Change of Housing Inequality in Urban China and Its Decomposition: 1989–2011

Tan, Shukui; Wang, Siliang; Cheng, Conghui

doi:10.1007/s11205-015-1089-0

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Meanwhile, the urban-rural ratio of per capita housing wealth increased from 4.5 in 2002 to 7.2 in 2007 (Sato, 2006). Tan et al (2016) found that from 1989 to 2011 housing wealth inequality in urban China fi rst decreased and then increased.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Drove Housing Wealth Inequality in China?

Wan

Wang

2021

China and World Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although China is experiencing a deterioration in wealth distribution where housing is playing a dominant role, this issue has received scant research attention despite its importance. Combining four rounds of the China Household Finance Survey (CHFS) data, this paper measures and discusses wealth inequality in China, with a special emphasis on the contribution of housing. Our analysis reveals that housing is the largest contributor to wealth inequality, responsible for around 70 percent of total wealth inequality, and its contribution has been increasing over time. Our research efforts have focused on the housing wealth disparity, exploring its composition from alternative perspectives. The results show that housing wealth inequality has also been rising over time and an absolute majority of housing wealth inequality is due to within-group gaps. Finally, we employ Wan's (2004) regression-based decomposition methodology to quantify the contributions of different determinants to housing wealth disparity in China, and to demonstrate serious biases in the conventional approach that is often used to analyze housing wealth inequality.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Drove Housing Wealth Inequality in China?

Wan

Wang

2021

China and World Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research has highlighted the inequality of housing among different sociodemographic groups in different countries, such as the Czech Republic (Lux et al, 2013), Russia (Gentile & Sjoberg, 2013), Romania (Gentile & Marcinczak, 2014), Israel (Ben‐Shahar et al, 2018), and European countries (Elsinga, 2011; Filandri & Olagnero, 2014). Several researchers have highlighted the existence of housing inequality and housing wealth inequality among different economic and sociodemographic groups such as income, occupation, and education in urban China (Huang & Jiang, 2009; Li & Fan, 2020; Tan et al, 2016). Housing inequality among different racial and ethnic groups in the USA is also stated in various studies (DeSilva & Elmelech, 2012; Flippen, 2001; Krivo & Kaufman, 2004).…”

Section: Background Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies have estimated the time‐trend and degree of housing inequality through proper measures (Ben‐Shahar & Warszawski, 2015; Tan et al, 2016; Tunstall, 2015). In the case of India, estimation of degree of overall housing inequality is limited (Ahmad, 2012; Ahmad, 2015; Pal et al, 2015).…”

Section: Background Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

A Geospatial Analysis of Temporary Housing Inequality among Socially Marginalized and Privileged Groups in India

Ghosh

Alam

Ghosal

et al. 2021

Regional Science Policy & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major obstruction of Indian society to establish equality, balanced growth and development is regional and social group‐wise inequality in availing even basic human needs as well as housing conditions. The present study focuses on mapping the nationwide spatial disparity in the distribution and inequality of temporary housing among socially marginalized and privileged groups, along with three administrative hierarchies: National–State–District. Varieties of measures (Lorenz curve, Gini coefficient, correlation, and quadrant analysis) have been employed for this study. The results indicate inequality in the spatial distribution of serviceable and non‐serviceable temporary housing in India, along with a geospatial disparity in the ownership of temporary housing among different social groups. A number of districts in Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu Kashmir, and Tamil Nadu have shown a higher proportion of temporary housing along with more ownership among socially marginalized groups. Besides this, districts from Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Tripura have higher proportion of non‐serviceable temporary housing than the national average, along with more ownership among marginalized groups. The categorization of the states and districts based on social group‐wise inequality in the ownership and the concentration of temporary housing is significant for improving of the policies and initiatives taken by the Government to arrange safe, affordable, adequate, and sustainable housing for all.

show abstract

“…It took from 1911-1991 for the worst-housed in England and Wales in terms of housing space per person (people at the 10th percentile of the distribution) to get to 1.0 room per person, which had the national median in 1911 (Tunstall, 2015). There is evidence of increasing inequality in housing space, for example, in countries including the USA (Landis, Elmer, & Zook, 2002) and China (Feng, 2008;Tan, Wang, & Chen, 2016) and increasing inequality in housing wealth (Arundel, 2017;Piketty, 2014;Robinson et al, 1985).…”

Section: Housing Growth Inclusivity and Justnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Housing Growth Ever Inclusive Growth? Evidence from Three Decades of Housing Development in England and Wales, 1981–2011

Tunstall

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is global concern about who gains from economic growth, including housing development, and global interest in making growth more inclusive. This article creates a new definition of ‘housing growth,’ growth in median space per person. It says that this housing growth is ‘inclusive’ if the worst-off make some gains, and ‘just’ if inequality does not increase. It applies these terms to data for 1981–2011 on rooms per person for England and Wales, the bulk of the UK, a nation with high income inequality but lower housing inequality. At national level, median housing space increased but the worst-off gained nothing, and inequality rose, so growth was neither inclusive nor just. Sub-national evidence shows that housing growth benefitted the worst-off in most areas, but they generally made very modest gains, and growth without increasing inequality was very rare. There was housing growth in all 10 regions except London, it was inclusive in 6 regions, but not just in any region. 97% of local authorities experienced housing growth, and it was inclusive in 72%, but the average gain for the worst-off was just 0.2 rooms/person over thirty years. Only 3% of local authorities achieved both inclusive and just growth. This suggests that in the UK and similar nations, local initiatives will be insufficient to achieve growth with significant gains for the worst-off, and that substantial change to the national system of housing development and allocation is needed. There may be a policy choice between benefitting the worst-off and reducing inequality. There is potential for further and comparative research.

show abstract

Change of Housing Inequality in Urban China and Its Decomposition: 1989–2011

Cited by 24 publications

References 28 publications

What Drove Housing Wealth Inequality in China?

What Drove Housing Wealth Inequality in China?

A Geospatial Analysis of Temporary Housing Inequality among Socially Marginalized and Privileged Groups in India

Is Housing Growth Ever Inclusive Growth? Evidence from Three Decades of Housing Development in England and Wales, 1981–2011

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About