政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/146989
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113451/144438 (79%)
Visitors : 51328822      Online Users : 919
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
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146989


    Title: 農地交易價格與產權複雜度之關係研究—以桃園市為例
    A Study of the Relationship Between Farmland Prices and Farmland Ownership – A Case Study of Taoyuan City
    Authors: 劉品宜
    Liu, Pin-Yi
    Contributors: 丁秀吟
    Ding, Hsiu-Yin
    劉品宜
    Liu, Pin-Yi
    Keywords: 共有產權
    土地細碎
    產權複雜
    農地交易價格
    Joint ownership
    Land fragmentation
    Farmland price
    Date: 2023
    Issue Date: 2023-09-01 15:14:36 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 產權複雜為臺灣農地的一種典型土地細碎樣態，而土地共有的產權型態，可能導致反共有地悲劇等問題的發生題。共有農地在處分及交易上，亦會涉及集體決策而衍生較高的交易成本，進而影響農地利用。因此，臺灣農地的產權複雜問題值得重視。
    農地產權複雜與農地交易價格關係之分析，有助於了解產權對於農地市場經濟活動之影響，然臺灣過去亦較缺乏這類型的相關研究。期能促進農地市場更健全之運作，故本研究以桃園市作為研究地區，進行產權複雜與農地交易價格的實證研究。本研究依農地是否共有，以及交易時是否為整筆移轉，將交易之農地以法定及經濟兩面向的產權樣態進行分析。進而藉由相關分析、獨立樣本檢定及迴歸分析之研究方法，逐步探討法定產權及經濟產權與農地交易價格之間的關係。
    研究結果發現，法定產權型態並非顯著影響農地交易價格之產權因素；其次，在農地皆為整筆移轉的情況下，農地交易價格亦不受其交易前產權是否共有而產生顯著差異；最後，經濟上產權的複雜度則對於農地交易價格有負向影響。顯示臺灣的農地市場為一有效率之市場，較不會受到交易前農地是否為共有所影響。因此，共有人也相對較無法將共有土地集體決策之交易成本反映於交易價格上；是以在其他條件相同之情況下，能透過內部整合而於交易時整筆移轉之共有土地，與單獨所有整筆移轉之土地的單價在市場上是沒有顯著差異的。不僅如此，本研究更發現，無關於農地交易前的法定產權為單獨所有或者共有，在農地為整筆移轉的情況下其交易單價會高於持分移轉之情況。
    The joint ownership of farmland is a typical type of land fragmentation in Taiwan, which leads to the Tragedy of the Anti-commons of farmland use. The transactions of joint ownership farmland may also involve collective decisions making, leading to high transaction costs and impacting farmland use. Therefore, it is important to examine the complexity of ownership issues on farmland.
    Analyzing the relationship between joint ownership and the transaction prices of farmland helps us understand how the ownership types influence the farmland market. In Taiwan, there has been little research on this issue so far. Therefore, this research investigates the complexity of ownership and farmland prices in Taoyuan City as the study area. This research analyzes the transactions of registered farmland with both single and joint ownership. Furthermore, this research divides the type of farmland transaction into wholly and proportioned, which "wholly" is defined as the ownership of a registered farmland being once all transferred, and "proportioned " is defined as partly transferred. This research further conducts correlation analysis, independent sample test, and regression analysis in order to understand the relationships between either registered or transferred farmland and farmland prices.
    One of the findings of this research is that the ownership of the registered farmland does not significantly influence the farmland price. Secondly, given that farmland wholly transfers, there is no significant difference in farmland prices no matter the type of ownership of the registered farmland being single or joint. Finally, the farmland which transferred proportionally has negative impacts on farmland prices. It shows that Taiwan`s farmland market is efficient and less influenced by whether the registered farmland has single or joint ownership. That is, the high transaction costs derived from collective decision-making can not easily be reflected in the transaction prices. Ceteris paribus, there is no difference between the transaction prices in single and joint ownership farmland with whole transfers. Furthermore, this research finds that the transaction price of wholly transferred farmland is higher than that of proportional one, regardless of the registered farmland with single or joint ownership.
    Reference: 一、中文參考文獻
    丁秀吟、林子欽、劉佳欣，2021，「農地重劃減緩土地細碎化成效之評估—以嘉義縣為例」，『應用經濟論叢』，110：131-159。
    尤重道，2000，「農業發展條例修正前後對於農舍之建築與移轉限制問題比較分析(三)」，『現代地政』，232：6-11。
    王恭棋，2007，「Box-Cox轉換半對數特徵房價模型實證研究」。論文發表於〈科技整合管理研討會〉，東吳大學企業管理學系：臺北，2007年5月19日。
    林子欽，2007，「農地移轉價格對農地所有權流通與農地利用影響之研究（96農科-5.1.3-企-Q1(2)）」，行政院農業委員會：臺北。
    林子欽，2021，「農地產權複雜度衡量與農地政策決策評估機制之建立（110農科-3.1.3-企Q2(1)）」，行政院農業委員會：臺北。
    林志娟、林志鴻、張慶暉，2009，『迴歸分析入門：SAS程式報表精析解讀與個案建模範例』，臺北：臺灣東華。
    林志謙，2018，「農地細碎化課題之研究-以宜蘭縣冬山鄉為例」，中國文化大學都市計劃與開發管理學系碩士論文：臺北。
    林冠穎，2020，「嘉義縣農地交易價格之形成因素—生產力、都市壓力與農地政策」，國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文：臺北。
    林國慶，1992，「農業區劃分與財產權損失賠償之分析」，『台灣土地金融季刊』，29：21-36。
    林惠玲、陳正倉，2011，『應用統計學』，臺北：雙葉書廊有限公司。
    邱鈺婷，2015，「農地重劃能阻止農地細碎化與違規使用嗎？ —台南市八老爺重劃區之實證分析」，國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文：臺北。
    周銘宏，2009，「以財產權觀點探討中國土地一級市場制度─以浙江省為例」，國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文：臺南。
    桃園市政府地政局，2021，桃園市非都市土地使用分區與編定及面積。https://land.tycg.gov.tw/，取用日期：2023年2月6日。
    莊谷中，2020，「臺灣農地經營規模之探討—以產權制度為視角」，國立政治大學地政學系博士論文：臺北。
    陶庄，2007，「Box-Cox變換及其在STATA軟件中的實現」，『數理醫藥學雜誌』，20(3)：380-382。
    陳恆鈞、詹茗荏，2013，「臺灣農地政策變遷之探討：關鍵時刻觀點」，『政治學報』，55：53-84。
    陳奉瑤，2015，「強化農地經營權流通及整合利用之機制研究（104農科-5.3.1-企-Q1(1)）」，行政院農業委員會：臺北。
    郭連益，2022，「臺北市產權困境與都市更新規模容積獎勵政策之分析」，國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文：臺北。
    黃嘉萍，2020，「論共有土地處分之優先購買權 兼論應有部分之抵押權設定」，中國文化大學法律學系碩士論文：臺北。
    董文捷，2007，「以財產權保障為基礎構建有限政府發展市場經濟」，『遼寧行政學院學報』，9(2)：26-27。
    廖安定，2008，台灣農地改革政策的回顧與展望，行政院農業委員會。https://www.coa.gov.tw/ws.php?id=17819，取用日期：2022年9月7日。
    趙蕙萍，1992，「臺灣農地價格之研究」，國立臺灣大學農業經濟研究所碩士論文：臺北。
    鄧大才，2007，「農地流轉的交易成本與價格研究——農地流轉價格的决定因素分析」，財經問題研究，9：89-95。
    鄧大才，2009，「制度安排、交易成本與農地流轉價格」，『中洲學刊』，2：58-61。
    謝竺珊，2019，「太陽能發電中的土地長期租賃權整合：地主決策與土地利用」，國立政治大學地政研究所碩士論文：臺北。
    簡資修，2020，〈寇斯定理〉，《華文哲學百科》（2020版本），王一奇（編）。URL=http://mephilosophy.ccu.edu.tw/entry.php?entry_name=寇斯定理，取用日期：2022年9月7日。
    顏愛靜主譯，黃名義等合譯，Erick G. Furubotn, Rudolf Richter著，2001。『制度與經濟理論：新制度經濟學之貢獻』。臺北市：五南出版社。
    羅清俊，2010，『社會科學研究方法：打開天窗說量化』，臺北：威仕曼文化。
    邊泰明，1997，「土地開發權賦與過程中協商制度之差異經驗」，『經濟法制論叢』20：217-242。
    「荒地金磚2.0：鋤不動的鑽石田」，2019，蘋果新聞網。https://tw.inv.appledaily.com/farmland/，取用日期：2022年11月8日。
    二、外文參考文獻
    Adams, D. and Hutchison, N., 2000, “The Urban Task Force Report: Reviewing Land Ownership Constraints to Brownfield Redevelopment”, Regional Studies, 34(8): 777-792.
    Alichian, A. A. and Demsetz, H., 1972, “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization”, American Economic Review, 62: 777-795.
    Arrow, K. J.,1969, “The Organization of Economic Activity: Issues. The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures”, The PPB System: Pt, 1. Retrieved September 1, 2022 from Google Books on the World Wide Web: https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=J0XiVPfSoaoC&ots=9lE_XvGW4z&dq=The%20Organization%20of%20Economic%20Activity%3A%20Issues&lr&hl=zh-TW&pg=PA
    47#v=thumbnail&q=The%20Organization%20of%20Economic%20Activity:%20Issues&f=true
    Barzel, Y. and Allen, D.W., 1997, Economic Analysis of Property Rights, Cambridge University Press, Second Edition.
    Besley, T. and Ghatak, M., 2010, “Property Rights and Economic Development”, Handbook of Development Economics, 5: 4525-4595.
    Borchers, A., Ifft, J. and Kuethe, T., 2014, “Linking the Price of Agricultural Land to Use Values and Amenities” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 96(5): 1307-1320.
    Box, G. E. and Cox, D. R.,1964, “An Analysis of Transformations”, Journal of The Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 26(2): 211-243.
    Brownstone, D. and Vany, A. De., 1991, “Zoning, Returns to Scale, and the Value of Undeveloped Land”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(4):699-704.
    Buchanan, J. M. and Yoon, Y. J., 2000, “Symmetric Tragedies: Commons and Anticommons”, Journal of Law and Economics, 43(1): 1-13.
    Chang, H. H. and Lin, T. C., 2016, “Does the Minimum Lot Size Program Affect Farmland Values? Empirical Evidence Using Administrative Data and Regression Discontinuity Design in Taiwan”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 98(3), 785-801.
    Ciaian, P., and Swinnen, J. F., 2006, “Land Market Imperfections and Agricultural Policy Impacts in the New EU Member States: A Partial Equilibrium Analysis”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(4): 799-815.
    Chen, Y. H., Lee, C. L., Chen, G. R., Wang, C. H. and Chen, Y. H., 2018, “Factors Causing Farmland Price-Value Distortion and their Implications for Peri-Urban Growth Management” Sustainability, 10(8): 2701.
    Choumert, J. and Phélinas, P., 2015, “Determinants of Agricultural Land Values in Argentina”, Ecological Economics, 110: 134-140.
    Coase, R.H., 1960, “The Problem of Social Cost”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1): 1-44.
    Demsetz, H.,1967, “Toward a theory of Property Rights”, American Economics Review, 347-359.
    Eckart, W., 1985, “On the Land Assembly Problem”, Journal of Urban Economics, 18 (3): 364–78.
    Fennell, L. A., 2012, “Lumpy Property”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1955-1993.
    Fisher, I., 1922, How to Live: Rules for Healthful Living, Based on Modern Science, Funk & Wagnalls Company.
    Furubotn, E. G., 2001, “The New Institutional Economics and the Theory of the Firm”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 45(2): 133-153.
    Genesove, D. and Mayer, C., 2001, “Loss Aversion and Seller Behavior: Evidence from the Housing Market”, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4): 1233-1260.
    Hart, O., 1995, Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    Hastings, E. M., Wong, S. K., and Walters, M., 2006, “Governance in a Co‐ownership Environment: the Management of Multiple‐ownership Property in Hong Kong”, Property Management, 24(3): 293-308.
    Heller, M, A., 1998, “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition From Marx to Markets”, Harvard Law Review,111(3): 621-688.
    Horst, M., 2019, “Changes in Farmland Ownership in Oregon, USA”, Land, 8(3): 39.
    Hume, D., 1752, “Of the Original Contract”, Reading Political Philosophy: Machiavelli to Mill, 162-167. Retrieved September 1, 2022 from Taylor & Francis Group on World Wide Web: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203754658-13/original-contract-david-hume
    Jürgenson, E. and Rasva, M., 2020, “The Changing Structure and Concentration of Agricultural Land Holdings in Estonia and Possible Threat for Rural Areas”, Land, 9(2): 41.
    Lai, Y., Wang, J. and Lok, W., 2017, “Redefining Property Rights Over Collective Land in the Urban Redevelopment of Shenzhen, China”, Land Use Policy, 69: 485-493.
    Lin, T. C. and Evans, A. W., 2000, “The Relationship Between the Price of Land and Size of Plot When Plots are Small”, Land Economics, 76(3): 386-394.
    Lin, T. C., Huang, F. H. and Lin, S. E., 2018, “Land Assembly for Urban Development in Taipei City with Particular Reference to Old Neighborhoods”, Land Use Policy, 78: 555-561.
    Malpezzi, S., 2003, “Hedonic Pricing Models: A Selective and Applied Review”, Housing Economics and Public Policy, 1:67-89.
    Miceli, T. J. and Segerson, K., 2012, “Land Assembly and the Holdout Problem Under Sequential Bargaining”, American Law and Economics Review, 14(2): 372-390.
    Posner, R. A., 1986, “The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962-1987”, Harv. L. Rev., 100: 761. Retrieved September 1, 2022 from Taylor & Francis Group on World Wide Web: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203055021-5/decline-law-autonomous-discipline-1962%E2%80%931987-richard-posner
    Schulz, N., Parisi, F. and Depoorter, B, 2002, “Fragmentation in Property: Towards a General Model”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 158(4): 594-613.
    Shoup, D., 2008, “Graduated Density Zoning”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(2): 161-179.
    Tabuchi, T.,1996, “Quantity Premia in Real Property Markets”, Land Economics, 72(2): 206-217.
    Vranken, L., Macours, K., Noev, N. and Swinnen, J., 2011, “Property Rights Imperfections and Asset Allocation: Co-ownership in Bulgaria”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 39(2): 159-175.
    Zhu, J., 2012, “Development of Sustainable Urban Forms for High-density Low-income Asian Countries: The Case of Vietnam”, Cities, (29): 77-87.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    地政學系
    110257002
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110257002
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Land Economics] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    700201.pdf3404KbAdobe PDF20View/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 Copyright Announcement
    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。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    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。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback