Rent control has net positive impact
Executive Summary from “Rent Matters: What are the Impacts of Rent Stabilization Measures?” by Manuel Pastor, Ph.D, Vanessa Carter, MA, and Maya Abood, MA (USC Dornsife Program for Environmental and Regional Equity)
Among the first concepts often taught in traditional economics classes are the notions that the minimum wage tends to reduce employment and that rent regulation tends to reduce housing availability. In recent years, the evidence supporting the negative impacts of the minimum wage has become increasingly weak: economists generally agree that moderate increases in the minimum wage have almost no discernible impacts on overall employment, partly because higher-paid workers have more money to spend, tend to be more motivated, and are often better matched with their jobs.
But what about rent regulation? It is important to note that popular demand for restricting rent increases tend to occur in times of acute housing shortfalls, such as in the U.S. during World War II. Early rent regulations were often quite severe in their application, but subsequent forms of rent control—viewed as the second generation of rent stabilization programs—tend to allow rents to rise as long as they remain below some target, offer decontrol if the property is vacated, and seek to stabilize housing through other mechanisms such as restrictions on evictions.
As in the minimum wage literature, the evidence on the impacts of these more moderate rent regimes is more mixed than older economics textbooks might indicate. Evidence suggests there is little negative impact on new construction, which is logical given that newly produced units have no initial rent targets. However, there is also research that suggests that rent regulations may lead landlords to reduce maintenance or take units off the market through conversion into condos or owner move-in evictions. Some proponents of rent regulations have argued for limiting what they see as loopholes by, for example, making condo conversion more difficult.
Renters in the controlled or impacted units tend to experience real welfare gains as rent increases lag. What is interesting is the spillover effects: a key experiment in Cambridge showed that the elimination of rent regulations led to rent increases in both controlled and non-controlled units. This effect is likely due to displacement from gentrification: as decontrol forced out lower-income residents, neighborhoods became more attractive to those better-off potential tenants who wanted to cluster among those of similar means.
Income clustering effects may also explain why studies of New Jersey—the state with the most jurisdictions with rent regulations—find little impacts on rent levels and unit availability once researchers control for income, neighborhood racial composition, and other related factors. Rent regulations, in short, benefit incumbent renters in controlled and maybe even proximate uncontrolled units by promoting housing stability. Indeed, the impact of rent regulations on neighborhood stability is one area where there is broad agreement in the literature.
A recent Stanford study on rent control in San Francisco concurred that there were positive effects of rent regulations on housing stability, although the study was made famous, in part, due the authors’ statement that rent regulations also “likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco.” If gentrification is taken to mean displacement, it is important to realize that the study found that rent regulations promoted housing stability as beneficiaries of rent stabilization were 10 to 20 percent more likely to stay in their homes long-term. Rent regulations were found to confer nearly $3 billion in benefits on incumbent renters in the form of lower rents, but these welfare benefits were offset by decreases in available units (as landlords utilized loopholes allowing them to remove units that would be stabilized from the market) and subsequent rent increases in decontrolled units.
While this implies a sort of wash, the researchers note that 42 percent of the offsetting welfare loss was experienced by future residents—those yet to move to the city who presumably had higher incomes.
Because of this, the net benefit for incumbent residents was positive. Moreover, given the Cambridge finding about overall rent hikes after decontrol combined with research on vacancy control in California, one wonders whether the displacement from gentrification would have been even worse had rent regulations not been in place in the face of the tech boom.
Should we value housing stability? Certainly, this has long been an important public policy priority for the U.S., although almost all programs to support stability (federal loan guarantees, interest rate deductibility, and other mechanisms) are aimed at higher-income homeowners rather than lower income renters. Housing stability is associated with physical, social, and psychological well-being; higher educational achievement by the young; and benefits for people of color. These gains are difficult to price into cost-benefit analyses, but they are real nonetheless and they help to explain why governments are willing to “distort” the free market to promote home ownership.
One criticism of rent regulations is that they are a blunt tool that can create a misallocation of housing resources—why exactly should a particular set of incumbent renters gain and is there a more targeted way to improve the lives of low-income renters? While this is a reasonable concern, a commonly proposed alternative solution of giving large subsidies to landlords to keep low-income residents in place seems a politically impractical giveaway. For example, there are currently nearly 190,000 residents in the city of Los Angeles queued up for 20,000 vouchers to close the rent gap, suggesting that the public generosity needed for what some see as an “optimal” solution is sorely lacking.
The current evidence cannot answer all the questions swirling about rent regulations. For example, much more needs to be known about the impacts on mom-and-pop (or small) landlords; one could imagine they might value the stability of tenants associated with rent regulation but lose from lower potential profits. In addition, more research is needed on the net impact on business activity; renters spending less on housing might be more able to spend on other local-serving business, and this potential spillover effect from rent regulation is one for which research has not generally accounted.
While more research remains to be done, the evidence does suggest that the strident debate about rent regulations may be driven more by ideology and self-interest—on all sides—and that public policy would benefit from a more measured discussion. What this review of literature suggests to us is that rent regulations are one tool to deal with sharp upticks in rent. They have less deleterious effects than is often imagined—particularly if we are talking about more moderate rent stabilization measures—and they do seem to promote resident stability and can therefore help to slow the displacement dimension of gentrification.
At the same time, proponents of rent stabilization must be clear that limiting rent increases cannot fully solve the housing crisis confronting much of urban California. That will require that rent regulations be combined with robust efforts to promote housing supply, particularly of affordable units, and job training and economic development programs that can lift incomes and promote mobility. Such a multipronged approach can help to deal with the housing stresses and strains that are currently worrying renters, owners, and employers alike.
Read the entire report here.