[雙語翻譯]房地產(chǎn)外文翻譯--韓國政府住房政策和住房市場不穩(wěn)定（英文）

1、Government housing policies and housing market instability in KoreaHyeon Ji Yu a,1, Sugie Lee b,*a Land and Urban Institute, Korea Land Corporation, 217, Jungjadong, Bundanggu, Sungnamsi, Gyeonggido, 463-775, Republic of

2、 Korea b Urban Planning, Development and Design Program, Maxine Goodman Levine College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University, ?2121 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44115-2214, USAKeywords:Housing market instabilityHous

3、ing priceHousing policyRoh administrationa b s t r a c tThis study examines the impact of housing policies and macroeconomic variables on housing priceinstability during the Roh, Mu Hyun Administration (2003–2008) in Kor

4、ea. Although researchers havedocumented the role of macroeconomic variables on changes in housing prices, few have addressed therelationship between governmental housing stabilization policies and housing price fluctuati

5、ons. Usinga statistical method, this research focuses on whether policy initiatives taken by the Roh Administrationto stabilize housing prices resulted in the expected outcome of a stabilized housing market. Controllingf

6、or macroeconomic variables, our empirical analysis reveals that the housing price stability policies of theRoh Administration had no observable impact on the stabilization of the Korean housing market.Conventional macroe

7、conomic variablesdthe money supply, corporate bond returns, and the number ofpermits for building construction and actual orders for building constructiondhave a statisticallysignificant association with housing price in

8、stability in Korea. This research discusses policy implicationsresulting from the ineffectiveness of housing stability initiatives in the Roh Administration.Published by Elsevier Ltd.IntroductionSince the housing market

9、is an imperfect, competitive market, governments have always justified intervention in the housing market. In particular, governmental intervention that aims to stabilize prices in the housing market has been a popular a

10、pproach taken by Korean governments over the past several decades. Rather than depending on the housing market that may correct itself, the Korean government, in an effort to control for speculative demands, has been act

11、ively engaged in the stabilization of the housing market. During the national financial crisis of 1998, the government of Kim, Dae Jung took dramatic measures to stabilize the real estate market, but the deregulation pol

12、icies of his administration led to a decrease in the housing supply and an increase in housing prices (Hong, Kim, Kim, 2005; Kim, 2007; Kim Jung, 2007). Kim (2007) identified the relationship between housing policies a

13、nd housing costs after the foreign currency crisis in 1998. He claimed that real estate policies were unable to accomplish the expected goals. Similarly, Kim (2005) argued that real estate policies failed to stabilize th

14、e market by decreasing housing prices as intended. Clearly, the timely imple- mentation of the policy did not achieve the expected results, and government regulations aimed at lowering housing prices were ineffective. Am

15、ong the few other studies, Hong et al. (2007), calculating the duration of the impulse response through their impulse response functional analysis, showed that real estate policies influence housing prices. Previous stud

16、ies focused on only the relationship between housing policies and housing prices over a long period of time, but they have not addressed the dynamic relationship between housing policies and housing prices. Many earlier

17、studies simply examined housing price fluctuation with housing policies in each administration without applying any meaningful statistical methods. To remedy these shortcomings, this study departs from previous studies b

18、y using the following methodological approach. First, this study defines and measures instability in the housing* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 216 687 2381; fax: þ1 216 687 9277.E-mail addresses: sotggy@hanma

19、il.net (H.J. Yu), s.lee56@csuohio.edu (S. Lee). 1 Tel.: þ82 31 738 8360, þ82 10 2842 7645; fax: þ82 31 738 8965.Contents lists available at ScienceDirectHabitat Internationaljournal homepage: www.elsevier.

20、com/locate/habitatint0197-3975/$ – see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.08.005Habitat International 34 (2010) 145–153fact that margin requirements cannot readily be made contingent on

21、whether price changes are caused by fundamental or non- fundamental factors. It may be appropriate to establish margin rules that are proportional to the value of the asset to reduce fundamental risks, which may be clear

22、ly inappropriate for non- fundamental changes in price. A fixed margin requirement, following a non-fundamental price change, becomes either less or more onerous, depending on whether the price rises or falls. A drop in

23、prices, in this sense, is equivalent to an increase in the borrowing constraints while a rise in prices is equivalent to an easing of the borrowing constraints. The rigidity of margin requirements is precisely what leads

24、 to price instability. The housing market has very high instability that reflects changes in economic circumstances and anticipation of future circumstances. In other words, housing price instability reflects unexpected

25、events in the future, but more importantly, it is related to a number of macroeconomic variables influenced by the level of real income. Le Grand and Robinson (1992) argued that ineffi- ciencies arise in housing markets

26、due to imperfect consumer information. Clearly, the extreme heterogeneity of the housing commodity and infrequent entry into the market imply that the problem of imperfect information in the housing market is greater tha

27、n that of any other market (Cho, 1996). Many studies have tried to explain housing market instability and its determinants. While some studies have indicated that it is associated with macroeconomic variables (Apergis, 2

28、003; Harris, 1989; Manchester, 1987), others claim that it can be controlled by governmental intervention (Cho, 1996; Kim, 2004; Zhu, 1997).Macroeconomic factorsEconomists, urban scholars, and public officials have been

29、interested in the determinants of housing prices in terms of micro and macroeconomic variables and public policies. While micro- economic factors pertain to the supply and demand for housing, macroeconomic factors includ

30、e the money supply, the construction of new housing, and interest rates. Through an empirical study using housing sales data in Greece,Apergis (2003) argued that the money supply, employment, and mortgage interest rates

31、have a significant impact on both housing prices and the construction of new housing. Kim and Park (2003) examined housing price changes and their determinants in Seoul and adjacent new towns and found that the housing p

32、rice change rates vary with regard to the “Jeonse” price index (the rental housing price index in Korea), the money supply, the building permit area, the stock price index, and yield on a three-year corporate bond. In ad

33、dition, Kim (2004) argued that fluctuations in housing prices have a direct impact on the level of macroeconomic activity by influencing private consumption and investment. He also pointed out that housing prices are aff

34、ected by macroeco- nomic variables such as real income, interest rates, and the credit supply. Similarly, Otrok and Terrones (2005) attempted to identify the dynamic relationships among international house prices, stock

35、prices, interest rates, and macroeconomic aggregates in industrial countries. They used a new dataset to gain insight into both the co- movement of house prices across industrial countries and observed the relationship b

36、etween the fluctuations of house prices with the fluctuations of financial asset returns and macroeconomic aggre- gates. They concluded that housing prices are related to macro- economic fluctuations in industrial countr

37、ies.Lee (2007) examined diverse macroeconomic variables such as the KOSPI index, current accounts, the consumer price index, the producer price index, M1, M2, corporate bond returns, construction orders, household consum

38、ption expenditures, national housingbonds, monetary stabilization bonds, won-dollar exchange rates, participation rates, and unemployment rates. He concluded that the producer price index represented the most significant

39、 macroeconomic index in housing-transaction prices and housing Jeonse rental prices in Korea. Cho (2007) also investigated how the housing policies and the macroeconomic variables of each administration in Korea have bee

40、n associated with housing price fluctuation. She concluded that the return on corporate bonds significantly influenced housing prices during the Roh Administration.Government interventionMany studies have focused on macr

41、oeconomic factors without any consideration for governmental real estate and housing policies that may have caused housing prices to fluctuate in Korea. Government intervention in the housing market is pervasive and ubiq

42、uitous, as centralized governmental power provides equal opportunities and privileges for all Koreans. However, because of the complexity of housing processes, housing-related issues cannot always be dealt with centrally

43、, so government action may lead to unintended consequences (King & Stivers, 1998).Cho (1996) emphasized that the general rationale for govern- ment intervention in a capitalist society largely relies on market failur

44、e, as the market mechanism often fails to provide social goods and services for people who need them. More specifically, he pointed out that failure in the housing market might be associated with its particular character

45、istics, which include loca- tion fixity, durability, heterogeneity, high transaction and mobility costs, and a close link between the housing and credit markets. Zhu (1997) examined the issue of effectiveness of governme

46、nt intervention in an inefficient property market within the frame- work of a free market economy and emphasized the role of government.Kim (2005) pointed out that an alleged reason for government intervention to reduce

47、Korean housing price fluctuations is the fear of an abrupt bust of the housing price bubble that can seri- ously damage the financial system and eventually the entire economy of the nation. His subsequent study (Kim, 200

48、5) showed that effective governmental policies had a positive impact on housing market stabilization. He found that many governmental housing policies in the housing market were changing and researched implications for p

49、resenting an effective direction for the housing price stability. Jung (2007), however, examined the effectiveness of governmental measures for housing price stabi- lization in Seoul through a quantitative analysis with

50、actual data and concluded that governmental measures were not effective at stabilizing housing prices. He pointed out that government authorities need to intervene in the housing market indirectly and enforce housing pol

51、icy timely. Despite substantial research on housing market instability and its determinants, previous studies have mentioned several limita- tions. Previous studies of housing policies or housing prices are statistically

52、 very restrictive, and some of them dealt with the impact of housing policies on housing prices in each administration on the basis of theoretical perspectives, that is, without empirical evidence. This study defines hou

53、sing price instability as the difference between housing prices of the past and those of the present in a longitudinal time frame. Then, we select significant indicators from existing studies and analyze housing instabil

54、ity using useful statistical methods. Controlling for macroeconomic variables, we focus on whether the official announcement of the housing stability policies by the Roh Administration exhibits an observable effect on ho