美國房市泡沫化的程度在全美50州的差異程度非常大。以房價2000-2007的漲幅為例，漲幅最大的7個州，其房價年成長率高達11%-13%，而漲幅最小的內陸各州，年成長率只有2%-5%；再以房價2007-2011的跌幅為例，房價下跌最嚴重的四個州，其年度跌幅高達9%-11%，而跌幅最小的內陸各州的年度跌幅只有1%-4%，甚至有三個州的房價在此期間上漲，北達科塔州在2007-2011的上漲幅度更是高達11%。相關文獻目前對此現象沒有相關的研究，而作者對房價在各州變動極度不均勻的現象非常有興趣，故將研究問題定為：是什麼原因造成2000-2011房價在全美50州的變動如此地不均勻？

  作者假設此一期間各州的房價變動不均勻是因為以下三項因素在各州的變動程度不同所致：(一)對房價的不理性預期；(二)貸款審核標準；(三)政治傾向。而為了比較以上三項因素在程度上的差異， 我們必須要先將其量化。

  作者融合投資報酬率的概念與Hicks(1946)與Lange(1948)的期望價格彈性理論，以各州的房貸利率、 租金、 房價，將(一)對房價的不理性預期量化；接著以各州的放款人員就業人數，除以各州的貸款審核人員的就業人數， 將(二)貸款審核標準量化； 最後，以1992-2008的四次總統大選結果將全美50州編碼為1、0、或－1，作為政治傾向的量化變項。
  我們的統計結果告訴我們，房價在2000-2011在全美50州的不均勻變化是由於各州對房價的不理性預期的不同、以及各州對房價前三年變動的認知不同所導致。貸款審核標準雖然可以解釋此一期間的房價變動，然而解釋的強度並不是很強大。政治傾向對房價變動沒有一定的影響，這也駁斥了民主黨州的泡沫程度比共和黨州的來得大這種說法。

US housing bubble varies in the 50 states in terms of housing price. Between 2000-2007, housing price skyrocketed in 7 states, with annual growth rate between 11-13%, whereas the interior states grew at 2-5% annually. Between 2007-2011, housing price plummeted in 4 states with annual falling rate of 9-11%, whereas the interior states fell only 1-4% annually. Moreover, housing prices in North Dakota rose by 11% in the plummeting years of 2007-2011. Literature on housing bubbles generally ignored the regional disparity which we are interested in and therefore set forth our research question as: what has driven the uneven distribution of the US housing bubble in terms of housing price between 2000-2011?
  We firstly assume that the regional disparity was caused by the variances of the following three variables:(1)irrational expectation on housing prices;(2)mortgage underwriting standards;(3)political preferences. In order to compare and contrast the above three variables, we need to quantify them in the first place.
  We merged the notion of capital gains with the theory of expected price elasticity derived from Hick(1946) and Lange(1949) into a single framework and thus quantified (1)irrational expectation on housing prices; we then divided the employees who issue loans by the employees who check and authorize the loans, and got our quantified(2)mortgage underwriting standards; thirdly, we coded the 50 states political preferences as 1,0, or－1, according to their voting records between the 1992-2008 presidential elections. 
  Our panel data regression informs us that the uneven fluctuation of housing prices in the 50 states between 2000-2011 is due to differences in irrational expectation on housing prices among states, as well as differences in recognition of the movements of housing prices in the past three years . Mortgage underwriting standards does explain the movement of housing prices in 2000-2011, however the effect is not so large. Political preferences do not impact housing prices at all; Democratic states do not have more severe bubbles than the Republican states.

第一章 緒論	1
第一節 研究背景	3
第二節 研究動機與研究目的	5
第三節 研究方法	13
第二章 文獻回顧	15
第一節 泡沫與否及泡沫的成因	17
第二節 區域型研究	26
第三章 理論	29
第四章 實證分析	41
第一節 資料出處與處理	43
第二節 模型解說	46
第三節 迴歸結果	49
第五章 結論	61
參考資料	67
附錄	71

 
圖目錄
圖  一 1 全美房價中位數走勢圖(1992-2011) v.s. 5%的自然成長率	4
圖  一 2 全美50州房價漲幅長條圖(2000-2007)	6
圖  一 3 全美50州房價跌幅長條圖(2007-2011)	7
圖  一 4 全美50州房價漲幅地圖(2000-2007)	8
圖  一 5 全美50州房價跌幅地圖(2007-2011)	9
圖  三 1 數量的供給需求與房價關係圖	32
圖  三 2 房地產市場在穩定狀態下的圖形	35
圖  三 3 房市泡沫生成與破滅示意圖	37
表目錄
表格 一 1 對房價傳染力的迴歸分析表擷取	10
表格 二 1 利率浮動式房貸的月付金額與傳統利率固定型房貸之月付金額比較	22
表格 二 2：利率浮動式房貸(ARM)裡非傳統型房貸(Nontraditional Mortgage)的百分比	23
表格 四 1： 迴歸結果一	53
表格 四 2： 迴歸結果二	54
表格 四 3： 迴歸結果三	58
表格 四 4： 迴歸結果四	59
表格 五 1： 全美50州15年房貸利率統計特質	71
表格 五 2： 全美50州30年固定利率統計特質	73
表格 五 3： 全美50州租金統計特質	75
表格 五 4： 全美50州房價統計特質	77

Case, K. E., & Shiller, R. J. (2003). Is There a Bubble in the Housing Market? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2003(2), 299–362.
Committee, J. E. (2008). The Us Housing Bubble and the global financial crisis: housing and housing-related finance. In Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress.
DiMartino, D., & Duca, J. V. (2001). The rise and fall of subprime mortgages. Economic Letter, (Nov). 
Flood, R. P., & Hodrick, R. J. (1990). On testing for speculative bubbles. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(2), 85–101.
Fratantoni, M., & Schuh, S. (2003). Monetary policy, housing, and heterogeneous regional markets. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 35(4), 557–589.
Füss, R., Zhu, B., & Zietz, J. (2011). US Regional Housing Bubbles, Their Co-Movements and Spillovers. Available at SSRN 1882284. 
Glaeser, Edward L., Joshua D. Gottlieb, and Joseph Gyourko (2010), “Can Cheap Credit Explain the Housing Boom?”, NBER working paper 16230.
Kohn, J., & Bryant, S. K. (2010). Modeling the US housing bubble: an econometric analysis. Research in Business and Economics Journal, 2. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.comwww.aabri.com/manuscripts/09381.pdf
Levittin, A. J., & Wachter, S. M. (2012). Explaining the Housing Bubble. Georgetown Law Journal, 100(4), 1177–1258.
Mayer, C., & Quigley, J. M. (2003). [Is There a Bubble in the Housing Market?]. Comments and Discussion. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2003(2), 343–362. doi:10.2307/1209197
McCarthy, J., & Peach, R. (2004). Are home prices the next bubble? Economic Policy Review, 10(3). 
Myers, D., & Ryu, S. H. (2008). Aging baby boomers and the generational housing bubble: Foresight and mitigation of an epic transition. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(1), 17–33.
Nneji, O., Brooks, C., & Ward, C. (2012). Speculative Bubble Spillovers Across Regional Housing Markets. Available at SSRN 1992587. 
Schintler, L., & Istrate, E. (2011). Tracking the Housing Bubble Across Metropolitan Areas–A Spatio-Temporal Comparison of House Price Indices. Cityscape, 13(1), 165.
Smith, M. H., & Smith, G. (2006). Bubble, Bubble, Where’s the Housing Bubble? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2006(1), 1–50. doi:10.2307/3805094
Thornton, M. (2006). The Economics of Housing Bubbles By Mark Thornton. Retrieved from https://jollygreengiant.austrianforum.com/journals/scholar/Thornton13.pdf
Wheaton, W. C., & Nechayev, G. (2008). The 1998-2005 Housing “Bubble” and the current “Correction”: What’s Different This Time? Journal of Real Estate Research, 30(1), 1–26.