New research shows how U.S. homeownership and the accumulation of housing wealth are linked to political participation

Key takeaways

U.S. homeowners who participate more consistently in elections also tend to experience higher housing appreciation. Highly engaged homeowners accumulate between 22 percent and 78 percent more housing wealth over a 40-year time horizon than homeowners with low levels of electoral participation.
This divide also shapes political representation. Homeowners with high levels of political participation account for about 58 percent of voter registrations despite making up roughly 41 percent of the voting-age population, meaning the homeowners benefiting the most from housing appreciation are disproportionately represented in the electorate.
More politically engaged homeowners also appear to engage more actively in housing markets. They are more likely to purchase homes at a discount, invest in improvements, and sell at a premium.
What this means for growth These findings do not establish that voting causes higher housing returns. Instead, they point to a broader connection between political and economic engagement. By showing that political participation and active economic decision-making are closely linked at the individual level, this research points to one potential mechanism through which democratic engagement and stronger economic outcomes may reinforce one another.

Overview

Persistent affordability pressures have driven up housing costs for millions of U.S. families in recent years. Home prices remain near record highs relative to incomes, mortgage rates and associated costs are elevated, and millions of Americans are struggling to find housing they can afford.

To address some of these concerns, the U.S. Congress earlier this summer enacted a rare bipartisan bill aimed at increasing housing construction, reducing regulatory barriers to building new homes, and making homeownership more attainable for Americans. Yet as lawmakers decide how to implement these reforms, and as states and cities continue to debate zoning rules, property tax rates, and new construction processes, policymakers are relying on a conventional distinction that has long shaped U.S. housing policies: that renters and homeowners are two separate constituencies, with homeowners presumed to have achieved economic security and to benefit when property values rise.

Yet not all homeowners in the United States are winning right now—and that could be aligned with their voting behaviors. In a new working paper, Yutao He and Michael Reher at the University of California, San Diego’s Rady School of Management and I link nationwide voter records with property transactions and compare the housing returns of homeowners who participated in elections at different rates. We find that the more consistently homeowners participate in elections, the more housing wealth they tend to accumulate. This finding has broad implications for how policymakers should address housing inequality and unaffordability as they work to execute the newly enacted housing law.

Household wealth accumulation and electoral participation

U.S. housing policies historically have rested on the misleading assumption that all homeowners share a common economic interest. While some homeowners do accumulate substantial wealth from their properties, others own homes that appreciate in value more slowly, generate little equity, and provide far less of the financial cushion that homeownership is expected to deliver.

The more important divide among homeowners is therefore not simply between people who rent and people who own, but between those for whom housing provides reliable financial security and those for whom it does not—households for whom renting or owning fails to provide manageable costs, stable occupancy, and a durable opportunity to build wealth.

Our new research measures one important form of that so-called housing fragility among homeowners: weaker accumulation of housing wealth and its impact on electoral participation. Using actual voting behavior, our estimates imply that, compounded over a 40-year time horizon, the most frequent voters accumulate about 22 percent more housing wealth than the least frequent voters, holding other observed characteristics constant. Broadly speaking, highly engaged homeowners accumulate up to 78 percent more housing wealth than homeowners who are less democratically engaged.

This relationship is not simply a result of more politically active homeowners living in faster-growing cities or more desirable neighborhoods. Indeed, the link between housing wealth accumulation and voting rates remains even when we compare homeowners within highly localized housing markets and when we account for age, race, gender, political affiliation, income, wealth, credit, and education. It also appears across political parties and in most U.S. states and counties.

Interestingly, we find that this relationship is especially pronounced among households in the lower half of the wealth distribution. For these families, a home is more likely to represent the bulk of their wealth, so a lower rate of appreciation is not a minor change in an otherwise-diversified portfolio. In fact, appreciation rates can determine whether homeownership actually provides long-term financial security for these households.

To be clear, our study does not show that voting more often causes a home to appreciate. Rather, the democracy problem we identify is different. The homeowners most visible to politicians via voting behavior have systematically different economic experiences from those who participate in elections less frequently. Our estimates suggest that the most electorally engaged group of homeowners makes up roughly 41 percent of the voting-age population but accounts for about 58 percent of voter registrations.

In other words, the people whose homes generate the strongest wealth returns are disproportionately present and participating in the political system.

Our paper also helps explain why it might be the case that political participation and housing returns move together. More politically engaged homeowners appear to participate more actively in housing markets as well. They are more likely to buy homes at lower prices relative to assessed values, invest more in improvements, and, eventually, sell at a premium. That does not mean less-engaged homeowners are personally responsible for receiving lower returns. Differences in time, information, opportunity, risk tolerance, and other unmeasured conditions may all matter.

The broader point is that economic and political engagement appear to reinforce one another. The people who are best positioned to identify and create value in housing are also more likely to vote, donate to, and contact public officials.

Meanwhile, homeowners who register lower returns face a quieter form of housing fragility. They have crossed the threshold into homeownership, but their homes are producing less of the financial security that ownership is presumed to guarantee. Because these owners participate less in the political process, their experiences are also less likely to shape the political agenda.

Implications for U.S. policymakers

Our study does not establish that renters and lower-return homeowners share the same policy preferences. They may disagree about zoning, property taxes, or the value of additional construction.

Yet our findings show why politicians should stop assuming that all homeowners are inevitably on the opposite side of housing debates from renters. The existence of a deed does not necessarily place a struggling homeowner in the same economic position as an owner whose property has generated decades of substantial gains. Both groups may or may not have the same exact interest in manageable housing costs, stable communities, fair property taxation, and a housing system that offers a realistic path to financial security.

Recognizing this divide should change how housing policies are made. Candidates and public officials should stop using tenure—renting or owning—as a shortcut for gauging economic interests. Housing policy proposals should be judged based on who they actually help, including which homeowners benefit and which remain financially exposed as a result.

Our findings identify a constituency that is not only economically underserved, but also politically underrepresented. Local governments should stop assuming that the residents who participate most frequently in hearings and elections represent all homeowners. Representative surveys, targeted community outreach, and channels for participation beyond conventional public meetings can help officials hear from renters and less-represented homeowners before making decisions about land use, taxation, and neighborhood investment. Likewise, election officials, civic organizations, and political campaigns should direct more voter registration and participation efforts toward these housing-fragile communities.

Conclusion

Our working paper implies that housing wealth and political representation are aligned—that the homeowners benefiting the most from the housing market are also supplying a disproportionate share of political participation. That alignment matters whenever governments debate zoning, new construction, property taxes, mortgage policy, or subsidies intended to protect housing wealth.

These policies are not being considered in a system where every housing interest is represented equally. Instead, they are being debated in a system where the homeowners who are benefiting the most from housing appreciation are also the most consistently present at the ballot box and before public officials.

The passage of new federal housing legislation reflects a welcome recognition that the country’s housing system is failing too many people, but the success of these reforms will depend partly on whose experiences policymakers take seriously. Often, housing is seen as a choice between helping renters or protecting homeowners. But that is not an accurate assumption to make because homeowners are not a single constituency.

Homeownership can still be a path to economic security, but it is not a guarantee. Unless politicians recognize and mobilize their housing-fragile constituents—renters and homeowners alike—the people who gain the most from the housing market will continue to exercise the greatest influence over its rules.

Did you find this content informative and engaging?
Get updates and stay in tune with U.S. economic inequality and growth!