發(fā)布時間：2018-06-03 08:40

  本文選題：經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房 + 共有產(chǎn)權(quán)模式��； 參考：《上海社會科學(xué)院》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房制度自1998年創(chuàng)設(shè)以來,切實解決了大量中低收入家庭的住房困難,對商品房市場的房價飆升起到了一定的抑制作用。但是隨著社會客觀情況的不斷變化,出現(xiàn)了一系列諸如私自轉(zhuǎn)租、亂進(jìn)亂出、非法騙購、違規(guī)買賣等問題,偏離了制度創(chuàng)立的最初目的。對此我國各地政府紛紛“出謀劃策”、“建章立制”,從經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房產(chǎn)權(quán)模式改革的角度做出了眾多嘗試,諸如北京的“有限產(chǎn)權(quán)”模式、杭州的“租售并舉”模式、上海的“共有產(chǎn)權(quán)”模式等等。這些經(jīng)驗做法在不斷碰壁、不斷完善的過程中,為我國保障性住房領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的制度完善提供了寶貴的經(jīng)驗。筆者在參閱眾多學(xué)術(shù)研究成果的基礎(chǔ)上,最終選取經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房共有產(chǎn)權(quán)模式這一切入角度,對完善我國經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房相關(guān)制度提出了一些意見和看法。具體來說,本文主要從以下幾方面展開研究:文章的第一部分,主要解決的問題是對本文的核心概念進(jìn)行基本的界定,對共有產(chǎn)權(quán)模式下經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房的概念及其在主體、客體和權(quán)能分配方面的特殊性進(jìn)行了分析,從根本上把握經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房與傳統(tǒng)福利制住房、廉租房、公共租賃住房等住房制度相比的優(yōu)勢所在。同時,深入研究了傳統(tǒng)的經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房產(chǎn)權(quán)模式在實際操作中暴露出的不合理性。文章的第二部分,從國外在住房保障領(lǐng)域的先進(jìn)做法入手,分析了英國、澳大利亞的共有產(chǎn)權(quán)模式、美國的共享權(quán)益模式、新加坡組屋制度對我國的共有產(chǎn)權(quán)模式的借鑒意義。同時,因為我國各地方政府在該領(lǐng)域也做出了眾多嘗試,實施的經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房產(chǎn)權(quán)模式各不相同,這都為我們研究完善共有產(chǎn)權(quán)模式提供了現(xiàn)實依據(jù)。該部分將綜合分析國內(nèi)及國外的經(jīng)驗做法,為完善我國共有產(chǎn)權(quán)模式的經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房制度提供思路。文章的第三部分,主要分析了目前我國經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房在共有產(chǎn)權(quán)模式下存在的問題。這些問題主要包括:立法層級低導(dǎo)致各地相關(guān)規(guī)定的不統(tǒng)一;相關(guān)規(guī)則規(guī)定模糊導(dǎo)致其可操作性不強(qiáng);保障標(biāo)準(zhǔn)界定不清導(dǎo)致退出機(jī)制存在漏洞;相關(guān)制度配合度不高導(dǎo)致共有產(chǎn)權(quán)模式無法完全推進(jìn);法律體系不完善導(dǎo)致相關(guān)法律責(zé)任的缺失等。另外,經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房產(chǎn)權(quán)的共有性還要求我們對受保障者和政府之間作為房屋共有人對占有和使用權(quán)、收益權(quán)等權(quán)利的分配以及負(fù)擔(dān)維修費、裝修費等義務(wù)的分擔(dān)問題予以法律層面的分析及明確。文章第四部分,對經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房因共有產(chǎn)權(quán)而發(fā)生的內(nèi)外部法律關(guān)系做了認(rèn)定分析。本章以物權(quán)法對按份共有的內(nèi)部法律關(guān)系和外部法律關(guān)系的相關(guān)規(guī)定為依托,結(jié)合經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房共有產(chǎn)權(quán)的獨特性,著重分析了產(chǎn)權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓過程中的內(nèi)部法律關(guān)系與外部法律關(guān)系中的債務(wù)承擔(dān)問題,為經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房共有產(chǎn)權(quán)制度完善提供了理論支撐。文章第五部分,主要從經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房共有產(chǎn)權(quán)制度構(gòu)建的角度出發(fā),提出了一些想法和建議。例如,受保障者和政府在共有產(chǎn)權(quán)比例分配方面,避免實際操作中因基于產(chǎn)權(quán)比例劃分的權(quán)利義務(wù)分配不明確而引發(fā)糾紛。與此同時,筆者還對建立政府回購制度的必要性、困難性以及與相關(guān)配套制度的關(guān)系進(jìn)行了分析。
[Abstract]:Since the establishment of the system of affordable housing in 1998, it has effectively solved the housing difficulties of a large number of middle and low income families, and raised the price of house prices in the commodity housing market to a certain extent. However, with the continuous change in the social objective situation, a series of problems such as private sublease, chaos, illegal buying and illegal buying and selling have appeared. We have deviated from the original purpose of the establishment of the system. The governments of all parts of our country have "made suggestions" and "built the system of regulations", and made numerous attempts from the angle of the reform of the property right mode of affordable housing, such as the "limited property" model of Beijing, the "renting and selling" model of Hangzhou, the "common property right" model of Shanghai and so on. In the process of continuous improvement, the practice provides valuable experience for the improvement of the system in the field of affordable housing in China. On the basis of reading a lot of academic research results, the author finally chooses the model of the common property right mode of affordable housing, and puts forward the improvement of the relevant housing system in our country. In the first part of the article, the main problem is to make a basic definition of the core concept of this article, and analyze the concept of affordable housing under the common property rights model and the particularity of the subject, object and power distribution. In the second part of the article, the second part of the article begins with the advanced practice in the field of housing security abroad. The common property rights model of Britain and Australia, the model of shared rights and interests of the United States, the reference significance of the group house system in Singapore to the common property rights model of our country. At the same time, because the local governments of our country have made many attempts in this field, the mode of economic application of housing property rights is different, which are all perfect for our research. The mode of property right provides the realistic basis. This part will comprehensively analyze the experience of domestic and foreign, and provide ideas for improving the economic housing system of the common property right mode in our country. The third part of the article mainly analyzes the existing problems of the current economic housing in our country under the common property right mode. These problems mainly include: The low level of law leads to the disunity of relevant regulations in various places; the relevant rules stipulate that the fuzziness leads to its poor operability; the unclear definition of the security standards leads to the existence of loopholes in the exit mechanism; the poor coordination degree of the relevant system leads to the failure of the common property model to be fully promoted; the lack of legal system leads to the lack of relevant legal liability. The applicability of the housing property rights also requires us to analyze and clarify the allocation of rights, such as the right to possession and use, the right to return, and the burden of maintenance and decoration, and other obligations between the insured and the government. In the fourth part of the article, the economic housing is due to common property rights. This chapter relies on the relevant provisions of the internal legal relations and external legal relations in common, and combines the uniqueness of the common property rights of the affordable housing, and focuses on the analysis of the debt bearing problems in the internal legal relations and external legal relations in the process of the transfer of property rights. It provides theoretical support for the improvement of the property right system of affordable housing. The fifth part of the article, mainly from the perspective of the construction of the common property right system of affordable housing, puts forward some ideas and suggestions. For example, the insured and the government have to avoid the proportion of property rights based on the proportion of property rights in the practical operation. At the same time, the author also analyzes the necessity, the difficulty and the relationship with the relevant supporting system of the government repurchase system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海社會科學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 吳立群;宗躍光;;共有產(chǎn)權(quán)住房保障制度及其實踐模式研究[J];城市發(fā)展研究;2009年06期

2 莫智;鄧小鵬;李啟明;;國外住房共有產(chǎn)權(quán)制度及對我國的啟示[J];城市發(fā)展研究;2010年03期

3 秦虹;;英國住房的共有產(chǎn)權(quán)制度[J];城鄉(xiāng)建設(shè);2007年09期

4 張小敏;;我國經(jīng)濟(jì)適用房產(chǎn)權(quán)問題探析[J];法制與社會;2012年11期

5 楊衛(wèi)國;程承坪;;所有權(quán)、財產(chǎn)權(quán)及產(chǎn)權(quán)新辨——兼論馬克思所有制理論與現(xiàn)代產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的異同[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)問題;2007年01期

6 霍現(xiàn)濤;汪雪曉;;基于共有產(chǎn)權(quán)的經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房收益分配研究[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究導(dǎo)刊;2009年23期

7 陳耀東;任容慶;;民法視野下產(chǎn)權(quán)型保障房退出機(jī)制的分析——以“有限產(chǎn)權(quán)”向“共有產(chǎn)權(quán)”理論的過渡為視角[J];理論與現(xiàn)代化;2014年05期

8 趙立香;;試論經(jīng)濟(jì)適用房共有產(chǎn)權(quán)制度的建立[J];商業(yè)時代;2008年33期

9 江丹;;完善保障性住房共有產(chǎn)權(quán)制度的幾點思考[J];上海房地;2012年01期

，

本文編號：1972167