Social innovation in affordable housing

Overview of the Working Paper

The resource is a working paper titled “Social innovation in affordable housing” authored by Linda Lövgren, Ingalill Söderberg and Olli Vigren. The authors are affiliated with the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden and Stanford University in the United States, indicating a collaboration between European and North‑American research institutions. The paper is part of KTH’s Working Paper series (2025:6) and focuses on the role of social innovation (SI) in addressing the global affordable‑housing shortage.

Research Aim and Methodology

The study adopts a theory‑focused structured literature review to assess how SI contributes to affordable housing. A systematic search using terms such as “social innovation” AND “housing” and “affordable housing” yielded 274 records; after abstract screening and full‑text analysis, 54 peer‑reviewed articles published between 2002 and 2024 were retained. The selection followed PRISMA guidelines and employed deductive coding based on Audretsch et al.’s (2022) social‑innovation ecosystem framework, which comprises six pillars: policy, finance, culture, supports, human capital and markets. The authors extended this model by adding “social innovator” and “space and place” to capture the spatial nature of housing initiatives.

Key Findings: SI Ecosystem Pillars

• Policy: In 22 studies SI either shaped or was shaped by policy, with feedback loops observed between innovation and regulatory change.
• Finance: Public funding dominates, often combined with mixed public‑private financing; pure private financing is rare.
• Culture: Participation, encouragement and inclusion are vital; entrepreneurial culture can be both supportive and obstructive.
• Supports: Formal support (e.g., government grants) appears in five papers, while informal support—from volunteers, tenants and local communities—is reported in 17 papers. Partnerships and networks are frequent support mechanisms.
• Human Capital: Contributions come from private citizens, NGOs, government officials, and professional networks. Specific knowledge and project‑management skills are repeatedly highlighted as essential.
• Markets: Demographic shifts (aging populations, migration) and social change (post‑crisis recovery) drive SI activity.

Expanded Framework: Innovators and Spatial Context

The authors argue that the original Audretsch et al. model insufficiently foregrounds the “social innovator”—ranging from non‑profits and cooperatives to public agencies and volunteers—and their varied scales of operation. Moreover, housing’s inherent spatial dimension is captured through the concepts of “space” (physical location) and “place” (social, cultural and emotional meanings). The review shows that 34 of the 54 studies are local case studies, six are regional, 13 national and one international, covering 22 countries with a concentration in Europe (45 %).

Quantitative Highlights

• Total of 54 analysed papers, representing 22 countries.
• 45 % of studies focus on Europe, 23 % on North America, 11 % on Asia, 9 % on South America and 13 % on Oceania.
• 34 local, 6 regional, 13 national and 1 international case studies.
• 54 % of initiatives rely on mixed public‑private funding; 33 % depend primarily on public funding; 13 % report a lack of funding.

Implications for Sustainable Housing Policy

The review underscores that SI can enhance affordability by fostering participatory design, leveraging local human capital and creating flexible financing structures. However, fragmented funding, policy inertia and cultural resistance can limit impact. The expanded ecosystem model offers policymakers a more nuanced tool for evaluating SI initiatives, especially when considering spatial specificity and the diverse actors involved.

Contribution to the Literature

By systematically mapping the literature and adapting the SI ecosystem framework, the authors provide a comprehensive reference for scholars and practitioners interested in the intersection of social innovation and affordable housing. The work highlights the need for clearer definitions, stronger theoretical grounding and better measurement of outcomes to support scalable, sustainable housing solutions across Europe.