperative associations came to play a sig- nificant role as the Social Democratic Party rose to power (Grelle 2012). World War I heralded the decline of the liberal- ist hegemony. Although neutral, Denmark was also © The authors 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish HENRIK GUTZON to prominence again from the 1970s; here, residents own a share in the common property and have a use- right to a dwelling. As we will see, this fundamental difference in the ownership structure is critical for understanding the commodification of the two hous- ing sectors. Commodifying Danish housing The devil all too often lurks in the seemingly detail. It was thus a sign of what was to come when the newly established liberal-conservative coali- tion government led by Anders Fogh Rasmussen in 2001 dismantled the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (By-og Boligministeriet), which since its es- tablishment in 1947 had been a pivot in the evolving welfare state, and placed housing under the juris- diction of the Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs (Økonomi- og Erhvervsministeriet). It was also indicative that non-profit and private rental housing subsequently was transferred to the Ministry of Social Affairs (Socialministeriet). These manoeuvres were institutional manifestations of what Nielsen (2010) describes as ‘change without reform’ in Danish housing politics during a decade of right-wing rule. The political objectives were out- lined in the government’s not so innocently entitled strategic plan, ‘More housing: growth and innova- tion in the housing market’ (Flere boliger: Vækst og fornyelse på boligmarkedet), in which the aim was summarized as ‘a long-term effort […] to make the housing market work better under market conditions and to a greater extent than today support the eco- nomic growth of the society’ (Regeringen 2002, p. 5). This was essentially a call for the neo- liberalization of Danish housing politics; that is, if we consider neoliberalism as an aspiration ‘to cre- ate a utopia of free markets, liberated from all forms of state interference’, which ‘in practice entailed a dramatic intensification of coercive, disciplinary forms of state intervention in order to impose ver- sions of market rule’ (Peck et al. 2009, p. 51). In our perspective, the government’s 2002 plan sketched a two-pronged attack on the association-based model. Dipping into the ubiquitous discourse of ‘social mix- ing’ (Lees 2008), a key aim of the plan was thus to achieve a ‘mixing of ownership types by converting non-profit housing associations to owner-occupied or cooperative residences’ (Regeringen 2002, p. 16). Segments of a housing sector on the edge of the market were, in other words, to be pushed into 266 COMMODIFYING money’ (Andersen 2006, p. 28). Apart from its rela- tive affordability, the ‘social’ ambience of the sector has frequently also been linked to an underlying if vaguely articulated ‘cooperative ideology’ (andels tanken), which Bruun summarizes as emphasizing ‘the importance of equalizing class, power, and eco- nomic differences, in this way epitomizing an ide- ology of sharing with society as a whole’ (Bruun 2011, p. 70). But, as Bruun pointedly observes, co- operatives are ‘enclaves’ in the wider society; be- yond what the individual cooperative may draw up in its statutes, the only formal collective responsibil- ity is the members’ mutual liability for loans. This high degree of formal separation between private cooperatives and the state has not insulated the sec- tor from neoliberal policies; rather, in the booming property market during the mid-2000s (Erlandsen et al. 2006), it has by way of indirect state inter- ventions facilitated the rapid commodification of private housing cooperatives, which consists of ap- proximately 9,000 associations with some 210,000 residences, a little less than eight per cent of to- tal housing units (Ministry of Housing, Urban and Rural Affairs 2012). The government’s 2002 ‘battle plan’ for the commodification of housing aimed at a market- orientation of private cooperatives. On the one hand, this was to involve the gradual reduction and phasing out of state support for the construction of new cooperatives. This was achieved by 2005. On the other hand, and more decisive if at first ing rather mundane, the government would ‘con- sider whether individual members of a cooperative should get the possibility to obtain mortgage-like loans [realkredit(-lignende) lån] with security in their share’ (Regeringen 2002, p. 19). Even in the Danish original, ‘mortgage-like loans’ is an awk- ward but highly revealing phrase. In a private coop- erative, only the association can formally take out a loan with security in the property; indeed, this is the regular way for a cooperative to purchase its prop- erty. A member can strictly speaking only take out a loan with security in the value the lender expects his or her share of the cooperative (and use-right a dwelling) can carry on the market. Theoretically, this has always been possible, but most private co- operatives have traditionally prohibited their mem- bers from ‘mortgaging’ their shares (Träff and Juul-Nyholm 2011). But true to its plan, the gov- ernment in 2004 passed legislation that explicitly overrules whatever statutory prohibitions a cooper- ative may have against its members taking out loans © The authors 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish HENRIK GUTZON 2012), members of cooperatives were in 2005 faced with the possibility of significantly enlarging the ‘equity’ to be ‘mortgaged’ for consumption, or sim- ply to increase the price of shares, which could be realized and used for entry into the booming owner- occupied sector. It is hardly surprising, then, that members of many cooperatives have been induced to revalue their shares. Because of the decentralized nature of the private cooperatives, it is difficult to establish exactly how much prices have been inflated. But the 2006 survey estimates that the price of traditional cooperative housing had more than doubled from DKK 1,973 to 4,550/m2 over the period 1998–2000 to 2003–2005 (Erhvervs-og Byggestyrelsen 2006). More recently, and thus better capturing the since 2005, Copenhagen Municipality (2012) esti- mates that the price of cooperative housing in the municipality has quadrupled from DKK 2,415/m2 in 1999 to DKK 9,846/m2 in 2011 (1999 adjusted to 2011 prices). ‘The market economy overtakes the cooperative ideology’ (Thornland 2008, p. 4). This was the head- line introducing a thematic section on private coop- eratives in the March 2008 issue of the association of estate agents’ magazine. The association was not mourning the passing of the vaguely defined notion of solidarity that many traditionally had associated with cooperative housing; rather, inside the magazine the deputy director cheerfully told his members that owners of shares in cooperatives ‘are forced onto the free market to get their cooperative apartments sold’ (quoted in Westphal 2008, p. 8). Conveniently, just as the bubble in owner-occupied housing was burst- ing, the estate agents had found a new market. And the liberal-conservative government had with spec- tacular success achieved its goal of giving the coop- erative sector a market-orientation. For members of cooperatives who bought their share before the price inflation, this has potentially been highly lucrative. But those who bought cooperative dwellings at the inflated price, or borrowed excessively with security in a share at that price, may well have landed them- selves in technical if not actual insolvency. But the commodification of cooperative hous- ing has effects beyond the individual association and its members. Private cooperatives may only ac- count for a relatively small share of total housing, but the sector can be substantial in urban areas. In Copenhagen Municipality, to take a prominent ex- ample, cooperatives in 2012 made up 33 per cent of all housing units (Copenhagen Municipality 2012). 268 COMMODIFYING During the 2000s there have been at least three main attempts to weaken and thus pave the way for the commodification of the non-profit hous- ing sector: (1) ‘activating’ Landsbyggefonden (The National Building Fund), (2) right-to-buy and (3) decoupling of local democracy. The first strike was the appropriation of the sector’s collective savings in Landsbyggefonden (LBF). LBF is an independent institution founded in 1967, which contains the stat- utory savings made by tenants living in non-profit housing and is regulated by law. Through a legis- lative change in 2002, the newly elected govern- ment changed the political practice of how to use the funds. The law’s subtitle, ‘activating the National Building Fund’, clearly suggests that new winds of political change blew through the non-profit hous- ing sector (Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs 2002). According to the original law from 1967, the purpose of LBF was to promote a certain degree of self-financing in the sector, but the fund has in praxis been used for maintenance and renova- tion of the existing non-profit housing units. Support for new construction came from the state (Ministry of Housing 1997; LLO 2006). The aim of the 2002 law was to ‘activate’ LBF by – besides renovation – using the funds to finance new construction, resi- dents counselling and accessibility for disabled res- idents (Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs 2002). These new elements had traditionally been supported by the (local) state. One consequence of the law was that part of the financing of such under- takings was transferred to LBF. Moreover, the non- profit sector by 2002 also included youth and senior housing, segments that formerly were financed by the (local) state. The new political praxis can be characterized as a break rather than a continuation of earlier policies, even though the social-democratic coalition govern- ment of the 1990s had laid the foundations for these changes (Nielsen 2010). Ten billion DKK was ap- propriated and an estimated borrowing obligation of an additional five billion DKK was established – re- straining LBF’s activities until 2020 (Abrahamsen 2009; LBF 2013). These changes generated heated discussions within the sector, but did not spur much media attention. Two additional regulatory actions related to LBF came in 2005 and 2006 (L70 and L81). In this period the question became politicized and con- tested (Nielsen 2010). A statement from Lejernes Landsorganisation (LLO), the Tenants Organization of Denmark, with the telling title ‘Stop stealing © The authors 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish HENRIK GUTZON They had problems with finding legal ways to in- troduce this policy. One of the problems is that this sector is neither owned by local nor by cen- tral government, but by non-profit organizations formally run by the tenants. At this point they have introduced legislation that gives oppor- tunities for the tenants to participate in privati- zation, if the tenants and the local government approve of the plan. But until now all attempts have been rejected by the owners (the non-profit companies and associations) who actually own the housing. The owners remain ready to go to court to defend this position. This reveals the contradictory realities of profit housing: because of the private (if collectively) nature of the association-based model, non-profit housing associations seemed – rather paradoxically – able to resist attack from a government hailing the neoliberal virtue of private property. Whether the right-to-buy scheme amounted to unconstitutional expropriation was thus a key element of the debate, and it seemed that the non-profit housing associa- tions had a good case (L. Jensen 2005). But a 2007 Supreme Court ruling suggests that the non-profit housing associations’ position is precarious. The case concerned the wish by a local branch to implement the scheme. This was supported by the municipality and sanctioned by the ministry, but resisted – even- tually in court – by the association of which the lo- cal branch was part. With a ruling supported by five of nine judges, the Supreme Court decided that the local branch could implement the privatization, as the property right lay with the branch rather than the mother association (Højesteret 2007). The material effects of this ruling are still to be seen. for piecemeal enclosures of the non-profit sector by individual branches within the movement. The third strike that came in 2009 aimed at ‘de- coupling of local democracy’. The residents’ de- mocracy is a special feature of the non-profit sector in Denmark and is unique in an international con- text. The deputy director of the national organiza- tion of housing associations, Boligselskabernes Landsforening, explains the model this way (Madsen 2006, p. 33): [r]esidents have the majority in all decision- making bodies from the board of the individual branch to housing organizations’ executive com- mittee. Residents’ democracy is a clear strength in the sector. Influence provides engagement and 270 COMMODIFYING housing associations’ administrative requirements. It became easier to govern ‘unruly’ segments of ten- ants, for instance (‘poorly integrated’) immigrants – a group under constant attack during the 2000s where the right-wing government was ruling on the mandate of the xenophobic Danish Peoples Party (Danske Folkeparti, see contributions by Koefoed 2015 and Simonsen 2015 in this theme issue). Many of the government’s interventions in housing politics, including the strike against local democ- racy, are connected to the so-called ghetto strategy that involved demolition and renovation of housing estates (with support from LBF), ‘social mixing’ (through prioritizing ‘resourceful’ tenants, restric- tions for people on social benefits and by using the government’s new strict immigration laws), easier eviction procedures, zero tolerance against crime, and more police and surveillance (Regeringen 2010). The analysis of the attacks by the state against Danish housing commons in the 2000s support Dodson’s (2006, p. 1) conclusion that ‘the state re- tains a dominant capacity to imagine and define not only housing reality, but also institute this reality through the institutional and governmental relation- ships of social housing’. However, through differ- ent paths, there seems to be a connection between New York City’s revanchist production of neoliberal urban landscapes in 1990s ‘Giuliani Time’ (Smith 1998) and Denmark’s anti-welfare ‘utopia of free markets’ through commodification of, and revan- chist strikes against, housing commons in the 2000s ‘Fogh Rasmussen Time’. Conclusions Neoliberalized states and financialized real es- tate interests are fighting hard to produce the city through the logics of exchange value. The few re- maining urban commons are among the frontiers of these battles – also in Nordic countries, once known for a measure of social justice. Private coop- eratives have never been a housing commons. But for some decades they largely functioned outside the logic of market exchange, and in spite of weak- nesses such as possibilities for nepotism in access, cooperatives provided reasonably cheap and avail- able housing for many. This was abruptly brought to an end when members of cooperatives from 2005 were permitted to ‘mortgage’ their shares. In a swelling property market, this legislative change touched off a tsunami of commodification, which © The authors 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish HENRIK GUTZON of private associations assisted through tax rebates and specific subsidies made the model bearable (if never beloved) for the liberalist segments of Danish politics. Yet, when liberalist politics again gathered force in what has become known as neoliberalism, the model demonstrated its weaknesses as well as strengths. In the context of a booming property mar- ket and neoliberalizing legal reform, private atives in which members have a direct say – and an individual gain – in setting values, members were all too easily plunged into ‘the icy water of egotis- tical calculation’ (Marx and Engels [1848] 1998, p. 37). But non-profit housing associations have so far weathered the storm. The sector’s structure of ‘col- lective private property’ coupled with strong organi- COMMODIFYING DANISH HOUSING COMMONS by Gutzon Larsen and Anders Lund Hansen Nordic (‘post’) welfare context, housing policy re- Series B, Human forms over the past decades have been ‘central to the political and ideological strategies through which the dominance of neoliberalism is maintained’ the past decades of neo- (Rolnik 2013, p. 1064). Our approach pays heed to we outline the rise of the on the edge of the mar- Peck et al.’s (2013, p. 1096) call for ‘place-based in- demonstrate how homes vestigations of how power relations and regulatory interventions in the con- ideologies, practices and institutions condition the evolution of urban regions’, while recognizing that commodities in all housing associations such place-specific investigations must be ‘attuned neoliberal reforms. to the multi-scalar and multi-sited nature of neo- and may even- liberal urbanism’. History is in this respect of crit- and thus the dismantling ical importance. Our analytical focus is thus on the housing sector. Yet, while the the commodification past fifteen years. But to understand these develop- an accomplice in sustain- ments, we need to extend the analysis back to polit- ical struggles and compromises during the previous round of liberalist hegemony, in the decades around welfare state, hous- year 1900, and the rise of the classic Danish wel- fare state during the mid-twentieth century. While this makes for a place-based and historically spe- cific analysis that is interesting in its own right, we find that the Danish case also provides more widely applicable warnings as well as hopes for those who strive for what we approach as ‘housing commons’. It could be said to be a misnomer to approach housing as a commons; most would, after all, favour some sort of enclosure of the space they call home. Affordable (and available) housing, it would seem, might better be approached as a public good – if not simply as a commodity (cf. Bengtsson 2001). But like De Angelis (2007) in general, and Hodkinson (2012a) specifically, we consider the term a politi- cally progressive way to approach an issue like that of housing. Contemporary urban politics is thus often analysed in terms of enclosure (e.g. Lee and Webster 2006), while commons suggest ways of resistance. Like Harvey (2012, p. 73), we find that a public good becomes a common ‘when social forces appropri- ate, protect, and enhance it for mutual benefit’; in ef- fect, there are processes of ‘commoning’ (see also Linebaugh 2008). As Harvey (2012, p. 73) suggests: in rela- [a]t the heart of the social practice of common- ing lies the principle that the relation between the social group and that aspect of the environment 263 Society for Anthropology and Geography GUTZON LARSEN AND ANDERS LUND HANSEN 1960–2012 (per cent power by a liberal-conservative government has ac- celerated the market-orientation of Danish housing 2002 2012 politics. This has left the private cooperatives thor- 53 51 oughly commodified, while the non-profit housing 7 7 associations stand as a battered and embattled bas- 20 19 19 22 tion of non-marketized housing, which still imbues 2 – Danish cities with a fragile measure of social justice. in the figure for The rise of the association-based housing model The structure of modern Danish housing emerged in the context of the intense social changes that gath- ered force in the second half of the nineteenth cen- tury. Like in other European countries, this was a period characterized by emerging industrialization, rapid urbanization and profound political changes. The urban population thus jumped from some 20 per cent in 1840 to at least 42 per cent in 1901 and reached 67 per cent in 1950. This development was heavily skewed towards Copenhagen, which, with conspicuous disrespect for the rank-size rule, ac- counted for between 40 and 45 per cent of the to- tal urban population in the same period (Christensen and Thøgersen 2006). Not only did this cause severe crowding in parts of the old city; it also led to the creation of new neighbourhoods outside the abol- ished ramparts. In the new Copenhagen district of Vesterbro, for instance, the population swelled from around 2,000 to 65,000 in the years 1850 to 1900 and culminated with 84,000 inhabitants in 1920 (Dengsøe 2000). At a time dominated by liberalist laissez-fair politics with little patience for regula- tion and urban planning, this rapid development was profit-oriented in nature, with grim living conditions for the urban poor and the emerging working class as an all too frequent result (Knudsen 1988). Against this background it is hardly surprising that housing politics became a crucial political battlefield. In fact, even if housing first became a prominent target of state interventions in the 1930s and after World War II, it can be argued that housing reform already from around World War I became a cornerstone in the pro- cess that eventually led to the Danish welfare state (Bro 2009). Reflecting the liberalist hegemony, but also the composition of political forces, reforms of Danish housing were typically based on various types of non-state associations, which usually har- boured a degree of collective ownership but gen- erally did not take the form of public housing or fundamentally challenge the market economy. This association-based model has lasted until the © The authors 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography DANISH HOUSING COMMONS hit by wartime scarcities and the interwar crises. The socioeconomic consequences of this, and the grad- ual expansion of parliamentary democracy, facili- tated the Social Democratic Party’s ascent to power – and its transformation into a reformist party. Yet the party never achieved an absolute majority, and the Danish variant of the Scandinavian welfare state was founded on political compromises between the major political parties (Petersen et al. 2011, 2012). This was also the case when it came to housing politics. Rather than the model of public housing, which for instance was pursued by its Swedish sis- ter party, the Social Democratic Party had to resort to the association-based model, which was more ac- ceptable for the liberalist-minded parties (L. Jensen 2005). This implied that state-guaranteed loans to housing associations and the possibility of ex- empting such associations from municipal real es- tate taxes became the favoured housing policies. Yet, if revealing of the logics governing housing markets, many centrally located associations were dissolved when rising property values made it prof- itable for members to pay off state guaranteed loans and sell the property (Vestergaard 2004). The first attempts to counter this and other speculative loop- holes was a 1919 government circular that created a foundation for funnelling public support to associa- tions that were almennyttige, which literally means ‘commonly useful’ but is better translated as ‘non- profit’. This helped to establish a principle of collec- tive ownership in which surpluses had to be used for publicly supported housing purposes. Yet it was first as part of the 1933 political compromises, which lay the foundations for the post-war welfare state, that the principles of the non-profit housing associations were fully established (L. Jensen 2005). Non-profit housing associations – and some in- dependent municipal housing associations – played a significant if often heatedly contested role in hous- ing politics and the unfolding of the welfare state following World War II (Hansen and Henriksen 1980; Vestergaard 2004). For our purpose, it is suf- ficient to acknowledge how the two alternatives to owner-occupied and private rental housing – non- profit housing associations and private coopera- tives – both rose from the cooperative movement to become the association-based model of hous- ing. Crucially, however, property ownership in a non-profit association belongs to the association, or, as we will see, to its local branches. The residents are in this respect tenants of the association. This is not the case for private cooperatives, which rose 265 Society for Anthropology and Geography LARSEN AND ANDERS LUND HANSEN the quasi- or fully-fledged housing markets. At the same time, however, the plan also aimed to further the ‘market-orientation’ of the cooperative sector (Regeringen 2002, p. 19). In short, the plan – and the ensuing policies – was an element in a strategy to further the commodification of Danish housing, which in turn can be seen as a smooth or stealthy tac- tics in dismantling housing as a cornerstone of the welfare society. trivial Private cooperatives: compromised by capital The rapid commodification of private cooperatives took many by surprise. Moreover, as Mortensen and Seabrooke (2008, p. 319) note, the ‘cashing-out or “liquidation” of housing cooperatives signals the abandonment of a view of housing as primarily a so- cial concern for many’. As we will see, this is a suc- cinct analysis of a housing sector that has changed decisively over a decade of liberal-conservative policies coupled with a spectacular (and specula- tive) inflation of property prices. Yet Schwartz and Seabrooke arguably push the point too far when they conclude that ‘the rapid transformation of Danish housing cooperatives’ marks a shift ‘from a sys- tem based on socialist principles to a system based on capitalist principles’ (Schwartz and Seabrooke 2008, p. 255). As we have seen, private housing co- operatives emerged in the laissez-faire politics of the nineteenth century, and while they helped to provide better housing for segments of the work- ing and lower middle classes, cooperatives in their original form did not challenge the liberalist system. At best, private cooperatives were responses to the housing question, which Friedrich Engels ([1872] 1979) at the time would have denounced as ‘bour- geois socialism’. Still, cooperatives were historically a step to- wards the formation of non-profit housing associ- ations, and, particularly from their reassertion in the 1970s and 1980s, private cooperatives afforded a means to counter speculative landlords and pro- vided some with affordable housing. To a large de- gree, cooperatives became ‘the housing between’ rental and owner-occupied housing (Werborg 1996). Moreover, by way of state and municipal loan as- sistance and exemptions from real estate taxes, pri- vate cooperatives somewhat paradoxically during the 1990s ‘developed into the most publicly subsi- dized form of housing – or, translated to the inhab- itants’ perspective: the housing form where they for many years got absolutely most housing for their © The authors 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography DANISH HOUSING COMMONS with security in their share (Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs 2004). This was a crucial turn in a process that made dwellings in cooperatives a private (and ‘mortgageable’) commodity in all but name. Already before the new law came into force on 1 February 2005, banks started to offer loans with se- curity in cooperative shares; there was, as a newspa- per article enthusiastically put it, a ‘boom’ in such loans where members sought to utilize what was then estimated as DKK 26 billion of ‘equity’ in the cooperative sector (Jørgensen 2005). A few months later, the newspapers could report that loans for some DKK 2.5 billion had been registered during the first three months of the new regime (Villesen 2005). This was facilitated by the fact that municipalities at the same time significantly increased estimates of the taxable value of property. In cooperatives, which are exempted from property taxes, members seemed to have scored a ‘jackpot’ (Skovgaard 2005). This apparent paradox relates to how individual private cooperatives can chose to set the maximum price of its shares according to three models: the initial cost of the property, the public estimate of the taxa- ble value of the property or the property’s commer- cial value as estimated by a real estate appraiser. In the same order, the three models generally allow a higher maximum price. This has opened venues for members of private cooperatives (Träff and Juul- Nyholm 2011, p. 278): appear- [i]n practice, these different options mean that [a cooperative] has significant latitude in determin- ing the value of a property – and thus the maxi- mum price. Particularly if one is creative and op- erates on a short-term. Many associations have utilized this, either by using the notoriously erro- neous public estimates or by help of more or less biased real estate appraisals. Because of this, the maximum price [andelskronen] has many places come to exceed the market price, which in turn has caused a de facto liberalization of pricing in the short term. to Already in 2006, a survey found that the most used model was that of the public estimate, while there was an increasing tendency for cooperatives to use the commercial value (Erhvervs-og Byggestyrelsen 2006). With tax value estimate increases of 55 per cent on average in Copenhagen and around half of that in some other regions (Skovgaard 2005; Ministry of Housing, Urban and Rural Affairs 267 Society for Anthropology and Geography LARSEN AND ANDERS LUND HANSEN The sector can thus play a decisive role in determin- ing social-geographical patterns. Focusing on the neighbourhood of Inner Vesterbro, where coopera- tives by 2006 approached 60 per cent of the housing units, Larsen and Lund Hansen (2008) concluded that cooperatives act as a ‘stealthy’ mechanism of gentrification. Here, as we can also expect more generally, cooperatives in their market-oriented form can function as a mechanism of ‘exclusionary displacement’ (Marcuse 1986) in the sense that low- income groups, which previously could find hous- ing in the sector, are now barred from entry. In less than a decade, the cooperative housing sector has, as a commentator recently put it, become ‘compro- mised by capital’ (de Waal 2011). changes Non-profit housing: stealthy and frontal attacks With almost 20 per cent of the total housing stock, organized in about 800 housing associations and 8,000 branches with a total of more than half a mil- lion units, the non-profit housing sector provides shelter to nearly one-fifth of the population and is a cornerstone in the Danish welfare state. Non-profit housing can be characterized as ‘collective private property’, organized in independent housing asso- ciations that traditionally have received public sup- port from the state and municipality for construction and repayment of loans. Since 1947 the municipal- ities have the right of disposition over one-quarter of the sector’s housing units. Historically, the local and central state has supported both ‘bricks’ (direct subsidies to construction) and ‘people’ (housing al- lowances). It should be noted, however, that there are subsidies to all housing sectors and that indi- rect subsidies like tax deduction to owner-occupied and cooperative housing are greater than subsi- dies given to the non-profit sector (Erlandsen et al. 2006). The Danish non-profit housing sector has tra- ditionally catered to a diversity of socio-economic groups, but by the 2000s there was an overrepre- sentation of low-income, unemployed, immigrant, one-person and single-parent households living in non-profit housing (Ministry of Social Affairs 2006). The vast majority of units were built in the post-1945 building boom and are, like in many other European cities, particularly located in and around the large cities (Andersen 2012). The sec- tor is organized through a well-established multi- scalar tenants’ democracy – one of the ‘distinctive features’ of Danish non-profit housing, also in a Nordic context (Madsen 2006, p. 33). © The authors 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography DANISH HOUSING COMMONS from the non-profit sector’ offers insight to the de- bate: ‘it was never the intention that tenants should support senior housing for wealthy homeowner’s retirement. A very large part of the funds [now] go to this’ (LLO 2006). Furthermore, the state- ment from the tenants’ organization points towards the fact that at the same time as ‘the government has made a significant contribution to homeown- ers’ gains through real estate taxes freeze and fa- vourable loan types, they appropriate the savings in LBF’ (LLO 2006). As mentioned, public subsi- dies for homeowners are according to OECD econ- omists far greater than those paid to the rental units (Erlandsen et al. 2006). The tenants’ organization drove home the point by stating ‘It is inequality pol- itics and Robin Hood in reverse, with a vengeance’ (LLO 2006). Based on analysis of income levels and assets in different housing segments, this in- terpretation was essentially supported by a leading housing researcher (Kristensen 2006, p. 3). Activating LBF can be seen as a form of in- direct ‘accumulation by dispossession’ (Harvey 2003). The state has made strict demands on the use of the savings by imposing duties on the savings of the non-profit sector that traditionally was carried by the (local) state. This manoeuvre has ‘relieved the pressure on the state finances’ and contributed to a general ‘undermining of the sector’s institu- tional platform’ (L. Jensen 2013, pp. 54, 59) – and thereby potentially paved the way for a dismantling and commodification of the sector. The second strike came in 2004 with the intro- duction of a Danish version of Thatcher’s ‘right to buy’ scheme. Brian Mikkelsen, a leading conserva- tive minister, at the time saw this as ‘ideology with freedom of choice’ (quoted in Wamsler and Due 2011). The liberal mayor for construction and en- gineering in Copenhagen, Søren Pind, went even further when he called the legislation ‘A battering ram straight in the heart of the non-profit housing movement’ (quoted in Møller 2002). The idea was to strengthen the ‘property rights in this housing seg- ment’ (Erlandsen et al. 2006, p. 15) – a clear exam- ple of commodification of housing commons. The law was passed in 2004, but with provisions, which the non-profit movement thought would block any significant privatization. The government estimated that 5,000 units would be sold during the three-year trial period, but only 62 units were in fact sold dur- ing this period (Capacent and SBS 2007). Vice- president in the tenants’ organization explains this incongruity (J. D. Jensen 2006): 269 Society for Anthropology and Geography LARSEN AND ANDERS LUND HANSEN help to anchor decisions and implement them. Meanwhile, residents’ majority is a good basis for insight and influence on whether the housing as- sociations provide a good service to the residents. Organizational changes have been a major part of neoliberalism, and one of the preferred governance tools has been New Public Management (Connell et al. 2009; Peck et al. 2009). The Danish govern- ment on this occasion, thus, also played a neoliberal evergreen and the well-known lyrics of New Public Management was deployed to pave the way for bet- ter controlling the sector (Ministry of Social Affairs 2010, p. 7; emphasis added): Danish non- [t]he principles behind the new management are (1) the governance of the sector should increas- ingly be based on the sector’s overall objectives, (2) establishing a constructive and forward- looking cooperation between municipalities and housing associations, and (3) maximum local flexibility, method freedom and deregulation in areas where special considerations do not con- tradict this. As one would expect, there were no standing ova- tions from the tenants’ organization. Its response came during the government’s committee work in 2008 through the press release entitled ‘The Government Committee wants to weaken tenant de- mocracy’ (LLO 2008). The organization contested the government’s politics, but a conflict of interest in ‘the sector’ is also revealed between the non-profit housing associations and the (local) state, on one side, and its tenants on the other (LLO 2008): But it opens [t]he committee’s majority consisting of Ministry officials, the Housing Associations’ National Association and the Municipalities’ National Association has refused to give the ten- ants in the local branches right to choose man- agement or hire/fire caretakers. The majority has, furthermore, refused to give each resident veto against forced modernization. They have, furthermore […] [blocked] assistance to tenants from an external association and they have re- fused to provide the individual tenant greater in- sight to the administration and waiting list. This conflict is not new, but it is clear that the law is designed to exercise top-down management, and consequently cater for the interest of state and © The authors 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography DANISH HOUSING COMMONS swept away the ineffective structures of the coop- erative ideology and left the sector as just another (indirectly subsidized) part of the private prop- erty market. If private cooperatives used to be a sort of urban commons off-limits to market log- ics, this process can be seen as an enclosure; and enclosures, Polanyi ([1944] 2001, p. 37) reminds us, ‘have appropriately been called a revolution of the rich against the poor’. The liberal-conservative government succeeded spectacularly in realizing the market-orientation of private cooperatives, and in the decades to come, this is likely to scar the geographies of Danish cities with increasing socio- economic polarization. Moreover, while the insti- tutional setup and historical trajectory is particular, the commodification of private cooperatives is a blaring example of the wider financialization of the built environment (e.g. Martin 2002; Toporowski 2010; Aalbers 2012). Even if capitalist urbanization in such ways ‘perpetually tends to destroy the city as a social, po- litical and livable commons’ (Harvey 2012, p. 80), there are still some circumscribing historical in- stitutions in what increasingly appears as a ‘post- welfare’ state. Non-profit housing seems to be one of the remaining fragments of the Danish variant of the welfare state. But this housing sector, which Holt-Jensen (2009) on the basis of a comparative analysis of European housing describes as ‘the best imaginable housing-social system in Europe’, is also under attack. The tenants’ collective savings have been ‘activated’, as the law dubbed this ap- propriation, and used as a cash cow for government politics. A right-to-buy scheme masquerading as in- dividual freedom of choice has been deployed, so far with little ‘success’, not least because of resist- ance from the well-organized non-profit housing as- sociations. And, finally, the multi-scalar democracy of the associations is in the name of effectiveness and social mixing being challenged by legislative changes. The government’s original aim of slowly privatizing the non-profit housing associations has so far failed. But through backdoors like this, the aim of tuning the sector to market logics may well be achieved. The association-based model of housing, from which both private cooperatives and non-profit housing associations derive, was a compromise typi- cal of Danish (welfare) politics. On the one hand, the model enabled particularly the Social Democratic Party to include housing as a centrepiece of the Danish welfare state; on the other hand, its structure 271 Society for Anthropology and Geography LARSEN AND ANDERS LUND HANSEN Acknowledgments Research for this article benefitted from ENTITLE (Grant Agreement 28973) and FESSUD (Grant Agreement 26680) of the European Union Seventh Framework Programme and from CRUSH – Critical Urban Sustainability Hub of the Formas Research Council. cooper- Henrik Gutzon Larsen Department of Human Geography Lund University Sölvegatan 10 SE-223 62 Lund Sweden Email:

[email protected]

zations outside the (local) state is undoubtedly key to this relative success. And in contrast to public hous- Anders Lund Hansen ing owned by the (local) state, which in countries Department of Human Geography like the United Kingdom and Sweden has been sig- Lund University nificantly challenged by the rise of neoliberal state Sölvegatan 10 politics (e.g. Hedin et al. 2012; Hodkinson 2012a; SE-223 62 Lund Christophers 2013), this may help to explain why Sweden the somewhat peculiar housing model has proved Email:

[email protected]

remarkably resistant. We should be cautious about drawing general conclusions from specific historical-geographical References experiences, of course. But if we strive for com- AALBERS, M. B. (ed.) (2012): Subprime Cities: The Political mons of available and affordable housing, not to Economy of Mortgage Markets. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. ABRAHAMSEN, K. J. (2009): ‘Regeringen har fjernet 10 mia. kr. mention the additional dimensions that can be at- fra lejernes opsparing’, Information, 3 January. tached to ‘the right to housing’ (Rolnik 2014), the ANDERSEN, H. T. (2006): ‘Andelsboligen – fremtidens bolig- Danish case suggests that private associations can type?’, in ATV’s Temagruppe for Byggeri og by- be an measure to counter neoliberalizing urban pol- struktur (ed.): Den gode bolig – hvordan skal vi bo i fremtiden? Akademiet for de tekniske Videnskaber, Lyngby, itics. But, as demonstrated by the fate of the private pp. 27–29. cooperatives, it is essential that membership of such ANDERSEN, H. T. (2012): ‘The solidity of urban socio-spatial associations does not involve opportunities for pri- structures in Copenhagen’, in MALOUTAS, T. and FUJITA, vate gains. The government’s attempt to impose a K. (eds): Residential Segregation in Comparative Perspective: Making Sense of Contextual Diversity. Ashgate, Farnham, pp. Thatcherian right-to-buy scheme on the non-profit 177–196. housing sector became precariously close to do just BENGTSSON, B. (2001): ‘Housing as a social right: implications that. for welfare state theory’, Scandinavian Political Studies 24 (4): Non-profit housing associations are, in spite of 255–275. BENGTSSON, B. (ed.) (2013): Varför så olika? Nordisk bostads- faults and problems, the remaining bastion in se- politik i jämförande historiskt ljus. 2nd edn. Égalité, Malmö. curing a measure of social justice in Danish hous- BRO, H. (2006): ‘Boligen mellem natvægterstat og velfærdsstat’, ing politics, which it will take a concerted effort of Arbejderhistorie (4): 33–58. commoning to sustain and develop as collective and BRO, H. (2009): ‘Housing: from night watchman state to wel- fare state. Danish housing policy, 1914–1930’, Scandinavian non-commodified. This debris of ‘Nordic welfare’ Journal of History 34 (1): 2–28. is an example of what Harvey (2014, p. 24) iden- BRUUN, M. H. (2011): ‘Egalitarianism and community in Danish tifies as a housing system that ‘focuses on the pro- housing cooperatives: proper forms of sharing and being to- duction and democratic provision of use values for gether’, Social Analysis 55 (2): 62–83. BRYLD, C. (2003): ‘Kooperationen – et stridspunkt i den social- all’. Together with other forms of urban commons, it demokratiske strategiudvikling 1871–1923’, Arbejderhistorie may be something to consider as inspiration for al- (4): 3–22. ternative urban imaginaries. CAPACENT and SBS (2007): ‘Evaluering af salg af almene familieboliger som ejerboliger (SAAB-evalueringenen)’. Socialministeriet, Copenhagen. 272 © The authors 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography COMMODIFYING DANISH HOUSING COMMONS CHRISTENSEN, S. B. and THØGERSEN, M. L. (2006): HØJESTERET (2007): ‘Salg af almene familieboliger til lejere var ‘Bysystemer og urbanisme ca. 1840–2000 – historie og his- ikke i strid med grundlovens § 73’. Press release, Danmarks tografi’, in CHRISTENSEN, S. B. (ed.): Den moderne by. domstole, Copenhagen 7 November. Aarhus Universitetsforlag, Aarhus, pp. 11–120. HOLT-JENSEN, A. (2009): ‘Pas på jeres unikke “almene boliger”’, CHRISTOPHERS, B. (2013): ‘A monstrous hybrid: the political Politiken 1 July. economy of housing in early twenty-first century Sweden’, JENSEN, J. D. (2006): ‘Attacks on the no profit/social-housing New Political Economy 18 (6): 885–911. sector’, Lejernes Landsorganisation i Danmark, Copenhagen CLARK, E. and JOHNSON, K. (2009): ‘Circumventing circum- [online]. URL http://www.lejerneslo.dk/asp/vis.asp?Id=190 scribed neoliberalism: the “system switch” in Swedish hous- [accessed 22 March 2013]. ing’, in GLYNN, S. (ed.): Where the Other Half Lives: Lower JENSEN, L. (2005): ‘Historiens lange skygge i dansk boligpoli- Income Housing in a Neoliberal World. Pluto, London, pp. tik’, in RONIT, K. and ROTHSTEIN, B. (eds): Den politiske 173–194. forvaltning. Historiske spor i nutidens bureaukrati. Festskrift CONNELL, R., FAWCETT, B. and MEAGHER, G. (2009): til professor Tim Knudsen. Politiske Studier, Copenhagen, pp. ‘Neoliberalism, New Public Management and the human ser- 155–195. vice professions’, Journal of Sociology 45 (4): 331–338. JENSEN, L. (2013): ‘Danmark – lokal beboendedemokrati och na- COPENHAGEN MUNICIPALITY (2012): Boligbarometer 2012. tionell korporatism’, in BENGTSSON, B. (ed.) (2013): Varför Økonomiforvaltningen og Teknik- og Miljøforvaltningen, så olika? Nordisk bostadspolitik i jämförande historiskt ljus. Københavns Kommune, Copenhagen. 2nd edn. Égalité, Malmö, pp. 49–117. De ANGELIS, M. (2007): The Beginning of History: Value JØRGENSEN, B. (2005): ‘Boliglån: boom i andelsudlån’, Jyllands- Struggles and Global Capital. Pluto, London. Posten 6 January. DENGSØE, P. (2000): Hverdagsliv på Vesterbro – fra folke- KNUDSEN, T. (1988): Storbyen støbes: København mellem kaos ligt kvarter til moderne bydel. Aalborg Universitetsforlag, og byplan 1840–1917. Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen. Aalborg. KOEFOED, L. (2015): ‘Majority and minority nationalism in the de WAAL, A. (2011): ‘Frihed, lighed og boligbyggeri’, Danish post-welfare state’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Information 7 April. Human Geography 97 (3): 223–232. DIKEÇ, M. (2007): Badlands of the Republic: Space, Politics and KOLSTRUP, S. (1996): ‘Kommunesocialismen. Et studie i Urban Policy. Blackwell, Oxford. kommunale velfærdspionerer’, Arbejderhistorie (4): 38–47. DODSON, J. (2006): Rolling the state: government, neoliberalism KRISTENSEN, H. (2006): ‘Redaktionelt forord’, Samfunds and housing assistance in four advanced economies. Urban økonomen (4): 3–4. Research Program Research Paper 7, Griffith University, LARSEN, H. G. and LUND HANSEN, A. (2008): ‘Gentrification Brisbane, QLD. – gentle or traumatic? Urban renewal policies and socio- ENGELS, F. ([1872] 1979): The Housing Question. Progress, economic transformations in Copenhagen’, Urban Studies 45 Moscow. (12): 2429–2448. ERHVERVS- og BYGGESTYRELSEN (2006): ‘Analyse af LBF (2013): ‘Refusion af statens udgifter til nybyggeri m.v.’, andelsboligsektorens rolle på boligmarkedet’. Erhvervs- og Landsbyggefonden, Copenhagen [online]. URL http://www. Byggestyrelsen, Copenhagen. lbf.dk/da/Administration/Refusion%20stat.aspx [accessed 22 ERLANDSEN, E., LUNDSGAARD, J. and HUEFNER, F. March 2013]. (2006): The Danish housing market: less subsidy and more LEE, S. and WEBSTER, C. (2006): ‘Enclosure of urban commons’, flexibly. Economics Department Working Papers 513/ECO/ GeoJournal 66 (1–2): 27–42. WKP(2006)41, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and LEES, L. (2008): ‘Gentrification and social mixing: towards an ur- Development, Paris. ban renaissance?’, Urban Studies 45 (12): 2449–2470. GAARDMAND, A. (1993): Dansk byplanlægning 1938–1992. LINEBAUGH, P. (2008): The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties Arkitektens Forlag, Copenhagen. and Commons for All. University of California Press, Berkeley, GRELLE, H. (2012): Det kooperative alternativ. Arbejderkoope- CA. rationen i Danmark 1852–2012. Arbejdermuseet & Arbejder LLO (2006): ‘Stop tyveriet fra den almene sektor’. Press release, bevægelsens Bibliotek og Arkiv, Copenhagen. Lejernes Landsorganisation i Danmark, Copenhagen 29 August. HANSEN, S. Aa. and HENRIKSEN, I. (1980): Velfærdsstaten LLO (2008): ‘Regeringsudvalg ønsker at svække beboerdemokra- 1940–78. Gyldendal, Copenhagen. tiet’. Press release, Lejernes Landsorganisation i Danmark, HARVEY, D. (2003): The New Imperialism. Oxford University Copenhagen 26 June. Press, Oxford. MADSEN, B. (2006): ‘Skal den almene boligsektor gøres fri?’, HARVEY, D. (2012): Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to Samfundsøkonomen (4): 31–34. the Urban Revolution. Verso, London. MARCUSE, P. (1986): ‘Abandonment, gentrification, and dis- HARVEY, D. (2014): Seventeen Contradictions and the End of placement: the linkages in New York City’, in SMITH, N. Capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford. and WILLIAMS, P. (eds): Gentrification of the City. Allen & HEDIN, K., CLARK, E., LUNDHOLM, E. and MALMBERG, Unwin, Boston, MA, pp. 153–177. G. (2012): ‘Neoliberalization of housing in Sweden: gen- MARTIN, R. (2002): Financialization of Daily Life. Temple trification, filtering, and social polarization’, Annals of the University Press, Philadelphia, PA. Association of American Geographers 102 (2): 443–463. MARX, K. and ENGELS, F. ([1848] 1998): The Communist HODKINSON, S. (2012a): ‘The return of the housing question’, Manifesto. Verso, London. Ephemera 12 (4): 423–444. MINISTRY of ECONOMIC and BUSINESS AFFAIRS (2002): HODKINSON, S. (2012b): ‘The new urban enclosures’, City 16 ‘Lov om ændring af lov om almene boliger samt støttede pri- (5): 500–518. vate andelsboliger m.v. (Aktivering af Landsbyggefondens HODKINSON, S., WATT, P. and MOONEY, G. (2013): midler)’, Økonomi- og Erhvervsministeriet Copenhagen [on- ‘Introduction: Neoliberal housing policy – time for a critical line]. URL <https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710. re-appraisal’, Critical Social Policy 33 (1): 3–16. aspx?id=104281> [accessed 24 March 2013]. © The authors 2016 273 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography HENRIK GUTZON LARSEN AND ANDERS LUND HANSEN MINISTRY of ECONOMIC and BUSINESS AFFAIRS (2004): ROLNIK, R. (2013): ‘Late neoliberalism: the financialization of ‘Lov nr. 204 af 29. marts 2004: Lov om ændring af lov om an- homeownership and housing rights’, International Journal of delsboligforeninger og andre boligfællesskaber (Pant og udlæg Urban and Regional Research 37 (3): 1058–1066. i andelsboliger m.v.)’, Økonomi- og Erhvervsministeriet, ROLNIK, R. (2014): ‘Place, inhabitance and citizenship: the right Copenhagen [online]. URL <https://www.retsinformation.dk/ to housing and the right to the city in the contemporary ur- print.aspx?id=26631> [accessed 13 March 2013]. ban world’, International Journal of Housing Policy 14 (3): MINISTRY of HOUSING (1997): Lejelovskommissionens 293–300. betænkning. Betænkning 1331, Boligministeriet, Copenhagen. Ruonavaara, H. (2012): ‘Home ownership and Nordic housing MINISTRY of HOUSING, URBAN and RURAL AFFAIRS policies in “retrenchment”’, in RONALD, R. and ELSINGA, (2012): Andelsboligforeningers anvendelse af lån med tilknyt- M. (eds): Beyond Home Ownership: Housing, Welfare and tede renteswapaftaler. Ministeriet for by, Bolig og Landdistrik- Society. Routledge, London, pp. 91–107. ter, Copenhagen. SCHWARTZ, H. and SEABROOKE, L. (2008): ‘Varieties of res- MINISTRY of SOCIAL AFFAIRS (2006): Den almene bolig- idential capitalism in the international political economy: old sektors fremtid. Rapport fra arbejdsgruppen vedrørende welfare states and the new politics of housing’, Comparative fremtidsperspektiver for en mere selvbærende almen sektor. European Politics 6 (3): 237–261. Socialministeriet, Copenhagen. SIMONSEN, K. (2015): ‘Encountering racism in the (post-)wel- MINISTRY of SOCIAL AFFAIRS (2010): Vejledning om styring fare state – Danish experiences’, Geografiska Annaler: Series af den almene boligsektor. Socialministeriet, Copenhagen. B, Human Geography 97 (3): 213–222. MØLLER, E. B. (2002): ‘Almene boliger skal sælges’, Berlinske SKOVGAARD, L. E. (2005): ‘Jackpot til ejere af andelsboliger’, Tidende 2 January. Berlingske Tidende 15 April. MORTENSEN, J. L. and SEABROOKE, L. (2008): ‘Housing as SMITH, N. (1998): ‘Giuliani time: the revanchist 1990s’, Social social right or means to wealth? The politics of property booms Text 57: 1–20. in Australia and Denmark’, Comparative European Politics 6 THORNLAND, S. (2008): ‘Markedsøkonomien overhaler andels- (3): 305–324. tanken’, Ejendomsmægleren (3): 4–7. NIELSEN, B. G. (2010): The Hidden Politics of a Haunted TOPOROWSKI, J. (2010): ‘Excess debt and asset deflation’, in Sector: Retrenchment in Danish Housing Policy 2001–2009. KATES, S. (ed.): Macroeconomic Theory and its Failings: Department of Political Science, Copenhagen University, Alternative Perspectives on the Global Financial Crisis. Copenhagen. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 221–234. PECK, J., THEODORE, N. and BRENNER, N. (2009): ‘Neo- TRÄFF, F. and JUUL-NYHOLM, R. (2011): Andelsboliger. liberal urbanism: models, moments, mutations’, SAIS Review Thomson Reuters, Copenhagen. of International Affairs 29 (1): 49–66. VESTERGAARD, H. (2004): ‘Boligpolitik i velfærdsstaten’, in PECK, J., THEODORE, N. and BRENNER, N. (2013): PLOUG, N., HENRIKSEN, I. and KÆRGAARD, N. (eds): ‘Neoliberal urbanism redux?’, International Journal of Urban Den danske velfærdsstats historie. Socialforskningsinstituttet, and Regional Research 37 (3): 1091–1099. Copenhagen, pp. 260–286. PETERSEN, J. H., PETERSEN, K. and CHRISTENSEN, N. F. VILLESEN, K. (2005): ‘Staten scorer kassen på andelsboliger’, (eds) (2011): Dansk velfærdshistorie: Mellem skøn og ret. Bind Information 11 May. II, Perioden 1898–1933. Syddansk Universitetsforlag, Odense. WAMSLER, L. and DUE, H. (2011): ‘Salg af almene boliger er et PETERSEN, J. H., PETERSEN, K. and CHRISTENSEN, N. flop’, Information 21 July. F. (eds) (2012): Dansk Velfærdshistorie: Velfærdsstaten WERBORG, R. (1996): ‘Den private andelsbolig – “boligen midt i støbeskeen. Bind III, Perioden 1933–1956. Syddansk imellem”’, in NYBOE ANDERSEN, B. (ed): Festskrift til Universitetsforlag, Odense. Anders Ølgaard. Nationaløkonomisk Forening, Copenhagen, POLANYI, K. ([1944] 2001): The Great Transformation: The Polit- pp. 145–156. ical and Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon, Boston, MA. WESTPHAL, L. (2008): ‘Stadig flere mæglere sælger andels REGERINGEN (2002): Flere boliger. Vækst og fornyelse på bolig boliger’, Ejendomsmægleren (3): 8. markedet. Økonomi-og Erhvervsministeriet, Copenhagen. REGERINGEN (2010): Ghettoen tilbage til samfundet. Et op- gør med parallelsamfund i Danmark. Socialministeriet, Copenhagen. 274 © The authors 2016 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2016 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography

(PDF) Commodifying Danish housing commons