Advertisement

Impact of weak substitution between owning and renting a dwelling on housing market

  • Martin LuxEmail author
  • Petr Sunega
  • Jan Jakubek
Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

According to economic theory, an economically rational market agent searching for permanent housing in a particular stage in his/her life cycle should base his/her tenure considerations also by comparing rent to the user costs of homeownership, and among flats with otherwise identical housing services and security will select the cheaper of two alternative tenures. Economic theory perceives rental and owner-occupied housing as ‘communicating vessels’—a change in conditions in one necessarily entails changes in the other. This is called the ‘substitution effect’ and represents an important balancing mechanism in the housing market. Our hypothesis is that if the substitution between rental and owner-occupied housing in particular culture/society is weak, then the demand for owner-occupied housing becomes more income-elastic than vice versa. Consequently, in the case of a weak substitution effect, changes in house prices will closely mimic changes in household incomes, while in the case of a strong substitution effect this relationship will be much weaker. We confirmed our hypothesis by employing both a theoretical model and an empirical analysis of price data. If we assume poor responsiveness of housing supply, the main implication of our findings is that in societies with weak substitution effect between owning and renting we can expect higher house-price volatility and thus a higher chance of price bubbles appearing.

Keywords

House prices Housing demand Homeownership 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research on this paper was sponsored by the Czech Science Foundation with grant number 16-06335S. We would like to thank OECD (Analytical House Price Database Department), and especially Christophe André, for kind provision of house price and supplementary data for selected OECD countries.

References

  1. Ampudia, M., & Mayordomo, S. (2018). Borrowing constraints and housing price expectations in the eura area. Economic Modelling, 72, 410–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, H. S. (2011). Motive for tenure choice during the life cycle: The importance of non-economic factors and other housing preference. Housing Theory and Society, 28, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arbel, Y., Fialkoff, Ch., & Kerner, A. (2016). Does the first impression matter? Efficiency testing of tenure-choice decision. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 60, 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bazyl, M. (2009). Factors influencing tenure choice in European countries. Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, 1, 371–387.Google Scholar
  5. Boehm, T. P. (1982). A hierarchical model of housing choice. Urban Studies, 19, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourassa, S. C. (1995). A model of housing tenure choice in Australia. Journal of Urban Economics, 37(2), 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bracke, P. (2011). How long do housing cycles last? A duration analysis for 19 0ECD countries. IMF Working Paper No. WP/11/231. IMF.Google Scholar
  8. Brueckner, J. K. (1986). The downpayment constraint and housing tenure choice: A simplified exposition. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 16, 519–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Case, K., Cotter, J., & Gabriel, S. (2011). Housing risk and return: Evidence from housing asset-pricing model. Journal of Portfolio Management, 37(5), 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Case, K.E., & Schiller, R.J. (1988). The behavior of home buyers in boom and post-boom markets. Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 890. Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, J., Hui, E Ch M, Seiler, M. J., & Zhang, H. (2018). Household tenure choice and housing price volatility under a binding home-purchase limit policy constraint. Journal of Housing Economics, 41, 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Claessens, S., Kose, M.A., & Terrones, M.E. (2011). Financial cycles: What? How? When? IMF Working Paper No. WP/11/76. IMF.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, W., Deurloo, M., & Dieleman, F. (2003). Housing careers in the United States, 1968–93: Modelling the sequencing of housing States. Urban Studies, 40(1), 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, W. F., & Dieleman, (1996). Households and housing: Choice and outcomes in the housing market. New Brunswick: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  15. Coolen, H., Boelhouwer, P., & Van Driel, K. (2002). Values and goals as determinants of intended tenure choice. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 17, 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Decker, P., & Geurts, V. (2003). Belgium. In J. Doling & J. Ford (Eds.), Globalisation and home ownership (pp. 21–52). Delft: Delft University Press.Google Scholar
  17. DiPasquale, D., & Wheaton, W. (1996). Urban economics and real estate markets. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Doling, J. (1976). The family life cycle and housing choice. Urban Studies, 13, 55–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elsinga, M. (2011). A qualitative comparative approach to the role of housing equity in the life cycle. International Journal of Housing Policy, 11(4), 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans, A. W. (1995). The property market: Ninety percent efficient? Urban Studies, 32, 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fama, E. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance, 25, 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fan, G. Z., Pu, M., Deng, X., & Ong, S. E. (2018). Optimal portfolio choices and the determination of housing rents under housing market uncertainty. Journal of Housing Economics, 41, 200–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flint, J., & Rowlands, R. (2003). Commodification, normalisation and intervention: Cultural, social and symbolic capital in housing consumption and governance. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 18(3), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirayama, Y. (2010). The role of home ownership in Japan’s aged society. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hui, Ch M, & Wang, Z. (2014). Market sentiment in private housing market. Habitat International, 44, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kashiwagi, M. (2014). Sunspots and self-fulfilling beliefs in the U.S. housing market. Review of Economic Dynamics, 17, 654–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Katzner, D. (1989). The walrasian vision of the microeconomy: An elementary exposition of the structure. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kouwenberg, R., & Zwinkels, R. (2014). Forecasting the US housing market. International Journal of Forecasting, 30, 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krumm, R. J. (1984). Household tenure choice and migration. Journal of Urban Economics, 16, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuang, P. (2014). A model of housing and credit cycles with imperfect market knowledge. European Economic Review, 70, 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lauster, N. T. (2010). Housing and the proper performance of American motherhood 1940–2005. Housing Studies, 25(4), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lux, M., & Sunega, P. (2012). Labour mobility and housing: The impact of housing tenure and housing affordability on labour migration in the Czech Republic. Urban Studies, 49, 599–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lux, M., Gibas, P., Boumová, I., Hájek, M., & Sunega, P. (2017). Reasoning behind choices: Rationality and social norms in the housing market behaviour of first-time buyers in the Czech Republic. Housing Studies, 32, 517–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lux, M., Samec, T., Bartos, V., Sunega, P., Palguta, J., Boumová, I., et al. (2018). Who actually decides? Parental influence on the housing tenure choice of their children. Urban Studies, 55, 406–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maclennan, D. (1982). Housing economics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  36. Malpezzi, S. (2005). The role of speculation in real estate cycles. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 13, 143–164.Google Scholar
  37. Muth, R., & Goodman, A. (1989). The economics of housing markets. London: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Nofsinger, J. R. (2012). Household behaviour and boom/bust cycles. Journal of Financial Stability, 8, 161–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rex, J., & Moore, R. (1967). Race, community and conflict: A study of Sparkbrook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ruonavaara, H. (1996). The home ideology and housing discourse in Finland 1900–1950. Housing Studies, 11(1), 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Samuelson, P. (1965). Proof that properly anticipated prices fluctuate randomly. Industrial Management Review, 6, 41–49.Google Scholar
  42. Sánchez, A.C., & Johansson, A. (2011). The Price Responsiveness of Housing Supply in OECD Countries. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 837, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Saunders, P. (1990). A nation of home owners. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  44. Shiller, R. J. (2000). Irrational exuberance. Princenton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Shiller, R.J. (2008). Understanding recent trends in house prices and homeownership. In Housing, Housing Finance and Monetary Policy, Jackson Hole Conference Series, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.Google Scholar
  46. Shlay, A. B. (2006). Low-income homeownership: American dream or delusion? Urban Studies, 43(3), 511–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sinai TM (2012) House price movements in boom-bust cycles. NBER Working Paper Series No. 18059. Cambridge: NBER.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, L., Rosen, K., & Fallis, G. (1988). Recent developments in economic models of housing markets. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(1), 29–64.Google Scholar
  49. Sweeney, J. L. (1974). Quality, commodities hierarchies, and housing markets. Econometrica, 42, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tsai, I. (2013). Housing affordability, self-occupancy housing demand and housing price dynamics. Habitat International, 40, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wheaton, W. C. (1999). Real estate cycles: Some fundamentals. Real Estate Economics, 27, 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of SciencesPrague 1Czech Republic
  2. 2.ADVACAM s.r.oPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations