This study uses the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) as its data source and examines journal articles concerning China’s Housing Provident Fund system. The search was conducted on 22 August 2026 using only the Chinese term for “Housing Provident Fund” in the Subject field, with Exact matching and Academic Journals selected. The Peking University Core and CSSCI filters were checked simultaneously in the same search. No publication-year restriction was applied; the retained records cover 1994-2026. All seven subject categories were manually selected: “Housing Provident Fund,” “Housing Provident Fund system,” “Housing Provident Fund management,” “housing system reform,” “housing security,” “Provident Fund,” and “Housing Provident Fund loans.”

The author manually screened the literature by reading the abstract sections of the exported TXT files in RefWorks format and excluding articles that were not strongly related to the Housing Provident Fund. The retained dataset consists of 368 articles from the CNKI export files. Because the pre-screening export files and record-level exclusion log are no longer available, the actual initial retrieval total and the numbers excluded at each screening stage cannot be reconstructed; therefore, no numerical screening flow is reported. A check of the combination of title, author, journal, and analysis year found no identical combinations among the 368 retained articles. This check establishes uniqueness within the retained dataset under the stated rule, rather than reconstructing the historical deduplication procedure. The retained records came from a single search with both the Peking University Core and CSSCI journal filters selected, rather than from separate exports for the two journal lists that were subsequently merged.

Annual publication output and the distributions of journals, authors, and institutions were calculated using AI tools based on the 368 articles. Each article is counted once under its publication year and journal. Authors and institutions are counted on a full-counting basis: each listed author and each distinct institution is counted once per article. University departments and research centers are grouped under their parent universities, while other institutions retain their recorded names where possible. Articles with missing author or institutional information remain in the dataset but are excluded from the corresponding counts. Table 1 was recalculated directly from the original keyword fields of these articles. Each identical Chinese keyword is counted at most once per article, and all keywords occurring in at least four articles are listed after excluding the search term “Housing Provident Fund.”

Supplementary Dataset S1 lists all 368 articles, including their titles, authors, journals, publication years, keywords, institutions, and funding information. The original bibliographic fields are preserved, and the analysis year used for descriptive statistics is listed separately. One article lacks a year in the exported record; its year for the annual statistics was supplemented as 2026 based on the author’s profile on the university website, and the source is recorded in the supplementary material. The count for 2026 represents retrieved articles, rather than total publication output for the full year. Author and institutional information is missing for 7 and 34 records, respectively. The export files contain no available funding information, which is labeled “not available” in the supplementary material; this does not mean that these articles received no funding.

Maps in Figures 1-4 were generated in CiteSpace 7.0.R0 after excluding the exact Chinese search term for “Housing Provident Fund”. The converted input contains the same 368 titles, in the same order, as the retained CNKI exports. However,

Figure 1.Keyword co-occurrence map.

Figure 2. Keyword cluster map.

Figure 3.Keyword bursts.

Figure 4.Keyword cluster timeline map.

the record with a missing original year was assigned 1900 during conversion and therefore falls outside the mapped interval. Figures 1-4 consequently use the 367 records with converted years within 1994-2026; this differs from the 368-record descriptive corpus, in which that year was supplemented as 2026. The final map headers specify one-year slices and g-index selection with k = 25, LRF = 2.5, L/N = 10, LBY = 5, and e = 1.0. Keyword is the node type; the saved configuration enables title, abstract, author-keyword, and Keywords Plus term-source options. All three network views (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 4) use Pathfinder pruning. The final network contains 320 nodes and 321 links. Burst strengths and intervals are taken from the saved burst output, but the numerical sensitivity and minimum-duration settings were not archived and cannot be reported reliably.

For the mapping analysis, the complete term “Housing Provident Fund” was added to the stopword list, while the original bibliographic fields in Supplementary Dataset S1 remain unchanged. The shorter term “Provident Fund” and other longer expressions with different meanings were retained. “Migrant population,” “rural migrant workers,” and “new-generation rural migrant workers” refer to different groups and were therefore retained separately.

Annual publication output is an important indicator of the attention a research field receives. Figure 5 presents the distribution of publication years in the sample. Overall, Housing Provident Fund research has progressed through “initial development—fluctuating growth—fluctuations at a high level—decline and adjustment,” rather than showing sustained growth. This pattern can be considered alongside the field’s strong policy orientation and changes in research topics around key milestones in housing system reform.

Figure 5. Annual publication output in housing provident fund research, 1994-2026.

Specifically, 6 articles were published in 1994, followed by growth during 1996-1997, reaching 18 in 1997. This period followed the nationwide introduction of the Housing Provident Fund under the State Council’s 1994 Decision on Deepening Urban Housing System Reform. Output fell to 3 articles in 1998, with no articles recorded in 1999, before recovering to 1 in 2000 and 4 in 2001. It rose again with fluctuations during 2002-2007 and was generally higher during 2008-2017, with 19 articles in 2008, 17 in 2013, 20 in 2014, 23 in 2015, and a peak of 25 in 2017. This period coincided with large-scale affordable housing construction following the global financial crisis, the 2010 pilot program using Housing Provident Fund loans to support affordable housing construction, and policy agendas around 2015 such as revising the Regulations on the Administration of the Housing Provident Fund and reducing real estate inventories. Debates over institutional attributes, equity, and whether to retain the system intensified during this period. Publication output generally declined after 2018, with 9 articles in 2020, 11 in 2022, 11 in 2024, and 5 and 4 in 2025 and 2026, respectively (the 2026 count includes online-first articles and covers the retrieved records only, rather than full-year publication output).

Although publication output generally declined after 2018, research content also changed. Compared with the early emphasis on system operation and management, empirical studies at the individual and household levels gradually increased after 2015, with greater attention to the mechanisms through which the Housing Provident Fund operates and its effects on different groups. This shift is broadly consistent with the visual results of the CiteSpace keyword burst and research hotspot analyses presented below.

Based on the stages of publication output and institutional milestones, this study broadly divides Housing Provident Fund research from 1994 to 2026 into five stages.

3.2.1. System Establishment and Operational Exploration (1994-1999)

The State Council’s 1994 Decision on Deepening Urban Housing System Reform explicitly proposed establishing the Housing Provident Fund system, facilitating its gradual introduction nationwide. With the promulgation of the Regulations on the Administration of the Housing Provident Fund in 1999, relatively uniform rules began to govern contributions, withdrawals, use, and management. Thus, 1994-1999 can be regarded as a stage of establishment and operational exploration, during which the system moved from nationwide rollout toward standardized management. The literature primarily addressed implementation issues in the early stages of comprehensive housing reform, focusing on deposit and lending interest rate policies, contribution collection, management models, and financial accounting. Interest rates were a central point of debate: most cities adopted low deposit and lending rates, while only a few, including Beijing, adopted high deposit and lending rates. The appropriate level of these rates became a core issue ([11]). Whether employer contributions should be included in costs was also explicitly debated ([28]). Methodologically, research in this period mainly employed normative analysis and policy discussion, emphasizing institutional design and summaries of practical experience; econometric studies based on microdata remained uncommon. Singapore’s Central Provident Fund was also widely used as an international reference during this period ([44]).

3.2.2. Standardization of Practices and Fund Security (2000-2008)

As the scale of the Housing Provident Fund expanded in the early 21st century, research shifted toward practical matters such as accounting, audit oversight, fund security, contribution collection, and lending operations. Many articles appeared in accounting, finance, and auditing journals, and their authors were often frontline staff from Housing Provident Fund management centers, audit authorities, and corporate finance departments. Quantitative research remained sporadic, including estimates of the contribution of the Housing Provident Fund in selected cities ([45]) and VaR-based modeling of Housing Provident Fund investment portfolios ([32]). Meanwhile, institutional attributes and regulatory issues began to attract attention ([50]), while audit findings revealed problems such as fund diversion and misappropriation and insufficient oversight capacity ([8]). Overall, research in this period focused mainly on standardized operation, fund security, and value preservation and appreciation, with relatively little discussion of equity or whether the system should be retained.

3.2.3. Growing Emphasis on Housing Security and Reconsideration of Equity (2008-2015)

Following the 2008 global financial crisis, China expanded affordable housing construction and proposed pilot programs to use the Housing Provident Fund for housing construction. After 2009, policies supporting affordable housing construction through Housing Provident Fund loans were introduced successively, bringing further attention to the system’s housing security function. Against this background, research during 2008-2015 gradually shifted from system operation to housing security and equity. As housing prices rose and demand for housing security increased, some studies found that the system’s protective effects differed across income groups, with higher-income groups potentially receiving greater benefits. These findings prompted debate over institutional equity ([54]; [52]; [4]). Scholars subsequently proposed alternative reform approaches, including replacement, restructuring, and improvement, and explored the possibility of establishing policy-based housing finance institutions ([47]). Research methods also began to move from policy and theoretical analysis toward quantitative approaches, including DEA and Tobit models. Nevertheless, studies still concentrated largely on individual cities or single periods, with relatively limited use of nationwide and longitudinal data.

3.2.4. Debate over Retention or Abolition and the Development of Micro-Level Empirical Research (2015-2020)

Around 2015, policies governing the use of the Housing Provident Fund were adjusted frequently, and revisions to the Regulations on the Administration of the Housing Provident Fund were initiated. These adjustments addressed withdrawal conditions, loan use, fund-use efficiency, and system operation, drawing greater attention to the system’s functional role and reform direction. Against this background, research during 2015-2020 involved concentrated debate over retention or abolition and reform direction, while gradually shifting toward empirical analysis based on microdata. Scholars differed substantially over whether the system should be retained. Some identified problems with its institutional role and boundaries of responsibility, advocating gradual abolition or replacement. Others argued that outright abolition could create new housing security and social welfare problems, and that its housing security function should instead be redefined while retaining the system and improving it through integration, transformation, or incremental reform ([23]; [27]; [2]; [26]).

Meanwhile, research methods increasingly shifted toward micro-level empirical analysis. Survey data from CHFS, CFPS, CMDS, and CLDS became widely used, and research expanded from the system itself to housing consumption, income distribution, and welfare differences across groups. Studies found substantial differences in actual benefits across income and household registration groups, with potential effects on income distribution ([19]; [25]; [51]). Household consumption and rural migrant workers’ home purchases and intentions to remain in cities subsequently became important topics ([17]; [57]). The further adoption of econometric and simulation tools such as IV, PSM, DID, and CGE gradually shifted research from institutional discussion toward analysis of actual effects on individuals and households.

3.2.5. Institutional Integration and Further Research on Household Welfare (2021-2026)

Since 2021, Housing Provident Fund research has expanded further toward institutional integration and household welfare. Research on reform has moved beyond adjustments to the Housing Provident Fund itself to consider links with the pension insurance system. Some scholars propose combining the Housing Provident Fund with third-pillar pension insurance and individual pensions, while others develop different reform proposals concerning contribution systems and exit mechanisms. These developments indicate a gradual shift from reforming a single institution to coordinating and integrating it with other social security institutions ([29]; [34]; [48]; [10]).

Meanwhile, micro-level research has increasingly examined the actual effects of the Housing Provident Fund on individuals and households. Equity remains important in the context of common prosperity, while research has expanded to household consumption, happiness, financial behavior, and household financial conditions ([53]; [31]; [39]; [22]; [49]; [18]; [15]). Migrants’ housing and household registration settlement have also received sustained attention. Some studies find that the effects of Housing Provident Fund policies on migrants are not uniform and may depend on housing prices, regional conditions, and policy implementation ([43]). In addition, regional performance research has increasingly introduced convergence tests, machine learning, and spatial econometric methods to analyze operational efficiency and regional differences in greater detail ([7]; [6]).

The distribution of publication sources (Figure 6) shows that Housing Provident Fund research appears in a broad range of journals. China Real Estate has published the largest number of articles (21), followed by Finance and Accounting Monthly (20) and Friends of Accounting (10). Shanghai Finance, Reform of Economic System, and Communication of Finance and Accounting have each published 6 articles. Figure 6 presents the 15 most prolific publication sources. Overall, the literature spans real estate, accounting and finance, economics, finance, and social security, displaying a degree of multidisciplinarity.

Figure 6.Distribution of leading publication sources and authors in housing provident fund research.

In terms of author output (Figure 6), Wu Yidong and Wang Xianzhu have the highest publication counts, with 15 and 12 articles, respectively, followed by Chen Feng with 8 articles, while the output of other authors is more dispersed. According to Price’s law, the minimum publication threshold for core authors is approximately 3 articles. At this threshold, 19 core authors can be identified, and Figure 6 presents the 15 most prolific authors. Overall, some authors and small collaborative teams have emerged that conduct sustained research on the Housing Provident Fund, but authors remain relatively dispersed, and a highly concentrated group of core authors has yet to form.

The institutional distribution (Figure 7) shows that Anhui University of Technology ranks first in publication output, with 19 articles, followed by Renmin University of China (13), Nanjing University (12), Shanghai University of Finance and Economics (11), and Wuhan University (10). Beijing Normal University, Central China Normal University, and Tsinghua University have each produced 8 articles. Figure 7 presents the 15 most prolific institutions. Some Housing Provident Fund management institutions participate in this research as well, indicating a relatively diverse research community.

Figure 7.Distribution of leading publishing institutions in housing provident fund research.

Keywords reflect the main content of research. Their frequencies and co-occurrence relationships help identify the principal topics in Housing Provident Fund research and the connections between them. This study uses CiteSpace for keyword co-occurrence analysis, selecting Keyword as the node type, setting the time span to 1994-2026 and the time slice to 1 year, applying the g-index algorithm (k = 25), and using Pathfinder pruning. After excluding the complete search term “Housing Provident Fund,” the resulting keyword co-occurrence map (Figure 1) contains 320 nodes and 321 links, with a network density of 0.0063. Its largest connected component contains 114 nodes, 35.6% of the network. These are keyword-node counts, not article counts. The map displays themes such as housing security, reform, rural migrant workers, migrant population, and common prosperity. Under these settings, links are relatively sparse and the network remains fragmented; the research themes display a degree of diversity.

As Table 1 shows, frequently occurring author keywords include “housing security” (17 articles), “rural migrant workers” (11), “social security” (10), “reform” (8), “migrant population” (8), “Provident Fund” (7), and “common prosperity” (7). The mandatory search term “Housing Provident Fund” is omitted from the table. Overall, these keywords concern system operation and reform, housing security and distributional effects, and specific groups and their housing problems. Housing security, institutional reform, income distribution, and migrant populations therefore remain important topics in the descriptive keyword profile. Table 1reports literal keyword frequencies in the 368-record corpus, rather than the frequencies of selected nodes in the CiteSpace network.

Table 1.High-frequency keywords and their frequencies.

The keyword cluster map (Figure 2) uses Pathfinder pruning, with a modularity value of Q = 0.8874 and a weighted mean silhouette value of S = 0.9300. These indicators reflect cluster separation and within-cluster consistency under the current settings; they cannot independently establish the substantive validity of thematic interpretations, particularly when the network is relatively fragmented. The principal clusters displayed in the map are discussed below:

The “#0 Personal Accounts” cluster includes terms such as “Provident Fund,” “interest rate,” “housing consumption,” “welfare effects,” and “equity.” It concerns account arrangements and their relationships with housing consumption and the distribution of institutional benefits ([19]).

The “#1 Influencing Factors” cluster includes “reform,” “contribution rate,” “loans,” and “management costs.” It reflects attention to institutional operation, reform, and the factors affecting performance and participation ([27]; [2]).

The “#2 Housing” cluster includes “housing policy,” “social exclusion,” “migrant population,” and “home-purchase intention.” The “#3 Rural Migrant Workers” cluster includes “urban integration,” “intention to remain in cities,” “happiness,” and “housing demand.” These related themes address housing access and settlement, while preserving the distinction between migrant populations more generally and rural migrant workers specifically ([57]; [12]; [1]).

The “#4 Housing Security” cluster includes “low-rent housing,” “commercial loans,” “regional differences,” and “performance evaluation.” It reflects the Housing Provident Fund’s housing security function and questions concerning its uses and regional performance ([38]).

The “#5 Income Distribution” cluster includes “income effects,” “common prosperity,” “tax-exempt income,” and “inequality.” It concerns distributional effects and differences in benefits across groups ([51]; [25]; [41]).

The “#6 Housing Finance” cluster includes “mortgage loans,” “social security,” “pensions,” and “the third pillar,” reflecting debates over housing finance and links with old-age security. The “#8 Efficiency” cluster includes “restructuring,” “private property,” and “institutional objectives,” reflecting discussion of operational efficiency and institutional reform ([3]; [13]).

Overall, the displayed clusters retain distinct research emphases while covering related institutional and household issues. They suggest a broad thematic structure encompassing account arrangements, housing access and security, distributional effects, housing finance, and efficiency. Their positions and overlapping colored areas are visualization features and do not, by themselves, measure the strength of substantive relationships between themes.

Keyword burst analysis identifies periods when particular terms receive greater attention. The burst map (Figure 3) identifies five keywords: “accounting” (strength 2.57, 2008-2011), “equity” (2.26, 2014-2017), “migrant population” (1.97, 2015-2022), “happiness” (2.00, 2020-2024), and “common prosperity” (3.65, 2021-2026). Strengths are rounded to two decimal places based on the saved output.

The temporal pattern shows an early burst in “accounting” during 2008-2011, followed by “equity” and “migrant population,” reflecting attention to institutional operation, distributional questions, and mobile groups. After 2020, “happiness” and “common prosperity” appeared successively, indicating further interest in household welfare and institutional equity. “Common prosperity” has the highest burst strength (3.65) and extends to the end of the observed interval. This endpoint refers to the retrieved records available for 2026, rather than a complete year or evidence of a future trend. Overall, the results suggest a broadening of attention from system operation toward equity, migrant populations, and household welfare.

Combining the keyword co-occurrence, clustering, and burst results with a review of the sampled literature, the core topics in Housing Provident Fund research fall into the following six areas.

5.4.1. Institutional Attributes, the Retention-Abolition Debate, and Reform Pathways

Institutional positioning and reform direction are the longest-standing and most contested topics in Housing Provident Fund research. Existing studies broadly propose three reform approaches. The first advocates withdrawal or replacement, arguing that the system has strong employer-provided welfare attributes and suffers from unclear boundaries of responsibility and inefficient resource allocation; it therefore proposes gradual withdrawal or alternative arrangements ([23]; [10]). The second favors retention and improvement, arguing that the system still serves a housing security function and should be optimized through repositioning, broader coverage, improved legislation, and institutional integration while being retained ([2]; [26]; [41]). The third advocates integration and transformation, proposing links with old-age security and individual pension arrangements to expand the system’s functions ([29]; [34]; [48]).

Beyond the system’s future, its legal attributes have also been a long-standing subject of debate. Studies mainly examine its public nature, wage-related nature, and character as an individual entitlement. Different interpretations affect the mandatory nature of contributions, ownership of returns, and reform direction ([50]; [13]). Overall, debates over institutional attributes underpin discussions of reform, while the choice of reform pathways reflects different understandings of the relationships among housing security, government responsibility, and resource allocation efficiency.

5.4.2. Housing Security Functions and Household Housing Consumption Behavior

Whether the Housing Provident Fund improves residents’ housing affordability has long been a central question. Existing empirical studies generally find that it promotes housing consumption, but its effects vary substantially across income groups and groups with different housing needs. Some studies find that contributions increase household homeownership and willingness to purchase housing, but benefits are not distributed evenly. For example, studies find stronger effects among households without homes, households with poor housing conditions, and some groups with greater housing affordability, describing a pattern in which “the two ends subsidize the middle,” meaning that low- and high-income households benefit more prominently, while some middle-income households receive relatively limited benefits ([19]; [5]).

Besides home purchases, the Housing Provident Fund also affects decisions to rent or buy and housing demand. Some studies suggest that participation increases housing consumption among certain households and strengthens the willingness of new urban residents without homes to purchase housing ([9]; [20]). However, other studies, approaching the issue from housing markets and wealth distribution, argue that the system may reinforce existing advantages in housing resources, widen the housing wealth gap between contributing and non-contributing households, and exert some upward pressure on housing prices ([38]). Thus, whether the system primarily provides housing security or may become an important influence on housing investment and wealth differentiation remains a significant debate.

5.4.3. Equity, Income Distribution, and Common Prosperity

Equity is one of the most contested topics in Housing Provident Fund research. Existing studies reach different findings on its equity effects, mainly because they select different beneficiary groups, comparison groups, and measurement indicators.

One strand of research argues that the Housing Provident Fund may have regressive redistributive effects, with benefits flowing disproportionately to higher-income groups, employees of public-sector organizations, and people with urban household registration. Studies find that higher-income households receive greater welfare benefits from the system. Analyses of contributions, withdrawals, and loans indicate that employer matching contributions, tax preferences, and loan interest rate differentials may widen benefit gaps across groups and increase inequality in income and consumption distribution ([54]; [25]; [51]). Socioeconomic status, employer type, and household registration also affect participation and actual benefits, and inadequate benefits may generate a sense of relative deprivation among some groups ([46]; [55]).

Another strand argues that the Housing Provident Fund can reduce disparities under certain conditions. Studies suggest that, through the contribution-withdrawal pathway, it may alleviate housing inequality among participants. Participation may also improve welfare among some low- and middle-income groups by affecting corporate compensation, consumption behavior, and household financial conditions ([21]; [42]; [15]).

Overall, there is no simple, uniform conclusion regarding the Housing Provident Fund’s equity effects. Differences across studies relate to the dependent variable (income, consumption, housing assets, or subjective welfare), the comparison benchmark (within participants or between participants and non-participants), and the accounting framework for gains and losses (whether low deposit interest rate differentials, tax preferences, and general equilibrium effects are considered). Assessments of equity must therefore be interpreted in relation to each study’s analytical framework, rather than simply classifying the system as “fair” or “unfair.”

5.4.4. Migrant Populations, Rural Migrant Workers, and Urban Integration

Extending Housing Provident Fund coverage to rural migrant workers and migrant populations has been an important direction of coverage expansion in recent years. Most studies find that contributions increase migrants’ intentions to remain in cities, settle, and improve their housing conditions ([57]; [12]; [1]). However, studies also show that these effects are more evident in intentions to settle and buy housing, while improvements in actual purchasing capacity and long-term residential stability remain limited. Some rural migrant workers cannot fully use the system because of low incomes and limited contribution capacity. High housing prices and separation between workplaces and residences also constrain its housing security function ([37]).

The effects on migrants may extend beyond housing to urban integration and social participation. Studies find that participation helps improve social integration among new-generation rural migrant workers ([58]). However, this effect also depends on local housing markets and policy implementation conditions. For example, some research finds that in areas with high housing prices, cross-regional lending policies may increase migrants’ pressure to purchase housing and thereby reduce their willingness to obtain local household registration ([43]).

Overall, most studies recognize positive effects on migrants’ settlement and urban integration, while also showing that coverage does not necessarily translate into actual benefits. Income, contribution capacity, housing prices, and cross-regional use all influence outcomes. How to increase migrants’ actual benefits while expanding coverage has therefore become a question requiring further attention.

5.4.5. Household Welfare and Firms’ Employment Effects

As research perspectives have broadened in recent years, the field has expanded beyond housing security itself to household welfare and corporate behavior. At the household level, existing studies mainly examine welfare effects through happiness, consumption, and financial behavior. Most find some association between participation and greater happiness, but effects differ substantially across groups. Effects are relatively pronounced among middle-income households, households with mortgages, and some households with stable employment, while findings for mobile groups such as rural migrant workers are inconsistent ([53]; [31]; [49]; [56]). This suggests that coverage does not necessarily produce equivalent welfare improvements; actual outcomes also depend on income, housing needs, and employment conditions.

Beyond subjective well-being, studies also examine effects on household consumption and financial behavior. On the one hand, contributions and adjustments to withdrawal policies can partly ease housing expenditure pressures, promote consumption growth, and improve consumption structure. Relaxing restrictions on withdrawals for rental housing may further release household consumption demand ([22]; [49]; [18]). On the other hand, participation is associated with household financial market participation, risky asset allocation, and financial fragility, although these effects also vary with characteristics such as household indebtedness ([53]; [39]; [15]; [17]).

At the firm level, research mainly examines the relationship between contribution costs and employment. One strand argues that contributions increase labor costs and may affect hiring, and that appropriately reducing the contribution burden can ease employment-related pressures on firms ([36]). Another emphasizes employee protection, arguing that the Housing Provident Fund helps improve employment stability and mitigates the adverse effects of employees’ housing pressures on business operations ([33]). Firm-level research thus reflects the relationship between employee protection and corporate costs within the system.

Overall, the effects of the Housing Provident Fund have expanded beyond traditional housing security to household happiness, consumption, financial behavior, and corporate employment. Existing research nevertheless shows considerable variation across groups and firms. Understanding the relationship between improved employee welfare and employers’ contribution burdens remains an issue for further research.

5.4.6. Fund Operations, Risk Management, and Regional Performance Evaluation

Besides coverage and welfare effects, fund operations and management performance are important research topics. Studies initially focus on fund security, liquidity risk, and management efficiency, identifying potential problems such as inefficient fund allocation, inadequate governance structures, and regional differences in management standards ([35]). Under existing contribution and lending arrangements, changes in fund supply and demand may also affect operational stability. Balancing fund security and efficient use has therefore become an important concern in operational management research ([16]).

Research has subsequently expanded to institutional performance and regional differences. Studies find regional disparities in coverage, fund-use efficiency, and housing security outcomes, with economic development and housing market conditions affecting operational performance ([7]; [6]). Meanwhile, some studies discuss broadening permissible uses of funds, including the appropriate use of value-added income and support for affordable rental housing construction, to improve fund-use efficiency and housing security outcomes ([30]).

Overall, research on fund operations has expanded from risk control and routine management to operational efficiency, regional differences, and institutional performance. Existing studies highlight a common problem: the Housing Provident Fund must ensure fund security while avoiding underutilization. Improving fund-use efficiency while keeping risks manageable therefore remains a persistent concern.

“Common prosperity” has the highest burst strength (3.65) and extends to the end of the observed interval, indicating a closer connection between research on Housing Provident Fund equity and common prosperity in recent years. Existing studies yield two main sets of findings. On the one hand, some find that the system can partly alleviate relative consumption deprivation, household financial fragility, and within-firm pay gaps, suggesting welfare improvements and income redistribution effects ([42]; [15]; [21]). On the other hand, some find differences in participation and actual benefits across socioeconomic and employer groups, with high-status groups and some employees within the state system potentially receiving greater benefits ([46]; [55]). In the context of common prosperity, this research direction therefore requires further identification of actual benefits across groups at the contribution, withdrawal, and lending stages, and evaluation of income distribution effects within a consistent analytical framework.

Against the background of population aging and the development of a multi-tiered social security system, strengthening links between the Housing Provident Fund and old-age security has gradually become an important direction in reform research. Existing studies propose reforms mainly through institutional integration and functional expansion. One strand advocates linking the Housing Provident Fund with third-pillar pension insurance and individual pensions, enabling it to serve both housing and old-age security through account integration or institutional adjustment. Other studies explore coordinated arrangements between the Housing Provident Fund and other social security institutions as part of broader reform of the social security contribution system ([29]; [34]; [48]). Meanwhile, proposals for withdrawal from and restructuring of the existing system reflect continuing differences over its future institutional role ([10]).

Overall, research has gradually expanded from adjustments within the Housing Provident Fund itself to institutional linkages between housing and old-age security. However, it remains dominated by institutional design and policy argumentation. Quantitative research on the potential effects of different reform options on individual and household behavior, public finances, and long-term institutional outcomes is relatively limited. Further assessment of the actual effects of alternative integration proposals therefore warrants deeper investigation.

As cross-regional population mobility increases and the development of a unified national market advances, the relationship between locally administered Housing Provident Funds and cross-regional use has attracted attention. Existing research focuses mainly on management arrangements and use outside the contribution locality. On the one hand, local administration may produce inconsistent regional rules, insufficient information sharing, and constraints on cross-regional fund allocation. Some studies therefore propose clarifying the rights and responsibilities of regulators, local governments, and contributors, and promoting coordinated standards and management mechanisms ([40]). On the other hand, policies such as cross-regional loans expand the scope of use, but their actual effects depend on local housing prices and policy environments. In some areas with high housing prices, they may even reduce migrants’ willingness to obtain local household registration ([43]).

Overall, research on cross-regional integration has moved beyond “whether funds can be used elsewhere” to institutional standards, information sharing, fund allocation, and local responsibility. How to facilitate cross-regional use while accounting for regional funding conditions, housing market differences, and management responsibilities requires further attention.

The keyword burst for “happiness” during 2020-2024 indicates increasing attention to residents’ subjective welfare in recent Housing Provident Fund research. Studies examine not only whether participation improves happiness but also the mechanisms involved and differences across groups. Some find that the system may improve happiness by reducing housing finance costs, improving housing conditions, and influencing household consumption, although the magnitude of these effects varies with income, housing conditions, and employment characteristics ([53]; [31]; [49]).

Meanwhile, household welfare research has expanded from happiness to consumption, financial asset allocation, and household financial fragility, enabling a broader examination of welfare effects ([18]; [39]; [15]). Findings are not fully consistent across groups. Some urban households show relatively clear welfare improvements, whereas studies of mobile groups such as rural migrant workers find weaker effects and even negative effects for some groups ([56]). This indicates substantial group differences in household welfare effects. Further identification of the conditions under which different groups benefit and the mechanisms involved remains an important research question.