000 02175nab a2200193 4500
003 OSt
005 20220929195916.0
007 cr aa aaaaa
008 220929b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100 _aRodríguez-Pose , Andrés
_953463
245 _aHousing, urban growth and inequalities: The limits to deregulation and upzoning in reducing economic and spatial inequality/
_cAndrés Rodríguez-Pose
260 _aLondon:
_bSage,
_c2020.
300 _aVol 57, Issue 2, 2020: ( 223–248 p.)
520 _aUrban 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.
700 _aStorper, Michael
_953464
773 0 _08843
_916581
_dLondon Sage Publications Ltd. 1964
_tUrban studies
_x0042-0980
856 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019859458
942 _2ddc
_cART
999 _c13167
_d13167