Prudential measures in housing access: Should one include transport costs in the front-end ratio?

Nicolas Coulombel

Abstract


A widespread prudential measure limits the housing expense ratio—defined as the share of income spent on the rent or loan payment—to ensure household solvency. This policy is increasingly criticized, however, as it would induce households to settle far from the city center in search of lower housing prices, fostering urban sprawl. It would even prove counterproductive as high transport costs in distant areas would more than offset the lower housing costs. To avoid these unintended effects, several researchers advocate limiting the joint housing plus transport expense ratio instead. This paper aims to shed light on this issue by comparing the two prudential measures—limiting either the housing or the housing plus transport expense ratio—using the monocentric model. By constraining residential choices and reducing housing consumption, both policies improve household solvency and reduce urban sprawl. While this seems to contradict previous claims, the joint constraint proves more efficient in both regards. Provided the constraint is not too stringent, both policies have limited impact on household welfare and often even improve welfare. But this time, capping only the housing expense ratio always dominates the joint housing plus transport constraint. A numerical application to the Paris region illustrates our findings for a real case study. Results suggest that replacing the current limitation of the housing expense ratio with a joint housing plus transport constraint would significantly improve household solvency and curb urban sprawl, with a negligible welfare loss.

Keywords


housing budget; transport budget; prudential measures; monocentric model

Full Text:

PDF

References


Berri, A. (2007). Residential location and household expenditures on transport and housing: The example of the Greater Paris Region. Presented at the 11th World Conference on Transport Research, Berkeley, CA. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=885631

Bertaud, A., & Brueckner, J. K. (2005). Analyzing building-height restrictions: Predicted impacts and welfare costs. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35(2), 109–125. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2004.02.004

Blackman, A., & Krupnick, A. (2001). Location-efficient mortgages: Is the rationale sound? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(4), 633–649. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.1021

Brueckner, J. K. (2009). Government land use interventions: An economic analysis. In S. V. Lall, M. Freire, B. Yuen, R. Rajack, & J.-J. Helluin (Eds.), Urban Land Markets (pp. 3–23). Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-8862-9_1

Cheshire, P., & Sheppard, S. (2005). The introduction of price signals into land use planning decision-making: A proposal. Urban Studies, 42(4), 647–663. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500060210

Coulombel, N., & Leurent, F. (2013). Les ménages arbitrent-ils entre coût du logement et coût du transport: Une réponse dans le cas francilien. Economie et Statistique, 457–458, 57–75.

Duca, J. V., & Rosenthal, S. S. (1994). Borrowing constraints and access to owner-occupied housing. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 24(3), 301–322. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-0462(93)02041-Z

Fack, G. (2005). Pourquoi les ménages pauvres paient-ils des loyers de plus en plus élevés ?: L’incidence des aides au logement en France (1973-2002). Economie et statistique, 381(1), 17–40. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.2005.7207

Fujita, M. (1989). Urban economic theory: Land use and city size. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gobillon, L. (2008). Une Synthèse de la Littérature sur la Consommation de Logement des Ménages.

Gobillon, L., & le Blanc, D. (2008). Economic effects of upfront subsidies to ownership: The case of the Prêt à Taux Zéro in France. Journal of Housing Economics, 17(1), 1–33. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2007.06.003

Haas, P. M., Makarewicz, C., Benedict, A., Sanchez, T. W., & Dawkins, C. J. (2006). Housing & transportation cost trade-offs and burdens of working households in 28 metros. Chicago: Center for Neighborhood Technology.

Hare, P. H. (1995). Clunker Mortgages and Transportation Redlining: How the mortgage banking industry unknowingly drains cities and spreads sprawl (p. 21). Washington, DC: Patrick H. Hare Planning and Design.

Muth, R. F. (1969). Cities and housing: The spatial pattern of urban residential land Uue. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Polacchini, A., & Orfeuil, J.-P. (1999). Les dépenses des ménages franciliens pour le logement et les transports. Recherche – Transports – Sécurité, 63, 31–46. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0761-8980(00)80039-4

Turner, M. A., Haughwout, A., & van der Klaauw, W. (2014). Land-use regulation and welfare. Econometrica, 82(4), 1341–1403. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA9823

Viguié, V., Hallegatte, S., & Rozenberg, J. (2014). Downscaling long-term socioeconomic scenarios at city scale: A case study on Paris. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 87, 305–324. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.028

Zorn, P. M. (1989). Mobility-tenure decisions and financial credit: Do mortgage qualification requirements constrain homeownership? Real Estate Economics, 17(1), 1–16. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.00470




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2017.849