台灣旅宿產業管制政策與法制研究:以民宿產業發展為中心

當世界旅遊趨勢因網際網路與智慧型手機普及，網路旅遊平台興起而改變年輕消費者預訂遊程與住宿習慣，造成國際間多元旅宿盛行。我國發展觀光條例乃在戒嚴時期以團體旅遊為本位所設立的管制與管理制度，除了因開放大陸探親曾大幅修改旅行業管理規則外，解嚴三十年來不曾因國際旅遊趨勢改變成以自由行為主的管理制度，或因數位平台興起引發消費者行為模式改變。為了促進業者在數位經濟時代的競爭能力與加強保護消費者權益而進行全盤性旅遊與旅宿產業管制面與法制面的檢討，反而持續以威權時代所制定高度政管制規範套用在觀光旅遊業各類別的業者，阻礙了已成為台灣觀光亮點之一的民宿發展處處受限。 2001年民宿管制制度之建構時並非參酌我國民情與實務設計出能促進產業競爭、維護在地居民權益又能保護消費者之民宿管制制度。反而因行政機關之本位主義與協調困難，與旅館業動員遊說下，限縮民宿得申請之區域與範圍，造成民宿產業發展受限。即使因陸客來台導致全台旅館房間供不應求時，旅館業仍大力反對觀光主管機關放寬旅館與民宿行政管制並修法將更多元的旅館或民宿類型納管，以減少新興民宿及新型態旅館業者進入市場與既有業者競爭。本文以政府管制理論中的管制俘虜理論與競租理論來分析結構性問題造成我國旅宿產業因應時代洪流解除管制之政治結構面困難性。同時也採用歷史結構分析理論說明我國在威權時代所制定的高度行政管制措施與法規，即使在逐漸進入民主深化期的今天，國內外政治、經濟、社會條件都在過去三十年有巨大變化，台灣旅宿產業管制政策與法規仍停留在威權時期架構而無法撼動的原因。本文認為旅館與民宿管制鬆綁與相關法規修改並非僅是旅宿產業的問題或僅為一個觀光議題，而是涉及多重政府部門之職掌與規範、私部門之經營權益，民間社會之消費安全和環境開發、生活品質等面向之複雜治理議題。中央政府制訂法規、地方政府負責執行之府際運作，如未能增進彼此溝通協調，實際瞭解地方發展需求，則不論發展旅館或民宿管制政策，皆會有落實與執行上的困難。本文針對『未能取得旅館或民宿執照』原因分析後，針對管理旅宿業之威權時代所制定高度行政管制手段進行檢討，並參考英、日、德等國之民宿產業興盛之國家旅宿管理制度後，提出我國旅館與民宿管制模式修正方向供參考。

關鍵字

發展觀光條例；旅館業管理規則；民宿管理規則；法規鬆綁；解除管制；政府失靈；競租；俘虜理論

並列摘要

This research addresses two policy and regulatory issues in accommodation industry in Taiwan: unfair competition between accommodation service providers in none-urban areas caused by the government failure and how to regulate the short-term rental. The economic theory of regulatory capture and rent seeking are adapted to study the root causes of government failure of the deregulation of accommodation industry in the past 10 years. The historical approach has been used to analysis the hotel industry policy and political background since 1940s to back up the above theories with facts. How to resolve the conundrum is proposed by mixing the regulatory framework of Japan’s model for short-term rentals in the urban areas and UK’s and Germany’s model for providing the flexibilities of building and fire safety, and loosening of the zooming and land-use restrictions for the small scale of accommodations in none-urban areas. Background of the accommodation policy and regulatory issues: Over the past decade, Taiwan’s tourism industry has transformed significantly. Mass tourism is fading and “free independent traveler” (FIT) is becoming a norm. Perhaps few of the changes have enhanced the travel experience in Taiwan more than the proliferation of Minus (also named as B&B or Homestay). In these small lodges in countryside, guests can stay in a family-run establishment and enjoy a blend of warm hospitality, local knowledge and natural scenery that few hotels can match. The Regulations for the Management of Home-Stay Facilities define “a home stay facility” as “a lodging facility run as a family sideline business, using the spare rooms of a self-used residence to provide tourists with a rural living experience.” Since the regulations came into force in 2001, the number of licensed establishments has been growing nonstop and even booming in the pandemic. This research addresses two policy and regulatory issues in hospitality industry in Taiwan. First, the unfair competition between the hotel and minus operators who fully compliant with the law and those who have more political capital to evaded the law. In practice, while many Minsu businesses match legal criteria closely, the majority of them are purpose-built accommodations that run as core business. Most of these latter establishments are fairly modest, though, and only small portion of them retain the personalized service of a family-run business in country side while the majority of them operate as boutique hotels. Due to the strict restriction of land-use for hotel in countryside, these hotel operators resort to numerous tactics to skirt or evade the law by gaining Minsu licenses to be legalized. It’s hard for family-run business minus to compete with these nice architectural with good interior design boutique hotels. On the other hand, the hotels or resorts in countryside can’t compete with the lower price offered by these boutique hotels, because the operation cost of hotel is much higher than minsu in legal and tax compliances. Local government don’t enforce the law, because these Minsu-licensed hotels drive local economic development and create employment opportunities. This unfair competition and conflicts have hindered the development of Minsu industry and created conflicts and difficulties for the regulators who advocate the deregulation of accommodation industry. Second, most short-term rental in Taiwan’s large urban areas are empty apartment units that aren’t qualified for licensed accommodations in Taiwan. Local regulations limit the lodging in urban areas to licensed hotels, but most Taiwan properties listed on the online platforms, such as Airbnb or Agoda Home, don’t meet the requirements. Short-term rental in urban areas have existed in Taiwan for years, but only attracted heavy regulatory scrutiny when Airbnb has become popular in Taiwan since 2013. Nevertheless, the demand for economical lodging in cities is strong enough that many short-term rental operators are willing to risk the inevitable fallout with regulators. Some regulators considered to revise the hotel and Minus regulatory frameworks to allow the short-term rentals and boutique hotels in countryside to operate legally, but dropped the idea after some hoteliers cried foul. Many of the fiercest opponents had jumped into the hotel business during Ma Ying-jeou’s presidency to cash in on the Chinese tourist boom in 2008 to 2015. They fell on hard times after Beijing curbed the number of group tours to Taiwan to signal its displeasure with President Tsai Ing-wen’s cross-Strait policy since 2016.

並列關鍵字

Accommodation industry ； Hospitality industry ； Hotel regulations ； Homestay regulations ； Minsu, B&B ； Lodging business ； Short-term Rental ； Vacation Rental ； Airbnb ； Deregulation ； Government Failure ； Regulatory Capture ； Rent-Seeking ； Unfair Competition