市場、市民社會與國家等概念是臺灣當前社會福利論戰的主角，尤其
是市場 與國家，但是這三個概念是西方社會福利理論精粹化的結晶品。
這些概念之假設 性的意義往往多於經驗性的意義，三者之間更是具有意
識形態的對立狀況，如自 由主義經濟學、費邊社社會主義以及馬克思主
義分別對市場、國家與市民社會的 崇信。國內學者雖然認清這些理論與
概念的規範性格，卻多將其當做經驗性與普 遍性的概念，逕用來討論或
爭辯臺灣未來的社會福利發展，本文認為有其不當之 處。此外，本文更
進一步反省歐洲福利國家之市場、市民社會與國家的實際發展 過程，認
為這三個社會場域都只是歐洲福利國家之整體社會特質，裸露於外而明
顯可辨的部份而已。雖然這三個社會場域初看恰似孤峰對峙，然而卻有其
共同的 整體性盤座。而此盤座正是公領域之社會規範法律化與私領域之
隱私權相互穿透 的產物─法律個體。對於這個盤座的探討，本文認為可
能必須從市場、市民社會 與國家之外來理解。經由古典社會學與年鑑史
學之長時段的啟發，本文認為這是 重新理解歐洲福利國家的重要觀念，
可以使得異文明的我們更清楚歐洲福利國家 的可能與限制。

Market, civil society and state are the main concepts of
social welfare theories that are usually applied to social
welfare debating in Taiwan. Except the ideology which is
contrary to each other, in these concepts and theories we can
not find any real experiences of development in European
welfare state. Taiwanese scholars know that these theories are
more normative than empirical, but they do not really
undersand the relation between the normative theories with
class struggle. For example, European working calss believe
Marxism or socialism and think civil society as their best
living field. On the contrary, capitalist believe liberalism
and think market as their best living field.
It seem to most scholars that market, civil society and state
are contrary to each other in ideology, but in my opinion I
think that they have the common base. This base is the
combination of legal norm in public sphere and privacy in
private sphere, conceptualized as legal individual. In order to
understanding this base, specially as to people of non-European
civilization, the idea of long-duration which was emphasized
by classic sociologist and Annales School is a good
perspective. When we understand the long-duration social
basis of welfare state in Europe, maybe we can really
understand the possibilities and limits of social welfare
development in Taiwan.