Understanding the geography of affordable housing provided through land value capture: Evidence from England
Understanding the geography of affordable housing provided through land value capture: Evidence from England
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0042098021998893
复制
发表时间：
2021-03
期刊：
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
A. Lord;C. Cheang;Richard Dunning
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Lord;C. Cheang;Richard Dunning
世界各国政府经常进行土地价值采集，以收回因开发权而产生的部分(或全部)土地价值上涨，以便为基础设施和公共产品提供资金。确定LVC的工具多种多样，但通常是独立实施的。然而，自2011年以来，英格兰一直在尝试对低成本采取双重方式，既征收关税式的税收，为当地基础设施提供资金(社区基础设施税)，又通过谈判履行义务，主要用于资助经济适用房(第106条协议)。在本文中，我们使用差异法(DID)来确定地方规划当局可以使用的这两种工具的相互作用。我们探讨的问题是，社区基础设施税是否“排挤”了通过第106条规划协议获得的经济适用房。在这样做的过程中，我们表明，这两种方法的相互作用在不同类型的地方当局之间是不同的。这对理解开发活动的经济地理学和土地价值获取的理论和实践提出了问题。
Governments the world over routinely undertake Land Value Capture (LVC) to recover some (or all) of the uplift in land values arising from the right to develop in order to fund infrastructure and public goods. Instruments to exact LVC are diverse but are usually implemented independently. However, since 2011 England has been experimenting with a dual approach to LVC, applying both a tariff-style levy to fund local infrastructure (the Community Infrastructure Levy) and negotiated obligations, used primarily to fund affordable housing (Section 106 agreements). In this article we employ a difference-in-differences (DID) method to identify the interaction of these two instruments available to local planning authorities. We explore the question of whether the Community Infrastructure Levy ‘crowds out’ affordable housing secured through Section 106 planning agreements. In so doing we show that the interaction of these two approaches is heterogeneous across local authorities of different types. This raises questions for understanding the economic geography of development activity and the theory and practice of Land Value Capture.