Neo-Thatcherite 'housing theory of everything' argues slow growth of housing & infra due to planning restrictions => low private investment. But isn't it more plausible: deindustrialisation + financialisation + ever greater concentration of econ activity in the SE, raise costs of housing & infra?

An example, I don't think that the concentration of economic activity in the South East UK makes them do insane own-goals like excavating train tunnels through farmers' fields to 'preserve' rural vistas.

The challenge is to tease apart these effects. In the US, which has many Londons and housing shortages in nearly all of them, it seems hard to rule out the planning restrictions theory. But that doesn't mean there isn't misallocation as well.

would that explain the variation across countries? Thinking about the pretty wide spectrum of anglosphere nations and high housing prices/ low productivity, seems like its less useful than the very simple housing story. Although it would be great if someone just went for it (besides NZ)

The planning system is malfunctioning from the start (1947), we have Watling/Breach's research on residential investment on that. Its gets worse over time esp after Thatcher destroys local government in the 1980's. Neo-Thatcherite overrate "regulation" over incentives and state capacity/design