春節到來一周前，中國央行突然宣布，首次購買普通性住房的商業性個人住房貸款首付比例由25%降至20%，以提振房產市場。這項新規面向所有不實施“限購”措施的城市，即北京、深圳和廣州等住房需求強勁的少數城市不適用。政策出臺的背景是中國一線城市和非一線城市之間房地產市場冷熱不均，但新政可能不會產生巨大影響。

與此同時，中國各地的大興土木仍在持續。據《華盛頓郵報》報道，2011-2013年，中國消耗水泥約64億噸，比美國整個20世紀的消耗量還多。如果說日本讓世人見識到了怎樣可以盡量減少庫存，造完剛好能用上，那么，中國則掌握了先造了再說，造完再想怎么辦的絕技。改革開放三十年來，中國經濟在保持兩位數的高增長的同時，也在大力興修房產，每年新增房屋面積是香港總面積的兩倍多，如今，這臺高速發展的機器上裂痕隱現。

路透社報道稱，中國已有1300萬套空置房。在人稱“鬼城”的城市里，大量新建的購物中心、中央廣場、體育館、風格前衛的行政大樓、豪華公寓、別墅一應俱全，可就是空無一人。去年，西安一棟占地3.7萬平米的27層高樓被爆破拆除然后清理干凈，因為該建筑長期空置，已無法修繕。

鑒于中國五分之一的經濟活動都與房產市場息息相關，現狀讓人更加擔憂。樓市下滑的影響面極廣。2015年，中國制造工程機械與環衛設備的龍頭企業中聯重科凈利潤銳減90%。同年，由于市場下滑，15家中國房地產企業均報虧損。據《華爾街日報》報道，就在春節前，標準普爾將中國首富王健林旗下的大連萬達商業地產的信用評級降為垃圾級，惠譽則將該司的評級降至BBB級，僅比垃圾級高兩級。

對中國房產市場而言，減少供應至關重要，但政策上并不明確。一線城市的房價已經反彈，非一線城市的房價集體下跌。中國消費者在痛苦中明白了房屋所在地的重要性。一座有活力的城市需要活躍的經濟活動和足夠規模的人口才能維系。要素具備時，房價才會上漲，但在中國必要要素只集中在極少數城市里。

中國政府長期管控利率、首付比例和稅率，并實行限購政策，以便或抑制或刺激房產市場。2014年下半年以來，中國房地產領域沒有受到任何束縛，包括六次降息在內的所有舉措都在刺激樓市。大家都在猜測，在吸引潛在買家進入小城市購房方面，最近這輪刺激能起多大作用?？蓻Q策者面臨的真正問題是，房地產市場的“病根”未除，而且越發深入。

早在2005-2010年，地方政府就在定期向開發商出售地皮，開發商從銀行得到貸款開發地塊后，以相對較高的價格賣給個人投資者。在這一過程中，地方政府獲取了亟需的收入，地方GDP從而增長，官員獲得了政績，為當地創造了就業，人人都得到物質回報。然后，大家不斷重復這一過程?？墒聦嵶C明，整個體系在實現“居者有其屋”的政策目標以及投資回報方面，效率極低。

澳大利亞聯邦銀行一位分析師向美國財經科技新聞網站Business Insider表示，近年來，中國的三四線城市的新建住宅占全國新增總量的80%-90%。國有銀行對房產開發商大開綠燈慷慨融資，卻對其他領域的私人企業和地方實業的融資需求視而不見，導致資金幾近斷流。中國早已決意改變投資拉動經濟增長的模式，轉而向消費驅動、科技帶動的知識型經濟，可現行系統卻在起反作用。

對中國的中產階級而言，經濟疲弱只會造成生活不便?？蓪?000萬在貧困線上掙扎的人口來說，生活水平哪怕只有小幅下降，也可能是一場不折不扣的災難——足以引發社會動亂。GDP增速跌至創最低記錄的6.9%之際，中國已別無選擇，只能增加刺激力度。若要避免經濟受到進一步沖擊，微調不可避免，但全面深化經濟改革才是更緊迫的。(財富中文網)

作者Howard Yu是瑞士IMD商學院戰略管理與創新領域教授。

譯者：Pessy

Just a week before the Chinese New Year, China’s central bank cut the minimum mortgage down payment for first-time buyers from 25% to 20%, as it sought to shore up the property market. The new rules apply to all but a handful of cities—such as Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou—where demand remains strong. It’s a tale of two tiers of cities, and one that likely won’t have a huge impact.

Construction is everywhere in China. Between 2011 and 2013, China consumed around 6.4 gigatons of cement, according to The Washington Post—more than what the United States used during the course of the 20th century. If Japan taught the world just-in-time production, where inventory should be minimized, China has mastered just-in-case construction—build now and figure out what to do with it later. In its ferocious race to modernity, with three decades of double-digit growth, China has built enough floor space to cover Hong Kong twice over every year. And now, cracks are beginning to show.

There are 13 million vacant homes in China, according to Reuters. Known as “China’s ghost cities,” there is an abundance of newly built urban areas complete with shopping malls, central squares, stadiums, avant-garde administrative buildings, luxurious condos, and villas—everything except people. In the city of Xi’an last year, a never-used 27-floor high-rise that covered 37,000 square meters was blown up and cleared away because it had been left vacant for too long and deteriorated beyond repair.

This is all the more disturbing, given that one-fifth of China’s economic activities are related to the property market. The consequences are many. Zoomlion, the country’s leading construction machinery and sanitation equipment maker, announced a 90% net profit drop in 2015. Fifteen Chinese real estate companies projected a loss for 2015 due to the recent market slowdown. Wanda Commercial Properties, whose founder was until recently China’s richest man, was downgraded last week by Standard and Poor’s to junk bond status, and by Fitch Ratings to “BBB,” hovering two notches above junk bond status, according to The Wall Street Journal.

While reducing China’s housing supply is crucial, it is anything but straightforward. Prices havebounced back in top-tier cities, while dropping in all of those below. Buyers have learned the importance of location the hard way. A viable city needs vibrant economic activity and a sizable population to sustain itself. Price increases, when they occur, tend to be concentrated in a small segment of Chinese markets.

Chinese authorities have long manipulated interest rates and down payment requirements, played with tax rates, and imposed purchase restrictions to either curb or spur the property market. From the second half of 2014 onward, there’s been no hampering of the real estate sector—all moves have been stimulus-oriented, including a six-fold reduction of interest rates. How successful this latest round will be to lure potential buyers into rural cities is anyone’s guess. But the real problem for policymakers is that the root causes of China’s real estate disease run much deeper.

As early as the second half of the 2000s, municipal governments have routinely handed over land to developers. Developers would then receive loans from banks to develop the land. Individual investors bought housing units at inflated prices. In the process, local government pocketed much-needed revenue, local GDP grew, politicians got patted on the back, jobs were created, and everyone made money so the wheels kept turning. But the system has proved to be extremely inefficient at building what is actually needed and yielding return on investment.

In recent years, tier 3 and 4 cities accounted for 80% to 90% of total new construction, an analyst at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia tells Business Insider. With state-owned banks indiscriminately channeling financial resources to property developers, other types of private enterprises and local businesses have been starved of capital. The Chinese government has long been adamant about transforming the nation from an investment-focused to a consumption-driven, technologically-advanced, knowledge-based economy. The current system encourages exactly the opposite.

For China’s middle class, a weakening economy is a mere inconvenience. For the 70 million people who live in abject poverty, a small contraction in living standards could be an utter disaster—enough to trigger social unrest. With overall GDP growth grinding to a record low of 6.9%, the Chinese government has had no choice but to inject more stimulus.This temporary tweak to avoid deeper shocks is needed without a doubt. But the urgency for broader economic reforms is needed even more.

Howard Yu is a professor of strategic management and innovation at IMD, a business school based in Lausanne, Switzerland.