EACH time a new plan is announced, particularly by a chancellor, applying a systems analysis lens is crucial.
In this post, I will use a very basic systems analysis approach to provide insights into the effectiveness of encouraging and supporting the private sector to build more homes. Will it solve the housing crisis?
Obviously, building some more homes is likely to fail to fix the multiple problems we have in the housing sector. To cover only a few of those issues: hundreds of thousands of homes that are in disrepair, a low number of jobs close to where many of the homes are, our housing stock being among the least energy efficient in Europe, the peculiar position that people’s homes are the default investment option in the UK, the lack of appropriate homes (homes that people want, rather than what is on offer), the lack of a roof over everyone’s head and how expensive housing has become.
READ MORE: Anas Sarwar faces hypocrisy accusation over Vaughan Gething departure
So, the first question must be: what one of the multiple problems in the housing sector is the Labour government trying to solve?
I am not sure. Are you? Here is what we know.
(Image: Justin Tallis/PA Wire)
Rachel Reeves (above) confirmed that Labour planned to oversee (not build) 1.5 million homes in England during the parliamentary term. This “target” is roughly 300,000 new homes each year. Last year, 231,100 new homes were built in England. Less than 3% of those homes were for social housing. So, the plan is to build an extra 70,000 new homes each year, with 97% of them private-sector homes. This is hardly a groundbreaking policy. And I have no idea what this would hope to achieve.
In increasing the target, Rachel Reeves has suggested what system designers call a “parameter change”. She has moved the numbers up slightly, hoping this will greatly impact the system (the English housing market). This is the type of intervention that centralist policymakers usually do. So, what impact does this type of change actually have?
Donella Meadows, one of the founders of systems analysis, said that probably 99% of our attention is on these types of changes. The thing is, “there is not a lot of leverage” in parameter changes. In other words, these changes have little impact on the overall system.
Parameter changes are at the bottom of Donella’s list of 12 effective leverage points. Unfortunately for those who wish to see a significant change in our economy, most policy suggestions, such as increasing housing targets, the tax rate, or the debt to GDP ratio, have little impact on the overall system. This revelation – that these changes have little impact –opens up a world of potential transformation in our economic systems. If only policymakers and mainstream economists would be willing to listen.
(Image: Image of homes)
Using system thinking, we can confidently suggest that a parameter change like Reeves's will have little of the desired effect on the system. It is not a leverage point.
Systems design provides further insight into housing policy. And this is a fascinating story. In 1969, the system analysis founder Jay Wright Forrester published a “classic” urban dynamics study. He concluded that the less subsidised the city's low-income housing is, the better off everyone is – including those on low incomes. Counterintuitive, right? Well, that often happens when looking at a complex system.
The report was released when the US built massive subsidised low-income housing schemes nationwide. The nation, in unison, shouted: “We need more affordable homes.” Forrester was the only dissenter, and as you can imagine, he was not very popular at the time! But guess what? He was right. Projects started to be torn down only a decade later.
The reason? No-one analysed affordable housing as a complex system. Policymakers simply took the logical and intuitive leap to build more homes. So why didn't it work? Forrester’s brilliant student Donella Meadows explained in her seminal paper “Leverage Points”: “Without equivalent effort at job creation for the inhabitants, (more subsidised housing) severely disrupts a city’s employment/housing ratio, effectively increasing unemployment and welfare costs and despair.”
READ MORE: Angela Rayner: Labour will not change two-child cap in King's Speech
Rachel Reeves's plan to support private developers to build 1.5 million more homes is typical neoliberal, narrow-minded planning. It lacks any awareness of how this complex system will likely respond. Of course, our new Chancellor is not alone in taking this approach. We see it at every level of government, in every business and across our society. We are all prone to chasing the silver bullet.
Neoclassical economists perpetuate the fantasy that the housing market – perhaps one of the most complicated complex systems in the UK – can be influenced by the odd parameter change. A system analyst would look at Rachel’s plan and suggest that upping the targets will have little impact and could even make things worse. As Donella wrote about these types of interventions, they may “systematically worsen whatever problems we are trying to solve”.
So, the answers? Do your research and at least attempt to understand the impact of your decisions. Donella Meadows reckons system designers need months, if not years, to understand the dynamics of a complex system. This is an uncomfortable truth.
But the main takeaway is to ignore neoclassical economists who draw very simple linear connections. Sometimes, what seems the most obvious is exactly the wrong thing. Policy is a lot harder than most people think.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel