請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/16855
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 王宏文(Hong-Wung Wang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-Cheng Chang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 張祐誠 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-07T23:48:02Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-08-21 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-08-10 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中央選舉委員會,1994,《第二屆立法委員選舉實錄》,臺北市,中央選舉委員會。 內政部社會司,2002,《全國社會福利會議特刊》,臺北市:內政部社會司。 王正,2007,《我國社會福利資源整合與合理化之研究》,計畫編號:95062804,臺北:行政院經濟建設委員會委託研究計劃研究報告(已完成研究)。 王珮倫,2002,〈敬老津貼誰領得多?—改善原住民生活條件才是問題核心〉,行政院主計處。 王增勇,2000,〈誰代表老人發言?台灣老人福利運動的回顧與展望〉,編入蕭新煌、林國明,2000,《台灣的社會福利運動》,臺北市:巨流,257-307。 古允文,1988,《社會福利發展:經驗與理論》,臺北市:桂冠圖書。 古允文,1999,《福利資本主義的三個世界》,臺北市,巨流。 古允文,2006,民主化與社會福利:【評論Healthy Democracies: Welfare Politics in Taiwan and South Korea, by Joseph Wong】,臺灣社會學刊,36,221-233。 古允文,2008,〈東亞福利研究的發展與對台灣的啟示〉,國家政策研究基金會,10月14日。2020年4月11日取自https://www.npf.org.tw/2/4813。 古允文,2010,〈誰是弱勢者?一個風險社會的再思考〉,社區發展季刊,130,4-16。 古允文,2013,《我國社會發展政策關鍵議題與發展趨勢—社會保障系列》,計畫編號:RDEC-RES-101-027,臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員會研究計畫委託研究報告(已完成研究)。 行政院研究發展考核委員會,1989,《我國社會福利定義與範圍之研究》,臺北市:行政院研究發展考核委員會。 呂建德,2014,《我國社會福利服務提供方式之研究》,計畫編號:NDC-DSD-102-015,臺北:行政院國家發展委員會研究計畫委託研究報告(已完成研究)。 呂朝賢、郭俊巖,2003,〈地方政府與福利型非營利組織之關係:以嘉義地區為例〉,社會科學學報,11,143-187。 呂寶靜,2002,《社會工作與台灣社會》,臺北市,巨流。 李明政,2003,《文化福利權》,臺北市:松慧。 李易駿、古允文,2003,〈另一個福利世界?東亞發展型福利體制初探〉,臺灣社會學刊,31,189-241。 李易駿、邱汝娜、林慧芬、侯東成、鄭怡世、賴月蜜,2006,《解讀社會政策》,臺北市:群學。 汪浩,2004,《風險社會:通往另一個現代的路上》,臺北市,巨流。 官有垣、杜承嶸,2011,〈臺灣非營利部門自1950年代迄今的發展特質、轉型與挑戰〉,社區發展季刊,133,65-80。 林國明,2000,〈民主化與社會政策的公共參與:全民健保的政策形成〉,編入蕭新煌、林國明,2000,《台灣的社會福利運動》,臺北市:巨流,135-175。 林勝義,2010,《社會政策與社會立法:兼論其社工實務》,臺北市,五南。 林萬億,1994,《福利國家:歷史比較的分析》,臺北市:巨流。 林萬億,2000,〈社會抗爭、政治權力資源與社會福利政策的發展:一九八○年代以來的台灣經驗〉,編入蕭新煌、林國明,2000,《台灣的社會福利運動》,臺北市:巨流,71-134。 林萬億,2005,〈1990年代以來臺灣社會福利發展的回顧與展望〉,社區發展季刊,109,12-35。 林萬億,2012,《臺灣的社會福利:歷史與制度的分析》,臺北市:五南。 林萬億,2013,《當代社會工作—理論與方法》,臺北市:五南。 林萬億、沈詩涵,2008,〈1980年代以來台灣社會工作與社會福利學術的發展〉,社會政策與社會工作學刊,12(1),219-280。 施世駿、葉羽曼,2011,〈政治民主化與社會政策:探索政治制度對台灣年金制度建構的影響〉,臺大社工學刊,23,47-92。 唐文慧、王宏仁,1993,《社會福利理論:流派與爭議》,臺北市,巨流。 高德義,2009,《解構與重構—原住民族人權與自治》,花蓮縣壽豐鄉:東華大學原住民民族學院。 張世雄,1999,〈轉變中的社會福利與公民地位〉,編入林萬億,1999,《台灣社會福利的發展—回顧與展望》,臺北市,五南,309-346。 莫藜藜,2004,〈張鴻鈞先生與臺灣的社區發展工作〉,社區發展季刊,107,42-51。 許世楷、施正鋒、布興‧大立,2003,《原住民族人權與自治》,臺北市:前衛。 陳麗芬、王順民,2013,《社會福利服務析論—當代臺灣地區的方案計畫討論》,臺北市,洪葉文化。 黃世鑫、林志鴻、林昭吟,2003,〈新貧問題與社會福利政策-科學vs.價值&菁英vs.普羅〉,國家政策季刊,2(4),83-124。 黃志忠、曾蕙瑜,2012,《社會福利政策》,臺北市:雙葉書廊。 葉至誠,2009,《社會政策與社會立法》,臺北市:秀威資訊科技。 葉崇揚、陳盈方,2013,〈民主、資本主義與年金體系的發展:臺灣經驗的分析〉,人文及社會科學集刊,25(1),45-86。 葉肅科,2002,《福利》,臺北市,巨流。 董翔飛,1984,《中華民國選舉概況(上篇)》,臺北市,中央選舉委員會。 劉淑瓊,2011,〈理想與現實:論臺灣社會服務契約委託的變遷及課題〉,社區發展季刊,133,462-478。 劉脩如,1984,《社會政策與社會立法》,臺北市,五南。 蔡宏昭,1990,《社會福利政策—福利與經濟的整合》,臺北市:桂冠。 蔡漢賢、李明政,2006,《社會福利新論》,臺北市,松慧。 鄭麗珍、李明政,2010,〈臺灣原住民族社會福利與健康政策評估〉,編入黃樹民、章英華,2010,《台灣原住民政策變遷與社會發展》,臺北市:中央硏究院民族學硏究所,181-258。 蘇麗瓊、陳素春、陳美蕙,2005,〈社會服務民營化—以內政部所屬社會福利機構業務委外辦理為例〉,社區發展季刊,108,7-21。 Aspalter, Christian. 2001. Conservative Welfare State Systems in East Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. Avelino, George., Brown, David S. and Hunter, Wendy. 2005. “The Effects of Capital Mobility, Trade Openness, and Democracy on Social Spending in Latin America, 1980-1999” American Journal of Political Science. 49(3): 625-641. Barker, Robert L. 2003. The Social Work Dictionary. 5th ed., NASW. Barry, Norman. 1999. Welfare. 2nd ed., Buckingham: Open University Press. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society. London: Sage. Chang, Yu-Fang. and Ku, Yeun-Wen and Hsu Chan-Yao. 2010. “Social Policy Study in Taiwan An Analysis of Postgraduate Degree Theses, 1990-2008” ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK AND DEVELOPMENT. 20(1): 95-110. Dean, Hartley. 1991. Social Security and Social Control. London: Routledge. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press. Gilbert, Neil and Terrell, Paul. 2005. Dimensions of Social Welfare Policy. 6th ed Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Haggard, Stephan. 2005. “Globalization, Democracy, and the Evolution of Social Contracts in East Asia.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy. 1(1): 21-47. Haggard, Stephan. and Kaufman, Robert R. 2008. Development, Democracy, and Welfare States: Latin America, East Asia and East Europe. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Holliday, Ian. 2000. “Productivist Welfare Capitalism: Social Policy in East Asia.” Political Studies. 48: 706-723. Huber, Evelyne., Mustillo, Thomas. and Stephens, John D. 2008. “Politics and Social Spending in Latin America” The Journal of Politics. 70(2): 420-436. Jansson, Bruce S. 1984. Theory and Practice of Social Welfare Policy: Analysis, processes, and current issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Jones, Catherine. 1990. “Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan: Oikonomic welfare states.” Government and Opposition. 25: 446-462. Jones, Catherine. 1993. The pacific challenge: Confucian welfare states. In Catherine Jones (ed.) New Perspectives on the Welfare State in Europe. London: Routledge. Kirst-Ashman, Karen Kay. 2017. Introduction to Social Work Social Welfare: critical thinking perspectives. Australia; Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Kown, Huck-Ju. 1998. “Democracy and the Politics of Social Welfare: A Comparative Analysis of Welfare Systems in East Asia.” pp.27-74 in Roger Goodman, Gordon White, and Huck-ju Kwon (eds.) The East Asian Welfare Model: Welfare Orientalism and the State. London: Routledge. Ku, Yeun-Wen. 1997. Welfare capitalism in Taiwan: state, economy and social policy. New York: Marin's Press ; Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan. Lasswell, Harold Dwight. 1950. Politics: who gets what, when, how. New York: Peter Smith. Leiby, James. 1978. A History of Social Welfare and Social Work in the United States. Cambridge University Press. Lin, Wan-I. 1991. “Labour Movement and Taiwan's Belated Welfare State” Journal of International and Comparative Social Welfare. 7(1): 31-44. Midgley, James. 1995. Social development: the developmental perspective in social welfare. London; Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. Midgley, James. and Livermore, Michelle. 1997. “The Developmental Perspective in Social Work: Educational Implications for a New Century” Journal of Social Work Education. 33(3): 573-585. Myles, John. 1989. Old age in the welfare state. Kansas: University Press of Kansas. O’ Connor, James. 1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martin's Press. Offe, Claus. 1984. Contradictions of the Welfare State. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Ramesh, M. 2004. Social policy in East and Southeast Asia : education, health, housing, and income maintenance. London: Routledge. Segal, Elizabeth A., Gerdes, Karen E. and Steiner, Sue. 2005. Social Work: an introduction to the profession. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning. Segura-Ubiergo, Alex. 2007. The Political Economy of the Welfare State in Latin America: Globalization, Democracy, and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tang, Kwong-Leung. 1998. Colonial State and Social Policy: Social Welfare Development in Hong Kong 1842-1997. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. Titmuss, Richard Morris. 1958. Essays on the Welfare State. London: Allen and Unwin. Titmuss, Richard Morris. 1974. Social policy: an introduction. New York: Pantheon Books. Townsend, Peter. 1981. “The structured dependency of the elderly: A creation of social policy in the twentieth century” Ageing and Society. 1: 5-28. Wilensky, Harold L. and Lebeaux, Charles Nathan. 1965. Industrial Society and Social Welfare. New York: Free Press. Wong, Joseph. 2004. Healthy Democracies: Welfare Politics in Taiwan and South Korea. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/16855 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Laswell (1950)認為政治過程就是權力的形成、分配、與運用,展現在現實生活與政治學研究上,就是探討誰得到什麼?何時得到?及如何得到?社會福利法案的一大面向就是針對特定的弱勢人口,給予其幫助以滿足需求,但在臺灣福利發展的歷史上,究竟哪一種弱勢人口得到政府較多的立法?何時獲得政府的福利?不同的民主轉型階段中,政府提供的福利又有何種變化?是本文主要的研究問題。 目前國內有關社會福利的文獻,大多是以特定弱勢人口的角度,探討其福利狀況與制度等;或是以研究方法的角度,如個案工作、社會行政與社工管理、非營利組織等面向來進行分析,比較少從公共政策或政治學的角度來探討社會福利政策立法的問題。 為了回答上述研究問題,本研究蒐集了1949至2016年所通過的社會福利法案,共312筆,接著依據法案的實質修法內容,進行標的人口的分類,區分出老人、軍人、公務人員、教師、勞工、身心障礙或疾病者、農民、未成年、婦女、原住民、中低收入戶、偏鄉或離島居民、全民、與無特定對象,共14種類別;以及福利提供方式的分類,區分出無實質利益、現金給付、實物給付、與對象擴增或時間延長,共4種類別;然後再將民主轉型階段區分成威權主義時期—蔣中正執政與蔣經國執政、民主突破時期、民主鞏固時期、民主深化時期,共5個階段。 研究結果顯示,1949年至2016年,社會福利法案數量最多的對象依序是:勞工、身心障礙或疾病者、中低收入戶;數量最少的分別是偏鄉或離島居民、老人、原住民。進一步將時間因素納入分析,發現威權主義時期的主要立法對象是軍、公、教、勞工,到了蔣經國執政,政府開始給予老人、身心障礙或疾病者、中低收入戶社會福利立法,並且出現了實物給付的福利提供方式。進入民主後,農民、原住民、偏鄉或離島居民才獲得社會福利法案,相對其他標的人口而言較晚。隨著政治發展愈趨穩定,社會福利法案數與標的人口的涵蓋面愈加擴張,社會福利的範圍也更加廣泛。 本研究使用社會福利法案針對過去的研究重新驗證,發現我國社會福利確實具有保守主義之特質,且福利發展確實受到了資本主義體系結構與民主化的影響,但在老人與原住民法案的影響因素上,可能與過去研究有些微差異。 在老人議題中,透過直接觀察其社會福利立法趨勢,檢閱法案之立法緣由,輔以人口統計資料分析後,發現1990年代中期,老年人口占總人口比率已高於7%,我國正式進入高齡化社會,而在修法的提案說明中,開始多以人口結構因素為由,於此,老年人口數可能是影響其社會福利法案數的因素之一。在原住民議題中,發現民主化之後,相關團體與政黨組織更想要消除國民黨過去長期以來,對原住民族制度與文化的歧視,所以開始思考從原住民整體發展的結構面建置相關社會福利,以確保其文化認同、族群平等與自治自決權利,這其中的因素之一,政治意識形態可能在原住民的社會福利法案數中扮演重要角色。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Laswell(1950) believes that political process is how authority been established, divided and used. In other words, for reality and policy analysis, it is necessary to discuss “whom, when and how.” One of the dimensions to social welfare law is that government helps for certain social target groups to satisfy their basic needs. As regards social welfare, it is the thesis in the following chapters. This research will examine who are exactly defined as social target groups to get more official protection, when can they get social welfare and what kind of social welfare does government exactly provide in different periods of democratic transition. The literature on social welfare in Taiwan is mostly based on the perspective of specific disadvantaged populations discussing their welfare status and policy or based on the perspective of research methods to analyze such as case work, social administration and social work management, non-profit organizations, etc. There is little discussion on the issue of social welfare policy legislation from the perspective of public policy or political science. In order to answer the questions, this research has collected 312 social welfare laws passed from 1949 to 2016, classified the target groups based on the substantive amendments of the law and distinguished 14 categories as follows: the elderly, soldiers, civil servants, teachers, labor, persons with disabilities or the illnesses, farmers, minors, women, indigenous peoples, low-income and middle-low-income households, country or outlying islands residents, citizens, and unspecified objects. It can be also distinguished 4 types of welfare provision as intangible benefits, cash benefit, in-kind benefit and expansion with the object or extension of time. Then the democratization is divided into 5 stages of authoritarian regime period: Chiang Chung-Cheng government and Chiang Ching-Kuo government, democratic breakthrough period, democratic consolidation period, democratic deepening period. The results of the study showed that from 1949 to 2016, the subjects with the largest number of social welfare laws were labor, persons with disabilities or illnesses, and low-income and middle-low-income households; the least number of social welfare laws were country or outlying islands residents, the elderly, and indigenous peoples. Moreover, including time factor into analysis, it was found that the main legislative objects in Chiang Chung-Cheng government were the soldiers, civil servants, teachers, and labor. It began to provide social welfare laws for the elderly, persons with disabilities or illnesses, and low-income and middle-low-income households; meanwhile, the way of providing in-kind benefits came up as well. During the transition to democracy, farmers, indigenous peoples, country or outlying islands residents got the social welfare laws, which were relatively late compared to other target groups. As the political development became stable, the coverage of the number of social welfare laws and the target groups had expanded, and the scope of social welfare had become wider. This research uses the social welfare laws to re-verify past research and finds that the characteristic of social welfare in Taiwan is conservatism. Welfare development is indeed affected by the structure of the capitalist system and democratization. However, the influence factors of the elderly’s and indigenous peoples’ laws might be slightly different from previous studies. Regarding to the issue of the elderly, by directly observing the trend of social welfare legislation, reviewing the legislative reasons for the law, and analyzing demographic data, it is found that in the mid-‘90s, the elderly population had increased more than 7% of the total population; that is , Taiwan had entered aging society. In the explanation of the amendments to the law, the demographic factors became as the reason. Therefore, the number of elderly people may be one of the factors affecting the number of social welfare laws. In addition, regarding to the issue of indigenous peoples, it was discovered that, relevant groups and political parties wanted to eliminate KMT long-standing discrimination against indigenous people social systems and cultures after democratization, so they started to think about constructing relevant social welfare from the structural aspect of the overall development to indigenous peoples and ensure their cultural identity, ethnic equality, and the right to self-determination. One of the main factors was that Ideology is the key in the number of social welfare laws for indigenous peoples. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-07T23:48:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1008202001184000.pdf: 3652180 bytes, checksum: 1d199334e0b32d708907ef0f4041dfe4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 ⅰ 謝辭 ⅱ 中文摘要 ⅲ Abstract ⅴ 第一章 緒論 1 第二章 文獻回顧 4 第一節 社會福利的定義與範圍 4 第二節 社會福利的標的人口 22 第三節 社會福利的提供方式 25 第四節 民主化與社會福利的關係 29 第五節 我國社會福利法案的發展 34 第三章 研究方法 45 第一節 資料蒐集與資料整理 45 第二節 研究步驟 52 第四章 研究結果 53 第一節 描述統計 53 第二節 主要研究發現 70 第五章 結論 83 參考文獻 86 附錄 93 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 我國社會福利法案的長期趨勢分析 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A Study on the Long-term Trend of Taiwan’s Social Welfare Laws | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 古允文(Yeun-Wen Ku),呂建德(Jen-Der Lue) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 社會福利,社會福利法案,標的人口,民主化,趨勢分析, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | social welfare,social welfare laws,target group,democratization,trend analysis, | en |
dc.relation.page | 107 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202002753 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-08-10 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共事務研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 公共事務研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-1008202001184000.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 3.57 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。