Housing in the ideology of the radical right

This resource, titled "Housing in the ideology of the radical right," is part of the Research Brief Series on the Politics of Housing published by the Progressive Politics Research Network, authored by Dorothee Bohle and Lina Ehrich. The brief investigates the housing policies of radical right parties in Europe, analyzing whether these parties pursue coherent socio-economic policies regarding housing.

European countries are currently facing a significant shortage of affordable housing. Over the past decades, the share of public or social housing has diminished, housing construction has slowed, and house prices have escalated drastically. This crisis hampers labor market mobility and affects family formation, leading young people to be priced out of housing markets. The authors argue that addressing this crisis typically calls for policies associated with the political left, emphasizing social justice and affordability. However, radical right parties have recently begun to appropriate this issue for their agendas.

The brief outlines a shift in housing paradigms from seeing housing as a social right, a view traditionally held by the political left, to understanding it as an asset. Since the 1980s, policies have increasingly favored market-based homeownership and individual wealth accumulation. The authors note that while this assetization has empowered institutional investors, it has also led to rising housing inequalities and a housing crisis that radical right parties exploit.

Radical right parties have redefined housing not as a social right but as a matter of national identity, family values, and private ownership. Their housing policies target middle-class families and the "deserving poor," often emphasizing rural populations. The authors identify an ultraconservative housing ideology that promotes homeownership as a moral and intergenerational asset rather than merely an economic one.

The notion of housing-as-patrimony includes several core features: 1. Familialism – housing policies focus on the nuclear family as the core unit for social order. 2. Status-based differentiation – access to housing benefits is stratified along moral or national lines. 3. Rural community emphasis – prioritizing non-urban living that fosters local identity. 4. Promotion of stable homeownership – encouraging family-owned homes while resisting speculative markets.

The brief provides examples from Hungary and Austria, where radical right parties have successfully implemented policies aligned with their housing ideology. In Hungary, the Fidesz Party has introduced several measures promoting less financialized homeownership, including a Family Housing Support Program rewarding families who promise to have children. In Austria, the Freedom Party has shifted away from viewing housing as a social right, focusing instead on privatizing public housing and promoting homeownership.

The radical right’s approach to housing does not solve the ongoing crisis but rather exacerbates housing inequalities, making affordable housing less accessible. While the authors argue that there is no evidence that voters support these parties solely for their housing policies, the current housing crisis continues to empower the radical right. The research brief ultimately suggests that any effective progressive housing policy must articulate an inclusive vision of community that transcends property ownership. It emphasizes the need for alternative housing models that prioritize collective life and democratic participation over individual wealth accumulation, reflecting a shift towards sustainable housing policies that address the needs of all citizens, including those traditionally marginalized.