Research On The Housing Price Effect Of My Country's Real Estate Purchase Restriction Polic

Healthy and balanced development of real estate market is one of concerns of our residents and also the key point of livelihood the government concerns about.The real estate market of our country experienced rapid growth period since the completion of marketization reform,and related indexes of residents’ affordability such as the real estate market price,housing-price-to-income ratio and others are all relatively high.Due to significant impact of housing on economy and people’s livelihood,the government has frequently promulgated the real estate market regulation policies over the years.In real estate market of China,the government’s regulatory power tends to stagnate and the intensive introduction of regulatory policies can no longer improve the market effect,this stimulates the housing price to rise to certain degree on the contrary.Demand management policies,such as’ purchase restriction’ policy and differentiated credit policy,have been implemented a long time which can intuitively reflect the ideas and intentions of the government in regulating the real estate market,and have relatively clear policy clauses,and greate impact on the real estate market.In another way,internationa scholars have made many mature achievements in the research of real estate regulation under the balanced market economy,but it is not common to analyze the policy effect of the regulation practice with Chinese characteristics.Therefore,on the basis of sorting the issuing and implementation of regulatory policies and major policy instruments for real estate market,we choose the ’purchase restriction’ policy as the effect analysis object,supplemented by the differential credit policy analysis,so as to provide a useful reference and experience for China to deepen the reform of the real estate market.In the analysis of policy effect,this paper systematically evaluates the price effect of two rounds of "purchase restriction" policy and its regional heterogeneity impact,examines the impact of policy on the real estate market equilibrium sales and supply indicators,and then analyzes its impact on the rigid demand and the investment demand.At the same time,this paper evaluates the effect of the "regional differentiation" of the differentiated credit policy in 2015 and the "recognition and loan approval" policy under "restricted purchases".The contents and conclusion of research are as follows:Firstly,this paper analyzes the research of the academic circle on operating mechanism,influencing mechanism and factors of real estate market of our country,introduces the research dynamics,latest developments and research shortages of real estate market research by the academic circle,to lay foundation for compilation of this paper.Secondly,it analyzes policies related to national real estate and land and major policy instruments since establishment of new China,in order for analyzing the features of national regulation of real estate market well and the effectiveness of those policies.Our country has undergone the period of intensive policy adjustment since2003,the key concern for regulatory policies lies in real estate market price.At different periods,the goals of national real estate policy regulation have fluctuated inconsistently to be tightened or loosened irregularly.Therefore the inconsistent policies arouse residents’ prediction of continuous and long-term rising housing price and the investment mentality leads to rising housing price as issuing of regulatory policies during specific periods.The regulation instruments for real estate market used by our government can be divided into supply-side management instrument and demand-side management instrument that the demand management instrument has been used for long term with greater influence.’Purchase restriction’ policy and differentiated credit policy are major policy management instrument over recent years.’Purchase restriction’ policy was firstly implemented in 2010 and secondly implemented in 2016.The differentiated credit policies had been promoted uniformly across the country for all before 2015 and was ’implemented’ differently in cities with’purchase restriction’ and ’no purchase restriction’,and the ’recognition of both purchased house and house loan’ policy was strictly implemented again in cities with’purchase restriction’ after October,2016.Thirdly,it analyzes the price effect of ’purchase restriction’ policy.’Purchase restriction’ policy plays obvious inhibiting role in price index of real estate market in cities with ’purchase restriction’ policy,and regional heterogeneity exists.Through comparative analysis of 70 large and medium-sized cities,the first round ‘purchase restriction’ policy has obvious influence on transaction price index of newly-built and second-hand housing,the power of influence weakens twelve months after implementation of the policy which relates to both supply and demand parties’ elusion measures adopted against the policy and loosened reviewing when verifying the housing purchase qualifications by the local government.The second round ’purchase restriction’ policy also controls the fluctuation of housing price effectively.This paper verifies the price effect of two ’purchase restriction’ policies via Differences-in-Differences model and concludes significant inhibition by the policy.This paper also analyzes the influence of ’purchase restriction’ policy on cities of different types via Differences-in-Differences model,the results show that the first round ’purchase restriction’ policy greatly inhibits the housing price of non-first-tier cities with ’purchase restriction’ policy,while the second round ’purchase restriction’policy plays better role in inhibiting the housing price of the first-tier cities and cities with net inflow of people.Fourthly,it analyzes the influence of the "limited purchase" policy on the sales area of commercial housing.In terms of influence on sales,’purchase restriction’policy inhibits the increase in sales area of real estate market in cities with ’purchase restriction’ policy to certain degree.Before implementation of the first ’purchase restriction’ policy,the year-on-year growth rate of sales area of commercial housing and commodity housing in related cities decreases obviously.Before and after implementing the second ’purchase restriction’ policy,the growth rate of sales area of commodity housing in cities firstly and continuously implementing ’purchase restriction’ policy decreases,while the year-on-year growth rate of sales area of commodity housing in cities without ’purchase restriction’ policy increases.The results of regression validation with double difference model show that when simultaneously introducing the control variable that reflects regional economic status and finance and currencies,the second ’purchase restriction’ policy inhibits the sales area of regional commodity and commercial housing obviously.The results show that the "purchase restriction" policy not only suppresses the house price,but also significantly suppresses the transaction scale under certain conditions.That is to say,the investment demand reduced by the policy is not greater than the rigid demand increased by the control of house price,or may reduce the rigid demand at the same time.Fifthly,from the perspective of supply side,it analyzes the influence of’purchase restriction’ policy on supply indexes.Two ’purchase restriction’ policies have obvious inhibiting role in inhibiting real estate and residential investment and this may reduces the inhibiting effect of ’purchase restriction’ policy on housing price.The comparative analysis shows that,the year-on-year growth rate of the completed real estate investment amount in cities with ’purchase restriction’ policy decreases after the first round ’purchase restriction’ policy,and that of the completed residential investment amount decreases more obviously compared with real estate investment.The regression results from regression validation via Differences-in-Differences method show that both completed real estate investment amount and completed residential investment amount are inhibited obviously by the second ’purchase restriction’ policy,the real estate investment and supply decrease may lead to decreasing inhibiting effect on housing price under ’purchase restriction’ policy.When analyzing the influence of land-related indexes,the explicit influence of ’purchase restriction’ policy on land transferring fees and the growth rate of average traded land price is week via comparative analysis for the first round ’purchase restriction’ policy,but that on the absolute value of land transferring fees via Differences-in-Differences model for the second round ’purchase restriction’ policy is positive obviously.The results may be due to that the land transferring fees and total amount of traded land are not subject to demands of the developers when the overall land supply is scarce,but the government.Sixthly,at the end of 2014,the whole country loosens the policy to ’recognize only purchased house but no house loan’ as the first suite,while since October,2016,’recognition of both purchased house and house loan’ has been applied as the first suite recognition under differentiated credit policy in cities with continuous ’purchase restriction’ policy.Through comparative analysis and regression validation of double difference model,the results show that ’recognition of both purchased house and house loan’ policy obviously inhibits the traded price of real estate in five cities with continuous ’purchase restriction’ policy.But the results of the double difference model show that the impact of the policy on the absolute value of sales area of five cities is still significantly positive compared with other cities,which means the area effect of this policy is limited,which may be due to the rigid demand and the invest demand of Beijing,Shanghai,Guangzhou,Shenzhen and Sanya.When examining the effect of the ’recognition of both purchased house and house loan’ policy and the macro-control combination policy of interest rate at the same time,the results show that it significantly inhibited the sales area of commercial housing and commercial housing in the sample cities.The results from regression validation of double difference model show that the policy has insignificant influence on land supply index.Seventhly,the implementation of ’regional differentiation’ in differentiated credit policy obviously inhibits the traded price of real estate in five cities with continuous’ purchase restriction’ policy.In September,2015 and February,2016,the government issued the ’regional differentiation’ policy to implement differentiated credit policy respectively,to encourage the cities with no ’purchase restriction’ policy to loosen housing credit policy.Different credit policies are adopted in cities with continuous’ purchase restriction’ policy and no ’purchase restriction policy’.The average value of price indexes of 70 large and medium-sized cities tend to increase that shortens the difference with cities with continuous ’purchase restriction’ policy and the implementation of ’regional differentiation’ produces certain effect.The results from regression validation via double difference model show that,the implemented differentiated credit policy in ’regional differentiation’ after September,2015 obviously inhibits the sales price indexes of second-hand housing and newly-built commodity housing in five cities with continuous ’purchase restriction’ policy.Eighthly,based on the analysis of influencing mechanism of ’purchase restriction’ policy and differentiated credit policy and the impact on market equilibrium and supply,this paper suggests that the existing problems in regulation of real estate market policy of our country are that: the concern of policy shifts;the trade-restriction policy fails to solve the problem of supply-demand mismatch in real estate market;the trade-restriction policy leads to three problems such as loss of social equity and welfare and its influence on sustainable economic development,etc.,puts forwards policies and suggestions respectively from promoting governance competence of local government and recovery of governmental public functions;activating the supply and establishing market-oriented regulatory measures;adjusting demands and channeling investment and financing market,in the hope of forming more stable and sustainable real estate market and giving full play of its positive role in promoting national long-term economic growth and urbanization.