The Adam Smith Institute’s latest report, “New Orders,” authored by Henry Hill, claims to address the housing crisis with proposals centred on Development Orders and streamlined planning. To the uncritical eye, this might seem like a bold step toward alleviating Britain’s housing shortages. In reality, it’s a blueprint for further entrenching the corruption, inefficiency, and social dislocation that have defined public life since 1979.

The False Pretence of Reform

The report begins with a predictable refrain: councils and local authorities, paralysed by NIMBYism, have failed to deliver enough housing. The solution? Give central government near-dictatorial powers to override local concerns through Development Orders. These would allow ministers to bypass the existing planning system and authorise construction projects on a scale that ostensibly “meets national need.”

At first glance, this might seem a pragmatic response to bureaucratic inertia. But let us not be fooled. The main beneficiaries of these reforms will not be the struggling families or young professionals priced out of housing markets. Instead, they will be the well-connected building companies that dominate the construction industry, alongside the influx of immigrants who will occupy much of the new housing. The report amounts to a manifesto for vested interests.

A Gift to Corporate Cronies

The Adam Smith Institute styles itself as a champion of free markets, but this report only lends weight to the suspicion that it functions – unconsciously, I have no doubt – as a technocratic consultancy for the state’s favoured corporations. The UK construction industry is already dominated by a handful of large developers who profit handsomely from their cozy relationship with government. By giving ministers carte blanche to approve massive projects, this proposal would funnel even more public resources into the coffers of these companies. Small and independent builders, already squeezed out by onerous regulations and economies of scale, would stand no chance of competing.

The claim that Development Orders would create “diversity” in the building sector is laughable. The reality is that large-scale projects, requiring significant upfront investment, will always favour big players. Far from fostering competition, this system will cement oligopoly.

The Social Costs of Mass Construction

The report’s most glaring omission is its complete disregard for the social consequences of its proposals. By unleashing a wave of unchecked development, the government would inevitably transform communities beyond recognition. Far from being filled with affordable homes for British workers, these new developments are likely to cater to the endless demand created by mass immigration.

Immigration has been a key driver of housing demand for decades. Yet, instead of addressing this root cause, the report insists on more housing at any cost. The influx of immigrants, many of whom are drawn by the UK’s generous welfare system, has strained public services and driven down wages in many sectors. Building more houses will not solve these problems; it will exacerbate them, creating overcrowded, transient communities with little sense of identity or cohesion.

Ignoring Moral Responsibility

One of the most pernicious aspects of the Adam Smith Institute’s approach is its moral detachment. The report treats housing as a purely technical problem, to be solved by bureaucrats and economists armed with spreadsheets. But housing is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about creating places where people can live dignified lives.

The authors of this report show no concern for the destruction of green spaces, the strain on local infrastructure, or the erosion of community bonds. Instead, they champion a soulless vision of high-density housing crammed around railway stations and industrial sites. This may maximise economic efficiency – though I am not sure even of this – but it does so at the cost of human well-being.

A Ruinous Legacy

The Adam Smith Institute has long claimed to be a beacon of libertarian thought. Yet, it has consistently functioned as an apologist for corporate privilege. Since 1979, it has played a central role in promoting policies that enrich the elite at the expense of ordinary working people. This report is no different. It speaks the language of “reform” and “efficiency,” but its most reasonable effect will be to facilitate the plundering of the many by a few.

Two historical examples illustrate this point vividly. The Institute championed the Poll Tax in the 1980s, a policy that was not only grossly unfair but also sparked widespread social unrest. In the 1990s, it promoted the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), which saddled taxpayers with decades of debt while delivering substandard public infrastructure. Neither policy contributed to a freer or fairer Britain. Instead, they served as case studies in how technocratic solutions often benefit the powerful at the expense of everyone else.

The Institute’s emphasis on Development Orders exemplifies this ruinous tendency. By centralising power in the hands of ministers, it strips local communities of their right to shape their own environments. The proposal aligns perfectly with the interests of the construction industry, which stands to gain billions from the removal of planning constraints. It is another recipe for the End of England.

The Way Forward

The housing crisis cannot be solved by the centralisation of power or the enrichment of corporate cronies. Instead, it requires a return to first principles: respect for property rights, local decision-making, and a recognition of the limits of state intervention.

1. Control Immigration: The government must address the root cause of housing demand by reducing immigration to sustainable levels. This would ease pressure on housing markets and public services, allowing communities to recover and rebuild.
2. Decentralise Planning: Power over planning decisions should be devolved to local communities, giving them a real say in how their areas develop. This would encourage organic growth and reduce the social friction caused by top-down imposition.
3. Support Small Builders: Instead of favouring large corporations, the government should create a level playing field for small and independent builders. This could be achieved by reducing regulations and simplifying the planning process.
4. Respect the Environment: New housing should be built in a way that preserves green spaces and enhances quality of life. This means rejecting the Adam Smith Institute’s vision of soulless, high-density developments.

Conclusion

The Adam Smith Institute’s report is not a solution to the housing crisis; it is a recipe for social dislocation, environmental degradation, and corporate enrichment. Its proposals would exacerbate the very problems they claim to address, leaving ordinary citizens to pick up the pieces.

We must reject this technocratic vision and demand a housing policy rooted in fairness, sustainability, and respect for local communities. Anything less is a betrayal of the values that should guide our society.

Related posts:

Sanctions Solutions: The Adam Smith Institute’s Latest Love Letter to the British State The Institute of Economic Affairs’ Vision for SECO: A Blueprint for Tyranny From Reform to Ruin: Is the British Ruling Class Repeating Gorbachev’s Failure?

Powered by YARPP.