Housing cooperatives, housing systems and the state. Historical lessons from Europe, Australia and Latin America

Overview of the Publication

The article “Housing cooperatives, housing systems and the state. Historical lessons from Europe, Australia and Latin America” appears in Housing Studies (ISSN 0267‑3037, 1466‑1810). It is authored by Jardar Sørvoll (Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway), Claire Carriou (Paris School of Urban Planning, France) and Richard Lang (Free University of Bozen‑Bolzano, Italy). The research was published online on 23 September 2025 and examines the interplay between cooperative housing and broader housing systems across multiple continents.

Geographic Scope and Comparative Angle

The study draws on case studies from Europe (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Finland, Poland, the United Kingdom), Australia, and Latin America (Uruguay, Colombia, El Salvador, Chile). It highlights how cooperative housing has both shaped and been shaped by national housing regimes, with 88 publications and 641 citations for Sørvoll, 46 publications and 308 citations for Carriou, and 55 publications and 1,484 citations for Lang.

Key Quantitative Findings

• Cooperative housing contributes to affordable housing provision in 21 countries examined.
• In Uruguay, cooperative movements have scaled to influence national policy, supported by strong unionisation and state backing.
• Sweden’s deregulation of cooperative shares in 1968‑69 coincided with a rise in market‑oriented housing, reducing low‑income options.
• Denmark’s limited‑equity cooperatives originated from 19th‑century building cooperatives and now face pressure from commodification.
• Finland shows limited impact of consumer cooperatives, with 1920‑2020 data indicating intermittent policy support.
• Chile’s cooperative sector contracted during military rule (1973‑1995) and re‑emerged under recent neoliberal policies.

Institutional Drivers and Barriers

State support emerges as a decisive factor: Uruguay’s success is linked to durable legal frameworks; Hungary’s socialist period used cooperatives as a “smokescreen” for commodification; Australia’s liberal welfare model and strong private‑property culture have limited cooperative visibility. The authors note that fragmented civil‑society networks, weak federative structures, and lack of political mobilisation hinder scaling in Finland, Hungary and Chile.

Historical Lessons for Sustainable Housing

1. State‑Cooperative Alignment – Long‑term legal and financial incentives are essential for large‑scale, sustainable cooperative projects.
2. Political Mobilisation – Strong, politicised resident movements amplify cooperative impact, as seen in Uruguay and Sweden.
3. Governance Autonomy – Maintaining resident‑controlled management rights protects cooperatives from market‑driven commodification.
4. Path‑Dependence – Historical institutional legacies (e.g., post‑war reconstruction in Finland, post‑socialist transitions in Hungary) shape current cooperative viability.

Relevance to Pan‑European Sustainable Housing

The article provides evidence that cooperative housing can enhance sustainability by promoting collective ownership, reducing speculative turnover, and fostering resident participation in decision‑making. European cases illustrate that cooperatives adapt to diverse policy environments, yet scaling requires coordinated state policies, supportive financing, and robust cooperative networks. The authors suggest that European policymakers could draw on Uruguay’s model of strong sectoral representation and on the Nordic experience of integrating cooperatives within broader housing strategies to address affordability and climate‑related housing challenges.