【摘要】：2003年以來(lái)，中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)業(yè)經(jīng)過(guò)近十年的非理性發(fā)展，已經(jīng)積累了大量的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。首先，房?jī)r(jià)經(jīng)過(guò)多年的上漲，已經(jīng)讓普通民眾難以承受。高房?jī)r(jià)助長(zhǎng)短期投機(jī)行為，擠壓實(shí)體經(jīng)濟(jì)空間，加大金融體系風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，抑制社會(huì)創(chuàng)新能力，破壞人類生存環(huán)境；同時(shí)，高房?jī)r(jià)洗劫普通民眾財(cái)富，推動(dòng)社會(huì)兩極分化，加大民眾生活壓力，積聚社會(huì)消極情緒，激化各種社會(huì)矛盾。其次，中央和地方針對(duì)高房?jī)r(jià)的調(diào)控不斷失敗，房?jī)r(jià)越調(diào)越漲，民眾對(duì)房?jī)r(jià)和政策失去預(yù)期，對(duì)政府作為越來(lái)越失去信心。尤其是2010年以來(lái)，高房?jī)r(jià)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)更加突出，與之伴隨的是，岌岌可危的資金鏈條、風(fēng)聲鶴唳的斷供退房、捉襟見肘的地方財(cái)政、危機(jī)四伏的國(guó)民經(jīng)濟(jì)，這些從不同角度反映了房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)狀況。如今，房地產(chǎn)發(fā)展已經(jīng)陷入進(jìn)退兩難的境地，房?jī)r(jià)泡沫如果繼續(xù)膨脹，更大的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)和社會(huì)危機(jī)將等在前面；房?jī)r(jià)泡沫一旦破裂，對(duì)中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)和民眾生活而言都將是不可承受之輕。也就是說(shuō)，房?jī)r(jià)無(wú)論進(jìn)與退，都存在巨大的不確定性。 除了陷入“進(jìn)退兩難”的境地之外，中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域還存在一個(gè)引人注目的現(xiàn)象，即2003年以來(lái)的華夏大地?zé)o處不在關(guān)注“買房賣房”，“房?jī)r(jià)問(wèn)題”介入百姓的日常生活，“房地產(chǎn)泡沫與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”也成了網(wǎng)絡(luò)媒體乃至街頭巷議的熱點(diǎn)話題，而且，在普通民眾的日常經(jīng)驗(yàn)中，中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域包含了各種錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的關(guān)系，布滿了各種利益和權(quán)力的爭(zhēng)斗，是一個(gè)充滿風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和不確定性的行動(dòng)領(lǐng)域。換言之，2003年以來(lái)的整個(gè)中國(guó)，由于長(zhǎng)期圍繞房?jī)r(jià)泡沫及其風(fēng)險(xiǎn)話題所進(jìn)行的討論、爭(zhēng)論和談?wù)�，已逐步形成一個(gè)輿論上的公共領(lǐng)域——即以“房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”為話題的公共領(lǐng)域。隨著時(shí)間的推移和人們?nèi)粘?shí)踐的發(fā)展，這一公共領(lǐng)域的影響力日漸放大，逐步從輿論層面滲透到普通民眾趨于同一的價(jià)值追求、利益索求、本體性安全、心理預(yù)期、社會(huì)交往等層面，助推了民眾對(duì)“房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”的認(rèn)識(shí)和理解的程度以及論爭(zhēng)的頻度和烈度，“房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”已經(jīng)實(shí)實(shí)在在地影響到人們的日常生活質(zhì)量，成為當(dāng)下中國(guó)社會(huì)生活的一個(gè)重要組成部分。換句話說(shuō)，“房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”的觀念和“房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)事實(shí)”在人們的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和記憶中的位置日益鞏固，已經(jīng)在人們的心目中日益固化、客觀化、結(jié)構(gòu)化，逐步形成了“中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域”。 于是出現(xiàn)了兩個(gè)層面的問(wèn)題。第一層面：2003年以來(lái)中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的來(lái)源問(wèn)題，即2003年以來(lái)中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)形成過(guò)程中的社會(huì)性（行動(dòng)性）致因問(wèn)題，其中關(guān)涉中央、地方、精英、大眾、資本力量、媒體力量等多個(gè)層面的行動(dòng)者相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中的行動(dòng)邏輯問(wèn)題及其行動(dòng)的效果問(wèn)題。第二層面：2003年以來(lái)中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域的建構(gòu)問(wèn)題，也就是風(fēng)險(xiǎn)行動(dòng)和事實(shí)如何結(jié)構(gòu)化的問(wèn)題，其中包含風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的擴(kuò)散和傳播的機(jī)理問(wèn)題及風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域形成過(guò)程中的行動(dòng)邏輯問(wèn)題。兩個(gè)方面問(wèn)題是密切相關(guān)的，因?yàn)榉康禺a(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域形成的基礎(chǔ)和必要條件。本文將從研究“房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)來(lái)源”問(wèn)題開始，但重點(diǎn)在于解釋“房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域的建構(gòu)”問(wèn)題。 針對(duì)房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)來(lái)源問(wèn)題，本文主要從制度和行動(dòng)兩個(gè)方面進(jìn)行探討和分析。針對(duì)房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域的建構(gòu)問(wèn)題，本文首先采用吉登斯結(jié)構(gòu)化理論作為本研究的主要解釋工具，用以解答中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)行動(dòng)和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)事實(shí)如何結(jié)構(gòu)化的問(wèn)題；其次采用符號(hào)互動(dòng)理論作為輔助性解釋工具，用以分析房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域形成過(guò)程中所出現(xiàn)的對(duì)房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域的建構(gòu)具有助推作用的“批判性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)話語(yǔ)公共領(lǐng)域”的形成和運(yùn)作過(guò)程。 針對(duì)房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)行動(dòng)、房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)符號(hào)、房地產(chǎn)“表意面相”的建構(gòu)等方面的問(wèn)題，本文主要采用文獻(xiàn)法、觀察法進(jìn)行分析、研究。針對(duì)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域“支配面相”的建構(gòu)問(wèn)題，本文主要采用“過(guò)程經(jīng)歷-觀察法”、訪談法進(jìn)行研究。針對(duì)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域“合法化面相”的建構(gòu)問(wèn)題，本文主要采用文獻(xiàn)法和歷史比較法進(jìn)行研究。 研究表明，傳統(tǒng)制度（含房地產(chǎn)）遭遇現(xiàn)代化（市場(chǎng)化）進(jìn)程而衍生出諸多非預(yù)期的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，同時(shí)，房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域各方行動(dòng)者的“策略”行動(dòng)帶來(lái)諸多非預(yù)期的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。 研究表明，2003年以來(lái)的中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域是一個(gè)有缺陷、不健全、不確定的結(jié)構(gòu)性領(lǐng)域。首先，在中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域正�！爸涿嫦唷钡慕�(gòu)上，一方面，因?yàn)閭鹘y(tǒng)制度原因，如城鄉(xiāng)二元體制、戶籍制、分稅制及其土地壟斷制度等，導(dǎo)致土地、住房、公共設(shè)施和服務(wù)、出讓金、利潤(rùn)、稅收等在分配上的極端不平等現(xiàn)象，也就是說(shuō)，其支配性資源在市場(chǎng)流動(dòng)過(guò)程中處于極端失衡狀態(tài)；另一方面，由于權(quán)變性、策略性的房地產(chǎn)政策，如限貸、限購(gòu)、限價(jià)、限外、限土地等調(diào)控措施，導(dǎo)致房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)支配性資源的流動(dòng)處于持續(xù)僵化甚至堵塞狀態(tài)。這兩方面原因?qū)е陆甑闹袊?guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域正�！爸涿嫦唷币恢碧幱谌笔顟B(tài)。其次，在房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域正常“合法化面相”的建構(gòu)上，由于近十年來(lái)中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)的政策方向一直是權(quán)變性的，政策內(nèi)容和手段一直是策略性的，始終不能形成一個(gè)一以貫之的、穩(wěn)定的政策計(jì)劃，或者說(shuō)，政策這種規(guī)范“模態(tài)”始終變幻莫測(cè)，導(dǎo)致近十年的中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域正�！昂戏ɑ嫦唷币恢碧幱谌笔顟B(tài)。正因?yàn)榻曛袊?guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域正常的“支配面相”和“合法化面相”的持續(xù)缺失，致使中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域一直處于一種不確定的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)狀態(tài)，以至于中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域自然變成了一個(gè)巨大的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域。 同時(shí)，研究表明，近十年的中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)越積越多，房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)符號(hào)越積越多、越來(lái)越明顯，專家、民眾、官員及房地產(chǎn)商等利用房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)符號(hào)進(jìn)行互動(dòng)的次數(shù)越來(lái)越多，，互動(dòng)頻率也越來(lái)越高，人們利用現(xiàn)代傳媒進(jìn)行房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)符號(hào)的傳播、互動(dòng)而形成的“批判性的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)話語(yǔ)公共領(lǐng)域”也越發(fā)形成氣候。由于這些因素的共同作用，在中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域逐步建構(gòu)出了房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域“表意面相”。說(shuō)到底，房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域“表意面相”最終還是行動(dòng)者對(duì)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域正常的“支配面相”和“合法化面相”的缺失所衍生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的廣泛關(guān)注和持續(xù)反應(yīng)的結(jié)果。 總之，近十年來(lái)的中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域，由于其正常的“支配面相”和“合法化面相”的建構(gòu)失敗，它變成了一個(gè)有缺陷、不健全、不確定的結(jié)構(gòu)性領(lǐng)域，即變成了房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域。隨之而來(lái)的，是“表意面相”的逐步生成和日益凸顯，進(jìn)而促進(jìn)了房地產(chǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)域的再建構(gòu)。
[Abstract]:Since 2003, China's real estate industry has accumulated a large number of risks after nearly a decade of irrational development. First of all, housing prices have been rising for many years, which has made it difficult for ordinary people to bear. At the same time, high housing prices loot the wealth of ordinary people, promote social polarization, increase the pressure on people's lives, accumulate social negative emotions, and intensify various social contradictions. Since 2010, the risk of high housing prices has become even more prominent, accompanied by the precarious capital chain, the rumor of withdrawal, the local financial constraints, the crisis-ridden national economy, these reflect the real estate sector from different angles. Now, the real estate development has been in a dilemma, housing. If the price bubble continues to expand, the greater economic crisis and social crisis will be ahead; if the price bubble bursts, it will be unbearable light for China's economy and people's lives. That is to say, there is great uncertainty whether the price of housing goes in or out.
In addition to being caught in the dilemma, there is a noticeable phenomenon in China's real estate industry, that is, since 2003, China has been paying close attention to "buying and selling houses", "housing price problem" intervenes in people's daily life, "real estate bubble and risk" has become a hot topic in the network media and even in the streets. What's more, in the everyday experience of the general public, the real estate sector in China encompasses all sorts of intricate relationships, conflicts of interests and powers, and is an area of action fraught with risks and uncertainties. In other words, the whole of China since 2003 has been debating the housing bubble and its risks for a long time. As time goes on and people's daily practice develops, the influence of this public sphere is enlarged day by day, and gradually permeates from the public opinion to the common people's pursuit of the same value and interests. In other words, the real estate risk has really affected the quality of people's daily life and become an important part of China's social life. The concept of "real estate risk" and the position of "real estate risk facts" in people's experience and memory have been increasingly consolidated, objectified and structured in people's minds, and gradually formed the "real estate risk field in China".
There are two problems. The first one is the source of real estate risk in China since 2003, that is, the social (action) causes in the formation of real estate risk in China since 2003. The second aspect is the construction of the real estate risk field in China since 2003, that is, how the risk action and the fact are structured. It includes the mechanism of the spread and spread of risk and the logic of action in the process of the formation of the risk field. It is closely related because real estate risk is the basis and necessary condition for the formation of real estate risk field. This paper will begin with the study of the source of real estate risk, but focus on the explanation of the construction of real estate risk field.
Aiming at the problem of the source of real estate risk, this paper mainly discusses and analyzes it from two aspects of system and action. Aiming at the construction of real estate risk field, this paper firstly uses Giddens structured theory as the main explanatory tool to solve the problem of risk action and how risk facts are structured in the real estate field of China. Secondly, the symbolic interaction theory is used as a supplementary interpretation tool to analyze the formation and operation process of the "critical risk discourse public sphere" which promotes the construction of the real estate risk field.
In view of the real estate risk, the real estate risk action, the real estate risk symbol, the real estate "expression face" construction and so on question, this article mainly uses the literature method, the observation method to carry on the analysis, the research. In view of the construction of the "legalized face" in the real estate field, this paper mainly uses the method of documentation and historical comparison.
The research shows that the traditional system (including real estate) encounters many unexpected risks arising from the process of modernization (marketization). At the same time, the "strategy" action of all actors in the real estate field brings many unexpected risks.
The research shows that China's real estate industry since 2003 is a defective, imperfect and uncertain structural field. First, in the construction of the normal "dominant aspect" of China's real estate industry, on the one hand, land and housing are caused by traditional institutional reasons, such as the urban-rural dual system, household registration system, tax sharing system and land monopoly system. Extreme inequalities in the distribution of public facilities and services, transfer fees, profits, taxes, etc., that is to say, the dominant resources are in an extremely imbalanced state in the process of market movement; on the other hand, due to the change of power, strategic real estate policies, such as loan restriction, purchase restriction, price restriction, land restriction and other regulatory measures, leading to the real estate market. The flow of field-dominated resources is in a state of continuous rigidity or even blockage. These two reasons have led to the absence of normal "dominant features" in the real estate sector in China in the past decade. Secondly, in the construction of the normal "legitimate features" in the real estate sector, the policy direction of China's real estate has been contingent for nearly a decade. Sexually, the policy content and means have always been strategic, and can never form a consistent, stable policy plan, or policy this normative "mode" has always been unpredictable, resulting in nearly a decade of China's real estate industry has been in the absence of normal "legalization face". The continuous absence of the normal "dominant" and "legitimate" aspects of the domain has led to an uncertain risk state in China's real estate sector, so that China's real estate sector has naturally become a huge risk field.
At the same time, the research shows that in the past ten years, the risk of real estate in China has accumulated more and more, the real estate risk symbols accumulated more and more, more and more obvious, experts, the public, officials and real estate developers use real estate risk symbols to interact more and more times, the interaction frequency is also increasing, people use modern media to carry out real estate risk. With the spread of symbols and interaction, the "critical risk discourse public sphere" is becoming more and more climatic. Due to the joint effect of these factors, the "ideographic phase" of real estate risk field has been gradually constructed in China's real estate field. The result of widespread concern and sustained response to the risks deriving from the absence of "dominant" and "legitimate" aspects of domain normality.
In short, in the past decade, China's real estate sector has become a defective, unsound and uncertain structural area, i.e. a real estate risk field, because of the failure of its normal "dominant" and "legitimate" construction, followed by the gradual generation and increasing prominence of "ideographic" and thus promote it. The re establishment of the real estate risk field.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：F299.23

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 邢龍翔;;我國(guó)房地產(chǎn)泡沫的成因與防范[J];長(zhǎng)春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年05期

2 王美涵;土地出讓金的財(cái)政學(xué)分析[J];財(cái)經(jīng)論叢(浙江財(cái)經(jīng)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2005年04期

3 王維安,賀聰;房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)區(qū)域性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)擴(kuò)散機(jī)制研究[J];財(cái)經(jīng)研究;2005年01期

4 陳占江;;轉(zhuǎn)型期失地農(nóng)民問(wèn)題的社會(huì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)及其治理[J];東南學(xué)術(shù);2007年06期

5 周承國(guó);;房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)濟(jì)泡沫問(wèn)題思考[J];廣西大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年S1期

6 袁志剛,樊瀟彥;房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)理性泡沫分析[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;2003年03期

7 何國(guó)釗,曹振良,李晟;中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)周期研究[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;1996年12期

8 田毅鵬;呂方;;單位社會(huì)的終結(jié)及其社會(huì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年06期

9 曹建海;;房地產(chǎn)調(diào)控勿入歷史舊轍[J];南風(fēng)窗;2008年05期

10 劉傳哲;高靜華;;房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)警研究述評(píng)[J];生產(chǎn)力研究;2006年10期

本文編號(hào)：2191198