Total views : 192

Redistributive Effect of a New Housing Subsidy in Korea

Affiliations

  • Department of Economics, Hallym University, Korea
  • SSK Team, Cheongju University, Korea
  • Department of Economics, Chungbuk National University, Korea

Abstract


Background/Objectives: Our study examines how the redistributive effect changes from a housing subsidy under the national basic life security law to a new act on housing benefit. Methods/Statistical Analysis: We use the 6th wave of National Survey of Tax and Benefit panel data and measure the redistributive effect by comparing the pre-tax and the post-tax Gini coefficient. Findings: Gini coefficient from a housing subsidy specified in the national basic life security law is 0.48260130, with a difference of 0.00594819, implying an improvement in income inequality. Also, Gini coefficient in the case of the market income with the housing subsidy under a new housing subsidy law is 0.48087697, and this is lower than that based on the market income by 0.00767252. Application/Improvements: Our results show that the new law has improved income inequality by 0.00172433, implying that the government policy can be successful.

Keywords

Gini Coefficient, Housing Subsidy, Panel Data, Redistributive Effect

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 185)

References


  • Bai RR, Sankaralingam N. Housing programme schemes in Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu, India: a statistical analysis. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2011 July; 4(7):851−53.
  • Smeeding TM, Saunders P, Coder J, Jenkins S, Fritzell J, Aldi HJM, Hauser R, Wolfson M. Poverty, inequality, and family living standards impacts across seven nations: the effects of noncash subsidies for health, education and housing. Review of Income and Wealth. 1993 September; 39(3):229−56.
  • Fack G. Are housing benefit an effective way to redistributive income? Evidence from a natural experiment in France.Labour Economics. 2006 December; 13(6):747−71.
  • Susin S. Rent vouchers and the price of low-income housing.Journal of Public Economics. 2002 January; 83(1):109−52.
  • Hills J. Inclusion or exclusion? The role of housing subsidies and benefits. Urban Studies. 2001 October; 38(11):18871902.
  • Gibbs I, Kemp P. Housing benefit and income redistribution.Urban Studies. 1993 February; 30(1):63−72.
  • Nyman K, Schwarz B. Evaluating housing policies from an income distribution perspective – The case of Sweden.Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research. 1991 November; 8(4):221−38.
  • Glewwe P. Targeting assistance to the poor: efficient allocation of transfers when household income is not observed. Journal of Development Economics. 1992 April; 38(2):297−321.
  • Blackorby C, Donaldson D. Cash versus kind, self-selection, and efficient transfers. American Economic Review.1988 September; 78(4):691-700.
  • Nichols AL, Zeckhauser RJ. Targeting transfers through restrictions on recipients. American Economic Review.1982 May; 72(2):372−77.
  • Yoon J, Kim H, Park C. Social polarization in housing sector: diagnosis and policy responses. Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements; 2006. p. 218.
  • Lee T, Hyun S, Kim S, Woo S, Kim J. Evaluation and reorganization of the housing welfare policies. Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs. 2010; 40(4):1105−1065.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.