【作者】 刘斌；

【导师】 幸强国；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 公共经济制度与政策， 2014， 博士

【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。更多还原

【Abstract】 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.更多还原