A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Unpacking the paradox of “insecure” housing rights in China: Urban residents’ perceptions on institutional credibility
Highlights Article examines contradiction why Chinese residents purchased housing in absence of formal, secure and clear housing rights. Study ascertains marked difference in perceptions on housing ownership compared to land lease (ground lease). Difference explains “China paradox” of urban housing: informal, yet, credible property rights. Despite being credible, conflict over urban housing is present in form of disputes over demolition and expropriation. Credible property rights consist of complex combinations of (in)formality, (in)security, and ambiguity.
Abstract Formal or de jure property rights are deemed conditional for development in a neo-liberal reading. Paradoxically, real estate underwent explosive development even though China’s rights for housing are informal, ambiguous, and insecure. This article intends to explain this contradiction by examining how Chinese urban residents perceive the credibility of housing rights from three perspectives, i.e., ownership, land lease, and the 70-year lease term. The study is based on a survey (n=1207) demonstrating: i) half of the respondents are indifferent about formalization policies; ii) 92 percent have never experienced housing-related conflicts, however, of those reporting conflict, close to half indicated demolition as the source; iii) housing ownership is considered important for most while the land use (or lease) permit is considerably less relevant, and the lease term is considered insignificant. Three conclusions can be drawn. First, urban residents have no preference for a “full bundle” of formal rights. Second, although low conflict indicates credibility of the current rights structure, there are risks to social stability due to expropriation. Three, credibility hinges on combinations of (in)formality and (in)security rather than being a direct function of formalization. Findings emphasize a need to rethink the property rights theory in terms of credibility, conflict, and time.
Unpacking the paradox of “insecure” housing rights in China: Urban residents’ perceptions on institutional credibility
Highlights Article examines contradiction why Chinese residents purchased housing in absence of formal, secure and clear housing rights. Study ascertains marked difference in perceptions on housing ownership compared to land lease (ground lease). Difference explains “China paradox” of urban housing: informal, yet, credible property rights. Despite being credible, conflict over urban housing is present in form of disputes over demolition and expropriation. Credible property rights consist of complex combinations of (in)formality, (in)security, and ambiguity.
Abstract Formal or de jure property rights are deemed conditional for development in a neo-liberal reading. Paradoxically, real estate underwent explosive development even though China’s rights for housing are informal, ambiguous, and insecure. This article intends to explain this contradiction by examining how Chinese urban residents perceive the credibility of housing rights from three perspectives, i.e., ownership, land lease, and the 70-year lease term. The study is based on a survey (n=1207) demonstrating: i) half of the respondents are indifferent about formalization policies; ii) 92 percent have never experienced housing-related conflicts, however, of those reporting conflict, close to half indicated demolition as the source; iii) housing ownership is considered important for most while the land use (or lease) permit is considerably less relevant, and the lease term is considered insignificant. Three conclusions can be drawn. First, urban residents have no preference for a “full bundle” of formal rights. Second, although low conflict indicates credibility of the current rights structure, there are risks to social stability due to expropriation. Three, credibility hinges on combinations of (in)formality and (in)security rather than being a direct function of formalization. Findings emphasize a need to rethink the property rights theory in terms of credibility, conflict, and time.
Unpacking the paradox of “insecure” housing rights in China: Urban residents’ perceptions on institutional credibility
Zheng, Ying (author) / Ho, Peter (author)
Cities ; 97
2019-10-15
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Housing Pathway Divergence in Japan's Insecure Economy
| British Library Online Contents | 2010
Indoor environmental quality perceptions of social housing residents
| British Library Online Contents | 2019
Unpacking the housing cost-income gap in transitional China
| Elsevier | 2022
Analysis of Urban Residents' Family Housing Solvency
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2004