Across Europe, housing has become a defining policy crisis. Soaring rents, long social housing waiting lists, and mounting political anger are forcing governments to act. France’s social housing waiting list exceeds 2.5 million families, while Housing Europe (2025) estimates a one million unit gap across the continent. One in three OECD residents feels “heavily burdened” by housing costs, double the share before the Great Financial Crisis (Del Pero et al., 2016).

Yet behind the political fury over rents and planning rules lies a quieter question: when governments build new housing, can they also transform children’s futures?

The academic evidence offers little reassurance (see Chyn and Katz 2021). Studies of the US Moving to Opportunity programme – the most rigorous test to date – find that while relocating families to lower-poverty areas modestly improves adult wellbeing, it yields at best small effects on children’s school performance (Kling et al. 2007). Chetty et al. (2016) show that moving very young children to better neighbourhoods raises adult earnings substantially, but short-run test scores barely budge (see also Chyn 2018). These findings fuel scepticism. Why spend billions on new estates if the educational payoff is marginal? A natural experiment from Athens offers a more encouraging answer.

An Olympic-sized social housing experiment

Unlike most Olympic host cities, Athens designed its 2004 Olympic Village from the outset for post-Games social housing. The project was ambitious and at the time Europe’s largest: €300 million, 2,300 housing units across 366 buildings, and roughly 10,000 eventual residents. Crucially, the settlement at the foot of the Parnitha Mountain (Figure 1, Panel A) came with modern infrastructure – landscaped parks, athletic facilities, new schools, and a health clinic (Figure 1, Panel B).

Figure 1 Olympic Village location and architectural plan

Notes: Panel A shows the location of the Olympic Village in Attica. Panel B shows the architectural plan of the village.
Source: Google maps (panel A) and the architectural plan (panel B).

Around 18,000 working families without homeownership applied, and 2,000 were randomly selected via an open lottery. Randomisation is key, as it ensures movers and non-movers are comparable across ability, aspirations, and social networks – eliminating the sorting effects that plague observational studies. The selected families were broadly representative of Attica’s renters, not the very poorest groups targeted by US programmes like MTO or Gautreaux. And unlike MTO, where take-up was incomplete, every selected family moved in 2006.

Short-run gains, concentrated among struggling students

In our study (Genakos et al. 2026), we track secondary school students (ages 12-17) who moved to the Olympic Village and compare their grades with those of classmates whose families entered the lottery but were not selected. All Greek schools follow a national curriculum with standardised grading, so differential improvements can plausibly be attributed to the move itself.

The headline result is that movers’ overall GPA rose by 0.24 standard deviations relative to non-movers – equivalent to shifting from the 50th to the 59th percentile. In Greece, where university admission hinges on competitive national exams, this is educationally meaningful. Gains are concentrated in language courses (ancient Greek, modern Greek, history), with effects approaching one standard deviation. Mathematics and science show smaller effects. Language skills – reading, writing, and communication – appear more responsive to changes in classroom climate and peer dynamics than numeracy skills.

The most striking finding emerges when we split students with their pre-move performance. Low achievers – those below the median before relocating – experience large gains across all subjects, with overall GPA rising by half a standard deviation. High achievers see essentially no change. This asymmetry points to a ‘fresh start’ effect. Teachers lacked prior grade information, so previously weak performers escaped negative labels. Peer hierarchies were fluid, since everyone arrived simultaneously. The modern facilities may have delivered a motivational shock. Whatever the precise mechanism, the programme disproportionately helped students at the bottom, narrowing achievement gaps – precisely the opposite pattern from MTO, where even struggling students showed limited gains (Sanbonmatsu et al. 2006).

Additional findings reinforce the main story. Educational gains are substantially larger for students who moved during the final three years of secondary school (Lykeio, ages 15-18), when exam stakes peak, as students prepare for the competitive national exams – over two standard deviations in overall GPA compared to negligible effects during earlier years (Gymnasio, ages 12-15). Unlike some MTO results, Olympic Village gains are gender-neutral as both boys and girls benefit from the relocation. There is also little heterogeneity by origin neighbourhood income, pollution, or distance to the new settlement: the fresh start effect dominates.

Lessons for policy

Athens’ Olympic Village is an unusual case: a world-class sports complex turned social housing estate by lottery. Yet its lessons are timely, as European governments are ramping up housing investments amid political pressure and affordability crises. The question is not just how many units to build, but how to build them.

The message is not that every new housing estate will automatically boost school performance. Several features of the Olympic Village programme were distinctive. The neighbourhood was well-designed, built from scratch with modern infrastructure, including purpose-built schools staffed under the national system. Families moved as cohorts, so students entered new schools simultaneously rather than being inserted one-by-one into established peer groups. The programme targeted broadly representative working families rather than the most marginalised groups, making the results plausibly relevant to the kinds of social housing investments European governments are currently contemplating. The central finding – that low-achieving adolescents gain substantially while no group is harmed – suggests well-designed social housing can do more than provide shelter. It can create environments where struggling students reset their educational trajectories.

The design of the neighbourhood, not just the number of units, may determine whether a housing programme is also an education programme. For policymakers grappling with today’s housing crisis, that realisation opens the door to optimism – and to strategic thinking about what social housing can achieve.

References

Barnhardt, S, E Field and R Pande (2016), “Moving to opportunity or isolation? Network effects of a randomized housing lottery in urban India”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 9(1): 1–32.

Chetty, R and N Hendren (2018), “The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility I: Childhood exposure effects”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3): 1107–1162.

Chetty, R, N Hendren and L F Katz (2016), “The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the Moving to Opportunity experiment”, American Economic Review 106(4): 855–902.

Chyn, E (2018), “Moved to opportunity: The long-run effects of public housing demolition on children”, American Economic Review 108(10): 3028–3056.

Chyn, E, R Collinson and D Sandler (2025), “The long-run effects of residential racial desegregation programs: Evidence from Gautreaux”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 140(3): 2213–2267.

Chyn, E and L F Katz (2021), “Neighborhoods matter”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 35(4): 197–222.

Del Pero, A S, W Adema, V Ferraro and V Frey (2016), “Policies to promote access to good-quality affordable housing in OECD countries”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper No. 176.

Genakos, C, E Kyrkopoulou and E Papaioannou (2026), “An Olympic Opportunity”, CEPR Discussion Paper 21319.

Housing Europe (2025), State of Housing in Europe, Trends in a Nutshell.

Kling, J R, J B Liebman and L F Katz (2007), “Experimental analysis of neighborhood effects”, Econometrica 75(1): 83–119.

Moreno-Monroy, A, J Gars, T Matsumoto, J Crook, R Ahrend and A Schumann (2020), “Housing policies for sustainable and inclusive cities”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2020/03.

Rosenbaum, J E (1995), “Changing the geography of opportunity by expanding residential choice: Lessons from the Gautreaux program”, Housing Policy Debate 6(1): 231–269.

Saiz, A (2023), “The global housing affordability crisis: Policy options and strategies”, MIT Center for Real Estate Research Paper No. 23/01.

Sanbonmatsu, L, J R Kling, G J Duncan and J Brooks-Gunn (2006), “Neighborhoods and academic achievement: Results from the Moving to Opportunity experiment”, Journal of Human Resources 41(4): 649–691.

Van Dijk, W (2019), “The socio-economic consequences of housing assistance”, Working Paper, Yale University.

Zamani, A, G Karavokiros, B Kotzamanis and K Lalenis (2011), “The social identity of the post-Olympic use of the Olympic Village settlement in Athens – Greece”, ERSA Conference Paper ersa10p1248, European Regional Science Association.