The Effects of the Mortgage Crisis on Housing Policy Research
The Effects of the Mortgage Crisis on Housing Policy Research
复制标题
抵押贷款危机对住房政策研究的影响
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Dan Immergluck
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dan Immergluck
抵押贷款危机的实际影响对美国各地的家庭和社区都非常明显（Immergluck，2011）。尽管止赎的高峰已经过去，但这场危机仍将在未来几十年给社区--特别是有色人种社区和低收入社区--留下长期的伤疤。这场危机不仅在消费者保护竞技场，而且在银行和更广泛的资本市场监管方面，也促使监管政策进行重大重组。其中许多政策变化仍在继续。抵押贷款如何融资的基本面仍然是一个重大政治不确定性的话题。从住房政策研究人员的角度来看，危机产生了另一系列变化。取决于一个人所处的位置，这些变化中的一些可能是受欢迎的，而另一些可能不太受欢迎。这些变化包括许多住房政策辩论的影响力增加（因此相关住房研究的影响力也增加），主流新古典经济学家的更多关注，以及联邦储备系统经济学家在住房相关研究中发挥更大的作用。这些趋势可能会带来巨大的好处，包括获得新的数据和知识。然而，它们也将创造一个更嘈杂的环境，在这个环境中，获得有关重要政策相关研究的信息可能更具挑战性。这也使得一个竞技场更明显地被一个特定的学术学科所主导。由于经济危机，住房政策在更广泛的联邦政策制定议程中的地位明显上升。在危机之前，住房政策在联邦议程上常常被降到第二或第三级。作为衡量住房政策在国家层面的影响力增加的一个指标，图1显示，在两个主要的全国性日报，纽约时报和华盛顿邮报，住房政策一词在危机后的文章中比危机前多得多。在2007年之前的8年里，这两个报纸只出现了284篇文章。但从2007年到2014年出现在467篇文章中，增加了64%。在危机之前，住房政策的低调意味着智囊团、倡导者、国会行动者和参与住房研究和政策制定的联邦机构工作人员是一个规模相对较小的群体，在这个群体中，专业知识和不同的观点很容易得到认可，网络联系往往相当牢固。危机之后，新的行为者进入了政策辩论和研究竞技场。住房研究的竞技场变得更加广阔和喧闹。图2显示，在Google Scholar中搜索“housing policy”一词，
The on-the-ground impacts of the mortgage crisis have been all too obvious for families and neighborhoods throughout the United States (Immergluck, 2011). Despite the peak of foreclosures having passed, the crisis promises to leave long-term scars on communities— especially communities of color and lower-income neighborhoods—for decades to come. The crisis has also precipitated major restructurings of the regulatory policy not only in the consumer protection arena, but also in the regulation of banks and the broader capital markets. Many of these policy changes continue to emerge. The very fundamentals of how mortgages will be funded remain a topic of significant political uncertainty. From the perspective of housing policy researchers, the crisis has produced another set of changes. Depending on where one sits, some of these changes are likely to be welcome ones whereas others may be less welcome. These changes include an increase in the profile of many housing policy debates (and therefore an increase in the profile of related housing research), greater attention from mainstream neoclassical economists, and a much greater role of the Federal Reserve System economists in the production of housing-related research. These trends will likely bring significant benefits, including access to new data and knowledge. However, they will also make for a noisier environment in which getting the word about important policy-relevant research may be more challenging. It also makes for an arena that is even more clearly dominated by a particular academic discipline. Housing policy made a clear ascension in the broader federal policy-making agenda due to the crisis. Prior to the crisis, housing policy had often been relegated to a secondor third-tier status on the federal agenda. As one measure of the increased profile of housing policy at the national level, Figure 1 shows that, in two major national daily newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, the term housing policy was mentioned in many more articles after the crisis than before it. The term appeared in only 284 articles in both newspapers in the 8 years before 2007, but appeared in 467 articles from 2007 through 2014, an increase of 64%. Before the crisis, the lower profile of housing policy meant that the community of think tanks, advocates, congressional actors, and federal agency staff involved in housing research and policy making was a relatively modest-sized group, within which expertise and differing perspectives were easily recognized and network linkages were often quite well established. After the crisis, new actors entered the policy debates and research arena. The housing research arena became broader and noisier. Figure 2 shows that, in a search of Google Scholar for the term “housing policy,” the number of articles containing the term