政治民主化與台灣對外僑務政策變遷：以對美國僑社政策為例

Abstract

本論文僑務政策變遷之研究方法係採質化研究法，兼採建構的觀點和倡議的觀點，除分析既有僑務政策之政治意義外，並倡議建立台灣主體觀點的僑務政策。而模型的建構係同時關照「國際層次」、「國內層次」和「個人層次」，結合以理念為基礎的「政策典範途徑」和探討國家與社會關係的「政體中心分析途徑」，嘗試從台灣政治民主化的脈絡，以台灣主體性的觀點，來回答以下三個問題：（一）國民黨兩蔣時代的僑務政策典範為何？國民黨李登輝政府和民進黨陳水扁政府的僑務政策有何變遷？變遷的方向為何？幅度多大？（二）美國台籍社團的社會認同、政治取向和能力為何？如何形成的？在政治民主化的過程中有何轉變？（三）政治民主化對促成僑務政策典範轉移有何影響？侷限何在？原因為何？ 本論文從國民黨兩蔣政府時期、李登輝政府時期到陳水扁政府時期的僑務政策歷史加以檢視，發現僑務政策典範還是停留在「三民主義政策典範」，李登輝和陳水扁政府的僑務政策儘管有民主化和本土化的改變，但只能算是第二度政策變遷，因為核心理念並沒有轉變為台灣主體性典範，因此沒有產生典範轉移。 這個研究結果凸顯了民主化在解決僑務，或者說整個外交政策上有所侷限。對外政策和一般國內公共政策不同，牽涉到國家定位和國家認同，因此單純只有推動民主化並無法解決僑務政策的困境，主體性的問題不解決，台灣主體性的僑務政策典範也無從產生。

The research method adopted by this article is qualitative method. Both constructivist and advocacy perspectives are employed to analyze the political implications of the overseas diasporic policies, and meanwhile to advocate new policies from the perspectives of Taiwan’s subjectivity. The analytical framework deals with three levels of analysis: international, domestic and political leaders. The framework is built up with a combination of “ policy paradigm approach” and “ polity centered analysis”. It tries to answer the following three questions from the perspective of Taiwan’s subjectivity: （1）What’s the overseas diasporic policy paradigm during the two Chiangs’ ruling? Did it make any changes during the Lee Teng-Hui and Chen Shui-Bian governments? What’s the direction? What’s the span of change? （2）What’s the social identity, political orientation and capacity of Taiwanese American groups? How did it shaped? How did it get changed in the process of Taiwan’s democratization? （3）What’s the impact caused by political democratization to overseas diasporic policy paradigm shift ? What’s the constraint? Why? After examing the history of Taiwan’s overseas diasporic polcy, we find that the polcy paradigm still stays in the paradigm of “ Three Principals of the People”. Although the Lee Teng-Hui and Chen Shui-Bian governments strided towards democratization and Taiwanization, those just fall into the category of second order change. The paradigm does not shift to Taiwan’s subjectivity due to the core idea remains the same. Results of this research point out the deficiency of democratization in solving the problems of overseas diasporic policies and foreign polcies as well. Foreign polcies are different from domestic public policies. Statehood and national identity are the core issues in foreign policy field. The dilemma of overseas diasporic policy can not be figured out simply by promoting democratization. To establish the paradigm of Taiwan’s subjectivity is the only way to go.