Study On The Housing Inequality In China

After the comprehensive advancement of housing commercialization in our country, the social stratum difference began to reflect not only in income disparity, but also in housing difference. This is because as a form of property, the housing means much more than habitats of human life and family a big spending project of a family, it also becomes a symbol of identity, status and prestige. The situation who owns the housing reflects their grasp of the social resources and the degree of the social returns for personal ability from the side and reflects the degree of social inequalities directly. And hence, housing difference has provided an important breakthrough point for the study of social stratification and institutional research of the housing.This paper is based on the micro-data of the baseline survey of China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) in2010and focuses on research on residential housing in our country to have a comprehensive understanding of residential housing condition and then discusses the causes of housing inequality to know the difference of different classes in their accesses and opportunities to different types of housing. The empirical research is from the housing area, housing facilities, housing property type. Firstly, this paper learns from the idea of the Gini coefficient and builds the housing inequality coefficient to compare the degree of inequality in the distribution of housing area among the provinces. Secondly, the descriptive analysis of mode in difference of housing facilities shows the general level of different regions and by building the index of housing facilities, we can know the difference of the degree of complete and convenience in housing facilities of the eastern, central and west region and between urban and rural. Thirdly, this paper explores the formation of the housing property type differentiation and the housing difference of different groups by using the multi-valued Logistic model. This paper has got the following conclusions through the empirical research:In the aspect of housing area, the first and second of is Beijing and Shanghai and Beijing is much higher than other provinces and cities. The housing inequality coefficient of the three northeastern provinces is small and they have a relatively fair distribution of housing resources.In the aspect of housing facilities, the three municipalities directly under the central government, Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai are very similar. Most of the rural families are in majority with bungalows and most of the provinces which are in majority with small buildings are from the eastern region. The urban housing types of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Beijing are in majority with flat and small buildings. Most rural families are largely using well water or mountain spring, while most urban families are largely using tap water. The use of coal in the families of Shanxi is the most and straw is still the main fuel of rural areas in a lot of provinces. Most of the urban families are in the majority with coal gas, liquefied petroleum gas and natural gas. The percent of occasional power outages is higher than that of almost continuous electricity in most of the central region and most of the urban families are in good power condition. Most of the rural families are in majority with toilet that can’t be flushed outside the house and the eastern region has the highest proportion among the18provinces which have a high percent of toilet that can be flushed inside the house. With regard to the Dump sites, most of the rural families dump around the houses or in the brook nearby and lack unified management, while that of most of the urban families are more concentrated and convenient. Between any two regions among eastern, central and western regions and between urban and rural, it has an evident difference in housing facilities index.There are some conclusions in the aspect of the types of housing property: the proportion of self-owned property is the highest in each category and types of the independent variables. The groups with agriculture accounts have less possibility in other types of housing property except for self-owned proportion, while non-agriculture accounts doesn’t have a significant impact on housing type differentiation. Owning the housing property with company is more likely to occur in the middle-income families and the least likely to occur in the low-income families. The possibility of renting houses by upper-middle and high-income households are very likely to be very high and the possibility of being provide houses by government or company for high-income households is very slow. As the income level increases, the possibility of being provide houses by relatives and friends will decrease. The possibility of renting houses for the young people is higher than the middle-aged and the elderly and the possibility of renting housing and being provided house by the relatives and friends will decrease during the period of young. The middle-aged are less likely to be provided houses by the relatives and friends and the elderly are the least likely to rent houses but more likely to be provided houses by the relatives and friends. There is a large difference of housing types between the people who think highly of academic credentials and who think that it’s unnecessary to attend school and the difference exists in the relative possibility of being provided houses by the government or company. In the field of agriculture, as the rising of employment status and degree of owning an organization, the possibility of self-owning the housing will be higher. Along with the increase of technical level, there is a large chance of the housing type changing from renting to owning the housing property with company. When the scale of the organization is small, the possibility of renting house is very large, such as the self-employed. There is a large difference between the housing types of unmarried and married groups. The possibility of renting houses of the people who have divorced is higher than the average level. The possibility of renting houses and being provide houses by relatives and friends for non-Party Member is higher than that of Party Member. After a large number of people with agriculture accounts move to cities, the behavior of renting houses of them narrowed the difference of types of housing of people with different account types. Urban households from are more likely to benefit from the national housing supply system.The following are the innovations of this paper:firstly, the previous literature are mostly focused on study of urban housing inequality and this paper can give a more comprehensive and systematic understanding of that exists among different groups. Secondly, it’s the first time to add the cognition of the importance of receiving education and the occupation EGP classification to the independent variable of the housing property type differentiation model in the study of housing inequality. Besides, this paper has also studied the different impact on housing property type differentiation between the account types and categories of urban and rural.In addition, because of some objective factors and the restriction of the level of the author, this paper has many shortcomings, such as the paper has only studied the housing situation in2010, and therefore the data is deficient in timeliness, In order to meet the data requirement, this paper has merge some classification of the variable in the process of collating data and model fitting, which may lead to the lack of comprehensive studies of some variables.