Ghost city Ordos, file photo

　　Although many of the listed cities immediately issued explanations completely contrary to the "ghost city" claims, the large amount of data and images still shows people another side of the real estate boom.

　　As a pillar industry of China's economy, the real estate sector's contribution to economic development is almost beyond doubt. Massive capital investment has made the real estate industry an important component of local GDP growth; the industry's extensive linkages have driven the prosperity and development of steel, cement, building materials, textiles and many other sectors; and more importantly, huge land transfer fees have become a major source of fiscal revenue for many local governments. Precisely because of this, the real estate industry is not only an important driving force behind China's growing economic development, but also an important lever for regulating the direction and pace of the macroeconomy.

　　However, reliance on the real estate industry has also fostered a serious path dependence among many local governments in developing local economies and expanding fiscal revenue. The development model formed under this dependence has put the real estate market on a path that seems to rise in a straight line forever. Looking back over the past 10 years, while the real estate industry developed rapidly, commercial housing prices surged ahead; even though there were multiple rounds of real estate regulation with strong central government intervention during this period, the reality that housing prices only rise and never fall remained unchanged.

　　In 2013, China's macroeconomy slowed for two consecutive quarters, with an obvious downward trend under pressure, yet at the same time the real estate industry remained a standout performer. According to statistics from the National Bureau of Statistics, although there were slight fluctuations, national real estate development investment maintained year-on-year growth of more than 20% for five consecutive months. At the same time, the national real estate climate index rose steadily to 97.29%, and the growth rate of funds available to real estate enterprises in the current year reversed the low growth of around 10% in the second half of last year, exceeding 30% for half a year in a row.

　　In addition, the land market, which best reflects expectations for the housing market, has also heated up significantly recently. Not only have first-tier cities frequently reported "land kings," but enthusiasm for both selling and buying land has risen across the country. The growth rate of land purchased by real estate development enterprises has narrowed from a year-on-year decline of 22% at the beginning of the year to a current year-on-year decline of 10.4%.

　　History seems to be repeating itself: making money by selling land and driving GDP with real estate investment. This "fastest-acting" development model has once again become a habitual path dependence for many local governments. But this time, can real estate still be the "last straw" to save local economies and finances? The emergence of "ghost cities" seems to be a warning: do not ignore the bubble behind the rapid development of real estate, and do not assume that property can only be an asset and never a "negative asset."

　　The "ghost city" claims may be somewhat exaggerated, but it must be acknowledged that one-sided reliance on real estate is not only unhelpful to the healthy and stable development of the real estate industry itself, but also cannot serve as a long-term driving force for sustained local economic growth. Freeing economic development from over-reliance on real estate is also an opportunity to adjust the economic structure and transform the development model.