The Unassuming Economist

From a VOX post by Stefania Albanesi:

“The US economy has been hampered over the last four decades by three trends: the productivity slowdown, the Great Moderation, and jobless recoveries. Economists seeking to explain these phenomena have generally looked to the impact that technological change has on labour demand. This column proposes an alternative explanation: the rise and stabilisation of women’s participation in the workforce, one of the most notable developments in the post-war US. Excluding gender differences in aggregate models of the US economy obscures our understanding of business cycle behaviour and economic performance.

The rise in women’s market work is one of the most notable economic developments in the post-war United States. Female participation rose from 37% in 1960 to a peak of 61% in 1997, and then flattened out, as shown in Figure 1. This phenomenon contributed substantially to the rise in aggregate hours per person in the US in the 1970s and 1980s. While a large literature has studied the determinants of the rise in women’s employment, the implications of this phenomenon for the aggregate performance of the US economy have been left largely unexplored. At the same time, several key properties of US business cycles changed over this period, and economists have yet to provide a comprehensive explanation of those changes. Three particularly puzzling phenomena stand out:

• the productivity slowdown in the 1970s (Jorgenson 1988) and the decline in the cyclical correlation between aggregate per capita hours and productivity (Gali and Gambetti 2009);
• the decline in the cyclicality of output and aggregate hours starting in the early 1980s, known as the Great Moderation (Stock and Watson 2002); and
• the sluggish growth in employment in the aftermath of recessions starting in the early 1990s, often referred to as jobless recoveries (Graetz and Michaels 2017).”

Continue reading here.

From a Vox post by Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, and Michael Storper:

“A dominant view in urban economics suggests that the solution to the housing crisis of major cities is to relax zoning and other planning regulations. This column challenges this position, arguing that there is no clear and uncontroversial evidence that housing regulation is a principal source of differences in home availability or prices across cities and that these issues are more linked to rising inequalities in the geography of employment, wages and skills. Blanket changes in zoning are unlikely to increase affordability for lower-income households in prosperous regions, but would increase gentrification without appreciably decreasing income inequality.

Housing in the largest metro areas the world over has become unaffordable for much of the population. Hard working individuals living in large cities have been priced out of better-quality housing. Those wanting to move from lagging regions into dynamic urban areas in search of better opportunities are also deterred by astronomical real estate costs. Segregation of housing and income inequality are increasing, as are commuting times.

According to the dominant view in urban economics, the main culprit for this situation is restrictive zoning in large metro areas (Katz and Rosen 1987, Quigley and Raphael 2005, Ihlanfeldt 2007, Glaeser and Gottlieb 2008, Saiz 2010, Kline and Moretti 2014, Hsieh and Moretti 2015, 2017, Ganong and Shoag 2017, Gaubert 2018). The solution is simple – the massive ‘upzoning’ of urban land by reducing the decision-making power of local communities over land use, so that they can no longer prevent high-density building. By getting rid of restrictions and letting the real estate developers in, more and more affordable housing will be built in those places where people have the greatest opportunities. Prosperous metropolitan area like New York, the Bay Area, or London will become bigger, more productive, and more socially inclusive. Inter-regional mobility will pick up and, as a consequence, income inequality will decline, both within cities and across the country (Hsieh and Moretti 2015, 2017).

Supply restrictions are therefore considered to be the main obstacle to solving the problem. Zoning prevents building enough housing to keep up with demand, increasing housing prices, rewarding landowners, as a consequence enhancing inter-personal and inter-territorial income inequality, and dissuading talent from flowing into more affluent regions (Hsieh and Moretti 2017, Ganong and Shoag 2017). It is also regarded as a major source of economic inefficiency, as lack of affordable housing may prevent these cities to reach their full potential (Glaeser 2017), limiting overall national growth and hurting the most vulnerable (Hsieh and Moretti 2017).

Finding a possible solution

According to this view, the solution is simple – cut regulation in order to build more and denser housing in metro areas. The greater affordability triggered by housing deregulation in the prime areas of prosperous metro regions would trickle down to the rest of the metro area. Following this view, a fast-growing coalition of high-income millennials (‘yes in my back yard’, or YIMBYs), urban planners who want density, developers, and elected officials has thrust this view into the public debate.”

Continue reading here.

On cross-country:

• Central banks push for action on Europe’s rising house prices – Financial Times
• Hypostat 2019 – European Mortgage Federation
• Negative interest rates are inflating real estate prices. These cities are at risk of a bubble – CNN
• The global real estate rethink – Axios

On the US:

• Stranded: Inequality, House Prices leaving People Trapped – IMF
• Opinion: Rent control is better than nothing, but it can’t fix California’s housing crisis – Los Angeles Times
• How to Kill a Housing Market – Wall Street Journal
• Bernie’s National Rent Control – Wall Street Journal
• Would AOC’s National Rent Control Solve the Housing Crisis, or Make It Even Worse? – Citylab
• How Rent Control Threatens the American Dream – Foundation for Economic Education
• Poll: 59% of Americans Favor Building More Housing in Their Neighborhood – Cato
• California’s Poorest Big City Faces a Different Kind of Housing Crisis – Citylab
• Affordable Housing – Bloomberg
• Help for California’s Housing Crisis Is in the Backyard – Bloomberg
• Mortgage Finance in the Face of Rising Climate Risk – NBER, New York Times
• Think San Francisco Housing Is Expensive? It Ranks 10th Globally. – Barron’s

On other countries:

• [Canada] To Tackle Housing Affordability in Canada, Build More Houses – IMF
• [Colombia] Building Inclusive Social Housing: Lessons from Bogota – Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies
• [Panama] Panama’s property prices are rising strongly – Global Property Guide
• [United Kingdom] Employment and the collateral channel of monetary policy – Bank of England
• [United Kingdom] Divorce: dividing up the family home – Financial Times
• [Vietnam] Positive outlook for Vietnam’s property market – Global Property Guide

From a new paper by Alberto Alesina, Davide Furceri, Jonathan D. Ostry, Chris Papageorgiou and Dennis P. Quinn:

“We assemble a unique database of reforms in domestic finance, external finance, trade, product markets and labor markets which covers 90 advanced and developing economies from 1973 to 2014. In the 66 democracies which we consider in this paper, we show that these reforms have medium run benefits thus they are electorally more successfully when introduced at the beginning of a new term of office. Liberalizing reforms shortly before elections are costly to incumbents. However, the effect depends on the state of the economy at the time of reform: reforms are sharply penalized during contractions, reforms undertaken in expansions are not punished and sometimes rewarded.”

From an IMF Blog by Michal Andrle, Cheng Hoon Lim and Troy Matheson:

“Policymakers across the world worry about affordable housing. They should. It represents the cost of a basic human need—shelter. Canada is no exception as it grapples to provide affordable housing in some cities, like Vancouver and Toronto, where rents are high, and for many, the dream of owning a home has faded.

People who can afford a down payment typically borrow as much as they can to get a foothold in the market—stretching themselves financially and contributing to Canada’s record-high levels of household debt.

So, how can governments help make housing affordable? Our latest staff report suggests boosting housing supply to meet demand.

Short-term fixes may not always work

Boosting Canada’s supply of affordable housing is no easy task. Countries like Canada, the Czech Republic, Sweden, and the United Kingdom that face problems with housing affordability in major cities have found that housing policies can quickly become politically contentious.

For this reason, policymakers often resort to short-term fixes to the problem. These include relaxing prudential regulations to enable households to borrow more (higher loan-to-income and loan-to-value ratios), increasing or introducing tax-deductibility of mortgage interest-rate costs, and subsidizing home purchases directly.

According to our research, we find that even well-meaning policies that aim to improve housing affordability by increasing households’ capacity to borrow may unintentionally raise house prices—ultimately resulting in homebuyers having to borrow more and leading to higher household debt.

Why? Because housing supply is fixed in the short term. So, any increase in households’ ability to borrow will increase demand for housing, increase house prices, and ultimately make houses less affordable than they otherwise would have been.

This is what we found when we compared the dynamics of house prices in eleven Canadian Census Metropolitan Areas with households’ ability to borrow—the so-called “attainable” house price.”

Continue reading here.