The future of public housing as a municipal tool for social sustainability

Examining discourse and practice in the Swedish allmännytta

Working Paper – NOOS 5-6 February 2015Martin Grander

Malmö University

Detta är ett påbörjat papper som så småningom ska resultera i en artikel om kommunala bostadsbolags möjligheter att arbeta för stadens sociala hållbarhet. Pappret är ännu i sin linda och mycket av såväl teoretiska och empiriska inslag är ännu inte på plats, varför argumenteringen säkerligen kan framstå som fragmentarisk och förvirrande för läsaren. Jag hoppas emellertid att jag kan få kommentarer på

hur analysen kan tas vidare.

Abstract

Public housing in Sweden has since the 1930s been an important tool for Swedish municipalities in

their strive for social equality. This task has come to be two-folded. Firstly, the companies have been

important tools for the municipalities’ responsibility for supplying housing. Secondly, public housing

companies have since the 1990s engaged in various social projects and activities, aiming for

integration and social cohesion. Changes in policies and legislation have, however, gradually changed

the playing field for public housing in Sweden. Doubts have been raised regarding if and how public

housing companies can continue working as an actor of social sustainability in times of demands on

adjusting to market conditions. This article presents results of an ongoing research project on public

housing in Sweden, launched against this backdrop. The results of interviews and surveys show that

while social activities carry on as usual, the public housing companies’ task to provide housing for

people with different needs has become harder to fulfil as a result of new legislation. This

consequence of the legislation is however veiled by a discourse of social sustainability, envisioned by

social projects and spectacular projects labelled social investments and social innovations. While the

narratives of public housing companies tell us one thing, the actual consequences of policy changes

could be a weakened municipal tool for social sustainability.

Keywords: Housing policy, housing market, public housing companies, allmännytta, social

sustainability, social responsibility, segregation.

IntroductionIn this paper, I explore municipalities’ abilities to contribute to social sustainability through housing

policy, and especially by using their public housing companies. Public housing companies have,

together with the municipal planning monopoly, been important tools for municipalities in

contributing to social sustainability through local housing policy. As urban strategies, national

legislation and local policies is changing, so is the effectiveness of these tools. The discussion is

centred on the relation between the ideas and practice in the policy field of urban social sustainability.

How is urban social sustainability done in the field of housing policy? My point of departure is that the

formation of the socially sustainable city is a matter of separation between discourse and practice.

Social sustainability is regarded as a meta-narrative, a storyline or an idea that is materialised into

practice by different actors in the municipality. How ideas are becoming practice – and what practices

contribute to the ideas – are of interest in this paper.

How ideas become practiceThis paper draws on Hajer’s (2006, 1995) work on storylines and discourses, Czarniawska’s

(Czarniawska-Joerges and Sevón, 2005; Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996) theories on translation of

global ideas and Jessop’s (Jessop and Oosterlynck, 2008; Sum and Jessop, 2013) Strategic Relational

Approach (SRA). SRA is a methodological attempt to go beyond the division between discourse and

materiality on the one hand and structure and agency on the other. SRA discusses the

institutionalisation of policy in a relation between discourse and materiality, or what Jessop calls

semiotic and extra semiotic. According to Jessop, Societal actors exist in a complex context,

characterized by ongoing change and multifaceted webs of institutions and interactions. Actors have

thus limited ability to grasp the complexity of the environment. As reality is too complex to

anderstand, Jessop claims that so-called complexity reduction need to be done. Complexity reduction

is done by structuring and semiosis (Jessop & Oosterlynck 2008). Semiosis is an umbrella term for

sense-and meaning making and include language, ideas and discourse.

According to SRA, societal actors' capacity to act are equally dependent on structural conditions - such

as material resources and opportunities – as well as own abilities to conceive and have an impact on

conceptual ideas. Social change is accomplished by groups of actors abilities to mobilize material

resources, but also by being able to take advantage of the power that lies in ideas and beliefs. Actors'

capacity and flexibility is thus based on both discursive and material (extra-discursive) foundation.

Through its strategies can be actors as well maintain that transform structures. Actors so-called

strategic selectivity (Sum & Jessop 2013, p.28) is central in the strategic-relational approach. Actors

choose specific strategies for achieving certain goals within a given time. Strategic selectivity thus

means that the structures creates a certain type of condition. These conditions, however, are socially

created and are not fixed in time and space. Through strategic selectivity, discourses become central in

the formulation of actors’ strategies and actions. As the context in which actors operate is constantly

changing and characterized by complex networks of institutions and interactions, actors have no

ability to have access to perfect and accurate information about the surroundings. Instead, the

environment is interpreted and filtered discursively. In order to reduce complexity, structuring and

semiosis is done through three different mechanisms, which Jessop borrows from evolutionary

science. Jessop means that different discourses go through different modalities of variation, selection

and retention in order to become institutionalised in practice. Variation is about the emergence of

various discourses and practices. A number of more or less defined discourses of a phenomenon are

prevalent at different levels of society - often in competition with each other. Among this variety of

discourses, one or more discourses goes through different types of selection processes. Discourses that

are not selected disappear from the flora of the term, while selected discourses materialize through

action or strategy. It is the ability to get both discursively and materially ear that are crucial for the

selection of a discourse, says Jessop. In some cases, it even institutionalization, ie that the materialized

discourses retained (retention) in the structures, eg by being translated into policy or directive.

According to Jessop, only the discourses that undergo all three mechanisms that create social

restructuring. Dannestam (2009) gives examples of how political processes of urban renewal in

Malmö goes through such processes. On a meta-level, the discourse of the knowledge-based economy

exists. On a meso-level, the discourse of urban policy is selected and on a micro-level these discourse

is materialised in forms of practice in strategies and projects.

Theories of materialisation of discourse are also discussed in political science and organisational

theory. Hajer (1995) discusses how actors, through discussion and persuasion, but also through

influence of political power, are working to establish certain storylines. These actors become

discursive carriers and through ”finding the appropriate story-line become an important form of

agency” (1995:56). In organisational theory, theories of how concepts travel and is translated into

materiality is discussed by Czarniawska (Czarniawska-Joerges and Sevón, 2005: 72). According to

Czarniawska, the institutionalisation of global ideas is dependent on the carriers. Although the same

idea travels around the globe at a high speed, local realities are still very different, as different carriers

translate ideas into practice. Different practices are connected to the story lines and underlying

discourses by discursive practices. There are, however, practices that not are part of the discourse.

These could be called social practices.

Empirical backdrop: municipal tools for social sustainability through housing policySwedish municipalities have a number of tools to contribute to social sustainability through housing

policies. Swedish housing policy could be said to represent both physical and social methods of

contributing to social sustainability.

The contemporary ideal city in Sweden, the sustainable city, could be summarised in three words:

green, dense and varied (See e.g. Tunström, 2009; Andersson et al., 2010; Holmqvist, 2009;

Fredriksson, 2012). In the current strive for socially sustainable cities, socio-economic segregation is

regarded as the main offender. In the wake of segregated cities, planners and architectural bureaus as

well as politicians and researchers all seem to agree that the socially sustainable city is characterized

by variation. A governmental delegation (2012) stresses the importance of avoiding planning new

‘monocultures’. Several researchers within diverse disciplines are presenting a vision of an attractive

urban life in a dense, varied and vivid city, small-scaled and consisting of apartments and houses of

varied tenures and sizes. Different tenure has become central in the discussion of residential planning

in Sweden. Varied tenure is claimed to reduce socio-economical segregation by creating social mix

and thus making people with different situations meet. Research (Bergsten 2010) shows positive

effects of such a strategy, for example how young people in varied environments succeed in school

and life to a greater extent than young people in homogenous areas.

The planning monopoly has since it’s inauguration in 1947 been the foundation in Swedish planning.

In short, the municipal planning monopoly is the municipalities’ tool for deciding how land and water

should be used and built upon. Through the planning monopoly, the municipalities and cities can -

using comprehensive and local plans - decide where new residential and commercial areas should be

built, but also decide on architectural directions and restrictions. The perhaps most important asset of

the municipalities’ planning monopoly is however that it guarantees for democracy in the planning

process. By decentralising planning, the vision of the ideal cities is placed in the prolonged hands of

the citizens. The planning monopoly does not, however, provide ways for the municipality to regulate

the tenure. It is only possible for the municipality as a land owner to decide on the tenure for housing

on a specific space that is to be projected (see e.g. Lidström, 2012). This method has been and could

be used as a tool for combatting socio-economical segregation by mixing different tenures. In line with

the current visions of the city, most Swedish contemporary cities, at least the larger ones, the planning

is not aiming for expanding the city but increasing its density, in line with the view of Ebenezer

Howard that “urban areas should not transgress their boundaries when growing but rather should

multiply in the manner of biological cells” (Pinder, 2005: 47). In Malmö, for example, the ambition is

to ”grow inwards”. No new areas are being appropriated outside the ring roads; instead empty spots

(‘in-fills’ and ‘bomb holes’) are areas of interest for planners. Local plans for these areas are in most

cases already existing and the municipality can only regulate tenure if they own the land. Naturally,

property owners own these smaller areas in the city. The municipality does not dispose over any larger

areas within the city, except for parks and green areas (which are sacred ground). Thus, the current

visions of densification have implications on the efficiency of the planning monopoly’s possibilities to

enhance social sustainability by combatting segregation. The housing companies, owning the land, are

in charge of new construction and thus also the forms of tenure. The power of planning the non-

segregated city is thus in the hands of the housing companies and their appointed architects.

Public housing companies

As this municipal tool of combating segregation become weaker, another municipal tool for creating

social sustainable cities - the public (municipal) housing companies - could have a role of increased

importance. Since the 1930s, Swedish public housing, ‘Allmännyttan’, has been an important part not

only in the Swedish housing regime, but the Swedish welfare regime (Boverket, 2008; Grander and

Stigendal, 2012; Pagrotsky, 2010; Bengtsson et al., 2006; Birgersson, 2008). The public housing

companies are politically governed limited companies supplying rental apartments. They are large

actors in many cities, averaging 17 % of the total housing stock in Swedish municipalities (Statistiska

Centralbyrån, 2013). The public housing companies have after the Second World War been the main

municipal instruments to fulfil the legislated demand on providing housing to the general public.

Public housing has often been spread out in the city and is argued to have counteracted segregation as

a result of homogenous areas in forms of tenure.

The public aim of the companies has also implied a social responsibility, inscribed in legislation and

the owner’s directions to the companies. As a part of the use-value system, the public housing

companies have previously also been setting the norm for the rent in general, meaning that private

housing companies have been obliged to follow the annual increase in rents set out by the public

housing companies. This type of rental housing system with strong bonds between public and private

actors is labelled by housing sociologist Jim Kemeny (1995) as an integrated rental system, opposed

to a dualistic rental system, where private and public actors on the housing market are separated, for

example in the role of public housing. The Swedish model of public housing differs from social

housing in other European countries since the apartments in the public housing are available for

everyone, not only people with low income or other special needs. Thus, public housing in Sweden is

not needs tested, as in countries with social housing. Beside the task to provide housing, the public

housing companies have had a tradition of working against social inequalities in neighbourhoods, by

commencing various projects and activities. Previous research (Grander and Stigendal, 2012;

Boverket, 2010) has given numerous examples of how these projects and activities often make a

difference for the inhabitants of the cities, especially in areas characterised by social exclusion. Social

measures have often been aimed at not only the tenants living in the public housing apartments, but at

the inhabitants of the whole area (Grander & Stigendal, 2013: 15) . Since the share of people living in

public housing companies is considerable in larger cities so is the potential for making a change.

Public housing could thus be regarded as a key instrument not only in the Swedish housing policies,

but indeed as an important part of the Swedish welfare regime in its general approach to managing

social risks (Birgersson, 2008; Bengtsson et al., 2006; Bengtsson and Rothstein, 1997; Esping-

Andersen, 1990; Lennartz, 2011).

Public housing in transition

During the last decades, policy changes could be argued to have changed the public housing sector.

Since the 1990’s, the sector has seen gradual changes in order to make public housing companies more

market oriented. In 2011, the legislation (Lag (2010:897) om kommunala allmännyttiga bostadsbolag)

on Swedish public housing was inaugurated, obliging public housing companies to act on the same

conditions as private housing companies. The background for the changes that led to the current

legislation is that private actors on the rental market filed a report to the European Commission,

meaning that the Swedish public housing is not in compliance with the European legislation on

competition. Municipal subsidies paid to public housing, combined with the model of rents in public

housing constituting benchmark in the use value assessment of rents in general, were claimed to be

conflicting with EC competition law (Grander and Stigendal, 2012). In the European Union, selective

public support for a distinct sub-sector within the housing sector is only be permitted if it is in line

with what Kemeny (1995) would call a ‘dualistic’ model, where public housing is aimed at selected

groups. In the Swedish housing regime, with an integrated rental market and competition on equal

terms between the private and local landlords, private actors meant it would not be considered to be

legal with these kinds of subsidies and support. In order not to be tried in the European Commission,

the Swedish government agreed to withdraw all subsidies towards the public housing and to change

the role of public housing when negotiating rents. The new legalisation based on this outcome was

instated in January 2011. A result of the legislation is that public and private landlords now act on the

exact same preconditions. An important difference for public housing companies is that all actions

must be economically justified. Investments cannot be undertaken if they aren’t calculated to yield.

Thus, the legalisation might make it harder for public housing companies to work towards social

sustainability, since all actions pursued must result in economic profit. However, the companies’

social responsibility is still clearly stated in the legislation.

It could be argued that the development since the 1990’s is of incremental kind, however possibly

compromising the existence of public housing, as we know it. As demands on market yield and

competitiveness clash with demands on social sustainability, the public housing sector could be

suffering kind of an identity crisis.

Case: Social responsibility in public housing companies (2013-2015)

This article is based on results of an ongoing research project on public housing in Sweden, launched

by the Swedish public housing organisation SABO against this backdrop. The overall aim for my part

in the research project has been to examine what kind of social responsibility1 public housing

1 The term social responsibility is used in the legal documents stating the public housing companies. In my research, I consider it an underlying discourse in what Hajer calls a storyline. The storyline is the social sustainable city.

companies are engaged in and how the changes in legislation has affected the work with social

responsibility.

During 2013-2014, I conducted a survey sent to all public housing companies in Sweden. Of 259 valid

respondents, 184 responded, giving a response rate of 71%. Failure analysis gives that respondents are

representing the whole population in terms of share of public housing in the municipality and

geographical position. The share of smaller companies is larger in the total population than in the

respondents. Another survey was sent to the 290 Swedish municipalities, of which 108 responded.

During 2014, case studies were made in nine municipalities, where we interviewed staff from the local

public housing company as well as politicians in the board of the company. In total, 47 persons have

been interviewed.

In the survey to the public housing companies, I began with asking in what ways they are contributing

to social responsibility:

Genom att bolaget arbetar med sysselsättning och/eller utbildning

Genom att bolaget samarbetar med privata fastighetsägare

Genom att bolaget arbetar med kultur och/eller fritidsinsatser

Genom att bolaget arbetar för att främja en blandad bebyggelse i syfte att minska bostadssegregation

Genom att bolaget ger förtur till utvalda grupper

Genom att bolaget erbjuder lägenheter till människor som har svårt att komma in på den ordinarie bostadsmarknaden

Genom att bolaget arbetar med bostadsområdesutveckling

Genom sponsring av verksamhet (t ex idrottsklubbar)

Genom att bolaget samarbetar med kommunala förvaltningar, föreningslivet och/eller privata aktörer i syfte att ta ett samhällsansvar

Genom att bolaget arbetar med trygghet och/eller säkerhet

Genom att bolaget arbetar med boendeinflytande

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

58

59

69

72

73

96

117

130

150

150

155

126

125

115

112

111

88

67

54

34

34

29

På vilket/vilka sätt arbetar ni som kommunalt bostadsbolag med samhällsansvar?

JaNej

At a first glance, the social responsibility among the companies seems to be constituted of a large

number of activities. The activities connected to social responsibility among the companies examined

can be divided into three different categories. The first one deals with the social relation between the

tenant and the landlord. Questions regarding trust and safety are put within this category. The second

category deals with the so-called area-based projects that the companies engage in. School projects,

employment activities and small-scale local urban regeneration could be placed here. There is also a

third category of activities, which a few of the companies mention in the empirical material. This

concerns the task of supplying housing and includes not only building apartments but also policies for

new contracts and setting rents as well as renovating apartments and houses without rising rents that

tenants with lower income can’t cope. I call this category societal/urban development.

THIS CHAPTER WILL BE COMPLETED WITH EXAMPLES OF PRACTICES AND

NARRATIVES CONNECTED TO THE THREE CATEGORIES OF SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY.

What is evident in the narratives of the interviewed representatives of public housing companies is that

the what most people refer to when talking about social responsibility is the social projects aiming at

empowering people in the areas of cities characterized by social exclusion, what I have labelled area-

based projects. This is what comes to mind when interviewing people about social responsibility and

social sustainability and also evident in the survey. Very few of the interviewees are talking about

social responsibility as generous rental policies or the supplying of housing. Thus, the discourse of

social responsibility equals the area-based social projects.

The implications of this discourse of social responsibility are evident when discussing the

consequences of the changed legislation. The results give that the legislation has not influenced the

companies’ work with social responsibility. This is at least what the companies say:

0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-36%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

322 7

2

2188 32

6

Har lagen om allmännyttiga kommunala bostadsaktiebolag påverkat bolagets arbete med samhällsansvar? (andel

allmännytta)

NejJa

As the discourse of social responsibility equals social projects, when companies say that legislation

has not changed the companies’ work with social responsibility, they are referring to the companies’

ability to engage in social projects. “We believe these projects generate socio-economical benefit, but

also business profit in the long run, why we see them as economically defendable”, says one

interviewee. Later on in the interview, however, the same interviewee tells us that the company has

higher demands on yield as result of the legislation. These demands have had implications on the

ability to provide housing for the general public. The housing market is determined by logic of spatial

situation. Different areas of the city have different market values. An area in the city centre has a

higher value than a building in the outskirts of the city. This suggests that building a new house in an

area with lower value implies a higher risk than building a house in an area with higher value, since

the invested capital might not be in par with (or less than) the estimated value of the finished

construction. In that case, the housing project is not calculated to yield and might subsequently not be

in line with the legislation. Several of the public housing companies claim that production has come to

a halt as a result of the legislation. Still, we see plans of new projects by the public housing companies,

also in areas with lower value. An example of this approach is the large-scale housing project Culture

Casbah, a high-rise tower with a number of surrounding buildings in Rosengård planned by the public

housing company in Malmö. In the project description it is proclaimed that Culture Casbah is not just

a high-rise building but a project aiming to transform the whole of Rosengård and its surroundings into

a “revitalised and dynamic neighbourhood also including adjacent areas in terms of new forms of

building, urban space and landscape”, changing “the outside world's view of one of Sweden's most

written-about neighbourhoods” (MKB Fastighets AB, 2013: 5, my translation). MKB is identifying

the positive side effects of building the Culture Casbah as “more jobs, better schools, reduced

segregation, and less damage and frustration among the residents”. By building the project, the

company are not only building apartments, but also looking to enhance the social situation in the area,

creating the dense, varied city that is so sought after in the contemporary vision of the city. In

Stockholm, the large-scale project Rinkebystråket, run and financed by on of the municipal housing

companies, is in the making of converting a former bus street to a vibrant street filled with "attractive

restaurants and shops" (Familjebostäder AB 2014). The aim is to create a flow of people from

different parts of the city to Rinkeby. The new business street consists of 3700 square meters of

commercial space that connects Rinkeby center with the new residential area Rinkebyterassen, a more

upscale area in the northern part of Rinkeby. Not a single apartment is however built in the project,

which has a budget of 170 million SEK.

At least three things are prominent with these projects. Firstly, they aim to decrease segregation. By

creating variation and breaking monotony, meetings between people with different lives should occur.

Interestingly though, segregation is not combatted by building apartments to reasonable prices (which

could be seen as a foundation in public housing companies) in attractive areas but by attracting new

groups of people to the (so far) not so attractive areas. In Malmö’s case the searchlight is set on the

young, modern, urban family with a reasonable income and a wish to live in the multicultural

epicentre of Sweden. In the case of Rinkebystråket the target group is people living elsewhere in

Stockholm, paying a visit for a culinary or cultural experience. Segregation is to be combatted by

attracting the middle class into the areas marked by a certain stigma. Such an objective might be

labelled anti-segregational. Yet, the means to achieve the objective could be labelled municipal

gentrification.

Secondly, the projects are spectacular. They are large, thus expensive as no other project by the public

housing companies. They are placed in the spotlight, having fancy websites and brochures. They are

also centred on consumption. The multicultural attributes of the areas are commodified. Fine dining

with a multicultural touch is promised in the future Rinkeby and Rosengård. Thirdly, the projects are

speculative. As the projects are costly, they are not calculated to yield. Therefore, different tricks of

the trade linked to accountancy are used, for example labelling projects ‘social investments’, thus

including ‘soft’ parameters in order to calculate the project’s economical outcome. By defining

projects as social investments, it could be motivated for the companies to calculate an initial economic

loss, as it will presumably be paid back over time. This payback is expressed as calculated benefits of

social cohesion in the area that will – for example – increase the monetary value in surrounding real

estate belonging to the company. I will not go into detail of these theories in this paper, but the main

argument is that these spectacular projects can be seen as exceptions from the legislation by using

speculative tricks of the trade.

Although most interviewees say that the new legislation has not influenced the companies’ social

responsibility, the material consequences are a lack of new housing, tougher demands on new

contracts and trends of “renoviction”. Thus, what is talked and written about as social responsibility is

one thing; the practical consequences of the legislation might be another.

Discussion

The discourse of social responsibility could, according to Hajer (1995), be part of a “storyline”, a

“condensed form of narrative in which metaphors are employed.“ In this case, the storyline could be

entitled the social sustainable city. Different discourses, or narratives, such as social responsibility,

could be seen as part of this story line. Other discourses that appear in my material are social

investments and social innovation. These different discourses are carried and translated by actors, in

my case the public housing companies and materialised in the three categories of social responsibility

presented above. These different categories have different bearing and impact on the storyline of

social responsibility. The following matrix presents the analytical framework of the results.

Storyline/meta-narrativeThe socially sustainable city

DiscoursesSocial responsibility, social innovation, sociala investments, CSR

Discursive carriers / translatorsPublic housing companies; municipal governing documents, executives, visionaries and employees.

PracticesCategories 1: Social relation 2: Area based 3: Urban/ societal

developmentExamples “Kundnära

förvaltning”LandskronaNorrköpingKramforsMalmö

Social clausesHome-work aid

Area-based projectsBokaler

Rental policiesConstruction and

renovationBID

“state of the art”-projects

Practice type Social practice Discursive practice Social practiceConnection to

storylineIn line with storylinePart of storyline only

to some extent

In line with and part of storyline (lifted as the

storyline)

In contrast to storyline and not part of it

(except for state-of the art-projects)

Influence on storyline Large Small Large

The differentiation of the three different categories of social responsibility has implications. As the

social practices (categories 1&3) are not part of the storyline of social responsibility, the discussion of

public housing as a municipal tool to provide social sustainability might become misleading. While

the public housing companies talk about their social responsibility as empowering and integrating

people (and might be successful in this), other – and perhaps more important aspects of social

responsibility – is neglected. By the highlighting of the discursive practice, the social practices are

veiled. In this way, the public housing companies is in some aspects providing to the social sustainable

city, but in other ways are working contradictory to the social sustainability.

How could we understand and explain the discrepancy, this separation between the discursive

dimension of social responsibility and the dimension of practice?

TO BE CONTINUED I will in the coming chapter discuss the travel of ideas and the materialisation of discourse using Jessop and Czarniawska, followed by a discussion of the municipal governing tools of the public housing

Bibliography

Alvesson M (2006) Tomhetens triumf : [om grandiositet, illusionsnummer & nollsummespel]. Stockholm, Atlas i samarbete med Liber.

Andersson R, Bråmå Å and Holmqvist E (2010) Counteracting Segregation: Swedish Policies and Experiences. Housing Studies, 25(2), 237–256, Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02673030903561859 (accessed 25 April 2014).

Bengtsson B, Annaniassen E and Jensen L (2006) Varför så olika? Nordisk bostadspolitik i jämförande historiskt ljus. Bengtsson B (ed.).

Bengtsson B and Rothstein B (1997) Precisionsbombningens problem. In: Andersson ÅE (ed.), Bostadsmarknaden på 2000-talet, Kristianstad, SNS Förlag.

Bergsten Z (2010) Bättre framtidsutsikter? Blandade bostadsområden och grannskapseffekter: En analys av visioner och effekter av blandat boende. Department of Social and Economic Geography, Available from: http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A344688&dswid=_e_0Ntg (accessed 24 November 2014).

Birgersson B (2008) Bostaden en grundbult i välfärden. En förstudie om levnadsvillkor och boende – del ett.

Boverket (2008) Nyttan med Allmännyttan. Utvecklingen av de allmännyttiga bostadsföretagens roll och ansvar. Karlskrona, Boverket.

Boverket (2010) Socialt hållbar stadsutveckling – en kunskapsöversikt. Karlskrona, Boverket.

Czarniawska B and Joerges B (1996) Travel of Ideas. In: Translating Organizational Change, pp. 13–48.

Czarniawska-Joerges B and Sevón G (2005) Global ideas: how ideas, objects and practices travel in a global economy. Advances in organization studies ; v. 13.

Dannestam T (2009) Stadspolitik i Malmö. Politikens meningsskapande och materialitet. Politikens meningsskapande och materialitet, Lunds universitet.

Delegationen för hållbar städer (2012) Femton hinder för hållbar stadsutveckling.

Esping-Andersen G (1990) The three worlds of welfare capitalism.

Fredriksson C (2012) System och strukturer som hindrar hållbar stadsutveckling En kunskapsöversikt. Stockholm, States offentliga utredningar.

Grander M and Stigendal M (2012) Att främja integration och social sammanhållning. En kunskapsöversikt över verksamma åtgärder inom ramen för kommunernas bostadsförsörjningsansvar. Stockholm, Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting.

Hajer MA (2006) Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. In: Words matter in policy and planning. Discourse theory and method in the social sciences, pp. 65–74.

Hajer MA (1995) Politics on the move: The democratic control of the design of sustainable technologies. Knowledge and Policy, 8, 26–39.

Holmqvist E (2009) Politik och planering för ett blandat boende och minskad boendesegregation : ett mål utan medel? Uppsala University.

Jessop B and Oosterlynck S (2008) Cultural political economy: On making the cultural turn without falling into soft economic sociology. Geoforum, 39(3), 1155–1169.

Kemeny J (1995) From Public Housing to the Social Market: Rental Policy Strategies in Comparative Perspective.

Lag (2010:897) om kommunala allmännyttiga bostadsbolag (2010) Stockholm, Justitiedepartementet.

Lennartz C (2011) Power Structures and Privatization across Integrated Rental Markets: Exploring the Cleavage between Typologies of Welfare Regimes and Housing Systems. Housing, Theory and Society, 28(4), 342–359, Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14036096.2011.562626 (accessed 17 April 2014).

Lidström N (2012) Kommuners möjligheter att styra upplåtelseformen för bostäder. Lunds Tekniska Högskola.

MKB Fastighets AB (2013) Utgångspunkter och förutsättningar för projektet Culture Casbah.

Pagrotsky S (2010) Utmaningen av allmännyttan. Hur en svensk modell kan försvaras i en internationell värld. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.

Pinder D (2005) Visions of the City: Utopianism, Power and Politics in Twentieth-century Urbanism.

Statistiska Centralbyrån (2013) Kalkylerat bostadsbestånd 2012-12-31 efter hustyp och ägarkategori.

Sum N-L and Jessop B (2013) Towards a Cultural Political Economy: Putting Culture in its Place in Political Economy. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Tunström M (2009) På spaning efter den goda staden. Örebro Universitet, Örebro Universitet, Available from:

http://oru.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:241251/COVER01 (accessed 28 May 2013).