{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022906793048973143, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.091346153846154, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Limits of Policy Diffusion: Comparative Experiences of Second-Home Ownership in Britain and Sweden

In this paper we provide a critical examination of the concept of policy diffusion. In doing so, we critique the core belief that underpins it, namely, the notion that housing problems are the product of universal structural conditions that are common to all societies. In turn, we also critique the logical derivative, namely, the notion that housing policies which have been ‘successful’ in their country of origin can be transferred to (that is, exported to or imported by) other societies. To do this, we commence by developing a conceptual framework that is based on the idea of societal ‘divergence’ rather than universalism. This provides a comparative method which we then apply in order to examine the second-home ownership problematic in Britain and Sweden. In doing so, they demonstrate that the problems caused by postwar growth in second-home ownership (and the associated housing policy responses that have been formulated) are particular to each country. To conclude, we make some general observations about the limits of policy diffusion by highlighting the conditions in which imported or exported housing policies are likely to succeed or fail.