De facto devolution: Affordable housing in the states (Maryland, Minnesota, Texas)

This study set out to examine the effects of devolution by looking at low-income housing policy. It began with two questions. First did states take on responsibility for low-income housing after the federal government, under the Reagan administration, cut programs and funding in the early 1980s? Paul Peterson, in City Limits, had theorized that because states were more concerned with economic development issues, they would be less likely to take on redistributive policies.; My initial research found that states had become very active in developing affordable housing policies during the 1980s. This led to my second question. What explained state actions in light of the arguments made against their taking on a redistributive policy such as low-income housing?; To answer both questions, I conducted detailed primary research on three state housing agencies: Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, and Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. I researched public documents and interviewed state housing officials, low-income housing advocates, and state legislators. I also examined the histories and the government structure of each state.; This research led me to conclude that the most significant factor explaining state activism was the creation of state housing bureaucracies during the 1970s to take advantage of federal programs. When the de facto devolution of housing began in the early 1980s, these state bureaucracies and associated interest and advocacy groups were in place to develop and promote state-level, low-income housing programs and policies.; In the three states examined, I also found that the housing agencies viewed affordable housing policy as necessary for economic development. In each state, housing programs were expanded and state appropriations were increased when it was argued that the shortage of affordable housing was affecting the economic growth of local communities. By the late 1990s, these state housing agencies had merged the two policy types into a policy that combined concern for economic growth with concepts of equity.