<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/basic/2.0/"
     version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</title>
      <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R</link>
      <description>Table of Contents for Real Estate Economics. List of articles from both the latest and EarlyView issues.</description>
      <language>en-US</language>
      <copyright>© American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association</copyright>
      <managingEditor>wileyonlinelibrary@wiley.com (Wiley Online Library)</managingEditor>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 07:46:59 +0000</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 07:46:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Atypon® Literatum™</generator>
      <docs>https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/rss2.html</docs>
      <ttl>10080</ttl>
      <dc:title>Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</dc:title>
      <dc:publisher>Wiley</dc:publisher>
      <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
      <atom:link href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R"
                 rel="self"
                 type="application/atom+xml"/>
      
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70054?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 01:20:56 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-06-02T01:20:56-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70054</guid>
         <title>Out‐of‐town individual investors and asymmetric information: Evidence from the US single‐family residential rental markets</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
Do out‐of‐town (OOT) individual investors suffer from asymmetric information in the rental market? Using single‐family residential rental data, we find that OOT landlords charge a 2.85% lower rent than local counterparts, with the discount increasing as the distance between the landlord's address and the property's address increases. Prior local investment experience and stronger social ties mitigate this effect, whereas rental market heterogeneity amplifies it. These findings support that information asymmetry may serve as an underlying mechanism. Our results highlight information friction in real estate rental markets, leading to inefficiencies in rental pricing.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Do out-of-town (OOT) individual investors suffer from asymmetric information in the rental market? Using single-family residential rental data, we find that OOT landlords charge a 2.85% lower rent than local counterparts, with the discount increasing as the distance between the landlord's address and the property's address increases. Prior local investment experience and stronger social ties mitigate this effect, whereas rental market heterogeneity amplifies it. These findings support that information asymmetry may serve as an underlying mechanism. Our results highlight information friction in real estate rental markets, leading to inefficiencies in rental pricing.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Liuming Yang
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Out‐of‐town individual investors and asymmetric information: Evidence from the US single‐family residential rental markets</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70054</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70054</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70054?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70024?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 23:33:20 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-21T11:33:20-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70024</guid>
         <title>Do as essay, not as I do? How inflated list prices of unsold essayer homes affect the price discovery process</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, Volume 54, Issue 3, Page 623-661, May 2026. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
In the United States real estate market, around 30% of listed properties remain unsold. Moreover, these unsold properties are typically listed far above fair market value (8.1%). We examine the extent to which overpriced property listings exert externalities on list and sale prices in the residential housing market. Our results show that overpriced listings exert spillover effects that distort and inflate housing prices. They increase other properties' list prices, on average, by $39,086 (5.3%) and increase sale prices by $35,688 (5%). We also find that the extent of over‐pricing depends on the economic environment, specifically, overpricing is higher (lower) during booms (busts).</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the United States real estate market, around 30% of listed properties remain unsold. Moreover, these unsold properties are typically listed far above fair market value (8.1%). We examine the extent to which overpriced property listings exert externalities on list and sale prices in the residential housing market. Our results show that overpriced listings exert spillover effects that distort and inflate housing prices. They increase other properties' list prices, on average, by $39,086 (5.3%) and increase sale prices by $35,688 (5%). We also find that the extent of over-pricing depends on the economic environment, specifically, overpricing is higher (lower) during booms (busts).&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Michael J. Seiler, 
Ralph B. Siebert
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Do as essay, not as I do? How inflated list prices of unsold essayer homes affect the price discovery process</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70024</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70024</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70024?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>54</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>3</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70030?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 23:33:20 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-21T11:33:20-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70030</guid>
         <title>Explainable spatial machine learning for hedonic real estate modeling</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, Volume 54, Issue 3, Page 762-807, May 2026. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
Accurately modeling rents and prices is a key challenge in real estate analysis. Traditional linear models may fail to capture complex non‐linear relationships, and spatial dependencies are often ignored in existing machine‐learning approaches. This article introduces a novel hybrid statistical machine‐learning model for modeling real estate rents and prices. The proposed approach combines a spatial Gaussian process with tree boosting. In so doing, spatial correlations are explicitly accounted for, and the tree‐boosting part can handle complex non‐linear relationships and interactions. We compare the proposed model against established benchmarks using a large‐scale dataset consisting of more than 1.5 million rental apartment listings across Germany and also a smaller condominium price listings dataset. Our findings demonstrate that the proposed model yields superior prediction accuracy due to accounting for both nonlinear patterns and spatial dependencies. We further use machine‐learning explainability techniques to better understand the nonlinear relationships present among rents and predictor variables, and we conduct a detailed analysis of the impact of locational characteristics on rents.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Accurately modeling rents and prices is a key challenge in real estate analysis. Traditional linear models may fail to capture complex non-linear relationships, and spatial dependencies are often ignored in existing machine-learning approaches. This article introduces a novel hybrid statistical machine-learning model for modeling real estate rents and prices. The proposed approach combines a spatial Gaussian process with tree boosting. In so doing, spatial correlations are explicitly accounted for, and the tree-boosting part can handle complex non-linear relationships and interactions. We compare the proposed model against established benchmarks using a large-scale dataset consisting of more than 1.5 million rental apartment listings across Germany and also a smaller condominium price listings dataset. Our findings demonstrate that the proposed model yields superior prediction accuracy due to accounting for both nonlinear patterns and spatial dependencies. We further use machine-learning explainability techniques to better understand the nonlinear relationships present among rents and predictor variables, and we conduct a detailed analysis of the impact of locational characteristics on rents.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Tim Gyger, 
Simona Hauri, 
Simon Bühlmann, 
Manuel Lehner, 
Jaron Schlesinger, 
Fabio Sigrist
</dc:creator>
         <category>RESEARCH ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Explainable spatial machine learning for hedonic real estate modeling</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70030</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70030</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70030?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>RESEARCH ARTICLE</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>54</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>3</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70031?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 23:33:20 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-21T11:33:20-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70031</guid>
         <title>Not cashing in on cashing out: An analysis of low cash‐out refinance rates</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, Volume 54, Issue 3, Page 728-761, May 2026. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
Lowering a borrower's interest rate is one of the most effective ways to reduce a borrower's debt burden. Mortgage refinancing offers a chance to shift debt balances from high‐interest loans into a low‐interest mortgage through “cashing out” some of the home's equity. Using anonymized data on mortgage refinancing behavior, we find that over half of borrowers with high‐interest loans and available home equity do not take advantage of their cash‐out opportunities. While the cash‐out “surcharge” can rationalize this pattern, we leverage a policy change at Fannie Mae that eliminated this surcharge for student‐loan borrowers and find that the presence of a student loan does not significantly affect borrowers' propensity to cash out.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lowering a borrower's interest rate is one of the most effective ways to reduce a borrower's debt burden. Mortgage refinancing offers a chance to shift debt balances from high-interest loans into a low-interest mortgage through “cashing out” some of the home's equity. Using anonymized data on mortgage refinancing behavior, we find that over half of borrowers with high-interest loans and available home equity do not take advantage of their cash-out opportunities. While the cash-out “surcharge” can rationalize this pattern, we leverage a policy change at Fannie Mae that eliminated this surcharge for student-loan borrowers and find that the presence of a student loan does not significantly affect borrowers' propensity to cash out.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Mallick Hossain, 
Igor Livshits, 
Collin Wardius
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Not cashing in on cashing out: An analysis of low cash‐out refinance rates</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70031</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70031</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70031?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>54</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>3</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70005?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 23:33:20 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-21T11:33:20-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70005</guid>
         <title>When risk does not discount: Flood history and rising property valuations</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, Volume 54, Issue 3, Page 586-623, May 2026. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
We study how expanded flood disclosure requirements affect real estate markets and appraisals in South Carolina. Counterintuitively, more comprehensive flood disclosures cause home prices to increase in tracts with a history of significant flooding. To support these higher postdisclosure valuations, appraisers reduce negative language, select more comparable properties outside flood zones, and apply smaller adjustments to comparable sales. Experienced appraisers are more likely to underappraise properties, yet appraisal values still match or exceed contract prices 89.2% of the time. These findings highlight the unintended consequences of real estate regulation for market behavior and appraisal practices.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We study how expanded flood disclosure requirements affect real estate markets and appraisals in South Carolina. Counterintuitively, more comprehensive flood disclosures cause home prices to increase in tracts with a history of significant flooding. To support these higher postdisclosure valuations, appraisers reduce negative language, select more comparable properties outside flood zones, and apply smaller adjustments to comparable sales. Experienced appraisers are more likely to underappraise properties, yet appraisal values still match or exceed contract prices 89.2% of the time. These findings highlight the unintended consequences of real estate regulation for market behavior and appraisal practices.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
William M. Doerner, 
Michael J. Seiler, 
Matthew Suandi
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>When risk does not discount: Flood history and rising property valuations</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70005</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70005</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70005?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>54</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>3</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70029?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 23:33:20 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-21T11:33:20-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70029</guid>
         <title>Uncertainty, flight to quality in the real estate market, and intergenerational inequality: Evidence from equal enrollment of public and private schools in Shanghai</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, Volume 54, Issue 3, Page 663-700, May 2026. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
Existing literature has overlooked families' flight to quality triggered by school admission uncertainty and its real estate market and welfare consequences. We use an overlapping generations model integrating human capital, residential choices, and educational decisions to link admission uncertainty to the real estate market and welfare. Micro‐level data reveal the policy effects of Shanghai's “Equal Enrollment of Public and Private Schools” (EEPPS). The findings suggest that (1) EEPPS‐induced admission uncertainty shifts affluent families from private schools to high‐quality public junior high schools, elevating housing prices. (2) Policy effects are more pronounced in neighborhoods with access to superior schools. (3) EEPPS shows no significant effect on housing transactions in lottery‐based public school admission areas or on rental markets. (4) EEPPS reduces private education investment and weakens affluent families' intergenerational persistence while improving low‐income students' access to quality private schools. However, EEPPS‐induced rising housing costs reinforce low‐income families' class stratification, ultimately reducing social welfare.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Existing literature has overlooked families' flight to quality triggered by school admission uncertainty and its real estate market and welfare consequences. We use an overlapping generations model integrating human capital, residential choices, and educational decisions to link admission uncertainty to the real estate market and welfare. Micro-level data reveal the policy effects of Shanghai's “Equal Enrollment of Public and Private Schools” (EEPPS). The findings suggest that (1) EEPPS-induced admission uncertainty shifts affluent families from private schools to high-quality public junior high schools, elevating housing prices. (2) Policy effects are more pronounced in neighborhoods with access to superior schools. (3) EEPPS shows no significant effect on housing transactions in lottery-based public school admission areas or on rental markets. (4) EEPPS reduces private education investment and weakens affluent families' intergenerational persistence while improving low-income students' access to quality private schools. However, EEPPS-induced rising housing costs reinforce low-income families' class stratification, ultimately reducing social welfare.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Liyuan Cui, 
Yujuan Hou, 
Huayi Yu
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Uncertainty, flight to quality in the real estate market, and intergenerational inequality: Evidence from equal enrollment of public and private schools in Shanghai</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70029</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70029</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70029?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>54</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>3</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70028?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 23:33:20 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-21T11:33:20-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70028</guid>
         <title>Coresidence: How parental characteristics matter</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, Volume 54, Issue 3, Page 701-727, May 2026. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
Coresidence in the parental home is known to depend on young adult characteristics and market conditions, but there is more limited knowledge on whether or how parental characteristics matter. We model the coresidence outcome as a multigenerational joint optimization decision and use Panel Study of Income Dynamics data to examine the association of parental housing and wealth with young adult coresidence. The findings show that parental financial capacity is negatively associated with the likelihood of coresidence. Housing capacity, captured by the size and ownership status of the parental home, is positively associated with the likelihood of coresidence. We observe a stronger association of parental wealth and housing capacity with coresidence in less affordable markets and over time.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Coresidence in the parental home is known to depend on young adult characteristics and market conditions, but there is more limited knowledge on whether or how parental characteristics matter. We model the coresidence outcome as a multigenerational joint optimization decision and use Panel Study of Income Dynamics data to examine the association of parental housing and wealth with young adult coresidence. The findings show that parental financial capacity is negatively associated with the likelihood of coresidence. Housing capacity, captured by the size and ownership status of the parental home, is positively associated with the likelihood of coresidence. We observe a stronger association of parental wealth and housing capacity with coresidence in less affordable markets and over time.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Arthur Acolin, 
Desen Lin, 
Susan M. Wachter
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Coresidence: How parental characteristics matter</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70028</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70028</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70028?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>54</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>3</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70055?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 23:33:20 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-21T11:33:20-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70055</guid>
         <title>Issue Information</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, Volume 54, Issue 3, Page 281-284, May 2026. </description>
         <dc:description/>
         <content:encoded/>
         <dc:creator/>
         <category>ISSUE INFORMATION</category>
         <dc:title>Issue Information</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70055</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70055</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70055?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ISSUE INFORMATION</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>54</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>3</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70053?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 10:41:53 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-15T10:41:53-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70053</guid>
         <title>A hybrid Tiebout model with vintage housing</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This article examines how spatial variation in housing ages affects income segregation in US cities. We develop a dynamic general equilibrium hybrid Tiebout model with durable housing that combines local public finance and urban land use theories. Heterogeneous households sort across school districts based on their demand for local public goods and within districts based on the trade‐off between accessibility and housing rents. Housing is produced by perfectly competitive firms, and each new house lasts for two periods. We find that the age of the housing stock is an important variable that affects the spatial distribution of households, and hence segregation. The cyclic nature of our equilibrium allows us to explain suburbanization and regentrification processes as a result of the endogenously evolving age of the housing stock distribution.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This article examines how spatial variation in housing ages affects income segregation in US cities. We develop a dynamic general equilibrium hybrid Tiebout model with durable housing that combines local public finance and urban land use theories. Heterogeneous households sort across school districts based on their demand for local public goods and within districts based on the trade-off between accessibility and housing rents. Housing is produced by perfectly competitive firms, and each new house lasts for two periods. We find that the age of the housing stock is an important variable that affects the spatial distribution of households, and hence segregation. The cyclic nature of our equilibrium allows us to explain suburbanization and regentrification processes as a result of the endogenously evolving age of the housing stock distribution.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Kuzey Yilmaz, 
Muharrem Yesilirmak
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>A hybrid Tiebout model with vintage housing</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70053</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70053</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70053?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70050?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 10:40:04 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-15T10:40:04-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70050</guid>
         <title>Affordable housing and Title I investment in schools facing neighborhood change</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This article leverages the timing and location of Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties to study the impact of affordable housing on local public schools. The research design links new developments from 2000–2020 to campus‐level demographics, spending levels, teacher counts, and class sizes in a difference‐in‐differences framework. Through rental unit take‐up, LIHTC increases the enrollment of students that income‐qualify for school lunch subsidies, with minimal effects on racial composition. Because Federal Title 1 funding is linked to student income, I study heterogeneity in the effect of LIHTC on school spending based on Title 1 status. Schools that opt into Title 1 status when LIHTC arrives experience spending increases, teacher headcount increases, and reductions in class sizes. By contrast, LIHTC schools already designated as Title 1 experience class size increases as per‐pupil spending declines. Because most US schools are listed as Title 1, the level of funding for compensatory programming is the key policy lever for schools facing neighborhood change.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This article leverages the timing and location of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties to study the impact of affordable housing on local public schools. The research design links new developments from 2000–2020 to campus-level demographics, spending levels, teacher counts, and class sizes in a difference-in-differences framework. Through rental unit take-up, LIHTC increases the enrollment of students that income-qualify for school lunch subsidies, with minimal effects on racial composition. Because Federal Title 1 funding is linked to student income, I study heterogeneity in the effect of LIHTC on school spending based on Title 1 status. Schools that opt into Title 1 status when LIHTC arrives experience spending increases, teacher headcount increases, and reductions in class sizes. By contrast, LIHTC schools already designated as Title 1 experience class size increases as per-pupil spending declines. Because most US schools are listed as Title 1, the level of funding for compensatory programming is the key policy lever for schools facing neighborhood change.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Kenneth Whaley
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Affordable housing and Title I investment in schools facing neighborhood change</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70050</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70050</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70050?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70052?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:03:26 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-04-25T11:03:26-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70052</guid>
         <title>From battlements to boom: The enduring influence of historical walled city on housing prices</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This study explores the long‐term economic effects of a unique form of historical architectural heritage—the city wall—on modern urban spatial structure. Using a Spatial Regression Discontinuity Design, the research compares housing prices on both sides of the Nanjing city wall, one of China's largest and best‐preserved urban fortifications. Results show a significant and consistent price premium for properties just inside the walls. Further analysis indicates that this premium is not solely due to the wall's heritage value, nor is it caused by a simple barrier effect or agglomeration dynamics on either side of the boundary. Instead, it stems from deep‐rooted path dependence within the city: early investments in the internal road network and the build‐up of local amenities, which together maintained a persistent urban structure and produced lasting capitalization effects within the wall.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This study explores the long-term economic effects of a unique form of historical architectural heritage—the city wall—on modern urban spatial structure. Using a Spatial Regression Discontinuity Design, the research compares housing prices on both sides of the Nanjing city wall, one of China's largest and best-preserved urban fortifications. Results show a significant and consistent price premium for properties just inside the walls. Further analysis indicates that this premium is not solely due to the wall's heritage value, nor is it caused by a simple barrier effect or agglomeration dynamics on either side of the boundary. Instead, it stems from deep-rooted path dependence within the city: early investments in the internal road network and the build-up of local amenities, which together maintained a persistent urban structure and produced lasting capitalization effects within the wall.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Zhenyu Lin, 
Eddie Chi‐Man Hui, 
Huan Yang
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>From battlements to boom: The enduring influence of historical walled city on housing prices</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70052</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70052</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70052?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70049?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 23:00:01 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-04-25T11:00:01-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70049</guid>
         <title>The downmarket impact of new multifamily housing: Evidence from a Honolulu condo tower</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
We test whether new condominium construction generates vacancies in a local housing market through induced moves. Using detailed address‐history microdata, we track households who moved into a newly built 512‐unit condominium tower in Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, which included both market‐rate and income‐restricted units. We identify prior addresses and follow vacancy chains across multiple rounds of moves. The vacated homes were substantially cheaper than the new units and spanned diverse locations and housing types. Income‐restricted units produced fewer secondary vacancies, but those vacancies were concentrated at lower price points. Our results show that new condominium construction eases supply constraints and expands local affordability. The distinct filtering dynamics between market‐rate and income‐restricted units have important implications for inclusionary zoning policies.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We test whether new condominium construction generates vacancies in a local housing market through induced moves. Using detailed address-history microdata, we track households who moved into a newly built 512-unit condominium tower in Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, which included both market-rate and income-restricted units. We identify prior addresses and follow vacancy chains across multiple rounds of moves. The vacated homes were substantially cheaper than the new units and spanned diverse locations and housing types. Income-restricted units produced fewer secondary vacancies, but those vacancies were concentrated at lower price points. Our results show that new condominium construction eases supply constraints and expands local affordability. The distinct filtering dynamics between market-rate and income-restricted units have important implications for inclusionary zoning policies.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Limin Fang, 
Emi Kim, 
Justin Tyndall
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>The downmarket impact of new multifamily housing: Evidence from a Honolulu condo tower</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70049</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70049</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70049?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70051?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 04:22:44 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-04-20T04:22:44-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70051</guid>
         <title>Evaluating inconsistencies in assessment regressivity across property classes</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
We investigate inconsistencies in property tax assessment regressivity across property classes using public record data from Cook County, Illinois during 2006–2022. Across a battery of tests, we document that assessment regressivity is severe within Class 3 (large residential), Class 5A (commercial), and Class 5B (industrial), whereas assessment ratios are only marginally regressive within Class 2 (small residential). Property Classes 3, 5A, and 5B are significantly more likely to appeal, have successful appeals, and have greater value reductions following a successful appeal, compared to Class 2. The appeal process acts to further exacerbate regressivity within Classes 5A and Class 5B. We calculate the counterfactual tax rate that could have been applied under the hypothetical scenario of zero regressivity within each property class and assuming that assessment ratios equal official assessment rates. The weighted average tax rate across jurisdictions in Cook County during 2006–2022 is 7.8% and the counterfactual tax rate we calculate that produces the same property tax revenue under the above conditions would have been 6.1%.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We investigate inconsistencies in property tax assessment regressivity across property classes using public record data from Cook County, Illinois during 2006–2022. Across a battery of tests, we document that assessment regressivity is severe within Class 3 (large residential), Class 5A (commercial), and Class 5B (industrial), whereas assessment ratios are only marginally regressive within Class 2 (small residential). Property Classes 3, 5A, and 5B are significantly more likely to appeal, have successful appeals, and have greater value reductions following a successful appeal, compared to Class 2. The appeal process acts to further exacerbate regressivity within Classes 5A and Class 5B. We calculate the counterfactual tax rate that could have been applied under the hypothetical scenario of zero regressivity within each property class and assuming that assessment ratios equal official assessment rates. The weighted average tax rate across jurisdictions in Cook County during 2006–2022 is 7.8% and the counterfactual tax rate we calculate that produces the same property tax revenue under the above conditions would have been 6.1%.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Sirui Cai, 
Jonathan A. Wiley
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Evaluating inconsistencies in assessment regressivity across property classes</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70051</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70051</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70051?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70048?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 05:35:30 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-04-10T05:35:30-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70048</guid>
         <title>Capitalizing flood risk protective measures in residential real estate</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This study utilizes 1.4 million residential transactions incorporating flood hazard estimates derived from a nationwide elevation model and hydrological data to examine the role of flood protections to mitigate the negative impact of flood risk on home prices. We find that low‐rise homes in unprotected flood‐prone areas face a 3.5% price discount, whereas mid‐/high‐rise properties are unaffected. Postinstallation, homes near flood protections experience price increases of 10.7%, with no significant difference across home types. This premium mirrors the preprotection discount observed for the same homes. Robustness checks using manual flood risk assessments confirm our findings, offering valuable insights for various stakeholders.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This study utilizes 1.4 million residential transactions incorporating flood hazard estimates derived from a nationwide elevation model and hydrological data to examine the role of flood protections to mitigate the negative impact of flood risk on home prices. We find that low-rise homes in unprotected flood-prone areas face a 3.5% price discount, whereas mid-/high-rise properties are unaffected. Postinstallation, homes near flood protections experience price increases of 10.7%, with no significant difference across home types. This premium mirrors the preprotection discount observed for the same homes. Robustness checks using manual flood risk assessments confirm our findings, offering valuable insights for various stakeholders.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Muhammad Ramzan Kalhoro, 
Arne Johan Pollestad, 
Michael J. Seiler, 
Ole Jakob Sønstebø
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Capitalizing flood risk protective measures in residential real estate</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70048</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70048</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70048?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70047?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 09:35:04 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-04-06T09:35:04-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70047</guid>
         <title>Rent control, rent overcharge, and racial disparity</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
Rent control policies have gained renewed legislative momentum in the United States, but are rent‐regulated landlords adhering to these policies? Answering this question is critical to understanding the policy's impact. Using a unique panel data set from the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey (NYCHVS), we investigate noncompliance with rent caps in New York City. We uncover evidence indicative of widespread rent overcharging. During our sample period, over 30% of rent‐stabilized apartments without turnover had rent increases exceeding the city's rent caps. Moreover, we find that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be overcharged than their White counterparts. Supplemented with building permit and code violation data, we provide evidence that our findings are unlikely to be driven by policy provisions that allow additional rent increases, notably (1) preferential rent and (2) major capital improvement.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rent control policies have gained renewed legislative momentum in the United States, but are rent-regulated landlords adhering to these policies? Answering this question is critical to understanding the policy's impact. Using a unique panel data set from the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey (NYCHVS), we investigate noncompliance with rent caps in New York City. We uncover evidence indicative of widespread rent overcharging. During our sample period, over 30% of rent-stabilized apartments without turnover had rent increases exceeding the city's rent caps. Moreover, we find that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be overcharged than their White counterparts. Supplemented with building permit and code violation data, we provide evidence that our findings are unlikely to be driven by policy provisions that allow additional rent increases, notably (1) preferential rent and (2) major capital improvement.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Brent W. Ambrose, 
Xun Bian, 
Ruoyu Chen, 
Hanchen Jiang
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Rent control, rent overcharge, and racial disparity</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70047</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70047</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70047?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70046?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 00:53:56 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-03-29T12:53:56-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70046</guid>
         <title>The effect of nearby listings on house sale prices in Sydney: A spatio‐temporal regularization approach</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
We estimate the price impact of very nearby concurrently listed properties in the Sydney housing market and assess their competition effects. We apply a hedonic model with spatiotemporal effects regularized via a graph Laplacian prior at the month‐by‐SA2 regional level to seven SA4 subregions of metropolitan Sydney. The model structure enables localized identification of the effect of nearby active listings, while controlling for local trends in a data sparse environment. We find that an additional active listing within 250 m reduces the sale price by 0.5%–1.3%, of which 0.3%–0.9% reflects the estimated competition effect when compared to the impact of listings further away. In contrast, nearby listings that have been settled show no consistent effect, highlighting that the price discount arises from buyer perceptions of competing alternatives during the active sale window, rather than supply conditions. The effect is strongest in middle‐tier regions such as Parramatta and Blacktown, and weaker in the inner core and outer fringe. These findings are relevant to sellers and agents, as very nearby competing listings that are active at the time of sale arise in 10%–25% of cases in Sydney.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We estimate the price impact of very nearby concurrently listed properties in the Sydney housing market and assess their competition effects. We apply a hedonic model with spatiotemporal effects regularized via a graph Laplacian prior at the month-by-SA2 regional level to seven SA4 subregions of metropolitan Sydney. The model structure enables localized identification of the effect of nearby active listings, while controlling for local trends in a data sparse environment. We find that an additional active listing within 250 m reduces the sale price by 0.5%–1.3%, of which 0.3%–0.9% reflects the estimated competition effect when compared to the impact of listings further away. In contrast, nearby listings that have been settled show no consistent effect, highlighting that the price discount arises from buyer perceptions of competing alternatives during the active sale window, rather than supply conditions. The effect is strongest in middle-tier regions such as Parramatta and Blacktown, and weaker in the inner core and outer fringe. These findings are relevant to sellers and agents, as very nearby competing listings that are active at the time of sale arise in 10%–25% of cases in Sydney.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Willem P. Sijp, 
Mengheng Li
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>The effect of nearby listings on house sale prices in Sydney: A spatio‐temporal regularization approach</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70046</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70046</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70046?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70044?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:54:00 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-03-24T08:54:00-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70044</guid>
         <title>How much are you willing to pay to avoid lockdowns? Evidence from the real estate market</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
In response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, numerous countries implemented lockdowns. In Victoria, Australia, a unique two‐tier system was employed, segregating areas with a Ring of Steel boundary and imposing additional restrictions within. This study focuses on the impact of lockdowns on housing prices and rents, exploring whether people are willing to pay a premium to live in areas with fewer lockdown restrictions and thus proposing this premium as an alternative measure of lockdown cost. We utilized a spatial difference‐in‐differences design to test on the lockdown boundary area and address many confounding factors. The research reveals a 7%–8% relative drop in housing rents within the Ring of Steel, dissipating within 6 months after lockdowns ended. A surprisingly large drop of 6%–7% in housing values is observed inside the Ring of Steel. These empirical estimates suggest homebuyers’ behavioral biases could further depress housing values during a pandemic.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous countries implemented lockdowns. In Victoria, Australia, a unique two-tier system was employed, segregating areas with a Ring of Steel boundary and imposing additional restrictions within. This study focuses on the impact of lockdowns on housing prices and rents, exploring whether people are willing to pay a premium to live in areas with fewer lockdown restrictions and thus proposing this premium as an alternative measure of lockdown cost. We utilized a spatial difference-in-differences design to test on the lockdown boundary area and address many confounding factors. The research reveals a 7%–8% relative drop in housing rents within the Ring of Steel, dissipating within 6 months after lockdowns ended. A surprisingly large drop of 6%–7% in housing values is observed inside the Ring of Steel. These empirical estimates suggest homebuyers’ behavioral biases could further depress housing values during a pandemic.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Jian Liang, 
Chyi Lin Lee, 
Qiang Li
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>How much are you willing to pay to avoid lockdowns? Evidence from the real estate market</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70044</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70044</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70044?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70043?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:49:27 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-03-24T08:49:27-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70043</guid>
         <title>Options trading, information flow, and the capital structure of real estate investment trusts</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
Traditional capital structure theories face severe limitations when applied to securitized real estate and real estate investment trust (REIT) markets. Of note, the regulatory environment faced by these firms dramatically alters their economic incentives and limits their ability to self‐finance growth and expansion activities. As such, firms in this industry with continuing needs for external capital are uniquely positioned to benefit from reduced valuation uncertainty engendered by enhanced information flow. Against this backdrop, the current investigation examines whether, and to what extent, options market trading intensity serves as a value‐relevant, noise‐reducing information signal that may be used to inform REIT borrowing and capital structure decisions. Specifically, we document that increased REIT options market trading activity is strongly associated with reductions in overall firm leverage levels through the channel of enhanced equity issuance. Additionally, increased options market trading intensity is associated with a relative increase in the use of unsecured debt and a corresponding reduction in the use of collateralized bank debt and term loans. Importantly, these results appear to be most pronounced within firms that are financially constrained and/or informationally opaque. Taken together, and consistent with predictions derived from pecking order theory, these findings suggest that the enhanced information flow and resulting price discovery attributable to options market activity allow REITs to retain financial flexibility and ensure continuing access to credit.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Traditional capital structure theories face severe limitations when applied to securitized real estate and real estate investment trust (REIT) markets. Of note, the regulatory environment faced by these firms dramatically alters their economic incentives and limits their ability to self-finance growth and expansion activities. As such, firms in this industry with continuing needs for external capital are uniquely positioned to benefit from reduced valuation uncertainty engendered by enhanced information flow. Against this backdrop, the current investigation examines whether, and to what extent, options market trading intensity serves as a value-relevant, noise-reducing information signal that may be used to inform REIT borrowing and capital structure decisions. Specifically, we document that increased REIT options market trading activity is strongly associated with reductions in overall firm leverage levels through the channel of enhanced equity issuance. Additionally, increased options market trading intensity is associated with a relative increase in the use of unsecured debt and a corresponding reduction in the use of collateralized bank debt and term loans. Importantly, these results appear to be most pronounced within firms that are financially constrained and/or informationally opaque. Taken together, and consistent with predictions derived from pecking order theory, these findings suggest that the enhanced information flow and resulting price discovery attributable to options market activity allow REITs to retain financial flexibility and ensure continuing access to credit.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
David M. Harrison, 
Hainan Sheng
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Options trading, information flow, and the capital structure of real estate investment trusts</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70043</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70043</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70043?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70045?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2026 01:58:07 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-03-19T01:58:07-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70045</guid>
         <title>Structural change in the US office market after 2019: Evidence from lease‐level data</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This article examines how the leasing activities, contract features, and pricing of the Class A office leasing market have evolved since 2019 across five major US markets: Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Dallas, Washington, DC, and New York City. Using a granular dataset of 73,508 office leases from 2010 to 2024, we find a broad‐based contraction in leasing volume and meaningful adjustments in contract features, including increased reliance on free rent and shifts in tenant‐improvement usage. More importantly, we document structural changes in the determination of net effective rents at the lease level. In several major markets, longer leases, which were previously associated with rent discounts, began to command premiums after 2019, indicating a revaluation of contractual duration. We also find intensified spatial polarization and substantial reordering of tenant industry rent premiums, suggesting increased segmentation across geography and industry.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This article examines how the leasing activities, contract features, and pricing of the Class A office leasing market have evolved since 2019 across five major US markets: Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Dallas, Washington, DC, and New York City. Using a granular dataset of 73,508 office leases from 2010 to 2024, we find a broad-based contraction in leasing volume and meaningful adjustments in contract features, including increased reliance on free rent and shifts in tenant-improvement usage. More importantly, we document structural changes in the determination of net effective rents at the lease level. In several major markets, longer leases, which were previously associated with rent discounts, began to command premiums after 2019, indicating a revaluation of contractual duration. We also find intensified spatial polarization and substantial reordering of tenant industry rent premiums, suggesting increased segmentation across geography and industry.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Liang Peng, 
Xue Xiao
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Structural change in the US office market after 2019: Evidence from lease‐level data</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70045</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70045</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70045?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70039?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:20:25 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-03-10T12:20:25-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70039</guid>
         <title>Heterogeneous co‐movements in US state and metropolitan statistical area housing prices: New insights from quantile factor models</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
Previous research demonstrates that housing prices frequently move in tandem across regions, underscoring the interconnectedness and correlation present within housing markets. Building on this foundation, our study advances the analysis by examining quantile co‐movements and the synchronization between local and national housing markets. Using the quantile factor model across the full distribution of housing prices, we identify distinct factor structures at the lower and upper tails that contrast with those observed in the middle of the distribution. This analytic framework enables the detection of previously hidden factors influencing housing markets. With this approach, we illuminate how housing price dynamics interact across market segments, price levels, and geographic areas. Our findings reveal that co‐movements can vary substantially across low, stable, and high housing price regimes, thus providing more comprehensive and nuanced economic insights into the complex nature of housing price fluctuations.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Previous research demonstrates that housing prices frequently move in tandem across regions, underscoring the interconnectedness and correlation present within housing markets. Building on this foundation, our study advances the analysis by examining quantile co-movements and the synchronization between local and national housing markets. Using the quantile factor model across the full distribution of housing prices, we identify distinct factor structures at the lower and upper tails that contrast with those observed in the middle of the distribution. This analytic framework enables the detection of previously hidden factors influencing housing markets. With this approach, we illuminate how housing price dynamics interact across market segments, price levels, and geographic areas. Our findings reveal that co-movements can vary substantially across low, stable, and high housing price regimes, thus providing more comprehensive and nuanced economic insights into the complex nature of housing price fluctuations.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Saban Nazlioglu, 
Alan Tidwell, 
Junsoo Lee
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Heterogeneous co‐movements in US state and metropolitan statistical area housing prices: New insights from quantile factor models</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70039</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70039</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70039?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70041?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2026 23:32:36 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-03-09T11:32:36-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70041</guid>
         <title>News‐based measures of real estate market uncertainty</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
Using semantic analysis of newspaper content, we introduce a novel index that reflects the public perception of real estate uncertainty (NewsREU). The NewsREU is model‐free and offers straightforward interpretability. We benchmark the NewsREU against a model‐based real estate uncertainty (REU) measure and show that the NewsREU contains incremental information about the real estate sector beyond what the REU captures. Moreover, we utilize an advanced topic model, leveraging neural inference network and contextual embeddings, to effectively unveil the underlying themes in narratives surrounding real estate uncertainty. This approach allows for decomposition of the NewsREU into distinct Topic NewsREU components that may reflect different facets of uncertainty within the realm of real estate. We find that different types of real estate uncertainty may either positively or negatively forecast future housing outcomes. These results underscore the distinct contribution of our real estate uncertainty indices in advancing our understanding of the role of real estate uncertainty.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using semantic analysis of newspaper content, we introduce a novel index that reflects the public perception of real estate uncertainty (&lt;i&gt;NewsREU&lt;/i&gt;). The &lt;i&gt;NewsREU&lt;/i&gt; is model-free and offers straightforward interpretability. We benchmark the &lt;i&gt;NewsREU&lt;/i&gt; against a model-based real estate uncertainty (&lt;i&gt;REU&lt;/i&gt;) measure and show that the &lt;i&gt;NewsREU&lt;/i&gt; contains incremental information about the real estate sector beyond what the &lt;i&gt;REU&lt;/i&gt; captures. Moreover, we utilize an advanced topic model, leveraging neural inference network and contextual embeddings, to effectively unveil the underlying themes in narratives surrounding real estate uncertainty. This approach allows for decomposition of the &lt;i&gt;NewsREU&lt;/i&gt; into distinct &lt;i&gt;Topic NewsREU&lt;/i&gt; components that may reflect different facets of uncertainty within the realm of real estate. We find that different types of real estate uncertainty may either positively or negatively forecast future housing outcomes. These results underscore the distinct contribution of our real estate uncertainty indices in advancing our understanding of the role of real estate uncertainty.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Shikong (Scott) Luo, 
Owen Tidwell
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>News‐based measures of real estate market uncertainty</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70041</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70041</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70041?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70040?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 19:20:24 -0800</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-02-27T07:20:24-08:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70040</guid>
         <title>Why we still don't know much about housing supply elasticity</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This article examines the implications of urban spatial models for estimating the long‐run own‐price elasticity of housing supply. It demonstrates theoretically that housing supply elasticity varies inversely with city size, the cost of structure inputs, and rural land price in both classical and neoclassical models. Notably, planning regulations and topographic features that reduce the share of land available for development do not affect supply elasticity, if they apply uniformly. The effect of transportation costs on supply elasticity is complex. In addition, empirical estimates of supply elasticity depend on the location within the city where housing price changes are measured. These relations can confound direct empirical estimates of housing supply elasticity, but are less problematic for estimates obtained from numerical simulation models or inferred from urban wage premiums.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This article examines the implications of urban spatial models for estimating the long-run own-price elasticity of housing supply. It demonstrates theoretically that housing supply elasticity varies inversely with city size, the cost of structure inputs, and rural land price in both classical and neoclassical models. Notably, planning regulations and topographic features that reduce the share of land available for development do not affect supply elasticity, if they apply uniformly. The effect of transportation costs on supply elasticity is complex. In addition, empirical estimates of supply elasticity depend on the location within the city where housing price changes are measured. These relations can confound direct empirical estimates of housing supply elasticity, but are less problematic for estimates obtained from numerical simulation models or inferred from urban wage premiums.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Daniel A. Broxterman, 
Yishen Liu, 
Anthony M. Yezer
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Why we still don't know much about housing supply elasticity</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70040</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70040</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70040?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70038?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 06:55:48 -0800</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-02-25T06:55:48-08:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70038</guid>
         <title>A conditional factor model for real estate investment trusts returns</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
We find that a small set of latent systematic factors identified using the Instrumented Principal Component Analysis model explains a substantial share of the cross‐section of US real estate investment trust (REIT) returns. These factors deliver markedly smaller pricing errors than standard REIT and equity factor models, both in‐sample and out‐of‐sample. We also find that REIT characteristics—size, leverage, dividend yield, momentum, and property‐type indicators—are the primary determinants of factor exposures. Evidence from correlation analysis suggests that the latent factors reflect aggregate risk, financing conditions, liquidity/visibility, sector rotation between property types, and a time‐varying dividend‐income premium. Together, these findings point to a unified and economically interpretable factor structure for REITs.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We find that a small set of latent systematic factors identified using the Instrumented Principal Component Analysis model explains a substantial share of the cross-section of US real estate investment trust (REIT) returns. These factors deliver markedly smaller pricing errors than standard REIT and equity factor models, both in-sample and out-of-sample. We also find that REIT characteristics—size, leverage, dividend yield, momentum, and property-type indicators—are the primary determinants of factor exposures. Evidence from correlation analysis suggests that the latent factors reflect aggregate risk, financing conditions, liquidity/visibility, sector rotation between property types, and a time-varying dividend-income premium. Together, these findings point to a unified and economically interpretable factor structure for REITs.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Jie Cao, 
Linjia Song, 
Xintong Zhan
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>A conditional factor model for real estate investment trusts returns</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70038</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70038</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70038?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70035?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 05:49:38 -0800</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-02-25T05:49:38-08:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70035</guid>
         <title>The importance of considering regimes in long‐term asset allocation to real estate</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
We investigate the long‐term, regime‐dependent asset allocation of an investor's wealth in a mixed‐asset portfolio that includes publicly traded real estate. We show that augmenting standard VAR models with Markov‐switching features not only improves predictive power for asset returns but also introduces economically meaningful horizon effects in optimal portfolio allocations. As the investment horizon lengthens, optimal portfolio allocations become less sensitive to the prevailing regime. Across initial states, the sensitivity of portfolio allocations to the investment horizon manifests primarily through a gradual reallocation toward risky assets relative to risk‐free assets, particularly at lower levels of risk aversion. Public real estate receives economically meaningful portfolio allocations under these conditions. Out‐of‐sample portfolio tests further show that regime‐switching models deliver higher realized utility and Sharpe ratios than linear and independent and identically distributed benchmarks. Overall, the results highlight the economic value of incorporating regime shifts into long‐term portfolio choice and confirm the continued role of publicly traded real estate in mixed‐asset portfolios.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We investigate the long-term, regime-dependent asset allocation of an investor's wealth in a mixed-asset portfolio that includes publicly traded real estate. We show that augmenting standard VAR models with Markov-switching features not only improves predictive power for asset returns but also introduces economically meaningful horizon effects in optimal portfolio allocations. As the investment horizon lengthens, optimal portfolio allocations become less sensitive to the prevailing regime. Across initial states, the sensitivity of portfolio allocations to the investment horizon manifests primarily through a gradual reallocation toward risky assets relative to risk-free assets, particularly at lower levels of risk aversion. Public real estate receives economically meaningful portfolio allocations under these conditions. Out-of-sample portfolio tests further show that regime-switching models deliver higher realized utility and Sharpe ratios than linear and independent and identically distributed benchmarks. Overall, the results highlight the economic value of incorporating regime shifts into long-term portfolio choice and confirm the continued role of publicly traded real estate in mixed-asset portfolios.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Massimo Guidolin, 
Mingwei (Max) Liang, 
Milena Petrova
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>The importance of considering regimes in long‐term asset allocation to real estate</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70035</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70035</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70035?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70034?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2026 19:24:38 -0800</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-02-08T07:24:38-08:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70034</guid>
         <title>Hurricane‐induced risk contagion in commercial real estate: Evidence from Hurricane Sandy</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This study examines how hurricane‐induced destruction affects the prices of nearby undamaged commercial real estate properties, using Hurricane Sandy as a natural experiment. Using Real Capital Analytics transaction records spatially merged with Federal Emergency Management Agency building‐level damage data, we empirically employ a difference‐in‐differences and event study framework to identify price spillover effects across property types. Results show that negative spillover effects are only concentrated in the office sector, where undamaged properties located near severely Sandy‐damaged sites experienced price declines of 8%–15% that persisted for up to 4 years. These findings suggest the declines reflect a capitalization of heightened spatial contagion risk—a forward‐looking investor reassessment of interconnected physical and market vulnerabilities.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This study examines how hurricane-induced destruction affects the prices of nearby undamaged commercial real estate properties, using Hurricane Sandy as a natural experiment. Using Real Capital Analytics transaction records spatially merged with Federal Emergency Management Agency building-level damage data, we empirically employ a difference-in-differences and event study framework to identify price spillover effects across property types. Results show that negative spillover effects are only concentrated in the office sector, where undamaged properties located near severely Sandy-damaged sites experienced price declines of 8%–15% that persisted for up to 4 years. These findings suggest the declines reflect a capitalization of heightened spatial contagion risk—a forward-looking investor reassessment of interconnected physical and market vulnerabilities.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Lu Fang, 
Lingxiao Li, 
David Scofield, 
Abdullah Yavas
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Hurricane‐induced risk contagion in commercial real estate: Evidence from Hurricane Sandy</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70034</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70034</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70034?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70037?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 20:11:51 -0800</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-02-03T08:11:51-08:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70037</guid>
         <title>The impact of real estate taxes on the macroeconomy</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This article develops a multi‐sector dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model to evaluate the macroeconomic effects of real estate taxes. The study finds that, under a fixed tax rate, real estate taxes dampen positive fluctuations in household housing consumption, real estate investments, and housing prices. Additionally, if uncertain exogenous shocks lead to changes in the tax rate, real estate taxes can cause short‐term declines in non‐housing household consumption, non‐real estate investments, housing prices, and overall output. In such cases, policymakers should implement an accommodative, price‐based monetary policy to mitigate these adverse effects. When both tax shocks and negative land supply shocks occur, it is recommended that policymakers adopt an accommodative price‐based policy during economic downturns and transition to a quantity‐based policy during upturns. Therefore, the article advocates for real estate tax reform during periods of stable economic conditions and minimal fluctuations in housing prices.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This article develops a multi-sector dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model to evaluate the macroeconomic effects of real estate taxes. The study finds that, under a fixed tax rate, real estate taxes dampen positive fluctuations in household housing consumption, real estate investments, and housing prices. Additionally, if uncertain exogenous shocks lead to changes in the tax rate, real estate taxes can cause short-term declines in non-housing household consumption, non-real estate investments, housing prices, and overall output. In such cases, policymakers should implement an accommodative, price-based monetary policy to mitigate these adverse effects. When both tax shocks and negative land supply shocks occur, it is recommended that policymakers adopt an accommodative price-based policy during economic downturns and transition to a quantity-based policy during upturns. Therefore, the article advocates for real estate tax reform during periods of stable economic conditions and minimal fluctuations in housing prices.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Qi Li, 
Shuyun Chen, 
Wei Fan, 
Yan Zhang
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>The impact of real estate taxes on the macroeconomy</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70037</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70037</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70037?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70033?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 19:26:33 -0800</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-01-29T07:26:33-08:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70033</guid>
         <title>Natural disasters and housing prices: What can we learn from tornadoes?</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
The impact of tornadoes on housing prices has not been extensively explored in a causal analysis framework. We estimate the effects of damage from a major tornado in Little Rock, Arkansas, on prices of nearby undamaged homes. We study how a typical home's proximity to damaged properties might have led to a discount in its price due to severe blight in the neighborhood. We focus on homes that sold between January 2022 and August 2024 and compare the effects of the March 31, 2023, tornado on sale prices for homes near versus far from damaged properties. For all home sales within 250 m of at least one tornado‐damaged property, our difference‐in‐differences estimates imply an average discount of approximately 20% relative to home sales further away. These effects disappear with greater distance from the nearest damaged property. Second, homes in lower income census block groups did not incur price effects that were significantly different from the effects for other homes. Finally, we show that the impact was short‐lived on average, as we find no significant price discount on homes sold near or far from damaged properties 9 months after the tornado.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The impact of tornadoes on housing prices has not been extensively explored in a causal analysis framework. We estimate the effects of damage from a major tornado in Little Rock, Arkansas, on prices of nearby undamaged homes. We study how a typical home's proximity to damaged properties might have led to a discount in its price due to severe blight in the neighborhood. We focus on homes that sold between January 2022 and August 2024 and compare the effects of the March 31, 2023, tornado on sale prices for homes &lt;i&gt;near&lt;/i&gt; versus &lt;i&gt;far from&lt;/i&gt; damaged properties. For all home sales within 250 m of at least one tornado-damaged property, our difference-in-differences estimates imply an average discount of approximately 20% relative to home sales further away. These effects disappear with greater distance from the nearest damaged property. Second, homes in lower income census block groups did not incur price effects that were significantly different from the effects for other homes. Finally, we show that the impact was short-lived on average, as we find no significant price discount on homes sold near or far from damaged properties 9 months after the tornado.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Jeffrey P. Cohen, 
Violeta Gutkowski
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Natural disasters and housing prices: What can we learn from tornadoes?</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70033</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70033</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70033?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70026?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:19:41 -0800</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-01-16T08:19:41-08:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70026</guid>
         <title>A refinement of macroeconomy–housing price equilibrium: Walking down long memory lane</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
Housing prices are known to respond slowly and heterogeneously to macroeconomic variations from the demand and supply sides of housing. This offers a possibility to model the long memory and varied persistence of housing price adjustments, through which a refined characterisation of the macroeconomic–housing price interaction in equilibrium can be developed. Our article advances a theoretical argument, supported by empirical findings in the United States, that macroeconomic variations trigger varied reactions on housing demand and supply sides. This leads to distinct trajectories of equilibrium housing price formations governed by differential price adjustments on the two sides of housing. An established longer memory on the supply side of housing demonstrates its higher persistence of disequilibrium deviations than on the demand side. In the equilibrium, certain macroeconomic factors are found to exert dual but heterogeneous roles in housing demand‐ and supply‐side dynamics. The net role of each such factor is negative led by its even stronger negative role on the demand side compared against a smaller positive one on the supply side. Our findings contribute to deeper reflections on the likely ineffectiveness of macroeconomic interventions in housing price dynamics.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Housing prices are known to respond slowly and heterogeneously to macroeconomic variations from the demand and supply sides of housing. This offers a possibility to model the long memory and varied persistence of housing price adjustments, through which a refined characterisation of the macroeconomic–housing price interaction in equilibrium can be developed. Our article advances a theoretical argument, supported by empirical findings in the United States, that macroeconomic variations trigger varied reactions on housing demand and supply sides. This leads to distinct trajectories of equilibrium housing price formations governed by differential price adjustments on the two sides of housing. An established longer memory on the supply side of housing demonstrates its higher persistence of disequilibrium deviations than on the demand side. In the equilibrium, certain macroeconomic factors are found to exert dual but heterogeneous roles in housing demand- and supply-side dynamics. The net role of each such factor is negative led by its even stronger negative role on the demand side compared against a smaller positive one on the supply side. Our findings contribute to deeper reflections on the likely ineffectiveness of macroeconomic interventions in housing price dynamics.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Kun Duan, 
Tapas Mishra, 
Mamata Parhi, 
Simon Wolfe
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>A refinement of macroeconomy–housing price equilibrium: Walking down long memory lane</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70026</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70026</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70026?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70032?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 04:10:21 -0800</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-01-09T04:10:21-08:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70032</guid>
         <title>Misconduct complaints and agents’ incentives: Evidence from housing transactions</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This article investigates the impact of misconduct complaints against agents on their self‐interested incentives and examines how agents attempt to shield themselves from the associated adverse effects on their reputations and career prospects. Our analyses using the real estate brokerage market in Quebec (Canadian province) support the conjecture that misconduct complaints incentivize agents to be less self‐interested, as reflected in a higher sale price. This helps to alleviate problems in principal–agent relationships if the agents believe their complaint records are likely to be known and considered unfavorable by future clients. The impacts are weakened by a decrease in such beliefs by agents, potential future losses, commissions retained, and complaint leniency.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This article investigates the impact of misconduct complaints against agents on their self-interested incentives and examines how agents attempt to shield themselves from the associated adverse effects on their reputations and career prospects. Our analyses using the real estate brokerage market in Quebec (Canadian province) support the conjecture that misconduct complaints incentivize agents to be less self-interested, as reflected in a higher sale price. This helps to alleviate problems in principal–agent relationships if the agents believe their complaint records are likely to be known and considered unfavorable by future clients. The impacts are weakened by a decrease in such beliefs by agents, potential future losses, commissions retained, and complaint leniency.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Lawrence Kryzanowski, 
Yanting Wu
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Misconduct complaints and agents’ incentives: Evidence from housing transactions</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70032</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70032</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70032?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70027?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2026 19:26:12 -0800</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-01-04T07:26:12-08:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70027</guid>
         <title>Dutch dilemma: Housing prices and flood risk exposure</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This article studies the impact of flood risk exposure on housing prices in a major river delta. Analyzing 1.8 million property transactions from 1998 to 2023 in the Netherlands, we find an average price discount of 1.1%. We observe considerable heterogeneity in price effects driven by exposure intensity, institutional settings that vary across flood zones, time, and buyer sophistication. Our results suggest that homeowners incorporate flood risk in their buying decisions. However, collective adaptation measures considerably mitigate these negative price effects. The costs of adaptation projects seem relatively small in comparison to the economic value they create through shielding the housing market from flood risk.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This article studies the impact of flood risk exposure on housing prices in a major river delta. Analyzing 1.8 million property transactions from 1998 to 2023 in the Netherlands, we find an average price discount of 1.1%. We observe considerable heterogeneity in price effects driven by exposure intensity, institutional settings that vary across flood zones, time, and buyer sophistication. Our results suggest that homeowners incorporate flood risk in their buying decisions. However, collective adaptation measures considerably mitigate these negative price effects. The costs of adaptation projects seem relatively small in comparison to the economic value they create through shielding the housing market from flood risk.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Piet Eichholtz, 
Nils Kok, 
Philibert Weenink
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Dutch dilemma: Housing prices and flood risk exposure</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70027</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70027</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70027?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70014?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2025 07:33:58 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2025-10-28T07:33:58-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70014</guid>
         <title>Liquidity and leverage responses to mortgage downpayment subsidies</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
Policies that limit mortgage leverage face an inherent trade‐off between the benefits of reduced indebtedness and the erosion of liquidity buffers through larger downpayment requirements. Governmental downpayment subsidies, while not designed to address this trade‐off, can potentially alleviate it, particularly where borrowers are liquidity‐constrained. Exploiting a largely unanticipated increase in government subsidies toward downpayments in Ireland, we estimate that borrowers reduce their out‐of‐pocket downpayments substantially, improving their liquidity position. They also borrow less, at lower leverage ratios, providing an alternate potential transmission channel in a literature that has previously focussed on house price and housing supply effects.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Policies that limit mortgage leverage face an inherent trade-off between the benefits of reduced indebtedness and the erosion of liquidity buffers through larger downpayment requirements. Governmental downpayment subsidies, while not designed to address this trade-off, can potentially alleviate it, particularly where borrowers are liquidity-constrained. Exploiting a largely unanticipated increase in government subsidies toward downpayments in Ireland, we estimate that borrowers reduce their out-of-pocket downpayments substantially, improving their liquidity position. They also borrow less, at lower leverage ratios, providing an alternate potential transmission channel in a literature that has previously focussed on house price and housing supply effects.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Fergal McCann, 
Anuj Pratap Singh
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Liquidity and leverage responses to mortgage downpayment subsidies</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70014</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70014</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70014?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70007?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2025 21:35:12 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2025-09-28T09:35:12-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70007</guid>
         <title>The rise of corporate landlords: An examination of behavioral differences in the multifamily market</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This article examines the relationship between corporate ownership and tenant outcomes in the New York City multifamily market from 2012 to 2023. Combining a novel data set on landlord ownership in the city, with information on eviction filings, asking rents, housing code violations, and the location of housing choice voucher holders, we show that these outcomes differ for corporate and noncorporate owners. These differences shrink considerably in models with building fixed effects. Yet even after controlling for the building as well as recent renovation activity and market concentration in the neighborhood, corporate landlords still file more evictions, charge higher asking rents, and house more voucher holders. As for mechanisms, the effects of corporate status do not appear to be operating through portfolio size and only partly through the timing of purchase, though these factors are themselves related to some outcomes. Our findings show that many of the accusations about corporate landlords may be overstated, but they also suggest some differences and underscore the importance of transparency and accountability in rental housing ownership.</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This article examines the relationship between corporate ownership and tenant outcomes in the New York City multifamily market from 2012 to 2023. Combining a novel data set on landlord ownership in the city, with information on eviction filings, asking rents, housing code violations, and the location of housing choice voucher holders, we show that these outcomes differ for corporate and noncorporate owners. These differences shrink considerably in models with building fixed effects. Yet even after controlling for the building as well as recent renovation activity and market concentration in the neighborhood, corporate landlords still file more evictions, charge higher asking rents, and house more voucher holders. As for mechanisms, the effects of corporate status do not appear to be operating through portfolio size and only partly through the timing of purchase, though these factors are themselves related to some outcomes. Our findings show that many of the accusations about corporate landlords may be overstated, but they also suggest some differences and underscore the importance of transparency and accountability in rental housing ownership.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Katharine W. H. Harwood, 
Ingrid Gould Ellen, 
Katherine O'Regan
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>The rise of corporate landlords: An examination of behavioral differences in the multifamily market</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70007</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70007</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70007?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70009?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2025-09-22T12:00:00-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406229?af=R">Wiley: Real Estate Economics: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate/>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate/>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/1540-6229.70009</guid>
         <title>Is land‐use deregulation enough to deliver housing?: The case of institutional frictions in India</title>
         <description>Real Estate Economics, EarlyView. </description>
         <dc:description>
Abstract
This paper examines whether land use deregulation increases housing supply in the presence of additional institutional frictions, such as ill‐defined property rights. India's urban land ceiling (ULC) laws, which put limits on individual ownership of private vacant land in the largest cities, were repealed during the 2000s. Using a difference‐in‐difference strategy, with a panel of 201 cities, we find that the reform did not lead to housing supply growth. We posit that disputes in ownership rights for vacant parcels rendered the ULC repeal to be ineffective. The disputes led to legal battles between governments and private landowners, freezing construction on vacant land. We find that, after the repeal, the number of land‐related legal proceedings in ULC‐enacting cities may have been substantially higher than in cities where ULC was never enacted. The findings underscore the role of institutional frictions in impeding or delaying the potential benefits of deregulation.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>
&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This paper examines whether land use deregulation increases housing supply in the presence of additional institutional frictions, such as ill-defined property rights. India's urban land ceiling (ULC) laws, which put limits on individual ownership of private vacant land in the largest cities, were repealed during the 2000s. Using a difference-in-difference strategy, with a panel of 201 cities, we find that the reform did not lead to housing supply growth. We posit that disputes in ownership rights for vacant parcels rendered the ULC repeal to be ineffective. The disputes led to legal battles between governments and private landowners, freezing construction on vacant land. We find that, after the repeal, the number of land-related legal proceedings in ULC-enacting cities may have been substantially higher than in cities where ULC was never enacted. The findings underscore the role of institutional frictions in impeding or delaying the potential benefits of deregulation.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Arnab Dutta, 
Sahil Gandhi, 
Richard K. Green
</dc:creator>
         <category>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</category>
         <dc:title>Is land‐use deregulation enough to deliver housing?: The case of institutional frictions in India</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/1540-6229.70009</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Real Estate Economics</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/1540-6229.70009</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.70009?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</prism:section>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
