In addition to GDP effects, liberalizing zoning ties to other EA cause areas. For example, density allows for more immigrants and averts climate change. This study finds that
...doubling the population density would entail a reduction in the total [per capita] CO2 emissions in buildings and on-road sectors typically by at least 42%.
I’d love to see all these factors tied together in a cohesive EA analysis, from a dollar donated to the number of homes legalized and downstream benefits of those homes. I’ve contributed quite a bit of volunteer time to YIMBY groups, but haven’t given much money; I suspect it’s cost-effective, but I’m highly uncertain about it.
Indeed, there are potential other positive effects (as with many causes). The biggest one for me would be if this lowers the perceived cost of immigration by reducing competition for relatively fixed housing, and thus enables more immigration. I think that’s pretty speculative though, so I didn’t include it in the post.
This blog post establishes some links between housing scarcity and immigration:
Only the wealthiest, best-educated immigrants move [to California], and most refugee resettlement agencies no longer place families in San Francisco because of the city’s high housing costs. The city accepts 95% fewer refugees than just a few years ago. Who actually welcome immigrants and refugees? Cities like Houston, Phoenix, and Atlanta that have lower costs of living.
Empirically, we leverage an EU legal directive that resulted in an exogenous increase in the intensity of competition between immigrants and natives over public housing in Austria. Our findings indicate that support for anti-immigrant parties is highly responsive to perceived scarcity resulting from immigrant receipt of in-kind benefits.
In addition to GDP effects, liberalizing zoning ties to other EA cause areas. For example, density allows for more immigrants and averts climate change. This study finds that
I’d love to see all these factors tied together in a cohesive EA analysis, from a dollar donated to the number of homes legalized and downstream benefits of those homes. I’ve contributed quite a bit of volunteer time to YIMBY groups, but haven’t given much money; I suspect it’s cost-effective, but I’m highly uncertain about it.
Indeed, there are potential other positive effects (as with many causes). The biggest one for me would be if this lowers the perceived cost of immigration by reducing competition for relatively fixed housing, and thus enables more immigration. I think that’s pretty speculative though, so I didn’t include it in the post.
Alas, such an analysis is beyond me!
this recent post argues that more dense urban housing would have lots of benefits for the climate , inequality, falling fertility.
This blog post establishes some links between housing scarcity and immigration:
Cavaille and Ferwerda (2017) provide a well-identified channel: