Homo Economicus in a Big Society: Understanding Middle-class Activism and NIMBYism towards New Housing Developments

Abstract

Problems of housing supply and affordability in England have long been recognised by policy-makers. A key barrier to supply is seen to be community activism by socalled NIMBYs (not-in-my-back-yard). The localism policy agenda, or devolving decision-making down to the local level, is central to how the UK Coalition government seek to overcome this opposition. This conceives NIMBYism as a demonstration of homo economicus -of the rationality of economic beings seeking to maximise their utility. In this view, residents would not accept large urban extensions in suburban areas because they took on localised costs with no obvious benefits, unless incentivised appropriately. In this paper we use analysis of British Social Attitudes Survey data as well as the results of the first review of middle-class activism in relation to public services to identify the likelihood of residents being incentivised by this version of localism to accept new housing. We conclude that the evidence on the individual and collective attitudes suggests that it is unlikely that localism will deliver new housing. Importantly, the political power of affluent and professional groups means they can ensure that their opposition is heard, particularly in the neighbourhood plans delivered through localism. The paper argues that planning for housing needs to understand communities as homo democraticusas actively engaged in negotiating between complex interests with respect to support for new housing.

Democracy in Action?: NIMBY as Impediment to Equitable Affordable Housing Siting

“…The focus of inclusionary housing is on achieving more equitable outcomes and social returns than the profit-maximizing market would promote, although many intervening (and at times, undemocratic) factors can influence these outcomes, including NIMBY opposition (Calavita & Mallach, 2010;Davison et al, 2013). A different strategy has been promoted through England's new localism agenda: giving communities more democratic control over planning, siting, and developing new social housing, although the results in terms of equitable outcomes have been questionable (Gallent & Robinson, 2012;Matthews et al, 2014;Sturzaker, 2011). Such programs, it appears, take some steps toward cultivating democratic processes with equitable outcomes in affordable housing development, but still falter.…”

Housebuilding, demographic change and affordability as outcomes of local planning decisions: Exploring interactions using a sub-regional model of housing markets in England

“…Examples of such models include Tsoukis and Westaway (1994) and Meen (1996Meen ( , 1998. Given this situation, the CLG-Reading model (ODPM, 2005) and the derivative Scottish model do not have an explicit supply function for new construction.…”

“…The variables used here include the usual range of socio-demographics, but also party affiliation (matched to local voting data from the 2010 General Election) and other area-based measures of area characteristics (which were also attached to BSAS). This analysis is described in more detail in Bramley (2012) and Matthews, Bramley, and Hastings (2014).…”

“…This subsection therefore does not attempt to review research on house price determination in a more general sense. There has been a large volume of economic research on house prices in the UK, mainly utilising time series techniques on national or regional data, and mainly geared to short or medium term forecasting (see for example Guisanni & Hadjimatheou, 1991;Meen, 1996Meen, , 1999Meen, , 2001Meen, , 2011Muellbauer & Murphy, 1997). There has also been a large volume of (largely separate) research utilising hedonic price models, seeking to assess the contribution to housing values of different attributes of houses themselves or their location -this is less relevant in this context.…”

It’s Housebuilding But Not as We Know It: The Impact of Neighbourhood Planning on Development in England

“…It is argued that neighbourhood planning created opportunities for communities to advance new socially and environmentally sustainable housing solutions that conflicted with the interests of corporate house-builders and unsettled the depiction of citizens' groups as protectionist and opposed to all economic growth. The paper seeks to contribute to housing theory in its analysis of the policy impacts of the engagement of citizens' and residents' groups in planning for housing delivery and, more broadly, it seeks to add to the debate on localism and public participation in housing (Rumming, Houston & Amati 2012;Cook, Taylor & Hurley 2013;Matthews, Bramley & Hastings 2015).…”