Housing cooperatives and the contradictions of Finnish land and housing policies

The article "Housing cooperatives and the contradictions of Finnish land and housing policies" examines the challenges faced by housing cooperatives in Finland amid rising housing unaffordability and a shrinking social housing sector. Authored by Daisy Charlesworth and Mika Hyötyläinen and published in the International Journal of Housing Policy, the paper discusses the resurgence of housing cooperatives as a potential solution to these issues. It is based on document studies and interviews with stakeholders involved in three state-subsidized housing cooperatives.

The article identifies three main institutional challenges that hinder the development of housing cooperatives. Firstly, despite support from public authorities, these cooperatives struggle to fit into existing social housing frameworks. Secondly, due to temporally-restricted regulatory instruments, authorities express skepticism over the long-term affordability of these cooperatives. Lastly, the City of Helsinki's entrepreneurial real estate policy further complicates matters, as it refuses to lease land to housing cooperatives at market rates.

In response to these challenges, the Finnish government initiated a pilot project in 2016 aimed at establishing a 'social' housing cooperative model. This initiative seeks to fill the gap for residents who do not qualify for social rental housing but cannot afford to rent or buy on the private market. The pilot includes subsidies for establishing housing cooperative group construction projects, with around a dozen projects launched across Finland since then.

Housing cooperatives are characterized by self-governance and collective management, which allows for a focus on use-value rather than exchange-value. The paper discusses two types of tenure models: rental and rent-to-own. In the rental model, the cooperative owns the building and residents pay cost-based rents during the loan liability period. In the rent-to-own model, residents can eventually own their homes after repaying a state-backed loan.

The authors argue that ambiguities in Finnish land and housing policy are detrimental to the development of these cooperatives. For instance, the criteria for what constitutes 'social' housing are not clearly defined, leading to challenges in securing necessary public subsidies. The City of Helsinki remains skeptical about the long-term affordability of cooperatives, which further complicates negotiations for land leases.

The study suggests that future research should compare the relationship between accessibility in housing cooperatives and welfare policy approaches across different European contexts. Furthermore, it calls for a deeper exploration of the contradictions between affordable housing provision and entrepreneurial public real estate policies. The findings highlight the complexities of navigating institutional frameworks that influence the success of housing cooperatives in Finland.

In summary, the paper sheds light on the institutional barriers facing housing cooperatives in Finland, emphasizing the need for clearer policies and frameworks to support sustainable housing solutions. The ongoing challenges reflect broader trends in Europe regarding the commodification of housing and the diminishing role of state-supported social housing.