Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:44:36.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2018

MICHAEL HANKINSON
MICHAEL HANKINSON*
Affiliation:
Oberlin College
*
Michael Hankinson is a Postdoctoral Fellow, Quantitative Policy AnalysisOberlin College (mhankins@oberlin.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does spatial scale affect support for public policy? Does supporting housing citywide but “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) help explain why housing has become increasingly difficult to build in once-affordable cities? I use two original surveys to measure how support for new housing varies between the city scale and neighborhood scale. Together, an exit poll of 1,660 voters during the 2015 San Francisco election and a national survey of over 3,000 respondents provide the first experimental measurements of NIMBYism. While homeowners are sensitive to housing’s proximity, renters typically do not express NIMBYism. However, in high-rent cities, renters demonstrate NIMBYism on par with homeowners, despite continuing to support large increases in the housing supply citywide. These scale-dependent preferences not only help explain the deepening affordability crisis, but show how institutions can undersupply even widely supported public goods. When preferences are scale dependent, the scale of decision-making matters.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 112 , Issue 3 , August 2018 , pp. 473 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Ryan Enos, Jennifer Hochschild, Ed Glaeser, David Luberoff, Jonathan Spader, Chase Harrison, three anonymous reviewers, and the participants of the American Politics Research Workshop, the Urban Social Processes Workshop, and the Joint Center for Housing Studies Seminar Series at Harvard for helpful feedback. This research was supported by grants from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, the Eric M. Mindich Research Fund for the Foundations of Human Behavior, and Time-Sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CRPAA8.

References

REFERENCES

Altshuler, Alan A., and Luberoff, David E.. 2003. Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Angotti, Tom. 2008. New York For Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Autor, David H., Palmer, Christopher J., and Pathak, Parag A.. 2014. “Housing Market Spillovers: Evidence from the End of Rent Control in Cambridge, Massachusetts.” Journal of Political Economy 122 (3): 661–717.Google Scholar
Banfield, Edward C., and Wilson, James Q.. 1963. City Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Been, Vicki. 2010. “Community Benefits Agreements: A New Local Government Tool or Another Variation on the Exactions Theme?” University of Chicago Law Review 77 (1): 5–35.Google Scholar
Been, Vicki, Madar, Josiah, and McDonnell, Simon. 2014. “Urban Land-Use Regulation: Are Homevoters Overtaking the Growth Machine?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 11 (2): 227–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey M., Portnoy, Kent E., and Thomson, Ken. 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Betancur, John J. 2002. “The Politics of Gentrification: The Case of West Town in Chicago.” Urban Affairs Review 37 (6): 780–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Jon, and Pickoff-White, Lisa. 2015. “S.F. Election: Lee Re-elected, Peskin Wins, Aribnb Curbs Fail.” KQED News. https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/11/04/san-francisco-2015-election-results/Google Scholar
Brueckner, Jan K. 1995. “Strategic Control of Growth in a System of Cities.” Journal of Public Economics 57 (3): 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueckner, Jan K. 1998. “Testing for Strategic Interaction Among Local Governments: The Case of Growth Controls.” Journal of Urban Economics 44 (3): 438–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2015. Policy Analysis Report: Displacement in the Mission District. Technical report. San Francisco, CA: City and County of San Francisco.Google Scholar
Carlino, Gerald A., Chatterjee, Satyajit, and Hunt, Robert M.. 2007. “Urban Density and the Rate of Invention.” Journal of Urban Economics 61 (3): 389–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charette, Allison, Herbert, Chris, Jakabovics, Andrew, Marya, Ellen Tracy, and McCue, Daniel T.. 2015. Projecting Trends in Severely Cost-Burdened Renters: 2015-2025. Technical report. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies Cambridge.Google Scholar
Chetty, Raj, and Hendren, Nathaniel. 2015. The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility: Childhood Exposure Effects and County-Level Estimates. Technical report. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 23002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chetty, Raj, Hendren, Nathaniel, Kline, Patrick, and Saez, Emmanuel. 2014. “Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 129 (4): 1553–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chetty, Raj, Stepner, Michael, and Abraham, Sarah. 2016. “The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001–2014.” Journal of the American Medical Association 315 (16): 1750–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Childress, Sarah. 2013. “After Shelby, Voting-Law Changes Come One Town at a Time.” PBS Frontline. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/after-shelby-voting-law-changes-come-one-town-at-a-time/Google Scholar
Ciccone, Antonio, and Hall, Robert E.. 1996. “Productivity and the Density of Economic Activity.” American Economic Review 86 (1): 54–70.Google Scholar
Clingermayer, James C. 1993. “Distributive Politics, Ward Representation, and the Spread of Zoning.” Public Choice 77 (4): 725– 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clingermayer, James C. 1994. “Electoral Representation, Zoning Politics, and the Exclusion of Group Homes.” Political Research Quarterly 47 (4): 969–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielson, Michael N. 1976. The Politics of Exclusion. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dear, Michael. 1992. “Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome.” Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (3): 288–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmond, Matthew. 2016. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
Diaz, John. 2015. “Housing Is No. 1 Issue in City Election.” San Francisco Chronicle. Published on September 4, 2015.Google Scholar
DiPasquale, Denise, and Glaeser, Edward L.. 1999. “Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners Better Citizens?” Journal of Urban Economics 45 (2): 354–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, Manny. 2017. “In Texas, a Test of Whether the Voting Rights Act Still Has Teeth.” New York Times.Google Scholar
Fischel, William A. 2001. The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land-Use Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fischel, William A. 2016. The Rise of the Homevoters: How the Growth Machine Was Subverted by OPEC and Earth Day. Working paper. Darthmouth College.Google Scholar
Fischer, Frank. 1993. “Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases.” Policy Sciences 26 (3): 165–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frieden, Bernard J. 1979. The Environmental Protection Hustle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ganong, Peter, and Shoag, Daniel. 2017. “Why Has Regional Income Convergence in the U.S. Declined?” Journal of Urban Economics 102: 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2003. “Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (4): 625–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., and Gyourko, Joseph. 2018. “The Economic Implications of Housing Supply.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 32 (1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., Gyourko, Joseph, and Saks, Raven E.. 2005a. “Why Have Housing Prices Gone Up?” American Economic Review 95 (2): 329–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., Gyourko, Joseph, and Saks, Raven E.. 2005b. “Why Is Manhattan So Expensive? Regulation and the Rise in Housing Prices.” Journal of Law and Economics 48 (2): 331–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., and Kahn, Matthew E.. 2010. “The Greenness of Cities: Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Urban Development.” Journal of Urban Economics 67 (3): 404–18.Google Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., and Maré, David C.. 2001. “Cities and Skills.” Journal of Labor Economics 19 (2): 316–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., and Ward, Bryce A.. 2009. “The Causes and Consequences of Land Use Regulation: Evidence from Greater Boston.” Journal of Urban Economics 65 (3): 265–78.Google Scholar
Green, Emily. 2015. “November Ballot Could Decide Housing Future of S.F.” San Francisco Chronicle. Published June 3, 2015.Google Scholar
Gross, Julian. 2007. “Community Benefits Agreements: Definitions, Values, and Legal Enforceability.” Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 35–58.Google Scholar
Gyourko, Joseph, and Saiz, Albert. 2006. “Construction Costs and the Supply of Housing Structure.” Journal of Regional Science 46 (4): 661–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackworth, Jason, and Smith, Neil. 2001. “The Changing State of Gentrification.” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 92 (4): 464–77.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis 22 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, Roderick J. Jr., and Schleicher, David N.. 2011. “Balancing the ‘Zoning Budget’.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 62 (1): 81–133.Google Scholar
Hlavac, Marek. 2018. ‘Stargazer: Well-Formatted Regression and Summary Statistics Tables.” R Package. Version 5.2.1.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Chang-Tai, and Moretti, Enrico. 2017. Housing Constraints and Spatial Misallocation. Technical report. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 21154.Google Scholar
Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. 2007. “The Effect of Land Use Regulation on Housing and Land Prices.” Journal of Urban Economics 61 (3): 420–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Clinton B. 1976. “The Impact of Local Election Systems on Black Political Representation.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 11 (3): 345–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Christopher, and Kammen, Daniel M.. 2014. “Spatial Distribution of U.S. Household Carbon Footprints Reveals Suburbanization Undermines Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Urban Population Density.” Environmental Science & Technology 48 (2): 895–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraft, Michael E., and Clary, Bruce B.. 1991. “Citizen Participation and the NIMBY Syndrome: Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal.” Western Political Quarterly 44 (2): 299–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, Robert W. 1996. “Volunteers, NIMBYs, and Environmental Justice: Dilemmas of Democratic Practice.” Antipode 28 (2): 160–74.Google Scholar
Logan, John R., and Molotch, Harvey L.. 1987. Urban Fortunes. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Marble, William, and Nall, Clayton. 2017. Beyond “NIMBYism”: Why Americans Support Affordable Housing But Oppose Local Housing Development. Working paper. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Marks, Gary, and von Winterfeldt, Detlof. 1984. “‘Not in My Back Yard’: Influence of Motivational Concerns on Judgments About a Risky Technology.” Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (3): 408–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, Douglas S., and Denton, Nancy A.. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, Christopher J., and Somerville, C. Tsuriel. 2000. “Land Use Regulation and New Construction.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 30 (6): 639–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, Brian J. 2016. No Place Like Home: Wealth, Community, and the Politics of Homeownership. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen-Hoang, Phuong, and Yinger, John. 2011. “The Capitalization of School Quality into House Values: A Review.” Journal of Housing Economics 20 (1): 30–48.Google Scholar
Oates, Wallace E. 1969. “The Effects of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending on Property Values: An Empirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the Tiebout Hypothesis.” Journal of Political Economy 77 (6): 957–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, Wallace E. 2005. “Property Taxation and Local Public Spending: The Renter Effect.” Journal of Urban Economics 57: 419–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric, and Ha, Shang E.. 2007. “Vote Choice in Suburban Elections.” American Political Science Review 101 (3): 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pendall, Rolf. 1999. “Opposition to Housing: NIMBY and Beyond.” Urban Affairs Review 35 (1): 112–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Paul E. 1981. City Limits. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, Mark. 2006. “Urban Democracy and the Local Trap.” Urban Studies 43 (11): 1921–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quigley, John M., and Raphael, Steven. 2005. “Regulation and the High Cost of Housing in California.” American Economic Review 95 (2): 323–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauch, James E. 1993. “Productivity Gains from Geographic Concentration of Human Capital: Evidence from the Cities.” Journal of Urban Economics 34 (3): 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rognlie, Matthew. 2015. “Deciphering the Fall and Rise in Net Capital Share: Accumulation or Scarcity?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 46 (1): 1–69.Google Scholar
Rohe, William M., and Gates, Lauren B.. 1985. Planning with Neighborhoods. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Stuart S., and Strange, William C.. 2008. “The Attenuation of Human Capital Spillovers.” Journal of Urban Economics 64 (2): 373–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatini, Joshua. 2016. “San Francisco Evictions Continue to Rise Each Year Since 2010.” SF Examiner, March 29, 2016.Google Scholar
Saiz, Albert. 2010. “The Geographic Determinants of Housing Supply.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 125 (3): 1253–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salkin, Patricia, and Lavine, Amy. 2008. “Understanding Community Benefits Agreements: Equitable Development, Social Justice and Other Considerations for Developers, Municipalities and Community Organizations.” UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy 26: 291–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Chicago, IL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schively, Carissa. 2007. “Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing our Knowledge Bbase and Informing Future Research.” Journal of Planning Literature 21 (3): 255–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleicher, David N. 2013. “City Unplanning.” Yale Law Journal 122: 1670–737.Google Scholar
Schneider, Mark, and Teske, Paul. 1993. “The Antigrowth Entrepreneur: Challenging the “Equilibrium” of the Growth Machine.” The Journal of Politics 55 (3): 720–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O., and Funk, Carolyn L.. 1990. “The Limited Effect of Economic Self-interest on Political Attitudes of the Mass Public.” Journal of Behavioral Economics 19 (3): 247–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Gopal K., and Siahpush, Mohammad. 2014. “Widening Rural–Urban Disparities in Life Expectancy, US, 1969–2009.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 46 (2): e19–e29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, Leah C. 2016. “Electoral Backlash Against Climate Policy: A Natural Experiment on Retrospective Voting and Local Resistance to Public Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (4): 958–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Clarence N. 1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Stone, Clarence N., Stoker, Robert P., Betancur, John, Clarke, Susan E., Dantico, Marilyn, Horak, Martin, Mossberger, Karen, Musso, Juliet, Sellers, Jefferey M., Shiau, Ellen, Wolman, Harold, and Worgs, Donn. 2015. Urban Neighborhoods in a New Era: Revitalization Politics in the Postindustrial City. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” The Journal of Political Economy, 416–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tighe, J. Rosie. 2010. “Public Opinion and Affordable Housing: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Planning Literature 25 (1): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, Susan. 1990. “The Impact of At-Large Elections on the Representation of Blacks and Hispanics.” The Journal of Politics 52 (4): 1050–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf-Powers, Laura. 2010. “Community Benefits Agreements and Local Government: A Review of Recent Evidence.” Journal of the American Planning Association 76 (2): 141–59.Google Scholar
Wong, Julia C. 2014. “Dropbox, Airbnb, and the Fight Over San Francisco’s Public Spaces.” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/dropbox-airbnb-fight-san-franciscos-public-spacesGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Hankinson Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CRPAA8
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Hankinson supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Hankinson supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 498.1 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.