:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:平等與凝聚:臺灣社會福利發展的思考
書刊名:社會政策與社會工作學刊
作者:古允文 引用關係
作者(外文):Ku, Yeun-wen
出版日期:2001
卷期:5:1
頁次:頁145-169
主題關鍵詞:社會福利平等凝聚公民權臺灣Social welfareEqualitySolidarityCitizenshipTaiwan
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(17) 博士論文(4) 專書(0) 專書論文(2)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:17
  • 共同引用共同引用:47
  • 點閱點閱:267
在台灣的社會福利發展歷程中,一直存在著與資源有限性之間的緊張開係。一方面,經濟學者不斷提醒我們資源要用在刀口上,相對於社會福利學者不斷發掘更多的需求與要求資源的投入;另一方面,我們也看到了相當多政治勢力藉「社會福利」之名擴充某些給付,排擠其他施政之後又進一步讓社會福利背上浪費資源的惡名。就在這樣的緊張、衝突、乃至抗爭中,逐步消磨掉了台灣社會福利的互信基礎。由於政治的作用,使得福利議題在近些年得以攻佔上政黨政策辯論的檯面,但政治的不確定性卻也為社會福利帶來致命的效果,尤其是混淆了、窄化了、或偏頗了社會福利的本質。社會福利絕不是「發錢」如此簡單的事情而已。這些錢如何發出去?依據什麼標準?都會牽動社會結構背後所隱藏的價值,甚至影響到社會運作的基本原則。本文的目的在探討「平等」理念於台灣福利論述中的重要性,尤其是透過「公民權」概念的轉化而成為普遍性的福利權利。但在資源有限性的侷限下,這些理念的實施卻面臨實質的困難,也引發了進一步對「何謂社會福利?」問題的質疑。而這樣的質疑則直指社會結構的本質,亦即是「平等」在日益分化社會中的適用程度,由此突顯出西方福利國家的另一個理念一「凝聚」(solidarity)作為思考台灣福利發展的可能性。但值得注意的是,「平等」與「凝聚」不是相互替代的,我們最後以二者之間關係的討論為結論,點出平衡這兩個理念的重要性。
There is always a tension between limited resources and welfare development in Taiwan. The economists often remind us efficient usage of resources, contrasting to more needs discovered by the welfare scholars, on the one hand. The intervention of political forces expands so called ‘welfare benefit’, for their own sakes and this does risk abusing and wasting public resources, on the other hand. Under such a situation, social welfare is losing its ground as a foundation of social integration. Politics is the main moment behind recent welfare development in Taiwan, but it also confuses the nature of social welfare. We must argue, social welfare is not so simple as spending money. The ways of resource allocation and rationing are all linking to social values and principles of social functioning. This paper examines the importance of equality in Taiwanese welfare discourses, especially the rising of universal allowances in pursuit of real citizenship. However, the difficulties of limited resources critically constrain state capacity to realize the ideal and further lead to more inequality because of the exclusion of some potential welfare consumers from benefits, just for saving money. To cope with this contradiction, a new meaning of equality is necessary that should be beyond equally share and towards equally treatment, and this in turn induces another important concept - solidarity - in a growing differential society. In conclusion, we argue that solidarity should be taken into account accordingly with the new fashion of equality.
期刊論文
1.孫健忠(19970600)。社會津貼實施經驗的反省:以敬老津貼為例。社會政策與社會工作學刊,1(1)=1,73-98。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Giddens, Anthony(1998)。Post-Traditional Civil Society and the Radical Center。New Perspectives Quarterly,15(2),14-20。  new window
3.Watson, David(1977)。Welfare Rights and Human Rights?。Journal of Social Policy,6(1),31-46。  new window
會議論文
1.林萬億(1999)。我國的社會福利與資源分配。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
2.古允文(1995)。我國社會安全制度與年金保險:政治經濟學觀點的分析。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
3.唐文慧(1999)。臺灣性別不平等及其對社會安全福利之衝擊與應有之因應對策。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
4.張景旭、蕭新煌(1999)。階級結構變遷對社會福利的衝擊。沒有紀錄。  延伸查詢new window
5.陳東升(1999)。臺灣區域不平等及其對社會福利的衝擊。  延伸查詢new window
6.楊靜利、陳寬政(1999)。臺灣人口變遷及其對社會安全之衝擊與應有之因應對策。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.古允文(1997)。「歐洲聯盟」社會政策之研究。沒有紀錄。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Cranston, M.(1973)。What are Human Rights?。The Bodley Head。  new window
2.Baldwin, Peter(1990)。The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class Bases of the European Welfare State, 1875-1975。Cambridge:Cambridge University Press。  new window
3.Ku, Yeun-wen(1997)。Welfare Capitalism in Taiwan: State, Economy and Social Policy。Macmillan Press。  new window
4.Titmuss, Richard M.(1970)。The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy。Harmondsworth, UK:London:George Allen and Unwin。  new window
5.Giddens, Anthony(1978)。Emile Durkheim。New York:Penguin Books。  new window
6.Marshall, T. H.、Bottomore, T.(1992)。Citizenship and Social Class。Citizenship and Social Class. London: Pluto.。London, Concord (Mass.):Pluto Press。  new window
7.安東尼.紀登斯、鄭武國(2002)。第三條路:社會民主的更新。台北:聯經出版社。  延伸查詢new window
8.Marshall, T. H.(1981)。The Right to Welfare and Other Essays。London:Heinemann。  new window
9.Esping-Andersen, Gosta、古允文(1999)。福利資本主義的三個世界。巨流。  延伸查詢new window
10.Bussemaker, Jet(1999)。Introduction: The Challenges of Citizenship in Late Twentieth-century Societies。Citizenship and Welfare State Reform in Europe。London, UK。  new window
11.古允文(1998)。Can We Afford It? The Development of National Health Insurance in Taiwan。The East Asian Welfare Model: Welfare Orientalism and the State。London, UK。  new window
12.Propper, Carol(1998)。Efficiency, Equity and Choice。The Student's Companion to Social Policy。Oxford。  new window
13.Rothstein, Bo(1998)。Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State。Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State。Cambridge。  new window
14.Titmuss, Richard M.(1973)。Commitment to Welfare。London:George Allen and Unwin。  new window
圖書論文
1.Mullard, Maurice(1999)。Discourses on citizenship: The challenge to contemporary citizenship。Citizenship and welfare state reform in Europe。London:Routledge。  new window
2.Esping-Andersen, G.(1996)。Positive-Sum Solutions in a World of Trade-Offs?。Welfare States in Transition。London:Sage。  new window
3.詹火生、古允文(1998)。社會政策與經濟政策的整合--超越魚與熊掌之爭。新世紀的社會福利政策。臺北:厚生基金會。  延伸查詢new window
4.盧政春(1995)。利益團體與社會福利資源分配,透視我國軍公教福利。台灣的社會福利:民間觀點 \\ 中華民國現代社會福利協會(編輯)。台北:五南出版社。new window  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE