近年來，因房價急速攀升，居住困難的問題在台灣各都會區越形嚴重，為緩解此一現象，保護人民居住的權利，只租不賣的社會住宅成為政府住宅政策的焦點之一，且受到社會大眾的廣泛討論。本文使用文獻分析法爬梳台灣歷來的住宅政策，以及主導這些政策的意識型態，發掘形塑台灣社會住宅論述的主要成因。並對房地產業從業人員、民間從事土地與住宅之社會運動者及政府相關部門公職人員進行深度訪談，以不同角度交互印證前述文獻分析的結果，同時，以台北市和新北市為例，探討台灣實際執行社會住宅政策以來，其發展的現況、面臨的困境與批評，以及可能的解決之道。研究結果顯示，台灣社會住宅論述形成的原因，是由於台灣既有的住宅持有分配不均與住宅市場失靈，造成人民居住權受到壓迫，進而產生一種新型態的住宅提供之訴求，此訴求可視為對原有自由主義市場經濟主宰住宅分配的反動。台灣目前主要推行社會住宅政策的區域為居住困難情形最嚴重的台北市與新北市，其面臨的主要批評有數量少、租金高、租期短、承租對象年齡侷限等，而在政策實施上面臨的困境則有興建經費不足、政府資源分配不均、周邊社區鄰避效應處理與營運管理維護等問題。政府必須著眼於改善現行社會住宅政策的困境與批評，方能使社會住宅政策更臻完善，並能藉此達到落實居住正義之效。 / In recent years, the dramatic increase in house price has led to difficulties for dwellings to serve their own housing needs in the metropolitan area in Taiwan. Social housing therefore becomes a vital policy, in hope of easing the stress on the difficulties of housing needs and moreover, reserving the civilian’s right of habitation. This study is composed of two major parts: literature review and interview. The literature review provides the background and framework of housing policies in the past, identifies the ideologies that formulated the policies, and concludes the main factors that develop the discourse of social housing in Taiwan. The second part of the study reinforces the attributions of the literature review based on the statement and experience of the interviewees. The group of interviewees consists of chief executive form a construction company, real estate agent, social activists with awareness on land and housing issues, and civil servants involved in social housing affairs. The different perspectives presented by the interviewees explain the development of social housing, bring up the criticism and predicament on the topic, and contribute in discovering solutions for the difficulties of housing needs. The findings of this study indicate that housing inequality and housing market failure has underlain the discourse of social housing. The exploitation on the right of habitation has raised the appeal for social housing, which can also be suggested as a counteraction to the housing distribution dominated by free market. In Taiwan, social housing policy is mainly enacted in Taipei City and New Taipei City, which suffer most from the difficulties of housing needs. However, there are drawbacks that impede the promotion of this policy: lack of fund for construction, inequality on governmental resource, NIMBY in the community, and maintenance for sustaining operation. In addition, arguments about insufficient availability, unaffordable rent, short tenure and age restrict on tenants are also powerful against the policy. To conclude, the government should try to ensure that the system is designed in the way to minimize the disadvantages, which merits achieving social housing policy aim: reserving the civilian’s right to adequate housing.

過去國內社會住宅之研究多著重於住宅問題面，較少探討對於所得分配之影響。各縣市目前提供的無論是國民住宅或合宜住宅等，數量不多且未考量到縮減貧富差距。為了解社會住宅對於縮減貧富差距是否有所助益，因此本文運用文獻回顧及實證分析法，研究所得重分配的2個問題。 研究結果發現：第一、社會福利支出的所得重分配效果大於租稅的所得重分配效果。近年來，無論是臺灣或國外，社會福利支出已成為限縮所得差距擴張的主要因素。本文利用1980年至2013年間之家庭收支調查資料計算，並採用多元線性迴歸模型進行實證分析。迴歸結果顯示：1.經濟成長率對於所得差距倍數、社福支出改善所得差距的倍數、賦稅改善所得差距的倍數，都有顯著負向影響。2.時間趨勢對於所得差距倍數、社福支出改善所得差距的倍數、賦稅改善所得差距的倍數，都有顯著正向影響。3.大學學歷以上就業者年增率對於所得差距倍數、社福支出改善所得差距的倍數都有顯著正向影響。在臺灣，尤以經濟不景氣時，社會福利支出相較於租稅，有更為顯著的所得重分配效果。 第二、社會住宅戶數越多、租金折扣越高，越有助於縮減所得差距。社會住宅不僅僅是在於解決住宅問題，更可以做為所得重分配的工具。本文利用大島指數對臺北市松山寶清段的692戶社會住宅進行分析，結果顯示：社會住宅提供後，無論是臺北市或松山區的所得差距倍數皆呈現下降。而且當社會住宅戶數越多、租金折扣越高時，所得差距倍數下降幅度越大，所得重分配之改善效果越強。

2013年聯合國於兩公約人權報告中揭示，「居住權」為重要的基本人權之一，然而，根據行政院研考會於2010年的網路民調，「房價高漲」為十大民怨之首，受到外在政治經濟環境影響，政府放任投資客自由進出房地產市場炒房的結果，使得一般市井小民欲在臺北都會區買房，得不吃不喝15.73年才得以買到一處安身立命的處所，由此可知，我國居住權人權狀況與國際人權標準尚有一段差距。 　　本研究目的在於以政策分析途徑界定政策問題，接著從「政策變遷」（policy change）的角度切入，比較臺灣住宅政策的主要政策方案，包括「只租不售」的社會住宅、「出售式」的合宜住宅，進而探討在多項政策方案供選擇的政策決策過程中（policy making process），政策行動者所採取的互動策略如何影響政策變遷的結果，並透過深度訪談了解不同行動者對這些變化過程的解釋為何、如何看待那些變化，並依據個案的合適性選擇莊文忠（2003）提出的整合性分析架構，從外在環境因素、政策本身特性、結構因素、政策網絡等面向，分析社會住宅與合宜住宅相互變遷的政策過程，歸納影響政策變遷的因素有哪些，進而提出政策建議。 　　基於文獻分析與訪談結果，本研究發現，政府推動社會住宅相較於合宜住宅面臨較大的困難，包括缺乏整體的社會住宅政策、心理上的抗拒、法規制度的限制等，《住宅法》於2011年底通過與地方政府重要政策轉變構築變遷的政策過程，然而，從2010年到2014年短短4年的時間，社會住宅卻取代合宜住宅成為中央政府或地方政府積極推動的住宅政策。 從社會住宅與合宜住宅相互變遷的政策過程來看，影響兩項政策變遷的因素有許多：在政策外在環境因素的部分，包含高房價民怨促使政府回應、2014年底九合一選舉的影響、政策學習不應照單全收、社會共識逐漸形成、葉世文行賄弊案的衝擊；在政策屬性因素的部分，包含從國宅政策思維到社會價值的展現、焦點事件促成民眾政策偏好的改變、民間參與並非住宅政策的萬靈丹、合宜住宅的無形政策成本超載；在結構因素的部分，包含政策選擇與政治績效形塑決策者的政策思維、決策者的意識型態會影響其住宅政策決策、中央與地方各有本位主義、中央住宅部門層級過低等等，再加上政策網絡中行動者互動的交互影響，使得複雜性、不確定性如此高的社會住宅成為目前的政策主流，許多政府單位因為首長選舉的政見承諾紛紛開始重視社會住宅這樣的政策，而政策不會一成不變，相反地，它們會受到政治結構變遷及決策者政策思維改變而持續不斷地演化，因此，社會住宅政策未來是否能維持主導地位，仍有待吾人持續關注後續的政策變遷。 / In 2013, the human rights reports in two International Covenants both disclosed that “right of residence“ as one of the most important fundamental human rights. However, according to an on-line poll conducted by Research Development and Evaluation Commission of Executive Yuan in 2010 showed that “rising house prices“ issue was top one grievances among others. Affected by political and economic environment externally, the result of letting free access of investors unlimited entering and exiting real estate market has made it very difficult for civilians to buy house around urban Taipei. In order to buy a new house around unban Taipei, a civilian has to live without drinking or eating for 15.73 years. Therefore, it clearly shows that there is still a big gap between the right of residence in Taiwan and international standard. The purpose of this study is to define policy issues through policy analysis approach. Furthermore, the study tries to compare major policy programs of housing policy in Taiwan from the perspective of policy change, including "only for rent not for sale" social housing and "sale type" affordable housing, so as to discuss how interactive strategies that policy actors adopted affect the result of policy changes in the policy making process. The study adopts in-depth interview method to understand how different actors explain and interpret the changes, along with specific case study based on the integrated analysis framework proposed by Wen-Jong Juang in 2003. Through the integrated analysis framework, from external environment factors, policy features, structural factors and policy networks, the study analyzes the policy changing process between social housing and affordable housing, concluding which factors affect the changes in policy. Additionally, hope to come up with some policy suggestions. By reviewing related literatures and conducting interviews, the study shows that government faces greater difficulties when promoting social housing rather than promoting affordable housing. The reasons include lack of comprehensive social housing policy, mental resistance, and restrictions on laws as well as institutions and so on. The passing of Housing Act in the end of 2011 and the significant policy changes in local governments have created the policy change process. However, from 2010 to 2014, instead of promoting affordable housing policy, both central and local governments promote strongly on social housing policy. By observing the policy changing process between social housing and affordable housing, the study shows that many factors affect policy changes. First, the external environmental factors, including the high housing price issue, influence of local election in the end of 2014, policy learning, social consensus, and bribery scandal of Shi-Wen Ye all have impacts externally. Second, the factors of policy features, including past public housing policy to social value; focus events led to changes of public preferences; private participation in housing policy is not a panacea; the intangible cost of affordable housing overloaded are all possible factors. Third, the structural factors, including policy thinking formed by policy chose and political performance; ideologies of decision makers; centralism and localism; hierarchy of residential department in central government and so on, all have different effects. Last but not least, the interactions among policy network actors cause interaction effects. Hence, factors above make social housing as mainly policy, even though it is still highly uncertain and complex. Many government agencies have begun to pay attention to social housing policy due to the promises made by local officials. On the other hand, policies change, continually evolve affected by changes in the political structure and the policy thinking of decision makers. Therefore, whether the social housing policy will maintain the dominant position still remains question, and we will keep follow up with what might change in future policies.

政府為照護青年及弱勢族群的居住權利，興辦社會住宅為首要政策，然當前政府財政困境及資源不足情形，得運用民間資源以「公私協力夥伴(public-private partnerships，下稱PPP)」模式共同興辦社會住宅。惟現行促進民間參與公共建設法有政府不出資金及民間財務自償率適用門檻等特性，民間企業對於低自償性且具高益性之公共建設案件投資意願低；若開放附屬事業增加投資誘因，則產生政府未達公共建設目的、犧牲弱勢權益及公益性不足等爭議及輿論。 為提高民間企業投資誘因及推動社會住宅政策，本研究以我國BOT(Build-Operate-Transfer，建設-營運-移轉)模式導入國外民間融資提案(Private Finance Initiative，PFI)制度之營運績效付款概念為基礎，透過個案研究財務模擬，在促參法BOT制度下，進行現有民間自主營運及導入營運績效付款機制等兩模式進行財務效益分析，並以此作為深度訪談題綱資料，進行產、官、學三類型受訪者之個別訪談。 最後，經彙總深度訪談意見及各章節分析後，本研究得到下列幾點「運用營運績效付款興辦社會住宅」之重要結論與後續建議，以資作為未來政府機關以民間參與模式推動社會住宅或其他低自償高公益性類型之公共建設案件參考： 1.政府擔負租金率和租金調整風險，可降低民間企業營運風險，增加政府機關政策調整彈性和監督管理權力，具有達到興辦社會住宅政策目的及風險控制效益。 2.政府於營運期依營運績效給付固定價金予民間企業，除可提升公共建設服務品質，於民間企業可收取穩定租金現金流量佳，具投資誘因。 3.提供評估社會住宅之重大參數建議，包含：特許年期設定於20年~25年區間、合理利潤率設定於稅後報酬率8%~10%區間、付款機制於營運期間依服務可用度及績效評估分年付款，及土地租金得以公告地價1%或約定固定費率計收等，降低雙方案件執行風險及保障利潤。 4.促使案件順利執行之應配套事項，包含：政府機關確保長期預算編列及確保給付性、融資機構願專案融資可行性及合理制定成果規範、評核項目及扣款機制。 / To ensure the housing for young people and vulnerable social groups, implementing social housing is a top priority. Given the government’s financial difficulties and lack of resources, “public-private partnerships” (PPP) could be used to provide social housing. However, the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects (the Act) stipulates that the government provides no funding nor an applicable threshold of self-liquidation ratio (SLR) for private enterprises. Private enterprises do not have such a great interest in investing in infrastructure projects with a low SLR or benefits. If affiliated business have a greater incentive to invest, it will result in a dispute or argument over the government’s disregard for infrastructure projects, the rights and interests of vulnerable groups, and public welfare. To increase private enterprises’ incentive to invest and promote the social housing policies, the study has introduced the concept of operating performance payment in the foreign PFI (Private-Finance-Initiative) system based on the BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) model under the Act and has analyzed the financial benefits of private enterprises and the operating performance payment through a case study. The analysis was applied to develop in-depth individual interview questions with respondents from the businessman, the government, and specialist. According to feedback gathered from in-depth interviews and the summary of each chapter, the study drew the following conclusions and recommendations for the implementation of social housing through operating performance payment. The conclusion and recommendations could be used as future references in the implementation of social housing through PPP or infrastructure projects with a low SLR and high benefits： 1.The government shall bear the risks of adjustments to rental rates and rent to reduce the operational risk of private enterprises and increase the flexibility and power of supervision and management of its policies with the aim of implementing social housing and controlling risks. 2.During operation, the government pays a fixed amount to private enterprises based on their operating performance, which can improve the quality of service of infrastructure projects and provide a more stable rent for private enterprises thus further increasing their incentive to invest. 3.Major parameters of social housing are proposed, including a concession period of 20~25 years, a reasonable profit margin set at 8%~10% of after-tax as a rate of return, the annual payment of which shall made according to the availability of services and performance evaluation during operations, and land rent charged based on 1% of the published land price or an agreed fixed rate. These parameters can help reduce the risks of implementation and guarantee profits. 4.Mechanisms that support the implementation of social housing are proposed, including the government’s guarantee of budgets and payments, the feasibility of project financing and the establishment of proper standards for evaluating the results, determining the evaluation citeria, and deduction mechanisms.