自從民國89年農業發展條例修正後，新的農舍制度已經運行了六個寒暑，但由統計上的數據可得知個別農舍依然是農民們興建農舍時的主要選擇，顯見政府所欲提倡的集村興建農舍有其實施上的弱點。而在真正完成的集村農舍當中，起造人入住的真正目的，又多半與實際的農業經營管理無關。因此，集村農舍制度於制度設計與制度執行方面可能出現了若干的問題，導致政策實施的結果與政策初始的期望落差甚大。由於集村農舍制度的成效有限，反而更加襯托出個別農舍的備受青睞，這又明顯異於多數學者、官員對於個別農舍所持的負面態度。因此，吾人欲從這兩個並行制度的制度內容出發，以實際的案例進行農舍制度在規則、組織、執行層面的比較分析，據以提出下列的結論與建議。 一、研究結論 （一）個別農舍在搜尋成本、監督成本、執行成本、時間成本等交易成本上遠較集村農舍來得低廉，加上政府提供給集村農舍的誘因相對不足與個別農舍選擇的高度自由，使得目前農民在申請興建農舍時仍以個別農舍為主要的選擇。 （二）個別農舍有建築樣式的選擇自由、交易成本較低等優點，也有容易成為治安死角、公共設施不足等缺點；而集村農舍相對的有建築樣式的選擇不自由、交易成本較高等缺點，以及能夠守望相助、公共設施充足等優點。 （三）作為中央政府政策代理者的地方政府，時常會缺乏對於制度變遷的適應性（adaptation）與執行時的專業能力，加上又必須面對執政權力來源的選民壓力，所以其執行成效往往在中央政府之期待與地方選民之要求間做拉扯，而很有可能因此偏離了政策的原始理念。 二、政策建議 （一）儘速檢討集村農舍制度的偏差以回歸原始之優良理念，並僅允許集村結合原有的鄉村區去作興建，而不准許蛙躍式的、點狀式的集村興建。 （二）現在多數的個別農舍都是屬於別墅型的個別農舍與居住型的個別農舍，而與真正的農業生產經營沒什麼相關性，因此這些不符合農舍原始定義的個別農舍，應該沒有再繼續申請興建的理由，僅有農用型的個別農舍可以有限度的開放興建。 （三）目前農舍管理所面臨到的難題，多少都與完全地開放自然人進入農地市場有關，而在農發條例因為諸多現實的政治因素而難以付諸修改的情況之下，唯有從嚴認定欲申請興建農舍者的資格、加強稽查農舍的違規情形、取消部分農舍不合理的稅賦優惠，才有可能減少機會行為的發生與農舍的不斷蔓延。 （四）在中央政府組織ㄧ個事權統一的農地與農舍的主管機關，以減少目前農舍主管機關業務重疊的情形，並在地方政府正式設立一個專責農地與農舍問題的聯合審查小組，且直接地向中央的主管機關負責，以降低代理問題產生的機會。 關鍵詞: 個別農舍、集村農舍、交易成本、雙重代理、制度變遷、自我執行 、第三者執行 / The implementation of farmhouse institution has been 6 years since year 2000. From the official statistics, the individual farmhouse is still the main choice for farmers. This reveals that the cluster farmhouse which adopts and promotes by government authority has some shortcomings. In addition, the owners who own cluster farmhouse are nothing to do with agricultural operation. These may result from the rules and enforcement of cluster farmhouse. Therefore, this study conducts a comparative analysis of formal and informal rules of individual and cluster farmhouse so as to understand the reasons why farmers do not choose the cluster farmhouse with incentives provided by central government. The main conclusion and policy suggestions for farmhouse are as follows: 1. The transaction costs including searching cost, policing cost and enforcement costs for individual farmhouse is much low than that for cluster farmhouse. In addition, the incentive provided from government for cluster farmhouse is not enough. The above two reasons lead to the result that individual farmhouse is the main choice for farmers. 2. The advantage of individual farmhouse is the freedom of varied style choice and low transaction cost while its shortcoming is safety problem and lack of public facilities. The advantage and shortcoming of cluster farmhouse are opposite from individual farmhouse. 3. The implementation of farmhouse is influence by the lack of adaptation of local government, professional comprehensive and election pressure so that the implantation is different from the original basic concept of farmhouse. 4. Policy recommendation: （1） To review the original basic concept of farmhouse and to encourage the cluster farmhouse together with country district rather the scatter development. （2） To review the definition of farmhouse so that all the farmhouse can be use for agricultural function instead of accommodation. （3） To cancel the tax exemption for farmhouse that is not use for agriculture so as to prevent the opportunity behaviors. （4） To unify the responsible authority in central government so as to prevent the agency problems of implementation.

目前台灣地區農村發展之生產與生活面功能係由農地重劃、農村社區土地重劃及農地興建農舍等三個制度執行來達成，其中透過農地重劃達經濟面之生產功能，而藉由農村社區土地重劃與農地興建農舍制度提供生活面之需求。然制度個別執行之結果，不僅導致生產農地之破壞與流失，亦增加農地利用之交易成本。面臨這些問題，生產農地之維護為當務之急。雖然長期以來農地重劃為維護農地生產力之主要制度，但由於農地重劃之發展受到制度變遷路徑相依之影響，不易因應社會變遷而改變其只具單一生產功能之制度內涵，故若要同時達到農村地區之生產與生活功能，或可透過農地重劃之制度調整解決問題並兼顧生產與生活功能之農村發展。 　　因此本研究基於制度變遷之理論基礎，針對台灣地區實施農地重劃之制度變遷進行分析，探討於社經環境變動過程，農地重劃所扮演角色之轉變，以為檢視現行農地重劃制度問題之基礎。並透過政府嘗試結合辦理農地重劃與農村社區土地重劃進行個案分析，揭示目前農村地區追求生產與生活功能同時兼備之必要性，以及於現行制度環境下，二個制度進行結合辦理之制度調整方向，產生了執行時程、重劃負擔及土地分配等問題與困難。故本研究進一步提出三個制度調整方案，利用ANP之多準則決策分析方法，評選出於多功能農地重劃之制度調整發展方向，為兼顧生產與生活等多功能目標之最佳制度調整方案。此外，針對多功能農地重劃制度之調整提出制度環境面與執行機制面之政策性建議，期望能對正在研擬與即將立法之農村再生條例草案中，整合型農地重劃之研擬與方向，提供於制度結合或制度創新上有所助益。 / Farmland consolidation institution in Taiwan has only been applied to improve the production environment during the past 50 years. Nowadays, due to the dramatic change of social and economic environment in Taiwan as well as the tendency of multifunctional rural community and agricultural development, the institution is due to proper consideration to be altered. In addition, the separately enforcement of three institutions i.e. farmland consolidation, building of farmhouse and rural community consolidation, results in the serious pollution of agricultural environment and the loss of high- quality farmland. How to adjust the current institution of farmland consolidation so as to reach the objectives of both better production and living environment in rural areas is an important issue. This study, based on the institutional change theory, investigates the changing role of farmland consolidation in Taiwan. Moreover, examines the problems of integrating farmland consolidation and rural community land readjustment at Shihfen area located in Tainan County Cigou Towship is examined. After literatures review and the investigation of farmhouse as well as farmland use problems, proposes three alternative institutions of farmland consolidation. Analytical Network Process (ANP) Approach is employed to evaluate. Furthermore, the criteria and implication of the choosing institution are discussed so as to benefit the framework of integrated farmland consolidation in the Bill of the Revival of Rural Community.

自民國89年起政府將農地政策明訂為「落實農地農用」之方向，為配合此一目標而建立「集村農舍制度」，農舍議題遂成為各方矚目之焦點。由於農舍興建與「農地利用」、「農村景觀」與「農民生活」等議題關係密切，且實際的集村農舍制度規則與執行因涉及制度參與者互動情形，而影響制度執行與最後目標之實現。惟既有的集村農舍研究多以個別觀點，從管制與被管制者的政策、法律保留原則或住宅管制等面向切入，就制度實際運作情形甚少著墨，對於整體制度問 題亦無深入探討，而研究結果多僅表示贊同或反對意見，無法針對集村興建農舍制度獲得較完整的分析。爰此，本研究透過新制度經濟之觀點，探討集村興建農舍之主要制度理念、正式規則之制度環境、及主管農舍業務組織間制度安排問題，並以「新竹湖口」與「雲林斗六」兩個集村案例，進行案例分析與實地訪查，利用與相關承辦人員深度訪談等研究方法，檢驗目前制度之執行與其保護優良農地落實性。再者應用具動態性之制度變遷理論分析，探討我國加入WTO之調整與民國89年總統大選等重要政經因素對於集村農舍制度之影響。最後依據研究結論，對目前集村農舍制度問題提出對策與政策建議，希冀未來集村興建農舍之規則與執行更能落實保護優良農地之理念。本研究之主要結論與建議如下： 一、研究結論 （一） 集村農舍制度因加入WTO之調整與總統大選等政經因素影響，減弱保護優良農地之制度理念的落實性，呈現不合理的制度變遷趨勢。 （二） 規則欠缺農地利用面與引導農舍區位面之管制等制度環境問題，以及農地與農舍管理組織間業務重疊與職權模糊等制度安排問題，產生制度無效執行，甚至出現耗損優良農地資源之情形。 （三） 以「湖口」與「斗六」兩集村案例歸納其共同現象，目前集村興建農舍制度並未實質照顧農民，亦未能達到保護優良農地之制度目標，須加以研議調整。 二、政策建議 （一） 「落實制度理念」－降低建商介入炒作影響制度理念落實的可能、增加落實制度理念之依據、檢討「專案分割」對制度理念落實之影響。 （二） 「合理的制度環境」－使務農者成為制度主體、提升誘因機制之質量。 （三） 「有效的制度執行」－地方政府組成集村申請案審查小組、農地利用計畫報請農委會審查列管、加強地方審查人員對於集村制度理念之宣達與執行審查業務教育。 （四） 近程與中長程措施 1. 近程建議－明確釐清農舍之定位與推動「示範集村農舍」計畫 2. 中長程建議－調整制度方向為「以集村方式興建為主」 / Central government has defined the enforcement of farmland for agricultural use as the national farmland policy since 2000. In order to fit the objective of the policy, the central government adopts the institution of cluster farmhouse. The problems of farmhouse cause public attention because it raises other issues, such as ' utilization of farmland ', ' rural landscape ' and ' farmer's life. The enforcement of cluster farmhouse institution involves the interaction of the actors, which subsequently influence the realization of the ultimate goal. The existing studies on cluster farmhouse focus mainly on the viewpoints of the owners and regulators of farmland, the principal of law reservation or housing control. In contrast to existing studies, this study, based on the concept of Institutional Economics and deep interviews with the relevant officers who take charge of the cluster farmhouse, investigate the institutional environment; institutional arrangement and enforcement of cluster farmhouse. The political and economy factors that influence the institution will be explained. Finally, a prospective promise of improvement for cluster farmhouse will be provided. The main conclusions and policy suggestions are as follows: 1. The institutional change of cluster farmhouse is deeply influenced by the political economic factors such as to join WTO and to run presidential election which subsequently affects the implementation of the institution. 2. The institutional environment of cluster farmhouse which lacks the consideration of farmland use, location of farmhouses and its institutional arrangement results in its enforcement deviated from the original concept. 3. In essence, cluster farmhouse, from the two cases in this study, has not really looked after farmers. The institution also unable to reach its goal of protecting good farmland at present. 4. Policy recommendations: （1）To reduce the possibility for building traders becoming as a leading role in the process of cluster farmhouse . （2）To make the people who engage in farming become the subject of the institution, and enhance the quality of the incentive mechanism . （3） To promote the concept of cluster farmhouse more rigorously, and thoroughly educate people more on the regulation of enforcement and examination . （4）To clarify the role of farmhouse and to give an good example of cluster farmhouse, and then to modify the regulation for building the cluster farmhouse instead of individual farmhouse .