農舍管制政策之探討-管制失靈為觀點

An Investigation on Regulatory Policy of Farmhouse ---Centred on Regulation Failure

林哲宇(Che-Yu Lin)

指導教授 ： 張世賢

國立臺北大學/公共事務學院/公共行政暨政策學系/碩士(2010年)

摘要

「農業發展條例」第四次修正於民國八十九年一月二十六日經總統公布施行，農業政策由過去「農地農有農用」調整為「放寬農地農有，落實農地農用」；任何自然人都可以購買、贈與或繼承農地，但是農地一定要作農業使用；其中有關個別農舍之興建條件，分為修正前取得之農業用地(俗稱舊農)與修正後取得之農業用地(俗稱新農)，由於舊農管制寬鬆，新農管制嚴格，二者管制上差異甚大；以此於農舍興建上產生扭曲現象，以「配建」、「小農舍」興建方式規避嚴格管制，原政策為開放農地自由買賣，限制「新農」興建農舍所採之嚴格管制條件卻完全失靈；而原政策為保護「舊農」之權益，卻成為農舍興建氾濫之主因。自民國八十九年農業發展條例修正後至今，經過十年又歷經四次之修正，然而未見農地興建農舍有任何管制上之措施而任其荒蕪，「配建」、「小農舍」已為市場上之主要交易方式，如未能採取適當之管制措施，農地之破壞將是沒完沒了；本研究以宜蘭縣三星鄉大隱段為實例，以探討農業發展條例修正後管制失靈情形，並藉由管制者與被管制者間深度訪談了解分析管制失靈原因及為管制革新之研議，本研究所獲致之結論建議如下:
一、農舍基地應課徵地價稅。
二、修法前取得農地興建農舍（舊農），宜管制移轉年限。
三、修法後取得農地興建農舍「新農」管制應鬆綁：面積宜調降及移轉限制應縮短。
四、「小農舍」的問題是下一波主流，不容忽視，應為最小興建面積之限制。

關鍵字

管制理論 ； 管制失靈 ； 農舍 ； 配建 ； 小農舍

並列摘要

The 4th Amendment of the Agricultural Development Act (ADA) was promulgated by the Presidential Decree on January 26, 2000, with the agricultural policy adjusted from “the right to own and use farmland being limited to the farmer” to “the release of the restriction on farmland transferee and realization of the substantial farmland uses.” Any natural person can purchase, gift or inherit the farmland, but the farmland must be used as agricultural purpose. The construction conditions for some farmhouses are divided into: (1) on agricultural land acquired before the amendment (commonly called “old agricultural land”; (2) on the agricultural land acquired after the amendment (commonly called “new agricultural land”. Due to relaxing regulations on old agricultural land and strict regulations on new agricultural land, both kinds of the land differ greatly in regulation, causing distortions in the aspect of farmhouse construction. As there are construction acts in the forms of “cooperative construction”and “small farmhouse” to evade these strict regulations, the strict regulation conditions, adopted by the original policy to restrict farmhouse construction on the new agricultural land for opening free farmland trading, have completely malfunctioned. Although aiming to protect the rights and interests of the “old agricultural land” owner, the original policy, in fact, becomes the primary cause of the inundant farmhouse construction on old agricultural land.
Since the amendment on the ADA in 2000, four amendments have been made in 10 years. However, because there is still no any regulatory measure being taken to control the farmhouse construction on agricultural land, the land has been wasted. Additionally, as the “cooperative construction” and “small farmhouse” have become the main trading methods in the market, if still no suitable regulatory measures now, damages to the land will last forever. Taking the Dayin Section in Sanshing Village of Yilan County as an example, this research aims to investigate the situation of the regulation failure after the amendment on the ADA, and by the in-depth interviews with the regulators and the regulated persons, to know and analyze the reasons of regulation failure and to complete the research topic on regulatory reform. This research obtains the following suggestive conclusions:
1、Land value tax shall be imposed on the farmhouse bases.
2、Transferred period shall be regulated for the farmhouses built on the agricultural land acquired before the amendment (old agricultural land).
3、Deregulation shall be done for the farmhouses built on the agricultural land acquired after the amendment (new agricultural land): the area of the farmhouse shall be reduced and its transferred period shall be shorten.
4、The issue on “small farmhouse” will be the next main stream that can not be neglected. The area of the small farmhouse shall be minimum construction area.

並列關鍵字

Regulatory Theory ； Regulation Failure ； Farmhouse ； Cooperative Construction ； SmallFarmhouse

參考文獻

陳怡如 (2006)，〈司法院大法官信賴保護原則違憲審查標準之探究〉。《修平人文社會學報》，第7期，頁237-266。

張耀文 (2006)，《個別農舍與集村農舍制度之比較分析---以新竹縣為例》，國立政治大學地政學系研究所碩士論文。

洪大植 (2006)，〈今日農舍所面臨之法律問題〉。《律師雜誌》，第316期，頁3。

蔡秀婉、張志銘 (2004)，〈從住宅觀點檢視農地興建農舍之問題〉。《土地問題研究季刊》，第3卷，第2期，頁16-24。

Reagan, Michael D. (1987).Regulation: The Politics of policy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.