From the Times of London (closed), it starts from my previous MR discussion on the subject:
Yet, from a policy perspective, identifying what changed after 2008 is less interesting than what could have been improved. Cowen’s question was sparked by a British entrepreneur who told him that the U.K.’s planning laws explained much of the persistent prosperity gap with the United States. I agree and think Cowen underestimates the damage of Nimbyism after 2008. The headwinds of the financial crisis have made it more imperative to dismantle the land use barriers that stifle growth, and which become more and more damaging over time.
Careful analysis by LSE economists John Van Reenen and Xuyi Yang suggests that the UK is experiencing a sharper deterioration in productivity growth than France or Germany due to lower capital investment, which the financial crisis, Brexit and political uncertainty have exacerbated. We cannot solve the financial crisis or easily overturn the public’s decision on Brexit, but green-lighting more housing, energy and infrastructure projects by liberalizing land use was an obvious path forward. counter this collapse of investments…
Before 2008, the pharmaceutical, chemical and life sciences sectors were growing strongly, but they were also increasingly hampered by land rationing and rising rental costs. Savills estimated in 2020, for example, that London had 90,000 square feet and Manchester had 360,000 square feet of suitable laboratory space, compared to Boston’s 14.6 million square feet and 1.36 million square feet. squares in New York.
All this is worth thinking about. Claude 3 estimates that land rent represents 12 to 15% of British GDP, so I would still like a very careful breakdown to be carried out here. I estimated that NIMBY problems accounted for about 15% of the GDP deficit. If we relaxed NIMBY a little, what benefit would that create?
