在台灣公共住宅政策轉向之際，興建社會住宅及相關政策造成龐大的公共支出使財政赤字加劇，也降低了整體效率，使台灣社會住宅面臨資源不足及供需失衡的問題。在過去幾年中，政府政策雖有進一步鼓勵民間興建社會住宅發展，但整體財務主導及審核的核心仍為政府，因此形塑台灣可負擔住宅發展仍為單面向，相較歐美及日韓的社會住宅模式，仍有許多進步的空間。目前全球興起永續意識，加上科技日新月異的影響，越來越多國家引入影響力投資概念解決住宅問題，除了追求財務報酬之外，也尋求社會及環境面向的報酬。因此本文比較不同國家可負擔住宅興辦方式，從利害關係人角度出發分析美國、英國及韓國，如何運用不同金融工具、設立機構及補貼方式，以落實居住正義。透過個案分析及訪談，歸納適合台灣社會住宅發展的元素，討論在現行法規及財務限制中應如何突破，結合影響力投資概念，以私人資本與市場力量解決問題，進而形成一股善的循環。本研究發現欲解決台灣社會住宅存量不足問題，因此認為必須先重新定義台灣社會住宅的意義，更新法規將社會住宅模式項下擴大，並且建議導入內外共生的模式及建構台灣影響力投資衡量工具，例如以小額債券吸引一般投資人，而可持續發展債券透過發行天期要更長、利率要更高，社會效益投資計畫比重應上升，以提升社會住宅的價值為目標，或透過多元信託方式將資金做最妥善配置，將「既賺錢，又做好事」的投資風氣帶動社會住宅成長。

In Taiwan, the construction of social housing caused public expenditure. In the past few years, Although the government policy has further encouraged the private construction of social housing development, the results have not been effective. Therefore, compared with other countries’ affordable housing model, the development of social housing in Taiwan needs to be improved. Besides, the rise of global sustainability awareness at present, more and more countries import the concept of impact investment to solve housing problems, in addition to the pursuit of financial return, but also seek social and environmental-oriented compensations. Thus, this paper compares and analyzes the mode of affordable housing from the perspective of stakeholders in the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Korea, summarizes the elements that are suitable for the development of social housing in Taiwan. This study finds that to solve the problem of social housing in Taiwan, it is necessary to redefine the meaning of social housing in Taiwan, The updated laws and regulations expand the scope of the social housing model to enhance the value of social housing, and it is recommended to introduce a model of internal and external symbiosis and the construction of Taiwan’s impact investment measurement tools, such as baby bonds to attract general investors or multiple trusts, which will make "do well by doing good" drive the growth of social housing.

論文審定書 i
致謝 ii
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目錄 v
圖次 vii
表次 viii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與限制 3
第三節 研究流程與架構內容 5
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 社會住宅在台灣的歷史發展 7
第二節 可負擔住宅在國外的發展脈絡 9
第三節 影響力投資工具 20
第三章 研究方法與設計 23
第一節 研究方法 23
第二節 研究資料 25
第三節 訪談設計 38
第四章 國外可負擔住宅案例分析 43
第一節 美國可負擔住宅 43
第二節 英國可負擔住宅 49
第三節 韓國可負擔住宅 54
第四節 各國案例小結 59
第五章 台灣社會住宅運用影響力投資可行性分析 62
第一節 訪談結果 62
第二節 個案分析 66
第三節 台灣影響力投資工具運用 70
第四節 台灣社會住宅運用影響力投資下的多元模式 72
第六章 結論與建議 83
第一節 研究結論 83
第二節 研究貢獻 86
參考文獻 89
附錄 92

英文部分
Berndt, C., & Wirth, M. (2018). Market, metrics, morals: The Social Impact Bond as an emerging social policy instrument. Geoforum, 90, 27-35.
Best, R. (1996). Successes, failures, and prospects for public housing policy in the United Kingdom. Housing Policy Debate, 7(3), 535-562.
Blundell, R., Fry, V., & Walker, I. (1988). Modelling the take-up of means-tested benefits: the case of housing benefits in the United Kingdom. The Economic Journal, 98(390), 58-74.
Bourassa, S., Haurin, D., Hendershott, P., & Hoesli, M. (2013). Mortgage interest deductions and homeownership: An international survey. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 21(2), 181-203.
Calderini, M., Chiodo, V., & Michelucci, F. V. (2018). The social impact investment race: toward an interpretative framework. European Business Review.
Chava, S., & Roberts, M. R. (2008). How does financing impact investment? The role of debt covenants. The journal of finance, 63(5), 2085-2121.
Findlay, S. and M. Moran (2019). "Purpose-washing of impact investing funds: motivations, occurrence and prevention." Social Responsibility Journal.
Gan, X., Zuo, J., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chang, R., & Wen, T. (2017). How affordable housing becomes more sustainable? A stakeholder study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 427-437.
Hanson, A., & Martin, H. (2014). Housing market distortions and the mortgage interest deduction. Public Finance Review, 42(5), 582-607.
Hilber, C. A., & Schöni, O. (2016). Housing policies in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the United States: lessons learned. Cityscape, 18(3), 291-332.
Hilber, C. A., & Vermeulen, W. (2016). The impact of supply constraints on house prices in England. The Economic Journal, 126(591), 358-405.
Höchstädter, A. K. and B. Scheck (2015). "What’s in a name: An analysis of impact investing understandings by academics and practitioners." Journal of Business Ethics 132(2): 449-475.
Jin, J. and H.-Y. Lee (2018). "Understanding residential location choices: An application of the UrbanSim residential location model on Suwon, Korea." International Journal of Urban Sciences 22(2): 216-235.
Jang, M. and C.-D. Kang (2015). "Retail accessibility and proximity effects on housing prices in Seoul, Korea: A retail type and housing submarket approach." Habitat International 49: 516-528.
Mudaliar, A., Schiff, H., Bass, R., & Dithrich, H. (2016). Annual impact investor survey. New York: Global Impact Investing Network.
Murray, M. P. (1999). Subsidized and unsubsidized housing stocks 1935 to 1987: crowding out and cointegration. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 18(1), 107-124.
Nguyen, M. T. (2005). Does affordable housing detrimentally affect property values? A review of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(1), 15-26.
Schwartz, C., Hampton, T., Lewis, C., & Norman, D. (2010). A survey of housing equity withdrawal and injection in Australia. The Blackwell Companion to the Economics of Housing: The Housing Wealth of Nations, 147-175.
Steuerle, C. E., Harris, B. H., McKernan, S.-M., Quakenbush, C., & Ratcliffe, C. (2014). Who Benefits from Asset-Building Tax Subsidies? Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Teixeira, C. (2018). Introduction to Part One: The housing experiences of immigrants. In The housing and economic experiences of immigrants in US and Canadian cities (pp. 23-42): University of Toronto Press.
Toder, E., & Rosenberg, J. (2010). Effects of imposing a value-added tax to replace payroll taxes or corporate taxes. Tax Policy Center Publication. April, 7.
Wallace, J. E. (1995). Financing affordable housing in the United States. Housing Policy Debate, 6(4), 785-814.
Whitehead, C. M. (2007). Planning policies and affordable housing: England as a successful case study? Housing Studies, 22(1), 25-44.
中文部分
巴曙松, 华中炜, 杨现领, 田磊, & 唐时达. (2012). 保障性住房制度研究: 国际经验及中国选择. 中国经济改革研究基金会 2011 年研究课题汇编.
沈孟穎. (2015). 台灣公共 (國民) 住宅空間治理 (1910s－ 2000s). 成功大學建築學系學位論文, 1-275.
邢淑伶. (2021). 從鄰避到迎毗: 以健康社會住宅居民與周遭社區居民對社會住宅之態度為例.
林帝彣. (2020). 社會住宅導入社會福利服務之社會影響力研究─ 以臺中豐原安康段社會住宅為例.
曹莉玲. (2010). 臺北都市再生國際論壇: 英國.
陳建吉. (2018). 我國首例 BOT 社會住宅探討-以新北市青年社會住宅興建營運移轉案為例. 臺灣大學土木工程學研究所學位論文, 1-103.
黃玉旻. (2013). 從可負擔觀點探討台灣住宅政策演變之研究-1950 年－ 2012 年. 成功大學都市計劃學系學位論文, 1-97.
趙永茂. (2007). 英國地方治理的社會建構與發展困境. In: 歐美研究.
謝雅婷. (2018). 臺灣社會住宅政策之反思-以外國經驗為借鏡.