Land and Housing Policies in Europe and the USA

A Comparative Analysis

Graham Hallett

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9780367772017
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000383492
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

Originally published in 1988, this book concentrates on urban land policy and was particularly significant when it was originally published because the 1980s were an era when the rich were getting richer and the poor poorer and in which changes in the ownership of and access to real estate contributed to this polarisation. The book focusses on some core topics, namely: The buying, selling and holding of land by public agencies; the land market, including the impact of taxation and subsidisation; the control of the land market through town planning controls. There are chapters devoted to urban land policy in the former West Germany, The Netherlands, France, the former Yugoslavia, the UK and USA.

Chapter One

Introduction

Graham Hallett

This book arose out of a feeling that countries could learn (either what to do or what not to do) from the urban land policies of other countries, but that there were few international comparative studies available - and that those which covered more than two countries were rarely satisfactory. This is perhaps not surprising, given the inherent difficulty of producing an international comparative study on any subject.

One method is for an individual to write about a number of countries. A single authorship makes possible a unity of style and approach, but few people can be really knowledgeable about more than two or three countries. More common is the ‘symposium’ by national experts, usually the proceedings of a conference. This often suffers from the lack of a common approach. A person writing about his own country tends implicitly to assume an understanding of institutions and concepts which may be completely alien to outsiders. The consequent confusion is frequently compounded by problems of language. Probably the best arrangement is for a group of people to work closely together, with one of them acting as editor. I have been fortunate to find a number of specialists on the land and housing policies of various countries, who agreed to participate in a joint (and unfinanced) effort. We hope that we have avoided some of the pitfalls of the ‘symposium’.

Subject Matter. One question which exercised us was how much ground to cover. We wished to concentrate on urban land policy - rather than ‘housing policy’ - because this wider context of housing policy has been neglected by mainstream academics. A new study also seemed appropriate because the 1980s have, in many countries, seen traumatic changes in economic conditions and associated land use. The 1980s are an era - like those which gave rise to the doctrines of Henry George and Karl Marx - in which the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, and in which changes in the ownership of, and access to, real estate have contributed to this ‘polarisation’. The results are evident in homelessness and decaying ‘inner cities’ alongside million-pound homes.

Land policy, however, is closely connected not only with housing policy, but with town planning, taxation, local government organisation and other issues. If we had confined ourselves to land policy in a very narrow sense, the result could have been somewhat arid, since land policy is not an end in itself, but a means to ends such as well-planned cities, a minimum standard of housing for all, and an equitable distribution of income. On the other hand, there was a danger of spreading our net too wide. We have therefore tried to concentrate on ‘land policy’, but to say enough about housing and town planning to clarify the effects of land policy on city development and the housing situation. Different contributors have given different slants to their chapters, reflecting the particular problems of their countries, but we have tried to cover a common ‘core’ of topics, especially:

1. (a) the buying, selling and holding of land by public agencies.
2. (b) the land market, including the impact of taxation and subsidisation.
3. (c) the control of the land market through town planning controls, etc.

In this list, the term ‘land’ has been used in the extended sense in which it is used in ‘land law’ i.e. real estate, covering both virgin land and land with buildings on it, when the question of redevelopment arises (with particular reference to housing).

Value-free Science? Land policy has historically been a controversial subject, and still is. According to the ‘positive’, or ‘value free’ school of social science, however, the social ‘scientist’ should be as objective as the mathematician, taking the line, “My studies show that if the policy-makers want ‘a’ they should adopt policy ‘x’; if they want ‘b’ they should adopt policy ‘y’. I have no views as a social scientist, whatever views I may have as a citizen”. An alternative view, put forward in a neglected book on the methodology of economics (Walker, 1943), is that value judgements inevitably influence writers’ approaches to a subject, even if they believe that they are being completely objective. It is therefore better - while trying to be as factual and objective as possible - to be open about one’s economic and political philosophy, rather than pretending to Olympian detachment, and to examine ‘normative’ alongside ‘positive’ issues.

My personal observation of the eye-gouging feuds of ‘value-free social scientists’ has strengthened my belief that Walker’s view is correct. I must therefore admit that I am, in the words of the Chairman of the Planning Committee of the (late) Greater London Council, ‘another bloody liberal’. The same could probably be said of the other contributors. We accept that the New Right, and the New Left, have put forward some ideas which are of value in the reassessment of urban policies. The New Right is correct to point out that political intervention is undertaken not by philosopher-kings but by officials and politicians, whose interests may not coincide with those of the public, and who may be ‘captured’ by those they seek to control (Littlechild, 1986). Moreover, the price mechanism and private ownership have great virtues. But the argument that a market economy can solve all urban problems, and that state intervention is necessarily harmful, is not one which our study of urban history leads us to accept. We find equally unconvincing the New Left...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Biographical Details
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Criteria for the Assessment of Urban Land Policies
• 3. West Germany
• 4. The Netherlands
• 5. France
• 6. Yugoslavia
• 7. Great Britain
• 8. Land Policy in the United States
• 9. Conclusion
• Index