Skip to main content
EDIT

The Geography of Opportunity: What Happens When We Scale Up Neighborhood Policies

The Geography of Opportunity: What Happens When We Scale Up Neighborhood Policies

New research by USC Marshall’s Diego Daruich and the University of Texas at Austin’s Eric Chyn explores what happens when small-scale housing and neighborhood programs are expanded citywide — and what it means for reducing inequality.

12.19.25
decorative image of a neighborhood

[iStock Photo]

Stay Informed + Stay Connected

MARSHALL MONTHLY BRINGS YOU ESSENTIAL NEWS AND EVENTS FROM FACULTY, STUDENTS, AND ALUMNI.

When a child moves from a high-poverty neighborhood to a safer, better-resourced one, their entire life trajectory can shift: better schools, higher future earnings, improved health. Experiments like Moving to Opportunity have shown this again and again. But these successes raise a much bigger, far more complicated question: what would happen if millions of families — not hundreds — were given the chance to move to opportunity?

That question sits at the center of a new article in the American Economic Review by Diego Daruich, assistant professor of finance and business economics at USC Marshall, and Eric Chyn, associate professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin. Their study, “An Equilibrium Analysis of the Effects of Neighborhood-Based Interventions on Children,” moves beyond what small experiments can tell us to examine what large-scale housing and neighborhood policies would look like in the real world — where families, landlords, housing markets, and local governments all respond simultaneously.

Small-scale experiments are powerful, but they have limits. When only a small number of families move to high-opportunity neighborhoods, rents don’t change much. Schools don’t get overcrowded. Local tax systems barely notice. But the moment a city or nation tries to scale up these policies, everything becomes interconnected. Demand for housing rises. Neighborhoods evolve. Tax burdens shift. And these changes can either magnify the benefits for children or dilute them.

To capture these broader effects, Chyn and Daruich built an economic model that incorporates how parents decide where to live and how much to invest in their children; how inequality evolves across families’ lifetimes; and how governments must raise revenue to fund mobility or place-based programs. Critically, they allow neighborhoods themselves to change in response to policy — something small experiments cannot reveal.

The authors calibrated their model using U.S. data and tested it against real-world evidence from both the Moving to Opportunity experiment and federal place-based programs such as the Empowerment Zone initiative. With this foundation, they simulated what would happen if policymakers substantially expanded rental vouchers or invested heavily in revitalizing disadvantaged neighborhoods.

The results offer clear guidance. Even after accounting for taxation and market adjustments, large-scale housing voucher programs can produce substantial net benefits for society, especially when targeted at families with children. Helping children grow up in better neighborhoods generates sizable long-term gains in earnings and wellbeing that easily outweigh the immediate fiscal costs.

The big takeaway is that the right policy depends on the local context. Scaling up mobility programs can be transformative, but only if the housing market can absorb new demand.

— Diego Daruich

Assistant Professor of Finance and Business Economics

Yet the study also uncovers an important nuance: housing market conditions fundamentally shape which policies work best. In cities where housing supply can expand, vouchers are highly effective at opening the doors to opportunity. But in tight housing markets — like Los Angeles or San Francisco — vouchers may simply push rents higher without enabling more families to live in high-opportunity neighborhoods. In these cases, investing directly in improving disadvantaged neighborhoods may yield greater returns.

“The big takeaway is that the right policy depends on the local context,” Daruich explained. “Scaling up mobility programs can be transformative, but only if the housing market can absorb new demand.”

This insight reframes a long-standing debate. Improving economic mobility isn’t simply a question of choosing between helping families move out or improving conditions in place. Instead, effective policy requires understanding how families and markets respond when interventions grow large enough to reshape entire cities.

As governments confront rising inequality and declining mobility, Chyn and Daruich’s work provides a rigorous roadmap for designing housing policies that can deliver opportunity at scale — not just for a select few, but for future generations.