CLE Workshop: "Do Housing Supply Skeptics Learn? Evidence from Economics and Advocacy Treatments" with Stan Oklobdzija
Director of the Center for Public Policy Research at The Murphy Institute and Assistant Professor of Political Science
Center on Law & the Economy Core Workshop Series
More Information
The Murphy Institute's Center on Law and the Economy hosts workshops each semester featuring both Tulane and guest faculty in law, economics, and political science who present their latest research in regulation, civil rights, the criminal legal system, and other key issues in law and the economy. Hosted by Adam Feibelman, Director of the Center on Law and the Economy and Sumter D. Marks Professor of Law at Tulane Law School, CLE workshops are open to faculty, students, and the Tulane community.
Stan Nguyen Oklobdzija, PhD, is Director of the Center for Public Policy Research and Assistant Professor of Political Science.
Oklobdzija's current research focuses on state and local politics, with a particular interest in housing policy. In other research, he has used computational social science tools to answer questions about campaign finance and election law in the United States. His research has been published in The American Political Science Review, Electoral Studies, Research & Politics, Socius and State Politics & Policy Quarterly. Oklobdzija comes to The Murphy Institute from UC Riverside, where he was Visiting Assistant Professor of Public Policy, after receiving his PhD in Political Science from UC San Diego. He also holds a Master of Public Policy from the University of Southern California’s Price School and a BA in Sociology from UC Davis.
ABSTRACT:
Recent research finds that most people want lower housing prices but, contrary to expert consensus, do not believe that more supply would lower prices. This study tests the effects of four informational interventions on Americans’ beliefs about housing markets and associated policy preferences and political actions (writing to state lawmakers). Several of the interventions significantly and positively affected economic understanding and support for land-use liberalization, with standardized effect sizes of 0.15 − 0.3. The most impactful treatment—an educational video from an advocacy group—had effects 2-3 times larger than typical economics-information or political-messaging treatments. Learning about housing markets increased support for development among homeowners as much as renters, contrary to the “homevoter hypothesis.” The treatments did not significantly affect the probability of writing to lawmakers, but an off-plan analysis suggests that the advocacy video increased the number of messages asking for more market-rate housing.
