根据国家规定，住房公积金，是指国家机关、国有企业、城镇集体企业、城镇私营企业及其他城镇企业、事业单位、在职职工等缴存的长期住房储金。那么大家都知道住房公积金的资金在中国住房发展中起到的作用吗?随便吧社保网小编为大家整理了中英文对照版的外文文献。供大家参考。
住房公积金的资金在中国住房发展中起到的作用
1.引言
住房制度改革已经成为80年代中期中国城市整体经济改革的重要组成部分。
自1949年以来，中国作为一个社会主义国家，采取了福利分房制度，生产，分配和维修住房一直是相关单位的责任。不像一个单纯的雇主，工作单位提供的福利的几乎所有方面，包括住房，医疗和教育。这种情况下在80年代中期发生了变化时，住房制度改革在中国各大城市展开。早在上世纪70年代末，中国决定在社会主义计划经济内通过促进市场机制选择经济改革。经济改革进展顺利，并逐步扩大到其他非生产部门。到了80年代中期，国有企业/单位开始摆脱他们的福利责任，并专注于生产活动。这一发展的一个关键部分是具有改变住房提供就业福利相关的经济改革。
中国的工资仍然非常低，因为政府和工作单位提供大量补贴和社会福利给员工。需要经济改革时，这些补贴和福利可能被逐步取消。1998年，中国国务院总理朱镕基提出，住房市场将在中国经济改革中成为一个先行者部门。随着工资结构的改革,人们会提供更好的薪酬,以换取照顾自己的住房需求。在上海年人均实际收入在整个20世纪90年代有500%上升。最高收入者会在同一时期上升700%。人们的期望是，工人的收入水平普遍提高，政府帮助他们购买，而不是依赖于工作单位的员工宿舍自己的单位。这些改革的结果改变了住房从一种社会福利到一个私人商品。
国家自1988年，向市场颁布了一系列旨在为提供住房责任的房改政策，通过出售国有企业拥有的住房单位的工作单位，各种计划得以进行实施。然而，回答却没有如预期没有那么好。关键的原因是因为承受能力的城市居民和商品住房.在公平性分配中的不匹配，住房单位仍然由国有企业进行，这让房改更多的分配给工人难以实施。经过多年的零零碎碎的城市住房制度改革，中国政府通过了一项总的政策方向，城镇住房制度改革，需要的责任移交给国家到市场来房屋提供。在1990年代后期的主要重点是转向到购房者提供财政援助的运作水平。与先前在新加坡通过了住房公积金( HPF )计划相关联的原则，中国政府认为新加坡住房公积金这种政策适用于中国国情。
2.在中国城市中的HPF计划
1991年初，上海市委市政府建立了自己的HPF计划，并随后推出了房改政策，1991年5月在房屋改革方案的提出五个关键政策措施：
(一)实施HPF计划;
(二)提高租金和工资补贴;
(三)那些谁分配住房的人被要求购买住房债券;
(四)承租人有折扣购买国有住房;
(五)建立住房委员会。
HPF将被采纳为上海整体住房制度改革的核心组件，它提供了一个基本的和长期的手段，以满足工人的住房需求没有国家补贴。根据上海公积金管理中心，要达成引入HPF的三个主要目标：
(一)促进住房从福利到商品化的转化;
(二)财务支持，以增加住房的生产，并满足居住条件差这些家庭的的住房需求;
(三)建立住房制度，国家，单位和个人将联合起来，以供房屋发展提供资金。
上海是中国第一个实行将HPF作为金融工具的城市，住房制度改革，其中包括一种强制储蓄员工的一种形式。它把在上海所有雇主和雇员按照要求按月到员工工资账户，在HPF贡献的员工的百分比。最初的百分比定为5%，其后上升至7%，1999年，本计划的积蓄都存放在由上海住房公积金管理中心和使用基金仅限于提供贷款给企业，用于建屋指定银行;提供贷款直接向工人从私人房屋市场购买自己的房屋;并向企业或大型房屋维修工程的个别住户提供融资。
自1991年实施，HPF计划在上海已被普遍视为成功，它提供了一个榜样，其他城市很快效仿采用类似HPF方案。在上海HPF计划延续到20世纪90年代迅速发展。到2002年底，住房公积金计划在上海累计总金额为人民币57.773十亿。在2002年，上海HPF累计人民币10.942十亿，比2001年高出17.7%。
3.HPF计划的管理
在上海HPF计划旨在成为永久性的政策，因此至关重要的是，该基金计划的足够和适当的管理必须很到位，在HPF计划的管理和运作中遵循了三项准则：
(1) 个人储蓄辅之以工作单位补贴;
(2) 在一个单一的机构管理;
(3) 仅用于指定的房屋用途。
该准则规定，无论是从国有企业和民营/合资企业雇主与雇员建立并有助于HPF。预计非国有企业将迅速增加，当中国成为世界贸易组织(WTO)的成员，从而允许外国投资者在中国经营自己的企业。因此，住房公积金政策将成为融资的住房生产和消费为国有和非国有工人的重要来源。
HPF的操作基本上有三个组成部分：
(1)房屋委员会负责住宅在城市规划。
(2)公积金管理中心负责基金的运作和管理的机构，根据职责不同的方法会有所不同。
(3)指定专用银行
资金是存放在由公积金管理中心选定一家银行中。中国的人民银行负责对适用于HPF利率的决定，同时施工和财政部部负责监督该计划的战略和国家层面。在地方一级，房屋委员会决定政策与管理中心和协会指定银行负责对HPF的日常运作。
1.Introduction
Housing reform has been a crucial component of the overall economic reforms in urban China from the mid-1980s. Since 1949, China as a socialist country, has adopted a welfare housing system where the production, allocation and maintenance of housing has been the responsibility of the relevant work unit . Unlike a mere employer, the work unit provided al-most all aspects of welfare including housing, medical care and education. This scenario has changed in the mid-1980s when housing reform was initiated in major Chinese cities. As early as the late 1970s,China decided to opt for economic reform by promoting market mechanisms within its socialist planned economy. The economic reform progressed well and gradually expanded to other no production sectors. By the mid-1980s, state enterprises/work units began to shed their welfare responsibilities and concentrate on production activities. A crucial part of this development was economic reform associated with the removal of housing provision as employment welfare.
Wages in China remained very low because the government and work units provided heavy subsidies and social welfare to their employees. Economic reform required that these subsidies and welfare could be gradually abolished. In 1998, Zhu Rongji, Premier of the Chi-nese State Council, proposed that the housing market would be a pioneer sector in the Chinese economy. Along with the reform of wage structures, people would be provided with better pay in exchange for taking care of their own housing needs. As shown in Table 1, the annual ac-tual income per capita in Shanghai increased throughout the 1990s by 500%. The highest in-come group experienced a 700% increase during the same period. The expectation was that the general increase in the income level of workers would help them to purchase their own flats, instead of relying on the work units for staff quarters. The outcome of these reforms changed housing from a kind of social welfare to a private commodity.
A series of housing reform policies aimed at transferring the responsibility for housing provision from the State to the market have been proposed since 1988. Various plans were implemented to sell housing units owned by the state enterprises work units to ‘tenants’. However, responses were not as good as expected. The critical reason for this was because of a mismatch between affordability to urban dwellers and the price level of the commodity housing. In addition, housing units were still being allocated to the workers by state-owned enterprises(SOEs), which made housing reform more difficult to implement. After years of piecemeal urban housing reform, the Chinese Government adopted a general policy direction for urban housing reform that required the transfer of responsibility for housing provision from the State to the market. The main focus in the late 1990s was a shift to the operation lev-el of providing financial assistance to the homebuyers. The principles associated with a
Housing Provident Fund (HPF) Scheme previously adopted in Singapore, were considered by the Chinese Government and deemed to be applicable to China.
2.The HPF Scheme in urban China
In early 1991, the Shanghai municipal government established its own HPF Scheme and subsequently introduced its housing reform policy in May, 1991. There were five key policy measures under the housing reform program:
(a) Implement the HPF Scheme;
(b) Increase rents and replace by wage subsidies;
(c) Those who were allocated housing were required to purchase housing bonds; (d) Tenants can purchase state-owned housing at discount rates; and (e) Establish housing committees.
The HPF was adopted as the core component of the overall housing reform in Shanghai and it provided a fundamental and long term means to meet the housing needs of the workers without State subsidy. According to the Shanghai Provident Fund Management Centre, there were three main objectives of introducing the HPF:
(a) Provision of an effective means to promote the transformation of housing from wel-fare to commodity;
(b) Financial support to increase housing production and to meet the housing need of those families in poor living conditions; and
(c) The establishment of a housing system under which the State, work units and indi-viduals would join together to provide finance for housing development.
Shanghai was the first Chinese city to implement the HPF Scheme as a financial tool for housing reform that included a form of compulsory saving by employees . All employers and employees in Shanghai were required to contribute a percentage of the employees’ salaries on a monthly basis to the’ employees’ account’’ in the HPF. Initially the percentage was set at 5% and subsequently increased to 7% in 1999. The savings under this Scheme were deposited in banks designated by the Shanghai Housing Provident Management Centre and the use of the fund was restricted to provide loans to enterprises for housing production; provision of loans directly to workers to purchase their own flats from the private housing market; and the pro-vision of finance to enterprises or individual households for major housing repair works.
Since its implementation in 1991, the HPF Scheme has generally been regarded as suc-cessful in Shanghai, and it has provided a role model for other cities that soon followed suit by adopting similar HPF schemes. The HPF scheme in Shanghai continued to develop rapidly during the 1990s. By the end of 2002, the total amount of HPF accumulated in Shanghai was RMB 57.773 billion. During the year of 2002, the Shanghai HPF accumulated RMB 10.942 billion, which was 17.7% higher than 2001.
3.Management of the HPF
The Shanghai HPF Scheme is intended to be permanent and it is therefore essential that adequate and proper management of the Fund Scheme is in place. The management and oper-ation of the HPF Scheme followed three guidelines:
1. Individual savings complemented by work unit subsidy;
2. Administration under a single authority;
3. Used for specified housing purposes only.
The guidelines require that both the employers and the employees from SOEs and pri-vate/joint venture companies set up and contribute to the HPF. It is expected that the non-state owned enterprises will increase rapidly when China becomes a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) thus allowing foreign investors to run their own businesses in China. Hence the HPF will become an important source of finance for housing production and con-sumption for both the state-owned and non-state owned workers.
There are basically three components in the operation of the HPF:
1. Housing Committee The body responsible for the planning of residential housing in the city.
2. Provident Fund Management Centre the body responsible for the operation and man-agement of the Fund. Responsibilities vary under different approaches.
3. Designated Banks
Funds are deposited in a bank selected by the Provident Fund Management Centre. The People’s Bank of China is responsible for the determination of interest rates applicable to HPF, while the Ministry of Construction and Ministry of Finance are responsible for overseeing the Scheme at strategic and national levels. At the local level, Housing Committees determine policies in association with Management Centers and designated banks are responsible for the daily operation of the HPF.
