English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88987/118697 (75%)
Visitors : 23578476      Online Users : 200
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/68339


    Title: 轉型中國的城市住房改革--「重慶模式」之探討
    Other Titles: Urban Housing Reform in Transitional China-- an Exploration of the $Chongqing Model$
    Authors: 魏玫娟
    Contributors: 國家發展研究所
    Keywords: 轉型經濟;城市住房改革;重慶模式;社會主義市場經濟;社會主義發展型國家
    transition economy;urban housing reform;Chongqing model;socialist market economy;socialist developmental state
    Date: 2012
    Issue Date: 2014-08-06 16:54:50 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 中國城市住房改革經過了將近三十年的努力,從 1988 年「全國住房改革計畫」確認住 房改革將有助於中國經濟與社會的進一步發展、1990 年第八個「五年計畫」中的「住房 改革解決方案」、1994 年的「深化城鎮住房改革決策」、到 1998 年實施「住房貨幣化政 策」取代了原本以住房補貼為主的福利住房制度,許多城市居民因為無力租用或購買市 場住房而依舊仰賴單位提供住房。儘管「住房公積金的設置」、「公房出售」、「倡導可轉 售住房交易」、「房租改革」與「供應廉租房」等創新制度的設計的確提升了城市的居住 水準,也成功地改變了城市的面貌,同時並提升若干地方土地與住房的價值,但是「單 位」與「戶口」這兩個中國社會主義的制度遺緒相當大程度減損了中國城市住房改革創 新措施所可能發揮的正面作用,反而成為城市住房分配不均等問題的主要制度因素。本 研究旨在探討中國城市住房改革的「重慶模式」,從制度演變/制度分析的角度,透過對 重慶的個案研究來嘗試回答以下問題:中國的城市住房改革是如何受到「單位」與「戶 口」制度路徑依賴的影響?是什麼原因導致中國改革開放以來旨在改善城市治理並解決 住房問題的城市住房改革失敗,甚至導致社會不平等的出現與惡化?是「市場」的限制 與失靈還是轉型經濟中城市發展的必然後果?面對住房商品化/市場化所導致高房價以 致城市一般居民無力購房的情況,中國政府是否調整或改變其以市場化為導向的城市住 房政策原則而再次強調過去社會主義制度下國家在提供(福利)住房上所應擔負的責 任?「重慶模式」與其他城市(如上海)住房改革政策不同之處與優缺點為何?更進一 步,在「重慶模式」之探究以及重慶與其他中國城市(如上海)住房改革之比較研究的 基礎上,本研究嘗試進一步比較中國城市住房政策與其他國家(主要是東亞資本主義國 家跟東歐前共產主義國家)的改革經驗,從制度轉型的角度來探索,中國在社會主義市 場經濟原則下強調「自主創新」的制度轉型是否可能在理論上建立一個「社會主義發展 型國家」的模式。
    Three decades after China launched its marketisation/ commodification-oriented urban housing reform ‘housing’ remains a pressing for China’s urban governance. Various housing reform policies have been implemented with a view to improving China’s urban governance, central to which are the problems of housing shortage and poor housing and residential quality. Whilst the housing and residential quality and the urban landscape have been greatly improved, thanks to the implementation of various innovative housing policies, the skyrocketing prices in many big cities such as Shanghai and Beijing have contributed to the emergence of housing inequity. Many urban dwellers are stuck in the ‘housing trap’. Under the socialist ideology, public housing provision is an important element of socialist welfare system. Under such system, the state is the main provider of housing and the state employees are the main beneficiaries of the welfare housing system. The two main socialist institutional legacies in China-- the ‘household registration (hukuo)’ and ‘work unit (danwai)’, which are the core elements of China’s socialist housing distribution system-- are thought to have caused the failures of China’s urban housing reform. Through an investigation of the so-called ‘Chongqing model’ from the perspective of institutional evolution/ analysis, this research is attempted to answer the following questions: what are the impacts of ‘household registration’ and ‘work unit’ systems upon China’s urban housing reform? Is the emergence and exacerbation of urban housing inequity in China the result of market failure or the inevitable consequence of urban development in a transition economy? Facing the problem of housing inequity, is it likely that the Chinese authorities will re-orient its marketization-oriented policy and move towards a system closer to the welfare housing system? What are the significant differences of the ‘Chongqing model’ from others in terms of institutional innovation? What are the merits and drawbacks of the ‘Chongqing model’? Is it possible for the ‘Chongqing model’ to be applied to other cities? Based on the findings of the exploration of the ‘Chongqing model’ and the comparative studies of Chongqing and other cities such as Shanghai, this research is further attempted to compare the experiences of urban housing reform of China and East Asian capitalist countries and former East European communist countries. Through cross-national comparative studies, this research is also attempted to explore the possibility of developing a model of socialist developmental state.
    Relation: 行政院國家科學委員會
    計畫編號NSC101-2410-H004-139
    Data Type: report
    Appears in Collections:[國家發展研究所] 國科會研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    101-2410-H004-139.pdf1016KbAdobe PDF558View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback