Land Use Regulations and Fertility Rates

Chapter

Abstract

Previous literature has shown that land use regulations influence where people choose to live within the United States by impacting housing prices. In this chapter, we study the impact of these same regulations on another component of population growth-fertility rates. First, we employ a dataset on the stringency of land restrictions using court based measures created by Ganong and Shoag (Why has regional income divergence in the U.S. declined?.Journal of Urban Economics, in press). We add to this separate cross-sectional measures of land use regulations from the American Institute of Planners, the Wharton Urban Decentralization Project survey, and the Wharton Residential Land Use Regulation Index (WRLURI). Combining this data with fertility data from the CDC and the Survey of Epidemiology and End Results data, we explore the impact of land use regulations on fertility at both the state and county level. We find a significant negative relationship between land use restrictions and fertility rates across all measures and geographies. Specifically, we find that land use regulations reduce fertility rates for teens and women in their 20’s while increasing the fertility rate for women in their 30’s or older to a lesser degree.

References

  1. Bosselman, F., & Callies D. (1971).The quiet revolution in land use control. White House Council on Environmental Quality.Google Scholar
  2. Davis, M., & Heathcote J. (2004).The price and quantity of residential land in the United States. Discussion Paper No. 2004-37, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Finance and Economics.Google Scholar
  3. Davis, M. A., & Palumbo, M. G. (2008). The price of residential land in large US cities.Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 352–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ellickson, R. C. (1977). Suburban growth controls: An economic and legal analysis.The Yale Law Journal, 6(3), 385–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischel, W. A. (1989).Do growth controls matter?: A review of empirical evidence on the effectiveness and efficiency of local government land use regulation. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
  6. Fischel, W. (2004). An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects.Urban Studies, 41(2), 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ganong, P., & Shoag, D. (in press). Why has regional income divergence in the U.S. declined?.Journal of Urban Economics.Google Scholar
  8. Glaeser, E., & Gyourko J. (2017). The economic implications of housing supply.Zell/Lurie Working Paper 802.Google Scholar
  9. Glaeser, E. L., Gyourko, J., & Saks, R. (2005a). Why is Manhattan so expensive? Regulation and the rise in House Prices.Journal of Law and Economics, 48, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glaeser, E. L., Gyourko, J., & Saks, R. E. (2005b). Urban growth and housing supply.Journal of Economic Geography, 6(1), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glaeser, E., & Tobio, K. (2008). The rise of the sunbelt.Southern Economic Journal, 74(3), 610–643.Google Scholar
  12. Gyourko, J., Mayer, C., & Sinai, T. (2013). Superstar cities.American Economic Journal-Economic Policy, 5(4), 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gyourko, J., & Molloy, R. (2015). Regulation and housing supply. In G. Duranton, J. Vernon Henderson, & W. Strange (Eds.),Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 5b). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Gyourko, J., & Saiz, A. (2006). Construction costs and the supply of housing structure.Journal of Regional Science, 46(6), 627–660.Google Scholar
  15. Gyourko, J., Saiz, A., & Summers, A. A. (2008). A new measure of the local regulatory environment for housing markets: The Wharton residential land use regulatory index.Urban Studies, 45(3), 693–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hwang, M., & Quigley, J. M. (2006). Economic fundamentals in local housing markets: Evidence from US Metropolitan regions.Journal of Regional Science, 46(3), 425–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Popper, F. J. (1988). Understanding American land use regulation since 1970: A revisionist interpretation.Journal of the American Planning Association, 54(3), 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quigley, J., & Raphael, S. (2005). Regulation and the high cost of housing in California.American Economic Review, 95(2), 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saiz, A. (2010). The geographic determinants of housing supply.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), 1253–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saks, R. (2008). Job creation and housing construction: Constraints on Metropolitan area employment growth.Journal of Urban Economics, 64, 178–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shoag, D., & Muehlegger, E. (2015). Commuting times and land use regulations.Procedia Engineering, 107, 488–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor, J., & Williams, N. (2009).American land planning law: Land use and the police power. Eagan, MN: West Group.Google Scholar
  23. The American Institute of Planners. (1976).Survey of state land use planning activity.Google Scholar
  24. Tolbert, C. M., & Sizer M. (1996).US commuting zones and labor market areas. Rural Economy Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Staff Paper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations