1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Social Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 反共有財是悲劇嗎？—土地產權的實證結果
Is Anticommons a Tragedy? An Empirical Study of Property Rights in Land
作者 黃方欣
Huang, Fang Hsin
貢獻者 林子欽
Lin, Tzu Chin
黃方欣
Huang, Fang Hsin
關鍵詞 反共有財
土地產權細碎
土地整合
土地開發
萬華火車站
anticommons
land fragmentation
land assembly
land development
Wanhua train station
日期 2012
上傳時間 1-Oct-2013 11:51:17 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究認為住宅供給彈性小，部分原因可能來自土地面積狹小，需要進行土地整合。且從過去文獻中發現土地整合確實存在價格誘因，實證結果亦發現土地總價與面積之關係並非線性，並可能存在邊際規模報酬遞增之現象，故土地整合確實存在價格誘因。然而拿翹行為與反共有財的悲劇的理論認為：產權的分散或切割遠比合併或整合容易許多，導致產權型態朝向越來越分散的方向前進，這種情況可能出現在各種財貨市場，土地市場更是一顯著的案例。而土地產權的細碎使土地整合的過程困難重重，則可能是住宅供給彈性小的部分原因，特別是在單筆土地面積較為狹小的地區。因此，本研究選定臺北市中單筆土地平均面積最為狹小的萬華區內車站附近地區，以二階段實證進行分析。
第一階段首先以人工土地登記簿謄本標示部中的面積作為變數，並以Januszewski Index、Simpson Index及Gini係數衡量1970至1988年間該地區的土地細碎程度。衡量結果發現：研究地區的Januszewski Index與Simpson Index均朝向土地高度細碎的理論值，而Gini係數則有緩慢上升的趨勢，代表研究地區中的土地逐漸出現面積大小相異的趨勢，隱含出現土地產權的整合行為。第二階段則以使用執照存根作為分類基準，將研究地區內的土地區分為已開發土地與未開發土地二類，並以t檢定、Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney檢定及Kolmogorov-Smirnov檢定分析二類土地的面積變數是否存在差異。實證結果發現：在0.05的顯著水準下，1970至1988年間已開發土地的平均值均大於未開發土地的平均值，且二類土地的母體分配存在顯著的差異。
從統計實證的結果發現：研究地區內土地產權確實存在高度細碎的狀態，且已開發土地與未開發土地在單筆土地面積大小及面積分配型態上，均存在顯著的差異。且加總已開發土地的面積合併或分割次數後，發現平均變動次數介於0.82至7.50次之間，且隨著開發面積的增加，平均變動次數亦隨之遞增，平均變動次數最多的區間為501至600平方公尺，其後又隨面積增加而遞減。將研究期間納入考量，則可發現單次土地面積的變動約需耗費6.35年，對有意願投入開發市場的整合者而言，成本可能因此而十分高昂。正如反共有財理論所指出：土地的產權越細碎，整合將越困難。
If the size of a single plot is small, and its owner wishes to develop it, then he or she must assemble this plot with other adjacent parcels to achieve the economies of scale in size. Land assembly may therefore be one of the reasons why the supply of residential buildings tends to be inelastic. Past studies have found the relationship between total price and size of land to be non-linear, and that for areas where plottage may exist represent some incentives for developers to devote their time and money into land assembly. However, arguments of holdout behaviour and the tragedy of anticommons suggest that property right is much easier to be dispersed than assembled. It leads the pattern of property right to moving toward a single direction. Though this situation might be found in the markets of any goods, land market is an eminent example. The fragmentation of land holdings that demands land assembly can largely explain why the supply of residential buildings is inelastic, particularly in areas where small plots are prevalent. Therefore, this study selects Wanhua train station areas, where the average size of parcels is among the smallest in Taipei City, as the research area.
This study is arranged into two stages. First, this study examines land registration documents of all land plots in the research area, and obtains the size of each plot between 1970 and 1988, a total of 19 years, from the description section of the document. The results of Januszewski Index and Simpson Index indicate a fairly high degree of land fragmentation in the research area. In contrast, the Gini coefficient that gradually moves towards unity over time indicates that the distribution of parcel sizes seems to have become less even. The result of Gini coefficient implies some activities of land assembly undergoing. In the second stage, this study sorts all plots into two categories of developed plots and undeveloped plots respectively, and analyzes if there are differences between the two categories of plots with employment of t test, Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The empirical results indicate that the average size of developed plots is significantly larger than the average size of undeveloped plots. In addition, the size distributions of two categories of plots differ over 1970 through 1988 at the significance level of 0.05.
The empirical results reveal that property rights in land in the research area are highly fragmented, and that average plot size and size distributions between developed and undeveloped plots are different significantly. In addition, developed plots on average undergo amalgamation or splitting of between 0.82 and 7.50 times. The frequency of land amalgamation or splitting increases with plot size. The plots of between 501 and 600 square meters have experienced the highest frequency of land amalgamation or splitting. The frequency for plots over 601 square meters falls with plot size. Moreover, land amalgamation or splitting takes approximately 6.35 years each time. All in all, for those who are interested in developing land, the costs are expected to be fairly high. All the empirical evidence, taken together, seem to fit the prediction of anticommons theory well: the more fragmented the land property rights are, the more difficult the land assembly is.
參考文獻 1. 林子欽、許明芳，2003，「個別土地開發前的產權調整—市地重劃區個案觀察」，『臺灣土地問題研究』， 6 (2)：1-16。
2. 林素菁、林祖嘉，2001，「臺灣地區住宅供給彈性之估計」，『住宅學報』，10 (1)：17-27。
3. 林惠玲、陳正倉，2011，『應用統計學』四版，臺北市：雙葉書廊。
4. 邱皓政，2005，『量化研究法（二）：統計原理與分析技術』，臺北市：雙葉書廊。
5. 陳傳波、丁士軍，2001，「基尼係數的測算與分解－Excel算法與Stata程序」，『上海統計』，7：20-24。
6. 趙岡、陳鍾毅，1982，『中國土地制度史』，臺北市：聯經。
7. 趙岡，2005，『中國傳統農村的地權分配』，臺北市：聯經。
8. 趙岡，2008，「中國傳統社會的地權分配」，『漢學研究』，26 (4)：311-320。
9. 顏月珠，1998，『商用統計學』十一版，臺北市：三民書局。
10. Adams, D. C., 1994, Urban Planning and the Development Process. London: UCL Press.
11. Adams, D. C., Baum, A., & MacGregor, B., 1988, “The Availability of Land for Inner City Development: A Case Study of Inner Manchester”, Urban Studies, 25: 62-76.
12. Berenson, M., Levine, D., & Krehbiel, T., 2009, Basic Business Statistics : Concepts and Applications, 11th ed., New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
13. Champernowne, D., & Cowell, F., 1998, Economic Inequality and Income Distribution, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
14. Colwell, P., & Munneke, H., 1997, “The Structure of Urban Land Prices”, Journal of Urban Economics, 41 (3): 321-336.
15. Colwell, P., & Munneke, H., 1999, “Land Prices and Land Assembly in the CBD”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 18 (2): 163-180.
16. Colwell, P., & Sirmans, C., 1978, “Area, Time, Centrality and the Value of Urban Land”, Land Economics, 54 (4): 514-519.
17. Eckart, W., 1985, “On the Land Assembly Problem”, Journal of Urban Economics, 18 (3): 364-378.
18. Evans, A., 1983, “The Determination of the Price of Land”, Urban Studies, 20 (2): 119-129.
19. Evans, A., 1985, Urban Economics: An Introduction, Great Britain: Basil Blackwell.
20. Heller, M., 1998, “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets”, Harvard Law Review, 111: 621-688.
21. Heller, M., 2008, The Gridlock Economy, New York: Basic Books.
22. Lin, T.-C., & Evans, A., 2000, “The Relationship Between the Price of Land and Size of Plot When Plots Are Small”, Land Economics, 76 (3): 386-394.
23. McDonald, J., 2007, “What is Public Use? Eminent Domain and the Kelo Decision”, Cornell Real Estate Review, 5 (1): 10-25.
24. Olson, M., 1989, The Logic of Collective Action, United States of America: Harvard College.
25. Shoup, D., 1970, “The Optimal Timing of Urban Land Development”, Regional Science, 25 (1): 33-44.
26. Shoup, D., 2008, “Graduated Density Zoning”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28 (2): 161-179.
27. Simion, G., 2008, “Geographical Analysis of the Land Fragmentation Process Based on Participatory Mapping and Satellite Images. Case Studies of Ciorogârla and Vănătorii Mici From the Bucharest Metropolitan Area”, Human Geographies, 2 (1): 83-94.
28. Sprent, P., & Smeeton, N., 2007, Applied Nonparametric Statistical Methods, 4th ed., Boca Raton, Fla.: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
29. Van Huan, P., MacAulay, T., & Marsh, S., 2007, “The Economics of Land Fragmentation in the North of Vietnam”, The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 51 (2): 195-211.
30. Vander Meer, P., 1975, “Land Consolidation through Land Fragmentation: Case Studies from Taiwan”, Land Economics, 51 (3): 275-283.
31. Zhu, J., 2012, “Development of Sustainable Urban Forms for High-Density Low-Income Asian Countries: The Case of Vietnam: The Institutional Hindrance of the Commons and Anticommons”, Cities, 29 (2): 77-87.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政研究所
100257010
101
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100257010
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 林子欽zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Tzu Chinen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 黃方欣zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Huang, Fang Hsinen_US
dc.creator (作者) 黃方欣zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Huang, Fang Hsinen_US
dc.date (日期) 2012en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Oct-2013 11:51:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Oct-2013 11:51:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Oct-2013 11:51:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0100257010en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/61170-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 地政研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100257010zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究認為住宅供給彈性小，部分原因可能來自土地面積狹小，需要進行土地整合。且從過去文獻中發現土地整合確實存在價格誘因，實證結果亦發現土地總價與面積之關係並非線性，並可能存在邊際規模報酬遞增之現象，故土地整合確實存在價格誘因。然而拿翹行為與反共有財的悲劇的理論認為：產權的分散或切割遠比合併或整合容易許多，導致產權型態朝向越來越分散的方向前進，這種情況可能出現在各種財貨市場，土地市場更是一顯著的案例。而土地產權的細碎使土地整合的過程困難重重，則可能是住宅供給彈性小的部分原因，特別是在單筆土地面積較為狹小的地區。因此，本研究選定臺北市中單筆土地平均面積最為狹小的萬華區內車站附近地區，以二階段實證進行分析。
第一階段首先以人工土地登記簿謄本標示部中的面積作為變數，並以Januszewski Index、Simpson Index及Gini係數衡量1970至1988年間該地區的土地細碎程度。衡量結果發現：研究地區的Januszewski Index與Simpson Index均朝向土地高度細碎的理論值，而Gini係數則有緩慢上升的趨勢，代表研究地區中的土地逐漸出現面積大小相異的趨勢，隱含出現土地產權的整合行為。第二階段則以使用執照存根作為分類基準，將研究地區內的土地區分為已開發土地與未開發土地二類，並以t檢定、Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney檢定及Kolmogorov-Smirnov檢定分析二類土地的面積變數是否存在差異。實證結果發現：在0.05的顯著水準下，1970至1988年間已開發土地的平均值均大於未開發土地的平均值，且二類土地的母體分配存在顯著的差異。
從統計實證的結果發現：研究地區內土地產權確實存在高度細碎的狀態，且已開發土地與未開發土地在單筆土地面積大小及面積分配型態上，均存在顯著的差異。且加總已開發土地的面積合併或分割次數後，發現平均變動次數介於0.82至7.50次之間，且隨著開發面積的增加，平均變動次數亦隨之遞增，平均變動次數最多的區間為501至600平方公尺，其後又隨面積增加而遞減。將研究期間納入考量，則可發現單次土地面積的變動約需耗費6.35年，對有意願投入開發市場的整合者而言，成本可能因此而十分高昂。正如反共有財理論所指出：土地的產權越細碎，整合將越困難。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) If the size of a single plot is small, and its owner wishes to develop it, then he or she must assemble this plot with other adjacent parcels to achieve the economies of scale in size. Land assembly may therefore be one of the reasons why the supply of residential buildings tends to be inelastic. Past studies have found the relationship between total price and size of land to be non-linear, and that for areas where plottage may exist represent some incentives for developers to devote their time and money into land assembly. However, arguments of holdout behaviour and the tragedy of anticommons suggest that property right is much easier to be dispersed than assembled. It leads the pattern of property right to moving toward a single direction. Though this situation might be found in the markets of any goods, land market is an eminent example. The fragmentation of land holdings that demands land assembly can largely explain why the supply of residential buildings is inelastic, particularly in areas where small plots are prevalent. Therefore, this study selects Wanhua train station areas, where the average size of parcels is among the smallest in Taipei City, as the research area.
This study is arranged into two stages. First, this study examines land registration documents of all land plots in the research area, and obtains the size of each plot between 1970 and 1988, a total of 19 years, from the description section of the document. The results of Januszewski Index and Simpson Index indicate a fairly high degree of land fragmentation in the research area. In contrast, the Gini coefficient that gradually moves towards unity over time indicates that the distribution of parcel sizes seems to have become less even. The result of Gini coefficient implies some activities of land assembly undergoing. In the second stage, this study sorts all plots into two categories of developed plots and undeveloped plots respectively, and analyzes if there are differences between the two categories of plots with employment of t test, Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The empirical results indicate that the average size of developed plots is significantly larger than the average size of undeveloped plots. In addition, the size distributions of two categories of plots differ over 1970 through 1988 at the significance level of 0.05.
The empirical results reveal that property rights in land in the research area are highly fragmented, and that average plot size and size distributions between developed and undeveloped plots are different significantly. In addition, developed plots on average undergo amalgamation or splitting of between 0.82 and 7.50 times. The frequency of land amalgamation or splitting increases with plot size. The plots of between 501 and 600 square meters have experienced the highest frequency of land amalgamation or splitting. The frequency for plots over 601 square meters falls with plot size. Moreover, land amalgamation or splitting takes approximately 6.35 years each time. All in all, for those who are interested in developing land, the costs are expected to be fairly high. All the empirical evidence, taken together, seem to fit the prediction of anticommons theory well: the more fragmented the land property rights are, the more difficult the land assembly is.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 目錄 I
圖目錄 II
表目錄 III
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究架構與流程 5
第二章 文獻回顧 7
第一節 土地整合之價格誘因 7
第二節 地主、產權與土地整合 11
第三章 研究設計 17
第一節 研究地區與方法 17
第二節 資料說明 29
第三節 資料處理與限制 31
第四章 實證結果與分析 37
第一節 土地細碎程度分析 37
第二節 開發與否分析 43
第五章 結論與建議 53
第一節 結論 53
第二節 後續研究建議 54
參考文獻 55		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2750992 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100257010en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 反共有財zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 土地產權細碎zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 土地整合zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 土地開發zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 萬華火車站zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) anticommonsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) land fragmentationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) land assemblyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) land developmenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Wanhua train stationen_US
dc.title (題名) 反共有財是悲劇嗎？—土地產權的實證結果zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Is Anticommons a Tragedy? An Empirical Study of Property Rights in Landen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. 林子欽、許明芳，2003，「個別土地開發前的產權調整—市地重劃區個案觀察」，『臺灣土地問題研究』， 6 (2)：1-16。
2. 林素菁、林祖嘉，2001，「臺灣地區住宅供給彈性之估計」，『住宅學報』，10 (1)：17-27。
3. 林惠玲、陳正倉，2011，『應用統計學』四版，臺北市：雙葉書廊。
4. 邱皓政，2005，『量化研究法（二）：統計原理與分析技術』，臺北市：雙葉書廊。
5. 陳傳波、丁士軍，2001，「基尼係數的測算與分解－Excel算法與Stata程序」，『上海統計』，7：20-24。
6. 趙岡、陳鍾毅，1982，『中國土地制度史』，臺北市：聯經。
7. 趙岡，2005，『中國傳統農村的地權分配』，臺北市：聯經。
8. 趙岡，2008，「中國傳統社會的地權分配」，『漢學研究』，26 (4)：311-320。
9. 顏月珠，1998，『商用統計學』十一版，臺北市：三民書局。
10. Adams, D. C., 1994, Urban Planning and the Development Process. London: UCL Press.
11. Adams, D. C., Baum, A., & MacGregor, B., 1988, “The Availability of Land for Inner City Development: A Case Study of Inner Manchester”, Urban Studies, 25: 62-76.
12. Berenson, M., Levine, D., & Krehbiel, T., 2009, Basic Business Statistics : Concepts and Applications, 11th ed., New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
13. Champernowne, D., & Cowell, F., 1998, Economic Inequality and Income Distribution, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
14. Colwell, P., & Munneke, H., 1997, “The Structure of Urban Land Prices”, Journal of Urban Economics, 41 (3): 321-336.
15. Colwell, P., & Munneke, H., 1999, “Land Prices and Land Assembly in the CBD”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 18 (2): 163-180.
16. Colwell, P., & Sirmans, C., 1978, “Area, Time, Centrality and the Value of Urban Land”, Land Economics, 54 (4): 514-519.
17. Eckart, W., 1985, “On the Land Assembly Problem”, Journal of Urban Economics, 18 (3): 364-378.
18. Evans, A., 1983, “The Determination of the Price of Land”, Urban Studies, 20 (2): 119-129.
19. Evans, A., 1985, Urban Economics: An Introduction, Great Britain: Basil Blackwell.
20. Heller, M., 1998, “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets”, Harvard Law Review, 111: 621-688.
21. Heller, M., 2008, The Gridlock Economy, New York: Basic Books.
22. Lin, T.-C., & Evans, A., 2000, “The Relationship Between the Price of Land and Size of Plot When Plots Are Small”, Land Economics, 76 (3): 386-394.
23. McDonald, J., 2007, “What is Public Use? Eminent Domain and the Kelo Decision”, Cornell Real Estate Review, 5 (1): 10-25.
24. Olson, M., 1989, The Logic of Collective Action, United States of America: Harvard College.
25. Shoup, D., 1970, “The Optimal Timing of Urban Land Development”, Regional Science, 25 (1): 33-44.
26. Shoup, D., 2008, “Graduated Density Zoning”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28 (2): 161-179.
27. Simion, G., 2008, “Geographical Analysis of the Land Fragmentation Process Based on Participatory Mapping and Satellite Images. Case Studies of Ciorogârla and Vănătorii Mici From the Bucharest Metropolitan Area”, Human Geographies, 2 (1): 83-94.
28. Sprent, P., & Smeeton, N., 2007, Applied Nonparametric Statistical Methods, 4th ed., Boca Raton, Fla.: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
29. Van Huan, P., MacAulay, T., & Marsh, S., 2007, “The Economics of Land Fragmentation in the North of Vietnam”, The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 51 (2): 195-211.
30. Vander Meer, P., 1975, “Land Consolidation through Land Fragmentation: Case Studies from Taiwan”, Land Economics, 51 (3): 275-283.
31. Zhu, J., 2012, “Development of Sustainable Urban Forms for High-Density Low-Income Asian Countries: The Case of Vietnam: The Institutional Hindrance of the Commons and Anticommons”, Cities, 29 (2): 77-87.		zh_TW