Could the precise architectural form of your residence influence how much you participate in politics? A new study by MIT scholars finds this to be exactly the case—at least in Accra, Ghana, where many people live in semi-communal structures known as "compound houses," often sharing kitchens, bathrooms and common living-room spaces, while having private bedrooms.
The detailed study of homes in Ghana's capital finds that residents of compound houses are more likely to vote, attend rallies and take part in political campaigns, compared with people with more private forms of housing.
"The overarching pattern we find is that if you compare people who live in compound houses to residents of other housing types, like single-family homes or self-contained apartments, there is a pretty big difference in political actions," says Noah Nathan, an MIT political scientist and co-author of a newly published paper detailing the study's results. "People seem to vote more, and there are more other types of political behavior, like going to rallies, participating in campaigns and contacting politicians."
While those differences could stem from factors other than housing, the highly granular study suggests the architecture itself really matters. The researchers examined the specific floor plans of compound houses and found variations in people's political information and social connections—key factors that existing studies show predict political activity—that map to differences in where people live within compound houses.
"We show that those kinds of social relationships and exchanges of political information seem to vary systematically with people's individual locations within the layouts of the buildings they live in," says Nathan, an associate professor in MIT's Department of Political Science. "That's consistent with architectural design leading you to have different levels of political participation."
The open-access paper, "Vernacular Architecture and Grassroots Urban Politics: How Politics Is Embedded in Residential Design," is published in the American Political Science Review. Nathan's co-author is Paige Bollen, Ph.D. '23, an assistant professor of political science at Ohio State University.
Happy to spread the gospel 🙏 I'm surprised it wasn't already posted here!




The problem is with lawns that aren't used except to serve abstract purposes, such as signaling status, adhering to socially conditioned ideas of beauty, or holdovers from the colonial impulse to terraform.
For example, I've lived in my home for nearly two decades and have not once seen any neighbor use their front lawn other than to mow it. Many are the same way with their backyards. Blocks and blocks of this type of land use, all over my city. This is what the nolawns movement is about.