我国个人合作建房的法律评析

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

邓满

导师:

刘俊

导师单位:

经济学院(数字经济学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

房地产;个人合作建房;可能性;必要性;价值取向

摘要:

从 1998 年我国实施住房货币化的房地产改革以来,我国房地产市场 经历了短期化的快速发展。人们的生活水平不断提高,改善居住环境的要 求非常迫切。房地产的经济价值被高度重视。从而,房地产市场价值取向 被扭曲。“房地产是国民经济的支柱产业”被地方政府推至极致并演变成畸 形的增长模式,加上房地产开发企业哄抬房价、投资者趁机炒作等诸多因 素影响,我国各地房屋价格一路飙升。大多数老百姓越来越买不起房。居 住权是人类最基本的生存权。因此我国房地产市场价值取向必须回归到保 障“居者有其屋”的民生价值上,建立适合我国国情,可持续性发展的住房 体系。 在此背景下,老百姓为实现自己“居者有其屋”的梦想展开迫于无奈的 个人合作建房尝试。经过短暂尝试,各地的个人合作建房纷纷失败了。在 面对仍旧价格过高、结构供需失衡、保障体系尚未完全建立的房地产市场, 个人合作建房的尝试者不甘心失败。房地产开发企业和房地产投资者随时 观望着个人合作建房发展,期待从中分享利益。舆论媒体也关注着个人合 作建房的发展。个人合作建房不会主动退出历史舞台。在我国构建健康、 和谐的住房体系改革中,我们有必要对个人合作建房进行再次讨论。本文 通过对个人合作建房存在的可能性、必要性进行评析,再次否定个人合作 建房在我国的可行性。同时,我们认清只有依靠政府宏观调控和市场机制 自发调节两种手段相互配合、协调发展,建立经济适用房、廉租房和商品 房的住房体系制度才是我们住房体系改革应有方向。对个人合作建房的再 次否定其意义在于使它完全退出住房组织形式的历史舞台。 本文为了寻求在中国建立以保障“居者有其屋”为价值取向的、健康 的、和谐发展的住房体系模式,首先运用比较分析的方法对国内外个人合 作建房的基本情况进行分析。国外个人合作建房建立在资本主义土地私有 制基础上,在政策和法律的支持下是解决低收入家庭住房问题的一种建房 模式,国内个人合作建房的各种尝试在土地所有制基础不同、得不到政府 支持等情况下纷纷失败。面对土地资源的属性,不少西方国家都开始关注 土地的公益性,通过政府行为解决中低收入住房问题。走社会主义发展道 路的中国更应关注土地的公益性、通过政府调控和市场调节共同保障全民 居住权。此外,我国拥有 13 亿人口、资源相对匮乏的国情要求必须从全局考虑对土地的利用和住房体系模式构建。因此,我国不能照搬西方国家 住房体系模式,不能发展个人合作建房。其次,从个人合作建房不是集资 建房、政府不支持个人合作建房、个人合作建房无法获取土地、个人合作 建房主体组织形式缺失、个人合作建房资金筹措困难且无法保障资金安 全、个人合作建房容易引起产权纠纷和个人合作建房无法保障房屋质量安 全等七个方面对个人合作建房进行法律评析。从法律政策上,否定了个人 合作建房在我国发展的可能性。最后,我们确定保障“居者有其屋”是我国 房地产市场的基本价值取向。我们应该建立符合合理开发利用土地的原 则,符合中国国情,能全面解决我国居民住房问题的住房体系。个人合作 建房不适应社会主义市场经济发展需要。个人合作建房也不能解决房地产 市场供需失衡。个人合作建房更不能解决我国房价过高的问题。因此个人 合作建房无法实现我国房地产市场的基本价值取向。从现实意义上,否定 了个人合作建房在我国存在的必要性。 经过上述论证过程,个人合作建房在我国没有存在的可能性和必要 性,它的存在只会扰乱原本已经混乱的房地产市场。因此,个人合作建房 应该早日、完全退出历史舞台。通过对个人合作建房的法律评析,我们明 确了中国房地产发展战略应逐渐向公共政策回归,保障“居者有其屋”的价 值取向。强调居民居住权的保障是国家和政府不能推卸的一项国家责任。 要真正解决 13 亿人的住房问题,只有选择走建立经济适用房、廉租房和 商品房相互配合共同发展的住房体系,建设有中国特色的、可持续性的、 健康发展的住房保障体系和房地产市场。

学科:

民商法学

提交日期

2025-12-03

引用参考

邓满. 我国个人合作建房的法律评析[D]. 西南政法大学,2008.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 我国个人合作建房的法律评析
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 2005372
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 邓满
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2008
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 刘俊
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 经济学院(数字经济学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 房地产 ; 个人合作建房;可能性;必要性;价值取向
  • dc.subject
  • real-estate;individual-cooperative housing;possibility;necessity;values
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 从 1998 年我国实施住房货币化的房地产改革以来,我国房地产市场 经历了短期化的快速发展。人们的生活水平不断提高,改善居住环境的要 求非常迫切。房地产的经济价值被高度重视。从而,房地产市场价值取向 被扭曲。“房地产是国民经济的支柱产业”被地方政府推至极致并演变成畸 形的增长模式,加上房地产开发企业哄抬房价、投资者趁机炒作等诸多因 素影响,我国各地房屋价格一路飙升。大多数老百姓越来越买不起房。居 住权是人类最基本的生存权。因此我国房地产市场价值取向必须回归到保 障“居者有其屋”的民生价值上,建立适合我国国情,可持续性发展的住房 体系。 在此背景下,老百姓为实现自己“居者有其屋”的梦想展开迫于无奈的 个人合作建房尝试。经过短暂尝试,各地的个人合作建房纷纷失败了。在 面对仍旧价格过高、结构供需失衡、保障体系尚未完全建立的房地产市场, 个人合作建房的尝试者不甘心失败。房地产开发企业和房地产投资者随时 观望着个人合作建房发展,期待从中分享利益。舆论媒体也关注着个人合 作建房的发展。个人合作建房不会主动退出历史舞台。在我国构建健康、 和谐的住房体系改革中,我们有必要对个人合作建房进行再次讨论。本文 通过对个人合作建房存在的可能性、必要性进行评析,再次否定个人合作 建房在我国的可行性。同时,我们认清只有依靠政府宏观调控和市场机制 自发调节两种手段相互配合、协调发展,建立经济适用房、廉租房和商品 房的住房体系制度才是我们住房体系改革应有方向。对个人合作建房的再 次否定其意义在于使它完全退出住房组织形式的历史舞台。 本文为了寻求在中国建立以保障“居者有其屋”为价值取向的、健康 的、和谐发展的住房体系模式,首先运用比较分析的方法对国内外个人合 作建房的基本情况进行分析。国外个人合作建房建立在资本主义土地私有 制基础上,在政策和法律的支持下是解决低收入家庭住房问题的一种建房 模式,国内个人合作建房的各种尝试在土地所有制基础不同、得不到政府 支持等情况下纷纷失败。面对土地资源的属性,不少西方国家都开始关注 土地的公益性,通过政府行为解决中低收入住房问题。走社会主义发展道 路的中国更应关注土地的公益性、通过政府调控和市场调节共同保障全民 居住权。此外,我国拥有 13 亿人口、资源相对匮乏的国情要求必须从全局考虑对土地的利用和住房体系模式构建。因此,我国不能照搬西方国家 住房体系模式,不能发展个人合作建房。其次,从个人合作建房不是集资 建房、政府不支持个人合作建房、个人合作建房无法获取土地、个人合作 建房主体组织形式缺失、个人合作建房资金筹措困难且无法保障资金安 全、个人合作建房容易引起产权纠纷和个人合作建房无法保障房屋质量安 全等七个方面对个人合作建房进行法律评析。从法律政策上,否定了个人 合作建房在我国发展的可能性。最后,我们确定保障“居者有其屋”是我国 房地产市场的基本价值取向。我们应该建立符合合理开发利用土地的原 则,符合中国国情,能全面解决我国居民住房问题的住房体系。个人合作 建房不适应社会主义市场经济发展需要。个人合作建房也不能解决房地产 市场供需失衡。个人合作建房更不能解决我国房价过高的问题。因此个人 合作建房无法实现我国房地产市场的基本价值取向。从现实意义上,否定 了个人合作建房在我国存在的必要性。 经过上述论证过程,个人合作建房在我国没有存在的可能性和必要 性,它的存在只会扰乱原本已经混乱的房地产市场。因此,个人合作建房 应该早日、完全退出历史舞台。通过对个人合作建房的法律评析,我们明 确了中国房地产发展战略应逐渐向公共政策回归,保障“居者有其屋”的价 值取向。强调居民居住权的保障是国家和政府不能推卸的一项国家责任。 要真正解决 13 亿人的住房问题,只有选择走建立经济适用房、廉租房和 商品房相互配合共同发展的住房体系,建设有中国特色的、可持续性的、 健康发展的住房保障体系和房地产市场。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Real estate market in China had experienced the short-term robust development since the implementation of capitalization of real-estate reform in 1998. There are urge needs for better resident environment associated with the improving living condition. The real estate value has been attached great importance to the economy. However, the values of the real-estate market had been twisted. The statement, “Real-estate is one backbone industry to national economy.” was conducted to an extreme by local governments。Plus real estate development companies to bid up housing prices 、 Investors took the opportunity speculation and other factors,leading to the abnormal real-estate growing mode. Consequently, housing price surged all over the country, which caused unaffordable housing for the civilians., Right of habitation constitutes the most fundamental right of human beings’ existence; hence, the values of national real-estate market should return to the values of people’s livelihood of guaranteeing namely “home ownership”, which further require the construction of the sustainable housing system conforming to the situation in China. Under the circumstances, the civilians made an attempt to conduct individual-cooperative housing in order to realize personal “home ownership”, which soon failed. While facing excessive housing price and partially-constructed housing guarantee system, the attempt has not come to an end. Real-estate enterprisers and investors expect profit from the ongoing of individual-cooperative housing. Public media also pay close attention to the progress. Individual-cooperative housing is not withdrawing from the historical stage on its own. Hence, it needs further discussion on the necessity of individual-cooperative housing with the harmonious development in housing system reform. Via performing analysis on the possibility and necessity of the existence of individual-cooperative housing, this thesis again denies the feasibility of individual-cooperative housing. Meanwhile, it should be realized that the reform needs to be guided by both the government and the market in the housing system of building low-rate economy residential,low-rent housing, and residential for sale. The denial then drives the withdrawing of individual-cooperative housing from the historical stage. To discuss the establishment and development of pattern guaranteeing “home ownership” housing system in China, analysis and comparison on basic situations of both domestic and abroad individual-cooperative housing were performed initially. Foreign individual-cooperative housing is based on private ownership of land, which is one housing pattern to resolve the housing difficulties for lower-income household under the support of policies and laws. Failure in domestic individual-cooperative housing reflects the discrepancy on ownership of land and the lack of government support. The ownership of land and the fundamental realities in China determine the infeasibilities of imitating western housing system and developing individual-cooperative housing. Legal reviews on individual-cooperative housing were conducted from the following seven aspects: inequality to fund raising for housing, lack of support from the government, incapability of acquiring land, lack of housing organization form, difficulty in housing fund collection and ensuring fund safety, easily induced dispute of property rights, and incapability of ensuring housing quality. The possibility of developing individual-cooperative housing is ruled out theoretically via above reviews. Eventually, the values of the real-estate market in China will be ensured to guarantee “home ownership”. The housing system ought to obey reasonable development and utilization of land, conform to the situation in China, to offer comprehensive solution to the housing problem. Individual-cooperative housing can not adapt the needs for developing the socialist market economy. Individual-cooperative housing can not resolve the supply and demand imbalance in the real-estate market. Individual-cooperative housing can not resolve the excessive housing pricing. Practically, the necessity of individual-cooperative housing is also denied. Based on above reasoning, there is no possibility and necessity of conducting individual-cooperative housing in China; its existence will interrupt the real-estate market which is now suffering chaos. Therefore, individual-cooperative housing should be soon withdrawn from the historical stage completely. Through legal reviews on individual-cooperative housing, itis clear that the strategy of real-estate market development should approach the public policy gradually, to guarantee the value of “home ownership”. It is one national obligation for the government to emphasize on guaranteeing habitation. To solve the housing problem for 13 billion Chinese people, it is crucial to construct the housing system incorporating developing low-rate economy residential, low-rent housing, and residential for sale, and construct sustainable and harmonious developing housing security system and the real-estate market with Chinese features.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-12-03
回到顶部