introduction - boligforskningboligforskning.dk/sites/default/files/w_12 nielsen enhr... · web...

Altering expectations to affordable housing in Copenhagen: ‘5x5’ – Virtuous and Viscous?

ENHR 2007 International Conference ‘Sustainable Urban Areas’

Altering expectations to affordable housing in the city of

Copenhagen:

‘5x5’ - Virtuous and Viscous?Birgitta Gomez Nielsen, PhD. student

Department of political scienceUniversity of Copenhagen, [email protected]

+45 – 35-323- 398

Keywords: Affordable Housing; Policy Implementation; Governance Networks

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to analyze the process behind the promotion and implementation

of the affordable housing initiative in Copenhagen named ‘5x5’. The initiative was

initially put forward as an election promise of mayor to be in Copenhagen, Mrs. Ritt

Bjerregaard. ‘5x5’ is a project where 5000 apartments within 5 years to a monthly cost to

the occupiers of 5000 DKK (approximately 645 €) are to be constructed in Copenhagen.

The main question addressed in the paper is:

How can the implementation of ‘5x5’ from January 2006 - March 2007 be explained and characterized and are ‘5x5’ entering a virtuous circle or the opposite?

The analysis put forward in the paper is based on governance network theory centered on

exploring factors that lead to success or failure within governance networks.

W12: Housing Market DynamicsBirgitta Gomez Nielsen

1

Please notice that this paper is a first draft. Do not quote without permission of the author


The claim of the paper is that the implementation process of ‘5x5’ seems to have entered

a virtuous dynamic. However dynamics indicating otherwise are also found in the

analysis and the relation between these two types are discussed further with regard to the

future viability of the initiative.

In section 1 follows an introduction to ‘5x5’. In section 2 a short presentation of the

theoretical framework for this paper is presented. In section 3 the analysis is put forward

and in section 4 follows a short discussion of the implications that follow from the

present set-up. Section 5 presents the conclusions and suggestions to a further research

agenda.

1 ‘5x5’: An IntroductionHousing prices was put on the agenda when Mrs. Ritt

Bjerregaard, an experienced Social Democratic

politician, campaigned for mayor in 2005. A race she

won the 15th of November 2005.

One of her first initiatives was to present a plan to

transform her high profiled election promise to supply

affordable housing to ‘ordinary people’ with middle

range incomes into a tangible project which was

named: “The ‘5x5’ project”. The project guarantees

the supply of 5000 apartments within 5 years to a

monthly cost of 5000 DKK (645€) to the occupiers.

The project implies a 25 % decrease in construction

cost in 2005 prices (Politiken 28.01.2006). The target


2

Housing facts In 1997 the average price

for an owner occupied apartment were 7.268 DKK /m2. (975€). In 2007 this had increased to 28.391 DKK/m2 (3810€) (running prices)

Within the city limits the most frequent tenure form is corporatist housing (more than 1/3 of the available stock) followed by private rented housing, public sector housing and owner occupied housing

Sources: Association of Danish Mortgage Banks and Statistics Denmark

(http://www.realkreditraadet.dk/web/rkr/data.nsf and http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statba

http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1024

http://www.realkreditraadet.dk/web/rkr/data.nsf

http://www.realkreditraadet.dk/web/rkr/data.nsf


group is middle-income households and key public workers as nurses, schoolteachers and

policemen. The project initially encompassed all tenure forms.

In March 2006 the mayor introduced the city council to the private non – profit

foundation – the Affordable Housing Foundation (AHF) – as developer on the project. In

corporation with the mayor and her administration AHF’s task would be to provide a

concept on the organizational, financial and design aspects needed to turn the election

promise into real time affordable apartments (Summary of negotiations in the City

Council 26th of March 2006).

Since the first presentation of the project critics have been fierce, culminating in January

2007 when the Public Supervisory Authority found it was illegal to restrict land sales in

order to provide affordable housing, since the target group in question did not meet the

standards to activate the local government housing obligations (Statsforvaltningen

Hovedstaden 10.01.07). In other words: The land needed to built the ‘5x5’ apartments on

should be sold to market price, thereby juxtaposing the AHF with any other developer on

the market. Since land prices have also been going upwards with immense speed this was

quite a blow to the project.

In February 2007 the answer came; the AHF presented a new concept for providing

apartments, although the only tenure form that was addressed was corporatist housing.

The AHF is now constructing apartments that are to be sold at market prices, the idea

being to spend a percentage of the earnings on ‘5x5’, thus financing a number of ‘5x5’

apartments in each of the projects. This model is based on cross subsidy (Koncept for

Billige Boliger 1st of February 2007). As a consequence, the time span before the 5000

apartments are finished is likely to exceed the initial promise of 5 years. In the concept

the AHF also included a pilot project where 12 ‘5x5’ apartments are to be constructed

and at present over 6000 households have downloaded an application form to participate

in the draw for these 12 apartments. The draw will take place after the 27th of May this

year (Berlingske Tidende 20.04.07 and www.billigeboliger.dk).


3


By partnering up with a private non-governmental actor as the AHF the mayor has at

present been able to supply 12 apartments to middle-income households almost 18

months after she took her seat. The focus of this paper is whether the process until now is

on the fast track to supply affordable housing or is going down a dead end street.

The question I pose in this paper is the following:

How can the implementation of ‘5x5’ from January 2006 - March 2007 be explained and characterized; and are ‘5x5’ entering a virtuous circle or the opposite?

The basic unit of analysis here is an ongoing process that can change overnight, and this

paper is a preliminary first draft to address these dynamics.

1.2 MethodologyThe approach put forward in this paper is based on a qualitative explorative logic since

the aim at hand is to explain a specific empirical phenomenon. I have used both

deduction and induction in the research process. I have used qualitative content analysis

to code the various elements in the texts (Bryman 2001:381). My data is based on various

written material such as summaries of meetings in the city council, publications and

speeches from the foundation, the mayor’s office and Social Democrats Party, the

statement from the Public Supervisory Authority and a variety of newspaper articles

including chronicles and interviews with the involved actors (for a complete list of the

data see appendix 1).

The theoretical approach in this paper is governance network theory. Within the meta-

theoretical superstructure of network theory and new institutional theory alike, there are

many different ontological and epistemological approaches represented. This diversity

has given rise to some debate concerning the possibilities to make bridge building and

combine several different approaches (e.g. Holm Pedersen 2003: 84-92, Nielsen 2003:35,

Bogason 2004:21-22, Scharpf 1997:21,36). The approach in this paper also seeks to


4


combine various stands and the point of departure is eclectic. Keeping the above-

mentioned point in mind, the paper’s ontological and epistemological approach will be

kept a pragmatic one, with reference to Allison’s (1969) point about the scientist’s

conscious reflection about the connection between the theories chosen and the knowledge

produced (Allison 1969:715). Thus it is feasible to combine theories with varying

approaches – from a theory of science perspective – as long the scientist is absolutely

aware of the correlation between choice of theory and knowledge produced. This stance

reflects the recognition, that knowledge and science are contingent, and furthermore that

the scientist though the use of active perspectivism can ensure adequate scientific

precision (Dahler-Larsen 2003, chapter 5). In the following section I will turn to the

theoretical approach.

2 Determining Factors in Network Governance The implementation of the ‘5x5’ can be studied within a network governance approach.

The approach is relevant to ‘5x5’ since the implementation rests on the corporation and

division of labour between the mayor of Copenhagen and the non-profit Affordable

Housing Foundation (AHF), who are set out to be the developer and manage behind the

promised 5000 apartments. This set-up is analyzed as a governance network, which is

defined as:

“ …[A] horizontal articulation of interdependent but operationally autonomous actors; who interact through negotiations; transpiring within a regulative, normative, cognitive and imaginary framework; that to a certain extent is self-regulating and which contribute to the production of public purpose within an specific area” (Marcussen and Torfing 2003: 7)

However ‘5x5’ is by no means implemented as a policy yet, so in order to answer the

research questions put forward in section 1, I need an open- ended framework that centres

on processes and dynamics that can influence formation of networks and policy

implementation. This need seem to collide with most network governance literature


5


where the agenda has been dominated by theories addressing management and various

strategies for the improvement of existing network structures (Kickert et al, 1997;

Torfing, 2006; Klijn, 2005).

My claim is that Guy Peters’ chapter 3 “Virtuous and viscous Circles in Democratic

Network Governance” in Theories of Democratic Network Governance (2007) edited by

Eva Sørensen and Jacob Torfing, can be seen as an exception within the body of

mainstream network governance literature. In section 4 I will return to the discussion

about whether this claim is justified or not, given the preliminary results of the analysis of

‘5x5’.Contrary to other mainstream network governance theory, Peters introduces a

model where it is possible to study the dynamics behind network formation and

capability to influence policy implementation. Hence it becomes possible within the same

frame to analyze parameters leading to success or failure within networks.

The starting point is an aim to ‘identify variables that will contribute to the success or

failure of policy networks’ (Peters 2007: 65). Peters translates a framework for analyzing

institutionalization and deinstitutionalization in private organizations (Oliver 1992) into

the network context. In localizing the factors he draws heavily on an impressing amount

of theories and approaches that encompass both social constructivists and positivists, neo

institutional theory, organization theory and interdependent network theory, just to name

a few examples. In total he includes eight factors, which can be used as a framework for

analyzing network dynamics leading to success or failure.


6


These eight

factors

should not be

perceived as

a consistent

nor coherent

theoretical

framework.

They seem to

be the end

result of an

eclectic

process, where the factors can provide some guidelines for how the different approaches

can address different network dynamics, but further clarification is needed.

Peters does not address the interplay between the various factors nor does he address the

question of how they can be used in an empirical analysis. Peters’ initial claim with his

chapter is:

[…] we should go further, and begin to identify variables that will contribute to the success or failure of networks. Unlike the numerous schemes for identifying institutions and institutionalization, there has been somewhat less work associated with the formation and maintenance of those structures’ (Peters 2007: 65).

In the following section I will develop a further frame for the analysis in section 3.

2.2 Putting factors to work at ‘5x5’My claim is that Peter’s eight factors concerns network dynamics on three different

analytical levels: a macro level, a meso level and a micro level.


7

Peters’ eight factors (Peters

2007: 65-74)

Entropy

Inertia

Political factors

Functional factors

Social Pressures

Membership characteristics

Operating Environment

Tasks

Further definitions follow

in section 3


The first two factors (entropy and inertia) are relevant to all social systems. Hence the

‘networks’ is juxtaposed with any other institution or organization. Peters partly

acknowledge this by noting that not only governance networks but in fact any institution

or organization is entropic and exposed to inertial pressures (Peters 2007: 65). This is

what I will call the macro level of analysis. Network dynamics at this level concerns

macro-level changes within a whole policy area or society. Due to this scope I will not

address these to factors further in this paper, since the question I have put forward in

section 1 concerns ‘5x5’ as a specific network and not ‘5x5’ as indicator of change in the

Danish Housing Policy community, although this angle is touched upon in section 3.4 it

will not be a central matter of concern in this paper.

The next three factors (political, functional and social pressures) address dynamics

regarding interaction modes between the network members. They are elements that –

even though they arise from individuals – take on a social meaning that can determine the

way the actors perceive and interact within the network, and how or with whom the

network will deal with its surroundings. This is the meso-level of analysis.

The last three factors (Membership characteristics, operating environment and tasks) are

particular components within a particular network. These components derive from each

actor within the network and are brought into the network by the actors. This is what I

call a micro level of analysis.

There is also a longitudinal element at play here. As I have describe in the introduction

the time span of the process is only little more than a year, so the network I am analyzing

is recently formed. Peters aims at working with all kinds of networks. My claim is that

the three levels of analysis will shift in relevance according to the age of the network in

question. The micro-level will be more relevant to newly formed networks since it can be

difficult to point to exact patterns and modes of interaction, when the network is just


8


being formed. However as the analysis will show it is possible to point some basic

patterns out with regard to ‘5x5 at the current stage.

3 Analyzing ‘5x5’ Given these initial claims the analysis will be centered on the micro and meso level

alongside with Peter’s factors 3-8 in order to answer the research question:

How can the implementation of ‘5x5’ from January 2006 - March 2007 be explained and characterized and are ‘5x5’ entering a virtuous circle or the opposite?

The analysis takes its point of departure in the concepts presented in section 2. It will

consist in two analyses and in section 3.4 follows a sum up and a discussion about the

dynamics at play.

3.1 Analyzing ‘5x5’ on the micro level

The factors of relevance are Members Characteristics, Operating Environment and Tasks.

In the following sections I will present Peter’s definition and a sketch to the expected

dynamic and present an analysis based on the data at hand.

3.1.1 Members Characteristics“Individuals do play an important role in explaining the success or failure of networks in creating virtuous circles of development” (Peters 2007: 71)

The components are:

A. Economic resources and epistemic capabilities within the network

B. Consistency with regard to participation, membership rules and socialization of

new members

C. Consistency of membership with regard to social and economic interests

D. Power relations between members – vertical or horizontal?


9


Addressing network dynamics:

Virtuous network dynamics will increase proportionally with the amount of resources,

capabilities and control over membership rules and processes of socialization of new

members embedded in the network. The two other components concerning interests and

power relations are Janus-faced; A strong consistence of interests can succeed in

providing results fast, but it can also fail to deliver these results due to lack of

understanding of other actors in the policy process. Vertical power relations can spur

cooperation, but it can also lead to a lower level of internal integration and difficulties in

defining a common focus for network activities (Peters 2007: 71-73).

Component A and B point to a virtuous dynamic

The actors that have worked with the implementation of ‘5x5’ from January 2006 to

March 2007 are members of the private non-profit AHF represent organizations from

various parts of the housing policy community and the member’s CV’s all reflects

individual experience and connections with a vast array of actors within the housing

policy community. I will focus on a presentation of the mayor of Copenhagen Mrs. Ritt

Bjerregaard and the chairman of the AHF Mr. Jørgen Nue Møller.

The Mayor of Copenhagen and Social Democrat, Ritt Bjerregaard, has more than 30

years political experience within national and European politics. She has been appointed

minister in various coalition governments and she has been EU commissary. She entered

local politics in Copenhagen in 2004 and got elected for mayor in 2005 with over 60.000

personal votes out of the 89000 votes (37%) that gave the Social Democrats the power

over the city hall (www.kmdvalg.dk;

www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/KV05/2005/11/16235122.htm). Her resources include the

administration and the civil servants at the town hall. She controls the planning tool, she

is capable of coordinating with the City Council and other political actors or bodies of


10

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/KV05/2005/11/16235122.htm

http://www.kmdvalg.dk/


interests as the umbrella body to local governments in Denmark (LGDK) and the Social

Democrats in the national parliament.

The director of the AHF Mr. Jørgen Nue Møller has been working with housing policy

issues for almost 20 years. Until 2007 he has been chairman of ‘Realdania’ another

foundation or actually an organization formed in 2000 after the merging of a mortgage

credit institute and a private bank. Realdania has become an important player in the

policy community, having a broad objects clause and the economic resources (about 4,4

billion Euro in 2006) to carry out its policies (www.realdania.dk). Furthermore Mr. Nue

Møller chairs and has chaired various government working committees, for example the

committee on depraved neighbourhoods and the committee on research in the building

industry1. (http://frontpage.cbs.dk/insights/550009.shtml).

The remaining members are organizations2 representing public sector housing, students,

the labour movement (a private development foundation for the building industry) and

the Architects Association.

The network is recently formed so the need for new members or replacement of old has

not been relevant. Regarding replacement procedures of the board, the AHF’s homepage

states that members are pointed out respectively by each of the founding organizations

(http://www.billigeboliger.dk/spmogsvar5.html). The possibility of expanding the board,

and thus accepting new organizations as members of the AHF, has not been addressed in

the instrument of foundation and will not be touched further upon in this paper.

1 (http://www.nyidanmark.dk/bibliotek/publikationer/strategier_politikker/2005/programbestyrelse_strategi_0508/html/chapter14.htm and http://www.ebst.dk/publikationer/byggeri/byggeriet_1/html/index.htm).2 The organizations are KAB fonden, DISfonden, Kooperationen, BoligfondenKUBEN and akademisk arkitektforening.


11

http://frontpage.cbs.dk/insights/550009.shtml

http://www.realdania.dk/

http://www.ebst.dk/publikationer/byggeri/byggeriet_1/html/index.htm

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/bibliotek/publikationer/strategier_politikker/2005/programbestyrelse_strategi_0508/html/chapter14.htm

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/bibliotek/publikationer/strategier_politikker/2005/programbestyrelse_strategi_0508/html/chapter14.htm


Hence the network seems to be very resourceful and include some heavy weight actors in

the policy community; furthermore the control mechanisms to address new arrivals seem

to be of limited relevance.

Components C and D are more ambivalent

The consistency of interest seems to be very solid – the AHF is non-profit and there

seems to be a consensus about the activities in the network, given the recent outline of a

common concept for ‘5x5’ from February 2007 (http://www.billigeboliger.dk/index.php).

One component that points to the firmness is that although the initial initiative included

all tenure forms (Politiken 28.01.06; Negotiations in the city Council 23.03.06) the pilot-

project put forward in February 2007 only includes 12 cooperative flats. The chairman of

the AHF has declared public that the project at this current stage does not include other

tenure forms (Jyllandsposten 17.01.07). The members of the AHF represent organizations

where we would expect that some tenure forms could be preferred to others (for instance

the representative from the public sector housing foundation). However based on the data

at hand, this variation does not seem to have had any consequences for the continued

support and deployment of resources among the members.

During the spring and summer 2006 it became clear that it would be extremely difficult

to maintain the 5000 DKK limit (Jyllandsposten 28.01.06) without a financial model with

a high-risk assumption. The rising land prices were also a factor of concern

(Jyllandsposten 20.03.06, 21.03.06, 11.08.06, Berlingske Tidende 04.05.06).

During this debate public worker’s unions announced their support ‘5x5’, even if the

5000 DKK limit were raised in order to lower the financial risks involved for the

occupiers. Even the mayor’s coalition partner at the city hall, Klaus Bondam, supported

an increase (Politiken 15.08.06). The mayor replied by maintaining the limit (Politiken

11.08.06), however she seemed shaken and announced in an interview four days later: “I

can not guarantee anything; I do not hold a majority, so I can not carry this out on my


12


own. What I can contribute with is to maintain the overall political goal, and I will do

that” my translation(Berlingske Tidende 15.08.06, also Politiken 17.08.06).

Later on the mayor announced a double up on the release of building lots in 2007, thus

countering the high land prices - which at that time were a major obstacle to the project -

by increasing the supply (Berlingske Tidende 18.08.06).

At the current stage the pilot-project of the 12 cooperative flats are keeping the limit of

the 5000 DKK rent, but it is doubtful whether it is a viable long-term solution to the

organizations behind the non-profit AHF, who will probably also be interested in

utilizing other tenure forms. However it seems as if a compromise has been reached at

least for the pilot program. There is a strong bias to keep the 5000 DKK limit, but as

power relations seem to be horizontal as the mayor’s comments showed over summer, the

initial core expectations to the project (the 5000 DKK limit) can be questioned within

frames of the network.

3.1.2 Operating Environment“The networks can not be considered in isolation from the content of the programs that they are involved with, not from the overall political context from which they function” (Peters 2007: 73)

Two components are of relevance. The first is the range of issues the network is

addressing. Here Peters expects that the chances for success decreases with the range of

issues and policy areas the network have to deal with. The second component is

coordination with other networks in order to achieve its goal. Peters expect that the more

integrated the network is internally the more difficulties it will have coordinating with

other actors and networks externally (Ibid: 73-74).


13


With regard to the first component ‘5x5’ is at one hand dealing with a very narrow and

easy comprehendible policy goal: Supply of affordable housing to middle income public

workers i.e. school teachers, nurses and policemen.

However the implementation of this single issue opens a can of worms, since the single

issue at stake – affordable housing - touches upon labour market politics, housing

finance, innovation in building and design, the division of jurisdictions between local and

central government with regard to planning tools, and legitimacy issues connected with

altered forms of corporation in providing policy.

The network activities are received well within the bodies of interest of both the public

workers and construction workers (Politiken 15.08.06 and 19.04.07) and the relevant

actors within the construction and design industry. Recently the head of the Danish

Construction Agency has commented the project as ‘ambitious’ and his comments points

to a more positive and less sceptical approach to ‘5x5’ (Barometer, Marts 2007: 3,

Politiken 19.04.07, Jyllandsposten 28.01.06). The initial design competition attracted

over 60 proposals from national and international architects (Berlingske Tidende

03.08.06).

With regard to the division of jurisdictions, the central government’s administration is

currently working on a revision of the planning instrument (L204 presented to the

Parliament 28.08.07). The interest organization and central negotiator for all local

government municipalities, Local Government Denmark (LGDK), is currently working

to influence this policy process in order to provide greater autonomy for the

municipalities (Ugebrevet A4, nr. 12, 26.03.07). This central negotiation could turn out to

be a sword of Damocles for the ‘5x5’ initiative. One positive aspect of the LGDK’s

efforts is, that all municipalities support the notion of greater planning autonomy,

however it could be that the negotiations strategies deployed by the LGDK at this stage is

not all supportive to affordable housing as in the ‘5x5’ initiative, since members in the


14


liberal-conservative government are very reluctant to address ‘5x5’ in any – positive-

way (Information 19.03.07, Jyllandsposten 17.01.07b). Politicians from Århus (the

second largest city in Denmark) acknowledge that ‘5x5’ is leading the way, but in order

to address affordable housing properly and ‘without problems’ the municipalities need a

change in the formal planning tools to create a viable model (Jyllandsposten 24.10.06).

So LGDK can gain on the agenda setting done by Copenhagen but end up with not

supporting ‘5x5’ as a viable model to implement affordable housing policies.

Fierce critics of the financial model behind ‘5x5’ point (Politiken 13.08.06) to a slower

coordination with the economic experts, and even though the AHF claims to have

addressed the initial criticism of the financial model put forward in February 2007

(Berlingske Tidende 07.02.06), housing finance experts has not commented on this new

concept yet.

The issue of legitimacy is trickier to address. At present 6000 have signed up for an

application form to the draw for the first 12 apartments (Berlingske Tidende 20.04.07), so

‘5x5’ apartments certainly seem to reflect a need in the population. On the other hand,

both the negotiations between the AHF and the mayor’s offices, and the relations

between the members and other organizations have been criticized by political opponents

to lack transparency and to be too elitist (Summary of negotiations in the City Council,

Thursday 12th October 2006, Jyllandsposten 11.10.06 and13.10.06, Berlingske Tidende

17.01.07, Jyllandsposten 10.02.07).

In sum: At one hand the network has a very tangible policy goal, but the achievement of

this goal involves a lot of policy areas and it seems that a vast amount of actors from

various policy areas are following the process closely. This will according to Peters

decrease the network’s chances of success (Peters 2007: 74). However in the case of

‘5x5’ the issue seems to gather sympathy and support from central interest bodies within

these various policy areas, e.g. the workers and the construction industry, who are quite


15


positive to the initiative. Furthermore the timing is brilliant and ‘5x5’ is used as a lever in

order to put affordable housing on the national agenda and lobby for greater local

autonomy. But this is also a challenge because affordable housing is closely linked to

‘5x5’ as the 6000 downloaded application forms shows. Furthermore it seems as if the

liberal-conservative government perceives ‘5x5’ as an inherently social democratic

project, so how the coordination between the mayor and the LGDK will work in the

future is an open-ended question. Alongside with this another open-ended question is

found; it still remains an unsolved question - given the current empirical material - how

(and maybe rather) if the housing finance experts’ critics have been addressed

adequately.

How the network will coordinate and navigate in this environment of friends, foes and all

those in between, is yet to be defined, however at present it seems that the mayor and the

AHF will succeed in providing the first 12 cooperative flats without a formal change in

the planning law. This leaves 4988 to go. Maybe it is time to loosen some of the high

levels of internal integration and export a broader view on affordable housing instead of

the very narrow ‘5x5’ concept and thereby including a wider range of actors. However

this will have to be balanced against the probably increased need to provide tangible,

comprehensive and effective results to at least 6000 applicants in spe, explaining the

reasons why the concept is changed at this specific time, where the first twelve

apartments are under construction.

3.1.3 Tasks

“Networks are in some settings responsible for both policy formulation and for policy implementation, or they may be responsible for only one or another of these activities” (Peters 2007:74)


16


According to Peters networks that are only responsible for implementation will have

greater chance of success than networks that are also involved in policy formulation due

to difficulties in formulating a common approach across interests (Ibid: 74-75).

Applied to the current case, it is notable that the network behind ‘5x5’ is operating in a

highly political environment, and the policy goal it is meant to implement is under

constant siege and attracts attention from many actors outside the network; hence the

borders between implementation and formulation become blurred. This is probably due

to the origin of the policy goal as an election promise and not as a ‘closed deal’ or a

traditional policy outcome ready for a more technical implementation.

Now I will leave the micro level analysis of the individual organizations of the network

and their links with surrounding organizations, and move on to the meso level of analysis.

3.2 Implementation of ‘5x5’ on the meso levelThe factors of concern here are political, functional and structural. These factors are

relevant in order to analyze process on a meso level that are individually deployed but

constitute a collective frame of interaction for the members within the network. Hence

the units of interest here are elements that constitute these collective modes of interaction

and whether these point to a virtuous dynamic or not. Due to the recent origin of the

network behind the implementation it has been difficult to point out relevant structural

factors. I will return to this in section 3.2.3.

3.2.1 Political factors‘In this model Political refers to the extent to which the established values and myths within the institution are accepted and the success of the institution in producing the desired outcome to its members’ (Peters 2007: 66)

Peters mentions three distinct components (Ibid: 67-69):


17


Processes of framing i.e. altering cognitive structures of political actors in order to

develop common conceptions of policy issues

Resource dependencies among actors

Linking to other networks

The interplay between these three components is crucial to the dynamics of the network.

A positive dynamic can be found if the network increases the production of desired

outcomes through links to other networks, reframes the issues at hand and includes actors

who are strongly interdependent of each other. At the other hand a negative dynamic will

prevail if too many external connections and low level interdependencies among

members leads to resistance to framing processes and a low level of integration in the

network (Ibid: 68).

The framing within the network is an ongoing process – I have identified three practices.

The first is how the mayor repeatedly is mentioning the need to supply affordable

housing to key workers in the city, but she and other Social Democrats seems to

emphasize nurses, policemen and school teachers in speeches and chronicles (Politiken

04.09.06, Jyllandsposten 27.01.07, and Berlingske Tidende 21.10.06), where the

homepage of the AHF uses income to define the target groups rather than job titles and

includes privately employed groups as well, this might be a minor difference and at the

current stage it does not seem to affect the general intern consensus on the project.

The second practice is the use of historic examples of initial housing supply initiatives as

for example “Kartoffelrækkerne”, which by now are sold as owner-occupied town houses

to amounts around 1 million Euros (Jyllandsposten 25.11.06, Politiken 27.11.06).

“Kartoffelrækkerne” were initially constructed from 1873-1889 in order to supply

housing to industry workers on initiative from the workers themselves

(http://www.pladstilosalle.dk/frabaggrd/tidbyg1/index.html). By using such a reference

point, the actors are placing themselves in a context of historical change and success and

decrease the room for opposition, for who would be in opposition to realize the second

generation of such a successful policy?


18

http://www.pladstilosalle.dk/frabaggrd/tidbyg1/index.html


The third practice of framing is based on drawing parallels and references to other

European capitals as London, Amsterdam and Oslo to address differences and similarities

between the various housing supply policies and planning tools (Berlingske Tidende

21.10.06). This is not surprising since the administration at the city hall has financed a

research report which shows that the Danish case of rise in housing prices and the

difficulties in supplying housing to middle income households is part of a European

trend, and other cities have addressed this in various ways. The report concludes that in

Denmark planning activities as the ones already implemented in neighbouring countries

by local governments can only be addressed on a national level (Andersen 2006: 6). The

report and the frequent references to it is working as a common frame to state the need of

‘5x5’, and the reference of Copenhagen as being “behind” other capitals certainly also

narrows the incentives to opposition down (Information 17.01.07). These framing

practices may also help to explain why the actors behind the private AHF are

continuously deploying their know how and resources into the project.

With regard to Peters’ notions on resource dependencies and external links, I will argue

that these melt together in ‘5x5’ – At first sight the resource dependency should have

been one way; the mayor was and is capable of maintaining the issue on the political

agenda, but she – as cited in section on p.11 in this paper, can not carry the project out by

herself.

The 1st of January the mayor to be had a high-profiled election promise but no plan had

been put forward to turn this promise into policy, and then she managed to create a

private non-profit foundation (the AHF) involving some of the most resourceful actors in

the housing community not only to support her, but in essence to fulfil her promise. Are

these interactions based on pure idealism and philanthropy directed towards middle

income households?


19


Some elements of these virtues should not be ruled out, but following the thoughts of

resource dependencies and the usefulness of external linking and framing; a place for

housing policy on the national and local politicians agenda’s could exactly be what the

members of the foundation get in return for participating and deploying their know how.

The mayor simply constitutes a channel to influence and provides the actors from the

AFH with influence on national and local housing policy and politics.

However these practices of framing and structures of interdependency are constantly

reproducing themselves in order to meet the evolving challenges from actors outside the

network and maintain the common perceptions. One example is housing finance expert,

Jens Lunde, who frames the issue at hand as a specific - not very needing - group getting

extra benefits from the public sector (Jyllandsposten 13.01.07). Thus, Mr. Lunde’s

framing suggests that ‘5x5’ is supplying unjust gains. It is doubtful whether this framing

will prevail over the municipal and AHF framing practices where ‘5x5’ is conceived as a

modern interpretation of a houses where everybody wants to live, as originating from

early working class organization, and finally ‘5x5’ as a promoter to put Copenhagen in

line with progression and common standards in other European cities, but the resistance

from actors outside the network persists.

To sum up: These framing processes, the structures of interdependence and the external

links point to an ongoing process where the internal consent is pretty consistent centred

around ‘5x5’ as serving a dual purpose: Firstly to address the need of specific and vital

households to ensure the cities further progress, and secondly as agenda setting

mechanism putting housing policy on the national and local policy agenda. Signs point to

a virtuous dynamics.

3.2.2 Functional factors“[…] there are two outcomes possible in the relationships between the success of building networks internally, and their success of


20


making and implementing policy. We can think of these outcomes as internal and external success of networks” (Peters 2007: 69).

A positive relation will occur if the network achieves success externally. This will

increase legitimacy internally and furthermore provide legitimacy to the policy process as

a whole. This increase will also increase the network’s capacity to achieve further

external success (Ibid: 69). However the opposite dynamic will prevail if a high degree of

internal success and integration among members leads to increased isolation from other

actors in the policy process, thereby limiting the network’s chances to achieve external

success (Ibid: 70).

At first sight 12 apartments after 1,5 year would not seem to be an overwhelmingly

success externally so according to Peters we would expect high level of internal pressure.

However if the assumption of the dual purpose of the network put forward in the previous

section stands, this pressure could be lowered since housing policy certainly has reached

both local and national agendas. Furthermore the 6000 application forms that have been

downloaded also point to an external success, however situation where there is a draw

among 6000 households 12 apartments could also lead to an increase of the internal

pressure to construct more apartments or deploy more energy in apartment construction

than agenda setting.

Following Peters the limited success of the construction dimension could be caused by a

too high degree of internal integration, and it certainly seems that some elements within

the surroundings could have been handled more wisely during the period. The first

obstacle was the financial concept that put the ground for heavy criticism (various articles

march 2006), then the rising land prices knocked down the economy (May – August

2006) and then the local government’s planning methods, which briefly explained

allocated vacant building lots to be sold at market price to the AHF, were found illegal by

the public supervisory authority (January 2007). Could these changes have been planned

for by a lower internal integration and inclusion of alternative actors? Yes and no. The


21


prices are difficult to address this way, but the economic experts could have been

accounted for and so could the existing planning law.

‘5x5’ spurred some scepticism when the mayor presented the initiative, and not many

believed that affordable housing could (or should) be provided at all. One of the major

obstacles is exactly the fact, that the local governments lack the formal planning tools to

back up the initiative. Given these circumstances it seems the actors in the network are

interacting on the basis of the old saying: Where there is a will, there is a way.

As a long-term prognosis, it can be expected that external success in terms of apartment

construction will become increasingly important in order to maintain the integrity of the

network. The analysis of this factor points to a virtuous dynamic with an ever increasing

pressure on achieving external success in terms of apartment construction.

3.2.3 Social pressures“Just as networks themselves may change, so too can the environment within which they function” (Peters 2007: 70)

Peters claims that there are three sources of social pressure: the close environment of the

network i.e. other networks, the governmental level and the societal level. For example

he uses various NPM (New Public Management) reforms as example of changes in the

government’s way to provide public policy (Ibid. 70). Policy networks are at present only

one tool among others in order to obtain the actor’s goals and so the network dynamics

are dependent on whether the involved actors believe in policy networks as a viable

policy instrument to achieving policy goals in times of change (ibid. 71).

I expect the chances of change in the modes and frames for interaction in the networks

surroundings to be increasing over time, and since the time-span of concern here is quite

narrow it is difficult to point to tangible patterns of change. Actually the most interesting

dynamic to address at the present stage is the lack of change within the environment. As


22


Pia Christmas Møller MP and spokeswoman on policy from the ruling Conservative

Party states to Ritzau:

“It is utterly out of proportions that we should change a legal body in order to make Ritt [Mrs. Bjerregaard] capable of fulfilling her election promises” [My translation] (Quoted in Berlingske Tidende 17.01.07).

The head of opposition in the city council and member of the liberal party, which

alongside with the Conservatives constitutes the national government, puts it this way:

”It is odd, that she [Mrs. Bjerregaard] now is trying to convert her election promise into a national problem. When she gave her promise during her campaign in 2005 the legal framework was identical with the one of today” [My translation] (Martin Geertsen quoted in Berlingske Tidende 17.01.07)

Maybe the dynamic at work here it not social pressures in form of changes of interaction

patterns in the networks environment, but rather that the ‘5x5’ project collides with the

“normal patterns” and are challenging intergovernmental relations by agenda setting and

alternative ways to organize political opposition. Also at this point the analysis point to a

virtuous dynamic, however the final outcome will depend on how the national

government will respond to these challenges.

3.3 ‘5x5’: Virtuous or not?The process of converting ‘5x5’ from an election promise into policy can on the basis of

the previous two sections been characterized as a process, were a hard core of actors have

joined efforts in order to achieve a dual purpose of putting housing policy on the agenda

and provide affordable housing to middle income households. This joining of efforts

represents a broad palette of resources and capabilities which are held together by the

notion of ancient worker history, the need make progress to keep Copenhagen on level

with other European capitals, and it is based on a dedicated willingness to reach this goal

without regard to imposed limitations due to technicalities, existing formal legal bodies

of framework and existing patterns of intergovernmental relations.


23


Furthermore this hard core seems to be able to include and attract the support from

relevant policy actors from the surrounding environment as labour unions, constructing

industry, designers, and public sector housing organizations. Other local politicians are

following the process with a great amount of interest and LGDK (The body of interest to

Local Governments in Denmark) is also addressing an expansion of the planning tools

available to local governments an initiative. Furthermore 6000 have applied for an

application form in order to participate in the draw for the first 12 apartments.

This web of relations creates a variety of influence channels to the mayor and the private

non profit AHF and at present ‘5x5’ can be perceived as a pressure on the national

government to address affordable housing and housing policy. Formally the government

is not obliged to address this pressure, but in the long term it will probably not be viable

to ignore the increasing support to affordable housing initiatives from this conglomerate

of interest bubbling out from “below”.

These characteristics point to a virtuous dynamic, however the analysis also showed that

some signs are pointing in the opposite direction. First of all the financial concept seems

to be the wobbly pillar. The current financing model involves an assumption of risk to

potential residents, and more resources should be spent on planning this concept. Nor is it

possible at the current stage to create the desired mix between the tenure forms.

Affordable housing has been narrowed down to one tenure form instead of including all

tenure forms. This is hardly viable in the long run, but the present the data material does

not make it possible to address or support this point further. The actors within the AHF

are representing members who probably would prefer other tenure forms than the one

left, namely cooperative housing. The second sign pointing to a less virtuous dynamic is

the fact that so far, only 12 apartments have actually been planned. The need for tangible

results is increasing with the amount of time passed since the city council first announced

its support to ‘5x5’ on March 23rd 2006. Remember that in the draw will not only name

12 winners but also leave 5988 households (or more) as losers.


24


4 Discussion - A Viable Frame for Analysis?

Critics of network theory have often put forward that it is too descriptive in its nature and

it misses out on the interplay between cause and effect (Binderkrantz 2005: 40). Peters

also claim that the existing body of literature too often has a bias towards analyzing

successful networks and thereby excluding analysis of less successful and influential

networks (Peters 2007: 61). This is two central points of criticism that Peters seek to

address. His task is ambitious and appealing, when you undertake the task of studying

present day-to-day network processes designed to transform an election promise into

policy.

My initial approach was quite deductive but as my research process progressed I found

that some of the components were more relevant than others, e.g. the political factors

seemed more dominant than the structural factors. Maybe this is just a single case

characteristics, however further studies will show if the initial list should be altered.

My initial claims were that Peter’s eight factors should be analyzed at three different

levels and that time would be an important mediator of the relevance between those

levels. Further effort should be put into the clarifications of the interplay between the

factors on each level, between levels and time as mediator. This is done empirically in the

present paper to the widest extent possible with the data at hand, but it can also be done

by the use of methods to define small-scale causal mechanisms as Scharpf (1997) shows,

or by the use of process tracing techniques developed by Checkel (2007). Another further

notion is of relevance here. Peters’ model is combining various insights from the whole

body of neo institutional theory. With such a frame and with an ambition to address

factors leading to success or failure, it would be helpful and most relevant to account for

the epistemological and ontological questions such an approach inevitably will raise.


25


5 Preliminary Conclusion and further research agenda

12 apartments planned 4988 to go.

Affordable housing and a change towards greater autonomy within the local

governments’ planning tools, enabling them to expand housing policy to include middle-

income households, is placed on local and national agendas by a remarkable construction

of interest between actors and across policy areas, which in turn may change

intergovernmental relations. So far signs point to a viable and virtuous dynamic with

some more troublesome elements rising on the horizon. In other words the process is

moving on a fast track with an ever-increasing outlook to traffic jams.

This paper has localized central characteristics at play in the process of implementing

‘5x5’. Further studies could be directed towards testing the relevance of these elements,

and addressing their interplay by including interviews with the relevant actors. Combined

with an expansion of the document analysis – including classified documents as well as

documents from the national government level – it will be possible to increase the level

of validity and reliability of the conclusions in this paper, and on this basis stronger

conclusions about the implications, impact and connections between the virtuous and the

less virtuous elements that characterize the process until now can be drawn.


26


ReferencesAllison, G. (1969). “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 63, 3, 689-718.

Andersen, Hans Thor (2006). Billige boliger Europæiske erfaringer, Pdf. Hentet fra Ugebrevet A4’s hjemmeside.

Binderkrantz, Anne (2005). Magtens Midler, Ph.d. afhandling, Århus Universitet, Politica

Bogason, P. (2004). “Networks in Policy Analysis – Towards a New Pragmatism”, Working Paper 2004:8, Center for Democratic Network Governance, RUC.

Bryman, Alan (2001). Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press.

Checkel, J. (2007). ”It’s the process Stupid! Tracing Causal Mechanisms in European and International Politics, Forthcoming in A. Klotz (ed.): Qualitative Methods in International Relations, NY: Palgrave Macmillian.

Dahler-Larsen, P. (2002). At fremstille kvalitative data, Syddansk Universitetsforlag

Kickert, W. et al. (1997). Managing Complex Networks, London, Sage.

Klijn, E. (2005). ”Designing and managing networks: Possibilities and limitations for Network Management”, European political science 2005: 4, (328-339).

Marcussen, M. & Torfing, J. (2003). “Grasping Governance Networks”, Working Paper 2003:5, Centre for Democratic Governance, Roskilde University.

Holm- Pedersen, L. (2003). Miljøøkonomiske idéer i en politisk virkelighed, ph.d. afhandling, Københavns Universitet.

Peters, G. (2007). “Virtuous and Viscous Circles in Democratic Network Governance” , Chapter 3 in Sørensen, E. et.al . Theories of Democratic Network Governance, New York, Palgrave Macmillian.

Scharpf, F. (1997). Games Real Actors Play, Oxford, Westview Press.

Torfing, J. (2005). “Governance Network Theory: Towards a Second Generation”European political science 2005: 4, (305-315).


27


Appendix 1: Data – an overview

The Public Supervisory Authority Statsforvaltningen Hovedstadens vejledende udtalelse vedr. salg af boliger med

restriktioner i forbindelse med gennemførelse af Københavns Kommunes “projekt 5x5” 10.januar 2007.

City Council & Social Democrat Party Summary of negotiations in the City Council 15th December 2005, Summary of negotiations in the City Council 23rd of March 2006 Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard’s speech about ‘5x5’ to the city Council the 25th of

January 2007. Summary of the meeting in the city council’s standing comitee of Economic

Affairs 13th of March 2007. Kronik: Boliger til 5000 kroner af Anne Vang, bragt i Politiken 04.09.06

Billige boliger bør være en kommunal opgave af Anne Vang bragt i Jyllandsposten 27.01.07

Københavns Kommune, Økonomiforvaltningen 8. Kontor: “Københavns Kommunes boligplan 2005-2008- Boliger for alle”

Foundation for Affordable Housing

Koncept for billige boliger, www.billigeboliger.dk

LOUgebrevet A4, nr. 12, 26.03.07

Danish Construction AssociationBarometer, marts 2007 http://www.snedkersektionen.dk/web/barometer.nsf/18ca67ecaea6d972c12572250033c5e8/0e543e23505e8b05c12572c1003dfff7!opendocument

The parliamentL204 presented to the Parliament 28.08.07

Newspaper articles arranged by newspaper and date (in Danish)

Berlingske Tidende28.01.06: Billige boliger efter svensk forbillede af Charlotte Welin og Susanna Arpi

04.05.06: Høj jordpris spænder ben for lav husleje, af Charlotte Welin og Susanna Arpi


28

http://www.snedkersektionen.dk/web/barometer.nsf/18ca67ecaea6d972c12572250033c5e8/0e543e23505e8b05c12572c1003dfff7!opendocument

http://www.snedkersektionen.dk/web/barometer.nsf/18ca67ecaea6d972c12572250033c5e8/0e543e23505e8b05c12572c1003dfff7!opendocument

http://www.billigeboliger.dk/


03.08.06: De star i kø for at tegne boliger til københavnerne af Charlotte Welin

15.08.06: Ingen garanti for billige boliger af Gregers Lohse og Jeppe Bangsgaard

18.08.06: Der skal bygges endnu flere boliger i København af Charlotte Wehling

03.10.06: Billige boliger er en social opgave for arkitekterne af Peter Hartung

17.01.07: Ritis løfte om billige boliger smuldrer af Hans Larsen

07.02.07: Ørestad får billige boliger af Charlotte Welin

20.04.07: 6000 er ude efter 12 billige boliger af Charlotte Welin

Jyllandsposten

28.01.06: Udbredt skepsis overfor billig boligplan og Billige boliger kan blive dyrere af Laurits Nansen og Jamilla Sophie Alvi

20.03.06: Købere betaler dyrt for Ritt B.’s billige boliger…og risikerer at ende I gældsspiral af Christina Agger og Jamilla Sophie Alvi

11.08.06: Boligplan får skud for boven Jamilla Sophie Alvi og Per Borregaard

11.10.06: Forslag om overvågning af billige boliger af Jamilla Sophie Alvi

24.10.06: SF: Billigere boliger til unge af Heidi Plougsgaard

25.11.06: Billige kartoffelrækker på vej

13.01.07: Ulovlig plan for billige boliger af Mikkel Thastum og Jørgen Skadhede

17.01.07: Kun andelsboliger tilbage i boligplan og Ritts boligplan er grundstødt af Jamilla Sophie Alvi

10.02.07: Økonomiske julemænd af Axel Pihl-Andersen

Information

17.01.07: Snart begynder whiskybæltet i Valby af Asger Liebst

19.03.07: Lars Løkke afviser Ritts kritik af Asger Liebst

Politiken


29


28.01.06: Overborgmesteren har fundet syv grunde til billige boliger af Hans Drachmann

11.08.06: Ritt Bjerregaard garanterer billige boliger af Thomas Flensburg

13.08.06: Ritts boliger kan blive en gældsfælde af Claus Bok Thomsen

15.08.06: Ritt må godt hæve huslejen og S og R star sammen af Claus Bok Thomsen

17.08.06: Ritt B. overvejer boliger til 7.400 kr. af Claus Bok Thomsen

29.11.06: Ritts boliger kræver maksløn på 27.000 kroner

17.01.07: Ritt udfordrer indenrigsminister i boligsag af Kirsten Nilsson

19.04.07: Salg af modulbyggeri skal redde Ritts plan og Ritts boliger presser byggepriser af Bjørn Lambek og Michael Olsen


30

introduction - boligforskningboligforskning.dk/sites/default/files/w_12 nielsen enhr... · web...

Documents