Introduction
In the 1980s, housing was marginal to macroeconomic thinking. Partly in consequence, the subsequent political choices produced a uniquely dysfunctional housing system, giving rise to the present housing emergency. Those policy choices underpin the difficult array of macroeconomic, social and environmental challenges that policymakers are grappling with today. In the mid-1980s, I became increasingly concerned by the UK’s developing credit and house price boom. In 1987, I questioned the multidimensional folly of the Poll Tax that Keith Joseph had persuaded Margaret Thatcher to introduce, replacing the long-standing proportional Domestic Rates system (
Muellbauer 1987). I became convinced that the economics profession poorly understood the influential role of housing and credit in the UK’s macroeconomy and regions. One area of exploration was the over-shooting of house prices and the mechanisms by which demand and supply factors drive house price cycles. Another was to better understand feedback loops that drive demand, and to study empirically whether housing wealth or collateral could drive consumer spending. A third area was to examine the role of housing and labour markets in driving regional migration. For example, one paper explained the mechanisms and feedbacks behind the unsustainable UK credit and house price boom in the 1980s (
Muellbauer & Murphy 1990), and its consequences for consumer spending, the balance of payments and overvaluation of the exchange rate. Indeed, two years later, the UK was forced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism.
In the 1980s and 1990s, such research questions about housing and credit in the macro-context were not widely appreciated. Empirical work which embraced market imperfections in housing, ubiquitous informational asymmetries between buyers and sellers and borrowers and lenders, and less than fully rational expectations proved unpopular with the economics mainstream of the time.
2 It was even considered a little vulgar to research in the area, considering that economists’ training combined with personal experience should have provided sufficient understanding of housing markets.
My initial research areas only scratched the surface of the myriad and complex housing and credit market interactions with the macroeconomy. Housing and mortgage markets, particularly in the UK, are important channels for the transmission of monetary policy.
3 The UK housing crisis of 1990–4 provided a foretaste of the pre-eminence of housing issues in the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, since when macroprudential policy, especially for mortgage markets, has become so prominent.
4 Housing and the environment are intimately connected, since housing is one of the main and most intractable contributors to global heating. Economic inequality, especially between generations, and social exclusion are dramatically influenced by housing. Poor housing often has negative health outcomes, and restricted access to housing can affect family formation. Productivity growth can be severely impeded by failing policies and institutions related to land use, housing and credit markets. Renters and the young bear the brunt of the affordability crisis, increasing the polarisation of political attitudes between themselves and more secure homeowners, as documented by Ansell & Cansunar (
2021). This provides fertile ground for scapegoating by the populist right. Failing growth and the housing affordability crisis help to explain the rise of the populist right; see Abou-Chadi
et al. (
2024) for international evidence.
An appreciation of these kinds of issues is key to understanding the UK economy and the many dimensions of its current parlous state. Since 1984, the UK has run a balance of payments deficit every single year, which means more is consumed than produced. This reflects national saving and investment rates that are nearly the lowest of the OECD. In consequence, major parts of UK wealth are owned and controlled by foreign entities, with the profits shifting abroad. Related to low investment, the productivity record has been dire, particularly in the last fifteen years, and made even worse by Brexit. The result of fiscal austerity is calamitous, with fifteen years of under-investment, especially at local levels, leaving public services in a precarious condition. Excluding London, the UK would be one of the poorest countries in Northwest Europe. Yet in London, the high housing costs offset for many the advantage of higher earnings. Housing affordability is a critical problem throughout the UK, especially for the young. Average living standards are now lower than fifteen years ago. Average life expectancy has improved across twenty European countries, but England has had the slowest rate of improvement, and the rest of the UK has fared little better (
Steel et al. 2025). In Northwest Europe, across individuals, and in the OECD, across and within regions, the UK is also one of the most unequal countries (
McCann 2019). Poverty and inequality measures look considerably worse in the UK when account is also taken of housing costs.
This article aims to demonstrate how the current state of Britain is closely connected with its housing market, one of the most dysfunctional in the world. Bell (
2024) rightly refers to ‘our housing omnishambles’. This is not only because of our cumbersome planning system. We probably have the most regressive annual property tax in the world. This is offset by some of the highest transactions taxes globally, which impede labour mobility and choice. Together these taxes misallocate the existing stock of housing. Within Northern Europe, we have the worst insulated homes and the highest commuting times. Rises in UK house prices have greatly outpaced general increases in consumer prices; see Figure
1.
Figure 1.
Log of real house prices in the G7 economies. Source: OECD for real house price indices defined as nominal house price indices relative to the consumer expenditure deflators from the national accounts, relative to 1982Q1 values.
![]()
Comparing 2025 levels of inflation-adjusted house price indices with 1982, showing the UK with the largest rise of about 300 per cent in the G7 countries.
Since 1982, real house prices have risen more in the UK than in the other leading G7 economies. This is especially challenging for younger people lacking the backing of wealthy families, and for households in the bottom quarter of the income distribution. The higher housing costs make poorer families far worse off than comparable poor families in Germany, the Netherlands and France (
Janan & Pittaway 2025). Underlying these increases in house prices are, especially in the UK, far larger increases in land prices. The distinction between housing and land is an important one. House prices reflect both the cost of the structure and the underlying land. Hence, given the relative stability of building costs plus the profit margin of builders, land prices are necessarily more volatile than house prices.
The roles of land and housing in the economy are strongly dependent on institutions: regulations governing land use, regulations governing the housing market and finance, and property taxation. The Thatcher government, beginning in 1979, made radical changes in these areas, largely for the worse.
5 The role of land in the economy, and the regulatory and institutional changes made by the Thatcher government, largely left unchallenged by later governments, are discussed in Section
2. One major consequence of these changes was diminished investment, productivity growth and international competitiveness, and a deteriorated fiscal position, discussed in Section
3. Moreover, they increased the risks to financial stability. Another important consequence was a housing affordability crisis, and its distributional ramifications, the subject of Section
4.
Given the multifaceted nature of the different institutions involved, addressing the consequences requires a
holistic policy approach, using a housing-market lens. The need for a cross-departmental, holistic policy approach is also a general insight from the OECD’s
Brick by Brick reports (
OECD 2021,
2023), which detail the deep interactions between housing issues and the economy. For the specific policy framework of Scotland, Maclennan & Fleming (
2025) provide lessons applicable in many cases to the rest of the UK. The Treasury, and government departments dealing with transport, pensions, the health service, social care, the environment, education, local government and housing, are all closely affected by multiple housing issues. The Bank of England’s tasks of inflation targeting and managing financial stability would also be made easier by a less dysfunctional housing market.
A four-part holistic policy package for the UK is proposed in Section
5, featuring planning reform, land-value capture, building far more social housing and property tax reform. The current government has shown courage at least in acknowledging the importance of the first three of these, although with limited progress on implementation and only a timid first step towards reforming property taxes. In the conclusions which follow, the tension is indicated between the UK’s speculative building industry and policies for addressing the UK’s growth and housing affordability problems.
Rising property prices, increasing financialisation of housing and increasing rentier capitalism have been experienced by many countries. These features, and the social tensions that arise from them, have been scrutinised by social scientists other than economists. For example, most recently, Smith & Wood (
2025) address these from a sociological perspective, and Reisenbichler (
2025), a political scientist, compares the experience of the US and Germany. Hochstenbach
et al. (
2025) analyse housing, in an international perspective, as an engine of inequality and an increasingly important contributor to class divisions. However, the UK is an extreme case. It holds the record among advanced countries for the share of land in the value of its housing stock. It also has one of the worst housing affordability crises in Europe, promoted by a combination of dysfunctional housing institutions and taxes, and liberal finance.
Land and housing institutions and the Thatcher reforms of the 1980s
The economic impact of land and housing is shaped by a complex regulatory framework. Land use regulation includes planning permission, zoning and government intervention in the form of a ‘New Towns programme’ or the building of social housing. These regulations impact on the supply of and the speed of land release, and the economic functions which land is permitted to support in different locations. The levels of land prices and house prices, and their spatial distribution, are influenced by these regulations. High and volatile land and house prices also influence the structure of the building industry. Building and environmental regulations affect the quality of what is built. Regulations governing the housing market affect the way property is bought and sold, and regulation of the private rental sector affects the quality of provision and security of tenure. On the side of demand, monetary policy, the regulation of finance, especially mortgage finance, and the structure of taxation have a major impact and, together with supply, will affect the affordability of land and housing. Taxation includes housing transactions taxes like stamp duty, mortgage interest tax relief for landlords and owners, property taxes for owners and inheritance taxes.
In 1979, seven key institutions shaping the use and management of land and housing were inherited by the Thatcher government. These were the planning system, the New Towns programme, council house provision, building standards, rent controls, credit controls on mortgage lending and property taxes. The Labour government’s 1947 Town and Country Planning Act had introduced the present discretionary planning system. As the planning system generated large gains associated with permissions, the taxation of development gain as a potential revenue raiser became an important issue.
6 Another land use regulatory change brought in after the Second World War was the New Towns programme which operated from 1946 to 1970. The New Towns Act (1946) detailed how new, large-scale communities would be located and paid for, and planned and delivered by dedicated single-purpose, long-life Development Corporations, appointed by government.
7 Connected to this, council house building became a major source of residential investment, and 29 per cent of households were living in social housing by 1979. The new government inherited a set of regulations of building standards that had evolved in the 1960s and 1970s.
8 In the private rental sector, rent controls had long been in place as part of housing market regulation, but inflation in the 1960s and 1970s had decimated the stock of private rentals. An important feature of financial regulation was the use of credit controls on the supply of mortgages, with building societies dominating the mortgage market. Tax relief on mortgage interest for owner-occupiers had been limited to the first £25,000 in 1974. Finally, the taxation of homes was based on Domestic Rates in proportion to 1973 home values.
In the 1980s, only the discretionary planning system was left intact, and all the other institutions above were changed radically, with consequences and reverberations felt to this day. The next subsection describes the first major regulatory change, financial deregulation, and its role in the credit and house price boom of 1985–9, and subsequent bust. Contributing to boom and bust, there were changes on the supply side, including the sales of council housing and the elimination of the existing property tax, discussed in the subsequent subsection.
Financial deregulation
The mortgage market in 1979 was dominated by building societies. Credit controls regulated the flow of mortgages, including direct control on banks in the form of the supplementary special deposits scheme, or the bank lending ‘corset’. The abolition of exchange controls in 1979 made the ‘corset’ ineffective, as circumvention became easier through disintermediation abroad. Lifting the ‘corset’ in 1980 led to the major entry by the clearing banks into the mortgage market in competition with building societies. By 1982, banks provided 36 per cent of net mortgage advances. The relaxation of regulations for building societies followed, and some took on higher risk borrowers, diversified into commercial real estate, estate agency, financial advice, stockbroking and overseas markets, and increased funding from wholesale markets with potential maturity mismatch issues. Furthermore, a new breed of lenders, typically offshoots of foreign banks, acquired a rapidly increasing share of the mortgage market from around 1985. Without a High Street presence, they lent through financial intermediaries, who lacked ‘skin in the game’ and hence did not have sufficient interest in screening the credit worthiness of their customers.
9The lax credit conditions contributed to a dramatic rise in house prices relative to construction costs from 1985 to 1989, although the abolition of the Development Land Tax in March 1985 probably contributed by pushing up land prices; see Gibson (
2025: 98). Figure
1 shows that the UK is an outlier among the Group of Seven (G7) advanced countries in the rise and volatility of house prices since 1980.
Deregulation of the mortgage market also made housing wealth more accessible to homeowners. Those with wealth tied up in their houses could now access it via ‘home equity withdrawal’ which became an important macroeconomic phenomenon: for example, feeding back into the post-1984 consumption boom (see Aron
et al. 2012). The Bank of England’s estimates of home equity withdrawal relative to income show high rates from 1984 to 1988, at times even exceeding the highs of the 2002–6 house price boom. As the economy overheated and inflation rose, monetary policy tightened sharply, beginning in 1989, tipping the housing market into a crisis
10 and the economy into recession. More broadly, easier access to credit became an important permanent driver of the UK’s low rates of household and national saving.
The housing downturn from 1989 persisted until 1993, and several building societies experienced difficulties from their risky activities and were forced to merge into larger entities. These episodes of financial stress occurred despite protection offered by mortgage indemnity insurance, where risk was partly transferred to insurers (who themselves had to be rescued by a Bank of England lifeboat). Many of the patterns of regulatory lapses and distorted incentives resulting in the 1989–93 crisis were later repeated in the Global Financial Crisis.
The regulation and taxation of land and housing
The discretionary planning system, with extensive greenbelt and pervasive height restrictions, was the single institution left unchanged by the Thatcher government. With population, income growth and other factors driving demand, supply restrictions became increasingly binding, especially in prosperous regions. As part of Mrs Thatcher’s political project to create a ‘property-owning democracy’, the 1980 Housing White Paper introduced the right-to-buy (RTB) for council house tenants at discounts initially ranging from 33 per cent for those resident for three years, to 50 per cent for those resident for twenty years or more. This policy reduced the overall rate of home building, with private sector house building close to earlier levels despite the higher house prices. The right-to-buy policy without replacement persisted to 2024, permanently reducing the supply of social housing; see Section
4 for more detail.
11The inadequate supply of social housing went alongside a weak approach to land development, which also affected the provision of private housing. Provision of infrastructure is central to building new housing. The post-war governments used land-value capture to enhance land supply and fund infrastructure (as under the New Towns Acts of 1946 and 1965; see Halligan
2021: chapter 8). Land-value capture refers to capturing for the taxpayer the greater part of the increase in land value from two factors: firstly, changes in planning permission and, secondly, infrastructure investment. After the 1961 Land Compensation Act, it became increasingly difficult to use land-value capture. However, in the mid-1980s, policies for a time used the Development Corporation model that preceded Thatcher’s government: for instance, in the London Docklands and Merseyside.
With extended planning powers, derelict land, acquired cheaply or already in public ownership, was brought into use and private finance leveraged in with small amounts of government subsidy. Afterwards, these mechanisms fell out of favour, until recently. Moreover, in 1985, the government abolished the Development Land Tax introduced by the Labour government in 1976. In 1990, a Town and Country Planning Act was introduced, and Section 106 of the act, rewritten in the 1991 Planning and Compensation Act, provided a new mechanism
12 for land-value capture; see Section
5. It must also be acknowledged that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), legislated in the 2008 Planning Act and implemented from 2010, brought back a type of development tax.
The Building Act of 1984 scrapped many of the regulations governing building and opened the way to larger builder profits and low-quality homes. Specific legacies of poor standards still resonating today are the Grenfell Tower disaster, the unsafe cladding scandal for tower blocks and poor-quality concrete in schools and hospitals.
For the private rental sector, the 1988 Housing Act abolished rent regulation in England and Wales on new tenancies from 1989 and introduced assured short-hold tenancies. This created tenant insecurity within the sector, helping to make owner-occupation a more attractive alternative. The reduction in social housing provision forced more families into the private rental sector, where far more generous credit terms for buy-to-let investors in the late 1990s boosted rental supply.
Finally, there were key policy changes on the taxation of land and housing. Agricultural Property Relief, a tax privilege for agricultural land, was introduced with the Inheritance Tax Act of 1984. These reliefs were intended to support family farms, but are also used by wealthy non-farmers as a tax avoidance strategy, driving up demand and prices for land. In 2024–5, inheritance tax on farm estates worth over £2.5 million was reintroduced through the Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs, albeit at a lower 20 per cent rate.
A benefit for owner-occupiers, mortgage interest tax relief had the threshold raised to £30,000 in 1984, but failed to keep pace with house price inflation; the individual reliefs for joint purchasers were limited to one per property in 1989.
13 Between 1997 and 2000, this tax relief wisely was phased out.
Property taxation in the 1970s and 1980s took the form of Domestic Rates, broadly sensible and proportional to value, but based on outdated 1973 house values. A revaluation in 1980 planned by the Labour government was aborted in 1979. Mrs Thatcher later replaced the Domestic Rates, against the advice of her chancellor Nigel Lawson, by the ‘Community Charge’ (better known as the ‘Poll Tax’). Anticipation of the abolition of Domestic Rates probably gave a significant fillip to the house price boom from 1986; see Figure
1. The Poll Tax charged the same tax to every household regardless of income or property value and was part of Thatcher’s project to promote a property-owning democracy. The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland in 1989, and in England and Wales in 1990. Its deep unpopularity, seen in the widespread and protracted Poll Tax riots (
BBC 2016), ultimately led to the resignation of Mrs Thatcher in 1990. The Poll Tax was replaced (except in Northern Ireland) by the hastily designed Council Tax in 1993, which retained key regressive features; see Section
5. Council Tax in England remains in place to this day, and, astonishingly, is still based on 1991 valuations, although Wales revalued housing in 2003.
A symptom of the policies outlined in Subsections
2.1 and
2.2 was a record rise in both land and house prices. The persistence of these policies (apart from the Poll Tax) has meant that the UK has the highest share of residential property values in the land—as opposed to the buildings—amongst the G7 advanced countries (Figure
2). The ONS (Office for National Statistics) household balance sheet data used here suggests that, for an ‘average’ British house, around 70 per cent of the value is in the land rather than the structure.
14 This share is even higher in parts of the South although lower in the North and in Wales.
Figure 2.
Share of land in household fixed asset wealth (mainly housing).
Source: OECD national accounts, see Muellbauer (
2024).
![]()
Household balance sheet data on the percentage share of land in the value of fixed assets show the UK with the highest share in the G7 at over 70 per cent.
The high price of land, and the policies that account for it, have damaged economic growth and created the UK’s housing affordability crisis. These policies include the cumbersome planning process and failure to release sufficient planning permissions for housing; leaving build-out rates under the control of private builders; insufficient investment in social housing and infrastructure; the allocative inefficiencies from a dysfunctional property tax; and weaknesses in financial regulation.
The impact on growth, fiscal capacity and financial stability
The Thatcher era reforms and their persistence created disproportionately higher rises in real house prices (Figure
1), and by implication even greater rises in real land prices, in the UK compared to other G7 economies. In the immediate aftermath of the 1980s credit and house price boom, there was a damaging housing crisis and recession, as noted above. More recently, prior lax financial regulation has been closely connected with the damaging effects of the Global Financial Crisis and the government debt burden from bailouts of major banks.
This section provides an overview of theory and recent international empirical evidence for the negative macroeconomic consequences of high and volatile land prices. Credit-fuelled real-estate booms crowd out more productive investment, and the benefits of growth then disproportionately accrue to the owners of land through higher land prices and to the credit-providing financial sector. Entrepreneurship is diverted into rent-seeking and overcoming planning constraints.
Alongside these macro-phenomena, housing-market structures, including the planning and tax systems, also have an impact on productivity. They influence the efficiency of the labour market through limiting mobility, together with poor transport infrastructure, lengthening commuting times. Poor housing quality impairs health and human capital. All the above lower the productivity of workers.
15If a single household or firm must spend more on housing or on rent, other worthwhile spending, including investment, will be lower. This basic intuition is expressed in a theoretical model covering both households and firms, by Hirano & Stiglitz (
2025). In a dynamic model with overlapping generations and land speculation, they show how credit and land price booms impair investment in more productive sectors and curtail long-run growth. The triggers for land speculation may be low interest rates or the relaxation of financial regulation. There is no planning authority in this model, and hence planning constraints are not explicitly considered.
International empirical evidence from single-country studies, cross-country panel studies and industrial panel studies has confirmed and illustrated these mechanisms, with similar triggers. Relaxing regulations governing bank lending to firms and households can reduce credit quality and fuel credit lending booms.
Directing credit to real-estate-owning firms implies that investment by other firms, which may be more productive and efficient, is crowded out. A multi-country panel study of the sectoral allocation of credit in 116 countries, 1940–2016, finds crowding out of productive investment in real-estate booms (
Müller & Verner 2021). They find a boom–bust pattern in output, which is correlated with greater credit allocation to less productive non-tradable sectors, including construction and real estate. This mechanism is also confirmed for the US in a panel study of firms (
Doerr 2020), which argues that when real-estate values rise, there is a relaxation of collateral constraints for firms owning real estate. Reallocation of capital and labour towards these less efficient but collateral-owning firms in the non-traded sector explains the negative consequences for aggregate industry productivity. Another US panel study by Chakraborty
et al. (
2018) finds that bank lending for housing during boom periods crowds out commercial lending, and that this lowers investment by firms (especially small credit-constrained firms).
Evidence from China finds that real-estate price rises from a restrictive land supply reduces bank credit to small firms, increases borrowing costs and diminishes the investment rate, affecting output and productivity growth (
Hau & Ouyang 2024). For Europe, a country panel study by Grjebine
et al. (
2023) on a database of 33 sectors and 14 countries, finds that the group of countries where real-estate booms started early and were substantial (Ireland, the UK, France and Spain) all experienced real-estate shocks that generated total factor productivity losses. These shocks led to a re-allocation of investment across sectors, resulting in lower aggregate growth in total factor productivity.
A recent study across 142 local authorities in London and the greater Southeast finds results consistent with the above (
NERA Economic Consulting 2024). For 2002–21, the effects on local productivity of a 1 per cent reduction in the house-price-to-income ratio were examined, where productivity is defined as gross value added divided by the number of employees. Productivity rises by an estimated 0.14 per cent following a 1 per cent fall in the house-price-to-income ratio.
16 An even larger effect of 0.31 per cent is found for London and the greater Southeast in a related study (
Homes England 2025).
These studies do not consider the productivity of the building industry itself. For the UK building industry, Muellbauer (
2018) argues that high land prices increase barriers to entry and industry concentration.
17 Mazzucato (
2025) argues that the concentrated market power of volume developers stifles innovation and the uptake of new technologies, potentially reducing productivity gains. When land prices are volatile, business risk rises, and greater focus is directed to profits from land appreciation, rather than producing quality homes. A further deleterious effect of volatile land prices is that monopoly power combined with expected land price appreciation raises the incentives to withhold land supply and constrain the rate of housebuilding.
18 This helps explain the low build-out rates after planning permission has been granted in the UK, contrasting with far higher rates in, for example, Germany.
Unfortunately, the short-term, partial equilibrium analysis of the effects of rising house prices by Black
et al. (
1996) has received undue attention. These authors argue that rising UK house prices encourage business formation (through rising housing collateral) and therefore boost growth. For 1974–90 and 1966–90, they find that VAT and private company registrations vary with fluctuations in net home equity (home equity minus mortgage debt). From these correlations they conclude that high house prices are beneficial: ‘Our results provide new arguments for favouring taxes on human capital and subsidies on housing assets.’ This policy conclusion is wrong. Fluctuations in net home equity are strongly correlated with consumption growth (which drives business profit opportunities), which probably accounts for much of the correlation between net home equity and registrations of small companies. The study also neglects to mention the collapse in new registrations and the record company-insolvency rates when negative housing equity peaked in the downturn of the early 1990s. A further problem with the policy conclusion is that encouraging ever-higher housing collateral requires ever-rising house prices, and ever-higher land prices, which is clearly unsustainable. Moreover, to accumulate collateral for the acquisition of loans, a business must invest in housing, as opposed to human capital or other kinds of capital, which may have been more beneficial. These opportunity costs are ignored by the paper. A related point is that focusing only on business formation, the article does not question the productivity of the types of business investment financed by higher housing collateral. Finally, for long-run productivity growth, relationship-based bank lending for businesses may have had better outcomes than the algorithmic lending model based on housing collateral, that became prominent amongst UK banks (on which Black
et al. (
1996) rely).
A survey of more recent studies using microdata of the housing collateral channel effect on small business formation casts doubt on the methodologies used (
Connolly et al. 2015).
19 For Australia, these authors acknowledge the difficulty of untangling housing collateral from wealth effects, but conclude that there may be a small collateral effect. This does not, however, undermine the considerable and consistent evidence cited earlier that high house prices undermine productivity growth. These studies examine the
net effect of all the transmission channels (including a possible collateral channel).
The macroeconomic consequences of high land prices are not confined to productivity growth. International competitiveness is damaged by high relative land costs. The exchange rate then needs to weaken to try to restore competitiveness. This makes imports more expensive, and with the UK heavily dependent on raw material imports, this affects the cost base
20 and living standards.
High land prices also affect fiscal capacity. For example, the tax cost of housing-related benefits amounted to £26.8 billion in 2021–2, according to the Chartered Institute of Housing (
2024). Most recipients now claim these benefits through Universal Credit, regulated through local housing allowances. In real terms, the benefits have become less generous since 2012, while rentals and house prices have increased, increasing financial pressures on low-income tenants (Bell
2024: 180).
Finally, high land prices, in part induced by easy credit, promote high levels of household debt, and have an impact on financial stability. The UK mortgage market is dominated by adjustable-rate loans and short-duration interest rate fixes. This market structure had the temporary advantage that cuts in interest rates in the Global Financial Crisis fed through quickly by improving the cash-flows of borrowers to stabilise the housing market and the economy.
21 However, as tighter macroprudential controls have replaced the laxity prevailing prior to the crisis, entering the housing market has become more difficult for the young. With extraordinarily low interest rates, the strong post-crisis growth of house prices favoured investors and the wealthy at the expense of the young and the less well-off. The UK market structure makes indebted households, and therefore the economy, vulnerable to cash-flow deterioration when interest rates jump, as seen in 2021–5.
The UK’s housing affordability problem
This section discusses the consequences of high and rising land prices, and therefore house prices, especially since 1997, for the UK’s housing affordability. Housing affordability covers multiple dimensions, including market allocation, the quality and longevity of housing, and the distributional impact on households. See Corlett & Judge (
2017) and Bell (
2024, chapter 7), for comprehensive accounts, with a special focus on the intergenerational implications. This section begins by considering the reasons why demand for UK housing has outstripped supply.
We begin with supply. In the long run, as residential investment responds to profit opportunities, higher house prices should stimulate construction, other things being equal. Studies of the responsiveness of housing supply to price across the OECD finds housing responsiveness varies substantially across countries (
Caldera & Johansson 2013,
Cavalleri et al. 2019). They find the response in the UK is both small and slow. The cumbersome planning system and inadequate release of land for housing development are partly responsible; the decline in UK housebuilding, strongly linked to the collapse of council house building, is another reason. The collapse of ‘new-build’ council housing is shown in Figure
3. Sales of social housing at large discounts, and a lack of replacement have cut the social housing stock. By 2006, 2.8 million council homes had been sold, around half of the stock.
Figure 3.
![]()
Council house construction fell sharply from the early 1980s, while private building remained fairly flat, failing to compensate for the drop.
Another aspect of supply is the quality of buildings and their location
22 Limited availability of land, and high land prices, may force development into noisier and more polluted locations and locations with flood risk
23 or poorly connected to transport links. When so much of the cost of a home lies in the land, the quality of the building may be compromised to keep down the price. It is not only the quality of new build that is problematic. The existing stock of housing is often of poor quality, especially in the private rented sector.
The factors that drive demand for housing can be uncovered by examining the behaviour of house prices. This is because, in the short run, the stock of housing is almost fixed. The shift in demand mainly results in an increase in the price of housing. This is illustrated in Figure
4, with the price of housing rising from P
1 to P
2. The housing demand function also depends on the price of housing relative to other prices, and on other factors that shift demand, such as income, population, demography, interest rates, tax changes and lending standards in the mortgage market. In empirical analysis, house prices become the dependent variable. The demand function for housing is inverted, and price is written as a function of the demand shifters and the stock of housing (e.g., Muellbauer
2018). The most important demand shifter is total real household income. The ratio of total real household income to the stock of housing is therefore the most important ingredient in explaining the price of housing.
Figure 4.
Demand shifts and the short (SS) and long-run supply (LS) of housing.
![]()
Short-run housing supply is fixed; demand shifts raise prices, enabling deduction in empirical models. of demand shift sizes from price rises.
A survey of international house price cycles (
Duca et al. 2021a) finds that the effect on house prices of a 1 per cent rise in real household income relative to the housing stock can range from a little over 1 to about 2 per cent, with other factors kept constant. Assuming a value of 1.8 for the UK,
24 Figure
5 shows the rise in UK real house prices (the red line) and how much is explained by the rise of real total household income relative to the housing stock (the lower blue line). The graph suggests that 63 per cent of the rise in real house prices by 2025, relative to 1980, is explained by this variable. Hence, UK housing investment did not increase the housing stock sufficiently to keep up with the growth of real household income.
Figure 5.
The main long-run drivers of real UK house prices. Source: OECD house price database, ONS for chain index of real per capita household income and population; the housing stock is the net capital stock for total dwellings (excluding land), ONS code MLO9. Notes: The blue line is calculated as 1.8 times the log of total household income relative to the housing stock. The green line is calculated as 1.8 times log of population relative to the housing stock.
![]()
Higher population and especially higher incomes relative to the housing stock drove over 60 per cent of UK real house price increases from 1980 to 2025.
Popular discussion about housing shortages sometimes focuses too much on keeping up with population growth. This is demonstrated for the UK in Figure
5, where the green dashed line isolates the contribution of population relative to the housing stock. The predominant influence of higher real per capita incomes on the demand for housing, and hence on higher house prices, is apparent from the very different profiles of the blue and green lines. The blue line captures the effect of both population and rising income per head, whereas the green line captures only the effect of population. The falling green line shows that from 1980 to 2008, the housing stock grew by more than enough to keep up with population, but this has not been true since, in a period of weaker income growth. The figure also suggests periods when lower interest rates, shifts in mortgage credit conditions and other factors affected house prices.
25The above conclusions differ sharply from those of Miles & Monro (
2021). Using a partial equilibrium analysis in an asset pricing model, which neglects the role of demand and supply,
26 they overstate the role of the decline in real long-term interest rates in explaining the rise in UK house prices. The conclusions also differ from those of Mulheirn (
2019), who claims that there is no supply problem (see Cheshire (
2019) for a detailed critique of this paper). Mulheirn confines his claim to the twenty-three years from 1995 to 2018. Over those years, Figure
5 shows that only half of the growth in real house prices is explained by the failure of supply to keep up with income and population. Indeed, other factors, such as lower interest rates and credit easing, account for the rest of the growth in house prices in this period.
There are other reasons why focusing wholly on aggregate new building is not a complete answer to the housing affordability problem. Building more will not by itself provide a quick fix. The analysis suggests that a 1 per cent increase in the stock of housing—approximately the recent annual level of residential investment—would,
given average real income and population, result in real house prices being only 1.8 per cent lower. This suggests that an extended period of higher rates of residential investment is needed to lower real prices. By comparison with other OECD countries, the UK suffers especially low vacancy rates and low numbers of homes relative to the population—symptoms of a serious housing shortage. Clearly, the
composition of what is built (for example, the proportion of social housing) and the location and quality matter. The decline in UK housebuilding, strongly linked to the collapse of council house building, has worsened the housing affordability problem, particularly for poorer households. The fraction of households in the social rented sector after 1980 declined from 29 per cent to 16 per cent by 2022–3. Those remaining in social housing tend to be disproportionately elderly, very poor or disabled; they face limited labour-market participation linked to health issues, single-parent families and weak local economies (
Judge 2019). Many social housing blocks are aging high-rise structures facing decommissioning, and the alternative of expensive, low-quality private rentals inflates housing-benefit costs. Part of the solution is to build more social housing and to make better use of the existing stocks of all types of housing. Less defective property taxes would improve the match between existing housing and what is needed locally (for example, homes for young families versus luxury housing). Appropriate taxation of property is a recurrent theme in the rest of this article.
The changed tenure structure in Britain is shown in Figure
6, with further details in Corlett & Judge (
2017). While rates of owner-occupation rose in the UK from 55 per cent in 1979 to a peak level of 72 per cent in 2001, mostly due to right-to-buy sales, the rates of owner-occupation have since fallen, especially among the young. It is striking too that during 1997–2008, when credit conditions were relaxed in the mortgage market (especially in 2005–8), the improved access to credit did not increase owner-occupation among the young. Instead, the increase in house prices relative to income priced many of them out of the market.
Figure 6.
The fall in owner-occupation rates for younger households.
Source: Corlett & Odamtten (
2021).
![]()
Owner-occupation for families headed by 25–34-year-olds peaked at 50 per cent in 1989, halved by 2016, falling below 1960s levels before a slight recovery.
Conclusions
The institutional framework fundamentally shapes land and housing markets, influencing growth, inequality, generational justice and quality of life. Neoclassical economics tends to overlook land as a productive factor, underestimating its central role in the UK economy; see Ryan-Collins
et al. (
2017) for a development of this insight. Policies inherited from the Thatcher era have proved dysfunctional and have persisted far longer than warranted.
Current governmental proposals—including planning reform, land-value capture, social-housing investment, new-town development, and longer private-rental tenures—miss the chance for sensible property-tax reform.
30 Building targets remain unrealistic, land-value capture is stalled and the construction industry resists change.
Advocates such as Newton (
2025) call for a rapid, sustained shift toward a partial public-contracting model rather than the UK’s speculative builder model. Taxing high-value idle land and farmland could accelerate build-out, lower land prices, diminish landowners’ bargaining power, and thus support sustainable housing.
Owner-occupation offers tenure security, control over a home’s fabric, and historic capital appreciation. However, the ‘search for yield’ in housing and land assets has surged, pricing many out of access to shelter. Successful examples of widespread access to shelter—such as Singapore and Vienna—share a common factor: public ownership or control of much of the land. Community land trusts offer another way of providing shelter by eliminating the part of the demand for housing based on the historic reputation of land as an ever-appreciating asset.
The UK requires a holistic reform package. Any change inevitably creates uncertainty and provokes resistance; losers tend to shout louder than winners, particularly when modest gains are broadly distributed but losses are concentrated. A phased transition must therefore be carefully managed and clearly communicated. But the sense of urgency must not be lost given the political polarisation and dangers for democracy of the housing affordability crisis.