Be more like Japan. That is the takeaway from a Bloomberg column by the always-interesting Noah Smith. His is the latest article to look at Tokyo’s approach to housing for answers to the spiralling cost of homes in comparable Western cities.
On the surface, the lessons are straightforward, with Tokyo serving as a heartening reminder that the basic laws of supply and demand actually hold true. The best way to lower the cost of housing is to simplify the planning system and let people build more houses. By starting on 100,000 new dwellings a year, Tokyo’s housing stock has more than kept pace with its population. As a result, the cost of housing is low.
The sacrifices involved have been limited. Tokyo has largely built upwards, preventing sprawl. And as Tokyo has grown denser, people’s homes have actually got bigger. Dwelling size increased by 28 per cent between 1988 and 2013.
So far, so encouraging. But look a little closer and you realise there is, as Smith accepts, a big problem with comparisons with Tokyo. In part, the issue is, strange as it may sound, tectonic. Japanese houses have generally only lasted 30 years, thanks largely to the need to earthquake-proof cities. As this 2008 Nomura report explains, after 15 years the typical Japanese house is worth nothing. The Japanese relationship to a house is, at least in economic terms, not that different to their relationship to a fridge.
Property is not a store of wealth for the Japanese middle-class. And so there are far fewer NIMBYs to get in the way of a simple, stream-lined planning system.
It almost goes without saying that the Japanese approach is a far cry from how we have done things in Britain. Unlike Japan, Britain’s housing market is being asked to do more than provide a roof above everyone’s head at an affordable price. It is also the market in people’s most valuable asset and it has, in recent history, been the engine of wealth creation for those who happen to own a home.
The result is millions of British home-owners who have a massive economic stake in Britain notsolving its housing crisis. There may be a veneer of concern about the countryside and green spaces. In some cases that concern is, I’m sure, sincere. But opposition to house building is almost entirely an expression of economic self-interest.
This means that fixing housing involves taking on a highly-motivated, overwhelmingly Conservative voting portion of the population. The political argument for action on housing – that you won’t create a new generation of capitalists if they don’t own any capital – is, in isolation, entirely sensible. And lowering the cost of housing is indubitably in Britain’s economic interests. But the government are yet to concede the obvious political and economic trade-offs involved and explore ways to minimise the downsides while maximising the upside.
For all the focus the Conservatives have placed on the issue, they are reluctant to admit what they actually mean by “tackling the housing crisis”. If the crisis in housing is that homes are too expensive, then the sensible definition of the “tackling the housing crisis” would be a fall in the house price to income ratio. But in the terms of reference for Sir Oliver Letwin’s review of planning – a document in which Sajid Javid had to be precise about the government’s aims – the goal is defined as supporting “an increase in housing supply consistent with a stable housing market in the short term and so that over the long-term, house prices rise slower than earnings.”
The government, then, does not want house prices to fall, but just to rise at a slower rate than earnings, which have hardly been rocketing upwards lately.