| 摘要(英) |
Most house policies in Taiwan have been to encourage purchasing houses over the years. In addition, the common people's concepts cause the high housing ownership rate and vacant rate. It shows that the whole house development in Taiwan is out-of-balance and the market system of rental housing is imperfect.
The market-share of rental housing in Taiwan is less than 10%.However, after comparing the rental returns, interest rate and potential demand for rental housing, we can find the rental housing market has development potentiality. If the government can make the relevant measure of rental housing allowance now, it can improve the market development of rental housing. So this paper try to discuss that the utility of rental housing allowance, and we will also examine the regional difference at the same time, because it’s different in the condition of the rental housing and people's income every city.
The data used in this study is short-term data, the original survey data of the Study of Taiwan Rental Housing Market of 2000. We will consult the subsidy policy of rental housing in other countries and relevant studies, and try to make up the rental housing allowance proposals. Then, we will use the Hedonic Price Theory to construct the housing consumption model for the rental housing in Taipei and Tainan urban areas, and discuss their difference. The next section evaluates the direct benefit of the rental housing allowances proposals, using Hicks’ equivalent variation (EV) and compensating variation (CV) concepts, and examining its rationality. The result may provide the government a theoretical foundation in making the rental housing policy.
Its result shows that CV and EV before and after people get the allowances are very similar, but the social welfare produced in Taipei and Tainan is a little different in the same rental housing allowance proposal. Compared with CV, EV and Benefit-cost Ratio, we find It is relatively high to the social welfare that the same allowance produced in Tainan. This proves that the regional difference exists positively. |
|---|
| 參考文獻 |
1.內政部營建署 (2004)，《整體住宅政策(草案)》。內政部營建署。
2.丁致成 (1992)，《政府直接興建國民住宅補貼政策之社會成本效益分析—以台北市為例》。台大城鄉所碩士論文。
3.王建陽 (1996)，《高雄市不同住戶層級對住宅屬性需求之研究》。成大都研所碩士論文。
4.石振弘 (2000)，〈台灣住宅補貼制度與都市地區中低收入家庭之互動－以台北市為例〉。《中華民國住宅學會第九屆學會論文集》。
5.石振弘 (2001)，《台灣租屋市場之啟蒙：沈痾、新苗、與生機》。台大城鄉所碩士論文。
6.吳佩瑛 (1994)，〈多價格變動之福利變動衡量：理論與實證〉。《農業金融論叢》32輯：139-156。
7.吳珮瑛、葉淑琦 (1996)，〈多環境品質改變之效益分析─各種福利衡量指標之比較〉。《經濟論文》第24卷第4期：519-557。
8.李如君 (1997)，《台北地區住宅租金水準之研究》。政大地政所碩士論文。
9.李玫霙 (1995)，《台灣地區重大交通建設區域分配公平性之分析》。成大都研所碩士論文。
10.李信佩 (1997)，《家戶組成對住宅租購選擇影響之研究：以台北市為例》。政大地政所碩士論文。
11.李鴻毅 (1991)，《住宅租賃行為之調查研究》。行政院經建會。
12.林祖嘉 (1992)，〈台灣地區房租與房價關係之研究〉。《台灣銀行季刊》43(1)：279-312。
13.林祖嘉 (1995)，《住宅補貼對象與資格查核制度之研究》。內政部營建署。
14.林祖嘉 (1996)，《我國現有住宅補貼資源整合與運用之研究》。經建會都住處。
15.林祖嘉、林素菁(1993)，〈台灣地區環境品質與公共設施對房價及房租影響之分析〉。《住宅學報》第一期：21-45。
16.林秋瑾 (1996)，〈穩健性住宅租金模式之探討－異常點之分析〉。《住宅學報》第四期：51-72。
17.林益厚 (1999)，〈當前住宅問題與政策〉。《住宅學報》第八期：91-96。
18.林堅、馮長春 (1998)，〈美國的住宅政策〉。《國外城市規劃》，北京 中國城市規劃設計研究院。
19.林建華 (2002)，《承租戶租金負擔能力之分析－台北地區及台南地區之比較》。成大都研所碩士論文。
20.林萬億 (2003)，〈論我國的社會住宅政策與社會照顧的結合〉。《國家政策季刊》第2卷第4期：55-82。
21.花敬群 (2001)，《發展出租住宅市場機制之研究》。內政部建築研究所。
22.孫思俐 (2000)，《美國公部門住宅建設制度》。內政部營建署。
23.張金鶚 (1990)，《住宅問題與住宅政策之研究》。內政府營建署。
24.張金鶚 (1995)，《台灣地區住宅價格指數之研究》。行政院經建會。
25.張偉斌 (1991)，《台灣地區都市租賃住宅研究》。台北 博遠出版有限公司。
26.張雅慧 (2002)，《租賃住宅之需求彈性與所得彈性》。成大都研所碩士論文。
27.陳幸宜 (2003)，《都市房價變動影響因素之系統動態模擬－台北市之實證研究》。成大都研所碩士論文。
28.陳彥仲、薛立敏 (2000)，《台灣地區出租住宅市場之研究》。內政部建築研究所。
29.陳建良、林祖嘉 (1998)，〈財富效果、所得效果、與住宅需求〉。《住宅學報》第7期：83-99。
30.黃志弘 (2001)，《新世紀福利國家中的住宅政策》。台北 台北市政府社會局 福利社會雜誌社。
31.黃志弘、華昌宜 (2000)，《台北市低收入家庭房租補助標準之研究》。台北市政府。
32.華昌宜 (1994)，〈台灣應有的住宅目標〉。《住宅學報》第二期：133-134。
33.華昌宜、賴碧瑩 (2001a)，〈我國租賃住宅市場之發展與推動〉。《住宅學報》第10卷第1期：67-76。
34.曾義權 (2002)，《尋找台灣住宅市場中潛藏的鏈節－專業租屋企業》。台大城鄉所碩士論文。
35.楊惠雅 (2004)，《待售國宅之社會福利水準評估》。成大都研所碩士論文。
36.蔡宜哲 (1996)，《從個體不連續選擇行為探討台灣地區住宅需求之價格彈性及所得彈性分析》。成大都研所碩士論文。
37.劉嘉瑩 (2002)，《台北市步行空間改善效益之研究－應用特徵價格法》。成大都研所碩士論文。
38.賴美蓉 (2000)，《台灣地區居住合宜標準與住宅消費水準之分析研究》。內政部建築研究所。
39.謝哲勝 (1996)，《房租管制法律與政策》。台北市 五南圖書出版公司。
40.羅紀琼 (1987)，〈台灣民間消費支出體系之比較研究〉。《經濟論文》第15卷第8期：59-88。
二、英文部分
1.Awan, K., Odling-Smee, J.C. and Whitehead, Christine M. E. (1982), “Household Attributes and the Demand for Private Rental Housing”, Economica 49: 183-200.
2.Büchel, S. and Hoesli, M. (1995), “A Hedonic Analysis of Rent and Rental Revenue in the Subsidised and Unsubsidised Housing Sectors in Geneva.” Urban Studies Vol. 32 No. 7: 1199-1213.
3.Deaton, A. and Muellbauer, J. (1980), “Economics and Consumer Behavior.” Cambridge University Press: 25-85.
4.Early, Dirk W. (2000), “Rent Control, Rental Housing Supply, and the Distribution of Tenant Benefits.” Journal of Urban Economics 48, 185-204.
5.Fallis, G. and Smith, L. B. (1985), “Price Effects of Rent Control on Controlled and Uncontrolled Rental Housing in Toronto: A Hedonic Index Approach.” The Canadian Journal of Economics 18: 652-659.
6.Guntermann, K. L. and Norrbin, S. (1987), “Explaining The Variability Of Apartment Rents” AREUEA Journal 15: 321-340.
7.Kim, S. (1992), “Search, Hedonic Prices, and Housing Demand.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 74: 503-508.
8.Laferrère, A. and Le Blanc, D. (2003), “Gone with the windfall: how do housing allowances affect student co-residence?” CREST Working paper: 2003-2036.
9.Laferrère, A. and Le Blanc, D. (2004), “How do housing allowances affect rents? An empirical analysis of the French case.” Journal of Housing Economics 13: 36-67.
10.Marks, D. (1984), “The Effect of Rent Control on the Price of Rental Housing: An Hedonic Approach.” Land Economics 60: 81-94.
11.Mills, E.S. and B.W. Hamilton (1994), “Urban Economics,” 5th ed. Harper Collins College Publisher.
12.O’Sullivan, Arthur (2003), “Urban Economics,” 5th ed. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.: 467-500.
13.Piyush Tiwari and Hiroshi Hasegawa (2001), “Welfare effects of public housing in Tokyo.” Journal of Policy Modeling 23: 421–431.
14.Pollak, Robert A. and Wales Terence J. (1992), “Demand System Specification and Estimation.” Oxford University Press, Inc.
15.Ridker, R. G. and Henning, J. A. (1967), “The determinants of residential property value with special references to air pollution.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 49: 246-255.
16.Rosen, S. (1974), “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition”, Journal of Political Economy 82: 34-55.
17.Sa-Aadu, J. (1984), “Alternative Estimates of Direct Tenant Benefit and Consumption Inefficiencies from the 8 New Construction Program.” Land Economics 60: 189-201. |
|---|
