In this paper we estimate some aggregate consumption effects and the benefits of public housing programs in Belgium on the basis of a small sample of individual households. Specifying a Stone-Geary utility function defined on housing and other goods we develop estimates of all required inputs to calculate Hick's equivalent variation. We further analyze changes in consumption patterns as well as the distribution of benefits over the sample. Our results provide the first information on the effects of public housing in Belgium derived from micro data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Cronin, F.J. (1982). The Household's Decision to Accept or Reject a Conditional Transfer Offer. Southern Economic Journal, 218-234.
2.
Deborger, B. (1984). Housing Demand and the Benefits of Public Housing Programs in Belgium: the Composite Commodity Approach. SESO - Report 84/154 , University of Antwerp, UFSIA.
3.
Desalvo, J.S. (1975). Benefits and Costs of New York City's Middle-Income Housing Program. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 83: 791-805.
4.
Dhrymes, P.J. (1971). Price and Quality Changes in Consumer Capital Goods, in Griliches, (ed.). Price Indexes and Quality Change, Harvard University Press .
5.
Diewert, E.W. (1974). Intertemporal Consumer Theory and the Demand for Durables. Econometrica, Vol. 42: 497-516.
6.
Grether, D.M. and Mieszkowski, P. (1974). Determinants of Real Estate Values. Journal of Urban Economics, 127-145.
7.
Hammond, C. (1982). The Benefits of Subsidized Housing Programs: An Intertemporal Approach, University of Virginia (unpublished Ph.D. thesis).
8.
Kain, J. and Quigley, J. (1975). Housing Markets and Racial Discrimination, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
9.
Lovell, M.C. (1983). Data Mining. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 65: 1-12.
10.
Murray, M. (1975). The Distribution of Tenant Benefits in Public Housing. Econometrica, Vol. 43: 771-788.
11.
Murray, M. (1978). Composite Commodities and Hedonic Prices. Journal of Urban Economics, 188-197.
12.
Murray, M. (1980). A Reinterpretation of the Traditional Income-Leisure Model, with Application to in-kind Subsidy Programs, Journal of Public Economics, 69-81.
13.
Muth, R.F. (1960). The Demand for Non-Farm Housing, in Harberger, A. C. (ed.). The Demand for Durable Goods, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
14.
Olsen, E.O. (1969). A Competitive Theory of the Housing Market. American Economic Review, Vol. 59: 612-622.
15.
Olsen, E.O. (1972). An Econometric Analysis of Rent Control. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 80: 1081-1100.
16.
Olsen, E.O. and Barton, D.M. (1983). The Benefits and Costs of Public Housing Programs in New York City. Journal of Public Economics.
17.
Olsen, E.O. and Bierman, H.S. (1982). Selection Bias in the Estimation of Benefits of in-kind Transfers, Discussion Paper 711-82, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, Madison .
18.
Quigley, J. (1979). What Have We Learned About Housing Markets, in Mieszkowski, P. and Straszheim, M. R. (ed.). Current Issues in Urban Economics, 391-429.
19.
Rosen, H.S. (1978). The Measurement of Excess Burden with Explicit Utility Functions. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 86: 5121-5135.
20.
Weicher, J.C. (1979). Urban Housing Policy, in Mieszkowski, P. and Straszheim, M. R. (ed.). Current Issues in Urban Economics, 469-508.
