Click here to download the draft

Abstract: Zoning regulations lowered aggregate growth by 36 percent (Hsieh and Moretti, 2019). If these regulations are so costly, why do they exist? We develop and solve a model in which fragmentation of zoning authority within a metro leads to regulations that are more restrictive than the social optimum. When zoning decisions are made locally, homeowners impose stricter regulations to mitigate local congestion externalities but fail to internalize the broader impact on metro-wide housing affordability. Empirically, we find that the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index of local governments explains 12 percent of the variation in zoning restrictiveness across U.S. metros. Using an instrumental variable approach, we show that municipal fragmentation, shaped at least 150 years ago, continues to drive stricter zoning and higher housing costs today. These findings suggest that centralizing zoning decisions at higher levels of government could alleviate housing affordability challenges.

Click here to download the draft

Abstract: This paper examines the impact of innovative startups on local real estate markets and business activity using nationwide datasets of patent applications, property-level repeat-sale transactions, and establishment-level business data. To address potential endogeneity in the site selection of startups, we leverage the quasi-random assignment of patent examiners with varying leniency as an instrumental variable. We find that patent-granted startups increase the annualized returns of nearby residential properties by 0.3 to 0.6 percentage points, and commercial properties and vacant land returns by approximately 0.5 percentage points. The effects are strongest for the first innovative startups in an area, with return increases of 1.5 to 2.1 percentage points, while subsequent startups generate additional cumulative but smaller marginal effects. We also find that indirect effects play a substantial role: successful startups stimulate nearby patenting activity and establishment growth within the same sector, and over time, also contribute to business formation in other sectors.

Abstract: We study how the design of rental subsidies shapes landlord behavior in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, the largest rental assistance program in the United States. We focus on how the program's rent ceiling, known as the payment standard, shapes landlords' price-setting and tenant selection decisions, which in turn affect the neighborhood outcomes of voucher holders and the program's overall cost. Combining administrative data on all voucher holders with nationwide rental listings, we document bunching patterns in both contract and listed rents at payment standards. We then apply bunching estimators to disentangle the motivations behind landlord pricing behavior. Additionally, we examine potential ``overcharging,'' in which landlords raise rents to the payment standard or above listed prices to capture additional subsidy. Finally, we assess how these behaviors vary across neighborhood contexts. Our findings underscore the importance of subsidy design in shaping landlord participation, price-setting practices, and the overall effectiveness of the HCV program.

Click here to download the draft

Abstract: The Housing Choice Voucher program provides substantial rental subsidies to low-income households, yet many recipients struggle to secure housing with their vouchers, particularly in low-poverty areas. This paper examines a key bottleneck in the program: landlord discrimination against voucher holders. Using a nationwide dataset from a major online rental platform, we identify listings that explicitly seek or reject voucher holders. We find significant variation across metropolitan areas, with voucher-seeking listings ranging from nearly zero to 18 percent and voucher-rejecting listings ranging from nearly zero to 28 percent. Within metros, landlords in high-poverty neighborhoods with larger Black and voucher populations are more likely to seek voucher holders, while rejection of voucher holders is relatively more common in low-poverty neighborhoods. Using a difference-in-differences design, we provide causal evidence that statewide prohibitions on source-of-income discrimination significantly reduce explicit rejection of vouchers. This reduction is particularly pronounced in low-poverty neighborhoods and can eliminate cross-neighborhood disparities in discriminatory behavior.