HGF Research Grants Application Programme
One of the key objectives of the Henry George Foundation is to support the promotion and advancement of learning by research into economic and social science. HGF is keen to expand its activities in this area and would like to announce a new research grant application programme. The foundation invites applications on a wide array of topics related to the 21st century political and ethical implications of the work of Henry George. Projects may be theoretical, empirical, historical, or policy oriented, and interdisciplinary research proposals are also welcome.
Applications should include a covering letter outlining the project, a CV, and a sample of previous work (or a link to a Substack, website, or blog), and should be sent to the following email address:
While applications on any topic related to the contemporary relevance of Henry George’s thought will be considered, the trustees would be particularly keen to consider projects focusing on the following six core areas of research:
1. Understanding the Economic Causes of Social Harms
Social harms such as the lack of adequate and affordable housing, the rising cost of living, failing public services, and increasing economic inactivity are causing immense hardship and suffering for millions of people in modern Britain. Many of these harms are the direct result of the economic injustice that goes hand in hand with the privatization of economic rent and the increasing dominance of monopolies and global corporations. The fiscal (and other) reforms needed to de-privatise economic rent and restrict the power of monopolies and global corporations can therefore be justified by the effect such reforms would have in mitigating and reversing the social harms which have blighted the lives of so many people. Yet the connection between fiscal reform and the mitigation of social harm has been obscured by the influence of mainstream economic theory on the public debate. Aspects of the work of Henry George, updated to fit the social and economic context of the twenty-first century, can help to identify and highlight the ways in which fiscal reform could improve the lives of millions of people.
Potential research questions relating to this area include the following:
• How would replacing council tax and business rates with land value taxation (LVT) affect housing affordability across UK regions?
• To what extent do rising land and monopoly rents explain the divergence between wages and living costs since 1990?
• How has the growth of monopoly and oligopoly power in key sectors (energy, food retail, transport, digital platforms) contributed to social harms such as poverty, precarity, and regional inequality?
• What role does land ownership play in the persistence of structural wealth inequality?
• How do economic rents distort the natural production and distribution of wealth?
• How do land and other monopoly rents contribute to economic inactivity and labour market withdrawal in post‑industrial regions of Britain?
• To what extent is soaring inequality a function of the dysfunctional systems of banking and finance?
• What role do monopolies play in perpetuating structural inequality across generations?
• How do monopolies distort the natural production and distribution of wealth?
2. Identifying Mechanisms for the Socialization of Land Rent
Land value taxation (LVT) is the primary means by which the rental value of land can be socialised and used to fund the provision of public services and infrastructure. However, various factors, including political feasibility, the power of vested interests, and the fragility of the financialised economy, limit the extent to which land rent can be socialised via the tax system, at least over the short- to medium-term. It is vitally important for a 21st century society to be able to find other ways to socialise land rent, for example, by implementing land value capture mechanisms, increasing the amount of land owned by and managed on behalf of the state, and increasing the supply of high-quality social housing.
Potential research questions relating to this area include the following:
• How might local authorities use planning gain or land leasing to socialise rent without formal taxation?
• How can hybrid LVT plus public land ownership models—such as municipal land banks, community land trusts, and sovereign land funds—be scaled to socialise land rent without destabilising the financialised property market?
• To what extent does the expansion of high‑quality social housing function as a mechanism for the socialisation of land rent, and how does this compare to fiscal approaches such as LVT?
• What political, legal, and financial barriers prevent the UK from adopting non‑tax mechanisms for land rent socialisation, and what strategies have historically enabled reform in similar political economies?
• How could hybrid systems—combining partial LVT, targeted land value capture, and strategic public land acquisition—maximise the socialisation of land rent while maintaining economic and financial stability?
3. Managing the Transition
Reforms that make the tax system fairer and more efficient are politically extremely challenging to implement, given the number of people who would find themselves facing significantly higher tax bills following the introduction of LVT. Such reforms will only be politically feasible if the implementation process includes appropriate transitional arrangements designed to mitigate the impact of the proposed reforms on the most vulnerable and politically significant groups. Although a great many proposals for managing this process of transition have been made over the past decade, such questions are often treated as secondary problems which are incidental to the primary question of designing a fair and efficient system of taxation. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the transitional phase is likely to take considerably longer to complete than many had anticipated. The thorny issues surrounding the implementation process are therefore among the key questions which must be addressed if a political coalition in support of the proposed reform of the tax system is ever to be assembled.
Potential research questions relating to this area include the following:
• Which transitional mechanisms (e.g., deferral schemes, phased‑in rates, targeted rebates, tenure‑specific adjustments) most effectively mitigate the distributional shocks associated with introducing LVT in the UK?
• How do perceptions of fairness, security, and compensation shape public acceptance of land‑rent socialisation reforms, and what communication strategies increase political feasibility during the transition period?
• What lessons can be drawn from historical and international transitions to land‑based taxation, and how might these inform a long‑duration, low‑disruption transition strategy for the UK?
• How can transitional arrangements be designed to avoid destabilising the financialised housing market—particularly mortgage‑backed assets—while still moving toward a rent‑based fiscal system?
4. Preparing for the Next Financial Crisis.
While many commentators and mainstream economists failed to anticipate the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008-2010, economists and commentators informed by the work of Henry George were able to predict the crisis with a high degree of confidence well in advance. However, the specific policies that could have been implemented in the wake of the crash to stabilise the public finances and put the economy on an even keel had not been developed fully enough to provide realistic options for politicians to support. Instead, the banks were bailed out and the property market re-inflated. With another financial crisis potentially on the horizon, it is essential that Georgist thinkers contribute to the development of crisis management public policy.
Potential research questions relating to this area include the following:
• How would a land‑rent–based fiscal stabilisation mechanism have altered the UK’s post‑2008 crisis trajectory, and what lessons does this offer for designing counter‑cyclical policy tools today?
• How could land‑value–based revenue streams be used to recapitalise public finances during a crisis without resorting to austerity or bank bailouts?
• What institutional reforms would allow the UK to prevent the re‑inflation of property markets after a crisis, and how could these reforms reduce the likelihood of future boom‑bust cycles?
• How can Georgist principles inform the design of emergency interventions that stabilise the financial system while avoiding moral hazard and reducing long‑term dependence on land‑backed credit expansion?
• What role could Georgist principles play in post-crisis recovery planning and fiscal resilience?
• To what extent do the profits earned by financial institutions derive from land rent?
• How do speculative land markets contribute to systemic financial risk in the UK?
• How do current UK tax incentives (e.g. caps on Council Tax bills at the upper end, inheritance and capital gains exemptions) amplify financial instability?
5. Exploring the Environmental Implications of Georgist Economic Theory
The case for land value-based fiscal reform generally revolves around the argument that the taxation of land rent (and economic rents in general) would be both fairer and more efficient than the taxation of production and employment. However, the gravity of the numerous environmental crises currently facing humanity raises the urgent question of whether the environmental impact of the introduction of LVT would be likely to be positive or negative. Broader questions relating to the duties of care that arise in respect of land and other natural resources are also becoming increasingly urgent.
Potential areas of investigation include:
• The influence of land value taxation on patterns of land use, urban density, and sprawl in the UK, and the net environmental impact of these changes.
• The environmental risks or unintended consequences which might arise from LVT—such as pressure to intensify land use in ecologically sensitive areas—and how policy design might mitigate these risks.
• The extent to which land value-based fiscal reforms might be expected to increase environmentally harmful resource use and energy consumption by stimulating economic growth.
• The extent to which such reforms be expected to reduce carbon emissions (and other negative environmental impacts) by removing the compulsion to contribute to endless economic growth.
• How the socialisation of land rent might encourage the sustainable and socially beneficial use of land (and other natural resources).
• How the sustainable and socially beneficial use of land might demonstrate that care for the environment and economic benefit are complementary rather than antagonistic to one another.
• How the privatisation of land rent might encourage irresponsible use of land and neglect of social benefits.
• Identifying the utilities that ought to be publicly owned, and what the environmental responsibilities attached to providing them might be.
6. Exploring the Ethical Foundations of Liberal Democratic Societies
Modern economic theory has fostered a conception of the economy as an autonomous realm divorced from the society and culture in which it is in fact embedded, and without any solid ethical foundation. This (mis)conception of the economy has obscured the ways in which the production and distribution of wealth can be informed by the principles of justice which are implicit in the proper use of land. Mainstream conceptions of the moral foundations of taxation and public finance (and public policy more generally) reflect this separation of the economy from society and culture, which has distorted the development of these fields of enquiry. The work of Henry George provides a rich perspective from which to engage with a wide range of questions relating to the ethical foundations of the economy and the nature of the society in which it is embedded.
Potential research questions relating to this area include the following:
• How does unequal access to land undermine democratic participation and civic trust?
• How might equitable taxation foster civic life and encourage greater pollical participation?
• How might Georgist ethics reshape the moral foundations of taxation and public finance?
• How does Henry George’s conception of land as a common inheritance challenge mainstream liberal theories of property, and what ethical framework does this imply for modern taxation and public finance?
• How might a Georgist ethical framework help re‑embed the economy within society and culture, and what implications would this have for the legitimacy and stability of liberal democratic institutions?
• What are the social and economic benefits of cooperatives and localised economies?
• What are the economic implications of different theories of human rights and duties?
• How might pre-modern societies and their economies of sharing wealth and gift exchange inform our understanding of the ethical nature of society?
• How can natural ethics be contrasted with modern proprietorial ethics?
• What is the ethical nature of debt and its effects on society?
• What are the historical origins of property ownership, and what are the social implications of different theories of property?
While these six themes represent priority areas, the Foundation welcomes proposals addressing any aspect of Henry George’s work and its contemporary relevance.