Pan, Z (2004) Commercial housing ownership predictors in urban China: An analysis of a national survey. Construction Management and Economics, 22(1), pp. 85-91. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
China's housing reform has recently attracted notable academic interest due to the reform's crucial role in China's overall economic viability. Using nationally representative data, this paper examines predictors for ownership of commercial housing in urban China. This study confirms that the political and social biases associated with the old housing system have emerged in the process of commercial housing distribution. The housing reform so far has failed to achieve some of the most important goals of the commercialization of the housing market - to eliminate and remedy the corruption and the inefficiency of housing provision that were prevalent in the old housing system. Finally the outlook of the housing market in urban China is also discussed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | China housing; Chinese housing reform; housing tenure choice; urban housing in China |
| Index terms: | China, housing, national survey, tenure, housing reform, bias, ownership, housing provision, corruption |
| Subjects: | Geography, probability and distributions, construction type, economics, research products and data, housing and residential development, real estate economics, professional ethics, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Geographical Context, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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