One of this year’s most contentious ballot questions in California deals with affordable housing. A recent USC poll found that more than a third of voters (39%) support repealing Costa-Hawkins, a law that prevents rent control from applying to single-family homes. An almost identical amount (41%) oppose repealing the law, wanting to limit rent control to certain apartments.
That sharp disagreement highlights the role of politics in affordable housing, a persistent policy issue in a state grappling with a homelessness crisis and expensive home values. To better understand the political factors in housing, two professors from the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy joined forces.
Provost Professor Jeffery A. Jenkins and Associate Professor Jorge De la Roca recently hosted the “Political Economy of Housing” conference, where researchers presented seven academic papers. The event, jointly organized by the USC Price School’s PIPE Collaborative and the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate, included research on topics ranging from how public meetings enable new housing to the role of racial fears in restricting subsidized units.
We spoke with Jenkins and De la Roca about what they learned from the presented research. Their responses were lightly edited for length and clarity.
Why did you want to organize this conference? Why is this an important topic for research?

Jenkins: The shortage of available and affordable housing in a place like Los Angeles is almost a daily story in the news, so I thought the time was right for a “Political Economy of Housing” conference, which would combine the expertise of political scientists and housing/real estate economists.
De la Roca: The conference was Jeff’s initiative, and we at Lusk immediately responded when he contacted us. Lusk has excellent scholars who have more broadly researched housing issues, real estate finance, and urban economics. However, we are less familiar with the theory. The collaboration arose naturally as political scientists can teach real estate and urban economists how to develop models where political actors have different incentives throughout the real estate development process. Further, Lusk is well-connected with the real estate industry. Inviting a panel of experts who share ideas on the day-to-day development process was an ideal opportunity.
What are the major political challenges in affordable housing today?
De la Roca: The enormous power of local governments on land use decisions. While residents largely agree that the metropolitan area requires additional housing, they often want it outside their community. Navigating the entitlement and construction process through endless stages and community meetings demands patience and foresight from developers to satisfy various demands. Given the increased uncertainty, the lengthy development process also has severe financial costs since developers must incur more expensive loans.

Master of Real Estate Development
From Vision to Reality
Master the art of real estate development and elevate your career.
Find Out MoreJenkins: There are so many political factors that prevent housing from being built. And as our professional experts noted, those factors often layer upon one another. So, if a developer works to satisfy one client group, for example, then they run the risk of making the project more concerning for another client group. Trying to satisfy all of the factors – the client groups and the embedded preferences in the institutions themselves (like zoning rules) – often turns what was a good project design with a lot of initial support into one that is too complex and expensive to pursue.
What are some takeaways from this conference?
Jenkins: For me, someone who studies political institutions, the takeaway was: institutions matter. The rules of the political game – like zoning – matter a lot. The preferences of people who (a) are affected by housing decisions – like local residents – and (b) care a lot and participate in neighborhood associations and show up for open development meetings are hugely important.

Housing politics, it seems clear to me, comes down to building sustainable, political coalitions, which is hard to do. Such coalitions often split apart in time, as some members of the coalitions defect when the project starts to drift away from their preferences. Housing is a deeply political issue, and new builds require significant political skill and acumen.
De la Roca: I concur with Jeff’s assessment. I was surprised to see how the opposition to large development projects is not necessarily a California or coastal phenomenon. It also slightly manifests in other U.S. and European cities, where priori land use regulations are laxer. California may serve as a benchmark on how stringent the housing supply may become in different places unless building policies are implemented in advance. The most important takeaway is that these joint events benefit everyone at Price and USC, and we should commit resources and effort to sustain them.
How did this conference benefit from the collaboration between research disciplines?

De la Roca: It was gratifying to see that Lusk and USC urban economists were excited to serve as discussants. Their willingness to collaborate shows their openness to learn from scholars from other fields working on similar issues but who rarely interact, given how compartmentalized academia can often operate.
The panel included real estate investment professionals such as lawyers and land-use specialists. They provided insights that inform model assumptions. Sometimes, models may center on a few mechanisms. However, practitioners can help update beliefs by stating what salient regulations prevent housing supply (and what are less crucial) and how they have designed strategies to overcome neighborhood opposition. In response, new theoretical models can introduce novel mechanisms and downplay others.
Jenkins: We have excellent faculty at Price. But one concern is that we become insular when we only talk to people like us – who work in our own areas. Fresh perspectives are useful, as they can help us see issues and problems from different angles and challenge our existing assumptions of things.
The real estate economists at Price and the USC Marshall School of Business are experts on housing. They have studied housing for their careers, and they know data and cases extremely well. There were many times during the conference when someone would pose a question – about data and the local housing context – and someone else in the room would have the answer. And, from the other side, some of the real estate economists are not steeped in the role that political institutions play in housing affordability and availability. The political scientists know those political institutions better. So, the learning proved to be in both directions.