| 摘要: |
| 在房地产供求关系剧烈变化和
财政紧缩等多重约束下，我国老旧小区
改造亟需探索以产权人和居民为主体
的“自主更新”新路径。在中央政策指
引下，各地出台了差异化的配套政策并
积极落地以原拆原建为代表的自主更新
实践，但受制于集体共识达成难、成本
与收益分配失衡等多方困境，自主更新
的规模化推进依然受阻。本文基于政策
工具视角，构建“调节领域—工具类
型—干预环节”三维分析框架，在剖析
当前自主更新面临的主体、资金、空
间、运维等难点基础上，对我国自主更
新相关的典型政策进行文本解读与量化
分析，发现当前政策体系呈现出聚焦空
间与主体领域、环境型工具主导、偏向
改造中环节等显著特征。据此，研究从
领域覆盖、供需结构和环节配置出发提
出政策优化建议，为我国老旧小区自主
更新的未来发展提供策略参照。 |
| 关键词: 老旧小区 自主更新 原拆原
建 实践难点 政策工具 |
| DOI：10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20260511001 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:国家社会科学基金重大项目（25&ZD152） |
|
| Analysis of practical difficulties and policy support progress in owner-driven regenerationof old residential communities |
|
TANG Yan,JIANG Mengling
|
| Abstract: |
| Under multiple constraints such as drastic changes in the real estate supply-demand relationship
and fiscal austerity, China’s regeneration of old residential communities urgently needs to explore a new
“owner-driven regeneration” pathway led by property owners and residents. In recent years, guided by
central policies, local governments in Beijing, Hangzhou, Guangzhou and other cities have introduced
differentiated supporting policies and actively promoted owner-driven practices represented by “demolition
and reconstruction on the original site”. However, its large-scale promotion faces prominent practical
challenges: dilemmas of collective action and the absence of resident self-organization capabilities,
insufficient effective funding mechanisms and imbalanced benefit distribution, difficulties in property right
disposal and floor area adjustment, inadequate whole-process management coordination and weak
foundations for long-term operation and maintenance. More precise policy exploration and practical
breakthroughs are urgently required. Relevant policies should act as both procedural constraints and
institutional rules to regulate collective actions, helping scattered property owners shift from individual
rationality to collective cooperation. From the perspective of policy instruments, this paper constructs a
three-dimensional analytical framework of “regulatory domain—instrument type—intervention stage” to
examine how existing policies respond to the governance problems of owner-driven regeneration. The
regulatory domain identifies the objects and issues addressed by policy intervention, including stakeholders,
funding, space, and operation and maintenance; the instrument type explains the ways in which policies
exert influence, including supply-oriented, demand-oriented, and environment-oriented policy instruments;
and the intervention stage reflects the temporal position of policy instruments within the project cycle,
including the pre-regeneration, mid-regeneration, and post-regeneration stages. The paper first analyzes the
practical difficulties and policy gaps, then conducts textual interpretation and quantitative analysis of 53
typical local policy documents related to owner-driven regeneration. Combined with typical cases from
multiple cities, it summarizes prevailing governance dilemmas, implementation bottlenecks and innovative
practices. The findings show that, in terms of regulatory domain, current policy instruments are mainly
concentrated in stakeholder and space measures, while funding measures account for the lowest proportion.
However, the shortage of instruments concerning benefit distribution, operation and maintenance, and longterm
mechanisms indicates that the policy system has not yet formed a complete financial and governance
closed loop. In terms of instrument type, environment-oriented policy instruments occupy a dominant
position, especially organizational mechanisms, process management, and technical standards. This suggests
that owner-driven regeneration of old residential communities is still in the stage of rule construction and
procedural standardization. By contrast, supply-oriented and demand-oriented policy instruments are
insufficient, among which public service, platform service and market cultivation instruments are
particularly lacking. In terms of intervention stage, policy instruments are mainly concentrated in the midregeneration
stage, followed by the pre-regeneration stage, while post-regeneration instruments are clearly
inadequate. Existing policies pay more attention to organizational division of labor and project approval
before renovation, as well as plan formulation, examination and approval, construction implementation and
process management during renovation. Based on these findings, this paper argues that the current policy
system for owner-driven regeneration has three structural imbalances. First, the imbalance in domaincoverage is reflected in the absence of a complete funding closed loop and the weakness of long-term operation and maintenance mechanisms. Future policies
should clarify the funding responsibilities of all parties, improve the benefit distribution mechanism, strengthen financial measures within supply-oriented
instruments. Second, the imbalance in supply-demand structure is reflected in the dominance of regulation and the weakness of incentives. Policy improvement
should shift from a regulation-dominated model toward a combined model of institutional regulation and incentive guidance, enhance residents’ willingness
and ability to contribute funds, expand the use of financial instruments, and clarify the scenarios and rights of social capital participation. Third, the imbalance
in stage configuration is reflected in the insufficient supply of post-regeneration policy instruments and the lack of an evaluation feedback mechanism. It is
necessary to establish a “pre-assessment and post-evaluation” mechanism. Overall, the institutional improvement of owner-driven regeneration requires
continuous tracking of local pilot practices, iterative policy learning, and a transition from experience-based exploration to mature institutional arrangements, so
as to form a sustainable practice pathway featuring resident dominance, government guidance, market participation, and rule of law safeguards. |
| Key words: old residential communities owner-driven regeneration demolition and reconstruction on the original site practical difficulties policy instruments |
