Investigating and Modelling the link between planning law and real-estate prices with business cycles, economic productivity and new business creation

有很多研究将家庭资产负债表和房价走势与总体经济活动联系起来（Mian和Sufi，2010年; Adelino等人，2015）。同样，也有大量的工作在土地使用法规和房价之间建立了密切的联系（Glaeser，2005;绿色，Malpezzi和马约，2005;柴郡和希尔伯，2008）。在我的博士研究中，我的目标是研究第一和第二股文献之间的联系。特别是，我的目标是了解土地使用和规划法规如何通过房价变化影响总经济活动，如产出，就业，生产力，投资，消费和创业以及新业务创造。关于英国住房和土地使用的辩论是当今政治格局中最突出的问题之一。英国的房屋和商业地产价格是经合组织中最昂贵的。柴郡和谢泼德（2002）表明，在英国，土地利用规划政策的净成本估计高达家庭年收入的3.9%。柴郡and Hilber（2008）估计了14个英国和8个欧洲大陆办公地点的监管税。作者发现，在样本期内，伦敦的伦敦西区和布鲁塞尔的平均影子税分别为边际建筑成本的800%和68%。Hseih和Moretti（2019）使用空间均衡模型和来自220个大都市地区的数据发现，对新住房供应的严格限制有效地限制了进入美国高生产率城市和地区的工人数量。土地使用法规如何与金融创新、法规和技术等其他因素在决定房价方面相互作用？危机后文献中的论文发现，限制性土地使用法规通过降低房价弹性，加剧了危机的影响。例如，Mian和Sufi（2010年）报告说，2002年至2006年，美国房价弹性较低的县的杠杆率比其他县的杠杆率上升得更快，这反过来又导致耐用消费支出大幅下降，随后失业率大幅上升。因此，我的博士学位将侧重于将上述言论融入用于理解和建模经济增长的理论框架中。Davis and Heathcote（2007）开发的多部门增长模型将被用作起点，其中建筑业，制造业和服务业以不同的比例相结合，以产生消费，商业投资和住宅结构。在这个起点上，将增加有助于模型的组成部分：不同的信贷制度，不同类型的城市发展和房地产价格弹性的时间和空间变化对总体经济措施的影响，以更现实和更有启发性的方式。

There exists much research linking household balance sheets and house price movements to aggregate economic activity (Mian and Sufi, 2010; Adelino et al., 2015). Equally, there exists a thriving body of work that has established strong links between land use regulations and house prices (Glaeser, 2005; Green, Malpezzi, and Mayo, 2005; Cheshire and Hilber, 2008). In my PhD research I aim to investigate the link between the first and the second strands of literature. In particular, my aim is to understand how land use and planning regulations, through house price changes, affect aggregate economic activity like output, employment, productivity, investment, consumption and entrepreneurship and new business creation. The debate over housing and land use in the UK is one of the most prominent in today's political landscape. House and commercial property prices in the UK are among the most expensive in the OECD. Cheshire and Shepphard (2002) have shown that estimated net costs of land use planning policies in the UK amount to as much as 3.9% of annual household incomes. Cheshire and Hilber (2008) estimate the regulatory tax for 14 British and 8 continental European office locations. The authors find an average shadow tax, of 800% of marginal construction costs in the West End of London and 68% in Brussels, over the sample period.Recent research has also uncovered significant long-term impact of land use regulations on economic activity. Hseih and Moretti (2019) using a spatial equilibrium model and data from 220 metropolitan areas find that stringent restrictions to new housing supply effectively limit the number of workers who have access to high productivity cities and regions in the US. How do land use regulations interact with other factors such as financial innovations, regulation and technology in determining house prices? Papers in the post-crisis literature find that restrictive land use regulations, through a lower house price elasticity, worsened the effects of the crisis. For example, Mian and Sufi (2010) report that between 2002 to 2006 counties in the US with lower house price elasticity experienced sharper increases in leverage than others which in turn caused larger drops in durable consumption expenditure, and later, large increases in unemployment. Thus my PhD will focus on integrating the above remarks into the theoretical framework used to understand and model economic growth. The multisector growth model developed in Davis and Heathcote (2007) will be used as a starting point where construction, manufacturing, and services are combined, in different proportions, to produce consumption, business investment, and residential structures. To this starting point will be added components that will contribute to model: the effects of varying credit regimes, different styles of urban development and temporal and spatial variation of real-estate price elasticity on aggregate economic measures in a more realistic and enlightening manner.