Speaker
Details

Institutional investors in residential real estate have become targets of political backlash against unaffordable housing, with voters opting for measures such as expropriation and investor bans. What causes voters and politicians to unite behind these radical housing policies? We argue that opposition to investors is not solely driven by economic concerns such as rising rents but also by a broader rejection of financialized capitalism. While voters worry that that investors transform housing from a basic need into a speculative asset, politicians find it electorally advantageous to employ populist, anti-investor rhetoric.
In Study 1, focused on Germany, we use novel geo-coded real estate transaction data to document the extent of housing financialization cross-nationally and over time, and to show that neighborhood-level exposure to financialization cannot explain the widespread support to expropriate corporate landlords in a historic 2021 Berlin referendum. We then develop nationally representative surveys to show that German citizens conceptualize housing as a social right and hold the state responsible for its under-provision. We demonstrate experimentally that arguments about housing financialization significantly raise support for expropriation, beyond arguments about rising housing costs. These findings suggest that financialized capitalism can unite diverse groups of voters in favor of housing socialism.
In Study 2, we investigate whether similar dynamics can explain the political backlash against housing investors in less regulated market economies. We focus on the US, where politicians are increasingly proposing anti-investor policies to address the housing crisis. Using address-level financialization data, we first show that financialization is not, in fact, correlated with rising house prices. Similar to Germany, we then demonstrate that Americans have a rights-based understanding of housing and demand significant state intervention. Moreover, anti-investor sentiment is widespread across partisan lines, income, and homeownership status, persisting regardless of actual exposure to financialization. We conclude that laws aimed at restricting investor activity serve as a politically expedient but ineffective response to housing affordability challenges.
Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any event do not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented.