For the past century, an increase in the number of residential buildin

The following appeared in a research paper written for an introductory economics course:
“For the past century, an increase in the number of residential building permits issued per month in a particular region has been a reliable indicator of coming improvements to that region’s economy. If the monthly number of residential building permits issued rises consistently for a few months, the local unemployment rate almost always falls and economic production increases. This well-established connection reveals an effective method by which a regional government can end a local economic downturn: relax regulations governing all construction so that many more building permits can be issued.”
Discuss how well…..
The author of this research paper is clearly enamored by the possibility of a prospective economic progress as a result of an increase in the number of residential building permits issued in a particular region. Citing the presence of a strong correlation between residential building permits and decrease in unemployment rate, this argument concludes that to attract more builders in this region, regulations governing all construction should be laxed. Stated in this way, the argument fails to consider the key factors of economy that play an important role to generate employment and ensure overall development of an area. Consequently, the line of reasoning applies poor and vague judgement and thus makes an untenable argument.
To begin with, there is no reasonable ground to claim the fact that the number of residential building permits issued in per month in a particular region indicates the ensuing improvements of that area. For a sustainable development of economy, numerous factors such as productivity of industries operating in that area, enforcement power of law and order authorities, stability of political and social atmosphere, education level of residents all play crucial role. In this argument, no information pertaining to the condition of these factors in that region is not presented; a reason that makes the argument more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive claim.
In addition, observation and common knowledge tell that residential buildings are generally constructed for accommodation purpose, not with the intent of creating employment opportunities, which is generated with the construction of new industrial infrastructures. Though some construction, security or maintenance worker jobs would be generated to build, safeguard and maintain the overall facilities, the number of such opportunities would not be significant enough to make any impact on the economic health of the region.
In the next place, merely issuing more building permits by relaxing current regulations cannot ensure more builders would find the region in discussion attractive. In selecting a site, builders take into account factors such as the available land for accommodating more constructions, the distance of the region from the economic hub of the district, the quality of social and cultural lives etc. Moreover, sloppy construction standards may produce sub-standard buildings that would harm the safety of the region.
In conclusion, the argument fails to make a case for the claim that relaxing current construction regulations would generate more building permits and enhance employment opportunities and economic well-being of a region. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to demonstrate an effectual role that the number of residential buildings in an area plays on economic improvement. One also needs to know whether flexible construction standards maintain the prevailing quality of a building to better evaluate the argument. Once the author could draw a big picture of economic development by combining all the assumptions mentioned in the argument, the conclusion would be a substantive claim instead of a leap of faith.