Journal of the Korean housing association (한국주거학회논문집)

The Korean Housing Association (한국주거학회)
권호 표지

The Effects of Permanent Income and Non-Human Capital Asset on the Housing Tenureship

항상소득과 비인적자산이 주택점유에 미치는 영향

  • Published : 2009.08.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify which is the better indicator to forcast housing tenureship between permanent income and current income, and study the effects of non-human capital asset on housing tenureship. To forcast permanent income, a statistic regression equation is used with current income as the dependent variable. Multi-nomial logistic model is used to forcast the housing tenureship Using current income as the dependent variable delivered a more accurate result than using permanent income. Current income is used as a dependent variable and sex, age, education and occupation are used as independent variables to forcast permanent income. Non-human capital asset is also used as an independent variable. Also, excluding non-human capital asset variable when forcasting bothe permanent income and housing tenureship proved to be more accurate. Because permanent income, the sum of future income and current asset, is a good indicator of current consumption including housing, the result with permanent income should be more accurate than the forcast using current income. This implies an underdevelopment of a housing mortgage system that enables people to consume now on the basis of their future income. The Korea's unique Chonsei housing rental system has also made it difficult to forcast housing tenureship based on people's permanent income and asset. While, the Key-money of Chonsei housing and the housing asset of homeowners with debt are very similar in their amount, the result is completely different. One is a renter and the other is a homeowner.

Keywords

References

  1. 김정수.이주형(2004), 가구특성에 따른 주택선택형태에 관한 연구, 국토계획, 39(1), 191-204
  2. Oh, Jeungil (2001), Income, Wealth, and Housing Tenure Choice in Korea, 국토계획, 36(3), 273-286
  3. 이상일.이창무(2006), 전세와 보증부월세간 선택요인과 주거수요 편차, 주택연구, 14(1), 139-163
  4. 정의철(2002), 도시가구의 주택점유형태 및 주택유형선택에 관한 연구,주택연구, 10(1), 5-31
  5. 최막중.지규현(2001), 주택금융의 활성화가 가구의 주택 수요에 미치는 영향, 국토계획, 36(7), 85-99
  6. 최막중.지규현.조정래(2002), 주택금융 제약이 주택소비규모와 점유형태 선택에 미치는 영향에 관한 실증분석, 주택연구, 10(1), 33-48
  7. 최유미.남 진(2008), 서울시 가구특성별 주거선택 요인에 관한 연구: 1996년부터 2006년까지 변화특성을 중심으로, 국토계획, 43(3), 195-210
  8. Dynarski, Mark and Sheffrin, Steven M. (1985), Housing Purchases and Transitory Income: A Study with Panel Data, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67, 195-204 https://doi.org/10.2307/1924718
  9. Goodman, Allen C. (1988), An Econometric Model od Housing Price, Permanent Income, Tenure Choice, and Housing Demand, Journal of Urban Economics, 23, 327-353 https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-1190(88)90022-8
  10. Goodman, Allen C. and Kwai, Masahiro (1982), Permanent Income, Hedonic Prices, and Demand for Housing: New Evidence, Journal of Urban Economics, 12, 214-237 https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-1190(82)90016-X
  11. Henderson, J. V. and Ioannides, Y. M. (1983), A Model of Housing Tenure Choice, American Economic Review, 73, 98-113
  12. Ioannides, Yannis M. (1987), Residential Mobility and Housing Tenure Choice, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 17, 265-287 https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-0462(87)90050-0
  13. Polinsky, A. M. and Ellwood, D. T. (1979), An Empirical Reconciliation of Micro and Grouped Estimates of the Demand for Housing, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 51, 199-205