中国住房保障政策的经济效应实证研究
|
摘要
住房是人类社会文明得以发展的最基本的物质前提。在现代社会,住房问题不仅在诸多方面影响着个人的生活,而且对整个经济社会的发展具有深远的意义。因此,当社会中相当一部分人的住房问题得不到解决时,不论是出于公平的动机还是效率的考量,政府都需要对这一部分人的住房需求提供帮助,这便是住房保障政策存在的理由。在经济总量高速增长与贫富差距持续扩大、城市化快速推进与环境污染日益严重的背景下,对住房问题的研究无疑对当今的中国具有十分重要的现实意义。回顾我国城市住房供应政策的变迁,我国的城市住房保障体系经历了从改革开放以前的“全民保障”到改革开放以后的公房出售改革,从“只售不租”的经济适用房到“只租不售”的廉租住房,从仅面向户籍人口的住房保障到向外来人员放开的公共租赁房的几次意义重大的转变过程。伴随着住房改革的推进,有关我国住房保障政策的研究和探索一直是学界研究的热门话题。
一般认为,政府提供住房保障政策有两个理由：住房的邻里外部性和住房政策的再分配意义。西方国家的住房保障政策主要有两类：供给导向的保障政策和需求导向的补贴政策。供给导向的住房政策又称工程导向的住房政策,即国内文献俗称的“补砖头”,是指政府利用财政或者税收手段,对低收入住房的新建和修缮项目在供给端给予直接或间接的支持。需求导向的住房政策又称租户导向的住房政策,即所谓的“补人头”,是指政府在需求端给予低收入家庭直接的租房补贴或者对低收入购房者给予直接或间接的补贴。
对于住房保障政策的经济效应研究需要从供给和需求两个方面来进行梳理。在供给端,国外学者研究发现,工程导向的住房政策主要存在两方面的经济影响：第一,保障性住房的建设会对私人住房的供给产生挤出效应；第二,保障性住房会对劳动力市场的表现(就业状况、工资、劳动力参与等)产生负面影响。在需求端,需求导向的住房补贴同样存在两个问题为学者所普遍诟病：第一,租房补贴可能大幅推高私人租房市场租金。第二,对购房者的房贷补贴可能产生横财效应,导致住房补贴的效率产生巨大损失。可见,供给导向和需求导向的住房政策都不是完美的。
对于哪种类型的住房保障政策更优的问题,尽管很多研究表明,与需求导向的住房政策相比,供给导向的住房政策不论在生产效率还是在政策效率上,都是相当低效的。然而,同样有不少学者指出,需求导向的住房补贴并不一定比供给导向的住房保障更能使低收入人群受益,究竟何种住房政策更有效,这取决于不同地区的市场条件和低收入私人住房的供给弹性。
以美国为代表的西方国家的住房保障政策早在上世纪三十年代末就开始出现,从上世纪八十年代开始,学者们以西方国家住房保障政策为研究对象,进行了大量有价值的理论研究和实证探索。目前,学者们研究的注意力已经从“补砖头”和“补人头”孰优孰劣的问题转移到了对特定的住房政策的深入研究；相关研究的焦点也不再仅仅局限于住房市场,住房政策对其他市场的潜在影响开始得到越来越多的关注；同时,随着亚洲国家住房政策的发展,研究者的目光也不再仅仅停留在对西方国家住房政策的研究上,以亚洲国家为研究对象的实证研究也开始出现。然而,对于国内的研究,目前大多数研究的注意力依然停留在对保障房准入和退出机制的讨论、对保障房资金来源的分析、住房政策的选择等方面,少量有关住房保障政策经济影响的经验探索也主要集中于住房价格方面,而着眼于住房政策的潜在经济影响的研究较少。本文将利用中国的宏观和微观数据,对中国住房保障政策对商品房市场和劳动力市场的潜在经济效应进行实证分析。本研究主要分为八个章节,具体的研究内容安排如下：
第一章是本文的绪论部分,主要对文章的研究背景、研究的理论和现实意义、研究目标和内容进行简要的介绍,并在此基础上,确定本文的研究方法和研究思路。
第二章是住房保障政策的基础理论研究述评,主要对国内外有关住房保障政策研究的重要文献进行了梳理和回顾。具体又分为以下几个部分：第一,对政府提供住房保障政策必要性的研究,即为什么政府需要提供住房保障：第二,供给导向的住房政策及其经济效应,重点对公共住房的挤出效应和公共住房与劳动力市场之间的关系研究进行了梳理；第三,需求导向的住房政策及其经济效应,重点对租房优惠券与市场价格、购房补贴与横财效应的研究进行了介绍；第四,围绕住房保障政策选择的争论,对相关研究进行了梳理和评价；第五,对关于住房保障政策的少量国内研究进行了概述。
第三章回顾了中国住房保障政策的演变历程。该章将中国住房保障政策的变迁分为了改革开放前和改革开放后两个大的阶段。改革开放以前的住房政策又可以分为两个阶段：第一阶段(1949年至1957年)和第二阶段(1958年至1978年)；改革开放以后的住房政策也可以根据改革的推进程度,大致分为四个阶段,1978年到1994年的初步实践阶段,1994年到1998年的综合配套阶段；1998年到2007年全面推进阶段和2007年8月至今的结构调整阶段。
第四章开始进入本文的实证研究部分,在该部分中,本文首先对住房保障政策对商品房市场的影响问题进行了初步的探索。本章利用中国的省级面板数据建立动态面板数据模型,研究了经济适用房对商品房和中低收入住宅的挤出效应。实证结果表明：在整个住宅市场,1单位经济适用房的增加可以挤出约0.6-0.7单位的普通商品房,这意味着,3单位经济适用房的增加才能使整个市场的住宅增加1单位,有2单位的其他商品房被挤出了。在中低收入住宅市场,1单位经济适用房的增加挤出了1单位的中低收入商品房,经济适用房对中低收入商品房产生了完全的挤出效应。基于经济适用房分配方式的两个极端假设,供给端的挤出效应意味着分配中横财效应的存在：经济适用房的受益家庭中,有60%-70%的家庭具有购买普通商品房的能力,而几乎所有家庭都有能力购买正常价格的中低收入商品房。经济适用房并没有有效地分配到那些无力购买普通商品房和中低收入商品房,却可以负担经济适用房价格的目标家庭。
第五章是在第四章基础上,对住房保障政策与商品房市场相互影响问题研究的一个深入。在该章中,本文利用中国35个大中城市的面板数据,分别在静态框架和考虑了模型内生性的动态框架下,研究了经济适用房对商品房和高档住宅的挤出效应。以住宅市场整体的成交量为被解释变量进行的回归结果表明：经济适用房成交量的增加并没有使整个商品房市场的成交量有显著的增加,这表明经济适用房对私人商品房产生了完全的挤出。同时,考虑了商品房异质性的实证结果表明：1单位经济适用房成交量的增加导致了约0.1单位高档住宅成交量的减少；同时,1单位经济适用房的增加导致了相同单位普通商品房成交量的减少,这表明经济适用房对普通商品房产生了完全的挤出,对高档住宅存在一定的挤出效应,但是与普通商品住宅相比,这种挤出效应是很小的。该章的基本结论表明：经济适用房对私人商品房市场存在几乎完全的挤出效应,这种挤出效应的产生主要是通过对普通商品房的完全挤出而表现出来,经济适用房对高档住宅的挤出效应很小。总之,本文第四章和第五章对经济适用房挤出效应的研究不仅为经济适用房效率的测量提供了一个深入的经验证据,而且也为其他保障政策尤其是廉租房和公租房政策的研究提供了一个可行的观察角度。
第六章开始探索住房保障政策对劳动力市场的影响。本文首先利用中国样本,对奥斯瓦尔德假说在中国的适用性进行了验证。第六章采用2010年中国第六次人口普查分县数据建立联立方程模型,并利用三阶段最小二乘法对我国住房自有率、失业率和工资率之间的关系进行了实证研究。首先,该章以Munch等(2006)的研究为框架建立了理论模型,理论模型的结论显示：与租房居住的劳动者相比,拥有住房的劳动者在当地劳动力市场更倾向于跳出失业状态而选择就业,并在工作搜寻的过程中持有更低的保留工资；而在需要付出搬家成本的外地劳动力市场,拥有住房的劳动者更倾向于保持失业的状态,并在工作搜寻中持有更高的保留工资。为了验证理论模型的结论,该章分别利用第六次人口普查的县级数据和城市数据建立了住房自有率、失业与工资率的联立方程模型,并利用3SLS方法进行了估计,估计结果表明：在人口流动性低的劳动力市场,住房自有率越高,失业率越低,同时工资率也越低；随着劳动力市场人口流动性的提高,住房自有率对失业率的正向影响开始显现,与此同时,住房自有率对工资率的负向影响也逐渐消失了。可见,中国的住房自有与失业率之间的影响关系并非早期的奥斯瓦尔德假说所预测的正向关系那么简单,而Munch等(2006)指出的住房自有对失业和工资率的影响机制在中国是存在的。
第七章是在第六章研究基础上的继续深入,该章对公共住房与失业和劳动力参与的相互影响进行了研究。作为对奥斯瓦尔德假说的一个拓展,第七章验证了公共住房与失业的影响关系,并对公共住房对劳动力参与的负面激励进行了探索。首先,该章利用biprobit模型对公共住房与失业概率的关系进行研究发现：入住公共住房并没有直接影响城市劳动者失业的概率；在考虑了其他住房类型的异质性时,这一结论并没有发生变化。然而,该章对公共住房与劳动力退出概率进行进一步的研究发现,入住公共住房显著增加了劳动者失业后不再工作的可能性,这意味着,由于存在对劳动力参与的负面激励,公共住房可能会对劳动者的失业持续期产生影响。
第八章是本文的结论和政策建议部分。本文对于中国住房保障政策的经济效应研究主要有以下几点发现：第一,在关于经济适用房对商品房市场的挤出效应研究中本文发现：1单位经济适用房的增加可以挤出约0.6-0.7单位的普通商品房；经济适用房对中低收入住宅产生了完全的挤出效应；经济适用房对高档住宅也存在显著的挤出效应,但是与普通商品房和中低收入住宅相比,经济适用房对高档住宅的挤出效应并不大。经济适用房的福利分配过程中,存在大量的横财效应。第二,在对于住房自有率与失业率之间的所谓奥斯瓦尔德假说的验证研究中本文发现：在人口流动性低的劳动力市场,住房自有率越高,失业率越低,同时工资率也越低；随着劳动力市场人口流动性的提高,住房自有率对失业率的正向影响开始显现,与此同时,住房自有率对工资率的负向影响也逐渐消失了。第三,在关于公共住房对劳动力市场的潜在经济影响的研究中,本文发现：入住公共住房并没有直接影响城市劳动者失业的概率；在考虑了其他住房类型的异质性时,这一结论并没有发生变化。然而,本文对公共住房与劳动力退出概率进行的进一步的研究发现,入住公共住房显著增加了劳动者失业后不再工作的可能性,这意味着,由于存在对劳动力参与的负面激励,公共住房可能会对劳动者的失业持续期产生影响。在政策建议部分,针对本文的实证研究揭示出的我国住房保障政策体系的问题,并结合发达国家住房政策发展的历史经验,本文提出了下一步我国住房保障政策体系在规划建设、流通管理、金融支持、税收政策和法律保障等五大方面进行调整和完善的政策建议。
Housing is a basic material premise to the development of human civilization. In modern society, housing issues not only have important effect on the lives of individuals in many aspects, but also has far-reaching significance for the development of the whole society. Therefore, when a considerable number of people cannot live in a decent house, the government needs to help them. This is the reason for the existence of housing guarantee policies. Nowadays, the housing problem has a very important practical significance for China, and the study on China's housing guarantee policy has been a hot topic.
There are two reasons for the government to provide housing guarantee policies:efficiency and equity. In terms of efficiency, due to the neighborhood effects of housing, the Government should try to improve the housing mobility of low-income population, to avoid the excessive gathering of the poor and huge negative externalities. In terms of equity, due to the special attributes of housing, the housing guarantee policies for low-income families will have a profound significance in the distribution of income.
The economic effects of housing guarantee policies can be studied from two aspects:supply and demand. On the supply side, the project-oriented housing policy may crowd out private investment, cause spatial mismatch of labor market. On the demand side, due to the free choice of household consumption, tenant-oriented housing subsidies are more efficient than the project-oriented public housing, but they may cause a substantial increase in the price of the private rental market and transfer of housing guarantee policy benefits. For a long time, homeownership incentive policies caused a significant increase of homeownership rate in western countries; but at the same time, they produce a large amount of windfall effect. Therefore, we can see that both supply-oriented and demand-oriented housing policies are not perfect.
Which policy is the best? Based on the review of the economic effects of housing guarantee policies, this study pointed out that the discussion of which housing policy is the best is essentially a misleading question, only according to local conditions, cooperate housing policies with each other, can they result in greater policy efficiency and fairness in the safeguards. For China, it is essential to develop the tenant-oriented housing subsidies and establish a plural housing guarantee policy system.
In this study, we will take good advantage of China's macro data and micro data and establish empirical models to analyze the potential economic effects of housing guarantee policies in the housing market and labor market for China. This paper is divided into eight chapters, and a detailed study is organized as follows:
The first chapter is a general overview of the research background, the significance of research, and then gives the research frame, research methods of this study. The second chapter is a review for the basis theoretical research Literature of housing guarantee policies. The third chapter is a review of the evolution process of Chinese housing guarantee policies.
Chapter four is a empirical study on crowding-out effect of affordable housing to commercial housing and the low-income housing.In order to study the crowding-out effect and windfall effect of affordable housing, this chapter uses a panel data from1999to2010of provinces in China to establish a dynamic panel data model. The results indicated that:In the whole residential market,1units of affordable housing increase leaded to an increase of housing supply about0.3-0.4units, this means, other commercial housing was crowded out about0.6-0.7units. In the low-income housing market, an increase of affordable housing was crowded out the low-income commercial housing one by one. The distributional implication of the crowding out effect is:In the affordable housing recipients, about60%-70%families can afford to buy ordinary commercial housing, and almost all families are able to purchase low-income commercial housing. There is a huge windfall effect in the welfare allocation process of affordable housing.
Based on chapter four, the fifth chapter studies the crowding-out effect of affordable housing to private commercial housing and the high-income housing. In this chapter, we use a panel data from1999to2010of thirty-five large and medium-sized cities in China to examine the crowding-out effect of affordable housing. Treating the residential market as a whole, the results indicated that:an increase of affordable housing was almost crowded out private housing completely. In order to consider the differences between private housings, using high income housing and ordinary commercial housing as dependent variable respectively, the results show that:the crowding-out effect of affordable housing on private housing is mainly through the one be one crowding-out effect on ordinary commercial housing, while the crowding-out effect of affordable housing on high income housing is very small.
In chapter six we want to ask:Are homeowners really more unemployment? In order to verify the applicability of Oswald hypothesis in China, this chapter establishes simultaneous equations model by county data of the sixth nationwide population census to conduct an empirical research about the relationship between home-ownership, unemployment and wages. The empirical results show that:In the labor market with less mobility, homeownership might have a negative effect on unemployment and wages. In the labor market with high mobility, the overall effect of homeownership on unemployment becomes positive, and the negative effect on wages disappeared. Hence, there is no evidence to confirm the Oswald hypothesis using the sixth nationwide population census data of China.
Chapter seven is an extension of the Oswald hypothesis, we studied the relationship between public housing and unemployment. Using CGSS2008data, this paper established a biprobit model to verify the influence of renting public housing to the unemployment and labor force exit probability of city workers. The empirical results show that, there is no evidence that renting public housing significantly increased the probability of being unemployed. However, further research on the public housing internal mechanism of the influence of labor fource was found:renting public housing significantly increased the probability of no longer work after be unemployed, which means, due to the negative incentive of public housing on the labor force participation, public housing will have a potential effect on the unemployment duration of city workers.
Chapter eight is the conclusions and policy recommendations section of this study. In this study on the economic effects of china housing guarantee policies, we found that:First,1units of affordable housing crowded out about0.6-0.7units commercial housing; In the low-income housing market, an increase of affordable housing was crowded out the low-income commercial housing one by one. The crowding-out effect of affordable housing on private housing is mainly through the one be one crowding-out effect on ordinary commercial housing, while the crowding-out effect of affordable housing on high income housing is very small; There is a huge windfall effect in the welfare allocation process of affordable housing. Second, in the labor market with less mobility, homeownership might have a negative effect on unemployment and wages. In the labor market with high mobility, the overall effect of homeownership on unemployment becomes positive, and the negative effect on wages disappeared. Hence, there is no evidence to confirm the Oswald hypothesis using the sixth nationwide population census data of China. Third, there is no evidence that renting public housing significantly increased the probability of being unemployed. However, renting public housing significantly increased the probability of no longer work after be unemployed, that means, due to the negative incentive of public housing on the labor force participation, public housing will have a potential effect on the unemployment duration of city workers.
Finally, in the policy recommendations section, we believe that China's housing guarantee policies system should make some adjustment and improvement in the planning and construction, distribution management, financial support, tax policy and legal protection.
一般认为,政府提供住房保障政策有两个理由：住房的邻里外部性和住房政策的再分配意义。西方国家的住房保障政策主要有两类：供给导向的保障政策和需求导向的补贴政策。供给导向的住房政策又称工程导向的住房政策,即国内文献俗称的“补砖头”,是指政府利用财政或者税收手段,对低收入住房的新建和修缮项目在供给端给予直接或间接的支持。需求导向的住房政策又称租户导向的住房政策,即所谓的“补人头”,是指政府在需求端给予低收入家庭直接的租房补贴或者对低收入购房者给予直接或间接的补贴。
对于住房保障政策的经济效应研究需要从供给和需求两个方面来进行梳理。在供给端,国外学者研究发现,工程导向的住房政策主要存在两方面的经济影响：第一,保障性住房的建设会对私人住房的供给产生挤出效应；第二,保障性住房会对劳动力市场的表现(就业状况、工资、劳动力参与等)产生负面影响。在需求端,需求导向的住房补贴同样存在两个问题为学者所普遍诟病：第一,租房补贴可能大幅推高私人租房市场租金。第二,对购房者的房贷补贴可能产生横财效应,导致住房补贴的效率产生巨大损失。可见,供给导向和需求导向的住房政策都不是完美的。
对于哪种类型的住房保障政策更优的问题,尽管很多研究表明,与需求导向的住房政策相比,供给导向的住房政策不论在生产效率还是在政策效率上,都是相当低效的。然而,同样有不少学者指出,需求导向的住房补贴并不一定比供给导向的住房保障更能使低收入人群受益,究竟何种住房政策更有效,这取决于不同地区的市场条件和低收入私人住房的供给弹性。
以美国为代表的西方国家的住房保障政策早在上世纪三十年代末就开始出现,从上世纪八十年代开始,学者们以西方国家住房保障政策为研究对象,进行了大量有价值的理论研究和实证探索。目前,学者们研究的注意力已经从“补砖头”和“补人头”孰优孰劣的问题转移到了对特定的住房政策的深入研究；相关研究的焦点也不再仅仅局限于住房市场,住房政策对其他市场的潜在影响开始得到越来越多的关注；同时,随着亚洲国家住房政策的发展,研究者的目光也不再仅仅停留在对西方国家住房政策的研究上,以亚洲国家为研究对象的实证研究也开始出现。然而,对于国内的研究,目前大多数研究的注意力依然停留在对保障房准入和退出机制的讨论、对保障房资金来源的分析、住房政策的选择等方面,少量有关住房保障政策经济影响的经验探索也主要集中于住房价格方面,而着眼于住房政策的潜在经济影响的研究较少。本文将利用中国的宏观和微观数据,对中国住房保障政策对商品房市场和劳动力市场的潜在经济效应进行实证分析。本研究主要分为八个章节,具体的研究内容安排如下：
第一章是本文的绪论部分,主要对文章的研究背景、研究的理论和现实意义、研究目标和内容进行简要的介绍,并在此基础上,确定本文的研究方法和研究思路。
第二章是住房保障政策的基础理论研究述评,主要对国内外有关住房保障政策研究的重要文献进行了梳理和回顾。具体又分为以下几个部分：第一,对政府提供住房保障政策必要性的研究,即为什么政府需要提供住房保障：第二,供给导向的住房政策及其经济效应,重点对公共住房的挤出效应和公共住房与劳动力市场之间的关系研究进行了梳理；第三,需求导向的住房政策及其经济效应,重点对租房优惠券与市场价格、购房补贴与横财效应的研究进行了介绍；第四,围绕住房保障政策选择的争论,对相关研究进行了梳理和评价；第五,对关于住房保障政策的少量国内研究进行了概述。
第三章回顾了中国住房保障政策的演变历程。该章将中国住房保障政策的变迁分为了改革开放前和改革开放后两个大的阶段。改革开放以前的住房政策又可以分为两个阶段：第一阶段(1949年至1957年)和第二阶段(1958年至1978年)；改革开放以后的住房政策也可以根据改革的推进程度,大致分为四个阶段,1978年到1994年的初步实践阶段,1994年到1998年的综合配套阶段；1998年到2007年全面推进阶段和2007年8月至今的结构调整阶段。
第四章开始进入本文的实证研究部分,在该部分中,本文首先对住房保障政策对商品房市场的影响问题进行了初步的探索。本章利用中国的省级面板数据建立动态面板数据模型,研究了经济适用房对商品房和中低收入住宅的挤出效应。实证结果表明：在整个住宅市场,1单位经济适用房的增加可以挤出约0.6-0.7单位的普通商品房,这意味着,3单位经济适用房的增加才能使整个市场的住宅增加1单位,有2单位的其他商品房被挤出了。在中低收入住宅市场,1单位经济适用房的增加挤出了1单位的中低收入商品房,经济适用房对中低收入商品房产生了完全的挤出效应。基于经济适用房分配方式的两个极端假设,供给端的挤出效应意味着分配中横财效应的存在：经济适用房的受益家庭中,有60%-70%的家庭具有购买普通商品房的能力,而几乎所有家庭都有能力购买正常价格的中低收入商品房。经济适用房并没有有效地分配到那些无力购买普通商品房和中低收入商品房,却可以负担经济适用房价格的目标家庭。
第五章是在第四章基础上,对住房保障政策与商品房市场相互影响问题研究的一个深入。在该章中,本文利用中国35个大中城市的面板数据,分别在静态框架和考虑了模型内生性的动态框架下,研究了经济适用房对商品房和高档住宅的挤出效应。以住宅市场整体的成交量为被解释变量进行的回归结果表明：经济适用房成交量的增加并没有使整个商品房市场的成交量有显著的增加,这表明经济适用房对私人商品房产生了完全的挤出。同时,考虑了商品房异质性的实证结果表明：1单位经济适用房成交量的增加导致了约0.1单位高档住宅成交量的减少；同时,1单位经济适用房的增加导致了相同单位普通商品房成交量的减少,这表明经济适用房对普通商品房产生了完全的挤出,对高档住宅存在一定的挤出效应,但是与普通商品住宅相比,这种挤出效应是很小的。该章的基本结论表明：经济适用房对私人商品房市场存在几乎完全的挤出效应,这种挤出效应的产生主要是通过对普通商品房的完全挤出而表现出来,经济适用房对高档住宅的挤出效应很小。总之,本文第四章和第五章对经济适用房挤出效应的研究不仅为经济适用房效率的测量提供了一个深入的经验证据,而且也为其他保障政策尤其是廉租房和公租房政策的研究提供了一个可行的观察角度。
第六章开始探索住房保障政策对劳动力市场的影响。本文首先利用中国样本,对奥斯瓦尔德假说在中国的适用性进行了验证。第六章采用2010年中国第六次人口普查分县数据建立联立方程模型,并利用三阶段最小二乘法对我国住房自有率、失业率和工资率之间的关系进行了实证研究。首先,该章以Munch等(2006)的研究为框架建立了理论模型,理论模型的结论显示：与租房居住的劳动者相比,拥有住房的劳动者在当地劳动力市场更倾向于跳出失业状态而选择就业,并在工作搜寻的过程中持有更低的保留工资；而在需要付出搬家成本的外地劳动力市场,拥有住房的劳动者更倾向于保持失业的状态,并在工作搜寻中持有更高的保留工资。为了验证理论模型的结论,该章分别利用第六次人口普查的县级数据和城市数据建立了住房自有率、失业与工资率的联立方程模型,并利用3SLS方法进行了估计,估计结果表明：在人口流动性低的劳动力市场,住房自有率越高,失业率越低,同时工资率也越低；随着劳动力市场人口流动性的提高,住房自有率对失业率的正向影响开始显现,与此同时,住房自有率对工资率的负向影响也逐渐消失了。可见,中国的住房自有与失业率之间的影响关系并非早期的奥斯瓦尔德假说所预测的正向关系那么简单,而Munch等(2006)指出的住房自有对失业和工资率的影响机制在中国是存在的。
第七章是在第六章研究基础上的继续深入,该章对公共住房与失业和劳动力参与的相互影响进行了研究。作为对奥斯瓦尔德假说的一个拓展,第七章验证了公共住房与失业的影响关系,并对公共住房对劳动力参与的负面激励进行了探索。首先,该章利用biprobit模型对公共住房与失业概率的关系进行研究发现：入住公共住房并没有直接影响城市劳动者失业的概率；在考虑了其他住房类型的异质性时,这一结论并没有发生变化。然而,该章对公共住房与劳动力退出概率进行进一步的研究发现,入住公共住房显著增加了劳动者失业后不再工作的可能性,这意味着,由于存在对劳动力参与的负面激励,公共住房可能会对劳动者的失业持续期产生影响。
第八章是本文的结论和政策建议部分。本文对于中国住房保障政策的经济效应研究主要有以下几点发现：第一,在关于经济适用房对商品房市场的挤出效应研究中本文发现：1单位经济适用房的增加可以挤出约0.6-0.7单位的普通商品房；经济适用房对中低收入住宅产生了完全的挤出效应；经济适用房对高档住宅也存在显著的挤出效应,但是与普通商品房和中低收入住宅相比,经济适用房对高档住宅的挤出效应并不大。经济适用房的福利分配过程中,存在大量的横财效应。第二,在对于住房自有率与失业率之间的所谓奥斯瓦尔德假说的验证研究中本文发现：在人口流动性低的劳动力市场,住房自有率越高,失业率越低,同时工资率也越低；随着劳动力市场人口流动性的提高,住房自有率对失业率的正向影响开始显现,与此同时,住房自有率对工资率的负向影响也逐渐消失了。第三,在关于公共住房对劳动力市场的潜在经济影响的研究中,本文发现：入住公共住房并没有直接影响城市劳动者失业的概率；在考虑了其他住房类型的异质性时,这一结论并没有发生变化。然而,本文对公共住房与劳动力退出概率进行的进一步的研究发现,入住公共住房显著增加了劳动者失业后不再工作的可能性,这意味着,由于存在对劳动力参与的负面激励,公共住房可能会对劳动者的失业持续期产生影响。在政策建议部分,针对本文的实证研究揭示出的我国住房保障政策体系的问题,并结合发达国家住房政策发展的历史经验,本文提出了下一步我国住房保障政策体系在规划建设、流通管理、金融支持、税收政策和法律保障等五大方面进行调整和完善的政策建议。
Housing is a basic material premise to the development of human civilization. In modern society, housing issues not only have important effect on the lives of individuals in many aspects, but also has far-reaching significance for the development of the whole society. Therefore, when a considerable number of people cannot live in a decent house, the government needs to help them. This is the reason for the existence of housing guarantee policies. Nowadays, the housing problem has a very important practical significance for China, and the study on China's housing guarantee policy has been a hot topic.
There are two reasons for the government to provide housing guarantee policies:efficiency and equity. In terms of efficiency, due to the neighborhood effects of housing, the Government should try to improve the housing mobility of low-income population, to avoid the excessive gathering of the poor and huge negative externalities. In terms of equity, due to the special attributes of housing, the housing guarantee policies for low-income families will have a profound significance in the distribution of income.
The economic effects of housing guarantee policies can be studied from two aspects:supply and demand. On the supply side, the project-oriented housing policy may crowd out private investment, cause spatial mismatch of labor market. On the demand side, due to the free choice of household consumption, tenant-oriented housing subsidies are more efficient than the project-oriented public housing, but they may cause a substantial increase in the price of the private rental market and transfer of housing guarantee policy benefits. For a long time, homeownership incentive policies caused a significant increase of homeownership rate in western countries; but at the same time, they produce a large amount of windfall effect. Therefore, we can see that both supply-oriented and demand-oriented housing policies are not perfect.
Which policy is the best? Based on the review of the economic effects of housing guarantee policies, this study pointed out that the discussion of which housing policy is the best is essentially a misleading question, only according to local conditions, cooperate housing policies with each other, can they result in greater policy efficiency and fairness in the safeguards. For China, it is essential to develop the tenant-oriented housing subsidies and establish a plural housing guarantee policy system.
In this study, we will take good advantage of China's macro data and micro data and establish empirical models to analyze the potential economic effects of housing guarantee policies in the housing market and labor market for China. This paper is divided into eight chapters, and a detailed study is organized as follows:
The first chapter is a general overview of the research background, the significance of research, and then gives the research frame, research methods of this study. The second chapter is a review for the basis theoretical research Literature of housing guarantee policies. The third chapter is a review of the evolution process of Chinese housing guarantee policies.
Chapter four is a empirical study on crowding-out effect of affordable housing to commercial housing and the low-income housing.In order to study the crowding-out effect and windfall effect of affordable housing, this chapter uses a panel data from1999to2010of provinces in China to establish a dynamic panel data model. The results indicated that:In the whole residential market,1units of affordable housing increase leaded to an increase of housing supply about0.3-0.4units, this means, other commercial housing was crowded out about0.6-0.7units. In the low-income housing market, an increase of affordable housing was crowded out the low-income commercial housing one by one. The distributional implication of the crowding out effect is:In the affordable housing recipients, about60%-70%families can afford to buy ordinary commercial housing, and almost all families are able to purchase low-income commercial housing. There is a huge windfall effect in the welfare allocation process of affordable housing.
Based on chapter four, the fifth chapter studies the crowding-out effect of affordable housing to private commercial housing and the high-income housing. In this chapter, we use a panel data from1999to2010of thirty-five large and medium-sized cities in China to examine the crowding-out effect of affordable housing. Treating the residential market as a whole, the results indicated that:an increase of affordable housing was almost crowded out private housing completely. In order to consider the differences between private housings, using high income housing and ordinary commercial housing as dependent variable respectively, the results show that:the crowding-out effect of affordable housing on private housing is mainly through the one be one crowding-out effect on ordinary commercial housing, while the crowding-out effect of affordable housing on high income housing is very small.
In chapter six we want to ask:Are homeowners really more unemployment? In order to verify the applicability of Oswald hypothesis in China, this chapter establishes simultaneous equations model by county data of the sixth nationwide population census to conduct an empirical research about the relationship between home-ownership, unemployment and wages. The empirical results show that:In the labor market with less mobility, homeownership might have a negative effect on unemployment and wages. In the labor market with high mobility, the overall effect of homeownership on unemployment becomes positive, and the negative effect on wages disappeared. Hence, there is no evidence to confirm the Oswald hypothesis using the sixth nationwide population census data of China.
Chapter seven is an extension of the Oswald hypothesis, we studied the relationship between public housing and unemployment. Using CGSS2008data, this paper established a biprobit model to verify the influence of renting public housing to the unemployment and labor force exit probability of city workers. The empirical results show that, there is no evidence that renting public housing significantly increased the probability of being unemployed. However, further research on the public housing internal mechanism of the influence of labor fource was found:renting public housing significantly increased the probability of no longer work after be unemployed, which means, due to the negative incentive of public housing on the labor force participation, public housing will have a potential effect on the unemployment duration of city workers.
Chapter eight is the conclusions and policy recommendations section of this study. In this study on the economic effects of china housing guarantee policies, we found that:First,1units of affordable housing crowded out about0.6-0.7units commercial housing; In the low-income housing market, an increase of affordable housing was crowded out the low-income commercial housing one by one. The crowding-out effect of affordable housing on private housing is mainly through the one be one crowding-out effect on ordinary commercial housing, while the crowding-out effect of affordable housing on high income housing is very small; There is a huge windfall effect in the welfare allocation process of affordable housing. Second, in the labor market with less mobility, homeownership might have a negative effect on unemployment and wages. In the labor market with high mobility, the overall effect of homeownership on unemployment becomes positive, and the negative effect on wages disappeared. Hence, there is no evidence to confirm the Oswald hypothesis using the sixth nationwide population census data of China. Third, there is no evidence that renting public housing significantly increased the probability of being unemployed. However, renting public housing significantly increased the probability of no longer work after be unemployed, that means, due to the negative incentive of public housing on the labor force participation, public housing will have a potential effect on the unemployment duration of city workers.
Finally, in the policy recommendations section, we believe that China's housing guarantee policies system should make some adjustment and improvement in the planning and construction, distribution management, financial support, tax policy and legal protection.
引文
① 《世界人权宣言》详见http://www.un.org/chinese/work/rights/rights.htm.
① 成思危：《中国城镇住房制度改革—目标模式与实施难点》,民主与建设出版社,1999年,第106页。
① 国务院住房改革领导小组办公室：《城镇住房制度改革》,改革出版社,1994年,第1页。
② 张京、侯淅珉、金燕：《房改无限需求的终止》,中国财政经济出版社,1992年,第3页。
③ 中国社科院财贸经济研究所、美国纽约公共管理研究所：《中国城镇住宅制度改革》,经济管理出版社,1996年,第16页。
① 贾康、刘军民：《中国住房制度改革问题研究——经济社会转轨中“居者有其屋”的求解》,经济科学出版社,2007年,第76-82页。
① 车春鹂、高汝熹：《从经济适用房到公共廉租房》,《改革》,2010年,第3期,第124-127页。
① 作者用住房存量与家庭数量的比值来表示住房可获得率,韩国的这一比例从1988年的69.4%上升到2003年的101.2%,详见Lee(2007)。
② 低收入住宅税收补贴项目(Low Income Housing Tax Credit)是美国从1986年开始的一项十分典型的工程导向的住房建设支持项目,详见Quigley(2008)。
③ Baum-Snow and Marion(2009)定义1980-1990年期间中心城区房屋价值增值处于百分位数顶端的地区为中产阶级化地区,处于中间的地区为稳定地区,而处于底部的地区为衰退地区,详见原文。
① 对于住宅待售面积的统计分类,可以参见任意一年的《中国房地产统计年鉴》。
① 该观点来源于《中国住房拥有率近90%专家称自有率高是落后标志》,搜狐焦点,2012年6月5日http://house.focus.cn/news/2012-06-05/2046841.html
① 例如我国很多城市的廉租房申请条件要求申请者同时享受一定时期以上的城市最低生活保障金,这意味着廉租房的租住者可能同时享有其他低收入生活保障福利。
② 对中国综合社会调查项目的详细介绍可以参见：中国人民大学中国调查与数据中心中国综合社会调查(CGSS)项目：《中国综合社会调查报告(2003-2008)》,中国社会科学出版社,2009年5月。
① 李乐,住房保障体系垂直管理猜想：钱从何来?中国经营报,2007年3月12日。
② 李乾韬、刘克崮,我国应该成立国家基本住房保障局,南方都市报,2011年3月9日。
③ 陈颐,发展“政府公房”,健全住房保障,学海,2007年第5期。
[1]阿列克斯·施瓦兹,2008：《美国住房政策》,北京：中信出版社。
[2]阿瑟·奥沙利文,2008：《城市经济学(第六版)》,北京：北京大学出版社。
[3]巴曙松、王志峰,2010：《资金来源、制度变革与国际经验借鉴：源自公共廉租房》,《改革》,第3期,第80-85页。
[4]蔡荣生、吴崇宇,2010：《我国大中城市经济适用房有效供求均衡度研究——基于“非均衡计量模型”的实证分析》,《财贸经济》,第7期,第116-121页。
[5]曾令华,2000：《近年来的财政扩张是否有挤出效应》,《经济研究》,第3期,第65-70页。
[6]车春鹂、高汝熹,2010：《从经济适用房到公共廉租房》,《改革》,第3期,第124-127页。
[7]陈浪南、杨子晖,2007：《中国政府支出和融资对私人投资挤出效应的经验研究》,《世界经济》,第1期,第49-59页。
[8]成思危,1999：《中国城镇住房制度改革——目标模式与实施难点》,北京：民主与建设出版社。
[9]高波、洪涛,2008：《中国住宅市场羊群行为研究——基于1999～2005动态面板模型的实证分析》,《管理世界》,第2期,第90-96页。
[10]郭杰、李涛,2009：《中国地方政府间税收竞争研究——基于中国省级面板数据的经验证据》,《管理世界》,第11期,第54-64页。
[11]贾康、刘军民,2007：《中国住房制度改革问题研究——经济社会转轨中“居者有其屋”的求解》,北京：经济科学出版社。
[12]姜万军、喻志军,2006：《经济适用住房政策：问题与出路》,《中国软科学》,第9期,第23-29页。
[13]雷辉,2006：《我国东中西部外商直接投资(FDI)对国内投资的挤入挤出 效应——基于Panel Data模型的分析》,《中国软科学》,第2期,第111-117页。
[14]李洪侠,2012：《城镇基本住房保障体系研究》,财政部财政科学研究所博士论文。
[15]李培,2008：《中国住房制度改革的政策评析》,公共管理学报,第3期,第47-55页。
[16]林增杰、吕萍和余翔,1999：《公房入市政策研究》,北京：中国人民大学出版社。
[17]刘斌、姜博,2013：《住房保障政策的国外文献及引申》,《改革》,第1期,第58-65页。
[18]刘斌、幸强国,2013：《我国公共住房、失业与劳动力参与意愿——基于一个延伸的奥斯瓦尔德假设的经验证据》,《财经研究》,2013年第11期,第34-47页。
[19]刘溶沧、马拴友,2001,《赤字,国债与经济增长关系的实证分析——兼评积极财政政策是否有挤出效应》,《经济研究》,第2期,第13-19页。
[20]倪鹏飞等,2008：《建立多层次的中国住房办共政策体系》,《财贸经济》,第1期,第17-26页。
[21]牛毅,2007：《经济适用住房政策的绩效评价》,《财贸经济》,第12页,第127-134页。
[22]潘爱民、韩正龙,2012,《经济适用房,土地价格与住宅价格——基于我国29个省级面板数据的实证研究》,《财贸经济》,第2期,第106-113页。
[23]斯蒂格利茨,2005：《公共部门经济学(第三版)》,北京：中国人民大学出版社。
[24]王微：《住房制度改革》,中国人民大学出版社,1999,第218页
[25]王斌、高戈,2011：《中国住房保障对房价动态冲击效应——基于SVAR的实证分析》,《中央财经大学学报》,第8期,第54-59页。
[26]杨柳勇、沈国良,2002：《外商直接投资对国内投资的挤入挤出效应分析》,《统计研究》,第3期,第6-8页。
[27]张京、侯淅珉和金燕,1992：《房改无限需求的终止》,北京：中国财政经 济出版社。
[28]张齐武、徐燕雯,2010：《经济适用房还是公共租赁房——对住房保障政策改革的反思》,《公共管理学报》,第4期,第86-92页。
[29]张清勇,2008：《住房、住房问题与住房政策：一个综述》,《财贸经济》,第1期,第44-50页。
[30]张延,2010：《中国财政政策的“挤出效应”——基于1952-2008年中国年度数据的实证分析》,《金融研究》,第1期,第58-66页。
[31]张治觉、吴定玉,2007：《我国政府支出对居民消费产生引致还是挤出效应——基于可变参数模型的分析》,《数量经济技术经济研究》,第5期,第53-61页。
[32]中国社科院财贸经济研究所、美国纽约公共管理研究所,1996:《中国城镇住宅制度改革》,经济管理出版社。
[33]Aaron H.,1972, "Shelters and Subsidies", Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.
[34]Andersson, G, Hank, K., Ronsen, M. and Vikat A.,2006, "Gendering Family Composition:Sex Preferences for Children and Childbearing Behavior in the Nordic Countries", Demography,43:255-267.
[35]Andreoni, J. and A. Payne,2003,"Do Government Grants to Private Charities Crowd Out Giving or Fund-Raising?",American Economic Review,93:792-812.
[36]Apgar, William,1990, "Which Housing Policy Is Best?" Housing Policy Debate,1:1-32.
[37]Arellano, M., "Panel Data Econometrics",New York:Oxford University Press, 2003.
[38]Arellano, Bond,1991, "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data:Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations", The Review of Economic Studies,58:277-297.
[39]Ball, Knorr-Siedow,2004, "Housing and Urban Affairs", in Compston H.(Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy in Europe Britain France and Germany, New York:Palgrave Macmillan division of St., Martin's Press.
[40]Battu, H., Ma, A. and Phimister, E.,2008, "Housing Tenure, Job Mobility and Unemployment in the UK", The Economic Journal,118 (257):311-328.
[41]Baum, F., Schaffer, E. and Stillman, S.,2003, "Instrumental Variables and GMM:Estimation and Testing, Tata Journal,3:1-31.
[42]Baum-Snow, N. and J. Marion,2009, "The Effects of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Developments on Neighborhoods", Journal of Public Economics, 93:654-666.
[43]Belot, M. and Van Ours, J.,2001, "Unemployment and Labor Market Institutions:An Empirical Analysis", Journal of the Japanese and International Economies,15 (4):403-418.
[44]Berry, S. and J. Waldfogel,1999, "Public Radio in the United States:Does it Correct Market Failure or Cannibalize Commercial Stations?" Journal of Public Economics,71:189-211.
[45]Bingley and Walker,2001, "Housing Subsidies and Work Incentives in Great Britain", The Economic Journal,111 (5):86-103.
[46]Blakemore, K., "Social Policy:An Introduction", Open University Press, 1998:143.
[47]Blundell, Bond,1998, "Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models", Journal of Econometrics,87:115-143.
[48]Blundell, R. and Smith, J.,1994,"Coherency and Estimation in Simultaneous Models with Censored or Qualitative Dependent Variables", Journal of Econometrics,64:355-373.
[49]Brunet, C. and Lesueur, J.,2009, "Do Homeowners Stay Unemployed Longer? Evidence Based on French data". In:van Ewijk, C. & van Leuvensteijn, M. (Eds.), Homeownership & the Labour Market in Europe. Oxford University Press,137-158.
[50]Clapham, D., Kemp, P., and Smith, S.,1990, "Housing and Social Policy", London:Macmillan.
[51]Coulson, E., Fisher, L.,2002,"Tenure Choice and Labour Market Outcomes", Housing Studies,17 (1):35-49.
[52]Coulson, E. and Fisher, L.,2009, "Housing Tenure and Labor Market Impacts: The Search Goes on", Journal of Urban Economics,65 (3):252-264.
[53]Currie, J. and Yelowitz, A.,2000, "Are Public Housing Projects Good for Kids?", Journal of Public Economics,75:99-124.
[54]Cutler, D. M. and J. Gruber,1996, "Does Public Insurance Crowd out Private Insurance?" The Quarterly Journal of Economics,111:391-430.
[55]Cutts and Olsen,2002, "Are section 8 housing subsidies too high?" Journal of Housing Economics 11:214-243.
[56]de Graaff, T. et al.,2009),"Homeownership, Social Renting and Labor Mobility across Europe" in van Ewijk & van Leuvensteijn (Eds.),Homeownership & the Labour Market in Europe, Oxford University Press.
[57]Donnison,D. and Ungerson, C.,1982, "Housing Policy", Middlesex:Penguin Books Ltd.
[58]Dujardin and Goffette-Nagot,2009, "Does Public Housing Occupancy Increase Unemployment?"Journal of Economic Geography,9:823-851.
[59]Eriksen, M. D. and S. S. Rosenthal,2010, "Crowd out Effects of Place-Based Subsidized Rental Housing:New Evidence from the LIHTC Program", Journal of Public Economics,94:953-966.
[60]Fack, G,2006, "Are Housing Benefit an Effective Way to Redistribute Income? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in France", Labour Economics, 13:747-777.
[61]Fair R.,1973, "Methods of Estimation for Markets in Disequilibrium:A Further Study", Econometrica,42:177-190.
[62]Fair, R. and D.Jaffee,1972, "Methods of Estimation for Markets in Disequilibrium", Econometrica:Journal of the Econometric Society,497-514.
[63]Fair, R. C. and H. H. Kelejian,1973, "Methods of Estimation for Markets in Disequilibrium:A Further Study", Econometrica,42:177-190.
[64]Flatau, P., Forbes, M., Hendershott, P. and Wood, G.,2003, "Homeownership and Unemployment:The Roles of Leverage and Public Housing", NBER Working Paper, No.10021.
[65]Flatau, P. et al,2003, "Homeownership and Unemployment:The Roles of Leverage and Public Housing", NBER Working Paper, W10021.
[66]Flatau, P. et al,2002,"Homeownership and Unemployment:Does the Oswald thesis hold for Australian regions?"Working Paper-Economics, Murdoch University 189.
[67]Freedman and Owens,2011, "Low-Income Housing Development and Crime", Journal of Urban Economics 70:115-131.
[68]Friedrichs, J. and Blasius, J.,2003, "Social Norms in Distressed Neighborhoods:Testing the Wilson Hypothesis, Housing Studies,6:807-826.
[69]Garcia, J. and Hernandez, J.,2004, "User Cost Changes, Unemployment and Home-Ownership:Evidence from Spain", Urban Studies,41 (3):563-578.
[70]Gibb and Whitehead,2007, "Towards the More Effective Use of Housing Finance and Subsidy", Housing Studies,22:183-200.
[71]Gobillon and Le Blanc,2002, "The Impact of the Borrowing Constraints on Mobility and Tenure Choice", CREST working paper:2002-2028.
[72]Gobillon and Le Blanc,2008, "Economic Effects of Upfront Subsidies to Ownership:The Case of the PTZ in France", Journal of Housing Economics 17:1-33.
[73]Goering, J.,2003, "The Impacts of New Neighborhoods on Poor Families: Evaluating the Policy Implications of the Moving to Opportunity Demonstration, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Policy Review,6:113-140.
[74]Goux, D. and Maurin, E.,2005, "The Effect of Overcrowded Housing on Children's Performance at School", Journal of Public Economics,89:797-819.
[75]Granovetter, M.,1995, "Getting a Job:A Study of Contacts and Careers (2nd ed.)", Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[76]Green and Maipezzi,2003,"A Primer on U. S. Housing a Policy", Washington DC:Urban Institute Press.
[77]Green and Vandell,1999,"Giving Households Credit:How Changes in the U. S. Tax Code Could Promote Homeownership", Regional Science and Urban Economics 29:419-444.
[78]Green, R. and Hendershott, P.,2001, "Home-Ownership and Unemployment in the US". Urban Studies,38 (9):1509-1520.
[79]Greene, W. H.,1998, "Gender Economics Courses in Liberal Arts Colleges: Further Results", Journal of Economic Education,29:291-300.
[80]Harsman B. and Quigley J.,1991, "Housing Markets and Housing Institutions in a Comparative Context" in Harsman, Quigley(eds.). Housing Markets and Housing Institutions:An international Companson. Kluwer.
[81]Havet, N. and Penot, A.,2010, "Does Homeownership Harm Labour Market Performances? A Survey", GATE Working Papers.No.1012.
[82]Hendershott and Shilling,1982, "The Economics of Tenure Choice 1955-79"in Sirmans, C. (ed.), Greenwich, CT:Research in real estate (1), Jai Press.
[83]Henderson and Ioannides,1983, "A Model of Housing Tenure Choice", American Economic Review,73:98-113.
[84]Holzer, H.J.,1991, "The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis:What Has the Evidence Shown? ", Urban Studies,28(1):105-122.
[85]Hsiao, C.,2007, "Panel Data Analysis—Advantages and Challenges", Test, 16:1-22.
[86]Hughes and McCormick,1981, "Do Council House Policies Reduce Mobility between Regions?", Economic Journal,91:919-937.
[87]Hughes and McCormick,1985, "Migration Intentions in the UK:Which Households Want to Migrate and Which Succeed", Economic Journal, 95:113-123.
[88]Hughes and McCormick,1987, "Housing Markets, Unemployment and Labour Market Flexibility in the UK", European Economic Review, 31:615-645.
[89]Hughes and McCormick,1990, "Housing and Labour Market Mobility", in Ermisch, (ed.), Housing and the National Economy, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
[90]Ihlanfeldt, K. R.,1997, "Information on the Spatial Distribution of Job Opportunities within Metropolitan Areas", Journal of Urban Economics,41: 218-242.
[91]Jones, H,1978, "Sunset Legislation", Tax Review:53.
[92]Katz, L.F.et al.,2001,"Moving to Opportunity in Boston:Early Results of a Randomized Mobility Experiment", Quarterly Journal of Economics,116(2): 607-654.
[93]King, M. A.,1980, "An Econometric Model of Tenure Choice and Demand for Housing as a Joint Decision", Journal of Public Economics:137-160.
[94]King, M. A.,1981, "The Distribution of Gains and Losses from Changes in the Tax Treatment of Housing", Social Science Research Council Programme, No.20.
[95]Kling, J., Ludwig, J. and Katz L.,2005, "Neighborhood Effects on Crime for Female and Male Youth:Evidence from a Randomized Housing Voucher Experiment", the Quarterly Journal of Economics,120:87-130.
[96]Laferrere and Le Blanc,2004a, "How do Housing Allowances Affect Rents: An Empirical Analysis of the French Case", Journal of Housing Economics, 13:6-36.
[97]Laferrere and Le Blanc,2004b, "Gone with the Windfall:The Effect of Rental Subsidies on Student Co-Residence in France", CESifo Economic Studies 50(3):451-477.
[98]Laferrere and Le Blanc,2006, "Housing Policy:Low-income Households in France", in Arnott and McMillen (Eds.), A Companion to Urban Economics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
[99]Le Blanc and Laferrere,2001, "The Effects of the Existence of Public Social Housing on Households' Consumption in France", Journal of Housing Economics,10:429-455.
[100]Lee, C. I.,2007, "Does Provision of Public Rental Housing Crowd Out Private Housing Investment? A Panel VAR Approach", Journal of Housing Economics,16:1-20.
[101]Lund, B.,2006, "Understanding Housing Policy", Bristol:The Policy Press, 2006:2-5.
[102]Maclennan, D.,1982, "Housing Economics:An Applied Approach", London: Longman.
[103]Madariaga, Poncet,2007, "FDI in Chinese Cities:Spillovers and Impact on Growth ",World Economy,30:837-862.
[104]Maddala, G S. and F. D. Nelson,1974, "Maximum Likelihood Methods for Models of Markets in Disequilibrium", Econometrica,42:1013-1030.
[105]Maddala, G. S.,1983, "Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics". Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[106]Malpass, P. and Murie, A.,1999, "Housing Policy and Practice (5th)", London:Macmillan.
[107]Malpezzi, S. and K. Vandell,2002, "Does the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Increase the Supply of Housing?" Journal of Housing Economics, 11:360-380.
[108]Mayer, C.J. and C. T. Somerville,2000, "Residential Construction:Using the Urban Growth Model to Estimate Housing Supply", Journal of Urban Economics,48:85-109.
[109]Minford, P.et al.,1987, "The Housing Morass", Institute of Economic Affairs, London.
[110]Moffitt, R.,1992, "Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System:A Review", Journal of Economic Literature,30(1):1-61.
[111]Munch, J.R. and Rosholm, M.,2008, "Svarer M. Homeownership, Job Duration and Wages", Journal of Urban Economics,63 (1):130-145.
[112]Munch, J.R., Rosholm, M. and Svarer, M.,2006, "Are Home Owners Really More Unemployed? ", The Economic Journal,2006,116 (514):991-1013.
[113]Murray, M.,1983, "Subsidized and Unsubsidized Housing Starts: 1961-1977", The Review of Economics and Statistics,65:590-597.
[114]Murray, M.,1999, "Subsidized and Unsubsidized Housing Stocks 1935 to 1987:Crowding Out and Cointegration", The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics,18:107-124.
[115]Murray, P.,1980, "Tenant Benefits in Alternative Federal Housing Programs", Urban Studies,17:25-34.
[116]Murray, M. P.,1980, "A Reinterpretation of the Traditional Income-Leisure Model, with Application to In-Kind Subsidy Programs", Journal of Public Economics,14:69-82.
[117]Murray, M.P.,1983, "Subsidized and Unsubsidized Housing Starts: 1961-1977", Review of Economics and Statistics,65 (4):590-597.
[118]Murray, M. P.,1999, "Subsidized and Unsubsidized Housing Stock 1935 to 1987:Crowding out and Cointegration", Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics,18(1):107-124.
[119]Nickell, S.,1998, "Unemployment:Questions and Some Answers", Economic Journal,108 (448):802-816.
[120]Nickell, S. and Layard, R.,1999, "Labor Market Institutions and Economic Performance", In:Ashenfelter, O. and Card, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Labour Economics,3:3029-3084.
[121]O'Sullivan, A.,2007, "Urban Economics (6th), The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
[122]Olsen and Barton,1983, "The Benefits and Costs of Public Housing in New York City", Journal of Public Economics,20:299-332.
[123]Ong, Paul,1998, "Subsidized Housing and Work among Welfare Recipients", Housing Policy Debate,9(4):775-794.
[124]Oswald, A.,1996, "A Conjecture on the Explanation for High Unemployment in the Industrialized Nations:Part 1", University of Warwick Economic Research Papers, No.475.
[125]Paavo, Monkkonen,2011, "Public Housing and Unemployment:Skills and Spatial Mismatch in Postindustrial Hong Kong", IURD Working Paper, July 1.
[126]Partridge. A. and Rickman, D.,1997, "The Dispersion of US State Unemployment Rates:The Role of Market and Non-Market Equilibrium Factors", Regional Studies:The Journal of the Regional Studies Association, 31 (14):593-606.
[127]Pehkonen, J.,1999, "Unemployment and Home-Ownership". Applied Economics Letters,6:263-265.
[128]Poirier, D. J.,1980, "Partial Observability in Bivariate Probit Models", Journal of Econometrics,12:210-217.
[129]Quigley, J.M.,2008, "Just Suppose:Housing Subsidies for Low-Income Renters", in Retsinas and Belsky (Eds.), Revisiting Rental Housing, Policies, Programs, and Priorities, Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press.
[130]Reingold, D.,1999, "Social Networks and the Employment of the Urban Poor", Urban Studies,35:1907-1932.
[131]Rosen, H.,1985, "Housing Subsidies, Effects on Housing Decisions, Efficiency, and Equity, in Auerbach and Feldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Public Economics vol.1., North Holland, Amsterdam.
[132]Rosen, H.S. and Rosen, K. T.,1980, "Federal Taxes and Homeownership: Evidence from Time Series", Journal of Political Economy,88:59-75.
[133]Rosen, H.S.,1979, "Housing Decisions and the U.S. Income Tax:An Econometric Analysis", Journal of Public Economics,11:1-23.
[134]Rosenbaum, E. and Harris, L.,2001, "Residential Mobility and Opportunities: Early Impacts of the Moving to Opportunity Demonstration Program in Chicago", Housing Policy Debate,12:321-346.
[135]Rydell, C. P.,1980, "Supply Responses to the Housing Allowance Program", The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, Number N-1338-HUD.
[136]Sinai and Waldfogel,2002, "Do Low-Income Housing Subsidies Increase Housing Consumption?" NBER Working Paper, No.8709.
[137]Sinai, T. and J. Waldfogel,2005, "Do Low-Income Housing Subsidies Increase the Occupied Housing Stock?" Journal of Public Economics,89: 2137-2164.
[138]Staiger, D. and Stock, J. H.,1997, "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments", Econometrica,65:557-586.
[139]Struky, R.J.,1990, "Comment on William Apgar's'Which Housing Policy Is Best?'", Housing Policy Debate,1:45-51.
[140]Susin, S.,2002, "Rent Vouchers and the Price of Low-Income Housing", Journal of Public Economics,83:109-52.
[141]Svarer, M., Rosholm, M. and Munch, J. R.,2005, "Rent Control and Unemployment Duration", Journal of Public Economics,89:2165-2181.
[142]Swan, C.,1973, "Housing Subsidies and Housing Starts", Real Estate Economics,1:119-140.
[143]Sweeney, J. L.,1974a, "A Commodity Hierarchy Model of the Rental Housing Market", Journal of Urban Economics,1:288-323.
[144]Sweeney, J. L.,1974b, "Quality, Commodity Hierarchies, and Housing Markets, Econometrica,42 (1):147-167.
[145]U.S. Bureau of the Census,1982, "Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1982-83", Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
[146]van Leuvensteijn, M. and Koning, P.,2004, "The Effect of Home-Ownership on Labor Mobility in the Netherlands", Journal of Urban Economics,55:580-596.
[147]van Vuuren, A.,2009, "The Impact of Homeownership on Unemployment in the Netherlands", In:van Ewijk, C. and van Leuvensteijn, M. (Eds.), Homeownership and the Labour Market in Europe. Oxford University Press, Ch.5:113-135.
[148]Verdugo, G.,2011, "Public Housing Magnets:Public Housing Supply and Immigrant Location Choices", Banque de France, working paper, December 7.
[149]Weicher, J., "Urban Housing Policy", in:Mieszkowski P., Stroszheim M. (eds.), Current Issues in Urban Economics, John's Hopkins,1979:469-508.
[150]Wilson, J.,1987, "The Truly Disadvantaged:The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[151]Windmeijer, F. A.,2005, "Finite Sample Correction for the Variance of Linear Efficient Two-Step GMM Estimators", Journal of Econometrics, 126:25-51.
[152]Yves Zenou,2010, "Housing Policies in China:Issues and Options", IFN Working Paper, No.824.
① 成思危：《中国城镇住房制度改革—目标模式与实施难点》,民主与建设出版社,1999年,第106页。
① 国务院住房改革领导小组办公室：《城镇住房制度改革》,改革出版社,1994年,第1页。
② 张京、侯淅珉、金燕：《房改无限需求的终止》,中国财政经济出版社,1992年,第3页。
③ 中国社科院财贸经济研究所、美国纽约公共管理研究所：《中国城镇住宅制度改革》,经济管理出版社,1996年,第16页。
① 贾康、刘军民：《中国住房制度改革问题研究——经济社会转轨中“居者有其屋”的求解》,经济科学出版社,2007年,第76-82页。
① 车春鹂、高汝熹：《从经济适用房到公共廉租房》,《改革》,2010年,第3期,第124-127页。
① 作者用住房存量与家庭数量的比值来表示住房可获得率,韩国的这一比例从1988年的69.4%上升到2003年的101.2%,详见Lee(2007)。
② 低收入住宅税收补贴项目(Low Income Housing Tax Credit)是美国从1986年开始的一项十分典型的工程导向的住房建设支持项目,详见Quigley(2008)。
③ Baum-Snow and Marion(2009)定义1980-1990年期间中心城区房屋价值增值处于百分位数顶端的地区为中产阶级化地区,处于中间的地区为稳定地区,而处于底部的地区为衰退地区,详见原文。
① 对于住宅待售面积的统计分类,可以参见任意一年的《中国房地产统计年鉴》。
① 该观点来源于《中国住房拥有率近90%专家称自有率高是落后标志》,搜狐焦点,2012年6月5日http://house.focus.cn/news/2012-06-05/2046841.html
① 例如我国很多城市的廉租房申请条件要求申请者同时享受一定时期以上的城市最低生活保障金,这意味着廉租房的租住者可能同时享有其他低收入生活保障福利。
② 对中国综合社会调查项目的详细介绍可以参见：中国人民大学中国调查与数据中心中国综合社会调查(CGSS)项目：《中国综合社会调查报告(2003-2008)》,中国社会科学出版社,2009年5月。
① 李乐,住房保障体系垂直管理猜想：钱从何来?中国经营报,2007年3月12日。
② 李乾韬、刘克崮,我国应该成立国家基本住房保障局,南方都市报,2011年3月9日。
③ 陈颐,发展“政府公房”,健全住房保障,学海,2007年第5期。
[1]阿列克斯·施瓦兹,2008：《美国住房政策》,北京：中信出版社。
[2]阿瑟·奥沙利文,2008：《城市经济学(第六版)》,北京：北京大学出版社。
[3]巴曙松、王志峰,2010：《资金来源、制度变革与国际经验借鉴：源自公共廉租房》,《改革》,第3期,第80-85页。
[4]蔡荣生、吴崇宇,2010：《我国大中城市经济适用房有效供求均衡度研究——基于“非均衡计量模型”的实证分析》,《财贸经济》,第7期,第116-121页。
[5]曾令华,2000：《近年来的财政扩张是否有挤出效应》,《经济研究》,第3期,第65-70页。
[6]车春鹂、高汝熹,2010：《从经济适用房到公共廉租房》,《改革》,第3期,第124-127页。
[7]陈浪南、杨子晖,2007：《中国政府支出和融资对私人投资挤出效应的经验研究》,《世界经济》,第1期,第49-59页。
[8]成思危,1999：《中国城镇住房制度改革——目标模式与实施难点》,北京：民主与建设出版社。
[9]高波、洪涛,2008：《中国住宅市场羊群行为研究——基于1999～2005动态面板模型的实证分析》,《管理世界》,第2期,第90-96页。
[10]郭杰、李涛,2009：《中国地方政府间税收竞争研究——基于中国省级面板数据的经验证据》,《管理世界》,第11期,第54-64页。
[11]贾康、刘军民,2007：《中国住房制度改革问题研究——经济社会转轨中“居者有其屋”的求解》,北京：经济科学出版社。
[12]姜万军、喻志军,2006：《经济适用住房政策：问题与出路》,《中国软科学》,第9期,第23-29页。
[13]雷辉,2006：《我国东中西部外商直接投资(FDI)对国内投资的挤入挤出 效应——基于Panel Data模型的分析》,《中国软科学》,第2期,第111-117页。
[14]李洪侠,2012：《城镇基本住房保障体系研究》,财政部财政科学研究所博士论文。
[15]李培,2008：《中国住房制度改革的政策评析》,公共管理学报,第3期,第47-55页。
[16]林增杰、吕萍和余翔,1999：《公房入市政策研究》,北京：中国人民大学出版社。
[17]刘斌、姜博,2013：《住房保障政策的国外文献及引申》,《改革》,第1期,第58-65页。
[18]刘斌、幸强国,2013：《我国公共住房、失业与劳动力参与意愿——基于一个延伸的奥斯瓦尔德假设的经验证据》,《财经研究》,2013年第11期,第34-47页。
[19]刘溶沧、马拴友,2001,《赤字,国债与经济增长关系的实证分析——兼评积极财政政策是否有挤出效应》,《经济研究》,第2期,第13-19页。
[20]倪鹏飞等,2008：《建立多层次的中国住房办共政策体系》,《财贸经济》,第1期,第17-26页。
[21]牛毅,2007：《经济适用住房政策的绩效评价》,《财贸经济》,第12页,第127-134页。
[22]潘爱民、韩正龙,2012,《经济适用房,土地价格与住宅价格——基于我国29个省级面板数据的实证研究》,《财贸经济》,第2期,第106-113页。
[23]斯蒂格利茨,2005：《公共部门经济学(第三版)》,北京：中国人民大学出版社。
[24]王微：《住房制度改革》,中国人民大学出版社,1999,第218页
[25]王斌、高戈,2011：《中国住房保障对房价动态冲击效应——基于SVAR的实证分析》,《中央财经大学学报》,第8期,第54-59页。
[26]杨柳勇、沈国良,2002：《外商直接投资对国内投资的挤入挤出效应分析》,《统计研究》,第3期,第6-8页。
[27]张京、侯淅珉和金燕,1992：《房改无限需求的终止》,北京：中国财政经 济出版社。
[28]张齐武、徐燕雯,2010：《经济适用房还是公共租赁房——对住房保障政策改革的反思》,《公共管理学报》,第4期,第86-92页。
[29]张清勇,2008：《住房、住房问题与住房政策：一个综述》,《财贸经济》,第1期,第44-50页。
[30]张延,2010：《中国财政政策的“挤出效应”——基于1952-2008年中国年度数据的实证分析》,《金融研究》,第1期,第58-66页。
[31]张治觉、吴定玉,2007：《我国政府支出对居民消费产生引致还是挤出效应——基于可变参数模型的分析》,《数量经济技术经济研究》,第5期,第53-61页。
[32]中国社科院财贸经济研究所、美国纽约公共管理研究所,1996:《中国城镇住宅制度改革》,经济管理出版社。
[33]Aaron H.,1972, "Shelters and Subsidies", Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.
[34]Andersson, G, Hank, K., Ronsen, M. and Vikat A.,2006, "Gendering Family Composition:Sex Preferences for Children and Childbearing Behavior in the Nordic Countries", Demography,43:255-267.
[35]Andreoni, J. and A. Payne,2003,"Do Government Grants to Private Charities Crowd Out Giving or Fund-Raising?",American Economic Review,93:792-812.
[36]Apgar, William,1990, "Which Housing Policy Is Best?" Housing Policy Debate,1:1-32.
[37]Arellano, M., "Panel Data Econometrics",New York:Oxford University Press, 2003.
[38]Arellano, Bond,1991, "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data:Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations", The Review of Economic Studies,58:277-297.
[39]Ball, Knorr-Siedow,2004, "Housing and Urban Affairs", in Compston H.(Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy in Europe Britain France and Germany, New York:Palgrave Macmillan division of St., Martin's Press.
[40]Battu, H., Ma, A. and Phimister, E.,2008, "Housing Tenure, Job Mobility and Unemployment in the UK", The Economic Journal,118 (257):311-328.
[41]Baum, F., Schaffer, E. and Stillman, S.,2003, "Instrumental Variables and GMM:Estimation and Testing, Tata Journal,3:1-31.
[42]Baum-Snow, N. and J. Marion,2009, "The Effects of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Developments on Neighborhoods", Journal of Public Economics, 93:654-666.
[43]Belot, M. and Van Ours, J.,2001, "Unemployment and Labor Market Institutions:An Empirical Analysis", Journal of the Japanese and International Economies,15 (4):403-418.
[44]Berry, S. and J. Waldfogel,1999, "Public Radio in the United States:Does it Correct Market Failure or Cannibalize Commercial Stations?" Journal of Public Economics,71:189-211.
[45]Bingley and Walker,2001, "Housing Subsidies and Work Incentives in Great Britain", The Economic Journal,111 (5):86-103.
[46]Blakemore, K., "Social Policy:An Introduction", Open University Press, 1998:143.
[47]Blundell, Bond,1998, "Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models", Journal of Econometrics,87:115-143.
[48]Blundell, R. and Smith, J.,1994,"Coherency and Estimation in Simultaneous Models with Censored or Qualitative Dependent Variables", Journal of Econometrics,64:355-373.
[49]Brunet, C. and Lesueur, J.,2009, "Do Homeowners Stay Unemployed Longer? Evidence Based on French data". In:van Ewijk, C. & van Leuvensteijn, M. (Eds.), Homeownership & the Labour Market in Europe. Oxford University Press,137-158.
[50]Clapham, D., Kemp, P., and Smith, S.,1990, "Housing and Social Policy", London:Macmillan.
[51]Coulson, E., Fisher, L.,2002,"Tenure Choice and Labour Market Outcomes", Housing Studies,17 (1):35-49.
[52]Coulson, E. and Fisher, L.,2009, "Housing Tenure and Labor Market Impacts: The Search Goes on", Journal of Urban Economics,65 (3):252-264.
[53]Currie, J. and Yelowitz, A.,2000, "Are Public Housing Projects Good for Kids?", Journal of Public Economics,75:99-124.
[54]Cutler, D. M. and J. Gruber,1996, "Does Public Insurance Crowd out Private Insurance?" The Quarterly Journal of Economics,111:391-430.
[55]Cutts and Olsen,2002, "Are section 8 housing subsidies too high?" Journal of Housing Economics 11:214-243.
[56]de Graaff, T. et al.,2009),"Homeownership, Social Renting and Labor Mobility across Europe" in van Ewijk & van Leuvensteijn (Eds.),Homeownership & the Labour Market in Europe, Oxford University Press.
[57]Donnison,D. and Ungerson, C.,1982, "Housing Policy", Middlesex:Penguin Books Ltd.
[58]Dujardin and Goffette-Nagot,2009, "Does Public Housing Occupancy Increase Unemployment?"Journal of Economic Geography,9:823-851.
[59]Eriksen, M. D. and S. S. Rosenthal,2010, "Crowd out Effects of Place-Based Subsidized Rental Housing:New Evidence from the LIHTC Program", Journal of Public Economics,94:953-966.
[60]Fack, G,2006, "Are Housing Benefit an Effective Way to Redistribute Income? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in France", Labour Economics, 13:747-777.
[61]Fair R.,1973, "Methods of Estimation for Markets in Disequilibrium:A Further Study", Econometrica,42:177-190.
[62]Fair, R. and D.Jaffee,1972, "Methods of Estimation for Markets in Disequilibrium", Econometrica:Journal of the Econometric Society,497-514.
[63]Fair, R. C. and H. H. Kelejian,1973, "Methods of Estimation for Markets in Disequilibrium:A Further Study", Econometrica,42:177-190.
[64]Flatau, P., Forbes, M., Hendershott, P. and Wood, G.,2003, "Homeownership and Unemployment:The Roles of Leverage and Public Housing", NBER Working Paper, No.10021.
[65]Flatau, P. et al,2003, "Homeownership and Unemployment:The Roles of Leverage and Public Housing", NBER Working Paper, W10021.
[66]Flatau, P. et al,2002,"Homeownership and Unemployment:Does the Oswald thesis hold for Australian regions?"Working Paper-Economics, Murdoch University 189.
[67]Freedman and Owens,2011, "Low-Income Housing Development and Crime", Journal of Urban Economics 70:115-131.
[68]Friedrichs, J. and Blasius, J.,2003, "Social Norms in Distressed Neighborhoods:Testing the Wilson Hypothesis, Housing Studies,6:807-826.
[69]Garcia, J. and Hernandez, J.,2004, "User Cost Changes, Unemployment and Home-Ownership:Evidence from Spain", Urban Studies,41 (3):563-578.
[70]Gibb and Whitehead,2007, "Towards the More Effective Use of Housing Finance and Subsidy", Housing Studies,22:183-200.
[71]Gobillon and Le Blanc,2002, "The Impact of the Borrowing Constraints on Mobility and Tenure Choice", CREST working paper:2002-2028.
[72]Gobillon and Le Blanc,2008, "Economic Effects of Upfront Subsidies to Ownership:The Case of the PTZ in France", Journal of Housing Economics 17:1-33.
[73]Goering, J.,2003, "The Impacts of New Neighborhoods on Poor Families: Evaluating the Policy Implications of the Moving to Opportunity Demonstration, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Policy Review,6:113-140.
[74]Goux, D. and Maurin, E.,2005, "The Effect of Overcrowded Housing on Children's Performance at School", Journal of Public Economics,89:797-819.
[75]Granovetter, M.,1995, "Getting a Job:A Study of Contacts and Careers (2nd ed.)", Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[76]Green and Maipezzi,2003,"A Primer on U. S. Housing a Policy", Washington DC:Urban Institute Press.
[77]Green and Vandell,1999,"Giving Households Credit:How Changes in the U. S. Tax Code Could Promote Homeownership", Regional Science and Urban Economics 29:419-444.
[78]Green, R. and Hendershott, P.,2001, "Home-Ownership and Unemployment in the US". Urban Studies,38 (9):1509-1520.
[79]Greene, W. H.,1998, "Gender Economics Courses in Liberal Arts Colleges: Further Results", Journal of Economic Education,29:291-300.
[80]Harsman B. and Quigley J.,1991, "Housing Markets and Housing Institutions in a Comparative Context" in Harsman, Quigley(eds.). Housing Markets and Housing Institutions:An international Companson. Kluwer.
[81]Havet, N. and Penot, A.,2010, "Does Homeownership Harm Labour Market Performances? A Survey", GATE Working Papers.No.1012.
[82]Hendershott and Shilling,1982, "The Economics of Tenure Choice 1955-79"in Sirmans, C. (ed.), Greenwich, CT:Research in real estate (1), Jai Press.
[83]Henderson and Ioannides,1983, "A Model of Housing Tenure Choice", American Economic Review,73:98-113.
[84]Holzer, H.J.,1991, "The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis:What Has the Evidence Shown? ", Urban Studies,28(1):105-122.
[85]Hsiao, C.,2007, "Panel Data Analysis—Advantages and Challenges", Test, 16:1-22.
[86]Hughes and McCormick,1981, "Do Council House Policies Reduce Mobility between Regions?", Economic Journal,91:919-937.
[87]Hughes and McCormick,1985, "Migration Intentions in the UK:Which Households Want to Migrate and Which Succeed", Economic Journal, 95:113-123.
[88]Hughes and McCormick,1987, "Housing Markets, Unemployment and Labour Market Flexibility in the UK", European Economic Review, 31:615-645.
[89]Hughes and McCormick,1990, "Housing and Labour Market Mobility", in Ermisch, (ed.), Housing and the National Economy, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
[90]Ihlanfeldt, K. R.,1997, "Information on the Spatial Distribution of Job Opportunities within Metropolitan Areas", Journal of Urban Economics,41: 218-242.
[91]Jones, H,1978, "Sunset Legislation", Tax Review:53.
[92]Katz, L.F.et al.,2001,"Moving to Opportunity in Boston:Early Results of a Randomized Mobility Experiment", Quarterly Journal of Economics,116(2): 607-654.
[93]King, M. A.,1980, "An Econometric Model of Tenure Choice and Demand for Housing as a Joint Decision", Journal of Public Economics:137-160.
[94]King, M. A.,1981, "The Distribution of Gains and Losses from Changes in the Tax Treatment of Housing", Social Science Research Council Programme, No.20.
[95]Kling, J., Ludwig, J. and Katz L.,2005, "Neighborhood Effects on Crime for Female and Male Youth:Evidence from a Randomized Housing Voucher Experiment", the Quarterly Journal of Economics,120:87-130.
[96]Laferrere and Le Blanc,2004a, "How do Housing Allowances Affect Rents: An Empirical Analysis of the French Case", Journal of Housing Economics, 13:6-36.
[97]Laferrere and Le Blanc,2004b, "Gone with the Windfall:The Effect of Rental Subsidies on Student Co-Residence in France", CESifo Economic Studies 50(3):451-477.
[98]Laferrere and Le Blanc,2006, "Housing Policy:Low-income Households in France", in Arnott and McMillen (Eds.), A Companion to Urban Economics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
[99]Le Blanc and Laferrere,2001, "The Effects of the Existence of Public Social Housing on Households' Consumption in France", Journal of Housing Economics,10:429-455.
[100]Lee, C. I.,2007, "Does Provision of Public Rental Housing Crowd Out Private Housing Investment? A Panel VAR Approach", Journal of Housing Economics,16:1-20.
[101]Lund, B.,2006, "Understanding Housing Policy", Bristol:The Policy Press, 2006:2-5.
[102]Maclennan, D.,1982, "Housing Economics:An Applied Approach", London: Longman.
[103]Madariaga, Poncet,2007, "FDI in Chinese Cities:Spillovers and Impact on Growth ",World Economy,30:837-862.
[104]Maddala, G S. and F. D. Nelson,1974, "Maximum Likelihood Methods for Models of Markets in Disequilibrium", Econometrica,42:1013-1030.
[105]Maddala, G. S.,1983, "Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics". Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[106]Malpass, P. and Murie, A.,1999, "Housing Policy and Practice (5th)", London:Macmillan.
[107]Malpezzi, S. and K. Vandell,2002, "Does the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Increase the Supply of Housing?" Journal of Housing Economics, 11:360-380.
[108]Mayer, C.J. and C. T. Somerville,2000, "Residential Construction:Using the Urban Growth Model to Estimate Housing Supply", Journal of Urban Economics,48:85-109.
[109]Minford, P.et al.,1987, "The Housing Morass", Institute of Economic Affairs, London.
[110]Moffitt, R.,1992, "Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System:A Review", Journal of Economic Literature,30(1):1-61.
[111]Munch, J.R. and Rosholm, M.,2008, "Svarer M. Homeownership, Job Duration and Wages", Journal of Urban Economics,63 (1):130-145.
[112]Munch, J.R., Rosholm, M. and Svarer, M.,2006, "Are Home Owners Really More Unemployed? ", The Economic Journal,2006,116 (514):991-1013.
[113]Murray, M.,1983, "Subsidized and Unsubsidized Housing Starts: 1961-1977", The Review of Economics and Statistics,65:590-597.
[114]Murray, M.,1999, "Subsidized and Unsubsidized Housing Stocks 1935 to 1987:Crowding Out and Cointegration", The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics,18:107-124.
[115]Murray, P.,1980, "Tenant Benefits in Alternative Federal Housing Programs", Urban Studies,17:25-34.
[116]Murray, M. P.,1980, "A Reinterpretation of the Traditional Income-Leisure Model, with Application to In-Kind Subsidy Programs", Journal of Public Economics,14:69-82.
[117]Murray, M.P.,1983, "Subsidized and Unsubsidized Housing Starts: 1961-1977", Review of Economics and Statistics,65 (4):590-597.
[118]Murray, M. P.,1999, "Subsidized and Unsubsidized Housing Stock 1935 to 1987:Crowding out and Cointegration", Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics,18(1):107-124.
[119]Nickell, S.,1998, "Unemployment:Questions and Some Answers", Economic Journal,108 (448):802-816.
[120]Nickell, S. and Layard, R.,1999, "Labor Market Institutions and Economic Performance", In:Ashenfelter, O. and Card, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Labour Economics,3:3029-3084.
[121]O'Sullivan, A.,2007, "Urban Economics (6th), The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
[122]Olsen and Barton,1983, "The Benefits and Costs of Public Housing in New York City", Journal of Public Economics,20:299-332.
[123]Ong, Paul,1998, "Subsidized Housing and Work among Welfare Recipients", Housing Policy Debate,9(4):775-794.
[124]Oswald, A.,1996, "A Conjecture on the Explanation for High Unemployment in the Industrialized Nations:Part 1", University of Warwick Economic Research Papers, No.475.
[125]Paavo, Monkkonen,2011, "Public Housing and Unemployment:Skills and Spatial Mismatch in Postindustrial Hong Kong", IURD Working Paper, July 1.
[126]Partridge. A. and Rickman, D.,1997, "The Dispersion of US State Unemployment Rates:The Role of Market and Non-Market Equilibrium Factors", Regional Studies:The Journal of the Regional Studies Association, 31 (14):593-606.
[127]Pehkonen, J.,1999, "Unemployment and Home-Ownership". Applied Economics Letters,6:263-265.
[128]Poirier, D. J.,1980, "Partial Observability in Bivariate Probit Models", Journal of Econometrics,12:210-217.
[129]Quigley, J.M.,2008, "Just Suppose:Housing Subsidies for Low-Income Renters", in Retsinas and Belsky (Eds.), Revisiting Rental Housing, Policies, Programs, and Priorities, Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press.
[130]Reingold, D.,1999, "Social Networks and the Employment of the Urban Poor", Urban Studies,35:1907-1932.
[131]Rosen, H.,1985, "Housing Subsidies, Effects on Housing Decisions, Efficiency, and Equity, in Auerbach and Feldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Public Economics vol.1., North Holland, Amsterdam.
[132]Rosen, H.S. and Rosen, K. T.,1980, "Federal Taxes and Homeownership: Evidence from Time Series", Journal of Political Economy,88:59-75.
[133]Rosen, H.S.,1979, "Housing Decisions and the U.S. Income Tax:An Econometric Analysis", Journal of Public Economics,11:1-23.
[134]Rosenbaum, E. and Harris, L.,2001, "Residential Mobility and Opportunities: Early Impacts of the Moving to Opportunity Demonstration Program in Chicago", Housing Policy Debate,12:321-346.
[135]Rydell, C. P.,1980, "Supply Responses to the Housing Allowance Program", The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, Number N-1338-HUD.
[136]Sinai and Waldfogel,2002, "Do Low-Income Housing Subsidies Increase Housing Consumption?" NBER Working Paper, No.8709.
[137]Sinai, T. and J. Waldfogel,2005, "Do Low-Income Housing Subsidies Increase the Occupied Housing Stock?" Journal of Public Economics,89: 2137-2164.
[138]Staiger, D. and Stock, J. H.,1997, "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments", Econometrica,65:557-586.
[139]Struky, R.J.,1990, "Comment on William Apgar's'Which Housing Policy Is Best?'", Housing Policy Debate,1:45-51.
[140]Susin, S.,2002, "Rent Vouchers and the Price of Low-Income Housing", Journal of Public Economics,83:109-52.
[141]Svarer, M., Rosholm, M. and Munch, J. R.,2005, "Rent Control and Unemployment Duration", Journal of Public Economics,89:2165-2181.
[142]Swan, C.,1973, "Housing Subsidies and Housing Starts", Real Estate Economics,1:119-140.
[143]Sweeney, J. L.,1974a, "A Commodity Hierarchy Model of the Rental Housing Market", Journal of Urban Economics,1:288-323.
[144]Sweeney, J. L.,1974b, "Quality, Commodity Hierarchies, and Housing Markets, Econometrica,42 (1):147-167.
[145]U.S. Bureau of the Census,1982, "Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1982-83", Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
[146]van Leuvensteijn, M. and Koning, P.,2004, "The Effect of Home-Ownership on Labor Mobility in the Netherlands", Journal of Urban Economics,55:580-596.
[147]van Vuuren, A.,2009, "The Impact of Homeownership on Unemployment in the Netherlands", In:van Ewijk, C. and van Leuvensteijn, M. (Eds.), Homeownership and the Labour Market in Europe. Oxford University Press, Ch.5:113-135.
[148]Verdugo, G.,2011, "Public Housing Magnets:Public Housing Supply and Immigrant Location Choices", Banque de France, working paper, December 7.
[149]Weicher, J., "Urban Housing Policy", in:Mieszkowski P., Stroszheim M. (eds.), Current Issues in Urban Economics, John's Hopkins,1979:469-508.
[150]Wilson, J.,1987, "The Truly Disadvantaged:The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[151]Windmeijer, F. A.,2005, "Finite Sample Correction for the Variance of Linear Efficient Two-Step GMM Estimators", Journal of Econometrics, 126:25-51.
[152]Yves Zenou,2010, "Housing Policies in China:Issues and Options", IFN Working Paper, No.824.