Search results

This paper aims to document the economic importance of the housing sector, as measured by its contribution to gross domestic product (GDP), which is not fully recognized. In response to the joint economic and health crises caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an opportunity for emerging market countries to develop and implement inclusive housing strategies that stimulate the economy and improve community health outcomes. However, so far housing does not feature prominently in the recovery plans of many emerging market countries.

This paper uses national account data and informal housing estimates for 11 emerging market economies to estimate the contribution of housing investments and housing services to the GDP of these countries.

This paper finds that the combined contribution of housing investments and housing services represents between 6.9% and 18.5% of GDP, averaging 13.1% in the countries with information about both. This puts the housing sector roughly on par with other key sectors such as manufacturing. In addition, if the informal housing sector is undercounted in the official national account figures used in this analysis by 50% or 100%, for example, then the true averages of housing investments and housing services’ contribution to GDP would increase to 14.3% or 16.1% of GDP, respectively.

Further efforts to improve data collection about housing investments and consumption, particularly imputed rent for owner occupiers and informal activity require national government to conduct regular household and housing surveys. Researcher can help make these surveys more robust and leverage new data sources such as scraped housing price and rent data to complement traditional surveys. Better data are needed in order to capture housing contribution to the economy.

The size of the housing sector and its impact in terms of employment and community resilience indicate the potential of inclusive housing investments to both serve short-term economic stimulus and increase long-term community resilience.

The role of housing in the economy is often limited to housing investment, despite the importance of housing services and well-documented methodologies to include them. This analysis highlights the importance of housing to the economy of emerging market countries (in addition to all the non-GDP related impact of housing on welfare) and indicate data limitation that need to be addressed to further strengthen the case for focusing on housing as part of economic recovery plans.

This paper examines the main drives of encouraging Iranian investors in the Turkish real estate market, focusing on the interface between push factors and pull factors that drive them abroad.

This paper examines the main drives of encouraging Iranian investors in the Turkish real estate market, focusing on the interface between push factors and pull factors that drive them abroad. For this purpose, the trend of housing price growth in Iran and Turkey was compared. The review of the 11-year trend of rates shows that housing prices in both countries have been continuously rising, and these prices have undoubtedly experienced increasing shocks in Iran. For further analysis, 13 main variables leading to the repulsion of investment in Iran's housing market and 15 variables shaping the attractiveness of investment in Turkey were identified in this sector. Thirty experts subsequently ranked the significant variables based on a closed-end questionnaire using quantitative strategic planning matrix. Examining housing investment elasticity in Turkey also shows that “Turkey's economic stability compared to neighboring countries” and “acquiring Turkish citizenship through real estate investment” are among the most important variables. On the other hand, the pressure variables of housing investment in Iran were “decrease in the value of the Iranian currency in recent years,” “currency price fluctuations” and “severe fluctuations and instability in the Iranian housing market.”

Examining housing investment elasticity in Turkey also shows that “Turkey's economic stability compared to neighboring countries” and “acquiring Turkish citizenship through real estate investment” are among the most important variables. On the other hand, the pressure variables of housing investment in Iran were “decrease in the value of the Iranian currency in recent years,” “currency price fluctuations” and “severe fluctuations and instability in the Iranian housing market.”

From a theoretical standpoint, foreign investment is in support of Turkey and harmful to Iran because the Turkish government is bolstering investment attractiveness to bring increased capital inflows into this country. Practically speaking, Turkey has aimed to create a rational framework for investors by strengthening and changing its economic system, as well as amending existing constitutions in this domain. Nevertheless, Iran resists any changes in its economic system and legislation. Therefore, a wide range of attractiveness and repulsion variables has led to the migration of Iranian investors to Turkey. In the present study, such variables are illuminated.

The diffusion of innovations in student housing, a commercial real estate subsector, is a critical concern to developers. Aside from how innovations contribute to investor' returns, there is a question of interest in real estate investment policies and contemporary real estate research. The study aims to assess the extent of innovation diffusion in student housing and its effects on investment returns in Ghana.

The study used a mixed methods approach foregrounded on the innovation diffusion theory. With the mix of surveys and interviews of 828 student housing managers/investors and 25 key student housing association leaders across selected off-campus student housing among six universities in Ghana, the study used both primary and secondary sources. Selection criteria were based on at least one of these criteria: Have operated in the student housing market over the past ten years, have adopted the use of technology in student housing management, have introduced new student housing marketing strategies and have made improvements (added value) to student housing services. Multiple regression and narratives were the main analytical tools employed in this study.

The study demonstrates that over the past ten years, student housing investors in Ghana have invested hugely in product, marketing, process and organisation innovations. Among these innovations, innovations by: marketing through souvenirs and annual-get-togethers product through Internet services processes through Information Management Systems (IMS), and organisation through student leadership were most utilised to descending extent. Furthermore, the study identified marketing and organisation innovation to have the highest effects on investment returns. However, process and product innovation showed a weak and moderate effect on investment returns because management hastily implemented these services without understanding the consequences it has on investment returns in the long run.

The moderate effect of product and process innovation on student housing investment can be a predictor for future student housing investment innovation strategies for new entrants as they do not provide an immediate positive investment return. Key takeaways require management to incrementally implement these innovations and adopt space management practices that create opportunities for future product and process innovations in Ghana. Investors should capitalise on marketing and organisational innovations as the best innovation strategies that yield the highest returns in Ghana.

Student housing investors should focus on emerging student preferences such as entertainment, improved building services and Information Communication to stimulate student housing selection intentions.

Innovation diffusion in student housing is understudied. The closest connection of innovation diffusion theory to product enhancement, marketing and managerial improvement is a strategic tool that facilitates efficiency and productivity in student housing investment.

Considers whether housing has been a successful investment for the home owner during the period 1984‐1992, in absolute terms and in comparison with other investment media such as equities and gilts. Discusses the social and political influences which have encouraged a rise in home ownership and evaluates the trends in share ownership. Details the methodologies used in calculating the total returns from housing and the impact of taxation. Shows that, on an aggregated UK basis, housing has shown positive overall returns over this holding period and has proved to be a good hedge against inflation, although under‐performing the returns from UK equities. On a regional basis, the housing returns from the northern regions were higher than those from the south of the country, with the latter also showing a higher volatility of return. Raises the question of whether housing could be a worthwhile addition to an institutional property investment portfolio.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

The paper aims to provide a better understanding of the interactions between housing investment and economic growth. In particular, the paper emphasizes the separate effects of private housing investment (PHI) on the aggregate economy using quarterly data in the UK from 1974 to 2015. This is important due to the relatively growing interest around the world, including the UK, in encouraging greater private housing investment as a way of boosting economic growth.

The paper used the widely accepted and recognized econometric concepts of unit root, Granger causality and co-integration and provides tentative quantitative evidence of the causal and predictive effect of PHI and economic growth.

The key finding is that the level of investment directed by individual and institution into the private housing sector is key to future development, and will strongly reduce economic performance volatility.

Given that this is a bivariate time series analysis of PHI and economic growth (proxy by gross domestic product), the conclusions of this paper need to treated with caution, as there are other potential variables that might be omitted to make the model more robust so as to reach a more conclusive result.

This study complements existing literature, not only by providing new empirical evidence on the nexus between housing markets and the business cycle but also by being the pioneering attempt at examining the impact of PHI on the economy in the UK.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Recent findings from a monitor containing around 1.5 million homes in the Dutch non-profit rental sector show that the improvement of the energy performance of the respective homes is mostly carried out in small steps: single measures per dwelling dominate and deep energy renovations are rare. From the way in which housing providers conceive and implement their portfolio and asset management strategies, the purpose of this paper is to explain for the dominance of the small interventions and investigate the argument for a more concentrated allocation of budget resources.

In total, 12 housing providers with different energy investment policies were selected and interviewed.

Results show that energy investments, as most other investments, must fit in regular investment schemes and have to follow general decision criteria such as the lifespan of the respective building element and the market position of the respective dwelling. As these schemes are limited in budget and time, the room for a more concentrated allocation of budget resources is small.

The number of organisations interviewed is obviously not statistically representative, but gives a good indication of the investment planning practice in the Dutch non-profit housing sector.

Much has been written about the (slow) progress of the energy performance in the housing sector, but not about the more structural organisational forces behind this progress.