Cresr

Dahmash is an informal village of Israeli Arabs in the heart of Israel. Based on discourse analysis of legal sources, this paper argues that the state’s democratic procedural discourse is used in court to deny and cover over an ethnocratic discriminatory reality. In this setting, the Israeli court can hardly be a helpful space of contestation, but at the same time the very pretence for impartiality provides a ‘crack’ through which the residents continue their resistance. In contrast to the Liberal impartial approach (or pretence) which is implied in the state’s legal texts, this paper employs Nancy Fraser’s theory of justice to explore three aspects of injustice in the case of Dahmash: distribution, recognition and representation, demonstrating how ethnocracy and capitalism work together in a process of dispossession.

Safe spaces offer relief from oppression, but they can do more and become spaces of social justice. Drawing on two case-study communities in the UK and Nancy Fraser's theory of justice, this paper argues that safe spaces can become just spaces by responding to three aspects of injustice: socioeconomic, cultural-symbolic and political. Members of the case-study communities perceived their housing as safe and just spaces and contrasted it to the injustice of capitalist society. The communities offered affordable and not-for-profit secured housing; provided stability, respect and support to members, and ensured that members had a voice regarding their housing and community. A sense of safety and justice was achieved through the combination of democratic decision-making, a non-profit legal structure and social relations committed to mutual aid. Nevertheless, communities are not perfect; the paper also reveals the complexities in these communities, such as power dynamics and exclusion, which compromise their safety for some members and limit their potential for social transformation. Finally, the paper contributes to the large body of literature on safe spaces from racism and homophobia by reporting on an under-theorised form of safe space: one which offers protection from the oppression of neoliberalism.

The candidate confirms that the work submitted is her own, except where work which has formed part of jointly authored publications has been included. The contribution of the candidate and the other authors to this work has been explicitly indicated below. The candidate confirms that appropriate credit has been given within the thesis where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement.

How can a long-standing cooperative respond to changes in society over time, and how do these changes affect the management of the cooperative? We looked at the visions, daily life and policies in a housing cooperative in the UK established in the 1970s and found a messy process that required constant negotiation and involved diverse subjectivities. We identified different visions of the commons: a minimalist vision focusing on housing alone, and a maximalist one, diffusing boundaries between personal and collective and involving many aspects of members' lives. These visions have always existed in the cooperative but the general trend was towards minimalism. Behind the changes are members' changing subjectivities, reflecting changing processes of subject formation in relation to state and market. We found that difference in subjectivities was often displayed along generational lines, and affected commoners' visions of the commons. Although the cooperative changed some of its practices to fit the more minimalist vision, it still endured as a form of commons that is resilient to challenge.

Cohousing is widely celebrated as a socially and environmentally sustainable housing model, but remains a small sector with a distinct social profile: White, highly educated and with middle-high income. Drawing on mixed-methods research and using a Bourdieusian analysis, this paper argues that culture, and not affordability, is the main barrier to inclusion. Contrary to previous claims, the study found that awareness of cohousing is born within like-minded circles and not locally. The quantitative aspect provides up-to-date data on the social profile of cohousing communities in England, and the qualitative data show how cohousing is reproduced as a White and middle-class space due to cultural capital and habitusan invisible social system that maintains privilege. At the same time, the data also show that cohousing is in fact more diverse than is perceived.

Power to Change's Homes in Community Hands programme provides grants to help build and refurbish affordable housing. Specifically, the programme is supporting the development of community-led housing in England with £5.2 million. The programme has undergone adjustment as Power to Change developed new funds to tackle the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. Programme grant making has been reduced, though some commitments to funding are being met up until 2022. The fund has predominantly targeted five areas in England, where enabler hubs are supporting the development of community-led housing, and where funding is directed to both hubs and community-led housing projects. The evaluation team is assessing the impact of the Homes in Community Hands programme on various stakeholders and beneficiaries, while also capturing important learning to inform the practice of communityled housing enablers, community-led housing groups and other organisations, including funders like Power to Change. This report presents findings from Year Two of the evaluation, identifying emerging outputs and outcomes, alongside lessons about the development of projects and hubs, and the factors affecting this.

Understanding the complex evolving relationships between the third sector, the state and the market is one of the most important and fruitful areas of research, policy attention and practice reflection in the third sector. Yet too often analysis seems to be reduced to a discussion involving seemingly large, abstract and disarmingly simple categories-'state', 'market' and 'third sector'-in which nuance, differentiation and contradiction can be lost. This short paper aims to stimulate reflection and discussion amongst researchers and others by calling for a reimagination of the 'third sector' and its relationships with the state and the market. The argument proceeds in three stages. Firstly some elements of what could be seen as conventional wisdom in third sector research are outlined. This is followed by a discussion of how conventional wisdom is woven into two prevailing narratives-of 'necessity and adaptation' and 'jeopardy and loss'-about the current state and future prospects for the third sector. Finally, using the purported 'marketisation' of the sector as an example, the paper suggests an alternative starting point for thinking about and researching the third sector. Conventional wisdom in third sector research Research focusing on the world of voluntary and community action has grown rapidly over the last 25 years, in the UK and elsewhere. A great deal of insight has come from efforts to map the scale, geography and shape of a sphere of activities encompassing, amongst other things, voluntary organisations, community groups, charities and social enterprise. A parallel research endeavour has undoubtedly improved our understanding of how such organisations and activities are structured, governed, managed and financed, who is involved in them and why, what they are trying to achieve and their success in doing so, and in particular identifying the differences and relationships between these sorts of activities on the one hand, and public bodies, private firms and informal activities on the other. The basic contours of this world of voluntary and community action are likely to be familiar to those working or researching in or with organisations in the sector. At some risk of oversimplification, however, it is