臺北市公有住宅政策之政治經濟分析，1945-2012

Abstract

由政府直接興建住宅提供特定民眾出租，所有權屬於政府（公部門）之住宅，稱作「公有住宅」，本質上與近來政府為解決居住問題參採歐洲國家經驗而引進「社會住宅」概念十分相近；臺灣現行「公有住宅」佔全國住宅總量比例甚低，不過值得注意的是其中以臺北市所佔比例最高，經統計臺北市公有住宅包含出租國民住宅、平價住宅以及中繼住宅，共約三千餘戶。 本篇研究將過去臺北市公有住宅之發展分作三個階段，分別為「公有住宅政策發展前期」（1945~1968）、「公有住宅政策發展時期」（1969~2004）以及「公有住宅政策停滯與復甦時期」（2005~2012），分別就各階段國內外政治情勢、人口特質、經濟情勢以及住宅供給狀況等進行政治經濟分析。 第一階段，基於政府備戰的軍事考量以及戰後各項政經重建與穩定之需要，僅透過美援基金提供少量貸款興建國宅之資金，以及興建軍眷住宅，對於發展公有住宅政府無心且無力；第二階段則因外交受挫導致的政治危機以及國際經濟情勢影響，政府開始推動大型國宅興建計畫，然而為了穩定政治與發展經濟需要，住宅政策仍側重協助民眾購屋，即使已開始發展公有住宅，但數量仍然相當稀少；第三階段初期受到國宅緩建的政策方向，公有住宅起初呈現停滯，然而後期因社會住宅議題受到重視而開始復甦，但是基於政治的考量使得公有住宅發展迄今，未能切中對住宅真正需求的經濟與社會弱勢族群。 經過這三個階段的分析，可以清楚窺探住宅政策往往隨著政治與經濟的脈絡有所變化更迭，使得公有住宅政策未能切合當時實際的社會需求而有所發展，現已進入社會住宅政策階段，公有住宅必須回歸其照顧弱勢居住權益本質，應優先滿足經濟及弱勢族群、有效整合既存公有住宅資源，並可參採國外經驗予以發展。

For the housing provided, rented and owned for specific people by the government, we call it “low-rent public housing’’. To some degree, it’s similar to “social housing”. Low-rent public housing in Taiwan is not plenty, but it is worth mentioning that there are the most low-rent public housing in Taipei City, including renting public housing, parity housing and temporary dwellings. For the most part, this thesis has been divided into three parts: earlier stage of low-rent public housing policy (1945-1968）; the developing stage of low-rent public housing policy (1969-2004）; and the suspension and resurrection stage of low-rent public housing (2005-2012）,It focused on every stage of its international and internal political situations, population, economics, housing-supply, and further, the political and economic analysis. The first stage is based on warfare and re-establishment after World War II, and the government used American-aid fund to provide a loan for building public housing. Therefore, there were no incentives and resources for the government to build low-rent public housing. The second stage is based on the diplomacy crisis and economic downturn. The government began to drive big plans for public-hosing building, but in order to stabilize the political and economic situations, the government still focused on helping people buy their own houses. There was just a little space for developing low-rent public housing. At the third stage, at first, being affected from public housing postponement, there was no low-rent public housing done. Later, because of the social housing policy, low-rent public housing was resuscitated. But for specific political reasons, low-rent public housing was not targeted to the low-income and disadvantaged minority. After analyzing these three stages, it is realized that the housing policy has always varied from the political and economic situations. Low-rent public housing is always insufficient at every stage. Now we begin to develop the social housing policy, and the core value of low-rent public housing should be manifested to protect low-income and disadvantaged minority’s right of abode. Low-income and disadvantaged minority is a top priority, and with the references to other countries’ experiences, there should be more low-rent public housing available.