Abstract
In this paper, we will attempt to clarify the actual conditions of activities undertaken by resident organizations such as a Swedish cooperatives（förening）and community（byalag）and of public support as EU structural funds.
We will present examples from two Swedish communities. The Trångsviken district has several well-known, prospering enterprises. Initially, resident activity here began in a new style of cooperative movement when they decided to build a Community Center, which has become the core of the community. Later, this movement developed into a joint stock company. At Huså in the Kall district, there were many new style cooperatives and at one time there were many activities in progress. However, the two main cooperatives reached a financial deadlock, following which resident activity was brought to a standstill. The neighborhood association tried to revitalize itself by participation in the EU projects.
Traditionally in Sweden, there have been many village revitalization activities by independent organizations such as cooperatives, and the way in which the residents cooperate with the commune through these organizations is the key to revitalization. Cooperatives are an important example of Swedish-type resident participation as a basic organization. However, it is necessary flexibly to create organizations that meet the relevant objectives and to gather experts from a diverse range of fields.
