European Research on Housing Cooperatives

The study “European Research on Housing Cooperatives” was commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties) and prepared by a team of researchers: Michel Briene, Robert Kievit, Erik van Ossenbruggen, Rixt Bos, and Frank de Gouw. Published in June 2021, the report investigates the role and impact of housing cooperatives across five European countries—Denmark, Germany, Austria, Sweden, and Switzerland—against the backdrop of the revised Dutch Housing Act (Woningwet 2015).

The research covers a comparative analysis of cooperative housing models, their historical development, organisational structures, financing mechanisms, legal frameworks, and policy instruments. Data were gathered from local housing‑market experts, supplemented by two case studies per country, and the study period spanned December 2020 to May 2021. The report also documents the Dutch context, including the status of cooperative housing in the Netherlands and recent legislative changes.

• In Denmark, housing cooperatives own about 7.4 % of the national housing stock (≈201,000 units).
• German cooperatives manage roughly 5 % of the housing market, accounting for 2.1–2.2 million homes and serving around 5 million residents.
• Austrian cooperatives (GBV sector) hold about 11 % of the housing stock, with 438,000 units and 530,000 members.
• Swedish cooperatives (Bostadsrätt) constitute 24 % of the total housing stock (≈1.2 million homes), with 29,000 cooperatives active.
• Swiss cooperatives represent about 4 % of housing (≈193,000 units). Across the surveyed nations, cooperative housing contributes between 4 % and 24 % to the availability of affordable homes, with the highest impact observed in Scandinavian markets.

Cooperatives are generally structured as member‑owned associations with democratic decision‑making. Dutch cooperatives must have at least five members and operate as full‑capacity legal entities. In Denmark and Sweden, members purchase a right‑to‑use share; in Germany and Austria, members acquire shares that may yield modest dividends (3‑4 %). Governance typically includes an annual General Assembly, an elected board, and, where appropriate, supervisory or advisory councils. Larger cooperatives sometimes adopt more complex structures resembling housing corporations.

• Denmark: Governed by the “Law on Housing Cooperatives” (1976) allowing member purchase of usage rights.
• Germany: Regulated under the Genossenschaftsgesetz (Cooperative Act).
• Austria: Operates under the “Wohnungsgemeinnützigkeitsgesetz” for non‑profit housing cooperatives.
• Sweden: Dual legislation – the Housing Cooperatives Act and the Economic Associations Act – requires registration, a minimum of three members, statutes, a board, and an auditor.
• Switzerland: Defined by the Federal Housing Promotion Act (WFG, 2003) as non‑profit entities contributing to affordable housing. In the Netherlands, the revised Housing Act provides a statutory basis for cooperatives to acquire social‑housing stock, but practical implementation remains limited.

Financing relies on a mix of member equity, bank loans, and public subsidies.

• Danish members pay a one‑time membership fee and a monthly fee covering maintenance and loan repayments.
• German cooperatives fund acquisitions through member share purchases and bank credit, with typical dividend returns of 3‑4 %.
• Austrian cooperatives receive regional subsidies, low‑interest loans, and tax exemptions; members contribute equity ranging from 4 % to 10 % of project costs.
• Swedish cooperatives finance up to 85 % of purchase price via banks; members provide a one‑time purchase price for the usage right and monthly fees for operating costs.
• Swiss cooperatives combine member equity (minimum 10 % of capital) with bank mortgages (up to 80 % of value) and access revolving funds, solidarity funds, and foundation loans offering reduced interest rates. Public policy tools include land labeling for cooperatives, reduced transaction costs, income‑tax privileges (Germany), and targeted subsidies for construction or renovation (Austria, Switzerland).

Cooperatives promote sustainable living by enabling resident participation, long‑term affordability, and community cohesion. Their democratic governance aligns with sustainability goals of social inclusion and resource efficiency. However, the Dutch cooperative sector remains small, limiting its immediate impact on national housing challenges such as affordability and availability. Lessons from higher‑participation models in Denmark and Sweden—particularly the integration of member equity and supportive financing—could inform Dutch policy refinements.

• Strengthen legal recognition of cooperatives for new‑build projects in the Netherlands.
• Expand financial instruments (e.g., low‑interest loans, equity grants) to lower entry barriers for members.
• Encourage municipal provision of land or long‑term lease arrangements at favorable terms.
• Foster knowledge exchange platforms to share best practices across the five studied countries. These measures aim to enhance the scalability of cooperative housing as a viable component of Europe’s sustainable housing strategy.