Housing in the ideology of the radical right

Overview

The research brief “Housing in the ideology of the radical right” is published by the Progressive Politics Research Network at the University of Oxford’s Nuffield Politics Centre. It is authored by Dorothee Bohle, a professor of political science at the University of Vienna, and Lina Ehrich, a researcher at the same institution. The brief analyses how far‑right parties across Europe frame housing policy, presenting an “ultraconservative” housing paradigm that links housing to national identity, family values and private ownership rather than to a social right.

Political Context

The study examines manifestos of five radical right parties – Hungary’s Fidesz, Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ), Denmark’s People’s Party (DF), Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) and Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS) – and the policies implemented by the Hungarian and Austrian governments when these parties were in power. It shows that these parties consistently promote housing as a matter of cultural belonging and intergenerational patrimony, targeting middle‑class native families while marginalising migrants and low‑income groups.

Core Findings

Four defining features emerge across the parties:

1. Familialism – policies favour nuclear, heteronormative families.
2. Status‑based differentiation – benefits are tied to national or cultural status.
3. Rural or community anchoring – emphasis on non‑urban, “rooted” living.
4. Non‑commodified ownership – promotion of stable, family‑owned homes over market‑driven rental models. These elements constitute a coherent “housing‑as‑patrimony” paradigm that contrasts with the neoliberal “housing‑as‑asset” model and the left‑leaning “housing‑as‑social‑right” approach.

Policy Illustrations

In Hungary, the Family Housing Support Programme (CSOK) provides grants to families that pledge to have children, with eligibility tied to marriage, criminal‑record checks and prior social‑security contributions – measures that effectively exclude Roma families. In Austria, the FPÖ‑led coalition privatized the state‑owned BUWOG housing portfolio for roughly €961 million and later introduced restrictive rules for third‑country nationals accessing cooperative housing. Both cases show a shift from public provision to private ownership, reinforcing the patrimonial narrative.

Impact on Housing Markets

The brief notes that radical‑right policies have not alleviated the broader European housing crisis. Instead, they have contributed to reduced public housing construction, increased reliance on private capital, and heightened inequality. Institutional investors dominate rental markets in several countries, and policies that limit social housing or favour owner‑occupancy can exacerbate affordability problems for low‑income households.

Electoral Consequences

Evidence from Hungary indicates that targeted rural housing subsidies (e.g., Rural CSOK) have boosted Fidesz vote shares in eligible settlements by mobilising core supporters and demobilising opposition voters. Similar dynamics are observed elsewhere: rising house prices and rent levels correlate with increased support for radical‑right parties, especially among homeowners seeking to protect property values.

Sustainable Housing Implications

For a pan‑European audience concerned with sustainable housing, the brief highlights that the radical‑right paradigm prioritises private ownership and national‑cultural criteria over ecological or social sustainability. The focus on individual homeownership can hinder collective solutions such as cooperative housing, energy‑efficient retrofits, and inclusive urban planning. The authors argue that progressive alternatives must re‑center housing as a communal good, promote participatory governance, and integrate climate‑friendly design to counter the exclusionary, market‑driven trends identified.

Conclusions

The research demonstrates that far‑right parties across Europe share a coherent, ultraconservative housing ideology that reframes housing from a social right to a symbol of national identity and family patrimony. While this paradigm does not resolve the housing affordability crisis, it influences policy directions, electoral outcomes and the broader sustainability agenda. The brief calls for a revitalised progressive housing agenda that emphasizes inclusivity, democratic control and environmental responsibility to address Europe’s mounting housing challenges.