全球經濟再結構下的臺灣農地政策：去管制？或再管制的失效？

Abstract

東亞國家全球化研究者觀察東亞發展型國家（developmental state）於全球化（globalization）改革過程指出：東亞在全球化影響下，國家內部制度體制出現「去國家化」（de-statized）與「去管制化」（de-regulation）現象，即意味著國家（state）從諸多制度性場域退位，並選取市場機制為改革核心。本文鎖定1990年代後的農地政策，諸如：1995年「農地釋出方案」、《農業政策白皮書》以及2000年《農業發展條例》、2010《農村再生條例》等內容與審議進行分析，並且嘗試以臺灣彰化縣的農地空間發展經驗作為驗證，除了探索彰化縣實際農地空間發展模式之外，亦針對發生於彰化縣境內的「鎘米汙染事件」以及「國光石化案」、「中部科學園區第四期」開發計畫所遭遇的爭議與矛盾進行分析與探討。首先，本文透過政策論述（discourse of policy）與農地空間實存情境的比較之後，發現1980年代末期，臺灣政府即朝向鬆動、放寬「農地農用，農地農有」制度進行改革，然而，這些改革係以「不破壞農業生產環境」作為前提與但書，但是，在彰化縣農地空間發展經驗，卻一再發現農地面積縮小、工業用地面積不斷成長的情況，政策論述與農地空間實際發展經驗上實有相當的落差，不斷於彰化縣境內出現的「鎘米汙染事件」便是明確的例證。第二，除相關農地政策、法令的修訂與審議過程中可以發現「工業優先於農業」的國家政策思維之外，在實際的開發計畫－「國光石化案」、「中部科學園區第四期」的計畫內容中，更能發現無論是中央或地方政府皆嘗試在1995年「農地釋出方案」基礎上，將境內農地變更為工業使用，「農地釋出」與「興建工業園區」被視為將自身編入全球經濟生產體系的手段，興建「大度攔河堰」以為工業尋覓水源，亦可作為「工業優先於農業」的例證。第三，關於東亞國家全球化研究所關切的國家政策效果議題，本文指出1988年以來臺灣農地政策，雖然係以放寬既有「農地農有，農地農用」為主軸，但是卻仍然可以發現政府在放寬的同時卻嘗試以新政策工具行「再管制化」（re-regulation）之舉，然而，這些政策工具卻因引起「侵犯私有土地財產權」疑慮，而遲未能果，這可謂是「再管制化失效」（failure of re-regulation）的情況。最終，筆者綜合農地政策與農地空間發展經驗的分析，指出全球化下的臺灣農地政策將無可避免遭遇到「侵犯人民私有財產權」疑慮－2008年《農村再生條例》的審議過程將「農地整備制度」專章刪除以及「中部科學園區第四期」放棄徵收極具爭議的「相思寮」農村土地便是十分確鑿的例證，「侵犯人民私有財產權」所造成國家治理的「正當性危機」（legitimacy crisis），這即是全球化下臺灣農地政策呈現「再管制化失效」境況的深層內涵所在。

Researchers of Globalization have observed on the institutional reform of East Asian “Developmental State” form 1990 century. They pointed out that the phenomenon of “de-regulation” was a pivotal tendency of the reform. It means that the role of “State” have replaced by “market” which based on the theories/conscious of neoclassical economics or Neoliberalism. This essay aims to the agricultural land policy in global economic restructuring Taiwan. After analysis the discourse of agricultural land policy, include Agricultural Land Release Scheme (1995), White Paper on Agricultural Policy (1995), Agricultural Development Act (2000), and Rural Regeneration Act (2010), the author also try to analysis the actual situation of Changhua County’s agricultural land development, for instance, the author focused on the spatial transformation of land and some controversies in recent years, such as “Cadmium Rice”, “KuoKuang Petrochemical Project” and “4th Stage of Central Taiwan Science Park”. Findings out of the essays are as follow. At first, the government established that “maintaining agriculture” as the key prerequisite of all reform from 1980 century. However, the actual situation of Changhua County’s agricultural land development is a large area of agricultural land has been changed to industrial areas, even contaminated. Second, the “Agriculture incubates Industry” still is the center conscious of government. Third, although the primary discourse of agricultural land policy is removing the regulation of agricultural land transfer and use (Farmland Farmer has, Farmland Farmer use), but this does not mean that “State disappeared”. The author pointed out that reform of Taiwan’s agricultural land policy does not appear the tendency of “de-regulation”, and it still have many innovative institutions be formulated. Such as “Total Quantity Control System” in Agricultural Development Act and “Integrated Farmland Consolidation” in Rural Regeneration Act. These institutions can be regarded as a “re-regulation” process. However, these innovative institutions have not been implemented, and it is as a result of such institutions cause of controversy and misgivings of interference with private ownership of land property, Such as the land expropriation controversy of “Xianxiliao village” and the event of legal provision of “Integrated Farmland Consolidation” have been deleted the conclusive evidence. To sum up, (1) the Taiwan’s agricultural land policy reform and its results from 1990 century can be perceived and recognized as “Failure of re-regulation” (2) “Failure of re-regulation” also reflects that crisis of legitimacy of the State.