Even for a fairness argument, it seems hard to justify the rent subsidy (the difference between market rent and controlled rents) coming out of the pockets of landlords, vs. the public treasury.
Sure. I’m not qualified to actually make the arguments, as I don’t have any background or history in the topic. But even those without specific domain knowledge can still throw a flag when we see a potential structural issue, like a one-sided framing of a question.
It’s an important point to remember, for this and other policy evaluations (labor unions come to mind), that it’s very rare to find a serious academic who will say “good” or “bad” in a vacuum. The questions are “how much” and “under what conditions”. In environments with long-established and slow-to-change property ownership, and a history of tenant maltreatment, interventions like rent control and eviction limits and enforced mediation before court are perhaps necessary to solve problems. In environments where it’s pretty easy to enter and exit the rental market, and tenants have a bit of power because empty units suck, probably less regulation keeps things moving.
And, of course, in the real world where government causes a shortage by preventing creation of housing, and it’s hard to become a landlord because of all the regulation, and as a result tenants are mistreated because there are many more of them than spots available, there is no good answer. Rent control is the wrong tool to address a supply problem.
From a Rawlsian “justice as fairness” perspective, it would be reasonable to cripple landlords profits, considering that they are wealthier, and therefore, this inequality would be “just” according to Rawls second justice principle. This reasoning would only be valid IF the landlord is wealthier than the person who rents.
Even for a fairness argument, it seems hard to justify the rent subsidy (the difference between market rent and controlled rents) coming out of the pockets of landlords, vs. the public treasury.
Why pick on landlords?
Sure. I’m not qualified to actually make the arguments, as I don’t have any background or history in the topic. But even those without specific domain knowledge can still throw a flag when we see a potential structural issue, like a one-sided framing of a question.
It’s an important point to remember, for this and other policy evaluations (labor unions come to mind), that it’s very rare to find a serious academic who will say “good” or “bad” in a vacuum. The questions are “how much” and “under what conditions”. In environments with long-established and slow-to-change property ownership, and a history of tenant maltreatment, interventions like rent control and eviction limits and enforced mediation before court are perhaps necessary to solve problems. In environments where it’s pretty easy to enter and exit the rental market, and tenants have a bit of power because empty units suck, probably less regulation keeps things moving.
And, of course, in the real world where government causes a shortage by preventing creation of housing, and it’s hard to become a landlord because of all the regulation, and as a result tenants are mistreated because there are many more of them than spots available, there is no good answer. Rent control is the wrong tool to address a supply problem.
-
From a Rawlsian “justice as fairness” perspective, it would be reasonable to cripple landlords profits, considering that they are wealthier, and therefore, this inequality would be “just” according to Rawls second justice principle. This reasoning would only be valid IF the landlord is wealthier than the person who rents.