個別農舍與集村農舍制度的比較分析-以新竹縣為例

• Main Authors: 張耀文, Chang,Yao-Wen
• Language: 中文
• Published: 國立政治大學
• Subjects: 個別農舍; 集村農舍; 交易成本; 制度變遷; 自我執行; 雙重代理; individual farmhouse; cluster farmhouse; transaction cost; institutional change; self-enforcement; two side agency
• Online Access: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cdrfb3/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&i=sid=%22G0094257010%22.

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.