Abstract
This paper reviews literature on the relationship between housing finance, economic growth and poverty.  While it is evident that housing construction creates jobs, the review reveals that there is a need for more research to determine the long-term economic benefits of housing and whether housing finance in particular can be an effective tool in eradicating poverty.  The limited evidence is due in part to limits in data and the need to utilize robust econometric techniques to determine the direction of causality in these relationships (i.e. does increased economic growth lead to increased demand for housing and hence housing construction and finance or does housing construction and finance lead to increased economic growth and lower poverty).  Though little direct evidence was found, the financial deepening literature suggests that as housing finance deepens financial markets, it may play a role in poverty alleviation.  This relationship should be investigated further.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

1. Introduction
While the focus of this review is to summarize empirical evidence regarding the relationship between housing, economic growth and poverty, there is considerable stylized and anecdotal evidence that makes a case for housing as a prescription for poverty.  This literature is extensive although recent books on eradicating poverty in the developing world say very little explicitly about the role of housing.  The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs (2011), states that most would accept that fact that schools, clinics, roads, electricity, ports, soil nutrients, clean drinking water; and the like are the basic necessities for a life of dignity and health, as well as for economic productivity.  Sachs goes on to delineate the strategy for ending extreme poverty by 2025.  While he mentions key investments in people and in infrastructure, he does not explicitly mention housing.  The same can be said of Banerjee and Duflo (2011) and Karlan and Appel (2011).  Perhaps there is an underlying assumption that housing is necessary.  Perhaps, housing is considered part of the infrastructure that they refer to. Or, perhaps the underlying belief is that economic growth will lead to better housing conditions. At any rate, a specific consideration of the impact of housing on poverty is not given in these recent books on the subject of eradicating poverty in this millennium.  This is representative of what was discovered upon reviewing the empirical literature on this issue.
Some authors assert that
housing loans and finance are needed but do not provide economic analysis to
back this claim.  For example, Bunnarith
(2004) in discussing national housing policy in Cambodia asserts that “housing
is needed so that people can have a safe and secure environment.”  There is no discussion in his policy paper of
the true economic impact of housing construction or finance on economic growth
or poverty reduction.  Similarly, Habitat
for Humanity specifically acknowledges that housing is necessary to eradicate
poverty.  In ‘Consequences of Poverty
Housing,’ Habitat for Humanity asserts that the lack of suitable housing
creates disadvantages at many levels.  It
is seen as interfering with a household’s ability to break out of poverty
because so much of the household’s time and money is spent on house maintenance
and repairs and not on food, health, education and income generation.  Due to a lack of suitable housing, there is
less efficiency arising from illnesses, inability to educate children and an
inability to provide a safe and secure environment for economic endeavors.  These are testable implications but little
has been done to document these losses empirically, likely due to data
limitations.  Some evidence is found and
listed in the education section.
While there is quite a bit
of literature on the interactions between GDP and housing investment, there is
surprisingly little evidence documenting the relationship between housing,
economic growth and poverty.  One reason
for the limited evidence is limitations in quantity of data in developing countries,
especially the poorest ones, Hull (2009). 
A second reason for the limited evidence is that it is difficult to
determine the direction of causality between economic growth and housing.   There
is a need to use general equilibrium models which are not easily tested with
the available data in the developing countries. 
Data limitations are particularly severe when trying to test these
relationships in the poorest of the developing countries.  Finally, macroeconomics and housing finance
were not studied in depth in economic literature prior to the 1980s, even for the
U.S.   When studies were done they
typically looked at housing demand as a function of income and growth not the
impact of housing on economic growth, see Leung (2004).  Even if where there is analysis of housing
finance in developed countries, it may be difficult to make direct inferences
about relationships between housing and economic growth in developing countries
using those results because so many other factors are at work including financial sector development,
government involvement and types of housing.
With these limitations in mind, there is some information that may be useful in analyzing the impact of housing finance on economic growth, job creation and poverty.  The impact of housing on economic growth, in developed and some developing markets is highlighted in the next section.  Next, there is a review of the impact of housing on job growth.  The third section reviews what is known about the impact of housing and housing finance on job creation.  Section four reviews the impact of housing finance on poverty.  Some inferences in that section are based on studies of financial market development on poverty.  Section five examines potential social and revenue consequences of housing.  Finally there is a summary of findings in section six.
2. Housing and Economic Impact
Housing and Economic Growth:
Hongyu, Park and Siqi
(2002) recognize the causality dilemma when studying housing investment and
economic growth.  They use Granger
causality tests to study the case of China from 1981 – 2000.  This study does not address the poverty
impact it just studies housing and economic growth.  The authors find that compared to non-housing
investment, housing investment has a stronger short-run effect on economic
growth.  They also find that housing
investment has a long run impact on economic growth but not on non-housing
investment.  On the other hand, economic
growth has a long run impact on both housing and non-housing investment.  These findings suggest that housing is
important in explaining only short-term economic cycles in economic growth.
Chen and Zhu (2008) also
study the long- and short- run relationship between housing investment and
economic growth in China.  The authors
look at panel data from 1999 through 2007. 
They use robust econometric tests to examine Granger causality of the
relationship and find that the relationship is bidirectional in both short –
and long- run.  In other words, in China
during this period, housing investment impacted economic growth and vice
versa.  It will be interesting to see if
this result holds over a longer period where more economic cycles are included
in the data.  Interestingly, the
relationship is different depending on which provinces are analyzed.  The eastern provinces show bidirectional
causality like the overall results but results for other provinces indicate
that GDP granger causes housing investment but not vice versa.
In addition to the
empirical analysis of the relationship between housing and economic growth,
there are some estimates of multiplier effects associated with construction in
developing countries.  For example, Uy
(2006) cites that for every 1 peso spent on housing activities in the
Philippines, an additional 16.61 pesos is contributed to the GDP.  In Argentina, Freire, et. al (2006) estimate
that a 1,000,000 peso investment in construction leads to 1.8 times that amount
in demand.  In 1995, a United Nations
study indicated that in most developing countries construction of low- income
housing is labor intensive and therefore housing construction has a high
multiplier effect of between 2 and 3 times the initial investment.  This arises due to the large infrastructure
investment (roads, utilities, water, etc.) required in housing development in
those countries.  .  In comparison, The National Association of
Realtor’s model suggests that the multiplier for home sales in the U.S. is
between 1.34 and 1.62.
Erbas and Nothaft (2002)
study a sample of MENA (Middle Eastern and North African) countries.  Using parameters from the U.S. they simulate
the impact that improved home mortgage availability would have on housing
markets and economic growth in these countries. 
They find that mortgage market reforms would increase housing units
built by 10% with a 600 basis point decline in mortgage interest rates.  The impact that the increased mortgage
accessibility and housing would have on economic growth is not significant
however.  That is because they find, like
other studies, that increased investment in housing “crowds out” investment in
other sectors.  The impact on overall
growth will be greater if this housing finance helps to improve small business
credit.
Housing Finance and Affordability
Dübel (2007) proposes a model where housing prices are
determined by rents, R, growth, g, and the opportunity cost of capital, k,
where
P = R/(k – g). 
The role of housing finance in this model is to reduce
the cost of capital.  As that cost is
lowered, housing prices fall and affordability of housing increases.
Housing and Savings
Buckley (1996) cites several reasons that mortgage market development can improve household savings.  First, the return to housing will likely provide positive returns especially in light of rapid urbanization in developing countries.  Second, housing provides the most secure collateral against market fluctuations and a positive yield over the long-run.  Third, housing prices are less volatile than other asset prices.  Fourth, the availability of housing improves labor mobility and therefore employment potential.  Finally, the availability of affordable housing finance may lead to increased savings as potential homeowners save to make the required down payment and to maintain their asset. 
While many of the work in this area suggests that there should be benefits to overall savings and investment arising from increased access to affordable housing, the literature does not appear to have documented these benefits empirically.  This is an area rich for further exploration.
3. Housing and Job Creation
The Case of the United States
Wardrip, Williams and
Hague (2011) review the literature on the role of affordable housing in
particular, in creating jobs and stimulating local economic development in the
U.S.  They find that the development of
affordable housing increases spending and employment in the surrounding
economy.  There are several models used
in the housing literature that use “inputs” such as information on the purchase
and production of goods and services for hundreds of U.S. industry sectors, the
type and number of businesses in a given community, and a measure of the
spending associated with a given program. 
Given these inputs, the models “output” the level of economic activity
expected for a given level of housing investment.  For example, the National Association of Home
Builders uses a proprietary model to estimate the impact of building 100 new
low-income housing tax credit developments for families.  The model predicts that the investment will,
on average, lead to the creation of 80 new jobs from the direct and indirect
effects of construction and 42 jobs supported by the induced effects of
increased spending.  In the long-term,
building these units also leads to 30 new jobs that support on-going consumer
activity of the new residents. 
Market-rate apartment housing will create a similar amount of jobs with
just a couple of additional jobs (32) supported by households occupying the new
homes.  Of course the models are
dependent on the productivity of investment within the community and would
likely look very different across countries being considered.  It will depend significantly on the amount of
skilled labor available for the construction work since 70% of the jobs created
as a direct or indirect result of the new construction, are in fact
construction jobs.
Rural vs. Urban
In support of the findings
above, in considering the impact of housing development on a rural community’s
economy, the Housing Assistance Council states that housing construction and
rehabilitation have a high ratio (62.3%) of value-added to gross outlays.  This means that a large percentage of the
outlay for housing construction is available to create wages and salaries, and
stimulate job growth in rural economies in the U.S.  The document does not compare the ratio for
rural communities with that in urban communities.  This is an important distinction since most
of the growth in developing countries centers around urban areas.   Quigley (2008) suggests that results on the
relationships between investment and economic growth may be dependent on
whether that investment is rural or urban. 
The author finds that urbanization promotes productivity due to increases
in specialization, centralization of knowledge, complementarities in production
and economies of scale and scope.  If
this is true, an investment in an urban center may produce greater economic
growth than that same investment in a rural area.  This will be an important factor in directing
housing policy and finance.
Housing and Jobs in Emerging Markets
In emerging markets there
is some data on job creation as well as the previously cited multiplier effects
associated with construction.  For example,
in Argentina, Freire, Hassler, et. al (2006) estimate that a 1,000,000 peso
investment in construction creates some 40 jobs directly and 20 jobs indirectly
from services and related industries.  Tipple
(1994) cites numerous studies that find multiplier effects from housing
investment.  For example, the National
Building Organization in India estimates that a $1,000,000 investment in
building construction leads to 600 on-site jobs and 1,000 indirect jobs.  The construction process may stimulate
economic growth through backward linkages (e.g. processing building materials)
and forward linkages during and after the construction process (e.g.
restaurants, repair shops and small scale manufacturing).  However, according to Erbas and Nothaft
(2002), housing construction in some developing countries is actually quite
capital intensive and reliant on imported materials; as a result only a small
percentage of the labor force of these developing countries is employed in
construction.  In addition to the construction
related jobs, Dübel (2007) finds a
positive correlation between financial and real estate related services and the
housing to GDP ratio.  Specifically,
during the property market upturn in Hong Kong in the 1980s and early 1990s, a
doubling of the housing market share of GDP led the share of financial,
insurance, real estate and business services to triple from 6.5% to 16.3% of
GDP.  Other service sectors, including
community, social and personal services also grew, likely as a result of
indirect inputs to construction activity as well as increased tax
revenues. 
4. Housing and Its Impact on Poverty
The literature on the
relationship between housing and poverty is much smaller than that on housing
and economic growth.  Hull (2009) notes
there are significant data limitations especially on headcount poverty and
labor market outcomes.  These data limitations
make testing difficult.  There is a
particular need for data in sub-Saharan Africa. 
Some findings can be noted and they suggest that all housing investment
is not created equal when it comes to addressing poverty.  Some of these studies are highlighted here.
Gutierrez et al.
(2007) find strong evidence that the sectoral pattern of growth and its
employment and productivity-intensities matter for poverty reduction. While
employment-intensive growth in the secondary sector (manufacturing,
construction, mining and utilities) is correlated with poverty reduction,
employment-intensive growth in agriculture is correlated with increases in the
poverty headcount.  By extension, if
housing creates growth in manufacturing, construction, mining and utilities, it
may be effective in reducing poverty. 
Similarly, Hull (2009) finds the construction sector is relatively
productive but not in all countries. 
That is, construction reduces measures of poverty in some but not all
countries.
Erbas and Nothaft (2002)
find that low income housing has a lower import component in production and
also higher labor intensity.  This
implies that construction of low income housing will lead to greater employment
and growth than the construction of middle or high income housing.  Construction of low income housing can
effectively improve the living standards of the poorer segments of the
population in two ways – by creation of jobs and by creation of suitable
housing.
Tipple (1994) reviews the
literature on the links between employment and housing development and shows
that investment in shelter is very effective for promoting employment,
especially among lower-income groups; some of the benefits to the economy tend
to be inversely proportional to housing cost meaning that low cost housing is
more beneficial to the economy.  The
informal sector and small-scale enterprises tend to outperform the formal
sector and larger enterprises.
Housing Policy and Poverty in
Developing Countries
As housing finance policy
is considered, the housing programs and policies of local governments must be
accounted for in order to assess the potential effectiveness of housing finance
in different countries.  For example,
Malpezzi and Sa-Aadu (1996) review contemporary African housing markets and policies.  They find that resource allocation in these
countries was quite different than their intended objectives.  These policies have discouraged housing
investment and have been both inequitable and distortional.  The authors suggest that privatization of
housing investment is more efficient and the African governments need to
“disengage.”  Taking the example of the
U.S., direct government housing production has been less efficient than private
sector tax incentives in developing affordable housing [see Erbas and Nothaft
(2002)].
Researchers and policymakers have noted that
the housing finance systems in some countries have not been effective in
reaching the low income segments of the population.  For example, Moss (2004) states that in South
Africa the housing finance system has had little impact on the low-income
segment of the population.  Specifically,
“attempts to expand credit into this market through micro-loans have been characterized
by initiatives that have yet to demonstrate some form of success.”  The financial sector in South Africa consists
of many banks, a number of specialized finance companies and a large number of
the so-called alternative lenders. 
Future studies should investigate which of these alternatives is likely
to have success in reaching the lower income segments of the population.  According to Moss (2004), housing finance has
also not been very successful in Nigeria where the gap between income and
shelter cost is very wide and has basically eliminated the low income earners
from the housing market.  Similarly, Rahman
(2009) states that the lack of available and accessible housing finance has
been identified by the Government of Bangladesh as one of the important hurdles
in improving housing conditions for middle- and lower-income households.
Although several potential sources of housing finance for mid- and high-income
consumers exist, most of the low-income families’ needs are still unmet.
Housing Finance in Developing Markets
While there are differences in how housing finance occurs across developing countries, there are some similarities and shared concerns.  The degree to which a country’s banks invest in mortgage lending is relatively low in developing countries when compared to developed countries.  For example, Rahman (2009) cites that in Bangladesh, 4% of banking sector assets are in housing.  In many countries there are state funded and/or sponsored housing finance institutions with government guarantees.  However, there may be allocation problems in that loans are allocated based on politics and not on financials and the granting process can be long and inefficient.  There are not as many types of mortgage instruments and in fact many countries are just beginning to grant fixed-rate mortgages which eliminate interest rate risk for the borrower.  The maturity of mortgage loans tends to be shorter in developing countries – 10 years is the maximum term for some mortgages in Bangladesh.  In addition to state sponsored financial institutions and banks, home finance is offered by micro finance institutions.  In Bangladesh, one such institution offers these loans for a term of 10 years without collateral.  Although there is no collateral, the borrower must obtain title to the land and must sign a pledge to repay and obtain a group pledge to repay the loan if he or she fails to do so.  These programs tend to rely on a borrowers track record, group pressure and mutual support to control credit risk.  Moss (2004) finds similarities in housing finance in South Africa and to a lesser extent, Nigeria, Ghana and Tanzania.  In most of these countries, anecdotal evidence suggests that the supply of housing finance is much less than the demand and that the institutional structures have not provided sufficient access to housing for the poor.
Housing, Financial Deepening and
Poverty:
One segment of housing
finance is the secondary mortgage market and the creation of mortgage
instruments or bonds.  While there has
not been research on the development of mortgage markets and poverty
specifically, the development of those markets can be viewed as part of an
overall financial deepening of the capital markets in these developing
countries.  Financial deepening has been
studied and it may serve as a proxy for the development of secondary mortgage markets
to the extent that they occur simultaneously. 
At any rate, the development of a secondary mortgage market would be
consistent with increasing the breadth and depth of the capital market.  Therefore, a review of the relationship between
financial deepening and poverty may tell something about the potential impact
of mortgage market development and poverty. 
Consistent with this view, Malpezzi (1999) suggests that much of the
world is shifting from a housing finance perspective, where special circuits
are used to mobilize short-term household deposits for long-term mortgages, to
a perspective where housing finance is integrated with broader capital markets.
Buckley and Madhusudhan (1984) test a model of
the relationship between housing investment and GDP, anticipated inflation,
changes in inflation and the extent of capital deepening across several
developing and transition countries. 
They find that, holding all else constant countries with deeper
financial markets invest relatively more in housing.  Singh and Huang (2011) analyze data from sub-Saharan
Africa between 1992 and 2006.  They find
that financial deepening (as measured in part by credit to the private sector
as a percent of GDP) is associated with less poverty and income disparities in
SSA countries and that this is most important in early stages of financial
development.  Stronger property rights
strengthen this relationship.  Finally,
Beck, Demirguc-Kunt and Levine (2004) examine a broad cross country sample of
58 developing countries and find that financial development (as measured by the
ratio of financial intermediation to the private section to GDP) reduces income
inequality by disproportionately raising the incomes of the poor.
Impact of Financial Deepening on the
Base of the Pyramid and Absolute Poor
Singh & Huang (2011) look at different definitions of poverty and examine the impact of financial deepening on them.  The measures of poverty include, the headcount index which measures the percentage of the population living with per capita consumption or income below the poverty line, defined as US$1 a day.  Another measure is the poverty gap which takes into account the distance of the poor from the poverty line.  A third measure is the income of the poorest quintile or average per capita income of the poorest 20 percent of the population.  Using each of these measures of poverty and a sample of SSA countries, the authors find that poverty is inversely related to financial deepening.  The authors also look at the Gini coefficient which is derived from the Lorenz curve.  Larger values of this coefficient indicated greater income inequality.  For this variable the relationship between poverty and financial deepening is insignificant.  In other words, financial deepening reduces absolute levels of poverty but does not impact income inequality in a significant manner in this sample of SSA countries.  This suggests that various definitions should be examined to gain further insight into the relationship between housing and poverty and to capture the impact on the absolute poor.
5.  Housing Finance and Revenue and Social Consequences
Government Revenue Links to Housing
Wardrip, Williams and
Hauge (2011) itemize revenues from housing development in the U.S.  Some lessons can be learned from this data.  Revenue sources during the construction phase
include sales taxes on building materials, corporate taxes on builders’
profits, income taxes on construction workers, and fees for zoning,
inspections, and the like.  These
estimates presume that the building materials are purchased locally, to the
extent the materials are brought in from elsewhere, revenues will of course be
lower.  This is something that will
impact housing construction in IDA countries. 
Revenues in the model depend on local tax structures, construction
costs, development fees and whether the local mix of industries is conducive to
capturing construction-related activity. 
For example, Hangen and Northrup (2010) analyze the effects of
developing and rehabilitating 582 affordable homes in Rhode Island in 2007 and
2008 with $25 million in housing bonds. 
They estimate that the subsequent income, corporate and sales taxes and
fees associated with the total economic activity increased state revenues by
roughly $16.7 million during the development period.  In an analysis of a proposed Pennsylvania
state housing trust fund, Econsult (2009) finds that for every $1 million in
proposed spending, the state stands to gain $82,000 in revenue from the
construction of single family homes; these revenues would be higher if the $1
million were spent on affordable multifamily housing.
In addition to immediate
fiscal benefits, housing construction also provides on-going benefits to the
locality.   On-going revenue sources
include residential property taxes, property taxes from the businesses
supported by the residents, and utility user fees.  A residential development has a net positive
fiscal impact only if taxes exceed the cost of providing services to the
residents.  The evidence regarding the
net effect of affordable housing is inconclusive.  However, there is evidence to suggest that
market-rate housing provides net positive fiscal impact (National Association
of Home Builders, 2009).
Political Stability and Housing
There is a presumption
that housing improves political stability. 
So far, no evidence has been found to indicate that this is true
although it is a stylized fact.  Provision
of housing is international law.  Sachs
(2011) reminds us that it’s a right granted in the U.N. Universal Declaration
of Human Rights as follows:
Everyone has the right to a standard of
living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing
and medical care …
There may be indirect support to the extent that there
has been evidence to indicate that housing improves education and education is
believed to improve political stability (see evidence in next section). 
The relationship between
political stability and housing may go in the other direction.  In other words, political instability can
affect the housing market.  According to
Tu and Bao (2009), instability may weaken investor’s beliefs in property
rights, putting the investors in fear that part of the investment may be lost
due to poor protection.  Therefore,
investors may pay less for the property rights when facing political
uncertainty.  Their study uses 10 years
of data from Hong Kong and Singapore where there were differences in political
scenarios but similar land lease structures and property cycles.  The empirical evidence supports the idea that
political instability lowers property rights premiums.
Education and Housing
To the extent that housing
improves homeowner’s borrowing capacity, housing finance could lead to more
investment in human capital.  Since
investment in human capital may require an individual to borrow money, and
borrowing money is costly, to the extent that housing finance lowers the cost
of borrowing, it should lead to larger investments in human capital.  Many authors [starting with Becker (1975) and
Atkinson (1975)] studied the link between investment in human capital and
wealth distribution.  An implication of
these models is that income inequality will decrease as access to finance
improves.
Some studies have
documented a link between housing and education.  To the extent that housing finance improves
housing affordability for the poor, housing finance may improve education
opportunities for the poor.  Jacoby
(1994) finds that lack of access to credit perpetuates poverty in Peru because
poor households can’t afford to provide their children with appropriate
education.  Jacoby and Skoufias (1997)
find that without access to finance, shocks to income cause poor families to
discontinue schooling for children. 
Housing provides an asset that can be used to smooth shocks to income.
If housing indeed improves
education opportunities for children of the poor then by extension housing will
improve political stability.  Sachs
(2011) in explaining why governments should provide education, quotes Adam
Smith who said, “An instructed and intelligent people … are more disposed to
examine, and more capable of seeing through, the interested complaints of
faction and sedition…therefore, the whole society is at risk when any segment
of society is poorly educated.” 
6. Summary
A review of the literature
pertaining to housing, economic growth and poverty reveals that much more
research is needed in order to determine the true economic benefits of housing
and whether housing finance in particular can be an effective tool in
eradicating poverty.  The paucity of
evidence is due in part to limits in data and the need to utilize robust
econometric techniques to test for the direction of the causality in these
relationships.  In other words, more
research needs to explore whether housing construction leads to economic growth
or economic growth leads to increased demand for housing and by extension
housing finance.  Although there is
little direct documentation that housing finance improves economic standing or
living standards of the poor, some inferences can be made from the related
literature.  The most promising evidence
is found in the financial deepening literature where it has been shown that
improvements in financial markets are associated with reducing absolute levels
of poverty.  To the extent that financial
deepening improves with the development of mortgage markets, then housing
finance may also be effective in reducing poverty.  In addition, there appears to be solid
evidence that housing construction produces jobs – directly and indirectly
through the supporting service industries. 
Housing is also shown to improve prospects for education and thus may
reduce income inequality.  Evidence
indicates that there is no one size fits all relationship between housing,
economic growth and poverty.  Although
evidence shows that housing investment impacts economic growth, that
relationship varies within countries and over time.
 While not explored in depth in this review, there are some concerns regarding the impact of housing on economic development and poverty.  For example, due to considerable transactions costs, some suggest that housing may reduce job mobility.  In addition, while housing construction may create construction related jobs, there is a question as to whether that just crowds out investment in other sectors of the economy.  Housing finance while improving access to housing, may also increase opportunities for speculation and may lead to large booms and busts and housing cycles that may negatively impact the economy in the longer run. These and other concerns should be explored further to determine their significance.References
Atkinson, A. B., 1974, The Economics of Inequality (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Banerjee, Abhijit and E. Duflo, 2011,  Poor
Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty, (Public
Affairs, New York).
Becker, G. S., 1975, Human Capital, NBER and Columbia University Press, New York.
Buckley, Robert, 1996, Housing Finance in Developing Countries, (McMillan, London).
Buckley, R. and R. Madhusudhan, 1984, The Macroeconomics of Housing’s Role in the
Economy: An International Analysis, Presented to the American Real Estate
and Urban Economics Association.
Bunnarith, M., 2004, Between Poverty Reduction Strategy and National Housing Policy, National
University of Singapore Working Paper.
Chen, J. and A. Zhu, 2008, The Relationship Between Housing Investment and Economic Growth in
China: A Panel Analysis Using Quarterly Provincial Data, China National
Social Science Foundation Working Paper.
Dübel, Hans-Joachim, 2007, Does Housing Finance Promote Economic and
Social Development in Emerging Markets?, Housing Finance Impact Study for
International Finance Corporation.
Econsult Corporation, 2009, Potential Economic and Fiscal Impacts of a Pennsylvania Housing Trust
Fund, The Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania.
Erbas, S. and F. Nothaft, 2002, The Role of Affordable Mortgages in Improving Living Standards and
Stimulating Growth: A Survey of Selected MENA Countries, IMF Working Paper.
Freire, Mila, M. Gautier and O. Hassler, 2006, Review of Argentina’s Housing Sector:
Options for Affordable Housing Policy, World Bank Working Paper.
Guitierrez, C., et. al., 2007, Does Employment Generation Really Matter for Poverty Reduction?,
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4432, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Habitat for Humanity, Consequences of Poverty Housing.
Hangen, Eric, and J. Northrup, 2010, Building Homes Rhode Island: An Analysis
of Economic Impacts, Housing Works RI.
Hongyu, Liu, Y. Park and Z. Siqi, 2002, The Interaction between Housing Investment
and Economic Growth in China, International Real Estate Review, 5: 1, p. 40
– 60.
Housing Assistance Council, 1998, The Effects of Housing Development on a Rural Community’s Economy.
Hull, Katy, 2009, Understanding
the Relationship Between Economic Growth, Employment and Poverty Reduction,
OECD.
Jacoby, Hanan, 1994, Borrowing Constraints and Progress through School: Evidence from Peru,
Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 76, 151-160.
Jacoby, Hanan and E. Skoufias, 1997, Risk, Financial Markets, and Human Capital,
Review of Economic Studies, Vol 64, 311-335.
Karlan, Dean and J. Appel, 2011, More Than Good Intentions: How a New Economics is Helping to Solve
Global Poverty, (Dutton, New York).
Leung, C., 2004, Macroeconomics
and Housing: A Review of the Literature, Journal of Housing Economics, 13:
p. 249-267.
Malpezzi, Stephen, 1999, Economic Analysis of Housing Markets in Developing and Transition
Economies, Urbanization in Transforming Economies, p. 1791-1864.
Malpezzi, Stephen and J. Sa-Aadu, 1996, What Have African Housing Policies Wrought?,
Real Estate Economics, Vol. 24:2, p. 133-160.
Moss, Vuyisani, 2004, Preview of Housing Finance Systems in Four
Different African Countries: South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana and Tanzania, Centre
for Affordable Housing Finance in Africa.
National Association of Home Builders, 2009, The Local Impact of Home Building in a
Typical Metro Area: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated. Washington, DC.
Quigley, John, 2008, Urbanization, Agglomeration and Economic Development, Commission on
Growth and Development, Working Paper No. 19.
Rahman, Khandaker, 2009, Development of Housing Finance and its Impact on Socio-Economic Uplift in
the Emerging Economy in Bangladesh, IFC Bulletin No. 31.
Sachs, Jeffrey, 2005, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time, (The
Penguin Press, New York).
Singh, Raju and Y. Huang, 2011, Financial
Deepening and Property Rights: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa, IMF Working
Paper No. 11/196.
Tipple, A. Graham, 1994, Employment from Housing: A Resource for
Rapidly Growing Urban Populations, Cities 11, No. 6, p. 373.
Tu, Y. and H. Bao, 2009, Property Rights and Housing Value: The Impacts of Political Instability,
Real Estate Economics, 37:2, p. 235 – 257.
United Nations, 1995, Shelter Provision.
Uy, Willie, 2006,
Medium-Rise Housing: The Philippine Experience, Presentation Paper for the
5th Asian Forum.
Wardrip, Keith, L. Williams and S. Hague, 2011, The Role of Affordable Housing in Creating
Jobs and Stimulating Local Economic Development: A Review of the Literature,
Center for Housing Policy.