The discussion on housing regimes dates back to e neo-institutional turn in policy research which occurred during the 1980s. This literature viewed institutions not so much as “formal” entities but more as the culmination of conflicting power relations, market dynamics, and ideology. The study of these dynamics could, in turn, be used to understand the variegated development of post-war welfare states, as exemplified by Esping-Andersen’s seminal Three worlds of welfare capitalism (1990). Kemeny defined the housing regime as “the social, political, and economic system of housing supply, distribution, and consumption, which determines the housing market opportunities of a certain period” (1981, p. 13). His framework follows the logic of the historical and institutional structure of society. Kemeny (2006) argues that, due to the central role of real estate in modern capitalism, housing systems follow similar paths, albeit with  different logics. Studying the emergence of regimes of a different nature between countries, he distinguished between unitary and dualized housing regimes, based on their rental-market systems, that is: (a) countries with an open private sector but with a firmly regulated public sector are characterized by a dual rental market; and (b) societies where the private and public sectors are strictly regulated have a unitary rental market. In dualist countries (primarily the Anglo-Saxon ones), homeownership is commonplace, while in countries with an integrated/unitary system (such as Germany, Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries) renting is a realistic and even competitive alternative to ownership. Kemeny highlighted that the dominance of homeownership is not organically developed but is socially and politically constructed. The above conceptualization of housing regime based on the functioning of rental market systems does not mirror the (Foucaultian) political and conflictual approach of Clapham, for whom a housing regime stands for a “set of discourses and social, economic and political practices that influence the provision, allocation, consumption [of housing] and housing outcomes in a given country” (2019, p. 24). He views policy as an arena where actors “negotiate and bargain” through discursive processes (Ruonavaara, 2020b). Clapham clearly distinguishes regime types from housing regimes. Regime types are useful for categorization since they can function as a baseline for comparative studies. However, “every housing regime is unique”(Ruonavaara, 2020b). Because of the complexity of the concept, Clapham (2019, p.17) proposes a three-stage analysis for housing policy (Figure 1). Ruonavaara (2020b) finds Clapham’s approach nuanced but too general and broad, which – according to him - makes it less applicable. On the other hand, Hegedüs (2020) considers Clapham’s (2002) housing pathway reasonable, as it describes housing provision forms as a result of interactions. In line with Clapham, he argues that “interventions within the housing system can only be understood in the context of interactions between different housing market actors” (Hegedüs, 2020, p. 569). Consequently, an analysis that only focuses on the rental sector would lead to narrowed interpretations with low explanatory power. More recently, Ruonavaara provided a new definition of housing regimes, which combines the elements of previous theories. He defined housing regime as a “set of fundamental principles according to which housing provision operates in some defined area (municipality, region, state) at a particular point in time” (2020a, p. 10). These principles are present in discourses, institutional arrangements, and political interventions. All actors have certain principles when operating in the system of housing provision at a given time and place. Housing regimes can be considered as the “principles of operation” (Ruonavaara, 2020a). In this sense, the housing regime concept faces challenges in its ability to represent an effective analytical tool for today’s housing systems. For Stephens (2020), it is necessary to rethink housing regime as a way to find middle-range theories given that current accounts of neoliberal convergence (Aalbers, 2016; Clapham, 2019) barely manage to explain the role of regime path-dependences in continuing to shape variegated housing outcomes.

Justice theory is as old as philosophical thought itself, but the contemporary debate often departs from the Rawlsian understanding of justice (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 1990). Rawls (1971) argued that societal harmony depends on the extent to which community members believe their political institutions treat them justly. His First Principle of ‘justice as fairness’ relates to equal provision of ‘basic liberties’ to the population. His Second Principle, later referred to as the ‘Difference Principle’, comprises unequal distribution of social and economic goods to the extent that it benefits “the least advantaged” (Rawls, 1971, p. 266).1[1] As this notion added an egalitarian perspective to Rawlsian justice theory, it turned out to be the most controversial element of his work (Estlund, 1996). The idea of a ‘just transition’ was built on these foundations by McCauley and Heffron (2018), who developed an integrated framework overarching the ‘environmental justice’, ‘climate justice’ and ‘energy justice’ scholarships. The term was first used by trade unions warning for mass redundancies in carbon-intensive industries due to climate policies (Hennebert & Bourque, 2011), but has acquired numerous interpretations since. This is because the major transition of the 21st century, the shift towards a low-carbon society, will be accompanied by large disturbances in the existing social order. In this context, a just transition would ensure equity and justice for those whose livelihoods are most affected (Newell & Mulvaney, 2013). A just transition implies that the ‘least advantaged’ in society are seen, heard, and compensated, which corresponds with three key dimensions conceptualised by Schlosberg (2004): distributive, recognitional, and procedural justice. Distributive justice corresponds with Rawls’ Difference Principle and comprehends the just allocation of burdens and benefits among stakeholders, ranging from money to risks to capabilities. Recognitional justice is both a condition of justice, as distributive injustice mainly emanates from lacking recognition of different starting positions, as well as a stand-alone component of justice, which includes culturally or symbolically rooted patterns of inequity in representation, interpretation, and communication (Young, 1990). Fraser (1997) stressed the distinction between three forms: cultural domination, nonrecognition (or ‘invisibility’), and disrespect (or ‘stereotyping’). Procedural justice emphasises the importance of engaging various stakeholders – especially the ‘least advantaged’ – in governance, as diversity of perspectives allows for equitable policymaking. Three elements are at the core of this procedural justice (Gillard, Snell, & Bevan, 2017): easily accessible processes, transparent decision-making with possibilities to contest and complete impartiality. A critique of the just transition discourse is that it preserves an underlying capitalist structure of power imbalance and inequality. Bouzarovski (2022) points to the extensive top- down nature of retrofit programmes such as the Green New Deal, and notes that this may collide with bottom-up forms of housing repair and material intervention. A consensus on the just transition mechanism without debate on its implementation could perpetuate the status quo, and thus neglect ‘diverse knowledges’, ‘plural pathways’ and the ‘inherently political nature of transformations’ (Scoones et al., 2020). However, as Healy and Barry (2017) note, understanding how just transition principles work in practice could benefit the act of ‘equality- proofing’ and ‘democracy-proofing’ decarbonisation decisions. Essentially, an ‘unjust transition’ in the context of affordable and sustainable housing would refer to low-income households in poorly insulated housing without the means or the autonomy to substantially improve energy efficiency. If fossil fuel prices – either by market forces or regulatory incentives – go up, it aggravates their already difficult financial situation and could even lead to severe health problems (Santamouris et al., 2014). At the same time, grants for renovations and home improvements are poorly targeted and often end up in the hands of higher income ‘free-riding’ households, having regressive distributional impacts across Europe (Schleich, 2019). But even when the strive towards a just transition is omnipresent, practice will come with dilemmas. Von Platten, Mangold, and Mjörnell (2020) argue for instance that while prioritising energy efficiency improvements among low-income households is a commendable policy objective, putting them on ‘the frontline’ of retrofit experiments may also burden them with start-up problems and economic risks. These challenges only accentuate that shaping a just transition is not an easy task. Therefore, both researchers and policymakers need to enhance their understanding of the social consequences that the transition towards low-carbon housing encompasses. Walker and Day (2012) applied Schlosberg’s dimensions to this context. They conclude that distributive injustice relates to inequality in terms of income, housing and pricing, recognitional justice to unidentified energy needs and vulnerabilities, and procedural injustice to inadequate access to policymaking. Ensuring that the European Renovation Wave is made into a just transition towards affordable and sustainable housing therefore requires an in-depth study into distributive, recognitional and procedural justice. Only then can those intertwining dimensions be addressed in policies.   [1] To illustrate his thesis, he introduces the ‘veil of ignorance’: what if we may redefine the social scheme, but without knowing our own place? Rawls believes that most people, whether from self-interest or not, would envision a society with political rights for all and limited economic and social inequality.  

From the three pillars of sustainable development, economic, environmental and social, the latter  involving social equity and the sustainability of communities, has  been especially neglected. Ongoing problems caused by conflicting economic, environmental and social goals with regard to the processes of urbanisation continue. underpinning economic growth that contradict principles of environmental and social justice (Boström, 2012; Cuthill, 2010; Winston, 2009). Research on sustainable development highlights the need for further investigation of social sustainability (Murphy, 2012; Vallance et al., 2011). Social sustainability has been interpreted as an umbrella term encompassing many other related concepts; “social equity and justice, social capital, social cohesion, social exclusion, environmental justice, quality of life, and urban liveability” (Shirazi & Keivani, 2019, p. 4). A vast number of studies have been dedicated to defining social sustainability by developing theoretical frameworks and indicators particularly relevant to urban development and housing discourse (Cuthill, 2010; Dempsey et al., 2011; Murphy, 2012; Woodcraft, 2012). However, with a lack of consensus on the way of utilising these frameworks in a practical way, especially when applied to planning, social sustainability has remained difficult to evaluate or measure. Consequently, planning experts, housing providers and inhabitants alike understand social sustainability as a normative concept, according to established social norms, and less as an opportunity to critically examine existing institutions. Vallance et al (2011) provide three categories to analyse social sustainability, development, bridge and maintenance sustainability: (a) social development improves conditions of poverty and inequity, from the provision of basic needs to the redistribution of power to influence existing development paradigms; (b) the conditions necessary to bridge social with ecological sustainability, overcoming currently disconnected social and ecological concerns; and (c) the social practices, cultural preferences as well as the environments which are maintained over time. Maintenance social sustainability particularly deals with how people interpret what is to be maintained and includes “new housing developments, the layout of streets, open spaces, residential densities, the location of services, an awareness of habitual movements in place, and how they connect with housing cultures, preferences, practices and values, particularly those for low-density, suburban lifestyles” (Vallance et al., 2011, p. 345). Therefore, the notion of maintenance is especially important in defining social sustainability by directly investigating the established institutions, or “sets of norms” that constitute the social practices and rules, that in turn, affect responsibilities for planning urban spaces. A conceptual framework that appears frequently in social sustainability literature is that of Dempsey et al. (2011)⁠ following Bramley et al. (2009), defining social sustainability according to the variables of social equity and sustainability of community and their relationship to urban form, significantly at the local scale of the neighbourhood. In terms of the built environment, social equity (used interchangeably with social justice) is understood as the accessibility and equal opportunities to frequently used services, facilities, decent and affordable housing, and good public transport. In this description of local, as opposed to regional services, proximity and accessibility are important. Equitable access to such local services effectively connects housing to key aspects of everyday life and to the wider urban infrastructures that support it. Sustainability of community is associated with the abilities of society to develop networks of collective organisation and action and is dependent on social interaction. The associated term social capital has also been used extensively to describe social norms and networks that can be witnessed particularly at the community level to facilitate collective action (Woolcock, 2001, p. 70). They might include a diversity of issues such as resident interaction, reciprocity, cooperation and trust expressed by common exchanges between residents, civic engagement, lower crime rates and other positive neighbourhood qualities that are dependent on sharing a commitment to place (Foster, 2006; Putnam, 1995; Temkin & Rohe, 1998). In fact, “the heightened sense of ownership and belonging to a locale” is considered to encourage the development of social relations (Hamiduddin & Adelfio, 2019, p. 188). However, the gap between theoretical discussions about social sustainability and their practical application has continued. For example, the emphasis of social sustainability as a target outcome rather than as a process has been prioritised in technocratic approaches to planning new housing developments and to measuring their success by factors which are tangible and easier to count and audit. Private housing developers that deal with urban regeneration make bold claims to social sustainability yet profound questions are raised regarding the effects of gentrification (Dixon, 2019). Accordingly, the attempted methods of public participation as planning tools for integrating the ‘social’ have been found to be less effective - their potential being undercut due to the reality that decision-making power has remained at the top (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017). Therefore, social sustainability is not a fixed concept, it is contingent on the interdependence of the procedural aspects (how to achieve social sustainability) and substantive aspects (what are the outcomes of social sustainability goals) (Boström, 2012). From this point of view, social sustainability reveals its process-oriented nature and the need to establish processes of practicing social sustainability that begin with the participation of citizens in decision-making processes in producing equitable (i.e. socially sustainable) development. As a dimension of sustainable development that is harder to quantify than the economic or environmental aspects, the operationalisation of social sustainability goals into spatial, actionable principles has remained a burgeoning area of research. In such research, methods for enhancing citizen participation are a particularly important concern in order to engage and empower people with “non-expert” knowledge to collaborate with academic researchers.

A universal definition of social housing is difficult, as it is a country-specific and locally contextualised topic (Braga & Palvarini, 2013). This review of the concept focuses on social housing in the context of the UK from the late 1980s, which Malpass (2005) refers to as the phase of ‘restructuring the housing and welfare state’, to the early 2000s, known as the phase of the ‘new organisation of social housing’. In response to previous demands for housing, such as those arising during the Industrial Revolution, and recognising the persistent need to address the substandard quality of housing provided by private landlords in the UK (Scanlon et al., 2015), the primary objective of social housing has historically been to enhance the overall health conditions of workers and low-income populations (Malpass, 2014; Scanlon et al., 2015). However, this philanthropic approach to social housing changed after the Second World War when it became a key instrument to address the housing demand crisis. Private initiatives, housing associations, cooperatives and local governments then became responsible for providing social housing (Carswell, 2012; Scanlon et al., 2015). Social housing in the UK can be viewed from two perspectives: the legal and the academic (Granath Hansson & Lundgren, 2019). Along these two perspectives, social housing is often analysed based on four main criteria: the legal status of the landlord or provider, the tenancy system or tenure, the funding mechanism or subsidies, and the target group or beneficiaries (Braga & Palvarini, 2013; Carswell, 2012; Granath Hansson & Lundgren, 2019). From a legal perspective, social housing maintained its original goals of affordability and accessibility during the restructuring period in the late 1980s. However, citing the economic crisis, the responsibility for developing social housing shifted from local authorities to non-municipal providers with highly regulated practices aligned with the managerialist approach of the welfare state (Granath Hansson & Lundgren, 2019; Malpass, 2005; Malpass & Victory, 2010). Despite the several housing policy reviews and government changes, current definitions of social housing have maintained the same approach as during the restructuring period. Section 68 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, updated in 2017, defines social housing as low-cost accommodation provided to people whose rental or ownership needs are not met by the commercial market (HoC, 2008; 2017, pp. 50-51). The Regulator of Social Housing, formerly the Homes and Communities Agency, has adopted the earlier definition of social housing and clarified which organisations provide it across the UK. These organisations include local authorities, not-for-profit housing associations, cooperatives, and for-profit organisations (RSH, 2021). In contrast, the National Housing Federation emphasises the affordability of social housing regardless of the type of tenure or provider (NHF, 2021). From an academic perspective, Malpass (2005) explains that during the restructuring phase, social housing was defined as a welfare-supported service – although it did have limitations, which meant that funding principles shifted from general subsidy to means-tested support for housing costs only, which later formed the basis for the Right to Buy Act introduced by the Thatcher government in the early 1980s (Malpass, 2005, 2008). The restructuring phase, however, came as a response to the housing 'bifurcation' process that began in the mid-1970s and accelerated sharply from the 1980s to 1990s (Kleinman et al., 1998; Malpass, 2005). During this phase, the role of social housing in the housing system was predominantly residual, with greater emphasis placed on market-based solutions, and social housing ownership concerned both local authorities and housing associations (Malpass & Victory, 2010). This mix has influenced the perception of social housing in the 'new organisation' phase as a framework that regulates public housing intervention for specific groups and focuses on enabling non-municipal providers (Malpass, 2005, 2008; Malpass & Victory, 2010). Currently, as Carswell (2012) explains, social housing plays an important role in nurturing a variety of initiatives aimed at providing ‘good-quality’ and ‘affordable’ housing for vulnerable and low-income groups (Carswell, 2012). Oyebanji (2014) sees social housing as any form of government-regulated housing provided by public institutions, including non-profit organisations (Oyebanji, 2014). Additionally, Bengtsson (2017) describes social housing as a system that aims to provide households with limited means, but only after their need has been confirmed through testing (Bengtsson, B, 2017 as cited in Granath Hansson & Lundgren, 2019). To a great extent, social housing in the UK can be seen as a service system that is intricately linked to the welfare state and influenced by political, economic, and social components. Despite being somehow determined by common factors and actors,  the relationship between social housing and the welfare state can sometimes be complex and subject to fluctuations (Malpass, 2008). In this context, the government plays a vital role in shaping and implementing the mechanisms and practices of social housing. While the pre-restructuring phase focused on meeting the needs of the people by increasing subsidies and introducing the right to buy (Stamsø, 2010), the aim of the restructuring phase was to meet the needs of the market by promoting economic growth (privatisation, market-oriented policies and reducing the role of local authorities) (Stamsø, 2010; Malpass, 2005) . The new organisational phase, on the other hand, works to meet and balance the needs of all, with people, politics and the economy becoming more intertwined. Welfare reform legislation passed in 2010 aims to enable people to meet their needs, but through 'responsible' subsidies, leading to a new policy stance that has been described as 'neoliberal' thinking (Hickman et al., 2018). However, there are still no strict legal requirements for the organisation and development of social housing as an independent service system, and most of the barriers to development are closely related to the political orientation of the government, rapid changes in housing policy and challenges arising from providers' perceptions of existing housing policy structures (Stasiak et al., 2021).

Path dependence (or historical institutionalist approach) refers to the idea that the outcomes of a particular situation or process depend on the historical path taken to reach that point. In other words, the current state or future developments of situations are influenced by past decisions, events, or processes, even if those may no longer be the most efficient or rational choices.  As a concept, it provides a valuable framework for analysing historical events, which is primarily concerned with elucidating responses and outcomes in the area of policy change and institutional persistence (Bengtsson & Jensen, 2020). A simplified interpretation of the concept of path dependency states that developments at a specific juncture create inertia in economic, institutional, social and technological progress. Bengtsson & Jensen (2020, p. 15) interpret this concept as the "fundamental causal mechanism in historical versions of institutional theory." In practise, this approach says that a development at a certain point in time sets a direction that either blocks alternative paths or makes them more difficult to achieve at a later point in time. The difference between path dependency analysis and mere "what if" speculation is the understanding of contextual mechanisms that govern historical development, rather than general social theories. In literature, the idea that "the past influences the future" is often only touched upon, leading to misunderstandings. Mahoney (2000) emphasises that a "proper" analysis of path dependency involves understanding change processes, tracing historical events while recognising mutual contingent relationships, and elucidating causal effects that cannot be explained by other events. Contingency refers to the inability of a theory to deterministically or probabilistically predict or explain a particular outcome (Mahoney, 2000, p. 513). In essence, a contingent event has not been predicted within a theoretical understanding of a particular process. Mahoney (2000) emphasises that path dependence should not be confused with a historical explanation that emphasises temporal causal sequences. In the application of path dependency, certain historical outcomes are traced back to relevant earlier events, which are often themselves contingent. There are three key concepts in every path dependence analysis: A single event that is not the product of social forces can significantly affect social outcomes. Contingent events may be temporally distant from the outcomes. The sequence of events is of historical importance and requires a chronological order in the analysis to trace the sequence of outcomes. When applying path dependency as an analytical tool, three core elements are considered: an event (A) that is preferred to an alternative ("critical juncture"), a subsequent decision (B) that connects to A ("focus point"), and the mechanism(s) that explain(s) the impact of A on decisions at B. To identify these mechanisms, it is usually necessary to trace events where no plausible alternatives were chosen. There are two types of path dependence: self-reinforcing sequences and reactive sequences, the latter involving events that are temporarily ordered and causally linked (Mahoney, 2000). In the case of self-reinforcing sequences, the detection of the beginning of the sequence could occur just before a critical turning point. In the phase preceding the critical turning point, different options become viable and processes that influence decisions at that juncture begin to operate. If the conditions in this phase can predict or clarify the outcome of the critical juncture's outcome, the sequence should not be considered dependent on the preceding events. In the case of reactive sequences, it is difficult to determine a point in time that corresponds to the initial conditions because the outcome under investigation may follow an extensive chain of causally related events that can be traced back in time. In other words, it may be difficult to find a starting point of the sequence, as the researcher keeps on going back in time (Mahoney, 2000). The concept of path dependence is of great importance for housing research, especially in the context of housing policy development of post-socialist countries that radically transformed the institutional framework and changed the tenure composition from dominantly public to private homeownership, affecting the future pathways of social housing policy efficiency and wealth distribution (Lux & Sunega, 2020). Despite its potential, path dependency is still underused in housing studies (Bengtsson & Ruonavaara, 2010; Malpass, 2011). It is often applied at the national level, but can also be extended to the municipal and local levels where housing policies are implemented.

With the world becoming increasingly urbanized and city planning facing numerous complex challenges, urban governance is being downscaled and decentralized, from the national level to the local level. Local authorities are now assuming more prominent roles in structuring urban development plans at the city or neighbourhood level. Various interpretations of governance exist (see, for example housing governance on this vocabulary). However, the definition proposed by Ansell and Gash (2008) – describing governance as the “regimes of laws, rules, judicial decisions, and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable the provision of publicly supported goods and services” – remains pertinent in discussions about housing, energy, and urban development. Governance involves the negotiation and reconfiguration of institutions – representing “a set of norms” (Savini, 2019)– leading to claims of urban citizenship and power struggles. These processes aim to establish location-specific governance practices, as noted by Baker and Mehmood (2015) and Zavos et al. (2017). In European urban planning, innovative governance models are emerging, integrating housing and spatial planning with increased resident decision-making control (Nuissl & Heinrichs, 2011; Scheller & Thörn, 2018; Van Straalen et al., 2017). Consequently, exploring collaborative urban governance is crucial. Ansell and Gash (2008, p. 544) define collaborative governance as “a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets”- The shift towards neighbourhood-level governance is pivotal in nurturing a "politics of locality" (Ghose, 2005). Despite power disparities, new opportunities for active citizenry emerge, especially in housing, neighbourhood revitalization, and service delivery. Governance now extends beyond governmental tiers, incorporating the civic sphere and community-driven initiatives, bridging gaps left by formal state-driven sectors. Collaborative governance develops over time, benefiting from shared vision, dialogue, consensus-building, and understanding diverse roles and responsibilities (Innes & Booher, 2003). This integration emphasizes alternative governance forms, focusing on "territorially-focused collective action" (Healey, 2006, p. 305) and self-organization, contrasting the top-down, modernist model. Collaborative governance, akin to collaborative planning, emphasizes rights-claiming processes, granting decision-making authority to non-experts. Ghose (2005, p.64) contends that “in order to participate in the power hierarchies […] one has to understand how to perform actively as a citizen in order to claim a right to the city”. Therefore, collaborative governance is a process characterized by shared responsibilities, where shared knowledge serves as the primary currency. This shared knowledge is emphasized as crucial in challenging the authority of experts, as noted by Emerson et al. (2012).

Defining deliberative democracy  Deliberative democracy is a form of democracy that emphasizes the role of discussion and deliberation in the decision-making process. Unlike traditional democratic models that prioritize voting and the aggregation of preferences, deliberative democracy focuses on the quality and process of debate among citizens. The core idea is that through reasoned argument, dialogue, and the exchange of ideas, participants can reach more informed, reflective, and legitimate decisions. In a deliberative democracy, participants are encouraged to engage in discussions that are open, equal, and inclusive. This means that all participants have an equal opportunity to speak, be heard, and influence the outcome. The deliberative process typically involves several key components. Key components of deliberative democracy Inclusiveness: Ensures that all those affected by a decision have the opportunity to participate in the deliberation, including marginalized and minority voices (Rasmussen, 1994). Reason-giving: Expects participants to provide reasons for their positions and engage with the reasons provided by others, fostering understanding, social learning, and respect. Respect and civility: Essential requirements for a respectful and civil exchange of ideas, listening to each other, and refraining from personal attacks. Informed and rational discourse: Encourages participants to have access to relevant information and engage in critical thinking to evaluate different arguments. Consensus-orientation: Despite possible conflicting and plurality of views and values on the issue under scrutiny it is crucial to reach decisions that reconcile and are acceptable to all participants, or at least to the majority, while respecting minority opinions. It therefore has transformative potential. Deliberative democracy aims to harness the "forceless force of the better argument" (Habermas, 1975, 108) in an environment that is tolerant of dissent. It can take various forms, including citizens' assemblies, deliberative polls, and participatory budgeting, designed to facilitate structured and meaningful dialogue among diverse groups of people. This approach helps form a “we-perspective” (Rostbøll, 2008). Positioning deliberative democracy If we were to position deliberative democracy within the spectrum of existing democratic models (see image 1), it would likely fall between direct democracy and representative democracy. Direct democracy aims to include an impractically large number of participants, while representative democracy often creates significant distances between representatives and those they represent. For Habermas, the essence of democracy lies in discourse (Habermas, 1996), rejecting the utilitarian approach. A deliberative approach does not need to ignore the practicalities of representative democracy but can address the “imbalance between the vertical and the horizontal dimensions of democracy” (Hansen et al., 2016). The guiding principles of deliberative democracy Deliberative democracy finds its guiding principles in discursive ethics as it prioritizes reasoned dialogue and inclusive discourse to achieve collective decision-making that respects the inherent worth and equality of all participants. Both Habermas and Dryzek emphasize that ethical discourse and rational deliberation are essential for achieving mutual understanding and consensus in democratic processes. Habermas is a central figure in developing the theory of discourse ethics, which forms the philosophical foundation for his concept of deliberative democracy. One key aspect is communicative rationality. Habermas’s concept of communicative rationality emphasizes the role of reasoned discourse in achieving mutual understanding and consensus. In ´The Theory of Communicative Action´(1984), Habermas argues that democratic legitimacy arises from free and open dialogue where participants justify their claims through rational arguments. This idea is essential for deliberative democracy, which relies on inclusive and reasoned discussion to make collective decisions. It was Habermas who introduced the notion of the ideal speech situation (1983), where communication is free from coercion and participants have equal opportunities to speak and be heard. This ideal situation is crucial for ethical discourse, ensuring that decisions are reached through fair and unbiased deliberation. In his work (Between Facts and Norms, 1996), Habermas connects discourse ethics directly to democratic theory by arguing that legitimate laws and policies must be justified through public deliberation. He contends that the legitimacy of democratic decisions hinges on the quality of the deliberative process, aligning with the core principles of deliberative democracy. John Dryzek extends Habermas's ideas, emphasizing practical and inclusive aspects of deliberative democracy. He argues that legitimate democratic decision-making requires incorporating diverse discourses and perspectives (1990). He builds on Habermas's idea of communicative rationality, advocating for a democracy that is open to multiple forms of communication and expression, thus ensuring a more inclusive and representative deliberative process. Dryzek (2006) argues for the empowerment of marginalized voices in deliberative processes. He stresses that genuine deliberative democracy must engage all affected individuals, reflecting Habermas’s ethical concern for inclusivity and equality in discourse. Additionally, Dryzek (2010) focuses on the practical aspects of implementing deliberative democracy. He discusses real-world applications and challenges, drawing from Habermas’s theoretical framework but adapting it to diverse political contexts. Dryzek emphasizes the importance of creating institutional arrangements that facilitate effective and fair deliberation. Both Habermas and Dryzek see discourse ethics as integral to the functioning of deliberative democracy. Habermas provides the theoretical and ethical groundwork, while Dryzek offers practical insights and adaptations for real-world democratic practices. Together, they underscore the importance of rational, inclusive, and ethical deliberation in achieving democratic legitimacy. The relevance of deliberative democracy in affordable and sustainable housing  Deliberative democracy is particularly relevant to the development of affordable and sustainable housing policies. Housing issues are complex and multifaceted, involving economic, social, environmental, and political dimensions. A deliberative approach to housing policy can address these complexities in several ways. By including a wide range of stakeholders—residents, developers, policymakers, and community organizations—deliberative processes ensure that the voices of those most affected by housing decisions are heard. This inclusivity can lead to more equitable and just outcomes. Deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of reasoned debate and evidence-based decision-making, which is crucial in housing policy where decisions need to balance affordability with sustainability, and economic feasibility with social equity. Achieving consensus can help build broad-based support and legitimacy for the resulting policies, particularly important in contentious areas such as land use planning, zoning regulations, and the allocation of resources for housing development. The deliberative process encourages creative problem-solving by bringing together diverse perspectives, leading to innovative solutions that might not emerge from more traditional, top-down decision-making processes. Especially when it comes to issues that have a direct and significant impact on everyone's lives, such as housing policy. Decision-making should not just fall into the remit of technocrats and politicians. The housing question should be opened up to public deliberation, as has happened in other spheres of urban planning and governance with experiences like participatory budgeting in Belo Horizonte or Porto Alegre (Baiocchi, 2005; Cabannes, 2004; Melo & Baiocchi, 2006). Deliberative democracy and public reasoning can be used as a means for more representative and equitable housing-led regeneration processes to ensure that projects are in the best interests of those directly affected and maximise social value. The democratisation of housing management can also be attained by incorporating the principles of deliberative democracy. Giving tenants more control over decision-making can have a transformative impact on the long-term sustainability of housing schemes. Sustainable housing requires long-term thinking, and deliberative democracy fosters a more holistic approach to policy-making, planning and building, taking into account the long-term consequences of decisions and the need for sustainable development. Possible implementation in the housing landscape Clapham & Foye (2019) identify three levels in which deliberative democracy can be a powerful tool to facilitate housing-related decision-making processes and evaluate housing outcomes: Dwelling scale: Standards developed to set minimum qualities of the housing stock should incorporate a component informed by bottom-up consultation that incorporates residents’ views on what constitutes a decent home. In this way, publicly discussed aspirations and needs are brought together with more quantitative and technical considerations. One example of this is the Living Home Standard, developed by Shelter (2016) following a broad consultation process in which hundreds of members of the public were convened in focus groups and workshops to define what a home means and to identify its key and most valuable elements. In doing so, the process provided the elements necessary for a meaningful exchange, public discussion and debate between participants, in which diverse viewpoints were included. Neighbourhood scale: In his reflections on the ideal size of a city, Aristotle determined a roughly appropriate size based on various characteristics that would ensure its self-sufficiency. Just as important as having access to resources, in his view, was the successful administration of a city, which had to be linked to democratic processes and wellbeing considerations (Lianos, 2016). In such an arrangement, the debate is direct, open and face-to-face. In modern-day terms, at the neighbourhood level, the local context enables a type of relationship between citizens and the city in which they recognise themselves and have a tangible interest in the issues under discussion because it is at the local scale where consequences of ill-considered decisions can have a greater impact. Sennett (2018) identifies similar characteristics in Jane Jacobs’ understanding of a well-functioning neighbourhood as the generative unit of a vibrant and thriving city. In this case, direct democracy practised at the neighbourhood level would constitute, by addition of the parts, a more democratic city. At this level, the relevant stakeholders are expected to play an active role in the participation process because of their attachment to the place. Examples include neighbourhood renewal processes, urban planning and development projects, refurbishment of housing estates or the creation of a local plan. National scale: Although often seen as terrain for more vertical forms of democratic arrangements such as representative democracy, Clapham & Foye (2019) propose deliberative democratic forums held at a national level to discuss highly political issues around housing, such as property tax relief, lad value tax abatements, house price inflation, rent reform, etc. This view aligns with that of Marcuse & Madden (2016), who call for the democratisation of the housing system as a necessary step in devising transformative solutions to the housing crisis worldwide. In order to rebalance the existing power relations, decision-making control should be handed over to those who are “the true experts on their own housing” (p.212), i.e. to those who are oppressed by the current system. A process that relies on a truly democratised housing system, i.e. a system that is open and inclusive enough to allow for broader democratic scrutiny and ensure that the input of non-experts and historically disempowered communities is accounted for. In summary, deliberative democracy provides a framework for developing a housing system that is not only affordable and sustainable but also inclusive, equitable, and widely supported by the community. By fostering open, informed, and respectful dialogue, deliberative processes can lead to more effective and legitimate housing solutions that meet the diverse needs of society.