Developing and Financing Housing
and Highway Systems:
Lessons from U.S. Experience
Ardeshir Anjomani
This article highlights the importance of housing and transportation networks in a
development process with special emphasis on economic development efforts at the
national and regional levels. The major characteristics and developmental aspects of
housing and transportation are presented first. Then, legislative policies of the United
States are used as examples of successful efforts in the development of these two
infrastructures followed by brief explanations of those policies as they relate to development
of housing and transportation in that country. Because an economic development
effort usually signifies a need characterized by very limited capital, particularly in
developing countries or in former nations of the eastern bloc, special attention is focused
on financial mechanisms used in policy implementation.
U nprecedented changes in the world's economic and political arena are presently
occurring. The breakup of the eastern bloc and, more recently, what was
formerly the Soviet Union is a major component of these changes, and the newly
formed governments are now in search of a market economy. On the other hand, the
global economic recession should also be mentioned as an important factor in these
changes. The current recession as an economic fact of life has focused attention on
issues of economic development. Even though policy approaches are now less certain
in the developed world as they confront new challenges in economic growth,
Ardeshir Anjomani is associate professor of city and regional planning in the School of Urban and
Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington. His research and publications have centered on
the developing world, analysis of urban and regional problems, and land use and transportation issues.
His recent articles have appeared in the Journal of Population Economics, Journal of Urban Affairs,
and Computer, Environment and Urban Systems. Please address correspondence to the School of Urban
and Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Arlington, P.O. Box 19588, Arlington, TX 76019.
Studies in Comparative International Development, Winter 1994, Vol. 28, No. 4, 50--61.
Anjemani 51
their past successful history can provide good examples to newly independent nations
of the eastern bloc as well as developing nations striving for economic growth.
Providing human shelter and an adequate infrastructure is a major concern in any
national or regional economic development effort. Housing and related developments
(office, commercial, industrial) and development of a transportation network
and other infrastructures are all interrelated projects that have reciprocal effects on
one another. Discussion of the interrelationship between land use and transportation
is not new, yet in many development projects this important phenomenon has been
overlooked, resulting in ineffective planning. The influence of suitable transportation
technologies and infrastructure patterns upon the extent and pattern of urban
growth and overall economic development is obvious, especially when seen from a
broader point of view. In fact, one may argue that the development of the U.S.
highway system, begun in the postwar economy and the largest domestic public
works program in the history of the world, has been at least one of the major factors
for instigating the economic growth and development of the country.
Owen (1987) argues that the link between mobility and economic health is incontestable.
His research yields powerful evidence of the critical role mobility and
transportation play in economic systems. While the most impoverished nations have
fewer vehicles, paved roads, railroads, and a less elaborate network of transportation
systems, the developed nations, to a great extent, have all of these. Owen compares
measures of travel mobility with per capita gross national product (GNP) and shows
the direct relation between them and the widening gap between rich and poor
nations in this regard. It then becomes evident that transportation deficiencies are a
substantial barrier to reducing poverty and to realizing higher levels of production
and consumption; whereas, resources are increasingly scarce for development of
transportation facilities in developing countries.
The eastern bloc and states of the former Soviet Union, along with the developing
countries striving for growth, have undertaken a variety of development plans. But
limits to the available resources do not allow their plans to go far enough to instigate
the momentum for real development since there are needs for more than what
the available resources can afford under the conventional development paths. Major
infrastructures such as housing and transportation need either to be already in place
or developed simultaneously with other aspects of economic development in order
for the wheel of development to roll. This dual basis for development seems impossible
to achieve under conventional development schemes. A nation that has resources
to develop its infrastructure, along with other aspects of development, may
already be developed. Yet, this has been and continues to be the problem of development
everywhere in the past and in the present. How then have the developed
nations overcome these problems and afforded the developments that they have
achieved? A study of how developed nations have achieved the development of
their housing and transportation infrastructure might be enlightening to the developing
nations.
This article highlights the importance of housing and transportation and their
interrelationship in a development context and relates that analysis to the economic
52 Studies in Comparative International Development / Winter 1994
development efforts at national and regional levels. The purposes of this article is to
see how such important infrastructures can be developed in nations that are striving
for development. The United States will be discussed as a case in point of good
examples of development in housing and transportation and will be studied to learn
how developments have been achieved through a look at their past experiences.
Useful examples in the history of development in the United States during the
modern and post-World War II eras will be presented. Related to this discussion,
some governmental policies and actions that have affected development will be
explained. In particular, financial mechanisms used for these development projects
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Highway
Administration will be explored also. It is hoped that from these discussions lessons
will be drawn based upon past experiences and that this useful knowledge will be
analyzed as to the possibility of its application in national and regional economic
development efforts.
This article will first present the major characteristics and developmental aspects
of housing and transportation. Then, using the United States as a successful example
of this type of developmental effort, policies and programs will be presented
that were implemented to achieve these successes in housing and transportation.
Characteristics and Developmental Aspects
In any large scale economic development effort one of the major goals is the
provision of an adequate supply of housing. The purpose of providing housing,
however, is not just to care for the poor masses who do not have proper or adequate
shelter, but to provide a housing stock that reflects high standards in order to create
the backbone for a quality life for those people who will reside there. The reason to
stress this purpose is that in one sense housing is an infrastructure for the society
itself and represents a tangible symbol of that society that will endure for years.
Since sloppy and low quality housing development or replacement units would
remain standing for long periods of time, by their very degenerative nature these
developments would reduce the quality of life, erode the image of the neighborhood,
and would eventually have an adverse effect on the economy of the area.
On the other hand, housing is expensive, actually the most expensive item most
families ever purchase. As such, there is no government that can directly provide a
massive amount of high quality housing for its citizens no matter how rich the
country is. Yet some governments have made the mistake of becoming directly
involved in the production of housing rather than implementing policies that would
instigate its development. These types of governments have either overlooked or
forgotten the implications of dynamics of housing markets and theories such as
filtering (see, for example, Edel 1972; Montgomery and Madelker 1979; and Baer
1991) in national housing policies. This theory implies that the production of higher
quality new housing units would release the lower quality older units for lower
income households. Some countries, by putting in place proper policies and programs,
seem to be able to play a major role in providing this precious commodity
Anjomani 53
for their citizens without the necessity of getting directly involved in the production
of housing. Perhaps we can study and learn from the formulation and implementation
of the policies and achievements of these nations.
Housing is a commodity that is highly related to and dependent on many other
factors, from social and economic influences at one extreme, to infrastructure and
land-use development at the other. Certainly, not all of the important factors can be
covered in this article. Because the aim of this article is to deal with important
elements of economic development efforts, however, one major related factor will
be discussed, i.e., the provision of a high quality road network and transportation
facilities at all levels in a nation or region.
There are three reasons for considering this factor. First, like housing, transportation
is in a sense not only a physical infrastructure but also an infrastructure for the
social and economic aspects of the society. No society can develop fully without
having this means of interaction adequately developed. Second, housing and other
major land uses (e.g., industrial and commercial) cannot be fully developed unless
we have a good transportation infrastructure in place. In fact, no economy can fully
develop without a viable transportation network. Third, a transportation network,
like housing, is very expensive developmental work, and, like housing, use of
temporary or low quality standards and materials would be a waste of resources.
The study of the success of good examples of development of transportation
networks in some nations would be enlightening. Not surprisingly, a nation with
these two elements, housing and transportation, fully developed is seen as a developed
nation. On the other hand, most developing nations do not have a good stock
of either of these.
One country that has been very successful in the development of housing and
transportation is the United States. In fact, any foreigner visiting this nation is
usually surprised and impressed to see the amount and high quality of development
of these two commodities. Even in comparison to most European nations or Japan,
United States' achievement in these areas stands high. For this reason, a study of
major U.S. policies and plans would be very useful for countries searching for ways
to improve this type of development. The following sections will highlight important
policy influences in the development of housing and transportation in the United
States.
The United States Federal Housing Administration
The stock market crash in October of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed
had a tremendous impact on home buyers and the housing industry in the
United States. Families who were unable to make their mortgage payments lost their
homes, and, in turn, banks holding those mortgages failed. By Christmas of 1931,
50 percent of all home mortgages were in default, and foreclosures were running
nearly 1,000 a day (Bray 1986). The construction industry came to a halt and
builders went out of business.
On June 27, 1934, the National Housing Act was enacted creating one of the best
54 Studies in Comparative International Devdopment / W'mtcr 1994
known New Deal agencies, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The intent
was to stimulate building without spending public funds by creating a partnership
between government and private industry. The legislation was intended to encourage
improvement in housing standards and conditions, to facilitate sound home
financing on reasonable terms, and to exert a stabilizing influence on the mortgage
market. The primary purpose of the legislation, however, was to alleviate unemployment
which stood at about a quarter of the total work force in 1934 and was
particularly high in the construction industry (Jackson 1985).
Basically, the FHA insures long-term mortgage loans made by private lenders for
the construction and sale of new homes. The agency collects premiums, sets up
reserves for losses, and in the event of a default, indemnifies the lender. The FHA
does not build houses or lend money. Instead, the agency induces lenders to invest
money in residential mortgages by insuring them against loss on such instruments,
with the full weight of the United States Treasury behind the contract. Insurance
premiums cover any losses so there are no subsidies.
The FHA encouraged long-term, low interest, low down payment, self-amortizing
first mortgages so prospective home buyers were able to borrow the necessary funds
to purchase a house and repay the loan with regular and affordable monthly payments.
The FHA began by insuring 80 percent of a loan for 20 years. This was later
increased to 90 percent for 25 years at a maximum 4.5 percent interest plus a 0.5
percent mortgage insurance premium. In the 1950s the downpayment requirement
was lowered to 3 percent. Following the example set by FHA, the Veterans Administration
offered, in 1954, no-down-payment loans to military service veterans. The
terms of the loan were set for 30 years, which became standard for the majority of
FHA and non-FHA insured loans including conventional (privately funded) mortgage
loans. Previously, commercial banks were making 50 percent loans for 3
years.
Under the FHA and, later, the Veterans Administration programs, there was very
little risk to the banker if the loan turned sour. "Reflecting this government guarantee,
interest rates fell by two or three percentage points" (Jackson 1985). Although
the United States guarantee stood behind the FHA obligation, a special premium
from homeowners of about 0.5 percent always exceeded FHA expenses. In this way
FHA was not a drain on the federal budget and actually had made a slight profit
until the present time.
FHA proposals for insurance had to be based on "economic soundness," and loans
had to be based on "value" (Laurent 1983). Logical, rational approaches were
developed along with standardized comprehensive appraisal procedures. In addition,
uniform national technical standards were written for land planning, structural standards,
mortgage credit, and underwriting. The established minimum standards set
by FHA for home construction became almost a fixed rule throughout the industry.
The standardized appraisal procedure was designed to protect against excessive
losses by weeding out loan requests on properties that were either over-inflated in
value or bad risks or both. The appraisal procedure combined the borrower's income
and employment prospects, the physical condition of the property, the charac
A, niomam 55
teristics of the neighborhood and its location in the metropolis, urban planning and
land use controls, deed restrictions, and market demand to determine the amount of
"risk" involved in insuring the loan.
The FHA also taught underwriters how to measure quality in residential areas.
Eight criteria were established (the numbers in parentheses reflect the percentage
weight given to each):
Relative economic stability (40%)
Protection from adverse influence (20%)
Freedom from special hazards (5%)
Adequacy of civic, social, and commercial centers (5%)
Adequacy of transportation (10%)
Sufficiency of utilities and conveniences (5%)
Level of taxes and special assessments (5%)
Appeal (10%)
FHA mortgage insurance was available to approved lenders for any operative
builder who constructed one or more dwellings for rent or sale to others. The
Administration, however, clearly encouraged large-scale developers to complete
new residential subdivisions. The FHA also promoted minimum requirements for
the design and engineering of these sub-divisions, including provisions for street
and lot layout and installation of necessary improvements (Weiss 1987). To this
end, the FHA instituted a new form of planning and control.
By the year 1986, the FHA had insured nearly 15 million mortgages worth $342
billion----one out of ten of all single-family home loans since 1934 (Bray 1986).
These policies of the Federal Housing Administration were very closely followed
by the policies of the Veterans Administration to provide housing for returning
veterans after World War II. Veterans Administration policies kept the same low
down payment, self-amortization, and long payback periods with slightly lower
interest rates and down payments than required by FHA. Interestingly, conventional
(privately funded) loan providers soon followed suit, and, primarily after World
War II, they also offered financing mechanisms almost comparable to FHA and VA,
requiring only slightly higher down payment.
In the mid-thirties, even after the program was legislated, more than half the
nation's 35 million housing units had serious plumbing and other deficiencies and
were in need of major repair. In the mid-forties the war caused a massive migration
and major population readjustment and movement. An estimated 18 million or more
units had to be built or rehabilitated by 1960 (about 1.3 million units per year).
Today, a generation later, the results have outstripped the projections of even the
most optimistic. The number of homes and apartments have tripled since 1940.
"There are 65 million more homes and apartments, and the number of housing units
has now passed the 100 million mark" (Welfeld 1988). On the other hand, the
average square footage of a typical new home increased drastically. For example,
the average square footage of a new home in 1950 was 983 square feet and had
increased to over 1800 square feet by 1978 (Mandelker et al. 1981).
It is also important to mention that, in this achievement, quality has not been
56 Sttt&t~ in Comparative International Development / Winter 1994
sacrificed. Almost all of the units in metropolitan areas have all the plumbing
facilities. Furthermore, the amount of crowding has been sharply reduced, and less
than 4 percent of the dwellings have more than one person per room. Also, the
number of persons in a housing unit has declined from 4.1 persons in 1940 to 2.7
persons at present. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, home ownership has
grown dramatically, and more than 65 percent of American households reside in
detached single-family houses (Welfeld 1988).
One may argue that the incentive of deducting the mortgage interest and real
estate taxes from the gross income for federal income tax purposes has also played
an important role in the success of housing production in the United States. Peterson
(1979) believed that the tax subsidy has raised the owner occupancy rate by about
15 percent. There is no doubt that this policy has also contributed to the increase in
housing, but Welfeld (1988) argues that the tax benefit would not have been valuable
for the families that left the cities for the suburbs since they were not upperincome
families. He further argues that looking at the international scene also casts
a shadow on the importance of "tax subsidies." He mentions that Canada, with
comparable rates, and Australia, the only country with higher home ownership rates,
do not have deduction provisions in their tax laws. He concludes that the key for
high home ownership rates seem to be low land prices, an advanced mortgage
finance system, and an efficient home building industry. It is important here to note
that since there is a close relationship between population density and land price
(rent) gradients (see, for example, Berry and Horton 1970), keeping housing development
in lower density would maintain the lower land prices.
The United States Interstate Highway System
The vast system of roads that exist in America today is primarily the product of
federal government involvement in an area that had previously been the responsibility
of the private sector. Originally, developers provided the transportation routes
that permitted accessibility to various sections of a community. Some modest aid to
highway construction began on the federal level in 1893, but the system in place
today had its beginnings with the Federal Highway Act of 1921. This act established
a system of "federal aid highways" which was to to be improved by federal
funds matched by funds provided by the states.
The program in place at that time was expanded when the depression of the 1930s
hit. Expanded road construction was seen as a way to offer employment to the
millions of people out of work. Up until this time, federal funds were to be used
solely for the improvement of rural and postal roads. The ban against urban highways
was lifted during the depression because most of the people out of work lived
in the cities.
In 1939, the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) conducted a study entitled "Toll
Roads and Free Roads." It was the recommendation of this agency to construct an
interregional system of highways to link all major cities. According to BPR,
Anjottmi 57
"America's most pressing traffic problem is the congestion of cities resulting from
the tremendous number of cars trying to get downtown. Outmoded street patterns,
curb parking, and the failure to separate pedestrians from the flow of traffic had
created an intolerable mess that hurt business and cost lives in every big city"
(Gelfand 1975). BPR's interregional proposal would alleviate this confusion by
constructing superhighways directly into the city center.
Much of the original intercity network of highways was built from the position of
a military standpoint. An interstate system was considered a vital addition to national
defense. The nation would be able to move troops, equipment, and supplies
quickly and efficiently over endless miles of highway to any point within the borders
in defense of freedom or in any national emergency. A similar process of the government
assuming responsibility for providing and maintaining highways occurred
in most European countries in the early twentieth century, but without the legislative
push administered at the federal level in the United States.
This legislative push began with the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 which
launched the largest public works program ever undertaken in the world. The result
was the construction of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.
The act authorized the system to extend 41,000 miles (the completed system is
presently 43,000 miles of interstate highway system without consideration of other
state and local freeway and major arterials which constitutes another 112,000 miles).
It was planned to link 90 percent of the cities with populations of 50,000 or greater
and many smaller cities and towns. Also authorized was the expenditure of $24.8
billion in thirteen fiscal years from 1957 to 1969. The system was to be completed
by 1972. About 20 percent of the system mileage was designated as urban to
provide interstate service into, through, and around urban areas (Weiner 1987).
The final plan provided almost $25 billion for interstate roads, on a 90-to-10
matching basis. For 1957, 1958, and 1959, half of the funds were distributed on the
traditional formula of mileage, area, and population and half on population alone.
Thereafter, funds were to be allocated according to the needs of the system.
The initial act in 1956 would never have been passed without the companion
Highway Revenue Act. This act created the Highway Trust Fund to receive tax
revenue earmarked for highway purposes. The act increased federal taxes on gasoline
and other motor fuels, excise taxes on tires, established new taxes on retreaded
tires, and a weight tax on heavy trucks and buses. These user charges established an
assured funding source for highways. The taxes that provided the revenue for this
trust fund were levied in the following manner:
RATES OF USER TAX
$ ,06 / gal. gasoline
$ .10 / lb. tire and tube rubber
$ .05 / lb. retreaded tire
$3.00 / 1,000 lb. / yr. heavy vehicle use tax
$ .06 / gal. lubricating oil
8 % of mfg. sale price of truck & bus parts & accessory sales
10% of mfg. sales, buses and trailers
(Source: Taebel and Cornehls 1977)
58 Studies in Comparath'e lnttmatloaal Development / Winter 1994
Today, the Federal Highway Trust Fund accounts for about one-third of road
building in the United States annually; states and local governments provide the
remaining two-thirds. State and local monies go heavily into maintenance; federal
funds go generally for new construction. Congress appropriates amounts that the
Federal Highway Administration can spend on the federal highway program each
year and sets formulas for appropriating money to the states. Cost estimates for the
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways have been revised several
times. They are currently more than $220 billion.
According to Stopher and Meyburg (1975), one of the first requirements in a
multilevel jurisdiction is to determine what levels of government will have what
degree of responsibility for the provision and maintenance of different streets and
highways. This has given rise to a hierarchy of classes of roads. In the United States
this classification has defined at least six broad groups of highways with responsibilities
divided among the federal government (Federal Highway Administration of
the U.S. Department of Transportation), state government (State Department of
Highways or Transportation), counties, towns, or villages. In order of decreasing
federal involvement in the capital expenditure, these classes are:
1. Interstate highways, defined by legislation in Congress in 1956, for which capital expenditure is
apportioned as 90 percent federal and 10 percent local (including state, county, city, etc.).
2. Major interurban arterials, including all designated United States routes, for which the federal
government provides 60 to 75 percent of the capital funds and the local jurisdictions provide the
balance.
3. State highways, not classified for national defense, for which the federal government provides
40 to 60 percent of the capital funds.
4. Local feeder routes and intracity arterials receive 10 to 40 percent federal funding and the
balance comes from local sources.
5. County roads, which generally form a secondary network in both urban and rural areas, receive
generally no federal funding, but are the joint responsibility of the state and county, with some
funds shared by local communities, depending upon state legislation.
6. City, town, or village roads, which generally comprise the remainder of the highway system and
provide access between land areas and the secondary and primary highway systems, are generally
the responsibility of the local city, town, or village, with funding from the county or state,
depending upon local legislation.
In terms of the maintenance of each class of highway, the federal government
appoints the states as its agents for the maintenance of all principle federal-aid
routes, these being classes 1 and 2 as defined above. Federal funds are not provided
to the states for the maintenance of these state highways and local feeder routes and
intracity arterials. Similarly, maintenance of county roads and local roads is primarily
the responsibility of the county and the local community, respectively. However,
there may be funds from state sources for certain types of maintenance work,
dependent upon fiscal policy approved at that governmental level (Stopher and
Meyburg 1975).
Congress has recently appropriated funds for a six-year $151 billion Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act which was signed by President Bush in December
1991. The new act makes generous provision for maintenance of a 155,000-
mile national highway system made up of the interstate highway system and other
Anjomani 59
freeway and principal arterials. There are also provisions for a flexible surface
transportation program that can be used for congestion management, roadway, or
transit improvement. Overall, this bill marks the transition from system building to
system performance.
Condusion
In an increasingly interdependent world economic system, the development of
every country, even the least developed ones, is important to the world family. Yet,
less developed countries of the world, in their strides toward modernization, encounter
the dilemma of how to develop the economy and the infrastructure simultaneously.
Not having infrastructures such as housing and transportation in place will
be a major stumbling block on the road to economic development, and if the economy
has not developed yet, adequate resources will not be available for the expansion of
housing and transportation. This dilemma has challenged students of economic
development for ages. Yet, the developed nations of the world seem to have overcome
this critical phase. Good lessons can be learned from their experiences for
countries striving for development. This article attempts to do that, namely, derive
lessons from the success stories of growth of housing and transportation in the
United States.
The importance of providing human shelter and transportation facilities as basic
and major infrastructures in economic development effort is undeniable. This article
has attempted to demonstrate, however, that it is of prime importance that these
developments should reflect high quality effort and be provided at a high level of
supply. A mere minimal level effort would not only be a waste of resources but
would also represent lost opportunity to establish two major infrastructures which
have the potential to affect many aspects of life, including economic development.
The main question, however, is how to provide such high quality services on a large
scale when a nation is in poor economic condition, perhaps is undergoing a major
political and economic change such as eastern European countries and states of the
former Soviet Union, or is just coming out of a major war, such as Iran, Kuwait, and
Iraq.
The article has analyzed some major policies of the United States as examples of
successful achievement in this regard. It was shown that the policies discussed in
the article are neither costly for government nor is there any reason to believe that
they cannot be implemented under the economic hardship that most countries in
need of such development are experiencing. Interestingly, the housing-related policies
in the United States were implemented at a time of economic hardship, immediately
after the depression. The housing policies not only are not costly for government
but, in addition, encourage the demand and supply side of the economy to operate
fully.
In a sense, the transportation policies are like a closed circle. Government charges
certain taxes on items directly used in transportation and uses the revenue from
those taxes directly to provide and develop a highway system. In this simple process
60 Studiesi n ComparativeI nternationalD evelopmentI W'mter1 994
nothing is subsidized and, eventually, market forces take over. In other words, if
consumers continue using highway-related goods, the money will be there to develop
and maintain the road system and cannot be used for non-transportation items,
unlike other countries that use most of their higher tax receipts for general revenue.
According to Gordon (1991), other developed countries levy gasoline taxes of 100
to 350 percent compared to the U.S. tax of about 35 percent. Without further
analysis, therefore, it can be said that, in general, both sets of policies could be
implemented in a depressed economy.
Two other related factors, however, also contribute to the development of housing.
One is a provision in the tax system to allow the deduction of property taxes
and mortgage interest payments. This, of course, works as a major force to encourage
home ownership. The second is the passage of bills that provide for improvements
in the highway system, which instigates new development in every aspect of life,
particularly in housing. The growth in housing has occurred partly because highway
development has made outlying areas accessible and has reduced commuting time.
This implies then that it might be more appropriate to implement the housing and
transportation policies in conjunction with each other.
Every country is unique in the structure of its government, political, social and
institutional systems, and means of policy implementation. Therefore, a nation that
decides to adopt these policies would need to bring them into their system of
operation, and perhaps to adjust or remove some of their existing policies. On the
other hand, some level of economic and political readiness should be in place in
order to be able to adopt and implement them. The policies, by their nature, lean
more toward market economy systems in the sense that government, in respect to
these policies, plays a facilitator role because the policies encourage active involvement
of the private sector. This is even more true in the case of housing, since with
transportation, government puts plans together, collects bids, and selects and assigns
contractors to build the road system.
The intent of this article was to give an introduction to these policies and their
economic and social effects. Obviously, a thorough discussion of the subject would
be beyond the article's scope, but it is hoped that the positive effects of these
policies have been demonstrated in the development of housing and transportation
and, overall, on the growth and development of the whole country.
Note
The author would like to thank Terry Watts for her assistance in research.
References
BAER, W.C.
1991 Filtering and third world housing policy. Third Worm Planning Review 13, 1: 69--82.
(February).
BERRY, B.J. and HORTON, F.
1970 Geographic perspectives on urban systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Anjomani 61
BRAY, HOWARD
1986 The FHA: selling of a dream. Across the Board 23, (June): 8-14.
EDEL, MATTHEW
1972 Filtering in a private housing market. In Matthew Edel and Jerome Rothenberg, Reading in
urban economics. New York: Macmillan.
GELFAND, MARK I.
1975 A nation of cities. New York: Oxford University Press.
GORDON, DEBORAH
1991 Steering a new course: transportation, energy and the environment. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press.
JACKSON, KENNETH T.
1985 Crabgrass frontier. New York: Oxford University Press.
LAURENT, RONALD P.
1983 The evolution of FHA. Mortgage Banking 43, (March): 10-15.
MANDELKER, DANIEL R., CHARLES E. DAYE, o'vro J. HETZEL, JAMES A. KUSHNER,
HENRY W. McGEE, JR. and ROBERT M. WASHBURN
1981 Housing and community development. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
MONTGOMERY, ROGER and DANIEL R. MANDELKER
1979 Housing in America: problems and perspectives, 2d. edition. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
NORTON, HUGH S.
1966 National transportation policy: formation and implementation. Bekerly, CA: McCutcham
Publishing Corp.
OWEN, WILFRED
1987 Transportation and worm development. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
PETERSON, GEORGE
1979 The effect of federal taxes on urban form. In The prospective city. Edited by A. Solomon.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
SEELY, BRUCE E.
1987 Building the American highway system. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
STOPHER, PETER R. and ARMIN H. MEYBURG
1975 Urban transportation modeling and planning. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
TAEBEL, DELBERT A. and JAMES V. CORNEHLS
1977 The political economy of urban transportation. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press.
WEINER, EDWARD
1987 Urban transportation planning in the United States. New York: Praeger Publishers.
WEISS, MARC A.
1987 The rise of community builders. New York: Columbia University Press.
WELFELD, IRVING
1988 Where we live: a social history of American housing. New York: Simon and Schuster.
