There could be various explanations possible for the observed differences in rental values across tenant types. A natural explanation could be that the dwellings occupied by households in different living situations have different characteristics or that the access to amenities and the areas in which they live are different. The data does not show evidence sustaining either explanation, however. Table 2 illustrates that dwellings under regulated and unregulated schemes have similar characteristics, and in very few instances there are statistical differences. Rural areas have only a handful of dwellings under the “old law” and are not shown.

Besides the small differences in dwelling characteristics between _Old law_ tenants and _New law_ tenants, we also explore whether both have access to the same amenities. To do this, we use the data on location available from the HIECS 2012/13. First, when we look at households by governorates and location type (urban/rural) we find that there is a high correlation (0.93) between the numbers of Old‐ and New‐law tenants found in the data. Secondly, for each urban region (Metropolitan, Lower Urban and Upper Urban) we run a regression using the observed Primary Sampling Units (PSU) as observations and test for the correlation between the number of _Old‐_ and _New‐law_ tenants. We find evidence of a positive and statistically significant correlation between them. This evidence suggests that the two types of tenants are likely to be found in the same location (i.e. same PSU) and are very likely to benefit from the same amenities (transportation, entertainment, etc.). Thus, it is not this difference in access that drives the difference in rents paid. Taking these results together, households living under the old rent law end up living in dwellings with similar characteristics and close to those under the _New law_ , but paying much less rents just because the rental regulation affords them the opportunity to do so.

**Table 2. Dwelling characteristics (% of households)**

|||**_Metro_**|**_politan_**|**_Lower_**|**_Urban_**|**_Uppe_**|**_r Urban_**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||**Rent ‐**<br>**OLD**|**Rent ‐**<br>**NEW**|**Rent ‐**<br>**OLD**|**Rent –**<br>**NEW**|**Rent ‐**<br>**OLD**|**Rent ‐**<br>**NEW**|
|Housing:|apartment,villa|92.6|92.3|96.8|99.1*|96.2|95.7|
||countryhouse|0.1|0.7|0.6|0.5|1.1|2.8|
|Number o|f rooms|3.4|3.2**|3.4|3.4|3.4|3.4|
|Area in m|2|69.3|70.1|74.0|75.0|68.8|78.2***|
|Has tapw|ater in the house|96.6|97.1|99.1|99.2|98.5|98.9|
|Sewage:|connected topublic network|99.1|98.4|98.3|99.2|96.4|88.5***|
||connected to local network|0|0|0.6|0.4|0|0|
||connected to trench/private network|0.9|1.6|1.1|0.3|2.3|6.5**|
|Dwelling|has brick/cement walls|98.5|98.6|98.4|99.2|97.3|94.8|
|Dwelling|has cement ceiling|96.4|97.2|96.6|98.3|98|94.3*|
|Flooring:|Dwellinghas ordinarytile floor|68.9|62.8*|71.2|63.2*|70.9|72.2|
||Dwellinghas ceramic‐tiles floor|28.4|32.6|24.9|34.8**|27.5|24.2|
||Dwellinghas concrete floor|1.3|3.6*|2.2|1.7|0.7|3.6*|
||Dwellinghas soil floor|0.1|0|0.6|0|0|0|

Note: Rent‐OLD refers to subsidized tenants and Rent‐NEW refers to free‐market tenants; ***1%, ** %%, * 10% significance levels of statistical tests across tenant status. Source: HIECS, 2012/13.

8