Serbia

Serbia faces a persistent housing crisis despite boasting one of the highest homeownership rates in Europe, with around 90% of households owning their homes. Rising property prices are a major concern, especially in urban centers. In mid-2025, average prices in Belgrade reached nearly €3,000 per square meter, with some central districts exceeding €4,200. Regional cities like Novi Sad and Niš saw prices of €2,483 and €1,661 per square meter, respectively, while national prices continue to grow annually. The crisis is not limited to affordability. A significant share of Serbia's housing stock is aging—by 2025, about 40% of residential properties were over 50 years old. This adds to problems of adequacy and maintenance, especially for low-income households. Vulnerable groups are disproportionately affected. Refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the 1990s wars, and Roma communities face heightened risks of homelessness and housing exclusion. Many refugees and IDPs still live in precarious conditions or unofficial centers, lacking secure housing. Additionally, the elderly population—one of the highest proportions in Europe—struggles with insufficient access to social or supported housing. Poverty, unemployment, sporadic evictions, and a limited social housing system further exacerbate the situation. Homelessness remains a concern, with estimates from previous years suggesting around 20,000 people lack secure shelter, and thousands more live in insecure or overcrowded conditions. The private rental market remains largely informal and unregulated, offering little protection to tenants and increasing their vulnerability.

The Serbian national government has recently focused on specific targeted measures to improve affordable and sustainable housing, but does not operate a comprehensive, unified national public housing system. Recent government actions include the introduction of a youth housing loan program, launched in March 2025, with €400 million allocated to support 5,500 housing units. This program targets Serbian citizens aged 20 to 35, offering low initial down payments and subsidized loan installments, aiming to help young people become homeowners—if successful, it may later expand to those up to 40 years old. The government also encourages the construction of new residential units and aligns with international partners, including the UN and CEB, to support social housing for vulnerable groups such as youth, the elderly, and marginalized communities through active inclusion projects and improved access to basic services. Serbia’s Reform Agenda under the Western Balkans Growth Plan includes commitments to green transition and improved human capital, which influences housing policy by stressing energy efficiency and sustainability in new developments and renovations. However, national targets for the housing sector remain general, focusing on stimulating supply, supporting first-time buyers (notably youth), energy efficiency, and improving the situation for vulnerable groups. Concrete large-scale public or social housing initiatives remain limited and largely depend on donor or EU funding and cooperation with international organizations rather than a central national strategy.

Housing cooperatives in Serbia play a **marginal role in the national housing system**. There are no official statistics indicating a significant share of housing units under cooperative ownership or management; available information and sector reports suggest their presence is negligible compared to the dominant homeownership model. The Serbian housing market is characterized by high rates of private ownership and minimal rental or cooperative supply, while public and social housing make up less than 2% of the total stock. There has been **no notable recent revival or expansion of the cooperative housing sector in Serbia**. Unlike some European countries, Serbia has not developed strong legal frameworks, policy incentives, or national programs specifically to promote cooperative housing. Activities by the national government focus mostly on affordability for first-time buyers—most recently through state-subsidized youth mortgage programs—and small-scale social housing initiatives for vulnerable groups, usually implemented with international partners or donor funding. Current dynamics in housing policy emphasize **ownership and market supply**, with most government support directed at stimulating demand via credit subsidies rather than supporting collective or alternative models like cooperatives. Cooperative housing is not a targeted area of reform or investment in current national strategies, and there are no comprehensive cooperative housing programs or regulations promoted at the national level.

Serbia continues to be a country dominated by homeownership, with the most recent official data from the 2022 census showing only about 6.4% of occupied dwellings are rented, while the share of homeowners significantly exceeds 85%. Renting, mostly through informal market arrangements, is far more common in larger cities, especially among students, young professionals, and foreigners. As of mid-2025, residential property prices have risen steadily. The average price for buying an apartment in Belgrade is approximately €2,990 per square meter, with top central districts such as Stari Grad reaching up to €4,260 per square meter. Regional cities like Novi Sad and Niš report average prices of €2,483 and €1,661 per square meter respectively. Nationally, prices rose by about 4.7% year-on-year. Rents have similarly increased, especially in Belgrade, where rapid growth has been observed since 2022; however, precise median rent per square meter figures for the entire country remain less transparent. Publicly owned housing plays a minor role, accounting for less than 2% of the total housing stock. There is no extensive, coordinated national system for public or social housing, and provision is mostly local and project-based. In Serbia, "public housing" typically refers to municipally owned, non-market housing, while "social housing" focuses on vulnerable groups and is generally implemented with donor or EU funds. The two often overlap in urban contexts but are not strictly synonymous, as public housing can serve broader tenants, not solely the socially vulnerable.