Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 臺北市非正式住宅之成因與對策
Informal Housing in Taipei–Causes and Measures作者 趙家涓
Chao, Chia-Chuan貢獻者 林子欽
Lin, Tzu-Chin
趙家涓
Chao, Chia-Chuan關鍵詞 非正式住宅
違章建築
公共選擇理論
Illegal building
Informal housing
Public choice theory日期 2019 上傳時間 2-Mar-2020 11:24:12 (UTC+8) 摘要 違章建築多年來一直與雜亂無髒的建築印象、貧民窟、不文明象徵掛上等號。而在許多國家中，社會菁英、中產階級或是學生等也會居住於該建築之中。因其擁有政府提供不完全或不及提供之社會功能，許多國外文獻不會將它們歸類為“非法建築”，而是以“非正式住宅”來稱呼。本研究把臺北市違章建築現象放置國際討論並分析，可以發現同樣高度發展的城市，如：香港、倫敦，因人口快速增長對住宅供應產生直接衝擊、遷移居民沒有能力承租或購買等問題，迫使人民開始興建或居住於非正式建築，然更多的是隱蔽在合法建物中，造成即便有公共安全疑慮但政府卻無從查起，而臺北市文獻及法規仍以負面意涵之違章建築為主要稱呼。本研究將對臺北與各國非正式住宅類型進行分類，並歸納出已開發國家特有之非正式住宅現象，再以公共選擇理論切入，探討臺北市政府針對違章建築政策之實行原因。研究中將違章建築決策的行為者分為政府部門、政治人物與利益團體，研究結果發現臺北市政府相較於西方國家，對於部分違章建築抱持肯定其存在的態度並允許最低生活活動，但卻直接否定未來合法的可能，其中影響臺北市違章建築拆除的行動者又以政府部門為主。
For many years, illegal buildings have been identified with cluttered, dirty, slums, or uncivilized symbols. But in many countries, social elites, middle class or students also live in those buildings. However, due to the social functions that the government provides incomplete or unreachable, many foreign papers do not classify them as “illegal buildings” but as “informal houses”. This study puts the informality in Taipei into an international discussion and analysis, and finds the same phenomenon in highly developed cities. The rapid population growth has a direct impact on housing supply, forcing people to start building or living in Informal buildings. More of them are concealed in legal construction, causing the government to fail to check even if there are public security concerns. Even, the regulations and literature in Taipei still call them “the illegal buildings”.Based on this, this study will classify the informal housing types in Taipei and othercountries, and summarize the phenomenon of informal housing unique to developed countries, and explore the reasons for the implementation of the informal housing policy by the Taipei government from the public choice theory. In the study, the actors were divided into government departments, politicians and interest groups. The research found that the Taipei City Government has a certain attitude towards certain illegal buildings and allows them for minimum living activities but negates the possibility of legality in the future directly.參考文獻 一、中文參考文獻陳小紅、周鳳，1987，「臺北路邊洗車業之研究，以非正式部門觀」，『建築與城鄉研究學報』，1（3）：167-178。莫永榮，2004，「政府服務委託外包的理論與實務：臺灣經驗」，『行政暨政策學報』，39：75-104。郭昱瑩，2008，「政府職能與財政政策之析論」，『研考雙月刊』，32（2）：30-40。曾鵬光、江哲銘、陳肇堯，2010，「違章建築現象分類與其對外部環境衝擊之研究—以臺南市為例」，『住宅學報』，19（2）：59-80。曾鵬光、陳佳欣，2012，「建蔽率與容積率管制誘發開發商建築違建現象之探討─臺南市新建透天住宅之實證分析」，『住宅學報』，21（1）：19-36。黃麗玲，2015，「違章建築社區的再思考」，『全國律師』，19（1）：18-27。二、英文參考文獻Arrow, Joseph, K., 1963, “Social Choice and Individual Values”, New York：Wiley. Bowen, Howard R., 1943, “The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of EconomicResources”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 58（1）：27-48.Calor, I. and Alterman, R., 2017, “WHEN ENFORCEMENT FAILS: The legal and planning responses to non-compliant development in two advanced-economy countries”, Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 9（3）：207-239.Downs, Anthony, 1957, “An Economic Theory of Democracy”, New York：Harper and Row.Durst, N.J. and Wegman, J., 2017, “Informal Housing in the United States”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41（2）：282-297.Forte, F., 2014, “Illegal Buildings and Local Finance in New Metropolitan Perspectives”, Advanced Engineering Forum, 11：600-606.Harris, R., 2018, “Modes of Informal Urban Development A Global Phenomenon”,Journal of Planning Literature, 33（3）：267-286.Kapoor, M. and Blanc, D.L., 2008, “Measuring risk on investment in informal （illegal） housing: Theory and evidence from Pune, India”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 38：311-329.Lai, L.W.C., 2015, “Squatting by the privileged? A Hong Kong study on theinnovations and ambiguity of property rights of irregular development”, HabitatInternational, 50：317-325.Lombard, M. B., 2019, “Informality as structure or agency? Exploring shed housing in the UK as informal practice.” International Joural of Urban and Research.Macey, J.R., 1989, “Public Choice: The Theory of the Firm and the Theory of Market Exchange”, Cornell Law Review, 74（1）：43-61.McChesney, Fred, S., and William, F. Shughart II., 1995, “The Causes and Consequences of Antitrsust： The Public Choice Perspective”, Chicago：TheUniversity of Chicago Press.Mendez, P. and Quastel, N., 2015, “Subterranean Commodification: Informal Housing and the Legalization of Basement Suites in Vancouver from 1928 to 2009”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39（6）：1155-1171.Merry, M., 2012, “Lessons of the illegal structures controversy”, in Law Lectures for Practitioners 2011.Niskanen, W., A., 1971, “Bureaucracy and Representative Government”, Chicago：Aldine Atherton.Pennington, M., 2000, “Public choice theory and the politics of urban containment:voter-centred versus special-interest explanations”, Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy, 18：145-162.Qiao, S., 2017, “Dealing with Illegal Housing: What Can New York City Learn fromShenzhen?”, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 43（3）：743-769.Olson, M., 1971, “The Logic of Collective action：Public Goods and the Theory ofGroups”, Mass：Harvard University Press.Shirgaokar, M. and Rumbach, A., 2018, “Investigating housing tenures beyondhomeownership: a study of informal settlements in Kolkata, India”, Housing Study,33（1）：117-139.Tanasescu, A. and Chiu, E.W. and Smart, A., 2010, “Tops and bottoms: State tolerance of illegal housing in Hong Kong and Calgary”, Habitat International, 34：478-484.Tullock, G., Seldon, A., and Gordon L. Brady, 2000, “Government Whose ObedientServant? A Primer in Public Choice”, London：The Institute of Economic Affairs.Tullock, G., 1993, “Rent Seeking”, Aldershot, Hants, England；Brookfield, Vt., USA：E. Elgar.Turner, J.C., 1968, “Housing Priorities, Settlement Patterns, and Urban Development in Modernizing Countries”, Journal and the American Institute of Planners, 34（6）：354-363.Wegman, J. and Bell, J.P., 2016, “The Invisibility of Code Enforcement in PlanningPraxis: The Case of Informal Housing in Southern California”, City and RegionalPlanning, 13（1）：20-29.Wegman, J. and Mawhorter, S., 2017, “Measuring Informal Housing Production inCalifornia Cities”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 83（2）：119-130.Yau, Y. and Chiu, S.M., 2015, “Combating building illegality in Hong Kong: A policyDelphi study”, Habitat International, 49：349-356.Yau, Y. and Ho, D.C.W., 2017, “Exploring policy options to combat illegal microapartments in Hong Kong”, Urbani Izziv, 28（2）：83-95.Zhao, P. and Zhang, M., 2018, “Informal suburbanization in Beijing: An investigation of informal gated communities on the urban fringe”, Habitat International, 77：130-142.Zhao, S.（2018, January 22）. Re：One in four Hong Kong properties has illegalstructures, but most owners get away with their misdeeds [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from：https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/2129906/one-fourhong-kong-properties-has-illegal-structures-most. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政學系
106257026資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106257026 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 林子欽 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Tzu-Chin en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 趙家涓 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chao, Chia-Chuan en_US dc.creator (作者) 趙家涓 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chao, Chia-Chuan en_US dc.date (日期) 2019 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Mar-2020 11:24:12 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Mar-2020 11:24:12 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Mar-2020 11:24:12 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0106257026 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128915 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 地政學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 106257026 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 違章建築多年來一直與雜亂無髒的建築印象、貧民窟、不文明象徵掛上等號。而在許多國家中，社會菁英、中產階級或是學生等也會居住於該建築之中。因其擁有政府提供不完全或不及提供之社會功能，許多國外文獻不會將它們歸類為“非法建築”，而是以“非正式住宅”來稱呼。本研究把臺北市違章建築現象放置國際討論並分析，可以發現同樣高度發展的城市，如：香港、倫敦，因人口快速增長對住宅供應產生直接衝擊、遷移居民沒有能力承租或購買等問題，迫使人民開始興建或居住於非正式建築，然更多的是隱蔽在合法建物中，造成即便有公共安全疑慮但政府卻無從查起，而臺北市文獻及法規仍以負面意涵之違章建築為主要稱呼。本研究將對臺北與各國非正式住宅類型進行分類，並歸納出已開發國家特有之非正式住宅現象，再以公共選擇理論切入，探討臺北市政府針對違章建築政策之實行原因。研究中將違章建築決策的行為者分為政府部門、政治人物與利益團體，研究結果發現臺北市政府相較於西方國家，對於部分違章建築抱持肯定其存在的態度並允許最低生活活動，但卻直接否定未來合法的可能，其中影響臺北市違章建築拆除的行動者又以政府部門為主。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) For many years, illegal buildings have been identified with cluttered, dirty, slums, or uncivilized symbols. But in many countries, social elites, middle class or students also live in those buildings. However, due to the social functions that the government provides incomplete or unreachable, many foreign papers do not classify them as “illegal buildings” but as “informal houses”. This study puts the informality in Taipei into an international discussion and analysis, and finds the same phenomenon in highly developed cities. The rapid population growth has a direct impact on housing supply, forcing people to start building or living in Informal buildings. More of them are concealed in legal construction, causing the government to fail to check even if there are public security concerns. Even, the regulations and literature in Taipei still call them “the illegal buildings”.Based on this, this study will classify the informal housing types in Taipei and othercountries, and summarize the phenomenon of informal housing unique to developed countries, and explore the reasons for the implementation of the informal housing policy by the Taipei government from the public choice theory. In the study, the actors were divided into government departments, politicians and interest groups. The research found that the Taipei City Government has a certain attitude towards certain illegal buildings and allows them for minimum living activities but negates the possibility of legality in the future directly. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機與目的 1第二節 研究範圍 4第三節 研究架構流程與方法 5第二章 文獻回顧 17第一節 非正式住宅與違章建築 17第二節 國內外非正式住宅現象 19第三節 公共選擇理論 32第四節 小結 38第三章 臺北市違章建築歷史與制度 39第一節 臺北市違章建築之起源 39第二節 定義與分類 41第三節 臺北市違建相關法制 46第四節 目前執行效率 54第五節 小結 67第四章 公共選擇理論與訪談之分析 69第一節 政治人物、政府部門與利益團體之行為模式分析 69第二節 政治人物、政府部門與利益團體之互動關係 78第三節 臺北市違章建築拆除速度與政策探討 83第四節 臺北市目前針對違建之作法 88第五章 結論 91第一節 研究發現 91第二節 研究建議 97參考文獻 99附錄一附錄二附錄三附錄四附錄五 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2573866 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106257026 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 非正式住宅 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 違章建築 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公共選擇理論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Illegal building en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Informal housing en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Public choice theory en_US dc.title (題名) 臺北市非正式住宅之成因與對策 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Informal Housing in Taipei–Causes and Measures en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文參考文獻陳小紅、周鳳，1987，「臺北路邊洗車業之研究，以非正式部門觀」，『建築與城鄉研究學報』，1（3）：167-178。莫永榮，2004，「政府服務委託外包的理論與實務：臺灣經驗」，『行政暨政策學報』，39：75-104。郭昱瑩，2008，「政府職能與財政政策之析論」，『研考雙月刊』，32（2）：30-40。曾鵬光、江哲銘、陳肇堯，2010，「違章建築現象分類與其對外部環境衝擊之研究—以臺南市為例」，『住宅學報』，19（2）：59-80。曾鵬光、陳佳欣，2012，「建蔽率與容積率管制誘發開發商建築違建現象之探討─臺南市新建透天住宅之實證分析」，『住宅學報』，21（1）：19-36。黃麗玲，2015，「違章建築社區的再思考」，『全國律師』，19（1）：18-27。二、英文參考文獻Arrow, Joseph, K., 1963, “Social Choice and Individual Values”, New York：Wiley. Bowen, Howard R., 1943, “The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of EconomicResources”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 58（1）：27-48.Calor, I. and Alterman, R., 2017, “WHEN ENFORCEMENT FAILS: The legal and planning responses to non-compliant development in two advanced-economy countries”, Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 9（3）：207-239.Downs, Anthony, 1957, “An Economic Theory of Democracy”, New York：Harper and Row.Durst, N.J. and Wegman, J., 2017, “Informal Housing in the United States”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41（2）：282-297.Forte, F., 2014, “Illegal Buildings and Local Finance in New Metropolitan Perspectives”, Advanced Engineering Forum, 11：600-606.Harris, R., 2018, “Modes of Informal Urban Development A Global Phenomenon”,Journal of Planning Literature, 33（3）：267-286.Kapoor, M. and Blanc, D.L., 2008, “Measuring risk on investment in informal （illegal） housing: Theory and evidence from Pune, India”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 38：311-329.Lai, L.W.C., 2015, “Squatting by the privileged? A Hong Kong study on theinnovations and ambiguity of property rights of irregular development”, HabitatInternational, 50：317-325.Lombard, M. B., 2019, “Informality as structure or agency? Exploring shed housing in the UK as informal practice.” International Joural of Urban and Research.Macey, J.R., 1989, “Public Choice: The Theory of the Firm and the Theory of Market Exchange”, Cornell Law Review, 74（1）：43-61.McChesney, Fred, S., and William, F. Shughart II., 1995, “The Causes and Consequences of Antitrsust： The Public Choice Perspective”, Chicago：TheUniversity of Chicago Press.Mendez, P. and Quastel, N., 2015, “Subterranean Commodification: Informal Housing and the Legalization of Basement Suites in Vancouver from 1928 to 2009”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39（6）：1155-1171.Merry, M., 2012, “Lessons of the illegal structures controversy”, in Law Lectures for Practitioners 2011.Niskanen, W., A., 1971, “Bureaucracy and Representative Government”, Chicago：Aldine Atherton.Pennington, M., 2000, “Public choice theory and the politics of urban containment:voter-centred versus special-interest explanations”, Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy, 18：145-162.Qiao, S., 2017, “Dealing with Illegal Housing: What Can New York City Learn fromShenzhen?”, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 43（3）：743-769.Olson, M., 1971, “The Logic of Collective action：Public Goods and the Theory ofGroups”, Mass：Harvard University Press.Shirgaokar, M. and Rumbach, A., 2018, “Investigating housing tenures beyondhomeownership: a study of informal settlements in Kolkata, India”, Housing Study,33（1）：117-139.Tanasescu, A. and Chiu, E.W. and Smart, A., 2010, “Tops and bottoms: State tolerance of illegal housing in Hong Kong and Calgary”, Habitat International, 34：478-484.Tullock, G., Seldon, A., and Gordon L. Brady, 2000, “Government Whose ObedientServant? A Primer in Public Choice”, London：The Institute of Economic Affairs.Tullock, G., 1993, “Rent Seeking”, Aldershot, Hants, England；Brookfield, Vt., USA：E. Elgar.Turner, J.C., 1968, “Housing Priorities, Settlement Patterns, and Urban Development in Modernizing Countries”, Journal and the American Institute of Planners, 34（6）：354-363.Wegman, J. and Bell, J.P., 2016, “The Invisibility of Code Enforcement in PlanningPraxis: The Case of Informal Housing in Southern California”, City and RegionalPlanning, 13（1）：20-29.Wegman, J. and Mawhorter, S., 2017, “Measuring Informal Housing Production inCalifornia Cities”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 83（2）：119-130.Yau, Y. and Chiu, S.M., 2015, “Combating building illegality in Hong Kong: A policyDelphi study”, Habitat International, 49：349-356.Yau, Y. and Ho, D.C.W., 2017, “Exploring policy options to combat illegal microapartments in Hong Kong”, Urbani Izziv, 28（2）：83-95.Zhao, P. and Zhang, M., 2018, “Informal suburbanization in Beijing: An investigation of informal gated communities on the urban fringe”, Habitat International, 77：130-142.Zhao, S.（2018, January 22）. Re：One in four Hong Kong properties has illegalstructures, but most owners get away with their misdeeds [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from：https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/2129906/one-fourhong-kong-properties-has-illegal-structures-most. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202000353 en_US
