Harmonised cross-national data from five European countries reveals persistent differences in residential mobility and housing patterns among immigrants and their descendants in Europe. Joseph Harrison notes that differences between immigrants and natives decline from one generation to the next but this is not consistent across countries, highlighting the importance of destination housing market contexts.
Homeownership is often treated as a marker of successful integration. Governments track it, linking it to wealth accumulation and social stability, and the population cares about it. Yet across Europe, immigrants and their children can encounter very different housing trajectories. Where people live, whether they gain access to homeownership, and how often they move are closely linked to broader outcomes such as social participation, educational opportunity, and labour market success (Borjas, 2002)
Research in this area has long been shaped by spatial assimilation (Alba and Logan, 1992), which views residential mobility and housing upgrading as key mechanisms through which immigrants integrate into host societies. From this perspective, inequalities in housing outcomes (i.e. differences between immigrants and natives) should gradually diminish for immigrants who settle and for their descendants. Yet a growing body of evidence points to more uneven trajectories. Approaches emphasising stratification and segmented assimilation suggest that structural barriers – including discrimination, labour market segmentation, and institutional constraints in housing systems – may limit residential mobility and access to homeownership, even over time and across generations (Zhou, 1997).
Housing systems also differ across countries. There are distinct differences in access to credit across contexts that can perpetuate differences between immigrants and majority populations. Likewise in the rental sector, where different levels of social housing availability and tenancy protection may make renting more economically feasible as an alternative to owner-occupied tenure (Kemeny, 2006; Mulder and Billari, 2010). Despite extensive research on immigrant housing within individual countries, comparative evidence remains scarce. This is partly due to challenges of data comparability across national contexts. Moreover, much less is known about how housing and residential outcomes evolve between the first and second generation, and to what extent these processes depend on national housing systems.
To address these gaps, in a recent article (Harrison et al. 2026), we harmonised panel and administrative data across five European countries. We focused on two outcomes: first, residential relocation, to capture whether individuals change dwelling, a factor that reflects opportunity, constraint, and the overall fluidity of housing markets; second, housing tenure, with particular attention to moves into homeownership versus remaining in rental housing. Tenure transitions are not only markers of socioeconomic position, but also reflect institutional barriers, credit access, and differences in the value placed on homeownership across groups and contexts.
Residential mobility: convergence and constraint
Turning first to residential mobility (Figure 1), the most striking finding is the scale of cross-national variation. Residential moves are considerably more common in Switzerland, France, and Sweden than in the UK and Germany, reflecting well-established differences in housing market structure and regulation. These national patterns shape residential opportunities for immigrants and natives alike.
Within countries, however, mobility varies substantially across origin groups. Immigrants are not uniformly more or less mobile than natives. In the UK, for example, immigrants from European and Western countries and from India move more frequently than natives, while those from Pakistan move less. Sweden stands out for particularly high mobility among immigrants from the Middle East. By contrast, individuals of Turkish origin consistently display lower mobility across all five countries.
Across generations, there is little evidence of a single or linear assimilation trajectory. In both the UK and France, second-generation groups tend to be less mobile than both first-generation immigrants and natives, suggesting residential stabilisation rather than upward mobility. Germany shows the opposite pattern: descendants of immigrants are more mobile than their parents, and in some cases even more mobile than native Germans. In Sweden and Switzerland, generational differences are smaller, though some Eastern European groups become more mobile in the second generation. Overall, residential mobility does not steadily converge across generations, but instead reflects a complex interaction between origin, generation, and national context.
Housing tenure and intergenerational change
Figure 2 shifts attention from whether people move to where they move within the housing system. Again, national housing regimes play a decisive role. Transitions into homeownership are rare in Germany, but relatively common in France and especially Sweden, among both immigrants and natives.
Across all countries, immigrants are generally less likely than natives to move into homeownership and more likely to enter rental housing, including social housing where it exists. These gaps are particularly pronounced for non-Western groups in France and Sweden.
The second generation shows clearer signs of progress. Descendants of immigrants are more likely than the first generation to transition into homeownership, reflecting both life-course timing and adaptation to host-country housing norms, a process reinforced by rising levels of partnership exogamy. However, convergence with natives remains limited. Only descendants of European and some Asian origins reach homeownership at similar rates to natives. Most non-Western groups continue to face disadvantages and remain overrepresented in rental and social housing, particularly in France.
Take-home messages
Three conclusions stand out. First, destination context matters. Differences in housing systems shape outcomes for immigrants and natives alike. In countries with highly regulated rental markets and limited pathways from renting to owning, such as France, disadvantages in tenure tend to persist across generations. By contrast, systems that combine affordable rental options with easier access to credit are associated with greater residential mobility and higher rates of transition into homeownership.
Second, intergenerational improvement is real but uneven. While the descendants of immigrants often fare better than their parents, convergence with native populations is far from guaranteed, particularly for non-Western groups.
Finally, housing institutions play a critical role in shaping long-term integration. This could inspire policy implications which focus on the removal of barriers to credit access and address discrimination in housing markets, both of which may have lasting effects, not only for immigrants themselves, but also for their descendants. Otherwise, inequality can be reproduced across generations despite educational and labour market improvements.
By placing immigrant housing outcomes in a comparative perspective, this research highlights integration as a context-dependent and multi-generational process. Future work combining quantitative comparisons with qualitative insights into housing preferences, discrimination, and decision-making would further illuminate the mechanisms behind these patterns.
References
Alba, R. D. and Logan, J. R. (1992) ‘Assimilation and stratification in the homeownership patterns of racial and ethnic groups.’, International Migration Review, 26(4). doi: 10.1177/019791839202600411.
Borjas, G. J. (2002) ‘Homeownership in the immigrant population’, Journal of Urban Economics, 52(3), pp. 448–476. doi: 10.1016/S0094-1190(02)00529-6.
Harrison, J., Delaporte, I., Kulu, H. et al. (2026) Residential Mobility and Housing Tenure Among Immigrants and Their Descendants: a Cross-National Analysis of Five European Countries. European Journal of Population, 42(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-025-09757-3.
Kemeny, J. (2006) ‘Corporatism and housing regimes’, Housing, Theory and Society, 23(1), pp. 1–18. doi: 10.1080/14036090500375423.
Mulder, C. H. and Billari, F. C. (2010) ‘Homeownership regimes and low fertility’, Housing Studies, 25(4), pp. 527–541. doi: 10.1080/02673031003711469.
Zhou, M. (1997) ‘Segmented assimilation: Issues, controversies, and recent research on the new second generation’, International Migration Review, 31(4), pp. 975–1008. doi: 10.2307/2547421.