风险场域的建构—2003年以来中国房地产领域的相关行动和事实

发布时间：2018-08-19 09:07

【摘要】：2003年以来，中国房地产业经过近十年的非理性发展，已经积累了大量的风险。首先，房价经过多年的上涨，已经让普通民众难以承受。高房价助长短期投机行为，挤压实体经济空间，加大金融体系风险，抑制社会创新能力，破坏人类生存环境；同时，高房价洗劫普通民众财富，推动社会两极分化，加大民众生活压力，积聚社会消极情绪，激化各种社会矛盾。其次，中央和地方针对高房价的调控不断失败，房价越调越涨，民众对房价和政策失去预期，对政府作为越来越失去信心。尤其是2010年以来，高房价风险更加突出，与之伴随的是，岌岌可危的资金链条、风声鹤唳的断供退房、捉襟见肘的地方财政、危机四伏的国民经济，这些从不同角度反映了房地产领域的风险状况。如今，房地产发展已经陷入进退两难的境地，房价泡沫如果继续膨胀，更大的经济危机和社会危机将等在前面；房价泡沫一旦破裂，对中国经济和民众生活而言都将是不可承受之轻。也就是说，房价无论进与退，都存在巨大的不确定性。除了陷入“进退两难”的境地之外，中国房地产领域还存在一个引人注目的现象，即2003年以来的华夏大地无处不在关注“买房卖房”，“房价问题”介入百姓的日常生活，“房地产泡沫与风险”也成了网络媒体乃至街头巷议的热点话题，而且，在普通民众的日常经验中，中国房地产领域包含了各种错综复杂的关系，布满了各种利益和权力的争斗，是一个充满风险和不确定性的行动领域。换言之，2003年以来的整个中国，由于长期围绕房价泡沫及其风险话题所进行的讨论、争论和谈论，已逐步形成一个舆论上的公共领域——即以“房地产风险”为话题的公共领域。随着时间的推移和人们日常实践的发展，这一公共领域的影响力日渐放大，逐步从舆论层面渗透到普通民众趋于同一的价值追求、利益索求、本体性安全、心理预期、社会交往等层面，助推了民众对“房地产风险”的认识和理解的程度以及论争的频度和烈度，“房地产风险”已经实实在在地影响到人们的日常生活质量，成为当下中国社会生活的一个重要组成部分。换句话说，“房地产风险”的观念和“房地产风险事实”在人们的经验和记忆中的位置日益巩固，已经在人们的心目中日益固化、客观化、结构化，逐步形成了“中国房地产风险场域”。于是出现了两个层面的问题。第一层面：2003年以来中国房地产风险的来源问题，即2003年以来中国房地产风险形成过程中的社会性（行动性）致因问题，其中关涉中央、地方、精英、大众、资本力量、媒体力量等多个层面的行动者相互竞争中的行动逻辑问题及其行动的效果问题。第二层面：2003年以来中国房地产风险场域的建构问题，也就是风险行动和事实如何结构化的问题，其中包含风险的扩散和传播的机理问题及风险场域形成过程中的行动逻辑问题。两个方面问题是密切相关的，因为房地产风险是房地产风险场域形成的基础和必要条件。本文将从研究“房地产风险来源”问题开始，但重点在于解释“房地产风险场域的建构”问题。针对房地产风险来源问题，本文主要从制度和行动两个方面进行探讨和分析。针对房地产风险场域的建构问题，本文首先采用吉登斯结构化理论作为本研究的主要解释工具，用以解答中国房地产领域内的风险行动和风险事实如何结构化的问题；其次采用符号互动理论作为辅助性解释工具，用以分析房地产风险场域形成过程中所出现的对房地产风险场域的建构具有助推作用的“批判性风险话语公共领域”的形成和运作过程。针对房地产风险、房地产风险行动、房地产风险符号、房地产“表意面相”的建构等方面的问题，本文主要采用文献法、观察法进行分析、研究。针对房地产领域“支配面相”的建构问题，本文主要采用“过程经历-观察法”、访谈法进行研究。针对房地产领域“合法化面相”的建构问题，本文主要采用文献法和历史比较法进行研究。研究表明，传统制度（含房地产）遭遇现代化（市场化）进程而衍生出诸多非预期的风险，同时，房地产领域各方行动者的“策略”行动带来诸多非预期的风险。研究表明，2003年以来的中国房地产领域是一个有缺陷、不健全、不确定的结构性领域。首先，在中国房地产领域正常“支配面相”的建构上，一方面，因为传统制度原因，如城乡二元体制、户籍制、分税制及其土地垄断制度等，导致土地、住房、公共设施和服务、出让金、利润、税收等在分配上的极端不平等现象，也就是说，其支配性资源在市场流动过程中处于极端失衡状态；另一方面，由于权变性、策略性的房地产政策，如限贷、限购、限价、限外、限土地等调控措施，导致房地产市场支配性资源的流动处于持续僵化甚至堵塞状态。这两方面原因导致近十年的中国房地产领域正常“支配面相”一直处于缺失状态。其次，在房地产领域正常“合法化面相”的建构上，由于近十年来中国房地产的政策方向一直是权变性的，政策内容和手段一直是策略性的，始终不能形成一个一以贯之的、稳定的政策计划，或者说，政策这种规范“模态”始终变幻莫测，导致近十年的中国房地产领域正常“合法化面相”一直处于缺失状态。正因为近十年中国房地产领域正常的“支配面相”和“合法化面相”的持续缺失，致使中国房地产领域一直处于一种不确定的风险状态，以至于中国房地产领域自然变成了一个巨大的风险场域。同时，研究表明，近十年的中国房地产领域的风险越积越多，房地产风险符号越积越多、越来越明显，专家、民众、官员及房地产商等利用房地产风险符号进行互动的次数越来越多，，互动频率也越来越高，人们利用现代传媒进行房地产风险符号的传播、互动而形成的“批判性的风险话语公共领域”也越发形成气候。由于这些因素的共同作用，在中国房地产领域逐步建构出了房地产风险场域“表意面相”。说到底，房地产风险场域“表意面相”最终还是行动者对房地产领域正常的“支配面相”和“合法化面相”的缺失所衍生风险的广泛关注和持续反应的结果。总之，近十年来的中国房地产领域，由于其正常的“支配面相”和“合法化面相”的建构失败，它变成了一个有缺陷、不健全、不确定的结构性领域，即变成了房地产风险场域。随之而来的，是“表意面相”的逐步生成和日益凸显，进而促进了房地产风险场域的再建构。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：上海大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：F299.23

【参考文献】