從義務到權利：南韓與台灣身心障礙定額進用制度的歷史演進

Abstract

南韓與台灣的身心障礙定額進用制度自1980年代初實施以來歷經多次的修法和政策調整，儘管因雇主應付、政策僵化導致效果有限，正當性與有效性備受質疑，卻仍是保障障礙者就業機會的重要政策工具。且過去，此制度多被視為補償或保護性措施，但近年，包括聯合國與ILO等國際組織逐漸視其為具實現平等就業參與的積極性政策工具。其中關鍵在於，反歧視法固然能保障權利與提供救濟管道，卻無法主動創造出實質就業機會。定額進用制度的衝突性特質傳達了重要的訊息：政策意涵並非不變，而是會隨著不同時代的社會價值與理念發展而賦予其新的意義及詮釋，其中亦包括了障礙觀點的演進。本研究試圖探究兩國定額進用制度的變遷軌跡是否隨著障礙觀點的演進而有所轉變，並透過建構一個綜合（synthesise）歷史制度論與倡導聯盟架構 （Advocacy Coalition Framework, ACF）的雙層次分析架構，形成「理念－制度－行動者」互動觀點，據以觀察障礙組織如何與其他行動者聯盟，推動制度改革與變遷同時，既有制度與制度內的既得利益者如何牽制改革力量，形成行動者與制度間的「抗衡／對抗」（contestation）與「限制」（constraint）的動態關係。本研究採取法規追蹤分析及深度訪談發現，韓、台障礙組織聯盟於1980年代末障礙運動中成功「對抗」既有制度，建立了跨障礙組織協商機制、跨部會政策協調機制以及發展了障礙組織與國會的合作與互動模式，但制度本身亦產生「限制」力量。兩國現今雖朝著人權模式的落實邁進，但由於受到不同民主轉型邏輯的影響而呈現出不同的變遷路徑。南韓「由下而上」的民主運動模式，強化了公民組織的集體動員以及制度參與，促成障礙組織建立協商機制。儘管組織內部會因為立場與利益衝突，甚至引發政策僵局，但亦逐步發展出策略性合作模式以對抗反對聯盟，確保法案通過，待未來再逐步完善細節。相較之下，台灣民主轉型更多來自威權體制內部的漸進改革，屬於「由上而下」的轉型模式，並形塑了障礙組織透過體制內遊說，參與政策制定。雖然缺乏制度化的跨組織協商機制，但障礙組織因破碎化的發展特質，各組織透過內部活動人士發展出靈活的「立法遊說－政策改革」模式，從各自所關心之領域的基礎開始推進政策改革與轉向。然而，兩國的跨部會協商機制因未能有效克服部會間權力結構而形同虛設。最後，制度的形成深受過去的歷史與權力結構所影響，不僅形塑了兩國政策變遷路徑，也使國際理念在轉譯過程中面對再詮釋的挑戰，且本研究將障礙議題納入福利國家分析範疇，亦促成了對福利制度運作邏輯的根本性反思。

The disability employment quota systems in South Korea and Taiwan have undergone multiple legal revisions and policy adjustments since their implementation in the early 1980s. Despite criticisms over their limited effectiveness and legitimacy resulting from employers’ coping attitude and policy rigidity, quotas remain key policy tools in ensuring disability employment opportunities. Besides, while the quota system was traditionally viewed as a compensatory or protective measure, international organisations such as the UN and the ILO increasingly regard it as an affirmative measure for its potential in promoting substantial equality, as anti-discrimination laws have limitations in creating employment opportunities proactively, although they safeguard rights and remedies. The conflicting nature of the system conveys an important message: policy meaning is not constant, but evolves, and so does the concept of disability. This study explores the transformation trajectories of quota systems in both countries, attempting to reveal if the transformations align with the evolving disability models. A dual-level analytical framework synthesising historical institutionalism and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is constructed to observe the interplay among ideas, institutions and actors, particularly the dynamic relationship of contestation and constraint between actors and institutions. Through legal tracing and in-depth interviews, this study finds that, during the late 1980s, while disability coalitions in Korea and Taiwan successfully contested existing institutions by establishing inter-organisational cooperation and negotiation mechanisms, inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms, and disability organisations-political parties coalitions, institutional constraints have persisted. Although both countries are progressing toward the realisation of the rights model, the differing logics of democratic transition have actually impacted the reform trajectories in Korea and Taiwan. Korea’s bottom-up democratisation enhanced civil mobilisation and institutional participation, leading to the establishment and institutionalisation of an inter-organisational negotiation mechanism. While internal interest conflicts and policy deadlocks were not uncommon, disability coalition has gradually developed strategic collaboration and compromise to counter opposition pressures and secure legislative passage, with plans for detailed amendments over time. In contrast, Taiwan’s democratisation demonstrated a top-down model with a more conscious and gradual strategic adjustment by the authoritarian government, and such a transition significantly shaped the means of policy participation centred on legislative lobbying. While Taiwan struggled to institutionalise an inter-organisational negotiation mechanism, its fragmented development among disability organisations has fostered a flexible “legislative lobbying–policy reform” approach mainly advanced through inside activists to initiate policy change and transition from the foundation in related fields of concern. Nonetheless, inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms in both countries have proven ineffective due to their inability to address the imbalanced power structures among ministries. Overall, since historical legacies and power structures deeply shape institutions, they have not only impacted the divergent transformation trajectories but also posed challenges in translating international ideas. Furthermore, this study also contributes to a fundamental reflexive account of the operational logic of welfare institutions by incorporating disability into the welfare state analysis.