政大學術集成


Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/137016


Title: 從彈性治理與政策網絡的角度探討共享經濟的治理策略–以Airbnb為例
Exploring Governance Strategy of the Sharing Economy from the Perspective of Adaptive Governance and Policy Network : A Case Study of Airbnb
Authors: 吳奇軒
Wu, Chi-Hsuan
Contributors: 傅凱若
Fu, Kai-Jo
吳奇軒
Wu, Chi-Hsuan
Keywords: 共享經濟
短期租賃
Airbnb
政策網絡
彈性治理
Sharing economy
Airbnb
Short rental
Adaptive governance
Policy network
Date: 2021
Issue Date: 2021-09-02 17:19:06 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 共享經濟近幾年在世界掀起一股浪潮,其概念是將自己身邊閒置的資源或空間提供給需要的人,讓它們能夠做更有效的利用,並且能夠讓提供者賺取報酬。共享經濟近年來發展的型態越來越多元,從叫車、外送到住宿都可以看到共享經濟的影子。隨著科技的發展,提供者和使用者雙方只要透過共享經濟平台和app就可以完成交易,滿足我們各種生活上的需求。雖然共享經濟有許多優點,相反的它可能與當地的法規、政策或是既有合法業者產生衝突。
本研究以旅宿型共享經濟Airbnb作為研究對象,並且以公部門的角度探討Airbnb來台後對於政府和當地業者產生哪些影響。相較於其他國家或城市,台灣政府目前沒有將Airbnb和它平台上的日租套房納管,政府亦沒有針對他們制定相關法規,僅就以目前的法規取締及處罰Airbnb和日租套房業者,造成政府在取締及處罰的過程中遇到許多困境。另外,Airbnb和日租套房在台灣產生許多爭議如安全和消費糾紛的問題,而且日租套房經營的成本遠比合法旅宿業者低,甚至可能都沒有繳稅,造成日租套房和合法旅宿業者在不公平的基礎上競爭。
本研究透過次級資料分析法與深度訪談法,蒐集Airbnb、觀光局(中央政府)、地方政府、合法旅宿與日租套房業者等利害關係人的立場以及意見。首先,本研究透過政策網絡的概念,探討彼此間互動的情況,並且釐清各個政策利害關係人彼此間的關係。接著,本研究將彈性化政府與彈性治理的概念導入旅宿型共享經濟,探討政府各層級管理旅宿型共享經濟的彈性化的程度。最後,嘗試解決Airbnb和日租套房產生的問題,並且提供政府適合管理旅宿型共享經濟的方式,除了能夠維護合法旅宿業者的權益,同時能夠讓共享經濟發揮它原有的本質,讓台灣的旅宿的選擇更多元,共享經濟在台灣也能夠發展的更為順利。
The sharing economy has set off a wave in the world in recent years, the concept of the sharing economy is to provide one's idle resources or space to people in need, which can use them effectively and enable providers to earn rewards. The development of the sharing economy has become more and more diverse in recent years, you can see the sharing economy from car-hailing and food delivery to accommodation everywhere. With the development of technology, both providers and users can complete transactions through the sharing economy platforms and apps, which can satisfy our various needs. Although there are many advantages of the sharing economy, on the contrary, it may conflict with local regulations, public policies or traditional industries.
The study takes the lodging-type sharing economy as the research object, and focuses on the impact of Airbnb on the local industry from the perspective of the public sector. Compared with other countries or cities, Airbnb and short-term rentals have not yet been managed by the government. Also, there are no any laws and regulations for Airbnb and short-term rentals, but only bans and penalizes Airbnb and operators of short-term rentals with the current laws and regulations, causing the government encounters many difficulties in the process of banning and punishment. In addition, Airbnb and short-term rentals have caused many disputes in Taiwan, such as safety and consumption disputes. Moreover, the operating cost of short-term rentals is much lower than that of hotel industry operators, and they may not even pay taxes, causing operators of short-term rentals and hotel industry compete on an unfair basis.
The study uses secondary data analysis and in-depth interview methods to collect the positions and opinions of stakeholders such as Airbnb, Tourism Bureau (central government), local government, hotel industry and short-term rentals operators. First of all, the study uses the concept of policy network to explore the interaction between each other and clarify the relationship between each policy stakeholder. Subsequently, the study introduces the concepts of flexible government and adaptive governance into the lodging-type sharing economy, and explores the degree of flexibility in the management of the lodging-type sharing economy at various levels of government. Finally, trying to solve the problems caused by Airbnb and short-term rentals, and provide the government with a way to manage the lodging-type sharing economy. In addition to safeguarding the rights and interests of operators of hotel industry, it also allows the sharing economy to give full play to its original nature, making Taiwan’s accommodation options more diverse, and the sharing economy can also develop more smoothly in Taiwan.
Reference: 壹、中文文獻
丁仁方(1999)。威權統合主義:理論、發展與轉型。臺北:時英出版
丘昌泰(2015)。公共政策基礎篇(第五版)。高雄:巨流
石振國(2016)。政策停頓的特徵、原因與影響:以證所稅復徵及大戶條款為例。中華行政學報,18,55-73
李允傑、丘昌泰(2009)。政策執行與評估。台北:元照
李允傑、丘昌泰(2002)。政策執行與評估。台北:空中大學。
江明修、曾冠球(2009)。政府再造:跨部門治理的觀點。國家菁英,5(1),97-122
李欣(2015)。共享經濟的困境與限制—以Airbnb為例。國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所,未出版,台北市
朱鎮明(2005)。政策網絡中協力關係的成效:理論性的探討,公共行政學報,17,113-158。
汪正洋(2018)。圖解公共政策(第四版)。台北:五南
呂育誠(2005)。地方治理意涵及其制度建立策略之研究-兼論我國縣市推動地方治理的問題與前景。公共行政學報,14,1-38
呂麗雯、張碩芳、戴珮珺(2018)。探討遠距照護服務利害關係人的互動與衝突。台灣醫學資訊學會,27(3),49-62
余昌翰(2015)。共享經濟平台下信任機制之探討—以Airbnb為例。國立中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文,未出版,桃園市
吳定(2003)。公共政策。台北:國立空中大學
吳振龍(2008)。臺灣禽流感防治政策評估。北市醫學雜誌,5(3),352-371
林水吉(2007)。彈性用人制度之檢討與展望:政策價值衝突的分析。公共行政學報,22,1-37
林水波、陳志瑋(2000)。彈性化政府的設計與評估。人文及社會集刊,12(2),237-280
官有垣(2003)。第三部門的研究:經濟學觀點與部門互動理論的檢視。台灣社會福利學刊,3,1-29。
林昱朋(2020)。共享經濟的自治與管制之研究-以Airbnb為中心,國立高雄大學法律研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市
林惠玲(2017)。共享經濟的特質及其影響。台灣銀行家,88,14-15
邱文宏、蔡詠安(2018)。共享經濟之平台信任機制:以 Uber 為例。科技管理學刊,23(4),1-26
邱昰芳(2014)。共享經濟顛覆傳統,打造創新服務模式。臺灣經濟研究月刊,37(8),18-24
柯于璋(2015)。利害關係人分析在政策分析之應用-以大社石化專業工業區土地使用計畫為例。政策與人力管理,6(3),21-60
胡文棟(2017)。交通住宿共享經濟之法制因應探討。國會季刊,45(1),70-100
柯志昌(2014)。地方環境治理中利害關係人確認與網絡互動分析模式-以臺東美麗灣度假村BOT開發案為例。法治與公共治理學報,2,29-62
紀俊臣、林怡君(2007)。檢視政策網絡的應用。公共事務評論,8(1),31-46
陳向明(2016)。社會科學質的研究。台北:五南
陳秉立、閻永祺、孔憲法(2016)。南部科學園區創新平台形成之政策網絡分析。建築與規劃學報,17(1),25-52
陳敦源、劉宜君、蕭乃沂、林昭吟(2011)。政策利害關係人指認的理論與實務:以全民健保改革爲例。國家與社會,10,1-65
陳姿妙(2014)。Uber經營模式與法律爭議之探究,國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市
陳銘祥(2019)。法政策學。台北:元照
彭錦鵬(2009)。各國中央政府組織架構分析:主要以OECD國家為例。研考雙月刊,33(3),32-42
黃靖麟(2019)。以政策網絡觀點思考我國海洋政策發展。中華行政學報,24,93-117
曾憲立、朱斌妤、吳濟華(2015)。影響企業環境友善行為之關鍵因素:法令制度與利害關係人之整合觀點。公共行政學報,48,43-72
郭耀昌(2008)。政策評估與決策模式。研考雙月刊,32(2),69-79
廖謹志(2016)。共享經濟應用於交通運輸業之法律研究。東吳大學法律學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市
劉宜君(2007)。政策參與與政府再造-談政策網絡的概念與類型,國政研究報告,2007年2月8日,取自:http://www.npf.org.tw/post/2/925
鍾錦墀(2016)。共享經濟與區域經濟整合之關聯性研究。全球政治評論,4,55-70

貳、外文文獻
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2010). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
Bernstein, M. H. (1955). Regulating business by independent commission. Princeton University Press.
Carrillo, J., & Gaimon, C. (2000). Improving manufacturing performance through process change and knowledge creation. Management Science, 46(2): 265 –288.
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1972). The dynamics of agenda-building. Classics of Public Policy, 128–136.
Coles, P. A., Egesdal, M., Ellen, I. G., Li, X., & Sundararajan, A. (2017). Airbnb usage across New York City Neighborhoods: Geographic Patterns and Regulatory Implications.
Deborah Stone (1997) Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Dobuzinskis, Laurent (1992). Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the policy process: Control and stability Vs. chaos and reflexive understanding. Policy Science, 25, 355-380.
Dunn, W. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hal.
Ferguson, T., & Rogers, J. (1984). The political economy: Readings in the politics and economics of American public policy. ME Sharpe.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. New York, NY: Aldine.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of ground Ed theory. Chicago, IL:Aldine.
Hong, S., & Lee, S. (2017). Adaptive governance and decentralization: Evidence from regulation of the sharing economy in multi-level governance. Government Information Quarterly (in press).
Horton, J. J. (2015). The tragedy of your upstairs neighbors: Is the Airbnb negative externality internalized?. Cornell University Press.
Huxham, Chris (2003). Theorizing collaboration practice. Public Management Review, 5(3), 401-423.
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2000b). Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of collaboration. Human Relations, 53(6), 771-806.
Janssen, M., & Van der Voort, H. (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 1–5.
Jeroen Rijke, Rebekah Brown, Chris Zevenbergen , Richard Ashley, Megan Farrelly ,Peter Morison, Sebastiaan van Herk (2012). Fit-for-purpose governance: A framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environmental Science & Policy, 22, 73-84
Jordan, W. A. (1972). Producer protection, Prior market structure and the effects of government regulation. The Journal of Law and Economics, 15(1), 151–176.
Katie Finley (2013). Trust in the sharing economy: An exploratory study. United Kingdom: The University of Warwick.
Marin, Bernd, Renate Mayntz (1991). Policy network empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Mergel, I. (2016). Agile Innovation Management in Government: A Research Agenda. government information quarterly, 33(3), 516–523.
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181-15187.
Poole, M., & Warner, M. (1998). Handbook of human resource management. London: International Thomson Business Press.
R. A. W. Rhodes. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
R. Edward Freeman (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Cambridge University Press, 43-51.
Richardson, J. J. and A. G. Jordan (1979). Governing under pressure: The policy process in a post-parliamentary democracy. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Saif Benjaafar, Guangwen Kong, Xiang Li, and Costas Courcoubetis (2015). Modeling and analysis of collaborative consumption in peer-to-Peer car Sharing. Performance Evaluation Review ,43(3), 87-90.
Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton University Press.
Scott Burnham (2011). The publicization of trust. Trust design: Public trust, 30, 3-7.
Skok, James E.(1995).Policy issue networks and the policy cycle: A Structural-functional framework to public administration. Public Administration Review, 55(4), 325-332.
Sounman Hong, Sanghyun Lee (2018). Adaptive governance and decentralization: evidence from regulation of the sharing economy in multi-level governance. Government Information Quarterly, 35, 299-305.
Sounman Hong , Sanghyun Lee (2018). Adaptive governance, Status quo bias, and political competition: Why the Sharing economy is welcome in some cities but not in others. Government Information Quarterly, 35, 283-290.
Steve Hatfield-Dodds, Rohan Nelson and David C. Cook (2007). Adaptive governance: An introduction, and implications for public policy. ANZSEE Conference, Noosa Australia.
Stigler, G. J. (1971). The Theory of Economic Regulation. The bell journal of economics and management science, 2(1), 3–21.
Susan A. Shaheena and Adam P. Cohena (2013). Carsharing and personal vehicle services: Worldwide market developments and emerging trends. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 7(1), 8
Thomas R. Dye (1992). Understanding public policy (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 21-22.
Van Waarden, F. (1992). Dimensions and types of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research, 21, 29-52.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
Volberda, H. W. (1996). Towards flexible from: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4): 359-374.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
106256037
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106256037
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[Department of Public Administration ] Theses

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
603701.pdf3319KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing