Can we afford ‘affordable’ housing?
21 November 2008
SUGGESTED
Regulation
18 November 2008
Tax and Fiscal Policy
25 November 2008
Economic Theory
11 November 2024
Yesterday it was announced that the Greater London Authority (GLA) is to create 50,000 ‘affordable’ homes. But do such schemes actually increase the affordability of housing?
When developers are forced to allocate a share of their dwellings (or land) to social housing or part-ownership it reduces their returns, since these properties will not be sold at full market value. Since the financial incentives to build are reduced, fewer homes are likely to be constructed. This reduction in supply will make housing in general less affordable – and it should be remembered that most people, even those on quite low incomes, have to find accommodation in the normal market.
The effect is exacerbated because full-price buyers will pay less when they know their neighbours are likely to include housing association clients, who may be more likely to engage in anti-social behaviour because of the inability of so-called social landlords to have appropriate clauses in their letting contracts to ensure that tenants meet acceptable standards of behaviour.
And because ‘affordable’ homes are subsidised by government, it means taxpayers have less disposable income available to spend on housing.
There is also significant moral hazard, particularly when social housing is prioritised, as in the GLA plans. If social tenants are allocated brand new, high-specification dwellings – often in expensive, desirable areas – it increases the incentives for people to choose a life of welfare dependency rather than working hard to improve their living conditions.
The policy is also unfair to existing residents who live near Boris Johnson’s social housing projects. They will see their properties devalued and their neighbourhoods degenerate as social tenants are moved into their area. Under the current planning system they will receive no compensation.
Given that land supply is currently relatively fixed, the proposed schemes simply make housing more affordable for one group at the expense of another group and of general welfare. If there is subsidy to the housing sector as a whole then it simply encourages the sorts of bubbles that have got us where we are today.
If the GLA really wants to solve London’s housing shortage it must focus on increasing the supply of land to private developers. This means abolishing the green belt – much of which is not very green – selling off under-used parks and playing fields, and reforming planning rules that wastefully allocate valuable land to industry and warehousing. Tinkering with ‘affordable’ housing will only make the problem worse.
When developers are forced to allocate a share of their dwellings (or land) to social housing or part-ownership it reduces their returns, since these properties will not be sold at full market value. Since the financial incentives to build are reduced, fewer homes are likely to be constructed. This reduction in supply will make housing in general less affordable – and it should be remembered that most people, even those on quite low incomes, have to find accommodation in the normal market.
The effect is exacerbated because full-price buyers will pay less when they know their neighbours are likely to include housing association clients, who may be more likely to engage in anti-social behaviour because of the inability of so-called social landlords to have appropriate clauses in their letting contracts to ensure that tenants meet acceptable standards of behaviour.
And because ‘affordable’ homes are subsidised by government, it means taxpayers have less disposable income available to spend on housing.
There is also significant moral hazard, particularly when social housing is prioritised, as in the GLA plans. If social tenants are allocated brand new, high-specification dwellings – often in expensive, desirable areas – it increases the incentives for people to choose a life of welfare dependency rather than working hard to improve their living conditions.
The policy is also unfair to existing residents who live near Boris Johnson’s social housing projects. They will see their properties devalued and their neighbourhoods degenerate as social tenants are moved into their area. Under the current planning system they will receive no compensation.
Given that land supply is currently relatively fixed, the proposed schemes simply make housing more affordable for one group at the expense of another group and of general welfare. If there is subsidy to the housing sector as a whole then it simply encourages the sorts of bubbles that have got us where we are today.
If the GLA really wants to solve London’s housing shortage it must focus on increasing the supply of land to private developers. This means abolishing the green belt – much of which is not very green – selling off under-used parks and playing fields, and reforming planning rules that wastefully allocate valuable land to industry and warehousing. Tinkering with ‘affordable’ housing will only make the problem worse.
12 thoughts on “Can we afford ‘affordable’ housing?”
Comments are closed.
SHARE
Precise. London’s astronomic rental prices, combined with often third world standards of housing, is a home-made problem. Yes, London has experienced a large influx of inhabitants. But so have a number of Spanish cities, and it is still possible to find relatively cheap accomodation of a decent standard in most of Spain. The difference is that in their planning system, incentives pointed towards granting more building permits, not less.
Precise. London’s astronomic rental prices, combined with often third world standards of housing, is a home-made problem. Yes, London has experienced a large influx of inhabitants. But so have a number of Spanish cities, and it is still possible to find relatively cheap accomodation of a decent standard in most of Spain. The difference is that in their planning system, incentives pointed towards granting more building permits, not less.
I am not sure that you are correct saying that “because ‘affordable’ homes are subsidised by government, it means taxpayers have less disposable income available to spend on housing”.
Theoretically you may be right. In reality the government may allocate the funds whichever way it wants to, like defence or education expences, or subsidies to farmers etc. I do not defend the governments often making mistakes, but this step seems reasonable: affordable housing solve the other issues mentioned.
I am not sure that you are correct saying that “because ‘affordable’ homes are subsidised by government, it means taxpayers have less disposable income available to spend on housing”.
Theoretically you may be right. In reality the government may allocate the funds whichever way it wants to, like defence or education expences, or subsidies to farmers etc. I do not defend the governments often making mistakes, but this step seems reasonable: affordable housing solve the other issues mentioned.
Exactly, well said.
Exactly, well said.
I’m not sure that “Affordable Housing” reduces supply as you suggest. Planning laws are so restrictive that developers may be producing as many new homes as they can in any year (current economic situation notwithstanding).
The real losers here are those on moderate incomes who are squeezed out as the prices of non-”affordable” homes (forgive the expression!) are pushed up so that only those on higher incomes can afford them.
BTW: You seem to be conflating “Affordable” and “Social” housing.
I’m not sure that “Affordable Housing” reduces supply as you suggest. Planning laws are so restrictive that developers may be producing as many new homes as they can in any year (current economic situation notwithstanding).
The real losers here are those on moderate incomes who are squeezed out as the prices of non-”affordable” homes (forgive the expression!) are pushed up so that only those on higher incomes can afford them.
BTW: You seem to be conflating “Affordable” and “Social” housing.
Tom, I agree that planning laws are the primary determinant of supply. However, negotiation on the number/type of affordable units has now become part of the planning process, imposing another burden on developers. Moreover, it is perhaps during downturns when ‘affordable housing’ requirements will have the strongest negative effect on supply.
And isn’t ‘affordable housing’ essentially a rebranding of social housing and an attempt to widen its net to include ‘key voters’?
Tom, I agree that planning laws are the primary determinant of supply. However, negotiation on the number/type of affordable units has now become part of the planning process, imposing another burden on developers. Moreover, it is perhaps during downturns when ‘affordable housing’ requirements will have the strongest negative effect on supply.
And isn’t ‘affordable housing’ essentially a rebranding of social housing and an attempt to widen its net to include ‘key voters’?
I hate social housing.
It stops me from finding opportunities as it is always in deprived areas.
The post code also stops me getting a gud job and social housing traps me in poverty.
The rents are too high they shd pay me to live here
With alcoholics etc
I hate social housing.
It stops me from finding opportunities as it is always in deprived areas.
The post code also stops me getting a gud job and social housing traps me in poverty.
The rents are too high they shd pay me to live here
With alcoholics etc