This study investigates how perceived school quality affects housing values, using a new estimation method. Our empirical design takes advantage of the mergers of school catchment zones initiated by the government to develop quasi-experiments. We find that, in zones that gained sudden access to higher ranked schools, housing prices increased by 1.3 to 4.1 percent. Larger and more expensive houses appreciated more in response to the improvement in perceived quality of available schools. The findings generate important policy implications regarding housing wealth redistribution and housing expenditures among different households. The study also enriches the literature on the capitalization effect of school quality.
AndreyevaElenaPatrickCarlianne. 2017. “Paying for Priority in School Choice: Capitalization Effects of Charter School Admission Zones.” Journal of Urban Economics100:19–32.
2.
BajicVladimir. 2014. “The Effects of a New Subway Line on Housing Prices in Metropolitan Toronto.” Urban Studies20 (2): 147–58.
3.
BayerPatrickFerreiraFernandoMcMillanRobert. 2007. “A Unified Framework for Measuring Preferences for Schools and Neighborhoods.” Journal of Political Economy115 (4): 588–638.
4.
BillingsStephen B.BrunnerEric J.RossStephen L.2018. “Gentrification and Failing Schools: The Unintended Consequences of School Choice Under NCLB.” Review of Economics and Statistics100 (1): 65–77.
5.
BlackSandra E.1999. “Do Better Schools Matter? Parental Valuation of Elementary Education.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics114 (2): 577–99.
6.
BrunnerEricSonstelieJon. 2003. “Homeowners, Property Values, and the Political Economy of the School Voucher.” Journal of Urban Economics54 (2): 239–57.
7.
CelliniStephanie RieggFerreiraFernandoRothsteinJesse. 2010. “The Value of School Facility Investments: Evidence from a Dynamic Regression Discontinuity Design.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics125 (1): 215–61.
8.
ChanJimmyFangXianWangZhiZaiXianhuaZhangQinghua. 2020. “Valuing Primary Schools in Urban China.” Journal of Urban Economics115:103183.
9.
ChuaAmy. 2011. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
10.
ClappJohn M.NandaAnupamRossStephen L.2008. “Which School Attributes Matter? The Influence of School District Performance and Demographic Composition on Property Values.” Journal of Urban Economics63 (2): 451–66.
11.
DharParamitaRossStephen L.2012. “School District Quality and Property Values: Examining Differences Along School District Boundaries.” Journal of Urban Economics71 (1): 18–25.
12.
FackGabrielleGrenetJulien. 2010. “When Do Better Schools Raise Housing Prices? Evidence from Paris Public and Private Schools.” Journal of Public Economics 94 (1–2): 59–77.
13.
FiglioDavid N.LucasMaurice E.2004. “What’s in a Grade? School Report Cards and the Housing Market.” The American Economic Review94 (3): 591–604.
14.
GibbonsStephenMachinStephenSilvaOlmo. 2013. “Valuing School Quality Using Boundary Discontinuities.” Journal of Urban Economics75:15–28.
15.
Honey-RosésJordiStevensMark. 2017. “Commentary on the Absence of Experiments in Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research39 (3): 267–72.
16.
KaneThomas J.RieggStephanie K.StaigerDouglas O.2006. “School Quality, Neighborhoods, and Housing Prices.” American Law and Economics Review8 (2): 183–212.
17.
LevkovichOrRouwendalJanMarwijkRamona Van. 2016. “The Effects of Highway Development on Housing Prices.” Transportation43 (2): 379–405.
18.
MachinStephen. 2011. “Houses and Schools: Valuation of School Quality through the Housing Market.” Labour Economics18 (6): 723–29.
19.
MathurShishir. 2017. “The Myth of ‘Free’ Public Education: Impact of School Quality on House Prices in the Fremont Unified School District, California.” Journal of Planning Education and Research37 (2): 176–94.
20.
MokHenry M. K.ChanPatrick P. K.ChoYiu-Sun. 1995. “A Hedonic Price Model for Private Properties in Hong Kong.” The Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics10 (1): 37–48.
21.
Nguyen-HoangPhuongYingerJohn. 2011. “The Capitalization of School Quality into House Values: A Review.” Journal of Housing Economics20 (1): 30–48.
22.
OwensAnnCandipanJennifer. 2019. “Social and Spatial Inequalities of Educational Opportunity: A Portrait of Schools Serving High- and Low-Income Neighbourhoods in US Metropolitan Areas.” Urban Studies56 (15): 3178–97.
23.
Ramos LobatoIsabelGroosThomas. 2019. “Choice as a Duty? The Abolition of Primary School Catchment Areas in North Rhine-Westphalia/Germany and Its Impact on Parent Choice Strategies.” Urban Studies56 (15): 3274–91.
24.
RebackRandall. 2005. “House Prices and the Provision of Local Public Services: Capitalization under School Choice Programs.” Journal of Urban Economics57 (2): 275–301.
25.
RiesJohnSomervilleTsur. 2010. “School Quality and Residential Property Values: Evidence from Vancouver Rezoning.” The Review of Economics and Statistics92 (4): 928–44.
26.
SchwartzAmy EllenVoicuIoanHornKeren Mertens. 2014. “Do Choice Schools Break the Link between Public Schools and Property Values? Evidence from House Prices in New York City.” Regional Science & Urban Economics49:1–10.
27.
TieboutCharles M.1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy64 (5): 416–24.
28.
WuQiyanZhangXiaolingWaleyPaul. 2016. “Jiaoyufication: When Gentrification Goes to School in the Chinese Inner City.” Urban Studies53 (16): 3510–26.
29.
ZhangMuyangChenJie. 2018. “Unequal School Enrollment Rights, Rent Yields Gap, and Increased Inequality: The Case of Shanghai.” China Economic Review49:229–40.
30.
ZhengSiqiHuWanyangWangRui. 2016. “How Much Is a Good School Worth in Beijing? Identifying Price Premium with Paired Resale and Rental Data.” The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics53 (2): 184–99.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
