In this article we derived the socially optimal conditions for the implementation of growth management policies in urban areas. We showed that prior research could be biased because it failed to model a land transition process explicitly. Next, we demonstrated the conditions under which growth management is equivalent to the perfectly competitive model. Finally, we assessed the desirability of each policy given the practical realities of urban land markets.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ARNOTTR. J., and LEWISF. D. (1979) “The transition of land to urban use.” J. of Pol. Economy87: 161-169.
2.
BENTICKB. (1979) “The impact of taxation and valuation purchases on the timing and efficiency of land use.” J. of Pol. Economy87: 958-868.
3.
COOLEYT. F., and LaCIVITAC. J. (1982) “A theory of growth controls.” J. of Urban Economics12: 129-145.
4.
DREYFUSS. (1965) Dynamic Programming and the Calculus of Variations.New York: Academic Press.
5.
ELLSONR., and ROBERTSB. (1982) “A simultaneous analysis of land and housing development.” J. of Regional Sci.22: 125-136.
6.
ELLSONR. (1983) “Residential land development under uncertainty.” J. of Regional Sci.23: 309-323.
7.
FELDSTEINM. (1977) “The surprising incidence of a tax on pure rent: a new answer to an old question.” J. of Pol. Economy85: 349-360.
8.
MILLSD. E. (1978) “Competition and the residential land allocation process.” Q. J. of Economics92: 227-244.
9.
SHOUPD. C. (1970) “The optimal timing or urban land development.” Papers of the Regional Sci. Assn25: 33-44.
10.
WEITZMANM. (1974) “Prices vs. quantities.” Rev. of Econ. Studies41: 477-492.
11.
WEITZMANM. (1977) “Is the price system or rationing more effective in getting a commodity to those who need it the most?” Bell J. of Economics8: 517-524.
