| 915 | 8 | 243 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
当前我国老旧小区改造的政策体系尚不完善，仍存在以财政出资为主，产权主体筹资较少的问题，且改造多集中在公共空间而较少关注私房部分。已有研究表明，以适当的公共干预推动业主投资自主更新是私房更新的要点。最早开始城市化进程的英国，在1960年代—1970年代建立了较为完善的住房更新补助赋能政策体系，公共部门发放私房更新补助金以激励引导业主自主更新，并通过共享房屋租金增值、征收房地产税等方式实现利益还原，将公共投资所生增值收益返还为公共利益；同时通过监管标准和措施，包括补助申领标准、工程建设标准、转租转售限制等，促进公共资金投入私房更新后实现保值增值。归纳比较英国公共部门“补助结合监管”赋能私房业主自主更新的政策经验，可为我国老旧小区改造工作提供启示。
Abstract：The current policy system for the rehabilitation of old neighborhoods in China is not yet fully developed. Renovation costs are predominantly covered by public funds, with limited contributions from homeowners. Furthermore, past renovation efforts have largely focused on public spaces rather than private housing. Previous studies indicate that appropriate governmental intervention is crucial in encouraging homeowners to take the initiative in housing improvements. The UK, an early adopter of urbanization, established a relatively comprehensive policy system for housing improvement grants in the 1960s-1970s to incentivize homeowner investment. At the same time, it employed mechanisms to recapture the value generated by public investments, such as benefiting from rental appreciation and property taxation. Additionally, a comprehensive set of conditions and standards was established to ensure the maintenance and growth of public asset values, including eligibility criteria, improvement standards, and regulations on renting and reselling. Summarizing and comparing the policy experiences of the British public sector can provide valuable insights for the rehabilitation of old neighborhoods in China.
[1]吴志强,伍江,张佳丽,等.“城镇老旧小区更新改造的实施机制”学术笔谈[J].城市规划学刊, 2021(3):1-10.
[2]田灵江.老旧小区改造资金需求及来源研究[J].住宅产业, 2020(5):6-11.
[3]梁传志,李超.北京市老旧小区综合改造主要做法与思考[J].建设科技,2016(9):20-23.
[4]赵燕菁.公众参与：概念·悖论·出路[J].北京规划建设, 2015(5):152-155.
[5]郑杭生,黄家亮.论我国社区治理的双重困境与创新之维——基于北京市社区管理体制改革实践的分析[J].东岳论丛, 2012, 33(1):23-29.
[6] DAVIS O A, WHINSTON A B. The economics of urban renewal[J]. Law and contemporary problems, 1961, 26:105-117.
[7] MERRETT S. Owner-occupation in Britain[M]. London:Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1982.
[8] BALCHIN P, RHODEN M. Housing policy:an introduction[M]. London:Routledge, 2002.
[9] GIBSON M S, LANGSTAFF M J. An introduction to urban renewal[M].London:Hutchinson, 1982.
[10] HARRIS R. Neighbourhood upgrading:a fragmented global history[J].Progress in planning, 2020, 142:100432.
[11] Department of Environment. Housing policy technical volume:part I[R].London:Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1977.
[12] LISTOKIN D. Housing rehabilitation:economic, social and policy perspectives[M]. New Brunswick, N.J.:Center for Urban Policy Research,1983.
[13]全国住環境整備事業推進協議会.住環境整備四十年のあゆみ[M].東京:全国市街地再開発協会, 2002.
[14] MULLINS D, MURIE A. Housing policy in the UK[M]. Basingstoke,Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
[15] PEPPER S. Housing improvement:goals and strategy[M]. London:Lund Humphries, 1971.
[16] KIRBY D A. Slum housing and residential renewal:the case in urban Britain[M]. London:Longman Publishing Group, 1979.
[17] MERRETT S. State housing in Britain[M]. London:Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1979.
[18] LEATHER P. Grants to home-owners:a policy in search of objectives[J].Housing studies, 2000, 15(2):149-168.
[19] THOMAS A D. Housing and urban renewal:residential decay and revitalization in the private sector[M]. Abingdon:Routledge, 2021.
[20] HETZEL O J. Focusing on housing rehabilitation:a British perspective[J].The urban lawyer, 1981:451-497.
[21] Office of Population Censuses and Sur veys. 1981 census evaluation programme in England and Wales[J]. Journal of official statistics, 1986, 2(4):515-530.
[22] MONCK E, LOMAS G. Housing action areas:success and failure[M].London:Centre for Environment Studies, 1981.
[23] GORDON D A. Municipalisation:a case study of policy and practice in Newham[D]. London:University College London, 1977.
[24] HAMNETT C. Improvement grants as an indicator of gentrification in inner London[J]. Area, 1973, 5(4):252-261.
[25] HAMNETT C. Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of inner London, 1961-2001[J]. Urban studies, 2003, 40(12):2401-2426.
[26] LEVY D K, COMEY J, PADILLA S. In the face of gentrification:case studies of local efforts to mitigate displacement[J]. Journal of affordable housing&community development law, 2007:238-315.
[27] GHAFFARI L, KLEIN J L, ANGULO BAUDIN W. Toward a socially acceptable gentrification:a review of strategies and practices against displacement[J]. Geography compass, 2018, 12(2):e12355.
[28] United Nations. Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000[M]. New York:United Nations General Assembly, 1988.
[29] UN-Habitat. Enabling shelter strategies:review of experience from two decades of implementation[M]. Nairobi:United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2006.
[30] United Nations. Habitat agenda[M/OL]. Istanbul:United Nations Conference on Human Settlements(Habitat II).(1996)[2024-02-05].https://www.un.org/en/conferences/habitat/istanbul1996.
[31] United Nations. New urban agenda[M/OL]. Quito:United Nations Conference on Human Settlements(Habitat III).(2016)[2024-02-05].https://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/.
[32]楼继伟.新时代中国财政体系改革和未来展望[J].比较, 2023, 124:1-10.
(1)据测算，2000年前建成的居住小区总面积为65亿m2，所需改造资金为3万亿~14万亿元，再加上老旧街区、城中村等，所需资金将更多。
(2)戴维斯和温斯顿研究了城市更新中一个简单的案例。假设业主1和业主2拥有毗邻的房屋，正考虑是否投资进行更新。若他们都选择不投资的“背叛策略”，双方都获得4%基准收益率；若他们都选择投资的“合作策略”，双方都获得7%的投资收益率；若一方选择合作策略，而另一方选择背叛策略，由于住房更新的外部性效应，“背叛者”将获得10%的收益率，而“合作者”将获得3%的收益率。博弈的均衡结果是双方都选择背叛策略。由此可见，因为住区更新外部性的特征和大量微观主体协商一致的难度，个体的理性行为将导致住区衰败。
(3)根据英国全国住房更新委员会1980年的测算，住房更新的全国平均估值差距为1 200英镑，且在地区间差异较大。在人口流入的繁荣城区如伦敦，若业主投资4万英镑更新一处价值10万英镑的房子，其价值可能会增至20万英镑，则业主有充分的经济动力自主更新房屋。而在谢菲尔德，若投资3万英镑更新一处价值1万英镑的房子，其价值只会增至2万英镑，此时就需要公共部门提供补助，推动自主更新实施。参见参考文献[8]65。
(1)数据来源：https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization。
(2)补助金笔数详见5.1小节；1971年英国人口普查统计总户数为1 643万[11]53。
(3) 20世纪，美国和日本也以多种形式实施了类似的住房更新补助政策。1960-1980年间美国联邦和地方政府大规模补助业主实施私房更新；1960-1980年间日本完成补助更新11.5万户[12-13]。
(1)主要是将多户合居的较大的住房单元改建为若干独立的住房单元，从而增加住房总量以实现分户居住。
(2)包括道路地坪铺砌、绿化植树、增设娱乐游憩空间、垃圾收集等，拨款金额由改善地区的住房数量决定。
(1)征税估定租值指物业在指定日期的估计年租金价值。
(1)大部分是发放至私房业主的补助金，也包括发放至地方政府、住房协会所持的社会住房的补助金。
(2) 1973-1974年补助金开支占住房部门总开支比例可能更高，但因缺少数据，未纳入分析。
(1) 1960年代-1970年代的房屋征收主要采取协议征收（municipalisation by agreement）的方式。主要流程是私房业主和地方议会开展意向咨询并进行房地产估值，达成协议后，业主可获得房产市场价值的补偿金（租赁房东还应向租户返还剩余租金）。征收后的房屋经整修后，可纳入公房出租经营。征收房屋的总规模较小，1974年英格兰征收私房总量是2.56万套，同年补助就地改善的私房数量是21.7万套，私房征收的数量相当于补助就地改善数量的12%。详见参考文献[23]。
基本信息:
DOI：10.19830/j.upi.2023.227
中图分类号:F812;F299.23
引用信息:
[1]余旺仔,张悦.补助结合监管——英国公共部门赋能私房业主自主更新的经验和启示[J].国际城市规划,2025,40(04):73-80+100.DOI:10.19830/j.upi.2023.227.
2024-07-19
2024-07-19
2024-07-19