Economic skolboksteorier does not solve the housing crisis

periodically pops insistence on deregulation of the rental market in the housing policy debate. Unfortunately, economists are over-represented among those who call for one-sided liberalisation in the belief that skolboksteorier on the free pricing would lead to equilibrium between supply and demand, and that all the challenges in the housing market would disappear. But history has shown time and time again, both in Sweden and in other countries, that is not the case.

There is a recurring perception that Sweden has a rent control from the second world war. It is not true. Rent control in 1942 and was abolished by the riksdag in 1974. The current system in the rental market based on jointly negotiated rents. It is a consumer protection act which was developed to protect people against unfair rent increases and guarantee them a real security of tenure. It is a self-regulating system between the actors in the market, without government interference. It balances the various interests and allowing for both long-term returns for property owners and boendetrygghet for the country's three million tenants.

furthermore, There is contractual freedom in the system. The tenant can self-manage their rental negotiations if they want to, where there are no restrictions. The rent shall also reflect the tenant's general values on a market in balance.

But it is just cartoons and no persons in reality. Just as the economic theories. We have investigated the most floor area in Stockholm. No matter where in the city you live is the most floor area is higher for those who rent their residence than those who own. Soaring rents will not change the picture – on the contrary it will only strengthen the crowded living conditions. Regarding mobility, it is the same thing. Flyttfrekvensen of persons living in rental properties are significantly higher than those who own their own homes. An average of 23 per cent against 9 per cent between the period 1992-2012.

the Implications for the country's three million tenants at the introduction of market rents is well documented. When Ramboll on Hyresgästföreningens mission did a scenario analysis of what the introduction of market rents would cost society in Stockholm county showed that the rents would increase substantially. In total, the tenants ' transfer to the property owners, increase of 17.8 billion per year, or 84,2 billion over a five year period. The question to Roland Andersson and Lars Jonung is why billions of skattekronor suddenly to be transferred to the already profitable real estate business and at the same time, forcing people from their homes?

But above all, it will not mean that housing construction is increasing as Andersson and Jonung claims. No such causal connection does not exist. Why is it not more condominiums than rental units on the owned market, where the familiar is free price formation?

the Claim that the country's 3 million tenants benefit from large subsidies are nonsense. Is there any group that is överkompenserade in the Swedish housing market is the people who own their own homes. Sweden has Europe's most generous interest deductions for those who own their own homes, where the richest tenth of households have 20 times more subsidies than the economically weakest, and which in total received share of sek 25 billion in interest rate and rotavdrag in 2017.

However, we agree that there are major deficiencies in current housing policy, and where the tenants ' association here on DN Debate presented a proposal on the areas that need to be discussed and developed.

It would be reasonable if the authors of the report instead considered bargaining after what it refers to. That is to say, which hyressättningssystem is most suitable to meet the aim of the society on the right of everyone to housing at a reasonable cost with a strong security of tenure for the tenant. Market rents is not the way forward for Sweden. It will never be the tenants ' association or tenants to accept.