Advertisement

Impact of housing market transformation in Germany on affordable housing: the case of North Rhine-Westphalia

  • Philipp Deschermeier
  • Heide Haas
  • Michael VoigtländerEmail author
Article

Abstract

The German housing market has changed significantly since the first decade of the new millennium. A considerable amount of public sector and company-owned employee housing has been sold off, while a number of large publicly listed real estate firms have emerged. This has been particularly evident in North Rhine-Westphalia. This paper examines the consequences of these changes for the development of rental prices, especially at the lower end of the market, by analysing 300,000 advertisements for rental homes in the ten largest cities in North Rhine-Westphalia. The results show that on average, and taking quality and location into account, the least expensive rental homes are offered by larger housing organisations with co-operatives being especially well priced, while there are only moderate differences between public companies and big private companies. One explanation may be that the rent policies of large private and public providers have converged, while co-operative housing associations still provide rental homes considerably more cheaply.

Keywords

Housing market Hedonic regression Rental prices Germany 

Notes

References

  1. Atterhög, M., & Lind, H. (2004). How does increased competition on the housing market affect rents?: An empirical study concerning Sweden. Housing Studies, 19(1), 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BBSR. (2015). Zweite Hochphase des Transaktionsgeschehens mit Mietwohnungsbeständen: Aktuelle Ergebnisse der BBSR-Datenbank “Wohnungstransaktionen” (BBSR-Analysen KOMPAKT 16).Google Scholar
  3. BMVBS, & BBR. (2008). Housing and real estate markets in Germany 2006 – Brief Summary. http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/EN/Publications/OnlinePublications/2008/DL_ON082008.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. Accessed 19 April 2017.
  4. Brachinger, H. W. (2003). Statistical theory of hedonic price indices. University of Freiburg, Freiburg. http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:fri:dqewps:wp0001.
  5. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB), & BBSR. (2015). Bündnis für bezahlbares Wohnen und Bauen - Kernempfehlungen und Maßnahmen.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, M.-C., Sing, T.-F., & Tsai, I.-C. (2004). Price discovery and segmentation in the public and private housing markets in Singapore. Singapore: National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, M.-C., Sing, T.-F., & Tsai, I.-C. (2006). Price dynamics in public and private housing markets in Singapore. Journal of Housing Economics, 15(4), 305–320.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2006.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Demary, M. (2009). Hedonische Immobilienpreisindizes—Verfahren und Beispiele. IW-Trends, 36(3), 91–104.Google Scholar
  9. Deschermeier, P., & Haas, H. (2015). Mietpreisdynamik in Köln und Berlin. Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln, Köln. http://www.iwkoeln.de/studien/iw-policy-papers/beitrag/philipp-deschermeier-heide-haas-mietpreisdynamik-in-koeln-und-berlin-236980.
  10. Deschermeier, P., Haas, H., Hude, M., & Voigtländer, M. (2016). A first analysis of the new German rent regulation. International Journal of Housing Policy, 16(3), 267–292.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2015.1135858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deschermeier, P., Seipelt, B., & Voigtländer, M. (2014). Mietpreisentwicklung von Gewerbeimmobilien in deutschen Großstädten. IW-Trends, 41(3), 91–104.Google Scholar
  12. Elsinga, M., Stephens, M., & Knorr-Siedow, T. (2014). The privatisation of social housing: Three different pathways. In K. Scanlon, C. Whitehead, & M. F. Arrigoitia (Eds.), Social housing in Europe (pp. 389–413). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. GmbH, Vivawest. (2015). VIVAWEST 2014: Werte schaffen. Werte leben. Wittingen: Neef + Stumme premium printing.Google Scholar
  14. Haffner, M. (2009). Housing allowances in comparative perspective. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24(1), 85–87.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-008-9133-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henger, R., Schier, M., & Voigtländer, M. (2015). Der künftige Bedarf an Wohnungen: Eine Analyse für Deutschland und alle 402 Kreise (IW policy paper 24).Google Scholar
  16. Henger, R., & Voigtländer, M. (2014). Transaktions- und Angebotsdaten von Wohnimmobilien—eine Analyse für Hamburg. IW-Trends, 41(4), 1–16.Google Scholar
  17. Hill, R. J. (2011). Hedonic Price Indexes for Housing. OECD. http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oec:stdaaa:2011/1-en.
  18. Hoekstra, J. (2009). Two types of rental system? An exploratory empirical test of Kemeny’s rental. Urban Studies, 46(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. iib. (2015). Immobilien-Kompass-Karte. iib. http://immobilien-kompass.capital.de/. Accessed 19 April 2017.
  20. Just, T., & Reuther, S. (2005). Housing portfolios in Germany: Scene set for further divestment. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsche Bank.Google Scholar
  21. Kemeny, J. (1995). From public housing to the social market: Rental policy strategies in comparative perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kemp, P. A. (2011). Low-income tenants in the private rental housing market. Housing Studies, 26(7–8), 1019–1034.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2011.615155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Larsson, C.-G., Lindbergh, L., & Wilson, T. (2004). Cost control and revenue generation: The case of public-housing companies’ experiences in Sweden. Regional Studies, 38(7), 803–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LEG Immobilien AG. (2016). Geschäftsbericht 2015.Google Scholar
  26. Lennartz, C. (2011). Power structures and privatization across integrated rental markets: Exploring the cleavage between typologies of welfare regimes and housing systems. Housing, Theory and Society, 28(4), 342–359.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2011.562626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lennartz, C. (2014). Market structures of rental housing: Conceptualising perfect competition in mixed local rental markets. International Journal of Housing Policy, 14(1), 56–78.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2013.877686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lennartz, C. (2016). Rivalry between social and private landlords in local rental housing markets. Urban Studies, 53(11), 2293–2311.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015592818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Musterd, S. (2014). Public housing for whom? Experiences in an Era of Mature Neo-Liberalism: The Netherlands and Amsterdam. Housing Studies, 29(4), 467–484.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2013.873393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sattler, K.-O. (2006). Nicht jede Rechnung geht auf: Die umstrittene Privatisierung kommunalen Wohnungseigentums. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. http://www.bpb.de/politik/innenpolitik/stadt-und-gesellschaft/64428/ausblicke. Accessed 19 April 2017.
  32. Sautter, H. (2005). Auswirkungen des Wegfalls von Sozialbindungen und des Verkaufs öffentlicher Wohnungsbestände auf die Wohnungsversorgung unterstützungsbedürftiger Haushalte, Grundlagen für eine Politik zur Wohnungsversorgung einkommensschwacher Bevölkerungsgruppen. Darmstadt: IWU.Google Scholar
  33. Schwalbach, J., Schwerk, A., & Smuda, D. (2006). Stadtrendite der öffentlichen Wohnungswirtschaft.: Formalisierung und Operationalisierung des Begriffs ‚Stadtrendite’ und Anwendung am Fallbeispiel DEGEWO. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin.Google Scholar
  34. Seeman, A.-K., Renner, S., Drevs, F., & Dietrich, M. (2014). Ownership status, symbolic traits, and housing association attractiveness: Evidence from the German residential market. International Journal of Housing Policy, 14(4), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stephens, M., Burns, N., & MacKay, L. (2003). The limits of housing reform: British social rented housing in a european context. Urban Studies, 40(4), 767–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Triplett, J. E. (2006). Handbook on hedonic indexes and quality adjustments in price indexes: Special application to information technology products. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Voigtländer, M. (2007). Die Privatisierung öffentlicher Wohnungen. Wirtschaftsdienst (11/2007), 748–753.Google Scholar
  38. Voigtländer, M. (2009). Why is the German homeownership rate so low? Housing Studies, 24(3), 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Voigtländer, M., Just, T., Steininger, B., Bienert, S., Braun, N., Haas, H., et al. (2013). Wirtschaftsfaktor Immobilien 2013. Gesamtwirtschaftliche Bedeutung der Immobilienwirtschaft. Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie, Special Edition 2013.Google Scholar
  40. Vonovia AG. (2016). Geschäftsbericht Vonovia SE 2015.Google Scholar
  41. Walker, R. M. (2010). The changing management of social housing: The impact of externalisation and managerialisation. Housing Studies, 15(2), 281–299.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030082397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitehead, C. (2012). The private rented sector in the new century: A comparative approach. Copenhagen: Boligøkonomisk Videncenter.Google Scholar
  43. Whitehead, C., & Scanlon, K. (Eds.). (2007). Social housing in Europe. London: LSE London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Deschermeier
    • 1
  • Heide Haas
    • 2
  • Michael Voigtländer
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Institut Wohnen und Umwelt (IWU)DarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Institute of SociologyGeorge-August-UniversitätGöttingenGermany
  3. 3.Research Unit for Real Estate and Financial MarketsInstitut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW)CologneGermany

Personalised recommendations