April 28, 2025
Pro-housing advocates present a nuanced analysis of class relations, offering more explanatory power than many critics of the “abundance agenda.”
Construction is ongoing in Los Angeles for a mixed-use apartment complex, set to provide over 700 housing units and 95,000 square feet of commercial space. (Mario Tama / Getty Images)
Analysis of Abundance and Housing Policies
The term "abundance" is complex. In a recent publication titled Abundance, authors Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson define it as the idea that building and creating more of what is needed, such as housing and green energy, can shape the desired future. However, some left-leaning critics view it as a collection of policy ideas lacking a core political theory. Paul Glastris and Nate Weisberg describe abundance liberalism as a centrist revival of liberalism through pragmatism and policy innovation. Jeet Heer and others suggest it resembles neoliberalism, promoting deregulation and business-friendly policies.
Critics argue that the abundance framework resembles the "yes in my backyard" (YIMBY) movement, which has faced similar criticism for avoiding power dynamics. This movement, aiming to increase housing through zoning reforms, has been analyzed in works like In Defense of Housing by David Madden and Peter Marcuse. They claim that deregulating housing shifts power toward capital rather than residents.
Power Dynamics and Housing
The critiques of YIMBYism often overlook the complexities within class dynamics, given that a significant portion of American families are homeowners. The analysis that positions “real estate owners” against “communities” can oversimplify the issue, missing the nuanced power relations within and between communities. The class conflicts, in many cases, arise from within communities, with affluent homeowners often opposing new developments.
Research indicates that opposition to housing development is often led by wealthier, older homeowners during public hearings, which exacerbates housing shortages and increases rents. Some oppose new housing due to potential impacts on property values, although evidence suggests new developments can sometimes enhance nearby property values.
Implications and Reforms
NIMBYism is seen as a means to preserve public amenities and maintain segregation, with historical zoning practices used to monopolize resources. The real estate industry itself comprises diverse interests, including productive firms and rentier firms, each with differing stakes in housing developments. While developers generally benefit from building, restrictive zoning can benefit large developers by reducing competition.
Advocacy for YIMBY reforms aims to organize those who would benefit from housing expansions, including renters and potential first-time homebuyers. Critics of YIMBYism argue that it favors the interests of specific demographics, yet easing housing restrictions has been shown to benefit individuals across the economic spectrum.
The potential effects of YIMBY reform parallel dynamics in the labor market, where abundant resources shift power balances. In a plentiful housing market, tenants and buyers gain more choice and negotiating power, promoting competition and potentially altering the status quo to favor broader housing security.
