In general, there should be no planning restrictions regarding the height, size and location of new buildings in central London.

Presenter: Abel Schumann
Date: 13/1/12

House prices in London are among the highest in World. Nevertheless, large parts of the city are dominated by fairly low-rise developments. This is arguably due to planning regulations that limit height, size and location of new developments. By keeping the supply of housing and office space artificially low, these regulations inflate house prices and cause welfare losses for a majority of Londoners.

What are the intentions of the existing regulations?

What are the upsides, what are the downsides of increasing population density in central areas of London?

How to deal with the externalities of new high-rise developments?

Which part of existing regulations makes sense from a welfare perspective and which is due to the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) effect?

Some stylized facts:

-          Construction costs for residential high-rises of medium to high standard  are about £1300-£2000  per square meter, but average house prices in central London exceed £5000 per square metre.

-          Usually, planning permissions will only be granted if new developments adhere to size and appearance of existing buildings in the neighbourhood.

-          The height of buildings in large parts of London is restricted to ensure unobstructed views of Westminster, St. Paul’s and other landmarks from distant viewpoints such as Richmond Park, Greenwich Observatory and Hampstead Heath.

-          More than 90 percent of Westminster and roughly 50 percent of Camden, Islington, Hackney, City and Tower Hamlets are conservation areas in which essentially no new construction is possible.

-          There is a general height limit of 1000 feet for all buildings in London.

Links:

Glaeser et al. (2004): Why is Manhattan so Expensive? Regulation and the Rise in House Prices (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/files/Manhattan.pdf)

The London Plan (general planning guidelines for London) (http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/introduction/)

The Camden Planning Guidance as an example for existing planning regulations (see especially points 2.10, 2.13, 2.14 and 2.15 for the dimensions of new buildings) (http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asset?asset_id=2694288)

A good education

Date: 2/12/11
How far should government interfere in influencing the course choices of students (in particular those studying in a publicly funded system)?

Vocational qualifications were given a big push by the last Labour government, they were intended to provide students with work-related skills and spanned subjects in health, hair and beauty, construction or catering.

Since then, the numbers of children being entered for traditional academic subjects has declined, while the numbers taking vocational qualifications have soared. One concern is that schools might be pushing students into “easier” subjects (e.g. leisure and tourism) to improve theirresults.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8408787.stm

In an effort to reverse this trend the Coalition are stripping vocational subjects from schools league tables and will start measuring schools by the proportion of their pupils achieving at least a C grade in “English Baccalaureate” subjects (English, maths, a science, a foreign language and either history or geography)http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/aug/24/gcse-pupils-must-do-traditional-subjects

Another complication is that, as the Coalition pursues an expansion in charter schools, it stands to lose control over the curriculum in such schools while it continues to fund them.

The questions I would like to discuss are:
-          What arguments might there be for such interference of the government in student’s choices of courses? (e.g. externalities, behavioural constraints…)
-          Even if education is free, can we not trust market forces to ensure students make the best choices considering the effect on their future prospects?
-          If we think there is an argument for interfering, do we think it should be towards encouraging practical/narrow skillsets or promoting a more well-rounded education?
-          Given that systems differ substantially between countries, which countries do we think have got it right?

All the MP3s I download are paid for, just not by me

Presenter: Jon Colmer

Date: 23/11/11
Should Intellectual property rights for music be maintained?

With the rise of the internet, and increases in technology (faster broadband) the costs of sharing music have dramatically declined. Is this a good thing? Should more resources be spent on monitoring and enforcing file sharing or should intellectual property for music be abandoned?

Who does current copyright protection benefit?  The consumers and creators of music, or record companies and music publishers?

Would reductions in copyright protection reduce the incentive to create good music in the future? 

If copyright protection was to be reduced, to what degree should this apply to other forms of media, i.e. television, film, literature?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/03/internet.intellectualproperty

http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/499.pdf

http://mortimer.fas.harvard.edu/concerts_01oct2010.pdf

http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2008/08/19/is-file-sharing-morally-wrong/

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/napster.htm