Homeowner and Renter Payment for School Quality in Beijing: Boundary Fixed Effect Analysis with Housing Price–Rent Comparison
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 147, Issue 3
Abstract
The commonly used traditional hedonic price model is likely to be biased in exploring residents' willingness to pay for school quality because of unobservable characteristics. To circumvent this issue, using city-level and district-level key primary school attendance zones data and average home value data of communities in Beijing in December 2016, we employ paired difference regression using a boundary fixed effect approach to explore the capitalization of school quality, with 750 m as the threshold distance within community pairs and 500 and 1,000 m for robustness checks. The results indicate that housing prices respond significantly to both city-level and district-level school qualities in Beijing, with premiums of 17.2% and 8.37%, respectively. However, we find no premium for housing rent. Homeowners show concern over good school quality and are willing to pay more for higher school quality, while renters will not pay for it. This study further suggests that the traditional hedonic price model has overestimated the capitalization of school quality in housing. The estimation results from the boundary fixed effect approach are more robust and reliable. Based on these findings, urban policy recommendations and action plans are proposed.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by “The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities” (No. 2019RCW017).
References
Bayer, P., F. Ferreira, and R. McMillan. 2007. “A unified framework for measuring preferences for schools and neighborhoods.” J. Polit. Econ. 115 (4): 588–638. https://doi.org/10.1086/522381.
Beracha, E., and W. G. Hardin. 2018. “The capitalization of school quality into renter and owner housing.” Real Estate Econ. 46 (1): 85–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.12195.
Black, S. E. 1999. “Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education.” Q. J. Econ. 114 (2): 577–599. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556070.
Black, S. E., and S. Machin. 2011. “Housing valuations of school performance.” Chap. 10 in Vol. 3 of Handbook of the economics of education, edited by E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, and L. Woessmann, 485–519. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Bogart, W. T., and B. A. Cromwell. 2000. “How much is a neighborhood school worth?” J. Urban Econ. 47 (2): 280–305. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1999.2142.
Bradbury, K. L., C. J. Mayer, and K. E. Case. 2001. “Property tax limits, local fiscal behavior, and property values: Evidence from massachusetts under proposition.” J. Public Econ.80 (2): 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00081-5.
Brasington, D., and D. R. Haurin. 2006. “Educational outcomes and house values: A test of the value added approach.” J. Reg. Sci. 46 (2): 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4146.2006.00440.x.
Case, K. E., R. J. Shiller, and J. M. Quigley. 2001. Comparing wealth effects: The stock market versus the housing market, 1–17. NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Clapp, J. M., and S. L. Ross. 2004. “Schools and housing markets: An examination of school segregation and performance in Connecticut.” Econ J. 114 (499): 425–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00253.x.
Clayton, J. 1996. “Rational expectations, market fundamentals and housing price volatility.” Real Estate Econ. 24 (4): 441–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.00699.
Cui, N. N., H. Y. Gu, T. Y. Shen, and C. C. Feng. 2018. “The impact of micro-level influencing factors on home value: A housing price-rent comparison.” Sustainability 10 (12): 4343. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124343.
Cui, W. J., S. J. Jia, H. Chang, and X. J. Li. 2019. “Exploring the capitalization of school premium based on matched difference of boundary fixed effect method: Taking Guangzhou main urban as an example.” J. Eng. Manage. 33 (3): 143–147.
Dhar, P., and S. L. Ross. 2012. “School district quality and property values: Examining differences along school district boundaries.” J. Urban Econ. 71 (1): 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2011.08.003.
Downes, T., and J. E. Zabel. 2002. “The impact of school characteristics on house prices: Chicago 1987–1991.” J. Urban Econ. 52 (1): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-1190(02)00010-4.
Fack, G., and J. Grenet. 2010. “When do better schools raise housing prices? Evidence from Paris public and private schools.” J. Public Econ. 94 (1–2): 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.10.009.
García, J., D. Montolio, and J. M. Raya. 2010. “Local public expenditures and housing prices.” Urban Stud. 47 (7): 1501–1512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009356120.
Gibbons, S., and S. Machin. 2006. “Paying for primary schools: Admission constraints, school popularity or congestion?” Econ. J. 116 (510): C77–C92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01077.x.
Gibbons, S., S. Machin, and O. Silva. 2009. Valuing school quality using boundary discontinuities. Working paper. London: Spatial Economics Research Centre.
Gibbons, S., S. Machin, and O. Silva. 2013. “Valuing school quality using boundary discontinuities.” J. Urban Econ. 75: 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2012.11.001.
Gravel, N., A. Michelangeli, and A. Trannoy. 2006. “Measuring the social value of local public goods: An empirical analysis within Paris Metropolitan Area.” Appl. Econ. 38 (16): 1945–1961. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500427213.
Gu, H., X. Meng, T. Shen, and L. Ween. 2020. “China's highly educated talents in 2015: Patterns, determinants and spatial spillover effects.” Appl. Spatial Anal. Policy. 13: 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-019-09322-6.
Ha, W., H. B. Wu, and R. Z. Yu. 2015. “A new research on the capitalization of school quality in housing prices: An empirical study based on repeated cross-sectional data in Beijing.” Educ. Econ. 5: 3–10.
Ha, W., and H. Q. Yin. 2018. “The effect of education expenditure on housing prices in Beijing.” Educ. Econ. 34 (1): 35–41.
Hu, W. Y., and S. Q. Zheng. 2014. “The capitalization of school quality in home value: A matching regression approach with housing price-rent comparison.” China Econ. Q. 13 (3): 1195–1214.
Kain, J. F., and J. M. Quigley. 1970. “Measuring the value of housing quality.” J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 65 (630): 532–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1970.10481102.
Nguyen-Hoang, P., and J. Yinger. 2011. “The capitalization of school quality into house values: A review.” J. Housing Econ. 20 (1): 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2011.02.001.
Oates, W. E. 1969. “The effects of property taxes and local public spending on property values: An empirical study of tax capitalization and the Tiebout hypothesis.” J. Polit. Econ. 77 (6): 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1086/259584.
Rosen, S. 1974. “Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition.” J. Polit. Econ. 82 (1): 34–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/260169.
Rosenthal, L. 2003. “The value of secondary school quality.” Oxford Bull. Econ. Stat. 65 (3): 329–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.t01-1-00053.
Samuelson, P. A. 1938. “A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behaviour.” Economica 5 (17): 61–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/2548836.
Tiebout, C. M. 1956. “A pure theory of local expenditures.” J. Polit. Econ. 64 (5): 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839.
Wen, H. Z., Y. Xiao, and L. Zhang. 2017. “School district, education quality, and housing price: Evidence from a natural experiment in Hangzhou, China.” Cities 66: 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.03.008.
Zhang, J. 2017. “Re-estimation of school district housing premium: A case study of Beijing.” Inq. Into Econ. Issues 38 (8): 57–63.
Zhou, T. C. 2018. “Capitalization of public school quality into housing prices: An empirical analysis based on school district housing for public primary schools in shanghai.” Chin. Stud. 7 (4): 286–327. https://doi.org/10.4236/chnstd.2018.74025.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 147 • Issue 3 • September 2021
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Oct 2, 2020
Accepted: Feb 22, 2021
Published online: May 26, 2021
Published in print: Sep 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Oct 26, 2021
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Linchuan Yang, Yuan Liang, Baojie He, Yi Lu, Zhonghua Gou, COVID-19 effects on property markets: The pandemic decreases the implicit price of metro accessibility, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 10.1016/j.tust.2022.104528, 125, (104528), (2022).
- Yang Chen, K.W. Chau, Linchuan Yang, How the combined use of non-negotiable and negotiable developer obligations affects land value capture: Evidence from market-oriented urban redevelopment in China, Habitat International, 10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102494, 119, (102494), (2022).