台灣與日本農業政策決策機制 －以加入WTO前後稻米補貼政策為例－

Abstract

台灣與日本雖於二戰後皆歷經相似的小農制農業經營長達三十年，但當面臨WTO市場開放壓力時，卻採取不同因應措施。例如，目前台灣與日本都在WTO農業談判上主張現有的國際多邊農業貿易規範缺乏小農經營國家的考量，所以必須改善此協定。但是，台灣加入WTO前後持續稻穀保價收購制度，保障稻農的權益。日本則取消價格支持措施，改建立直接給付等所得支持措施。台日兩國採取不同支持措施，可能來自於其政策發展與決策模式的不同。因此，本研究透過統合主義觀點出發，探討雙方稻米補貼決策機制之演變；經由比較兩國相關決策行動者在實際執行措施所扮演的角色和關係形態，進而研擬台日稻米補貼及農業政策決策模式。 台日兩國農業政策演變受到國家機關賦不賦予農業利益團體決策管道的影響，同時這些決議也受到國內政治和經濟情形的影響。根據加入WTO前後的時間主軸，加入WTO前1960年代至1990年代日本建立「自民黨－農水省－農協」三邊協調關係，台灣在1970年代至2001年建立排除農民團體的「執政黨－農委會」決策模型。接著，加入WTO後日本三邊決策機制瓦解，並歷經多元化，而台灣兩者決策關係大致相同。本文發現在WTO架構下國內因素比國外因素更有對一個國家農業政策的決策影響力。日本曾經因眾議院選舉時爭取農民支持的政治因素，但面對國內選舉制度改革及農業人口下降所造成的農業團體勢力降低，難以持續三邊協調關係亦取消收購制度。另一方面，台灣為了工業發展選擇二元垂直的、更非競爭性、決策過程簡化的機制，並且這些決策者從沒經過，如日本所面臨的這些變化。本文將進一步討論台日兩國政府在「政策面」為了農民穩定所得施行稻米補貼措施，但在「實務面」都一直將稻農排除在決策機制外。其結果導致目前小農面對難以脫離貧窮困境的現實。

This article reviews agriculture policy decision-making in Taiwan and Japan in terms of rice subsidy policy changes under the World Trade Organization (WTO). These two countries have shared similar agriculture protection policies alongside small-sized farming over the past three decades. Although both countries belong to the same G10 group in WTO in recent years, in order to claim some changes in current agriculture agreement, Taiwan has been conducting a price support subsidy, while Japan already dismissed it and shifted to run a direct payment. Accordingly, based on the corporatism theory, the article aims to analyze the rice subsidy policy-making process in Taiwan and Japan, and eventually approaches their agricultural policy-making models. The study demonstrates that both Taiwan and Japan governments face choices of whether or not to let farmer’s interest groups join the decision-making process. Moreover, this decision may be subject to domestic political and/or economic impacts. Before joining WTO, Japan formed a tripartite coalition among the ruling political party, the agriculture administration unit, and farmer’s association since 1960s. In Taiwan, the ruling political party and administration unit composed another type of coalition without a farmer’s group. After the two countries joined WTO, the Japanese tripartite model collapsed but the Taiwanese model remains almost the same. These different outcomes reflect that main factors of the decision-making process come from domestic environments. The former Japanese decision making system sets their priority to gain voting supports from farmers, but due to the change of the voting system and the decrease in the population of farmers, the wellbeing of farmers were no longer seen as a priority. At the time, Taiwanese decision-making body has been a binary and non-competitive system, with its process simplified. Therefore, the study explores that, in agriculture policy, both Taiwanese and Japanese governments provide a safety net with rice price subsidy. In reality, however, those subsidy policies not only exclude farmers from decision-making process, but also cause poverty among small-sized farmers.