Are there studies on the economy inefficiencies or negative externalities created by the for-profit landlord economy?

Examples of possible inefficiencies and externalities:

1. Landlords are slow to do repairs, meaning tenants are spending extra manhours chasing repairs, to achieve the same end result in terms of repairs. Contrast this with tenants simply doing or arranging repairs with a professional themselves, in a more timely manner.

2. In the event of tenants paying for repairs themselves, they are effectively paying double for the same end result (as potential repair costs are already factored into rental prices).

3. Landlords often attempt to do repairs themselves, but find themselves unable to do do (sometimes to a hilarious degree, where the tenant thenselves has already done more than whatever pitiful repair methods the landlord attempts), again wasting time and labour to achieve the same end material result, when they finally get in a real professional.

4. Working long-term tenants pay more in rent than if they had a mortgage. Again, they're spending more for the same end result of shelter (arguably a lesser result, due to less freedom to less autonomy and personal liberty than in an owned home or even in European-style social housing).

5. Rental costs could be instead be invested into entrepreneurship, child development, personal development and vocation-relevant training. This can produce innovation, social mobility and address national skills shortages.

6. Do landlords engage in more beneficial consumer spending than tenants?

7. Individuals arguably tend to know what is needed to better their lives more than landlords know. Similar to how direct cash transfers sometimes produce more positive outcomes than more paternalistic welfare programmes that incorrectly try to guess what claimants need.

8. Long-term housing allows for long-term decision-making, which tends to be more prudent than short-term thinking, and more efficient spending. A dweller who is confident they will live somewhere for 5+ years is likely to invest in systems that improve their overall task efficiency (such as organisational apparatus eg shelves, folders, other items specific to their personal needs. Even more relevant for those with disabilities who need to invest in adaptations to optimise their productivity) and higher quality items (eg bedding, furniture, cleaning equipment), compared to a dweller who may be made to move within a year.

9. Tenants often end up buying the same items repeatedly when moving, such as if an item is too big to transport or if they don't have access to an item while in the process of moving (because it is in transit or storage). This is money that arguably could be better spent elsewhere.

10. Following from above, less material waste is produced in a long-term dwelling than in short-term dwellings. This is because each property move produces transportation emissions, and produces waste when items are repurchased (the production and transport of these items also produces emissions and more future plastics that end up in landfills or the ocean).

11. Insecure housing produces the negative externality of taking people away from family and community, which is detrimental to social cohesion and child development.

I know land reforms played a large role in the economic growth of many countries and states/provinces of Europe and Asia, partly because it put more money into the hands of people to invest in various endeavours.