IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v72y1996i1p43-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Examination of the Monopoly Zoning Hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • James A. Thorson

Abstract

There have been several studies that have investigated the effect of zoning on housing prices. One hypothesis is that the restrictiveness of zoning laws will vary with the monopoly power of a town. The degree of monopoly power varies with the number of towns in the urban area. Urban areas with few zoning jurisdictions are likely to have higher housing prices than more fragmented urban areas. Previous research on this topic has shown mixed results. The results in this article suggest that towns with more monopoly power do tend to have significantly higher housing prices than more fragmented urban areas.

Suggested Citation

  • James A. Thorson, 1996. "An Examination of the Monopoly Zoning Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 43-55.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:1:p:43-55
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147156
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schuetz, Jenny, 2015. "Why are Walmart and Target Next-Door neighbors?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 38-48.
    2. Fran?ois Ortalo-Magn? & Andrea Prat, 2014. "On the Political Economy of Urban Growth: Homeownership versus Affordability," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 154-181, February.
    3. Bates, Laurie J. & Santerre, Rexford E., 2003. "The impact of a state mandated expenditure floor on aggregate property values," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 531-540, May.
    4. John M. Quigley & Steven Raphael, 2004. "Is Housing Unaffordable? Why Isn't It More Affordable?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(1), pages 191-214, Winter.
    5. Jae Kim & Geoffrey Hewings, 2013. "Land use regulation and intraregional population–employment interaction," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 51(3), pages 671-693, December.
    6. Quigley, John M. & Rosenthal, Larry A., 2005. "The Effects of Land-Use Regulation on the Price of Housing: What Do We Know? What Can We Learn?," Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy, Working Paper Series qt90m9g90w, Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy.
    7. Raymond Y. C. Tse, 1998. "Housing Price, Land Supply and Revenue from Land Sales," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(8), pages 1377-1392, July.
    8. J. Peter Clinch & Eoin O'Neill, 2010. "Assessing the Relative Merits of Development Charges and Transferable Development Rights in an Uncertain World," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(4), pages 891-911, April.
    9. Jiang, Yong & Swallow, Stephen K., 2017. "Impact Fees Coupled With Conservation Payments to Sustain Ecosystem Structure: A Conceptual and Numerical Application at the Urban-Rural Fringe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 136-147.
    10. Zabel, Jeffrey & Dalton, Maurice, 2011. "The impact of minimum lot size regulations on house prices in Eastern Massachusetts," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 571-583.
    11. Bates, Laurie J. & Santerre, Rexford E., 2013. "Does regionalization of local public health services influence public spending levels and allocative efficiency?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 209-219.
    12. Christopher J. Webster, 1998. "Public Choice, Pigouvian and Coasian Planning Theory," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(1), pages 53-75, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:1:p:43-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.