(3.239.192.241) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/02 13:16
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:許秉翔
研究生(外文):Ping-hsiang Hsu
論文名稱:當前台灣住宅的代間移轉
論文名稱(外文):Intergenerational Transfer of Housing Assets in Taiwan: A Socio-Economic Study of Wealth Transfer
指導教授:華昌宜華昌宜引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chang-I Hua
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:建築與城鄉研究所
學門:建築及都市規劃學門
學類:其他建築及都市規劃學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:118
中文關鍵詞:住宅代間移轉財富社會經濟學家庭台灣
外文關鍵詞:HousingIntergenerational TransferWealthSocio-Economic StudyFamilyTaiwan
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:18
  • 點閱點閱:576
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:153
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:7
台灣高達八成的住宅自有率舉世罕見,其原因為二至三成的成年子女居住於父母所有的房子的緣故。在1990年代台灣的高房價社會的背景之下,頭期款資助、整棟房子的財富移轉、同住型態的所得移轉三類的住宅代間移轉在家庭之中極為普遍。其中同住型態的所得移轉在西方文獻中甚少提及,同時過去的討論重視遺產甚於生前移轉,故探討台灣社會的住宅代間移轉不但在學術研究上有其重要性,對於房地產佔家庭財富達六成的台灣社會而言,在公共政策上也有其不可言喻的地位。
本文主要以社會經濟學的取向進行分析。在第貳章第一節當中,本文以Milton Friedman視經濟學為工具主義的觀點,闡述傳統上社會學家攻擊經濟學“不真實的假設”並不公允,並且在此觀點之下,經濟學與社會學其實可以並存。對於住宅代間移轉此類為經濟學、社會學所共同關心的議題而言,欲發掘其豐富的面目,唯有社會經濟學的分析取向才得以竟全功。況且對於台灣的住宅研究而言,過去的成果某種程度而言偏重於經濟學,故本文副標題強調社會經濟學的研究取向,自有希望復興住宅研究之跨學域特性的意義。
第參章對於1990年代幾個重要的全國性社會調查的資料分析結果顯示,除了有二至三成的成年子女居住於父母所有的房子之外,男性顯然得到更多的住宅移轉。此一方面源自於父系社會的背景,另一方面則與奉養父母的社會習俗有關。此外,一些社會經濟的結構性背景也加強了住宅代間移轉的現象,這些因素至少包括:經濟的轉型與都市化的影響、高房價社會、社會福利的低度發展、人口與家庭結構的轉變等。
第肆章的內容在於凸顯台灣的住宅代間移轉,其實具有家庭集體的理性選擇的意涵,其中蘊藏有深沈的社會意義。在台灣近四十年來的經濟發展過程中,實物資產與人力資本對於不同世代的相對價格產生變化,經濟發展的成功、都市化的城鄉移民建構了社會變遷的場景,家庭的型態與父母的權威地位也隨之變動,同時住宅取代了土地成為家庭財富的主要構成。為了維繫「房」的延續與父母老年的經濟安全,住宅成為重要的代間控制的媒介。父母經由住宅代間移轉,影響他們與成年子女之間的居住距離與互動模式,經驗研究的結果顯示,住在父母房子的子女更常探視父母、每月移轉給父母更多的奉養金。由於住宅具有空間的僵固性、不易變現的特質、投資/消費的兩面性和本身為一種能見的實體,使得它成為一種極佳的代間控制的媒介,而與股票、現金等其他財務工具有所不同。
第伍章的內容主要討論住宅財富移轉的社經影響。對於經濟面的影響,代間的消費差距主要是由父母對子女的利他程度、財富效果以及消費的邊際效用降低程度三者所共同影響的結果。透過財富效果對於消費的影響,使得住宅代間移轉與總體經濟產生連動。至於後半部的社會面的影響則以臺灣為例,觀察住宅所有權的狀態對社會階層認知的影響。從Peter Saunders的理論所作的引申認為從父母處得到住宅代間移轉者可能因為財務限制較少,而得以擁有更優渥的生活方式與較高的社會階層地位。經驗研究的結果顯示自力購屋者認知的社會階層高於住在父母房子(接受住宅代間移轉)的人,此與自Saunders的理論所作的引申恰好相反。其中原因可能是成就動機所致。千禧年之後的台灣房地產,隨著地價的持續下跌,房價對於新家戶的負擔已減輕許多,加上台灣人對於自立購屋的成就動機與驕傲感,關於住宅代間移轉是否引起社會結構內部的潛在衝突的憂慮,未來的趨勢是樂觀的。
綜合言之,住宅代間移轉普遍存在於台灣社會,是台灣家庭適應經濟發展的歷程所導致的劇烈社會環境變遷所做的回應之一,除了明顯的路徑依賴的歷史性格之外,其中還存在家庭集體的理性選擇的痕跡。後者過去並未被證明,除了可視為本文的重要貢獻之外,並可作為未來制度變遷的預測基礎。此外,由於住宅被台灣的父母利用以影響成年子女的居住區位與家庭的互動模式,在繁忙的都市生活之時間限制下,住宅代間移轉並可被視為一種以家庭為單位的時空整合的行為。
The housing ownership rate in Taiwan is over 80%, an extra ordinarily high number in the world. The main reason behind this phenomenon is that 20~30 % adult live in the houses of parents’ own. Under the background of expensive housing price, downpayment supporting, housing wealth transfer and co-residence become three major types of housing transfer, which are popular phenomenon in Taiwan. The type of co-residence is specially ignored in western literature perhaps because of cultural differences. Besides, the convention wisdom concerns more on inheritance than on gift. Hence, the research on the issue of housing intergenerational transfer in Taiwan not only shows academic research potentials but also highly represents to public policy, especially when housing wealth is over 60 % of total family wealth in Taiwan.
The methodology of this work is socio-economic study, as stated on the sub-title denotes. From the viewpoint of instrumentalism, raised by Economist Milton Friedman, economics and sociology do have the possibility to co-exist. For the research topic like intergenerational transfer, which is concerned both by economist and sociologist, socio-economic approach is helpful to discover the fruitful contents and avoid the constrained viewpoint of single discipline.
From some national social surveys in Taiwan in 1990s, there is 20~30 % adult live in parents’ houses as previous mentioned. In the meantime, male receives more resources of housing transfer than female does from the family. Sex factor represents not only the patriarchy of Taiwan’s society but also some kind of social norm of elder support. The structural backgrounds also enforce the populaity of housing transfer such as successful economic development and urbanization, expensive housing price, under-developed social welfare system, demografic transition and family structure change etc..
The main findings of CH4 are the proof of housing intergenerational transfer in Taiwan show obviously characteristic of rational choice. Housing becomes an efficient media of intergenerational control because of the properties of spatial fixity, high transaction cost, duality of investment/consumption and visuality. Through housing intergenerational transfer, parents live closer with their adult children and receive more visits and money feedbacks from children.
The socio-economic effects of housing intergenerational transfer are shown in CH5. In economic dimension, the consumption gap across generation is jointly determined by parents’ altrulistic degree, wealth effect and reductive degree of the marginal utility of consumption. In social dimension, I try to compare the effect of housing ownership, self-owned or parents’ owned, on the subjective recognition on social status. From the hint of Peter Saunders’s theory, people who receive housing intergenerational transfer may enjoy more consumption and recognize higher social status because less financial liquidity constraints. The empirical result of the case in Taiwan does not support the extention based on Saunders’s theory. The self-owner regards himself at higher social status even they have to bear the torture of mortgage. A possible explanation could be the achivement motivation.
In short, the popular housing intergenerational transfer in Taiwan could be regarded as a response of family to the success of economic devepment and rapidly social change. Except the explanation of historical factors named path-dependence, rational choice is also proved to be an important dimention to shape housing intergenerational transfer in Taiwan. The latter also could be regarded as a main contribution of this work.
第壹章、緒論
第一節 臺灣正走向住宅繼承社會嗎?
第二節 問題意識與研究界定
第三節 知識貢獻與政策應用
第貳章、方法論與文獻回顧
第一節 為什麼是社會經濟學的研究取向?
第二節 文獻回顧
第三節 住宅階級概念之演化
第參章、臺灣家庭財富與住宅代間移轉的實況
第一節 住宅財富在家庭生命週期的地位
第二節 加強住宅代間移轉的若干結構性背景
第肆章、住宅移轉的代間控制
第一節 家庭代間移轉的動機?
第二節 台灣的家庭代間控制模型
第三節 住宅作為一種有效的代間控制工具
第四節 控制資源的消長與制度變遷
第伍章、家庭住宅財富移轉的社經影響
第一節 住宅財富移轉的經濟影響
第二節 住宅財富移轉對社會階層態度的影響:台灣的實證
第三節 小結
第陸章、結論與後續研究建議
第一節 結論
第二節 後續研究建議
參考文獻
附錄
于若蓉 朱敬一
1993 <家庭內移轉行為的研究>,會議論文。
山田昌弘
2001 《單身寄生時代》,李尚霖譯,台北:新新聞文化事業股份有限公司。
石振弘
2001 <台灣租屋市場之啟蒙:沈痾、新苗、與生機>碩士論文,國立台
灣大學建築與城鄉研究所。
朱敬一
1999 上課演講紀錄,國立台灣大學經濟學研究所。
伊慶春、林忠正、蔡吉源、張清溪
1992 《台灣社會意向調查─八十一年六月專題調查報告》,台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
內政部
《中華民國臺閩地區人口統計》,1983~1999。
1989 《台灣地區婦女生活狀況調查》。
內政部統計處
1997 《中華民國八十五年老人狀況調查調查》。
2000 《中華民國八十九年老人狀況調查調查》。
毛維凌
1994 <國民財富累積、移轉與分配>《主計月報》78(4):38-47。
白懿淳
1997 <代間移轉行為之探討>碩士論文,國立中央大學產業經濟
研究所。
行政院主計處
1992 《中華民國81年台灣地區國富調查家庭部門資產報告》。
1998 《中華民國台灣地區八十六年度家庭收支調查報告》。
2001 《中華民國臺灣地區國民所得統計摘要(民國四十年至九十年)》。
行政院主計處 內政部
1994 《中華民國臺灣地區老人狀況調查報告》。
朱國宏主編
1999 《經濟社會學》,上海:復旦大學出版社。
吳乃德
1994 〈階級認知與階級認同:比較瑞典、美國、台灣,和兩個階級架構〉,
收於《階級結構與階級意識比較研究論文集》,許嘉猷主編,台北:中央研究院歐美研究所。
陳育青
1990 <台灣地區世代移轉動機之探討>碩士論文,國立台灣大學經
濟研究所。
陳錦華 胡文龍 余偉錦 李志輝
1997 《香港城市與房屋:城市社會學初探》,香港:三聯書店(香港)有
限公司。
黃建中
1994 <十年來台北市家庭所得、財富與生活品質變動之研究>《主
計月報》77(2):21-24。
章英華
1994 〈變遷社會中的家戶組成與奉養態度〉《國立臺灣大學社會學刊》33:1-34。
章英華 朱敬一 
2001 〈家庭動態資料庫簡介〉,發表於「華人家庭動態資料庫學術研討會」,
7月27-28日,台北:中央研究院經濟研究所。
許秉翔
2000 〈連鎖遷移、網絡與北京浙江村:兼論共相與殊項在知識論的對立〉《地理學報》28:79-89。
曾平毅
1992 <台北都會區住宅融資結構與自備款來源的分析>《台灣土地
銀行金融季刊》29(2):109-119。
華昌宜
1993 <台灣即將進入『繼承社會』>《中國時報》,11月22日。
2000 《地價稅真諦及其在台灣發展之潛力》,台北:正揚出版社。
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。
靳燕玲
1994 <當前台灣住宅代間移轉的探討>碩士論文,國立台灣大學建
築與城鄉研究所。
齊力
1990 〈臺灣地區近二十年來家戶核心化趨勢的研究〉《國立臺灣大學社會學刊》20:41-83。
蔡瑞明
1997 〈Leaving the Farmland:Class Structure Transformation and Social Mobility in Taiwan〉《九0年代的臺灣社會:社會變遷基本調查研究系列二(上)》張苙雲、呂玉瑕、王甫昌主編,台北:中央研究院社會學研究所籌備處。
劉瑞華
2001 〈新制度主義:返回大理論或經濟學帝國主義政治學〉會議論文,中
國政治學會年會,一月六日,台大法學院國際會議廳。
瞿海源主編
1996 《台灣社會變遷基本調查計劃執行報告(三期二次)》,台北:
中央研究院社會學研究所籌備處。
1998 《台灣社會變遷基本調查計劃執行報告(三期三次)》,台北:
中央研究院社會學研究所籌備處。
Agresti, Alan
1996 An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. Ch8, New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Press.
Ambrose, Brent W. & Kim, Sunwoong
2000 “Shifting Risk: A Comparison of the Korean Chonsei and Western-Style Lease Contracts”, manuscript.
Barro, Robert J.
1974 “Are Government Bonds Net Wealth? ”, Journal of Political
Economy. 82(6):1095-1118.
Becker, Gary S.
1991 A Treatise on the Family. enlarged edition, Cambridge:Harvard
University Press.
1993 “Nobel Lecture : The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior” , Journal
of Political Economy. 101(3):385-409.
1996 《解讀偏好:用經濟學方法探究人類行為》鄒繼礎譯,台北:
遠流出版公司。
Bell, Colin
1977 “On Housing Class”, Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Sociology., 13(1):36-40.
Bernheim, B. Douglas & Shleifer, Andrei & Summers, Lawrence H.
1983 “The Strategic Bequest Motive”, Journal of Political Economy.
93(6):1045-1076.
Ben-Porath, Yoram
1980 “The F-Connection : Families, Friends, and Firms and the Organization of Exchange.”, Population Development Review. 6(1) : 1-30.
Borland, Lawrence A.
1979 “A Critique of Friedman’s Critics.” Journal of Economic Literature.
27 : 503-522.
Bredemeier, Harry C.
1978 “Exchange Theory.”, A History of Sociological Analysis. T.B. Bottomore
and Robert A. Nisbet eds., U.S.A.: Basic Books, Inc. Press, pp.418-456.
Burrows, Rogers & Butler, Tim
1989 “Middle Mass and the Pitt : A Critical Review of Peter Saunders’s
Sociology of Consumption”, The Sociological Review., 37(2):338-
364.
Chu, C.Y. Cyrus
1991 “Primogeniture”, Journal of Political Economy. 99(1):78-99.
Chu, C.Y. Cyrus & Yu, Roh-rong
1997 “Childhood Education and Adulthood Feedbacks in the East: The Case of Taiwan”, memio.
2001 “Bequeathable Assets, Social Networks and Child Visits”,
Conference Paper, in the Seminar of Panel Study of Family
Dynamics, 27-28 July, Taipei : Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica.
Couper, Mary & Brindley, Timothy
1975 “Housing Class and Housing Values”, The Sociological Review.,
23(3):563-576.
Cox, Donald
1987 “Motives for Private Income Transfers”, Journal of Political
Economy.95(3):508-46.
1990 “Intergenerational Transfers and Liquidity Constraints”, Quarterly
Journal of Economics. 105:187-218.
Cox, Donald & Jappelli, Tullio
1990 “Credit Rationing and Private Transfers : Evidence from Survey Data”,
Review of Economics and Statistics. (3):445-54.
Cox, Donald & Rank, Mark R.
1992 “Inter-Vivos Transfers and Intergenerational Exchange”, Review of
Economics and Statistics. 74(2):305-314.
Crockett, Harry J.
1966 “The Achievement Motive and Differential Occupational Mobility in the
United States”, A Theory of Achievement Motivation. John W. Atkinson
& Norman T. Feather eds., New York : Robert E. Krieger Publishing
Company Press.
Deutsch, Edwin
1997 “Indicators of Housing Finance Intergenerational Wealth Transfer”,
Real Estate Economics. 25(1):129-172.
Engelhardt, Gary V.& Mayer, Christopher
1994 “Gift for Home Purchase and Housing Market Behavior”, New
England Economic Review. May-June:47-58.
Etzioni, Amitai
1988 The Moral Dimension. N.Y.: the Free Press.
1992 “Socio-Economics : the Next Step.” Socio-Economics: Toward a New
Synthesis. Amitai Etzioni and Paul R. Lawrence eds. N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe,
Inc. Press, pp.347-352.
Forrest, Ray & Murie, Alan eds.
1995 Housing and Family Wealth. London and New York: Routledge
Press.
Friedman, Milton
1953 “The Methodology of Positive Economics”, Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fukuyama, Francis
1998 《誠信》(Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity),李
宛蓉譯,台北:立緒文化事業有限公司。
Giddens, Anthony
1997 《社會學(上冊)》(Sociology 2nd edition, PartⅠ),張家銘等譯,台
北:唐山出版社。
Guiso, Luigi & Jappelli, Tullio & Terlizzese, Daniele
1994 “Housing Finance Arrangement, Intergenerational Transfers and
Consumption — The Italian Experience”, Economic Modelling.
11(2):145-155.
Haurin, Donald R. & Hendershott, Patric H. & Wachter, Susan M.
1996 “Wealth Accumulation and Housing Choices of Young Households:
An Exploratory Investigation”, Journal of Housing Research.
7(1):33-57.
Hirayama, Yosuke & Hayakawa, Kazuo
1995 “Home Ownership and family wealth in Japan”, in Housing and Family
Wealth., Ray Forrest and Alan Murie eds., pp215-30, London and New
York:Routledge Press.
Jones, Bryn
1975 “Max Weber and the Concept of Social Class”, The Sociological
Review., 23:729-759.
Keister, Lisa A.
2000 Wealth in America:Trends in Wealth Inequality. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge Press.
Kessler, Denis & Masson, Andre
1989 “Bequest and Wealth Accumulation:Are Some Pieces of the Puzzle
Missing?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives. 3(3):141-152.
Klein, Benjamin & Crawford, Robert G. & Alchain, Arman A.
1978 “Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting
Process”, Journal of Law & Economics. 21(2):297-326.
Kotlikoff, Laurence J.
1988 “Intergeneration Transfers and Savings ”, Journal of Economic
Perspectives.2(2):41-58.
Laitner, John
1997 “Intergenerational and Interhousehold Economic Links” , Handbook of
Population and Family Economics. M.R. Rosenzweig & O. Stark (eds.),
pp190-238, Elsevier Science B.V. press.
Luckett, Sandra
2001 “Did You Know ? Homes Account for 44 Percent of All Wealth : Findings
from SIPP”, Current Population Report, May, U.S. Census Bureau.
Maclennan, Duncan & Tu, Yong
1998 “Changing Housing Wealth in the UK, 1985-1993: Household
Patterns and Consequences”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy.
45(4):448-465.
Mayer, Christopher & Engelhardt, Gary V.
1996 “Gift, Down Payment and Housing Affordability”, Journal of
Housing Research. 7(1):59-77.
McAllister, Ian
1984 “Housing Tenure and Party Choice in Australia, Britain and the United
States”, British Journal of Political Science. Vol(14):509-22.
McClelland, David C.
1961 The Achieving Society. Canada: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. Press.
McCullagh,, P & Nelder, J.A.
1989 Generalize Linear Model. 2nd edition, ch5, London : Chapman & Hall
Press.
Mera, Koichi
2000 “The Linkage of the Economy with Land Price Fluctuations:The Case
Study of Japan in the 1990s”, in Asia’s Financial Crisis and the Role of
Real Estate., Koichi Mera and Bertrand Renaud editions, New York:M.E.
Sharpe, Inc. Press.
Modigliani, Franco
1986 “Life Cycle, Individual Thrift, and the Wealth of Nations”, The American
Economic Review. 76(3):297-313.
Murie, A.
1991 “Division of Homeownership : Housing Tenure and Social Change”,
Environment and Planning A., 23:349-370.
Munro, Moira
1988 “Housing Wealth and Inheritance”, Journal of Social Policy., 17(4):
417-436.
Parsons, Donald O.
1984 “On the Economics of Intergenerational Control ”, Population and
Development Review., 10, March:41-54.
Pindyck, Robert S. & Rubinfeld, Daniel L.
1991 Econometric Models & Economic Forecasts. ,3rd ed. , Singapore: McGraw-Hill Press.
Pollak, Robert A.
1985 “A Transaction Cost Approach to Families and Households.”, Journal of
Economic Literature. 23(2):581-608.
Rex, John
1977 “Sociological Theory and the City — A Response to Some Recent
Trends in Australasian Urban Sociology”, Australian & New
Zealand Journal of Sociology. , 13(3):218-223.
Rex, John & Moore, Robert
1967 Race, Community, and Conflict-A Study of Sparkbrook.
London:Oxford University Press.
Ritzer, George
1988 “Exchange Theory and Behavior Sociology”, ch7, in Contemporary
Sociological Theory. Singapore:McGraw-Hill Book Co. Press.
Rosenzweig, Mark R. & Wolpin, Kenneth I.
1993 “Intergenerational Support and the Life-Cycle Incomes of Young
Men and their Parents:Human Capital Investments, Coresidence, and
Intergenerational Financial Transfers” Journal of Labor Economics.
11(1):84-112.
Saunders, Peter
1981 Social Theory and the Urban Question. CH4, New York : Holmes
& Meier Publishers, INC.
1984 “Beyond Housing Class: the Sociological Significance of Private
Property Rights in Means of Consumption”, International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research., 8(2):202-227.
1990 A Nation of Home Owners. London: Unwin Hyman Inc. Press.
Sen, Amartya
1996 “Cooperation, Inequality, and the Family.”, The Economics of the Family,
Nancy Folbre ed., U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited Press, pp.171-186.
Sullivan, Orial
1989 “Housing Tenure as a Consumption-Sector Divide”, International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research., 13(2):183-200.
Tachibanaki, Tashiaki
1992 “Higher Land Prices as a Cause of Increasing Inequality: Changes in
Wealth Distribution and Socio-Economic Effects”, in Land Issues in Japan., Seattle:University of Washington Press.
Thorns, David C.
1981 “Owner-Occupation : Its Significance for Wealth Transfer and Class
Formation”, Sociological Review., 29(4):705-728.
Tomes, Nigel
1981 “The Family, Inheritance, and the Intergenerational Transmission of
Inequality”, Journal of Political Economy. 89(5):928-58.
1988 “The Intergenerational Transmission of Wealth and the Rise and Fall of
Families” Modelling the Accumulation and Distribution of Wealth. Denis
Kessler & Andre Masson (eds.), New York : Oxford University Press.
Turner, Jonathan H.
2001 《社會學理論的結構(上)》(The Structure of Sociological Theory 6th ed)
, 邱澤奇等譯, 北京:華夏出版社。
Velthuis, Olav
1999 “The Changing Relationship between Economic Sociology and
Institutional Economics: from Talcott Parsons to Mark Granovetter”,
American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 58(4):629-649.
Weber, Max
1987 “Class, Status, Party” in Structured Social Inequality. , 2nd edition, Celia
S. Heller ed. , New York: Macmillan Publishing Company Press.
1996 “Marginal Utility Theory and the Foundamental Law of Psychophysics”,
Economic Sociology. Louis Schneider translate, Richard Swederg (ed.), U.K. : Edward Elgar Publishing Limited Press.
Weiner, Bernard
1974 Achievement Motivation and Attribution Theory. New Jersey: General
Learing Corporation Press.
Wolff, Edward N.
2000 “Recent Trends in the Distribution of Household Wealth.” Back to Shared Prosperity: the Growing Unequality of Wealth and Income in America. Ray Marshall eds. New York: M.E.Sharpe, Inc. Press.
Zhang, Junsen & Chan, William
1999 “Dowry and Wife’s Welfare: A Theorecical and Empirical Analysis”,
Journal of Political Economy. 107(4):786-808.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 林惠雅(1995)。父母教養方式和子女行為之探討。社區發展季刊,72期,頁41-47。
2. 林淑玲(2000)。台灣地區親子互動的真面貌:期許研究觀點的突破。應用心理研究,7期,頁7-9。
3. 林文瑛、王震武(1995)。中國父母的教養觀:嚴教觀或打罵觀?本土心理學研究,3期,頁2-92。
4. 周美珍(2001)。新竹縣「外籍新娘」生育狀況探討。公共衛生,28卷(3),頁255-264。
5. 李桂蘭(1994)。幼兒生活與輔導:從馬斯洛人類需求階層談起。幼兒教育年刊,7期,頁15-28。
6. 余德慧、徐臨嘉(1993)。詮釋中國人的悲怨。本土心理學研究,1期,頁301-328。
7. 林惠雅(2000) 。母親與幼兒互動中之教養行為分析。應用心理研究,6期,頁75-96。
8. 邱琡雯(1999a)。在地國際化:日本農村菲律賓新娘。當代月刊,5期,頁108-117。
9. 施能仁、施純楨(2000)。彰化縣產業經濟發展與未來方向。國立台中師院社會科教育學系社會科教育研究,5期,頁193-226。
10. 洪福財(1998)。從詮釋學觀點談教育研究結果的解釋與應用。臺北師院學報,11期。頁85-108。
11. 夏曉鵑(1997)。女性身體的貿易─台灣/印尼新娘貿易的階段、族群關係與性別分析。東南亞區域研究通訊,2期,頁72-83。
12. 高淑清、陳美惠(2001)。啟動幼兒創造力思考:從幼兒家庭教育做起。幼兒教育年刊,13期,頁50-68。
13. 張高賓(2001)。單親兒童父母教養方式、家庭環境與情緒穩定之關係研究。屏東師院學報,14期,頁465-504。
14. 陸錦英(2001)。一位華裔母親的教養觀。屏東師院學報,14期,頁325-342。
15. 游柏隆(2001)。不知道三個字對孩子的影響。育兒生活,134期,頁177-181。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔