Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-r5qjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-13T13:25:04.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Broken market or broken policy? The unintended consequences of restrictive planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Paul Cheshire
Paul Cheshire*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Centre for Economic Performance, Urban Programme
*
E-mail: p.cheshire@lse.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper summarises the evidence from recent research relating to the British Planning system's impact on the supply of development. Planning serves important economic and social purposes but it is essential to distinguish between restricting development relative to demand in particular places to provide public goods and mitigate market failure in other ways, including ensuring the future ability of cities to expand and maintain a supply of public goods and infrastructure; and an absolute restriction on supply, raising prices of housing and other urban development generally. Evidence is presented that there are at least four separate mechanisms, inbuilt into the British system, which result in a systematic undersupply of land and space for both residential and commercial purposes and that these have had important effects on both our housing market and the wider economy and on welfare more widely defined.

Keywords

economic efficiencyhousing supply constraintsland use regulationR13R38

Information

Type
Research Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 245 , August 2018 , pp. R9 - R19
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

The support of the Centre for Economic Performance's Urban Programme is gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank colleagues at LSE with whom I have discussed these ideas over the years, notably Christian Hilber and Henry Overman and also other colleagues such as Hans Koster at Vrije, Universiteit Amsterdam and Stephen Sheppard, Williams College who have equally at different times contributed with insights and criticisms. In addition thanks to Piero Montebruno for his professional and ever willing work preparing the map reproduced as Figure 1. All errors are the responsibility of the author.

References

Ahlfeldt, G.M., Möller, K., Waights, S. and Wendland, N. (2017), ‘Game of zones: the political economy of conservation areas’, Economic Journal, 127, F421–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S.T. and West, S.E. (2006), ‘Open space, residential property values, and spatial context’, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36, pp. 773–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auterson, T. (2014), ‘Forecasting house prices’, OBR Working Paper No 6.Google Scholar
Barker, K. (2003), Review of Housing Supply: Securing our Future Housing Needs: Interim Report – Analysis, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Barker, K. (2006a), Barker Review of Land Use Planning; Interim Report – Analysis, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Barker, K. (2006b), Barker Review of Land Use Planning; Final Report – Recommendations, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Ball, M. (2011), ‘Planning delay and the responsiveness of English housing supply’, Urban Studies, 48, pp. 349–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheshire, P., D'Arcy, E. and Giussano, B. (1992), ‘Purpose-built for failure? the structure of local, regional and national government in Britain’, Environment and Planning C, 10, pp. 355–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, P. and Hilber, C. (2008), ‘Office space supply restrictions in Britain: the political economy of market revenge’, Economic Journal, 118 (June), F185–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, P., Hilber, C.A.L. and Kaplanis, I. (2015) ‘Land use regulation and productivity – land matters: evidence from a UK supermarket chain’, Journal of Economic Geography, 15, pp. 43–73, doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbu007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, P., Hilber, C.A.L. and Koster, H. (2018), ‘Empty homes, longer commutes: the unintended consequences of more restrictive local planning’, Journal of Public Economics, 158, pp. 126–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, P., Marlee, I. and Sheppard, S. (2000), Development of a microsimulation model for analysing the effects of the planning system housing choices: Final Report, Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics, xv + 71 + Appendices.Google Scholar
Cheshire, P., Nathan, N. and Overman, H.G. (2014), Urban Economics and Urban Policy: Challenging Conventional Policy Wisdom, Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, P. and Sheppard, S. (1989), ‘British planning policy and access to the housing market: some empirical estimates’, Urban Studies, 26, pp. 469–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, K. (1995), ‘On the price of land and the value of amenities’, Economica, 62, pp. 247–67.Google Scholar
Barker, K. (1997), Welfare Economics of Land Use Regulation, Research Papers in Environmental and Spatial Analysis, No. 42, Dept. of Geography & Environment: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Barker, K. (1998), ‘Estimating the demand for housing, land and neighbourhood characteristics’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 60, pp. 357–82.Google Scholar
Barker, K. (2002), ‘Welfare economics of land use regulation’, Journal of Urban Economics, 52, pp. 242–69.Google Scholar
Barker, K. (2004), ‘Capitalising the value of free schools: the impact of supply constraints and uncertainty’, Economic Journal (November), F397–424.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (2012), The National Planning Policy Framework, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. and Pindyck, R. (1994), Investment Under Uncertainty, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, S., Mourato, S. and Resende, G.M. (2014), ‘The amenity value of English nature: a hedonic price approach’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 57, pp. 175–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P.G. (1975), Urban and Regional Planning, Harmondsworth/London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hall, P.G., Gracey, H., Drewett, R. and Thomas, R. (1973), The Containment of Urban England, London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Hilber, C.A.L., Palmer, C. and Pinchbeck, E. (2017), ‘The energy costs of historic preservation’, London School of Economics (forthcoming as SERC and Grantham Discussion Papers).Google Scholar
Hilber, C.A.L. and Vermeulen, W. (2016), ‘The impact of supply constraints on house prices in England’, Economic Journal, 126, pp. 358–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HMSO (1996), Household Growth: where shall we live?, Cm. 3471, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Hsieh, C.-T. and Moretti, E. (2017), ‘Housing constraints and spatial misallocation’, NBER Working Paper No. 21154.Google Scholar
Jenkins, S. (2017), ‘If we keep on building towers, empty London will be a grim reality’, Evening Standard, 11 April.Google Scholar
Koster, H. and Rouwenthal, J. (2017), ‘Historic amenities and housing externalities: evidence from the Netherlands’, Economic Journal, 127, F396–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, H.R.A. and Zabihidan, M.S. (2018), ‘The welfare effects of greenbelt policies: evidence from England’, mimeo, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mayo, S. and Sheppard, S. (2001), ‘Housing supply and the effects of stochastic development control’, Journal of Housing Economics, 10, pp. 109–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meen, G. (2013), ‘Home-ownership for future generations’, Urban Studies, 50 (4), pp. 637–56. ISSN 0042-0980 doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012458006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ODPM (2005), Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands (RSS8).Google Scholar