Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Commissioning as the cornerstone of self-build. Assessing the constraints and opportunities of self-build housing in the Netherlands Daniël Bossuyt ⁎ , Willem Salet, Stan Majoor University of Amsterdam, Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Self-build housing Commissioning Collaborative housing Affordable housing The Netherlands, Almere ABSTRACT This paper investigates the relationship between self-build housing and the wider planning and housing regime. Although there is growing policy and academic attention to self-build housing, there is a lack of understanding of the institutional and regulatory conditions shaping the prospects of such housing provision. This paper takes the case of The Netherlands and scrutinizes how institutional dynamics over time have made lower and middle residents dependent on densely organized consortia of municipalities, housing associations and developers. These norms of land development appear to be at odds with the logic of self-building. Through exploring evi- dence in a pilot study of a municipal self-building scheme in Almere, the authors suggest that making self- building the cornerstone of a resident-led land development strategy, also for low- and middle-incomes, implies a reconfiguration of the actors’ positions in housing provision. This entails a commissioning role for residents in the institutional domain of social and commercial developers. 1. Introduction Self-build housing, which entails residents obtaining responsibility for, and control over, the development of their own dwelling, is being increasingly promoted as a means to provide housing, though it remains quantitatively and qualitatively understated. Underlying this is an as- sumption that dwellers’ control of housing production has the potential to improve individual and social well-being (Turner, 1972). Stimulated by economic liberalization and the decentralization of service provi- sion, there are growing expectations of a more active involvement of citizens in the production of urban environments. Still, in sharp contrast to the recognized position of self-organized forms of housing provision in housing systems of the global South (Pasternak and D’Ottaviano, 2018), self-building remains only partially acknowledged by govern- ments in advanced capitalist economies (Hall, 2014; Harris, 1999). For example, in the Netherlands in 2015 the share of self-build in newly built housing amounted to only 1415%. 1 In spite of growing attention to the stimulation of self-build housing, it continues to constitute a peripheral means of housing provision for low- and middle-incomes in advanced capitalist economies. Similarly, the position of self-build housing remains insufficiently investigated in the international housing literature (Duncan and Rowe, 1993). This is striking in the light of the positive effects self-building can have on the accessibility of housing for low- and middle-income groups and the diversity of housing stock. Resident involvement in procurement may contribute to housing that is more affordable, of better quality and more attuned to residents’ needs (Parvis et al., 2011). Institutionalized systems of housing provision inhibit the substantive right citizens ought to have in order to exercise control over urban space (Alexander, 1979; Scott, 2012). For self-building, impediments in terms of capital, reg- ulation and land release remain considerable (Wallace et al., 2013). While factors of planning and governance are crucial in terms of en- abling self-build housing for low- and middle-incomes, these remain under researched (Lang and Stoeger, 2017; Lloyd et al., 2015; Tummers, 2015). This raises questions about the institutional drivers that underpin practices of self-building, as well as the constraints and opportunities of self-build housing for low- and middle-income groups in urban areas. The objective of this paper is to investigate the relationship between self-build housing and the wider planning and housing regime. To en- able in-depth investigation, this paper empirically focuses on the case of self-build housing in the Netherlands, a prosperous and urbanized set- ting where self-build housing occupies a marginal position. Dutch planning and housing systems are characterized by comprehensiveness and a large degree of government regulation. Since the Second World War, housing has been provided through close-knit consortia of muni- cipalities, housing associations and large developers. It is against the backdrop of this historical legacy that the Dutch government has sought https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.003 Received 16 September 2017; Received in revised form 3 June 2018; Accepted 4 June 2018 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: d.m.bossuyt@uva.nl (D. Bossuyt). 1 CBS. 2017. Newly built housing; permit issued per commissioner. Land Use Policy 77 (2018) 524–533 0264-8377/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T