Evidence-lite zone: The weak evidence behind the economic case against planning regulation

Cameron Murray and Peter Phibbs
Additional contact information
Cameron Murray: The University of Sydney

No 69m23, OSF Preprints from Center for Open Science

Abstract: Economists have taken a strong interest in identifying the costs of land use regulation. But how good is their evidence? We examine three economic approaches to this question—regulatory intensity, zoning tax, and housing as opportunity—and summarise the type of evidence used and its weaknesses. Despite strong claims about enormous economic costs from planning and zoning, the evidence used in these approaches often relies on questionable assumptions to interpret the data. In most cases, there are realistic alternative economic theories that fit the data but generate quite different conclusions. Planners are cautioned against taking these results at face value and adopting these methods without considering the hidden assumptions.

Date: 2022-04-29
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ure
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://osf.io/download/626b66e8a0966f088d3b98af/

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:osf:osfxxx:69m23

DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/69m23

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in OSF Preprints from Center for Open Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by OSF ().