The common understanding that a Nordic welfare model was developed during the 1900s under political systems with many commonalities, e.g. the central role of the local level in urban planning, there are important differences in housing policy strategies. The Nordic countries do not agree on the meaning of the concept of public or social housing, they do not agree on the role of local government in housing provision, and there are forms of tenure with similar names but quite different implications for residents, developers, and local governments.

The immediate reason for this report, and for inviting scholars knowledgeable about housing policy to give their perspectives on housing for the ‘market periphery’  or affordable housing. the Norwegian policy model could find inspiration from the Danish system, or that Swedish housing policy could draw on the Finnish experience. Since housing policy and housing construction are largely local responsibilities. The government operates what is known as a ‘ghetto list’ which defines some social housing areas as ‘ghettos’, reflecting a high level of segregation. Before this they were simply called ‘vulnerable areas’).2 This list is based on indicators of ethnicity, income, labour market participation, education and the crime rate among the residents. It is based on a political viewpoint, rather than on a scientific analysis of the segregated areas.