Advertisement

Exploring Assumptions Through Possible Worlds: The Case of Homeownership

Chapter

Abstract

Simulations provide an ideal setting for exploring the logical entailments of assumptions through computational modeling. When constructing simulations about the social world, researchers are building what essentially are possible worlds based on the assumptions under consideration. In this chapter, we discuss these two concepts, possible worlds and assumptions, as they pertain to simulation through the case of homeownership. Homeownership has developed as an important social construct in American society, and its place has been reinforced through many forms of direct policy intervention. Research about homeownership posits a causal effect between it and desirable social outcomes, but the logical consequences of this relationship are rarely discussed. We use an agent-based model to explore the assumption that homeownership itself improves communities and demonstrate what this entails for lower-quality areas.

Keywords

Move Vision Policy Design Neighborhood Quality Community Development Block Grant Owner Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aaronson, D. (2000). “A Note on the Benefits of Homeownership.” Journal of Urban Economics 47(3): 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arendt, H. (1993). Between Past and Future: eight exercises in political thought. New York, PenguinGoogle Scholar
  3. Belsky, E. S., N. P. Retsinas, et al. (2005). The financial returns to low-income homeownership. Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  4. Brasington, D. and D. R. Haurin (2006). “Educational Outcomes and House Values: A Test of the value added Approach.” Journal of Regional Science 46(2): 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bratt, R. G. (1997). “A Withering Commitment.” Shelterforce XIX(4): 2.Google Scholar
  6. Bratt, R. G. (2002). “Housing and Family Well-being.” Housing Studies 17(1): 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox, K. R. (1982). “Housing Tenure and Neighborhood Activism.” Urban Affairs Review 18(1): 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dietz, R. D. and D. R. Haurin (2003). “The social and private micro-level consequences of homeownership.” Journal of Urban Economics 54(3): 401–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DiPasquale, D. and E. L. Glaeser (1999). “Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners Better Citizens?” Journal of Urban Economics 45(2): 354-384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engelhardt, G. V., M. D. Eriksen, et al. (2010). “What are the social benefits of homeownership? Experimental evidence for low-income households.” Journal of Urban Economics 67(3): 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedrichs, J. and J. Blasius (2009). “Attitudes of Owners and Renters in a Deprived Neighbourhood.” International Journal of Housing Policy 9(4): 435-455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gale, W. G., J. Gruber, et al. (2007). Encouraging Homeownership Through the Tax Code. Washington, DC, Brookings.Google Scholar
  13. Galster, G. C. and S. P. Killen (1995). “The geography of metropolitan opportunity: A reconnaissance and conceptual framework.” Housing Policy Debate 6(1): 7–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green, R. K. and M. J. White (1997). “Measuring the Benefits of Homeowning: Effects on Children.” Journal of Urban Economics 41(3): 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haurin, D. R. and D. Brasington (1996). “School Quality and Real House Prices: Inter- and Intrametropolitan Effects.” Journal of Housing Economics 5(4): 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoff, K. and A. Sen (2005). “Homeownership, Community Interactions, and Segregation.” The American Economic Review 95(4): 1167–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiviat, B. (2010). The Case Against Homeownership. Time Magazine.Google Scholar
  18. Leventhal, T. and J. Brooks-Gunn (2000). “The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes.” Psychological Bulletin 126(2): 309–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newman, S. J. (2008). “Does housing matter for poor families? A critical summary of research and issues still to be resolved.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27(4): 895–925.Google Scholar
  20. Reid, C. K. (2007). Locating the American dream. Chasing the American Dream, ed. William M Rohe and Harry L Watson. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press: 233–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rohe, W. M. and M. A. Stegman (1994). “The impact of home ownership on the social and political involvement of low-income people.” Urban Affairs Review 30(1): 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rohe, W. M., S. Van Zandt, et al. (2002). “Home Ownership and Access to Opportunity.” Housing Studies 17(1): 51.Google Scholar
  23. Rohe, W. M., S. Van Zandt, et al. (2002). Social benefits and costs of homeownership. Low-income Homeownership: Examining the Unexamined Goal, The Brookings Institution Press: 381–406.Google Scholar
  24. Rossi, P. H. and E. Weber (1996). “The social benefits of homeownership: Empirical evidence from national surveys.” Housing Policy Debate 7(1): 1–36.Google Scholar
  25. Saunders, P. (1990). A Nation of Home Owners. London, Unwin Hyman. Shlay, A. B. (2006). “Low-income homeownership: American dream or delusion?” Urban Studies 43(3): 511–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations