Moving and Housing Expenditure: Transaction Costs and Disequilibrium
AbstractThe paper emphasizes initially the effects of moving transaction costs on the potential effect of government rent subsidy programs. As a concomitant to this analysis, the paper reaffirms the low income elasticities of housing expenditure among low-income renters found by others. Moving transaction costs are high on average among renters in our sample but vary widely between geographic regions and evidently vary a great deal among families as well. By our measure, transaction costs reflect monetary and especially non-monetary gains and losses associated with moving. Moving transaction costs in conjunction with low income elasticities make government lump-sum transfers very ineffective in increasing housing expenditure among low-incomerenters.A dollar of unconstrained transfer payment would increase housing expenditure by only 2 to 7 cents in the two cities in our data set. Minimum rent plans, that make the transfer payment conditional on spending at leasta minimum amount on rent, have larger effects on average than unconstrained transfers. Typical programs might increase rent by 10 to 30 cents per dollar of transfer payment. But families who spend the least on rent a real so those least likely to benefit from the minimum rent programs. To obtain payments under these plans, families who would otherwise spend less than the minimum must surmount the transaction costs associated with moving and must also reallocate income to favor housing in proportions that may be far from their preferred allocations. Thus only a small proportion of families with initial market rents below the minimum will ultimately participate in the programs. And of the total payments to these families, 15 to 32 percent is dead weight loss, according to our estimates. In addition, we find that because moving transaction costs and income elasticities vary widely among regions, the effects of any given government program are also likely to vary greatly from one region to the other.As a fortuitous benefit of the housing allowance demand experiment data that we used, we were also able to check our model results against experimental results. The model predictions and the experimental results correspond quite closely. The differences that are found can apparently be explained in large part by the impact of self-selection on the estimated experimental treatment effects. The self-determination of enrollment and the attrition inherent in the estimated experimental effects seriously detract from the potential benefits of experimental randomization. Therefore our model estimates may be more reliable than the experimental ones in this instance. Of course this judgment depends in large part on the experiment having been done so that we could check our model predictions against the experimental outcomes.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 1012.
Date of creation: Jan 1985
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as Venti, Steven F. and David A. Wise. "Moving and Housing Expenditure: Transaction Costs and Disequilibrium." Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 23, ( 1984), pp. 207-243.
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Venti, Steven F. & Wise, David A., 1984. "Moving and housing expenditure: Transaction costs and disequilibrium," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1-2), pages 207-243.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mervyn A. King, 1980. "An econometric model of tenure choice and demand for housing as a joint decision," NBER Chapters, in: Econometric Studies in Public Finance, pages 137-159 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Friedman, Joseph & Weinberg, Daniel H., 1982. "Housing consumption under a constrained income transfer," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 253-271, May.
- King, Mervyn A., 1980. "An econometric model of tenure choice and demand for housing as a joint decision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 137-159, October.
- Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1980. "Discontinuous Budget Constraints and Estimation: The Demand for Housing," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 75-96, January.
- Weinberg, Daniel H. & Friedman, Joseph & Mayo, Stephen K., 1981. "Intraurban residential mobility: The role of transactions costs, market imperfections, and household disequilibrium," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 332-348, May.
- Friedman, Joseph & Weinberg, Daniel H., 1981. "The demand for rental housing: Evidence from the Housing Allowance Demand Experiment," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 311-331, May.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.