Planning ahead for better neighborhoods : long run evidence from Tanzania / Guy Michaels (London School of Economics and IZA), Dzhamilya Nigmatulina (London School of Economics), Ferdinand Rauch (University of Oxford), Tanner Regan (London School of Economics), Neeraj Baruah (London School of Economics), Amanda Dahlstrand-Rudin (London School of Economics) ; IZA Institute of Labor Economics
VerfasserMichaels, Guy In der Gemeinsamen Normdatei der DNB nachschlagen ; Nigmatulina, Dzhamilya ; Rauch, Ferdinand In der Gemeinsamen Normdatei der DNB nachschlagen ; Regan, Tanner ; Baruah, Neeraj ; Dahlstrand-Rudin, Amanda In der Gemeinsamen Normdatei der DNB nachschlagen
KörperschaftForschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit In der Gemeinsamen Normdatei der DNB nachschlagen
ErschienenBonn, Germany : IZA Institute of Labor Economics, September 2017
Elektronische Ressource
Umfang1 Online-Ressource (65 Seiten) : Diagramme
SerieDiscussion paper ; no. 11036
URNurn:nbn:de:hbz:5:2-139471 Persistent Identifier (URN)
 Das Dokument ist frei verfügbar.
Planning ahead for better neighborhoods [0.46 mb]
Verfügbarkeit In meiner Bibliothek

What are the long run consequences of planning and providing basic infrastructure in neighborhoods, where people build their own homes? We study "Sites and Services" projects implemented in seven Tanzanian cities during the 1970s and 1980s, half of which provided infrastructure in previously unpopulated areas (de novo neighborhoods), while the other half upgraded squatter settlements. Using satellite images and surveys from the 2010s, we find that de novo neighborhoods developed better housing than adjacent residential areas (control areas) that were also initially unpopulated. Specifically, de novo neighborhood are more orderly and their buildings have larger footprint areas and are more likely to have multiple stories, as well as connections to electricity and water, basic sanitation and access to roads. And though de novo neighborhoods generally attracted better educated residents than control areas, the educational difference is too small to account for the large difference in residential quality that we find. While we have no natural counterfactual for the upgrading areas, descriptive evidence suggests that they are if anything worse than the control areas.