The Politics of Modern Housing Policy in the United States

• In Event: Lightning Round: Research Design

Abstract

My research will attempt to explain variations in state and local housing policies across geographies and time. My theory is that housing policy paradigms — defined as a jurisdiction’s full set of housing policies — are developed with the goal of satisfying a complex set of political actors. I posit that a key driver of variation in housing policy paradigms is the relative power of key housing interests. The relative power of interest groups is, in turn, affected by both policy feedback and racial threat. Policy choices made in the past create conditions which reshape the balance of interests and guide future policy choices, particularly through establishing a reliance on certain policy instruments. The anticipated racial effects of affordable housing policy also impact who is at the table and which policy instruments are considered politically acceptable. I propose using a mixed methods approach to analyze these effects, combining a large quantitative panel study with a small number of in-depth qualitative case studies.
Housing is a unique policy area worthy of focused study. It has several fundamental characteristics which distinguish it from other redistributive policies. It is both essential to life and an important wealth-building asset, it directly impacts segregation and racial equity, and it is strongly linked to America’s civic republican tradition. Understanding how states and localities make policy in this contentious and fundamental policy area would be a major contribution to the political science literature.
The dependent variable of this analysis concerns the “housing policy paradigm” of a given jurisdiction at a given point in time. This variable will be structured to answer the key questions of this research project: What explains variation across time and geography in (1) The extent to which jurisdictions pursue housing affordability as a policy goal? (2) The use of housing policy instruments that either incentivize, regulate, or compete with the private sector? and (3) The use of housing policy instruments that are either inclusive (actively reducing economic and racial segregation) or exclusive (following existing patterns of segregation or exacerbating segregation). Variation along these three dimensions will produce a rough typology of housing policy in states and large localities across time. Some policy paradigms will appear cogent and clearly ideological, combining policy instruments that we would expect to “fall together” based on prevailing political ideologies. Other policy paradigms may appear inchoate on their face, combining policy instruments that appear to be ideologically incompatible. I theorize that these seemingly random policy mixes may be the result of policymakers balancing demands from competing political interests.
I theorize that the central driver of variation in housing policy paradigms is the relative power of key housing interests whom policymakers must appease. Not all of these actors will be relevant in every jurisdiction at every point in time, and the balance of power is expected to vary substantially. This leaves open the question of why certain actors have power while others do not.
I hypothesize that “housing policy paradigms” will exhibit characteristics of path dependence and policy feedback. The main way in which policy feedback functions in the housing space is through the constellation of actors who participate in the policymaking process. Reliance on a particular policy instrument (provision method) can legitimize or de-legitimize a particular actor in the policy space, such as non-profits or Public Housing Agencies.
I further hypothesize that he anticipated racial effects of affordable housing policy impact who is at the table and the policy instruments considered. When racial threat is high, communities are less likely to pursue affordable housing at all, less likely to use public provision or regulation as a policy instrument, and less likely to pursue integration.
My proposed methodology centers around a large-scale quantitative panel study where the units of analysis are state-years and locality-years. I would include both cities and counties over a certain population threshold (e.g. 50,000). The time period would begin somewhere in the range of 1973 to the early 1980s, and extend to the present day. That time period is selected based on when states and localities began taking a more active role in promoting affordable housing in the wake of federal retrenchment. Key to the analysis would be allowing for feedback effects where past values of the dependent variable impact future values of the independent variables. Accompanying the quantitative work would be a set of three qualitative case studies to both inform the quantitative analysis and illustrate the mechanisms in more detail. These cases would be selected on independent variables, such as the relative strength of local housing interests and racial demographics.

Author

• Henry Watson, Georgetown University