北京市各行政区交界处出现两端住宅单价迥然的情形。此种现象从学术角度而言，即为房地产市场的市场分割现象，并表现为区一级行政辖区带来的边界效应。同时，邻近城区之间经济发展差距越大，公共物品供给水平越悬殊，其边界效应越明显，可见Tiebout效应或是其内在主要原因，即地方公共服务的资本化效应。本文基于北京市交易房源数据，以精确断点回归方法量化北京市内城区对房地产市场的边界效应，并印证地方公共服务资本化是其内在主要原因。

本文的主要结论为：（1）北京市房地产市场内部确实存在市场分割， 且区一级行政边界对房价有显著的边界效应，例如海淀房价比丰台高出12.5%；朝阳房价比昌平高出14.4%。（2）发展差距较大的邻近行政区之间边界效应较大；发展相近的行政区之间的边界效应较小，印证了Tiebout效应是房地产市场分割的主要原因，即行政区划对房价的边界效应可通过其公共物品供给数量和质量的差异来解释。

There exists big difference of housing prices across the administrative boundary of neighboring districts within Beijing. This phenomenon, viewed from academic aspect, is  market segmentation of real estate, and shown as the boundary effect of districts within the city. Besides, the greater the gap of economic deveopment between neighboring districts, which means the wider difference in public good supply, the more significant the boundary effect presents. This implies that Tiebout effect might be the inner reason, in other words, the capitalization effect of local public services. This paper, using regression discontinuity design, aims to quantify the boundary effect of districts on housing market and prove the capitalization of local public goods is the inner mechanism.

This paper first presents the literature review, which is illustrated from three aspects: the capitalization of local public services, the real estate market segmentation and boundary effect of administrative districts, the regression discontinuity design and capitalization of school-district housing. With such theory and research basis, the paper adopts sharp regression discontinuity design to do data analysis，using non-parametric and parametric estimation to check the significance of boundary coefficient and doing robustness tests.

The main conclusions are：(1)There do exist market segmentation within Beijing real estate market, and administrative districts within the city do have significant boundary effect on housing prices. In specific, the housing price in Haidian District is higher than Fengtai District, roughly 12.5%; while the housing price in Chaoyang District is higher than Changping District, about 14,4%. (2) The greater the gap of development of neighboring districts, the more significant the boundary effect is. This result proves that Tiebout effect is main reason of market segmentation. In other words, the boundary effect of districts can be explained by the difference of quantity and quality of supplied public goods .

Black, & S., E. . (1999). Do better schools matter? parental valuation of elementary education. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2), 577-599.

Gibbons, S. , Machin, S. , & Silva, O. . (2013). Valuing school quality using boundary discontinuities. Journal of Urban Economics, 75(Complete), 15-28.

Luttik, J. . (2000). The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3-4), 161-167.

Li Xun, F. W. . (2010). Investigation of the capitalization of municipal government infrastructure investment on housing market: hedonic model based on guangzhou housing price data. Geographical Research, 29(7), 1269-1280.

Schnare, A. B. , & Struyk, R. J. . (1976). Segmentation in urban housing markets. Journal of Urban Economics, 3(2), 0-166.

Tiebout, C. M. . (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416-424.

Tu, Y. , Sun, H. , & Yu, S. M. . (2007). Spatial autocorrelations and urban housing market segmentation. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 34(3), 385-406.

Oates, & Wallace, E. . (1969). The effects of property taxes and local public spending on property values: an empirical study of tax capitalization and the tiebout hypothesis. Journal of Political Economy, 77(6), 957-971.

董娜. (2018). 影响房价的政治因素分析. (Doctoral dissertation).

杜雪君. (2009). 房地产税对房价的影响机理与实证分析. (Doctoral dissertation, 浙江大学).

邓慧慧, 虞义华, & 龚铭. (2013). 空间溢出视角下的财政分权、公共服务与住宅价格. 财经研究(4), 48-56.

范今朝. (2018). “行政区经济”理论的核心涵义与模型表达. 科学经济社会, v.36；No.151(02), 67-74.

李郇, & 符文颖. (2010). 城市政府基础设施投资在住宅市场的资本化考察——基于广州价格数据的hedonic模型构建. 地理研究, 29(7).

黄新飞, 舒元, & 郑华懋. (2013). 中国城市边界效应下降了吗?——基于一价定律的研究. 经济学(季刊), 12(4), 1369-1386.

黄新飞, 陈珊珊, & 李腾. (2014). 价格差异、市场分割与边界效应——基于长三角15个城市的实证研究. 经济研究(12), 18-32.

洪国志, & 李郇. (2011). 基于房地产价格空间溢出的广州城市内部边界效应. 地理学报, 66(4), 468-476.

行伟波, & 李善同. (2009). 本地偏好、边界效应与市场一体化——基于中国地区间增值税流动数据的实证研究. 经济学(季刊), 8(4), 1455-1474.

贾素伟. (2014). 土地财政及地方公共支出与房价关系实证研究. (Doctoral dissertation).

吉丹俊. (2017). 断点回归设计国内外研究综述. 无锡商业职业技术学院学报(03), 30-34.

鞠方, 林辉叶, & 周建军. (2013). 土地出让收入、地方财政支出对我国房价影响的区域差异性研究. 财经理论与实践, 34(1), 77-81.

金太军. (2007). 从行政区行政到区域公共管理——政府治理形态嬗变的博弈分析. 中国社会科学(6).

况伟大. (2005). 房价与地价关系研究:模型及中国数据检验. 财贸经济(11).

梁若冰, & 汤韵. (2008). 地方公共品供给中的tiebout模型:基于中国城市房价的经验研究. 世界经济(10), 71-83.

刘汤娜. (2015). 经济集聚与房价的空间差异性研究. (Doctoral dissertation).

李祥, 高波, & 李勇刚. (2012). 房地产税收、公共服务供给与房价——基于省际面板数据的实证分析. 财贸研究(3), 67-75.

邵挺, & 袁志刚. (2010). 土地供应量、地方公共品供给与住宅价格水平——基于tiebout效应的一项扩展研究. 南开经济研究(3).

宋勃, & 高波. (2007). 房价与地价关系的因果检验:1998-2006. 当代经济科学, 29(1).

王丰龙, & 张传勇. (2017). 行政区划调整对大城市房价的影响研究. 地理研究(5).

余静文, & 王春超. (2011). 新“拟随机实验”方法的兴起——断点回归及其在经济学中的应用. 经济学动态(2), 125-131.

周京奎, & 吴晓燕. (2008). 公共投资规模、居民支付意愿与住宅价格走势——基于中国30省市截面数据的实证检验. 财贸研究, 19(6).