lalal

One lesson from this episode is that institutional design matters. Even in contexts characterised by relatively strong public institutions, land value taxation and transparent data infrastructures, disagreements persist over what land values represent and who should benefit from them. This illustrates that the legitimacy of land value redistribution rests not only on institutional arrangements but also on shared moral beliefs about fairness and on levels of public trust. At the centre of these disagreements lies a fundamental normative question: whether land value gains should be understood as unearned income arising from collective investment, planning decisions and broader social processes, or as legitimate returns to private ownership.

Moreover, the growing risks associated with climate change, including increased flooding in low lying coastal areas, threaten to unsettle established patterns of valuation. In such contexts, land values become contingent on emerging forms of environmental risk, raising difficult questions about insurance, compensation and the allocation of public responsibility.

Taken together, these dynamics indicate that progressive land politics cannot be confined to market regulation alone. Confronting contemporary land and housing crises may therefore require not only regulatory reform but also a shift in the imaginaries that underpin how land itself is valued. This involves recognising the collective production of land value, incorporating environmental and social considerations into existing frameworks and expanding public and collective forms of ownership and access that are not governed solely by market imperatives.

Returning to Copenhagen, where housing prices and land values have risen markedly over recent decades, these questions have become increasingly salient. Rising property values have generated significant increases in housing wealth for many homeowners. At the same time, these increases are closely connected to broader patterns of urban development, fiscal policies, public infrastructure and planning decisions. Public debate has therefore centred not only on technical assessment methods, but also on how collectively shaped increases in land value should be treated.

The Danish case illustrates both the possibilities and the tensions associated with progressive land politics more closely. Copenhagen in particular maintains a relatively high proportion of non-profit and cooperative housing, reflecting a longstanding emphasis on collective provision. At the same time, land is governed not only through planning and housing policy, but also through an institutionalised regime of public valuation supported by comprehensive public registers, accessible transaction data and detailed property information.

This comparatively high degree of transparency underpins the land tax, the so called grundskyld, levied by municipalities on the unimproved value of land. Inspired by the social liberal land reformer Henry George, the tax was introduced in the mid-1920s and remains a central instrument within Danish land and fiscal policy. Unlike George’s more radical proposal to replace all duties with a single tax on land, however, the grundskyld forms only one component of the broader property tax system and does not fully socialise land rents. Today, the Danish Property Assessment Agency (Vurderingsstyrelsen), operating under the national tax authority, produces the valuations used to calculate annual municipal land taxes.