March 2011 Which Places Are Growing? Seven Notable Trends from Newly Released Census Data By Edward L. Glaeser (Harvard University)

Each new Census provides us with deliver higher wages. Rappaport Institute/Taubman Center a picture of our changing United 2. January temperature continues Policy Briefs are short overviews of new and States. We have been a nation in notable research on key issues by scholars to be a strong predictor of affi liated with the Institute and the Center. fl ux for almost four centuries, as population growth. This fact Edward L. Glaeser populations have moved over space— refl ects both a natural affi nity for Edward L. Glaeser is the Fred and Eleanor fi rst populating the less dense areas Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard warmth, and also the tendency of University. He also is the Director of the th of the country, and then in the 20 many Sunbelt areas to have fewer Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston and century, moving to sun, sprawl and the Taubman Center for State and Local barriers to building. Government, which are both housed in the highly productive metropolitan Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. areas of the coast. The 2010 Census 3. Population growth was faster He is the author of Triumph of the City: th How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us confi rms many of the trends that have near ports. While 19 century Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier (Penguin Press, 2011). been occurring for decades, but there Americans populated the st are also some breaks with the past. In American hinterland, 21 century © 2011 by the President and Fellows of Americans are moving to the Harvard College. The contents refl ect the some cases, public policies are playing views of the author (who is responsible country’s periphery. for the facts and accuracy of the research a major role in shaping America and herein) and do not represent the offi cial not all of those policies are benign. 4. People are moving to dense areas, views or policies of the Rappaport Institute or the Taubman Center for State and Local In those cases, the Census provides a but not the densest areas. Despite Government. wake-up call about the governing of the decline in transportation costs, America. people are still disproportionately Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston Harvard Kennedy School This report is a brief overview of moving to places that had 79 John F. Kennedy Street Cambridge, MA 02138 major trends in the county level higher density levels as of 2000, responding to the enormous http://www.rappaportinstitute.org population data that were released 617-495-5091 on March 24, 2011. A more complete productivity advantages associated analysis of the data will take more with proximity. A. Alfred Taubman Center for State and Local Government time and this brief should be seen as 5. The education level of a county Harvard Kennedy School a fi rst pass at categorizing population as of 2000 strongly predicts 79 John F. Kennedy Street Cambridge, MA 02138 changes. Many of the trends discussed population growth over the last http://www.hks.harvard.edu/taubman here are discussed at greater length in decade. Again, this trend refl ects 617-495-5140 my book Triumph of the City. the tendency of skilled areas to This policy brief summarizes seven generate far higher incomes. major facts about U.S. county-level 6. Manufacturing employment population growth: predicts lower population 1. Population growth was much growth. While manufacturing higher in counties with higher has predicted urban decline for incomes as of 2000. Americans decades, the connection between unsurprisingly moved to areas that manufacturing and lower levels of Which Places Are Growing? Rappaport Institute | Taubman Center POLICY BRIEFS

growth across all U.S. counties is a more a wealthier nation would put less priority on recent phenomenon. material concerns, but that does not seem to be 7. Limits to housing supply that come from true when it comes to migration. What could be either nature or regulation will also limit more natural then people leaving poorer areas population growth. The most expensive and moving to more prosperous areas? areas have not grown all that much and the Many of the facts that follow refl ect this areas that have grown most demonstrably general trend of people following prosperity. are not that expensive. The correlation between population growth and many area attributes, such as density and skills, Trend # 1: Money Matters largely refl ects the connection between these There should be little surprise that Americans attributes and higher incomes. In a sense, the are following the money and moving to areas bigger puzzle appears in those areas, including that pay more. Figure 1 shows the dramatic greater Boston and coastal California, where correlation between county median incomes, as incomes are enormously high, but population of 2000, and population growth between 2000 growth is reasonably modest. and 2010. In the poorest 40 percent of counties, This strong correlation does pose a challenge population growth is typically negative or very to policies that are aimed at disproportionately small. In the richest 20 percent of counties, increasing incomes in poorer areas, such as the population growth averages almost fi fteen Appalachian Regional Commission. Americans percent. seem to be quite good at moving from poor to This relationship is not new. Glaeser and rich places, and this process enhances national Shapiro (2003) illustrate a similar connection productivity by ensuring that people are across metropolitan areas during the 1990s. working in the areas where their labor produces Glaeser, Ponzetto and Tobio (2011) fi nd that the highest returns. If public policy attempts to median income in 1950 strongly predicts equalize regional incomes, it is leaning against county population growth between 1950 this trend, and perhaps inadvertently keeping and 2000. It might have been expected that people in less productive areas.

Figure 1: Average Population Growth by Median Income in 2000 (Quintiles)

2 Which Places Are Growing? Rappaport Institute | Taubman Center POLICY BRIEFS

Trend # 2: The Sunbelt Continues to Grow to have signifi cantly attracted new industry (Holmes, 1998). Indeed, one can quite plausibly Figure 2 shows county-level population growth argue that the South had far worse institutions by January temperature. The warmest 40 for economic growth before the Civil Rights percent of counties have average population Era, but that today, fewer regulations and lower growth over eight percent. The coldest 40 taxes makes the Sunbelt more pro-growth. percent of counties have average population growth under 3 percent. Perhaps the most important regulations that impact growth are those that impact This trend is certainly not new. For decades, the construction of new homes. Across January temperature has been a powerful metropolitan areas, the growth of population predictor of area growth (Glaeser and Tobio, is tightly tied to the growth of housing supply 2008). One part of this growth surely refl ects and to the rules that impact new construction transportation cost improvements that freed (Glaeser, Gyourko and Saks, 2005). Relatively fi rms from having to cluster around the few limits on new construction make it easier waterways of the Great Lakes System and the to provide abundant new housing in places railroads that followed them. Another part of like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston and that this expansion refl ects technological changes, has been one reason for those metropolitan like the air conditioner, that made hot summers areas’ million-plus person growth since 2000 more pleasant. (Glaeser and Tobio, 2007). One key piece of But the connection between January evidence suggesting the importance of elastic temperature and growth refl ects more than housing supply for the growth of these areas is just the weather. Sixty years ago, income and that prices in these areas remain low, despite productivity in the South lagged signifi cantly enormous population growth. The standard below that in Northern states. There has been tools of basic economics teach us that the a remarkable convergence of incomes since combination of low prices and enormous then, as manufacturing fi rms moved to lower quantities typically means abundant supply. wage areas that gradually became higher wage. Right-to-Work laws in Southern states seem

Figure 2: Average Population Growth by Average January Temperature (Quintiles)

3 Which Places Are Growing? Rappaport Institute | Taubman Center POLICY BRIEFS

Trend # 3: America is Moving to its Coasts Franklin Counties, which are in the western part of the state, lost population. Similarly, During the 19th century, Americans by northeastern Virginia is adding population at the millions moved away from the Eastern a rapid clip, while the state’s rural hinterlands Seaboard and populated the nation’s hinterland are depopulating. In Texas, Houston, Austin (Glaeser, Ponzetto and Tobio, 2011). In recent and Dallas continue to explode but many more decades, the population has again been pulled inland counties lost population. towards the old ports and seacoasts (Rappaport and Sachs, 2007). Figure 3 shows the strong The 19th century push inwards refl ected the connection between proximity to either a enormous value of matching people with coastal or inland port and population growth rich farmland and other natural resources. between 2000 and 2010. Counties closest to American productivity was greatly enhanced ports grew by almost 8 percent while those when farmers could work the rich soil of Iowa. farthest from ports grew by less than 3 percent. But the share of labor in agriculture has been declining steadily, and most natural resources This growth does not refl ect people working are relatively easy to ship. We work in an on the docks and it does not refl ect the economy where new ideas generate prosperity importance of water-borne trade. It refl ects and most employment is in services. The the fact that America’s great metropolitan physical proximity on the coast enables both areas formed on waterways and the pull of the spread of ideas and the face-to-face contact metropolitan productivity remains quite strong. that is crucial for many services. Within Massachusetts, we see that Boston’s growth outpaced the state, but Berkshire and

Figure 3: Average Population Growth by Distance to Nearest Port (Quintiles)

4 Which Places Are Growing? Rappaport Institute | Taubman Center POLICY BRIEFS

Trend # 4: People are Moving to Dense are de-populating and the densest areas are Areas—Although not the Densest Areas growing. The move to coasts ultimately refl ects the The connection between prosperity and enormous valuable of physical proximity in the density is something of a puzzle, given modern world. Despite new technologies that that improvements in transportation and have made it possible to browse the Internet communication technology should have from across the plant and telecommute in reduced the advantages of being close together. from any sylvan spot, people are still choosing One hypothesis is that a more globalized to move to dense areas. Figure 4 shows and technologically sophisticated world has that on average, the least dense quintile of increased the returns to skill and innovation America counties lost about two percent of (Goldin and Katz, 2008). Economists their population between 2000 and 2010. The since Alfred Marshall have long argued densest quintile gained an average of over 12 that cities enhance skill accumulation by percent of their population. exposing workers to a wider range of peers and experiences. Glaeser and Maré (2001) This growth refl ects, in large, part of the document the swifter rate of wage growth in productivity advantages from being around urban areas, for example. The spread of ideas in other people in large metropolitan areas. If dense metropolitan areas also seems to enable the rest of America achieved the per capita innovative chains where one smart person productivity levels seen in the New York borrows ideas from another. The death of area, out nation’s Gross Domestic Product distance may have pummeled the dressmakers would increase by 43 percent. On average, as of New York City, but it only enriched the county density increases by 10 percent, county fashion designers who still work in that city. incomes increase by nearly 7 percent. The connection between density and productivity But while the connection between population is a major reason why the least dense areas growth and density generally is positive, the

Figure 4: Average Population Growth by Population Density in 2000 (Quintiles)

5 Which Places Are Growing? Rappaport Institute | Taubman Center POLICY BRIEFS

relationship turns negative at the highest more appropriate for pedestrians than cars. 19th density levels. Figure 5 shows the connection century cities were built around the streetcar between population growth and density among and the elevated rail line and 20th century cities the densest fi fth of counties—dividing that set have been built around the car. The car enables of counties into tenths. people to live at low densities and requires As Figure 5 illustrates, growth is pretty fl at plenty of land, which is why it tends to favor between the second and seventh deciles of this somewhat lower density living. group. This corresponds to the 86th – 94th Third, growth rates persist and car cities are percentiles of the overall density distribution, likely to have grown up more recently. The which includes counties such as Palm Beach same factors that pushed the post-war growth of County, Florida and Clark County, Washington Phoenix and Houston continue to this day. (outside of Portland, OR), and then begins to Fourth, government policies—national, state, decline. This fi gure reminds us that America and local—tend to favor lower density living. is a profoundly metropolitan nation, but The federal government has long subsidized population growth tends to be somewhat lower highways, which tended to enable people to fl ee in the very densest areas, such as Queens urban areas (Baum-Snow, 2007). The strong County, New York and Baltimore County, connection between structure type (apartment Maryland. There are four reasons why growth vs. home) and ownership type (owner-occupied is somewhat lower among the densest counties. vs. rented) means that implicitly subsidizing First, building up is somewhat more expensive homeownership via federal policies such as than building out. Construction costs in these the home mortgage interest tax deduction areas are often somewhat more expensive pushes people away from apartments that tend because of the cost of higher rise construction. overwhelmingly to be rented. Finally, the lure Second, America is still in the century- of suburban schools and zoning policies that are long process of rebuilding itself around the more restrictive in areas that have more people automobile. Humankind has always built its also push development out to moderately lower urban spaces around dominant transportation density areas. technologies. The oldest parts of America’s oldest cities have narrow and winding streets

Figure 5: Average Population Growth by Population Density in 2000 (Top Quintile Only, Divided into Deciles)

6 Which Places Are Growing? Rappaport Institute | Taubman Center POLICY BRIEFS

Still, it is important to note that the average areas or that people are moving to be around growth rate of the very densest counties is educated people because educated parent lead still much higher than the growth rate in the to better schools. But the primary reason why nation’s least dense counties and the medium education has been linked to population growth density counties continue to offer many of the in the past is that incomes are rising much more advantages of urban connection. America’s steeply in educated areas (Glaeser and Saiz, economy is disproportionately contained in 2004, Shapiro, 2006). For example, Glaeser, its large metropolitan areas—the three largest Ponzetto and Tobio (2011) report that income areas (New York, Los Angeles and Chicago) growth increases by roughly 10 percentage contain 18 percent of the nation’s GDP and points between 1980 and 2000 as the share of only 13 percent of the country’s population— the county’s adult population with a college and that seems likely to continue. degree in 1980 increases by ten percent. The increasing connection between area level Trend # 5: Skills Continue to Predict Growth education and higher incomes is not merely Education has been a strong predictor of a refl ection of the well known rise in returns area growth for many decades (Glaeser, to skill (Goldin and Katz, 2008). Holding an Scheinkman and Shleifer, 1995, Simon and individual’s education constant, that person’s Nardinelli, 1996), and the last ten years are no wages rise on average by about 8 percent as exception. The most educated fi fth of counties, the share of adults with college degrees in measured by the share of the adult population that person’s metropolitan area increases by with college degrees in 2000, experienced an 10 percent (Moretti, 2004). These effects are average growth rate of more than 13 percent. typically called human capital externalities— (See Figure 6) The least educated 60 percent the benefi ts of having skilled neighbors. of counties grew on average by less than 3 There are many possible reasons that these percent. externalities might exist. Smart neighbors are The connection between skills and population more likely to be successful entrepreneurs who growth could, in principle, refl ect many provide good jobs. Smart neighbors may teach different factors. It could be that there are us things that make us more productive. But fewer social problems in more educated whatever the reason, having educated people

Figure 6: Average Population Growth by Share with BA in 2000 (Quintiles)

7 Which Places Are Growing? Rappaport Institute | Taubman Center POLICY BRIEFS

near you in an area is typically associated manufacturing grew by nearly 4 percent. In with having higher earnings and this has been contrast, the population of the fi fth of counties getting stronger over time (Glaeser and Saiz, with the fewest manufacturing jobs grew by 2004). over 8 percent. Given the tendency of migration to follow For many decades, concentration in higher incomes, it is therefore unsurprising manufacturing has been associated with urban that skilled areas have been growing more decline. Manufacturing has been suburbanizing quickly. The connection between skills and and leaving dense urban areas since at least area growth seems strongest in initially the early part of the 20th century, when Henry denser areas (Glaeser, Ponzetto and Tobio, Ford moved his massive automobile plant 2011) and in areas that experienced negative to River Rouge. Manufacturing tends to be shocks (Glaeser and Saiz, 2004). While almost relatively space intensive and that is one reason all of the older, colder cities of the country why it has tended to move away from urban seemed profoundly troubled during the 1970s, cores (Glaeser and Kahn, 2001) and locate the better educated places such as Boston, in medium density counties (Glaeser and Minneapolis and Seattle have managed to come Kohlhase, 2005). The fl ight of industrial fi rms back, while less educated areas have continued from cities naturally hit those cities with the to decline. Education was a powerful protector most manufacturing the hardest since they had against unemployment during the recent the most to lose, and that is one reason why recession (Glaeser, Ponzetto and Tobio, 2011). manufacturing has predicted urban decline since the 1950s. Trend # 6: Population is still leaving But manufacturing was not associated with Manufacturing Regions population decline throughout a wider sample Population continues to move away from of counties during much of the past. Glaeser, manufacturing areas within the U.S. Figure 7 Ponzetto and Tobio (2011) report a positive shows that the population of the counties that association between manufacturing in 1980 had the greatest share of their employment in

Figure 7: Average Population Growth by Share of Employment in Manufacturing in 2000 (Quintiles)

8 Which Places Are Growing? Rappaport Institute | Taubman Center POLICY BRIEFS

and county population growth between just about demand for an area. The population 1980 and 2000, holding many other factors growth of an area is intimately connected to constant. One reason for this fact is that while the growth of the area’s housing supply, as manufacturing cities were declining, many less people typically need homes to inhabit. If it dense areas were attracting new industrial jobs was equivalently easy or hard to build a home and succeeding as places of manufacturing. anywhere in the U.S., then housing supply While there are still counties that attract would not matter, but it is much harder to manufacturing today, during the last decade, build in some places than others because of there was a negative association between both natural barriers and regulation (Glaeser, manufacturing share and population growth Gyourko and Saks, 2005). holds across the entire country. Differences in housing supply help us to make While there is no immediate policy implication sense of Figure 8, which shows the relationship of this fact, it does suggest that manufacturing between housing prices in 2000 and population is not serving as a magnet for population growth between 2000 and 2010 across U.S. growth either across cities or across counties. counties. Overall the relationship is quite Attracting individual manufacturing plants may positive. Housing prices are a good indicator of certainly make sense for individual counties the demand to live in an area, and when prices (Greenstone, Hornbeck, and Moretti, 2010), are suffi ciently low, private building essentially but it is hard to imagine that America’s future ceases. On the lower left corner of the graph, lies in heavy industry. we see counties that have low prices and accompanying low growth rates. Trend # 7: Housing Supply Matters But the graph also shows another more The preceding six trends have generally surprising pattern. The counties that are described factors the infl uence the demand to expensive have not grown all that much, such live in a place, such as economic prosperity as Santa Clara County California, and the and sunshine. But population change is not

Figure 8: Median Housing Value by Population Growth

9 Which Places Are Growing? Rappaport Institute | Taubman Center POLICY BRIEFS

places that have grown a great deal are not us that our metropolitan areas are places of that expensive, such as Pinal County, Arizona. extraordinary productivity and economic The high prices in Manhattan and around San innovation. We should surely worry about Francisco tell us that there is no lack of desire policies that artifi cially limit the growth of to live in these areas, but they are not growing these areas, including local land use policies all that quickly. The natural explanation for that limit construction, the state policies that this phenomenon is that building in these areas enable those local policies), and federal policies is diffi cult. Similarly, the low prices in Pinal that disproportionately subsidize transportation County, Arizona or Flagler County, Florida in low density areas. indicate the relative ease of building in these Third, education is a strong predictor of area areas rather than any lack of demand. growth and manufacturing predicts decline. Housing supply certainly matters and is helping These facts suggest that the future of the shape America. In some areas, housing supply American economy depends on our nation’s is naturally limited by geography. Manhattan, skills, not on the ability to produce ordinary the most expensive point on the graph, has goods marginally more effi ciently. These profound geographic constraints that make facts seem to suggest the importance of wise construction more costly. But in many areas, investments in education and warn against regulations limit construction far more than excessive subsidization of declining industries. geography. Those regulations ensure that fewer Fourth, housing supply matters. The share of people get to live in the most productive and our nation is increasingly being molded by pleasant parts of the country, such as coastal local land use policies formed for the most California. parochial of reasons. Localities rarely have the right incentives to internalize the cost of their Conclusion zoning decisions on people who do not live The preceding trends do not dictate any there yet. There is a good case for higher levels particular public policies or suggest any of government ensuring that these local policies particular course of action. They should be look after the wider interests of the nation. relevant, however, for policy-makers at both Data Note the local and the national level. We believe that All data is from the 2000 and 2010 Census, there are a few lessons that come out of the except for data on manufacturing, January data. temperature and distance to ports. Share of First, people are quite mobile and move to employment in manufacturing comes from wealthier places. This fact should lead us to the 2000 County Business Patterns. January temperature data comes from ICPSR (Inter- respect the power of migration to make both university Consortium for Political and Social individuals and the nation more productive. Research) study number 2896, “Historical, We should therefore be cautious about policies Demographic, Economic, and Social Data: that act to restrict mobility, such as subsidizing The United States, 1790-2002,” by Michael homeownership (Oswald, 2005) and worry R. Haines, which compiles data from various about whether attempts to bolster depressed Census sources over many years. The spherical areas are actually stopping people from distance (in miles) from the center of each migrating to areas where they might lead more county to the nearest coastal or inland port was productive, happier lives. calculated in GIS (Geographic Information Systems) using The US Army Corps of Second, the country is moving to relatively Engineers (USACE) Ports database. dense places and towards ports. This reminds 10 Which Places Are Growing? Rappaport Institute | Taubman Center POLICY BRIEFS

References Economy, 118 (3) (2010): 536-598 Baum-Snow, Nathaniel. “Did Highways Goldin, Claudia and Lawrence F. Katz. The Cause Suburbanization?” Quarterly Journal of Race Between Education and Technology. Economics, 122(2) (2007): 775-805. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008. Glaeser, Edward L., Joseph Gyourko and Holmes, Thomas J. “The Effect of State Raven E. Saks. “Urban Growth and Housing Policies on the Location of Manufacturing: Supply.” Journal of Economic Geography, 6 Evidence from State Borders.” Journal of (2006): 71-89. Political Economy 106(4) (1998): 667-705. Glaeser, Edward L. and Matthew Kahn. Moretti, Enrico. “Estimating the social return “Decentralized Employment and the to higher education: evidence from longitudinal Transformation of the American City,” and repeated cross-sectional data.” Journal of Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, Econometrics, 121(1-2) (2004): 175-212. 2 (2001). Oswald, Andrew. “The Housing Market and Glaeser, Edward L. and Janet E. Kohlhase, Europe’s Unemployment: A Non-technical “Cities, Regions and the Decline of Transport Paper.” In Homeownership and the Labour Costs.” Papers in Regional Science, 83(1) Market in Europe, edited by Casper van Ewijk (2004): 197-228. and Michiel van Leuvensteijn. Oxford, UK: Glaeser, Edward L. and David C. Maré. “Cities Oxford University Press, 2009. and Skills.” Journal of Labor Economics, 19(2) Rappaport, Jordan and Jeffrey D. Sachs. “The (2001): 316-342. United States as a Coastal Nation.” Journal of Glaeser, Edward L., Giacomo A. M. Urban Economics, 8(1) (2003): 5-46. Ponzetto and Kristina Tobio. “Cities, Skills, Shapiro, Jesse M. “Smart Cities: Quality of and Regional Change.” Regional Studies, Life, Productivity, and The Growth Effects of forthcoming (2011). Human Capital,” Review of Economics and Glaeser, Edward L. and Albert Saiz. “The Statistics, 88(2) (2006): 324-335. Rise of the Skilled City.” Brookings-Wharton Simon, Curtis J. and Clark Nardinelli. “The Papers on Urban Affairs, (2004): 47-94. Talk of the Town: Human Capital, Information, Glaeser, Edward L., José A. Scheinkman and the Growth of English Cities, 1861 to and Andrei Shleifer. “Economic Growth in a 1961.” Explorations in Economic History, Cross-Section of Cities.” Journal of Monetary 33(3) (1996): 384-413. References Economics, 36(1) (1995): 117-143. Glaeser, Edward L. and Jesse M. Shapiro. “Urban Growth in the 1990s: Is City Living Back?” Journal of Regional Science, 43(1) (2003): 139-165. Glaeser, Edward L. and Kristina Tobio. “The Rise of the Sunbelt.” Southern Economic Journal, 74(3) (2008): 610-643. Greenstone, Michael, Richard Hornbeck and Enrico Moretti. “Identifying Agglomeration Spillovers: Evidence from Winners and Losers of Large Plant Openings,” Journal of Political 11 Rappaport Institute | Taubman Center POLICY BRIEFS

RECENT POLICY BRIEFS RECENT WORKING PAPERS

“How Massachusetts Can Stop the Public-Sector “To Preserve and Protect: Land Use Regulations Virus” by Thomas A. Kochan (MIT Sloan School in Weston, MA,” by Alexander von Hoffman (Joint of Management) March 2011. Center for Housing Studies) November 2010.

“Did Credit Market Policies Cause the Housing “Managing Cross-Departmental Collaboration: Bubble?” by Edward Glaeser (Harvard University), A Performance Scorecard for Boston’s Mayoral Joshua Gottlieb (Harvard University), and Joseph Sub-Cabinets,” by Meghan Haggerty (MPP ‘10, Gyourko (Wharton School) May 2010. Harvard Kennedy School) and Devin Lyons-Quirk (MPP ‘10, Harvard Kennedy School) June 2010. “Geography, Venture Capital, and Public Policy,” by Josh Lerner (Harvard Business School) “The Massachusetts Teacher Workforce: Status March 2010. and Challenges,” by Antoniya Owens (MPP ‘10, Harvard Kennedy School) May 2010. “What Makes a City Entrepreneurial?” by Edward L. Glaeser (Harvard University) and “Wrestling with Growth in Acton, Massachusetts: William R. Kerr (Harvard Business School) The Possibilities and Limits of Progressive February 2010. Planning Case Study,” by Alexander von Hoffman (Joint Center for Housing Studies) February 2010. “Improving Health Care Quality and Values: Local Challenges and Local Opportunities,” “Massachusetts Chapter 70B: Findings and by Katherine Baicker (Harvard School of Public Recommendations,” by Megan Britt (MPP ‘09, Health) and Amitabh Chandra (Harvard Kennedy Harvard Kennedy School) and Anna Hall (MPP ‘09, School) May 2009. Harvard Kennedy School) May 2009.

“Silver Bullet or Trojan Horse? The Effects of “Green Zoning: Creating Sustainable Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets Communities Through Incentive Zoning,” by in Greater Boston,” by Jenny Schuetz, Rachel Philip Schaffner (MPP ‘09, Harvard Kennedy Meltzer, and Vicki Been (Furman Center for Real School) and Jake Waxman (MPP ‘09, Harvard Estate and Urban Policy) NYU March 2009. Kennedy School) May 2009.

“Reviewing Chapter 40B: What Gets Proposed, What Gets Approved, What Gets Appealed, and What Gets Built?” by Lynn Fisher, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) November 2008.

RAPPAPORT INSTITUTE for Greater Boston Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston Taubman Center for State and Local The Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston is Government a university-wide entity that aims to improve The Taubman Center and its affi liated institutes governance of Greater Boston by fostering and programs are the focal point for activities better connections between scholars, policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government makers, and civic leaders. The Institute that address urban policy, state and local governance, and intergovernmental relations. was founded and funded by The Phyllis More information about the Center is available and Jerome Lyle Rappaport Foundation, at www.hks.harvard.edu/taubmancenter. which promotes emerging leaders. More information about the Institute is available at www.hks.harvard.edu/rappaport. 12