Land Values, Proprietary Interests and Town Planning
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).
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.
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.
KeywordsIncome Expense Prefix Monopoly
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.R. H. Wright, ‘The Property Market 2’, The Architect and Surveyor (March/April, 1971).Google Scholar
- 2.Report of the Expert Committee on Compensation and Betterment (Uthwatt Report), Cmnd 6386 (HMSO, 1942).Google Scholar
- 3.D. Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (Penguin, 1971).Google Scholar
- 4.K. Marx, A Critique of Political Economy (Lawrence & Wishart, 1974).Google Scholar
- 5.T. H. Green, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation (Longmans, 1913).Google Scholar
- 6.J. S. Mill, Programme (Land Reform Association, 1871).Google Scholar
- 7.H. George, Progress and Poverty (Hogarth, 1979).Google Scholar
- 8.K. Marx, Capital, Vol. 3 (Penguin, 1981).Google Scholar
- 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.R. H. Tawney, The Acquisitive Society (Bell, 1922).Google Scholar
- 11.R. Goodchild and R. Munton, Development and the Landowner. An Analysis of the British Experience (George Allen & Unwin, 1985).Google Scholar
- 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.F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (George Routledge, 1944).Google Scholar
- 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.Department of the Environment, Planning Gain, Report of the Property Advisory Group (HMSO, 1981).Google Scholar
- 16.O. Marriott, The Property Boom (Hamish Hamilton, 1967).Google Scholar
- 17.N. Lichfield, ‘Land Nationalisation’ in P. Hall (ed.), Land Values (Sweet & Maxwell, 1965).Google Scholar
- 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.R. Barras et al., ‘Planning and the Public Ownership of Land’, New Society (21 July, 1973).Google Scholar
- 20.Department of the Environment, Land, Cmnd 5730 (HMSO, 1975).Google Scholar
- 21.J. Silkin, ‘A land value scheme that got away’, Town and Country Planning (January, 1987).Google Scholar
- 22.Treasury, The Government’s Expenditure Plans 1978/79 to 1981/82, Cmnd 7049 (HMSO, 1978).Google Scholar
- 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.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