This review of shared and mutual ownership models expands the understanding of shared ownership mechanisms in the US economy. It is a guide for those navigating the long-standing and growing shared ownership field.

Shared ownership can take many forms, informed by geographic, cultural, or sector-related contexts. It shows up in numerous sectors (e.g., land, commercial real estate, housing, small businesses, utilities, financial institutions, and data) and involves multiple types of owners (e.g., residents, workers, and consumers or producers of products). Shared ownership models have originated and grown in rural and urban settings and in politically conservative and progressive ones.

Why This Matters

Shared ownership continues to be a practical and beneficial option in many contexts. At a time when policy tools have fallen short of delivering affordability, stability, and inclusion, shared ownership models offer politically agnostic approaches to create economic opportunities, expand housing supply, deliver basic and specialized commodities, provide community services and amenities, protect and preserve land, and improve access to data. Shared ownership models rely on a diverse set of governance approaches that expand who can participate in asset-related decisionmaking. Reconsidering who owns and who makes decisions about assets can usher in opportunities for positive business and community transformations. Some models have the potential to stabilize assets, redistribute risk across communities and institutions, reduce involuntary displacement, increase resident wellness, and increase community resilience to economic disruptions without eliminating market mechanisms.

What We Found

There are many shared and mutual ownership models to choose from. When considering which to pursue, organizers should consider the following:

• Clarify what is owned, who owns it, and how it will benefit the group or individuals. Owned entities may be financial institutions or funds, small businesses focused on products or services, or organizations centered on housing, commercial real estate, or utilities. Owners may be individual community members, groups of community members, nonprofit community-based organizations, local for-profit organizations, and even local governments. Shared ownership models can lead to direct benefits for individuals or to broad, indirect benefits spread across a community.
• Consider who holds decisionmaking power and how decisions will be made. Decisionmaking power may fall in the hands of individual community members, elected or appointed community representatives, leaders of community-based organizations, or individuals with subject matter knowledge who are invited to support decisionmaking processes. Multiple decisionmaking bodies and mechanisms can be leveraged, including topic-specific committees, boards, representative votes, member votes, nonhierarchical meetings, and governance apps.
• Consider how to control for complexity and ease of operating while pursuing creative funding for shared or mutual ownership models. Some shared ownership models are centuries old with proven benefits, while others are newer and less well understood. Supportive funding and financing will need to be structured in ways to optimally benefit communities over the long term, but some models are more costly to establish and operate.

How We Did It

Our research involved a review of shared ownership and wealth-building literature, a document review of shared ownership models, and select interviews with practitioners in the shared ownership space.