Comment on Sandra J. Newman and Ann B. Schnare's “'… And a suitable living environment’: The failure of housing programs to deliver on neighborhood quality”

Abstract

Newman and Schnare provide a useful portrait of where housing assistance ends up geographically. The evidence that certificate and voucher holders are less likely than public housing residents to live in the poorest neighborhoods is encouraging, as well as important for policy decisions. Unresolved in the article, and unresolvable with the data, as the authors themselves note, is the matter of how neighborhood quality is affected by housing assistance. The least popular housing developments have long been relegated to neighborhoods of least political resistance, a fact that constrains most local efforts to deconcentrate poverty. Futhermore, through the tax code, America spends about three times as much on housing assistance for middle‐ and upper‐income households as it does on assistance to low‐ and moderate‐income households. Thus far, we have not applied “fair share” principles either to the location of housing assistance or to its allocation across the income spectrum.     

收入流动性测度方法述评

收入流动性主要有两种研究思路,一是将流动性本身作为研究对象,对个体流动进行加总,反映了所有个体收入水平、位次或收入份额的平均变动程度;二是研究收入流动性的影响,主要关注一段时间的收入分配失衡和社会福利水平是否得到补偿以及补偿的程度.转换矩阵和位次变动是流动性的早期测度方法,收入水平变动及其测度方法是流动性概念的一个延伸,随机占优和统计推断是流动性测度的一个拓展,而基于不平等、贫困、极化和社会福利水平的变动应该是流动性测度的最重要方法.     

培育居民消费能量 做大经济发展正力

消费对经济发展具有极其重要的作用。要发挥消费对经济发展的正力,需要积极培育居民的消费能量,这正是拉动内需、启动消费的关键所在。基于居民消费影响因素的实证检验,得出居民收入状况是居民消费能量得以释放最大的制约因素。只有增加居民收入,藏富于民,做好社会保障等工作,才能培育居民的消费能量,做大经济发展的正力。     

Housing vouchers versus housing production: Assessing long‐term costs

Abstract

Possibly the single largest debate in the field of affordable rental housing concerns the use of tenant‐based assistance versus project‐based assistance. The accepted wisdom is that project‐based assistance costs anywhere from 50 to 100 percent more than tenant‐based assistance. This premium for project‐based housing is based on a comparison of subsidy costs at the start of a project's life rather than on a comparison of the discounted present value of the costs over the long term.

The subsidy costs of samples of Section 8 new construction projects have been compared to those of Section 8 certificates over a long period of time. The results indicate that the cost premium associated with project‐based assistance may be lower than conventionally believed, around 40 percent, and may get even lower if the cost comparison could extend to longer time periods and could control for the quality of the housing units.     

Are the Policy Preferences of Relatively Poor Citizens Under-represented in the Swiss Parliament?

The principle of equal political representation can be undermined by differences in economic resources among citizens. Poor citizens are likely to hold policy preferences that differ from those of richer citizens. At the same time, their lack of resources can have as a consequence that these preferences are not taken into consideration by their representatives. Focusing on the case of the Swiss Parliament and using survey data on the opinions of citizens and MPs in the 2007–11 legislature, this study investigates whether the income of citizens systematically affects the proximity of their policy preferences with the stances of their representatives. It demonstrates that on economic issues MPs hold preferences that are generally less in favour of the state's intervention in the economy than the median citizen and that relatively poor citizens are less well represented as compared with citizens with high incomes. This remains true when taking into account only the opinions of the most knowledgeable citizens among these groups as well as when the focus is only on those who turned out to vote.     

Regional Growth in China Under Economic Reforms

This article uses both cross-section and panel data approaches to study regional growth in China. Inter-regional income inequality increased ((divergence), the rich regions became richer but poor regions poorer (b divergence), over the data period 1978-95. This contradicts results from other cross-region country studies shown by Sala-i-Martin [1996] and some earlier studies on China. Only after controlling for regional effects, population growth, and investment in both physical and human capital do the data show significant b-convergence. More interestingly, the degree of openness and transportation are two other important factors responsible for differences in regional growth. This finding has important implications for regional development policy.     

Deciding how to use scarce federal housing aid funds

Abstract

This paper assesses the major forms of federal housing assistance and compares the relative value of each in meeting the housing needs of the nation's low‐ and moderate‐income households. Programs are first identified and described. A ranking system, based on nine criteria of desirability, is then developed and used to compare the programs. The evaluation system presented in this paper represents one method of determining how to allocate scarce federal housing assistance funds. The subjective nature of the evaluation process dictates that other criteria and weighting systems may be legitimately applied. However, to provide a clear decision‐making framework, any such system should clearly explain its assumptions and rationales.     

Participation in a residential mobility program from the client's perspective: Findings from Gautreaux Two

Abstract

In 2002, the Gautreaux Two housing mobility program provided low‐income families living in Chicago public housing with the opportunity to move to more affluent, less racially isolated communities. This article presents findings on their complex search and moving process. Only about one‐third of enrolled families actually moved through the program ("leased‐up"). In‐depth interviews with a randomly chosen sample of 71 families and an additional 20 “likely mover” families showed that movers fell into four groups distinguished by personal characteristics that made it easier for them to move or by residence on Chicago's North Side.

Nonmovers faced a variety of obstacles, both external (a tight rental market, discrimination, and bureaucratic delays) and internal (limited experience and program comprehension, large household size, and health problems). Also, some nonmovers were too busy with work or school to engage in what proved to be an onerous process of identifying a suitable unit and moving.     

Comment on Robert E. Lang,Katrin B. Anacker,and Steven Hornburg's “the new politics of affordable housing”

Abstract

In his thoughtful analysis, Joseph realistically points to what a mixed‐income housing development can and cannot offer its low‐income residents. Observed benefits include greater informal social controls over the development, likely proximal modeling opportunities for youth, and participation in a political‐economic subgroup that can demand more responsive public services. Yet without offering more comprehensive, structured supports to its residents, no form of housing alone can be an antidote to poverty.

However, if we expand Joseph's analysis to include the impact of large‐scale developments on distressed urban neighborhoods, we can see mixed‐income housing catalyzing other benefits for low‐income residents. These benefits include a reduced housing cost burden; more structured supportive services; dramatically improved surroundings; high‐quality housing and community design; faster‐paced complementary investments in public systems and amenities; and strategically restored market functioning that offers more choices, lower prices, new jobs, and additional tax revenues to support service delivery.     

Comment on Kirk Mcclure's “The low‐income housing tax credit program goes mainstream and moves to the suburbs”

Abstract

As McClure's article notes, the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program has indeed gone mainstream. Given the tarnished reputation of many other federal low‐income housing programs, this is good news. It is also surprising in some ways considering the many programmatic flaws inherent in the LIHTC program.

As a point of departure, I look at why McClure and others are able to describe the program in a positive light despite its many flaws. I attribute this to the unique political culture of the United States, for which the LIHTC program is well suited. In addition, it sidesteps one of the thorniest problems that have bedeviled low‐income housing programs—the spatial isolation of poor minorities. Until the LIHTC program explicitly addresses this issue, however, any praise must be tempered by a great deal of caution.