IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ieadps/314023.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Home win: What if Britain solved its housing crisis?

Author

Listed:
  • Niemietz, Kristian

Abstract

This paper is written in the style of a report from the future (the year 2035), or more precisely, from a possible future, in which Britain has successfully solved its housing crisis. Looking 'back', it tells the story of how this happened, and what the consequences were. It starts with a 'recap' of the 'bad old days' before Britain's housing revolution (describing what is, from our perspective, the present). This is a situation of a severe housing shortage. Britain has a much lower level of housing supply than comparable countries. Catching up with the EU average in terms of the number of housing units per 100,000 inhabitants would require the construction of 3.4 million additional homes in England alone. Britain does not just have fewer housing units than comparable countries, but also has unusually small ones. The average British house has only two thirds of the floorspace of the average Dutch, German, Belgian or French house, and less than half of the floorspace of the average North American, Australian or New Zealand house. Median house prices in England stand at more than eight times the median annual full-time salary before taxes. Private sector rents in UK cities are far higher than in comparable cities elsewhere, and even though the social housing sector accounts for almost 17% of the UK housing stock (more than double the EU average and the OECD average), more than a million households are stuck on social housing waiting lists. Britain's housing crisis is not just a problem for those directly affected by it; it makes the country as a whole poorer, in multiple ways. It leads to higher consumer prices across the board, it reduces labour mobility and productivity, it undermines work incentives, it comes at a high fiscal cost, and it introduces macroeconomic instability. Last but not least, it drives political polarisation, especially along generational lines. It has not always been this way. From the mid-19th century until the outbreak of World War II, the British housing stock used to grow by 1% to 2% per year, and housing affordability used to improve steadily. It was the adoption of a new, more restrictive planning system in 1947, and the subsequent formation of organised resistance to development (NIMBYism), which slowed down housebuilding, eventually leading to declining housing affordability. This paper describes how, after 2024, a future 'YIMBY' government decides to grasp the nettle, take on the NIMBYs, and accelerate housebuilding. It does so by, for example, selectively releasing greenbelt land around commuter stations, granting planning permission on golf courses, introducing Street Votes, building New Towns, and localising the tax system, so that communities benefit from development, and start competing for taxpayers. While the description of what happens afterwards is necessarily somewhat speculative (it is, after all, a hypothetical scenario), it is not plucked out of thin air. It is based on a range of empirical literature which analyses housing and planning around the world. On the basis of that literature, it is safe to say that this hypothetical future 'YIMBY Britain' would be a much richer country than the Britain we currently live in, or, for that matter, the Britain we will live in if we remain on the present policy trajectory. It will be a country with far higher housebuilding rates, lower house prices, lower rents, shorter waiting times for social housing, less poverty, less homelessness, lower consumer prices, greater labour mobility, better work incentives, lower fiscal costs, higher rates of business investment, greater macroeconomic stability, and higher productivity. It is also safe to say that a post-housing-crisis Britain would still be a largely 'green and pleasant land'. Even in the South East of England (outside of London), only about 10% of the landmass is developed. Even if we had a complete housing free-for-all (which is not what this paper advocates), there is no chance whatsoever of the English countryside being 'concreted over'.

Suggested Citation

  • Niemietz, Kristian, 2024. "Home win: What if Britain solved its housing crisis?," IEA Discussion Papers 123, Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ieadps:314023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/314023/1/iea-dp123.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Cheshire, 2014. "Turning houses into gold: the failure of British planning," CentrePiece - The magazine for economic performance 421, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    2. Jan K. Brueckner, 1990. "Growth Controls and Land Values in an Open City," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(3), pages 237-248.
    3. John M. Quigley, Steven Raphael, 2001. "The Economics Of Homelessness: The Evidence From North America," European Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 323-336, December.
    4. Cheshire, Paul & Buyuklieva, Boyana, 2019. "Homes on the right tracks: greening the Green Belt to solve the housing crisis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102337, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Burnett, J. Wesley & Lacombe, Donald J. & Wallander, Steven, . "Spatial and Temporal Spillovers in US Cropland Values," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 49(01).
    2. Ding, Chengri & Knaap, Gerrit J. & Hopkins, Lewis D., 1999. "Managing Urban Growth with Urban Growth Boundaries: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 53-68, July.
    3. Gabriel Ahlfeldt & Pantelis Koutroumpis & Tommaso Valletti, 2017. "Speed 2.0: Evaluating Access to Universal Digital Highways," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 586-625.
    4. Wouter Vermeulen & Jan Rouwendal, 2008. "Urban Expansion or Clustered Deconcentration?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 08-043/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. David Christafore & Susane Leguizamon, 2015. "Spatial Spillovers of Land Use Regulation in the United States," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 491-503, June.
    6. Solé-Ollé, Albert & Viladecans-Marsal, Elisabet, 2012. "Lobbying, political competition, and local land supply: Recent evidence from Spain," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 10-19.
    7. Joshi, Kirti Kusum & Kono, Tatsuhito, 2009. "Optimization of floor area ratio regulation in a growing city," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 502-511, July.
    8. Felipe Morandé & Alexandra Petermann & Miguel Vargas, 2010. "Determinants of Urban Vacant Land," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 188-202, February.
    9. Brueckner, Jan K., 1995. "Strategic control of growth in a system of cities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 393-416, July.
    10. Cheshire, Paul & Sheppard, Stephen, 2002. "The welfare economics of land use planning," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 242-269, September.
    11. Satyajit Chatterjee & Burcu Eyigungor, 2017. "A Tractable City Model For Aggregative Analysis," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(1), pages 127-155, February.
    12. Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt & Nancy Holman, 2018. "Distinctively Different: A New Approach to Valuing Architectural Amenities," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(608), pages 1-33, February.
    13. Jyh-Bang Jou & Tan (Charlene) Lee, 2009. "How Does a Development Moratorium Affect Development Timing Choices and Land Values?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 301-315, October.
    14. Jean Cavailhès & Mohamed Hilal & Pierre Wavresky, 2011. "L’influence urbaine sur le prix des terres agricoles et ses conséquences pour l’agriculture," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 444(1), pages 99-125.
    15. Timothy M. Diette & David C. Ribar, 2018. "A Longitudinal Analysis Of Violence And Housing Insecurity," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1602-1621, July.
    16. Cheshire, Paul, 2009. "Urban land markets and policy failures," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 30837, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Turnbull, Geoffrey K., 2004. "Urban growth controls: transitional dynamics of development fees and growth boundaries," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 215-237, March.
    18. Richard J. Vyn, 2012. "Examining for Evidence of the Leapfrog Effect in the Context of Strict Agricultural Zoning," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(3), pages 457-477.
    19. Livanis, Grigorios T. & Moss, Charles B. & Breneman, Vincent E. & Nehring, Richard F., 2005. "Urban Sprawl and Farmland Prices," Working Papers 15657, University of Florida, International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center.
    20. Riddiough, Timothy J., 1997. "The Economic Consequences of Regulatory Taking Risk on Land Value and Development Activity," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 56-77, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:zbw:ieadps:314023. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieaaauk.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.