Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Review article

Impact of housing policies on the real estate market - Systematic

literature review
Chuan Zhao a, Fuxi Liu b, *
a
Wuhan University, Center for Studies of Traditional Chinese Culture of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China
b
Nanyang Vocational College of Agriculture, Nanyang, 473000, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Real estate majorly contributes to the national gross domestic product (GDP) growth, occupying
policy an important position in the national economy. It is the largest fixed asset for households. The real
The housing market estate market is associated with a wide range of economic aspects with more upstream and
Housing
downstream enterprises. Simultaneously, the factors affecting the real estate market are complex
and variable. Fluctuations in the real estate market affect the entire economic system. This re­
quires the government to formulate relevant housing policies to stabilize the operation of the real
estate market. Therefore, it is meaningful to study the impact of housing policies on the real estate
market and provide reasonable opinions for the housing sector in formulating policies. This study
adopts a systematic quantitative literature review to examine the impact of housing policies on
the real estate market. This study finds that housing policies affecting the real estate market can
be divided into the following three categories: monetary, tax, and macro-prudential policies.
Changes in supply and demand in the real estate market primarily reflect the effectiveness of
policies, with housing price factors as the transmission mechanism. Furthermore, the influence of
housing policies from different countries and regions on real estate market factors is compared to
provide a reference for scholars to pursue further study.

1. Introduction

Real estate occupies an important position in the financial module [1–3] and is an integral part of the national economy [4,5].
Housing is regarded as the most important collateral and consumer commodity in the economy [6,7] and largest fixed asset of a family
that can affect the family’s savings and consumption decisions to a large extent [8]. Therefore, the real estate market has always been
considered a good investment opportunity [9]. From a macro perspective, real estate plays a core role in the GDP growth of every
country [10]. The upstream and downstream industries of real estate are numerous and complex, with a wide range of related eco­
nomic levels that stimulate the development of other industries [11]. Additionally, most enterprises and families own real estate and
the construction industry is an important part of the real economy [12]. Therefore, when real estate prices fluctuate over a wide range,
their impact may spread to the entire economic system and have a huge impact on society. This requires the economy to ensure the
sound development of the real estate market. Research shows that stability in the real estate market is essential to ensure citizens’
social security and economic stability [13] Simultaneously, a developed housing sector that maintains the stability of the real estate
market is considered one of the main tasks for achieving long-term economic growth [14].

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liudaxi66@163.com (F. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20704
Received 18 March 2023; Received in revised form 16 September 2023; Accepted 4 October 2023
Available online 5 October 2023
2405-8440/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

Many factors cause housing price fluctuations and the differences in real estate characteristics are relatively large. The real estate
market allows any scale of investment that depends on investor demand and risk characteristics; therefore, it is difficult to identify the
risk factors in the real estate market [15]. The stable operation of a real estate economic system requires two hands of control, one is
the invisible hand of the market and other is the visible hand of the government [16]. When growing housing demand meets short-term
inelastic housing supply in the real estate market, housing prices rise and hamper market stability. Many construction projects and
home purchases are financed with credit provided by leveraged lenders; hence, a sharp drop in real estate prices could lead to defaults
by those borrowers. The impact of these defaults can be amplified by the deleveraging process of lenders who have lost money because
of defaulting, potentially causing a deeper economic crisis [17]. At this time, the government’s visible hand is needed to formulate
relevant housing policies to regulate the stable operation of the real estate market [18].
Understanding the effect of housing policies on the real estate market can help governments and policymakers assess the effec­
tiveness and feasibility of such policies. Studying and evaluating past policies can provide lessons and references for future policy­
making. Studying the impact of housing policies on the real estate market is helpful for formulating policies conducive to economic
growth and financial stability, while avoiding potential risks and fluctuations. The healthy development of the real estate market is
greatly important for the sustainable development of society and the economy. Studying the impacts of housing policies from an
international perspective can help different countries exchange experiences, learn from policies, and promote policy coordination and
cooperation. This helps solve common housing problems, jointly address challenges, and promote innovation and progress in housing
policies; Studying the impact of housing policies on the real estate market can help investors and capital market participants un­
derstand the changes and effects of policies and improve capital allocation and investment decisions. In summary, studying the impact
of housing policies on the real estate market helps us understand the interaction and relationship between policy and the market. This
provides guidance to government and decision-makers formulating effective policies and promotes sustainable development, eco­
nomic growth, and international cooperation. In the context of globalization, research from an international perspective can promote
the exchange of experiences and common development between countries, promoting progress and innovation in the field of housing.
This study aims to discover the impact of housing policies on the real estate market using existing data. Accordingly, we analyze the
changes in the real estate market after the implementation of housing policies and compare the heterogeneity of the impact of policies
in the real estate markets of different countries. Thus, it provides references for policymakers in the housing sector and reveals new
avenues for future research. The remainder of this study is organized as follows. Section 2 explains the methods and processes used,
and Section 3 presents the results of the literature review. Section 4 discusses the literature findings and knowledge in this field, and
Section 5 concludes the study.

2. Research method

To comprehensively report on the current research, we set the following four research objectives: (1) To identify the types and
influencing factors of policies affecting the real estate market. (2) To analyze core changes in housing prices after the implementation
of housing policies. (3) To compare the similarities and differences in the literature on the impact of housing policies on the real estate
markets from different periods, countries, research methods, and themes. (4) Based on the identified knowledge gaps, several di­
rections that can open new approaches for future research are proposed.

2.1. Retrieval strategy

This study adopts a systematic quantitative literature review method [19,20] to search and categorize the literature, which pro­
vides a repeatable and reliable assessment of the current state of the field of study. How papers are found, selected, and classified is
articulated, minimizing the potential bias that emerges in some narrative-style reviews [21]. The resulting quantitative assessment
documents the geographical distribution of the literature, types of methods used, and types of results obtained.
Combined with relevant literature, the keywords used in the literature search include “policy,” “real estate,” “housing price,”
“housing policy,” “government,” “economy,” and “tax.” The search rules used are for English literature in which the keywords appear
in the titles and abstracts. Using a two-way “snowball” technique, we backtrack all references reported in identified articles and
forward through Google Academic to find all articles citing the original article.
The journal period was set from 2012 to 2022. Considering that many countries and regions have experienced adjustments and
evolutions in housing policies following the 2008 financial crisis, it is important to examine the research between 2012 and 2022 to

Table 1
Criteria for selecting article titles and abstracts in a paper.
Inclusion criteria exclusion criteria

Review articles and research articles written in English
Articles published between 2012 and April 2022
The research object is the real estate market
The evaluation content is the impact of housing policies on the real estate market
The phenomenon of interest is the changes in the real estate market after the implementation of
housing policies
Review articles and research articles written in languages other
than English
Studies published before 2012 or after April 2022
Articles published in books, book chapters, and Ph.D. or Master’s
theses
Republished or incomplete literature is not available
The articles did not provide enough information for categorizing
the article

2
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

understand governmental decisions and reforms in response to housing market challenges. Moreover, during this period, the socio­
economic, technological, and environmental factors significantly changed. Housing policies also require corresponding adjustments
and innovations considering the development of The Times. Furthermore, selecting articles from the past 10 years can provide the
latest research results and data to reflect current housing policies and changes in the real estate market. This can provide the most
accurate real-time information and reflect the implementation and effects of policy measures.
Web of Science, ProQuest, and Google Academic electronic databases were used to conduct an extensive online literature search.
The first step was a preliminary screening of the titles and abstracts of articles. The reference tables for the inclusion and exclusion
criteria are listed in Table 1.

2.2. Literature screening and data extraction

Literature screening and data extraction were carried out by two researchers, and a third researcher assisted in judgment when
there was disagreement and it was impossible to reach unity. If the information or the full text was missing, the author was contacted.
First, duplicate references were screened using Endnote. Next, the titles and abstracts of the references were initially screened to
exclude irrelevant references, and the full text was re-screened, the article content, main title, and sub-title were filtered for the second
time, and the re-screened standard reference (Table 2) was used to determine the included references. The data extraction content
included the author, publication time, research object, sample size, research design, phenomena of interest, and evaluation content.

2.3. Literature quality evaluation

According to the criteria listed in Table 3 [22], two researchers independently evaluated the quality of the included studies using
quality evaluation standards. In cases of disagreement or failure to reach unity, three researchers were assigned to assist with the
judgment. A total of 10 contents were evaluated and each item was evaluated by “yes,” “no,” or “unclear.” All the aforementioned
criteria met level A, indicating the least possibility of bias. Partial satisfaction implied level B, indicating a moderate possibility of bias.
Grade C was unsatisfactory, indicating a high possibility of bias. Grade C literature was excluded.

2.4. Literature retrieval process

The number of articles collected from the Web of Science, ProQuest, and Google Academic electronic databases was recorded in the
Web of Science. Among them, Web of Science recorded 824 articles, Google Academic electronic database recorded 337, and ProQuest
recorded 81. A total of 1242 studies were identified as the dataset for this study, and 871 articles were initially screened. According to
the criteria in Table 2, after conducting a screening process with three people, 462 studies were classified as irrelevant literature and
removed. Finally, 45 papers were selected for the literature review, following quality evaluation. The literature screening process is
illustrated in Fig. 1.
The following information from each research paper was recorded in the database: author, affiliated institution, journal name, year
of publication, geographical location studied, subject and direction studied, research methods used, policy classification of the study,
real estate market factors studied, and results of the policy impact on the real estate market.

3. Result

A total of 45 original, peer-reviewed research papers on the impact of policies on the housing market were identified (Annex 1). The
selected papers were briefly analyzed. As shown in Fig. 2, various scholars have studied the impact of policies on the real estate market
from 2012 to 2022. Especially after 2020, the number of published papers steadily increased, indicating that under the impact of the
epidemic, an increasing number of scholars began studying the effect of policies on the real estate market to provide references for
policymakers.

3.1. Geographic distribution of studies

The impacts of these policies on the housing market have attracted academic interest worldwide (Table 4). Studies have been
conducted in countries on all continents, mainly Europe (35.56 %), but also other continents, including Asia (26.67 %), North America

Table 2
Criteria for selecting article content and main and sub-headings in a paper.
Table 2. Criteria

1. This study mainly reflects the impact of policies on the real estate market, excluding factors other than policies, such as population, land, and other factors, on the
supply balance in the real estate market.
2. This study records changes in the real estate market after the implementation of housing policies, excluding research on companies, investors, and other subjects.
3. This study targets policy and real estate market influencing factors. For example, housing policy, housing prices, the real estate market, and more.
4. This study can be conducted in different countries or regions.
5. Excluded articles are not open access and cannot be subscribed to through a database

3
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

Table 3
Detailed evaluation criteria for the quality of the content in the selection paper.
Table 3. Criteria Yes No Unclear

1. There is congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and research methodology.
2. There is congruity between the research methodology and research questions or objectives.
3. There is congruity between the research methodology and data collection methods.
4. There is congruity between the research methodology and data representation and analysis.
5. There is congruity between the research methodology and interpretation of results.
6. There is a statement culturally or theoretically locating the researcher.
7. The influence of the researcher on the research, and vice-versa, is addressed.
8. Participants and their voices are adequately represented.
9. The research is ethical according to current criteria or, for recent studies, there is evidence of ethical approval by an appropriate body.

Total

Fig. 1. Quantitative literature review retrieval process.

(22.22 %), Australia (6.67 %), and other commonwealth countries (8.89 %). Among them, 16 types of research were conducted in
Europe; the economic development of Europe belongs to the world’s developed and advanced sequences, and the regulation of the real
estate market tends to be mature. Literature on the influence of relevant European policies on the real estate market came from
different countries, including five papers from Britain, two from Italy, and one each from the Czech Republic, Sweden, France, Spain,
and Estonia. Three studies examined the influence of European Union’s (EU) housing policies on the real estate market. Among the
Asian countries, there were nine studies from China, two from Korea, and one from Israel. China’s economy is in a developing stage,
and changes and fluctuations in the real estate market are relatively frequent. Changes in the real estate market are caused by policy
factors that have attracted the attention of many scholars. All 10 studies from North America were conducted in the United States. The
economic development of the United States has attracted the attention of scholars worldwide, who have examined the changes in the

4
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

Fig. 2. The number of papers captured in the review in relation to the year of publication.

Table 4
Geographical distribution of papers captured in the review in relation to the country the study was conducted in.
continent country amount

Europe Estonia 1 16
Italy 3
France 1
Czech Republic 1
Sweden 1
Spain 1
England 5
other 3
Asian China 9 12
Korea 2
Israel 1
North America America 10 10
Oceania Australian 3 3
other Union type 4 4
45

real estate market caused by policies that affect the global economy. There were three relevant studies in Australia, mixed studies from
the United States and United Kingdom [23], and studies on 57 different economies [24].

3.2. Disciplinary distribution of studies

The papers were published in different journals covering a wide range of disciplines (Table 5). The dominant fields included
business, economics, and social sciences. More than 77 % of these papers were published on Business and Economics. The real estate

Table 5
Disciplinary distribution and journal research directions of the 45 research papers that examined the impact of housing policies on the real estate
market.
Discipline Journal research direction No. of Papers Discipline total

Business & Economics (5) House Prices 14 35

Monetary Policy 13
Option Pricing 4
Economic Growth 3
Credit Scoring 1
Social Science (3) House Prices 5 7
Option Pricing 1
Gentrification 1
Urban studies (1) House Prices 1 1
Environmental Sciences & Ecology (1) House Prices 1 1
Mathematics (1) Econophysics 1 1
Total 45 45

5
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

market is closely related to the national economy, and 14 of the published studies examined House Prices and 13 addressed Monetary
Policy. The next most popular domain was Social Science, with seven papers. Papers on other subjects, such as Urban Studies 1 [25],
Environmental Sciences & Ecology 1 [26], and Mathematics 1 [27].

3.3. Methods of housing policy research studies

Scholars have used various methods to clarify the transmission mechanisms of policies on real estate (Table 6). Extensive methods
have been used to identify the impacts of policies on the housing market. Most studies have adopted econometric methods. However,
some scholars have adopted the vector auto-regression (VAR) model l7, with some differences between their models; for example [28],
used Markov Switching Vector Auto Regression (MSVAR) models [29], used a time-varying vector auto-regressive model, and [30,31]
used a factor-augmented vector auto-regressive (FAVAR) model. Some scholars have adopted the general equilibrium model in five
articles, difference-in-differences model in four articles, and regression model in three articles. Other quantitative models used to study
the impacts of policies on the real estate market include the symmetric thermal optimal path (TOPS) method [23] and structural break
models [32].

3.4. Housing policy analysis and evaluation of studies

After analyzing the 45 papers, we divided the results based on the effectiveness of the policies on the real estate market, tools of
policy impact on the real estate market, spillover effect of policies on the real estate market, regional heterogeneity of policy impact on
the real estate market, and impact of policies on the real estate market bubble, as shown in Table 7.
Among the 45 studies, 25 discussed the effectiveness of policies on the housing market, and six of them examined the effectiveness
of the monetary policy [33] The impact of the money supply expansion has stimulated the property sector, but only in the short-term,
with little impact on prices [28]. Expansionary monetary policy shocks have significant effects only during normal economic periods
[31]. Monetary policy shocks have lasting effects on housing prices and property wealth [23]. Aggressive monetary policy forcefully
intervenes in the housing market [34]. Loose monetary conditions can lead to surges in property lending and housing bubbles [35].
The expansionary monetary policy affects the Italian economy. Housing policies have positive impacts on the real economy, real estate
(RE) output as a commodity, value-added, and pricing.
Six studies examined the effectiveness of tax policies [36]. Real estate tax is effective in the short term but not in the long term [37].
The welfare costs of introducing or eliminating housing transaction taxes are low [38]. Residential property taxes and higher interest
rates have effectively discouraged speculative housing transactions and have had a long-term effect on house price taming [26].
Stricter enforcement of land taxes reduces the impact of boom-and-bust dynamics in the property market [39]. To curb soaring house

Table 6
Research methods used by the 45 research papers to examine the impact of housing policy on the real estate market.
method amount

vector auto-regression (VAR) model factor-augmented vector autoregressive (FAVAR) model 7

general equilibrium model
differences-in-differences model
regression model
other
structural vector autoregressive (SVAR) model
vector auto-regression (VAR) model
time-varying vector autoregressive model
factor-augmented vector autoregressive model
Markov Switching Vector Auto Regression (MSVAR) models
Markov-switching model
financial dynamic computable general equilibrium model 5
Bayesian methods general equilibrium model
dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model
general equilibrium model
dynamic computable general equilibrium (DCGE) model
a new methodological approach that is a hybrid of difference-in-difference and matching techniques, 4
a differences-in-differences model
Differences-in-Differences (DiD) framework,
difference-in-differences analysis to estimate the lock-in effect
multiple linear regression models 3
multinomial logit regression
traditional ordinary least-squares estimation and quantile regression to estimate the error correction model
structural break models 26
time-frequency connectedness network approach
symmetric thermal optimal path (TOPS) method
log-periodic power law (LPPL)
counterfactual analysis
agent-based model (ABM) of the housing market
dynamic Gordon growth model
hybrid hedonic/repeat-sales method
flexible time-varying parameter model
system dynamics models
other/literature analysis/simulation

6
C. Zhao and F. Liu
Table 7
Policy analysis and evaluation of the 45 research papers on the impact of housing policies on the real estate market.
result
Effectiveness of policy
Policy impact tool
Policy spillover effect
Regional heterogeneity of the real
estate market impact
real estate market bubble
Other
prices, at least in the short term, property taxes should not replace home purchase restrictions [40]. Generally, housing prices in do not
respond to large cuts in state property taxes. Three studies examined the effectiveness of macro-prudential policies on the housing
market [41–43]. In other studies, such as [44] public policy has not achieved its long-term goal of reducing house prices; instead, it has
Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704
amount
Expansionary monetary policy is only effective in the short run and has little impact on prices 25
Expansionary monetary policy shocks are effective only in normal economic times
Monetary policy shocks have persistent effects on house prices and real estate wealth
Active monetary policy should intervene more forcefully in the housing market
Loose monetary conditions can lead to a surge in real estate lending and a housing price bubble
Expansionary monetary policy has a positive impact on the output, value-added, and pricing of real estate as
a commodity
The real estate tax has a certain effect in the short run, but it is not ideal in the long run
The welfare costs of introducing or eliminating a housing transaction tax are small
Residential property taxes or higher interest rates effectively dampen speculative housing transactions,
having a long-term effect on the taming of house prices
A stricter implementation of the land tax would reduce the impact of boom and bust dynamics on the
housing market
To curb house price surges, at least in the short term, property taxes should not be used to replace purchase
restrictions
•House prices do not respond to the large reductions in state property taxes
Macro-prudential policies can effectively restrain house prices and household credit growth in both the
short and long terms
The macro-prudential policy has had an impact on housing price inflation
Fiscal policy announcements have had important and long-lasting effects on the Spanish housing market
The quantitative effect of interest rates on housing prices is economically significant, and increases in
housing-related taxes slow down housing price growth
The impact of EPU uncertainty on the real estate market is weaker
Public policy has not achieved its long-term goal of reducing house prices; instead, it has only kept prices
from rising in the short run
Government policy intervention is the main reason for structural changes in China’s real estate market
The impact of US policy on global REIT stocks has significantly varied across time and countries
Gross value added in the construction sector has sharply fallen after a surprise rise in the government’s cash
rate
Mortgage policy to regulate excess demand helps to control housing price growth.
Changes in down-payment requirements effectively dampen house price cycles
With the increase in residential property prices, the absolute amount of land value acquisition has increased,
but the relative proportion of land value acquisition has decreased
The instrument of choice for macro-prudential policy is determined by the net monthly income of the 6
mortgage applicant
Australian house prices are mainly driven by four key factors, namely, mortgage rates, consumer sentiment,
stock market indices, and unemployment
Reduce credit availability and leverage to ease the housing price cycle
Borrower-based regulatory policies, such as reducing LTV or DTI limits, can effectively curb housing booms
The increase in house price is positively correlated with the change in demand for a residential mortgage
loan
Higher interest rates, slower money supply growth, and tighter mortgage down-payment policies tend to
slow down subsequent house price growth
Property tax is a factor that can determine the recovery of property demand through moderate fluctuations
The spillover effect from the housing market is not negligible, concentrated on consumption instead of 3
business investment
Housing market and economic policy uncertainty have large spillover effects on the impact on inflation,
economic growth, and monetary policy stance
The spillover effects between economic policy uncertainty and the housing market and earnings and
volatility are stronger in the longer period than in the shorter period
The regional heterogeneity can be partially explained by changes in housing supply, that is, where land is 4
more expensive, house prices are generally more sensitive to changes in interest rates
The heterogeneity of policy response is significantly correlated with the local regulatory environment and
housing supply elasticity
Geographical differences in policy have temporary inflationary effects
The housing policy effectively restrains the rapid rise in housing prices and suppresses the real estate market 3
bubble
Significant correlation exists between monetary policy and asset pricing bubbles
Tighter monetary policy is associated with an increase in the REITs bubble component of the US economy
While property taxes simply extract wealth from the original homeowner, transaction taxes can have more 3
subtle, potentially positive effects
The REITs market can avoid the impact of economic policy uncertainty
Real estate stimulus policies may increase banks’ real estate market risk, mainly because of the impact of tax
stimulus policies
7
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

kept prices from rising in the short term [32]. Government intervention and external shocks are the two main reasons for structural
changes in China’s real estate market [45]. The impact of U.S. policy on global Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) stocks has
significantly varied across time and countries [46]. The gross value added to the construction sector sharply fell following a surprise
rise in the government’s cash rate [47]. Mortgage policies to regulate excess demand have helped reinforce housing price growth.
Using a sensitivity analysis, this study confirms that the regulation of Loan-to-Value (LTV) and Debt-to -Income (DTI) ratios has strong
leverage in the housing market [48]. Changes in down payment requirements effectively curbed the house-price cycle [49]. With an
increase in residential property prices, the absolute amount of land value acquisition has increased, but the relative proportion of land
value acquisition has decreased.
Seven studies have explored the tools of policy impact on the real estate market [50]. The instrument of choice for macroprudential
policy has been the monthly net income of mortgage applicants [25]. Australian house prices have been driven by the following four
key factors: mortgage rates, consumer sentiment, the Australian stock market index, and unemployment [51]. Credit availability can
be reduced and leveraged to ease the housing price cycle [52]. Borrower-based regulatory policies, such as lower LTV and DTI limits
can effectively curb housing booms [53]. The increase in house prices positively correlates with the change in demand for residential
mortgage loans [54]. Higher interest rates, slower money supply growth, and tighter mortgage down payment policies have slowed
down subsequent housing price growth [55]. Property taxes are one factor that can determine the recovery of housing demand with
modest fluctuations.
Three studies have discussed regional heterogeneity in the real estate market [56]. Some of this regional heterogeneity can be
explained by changes in housing supply, where land is more expensive and housing prices are generally more sensitive to changes in
the interest rates [30]. The heterogeneity of policy responses is significantly correlated with the local regulatory environment and
housing supply elasticities [41]. Geographical differences in policy differences have temporary effects on inflation.
Three of the studies have examined the relationship between policy and housing bubbles [27]. The housing policy has effectively
restrained the rapid rise in housing prices and suppressed bubbles in the real estate market [57]. There is a significant correlation
between monetary policy and asset pricing bubbles [29]. A tighter monetary policy is associated with an increase in the REITs bubble
in the US economy.
In other studies [58], property taxes are considered to simply extract wealth from the original homeowner, whereas transaction
taxes can have more subtle and potentially positive effects [59]. REIT markets are insulated from economic policy uncertainty [32].
Real estate stimulus policies may increase banks’ real estate market risk, mainly because of the impact of tax stimulus policies.

3.5. Housing policy classification of studies

The policy classifications are shown in Table 8. A total of 16 studies were conducted to examine the impact of monetary policy on
the real estate market. The main influencing factor of monetary policies on the real estate market has been the adjustment of interest
rate policies, while other factors have included money supply, bank loan channels, and mortgage loans. A total of eight studies have
examined the impact of tax policies on the real estate market, according to which, various factors affecting the real estate market,
including property, transfer, land, and property taxes. There are seven studies on the impact of macroprudential policies on the real
estate market. Factors affecting the real estate market include the ratio of loans to income, LTV or DTI, household credit, and down
payments. There were three studies on the real estate market, all of which came from the United States. A total of 11 studies have
examined the impact of other policies on the real estate market, including purchase restrictions and fiscal, industrial, and land policies.

3.6. Influence of housing policy on real estate factors of studies

The main factor affecting the real estate market was the change in housing prices, as shown in Table 9. A total of 25 studies
(55.56%) used housing prices as data. Other factors were combined with housing prices to reflect market changes [53]; these includes
housing prices, incomes, and residential mortgage rates [24]. Regarding housing prices and credit, some scholars have studied the real

Table 8
Housing policy classification of the 45 research papers on the impact of housing policy on the real estate market.
Policy classification Policy variable factor amount

monetary policy rate 16

money supply
Bank loan channel
mortgage loan
tax policy Transfer Tax 7
house property tax
land tax
property tax
Macroprudential policy LTV or DTI 7
The ratio of loans to income
Home Credit
down payment
Economic policy uncertainty 3
other house purchase quota policy、fiscal policy、industry policy、land policy 11

8
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

estate cycle to measure the changes in the market [51,52]. Studies have also examined real estate markets in the content of the
construction industry [46] and land value [49]policy changes [49].

4. Discussion

In this quantitative and systematic literature review, which includes 45 studies on the impact of housing policies on the real estate
market, we provide an analysis and evaluation of real estate policies, analyze the important factors of housing policies in the real estate
market, and compare the effects of national policies from different regions. The results are analyzed and discussed in Section 3, which
is divided into three parts.

4.1. Impact and evaluation of different housing policies

We divided housing policies into three broad categories. The first category concerns monetary policies, such as raising interest rates
[60,61]. The second includes tax policy tools for reducing housing demand, such as transaction, property, and mortgage interest tax
deductions [62]. The third category addresses macroprudential regulation, which aims to decrease the demand for housing and re­
duces risks to the financial system, for instance, by imposing higher capital requirements on mortgage applicants and limiting the LTV
and DTI ratios [63].
Imposing a transfer tax, or lowering the LTV ratio, has a short-term effect on the housing market [38]. Some researchers have
studied the effect of the real estate tax pilot policy to find that the real estate tax levy has a certain effect in the short term, but is not
ideal in the long term [36]. The aggressive taxation of housing transactions in China can stabilize the property market [58]. The
benefits of introducing or eliminating a housing transaction tax in the United States are insignificant [37]. A study on Estonia’s real
estate market has shown that a strictly enforced land tax policy can reduce the impact of property boom-bust cycles [26]. Kuttneretal
(2016) have analyzed the effectiveness of nine non-interest rate policies implemented across 57 economies and found that only an
increase in housing-related taxes has a significant impact on housing prices [24]. Considering that real estate tax is an important tax
policy component, real estate tax policy implementation has a crucial impact on housing market prices and family wealth. Imposing a
residential property tax or effectively raising interest rates discourages speculative housing transactions and, over time, tames house
prices in the long run.
The impact of monetary policy has long been a concerning issue in the field of monetary economics. The impact of monetary
policies on the real estate market has led to an increase in housing prices, which has further promoted research on monetary policies.
An imbalance in the real estate market was one of the main reasons for the outbreak of the financial crisis. By observing the effect of the
accumulation of imbalance in the real estate market before the financial crisis, it can be seen that the impact of monetary policy on real
estate prices and real estate market has a highly significant and lasting impact [31].
The housing market has played an important role in past systemic financial crises and received significant attention from mac­
roprudential policymakers. By refining housing policies in response to the strong volatility that the real estate credit cycle may exhibit,
there is increasing theoretical support and empirical evidence that borrower-based regulatory policies may be effective. This calls for
the establishment of a clear macroprudential coordination mechanism [52]. The impact of macroprudential policies on housing,
leasing, and mortgage markets should be studied at the aggregate and individual household levels and sub-segments, such as first-time
buyers, homeowners, buy-to-let investors, and renters [51]. Macroprudential policies have been effective in restraining housing prices
and household credit growth in both the short and long terms [43]. DSTI, DTI, and LTV instruments are now widely used in mac­
roprudential policies in many European countries. They regulate applicants’ access to the mortgage market and number of mortgages
offered, based on the set criteria [50]. Macroprudential policies have been effective in curbing housing inflation [42].
Regression, difference, and panel data analyses are commonly used empirical research methods to analyze the effects of housing
policies. This method has been used to evaluate the effects of housing policies by collecting and analyzing real-world data. It has help to

Table 9
Impact of housing policy on various real estate factors in the 45 research papers on the impact of housing policy on the real
estate market.
Real estate market factors amount

housing price Housing price 25

Real estate cycle 3
Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) share price 2
Real estate market risks to banks 1
Home prices, incomes, residential mortgage rates 1
Home prices, inventory, credit, and mortgage rates 1
House prices and number of transactions 1
Housing price and time to market gap 1
House prices and housing credit 1
Time to market and price discounts on homes 1
Investment in property 1
others Construction industry 1
Land value 2
Others 4

9
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

evaluate the impact of policies on the housing market by comparing the data differences before and after policy implementation, or by
comparing data from regions where policies are implemented and regions where they are not implemented. However, these studies
have some limitations. Regression analysis has been used to explore the relationship between the independent and dependent variables
and estimate the strength and direction of this relationship. However, when assessing the impact of housing policies on the real estate
market, a regression analysis can only observe the correlations between the two aspects and cannot determine the causation. Policy
implementation may be disrupted by factors that have not been considered, such as economic cycles and regional characteristics.
Therefore, regression analysis must consider all factors that may affect the dependent variable; however, in reality, it is difficult to
include all potential influencing factors in the model. Missing key variables can lead to a bias in the estimates. Regression analysis is
usually based on the assumption that the relationship between the independent and dependent variables is linear. However, housing
markets often have non-linear relationships that may not be accurately captured by regression analyses. Differential analysis has been
used to assess the effects of a policy by comparing the differences before and after policy implementation. Its advantage is that it can
eliminate the effects of heterogeneity among individuals and provide a more reliable causal inference. However, differential analysis
requires determining in advance, the point in time at which the policy will be implemented and then comparing the data before and
after that point. However, the determination of the time point for policy implementation is sometimes inaccurate, and errors may
occur. Differential analysis relies on the comparison of samples before and after policy implementation. However, policies may not be
randomly, implemented and there may be a selection bias between samples before and after policy implementation. Panel data
analysis has been used to combine the features of time-series and cross-sectional data to more comprehensively assess the impact of
policies. By examining individuals and time, the effects of policies can be convincingly judged. However, panel data analysis requires a
long period of data, and some may be missing or incomplete, affecting the accuracy of the results. In panel data analysis, there is often a
spatial correlation between individuals; that is, adjacent regions or units may be similarly affected. This correlation can introduce
problems that require appropriate controls or use of a spatial panel model.

4.2. Influence of policy on various real estate factors

The divergence in local housing price responses to monetary policies can be partly explained by factors such as housing supply
conditions, mortgage debt, investor concentration, and average income. This illustrates the potential transmission mechanism of
monetary policy, and suggests that the state determines the effectiveness of monetary policy [56]. Monetary shocks affect housing
prices [30]. They play an economic role in restraining housing price growth [64]. An expansionary monetary policy tends to accelerate
subsequent house price rises, while a restrictive monetary policy tends to slow down subsequent house price rises [54].
When the real estate market is dysfunctional, the government can effectively introduce housing policies that restrain housing prices
[39]. Housing prices are sensitive to changes in interest rates [34], and there exists an elastic relationship between property tax
revenue and housing prices [65]. Swedish house prices did not respond to large cuts in the country’s property tax [40]. Other recent
studies have focused on public policy moderators affecting housing demand. A study conducted in Canada has examined policies that
regulate mortgage-backed bonds to reduce demand and lower house prices [66].

4.3. Influence of housing policies in different countries on the real estate market

With different development levels in the real estate market, the level of government control also changes to formulate policies for
the real estate market. Europe, South America, and some Asian countries are developed, and their real estate markets are mainly follow
the free-market economic system. Of course, different countries have different free-market economies, welfare levels, and government
influences on real estate development. In some developing countries in Asia, government supervision and market operations are
combined, and the housing marketization level is not high; therefore, the government significantly influences real estate development.
There also exist large differences in each country’s housing system policies. In some countries, the differences in resident income are
small, degree of housing commercialization is not high, government holds significant influence on the real estate market, and housing-
related subsidies are strong. In some free welfare countries, the housing supply is dominated by the market, and the government only
provides housing security to a small number of low-income groups to compensate for market failures. The government’s role in guiding
and regulating the market economy also differs.
Europe: Several institutional and macroeconomic factors, some specific to individual countries, affect the different performances of
European housing markets. After the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2007, the real estate market in Germany remained stable
because of a few reasons. First, the country developed a prudent monetary policy on mortgage loans, under which, bank loans were
determined based on the minimum value of real estate instead of the market price; this prevented the periodicity of lending. Mean­
while, banks provided fixed-interest-rate mortgage loans to reduce the risk of default. Another country formulated policies to regulate
the real estate rental market. For example, rent could not be freely raised; therefore, families did not completely rely on house pur­
chases. This had a certain substitution effect, transferred the financial risks generated by house purchases, and helped maintain market
stability [67]. Similarly, in France, housing-related policies have always been an important issue for the government. To stabilize the
real estate market, the government has formulated interest-free loan policies that, to some extent, have solved first-time house owners’
demands. Housing policies have significant affected land prices [41]. A study on the impact of national fiscal policy changes on the real
estate market in Spain has used background data from 2004 to 2015 provided by real estate agents and conducted a
difference-in-difference estimation for the improved identification strategy. They have considered two fiscal policies, tax credit and
Value Added Taxes rate changes for new house purchases and concluded that the tax policy has a negative causal effect on the real
estate market [68].

10
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

Kucharska-Stasiak et al. (2022) have comprehensively demonstrated the need for EU policies on housing-related issues [69]. The
introduction of property taxes in Italy has affected construction activities in the real estate market [32]. Among the tax policies, income
tax has a significant impact on the real estate market’s investment demand, providing strategies for Italy to regulate the real estate
market and formulate relevant fiscal policies [55]. Real estate plays a significant role in the Italian economic system. A dynamic
financially calculable general equilibrium model has been used to analyze the impact of monetary policy on the real estate market
economy. The results show that European banks’ quantitave easing policy has had a positive impact on the region’s real estate market
[35].
South America: Social housing policy in Chile has combined the free market principles of investment decisions with the long-
standing tradition of social housing subsidies. This has prevented a more balanced development in the housing market in the grass­
roots population, which is dominated by demand subsidies and interest-oriented groups that profit from investments [70]. The
adjustment of economic policy may endanger the stability of the financial market and promote an imbalance in real estate prices [71].
The Peruvian government has implemented a housing policy for the low-income class to effectively suppress housing demand in the
real estate market and rise in land prices [72]. In Latin America, where various housing programs and urban regulations have been
tested, relaxation of housing policy measures has led to alternative management of the market, which has not been able to contain the
crisis in the real estate market [73].
North America: Monetary policy has affected the US REITs sector. The tightening monetary policy has been linked to an increase in
the bubble component of REITs in the US economy [29]. Economic policy uncertainty (EPU) is weak in predicting the returns and
volatility of US REITs, and the REITs market can hedge against EPU [59,74]. Policy improvements in energy efficiency and property
performance also have has a positive effect [75]. Certain developments in the US have affected international real estate markets.
Particularly, the reactions of REIT stocks to unexpected moves in US monetary policy, inflation, and employment conditions have
widely varied. In the case of the Fed’s policy shock, the impact on international REITs is driven by signaling effects; it is also an asset
pricing channel through which monetary policy has transmitted the shock [45].
Asia: Singapore’s housing market has been severely unbalanced, with market prices rising across the board and several rounds of
market cooling measures being required. The property market is largely policy driven, and policymakers must clearly define the targets
of intervention and expectations [76]. The Israeli public policy has stopped housing prices from rising in the short term, but has failed
to achieve the long-term goal of reducing them [44]. China’s real estate market is highly regulated, and development is significantly
influenced by governmental policies [48]. Changes in the Chinese governmental policy are an important source of volatility in the
property market [32]. EPU is a net transmitter of spillovers and affects most of the housing market [77]. Real estate control policies
affect the banks’ discount rate risk of real estate enterprises [78].
Australia: Many studies conducted in Australia have shown the importance of public policy in increasing housing supply as an
effective way to mitigate the rapid increase in housing prices [79]. Monetary policies have had a significant impact on the real estate
industry, especially the construction industry [46]. The government must increase the supply of affordable housing and suspend
policies that benefit both investors and homeowners [80]. Australian housing prices are dominated by mortgage rates, consumer
sentiment, stock market indices, and unemployment. The monetary, fiscal, and macroeconomic policies need to be balanced to
optimize the stability and steady growth of Australia’s housing market. Monetary policy is a blunt tool that is used to manage the
nation’s financial stability. A balanced and complementary combination of fiscal and monetary policy decisions is needed to improve
Australia’s overall fiscal health [25].
In a large number of studies, housing policy has mainly affected the supply and demand in the market to ensure effective operation.
On the one hand, economies can reduce the demand for housing by implementing housing policies. The first option is through a
monetary policy, which involves restrictions on mortgage lending to reduce housing demand, for example, by increasing interest rates.
The second option is to use fiscal policies to reduce housing demand through tax controls, such as property taxes. Third, macro­
prudential regulations can be implemented to reduce systemic risk and slow down housing demand by, for example, limiting the LTV
and DTI ratios. Policymakers can also increase the number of houses in the real estate market to influence the supply and guarantee a
balance between supply and demand in the real estate market. Housing policies should be more market-oriented, and their evaluations
policy should mainly depend on the financial and regulatory environment of the housing market [81]. This can help reduce reliance on
administrative measures, which require a comprehensive understanding of the real estate market.
By conducting a literature review on the global real estate market, we find that housing prices are one of the important factors
affecting the stability of the real estate market. It is the link between the real estate market and macro economy, as well as the
measurement standard for testing the effectiveness of the national housing policy.
We find that the nature of housing policies implemented by different countries also varies. Some countries have advocated socialist
policies, supported social equality, stabilized housing prices in the free real estate market, passed laws to limit housing prices, and even
provided large amounts of public housing to stabilize the real estate market. Countries that have promoted the principles of market
liberalism and support-related property rights have often allowed the free market to determine the price levels in the economy with
little regulatory intervention.

5. Conclusion

This study adopts a systematic quantitative literature review to examine the impact of housing policies on the real estate market.
We find that housing policies affecting the real estate market can be divided into the following three categories: monetary, tax, and
macro-prudential policies. Changes in supply and demand in the real estate market primarily reflect the effectiveness of policies, with
housing price factors acting as the transmission mechanism. Simultaneously, the influence of housing policies in different countries

11
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

and regions on real estate market factors is compared to provide a reference for future studies.

Author contribution statement

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article. 〈/p〉

Data availability statement

No data was used for the research described in the article.

No additional information is available for this paper.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix 1

Author year Journal location

La Cava, G.; He, C., [56] 2021 Australian Economic Review Australian
Vespignani, J. L. [46] 2013 Australian Economic History Review Australian
Wang et al. [25] 2018 International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis Australian
Jorda et al. [34] 2015 Journal of International Economics multi-country
Slemrod et al. [37] 2017 Journal of Urban Economics America
Eickmeier, S.; Hofmann, B [31] 2013 Macroeconomic Dynamics America
Beraja et al. 2019 Quarterly Journal of Economics America
Fischer et al. [30] 2021 Real Estate Economics America
Cooper et al. [64] 2022 International Journal of Central Banking America
Caraiani et al. [29] 2021 International Review of Finance America
Charif et al. [74] 2022 Investment Analysts Journal America
Huang et al., [59] 2020 Journal of Risk America
Marfatia et al. [45] 2017 North American Journal of Economics and Finance America
Iacoviello, M.; Neri, S. 2010 American Economic Journal-Macroeconomics America
Dajcman, S [53] 2020 Economics & Sociology Europe
Hartmann, P. [52] 2015 Journal of Money Credit and Banking Europe
Vandenbussche et al. [42] 2015 Journal of Money Credit and Banking Europe
Cocconcelli et al. [26] 2013 Land Use Policy Estonia,
Ahmed et al. [33] 2021 International Journal of Finance & Economics Italy
Beaubrun-Diant, K.; Maury, T.-P 2021 Economics Bulletin France
[41]
Venhoda, O. [50]. 2022 International Journal of Economic Sciences Czech Republic
Elinder, M.; Persson, L [40] 2017 Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Sweden
Raya Vilchez, J. M.; Kucel, A [68] 2022 Bulletin of Economic Research Spain
Manganelli et al. [55] 2020 Buildings Italy
Ahmed et al., [35] 2020 Economic Systems Research Italy
Chowdhury et al. [28] 2022 International Journal of Finance & Economics England
Carro et al. [51] 2022 Industrial and Corporate Change England
Antonakakis, N.; Floros, C 2016 International Review of Financial Analysis England
McAllister et al. [49] 2018 Land Use Policy England
Tsai, I. C [57] 2015 Urban Studies England
Hwang et al. [47] 2013 Mathematical and Computer Modelling Korea
Jang et al., [27] 2020 Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications Korea
Cohen, E. [44] 2022 Housing Policy Debate Israel
Shiou-Yen Chu [38] 2018 International Review of Economics & Finance China
Dong et al. [36] 2022 Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society China
Shao, X.; White, A. [58] 2021 Journal of Comparative Economics China
Xu, X. E.; Chen, T. [54] 2012 Pacific-Basin Finance Journal China
Du, Z.; Zhang, L., [39] 2015 Home-purchase restriction, property tax, and housing price in China: A counterfactual China
analysis
Jiang, Y.; Wang, Y., [32] 2021 Applied Economics China
Ding et al. [48] 2017 Annals of Economics and Finance China
Xia et al. [77] 2020 International Review of Financial Analysis China
Jiang, J. [78] 2021 Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies China
Meng et al. [23] 2017 Quantitative Finance England and
America
Carreras et al. [43] 2018 Journal of Financial Stability 19 countries
Kuttner, K. N.; Shim, I [24] 2016 Journal of Financial Stability 57 economies

12
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

References

[1] E.O. Acheampong, J. Sayer, C.J. Macgregor, Road improvement enhances smallholder productivity and reduces forest encroachment in Ghana, Environ. Sci. Pol.
85 (2018) 64–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.001.
[2] N. Bontis, W.C.C. Keow, S. Richardson, Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries, J. Intellect. Cap. 1 (1) (2000).
[3] N. Boris, G. Marie, R. Gael, The Impact of Roads on Poverty Reduction : A Case Study of Cameroon, 2010.
[4] M. Haan, C. Hewitt, G. Chuatico, By the numbers: the construction industry in Canada from 1986 to 2016, Lab.Ind. J. Soc.Eco. Relations of Work 30 (4) (2020)
299–320, https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2020.1819181.
[5] X.N. Mashwama, C. Aigbavboa, D. Thwala, Investigation of construction stakeholders perception on the effects & cost of construction dispute in Swaziland,
Procedia Eng. 164 (2016) 196–205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.610.
[6] L. Cheng, Z. Ying, How does housing wealth affect household consumption? Evidence from macro-data with special implications for China, China Econ. Rev. 69
(2021).
[7] Housing wealth and consumption: evidence from geographically linked microdata, Am. Econ. Rev. 107 (11) (2017).
[8] Y. Fan, A. Yavas, How does mortgage debt affect household consumption? Micro evidence from China, R. Estate Econ. 48 (1) (2020).
[9] J.v. Loon, M.B. Aalbers, How real estate became ‘just another asset class’: the financialization of the investment strategies of Dutch institutional investors, Eur.
Plann. Stud. 25 (2) (2017).
[10] W.D. Thwala, M. Mvubu, Problems facing small and medium size contractors in Swaziland, J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2 (4) (2009) 353–361, https://doi.org/10.4236/
jssm.2009.24042.
[11] G. Arku, The housing and economic development debate revisited: economic significance of housing in developing countries, J. Hous. Built Environ. 21 (4)
(2006).
[12] H. Mallick, M.K. Mahalik, Constructing the economy: the role of construction sector in India’s growth, J. R. Estate Finance Econ. 40 (3) (2010).
[13] J.D. Farmer, M. Gallegati, C. Hommes, A. Kirman, P. Ormerod, S. Cincotti, A. Sanchez, D. Helbing, A complex systems approach to constructing better models
for managing financial markets and the economy, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 214 (1) (2012) 295–324, https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2012-01696-9.
[14] W. Shi, J. Chen, H. Wang, Affordable housing policy in China: new developments and new challenges, Habitat Int. 54 (2016) 224–233, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.habitatint.2015.11.020.
[15] P.-A. Drouhin, A. Simon, Y. Essafi, Forward curve risk factors analysis in the UK real estate market, J. R. Estate Finance Econ. 53 (4) (2016).
[16] Erasing the invisible hand :b essays on an elusive and misused concept in economics/c Warren J. Samuels ; with the assistance of Marianne F. Johnson and
William H. Perry. Erasing the invisible hand :b essays on an elusive and misused concept in economics/c Warren, J. Samuels ; with the assistance of Marianne F.
Johnson and William H. Perry 2011,34,(4),584-587.
[17] C. Crowe, G. Dell’Ariccia, D. Igan, P. Rabanal, How to deal with real estate booms: lessons from country experiences, J. Financ. Stabil. 9 (3) (2013).
[18] A. Tom, M. Peter, New York for Sale:Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, 2011.
[19] C. Pickering, J. Byrne, The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers, High Educ.
Res. Dev. 33 (3) (2014) 534–548, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841651.
[20] D. Guitart, C. Pickering, J. Byrne, Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research, Urban For. Urban Green. 11 (4) (2012) 364–373,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.007.
[21] S. Roy, J. Byrne, C. Pickering, A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones,
Urban For. Urban Green. 11 (4) (2012) 351–363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.006.
[22] A. Pearson, Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews, JBI Rep. 2 (2) (2004).
[23] H. Meng, H.-C. Xu, W.-X. Zhou, D. Sornette, Symmetric thermal optimal path and time-dependent lead-lag relationship: novel statistical tests and application to
UK and US real-estate and monetary policies, Quant. Finance 17 (6) (2017) 959–977, https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2016.1241424.
[24] K.N. Kuttner, I. Shim, Can non-interest rate policies stabilize housing markets? Evidence from a panel of 57 economies, J. Financ. Stabil. 26 (2016) 31–44,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2016.07.014.
[25] J. Wang, A. Koblyakova, P. Tiwari, J.S. Croucher, Is the Australian housing market in a bubble? Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 13 (1) (2018) 77–95, https://doi.org/
10.1108/ijhma-03-2017-0026.
[26] L. Cocconcelli, F.R. Medda, Boom and bust in the Estonian real estate market and the role of land tax as a buffer, Land Use Pol. 30 (1) (2013) 392–400, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.007.
[27] H. Jang, Y. Song, K. Ahn, Can government stabilize the housing market? The evidence from South Korea, Phys. Stat. Mech. Appl. (2020) 550, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.physa.2019.124114.
[28] R.A. Chowdhury, D. Jahan, T. Mishra, M. Parhi, Monetary policy shock and impact asymmetry in bank lending channel: evidence from the UK housing sector,
Int. J. Finance Econ. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2696.
[29] P. Caraiani, A.C. Calin, R. Gupta, Monetary policy and bubbles in US REITs, Int. Rev. Finance 21 (2) (2021) 675–687, https://doi.org/10.1111/irfi.12284.
[30] M.M. Fischer, F. Huber, M. Pfarrhofer, P. Staufer-Steinnocher, The dynamic impact of monetary policy on regional housing prices in the United States, R. Estate
Econ. 49 (4) (2021) 1039–1068, https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.12274.
[31] S. Eickmeier, B. Hofmann, Monetary policy, housing booms, and financial (IM)BALANCES, Macroecon. Dyn. 17 (4) (2013) 830–860, https://doi.org/10.1017/
s1365100511000721.
[32] Y. Jiang, Y. Wang, Price dynamics of China’s housing market and government intervention, Appl. Econ. 53 (10) (2021) 1212–1224, https://doi.org/10.1080/
00036846.2020.1838432.
[33] I. Ahmed, C. Socci, A. Medabesh, F. Severini, J. Zotti, Economic impact of monetary policy: focus on real estate sector in Italy, Int. J. Finance Econ. 26 (1) (2021)
1256–1269, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.1848.
[34] O. Jorda, M. Schularick, A.M. Taylor, Betting the house, J. Int. Econ. 96 (2015) S2–S18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2014.12.011.
[35] I. Ahmed, C. Socci, F. Severini, R. Pretaroli, H.K. Al Mahdi, Unconventional monetary policy and real estate sector: a financial dynamic computable general
equilibrium model for Italy, Econ. Syst. Res. 32 (2) (2020) 221–238, https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2019.1656601.
[36] W. Dong, X. Fu, Y. Zhang, G. Qin, Research on the policy effect of property tax reform: take the pilot reforms in chongqing and Shanghai as examples, Discrete
Dynam Nat. Soc. (2022) 2022, https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1940023.
[37] J. Slemrod, C. Weber, H. Shan, The behavioral response to housing transfer taxes: evidence from a notched change in DC policy, J. Urban Econ. 100 (2017)
137–153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2017.05.005.
[38] S.-Y. Chu, Macroeconomic policies and housing market in Taiwan, Int. Rev. Econ. Finance 58 (2018) 404–421, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2018.05.002.
[39] Z. Du, L. Zhang, Home-purchase restriction, property tax and housing price in China: a counterfactual analysis, J. Econom. 188 (2) (2015) 558–568, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.018.
[40] M. Elinder, L. Persson, House price responses to a national property tax reform, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 144 (2017) 18–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jebo.2017.09.017.
[41] K. Beaubrun-Diant, T.-P. Maury, Implications of homeownership policies on land prices: the case of a French experiment, Econ. Bull. 41 (3) (2021) 1256–+.
[42] J. Vandenbussche, U. Vogel, E. Detragiache, Macroprudential policies and housing prices: a new database and empirical evidence for central, eastern, and
southeastern Europe, J. Money Credit Bank. 47 (2015) 343–377, https://doi.org/10.1111/jmcb.12206.
[43] O. Carreras, E.P. Davis, R. Piggott, Assessing macroprudential tools in OECD countries within a cointegration framework, J. Financ. Stabil. 37 (2018) 112–130,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2018.04.004.
[44] E. Cohen, Regulating demand or supply: examining Israel’s public policy for reducing housing prices during 2015-2019, Housing Policy Debate 32 (3) (2022)
533–548, https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2021.1895277.

13
C. Zhao and F. Liu Heliyon 9 (2023) e20704

[45] H.A. Marfatia, R. Gupta, E. Cakan, The international REIT’s time-varying response to the US monetary policy and macroeconomic surprises, N. Am. J. Econ.
Finance 42 (2017) 640–653, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2017.09.007.
[46] J.L. Vespignani, The industrial impact of monetary SHOCKS during the inflation-targeting era in Australia, Aust. Econ. Hist. Rev. 53 (1) (2013) 47–71, https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8446.2013.00358.x.
[47] S. Hwang, M. Park, H.-S. Lee, Dynamic analysis of the effects of mortgage-lending policies in a real estate market, Math. Comput. Model. 57 (9–10) (2013)
2106–2120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.06.023.
[48] D. Ding, X. Huang, T. Jin, W.R. Lam, The residential real estate market in China: assessment and policy implications, Ann. Econ. Finance 18 (2) (2017) 411–442.
[49] P. McAllister, E. Shepherd, P. Wyatt, Policy shifts, developer contributions and land value capture in London 2005-2017, Land Use Pol. 78 (2018) 316–326,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.047.
[50] O. Venhoda, Application of DSTI and DTI macroprudential policy limits to the mortgage market in the Czech republic for the year 2022, Int. J. Eco. Sci. 11 (1)
(2022) 105–116.
[51] A. Carro, M. Hinterschweiger, A. Uluc, J.D. Farmer, Heterogeneous Effects and Spillovers of Macroprudential Policy in an Agent-Based Model of the UK Housing
Market. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtac030.
[52] P. Hartmann, Real estate markets and macroprudential policy in Europe, J. Money Credit Bank. 47 (2015) 69–80, https://doi.org/10.1111/jmcb.12192.
[53] S. Dajcman, Demand for residential mortgage loans and house prices in the euro area, Eco.Sociol. 13 (1) (2020) 40–51, https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-
789x.2020/13-1/3.
[54] X.E. Xu, T. Chen, The effect of monetary policy on real estate price growth in China, Pac. Basin Finance J. 20 (1) (2012) 62–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pacfin.2011.08.001.
[55] B. Manganelli, P. Morano, P. Rosato, P. De Paola, The effect of taxation on investment demand in the real estate market: the Italian experience, Buildings 10 (7)
(2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10070115.
[56] G. La Cava, C. He, The distributional effects of monetary policy: evidence from local housing markets in Australia, Aust. Econ. Rev. 54 (3) (2021) 387–397,
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.12440.
[57] I.C. Tsai, Monetary policy and bubbles in the national and regional UK housing markets, Urban Stud. 52 (8) (2015) 1471–1488, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0042098014534904.
[58] X. Shao, A. White, Outsiders, insiders and interventions in the housing market, J. Comp. Econ. 49 (1) (2021) 110–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jce.2020.05.004.
[59] W.-L. Huang, I.C. Tsai, W.-Y. Lin, Economic policy uncertainty, investors’ attention and US real estate investment trusts’ herding behaviors, J. Risk 22 (6) (2020)
35–63, https://doi.org/10.21314/jor.2020.440.
[60] M.-T. Lee, S.-H. Kuo, M.-L. Lee, Real estate exposure OF US banking industry stock returns: evidence from commercial and residential markets, Int. J. Strat.
Property Manag. 22 (1) (2018) 12–23, https://doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2018.319.
[61] C. Chen, H. Zhai, Z. Wang, S. Ma, J. Sun, C. Wu, Y. Zhang, Experimental research on the impact of interest rate on real estate market transactions, Discrete
Dynam Nat. Soc. (2022) 2022, https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9946703.
[62] S. Alpanda, S. Zubairy, Housing and tax policy, J. Money Credit Bank. 48 (2–3) (2016) 485–512, https://doi.org/10.1111/jmcb.12307.
[63] C. Crowe, G. Dell’Ariccia, D. Igan, P. Rabanal, How to deal with real estate booms: lessons from country experiences, J. Financ. Stabil. 9 (3) (2013) 300–319,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2013.05.003.
[64] D. Cooper, M.J. Luengo-Prado, G.P. Olivei, Monetary policy and regional house-price appreciation, Int.J.Central Banking 18 (3) (2022) 173–227.
[65] B.F. Lutz, The connection between house price appreciation and property tax revenues, Natl. Tax J. 61 (3) (2008) 555–572, https://doi.org/10.17310/
ntj.2008.3.13.
[66] A. Walks, B. Clifford, The political economy of mortgage securitization and the neoliberalization of housing policy in Canada, Environ. Plann. 47 (8) (2015)
1624–1642, https://doi.org/10.1068/a130226p.
[67] M. Voigtlaender, The stability of the German housing market, J. Hous. Built Environ. 29 (4) (2014) 583–594, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-013-9366-1.
[68] J.M. Raya Vilchez, A. Kucel, How fiscal policy affects housing market dynamics: evidence from Spain, Bull. Econ. Res. 75 (2) (2023), https://doi.org/10.1111/
boer.12358.
[69] E. Kucharska-Stasiak, S. Zrobek, K. Zelazowski, European union housing policy-an attempt to synthesize the actions taken, Sustainability 14 (1) (2022), https://
doi.org/10.3390/su14010039.
[70] J. Dohnke, D. Heinrichs, S. Kabisch, K. Krellenberg, J. Welz, Achieving a Socio-Spatial Mix? Prospects and Limitations of Social Housing Policy in Santiago de
Chile, Hous. Stud. 30 (6) (2015) 839–857, https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2014.982516.
[71] B.J. Idrovo-Aguirre, F.J. Lozano, J.E. Contreras-Reyes, Prosperity or real estate bubble? Exuberance probability index of real housing prices in Chile, Int. J.
Financ. Stud. 9 (3) (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs9030051.
[72] J. Calderon, J. Quispe, Housing policies and land markets in Peru, Eure-Revista Latinoamericana De Estudios Urbano Regionales 41 (122) (2015) 27–47,
https://doi.org/10.4067/s0250-71612015000100002.
[73] P.F. Santoro, Inclusionary housing policies in Latin America: sao paulo, Brazil in dialogue with bogota, Colombia, Int.J. Housing Policy 19 (3) (2019) 385–410,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2019.1613870.
[74] H. Charif, A. Assaf, E. Demir, K. Mokni, The effects of economic policy uncertainty on the US REITs ETFs: a quantile analysis, Invest. Anal. J. 51 (1) (2022)
67–82, https://doi.org/10.1080/10293523.2022.2076372.
[75] L. Shang, H.W. Lee, S. Dermisi, Y. Choe, Impact of energy benchmarking and disclosure policy on office buildings, J. Clean. Prod. 250 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119500.
[76] S.-Y. Phang, D. Lee, A. Cheong, K.-F. Phoon, K. Wee, Housing policies in SINGAPORE: evaluation of recent proposals and recommendations for reform,
Singapore Econ. Rev. 59 (3) (2014), https://doi.org/10.1142/s0217590814500258.
[77] T. Xia, C.-X. Yao, J.-B. Geng, Dynamic and frequency-domain spillover among economic policy uncertainty, stock and housing markets in China, Int. Rev.
Financ. Anal. 67 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2019.101427.
[78] J. Jiang, Can real estate regulatory policies constrain real estate risks to banks? Evidence from China, J. Chin. Econ. Bus. Stud. 19 (1) (2021) 35–53, https://doi.
org/10.1080/14765284.2020.1868932.
[79] N. Gurran, P. Phibbs, S. Fitzpatrick, G.V. Bortel, R. Ronald, Housing Supply and Urban Planning Reform: the Recent Australian Experience, 2003–2012.
[80] K. Jacobs, A reverse form of welfarism: some reflections on Australian housing policy, Aust. J. Soc. Issues 50 (1) (2015) 53–68, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-
4655.2015.tb00334.x.
[81] Housing policies in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the United States, Cityscape 18 (3) (2016).

14