Advertisement

Land Values, Proprietary Interests and Town Planning

  • Paul N. Balchin
  • Jeffrey L. Kieve
  • Gregory H. Bull
Part of the Macmillan Building and Surveying Series book series (BASS)

Abstract

In advanced capitalist countries, the property market is an economic mechanism rationing land between competing and occasionally conflicting uses, and is often modified by central and local government requirements. But the market is subject to severe criticism for three principal reasons:
  1. (1)

    As a means of allocating land between different uses the market may seem to be inefficient, suffering from inherent imperfections — demand and supply overall being rarely in equilibrium (chapter 2).

     
  2. (2)

    The pattern of land use and values as determined by the price mechanism disregards the needs of the less profitable, and often unprofitable yet socially desirable, users of land for such purposes as schools, hospitals and public open space.

     
  3. (3)

    The financial nature of the property market, with its stress upon private profit, maintains and frequently highlights national inequalities of income and wealth, and usually does so in a way that is a reflection of the ‘monopolistic’ nature of land-ownership rather than an indication of entrepreneurial ability.

     

Keywords

Local Authority Property Market Public Ownership Green Belt Town Planning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. H. Wright, ‘The Property Market 2’, The Architect and Surveyor (March/April, 1971).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Report of the Expert Committee on Compensation and Betterment (Uthwatt Report), Cmnd 6386 (HMSO, 1942).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (Penguin, 1971).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Marx, A Critique of Political Economy (Lawrence & Wishart, 1974).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. H. Green, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation (Longmans, 1913).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. S. Mill, Programme (Land Reform Association, 1871).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. George, Progress and Poverty (Hogarth, 1979).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Marx, Capital, Vol. 3 (Penguin, 1981).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Edwards, ‘Planning and the Land Market: Problems, Prospects and Strategy’ in M. Ball et al., Land Rent, Housing and Urban Planning: A European Perspective (Croom Helm, 1984).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. H. Tawney, The Acquisitive Society (Bell, 1922).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Goodchild and R. Munton, Development and the Landowner. An Analysis of the British Experience (George Allen & Unwin, 1985).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Keogh, ‘The Economics of Planning Gain’ in S. Barrett and P. Healey (eds), Land Policy: Problems and Alternatives (Gower, 1985).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (George Routledge, 1944).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. G. Pennance, ‘Planning, Land Supply and Demand’ in A. A. Walters et al., Government and the Land (Institute of Economic Affairs, 1974).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Department of the Environment, Planning Gain, Report of the Property Advisory Group (HMSO, 1981).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    O. Marriott, The Property Boom (Hamish Hamilton, 1967).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. Lichfield, ‘Land Nationalisation’ in P. Hall (ed.), Land Values (Sweet & Maxwell, 1965).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. L. T. Neuberger and B. M. Nicol, ‘The recent cost of land and property prices and the factors underlying it’, Department of the Environment Research Paper, 4 (HMSO, 1976).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Barras et al., ‘Planning and the Public Ownership of Land’, New Society (21 July, 1973).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Department of the Environment, Land, Cmnd 5730 (HMSO, 1975).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Silkin, ‘A land value scheme that got away’, Town and Country Planning (January, 1987).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Treasury, The Government’s Expenditure Plans 1978/79 to 1981/82, Cmnd 7049 (HMSO, 1978).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Chisholm and P. Kivell, Inner City Wasteland: An Assessment of Market Failure in Land Development (Institute of Economic Affairs, 1987).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Duncan, ‘Land Policy in Sweden: Separating Ownership from Development’ in S. Barrett and P. Healey (eds), Land Policy: Problems and Alternatives (Gower, 1985).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Paul N. Balchin, Jeffrey L. Kieve and Gregory H. Bull 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul N. Balchin
    • 1
  • Jeffrey L. Kieve
    • 1
  • Gregory H. Bull
    • 1
  1. 1.Thames PolytechnicUK

Personalised recommendations