A comparative study of the housing reforms in the major cities of China: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen

Wong, F K W; Hui, E C M and Leung, B Y P (2001) A comparative study of the housing reforms in the major cities of China: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 6(2), pp. 95-107. ISSN 1366-4387

Abstract

This paper aims at making a comprehensive overview on the urban housing reforms in China since 1979. A comparative study on the performance of the housing marketization in the four major cities: namely, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, is conducted. The comparison is made from the perspective of housing production and investment, affordability and housing finance. The insights gained from the study and the measures taken in rectifying the problems would be helpful for future policy directions appropriate for a socialist country in economic transition, i.e. the People’s Republic of China.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: housing reforms, housing production and investment, affordability, housing finance
Index terms: housing reform, Beijing, comparative study, Shanghai, affordability, housing, China
Subjects: economic analysis, analytical methods, construction type, Geography, research design and methodology
Topics: Urban Studies, Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here