Marketisation or regulation in housing provision? Sweden and the E4 growth region in European perspective

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Should housing provision be marketised, or should states intervene in pursuing social objectives? Neo‐classical economic theory tells us that the supposed advantages of markets (such as quick response to changing conditions) should be most effective in situations of rapidly increasing demand while the supposed disadvantages of state action (e.g. bureaucratic ossification) should be most marked. The research examines trends in housing provision within, and between four European high growth regions—the “E4 Corridor” (Stockholm‐Arlanda), Berkshire in the “M4 Corridor” west of London, the Toulouse metropolitan region, and the southern fringes of Paris. While housing provision in Berkshire has become even more marketised during the 1980s, housing provision in the E4 has become less marketised. But the less marketised system is superior in terms of output levels, cost development, product diversity, consumer choice and production form. The French case studies are intermediate cases tending towards the Berkshire extreme.