세미나 일정(PROGRAM)
등록(Registrations) 13:30~14:00
개회사(Opening Address) 14:00~14:10 / 장영희 회장(한국주택학회)
Yeong-Hee Jang(the President of KAHPS)
환영사(Welcome Address) / 최병선 원장(국토연구원)
Byung-Sun Choe(the President of KRIHS)
Session 1 : 논문발표(Paper Presentation) 14:10~16:40
1. "Housing Service in Korea and Housing Policy Implications"
Juhyun Yoon(Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements) 2. "Housing Welfare Indicators for the Quality of Life in Korea"
HwanYong Park(Kyoungwon University) 3. "Housing Service and Housing Indicators in the U.S.A."
Sunwoong Kim(University of Wisconsin) YoungmanLee(Hansung University)
4. "Housing service in England: appropriate and affordable?"
YoungHa Cho(Oxford Brooks University) 5. "Dwellings and the Dutch: a Dynamic Duo?"
Jeroen P.Traudes(Amsterdam School of Real Estate) 6. "On the Housing Service in Japan"
Norimichi Goishi(Tokyo Institute for Municipal Research) Hong-Gyu Jeon(Nihon Fukushi University)
휴식(Break) 16:40~16:50 Session 2 : 토론(Discussion) 16:50~18:00
사회(Chair) : 박헌주 원장(주택도시연구원)
Heon-Joo Park(Housing & Urban Research Institute)
토론자(Discussants)
김경환 교수(서강대학교)
Kyung Hwan Kim(SoGang University)
남희용 실장(한국주택협회)
Hee Yong Nam(korea Housing Association)
손경환 실장(국토연구원)
Kyung Hwan Sohn(Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements)
윤인숙 수석연구원(한국토지공사)
Insook Yoon(Korea Land Corporation)
개회사
Opening Address
Honorable Presenters, Participants for discussion, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Good afternoon,
It is my pleasure and honor to welcome you to the International Conference for Housing Indicators and the 2005 Korean Association for Housing Policy Studies’ fall academic conference in cooperation with the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements. This conference will be an important opportunity to highlight the significance of comprehensive understanding of residential housing service issues for policy makers. I would like to express my gratitude to Byung-Sun Choe, the President of Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements for his invaluable contribution, and thank you all for being here with us today.
The goal of our host, the Korean Association for Housing Policy Studies, an academic association of experts, is to propose a constructive criticism to current housing issues and provide alternative solutions for developing policies and theories for improvement of housing quality.
Housing indicators have been the fundamental research issues of housing studies striving to achieve better housing services and establish ground policies. However, there are clear indications that a more varied indicators are necessary to transform today’s policies more demand-bounded or consumer-centered. Towards that end, next year, the government will enforce the regular housing investigation and its related research on more diverse range and details. We expect the regular housing investigation to contribute in establishing new standards for evaluation of housing policies and service, above and beyond collecting information of housing level and its market conditions, ultimately improving the quality of housing policies.
This conference will be a forum where experts from various countries can find synergy of new ideas and superior solutions, through in-depth discussion on housing indicators and standards. I hope that this conference will provide fresh perspectives for future housing indicators that is adaptable to localized issues.
I am thrilled to welcome world-renowned scholars who have joined us today: Professor Sunwoong Kim of the University of Wisconsin from the U.S, Dr. Jeroen Traudes of the Amsterdam School of Real Estate from Netherlands, Dr. YoungHa Cho of Oxford Brooks University from U. K and Dr.
Norimichi Goishi of Tokyo Institute for Municipal Research from Japan. I would also like to introduce our moderator, Dr. Heon-Joo Park, Director General of Housing & Urban Research Institute; presenters Dr. Juhyun Yoon from Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements and Professor Hwan Yong Park from Kyoungwon University.
Finally, I want to thank the Korea Land Corporation and Korea Housing Association for their great support for this conference. I hope this will be a fruitful forum for all of our guests.
Thank you very much.
December 9th, 2005 Yeong-Hee Jang The President of Korean Association for Housing Policy Studies
환영사
Welcome Address
I am pleased and honored to welcome you to the international seminar on housing service and housing indicators. I would like to extend a hearty welcome to you all, the presenters and discussants from here and to those from abroad, who have travelled great distances to participate in today's seminar. I also would like to thank the audience who have come here today with keen interest in housing services of countries around the world.
Today's theme is housing service. As an economy develops, the needs for food and clothes tend to be met to a certain degree in general. However, even developed countries fail to provide sufficient housing for the people. Therefore, in many countries, the ultimate goal of housing policy is to improve housing service and accordingly, promote housing welfare which is obtained through the consumption of housing service.
Housing situations vary widely from country to country depending on the economic, cultural and historical factors, and policy responses to housing service vary also. The purpose of today's seminar is to compare housing services of five countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, the Netherlands and Korea, and to derive some policy lessons from the comparison.
In Korea, housing shortage has been gradually alleviating since house supply ratio went beyond 100 % nationwide in 2002. Accordingly, housing policy, which has been expanding its scope since late 1990's, has become even more significant in the 2000's.
In the past, the policy focus was on the number of houses provided. Now, the focus has shifted to housing service for different groups of people. Therefore, policies for the promotion of housing service need to be established so that the housing service needs of people at all level could be satisfied.
With the excellent papers to be presented and the following substantial discussions, I hope we can learn some valuable lessons from today's seminar.
I welcome you again, and I look forward to your active participation in the discussions.
Thank you.
December 9th, 2005 Byung-Sun Choe The President of Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements
1
Housing Service in Korea
and Housing Policy Implications
주택재고가 절대적으로 부족한 상황에서 주택보급률이 주택정책 성과를 나타내는 유일한 정책지표가 되어 왔다. 2002년말 주택보급률이 100%에 도 달함에 따라 새로운 정책지표에 대한 관심이 제고되고 있으며, 또한 주택공 급으로 인하여 야기되는 가구의 주거수준에 대한 관심이 높아지고 있다.
본 연구의 목적은 한국 국민의 주거수준 변화와 소득계층별 차이를 분석 하여 국민주거수준 향상을 위한 정책적 시사점을 도출하는데 있다. 이를 위 하여 우선, 주택과 가구와의 관계를 짚어봄으로써 주거서비스를 정의하고, 주거서비스를 측정하기 위한 지표를 개발한 후, 이를 통하여 가구가 누리고 있는 주거서비스 수준을 측정하고 그 변화추이 및 계층별 차이를 살펴보고 자 한다. 또한 주거서비스 수준의 변화 및 계층별 차이를 야기한 원인을 파 악해 봄으로써 정책적 시사점을 도출해 보고자 한다.
1. 주거서비스의 정의
주거서비스(housing service)는 가구(household)라는 소비자가 주거행위 (housing)과정에서 주택(house)이라는 물리적인 매개체를 선택함으로써 제 공받을 수 있는 모든 서비스로 정의할 수 있다. 가구는 주거행위를 통하여 주택이 제공하는 주거서비스를 소비하고 그 대가로 주거비를 지불하며, 주거 서비스 소비의 결과로 나타나는 것이 주거복지이다. 한편 주택은 주거서비스 의 제공 이외에도 주택보유자에게 가격 상승을 통한 자본이득을 제공한다.
(<그림1> 참조)
2. 주거서비스 지표의 개발
주거서비스를 측정하기 위한 지표로서 양적 지표, 질적 지표, 주거비부담 지표, 주거안정성 지표, 주거형평성 지표로 구분하였다. 이는 주거서비스의 정의에 맞추어 주택의 건물, 단지, 환경 요소를 포함하도록 하였으며, 개인의 측면과 사회적 측면을 함께 반영하였다. 각각의 지표군에 포함된 측정지표들 은 다음 표와 같다.
<표> 주거서비스 측정지표
3. 주거서비스 수준의 평가
1)
양적지표
주택보급률은 1990년 72.4%에서 2000년에 96.2%로 크게 증가하였고, 2004년 말 현재 전국의 주택보급률은 102.2%에 달한다. 주택보급률의 급격한 증가는 1980년대 후반부터 지속된 주택의 대량공급에 기인한다.
지역별로 보면 서울, 경기, 지방 대도시를 제외하고 대부분의 지역에서 100%을 넘어서 재고부족이 상당히 해소되었다.
자가점유율은 1990년 49.9%에서 1995년 53.3%, 2000년 54.2%로 소 폭 증가하였다. 주택대량공급의 혜택이 무주택자보다는 주택을 구입할만 한 경제적 여유가 있는 가구에게 돌아갔다고 보겠다. 서울은 41.4%로 다 른 지역에 비해 현저히 낮으며, 경기도, 지방 대도시도 전국 평균을 하회 하고 있는 반면, 지방군부 지역은 77%가 자가주택에 거주하고 있는 것으 로 나타나 상대적으로 주거가 안정되어 있다. 소득이 높을수록 자가점유 율이 높아지나 저소득층 내에서는 소득분위가 낮을수록 자가점유율이 높 게 나타나고 있어 자기집을 보유하고 있는 극빈층이 많음을 알 수 있다.
1인당 주거면적은 1990년의 13.8㎡에서 1995년 17.2㎡, 2000년 20.2
㎡로 증대하고 있으며, 2005년 설문조사에서도 24.8㎡(7.5평)로 증대하였다.
서울, 인천, 수도권, 대도시 지역은 전국평균을 하회하여 주거밀도가 높은 반면, 지방 군부의 경우는 서울에 비해 약 1.5배 넓게 살고 있다. 저소득 층의 1인당 주거면적이 가장 넓은데, 이는 저소득층이 주로 지방에 거주 하고, 60세이상 가구주의 비율이 높고, 단독주택에 거주하는 비율이 다른 계층에 비해 상대적으로 높기 때문으로 보인다. 점유형태별로 보면 자가 가구보다 전세, 보증부 월세의 주거밀도가 높다.
양적인 측면에서 주거서비스 수준은 크게 개선되고 있으나 대도시 중심 으로 주거서비스 수준이 낮고 지방에서는 양적인 주거서비스 수준은 상당 히 높은 편이다. 저소득층에 대해서는 무주택자 뿐만 아니라 유주택자에 대한 정책적 배려도 필요하다.
2) 질적 지표
건축경과년수는 1990년 17.7년에서 1995년과 2000년은 14.3년, 그리 고 2005년 설문조사에서는 15.8년으로 나타났다. 지방에서 주택의 노후 도가 심하며, 특히 농촌지역이 포함되는 군부지역의 건축경과년수가 높게 나타나고 있다. 저소득층이 가장 노후도가 높은 주택에서 거주하고, 특히 제1십분위의 경우 25.9년으로 전체 평균에 비해 월등히 높다. 월세 주택 의 노후도가 가장 높고, 전세 및 보증부월세 주택의 노후도가 낮았으며, 자가는 노후도가 상대적으로 높았다. 이는 전세수요자는 오래되지 않고 시설이 양호한 주택에 거주하려고 하는 반면, 자가거주자는 자가 마련후 자기집에 계속 거주하기 때문이라고 판단된다.
3인이상 가구 중 단칸방에 거주하는 가구비율은 1990년 17.6%에서 1995년에 4.6%, 2000년에 1.6%로 개선되고 있다. 소득이 증가하고 주택 대량공급 정책으로 전반적으로 가구의 주거수준이 향상되었기 때문이다.
경기와 지방군부지역에서 3인이상 단칸방거주가구비율이 높은데, 이는 지 방군부 지역이 일반적으로 방수가 적은 단독주택의 비중이 높기 때문이 다. 보증부월세 및 월세가구, 소득계층별로는 제1십분위와 제2십분위의 주거 밀도가 매우 높다.
주택상태에 대한 만족도는 전국적으로 내열․방화, 내부마감재, 습기, 배 관, 소음․진동에 대한 불만이 상대적으로 높고, 군부지역은 구조 및 성능 에 대한 불만이 높다. 저소득층은 구조․성능․환경 등 전반적인 주택상태에
대해 불만이 높으며, 고소득층은 내부마감재, 소음․진동을 제외하고 대체 적으로 주택상태에 만족하고 있다. 저소득층이 주로 거주하는 월세의 경 우 구조․성능․환경 거의 모든 항목에서 주택상태에 대한 불만이 높았다. 또 한 고령층에서 주거만족도가 낮아 노인주거시설의 개선이 필요하다.
주거환경은 주택상태에 비해서 만족도가 낮았다. 군부지역은 주차시설 을 제외하고 상업시설, 의료복지시설, 대중교통, 교육환경 등에 대한 불만 이 높았고, 소득이 낮을수록 입지상 주거환경 여건이 열악하였다. 고령층 에서 주거만족도가 낮았는데, 상업시설, 의료복지시설, 공원녹지에서 불만 이 높은 것으로 나타나 노인주거복지시설이 아직 미흡하다는 것을 알 수 있다.
주택대량공급으로 주택상태는 많이 개선된 반면 주거환경개선은 상대적 으로 미흡하다. 질적인 측면에서는 양적인 측면과 반대로 지방도시의 주 택노후도 및 주거환경이 상대적으로 미흡하다. 또한 저소득층, 월세거주, 노인계층의 질적인 주거서비스 수준이 취약하였다. 주택상태 및 주거환경 에 대한 정책적 관심이 필요하다.
3) 주거비부담지표
연소득대비 주택구입가격비율(PIR)은 서울이 7.7배로 매우 높은 수준인 반면, 지방은 대도시 3.8배, 중소도시 2.6배, 군부 2.9배로 주택 구입부담 이 수도권에 비해 낮다. 저소득층의 주택구입능력이 크게 떨어지며, 특히 최저소득층은 6.7배로 적정기준 4.0에 비해 매우 높다. 연령대가 높을수 록 PIR도 높아져, 연령대가 높아지면서 소득증가에 따른 주거소비도 크게 증대하다가 노년기에 가면서 소득감소가 나타나기 때문으로 풀이된다.
월소득대비 임대료비율(RIR)은 군부 23.0%, 서울지역 21.0%, 경기지역 15.6% 순서이며, 수도권지역이 17.5%로 지방의 15.5%에 비해 높게 나타 나 수도권 지역 임차가구의 주거비부담이 상대적으로 높다. 저소득층의 RIR은 21.4%로 월소득의 20% 이상을 임대료로 지출하고 있으며, 노년층 은 소득감소로 60~65세 29.6%, 66~75세 38.8%, 76세이상 27.1%로 월 소득의 30% 이상을 임대료 등 주거비로 지출하고 있다.
대도시 지역은 주택가격이 높아서, 지방도시는 소득이 낮아서 주거비부 담이 높다. 도시저소득층, 노년층에 대한 주거비지원대책이 마련되어야 한 다.
4) 주거안정성 지표
평균거주기간은 대도시일수록 평균거주기간이 짧다. 서울 5.4년인데 반 하여, 지방 군부지역은 15.7년으로 길다. 도시지역에 차가가구가 많이 분 포하고 있고, 가구원수 및 소득의 변동에 따라 주거이동이 빈번하기 때문 이다. 최저소득층의 거주기간은 중․고소득층에 비해서 길은데, 이는 저소 득층이 경제력 부족으로 주거이동의 제약을 받고 있는 것으로 추정된다.
연령대가 낮을수록 주거이동빈도가 높지만, 60세이상 고령층은 평균 18.8 년을 거주하여 주거이동빈도가 매우 낮았다.
강제이동비율은 서울과 중소도시가 각각 12.2%, 13.9%로 높게 나타났 으며, 지방군부는 6.8%로 다른 지역에 비해 크게 낮다. 군부지역의 강제 이동비율이 낮은 것은 차가가구의 비율이 낮고, 다른 지역에 비해 주택가 격 및 전세가격의 상승폭이 상대적으로 낮기 때문이다. 저소득층의 강제 이동비율이 13.9%로 가장 높고, 특히 소득제1십분위는 22.1%로서 월등 하게 낮다. 점유형태별로는 월세가 23.6%, 보증부월세가 19.5%로 다른 점유형태에 비해 현저히 높았다. 66~75세의 경우 강제이동비율이 26.6%
로 매우 높아 소득감소로 인한 주거비부담이 과다함을 알 수 있다.
대도시의 저소득 차가가구와 노인가구의 주거안정 대책이 필요하며, 특 히 극빈층의 경우 주거이동에 제약을 받음에도 불구하고 강제이동비율이 가장 높게 나타나 이들에 대한 정책적 관심이 시급하다.
5) 주거형평성 지수
주거면적, 주택자산, 가구월소득, PIR, RIR에 대한 지니계수를 추정해 보았다. 그 결과, 가구1인당주거면적을 제외한 다른 변수들의 불균등도가 0.4를 넘어섬으로써 주거서비스의 분포는 매우 불균등한 것으로 파악되었 다. 특히 주택자산과 PIR은 지니계수가 0.56과 0.51로 매우 높다. 가구1 인당주거면적의 경우 서울은 0.27로 비교적 낮으나 경기, 광역시 군부지 역이 불균등도가 0.34-0.35로 높았다. 저소득층은 가구1인당 주거면적, 주택가격, 가구월소득, PIR, RIR 등 모든 영역에서 불균등도가 다른 계층 에 비해 높다. 연령이 높아질수록 불균등도가 높아지고 있으며 이는 연령 대가 높아질수록 소득의 격차가 점점 커지고 있음을 의미한다. 따라서 저 소득층, 월세가구, 고령층을 종합적으로 고려한 주거정책이 필요하다.
타일지수를 이용하여 불균등도를 그룹내 불평등, 그룹간 불평등으로 요
인분해한 결과 1인당주거면적은 지역내 불균형요인이 크지만, 소득, 점유 형태, 연령, 주택유형별 구분에서는 그룹간 불균등도가 높게 나타났다. 주 택자산은 지역별, 소득계층별로는 그룹내, 연령대별로는 그룹간 불균등 기 여도가 높다. PIR도 연령대 영역을 제외하고 그룹내 불균등 기여도가 높 고, RIR의 경우는 점유형태별 구분은 그룹내 불균등도가 높지만 여타 구 분에서는 그룹간 불균등 기여도가 높았다. 특히 지역구분에 있어서 지역 간 격차가 지역내 격차보다 큰 경우 중앙정부 차원의 지역균형 정책이 필 요함을 의미하며, 지역내 격차요인이 더 크다면 지방정부차원에서 내부적 으로 차별화된 정책이 필요함을 의미한다. 예를 들어 지역간 불균등 요인 이 큰 RIR은 중앙정부 차원에서 관리하고, 지역내 불균등 요인이 큰 1인 당주거면적과 PIR은 지역적 차원에서 정책접근 방안을 검토할 필요가 있 다.
4. 정책과제
Housing policy in Korea has focused mainly on the shortage problem of housing stock. Thus, housing supply ratio, which is defined as the percentage of housing stock relative to the number of households, has stood for the unique housing policy index that shows the accomplishment of housing unit provision. As of the end of 2002, it reached 100%. Now, policy concern turns to the housing service that households enjoy from housing consumption.
Purpose of this paper is to analyze the change and disparity of the housing service consumption in Korea and to derive housing policy implications. Housing service is defined by considering the relation between house and household. Based on this definition, housing indicators representing housing service are developed to estimate housing service. From these indicators, changes in housing service and disparity among classes are analyzed. And finally policy implications are derived by figuring out the facts and causes of those changes and disparities.
1. Definition of Housing Service
We need to define household, house, and housing before defining housing service. Household is a subject that needs house unit.
Shelter(House) is a physical object that provides living space to the household. House is one type of shelter which also includes non-house. Housing is an action that households live in the house.
<Figure 1> shows the relation among house, household, and housing.
Household
②Housing cost
①Housing Service Housing Housing
House
Housing Housing Welfare Welfare
③Capital Gain
Housing Welfare Policy
(①,②)
Market
Policy
(②,③)Housing Stock Policy
Housing Housing Policy Policy
Structure Location Environment
Household
②Housing cost
①Housing Service Housing Housing
House
Housing Housing Welfare Welfare
③Capital Gain
Housing Welfare Policy
(①,②)
Market
Policy
(②,③)Housing Stock Policy
Housing Housing Policy Policy
Structure Location Environment
Now, we define housing service as all kinds of service that household can achieve by choosing the physical object of house.
Household needs to pay housing cost in lieu of housing service achievement. Household can attain housing welfare through housing consumption. Therefore, housing service is objective term while housing welfare is subjective term representing satisfaction.
Ultimate goal of housing policy is to increase housing welfare of the people. However, since housing welfare represents subjective satisfaction that includes individual preferences, housing policy should limit the scope to increase objective housing service.
Housing service consists of three components. The first is the service provided by the physical stucture of house, the second is the service provided by the location, and the third is the service provided by the environment. On the other hand, the house also provide capital gains to the house owner from the increase in house price.
2. Housing Indicators
In order to measure housing service, indicators are classified by five groups of indicators are classified; they are quantity, quality, affordability, stability, and equity of housing service. They are selected to reflect the definition of housing service and to include three components of housing services such as structure, location, and environment. Both individual and social level of housing service are also considered.
1) Quantitative Indicators
Quantitative indicators include house supply ratio, owner occupancy ratio, and per capita housing area.
House supply ratio represents absolute shortage of housing units in a certain region or society. Owner occupancy ratio represents achievement of my home dream in a certain region or society. And per capita housing area is amount of housing consumption at individual level. They are calculated as follows;
2) Qualitative Indicators
Qualitative indicators include building age, ratio of over three persons in one room, and degree of satisfaction on housing.
Building age is selected to represent physical deterioration of
housing unit which reflects quality of housing unit indirectly, since we don't have data available to measure house quality directly.
Ratio of over three persons in one room represents density of room usage. In order to remove the effect of increase in one and two person households, three persons in one room is compared to three person households. These indicators are calculated as follows;
Ratio of Over 3 Persons in One Room = No. of Household over 3 Persons in One Room No. of Household Over 3 Persons ×100
Degree of satisfaction on housing is selected to measure physical condition of house and locational environment comprehensively, since there is no concrete criteria on measure those components.
It is derived from survey data.
3) Affordability Indicators
Affordability indicators include price to income ratio(PIR) and rent to income ratio(RIR). PIR represents level of house price relative to yearly income which shows affordability of household to buy the house. RIR represents portion of rent payment out of tenant's monthly income which shows affordability of household to rent the house. They are calculated as follows;
PIR=
House Price Yearly income ×100
RIR=
Monthly Rent Monthly Income ×100
4) Housing Stability Indicators
Housing stability indicators include average residence period and ratio of forced movement. Average residence period represents how frequently the household move in and out. Frequent movement shows unstable residential condition in housing consumption. Forced movement is defined by that household unwillingly decide to move out due to overburden of housing cost or due to landlord's request when the rental contract expires.
Average residence period is calculated by;
Residence period = Surveyed Year - Moved Year + 1
5) Housing Equity Indicators
Housing equity indicators includes Gini coefficient and Theil index.
Gini coefficient shows distributional inequality of a certain index ranging from 0(perfect equal) to 1(perfect unequal). Theil index is used to decompose inequlity factors by within and between groups.
Gini coefficient and Theil index decomposition are calculated as follows;
where, yi : cumulative income share up to i th group
ni : cumulative population share up to i th group
where, g=1,2,… , G :Number of groups, wg : Pg/P, population share of group g I(Yg) : Theil index of group g
where,
whrere, Yi : Per Capita income in group i pi : pi/P, population share of group I μ : average of group
1. Quantitative Indicators
1) House Supply Ratio
House supply ratio, the number of housing units divided by the number of households, is 102.2% in 2004. It has been rapidly increased from 72.4% in 1990, 86% in 1995, and 96.2% in 2000.
Such a rapid increase is mainly due to massive construction of housing units since the late 1980s. During the period of "the plan of 2 million housing unit provision" (1988-1992), more than 2 million units were constructed, and even after that about 600 thousand units were constructed every year until 1997.
Other than the large cities including Seoul, house supply ratios in
almost areas are over 100%, which means the shortage in absolute term has been removed.
Housing market in large cities of low supply ratio could periodically fluctuate due to the housing shortage. On the other hand, small cities in local area of high supply ratio may encounter the problem of housing quality. Therefore, house provision plan of massive construction in national level should be reconsidered. It should be established to fit the characteristics of local market.
2) Owner Occupancy Ratio
Owner occupancy ratio has been slightly increased to 54.2% in 2000 from 49.9% in 1990년 and 53.3% in 1995. We can say that benefits from massive construction of housing units in past 10 years goes more to homeowners rather than to the non-homeowners. Owner occupancy ratio in Korea is similar to that of Netherland(54%), lower than those of Japan(61.2%) and UK(71.0%).
1990 1995 2000 2005
Owner occupancy ratio 49.9 53.3 54.2 ‥
Owner occupancy ratio in Seoul is 41.4%, which is absolutely low relative to other areas. This reflects housing shortage in Seoul and low affordability of households living in Seoul. On the other hand, the ratio in rural area is as high as 77%.
30 40 50 60 70 80
Seoul
In cheon
Gyon ggi
Capital Area
Lage City Small Cities
Rural Area Local
Whole N ation
1995 2000
Owner occupancy ratio of the high income group is 64.7%, while 53.3% for the low income group and 50.9% for middle income group. Interesting point is that the ratio for the low income group is higher than that for the middle income group. Among the low income group, the lower income shows the higher ratio of owner occupancy. We can conclude that there are many income poor with their own houses. The ratio increases with age of head of household increase. The ratio for over 60 is as high as 72.7%.
Seniors tend not to move out of their own house that was bought in their young ages. However, the ratio for over 75 is slightly decreased.
3) Per Capita Housing Area
Per capita housing area is increasing from 13.8㎡ in 1990 and 17.2
㎡ in 1995 to 20.2㎡ in 2000. From survey in 2005, it also increased to 24.8㎡.
Per capita housing area in large cities is much lower than that in the rural small cities. It means that housing density in large cities is high. Two factors could be considered. First, number of persons in a household in rural small cities has been reduced due to migration to large cities. Second, the size of housing units in rural area is relatively bigger than that of large cities.
4.0 9.0 14.0 19.0 24.0 29.0 34.0
Seoul
Incheon
Gyonggi
Capital Area
Large City Small Cities
Rural Area Local Area
Whole Nation
Per capital housing area for the low income class is 27.1㎡, which is higher than that of high income class(23.1㎡) and middle income class(20.8㎡). It results from that the low income people tend to live in local rural area where the housing units are relatively big but the number of people in a household is small.
Per capita housing area of tenants is small relative to that of home owners, which shows housing density for tenants is high. Per capita housing area for the household head of age 40~59 is as low as 19.5㎡, which implies that housing density problem is the biggest issue for the growth period of household life-cycle.
2. Qualitative Indicators
1) Building Age
Building age that represents the housing unit quality indirectly has been decreased from 17.7 years in 1990, 14.3 years in 1995 to 14.3 years in 2000. This is largely due to the mass construction of housing units during 1990s. However, from survey data in 2005, it is slightly increased to 15.8 years. We can explain by that volume of newly constructed housing units after 2000 is relatively small to increase the average age of existing stock.
Unit age in local cities is high, especially in rural area relative to urban cities. This results from the mass construction of housing units focusing more on the large cities.
When we consider this indicator by income classes, the low income group resides in the oldest units. Especially, building age for the first decile is 25.9 years which is much older than overall average of 15.8 years, as 2.5 times as that of the high income group.
Building age for Jonsei and monthly rent with lump-sum deposit is very low relative to units for home owners or for monthly rent. This shows that some of home owners live in very old house which was purchased in the early age of households. On the other hand, for the case of Jonsei and monthly rent with lump-sum deposit, which are the majority of rental tenure, it may be resulted from the fact that tenants tend to search new house if possible.
As we can imagine, household with head of over 60 years old tend to live in old units. It is because seniors live in a same house very long, and much of them is in rural area, where the building age is very high.
2) Ratio of Over 3 Persons in One Room
Ratio of over 3 persons in one room is gradually decreased from 17.6% in 1990 and 4.6% in 1995 to 1.6% in 2000. Housing service level is much improved due to income increase and mass construction of housing units. Under the situation that single and 2-person households rapidly increase lately, decrease in the ratio of over-3-person households reveals that housing poverty improves rapidly.
'1990 '1995 '2000
17.6 4.6 1.6
The ratio of over 3 person in one room is high in local rural area, where the portion of single detached house with small number of rooms is relatively high. This indicator is high in monthly rental(with or without lump-sum deposit), that are the majority of rental tenure.
The ratio of over 3 person in one room is as high as 4.1% for the low income group, among which the first and the second decile reveal high density with 5.5% and 7.2% respectively. By tenure, the estimates for rent with or without lump-sum deposit are as high as 14.5%
and 15.4% respectively, while that of Jonsei is 1.7%. This reflects that tenants of Jonsei tenure enjoy more housing service relative to the tenants of monthly rents.
3) Satisfaction on House Condition
There is no data available to evaluate quality of housing unit, directly. Instead, satisfaction on house condition such as structure, function, environment of the unit are surveyed. Dissatisfaction on heat-resistance․fire-prevention, interior completion-material, damp, pipe, noise․oscillation is relatively high in nationwide. Dissatisfaction on house condition is high in Incheon relative to other regions. In rural area, dissatisfaction is high in structure and function of units.
The low income group dissatisfied with overall house condition such as structure, function, environment of unit. On the other hand, the high income group satisfied with house condition in general except for interior completion-material, noise․oscillation. By tenure, degree of satisfaction on unit condition for home owners is the highest, while tenants in monthly rent dissatisfied with all the component of unit condition. By age of household head, degree of satisfaction is low in senior group, especially for the household with head of over 75 years old dissatisfied with all the components of house condition. Under 50 years old dissatisfied more with function rather than with structure.
4) Satisfaction on Housing Environment
Degree of satisfaction on housing environment is lower than that on house condition. Households living in rural area highly dissatisfied with commercial and medical facilities, mass transportation, and educational environment, but not for parking facilities. Due to the mass construction of housing units, satisfaction on house condition has been much improved, while that on housing environment has not been. Housing policy need to more focus on housing rather than the house itself.
Low income group dissatisfied with locational and housing environmental factors, especially for commercial, medical, public park, education facilities. By tenure, tenants tend to be dissatisfied with overall especially for public park, parking facilities. By age of household head, seniors highly dissatisfied with commercial and medical facilities, and public park. This shows that housing environment for seniors is much inferior. Lately, housing policy interests turn to senior housing problem.
3. Affordability Indicators
1) Price to Income Ratio(PIR)
Proper level of price to income ratio(PIR) is known as 3-4 among scholars. PIR of Seoul is as high as 7.7 in median term, while large cities in local is 3.8, small cities 2.6, rural area 2.9.
This means that households in local small cities are more affordable to buy the house.
When we look into PIR among income groups, we need to consider it with average term since median is not proper to represent the income group, even though it is proper to represent a certain region. PIR of low income group in average term is the highest as 7.4, while that of high income group is 4.2. Especially PIR of the lowest income group is 10.4, which implies that buying house is almost impossible to the lowest group. PIR increases with age of household head increases, which shows that increasing consumption of housing service relative to their income increase and decreasing income of senior households.
2) Rent to Income Ratio(RIR)
RIR in median term is 17.3% which is slightly less than 20%
which is said to proper level, This means rent is affordable relative to income nationwide. However, Seoul(21.0%) and rural area(23.0%) is relatively high, while local large and small cities is low as 14%. RIR is high in Seoul because of high rent, while RIR is high in rural area because of low income.
As we can imagine RIR in low income group and senior group over 60 years old are extremely high. RIR in average term for the low income group is 29.4%, which says that they expend rent almost 30% of their income. Moreover, RIR for the lowest income group is 50%. Senior group over 60 years pays rent over 40% of their income. Senior over 75 years old pays over 60%. Overburden of housing cost for low income group and senior group must be alleviated by housing policy.
4. Housing Stability Indicators
1) Average Residence Period
Average residence period is 8.1 years nationwide. However, residence period of urban cities is short. This indicator for Seoul is 5.4 years while for local cities is as long as 9.9 years, especially for rural areas is 15.7 years. This is because that, in large cities, there are many tenants whose housing stability is weak relative to home owners', more probable movement of work and more opportunity to increase household income.
Residence period for middle income group is the shorter than that for high income group, which means the more frequent movement of middle income group representing housing unstability.
On the other hand the indicator for low income group is the longest. It does not mean the housing stability of them, but means forced stuck due to their income constraint. By tenure, tenants moves more frequently than home owners. Tenants live in their
house for 3-4 years while home owners live for 12 years in average. Youngsters move more frequently while seniors over 60 years old live in one house for 18.8 years that shows tendency of seniors not to move another region.
2) Forced Movement Ratio
Household of forced movement is defined by the household that replied the reasons of movement as "over burden of housing cost"
or "landlord asked to move out when contract is expired". And forced movement ratio is calculated by the number of forced movement households divided by the number of households that have plan to move out within 2 years.
The ratio for Seoul and small cities is 12.2% and 13.9%
respectively, much higher than rural area of 6.8%. The ratio for
rural area is the lowest, which results from that tenants ratio is relatively small and house price and rental price are relatively stable.
Forced movement ratio for low income group is the highest as 13.9%. Especially, the ratio of the first decile group is 22.1%, this shows that forced movement for them is severe. Monthly rental without lump-sum deposit(23.6%) and with lump-sum deposit(19.5%) reveal high forced movement. Forced movement for home owners is mainly due to over burden of housing cost. Forced movement for the age of 66~75 is as high 26.6%, representing over burden of housing cost caused by income decrease.
5. Housing Equity Indicators
1) Gini Coefficient
Gini coefficient is calculated to figure out distributional inequality of the indicators such as per capita housing area, housing asset, monthly income of household, and affordability like PIR and RIR. As a result, Gini coefficient is over 0.40 for all the indicators except for per capita housing area. This represents the distribution of those indicators are very unequal. For the case of income distribution, it is known to be very unequal when Gini coefficient is over 0.4. Especially, Gini coefficients for housing assets and PIR are 0.56 and 0.51, respectively, which show more unequal than the other indicators. Gini index for per capita housing area is relatively low of 0.27 in Seoul, that for large cities and rural area are high of 0.34-0.35.
Low income group is more unequally distributed for all indicators such as per capita housing area, house price, monthly income of household, PIR, and RIR relative to middle and to high income groups. Jonsei tenure is more evenly distributed for all indicators relative to owner occupancy and to monthly rental. Since Jonsei is the majority of rental tenure, Jonsei has narrow spectrum of demanders and higher competition among Jonsei suppliers(owner of the house). This may result relatively even distribution of housing service indicators for Jonsei tenure. By age group, disparity of housing service indicators grows as age increases. Therefore,
housing policy needs more focus on low income group, monthly rental, and senior households.
2) Decomposition of Inequality
Inequality factor can be decomposed using Theil index into within and between groups. As a result, inequality of per capita housing area is largely caused by inequality within regions rather than by between regions. However, inequality of monthly income is largely caused by between groups of income, tenure, and age. The index
of housing assets is mainly due to disparity within groups by region and by income, while between groups by age. For the case of PIR, inequality within groups is higher except for age group.
And for RIR, inequality within groups by tenure is bigger, while that of between groups by other classification is bigger.
Especially for the case of regional classification, we can derive some policy implications. If inequality between regions is greater than the within factor, regional equality policy is needed at central government level. And if inequality within regions is greater than the between factor, discriminated policy aiming to target groups in the region is needed at the local government level. For example, RIR, which has greater between factor of inequality, would be considered at the central government, while per capita housing area and PIR, which have greater within factor of inequality, would be managed at the local government. Even though the changes in house price and income is parts of macro economy that should be managed at central government, distributions of house and income should be taken care of by local government.
1. Quantitative Aspects of Housing Service
In order to alleviate disparity of quantitative housing service in large cities, unit construction must be continued and rental market stabilization must be pursued at the same time. In urban area, even though house supply ratio is over 100, there are many vacant units that can not be used for residence at once. Therefore, government should investigate the present status of vacant units especially in urban area and set up management plan of vacant units that can be used effectively. This would be one of the important policy issues.
Disparity of quantitative housing service by groups should be reviewed to consider characteristics of regions and ages.
Households living in rural area and of seniors have no problem in quantitative sense of housing services. However, quantitative problem is relatively critical for forming and growing stage of household who are living in large cities. Thus, housing policy is needed to support housing service demand for those households.
2. Qualitative Aspects of Housing Service
In order to improve the quality of housing service in large cities, per capita housing area needs to be supported. Provision of public rental units like National Rental is one of the policy measure. For the case of rural area, unit improvement or repair is better than the new construction of the units. New town development that is proceeded lately in Seoul will be helpful to speed down the aging of housing units in large cities.
Since housing environment in large cities is relatively inferior, evaluation of environmental effect must be enforced when new construction is permitted. Satisfaction on neighboring urban facilities is very low in local cities. Thus, urban infrastructure
facilities needs to be more equally distributed among cities in urban policy respects.
In order to raise housing service level of monthly rental households residing in old house with high density, priority to live in National Rental House, loan for Jonsei deposit, and subsidy for housing cost would be considered. For senior households, provision of housing units for seniors should be increased as well as priority to live in National Rental House.
3. Housing Affordability
PIR and RIR in large cities are relatively high. Thus, policy base should be structured to prevent the housing market from extremely unstable. National Rental Housing should be provided more to the large cities. In order to support housing affordability of low income or senior households, loan for Jonsei deposit and subsidy for housing cost needs to be provided. Loan condition shoud be differentiated according to the beneficiaries' income and age.
4. Housing Stability
The most vulnerable group in housing stability is low income households and senior households residing in large cities. In order to raise housing stability for those people, provision of public rental housing, which has no threat to evict them, will be most effective.
5. Housing Equality
Gini coefficient of housing asset is 0.56 which is remarkably higher than the Gini of income 0.43. This implies that asset distribution is more unequal than income distribution. Inequalities of many indicators are higher in local cities relative to large cities.
For age groups, higher age group reveals higher inequality.
When inequalities are decomposed into within and between group factors using Theil index, inequality of housing asset by region and income classes shows bigger portion of within factor, and by age group between factor is bigger.
Alleviation of asset inequality is not the easy problem to be solved in short term. However, increase in property tax or capital gain tax to home owners will be helpful to alleviate housing asset disparity. RIR has higher inequality factor of between regions.
Thus, in order to alleviate inequality of RIR among region, central government should have interest on rent fluctuation of each region and on variation among regions, and need some power on rent control. Local government should focus more on inequalities of housing density, unit purchasing power, house price and income.
2
Housing Welfare Indicators
for the Quality of Life in Korea
1) Korea Housing Corporation, 2002, Housing Welfare White Paper, p.2.
2) R. M. Titmus, 1974, Social Policy, London: George Allen&Unwin, pp. 20--21.
3) Esping-Anderson, G. and W. Korpi, 1990, The Three World of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press, Chapter One.
4) Sung, Moo Won, 2003, Public Assistance of Welfare State: Approach to the Institutional Social
Security, Hansom Media. The first Section, the second chapter.
5) There was no housing voucher system in the previous Life Protection Law until it was newly
inserted in the National Basic Livelihood Security Law. It is indicated in the 11th article of the Law that housing voucher is provided to the recipients for the purpose of rental costs, maintenance costs, and other goods. Recipients of the housing voucher include below the certain level of income and assets, except for the recipients of health, education, self-support allowance, and facility recipients.
3
Housing Service and Housing Indicators
in the U.S.A.
한글요약
주택은 인간 존재의 필수 요소이다. 주택은 비나 눈과 같은 자연적인 위험요소로부 터 인간을 보호해주며, 범죄와 같은 사회적 위해요소로부터도 인간을 보호해준다. 또한 주 택은 일상적인 생활의 근거지 역할을 한다. 주택이 인간존재의 필수 요소이다 보니, 주택과 그 주변환경으로부터 받는 만족감은 인간의 행복을 결정하는 중요한 요소로 자리잡고 있다.
인간이 주택과 그 주변환경으로부터 받는 만족의 정도는 해당 주택과 그 주변환경 이 제공하는 여러 측면의 서비스(이를 주거서비스라고 부르도록 한다)에 의해 결정된다. 예 를 들어 주택의 규모나 해당 주택의 질적 상태와 같이 주택 그 자체가 제공하는 서비스의 양과 질에 의해 만족의 정도가 결정된다. 그리고 교통시설, 교육시설, 생활편의 시설, 경찰 의 범죄예방 활동 등과 같이 주택의 주변지역으로부터 얻을 수 있는 서비스의 양과 질도 만 족의 정도를 결정하는 주요 요소이다.
본 연구의 주요 목적은 주거서비스의 상태를 보여주는 지표(이를 주거서비스 지표 라고 부르도록 한다)들을 통해 미국의 주거서비스 실태와 그 추세를 살펴보는데 있다. 이를 위해 본 연구에서는 17개의 주거서비스 지표를 만들었으며, 이를 양적 지표, 질적 지표, 경 제적 지표, 주거안정성 지표, 주거형평성 지표로 범주화 하였다.
17개의 주거서비스 지표를 살펴본 결과, 대부분의 지표들은 미국의 주거서비스가 과거 몇 십년 간 지속적으로 개선되어 왔다는 것을 보여주고 있다.
예를 들어, 양적 지표에서 ‘인구 1,000명당 주택 수’는 1950년 296.8에서 1989년 416.4로 증가하였으며, ‘주택보급률’은 같은 기간 중에 102.4%에서 110.7%로 증가하였다 (두 지표는 1989년 이후 정체 상태를 보이고 있다). 또한 ‘주택 1호 당 면적’이나 ‘가구원 1인 당 주거면적’도 꾸준히 증가하고 있다. 질적 지표에서는 ‘자가점유율’이 1950년 55.0%
에서 2003년 68.3%로 증가하였으며, ‘주거환경에 불만족하는 가구 비율’은 1973년의 3.0%
에서 2003년 1.3%로 떨어졌다. 그리고 가구원수에 비해 거주공간이 협소한 ‘혼잡 가구 비 율’은 1940년대에 9%대이었는데, 2000년대에는 1-2%대로 떨어졌다.
경제적 지표에서, 미국의 주택가격은 1975년부터 1984년 사이에 안정된 상태에 있었다. 이후 1980년대 중반부터 1990년대 초 사이에 New England와 Middle Atlanta 지 역, 그리고 태평양 연안지역을 중심으로 가격붐이 있었으며, 이러한 가격 붐은 2000년대 들 어 다시 재현되고 있다. 그러나 이러한 주택 가격붐에도 불구하고 ‘주택 구입 가능성 지수 (housing affordability index)’는 높은 수준을 유지하고 있다. ‘주택 구입 가능성 지수’는
‘20%의 자기부담금(down pay)과 현재의 모기지 이자율 하에서 주택구입에 필요한 소득’
대비 ‘가구소득’ 비율을 의미하는데, 1970년대 중반부터 1980년대 중반까지를 제외하고는 100%를 넘어서고 있다. ‘소득대비 주택가격 비율(PIR)’이나 ‘소득 대비 모기지 원리금 비율 (PTI)’은 장기적으로 안정적인 가운데, 2000년대 들어 조금씩 상승하는 경향을 보이고 있다.
주거안정성 지표에서, ‘주거이동비율’은 1975년 29.3%에서 2003년 15.9%로 하락 하였다. ‘강제이동비율’은 1999년 5.4%에서 2003년 6.1%로 미약하게 상승하고 있지만, 이
런 추세가 지속될 것인지 여부는 확실하지 않다. 주거의 불평등 지수로서 지니계수의 경우, 점차 하락하는 추세를 보이고 있지만, 통계자료의 제약 때문에 큰 의미를 두기가 어렵다.
미국의 주거서비스 지표가 이처럼 전반적으로 개선되는 추세를 보이는 원인은 다양 한데, 그 중에서 지속적인 소득증가와 풍부한 토지공급이 가장 중요한 원인 중의 하나라고 할 수 있다. 지속적인 소득증가는 질적으로 양호한 주거서비스에 대한 수요를 증가시켰고, 풍부한 토지공급은 이러한 수요 증가에 맞추어 질적으로 양호한 주택들이 충분히 공급될 수 있도록 해주었다. 최근에는 대도시지역에서 토지공급의 제한으로 인해 주택가격이 지속적으 로 상승하는 현상이 나타나고 있으나, 저금리 때문에 주택의 구입 가능성(affordability)은 크게 악화되지 않고 있다.
인구나 가족의 구조변화도 미국의 주거서비스 상황에 영향을 미쳤다. 예를 들어 제 2차 세계대전의 종전과 함께 젊은 군인들이 귀향하고, 뒤이어 베이비 붐이 일면서 한동안 미국은 주택난에 시달린 적이 있었다. 그러나 최근에는 인구나 가족 수의 변화가 크지 않기 때문에, 인구나 가족의 구조 변화가 주택수요에 미치는 영향은 상대적으로 감소하고 있다.
주택정책과 토지정책도 주거서비스의 상태에 상당한 영향을 끼쳤다. 미국의 토지정 책은 대부분 지방정부에 의해 통제된다. 지방정부에 따라 토지규제의 정도가 다르다 보니, 주거서비스의 개선정도나 개선방향도 지역별로 다르게 나타난다. 연방정부는 주로 보조금이 나 세금을 통해 주거서비스에 영향을 미친다. 예를 들어 저소득층에 대한 주거보조금 (housing voucher)은 저소득층들로 하여금 질적으로 양호한 주택에 거주하도록 유인하는 효과를 가지고 있다. 지방 공공주택청(LPHA)이 관리하는 공공주택도 저소득층의 주거서비 스를 개선하는데 영향을 미친다. 1986년부터 시행하고 있는 ‘저소득 주택 세금 감면 제도 (Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program)’는 저소득층용 주택의 공급을 촉진하면서 저 소득층의 주거서비스 개선에 영향을 미치고 있다.
그러나 미국의 주거서비스에 대한 이런 평가가 모든 지역에, 그리고 모든 사회-경 제적 계층에 다 적용되는 것은 아니다. 미국은 인종별로 주거서비스 수준이 상당한 격차를 보이고 있는데, 본 논문에서는 이를 다루지 않았다.
미국의 경험에 비추어 볼 때, 한국은 우선 주거와 관련된 자료를 체계적으로 수집 할 필요가 있다. 미국은 20년 전부터 American Housing Survey(그 이전에는 Annual Housing Survey)를 통해 미시적인 주거서비스 자료들을 축적해 오고 있다. 이러한 자료의 축적은 올바른 주택정책 수립을 위해 필요하다. 그리고 한국은 보다 신뢰할 수 있고, 보다 잘 정의된 주택가격지수를 발전시킬 필요가 있다. 신뢰할 수 있고 잘 정의된 주택가격지수 는 정부의 정책수립뿐만 아니라 자본시장의 부동산투자기구들에게 매우 유용한 정보가 될 것이다. 마지막으로 한국은 저소득층을 대상으로 하는 주택정책을 보다 효과적으로 펼칠 필 요가 있다. 과거 한국 정부는 중상층들에게 주택을 공급하는데 정책의 초점을 맞추어 왔다 고 볼 수 있다. 이제부터는 저소득층의 주거서비스를 보다 효과적으로 개선하는데 정책의 초점을 맞추어야 할 것이다.
Abstract
A consistent measurement of housing services through different time and space is a prerequisite for a sensible housing policy. This paper examines widely accessible housing service indicators in the U.S. According to the indicators, the housing services enjoyed by Americans have been improved substantially on average. The main reason for this improvement can be attributed to the continuously rising income and relative abundance in land supply. Recently, in the metropolitan areas where land supply is limited, price of housing have been increasing quite substantially for the last decade.
However, given the low interest rates, housing affordability has not been eroded too much. In case of Korea, a more systematic regular housing survey may be recommended in order to create data base for sound housing policy decisions.
Moreover, more accurate and useful housing price indicators are necessary.
1. Introduction
Housing is an essential element of human existence. Not only it protects from dangerous natural and anti-social elements such as rain, snow, and criminal activities, housing is an anchor to one’s daily lives. It is a place that most of our daily commuting to the workplaces, schools, shopping, and most of recreational activities originates and ends. It is a place where household living takes place as a family unit. Therefore, the satisfaction toward one’s housing (dwelling unit and its neighborhood) is one of the most essential elements of human happiness.
The level of satisfaction toward one’s housing comes from many aspects of housing. First of all, the size, type of facilities, and the quality of the housing unit are important. The size of the space (measured in floor space, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, etc) and its quality (measured in the various amenity measures such as working toilets, central air conditioning, architectural style, craftsmanship, etc) are major determinants of residential satisfaction. Also, the size and quality of lot sizes (or exclusive outdoor space available to the residents) matter. But, in many cases, the surrounding neighborhood is an important element of resident’s housing satisfaction. Not only its accessibility to the resident’s other activities (such as workplace, shopping, and so on), the characteristics of physical surroundings as well as other residents affect one’s residential satisfaction significantly.
Obviously, it is a difficult task to summarize this multi-dimensional aspect of housing service into a small number of aggregated statistics. However, a consistent measurement of housing services through different time and space is a prerequisite for a sensible housing policy. After all, those policies are aimed to improve housing satisfactions by the constituency. In this regard, efforts in building and refining housing service indicators will payoff in the long run.
The main purpose of this paper is to overview the level and the trends of housing services in the U.S.A. by making use of several housing service indicators. We would like to define and analyze several housing service indicators that may reflect important changes of housing services from readily available data sources. By doing so, the paper also wants to provide some broad implications for Korean housing policy.
Over the last several decades, Korean government has focused its attention to the expansion of housing supply without much consideration of the level of housing services that it provides. The natural consequence of such supply based policy, the key indicators of housing have been the number of existing and newly constructed housing units. Indicators that reflect the housing services provided have not gained much
