Brussels asked for housing advice — then ignored its own EU‑funded research 

by · EUobserver

Housing has always been the responsibility of national, regional and local governments. This institutional reality becomes increasingly problematic as the lack of affordable housing has turned into a defining socio-economic emergency across the EU (Source: Adrien Olichon)

Society

Brussels asked for housing advice — then ignored its own EU‑funded research 

Unlock article and share
By Darinka Czischke,
Delft
,

The European Affordable Housing Plan has already drawn criticism for falling well short of expectations.

By framing the housing crisis as a temporary imbalance that can be corrected simply by building more “affordable” homes, the plan overlooks the deep structural forces that produced this crisis in the first place.

Worse, it risks reinforcing the very dynamics it claims to solve.

These concerns are not ideological; they are grounded in decades of rigorous scientific research.

Despite the EU Commission’s efforts, including the creation of a Housing Task Force, an advisory board, a public consultation, and several commissioned reports, the outcome is seen as unsatisfactory for many.

And the reason is clear. From its inception, the plan was shaped by a hurried, politically negotiated process responding to mounting pressure from member states, industry groups and civil society.

It was constrained by the very conditions that would ultimately limit its impact. 

The nature of EU policymaking makes this almost inevitable. Housing policy sits at the crossroads of conflicting political agendas and powerful interest groups, and the result is rarely transformative.

Instead, this type of policy making tends to be technocratic, incremental and focused on short-term fixes that can be agreed upon quickly.

Crisis mode

The plan was conceived in crisis mode, mirroring the reactive logic of many national “housing crisis” strategies: rushed, politically driven, and shaped more by the need to be seen to act than by a deep understanding of the root of the problem.

Compounding this is the fact that housing is not an EU competence.

Housing has always been the responsibility of individual member states and their regional and local governments. This institutional reality becomes increasingly problematic as the lack of affordable housing has turned into a defining socio-economic emergency across the Union.

The paradox is that, precisely when European-level action is most needed, the EU institutions lack embedded housing expertise and therefore depend heavily on external input.

That dependency, in turn, creates the need for compromise between actors with divergent priorities, diluting any proposal that might have led to meaningful structural change.

The result is a plan that lacks a coherent diagnosis of Europe’s housing challenges. Without a clear understanding of the long-term causes of the crisis, the proposed solutions cannot be fit for purpose.

This is precisely where the academic community’s frustration becomes most acute.

Housing researchers across Europe have spent decades building a rigorous, cumulative body of knowledge: conceptual frameworks, empirical evidence, comparative analyses, policy evaluations and long-term reflections grounded in peer review and interdisciplinary dialogue.

There is no shortage of expertise. There is no shortage of EU-funded research on housing. There is no shortage of evidence.

What’s missing?

A case in point is the statement in the plan of the alleged “absence of data” on “the role that increased financialisation and speculation are playing in the housing crisis”.

There are countless academic studies, books, conferences, and policy reports written by well-known European scholars on the matter in the last couple of decades.

What is really missing is the time, space and political will to engage with this knowledge meaningfully. Knowledge must be debated, internalised and allowed to shape policy. That cannot happen in a one-year policy sprint.

The creation of an advisory group was well-intentioned, but ultimately insufficient. Their recommendations were overshadowed by political pressure, lobbying and consultant reports, produced at speed by generalists who often rely on unpaid one-hour interviews with academic experts.

Not only is this a form of intellectual extractivism – harvesting expertise without compensation, recognition or depth – but it is also an inadequate method for understanding a complex, historically layered policy field like housing.

In the end, the plan falls short because it mirrors the very problems that plague housing governance across the EU: short-termism, technocratic thinking, superficial analysis and a reliance on untested assumptions.

Worst of all, it sidelines the vast body of scientific knowledge produced – often with EU funding – by researchers who have dedicated their careers to understanding housing systems.

If the EU is serious about addressing the housing crisis, it must commit to a sustained, structured dialogue with the research community. Not as an afterthought, not as a box-ticking exercise, but as a core component of policymaking.

A conversation…at least

Despite its shortcomings, the plan helps set a conversation in motion.

It initiates a conversation that now needs to be deepened and sustained. At the European Network for Housing Research (ENHR), the largest network of housing scholars in Europe since 1988, we are already working to build that dialogue.

Europe’s housing challenges are complex, long-term and deeply structural.

Addressing them requires a partnership grounded in evidence, openness and mutual learning. As a research community, we stand ready to help build that long-term relationship with the European Union and contribute to solutions that tackle the problem at its root.

It is time for the EU to match that readiness with a sustained, serious commitment to policymaking based on scientific evidence. Only then can we build housing systems that truly serve Europe’s future.

Unlock article and share

Latest from EU Politics

Brussels to finalise tougher migrant returns and costly detention centres outside EU

France, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria: how ‘grand coalition’ centrism actually breeds extremes

Latest from Housing

THIS WEEK: Armenia plays host, as Canada’s Carney brings ‘middle power’ strategy to Europe

Latest from Society

How Israel and Russia turned Eurovision into a culture-war zone

EU court deals major blow to Orbán’s legacy and anti-gay crackdown

Housing has always been the responsibility of national, regional and local governments. This institutional reality becomes increasingly problematic as the lack of affordable housing has turned into a defining socio-economic emergency across the EU (Source: Adrien Olichon)

Topics

Author Bio

Darinka Czischke is associate professor in housing and social sustainability at Delft University of Technology, and vice-chair of the European Network for Housing Research (ENHR), and former research director of the European Social Housing Observatory at Housing Europe (2004-2010).

+ Follow author by email