台灣家庭所得與住宅消費之分配與變動：1980-2000

Income Inequality and the Distribution of Housing Consumption in Taiwan: Changes between 1980 and 2000

10.6375/JHS.200606.0059

謝博明(Bor-Ming Hsieh)

所得分配不均 ； 住宅消費分配 ； 吉尼係數 ； 艾金森指數 ； income inequality ； housing consumption distribution ； Gini-coefficient ； Atkinson inequality index

住宅學報

15卷1期（2006 / 06 / 01）

59 - 78

繁體中文

本文利用主計處「家庭收支調查」資料探討不同住宅權屬家庭，在近二十年來所得分配與住宅消費分配及其變動情形。在研究方法上，本文主要利用吉尼係數與艾金森指數來衡量家庭所得與住宅消費之分配不均程度，並比較其二者之間的差異。艾金森指數著重於所得分配的移轉效果，因此在衡量所得分配不均時，較吉尼係數更能反映社會公平層面之意義。研究結果顯示，近二十年來台灣家庭所得分配不均有逐漸惡化的現象。值得注意的是在不同住宅權屬間，所得極化的現象較不明顯，但仍有許多低所得家庭集中在出租住宅與無貸款自有住宅。住宅消費分配不均的情形則有減少的趨勢，此一現象隱含著不同權屬間的住宅品質差距已逐漸縮小。

By using data from the Survey of Family Income and Expenditure, this study analyzes the change in the distribution of family income and housing consumption between different tenures in the last two decades. With respect to inequality measures, this study employs the Gini-coefficient and Atkinson's inequality index. In comparison with the Gini-coefficient, the Atkinson index allows researchers to make their social value judgments and to give more weight attached to the bottom end of the distribution. The results show that there has been an increase in income inequality over the past twenty years; however, the condition of income polarization between tenures was less significant than some developed countries. It is noted that many lower income households were concentrated in rented housing and outright owner-occupied housing. The inequality of housing consumption distribution between tenures has significantly been reduced. This implies a smaller gap of housing quality between different tenures in the past two decades.

1. 林祖嘉、林素菁(1994)。台灣地區住宅需求價格彈性與所得彈性之估計。住宅學報，2，25-48。
   連結：
2. 張金鶚、高國峰、林秋瑾(2001)。台北市合理房價－需求面分析。住宅學報，10(1)，51-66。
   連結：
3. 陳建良、林祖嘉(1998)。財富效果、所得效果、與住宅需求。住宅學報，7，83-99。
   連結：
4. 薛立敏、陳琇里(1998)。住宅租擁選擇下家計消費支出之比較。住宅學報，7，21-40。
   連結：
5. Atkinson, A(1983).The Economics of Inequality.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
6. Atkinson, A(1970).On the Measurement of Inequality.Journal of Economic Theory,2,244-263.
7. Baum, S(1997).Sydney, Australia: A Global City? Testing the Social Polarisation Thesis.Urban Studies,34,1881-1901.
8. Bentham, G.(1986).Social-tenurial Polarization in the United Kingdom, 1953-83: the Income Evidence.Urban Studies,23,157-162.
9. Bruegel, I(1996).Gendering the Polarisation Debate: A Comment on Hamnett's ‘Social Polarisation, Economic Restructuring and Welfare Regimes.Urban Studies,33,1431-1439.
10. Burgers, J(1996).No Polarisation in Dutch Cities? Inequality in a Corporatist Country.Urban Studies,33,99-105.
11. Carter, W,M. Schill,S. Wachter(1998).Polarisation, Public Housing and Racial Minorities in US Cities.Urban Studies,35,1898-1911.
12. Champernowne, D. G, F. Cowell(1998).Economic Inequality and Income Distribution.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
13. Clarke, W.,M. McNicholas(1996).Re-Examining Economic and Social Polarisation in a Multi-Ethnic Metropolitan Area: the Case of Los Angels.Area,28,56-63.
14. Forest, R,A. Murie(1990).Moving the Housing Market: Council Estates, Social Change and Privatization.Aldershot:Avebury.
15. Hamnett, C(1994).Social Polarisation in Global Cities: Theory and Evidence.Urban Studies,31,401-424.
16. Hamnett, C(1984).Housing the Two Nations: Social-Tenurial Polarization in England and Wales, 1961-81.Urban Studies,21,389-405.
17. Hamnett, C(1996).Social Polarisation, Economic Restructuring and Welfare State Regimes.Urban Studies,33,1407-1430.
18. Hills, J(2000).IPPR Social Housing Forum Discussion Paper.London:Institute of Public Policy Research.
19. Hills, J(1991).Unravelling Housing Finance: Subsidies, Benefits and Taxation.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
20. Hills, J(1995).Inquiry into Income and Wealth, Volume 2: A Summary of the Evidence.York:Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
21. Hsieh, B. M(2004).The Distribution of Household Income and Housing Consumption between Tenure in Taiwan.9th AsRES International Conference paper,New Delhi:
22. Hsieh, B. M(2002).University of Glasgow.
23. Hsieh, B. M,K. Gibb(2003).Income Inequality and the Distribution of Housing Consumption in Scotland.8th AsRES Conference paper,Singapore:
24. Jenkins, S,F. Cowell(1994).Dwarfs and Giants in the 1980s: Trends in the UK Income Distribution.Fiscal Studies,15,99-118.
25. Lin, C. C(1993).The Relationship between Rents and Prices of Owner-occupied Housing in Taiwan.Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics,6,25-54.
26. Marsh, C(1988).Exploring Data: An Introduction to Data Analysis for Social Scientists.Cambridge:Policy Press.
27. Murie, A.(1991).Divisions of Homeownership: Housing Tenure and Social Change.Environment and Planning A,23,349-370.
28. Robinson, R,T. O'Sullivan,J. Le Grand(1985).Inequality and Housing.Urban Studies,22,249-256.
29. Robinson, R,T. O''Sullivan,J. Le Grand(1985).Inequality and Housing.Urban Studies,22,249-256.
30. Rothenberg, J,G. Galster,R. Butler,J. Pitkin(1991).The Maze of Urban Housing Markets: Theory, Evidence, and Policy.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
31. 朱雲鵬、伊慶春主編、朱瑞玲主編(1989)。1980 至1986 年間台灣所得分配變動趨勢的分析。台北:中央研究院社科所。
32. 吳老德(1994)。臺灣地區所得分配變動因素之探討。臺灣經濟，214，37-49。
33. 吳昭明(1996)。台灣地區家庭組織型態與所得分配之研究( 續)。主計月報，81(2)，54-59。
34. 吳昭明(1996)。台灣地區家庭組織型態與所得分配之研究。主計月報，81(1)，40-50。
35. 吳慧瑛(1998)。家戶人口規模與所得分配，1976-1995。經濟論文，26(1)，19-50。
36. 林金源(1997)。家庭結構變化對台灣所得分配及經濟福利分配的影響。人文及社會科學集刊，9(4)，39-63。
37. 曹添旺(1996)。臺灣家庭所得不均度的分解與變化試析，1980~1993。人文及社會科學集刊，8(2)，181-219。
38. 曹添旺、張植榕(2000)。臺灣家庭高所得階層屬性分部與所得分配。人文及社會科學集刊，10(3)，344-361。
39. 謝兆陽、游騰益(1995)。台北市家庭結構與所得分配情況之研究。主計月報，79，38-50。

1. 陳建良,張清和,李巧琳(2022)。臺灣家戶住宅支出負擔的長期檢視。住宅學報，31(1)，31-62。
2. 陳彥仲、呂昭宏(2013)。建立購屋負擔風險指數再檢視家戶住宅之購屋能力─台北與高雄地區購屋家戶之比較。住宅學報，22(1)，107-129。
3. 陳耀峰(2020)。不動產幸福指數架構之初議。土地問題研究季刊，19(2)，72-82。
4. 胡志平(2013)。住宅對偶性與住戶搬遷分析。建築與規劃學報，14(2/3)，131-146。
5. 林佑儒(2021)。臺灣七大都市地區房價所得比之差異與迷思－購屋者擁屋數與主觀因素分析。住宅學報，30(1)，27-47。
6. (2011)。「家」的夢想：解析房仲電視廣告中的家庭圖像與性別關係。廣告學研究，35，75-112。