Life course events such as new offspring or job loss affect a household’s demand for housing. At the same time, dynamics in the real estate market constrain where households find affordable housing. In a quasi-experimental design, this study examines the effect of increasing local housing prices on the relocation behaviour of low- and medium-income households. Difference-in-difference panel regressions using propensity score matching show that with rising local rental prices, low-income households are more likely to remain in their current housing and sustain higher levels of housing cost burden. If they move, they relocate further out of the city centre and to neighbourhoods with high unemployment rates. Rising housing markets facilitate socio-spatial segregation as middle-income households remain in economically better-off neighbourhoods. The findings highlight the additional costs of increasing housing prices in terms of the misallocation of housing and the spatial concentration of vulnerable households at the outskirts of cities.
AalbersMB (2006) ‘When the banks withdraw, slum landlords take over’: The structuration of neighbourhood decline through redlining, drug dealing, speculation and immigrant exploitation. Urban Studies43(7): 1061–1086.
2.
AllenC (2010) Housing research, housing policy and the politics of dwelling. Housing, Theory and Society27(2): 136–143.
3.
BakerEBentleyRLesterL, et al. (2016) Housing affordability and residential mobility as drivers of locational inequality. Applied Geography72: 65–75.
4.
BelskyESGoodmanJDrewR (2005) Measuring the Nation’s Rental Housing Affordability Problems. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies, Graduate School of Design John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
5.
BöheimRTaylorMP (2002) Tied down or room to move? Investigating the relationships between housing tenure, employment status and residential mobility in Britain. Scottish Journal of Political Economy49(4): 369–392.
6.
BoydM (2005) The downside of racial uplift: Meaning of gentrification in an African American neighborhood. City & Society17(2): 265–288.
7.
BuschR (2016) Inländische Wanderungen in Deutschland – wer gewinnt und wer verliert?Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie2(2): 81–101.
8.
ChettyRHendrenNKatzLF (2016) The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the moving to opportunity experiment. American Economic Review106(4): 855–902.
9.
ClarkWAV (2013) Life course events and residential change: Unpacking age effects on the probability of moving. Journal of Population Research30(4): 319–334.
10.
ClarkWAVDeurlooMDielemanF (2006) Residential mobility and neighbourhood outcomes. Housing Studies21(3): 323–342.
11.
ClarkWAVLisowskiW (2017) Decisions to move and decisions to stay: Life course events and mobility outcomes. Housing Studies32(5): 547–565.
12.
CoulterRvan HamMFindlayAM (2015) Re-thinking residential mobility: Linking lives through time and space. Progress in Human Geography40(3): 352–374.
13.
CurranW (2018) ‘Mexicans love red’ and other gentrification myths: Displacements and contestations in the gentrification of Pilsen, Chicago, USA. Urban Studies55(8): 1711–1728.
14.
EllenIGO’ReganKM (2011) How low income neighborhoods change: Entry, exit, and enhancement. Regional Science and Urban Economics41(2): 89–97.
15.
FingletonBFuerstFSzumiloN (2018) Housing affordability: Is new local supply the key?Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space51(1): 25–50.
16.
FreemanLBraconiF (2004) Gentrification and displacement new york city in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association70(1): 39–52.
17.
GalsterGC (2012) The mechanism(s) of neighbourhood effects: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. In: van HamMManleyDBaileyN, et al. (eds) Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 23–56.
18.
GalsterGCCutsingerJMalegaR (2008) The costs of concentrated poverty: Neighborhood property markets and the dynamics of decline. In: RetsinasNBelskyE (eds) Revisiting Rental Housing: Policies, Programs, and Priorities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 93–113.
19.
GlaeserEGyourkoJ (2018) The economic implications of housing supply. Journal of Economic Perspectives32(1): 3–30.
GoebelJSpiessCKWitteNRJ, et al. (2014) Die Verknüpfung des SOEP mit MICROM- Indikatoren: Der MICROM-SOEP-Datensatz. SOEP Survey Papers. German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin).
22.
HainmuellerJMummoloJXuY (2019) How much should we trust estimates from multiplicative interaction models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice. Political Analysis27(2): 163–192.
23.
HamnettC (2003) Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of inner London, 1961–2001. Urban Studies40(12): 2401–2426.
24.
HäußermannHKronauerMSiebelW (2004) Stadt am rand: Armut und ausgrenzung. In: HäußermannHKronauerMSiebelW (eds) An Den Rändern Der Städte. Armut Und Ausgrenzung. Frankfurt, Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 7–42.
25.
HedmanLvan HamMManleyD (2011) Neighbourhood choice and neighbourhood reproduction. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space43(6): 1381–1399.
26.
HendricksB (2016) Nachtrag: Steigende Immobilienpreise und steigende Wohnungsnot: Wohnungsmarkt aus dem Gleichgewicht?ifo Schnelldienst18. Ifo-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung: 27–30.
27.
HochstenbachCMusterdS (2017) Gentrification and the suburbanization of poverty: Changing urban geographies through boom and bust periods. Urban Geography39(1): 26–53.
28.
HolmA (2013) Berlin’s gentrification mainstream. In: HolmAGrellBBerntM (eds) The Berlin Reader: A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag, pp. 171–187.
29.
HsiehC-TMorettiE (2017) Housing Constraints and Spatial Misallocation. NBER Working Paper (21154). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
30.
ImbensGWWooldridgeJM (2009) Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature47(1): 5–86.
31.
IoannidesYMZabelJE (2008) Interactions, neighborhood selection and housing demand. Journal of Urban Economics63(1): 229–252.
32.
JustTVoigtländerMEisfeldR, et al. (2017) Wirtschaftsfaktor Immobilien 2017. Gutachten fuär den Deutschen Verband fuär Wohnungswesen, Städtebau und Raumordnung e. V. und die Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e.V.
33.
KochSKortusMSchierbaumC, et al. (2016) Wohin (ver-)drängt es die Kreuzberger_innen? Wohin ziehen die Verdrängten innerhalb eines Gentrification-Prozesses? In: HelbrechtI (ed.) Gentrifizierung in Berlin - Verdrängungsprozesse Und Bleibestrategien. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag, pp. 69–106.
34.
KramerCPfaffenbachC (2016) Should I stay or should I go? Housing preferences upon retirement in Germany. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment31(2): 239–256.
35.
KuluHMilewskiN (2007) Family change and migration in the life course. Demographic Research17(19): 567–590.
36.
LeesL (2008) Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance?Urban Studies45(12): 2449–2470.
37.
McKinnishTWalshRKirk WhiteT (2010) Who gentrifies low-income neighborhoods?Journal of Urban Economics67(2): 180–193.
38.
MorrisonNMonkS (2006) Job-housing mismatch: Affordability crisis in surrey, South East England. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space38(6): 1115–1130.
39.
MulderCHHooimeijerP (1999) Residential relocations in the life course. In: WissenLJGDykstraPALandKC (eds) Population Issues: An Interdisciplinary Focus. The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 159–186.
40.
NepalBTantonRHardingA (2010) Measuring housing stress: How much do definitions matter?Urban Policy and Research28(2): 211–224.
41.
NewmanKWylyE (2006) The right to stay put, revisited: Gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York City. Urban Studies43(1): 23–57.
42.
PawsonHHerathS (2015) Disadvantaged Places in Urban Australia: Residential Mobility, Place Attachment and Social Exclusion. AHURI Final Report. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited.
43.
PinksterFMPermentierMWittebroodK (2014) Moving considerations of middle-class residents in Dutch disadvantaged neighborhoods: Exploring the relationship between disorder and attachment. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space46(12): 2898–2914.
44.
RubinDB (1973) Matching to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics29(1): 159–183.
45.
SlaterT (2009) Missing Marcuse: On gentrification and displacement. City13(2–3): 292–311.
46.
StephensMLeishmanC (2017) Housing and poverty: A longitudinal analysis. Housing Studies32(8): 1039–1061.
47.
ThurberABohmannCRHeflingerCA (2018) Spatially integrated and socially segregated: The effects of mixed-income neighbourhoods on social well-being. Urban Studies55(9): 1859–1874.
48.
UN Habitat (2011) Affordable Land and Housing in Europe and North America. Volume 4. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
49.
van den NouwelantRCrommelinLHerathS, et al. (2016) Housing affordability, central city economic productivity and the lower income labour market. AHURI Final report 261 1-186. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
50.
van HamMFeijtenP (2008) Who wants to leave the neighbourhood? The effect of being different from the neighbourhood population on wishes to move. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space40(5): 1151–1170.
51.
VidalSHuininkJFeldhausM (2017) Fertility intentions and residential relocations. Demography54(4): 1305–1330.
52.
VigdorJLMasseyDSRivlinAM (2002) Does gentrification harm the poor?Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs2002(1): 133–182.
53.
WagnerGGFrickJRSchuppJ (2007) The German Socio-Economic Panel study (SOEP) – Evolution, scope and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch127(1): 139–170.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
