Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Housing, urban growth and inequalities
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Housing, urban growth and inequalities
Do you wish to request the book?
Housing, urban growth and inequalities
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Housing, urban growth and inequalities
2020
Overview
Urban economics and branches of mainstream economics – what we call the ‘housing as opportunity’ school of thought – have been arguing that shortages of affordable housing in dense agglomerations represent a fundamental barrier to economic development. Housing shortages are considered to limit migration into thriving cities, curtailing their expansion potential, generating rising social and spatial inequalities and inhibiting national growth. According to this dominant view, relaxing zoning and other planning regulations in the most prosperous cities is crucial to unleash the economic potential of cities and nations and to facilitate within-country migration. In this article, we contend that the bulk of the claims of the housing as opportunity approach are fundamentally flawed and lead to simplistic and misguided policy recommendations. We posit that there is no clear and uncontroversial evidence that housing regulation is a principal source of differences in home availability or prices across cities. Blanket changes in zoning are unlikely to increase domestic migration or to improve affordability for lower-income households in prosperous areas. They would, however, increase gentrification within metropolitan areas and would not appreciably decrease income inequality. In contrast to the housing models, we argue that the basic motors of all these features of the economy are the current geography of employment, wages and skills.
城市经济学和主流经济学的分支(我们称之为“住房即机遇”学派)一直认为，密集集聚区经济适用房的短缺是经济发展的根本障碍。住房短缺被认为限制了向繁荣城市的移民，削弱了城市的扩张潜力，导致社会和空间不平等加剧，抑制了国家增长。根据这一主流观点，在最繁荣的城市放松分区和其他规划条例对于释放城市和国家的经济潜力以及促进国内移民至关重要。在本文中，我们认为大部分的“住房即机遇”权利主张都是有根本缺陷的，并导致了简单化和误导性的政策建议。我们认为，没有明确且无争议的证据表明，住房条例是城市间住房供应或价格差异的主要原因。分区的全面改变不太可能增加国内移民，也不太可能提高富裕地区低收入家庭的负担能力。然而，它们会促进大都市地区的绅士化，且不会明显减少收入不平等。与住房模型相反，我们认为所有这些经济特征的基本驱动力是当前的就业、工资和技能地理分布。
