IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/gjfdx_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic incidence of developer contributions

Author

Listed:
  • Murray, Cameron

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Helm, Tim

    (Independent economic consultant)

Abstract

This report assesses the impact that policy changes to increase (or decrease) development contributions (DCs) are likely to have on housing markets in the context of proposals by Auckland Council officers to include post-2031 infrastructure expenditure in DCs so as to better reflect the long-run public infrastructure costs caused by housing development. Development contributions (DCs) are a tax on converting property to more intensive uses, levied to fund infrastructure to support urban growth. They are long-established and commonly used in cities around the world. Questions of their economic incidence have been thoroughly examined. The size of the proposed DC changes in Drury is in line with changes happening elsewhere in high- growth and high-value cities like Toronto, Sydney, and Los Angeles. The analysis here shows that the common claim that DCs are passed through to house prices and rents is not supported by theory or evidence. Dwelling prices reflect the capitalised value of the housing services dwellings provide, as determined within larger housing markets, and so additional development costs cannot be passed forward to rents or prices but instead will be passed back to land in the form of lower land values. For the Drury-Opāheke investment priority area the proposed policy change is expected to increase DCs by around \$50,000 per dwelling to a total of \$84,500 per dwelling. Although this increase is significant in percentage terms, DCs around this level are not large enough to render housing development unviable given the high incremental value from changing properties in the area to residential use. The proposal is expected to have no impact on the pace of development across Auckland as a whole, though it may alter the sequence of sites taken up for new housing across the city. Whether development proceeds faster or slower in the areas subject to higher DCs depends on several factors. On the one hand, an additional cost to development may increase the return to holding land undeveloped – but on the other, earlier delivery of infrastructure funded by DCs is likely to accelerate development. Regardless, these local impacts are likely small relative to the influence of other market factors. The neutrality of DCs with respect to house prices is confirmed by the best empirical evidence available. The highest-quality econometric studies find no relationship between changes in DCs and prices, in accordance with established theory. An ongoing charge on property owners in the form of a targeted rate is economically equivalent if levied on the same base. If the base is changed from a per-dwelling rate to a per-land area rate, there may be small changes to incentives that bear on the size and style of dwellings constructed.

Suggested Citation

  • Murray, Cameron & Helm, Tim, 2022. "Economic incidence of developer contributions," OSF Preprints gjfdx_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:gjfdx_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/gjfdx_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/635f99a70fac830d9479c953/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/gjfdx_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Dachis & Vincent Thivierge, 2018. "Through the Roof: The High Cost of Barriers to Building New Housing in Canadian Municipalities," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 513, May.
    2. Shishir Mathur, 2007. "Do impact fees raise the price of existing housing?," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 635-659, January.
    3. Brueckner, Jan K., 1997. "Infrastructure financing and urban development:: The economics of impact fees," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 383-407, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Murray, Cameron & Helm, Tim, 2022. "Economic incidence of developer contributions," OSF Preprints gjfdx, Center for Open Science.
    2. Adam Found, 2021. "Development Charges and Housing Affordability: A False Dichotomy?," IMFG Papers 56, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    3. Benjamin Dachis, 2018. "Hosing Homebuyers: Why Cities Should Not Pay for Water and Wastewater Infrastructure with Development Charges," e-briefs 281, C.D. Howe Institute.
    4. Xu, Jiajun & Ru, Xinshun & Song, Pengcheng, 2021. "Can a new model of infrastructure financing mitigate credit rationing in poorly governed countries?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 111-120.
    5. Marie-Estelle Binet, 2000. "Dynamique périurbaine et dépenses publiques locales : une analyse en termes de causalité," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 146(5), pages 95-111.
    6. Adam T. Jones, 2016. "Mileage tax, property tax, sales tax, or fee: the best way to pay for commercial infrastructure that isn’t free," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 36(1), pages 81-98, February.
    7. J. Peter Clinch & Eoin O'Neill, 2010. "Assessing the Relative Merits of Development Charges and Transferable Development Rights in an Uncertain World," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(4), pages 891-911, April.
    8. Jiang, Yong & Swallow, Stephen K., 2017. "Impact Fees Coupled With Conservation Payments to Sustain Ecosystem Structure: A Conceptual and Numerical Application at the Urban-Rural Fringe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 136-147.
    9. Kurt Paulsen, 2013. "The Effects of Growth Management on the Spatial Extent of Urban Development, Revisited," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 193-210.
    10. Rhoads, Thomas A. & Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Why do cities use supply side strategies to mitigate traffic congestion externalities?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 214-219, August.
    11. Matthias Cinyabuguma & Virginia McConnell, 2013. "Urban Growth Externalities And Neighborhood Incentives: Another Cause Of Urban Sprawl?," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 332-348, May.
    12. Jenny Schuetz & Rachel Meltzer & Vicki Been, 2009. "Silver Bullet or Trojan Horse? The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets," Working Paper 8519, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.
    13. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia D., 2004. "Incentive-Based Land Use Policies and Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay," Discussion Papers 10843, Resources for the Future.
    14. Khalid, Haniza & Lloyd, Timothy Adrian & Morgan, Christopher Wyn, 2013. "The Impact of Economic Transformation and the Credibility of Planning Control on Agricultural Land Values," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 62(2).
    15. Christopher J. Mayer & C. Tsuriel Somerville, 2003. "Government regulation and changes in the affordable housing stock," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Jun, pages 45-62.
    16. Adam T. Jones, 2015. "Impact Fees and Employment Growth," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 29(4), pages 341-346, November.
    17. Gorecki, Paul & Hennessy, Hugh & Lyons, Sean, 2011. "How impact fees and local planning regulation can influence deployment of telecoms infrastructure," 22nd European Regional ITS Conference, Budapest 2011: Innovative ICT Applications - Emerging Regulatory, Economic and Policy Issues 52160, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    18. repec:wyi:journl:002181 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Yiming Wang & Michelle Baddeley, 2016. "The problem of land value betterment: a simplified agent-based test," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 57(2), pages 413-436, November.
    20. Burge, Gregory & Ihlanfeldt, Keith, 2006. "Impact fees and single-family home construction," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 284-306, September.
    21. Randy Bluffstone & Matt Braman & Linda Fernandez & Tom Scott & Pei‐Yi Lee, 2008. "Housing, Sprawl, And The Use Of Development Impact Fees: The Case Of The Inland Empire," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(3), pages 433-447, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:osfxxx:gjfdx_v1. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.