IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwwob/81-15-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mietpreisbremse: Wohnungsmarktregulierung bringt mehr Schaden als Nutzen

Author

Listed:
  • Konstantin A. Kholodilin
  • Dirk Ulbricht

Abstract

Housing rents in Germany have been rising for several years. Especially in major cities such as Berlin, Hamburg, and Munich, the increases have recently been higher than the German average growth rate of rents that makes up roughly two percent. The German government would like to respond to this development by introducing caps on rents for new rentals. But are rent really necessary? The growth rates of nominal rents went down markedly since the 1990s, from more than four percent at that time to about one percent on average over the past 15 years. In real terms, i.e., taking general inflation into account, rents have been even falling over certain periods. The problem of high rent hikes seems to be more common in large and university cities. One reason for this is the general trend towards reurbanization leading to significant population growth of the cities. This is coupled with a lack of elasticity of the housing stock in the short run. In particular, there is a shortage of small and inexpensive apartments. Housing policy should concentrate especially on this segment. Reduction of the real estate transfer tax or increased zoning of underused land within built-up areas for development might be an option, for example. Improved price statistics at thelocal level could also contribute to better market transparency. Instruments such as the Mietpreisbremse (literally a brake on rental prices), on the other hand, would make investment in rental housing less attractive and would exacerbate the housing shortage. Die Mietpreise in Deutschland steigen seit einigen Jahren wieder stärker. Vor allem in Metropolen wie Berlin, Hamburg und München lagen die Zunahmen zuletzt über dem gesamtdeutschen Durchschnitt von rund zwei Prozent. Die Bundesregierung möchte auf diese Entwicklung mit einer Mietpreisbremse reagieren, die unter anderem die Mieten bei Wiedervermietungen beschränken soll. Doch sind staatliche Eingriffe in die Mietpreissetzung überhaupt nötig? Die Wachstumsraten der nominalen Mieten gehen seit den 90er Jahren stark zurück, von zuvor mehr als vier Prozent auf etwa ein Prozent im Durchschnitt der vergangenen 15 Jahre. Real, also unter Berücksichtigung der allgemeinen Teuerung, sind die Mieten stellenweise sogar gesunken. Starke Mietsteigerungen scheinen eher ein Problem der Groß- und Universitätsstädte zu sein. Ein Grund dafür ist der allgemeine Trend der Reurbanisierung, der zu kräftigen Zuwächsen der städtischen Bevölkerung führt. Demgegenüber steht ein kurzfristig verhältnismäßig unelastischer Wohnungsbestand. Vor allem kleine und günstige Wohnungen fehlen. Insbesondere in diesem Segment erscheinen Fördermaßnahmen seitens der Politik wünschenswert. Denkbar sind etwa eine Senkung der Grunderwerbsteuer oder eine verstärkte Ausweisung brachliegender innerstädtischer Flächen als Bauland. Verbesserte Preisstatistiken auf lokaler Ebene könnten zudem für eine höhere Markttransparenz sorgen. Instrumente wie die Mietpreisbremse hingegen würden Investitionen in Mietwohnungen unattraktiver machen und die Wohnraumknappheit verschärfen.

Suggested Citation

  • Konstantin A. Kholodilin & Dirk Ulbricht, 2014. "Mietpreisbremse: Wohnungsmarktregulierung bringt mehr Schaden als Nutzen," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(15), pages 319-327.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwob:81-15-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.442366.de/14-15-1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Konstantin A. Kholodilin, 2015. "War, Housing Rents, and Free Market: A Case of Berlin's Rental Housing Market during the World War I," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1477, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Bofinger, Peter & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Schnabel, Isabel & Wieland, Volker, 2018. "Vor wichtigen wirtschaftspolitischen Weichenstellungen. Jahresgutachten 2018/19 [Setting the Right Course for Economic Policy. Annual Report 2018/19]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201819, February.
    3. Thomschke, Lorenz, 2016. "Distributional price effects of rent controls in Berlin: When expectation meets reality," CAWM Discussion Papers 89, University of Münster, Münster Center for Economic Policy (MEP).
    4. Steffen Wetzstein, 2017. "The global urban housing affordability crisis," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(14), pages 3159-3177, November.
    5. Lorenz Thomschke, 2019. "Über die Evaluierung der Mietpreisbremse [On the evaluation of the German rental price break]," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 5(1), pages 21-36, November.
    6. Carolin Fritzsche & Anton Groß, 2017. "Ein Überblick über Wohnungsmarktpolitik in europäischen Ländern," ifo Dresden berichtet, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 24(02), pages 03-11, April.
    7. Hinrichsen, Julius & Nitt-Drießelmann, Dörte & Wellenreuther, Claudia & Wolf, André, 2021. "Der Eigentumsbegriff in den Parteiprogrammen zur Bundestagswahl 2021: Eine ökonomische Analyse," HWWI Policy Papers 133, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Housing shortage; housing rents; housing policy; rent controls;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwwob:81-15-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.