File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Exclusionary Megacities
Title | Exclusionary Megacities |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Megacities Agglomeration Exclusion Unaffordable Housing Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) |
Issue Date | 2018 |
Publisher | University of Southern California, Gould School of Law. The Journal's web site is located at http://lawreview.usc.edu |
Citation | Southern California Law Review, 2018, v. 91 n. 3, p. 467-522 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Human beings should live in places where they are most productive, and megacities, where information, innovation and opportunities congregate, would be the optimal choice. Yet megacities in both China and the U.S. are excluding people by limiting housing supply. Why, despite their many differences, is the same type of exclusion happening in both Chinese and U.S. megacities? Urban law and policy scholars argue that Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) homeowners are taking over megacities in the U.S. and hindering housing development therein. They pin their hopes on an efficient growth machine that makes sure “above all, nothing gets in the way of building.” Yet the growth-dominated megacities of China demonstrate that relying on business and political elites to provide affordable housing is a false hope. Our comparative study of the homeowner-dominated megacities of the U.S. and growth-dominated megacities of China demonstrates that the origin of exclusionary megacities is not a choice between growth elites and homeowners, but the exclusionary nature of property rights. Our study reveals that megacities in the two countries share a property-centered approach, which prioritizes the maximization of existing property interests and neglects ultimate housing consumers’ interests, resulting in unaffordable housing. Giving housing consumers a voice in land use control and urban governance becomes the last resort to counteract this result. This comparative study shows that the conventional triangular framework of land use comprising government, developers, and homeowners is incomplete, and argues for a citizenship-based approach to urban governance. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/246868 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.0 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.454 |
SSRN | |
Grants |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Pritchett, W | - |
dc.contributor.author | Qiao, S | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-10-10T06:49:46Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2017-10-10T06:49:46Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Southern California Law Review, 2018, v. 91 n. 3, p. 467-522 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0038-3910 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/246868 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Human beings should live in places where they are most productive, and megacities, where information, innovation and opportunities congregate, would be the optimal choice. Yet megacities in both China and the U.S. are excluding people by limiting housing supply. Why, despite their many differences, is the same type of exclusion happening in both Chinese and U.S. megacities? Urban law and policy scholars argue that Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) homeowners are taking over megacities in the U.S. and hindering housing development therein. They pin their hopes on an efficient growth machine that makes sure “above all, nothing gets in the way of building.” Yet the growth-dominated megacities of China demonstrate that relying on business and political elites to provide affordable housing is a false hope. Our comparative study of the homeowner-dominated megacities of the U.S. and growth-dominated megacities of China demonstrates that the origin of exclusionary megacities is not a choice between growth elites and homeowners, but the exclusionary nature of property rights. Our study reveals that megacities in the two countries share a property-centered approach, which prioritizes the maximization of existing property interests and neglects ultimate housing consumers’ interests, resulting in unaffordable housing. Giving housing consumers a voice in land use control and urban governance becomes the last resort to counteract this result. This comparative study shows that the conventional triangular framework of land use comprising government, developers, and homeowners is incomplete, and argues for a citizenship-based approach to urban governance. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | University of Southern California, Gould School of Law. The Journal's web site is located at http://lawreview.usc.edu | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Southern California Law Review | - |
dc.subject | Megacities | - |
dc.subject | Agglomeration | - |
dc.subject | Exclusion | - |
dc.subject | Unaffordable Housing | - |
dc.subject | Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) | - |
dc.title | Exclusionary Megacities | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Qiao, S: justqiao@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Qiao, S=rp01949 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 282110 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 91 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 3 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 467 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 522 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United States | - |
dc.identifier.ssrn | 3000724 | - |
dc.identifier.hkulrp | 2017/031 | - |
dc.relation.project | National Laws and Local Land Reforms: The Spectrum of Legality | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0038-3910 | - |