Yes or no in my back yard

NIMBYism and the modern British crisis of scarcity

Since the turn of the century and in the recent decade, political manifestos in Britain have been flooded with promises of building new houses and anti-immigration discourse. For many years, housing supply has failed to keep pace with demand, driven by increasing birth rates, immigration and red tape preventing construction on a large scale. Reaching a net dwelling low in 2012-2013 (DCLG, 2013). Yet despite widespread public and political acknowledgement that Britain is under a housing crisis, new development remains protested and blocked at the local level. This paradoxical sentiment is underlined by Nimbyism, a phenomenon that exposes a deep-rooted political failure to counteract the housing crisis in Britain and failure to embrace abundance.

Political commentator Ezra Klein's political philosophy of abundance donates the capacity of a society to build public goods such as energy infrastructure and housing infrastructure at a scale required by modern life and modern populations. Through his framing, the crisis is not caused by excess demand alone but by a failing political system that has lost the ability to deliver supply to match demand. Once a manageable problem, it is now characterised by ‘red tape’, slowness and contention at the local level. Britain is the antithesis of this. while Britain’s leaders often speak of building at the national level, most notably the May administration's (2017) pledge of 1.5 million homes by 2022. This often falls through at the local level. In principle, the need for housing is acknowledged, and development is readily supported in dinner table politics, but when it comes to practice, they would rather not have it in their back garden. The local planning system thus transforms positive national consensus and pledges into negligible success. The pledge for 1.5 million houses by 2022 drastically failed due to local authorities’ delivery, with capacity staying well below the benchmark of 300,000 annual completions (Barton et al., 2023). 

Not in my back yard (Nimby) refers to the very local opposition to development that we see all over the country. The threat of housing so close by is a perceived threat to the neighbourhood character, demographic and property values; these are just some of the concerns that usually arise. This phenomenon has become a very powerful mechanism for restricting the supply of housing, particularly in high-demand areas. The collective power of Nimbyism allows groups to dominate local hearings, strong political pressures through petitions and mass sign-ups, and the weaponisation of zoning laws. The effects of this are cumulative; when every local neighbourhood resists, the nation bears the consequences: under-building, rising house prices, overcrowding and spatial inequality.

Housing scarcity in Britain is focused in areas of high demand, such as cities, commuter belts and areas of high economic opportunity. Yet, the areas which are the most scarce in comparison to demand are the areas with the strongest planning restrictions and with the biggest problem of NIMBYism, with high levels of organised opposition to development. This organised opposition is disproportionately in favour of existing homeowners who tend to be wealthier, older and more politically interested, thus leaving out the interests of those who are being hit hardest by the housing crisis – renters, young people and future residents who have no formal voice, creating a perpetual cycle of lack of housing in these areas (Hilber and Vermeulen, 2014). NIMBYism is not politically neutral and is often associated with white, middle-class communities seeking both to protect material assets and social familiarity.

NIMBYism becomes particularly timely in discussions when Immigration politics and the intersections are raised. Discourse from the political right often frames migrants as a source of pressure on public services and housing. This discourse, however, blatantly refrains from telling the truth; migrants are not only consumers of housing but producers. The construction industry is one of the largest employers of migrants and relies on migrants, often facing labour shortages caused by extensive immigration policies. (Migration Advisory Committee, 2018) In line with the NIMBY rhetoric, the same political constituencies that are most resistant to housing in their back yard are simultaneously the most likely to be in favour of anti-immigration policy. Both actions constrain the supply of housing, and the labour force needed to construct housing.

Thus, a political paradox is created in Britain. The same powers that demand housing simultaneously empower NIMBY veto and exclude the Workforce to build the houses. Migrants are religiously blamed for ‘stealing’ housing and for being the cause of housing scarcity in a system that has been shaped by this political paradox that does not allow us to build housing in the first place.

While there is a broad national agreement that Britain needs more houses, NIMBYism often reserve the right to this development and assumes that this building can be done elsewhere; this happens nationwide. The disparity between the national need and local control leads to the housing crisis and rising housing costs. This leads us to challenge the voices of local authorities and whether their voice should be so loud?  A community voice is important on issues such as design, infrastructure and environmental concerns, all of which remain legitimate concerns. The problem lies with the collective bargaining power and veto powers that NIMBYism creates. This creates exclusion and prevents abundance, something that this nation needs. The housing crisis haunts Britain, and to resolve this, there needs to be a national consensus both rhetorically and in action.

Ultimately, Britain, through the political paradox it has created, faces a choice between scarcity and abundance. Scarcity politics, which tries to manage pressures by limiting people through the anti-immigration sentiment presented by the right and blocking of new housing or abondance politics. Abundance politics, which meets demand by building more homes and infrastructure consequently revitalising the economy (Foreword et al., 2023). If the country keeps up this NIMBY attitude, not only will the housing crisis not be resolved as soon as possible, but it will also keep deciding who gets excluded. To move towards a future of abondance we must ensure the voices of the few do not continue to exclude the needs of the many.