中國大陸房地產宏觀調控政策效果的實證研究

近年來，中國房地產行業在快速發展過程中，暴露出房價增速過快，市場結構畸形等問題。自2003年起中國政府開始出臺一系列政策，通過經濟手段和行政手段對房地產市場進行指導和干預，即房地產宏觀調控。各項調控政策理論上抑制房地產的投機行為從而抑制房價，但近年中國房地產價格保持快速上漲。因此對於房地產宏觀調控的效果評價，即於宏觀調控政策在多大程度上延緩了房價的漲勢，具有重要的研究意義。本文詳細整理了2003年至2015年中國大陸房地產宏觀調控政策，包括差異化住房信貸政策、限購政策、個人住房轉讓營業稅和二手房交易個人所得稅歷次調整的細節，通過文獻研究的方法總結各項政策對房地產價格的調控邏輯和影響路徑，並與宏觀經濟變量共同建立經濟模型。本文依據經濟模型，搜集整理中國34個大中城市2003-2014年的資料，構建動態面板模型，對各項宏觀調控政策的效果進行實證研究。實證結果表明：限購政策、個人住房轉讓營業稅和二手房交易個人所得稅都在全國範圍內起到了抑制房價的作用。其中：限購政策在兩年內均可抑制房價上漲6.5%左右，但其在一線城市的效果不顯著。個人住房轉讓營業稅和二手房交易個人所得稅短期內會惡化二手房市場環境導致政策失效甚至反效，長期則可以通過降低獲利預期達到抑制投機從而抑制房價的效果。本文推測政策生效的時滯，可能取決於政策的力度和市場環境，即一線城市營業稅>一線城市所得稅＞二線城市營業稅＞二線城市所得稅。而差異化住房信貸政策，由於調控力度較弱，且消費者比例大，在全國範圍內對房價的抑制效果不顯著。但在一線城市，住房信貸政策對一年後的房價起到抑制效果，這可能是由於一線城市房屋總價高，監管嚴格和消費投機需求模糊化所致。

關鍵字

房價；宏觀調控；住房信貸；二手房交易稅費；限購

並列摘要

In recent years, with the rapid development of China’s real estate industry, many problems began to emerge, for example, the excessively rising house price, the deformed market structure, etc. Since 2003, the Chinese government has started to introduce a series of policies and to guide and interfere the real estate market by economic and administrative methods, namely real estate macro-regulation. Theoretically, these regulation is able to restrict house price. However, the frequent introduction of regulation policies does not bring down a little bit the high housing price. Therefore, there is much research significance to evaluate the effects of real estate macro control policy. This dissertation sorts out in details the real estate macro regulation policies in mainland China from 2003 to 2015, including differentiated housing credit policy, purchase-limit policy and details about multiple adjustments in business tax for individual house transfer and income tax for second-hand house trading. It also concludes by way of literature research how various policies regulate housing price and how they affect housing price. Meanwhile, an economic model is established through literature research and macroeconomic variables. Based on this economic model, this essay collects documents about 34 large and medium-sized cities in China from 2003 to 2014 and constructs a dynamic panel model, which is used to carry out fact-finding research on the effects of various macro control policies. The research results reveal that purchase-limit policy, business tax for second-hand house transfer and income tax for second-hand house trading all restrict house price nationwide. Among them, purchase-limit policy can limit house price from rising by about 6.5% within two years, but proves not very effective in first-tier cities. In the short term, business tax for individual house transfer and income tax for second-hand house trading will deteriorate the second-hand house market environment, making the policies ineffective or even counter-productive. Yet, in the long term, they can check speculation by reducing profit expectancy, thus controlling house price. Whether there will be time lag for the policy to be of effect may depends on the strength of policy and market environment. The likely scenario may be that business tax in first-tier cities is the highest, followed by income tax in first-tier cities, business tax in second-tier cities and income tax in second-tier cities. However, due to weak regulation strength and the large number of consumers, differentiated housing credit policy does not exert much effect on house price control. Still, in first-tier cities, housing credit policy is effective in controlling housing price one year later, which may be caused by the high housing price in first-tier cities, strict supervision and fuzzy speculation and consumption demand.