The mismatch between conventional house price modeling and regulated markets

insights from The Netherlands

Journal Article (2016)
Author(s)

Qi Tu (TU Delft - OLD Housing Systems)

J. de Haan (TU Delft - OLD Housing Systems, Statistics Netherlands (CBS))

PJ Boelhouwer (TU Delft - OLD Housing Systems, TU Delft - OLD OTB – Research for the Built Environment)

Research Group
OLD Housing Systems
Copyright
© 2016 Q. Tu, J. de Haan, P.J. Boelhouwer
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-016-9529-y
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2016
Language
English
Copyright
© 2016 Q. Tu, J. de Haan, P.J. Boelhouwer
Research Group
OLD Housing Systems
Issue number
3
Volume number
32 (2017)
Pages (from-to)
599-619
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

House price modeling has been frequently used to investigate the dynamics of housing markets, especially competitive markets; yet less attention has been given to markets that have experienced considerable interventions. The aim of this study is to demonstrate a mismatch between conventional house price models and the case of the Netherlands and to provide reasons of such mismatch. We first describe and classify the conventional house price models into asset-pricing house price model, stock-flow model, multi-period utility model, and repayment model. These models are subsequently applied to the Netherlands, where considerable government interventions took place. As expected, the empirical results are unsatisfactory to explain the Dutch house price development. The degree of mismatch of the repayment model and the multi-period utility model, however, seems to be fairly limited.