Contributing to Gentrification: Ethical and Economic Analysis

During the first trimester, I took the Portraits of Empowerment elective. We used the Bloomberg Lab to learn about economics and examined different social, political, and economic issues from an ethical lens. For my final project, I analyzed a case study from the 2017-2018 National High School Ethics Bowl called “Contributing to Gentrification.” The case focuses on Dave, a recent college graduate who is considering moving into a neighborhood undergoing gentrification. Dave enjoys his job, which has the potential to present many opportunities for him in the future, but he lives an hour away. This neighborhood is the only one in the area he can afford. He wonders if gentrification is positive or negative overall, and if he should feel guilty for moving into the neighborhood and contributing to the problem.

Gentrification is the process in which neighborhoods that are historically low-income and deemed undesirable add new shops and affordable housing that attracts new, wealthier residents and raises the value of the neighborhood. Houses are an example of an inelastic good, or goods that people will be motivated to buy regardless of the price, such as necessities like food, electricity, and prescription drugs. People will always need homes, however, they often opt for the lowest price. As more, and often wealthier, people buy or rent the lower priced housing in neighborhoods undergoing gentrification, the demand stays the same or increases and the supply goes down. Based on the principles of supply and demand, this leads to an increase in the price of homes and may increase rents for the residents already living there. This is why gentrification is commonly thought to displace the original and lower-income residents – primarily women, children, and people of color – though there is little data to support this claim. Gentrification is associated with a loss of diversity, community, and culture, which seems to drive Dave’s hesitancy to move in. However, gentrification is very nuanced and has the potential to provide benefits for residents, assuming they are able to stay.

The case weighs the economic considerations of gentrification and the ethical implications of Dave moving in. One stance is that Dave should move in, utilizing the framework of deontology to support the position. This side of the right vs. right may say that it is the responsibility of the government to preserve the neighborhood rather than Dave, who has a greater duty to his self interest. Two values that can be applied to this idea are autonomy and security. Dave has a right to exercise his autonomy and move into a home that is convenient for him. Additionally, he should prioritize ensuring security in his job and for his future self. 

An argument against Dave moving in could utilize the values of respect, integrity, and accountability. There is a certain integrity of the neighborhood that Dave can preserve by not moving in. He should respect the community and residents of the neighborhood, and take accountability for the fact that moving in would be contributing to the problem of gentrification. The framework of consequentialism could support this stance. One may argue that the negative consequences of gentrification for longtime and potentially vulnerable residents outweighs the benefits for Dave. 

To counter that point, according to articles I found using the Bloomberg News feature and research from the Urban Displacement Project, gentrification and displacement are not always linked. An article entitled “Mapping Gentrification and Displacement in San Francisco” discussed ways in which gentrification can happen without displacement, which could lead to long term benefits for the residents: “The research shows that places such as San Francisco, East Palo Alto, and Marin County have resisted displacement pressures through a combination of subsidized housing, tenant protections, and strong community organizing. They can serve as good models as cities prepare for the future”. Rather than trying to stop the neighborhood from the gentrification that is already happening, Dave and local governments have the opportunity to prioritize helping long-term residents experience the positives of gentrification and combating displacement.  

In summary, gentrification is an extremely complex and multifaceted issue. Gentrification can have positive benefits overall if governments and the residents work to ensure that displacement is limited. Data from Bloomberg News and the Urban Displacement Project supports the theory that displacement can be combatted by the efforts of local governments and regulation such as affordable housing and tenant protections. In my opinion, it is ethical for Dave to move into the neighborhood using the framework of deontology and the values of autonomy and security. While it is not Dave’s duty to protect the neighborhood, he can do his part in ensuring that local governments create regulations that preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and limit displacements of the residents. Additionally, if Dave were not to move in it is likely that someone else would and that the process of gentrification would not stop. By moving in, he has the chance to ensure that someone conscious of the inequalities and potential consequences joins the neighborhood. Hopefully, Dave, local governments, and the other residents new and old can help preserve the community and make sure everyone has the opportunity to experience the benefits of gentrification while limiting the negative effects.

Sophia Ivy '29