限购政策是否降低房地产价格增速?
|
摘要
房地产限购政策是否能够有效控制房价增速是学术界和政策制定者广泛关注的一个重要问题,但至今没有一致结论.本文基于70个大中城市房价月度同比增速数据,利用Hsiao, Ching和Wan提出的面板数据政策评估模型,整体评估了限购政策实施以来对城市房价增速的影响.实证结果表明,限购政策短期内对大多数城市的房价增速发挥了一定抑制作用,但具体政策效果在不同城市分化严重.通过回归分析发现,城市人口规模,绿化环境,小学生人数增速及高校数目显著影响限购政策对控制房价的效果.此外,本文发现2014年底随着限购政策的取消,一二线城市房价增速得到大幅反弹,三线城市反而因为虹吸效应并没有出现反弹.本文研究结论认为,限购政策虽然短期能减少房地产购买需求从而抑制房价增速,但是如果不能改变购房者房价长期预期,一旦限购政策力度放缓则将带来报复式反弹.同时,房地产调控政策应因城施策,依据各个城市经济特征及发展阶段来制定有效措施.
Whether the home-purchase restriction policy can lower the growth rate of house price is an essential issue for academic researchers and policy makers. However, there has been no conclusive answer so far. Based on the monthly growth rate data of 70 large and medium size cities, this paper uses the panel-data policy evaluation method proposed by Hsiao, Ching and Wan to evaluate the effect of home-purchase restriction policy implementation. The empirical results show that, the home-purchase restriction policy played a role in the early implemented period, but the impact is very heterogeneous among cities. The regression analysis shows that the size of population, living environment, the growth rate of elementary students and the number of universities, significantly affect the impact of home-purchase restriction policy. Furthermore, we find that the policy suspending in the end of 2014 pushed up a round of revenge price boom, especially for first and second tier cities, not for third tier cites due to siphon effect.Our study implies that the home-purchase restriction might suppress the price by reducing the demand in the short term, but its impact will disappear as the suspending of the policy if it cannot change the house price expectation of citizens. Therefore, the government should design real estate control policy package according to the economic characteristic and development stage of each city.
Whether the home-purchase restriction policy can lower the growth rate of house price is an essential issue for academic researchers and policy makers. However, there has been no conclusive answer so far. Based on the monthly growth rate data of 70 large and medium size cities, this paper uses the panel-data policy evaluation method proposed by Hsiao, Ching and Wan to evaluate the effect of home-purchase restriction policy implementation. The empirical results show that, the home-purchase restriction policy played a role in the early implemented period, but the impact is very heterogeneous among cities. The regression analysis shows that the size of population, living environment, the growth rate of elementary students and the number of universities, significantly affect the impact of home-purchase restriction policy. Furthermore, we find that the policy suspending in the end of 2014 pushed up a round of revenge price boom, especially for first and second tier cities, not for third tier cites due to siphon effect.Our study implies that the home-purchase restriction might suppress the price by reducing the demand in the short term, but its impact will disappear as the suspending of the policy if it cannot change the house price expectation of citizens. Therefore, the government should design real estate control policy package according to the economic characteristic and development stage of each city.
引文
[1]杨海珍,向悦,王开阳.推动中国商品住宅价格的主要因素:时期与城市差异[J].系统工程理论与实践,2018, 38(9):2256-2266.Yang H Z, Xiang Y, Wang K Y. Determinants of Chinese urban house price:Time variation and city disparity[J].Systems Engineering—Theory&Practice, 2018, 38(9):2256-2266.
[2]李祥飞,张再生,黄超.基于Hilbert-Huang变换的房地产调控政策对地产指数的影响[J].系统工程理论与实践,2014,34(6):1369-1378.Li X F, Zhang Z S, Huang C. Study of influence estate control policies on real estate index based on the method of Hilbert-Huang transform[J]. Systems Engineering—Theory&Practice, 2014, 34(6):1369-1378.
[3]Hsiao C, Ching H S, Wan S K. A panel data approach for program evalution:Measuring the benefits of political and economic integration of Hong Kong with mainland China[J]. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2012, 27(5):705-740.
[4]Li K T, Bell D R. Estimation of average treatment effects with panel data:Asymptotic theory and implementation[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2017, 197(1):65-75.
[5]Du Z, Zhang L. Home-purchase restriction, property tax and housing price in China:A counterfactual analysis[J].Journal of Econometrics, 2015, 188(2):558-568.
[6]Chen H Q, Han Q, Li Y X, et al. Does index futures trading reduce volatility in the Chinese stock market? A panel data evaluation approach[J]. Journal of Futures Markets, 2013, 33(12):1167-1190.
[7]陈海强,范云菲.融资融券交易制度对中国股市波动率的影响——基于面板数据政策评估方法的分析[J].金融研究,2015(6):164-177.Chen H Q, Fan Y F. The impact of the launch of margin trading and short selling on Chinese stock market volatility:Evidence from a panel data policy evaluation approach[J]. Journal of Financial Research, 2015(6):164-177.
[8]Ke X, Chen H C, Hong Y M,et al. Do China's high-speed-rail projects promote local economy?—New evidence from a panel data approach[J]. China Economic Review, 2017, 44:203-226.
[9]Bai C E, Li Q, Ouyang M. Property taxes and home prices:A tale of two cities[J]. Journal of Econometrics,2014, 180(1):1-15.
[10]王敏,黄滢.限购和房产税对房价的影响:基于长期动态均衡的分析[J].世界经济,2013(1):141-159.Wang M, Huang Y. Impact of rationing and quantity limit on housing price[J]. The Journal of World Economy,2013(1):141-159.
[11]刘璐.限贷和限购政策对一般均衡中房价的影响[J].管理科学学报,2013, 16(9):20-32.Liu L. Influences of home-purchase restriction and property tax on house prices:Based on the analysis of the long term dynamic equilibrium[J]. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 2013, 16(9):20-32.
[12]张德荣,郑晓婷.“限购令”是抑制房价上涨的有效政策工具吗?——基于70个大中城市的实证研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2013(11):56-72.Zhang D R, Zheng X T. Is house purchase limit an effect policy to control housing price?[J]. The Journal of Quantitative&Technical Economics, 2013(11):56-72.
[13]邓柏峻,李仲飞,张浩.限购政策对房价的调控有效吗[J].统计研究,2014, 31(11):50-57.Deng B J, Li Z F, Zhang H. Does the house purchase quota policy have the regulation effect on housing prices[J].Statistical Research, 2014, 31(11):50-57.
[14]况伟大.预期,投机与中国城市房价波动[J].经济研究,2010(9):67-78.Kuang W D. Expectation, speculation and urban housing price volatility in China[J]. Economic Research Journal,2010(9):67-78.
[15]张娟锋,刘洪玉.住宅价格与土地价格的城市差异及其决定因素[J].统计研究,2010, 27(3):37-44.Zhang J F, Liu H Y. Expectation, the determinants of inter-metropolitan variation in house prices and land prices[J]. Statistical Research, 2010, 27(3):37-44.
1.各个城市实施限购和取消限购政策的具体时间存在差异,本文在评估影响效果的时候按照具体实施时间和取消时间来定义各个城市政策事件的窗口.
2.按照最新主流一线城市的定义,本文将北上广深四个城市定义为一线城市.
3.本文没有考虑固定效应模型是因为回归变量中有不少不随时间变化的变量,但本文考虑随机效应面板模型,主要结论没有发生变化.
[2]李祥飞,张再生,黄超.基于Hilbert-Huang变换的房地产调控政策对地产指数的影响[J].系统工程理论与实践,2014,34(6):1369-1378.Li X F, Zhang Z S, Huang C. Study of influence estate control policies on real estate index based on the method of Hilbert-Huang transform[J]. Systems Engineering—Theory&Practice, 2014, 34(6):1369-1378.
[3]Hsiao C, Ching H S, Wan S K. A panel data approach for program evalution:Measuring the benefits of political and economic integration of Hong Kong with mainland China[J]. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2012, 27(5):705-740.
[4]Li K T, Bell D R. Estimation of average treatment effects with panel data:Asymptotic theory and implementation[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2017, 197(1):65-75.
[5]Du Z, Zhang L. Home-purchase restriction, property tax and housing price in China:A counterfactual analysis[J].Journal of Econometrics, 2015, 188(2):558-568.
[6]Chen H Q, Han Q, Li Y X, et al. Does index futures trading reduce volatility in the Chinese stock market? A panel data evaluation approach[J]. Journal of Futures Markets, 2013, 33(12):1167-1190.
[7]陈海强,范云菲.融资融券交易制度对中国股市波动率的影响——基于面板数据政策评估方法的分析[J].金融研究,2015(6):164-177.Chen H Q, Fan Y F. The impact of the launch of margin trading and short selling on Chinese stock market volatility:Evidence from a panel data policy evaluation approach[J]. Journal of Financial Research, 2015(6):164-177.
[8]Ke X, Chen H C, Hong Y M,et al. Do China's high-speed-rail projects promote local economy?—New evidence from a panel data approach[J]. China Economic Review, 2017, 44:203-226.
[9]Bai C E, Li Q, Ouyang M. Property taxes and home prices:A tale of two cities[J]. Journal of Econometrics,2014, 180(1):1-15.
[10]王敏,黄滢.限购和房产税对房价的影响:基于长期动态均衡的分析[J].世界经济,2013(1):141-159.Wang M, Huang Y. Impact of rationing and quantity limit on housing price[J]. The Journal of World Economy,2013(1):141-159.
[11]刘璐.限贷和限购政策对一般均衡中房价的影响[J].管理科学学报,2013, 16(9):20-32.Liu L. Influences of home-purchase restriction and property tax on house prices:Based on the analysis of the long term dynamic equilibrium[J]. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 2013, 16(9):20-32.
[12]张德荣,郑晓婷.“限购令”是抑制房价上涨的有效政策工具吗?——基于70个大中城市的实证研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2013(11):56-72.Zhang D R, Zheng X T. Is house purchase limit an effect policy to control housing price?[J]. The Journal of Quantitative&Technical Economics, 2013(11):56-72.
[13]邓柏峻,李仲飞,张浩.限购政策对房价的调控有效吗[J].统计研究,2014, 31(11):50-57.Deng B J, Li Z F, Zhang H. Does the house purchase quota policy have the regulation effect on housing prices[J].Statistical Research, 2014, 31(11):50-57.
[14]况伟大.预期,投机与中国城市房价波动[J].经济研究,2010(9):67-78.Kuang W D. Expectation, speculation and urban housing price volatility in China[J]. Economic Research Journal,2010(9):67-78.
[15]张娟锋,刘洪玉.住宅价格与土地价格的城市差异及其决定因素[J].统计研究,2010, 27(3):37-44.Zhang J F, Liu H Y. Expectation, the determinants of inter-metropolitan variation in house prices and land prices[J]. Statistical Research, 2010, 27(3):37-44.
1.各个城市实施限购和取消限购政策的具体时间存在差异,本文在评估影响效果的时候按照具体实施时间和取消时间来定义各个城市政策事件的窗口.
2.按照最新主流一线城市的定义,本文将北上广深四个城市定义为一线城市.
3.本文没有考虑固定效应模型是因为回归变量中有不少不随时间变化的变量,但本文考虑随机效应面板模型,主要结论没有发生变化.