Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136537
|
| Title: | 人情與面子交換下之違章建築
Illegal Building Extension under the Exchange of Face and Favor |
| Authors: | 黃楷聞
Huang, Kai-Wen |
| Contributors: | 林子欽
丁秀吟
Lin, Tzu-Chin
Ding, Hsiu-Yin
黃楷聞
Huang, Kai-Wen |
| Keywords: | 違章建築
關說
社會交換理論
存活分析
加速失敗時間模型
Illegal building
lobby
Social Exchange Theory
survival analysis
accelerated failure time model |
| Date: | 2021 |
| Issue Date: | 2021-08-04 15:51:02 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 從文化、歷史以及國家權力性質的觀點出發，可以發現某些非正式性的行為基於其經濟以及社會功能，在特定時空背景下是被政府、社會所容忍甚至被預期發生的，如附加在正式住宅上的違章建築。至2020年底，全臺累計已查報而尚未拆除之違章建築約有 69 萬件，它存在於都市各個角落並且與吾人的生活息息相關。儘管如此，為了避免違章建築違所產生之外部性阻礙都市發展，臺北市政府擬定了具體且詳細的監管治理策略以逐年解決違章建築問題。然而，大多相關研究卻指出，違建民眾請託議員向政府部門關說協調的「喬事情」文化嚴重影響違建政策之執行，使違章建築的數量不減反增。
為了實證議員關說行為對違建政策之影響程度，本研究蒐集臺北市建管處公告自民國 84 年至民國 109 年總計 180,925件已查報違建資料作為實證樣本。以社會交換、人情與面子理論之觀點建構存活分析之加速失敗時間模型，分析關說行為對違建存續時間之影響。實證結果發現，每多協調一次將可以增加違建存續時間約 0.4 倍，而每多一名議員涉及協調更可以增加違建存續時間約 2.1 倍。顯示政府部門以及議員在經過合理計算後所做出之人情與面子之交換行為，除了主導在既定建築監管法律下部分違建的存續時間外，也描繪了具有臺北特色的都市違建景觀，是一個在人情與面子交換下的產物。
From the perspective of culture, history, and the nature of state power, it is argued that certain informality is tolerated or even expected to occur by the government and society to perform certain economic and social functions against a specific historical background. One example is the illegal building extensions which typically are located on top of a lawful building. By 2020, approximately 690,000 reported illegal buildings have not been demolished in Taiwan. They exist in every corner of the cities and are intertwined with our lives. Taipei City Government has over the years formulated specific and detailed regulatory strategies to avoid the externalities caused by illegal construction impeding the development of the city and expects to gradually solve the problem of illegal building. However, most research has pointed out that the owners of the illegal buildings tend to solicit assistance from councilmen to lobby the government department to postpone demolition. The action of lobby has seriously deterred the implementation of the regulatory policy and caused the number of illegal buildings to rise instead of fall.
To verify the influence of lobbying on the regulatory policy, this research selected 180,925 reported illegal buildings between 1996 to 2020, which were recorded by Taipei City Construction Management Office, as the set of empirical samples. We employed accelerated failure time (AFT) model in the context of Social Exchange Theory and the theoretical model of Face and Favor. The relationship between illegal building duration and lobbying was investigated in depth. The results show that each additional lobbying will increase the duration of the reported illegal buildings by about 0.4 times, and each additional councilman involved in lobby can increase the duration of the reported illegal building by about 2.1 times. It suggests that the exchange of Face and Favor made by government departments and councilmen out of sensible calculations not only lead to the continuance of some of the reported illegal buildings under the established regulatory policy, but also depicts the urban illegal building landscape with Taipei characteristics as a product of the exchange of Face and Favor. |
| Reference: | 中文參考文獻
1.朱永恩，2018，「臺北市違章建築類型及其影響因素」，國立政治大學地政系碩士論文。
2.吳復新，1995，「人情與我國公務機關行政行為之關係初探」，『空大行政學報』，3：71-86。
3.周美伶，2005，「先前租買經驗對自住者購屋搜尋行為之影響－存活分析之應用」，『住宅學報』，14（1）：21–39。
4.林子欽、吳文傑、朱永恩，2020，「臺北市違章建築舉報及後續處理決策因素」，未出版。
5.林佩萱，2015，「家戶購屋與生育行為關係：資源排擠與動機刺激」，『住宅學報』，24（1）：89-116。
6.林建甫，2008，《存活分析》，臺北：雙葉書廊。
7.邱啟新，2015，『「朗讀違章」與「建構蘭花屋」：當代台灣違建論述之公共空間觀點與公共性詮釋』，『建築與規劃學報』，16（1）：21-24。
8.邱啟新，2018，「永續思維之違建規範體制與其環境意涵：臺中市與高雄市政策之比較」，『建築與規劃學報』，18(2)：113-128。
9.施文玲，2006，「社會交換理論之評析」，『網路社會學通訊期刊』，52。嘉義：南華大學社會學研究所。
10.洪村山，2002，「違章建築處理模式之探討研究—以台北縣轄區為例—」，中華大學建築與都市計畫學系碩士論文。
11.張廖萬益，2013，「違章建築管理問題與對策之研究—以新北市為例」，國立中央大學土木工程學系碩士論文。
12.莊其穆，2018，「臨床醫學常用存活分析研究法」，『臺灣醫界』，61（7）。
13.郭秋永，1987，『方法論的否證說與政治行為的調查研究：統計假設的檢定和統計解釋的性質』，臺北：中央研究院三民主義研究所。
14.陳小紅、周鳳，1987，「臺北路邊洗車業之研究，以非正式部門觀」，『建築與城鄉研究學報』，1（3）：167-178。
15.曾鵬光、江哲銘、陳肇堯，2010，「違章建築現象分類與其對外部環境衝擊之研究—以臺南市為例」，『住宅學報』，19(2)：59-80。
16.曾鵬光、陳佳欣，2012，「建蔽率與容積率管制誘發開發商建築違建現象之探討─臺南市新建透天住宅之實證分析」，『住宅學報』，21(1)：19-36。
17.賀世中，2007，「以系統思考探討地方政府違建處理問題－以臺北縣為例」，中華大學土木與工程資訊學系碩士論文。
18.黃光國，2001，「儒家關係主義的理論建構及其方法論基礎」，『教育與社會研究』，2：1-33。
19.黃麗玲，2015，『「違章建築社區」的再思考』，『全國律師』，19(1)：18-27。
20.趙家涓，2019，「臺北市非正式住宅之成因與對策」，國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文。
21.謝崑滄，2006，「都市違章建築問題之探討—以高雄市為例」，國立中山大學中山學術研究所碩士論文。
22.羅鼎程，2013，「當華人的關說文化遇到社會工作─以保護性社工緊急處遇為例」，『社區發展季刊』，144：359-373。
23.蘇育儒，2019，「違章建築對當地房價之影響」，國立政治大學財地政系碩士論文。
英文參考文獻
1.Allison, P. D.,2014, Event History and Survival Analysis, University of Pennsylvania. SAGE Press.
2.Alsayyad, N. and Roy, A., 2004, “Urban Informality: Crossing Borders (Prologue/Dialogue)”, Urban Informality: Transnational Perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia. Lexington Books.
3.Blau, P. M., 1962, “Patterns of Choice in Interpersonal Relations”, American Sociological Review, 27(1):41-55.
4.Blau, P. M., 1964, “Justice in Social Exchange”, Sociological Inquiry, 34(2):193-206.
5.Blossfeld, H., Rohwer, G. and Schneider, T., 2019, Event History Analysis With Stata, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
6.Bourg, J. C., 1990, “The Informal Economy: Studies in Advanced and Less Developed Countries. Edited by Alejandro Portes, Manuel Castells, and Lauren A. Benton”, Social Forces, 68(3):969-971.
7.Bromley, R. and Gerry, C., 1979, “Casual work and poverty in third word cities”, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
8.Bunnell, T., and Harris, A., 2012, “Re-viewing informality：Perspectives from urban Asia”, International Development Planning Review, 34(4):39-348.
9.Cook, S. K., and Rice, E., 2006, “Social Exchange Theory”, Social Force, 68(2):53-76.
10.Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M. S., 2005, “Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review”, Journal of Management, 31(6):874-900.
11.Durst, J. N., and Wegmann, J., 2017, “Informal Housing in the United States”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41(2):282-297.
12.Emerson, M. R., 1962, “POWER-DEPENDENCE RELATIONS”, American Sociological Review, 27(1):31-41.
13.Emerson, M. R., 1976, “Social Exchange Theory”, Annual Review of Sociology, 2:335-362.
14.Foa, E. B. and Foa, U. G., 1980, “Resource Theory Interpersonal Behavior as Exchange”, Social Exchange, 77-94.
15.Foa, E. B. and Foa, U. G., 2012, “Resource theory of social exchange”, Handbook of Social Resource Theory, 15-32.
16.Foner, N., 1990, “The Informal Economy. Studies in Advanced and Less Developed Countries”, Social Forces, 247(4943):731-732.
17.Gërxhani, K., 2004, “The Informal Sector in Developed and Less Developed Countries: A Literature Survey”, Public Choice, 120, 267-300.
18.Grossman, Y. A., 2002, “A theory of the informal sector”, NBER Working, 8823.
19.Hart, K., 1973, “Informal Income Opportunities and Urban Employment in Ghana”, The Journal of Modern African Studies, 11(1):61-89.
20.Holmes, J. G., 1981, “The Exchange Process in Close Relationships: Micro behavior and Macro motives”, pp. 261-284 in The Justice Motive in Social Behavior, edited by Lerner M. J. and Cohen S. C., New York: Plenum Press.
21.Homans, C. G., 1958, “SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AS EXCHIANGE”, American Journal of Sociology, 63(6):597-606.
22.Hwang, K. K., 1987, “Face and Favor: The Chinese Power Game”, The American Journal of Sociology, 92(4):944-974.
23.Hwang, K. K., 1997, “Guanxi and Mientze: conflict resolution in Chinese society”, International Communication Studies, 8:17-38.
24.Ines, C. and Alterman, R., 2017, “When enforcement fails: Legal and Policy Responses to Non-Compliant Development in Advanced-Economy Countries”, International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 9(3):207-239.
25.Kim, M. S., 2016, “Social Exchange Theory.” pp. 1-9 in The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, edited by Jensen K.B., Rothenbuhler E.W., Pooley J.D. and Craig R.T., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
26.Krueckeberg, D., 1995, “The difficult character of property: To whom do things belong?”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(3):301-309.
27.Lombard, M. B., 2019, “Informality as structure or agency? Exploring shed housing in the UK as informal practice.” International Journal of Urban and Research.
28.Mills, M., Introducing survival and event history analysis, Thousand Oaks. SAGE Press.
29.Portes, A. and Haller, W., 2005, “The Informal Economy”, The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Second Edition, 403-425.
30.Redmond, V. M., 2015, “Social Exchange Theory”, English Technical Reports and White Papers, 5.
31.Renooy, P. H., 1990, “The informal economy: Meaning, measurement and social significance”, Amsterdam: Netherlands Geographical Studies.
32.Roy, A., 2005, “Urban Informality：Toward an Epistemology of Planning”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2):147-158.
33.Scott, J., 1998, “Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed”, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34.Smart, A.,1999, “Predatory rule and illegal economic practices”, pp. 99-128 in States and illegal practices, edited by Heyman, J.M., Berg, Oxford.
35.Tanasescu, A., Chui, E. and Smart, A., 2010, “Tops and Bottoms: State Tolerance of Illegal Housing in Hong Kong and Calgary” Habitat International, 34(4):478-484.
36.Turner, J., 1977, “Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building Environment”, Pantheon Books, New York.
37.U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2018, “ World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision”, Online Edition. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Publications
38.Wegmann, J., 2014, “We just built it：Code enforcement, local politics, and the informal housing market in Southeast Los Angeles County”, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
39.Wegmann, J., 2015, “Research notes: The hidden cityscapes of informal housing in suburban Los Angeles and the paradox of horizontal density”, Buildings & Landscapes, 22(2):89-110.
40.Yau, Y. and Ho, D., 2017, “Exploring policy options to combat illegal micro apartments in Hong Kong”, Urbani Izziv, 28(2):83-95.
41.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”, Cites, 29(2):77-87.
網頁參考文獻
1.張淑媚，2000，「否證論」，教育大辭書，國家教育研究院。https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1305490/，取用日期：2021年6月8日。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
地政學系
108257017 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108257017 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202101042 |
| Appears in Collections: | [地政學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 701701.pdf | | 4086Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 150 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
