IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rdg/repxwp/rep-wp2007-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Firm Size and Competition: A Comparison of the Housebuilding Industries in Australia, the UK and the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Ball

    (Department of Real Estate & Planning, University of Reading Business School)

Abstract

Housebuilding is frequently viewed as an industry full of small firms. However, large firms exist in many countries. Here, a comparative analysis is made of the housebuilding industries in Australia, Britain and the USA. Housebuilding output is found to be much higher in Australia and the USA than in Britain when measured on a per capita basis. At the same time, the degree of market concentration in Australia and the USA is relatively low but in Britain it is far greater, with a few firms having quite substantial market shares. Investigation of the size distribution of the top 100 or so firms ranked by output also shows that the decline in firm size from the largest downwards is more rapid in Britain than elsewhere. The exceptionalism of the British case is put down to two principal reasons. First, the close proximity of Britain's regions enables housebuilders to diversify successfully across different markets. The gains from such diversification are best achieved by large firms, because they can gain scale benefits in any particular market segment. Second, land shortages induced by a restrictive planning system encourage firms to takeover each other as a quick and beneficial means of acquiring land. The institutional rules of planning also make it difficult for new entrants to come in at the bottom end of the size hierarchy. In this way, concentration grows and a handful of large producers emerge. These conditions do not hold in the other two countries, so their industries are less concentrated. Given the degree of rivalry between firms over land purchases and takeovers, it is difficult to envisage them behaving in a long-term collusive manner, so that competition in British housebuilding is probably not unduly compromised by the exceptional degree of firm concentration. Reforms to lower the restrictions, improve the slow responsiveness and reduce the uncertainties associated with British planning systems' role in housing supply are likely to greatly improve the ability of new firms to enter housebuilding and all firms' abilities to increase output in response to rising housing demand. Such reforms would also probably lower overall housebuilding firm concentration over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Ball, 2007. "Firm Size and Competition: A Comparison of the Housebuilding Industries in Australia, the UK and the USA," Real Estate & Planning Working Papers rep-wp2007-02, Henley Business School, University of Reading.
  • Handle: RePEc:rdg:repxwp:rep-wp2007-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.henley.reading.ac.uk/rep/fulltxt/0207.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward L. Glaeser & Joseph Gyourko, "undated". "The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability," Zell/Lurie Center Working Papers 395, Wharton School Samuel Zell and Robert Lurie Real Estate Center, University of Pennsylvania.
    2. Mary O’Mahony & Willem de Boer, 2002. "Britain’s Relative Productivity Performance: Has Anything Changed?," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 179(1), pages 38-43, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ed Ferrari, 2015. "The Social Value of Housing in Straitened Times: The View from England," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 514-534, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert J. Shiller, 2007. "Understanding recent trends in house prices and homeownership," Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pages 89-123.
    2. Balázs Égert, 2007. "Real Convergence, Price Level Convergence and Inflation in Europe," Working Papers 267, Bruegel.
    3. Martin, Ralf, 2009. "Why is the US so energy intensive? Evidence from US multinationals in the UK," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28703, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. François Ortalo-Magné & Andrea Prat, 2005. "The Political Economy of Housing Supply," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000954, UCLA Department of Economics.
    5. Rutger-Jan Lange & Coen N. Teulings, 2021. "The option value of vacant land: Don't build when demand for housing is booming," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-022/IV, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Kostakis, Ioannis & Lolos, Sarantis & Doulgeraki, Charikleia, 2020. "Cultural Heritage led Growth: Regional evidence from Greece (1998-2016)," MPRA Paper 98443, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Raphael W. Bostic & Stanley D. Longhofer & Christian L. Redfearn, 2007. "Land Leverage: Decomposing Home Price Dynamics," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 183-208, June.
    8. Gottlieb, Paul D. & Rudel, Thomas & O'Neill, Karen & McDermott, Melanie, 2011. "Is agricultural zoning exclusionary?," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103562, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Francisco Amaral & Martin Dohmen & Sebastian Kohl & Moritz Schularick, 2022. "Interest Rates and the Spatial Polarization of Housing Markets," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 212, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    10. Rutger-Jan Lange & Coen Teulings, 2018. "The option value of vacant land and the optimal timing of city extensions," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-033/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Edward L. Glaeser & Joseph Gyourko & Raven E. Saks, 2005. "Why Have Housing Prices Gone Up?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 329-333, May.
    12. Jenny Schuetz, 2008. "Guarding the Town Walls: Mechanisms and Motives for Restricting Multifamily Housing in Massachusetts," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 555-586, September.
    13. Marco Del Negro & Christopher Otrok, 2005. "Monetary policy and the house price boom across U.S. states," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2005-24, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    14. Shigeru Fujita, 2022. "Labor Market Recovery During the COVID-19 Pandemic," Economic Insights, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, vol. 7(2), pages 2-10, July.
    15. Oliver W. Lerbs & Christian A. Oberst, 2014. "Explaining the Spatial Variation in Homeownership Rates: Results for German Regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(5), pages 844-865, May.
    16. Michael Storper, 2010. "Why Does a City Grow? Specialisation, Human Capital or Institutions?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(10), pages 2027-2050, September.
    17. Richard Florida & Charlotta Mellander & Kevin Stolarick, 2016. "Human capital in cities and suburbs," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 57(1), pages 91-123, July.
    18. Arthur Grimes & Suzi Kerr & Andrew Aitken, 2003. "Housing and Economic Adjustment," Urban/Regional 0310006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Mauro Giorgio Marrano & Jonathan Haskel & Gavin Wallis, 2009. "What Happened To The Knowledge Economy? Ict, Intangible Investment, And Britain'S Productivity Record Revisited," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 55(3), pages 686-716, September.
    20. Kulkarni, Nirupama & Malmendier, Ulrike, 2022. "Homeownership segregation," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 123-149.

    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:rdg:repxwp:rep-wp2007-02. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Marie Pearson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bsrdguk.html .

    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.