Transcript Slide 1

Access to housing for regular migrants
Thomas Huddleston, 16.11.2012
Migration Policy Group
15+ years as an independent policy ‘think-and-do-tank’
Mission: lasting and positive change for open and inclusive societies
• better informed debate and action on migration, equality and diversity;
• greater European cooperation between & within sectors
4 activities:
• Establish expert networks
• Compare and analyse policies
• Engage more stakeholders at EU level
• Create new opportunities for dialogue and mutual learning
Intl. standards, monitoring, and evaluation
1) Housing rights: Equal access for various legal migrants
increasingly required by EU law. Migration may change general
conditions for social housing, e.g. residence, language (VL, NL)
2) Housing requirements: Access to these legal statuses
increasingly restricted in Northwest Europe for migrants who
use their right to welfare. Access to family reunion limited to
migrants who meet sometimes vague housing requirement.
3) Outcomes: Little monitoring of housing quality & segregation
for migrants & its effects on economic, social, legal integration
MIPEX: Largest and most rigorous set of
policy indicators (148 indicators)
7 Policy Areas for immigrants to participate in society:
1) Labour market mobility* 2) Family reunion* 3) Education
4) Political participation* 5) Long-term residence*
6) Access to nationality 7) Anti-discrimination
• Covers 27 EU Member States, Norway, Switzerland, Canada,
USA (recently Australia, Japan…)
• 100+ national independent legal experts answer and peer
review, all based on policies passed by 31 May 2010
Overall Index
Findings
• Generally, political will
counts, more than tradition
• Related to public opinion
• Changes are slow, rarely
based on data
• Policy more similar/strong
with EU law
• Overall, policies often not
coherent, but linked
Housing rights
Equal welfare rights for long-term residents
Except in CY (improper transposition), US (1996, 5-year exclusion), AU (2-year exclusion for most)
Nearly equal rights for reunited families
Except in CY, CZ, HU, SK (allowed by Directive), DK & UK (General welfare restrictions), IE (no status)
Unequal access to social security for
temporary migrant workers
Half of EU Member States, restrictions in residence duration or nationality for maternity leave, social
security payments, unemployment benefits. Will improve with transposition of Single Permit directive
Access to housing in anti-discrimination law
for some protected grounds
All for race or ethnic origin. Some for religion or belief. Largest gaps on nationality (1/2 EU MS).
Uneven grounds esp. in countries without Single Equality Act (e.g. AU)
Anti-discrimination
• Due to EU law to fight
discrimination, countries
greatly and consistently
improve legal conditions
• Strength of law related to
public awareness, but still
relatively few cases
• Strongest still CA/US, EU
countries with oldest
legislation (UK, BE, NL, SE)
• Limited ‘positive actions &
duties’, equality bodies’
powers/resources, legal
standing for NGOs, class
actions, situation testing
Housing requirements
Divergent housing conditions for family reunion
Pink = None / Blue = General health & safety standards / Black = Further requirements
Any legal means to
prove basic housing
(17/24) & income (18).
AT, FR, IT, SK add more
housing conditions,
while AT, BE, CY, FR,
GR, NL restrict income
largely to legal job
contract.
Level required in many
is vague & unrelated
to personal
circumstances
‘Ius pecuniae’ in European naturalisation laws
Often required (1/2 EU MS, blue & black countries). Despite brief turn around 2000 (NATAC),
new move to ‘ius pecuniae’ in AT, soon BE & NL, UK past & future proposals (Marc Howard)
Housing outcomes
Source: IZA 2011
EU integration indicators (Zaragoza, 2010)
⃝ Employment ⃝ Education ⃝ Social Inclusion ⃝ Active Citizenship
• At-risk-of-poverty-or-social-exclusion
(includes severe material deprivation)
• Income
• Self-reported health
• Property ownership
Other relevant EU housing indicators (EU-SILC)
• Overcrowding (EU)
• Housing cost overburden (OECD)
• Renting at reduced rate or free-of-charge (OECD)
• Access to (housing) benefits (IZA)
• Perceived discrimination in housing (EU-MIDIS)
Note: Data excludes homeless & collective housing
(hospitals, students, workers)
Current EU integration indicators
Property ownership & at-risk-of-poverty
• At EU level, foreign-born (aged 20-64) are 3X less likely to own property,
especially foreigners and people from non-EU countries
• Greatest gaps in FI, GR, IE, IT (newcomers) & LU, NO, ES (high among natives)
• Ownership rates differ by age, residence duration, income, citizenship
• More relevant for measuring long-term integration than social exclusion
• Higher absolute & relative income inequality in most Member States
• Higher poverty risk for non-EU foreign-born (35%) than native-born (20%) or
EU-born (21%), esp. AT, BE, DK, FI, FI, also GR, IT, ES
• Poverty-risk significantly influenced by income, education, employment,
duration of residence, household, use of benefits
Overcrowding
Significantly related to income
Other relevant housing indicators
(OECD forthcoming)
• Across OECD, nearly 1 in 4 people in deprived or overcrowded housing live in
an immigrant household
• Shares in deprived households over 10% for foreign-born in BE, IT, PT, UK
• Housing cost overburden (40%+ of disposable income) more likely among
foreign-born (18%) than native-born (13%), especially in ES, UK, Nordics.
• Housing subsidies are not enough to reduce migrant’s higher housing burden
• Renting at reduced rate or free-of-charge is less likely among foreign-born in
most countries, esp. IE, ES, IT, AT, UK. Similar in FI, DE, CH, BE, NL, SE
Use of benefits
(IZA 2011 Study on Active Inclusion of Migrants)
• 1/3 of EU countries see higher use of overall welfare benefits among foreignborn, mostly due to higher use of unemployment benefits (also housing or
family, not pension or sickness)
• Controlling for socio-economic status, use of benefits among foreign-born is
higher than native-born in 1/3 of EU MS, similar in 1/3, and lower in 1/3
• Lower use of unemployment benefits among unemployed foreign-born
Note: White Bar = No statistical significance, IZA
Probit regression controlling for age, education, gender, number of children in household, IZA
Perceived discrimination
in housing (EU-MIDIS)
• “Least” problematic of nine areas
• Highest perceived prevalence among North
Africans and Roma (11%)
• esp. in Southern Europe (IT), Central Europe
• Only 31% knew of law against racial
discrimination in housing (like other areas)
• Public perceives higher level of
discrimination against foreigners in
countries with greater poverty gaps
between natives & migrants (MPG)