Category: Housing and Transportation Policy

The US public housing program originated in 1937, as one of the last pieces of legislation included in the New Deal. Like the HOLC and the FHA, public housing was initially aimed at solving the problem of widespread homelessness and housing insecurity created by the Great Depression. Public housing had the additional virtue of allowing for large-scale construction in a single place, and was therefore wielded as a tool for infrastructure growth and jobs creation. For this reason, many of the initial public housing developments were located near, and in service of, major construction projects. Public housing projects were managed and run by local housing authorities but funded entirely through federal capital grants. Rent collections from tenants were expected to cover operating expenses and future maintenance. 

From the outset, political compromise and concessions created challenges for public housing. Rigorous lobbying from real estate interests and their conservative constituencies—mostly Southern Democrats—led to the agreement that public housing must be markedly inferior to private developments, both aesthetically and functionally. To ensure that these public developments would not compete in the private market, the federal government set low ceilings on construction costs. Additionally, public housing projects were blatantly segregated based on race; developments preserved for White people were located closer to job sites and were given more funding to attract skilled workers. The Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) in White developments enforced strict standards for residents, ensuring that they maintained orderly living spaces and stayed out of trouble with the law. For White people, the early years of public housing, though not luxurious, were a far cry from the current perception of derelict high-rises, ridden with crime. 

Following the end of World War II, and the gains in White, middle-class homeownership generated by the G.I. bill, Congress commenced a period of accelerated public housing construction—set into action by the Housing Act of 1949. As generous mortgages and federal subsidies built the suburbs, low-income Americans faced a shortage of affordable housing in urban areas. To address this problem, the 1949 Act authorized the construction of 810,000 public housing units over the next six years. It was during this time that many of the high-rise developments—such as the infamous Pruit-Igoe in St. Louis—were built. These buildings are famously deficient: devoid of decoration or amenity; set back from the streetscape; shoddy construction and dull architecture. Many current advocates argue, however, that the widespread publicization of public housing failures presented an inaccurate and grossly exaggerated account. They further argue that many developed units were smaller—mostly row houses and smaller apartments—and that the image of unsightly high-rises contributes to a stigma against public housing. 

Stigmas aside, public housing has never been socially desirable. With the growth of FHA-insured mortgages, those who could afford to move did so (except for Black Americans), often to suburban developments. This meant that public housing residents gradually became poorer and less White. The median income of tenants fell consistently in the decades after public housing’s conception. The promulgation of upper income limits and the eviction of middle-class tenants meant that by 1970, most tenants earned less than 20% of the national median. Public housing gradually became synonymous with lower-class, harboring pockets of concentrated poverty. In addition, a Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in 1935 that the federal government does not have the power to acquire local property through eminent domain. A lack of federal control afforded localities ample room to keep public housing out of desirable areas—whether that be by opting-out of funding for construction altogether, choosing construction sites near environmental hazards, or strategically locating sites in accordance with racial segregation.

In 1973, President Nixon issued a moratorium on the construction of new public housing, calling it “monstrous, depressing places–rundown, overcrowded, crime-ridden”. Nixon effectively declared public housing a policy failure, prompting Congress to refuse to provide sufficient funding for upkeep and modernization.

This top-down declaration quickly morphed into consensus. In 1993, the federal government launched the HOPE VI to demolish and redevelop more than 150,000 public housing units. HOPE VI rode a wave of changes to the policing system known as the “broken windows theory” which argues that higher quality living environments, in which amenities are durable and repairs are made promptly (repairing broken windows, for example) reduce crime and engender socially-positive behaviors. In this vein, HOPE VI sought to replace distressed public housing with mixed-income developments with more aesthetically minded features designed to blend in with surrounding developments. Additionally, HOPE VI buildings had shallower subsidies and stricter tenant eligibility that took into consideration poor credit histories, the existence of a criminal record, and other applicant characteristics. HOPE VI marked the end of highly-concentrated public developments. 
There are a few enduring themes to keep in mind when considering the history of the public housing program. The first is the question of concentrated poverty and its externalities. Even though the central aim of the public housing program has always been to serve low-income and housing-insecure Americans, it has long been understood that homogeneously low-income developments are harmful to the interest of residents. Concentrated poverty gives rise to more violence, poorly maintained facilities, and other negative forces that are endemic to poverty. The tension for policymakers is therefore between prioritizing the neediest citizens and improving life-outcomes for those served. A second and related tension has to do with a leniency in tenant behavior. While leniency—poor behavior and late payments—strikes many as the morally charitable stance, it can also give rise to harsher conditions. Public housing has operated, in effect, as a safety net for low-income Americans, and thus has had to tolerate many of the adverse behaviors that come with living in entrenched poverty. If unruly residents were given the boot, as would be needed to maintain an orderly environment, where would they go?

Why Compare the United States with the United Kingdom?

The United Kingdom is currently experiencing many of the same housing challenges as the United States, such as similar trends in homeownership among generations currently coming of age, unaffordable rents, and a lack of available housing supply. The government of the United Kingdom is actively working on building policies to address the same issues that the United States government is also concerned about.

Additionally, the United Kingdom has a similar political system when compared to the United States. The United Kingdom is also a democracy that elects its leaders, though it is a parliamentary democracy rather than a democratic republic like the U.S. This means that whichever party elects the most candidates get to choose the leader and will make the policies. In the United States, our system elects the leader separately, so the common situation of Congress and the President disagreeing and having to compromise on policy does not happen in the UK. It is easier to get policy passed and enacted in the United Kingdom and thus there is little motivation for elected officials to compromise on the design of policy and programs, whereas U.S. housing policy is often a product of political compromise. The United Kingdom has a developed post-industrial economy like the United States. While it has more social welfare policies to assist citizens who experience poverty, it still has an expansive, powerful private market.. 

The UK also executes its housing policy in a similar way as the United States in that they are mainly administered at the local level. Local governments have a strong influence on housing policy in both countries. British cities also have strict zoning regulations like most American cities, and these uncompromising laws can limit the amount of housing that can be built.

Housing History and Policies in the United Kingdom

Like the United States, the United Kingdom experienced a housing boom after World War II, though for different reasons. The United States government provided low interest and guaranteed mortgage loans for returning soldiers that made homeownership accessible for the first time for millions of Americans. The United Kingdom instead focused on rebuilding the housing that had been destroyed during the war. Given the rise in popularity of socialist policies in post-war Britain, such as establishing a national healthcare system and the nationalization of important industries, the post-war government ultimately built over four million publicly owned housing units. These housing units had reduced rent rates for residents and, in the decades following the war, were referred to as “social housing” or “council housing.” The UK built a diverse range of housing types, while the United States focused on high rise building for social housing. At its peak in the 1970s, 33% of United Kingdom citizens lived in social housing.

When Margaret Thatcher assumed the role of prime minister in 1979, her more ideologically conservative government began privatizing many of the post-war government-controlled industries. Her government implemented a policy referred to as “right-to-buy” for Britain’s social housing. If a household rented a social housing unit for two years, they would then be able to purchase the unit at a steep discount. While it provided an easy transition to homeownership on affordable terms for low income households, the government has not been replacing the social housing at the same rate that units are being purchased. This policy has remained in place since its implementation by the Thatcher government and while it has helped raise the homeownership rate in the United Kingdom, it has also limited the amount of social housing units available for rent for today’s low-income households.

Modern housing policy in the United Kingdom has focused on increasing demand for housing rather than policies that increase the supply of housing. In 2013, the UK government under David Cameron created homeownership loan programs that offered favorable mortgage terms. While the goal of this policy was to encourage private developers to build more housing and increase the overall homeownership rate, there ultimately was no increase in home construction but an increase in the price of housing as more households were demanding housing as homeownership became more attainable through these programs. The current government, led by Boris Johnson, has targeted the strict zoning regulations in the UK as a reason for the declining homeownership rate and the increasingly unaffordable price of housing. His government has loosened government regulations on local planning and zoning, but the effects have yet to be seen. 

What can the United States learn from Housing Policy in the United Kingdom?

The United Kingdom has historically had a larger government presence in the housing markets through the construction of abundant social housing following World War II. While many social housing units are now privately owned, 17% of British households live in social housing today. Comparatively, less than 1% of Americans live in public housing today. Even with this amount of regulated rent units, there is still a thriving private market for housing. The United Kingdom currently has a 70% homeownership rate, higher than the United States’ rate of 65%. The current state of housing in the United Kingdom suggests that a developed country can have a significant amount of government owned and regulated housing units for low-income households while still having a large amount of private real estate. 

Additionally, the United States could consider the policies of diversifying the types of public housing available, loosening zoning restrictions to allow for the construction of more housing, and implementing a version of a “right-to-buy” policy for public housing residents. Americans considering changes in national housing policy should also consider whether the government influencing the supply of housing or the government influencing the demand for housing will be more successful. While supply-based housing policies, such as the UK’s social housing program, are historically more effective, they are usually more costly than policies that affect the demand for housing. United States housing policy has focused on influencing the demand for housing, with millions of families being able to purchase homes with favorable mortgage loans from the US government and with Section 8 vouchers but could consider beginning to favor supply-based housing policies, such as increasing the amount of public housing units available or increasing the funds available for private developers of affordable housing. 

The HOLC and the FHA

The core pieces of legislation that make up current American housing policy began in the New Deal era. The wreckage wrought by the Great Depression led to widespread poverty and foreclosures. The moment was right for major steps to alleviate suffering. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt entered office on a tide of Democratic power, spawned by widespread agreement that the Hoover administration was to blame for the regulatory mistakes which caused the Depression. In 1933, the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) was established to bail out defaulting home buyers by trading government bonds for delinquent mortgages. 

The HOLC was accompanied by a set of federal agencies which were created to stimulate the housing market, the foremost of which was the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Created in 1934, the FHA provides mortgage insurance for loans that adhere to an established set of requirements, effectively protecting against default, encouraging longer terms, larger sums of money, lower interest rates, and stricter construction standards. The FHA joined and was bolstered by the mortgage interest deduction, or the MID, which came into being in 1913, not to spur homeownership but as part of a general policy allowing businesses to deduct interest payments from loans. 

With the introduction of “mass tax” in the mid-1930s, the MID began to make an enormous impact. Joined by the HOLC and the FHA, it allowed homeowners to deduct vast amounts of money from their taxed income—money that they were pouring into expensive new mortgages. Without federal insurance, it would make little financial sense for banks to offer loans on such a scale because of the high costs of developing and maintaining housing. Additionally, the MID allowed homeowners to accumulate vast amounts of equity on their homes over the 25 years or so that they committed to pay off their mortgage. Moreover, homeowners could refinance their mortgage to extract equity to finance further purchases, thus operating as a forced savings mechanism that accelerated wealth at unprecedented rates. 

When speaking of “generational wealth” in this country, the MID is the key mechanism at work. However, the benefits of the three-pronged support provided by the MID, the FHA, and the HOLC were not enjoyed by everyone. Numerous historians have documented the myriad ways in which a combination of FHA policy (which has come to be known as “redlining”) and localized racism excluded Black Americans from good mortgages in up and coming neighborhoods. Under the ostensibly profit-driven justification that Black Americans were uniformly at “higher risk of default,” the FHA maintained mortgage underwriting standards that described “the infiltration of inharmonious racial or nationality groups” as a central factor in creating unstable neighborhoods.

The MID is currently by far the largest government subsidy directed at homeowners. It is also highly popular and enjoys support from a wide constituency, particularly business class elites and people who hold political sway. This is not surprising, as the subsidy applies only to homeowners who itemize their deductions, which is primarily middle- and high-income households; thus, rich families accrue the majority of the subsidy. Many advocates for the MID argue that it encourages homeownership, which has been shown to have numerous positive “spillover effects” through its creation of stable neighborhoods of consistent socioeconomic status. 

G.I. Bill

As the MID and FHA programs began to gain traction with the American public, a second major policy initiative developed in Congress. The G.I. Bill of 1948 welcomed World War II veterans home from war with a sweetened version of the mortgage subsidy offered to other Americans. There was widespread consensus among policymakers that veterans returning home should receive political priority. The American Legion, a conservative and patriotic organization, introduced a set of proposals to Congress which included medical care, unemployment insurance, four-year college education, furlough pay, and home, and farm mortgages.

Once passed, the G.I. Bill enabled lengthy mortgages with even smaller interest rates and no down payments. The program ultimately fell under the jurisdiction of the Veterans Administration (VA), which, with veterans’ interests in mind, instituted broad safety nets for default and foreclosure. Each year from 1950 to 1960, an average of 200,000 first time homebuyers were financed through the GI bill, which exceeded the number financed by the booming FHA program. The GI bill helped to create a stable and well-housed middle class, primarily located in suburbs and in urban neighborhoods composed of predominantly single-family homes. The policies were also friendly to banks and developers who were able to proceed with reckless abandon—buoyed by the sturdy backing of the federal policies. Absent a racial lens, the GI bill registers as a resounding note of success. However, recent attention has been given to racially discriminatory policies in the bill. Black Americans returning home from Europe were systematically denied entrance into the mortgage program—a move which is often contextualized as a necessary compromise with stingy Southern Democrats in Congress. While operating to improve the quality of life for many Americans, the GI Bill further expanded the gap between White and Black Americans by denying Black Americans a valuable wealth building tool. 

A source of debate within U.S. housing policy is whether the federal government should favor policies that promote homeownership or policies that support renters. In the United States, homeownership and renting are targeted by our existing housing policies, but which area should be favored by policymakers? With a limited amount of federal funding available, policymakers must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of investing in homeownership or rental as they make policy.

Supporting Homeownership

Recent federal budgets have spent twice as much on programs supporting renters than those supporting homeownership. Policymakers have traditionally favored policies that build homeownership such as guaranteeing mortgage payments to lenders through the Federal Housing Administration and the mortgage interest deduction because owning a home is the main form of wealth building in the United States. Homeownership can help American families purchase property that is likely to steadily increase in value over time and that can be passed down to the next generation. The passing of wealth through generations gives future Americans a financial step up and creates upward economic mobility. Ideally, this generational cycling of wealth will give the future family the financial means to purchase their own home, invest in businesses, or use it to attend college. Owning a home does not only increase the wealth of the owner themselves, but also has long term economic impacts on society. Making homeownership more accessible to more people can improve the wealth of present and future households and benefit the U.S. government through increased tax revenue, a more educated population, and decreased use of social welfare programs.

Supporting homeownership policies also has short term economic benefits for other households seeking to purchase a home. The federal government runs two publicly owned enterprises called Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that sell government assisted mortgages to private lenders and then reinvest the profit in federal housing programs. These programs actually turn a profit for the federal government who then uses that profit to support more Americans in purchasing a home. There is no comparable economic multiplier when it comes to programs supporting renters where the government can recover the money spent on renters.

Those in favor of prioritizing homeownership in housing policy also see these policies as a way to address the wealth gap in the United States between White and Black households. As Black households were often excluded from past government efforts to build homeownership, White households gained wealth over time while Black households did not have the same opportunity for economic mobility. Today in the United States, there is a 30 percent gap between the homeownership rate of White households and Black households. A gap of this size has not occurred in the U.S. since racial discrimination in housing was outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Government investment in policies that increase the homeownership rate, especially the homeownership rate in communities of color, can build generational wealth in communities that were historically excluded from government support in wealth building through homeownership. Given that homeownership is the main form of wealth building for most Americans, assisting Americans in achieving homeownership could be a policy choice for policymakers interested in wealth and income equity.

Supporting Renters

Proponents of increasing funding for federal policies that support renter households point to several economic trends that have made homeownership an unrealistic expectation for every American household. Median home prices increased 121 percent nationwide since 1960, but the median household income only increased by 29 percent. Owning a home is no longer affordable for many American households as they simply do not have the income to support a down payment, monthly mortgage payments, and home repairs. The Millennial generation of Americans are 8 percent less likely to own homes compared to other generations at the same age. The generation that is at the prime age of entering homeownership is instead staying in the rental market because of cost, decreasing the U.S. homeownership rate for the first time in decades. The lackluster growth in household income has kept millions of households in the rental market. Investing in policies targeting renters can support households that do not have the economic opportunity to own a home as that trend becomes more common. Policies targeting homeownership would eat up money as homes become more expensive, making rental-based policies seem more reasonable to policymakers.

Renters are more likely to be low income households, while homeowners are more likely to be middle or high income. Many feel that government programs should prefer aiding low income Americans to middle or high. In 2019, the median household income for households that owned their homes was around $84,000, whereas the median household income for households that were renting was around $46,000. Equity advocates also point to the fact that renting households are disproportionately households of color. These are households who may have not had access to generational wealth to own a home in the first place and they rent because it is their only option. Without generational wealth to support a down payment, additional investment, or higher education to earn a higher income, many renter households will not be able to transition to homeownership without significant financial aid. In the short term, it would be more equitable to subsidize their rent than try to entice them with current homeownership programs that still require participants to be able to put up a down payment on their own and mortgage payments without a subsidy that accounts for their low-income. Investment in renter-focused policies will help low-income households and households of color secure quality affordable housing rather than give subsidies to high income households.

Moreover, renting can still provide families with safe, quality, affordable housing while being realistic about the hidden costs of homeownership. Also, even if the federal government helps low-income Americans access mortgage loans with better terms that fit their income, there is no government intervention for necessary repairs, which are more likely to happen to homes priced in the range of what a low-income household could afford, and improvement costs to maintain the home’s value. Even if a low-income household becomes able to purchase a home, that home will most likely not build as much equity as a home owned by a high income household, repeating the cycle of poverty as low income homeowners do not recoup their investments and deal with hidden costs of homeownership. 

In addition to inequities in homeownership in terms of income access, there are also large racial inequities in the valuation of homes owned by Black households. For Black households that do purchase a home, they can also face a smaller appreciation of home value because of how homes are appraised. Homes in majority-Black neighborhoods were valued on average $48,000, or 23% less than those with few or no Black residents, even when controlling for differences in schools, crime, and other neighborhood characteristics. In some cases, low income and/or Black households will be able to purchase a home, but they still may not reap the benefits of homeownership that homeownership policies are intended to create. They are less likely to build generational wealth through homeownership compared to white and/or high-income households, and so, the federal government should instead be more realistic about homeownership as a panacea to all housing and income inequality issues in the United States. Supporting renters acknowledges the reality of the U.S. housing market and existing inequities in homeownership while still helping Americans attain quality, affordable, and stable housing.

Questions to Consider:

• Currently, there is limited funding appropriated for housing policy. Should the federal government focus on increasing access to homeownership or supporting renter households? Which is a better use of federal money?
• Which policies seem more realistic given past and current trends in housing?
• Which policies are more equitable and will help address existing disparities in the United States?
• Which policies would be more politically popular and thus more likely to receive support from policymakers?

Contemporary housing policies in the United States have evolved from major economic events in the 20th century. The Great Depression marked the start of these catalysts as the worst economic emergency in the United States hit the housing market first. In the 1930s social welfare programs were limited and wages were lower, partially due to weak labor unions. Once the stock market crashed in 1929, President Hoover and his successor, President Roosevelt, had to reconcile with the housing crisis and create new government institutions to resolve these issues–the first of their kind.

The 1930s

The biggest housing issues for low-income Americans were the substandard conditions of the housing stock and lack of access to home ownership for low-income families. Homeownership was less of a priority and being a tenant was more socially acceptable, as financing a house was out of reach for most low-income Americans. Congress passed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932, which created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), allowing banks to lend to private corporations that provide housing for low-income households. In the same year, President Hoover implemented the Home Loan Bank System, which consisted of twelve Federal Home Loan Banks and a Federal Home Loan Board. The Home Owners Loan Corporation essentially bailed out defaulting home buyers by trading government bonds for bad mortgages. However, Hoover’s new system was outpaced by growing unemployment and home ownership continued to decrease to two-fifths of all households in 1933. 

The National Housing Act passed in 1934 under FDR formed the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) with the mission to improve housing conditions by providing credit for home repairs and home purchases. Insurance policies of the FHA allowed for mortgage loans to be paid monthly, forming a secondary market for home mortgages. The FHA was reported to have helped 12 million people improve their living conditions, but this number ignores the discriminatory lending practices called redlining, a system the FHA and the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation used to grade the profitability of neighborhoods. The four categories were green (“best”), blue (“still desirable”), yellow (“definitely declining”), and red (hazardous). These grades were largely based on the neighborhood’s racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and religious composition. White, middle-class neighborhoods received FHA loans whereas Black and Hispanic neighborhoods were deemed hazardous and declining in value and did not receive FHA insured mortgages or loans. Redlining continues to impact the intergenerational wealth of Black and Hispanic Americans due to these discriminatory zoning and lending practices. 

Congress had first pushed to introduce public housing in 1933 on a trial basis. This was encouraged from outside of the administration by activists and scholars. The United States Housing Act of 1937 solidified public housing and created the United States Housing Authority to administer the program. This bill allocated federal subsidies to local housing authorities to improve the conditions of low-income housing. The same top-down system is used today. The USHA created the regulations for construction costs, limits on tenant incomes, and architecture for local authorities to follow. Public housing became standardized to fit these stipulations, and low-income housing became distinguishable across the country by the monotonous brick-laid buildings. 

In 1938, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was created by Congress as a subsidiary of the RFC. It was implemented to stimulate construction for housing. Fannie Mae backed loans in the secondary mortgage market but did not directly lend to homeowners. Its sibling program, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), was chartered in 1970 to continue money flow into the mortgage market. The purpose of Freddie Mac is to also stimulate homeownership and rentals for middle-income Americans. 

The 1940s

After World War II, the United States faced another housing crisis as millions of veterans returned home from overseas. There was a lack of available housing for the influx of people and President Roosevelt was forced to address the housing shortage. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act passed (also known as the G.I. Bill) in 1944 and created programs to support returning veterans of World War II. This included mortgages and loans at low interest rates but were denied to Black veterans. The G.I. Bill was extremely beneficial for those included in its assistance but also perpetuated the unjust housing policies that harmed Black Americans and other minority groups. 

The 1950s

The Housing Act of 1954 provided funding to construction, demolition, rehabilitation, and conservation of decaying neighborhoods. This new effort arose from the booming economy that followed the war-torn previous decade. Urban renewal became the new focus of federal housing initiatives, especially in inner cities. Sections 203 and 207 of the Housing Act of 1956 gave priority to the elderly and paid those displaced by urban renewal. The Federal Highway Act was passed in 1956 which chartered the construction of an interstate highway that bulldozed “blighted neighborhoods” and impacted low-income communities the most. Highways encouraged white flight from urban centers into suburban areas. This is the start of visualizing the “American Dream” in terms of white picket fences and suburbia. 

The 1960s 

In 1968, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act which included the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The FHA protected citizens from discrimination when buying or renting a home and increased protections for those seeking federally funded housing. This bill also outlawed practices like blockbusting which was a common practice where real estate agents would convince  White home owners to sell their homes before Black Americans moved into their neighborhoods and decreased property values. The FHA eventually formed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) at the cabinet level. The mission of HUD was to assist homeownership, community development, and affordable housing through federal programs. HUD continues to be the major agency of housing in the U.S.

The 1980s

President Reagan cut more than 50 percent of HUD’s budget, dropping from $83.6 billion in 1976 to $40 billion in 1982. He then implemented the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) in 1986. With this program, banks and private companies can purchase federal income tax credits and use profits to build affordable housing. This continues to be the primary source of funding for affordable housing today. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs were added to the Housing Act of 1937 in 1974 and continue to aid extremely low-income households. Vouchers allow tenants to pay 30 percent of income towards rent while the rest is covered by federal subsidies. Despite the success of vouchers for recipients, the waitlist for Section 8 vouchers is often multiple years long and many landlords refuse to rent to people with vouchers. 

The 1990s to 2008

In 1992, Congress implemented the HOPE VI program to focus on urban revitalization. This provided block grants for low-rise and mixed-income housing to combat previous histories of public housing and segregated socioeconomic neighborhoods. Unfortunately, many cities that receive these funds use it to destroy slums and implement private housing. In 2007, the housing market crashed and forced 3 million foreclosures over the following three years. The U.S. continues to rebuild the housing market over a decade after the crash. The history of housing in the U.S. proves the ever changing social and political context of affordability and access, and where contemporary issues develop.