科技日新月異與國人生活型態的轉變之下，高齡化與少子化現象使得臺灣人口分佈出現結構性的改變，自2000年起臺灣即面臨出生人口少於死亡人口的人口負成長情形，受到少子化現象的影響，使得人口的社會結構老化速度顯得更快，國家發展委員會預測人口紅利將於2028年結束，15至64歲的工作年齡人口將低於總人口的三分之二，且扶養比（Dependency Ratio）將大於50%，勞動力短缺以及扶養負擔加重的情形之下，國家整體的經濟發展可能面臨嚴峻的停滯期。
為了應對此一人口結構變化所衍生的相關問題，中央政府積極研議相關對策因應，在少子化方面，如擴大人工生殖補助、延長育嬰留職停薪津貼、提高育兒津貼；在勞動力方面，則致力於提高中高齡及婦女的勞動參與率； 因應高齡化方面，除了增加社會福利總體支出並擴充醫療照顧服務能量外，亦針對高齡長福利津貼給予補助，以因應未來臺灣社會結構改變所衍生的問題。
除了中央政府的市政措施之外，各地方縣市政府亦透過地方政府支出提供高齡者友善服務，或是發放敬老福利津貼，而本文中所提中低收入戶老人生活津貼，屬於中央與地方共同籌措之補助津貼，由於各縣市在財源籌措能力與政務支出存在差異，且考量地方縣市之間的購買力因素，使得地方縣市發放之福利補貼金額與資格門檻上存在落差，進而引發「福利遷移（Welfare Migration）」的現象，即中低收入老年人口可能為了尋求更優渥的社會福利，或是更低門檻的中低收入戶標準，而選擇將戶籍遷移至其他縣市，若此現象顯著存在，則提供高津貼的縣市無形中將吸引大量老年人口移入，進而加劇該縣市的人口老化程度與地方財政的負擔。
本篇研究聚焦於此一議題，採用2011年至2024年臺灣各縣市的地理與政策相關追蹤資料（Panel Data），旨在探討地方政府對於中低收入戶老人生活津貼的補助，是否會促成該族群人口的遷徙，進而造成地方縣市呈現人口過度衰老的現象。考量到人口遷移與老化問題並非獨立發生於各行政區，而可能具有空間關聯性——某縣市的人口結構極有可能受到鄰近縣市的高福利或制度所影響，產生空間外溢效果（Spatial Spillover Effects）。因此，本研究將使用廣義動差法（Generalized Moment of Method，簡稱GMM）於動態追蹤空間自我迴歸模型（Dynamic Panel Spatial Autoregressive Model，簡稱DPSAR）中估計中低收入戶老人津貼對於地方縣市中低收入戶老年人口遷移行為的影響，以對此一空間動態過程進行深入的實證研究。

Driven by rapid technological advancements and shifts in lifestyles, the phenomena of population aging and declining birth rates have led to structural transformations in Taiwan's demographic distribution. Since 2000, Taiwan has faced negative natural population growth, with births falling below deaths. Exacerbated by the declining birth rate, the aging of the demographic structure has accelerated. The National Development Council projects that Taiwan's demographic dividend will terminate by 2028, at which point the working-age population will fall below two-thirds of the total population, and the dependency ratio will exceed 50%. Amid labor shortages and an escalating dependency burden, the nation's overall economic development faces the risk of severe stagnation.
To address the challenges arising from these demographic shifts, the central government has actively formulated countermeasures. Regarding the declining birth rate, initiatives include expanding subsidies for assisted reproduction, extending parental leave allowances, and raising childcare subsidies. In terms of the labor force, efforts are directed toward enhancing the labor participation rates of middle-aged, elderly, and female demographics. To cope with population aging, the government has not only increased overall social welfare expenditures and expanded medical care capacities but has also augmented welfare subsidies for the elderly, aiming to mitigate the compounding pressures of future societal restructuring.
Complementing central government initiatives, local county and municipal governments have leveraged local public expenditures to provide elderly-friendly services and disburse elderly welfare allowances. The living subsidy for low-income elderly individuals, which is the focus of this study, is co-funded by both central and local governments. Due to disparities in financial capacities and administrative expenditures across jurisdictions—compounded by local purchasing power variations—significant discrepancies exist in the subsidy amounts and eligibility thresholds among counties and cities. This divergence has triggered the phenomenon of "welfare migration," wherein low-income elderly populations may relocate their household registration to other jurisdictions in pursuit of more generous social benefits or lower qualification thresholds. If this phenomenon is statistically significant, jurisdictions offering higher subsidies will inadvertently attract a massive influx of elderly residents, thereby exacerbating local demographic aging and straining local fiscal sustainability.
Focusing on this critical issue, this study utilizes panel data on geography and policy across Taiwanese counties and cities from 2011 to 2024. It aims to examine whether local government living subsidies for low-income elderly individuals induce migration within this demographic, thereby intensifying localized population aging. Recognizing that population migration and aging do not occur in isolation within administrative boundaries, but rather exhibit spatial dependence—where a jurisdiction's demographic structure is highly susceptible to the generous welfare policies or institutional frameworks of neighboring areas—this study accounts for spatial spillover effects. Consequently, we employ the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) within a Dynamic Panel Spatial Autoregressive (DPSAR) model to estimate the impact of low-income elderly subsidies on the migration behavior of low-income older adults across Taiwanese counties and cities, providing a rigorous empirical analysis of this dynamic spatial process.

一、國內文獻
王榮進、林佑達等（2023），《高齡獨居者居住環境之大數據分析研究》。臺北市：行政院內政部建築研究所，頁42–46。
余清祥、梁穎誼、林佩柔（2022），「健康、醫療利用與人口移動的關聯」，⟪地理學報⟫，102，頁66–75。
何金銘（1991），「高雄都會區的人口密度分佈模型—人口密度函數理論的再驗證」，⟪人口學刊⟫，14，頁59–63。
何一峰、付海京（2007），「影響我國人口遷移因素的實證分析」，⟪浙江社會科學⟫，2，47–50。
邱弘毅（2018），「未來醫療體系之建構與挑戰」，收錄於鄒倫、邱弘毅、黃世孟主編《高齡少子化現象對醫療體系與住宅市場之影響》，頁 135–141。臺北市：財團法人中技社。
許聖章、徐雅媛（2021），「我國農業勞動力之運用分析」，⟪勞動及職業安全衛生研究季刊⟫，頁132–137。
張晉芬、李奕慧（2001），「臺灣中高齡離職者的勞動參與和再就業：對台汽與中石化的事件史分析」，⟪臺灣社會學⟫，1，頁133–138。
郭孟坤、余清祥（2008），「電腦模擬、隨機方法與人口推估的實證研究」，⟪人口學刊⟫，36，76–87。
游彩玲等人（2024），《114年度中高齡者及高齡者就業意向暨企業僱用意向調查研究案》。臺北市：臺北就業服務處，頁11–22。
溫振華（1986），「日據時期臺北市臺人移入地分析」，⟪臺灣風物⟫，36，頁15–40。
詹文男、陳綠蔚等（2022），《人口結構老化對於我國產業、社會的影響和因應–延後退休年齡之機會與挑戰》，頁20–48。臺北市：財團法人中技社。
劉一龍（2012），「臺灣區域人口遷徙的再分析：「遷移轉型」概念之運用」，⟪人口學刊⟫，45，頁48–60。
蔡佩珍（2022），「近年我國縣市人口變動情形及影響因素」，⟪臺灣經濟論衡⟫，21，頁4–28。
蔡妮娜、陳彥仲、許永河（2013），「臺灣各縣市人口結構與社會福利集中度之分析」，⟪台灣土地研究⟫，17，頁18–23。
薛立敏、曾喜鵬、謝鈺偉（2007），「臺灣地區近年來遷移行為變化之影響因素分析—家戶遷移決策與遷移地點選擇之聯合估計」，⟪人口學刊⟫，34，頁73–96。
邊瑞芬（1991），「臺灣地區縣市社經發展與人口遷移的關係」，⟪人口學刊⟫，14，頁83–101。
蘇麗瓊（2007），「高齡者就業趨勢探討」，⟪台灣勞工雙月刊⟫，8，頁22–30。
二、英文文獻
Angelini, V., and A. Laferrère (2012), “Residential Mobility of the European Elderly.” CESifo Economic Studies, 58(3), 544-569.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifr017.
Arellano, M.A., and S.R. Bond (1991), “Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations.” Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277-297. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA4657.
Baltagi, B.H., B. Fingleton, and A. Pirotte (2014), “Estimating and Forecasting with a Dynamic Spatial Data Model” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 76(1), 112-138.
https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12011.
Berry, W.D., R.C. Fording, and R.L. Hanson (2003), “Reassessing the 'Race to the Bottom' in State Welfare Policy.” The Journal of Politics, 65(2), 327-349.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-2-00003.
Brueckner, J.K. (2000). Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies. International Regional Science Review, 23(2), 160-171.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016001700761012710.
Borjas, G.J. (1999), “Immigration and Welfare Magnets.” Journal of Labor Economics, 17(4), 607-637.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209933.
Chevan, A., and L. R. Fischer (1979), “Retirement and Interstate Migration.” Social Forces, 57(4), 1365-1380.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2577275.
Conway, K.S., and A.J. Houtenville (1998), “Do the Elderly 'Vote with Their Feet'?” Public Choice, 94(4), 663-685.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30024453.
Fiva, J.H. (2009), “Does Welfare Policy Affect Residential Choices? An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of Public Economics, 93, 529-540.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.11.001.
Gelbach, J.B. (2004), “Migration, the Life Cycle, and State Benefits: How Low Is the Bottom?” Journal of Political Economics, 112(5), 1091-1130.
https://doi.org/10.1086/422560.
Glaeser, E.L., J. Kolko, and A. Saiz (2001), “Consumer City.” Journal of Economic Geography, 1, 27-50.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/1.1.27.
Gordon, I.R. (2013), “Theories of Migration: A Review - Commentary to Accompany Republished Version in Scottish Journal of Political Economy Jubilee Issue.” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 60(5), 557-559.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sjpe.12029.
Graves, P.E. (1983), “Migration with a Composite Amenity: The Role of Rents.” Journal of Regional Science, 23(4), 541-546.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1983.tb01009.x.
Greenwood, M.J. (1975), “Research on Internal Migration in the United States: A Survey.” Journal of Economic Literature, 13(2), 397-433.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2722115.
Huda, N. M., and N. Imro'ah (2023), “Determination of The Best Weight Matrix for the Generalized Space Time Autoregressive (GSTAR) Model in the Covid-19 case on Java Island, Indonesia.” Spatial Statistics, 54, 2-5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spasta.2023.100734.
Kennan, J., and J.R. Walker (2011), “The Effect of Expected Income on Individual Migration Decisions.” Econometrica, 79(1), 211-251.
https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA4657.
Lee, E.S. (1966), “A Theory of Migration.” Demography, 3(1), 47-57.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2060063.
LeSage, J.P., and R.K. Pace (2009), Introduction to Spatial Econometrics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420064254.
Levin, A., Chien-Fu Lin, and Chia-Shang J. Chu (2002), “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties.” Journal of Econometrics, 108, 4-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7.
Levine, P.B., and D.J. Zimmerman (1999), “An Empirical Analysis of the Welfare Magnet Debate Using the NLSY.” Journal of Population Economics, 12(3), 391-409.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w5264.
Litwak, E., and C.F. Longino Jr (1987), “Migration Patterns Among the Elderly: A Developmental Perspective.” The Gerontologist, 27(3), 266-272.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/27.3.266.
Liu, Y., Yiru Li, Mengdi Wu, and Yi Lu (2026), “Neighbourhoods for Healthy Ageing: Examining the Nonlinear Effect of Neighbourhood Environments on Older Adults’ Functional Ability.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review.116, 7-16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108115.
Loo, B.P.Y., W.W. Lam, R. Mahendran and K. Katagiri (2017), “How is the Neighborhood Environment Related to the Health of Seniors Living in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo? Some Insights for Promoting Aging in Place.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(4), 812-828.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1271306.
Mincer, J. (1977), “Family Migration Decisions.” Journal of Political Economy, 86(5), 749-773.
https://doi.org/10.1086/260710.
Molho, I. (1995), “Migrant Inertia, Accessibility and Local Unemployment.” Journal of Political Economy, 86(5), 749-773.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2554779.
Peterson, P.E., and M.C. Rom (1989), “American Federalism, Welfare Policy, and Residential Choices.” American Political Science Review, 83(3), 711-728.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1962057.
Potepan, M.J. (1994), “Intermetropolitan Migration and Housing Prices: Simultaneously determined?” Journal of Housing Economics, 3(2), 77-91.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jhec.1994.1001.
Rephann, T. and A. Isserman (1994), “New Highways as Economic Development Tools: An Evaluation Using Quasi-Experimental Matching Methods.” Regional Science and Urban Economics, 24(6), 723-751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-0462(94)90009-4.
Roodman, D. (2009), “A note on the theme of too many instruments.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics., 71(1), 135-158.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00542.x.
Saavedra, L.A. (2000), “A Model of Welfare Competition with Evidence from AFDC.” Journal of Urban Economics, 47(2), 248-279.
https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1999.2141.
Sassen, S. (2001), “The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo.” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2152688.
Schwartz, A. (1973), “Interpreting the Effect of Distance on Migration.” Journal of Political Economy, 81(5), 1153-1169.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1830643.
Sjaastad, L.A. (1962), “The Costs and Returns of Human Migration.” Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 80-93.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1829105.
Soto, M. (2009), “System GMM Estimation with A Small Sample” Working Papers 395, Barcelona School of Economics.
Tiebout, C.M. (1956), “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416-424.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1826343.
Todaro, M.P. (1969), “A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less Developed Countries.” The American Economic Review, 59(1), 138-148.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811100.