Housing, Theory and Society

ISSN: 1403-6096 (Print) 1651-2278 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/shou20

Introduction to the Special Issue: Path

Dependence in Housing

Bo Bengtsson & Hannu Ruonavaara

To cite this article: Bo Bengtsson & Hannu Ruonavaara (2010) Introduction to the Special
Issue: Path Dependence in Housing, Housing, Theory and Society, 27:3, 193-203, DOI:
10.1080/14036090903326411

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090903326411

Published online: 20 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2371

View related articles

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=shou20
Housing, Theory and Society,
Vol. 27, No. 3, 193–203, 2010

Introduction to the Special Issue: Path

Dependence in Housing

BO BENGTSSON* & HANNU RUONAVAARA**

*Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Gävle, Sweden; **Department of
Sociology, University of Turku, Finland

The concept and perspective of path dependence has been given growing attention in
bo.bengtsson@ibf.uu.se
Housing,
10.1080/14036090903326411
SHOU_A_432819.sgm
1403-6096
Original
Taylor
02009
00
BoBengtsson
000002009
and
& Article
Theory
Francis
(print)/1651-2278
Francisand Society (online)

the social sciences in the last decades. Path dependence is often seen as the basic
causal mechanism influencing various social and political processes in historical
versions of institutional theory (e.g. David 1985, 2007, Hall & Taylor 1996, Mahoney
2000, North 1990, Pierson 2004, Putnam 1993, Sewell 1996, 2005, Thelen 1999). The
general idea is that if, at a certain point in time, the historical development takes one
direction instead of another, some, otherwise feasible, alternative paths will be closed
– or at least difficult to reach – at a later point.
The general idea that history matters is certainly not new in housing studies. In
particular the work by Peter Malpass on the history of British housing provision
deserves to be mentioned here (e.g. Malpass 2000, 2005). However, analyses of
housing framed explicitly in terms of path dependence have so far been rare. This is
somewhat surprising; considering the specific conditions of housing provision, it
should be particularly fruitful to analyse housing institutions and policy in those
terms.
First, we have the familiar special features of housing as consumption and invest-
ment good. Dwellings last long, they are tied to a specific place, slow to produce,
expensive, not easily substituted with other goods, etc. (Arnott 1987, Stahl 1985). A
housing stock produced during several decades, sometimes hundreds of years, of
building activity creates a powerful historical heritage that any government has to
deal with when making housing policy decisions. On the “demand side” the social
importance of dwelling and the emotional, social and cultural “attachment costs”
related to a household’s transfer from one dwelling in one housing area to another
(Dynarski 1986) also have a stabilizing effect.1 Social exclusion and norms of eligi-
bility add to the continuity of the residential structure. These various physical and
social elements of sluggishness in the housing market have institutional implications
that may serve as obstacles to policy change.

Correspondence Address: Bo Bengtsson, Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University,
PO Box 785, SE-801 29 Gävle, Sweden. Email: bo.bengtsson@ibf.uu.se
1403-6096 Print/1651-2278 Online/10/030193–11 © 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14036090903326411
194 B. Bengtsson & H. Ruonavaara

Second, housing policy can be perceived as the state providing correctives to the
housing market. Market contracts serve as the main mechanism for distributing hous-
ing, while state intervention has the form of correctives, defining the economic and
institutional setting of those contracts (cf. Bengtsson 2001; Oxley & Smith 1996:2–3
make a similar observation).2 In a policy field based on market distribution the main
institutions are those that define the rules of the game in that market, in housing
crucially tenure forms and other types of regulations, including the existence of non-
profit organizations in the market. Housing tenures help define the basic rights of
possession and exchange that are fundamental to a capitalist economy, so political
self-restraint may be expected, e.g. avoiding forcing major changes through without
the support of a stable parliamentary majority.
Third, the fact that housing is ultimately distributed in the market may in itself
serve as a constraint to political change. For a new tenure form to be successful it is
not enough that it is supported by politicians and voters; consumers must also be
prepared to pay for it in the market – and producers to supply it.
These characteristics would for example make it difficult to introduce a new form
of tenure, say, cooperative housing which is inexistent or of minor importance in
many contemporary housing systems, as a serious alternative in a short time span.
Due to the above-mentioned material features, years and years of production would
not be enough to create a substantial cooperative sector. The fastest way would then
be through tenure conversions, most realistically transforming public rental housing
into cooperatives. That kind of plan would, however, most probably cause some
concern and dissatisfaction among tenants in such housing. Furthermore, with a large
stock of public rental housing there would typically also be strong organized interests
representing public owners, private builders or groups of residents that would work
against a transformation. Moreover, a new form of tenure would probably not enjoy
the legitimacy that the old ones have; it is likely that prospective cooperative residents
would be rather suspicious of such a new institution – perhaps rightly so, because it
has not been tried in problematic market situations.
In sum, the material, mental and social characteristics of housing as a good tend to
create strong elements of inertia that housing policies have to deal with. Taken
together, they should indeed make housing policy more path-dependent than other
policy fields. Nevertheless applications in housing of path dependence analysis have
so far been scarce, and in that respect this special issue represents a fresh departure.3

Path Dependence – the Strong and the Weak Version

In a way the core of the notion of path dependence is what some consider a truism:
history matters. Sewell defines path dependence as a process where “that what
happened at an earlier point in time will affect the outcomes of a sequence of events
occurring at a later point in time” (Sewell 1996:262–263, 2005:100–101). Some writ-
ers find such a broad conception of path dependence unacceptable and suggest
narrower definitions (e.g. Mahoney 2000:507; Pierson 2004:20–21; David 2007:120).
Mahoney defines path-dependent historical processes as those where contingent
events help to produce institutional structures and event sequences with deterministic
properties (Mahoney 2000:507–508). The analysis of path dependence means tracing
certain historical outcomes back to previous events, which are in themselves
 Introduction 195

contingent and not “logical consequences” of historical circumstances. In Mahoney’s

perspective path-dependent processes fluctuate between moments of contingency and
determinacy.
Mahoney’s strong definition, however, risks falling into another trap; since deter-
ministic causation can seldom be claimed in the social sciences, the concept would be
difficult to apply to analysis based on social action. A weaker definition would see
path dependence as a historical pattern where one event, which is more or less contin-
gent, considerably changes the probability of subsequent alternative events or
outcomes. This weak concept of path dependence would transform the demarcation
line between contingency and determinacy into a matter of degrees.
Would that mean that we are back to “history matters”? The answer is yes, but that
does not necessarily make the concept empty. Even if there is general acceptance that
history matters in social and economic contexts this does not always entail that the
historical nature of social phenomena would be taken seriously in the analysis. To
Sewell path dependence is only one element in his quest for an “eventful” historical
sociology.
We want to highlight three different points in this context. First, the idea of path
dependence allows the possibility that single events, which are not the product of
larger social forces or trends, might be influential to societal outcomes. This could
even involve some elements of chance. Secondly, previous events might be distant in
time from the outcomes that are explained by them.4 Thirdly, as the process is
“essentially historical”, it can only be analysed historically, that is by paying special
attention to the temporally ordered sequence of events that leads to the outcome.
Our own definition of path dependence was developed in the context of a recent
Nordic project which compared the historical development of the housing regimes of
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland. In the Nordic project, path depen-
dence was defined as “…a historical pattern where a certain outcome can be traced
back to a particular set of events on the basis of empirical observation guided by some
social theory” (Bengtsson 2008:5).5 Path dependence would then indicate a particular
form of analysis that focuses on historical events and specifies in theoretical terms the
elements that build up the path between those events. It assumes that history matters –
but the empirical challenge is not to “prove” this general assumption (which is proba-
bly always true) but to identify in what respect and via what type of mechanisms
history matters in a certain context.
In an actor-based historical analysis the typical case of path dependence is where
actors design institutions or make policy decisions at point (or points) A, which at a
later point B set the rules of the political game between the same or other actors. In
retrospect, the historical development can be perceived as an ongoing and self-
reinforcing chain of games between actors, institutional change, new games, new
institutions, etc.
The mechanisms of path dependence that have been suggested in the literature may
be summarized as efficiency, legitimacy and power. This means that the (relatively)
contingent events at point A would make some alternatives appear either to be more
efficient, more legitimate or more powerful at point B. The efficiency mechanism of
path dependence has to do with the coordinating capacity of established institutions
and the transactions costs of changing them (cf. Hall & Taylor 1996:945, North 1990,
Pierson 2000). The legitimacy mechanism may influence either what political actors
196 B. Bengtsson & H. Ruonavaara

themselves see as legitimate or their perceptions of what is legitimate in the society at

large. Correspondingly the power mechanism may affect either actors’ own power or
their perceptions of power relations in the larger society. The power mechanism may
also have an impact on which actors are allowed to take part in the decision-making at
point B (cf. Thelen 1999:394–396).6
One way to elaborate on the power mechanism is to refer to Steven Lukes’ well
known “three faces of power” (Lukes 1974), and distinguish between different forms
of power-based path dependence. Earlier more “contingent” events at point A may
at point B have an effect on either (1) decision-making (actors choose other alterna-
tives due to what happened at point A), (2) agenda-setting (other alternatives come
up on the political agenda at point B due to what happened at point A) or (3)
perceptions (other alternatives are conceivable to actors at point B due to what
happened at point A).

Tracing Path Dependence in Housing

Three central elements of path dependence analysis are (1) the event or events at point
or points A, where one historical path is “chosen” instead of another (the “critical
juncture”); (2) the decision-making process at point B, where the effects of the choice
at point A become visible (the “focus point”); and (3) the mechanism or mechanisms
that explain the effects of the event at point A on the decision-making situation at
point B. The logical way to identify these elements is to “write history backwards”
starting at point B, which would typically be an important and visible political deci-
sion-making process. If we find that some, otherwise plausible, alternatives were not
chosen or even considered at this point, this would be an indication of where to find
the previous point or points A. Comparing the situations at these two points should
then give a clue to what type of mechanism has been at work between the two events.
Counterfactual analysis is an important element in a perspective of path depen-
dence. What alternative development would have been possible at point B if the event
at point A had not occurred? The Nordic project included counterfactual analysis on
two different levels. First, the individual links in the historical chains – the decision-
making processes – were analysed making use of records of the political discourse
and interaction in order to identify discarded alternatives. Second, the counterfactual
analysis of the overall development of the housing regime in one country was carried
out by using the development in the other countries as contrasting relief. When and
why were alternative policies left aside, that might have led to a development closer to
the housing regimes of the other countries? Did these alternatives at some point of
time enter the political agenda, or were they even perceived of? This combination of
historical process tracing and counterfactual comparison proved to be a fruitful
method to analyse path dependence in housing politics and policy.
Another methodological tool used in the Nordic comparison was a chronological
model with four historical phases of housing provision: an establishment phase with
limited housing reforms in response to the early urbanization; a construction phase
with comprehensive and institutionalized housing policies aimed at getting rid of
housing shortage; a management phase where the more urgent housing needs had
been saturated; and a retrenchment phase with diminishing state engagement in
housing provision (Bengtsson, Annaniassen, Jensen, Ruonavaara & Sveinsson
 Introduction 197

2006:21–24; cf. Jensen 1995:229–230). In the first phase housing political interven-
tions are introduced, in the second phase the main concern is to produce as many
housing units as possible, in the third phase the concern shifts to the management
and maintenance of the existing stock, and in the last phase the responsibility of
housing the population is gradually relocated from the state to the market. The phase
model was used to organize the empirical material and, more importantly, it also
helped to identify structural challenges to the housing regimes in the transition from
one phase to the next, which gives it some general validity for the analysis of
housing history.7

A Path Dependence Analysis of the Nordic Housing Regimes

The point of departure of the Nordic project was the remarkable differences between
the national systems of housing provision. Though housing policy in all the five coun-
tries has been “social”, meaning that an important goal has been to provide decent
housing to households of lesser means, the institutional arrangements chosen to
achieve this goal differ fundamentally.
In Denmark housing policy has been primarily directed towards rental housing, in
particular in estates owned and managed by public housing associations, organized in
small self-governed units where local tenants have a high degree of self-management
– so-called “resident democracy”. In Sweden housing policy has also been imple-
mented primarily by means of rental housing owned and managed by public housing
companies, though, in contrast to their Danish counterparts, these companies are
controlled by the local municipalities. Sweden also, together with Norway, has the
largest share of cooperative housing in Europe. In Norway housing policy has been
mainly based on individual and cooperative ownership, there are few professional
landlords, and the social rental sector represents only a marginal percentage of the
total stock. In Iceland too, owner-occupation has been used as a housing policy instru-
ment, though in this case including strong elements of individual self build. In
Finland, finally, housing policy has not been directed at any particular form of tenure.
State support, combined with individual means-testing, has been given to both rented
housing and owner-occupation. Swedish, Danish and Norwegian housing policies
have been described as “universal” and directed towards all types of households and
segments of the housing market. Finnish and Icelandic housing policies on the other
hand are seen as “selective” and oriented more directly towards households of lesser
means and based to a large extent on individual means-testing.
The huge difference between the housing regimes of five countries that share a
number of similarities in cultural, economic and political respects, is truly a puzzle.
We would rather expect some signs of convergence, in particular when we consider
the collaboration and exchange of ideas that continuously takes place between Nordic
politicians, bureaucrats and interest organizations. But the Nordic countries have
retained their divergent housing regimes for at least 60 years by now.
What is the solution to the puzzle of “why so different”? Very briefly, in the forma-
tive period of the Nordic housing regimes, between 1900 and the Second World War,
different solutions – more or less contingent – were chosen in each country in order to
deal with more or less specific housing problems that occurred at different points of
time. When comprehensive programmes of housing policy were introduced after the
198 B. Bengtsson & H. Ruonavaara

war, it was often seen as efficient (or even taken for granted) that the already existing,
if still undeveloped, organizations and institutions should be utilized to implement the
new programmes. With the massive production of new housing between 1950 and
1980, the respective national housing regimes were successively consolidated and
institutionalized.
In all Nordic countries housing provision has gone through the same historical
phases of structural transformation due to industrialization, wartime crises, mass
construction, and subsequent market maturation and privatization. Nevertheless, the
early differences have been remarkably persistent through the various challenges; the
institutional changes that have taken place in each country have been incremental,
and the new arrangements have retained distinct features of the preceding ones. This
is true even in the cases where political actors have framed reforms as “system
shifts”.
Counterfactual analysis gives further evidence of the strong path dependence. Not
since 1946, at the time of the post-war housing reforms, has there been a plausible
possibility in any of the five countries of “importing” a housing regime similar to any
of the other four. After that time the other Nordic regimes are still referred to in hous-
ing policy debates, but no serious import attempts have been made. Writing history
backwards made it clear why apparently crucial housing policy reforms were so often
seen as politically uncontroversial, except in details. It also helped explain why the
occurring attempts to fundamentally change the housing regimes always have come
up against strong resistance.
Analysing the processes in terms of the three mechanisms of efficiency, legitimacy
and power makes it possible to understand the basis of institutionalization, and also
the nature of the driving forces behind institutional change, as well as the obstacles
against it. The analysis of the Nordic housing histories teaches us that the three mech-
anisms often work together and that it is not always easy to point out one of them as
decisive. Hence, exploring further the relation between the mechanisms should be a
fruitful way towards developing the theory of path dependence both in housing and
more generally.
When it comes to the three Lukesian “faces” of path dependence, the development
over time is interesting. During the establishment phase, with its relatively ad-hoc
policy decisions and institutions, alternative solutions were often discussed explicitly.
To some extent this was still done in the “formative” decision-making after the
Second World War, even though fewer alternatives were now conceived as feasible.
When we move further into the construction phase, the form of path dependence
changes from favouring one alternative over another towards limiting the political
agenda or even towards narrowing perceptions of what is feasible. This continues into
the management phase, and even in the retrenchment phase, when Swedish and
Danish non-socialist governments go for “system shifts”, their proposals lean heavily
on the existing institutions – and still they meet with dogged resistance.
This pattern implies that decision-making, agenda-setting and perceptual path
dependence may be used to construct a theoretical ladder or scale of institutionaliza-
tion, with “not perceived” as the lowest level, via “not on the agenda”, “on the agenda
but decided against”, “on the agenda and decided in favour of”, “one and only alterna-
tive on the agenda” up to “one and only alternative perceived”. The application of
such a ladder should also be a fruitful contribution to theory development.
 Introduction 199

The Articles in this Special Issue

As already indicated, so far only a few studies have been published that claim to apply
path dependence analysis on housing.8 Even in those cases the term is sometimes used
only to indicate a general perspective of “history matters”, where previous norms,
institutions or perceptions (or traces of them) have survived over a long time. System-
atic analyses of critical junctures and discussions about different mechanisms of path
dependence are still seldom seen.
The four articles included in this special issue take housing and history seriously by
discussing critical junctures and mechanisms of path dependence on different levels.
Two of the articles, like the Nordic project discussed above, apply a path dependence
perspective on national and metropolitan housing policy. The other two take on the
historical aspects of housing regeneration in discourse and practice.
Lawson’s article compares limited profit housing (LPH) in Vienna and Zurich on
the basis of “coherence, crisis and adaptation” in terms of systems of property rela-
tions, financial investment relations and consumption patterns as path-dependent
institutional relations (cf. also Lawson 2006). The history of LPH housing in the two
cities is investigated in order to provide an explanation for the different role of this
housing sector in the two cities’ housing systems. In a way, the article asks the same
question as our Nordic research: why so different? The initial historical context in
which LPH emerged was similar in the two cities but the subsequent development
quite different. Inspired by the critical realist methodology the author attempts to
solve this puzzle by moving from historical description to explanation through
abstraction from “contingently defined and packaged” social relations of housing.
Systems of housing provision are seen as seeking structural coherence through
adaptation to changing social circumstances and externally or internally produced
crises. The challenge that the article poses to the path dependence analysis of housing
is that of moving from empirical-historical chronology of events to theory-inspired
analysis of deeper level relationships and interdependencies underlying those events.
Nielsen’s article can be seen as an analysis developing further both the general
theoretical perspective of the Nordic project, and especially its empirical conclusions
concerning Denmark. According to Jensen (2006) the Danish housing regime has
proved to be very resistant to the privatization reforms launched in 2001 by a liberal-
conservative government. Seven years after the introduction of a “right to buy” as
regards social rented dwellings such transactions had been carried out for only 40
dwellings. However, as Nielsen shows, in parallel, less profiled policy reforms have
been slowly eroding the economic foundation of the social housing sector through (in
the terms of Hacker 2004) “drift, conversion and layering” instead of “elimination”.
On the basis of the empirical case of attempted privatization of Danish LPH, the
article thus suggests a more fruitful perspective of housing policy change within a
path-dependent context complementing the approach of the Nordic project with an
analytically refined conceptualization of policy change.
Path dependence perspectives in housing are not restricted to the national level.
Housing policies are often implemented on the municipal level, and ultimately
housing issues are very local. The constitutive sluggishness of urban structures and
housing supply and demand is first and foremost experienced by individuals and
groups of residents. Nevertheless, local applications of path dependence analyses of
200 B. Bengtsson & H. Ruonavaara

housing are even scarcer than on the national level. The article by Robertson,
McIntosh and Smyth is an interesting exception to this, presenting an investigation
over 80 years of three neighbourhoods in the Scottish city of Stirling. The authors
identify three critical junctures: the original planning of the estates, the introduction of
the right to buy in the 1970s, and current plans to regenerate one of the neighbour-
hoods. The relative social position of the estates, based on class and social attitudes,
has not changed over the years, and here the mechanisms of path dependence have to
do with the social identity of the neighbourhoods – which again could be translated
into the threesome of efficiency, legitimacy and power. The authors show that there is
an astonishing persistence in the social class character and the public perception of the
residential estates analysed. It seems that the development ambitions concerning what
categories of people new residential areas are built for may be very important
determinants for their long-term social identities and also for the further policies for
redeveloping the areas. Methodologically the article highlights the importance of
historically grounded community studies in understanding the nature of housing
estates. Such studies are not only important as academic research but can also
contribute to discussions on policy choices.
The article by Peter Matthews presents another study of Scottish neighbourhood
regeneration policy, in this case based on a historically contextualized analysis of
policy texts. Using the methodological tools of critical discourse analysis the author
reveals in his analysis the persistence of a “mega-discourse” in policy documents,
where poor spatial communities have been continuously pathologized over the 40
years of the study (cf. Furbey 1999). The author demonstrates this point with a close
textual analysis of a central regeneration policy document of the devolved govern-
ment in Scotland: Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the Gap (published in
2002). The pathologizing discourse in this and other similar documents has framed
the policy options that have been taken up in discussions on how to improve the social
conditions of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Alternative perspectives have some-
times been launched, but never institutionalized. Here the main mechanism seems to
be the discursive power of framing and socially constructing the issues at stake. The
article interestingly joins together two strands of research that are not often confluent:
critical discourse analysis and path dependence analysis of historical trajectories.
Together the articles of this special issue illustrate the fruitfulness of a path depen-
dence perspective on housing policy and provision. They confirm that the inherent
path dependence is comparatively strong in housing, due to the social and physical
specificities discussed above. Hopefully the articles of this special issue will inspire
more studies in the field, which are not only framed in terms of path dependence, but
also explicitly identify and specify the nature of the critical junctures and discuss what
type of historical mechanisms are at work. That history matters in housing provision
should be no big news; what we would like to know more about is in what respect and
via what type of mechanisms history matters in different types of housing context. In
our view, progress in the analysis of social, institutional and discursive change in
housing lies neither in the mere amassing of socio-historical data about processes of
change, nor in directly applying the (few) available general social theories. Rather it
lies in combining historical and contextual sensitivity with a thinking in terms of
social mechanisms (see Elster 2007 for a similar view on the social sciences in
general).
 Introduction 201

Notes
1. As Saunders and Williams succinctly put it in an influential paper on the sociology of the home:
“Cars and television sets belong to people, but it is people themselves who feel they ‘belong’ at
home” (Saunders & Williams 1988:87). Dwellings are special goods as they can become homes for
people, that is, places that people feel emotionally and mentally attached to. The attachment to a
home is, of course, more than attachment to a dwelling; it consists also of attachment to the
neighbourhood and the community in which the home exists.
2. Cf. also Ulf Torgersen’s idea about housing as “the wobbly pillar under the welfare state”, i.e. with-
out clear minimum standards, responsible state institutions or well-defined rights to take legal action
for recipients (Torgersen 1987:116–118).
3. This special issue has arisen from the workshop on “Historical perspectives and path dependence in
housing”, which was organized at the ENHR Conference in Dublin 2008.
4. A corollary to this is that “path dependence” is an explanatory concept in the sense that it says that
the explanation of an outcome is to be found in its historical trajectory. Mahoney and Pierson, who
are both sceptical to weak definitions of path dependence, agree that beginnings of societal
processes are crucial (Mahoney 2000:510, Pierson 2004).
5. The results of the study are presented in a book in Swedish (Bengtsson, Annaniassen, Jensen,
Ruonavaara & Sveinsson 2006; cf. Bengtsson 2008 for a short presentation in English). Results from
the project on specific countries have been published in English in Annaniassen 2008, Bengtsson
2004 and Ruonavaara 2008a, 2008b. The research logic behind the Nordic project will be discussed
below.
6. Although the application of path dependence is mainly related to historical institutionalism, the
crucial event at the critical juncture may also be ideas or policies (cf. Kay 2005). In housing, the
mechanisms efficiency, legitimacy and power come in many forms, some of them directly related to
the social and physical characteristics of the sector, and it is not always easy to distinguish between
them in empirical research.
7. The same phase model was later used in a historical comparison between housing provision in four
Nordic countries and the Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (Holt-Jensen & Pollock
2009); cf. also the critical discussion of phase models in Lawson’s article in this issue.
8. Some examples are Kleinman 1996 on housing provision in Britain, France and Germany; Kemp
2000 on housing benefits in Britain; Matznetter 2001 on social housing policy in Austria; Lowe
2004:chap. 6 on the development of the British housing tenure structure; Kay 2005 on rent-setting
in the UK social housing sector; Kährik 2006 on residential patterns in Estonia; Bierre, Howden-
Chapman, Signal & Cunningham 2007 on low-cost housing in New Zeeland; Lévy-Vroelant,
Reinprecht & Wassenberg 2008 on social housing in Austria, France and the Netherlands; and
Holt-Jensen & Pollock 2009 on housing policy in the Nordic and Baltic countries (see Bengtsson
2009 for a review of work with this perspective).

References
Annaniassen, E. (2008) Path dependency and counterfactual analysis. The exchange of historical experi-
ences in Norwegian and Swedish housing policy. Paper presented at the ENHR International
Research Conference “Shrinking Cities, Sprawling Suburbs, Changing Countrysides”, Dublin, 6–9
July 2008.
Arnott, R. (1987) Economic theory and housing, in: E. S. Mills (Ed.) Handbook of Regional and Urban
Economics, Vol. II. Urban Economics, pp. 959–988 (Amsterdam: North-Holland).
Bengtsson, B. (2001) Housing as a social right: implications for welfare state theory. Scandinavian
Political Studies, 24(4), pp. 255–275.
Bengtsson, B. (2004) Swedish housing corporatism – a case of path dependency? Paper for the ENHR
Conference “Housing: Growth and Regeneration”, Cambridge, July 2004. Available at http://
www.ibf.uu.se/PERSON/bosse/cambridgepaper.pdf (accessed 6 November 2009).
Bengtsson, B. (2008) Why so different? Housing regimes and path dependence in five Nordic countries.
Paper presented at the ENHR International Research Conference “Shrinking Cities, Sprawling
Suburbs, Changing Countrysides”. Dublin, 6–9 July 2008.
202 B. Bengtsson & H. Ruonavaara

Bengtsson, B. (2009) Applying path dependence perspectives in housing studies – review and discussion.
Paper presented at the ENHR International Research Conference “Changing Housing Markets:
Integration and Segmentation”, Prague, 28 June–1 July 2009.
Bengtsson, B. (Ed.), Annaniassen, E., Jensen, L., Ruonavaara H. & Sveinsson, J. R. (2006) Varför så
olika? Nordisk bostadspolitik i jämförande historiskt ljus [Why so different? Nordic housing policy
in comparative historical light] (Malmö: Égalité).
Bierre, S., Howden-Chapman, P., Signal L. & Cunningham, C. (2007) Institutional challenges in address-
ing healthy low-cost housing for all: learning from past policy, Social Policy Journal of New Zeeland,
30, pp. 42–64.
David, P. A. (1985) Clio and the Economics of QWERTY, American Economic Review, 75(2),
pp. 332–337.
David, P. A. (2007) Path dependence, its critics and the quest for historical economics, in: G. M. Hodgson
(Ed.) The Evolution of Economic Institutions. A Critical Reader, pp. 120–142 (Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Dynarski, M. (1986) Residential attachment and housing demand, Urban Studies, 23(1), pp. 11–20.
Elster, J. (2007) Explaining Social Behavior. More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Furbey, R. A. (1999) Urban “regeneration”: reflections on a metaphor’, Critical Social Policy, 19(4),
pp. 419–445.
Hacker, J. (2004) Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy
retrenchment in the United States, American Political Science Review, 98(2), pp. 243–260.
Hall, P. A. & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms, Political
Studies 44(5), pp. 936–957.
Holt-Jensen, A. & Pollock, E. (Eds) (2009) Urban Sustainability and Governance: New Challenges in
Nordic-Baltic Housing Policies (New York: Nova Science Publishers).
Jensen, L. (1995) Udviklingstræk ved det almennyttige beboerdemokrati i Danmark 1900–1990 [The
development of resident democracy in Danish public housing 1900–1990], in M. Madsen, H. J.
Nielsen & G. Sjöblom (Eds) Demokratiets mangfoldighed: Tendenser i dansk politik, pp. 225–255
(Copenhagen: Forlaget Politiske Studier).
Jensen, L. (2006) Bostadspolitiska regimer, förändringstryck och stigberoendets mekanismer [Housing
regimes, change and the mechanisms of path dependency], in: B. Bengtsson (Ed.), E. Annaniassen, L.
Jensen, H. Ruonavaara, & J. R. Sveinsson Varför så olika? Nordisk bostadspolitik i jämförande
historiskt ljus, pp. 45–100 (Malmö: Égalité).
Kährik, A. (2006) Socio-Spatial Residential Segregation in Post-Socialist Cities: the case of Tallinn,
Estonia. Tartu: Dissertationes Geographicae Universitatis Tartuensis.
Kay, A. (2005) A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies, Public Administration, 83(3),
pp. 553–571.
Kemp, P. E. (2000) Housing benefit and welfare retrenchment in Britain, Journal of Social Policy, 29(2),
pp. 263–279.
Kleinman, M. (1996) Housing, Welfare and the State in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lawson, J. (2006) Critical Realism and Housing Research (London & New York: Routledge).
Lévy-Vroelant, C., Reinprecht, C. & Wassenberg, F. (2008) Learning from history: changes and path
dependency in the social housing sector in Austria, France and the Netherlands, in: K. Scanlon & C.
Whitehead (Eds) Social Housing in Europe II. A Review of Policies and Outcomes (London: London
School of Economics and Political Science).
Lowe, S. (2004) Housing Policy Analysis. British Housing in Cultural and Comparative Context.
Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Lukes, S. (1974) Power. A Radical View (Basingstoke & London: MacMillan).
Mahoney, J. (2000) Path dependence in historical sociology, Theory and Society, 29(4), pp. 507–548.
Malpass, P. (2000) Housing Associations and Housing Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).
Malpass, P. (2005) Housing and the Welfare State. The Development of Housing Policy in Britain
(Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).
Matznetter, W. (2001) Social housing policy in a conservative welfare state: Austria as an example, Urban
Studies, 39(2), pp. 265–282.
North, D. C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (New York: Cambridge
University Press).
 Introduction 203

Oxley, M. & Smith J. (1996) Housing Policy and Rented Housing in Europe (London: E & FN Spon).
Pierson, P. (2000) Increasing returns, path dependence and the study of politics, American Political
Science Review, 94(2), pp. 251–267.
Pierson, P. (2004) Politics in Time. History, Institutions and Social Analysis (Princeton: Princeton
University Press).
Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton
University Press).
Ruonavaara, H. (2008a) Home ownership and the Nordic housing policies in the “retrenchment phase”.
Paper presented at the ENHR Working Group Conference ‘Building on Home Ownership: Housing
Policies and Social Strategies’, Amsterdam, 13–14 October 2008.
Ruonavaara, H. (2008b) How are housing policies path dependent? Paper presented at the ENHR Interna-
tional Research Conference “Shrinking Cities, Sprawling Suburbs, Changing Countrysides”, Dublin,
6–9 July 2008.
Saunders, P. & Williams, P. (1988) The constitution of the home: towards a research agenda, Housing
Studies, 3(2), pp. 81–93.
Sewell Jr, W. H. (1996) Historical events as transformations of structures: inventing revolution at the
Bastille. Theory and Society, 25(6), pp. 841–881.
Sewell Jr, W. H. (2005) Logics of History. Social Theory and Social Transformation (Chicago and
London: Chicago University Press).
Stahl, K. (1985) Microeconomic analysis of housing markets: towards a conceptual framework, in: K.
Stahl (Ed.) Microeconomic Models of Housing Markets, pp. 1–26 (Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer-
Verlag).
Thelen, K. (1999) Historical institutionalism in comparative politics, Annual Review of Political Science,
2, pp. 369–404.
Torgersen, U. (1987) Housing: the wobbly pillar of the welfare state, in: B. Turner, J. Kemeny & L. J.
Lundqvist (Eds) Between State and Market: Housing in the Post-Industrial Era, Scandinavian
Housing and Planning Research, Supplement 1, pp. 116–126 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Inter-
national).