政府促進民間參與老人住宅政策之探討－住宅法立法前後之比較

台灣人口的老化現象及少子化社會結構，造成家庭結構及家庭功能急速轉型，讓家庭本身對老人照顧功能減弱，年邁雙親可能必須獨自生活或居住安養或養護機構，使得我國老人居住安養問題逐漸顯現。唯政府行政效率低落、財政日漸困難，如何讓民間資源參與，解決老人居住問題，為政府政策之一。本文嘗試以「協力治理」研究途徑，探討「政府促進民間參與老人住宅政策，於住宅法立法前後之比較」。利用文獻分析及深度訪談等方法，分析原政府頒行促進民間參與老人住宅建設推動方案，執行效率不彰原因，學者提出之解決方案，在住宅法法條中有無相關規範，並以公私協力夥伴關係來探討，重要發現如下：一、住宅法對促進民間參與部分，將原先促進民間參與老人住宅建設推動方案的大部分缺失解決，經訪談民間投資者仍希望住宅法促參部分，能採行促進參與公共建設法相關規定。二、住宅法在住宅用地，採取由政府提供土地，再由民間投資參與興建，在公私協力夥伴關係之協力過程中，未考慮城鄉間差距，未來可能造成大都會區投資者意願高，而郊區部分或農業縣市無人投資。三、政府部門採取混居方式非單純全部作老人住宅，解決被標籤化問題，但在民間投資者上造成管理經營成本增加，須政府與民間投資者再協調。四、另社會福利團體認為老人住宅應朝小規範和多機能性辦理，從經濟學上規模經濟來看，造成民間投資者管理經營成本及建築成本增加，降低投資意願。五、住宅資訊方面上，政府以社會住宅名稱公告，未能以細項（如低收入戶、老人住宅、原住民…等）分類公告，對投資者其資訊仍不足，可能造成未來公私協力夥伴關係運作困難。六、住宅法從公私協力夥伴關係上仍有改善空間，如在協助型的領導角色作好協商之調和角色。依據研究結果發現提出相關建議，以提供未來促進民間參與老人住宅興建部分之制定施行細則或修法之參考。

關鍵字

老人住宅；公私協力；夥伴關係；人口老化；住宅政策

並列摘要

Taiwan societal structure of ageing population and low birth rate is causing a drastic change in family structure and function. The function of the family unit as a caregiver of its elderly is weakening, and ageing parents might have to live alone or in nursing homes and care facilities. Housing and caring for our senior citizens has become an emerging issue. The government, with low administrative efficiency and declining fiscal solvency, has, as one of its policies in the elderly housing, the importing of the private sector and resources. This study, from the approach of “Collaborative Governance”, attempts to explore, compare and contrast the public policy in promoting private participation before and after the Housing Act is enacted. Through literature review and in-depth interview, analyses the cause of inefficient implementation of government’s previous elderly housing building initiatives in promoting private participation; in regard to solutions proposed by scholars, searches for relevant specifications in the Housing Act provisions, and discusses from the angle of public-private partnerships (PPPs). Findings are as follows: 1.The House Act, concerning the promotion of private participation, has addressed most flaws in the original construction program housing for the elderly. Interviews with private investors reveal that they still wish the Policy for Promotion of the Housing Act could adopt provisions pursuant to Promotion of Private participation in Infrastructure Projects. 2.The House Act, concerning residential land use, stipulates that government provide the land, and that private investors join in the construction; in this collaborative process of PPPs, rural-urban divide is not taken into account (rural-urban divide has yet to be considered,) in the future it might result in highly willing metropolitan investors, opposed to lack of investors in the suburban or agricultural counties. 3.Government resorts to mixed housing instead pure senior citizens housing to avoid the issue of labeling, but this increases the management and operation cost on the part of private investors, so more coordination between public and private sector is needed. 4.Social welfare organizations contend that housing for the elder people should aim toward the small and the multifunctional, but from a scale economies point of view, it increases the costs of building and operating and reduces the willingness of private investors. 5.In regard to housing information, the government is announcing them as social housing, has yet to itemize and classify its announcements (low income, elderly, indigenous, etc.,) so for the investors the information is still insufficient, which may hinder in the smooth operation of PPPs. 6.PPPs allow room for improvement for the Housing Act. For example, in the status of assisting leadership, fulfill the role of mediation, negotiation and consultation. According to the findings, proposes relevant suggestions as a reference for future enactment of enforcement rules or amendments on the promotion of private participation in construction of elderly housing.