Collaborative housing and housing providers: towards an analytical framework of multi-stakeholder collaboration in housing co-production

References

• Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2004). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Georgetown, Washington, DC: University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, I., & Robertson, S. (2004). Understanding project sociology by modeling stakeholders. IEEE Software, 21(1), 23–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alford, J. (1998). A public management road less travelled: Clients as co-producers of public services. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 57(4), 128–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, E., Czischke, D., Hegedüs, J., Pittini, A., & Teller, N. (2011). Study on social services of general interest: Sector study ‘Social Housing’. Commissioned by the Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Biau, V., & Bacqué, M.H. (2010). Habitats alternatifs: Des projets négociés? Paris-Val de Seine: ENSA.
   Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co-production of services. London: Carnegie Trust and Commission for Rural Community Development.
   Google Scholar
• Boyle, D., & Harris, M. (2009). The challenges of co-production. How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public service. London: New Economics Foundation (NEF) & National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA). Retrieved from http://centerforborgerdialog.dk/sites/default/files/CFB_images/bannere/The_Challenge_of_Co-production.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bresson, S., & Denèfle, S. (2015). Diversity of self-managed co-housing initiatives in France. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 5–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cahn, E. (2004). No more throwaway people: The co-production imperative. Washington, DC: Essential Books.
   Google Scholar
• CECODHAS Housing Europe's Observatory. (2012). Impact of the crisis and austerity measures on the social housing sector. Research briefing. Year 5 / Number 2, February 2012. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterton, P., (2013). Towards an agenda for post‐carbon cities: Lessons from lilac, the UK's first ecological, affordable cohousing community. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1654–1674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, J. (2007). Unsettled connections citizens, consumers and the reform of public services. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(2), 159–178.
   Google Scholar
• Czischke, D. (2014a). Social housing organisations in England and the Netherlands: Between the state, market and community (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Czischke, D. (2014b). What is the role of housing associations in community-led housing? Learning from good practice in Europe: Final report. Birmingham: DC Consulting.
   Google Scholar
• Carriou, C. (2012). Toward a new way of providing affordable housing? The Hoche co-operative in Nanterre (France), a case study. Paper presented at the ENHR conference 2012, Toulouse.
   Google Scholar
• Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Devaux, C. (2011). Accompagner les projets d'habitat participatif et coopératif. Paris: FNSCHLM - USH.
   Google Scholar
• Duivesteijn, A. (2013). De Wooncoöperatie: Op weg naar een zichzelf organiserende samenleving. Retrieved from http://www.adriduivesteijn.nl/wp-content/uploads/De-Wooncoöperatie.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dunston, R., Lee, A., Boud, D., Brodie, P., & Chiarella, M. (2008). Co-production and health system reform – From re-imagining to re-making. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1), 39–52. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00608.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenwick, T. (2012). Co-production in professional practice: A sociomaterial analysis. Professions and Professionalism, 2(2), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Flint, J. (2004). The responsible tenant: Housing governance and the politics of behaviour. Housing Studies, 19(6), 893–909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fromm, D. (2012). Seeding community: Collaborative housing as a strategy for social and neighbourhood repair. Built Environment, 38(3), 364–394.
   Google Scholar
• Fromm, D. (1991). Collaborative communities. Cohousing, central living and other new forms of housing with shared facilities. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
   Google Scholar
• Gofen, A. (2015). Citizens’ entrepreneurial role in public service provision. Public Management Review, 17(3), 404–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gofen, A. (2012). Entrepreneurial exit response to dissatisfaction with public services. Public Administration, 90(4), 1088–1106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heeg, S. (2013). Wohnungen als Finanzanlage. Auswirkungen von Responsibilisierung und Finanzialisierung im Bereich des Wohnens. Sub\ urban. zeitschrift für kritische stadtforschung, 1(1), 75–99.
   Google Scholar
• Houard, N. (Ed.). (2011). Social housing across Europe. Paris: La Documentation Française.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvis, H. (2015). Community‐led housing and ‘Slow’ opposition to corporate development: Citizen participation as common ground? Geography Compass, 9(4), 202–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lafond, M. (Ed.). (2012). CoHousing cultures: Handbuch fur selbstorganisiertes, gemeinschaftliches un nachhaltiges wohnen | handbook for self-organised, community-oriented and sustainable housing. Berlin: Jovis Verlag GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Leadbeater, C. (2004). Personalisation through participation: A new script for public services. London: Demos. Retrieved from http://www.demos.co.uk/files/PersonalisationThroughParticipation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Leclerc, A. (2013, May 14). A villeurbanne, un « village vertical » comme une alternative à la crise du logement. Le Monde.fr. Retrieved from http://crise.blog.lemonde.fr/2013/05/14/a-villeurbanne-un-village-vertical-comme-une-alternative-a-la-crise-du-logement/
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, T. (2001). ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault's lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30(2), 190–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathiasen, D.G. (1999). The new public management and its critics. International Public Management Journal, 2(1), 90–111.
   Google Scholar
• McCamant, K., & Durrett, C. (1988). Cohousing: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves. Berkeley, CA: Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press.
   Google Scholar
• McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 33–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntyre, Z., & McKee, K. (2012). Creating sustainable communities through tenure-mix: The responsibilisation of marginal homeowners in Scotland. GeoJournal, 77(2), 235–247.
   Google Scholar
• Minora, F., Mullins, D., & Jones, P. (2012). Governing for habitability. self-organised communities in England and Italy. International Journal of Co-operative Management, 6(2), 33–45.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, T., & McKee, K. (2014). The ownership of assets by place-based community organisations: Political rationales, geographies of social impact and future research agendas. Social Policy and Society, 13(4), 521–533.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, T., & Mullins, D. (2013). Scaling-up or going viral? Comparing self-help housing and community land trust facilitation. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(3), 333–354.
   Google Scholar
• Mullins, D., Czischke, D., & Van Bortel, G. (2014). Hybridising housing organisations.Meanings, concepts and processes of social enterprise. Oxon and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mullins, D. (2006). Competing institutional logics? Local accountability and scale and efficiency in an expanding non-profit housing sector. Public Policy and Administration, 21(3), 6–24.
   Google Scholar
• Needham, C. (2008). Realising the potential of co-production: Negotiating improvements in public services. Social Policy and Society, 7(2), 221–231.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy and development. World Development, 24 (6), 1073–1087.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E., & Baugh, W.H. (1973). Community organization and the provision of police services. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Pache, A.C., & Santos, F. (2013). Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39, 3–35.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, S. (Ed.). (2013). The squeezed middle: The pressure on ordinary workers in America and Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parks, R.B. (1981). Consumers as co-producers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9(7), 1001–1011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pestoff, V., & Brandsen, T. (2013). Co-production: The third sector and the delivery of public services. Oxon and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Poocharoen, O., & Ting, B. (2015). Collaboration, co-production, networks: Convergence of theories. Public Management Review, 17(4), 587–614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronald, R., & Elsinga, M. (2012). Beyond home ownership: Housing, welfare and society (housing and society series). London and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacranie, H. (2011). Strategy, culture and institutional logics: A multi-layered view of community investment at a large housing association (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Scanlon, K., Whitehead, C.M., & Fernández Arrigoitia, M. (Eds.) (2014). Social housing in Europe. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 57l–610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sudiyono, G. (2013). Learning from the management and development of current self-organised and community-oriented co-housing projects in Berlin: Making recommendations for the IBA Berlin 2020 (Unpublished master's thesis). Berlin University of Technology, Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, P.H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tummers, L. (2011). Collectively commissioned housing: New urban qualities through residents self-management. In L. Qu & E. Hasselaar (Eds.), Making room for people: Choice, voice and liveability in residential places (pp. 153–176). Amsterdam: Techne Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tummers, L. (2016). The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in Europe: A critical review of co-housing research. Urban Studies, 53(10), 2023–2040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vestbro, D.U. (Ed.). (2010). Living together – Co-housing ideas and realities around the world: Proceedings from the International Collaborative Housing Conference in Stockholm 5-9 May 2010. Stockholm: Division of Urban and Regional Studies, Royal Institute of Technology in collaboration with Kollektivhus NU.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, R. (1998). New public management and housing associations: From comfort to competition. Policy & Politics, 26(1), 71–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead, C.M. (2015). From social housing to subsidized housing? Accommodating low-income households in Europe. Built Environment, 41(2), 244–257.
   Google Scholar