Author
Listed:
- Pierre Le Brun
(AU - Avignon Université, ESPACE - Études des Structures, des Processus d’Adaptation et des Changements de l’Espace - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - AU - Avignon Université - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur)
Abstract
The production of private housing in France is particularly dependent on tax expenditure for buy-to-let investment by household [Pollard, 2022]. The sharp expansion of these subsidies from the end of the 1990s has coincided with an increase in the share of the private rental sector in the housing stock, a decline in the share of the social sector and a flattening of the ownership rate. This support can therefore be seen as a pillar of the 'rentierisation' [Christophers, 2019] of the French housing sector. The geographical selectivity of these schemes, which have only been available in specific parts of France since 2009, is therefore fuelling a geographically uneven development of property rent. The role of the state in this rentierisation resonates with the thesis of State Monopoly Capitalism (SMC), which was very influential in the 1970s and abandoned from the 1980s onwards in favour of regulation theory. By analogy with the SMC, this article analyses tax support for rental investment as a form of state monopoly rentierism (SMR), which, in interaction with the geographical structures of the rental market, has led to the spatial selectivity of rentierisation. The first part of the presentation focuses on the process by which fiscal support for buy-to-let has become spatially selective. It shows that since 2009, increasing amounts of budget have been concentrated in areas of high rental demand. It then uses public reports and records of debates in the National Assembly, to show how this concentration stems from policymakers' desire to support household wealth accumulation through rental investment. The second part analyses the impact of tax expenditure on housing production. Using a difference-in-difference method, it shows that subsidies have favoured capitalist housing production by private developers at the expense of social landlords (non-lucrative market production) and individuals (non-market production).
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's
web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04195454. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.