政府補助團體與私人之規範面研究

Abstract

國際知名信用評等機構評估指出，我國一向有結構化財政弱點，財政赤字過高的問題，依據經濟合作暨發展組織（OECD）研究指出，改善財政宜從減少支出而非加稅著手。檢視10年來政府支出情形，「獎補助費」一直是中央政府總預算一級用途別科目中，編列金額最多的科目。政府獎補助預算，係由機關間補助（對內）、對民間團體與私人補助（對外）兩大部份所構成，前者僅涉及府際間或機關間盈虛調節，不發生實質對外移轉情形；後者具有資源重分配性質，產生政府財源實質對外移轉支出之效果，但對於國庫來說，往往不具自償性，且政府各年度編列獎補助團體與私人預算高達約四、五千億元之譜，金額龐大並逐年上升，高額之補助團體與私人經費支出情形值得關注。

關於近年來政府補助團體與私人經費大幅增長，應與我國解除戒嚴政治民主化以來，人民團體如雨後春筍般大量成立，人民和利益團體勇於表達需求和爭取利益，政府透過給予補助款以公私協力方式提供服務有密切關聯。由於獎補助涉及敏感之利益分配，對特定人給付固屬受益，對他人卻係造成負擔，然觀察政府補助團體與私人規範，未有總則性或基準性之法律規定，除部分法律、法規命令外，主要為行政規則，相關法令概念與範圍未有清楚界定，或未有相關法令而預算書上僅列載獎補助某項支出以一年一式若干元表達，又預算資訊公開不足，以致外界無法得知政府補助團體與私人詳情內容，產生資訊不對稱現象。本研究乃整理探討政府補助團體與私人相關法令與法理，並借鏡德國、日本行政補助經驗，希政府在可能的範圍內設計一套比較良善的制度規範，強化治理作業。 本文主要研究發現如次： 1.獎補助治理現狀欠佳，資訊未臻公開透明。 2.憲法重視對人民之保障與獎補助，大法官會議已釐訂若干補助 原則。 3.法律為獎補助政策形成主要手段，但規定簡略且授權未盡明確 ，欠缺清楚體系與概念。 4.未界定公共利益重大事項範疇，無具體依循標準。 5.獎補助行政規則充斥，多為2000年後訂頒。 6.行政院訂頒補助規範其法位階不高，補助上限亦形同具文。 7.自治法規制定作業標準不一，相同事項或相同地方法規型態不 一致。 8.部分補助未有法令依據卻逕行編列預算辦理，難謂周延。 9.社福補助法令種類及補助金額龐大，中央與地方政府對於法定 社福支出認知不同。 10.德國與日本補助制度，各具特色。 本研究提出政策建議，包含： 1.加強獎補助作業之治理，強化預算審議與資訊公開。 2.法律為獎補助政策形成主要手段，應訂明規定或明確授權。 3.界定重大公共利益、創設地方居民權利事項，俾利遵循。 4.研訂獎補助金額上限與時限，並擬具調整機制。 5.建立社福補助支出配套措施。 6.研訂行政補助基本法或給付行政法。 另本文提出未來研究方向如次： 1.研究設計補助基本法或給付行政法之具體條文與配套措施。 2.研究政府補助團體與私人之管理面、政治面議題。

According to prestigious international credit rating agencies, Taiwan used to suffer from poor structured finance and high financial deficit. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) points out that improving economy shall start from reducing expenditure instead of increasing tax. In this case, when reviewing the government expenditure over the last decade, it is discovered that ‘subsidy and bounty’ always account for the biggest share in the first-class usage category of Central Government General Budget. The budget of subsidy and bounty is composed of two major parts, inter-institutional subsidy (internal) and private sector subsidy (external). The former involves simply the inter-governmental or inter-institutional adjustment, while the latter has the nature of resources re-allocation, bringing about the governmental financial sources’ transferring expenditures to external sectors. Nevertheless, the national treasury, in general, is not self-liquidating. Moreover, the government used to have as much as four or five hundred billion New Taiwan dollar budget spent on subsidizing groups and individuals annually. The subsidy is not only huge, but in increase. This situation is worth noticing. Concerning the dramatic increase of governmental subsidization on groups and individuals, it may have something to do with civil associations springing up like mushrooms. After the Martial Law was abolished, the political democratization encourages people and interest groups to express their needs and fight for their benefits bravely. The government then provides it service in the way of public-private partnership by subsidizing them. However, subsidy and bounty involve delicate issues like interest distribution, subsidizing some specific groups and individuals may damage the interests of others. Besides, there are no comprehensive or fundamental laws regulating how the government subsidizes groups and individuals. Current laws concerning subsidy and bounty are mainly administrative laws except for some laws, regulations and orders; the concept and scope of related laws are lack of clear definitions as well. Moreover, the budget is so poorly recorded and lack of transparency that the outside world is unlikely to understand the details of subsidization, resulting in information asymmetry. Therefore, the study compiles related laws and legal theories concerning governmental subsidy on groups and individuals, complementing it with the administrative experience of Germany and Japan to serve as a reference for the government to design a better system within possible scope to enhance the operation of its governance. The main observations of this study are as following: 1. The present governance of subsidization is poor and its information is not transparent, either. 2. The constitution places great emphasis on people’s security as well as subsidy and the council of grand justice has explained some rules of subsidization. 3. Although law is the means to form the policy of subsidization, its regulations are rough without specific authorization, clear system and concept. 4. The scope of grand events concerning public interests is not defined, so there are no norms to follow. 5. There are abundant administrative laws of subsidization, mostly issued after 2000. 6. The regulations of subsidization issuing by the Executive Yuan are not of high ranks since they are no more than administrative rules and the limit of subsidization is empty words. 7. The operation of establishing autonomous laws and regulations varies from place to place. 8. It seems inappropriate when some subsidies are issued without filing the budget in accordance with subsidization laws beforehand. 9. Categories of subsidization laws concerning social welfare are of great variety and its subsidy are large, that local governments and the central government do not share the same concept of social welfare expenditure. 10. The subsidization systems run respectively in Germany and Japan are unique. Based on the observations, this study proposes the following suggestions to policy-making: 1. Improve the governance of subsidization operation, enhance the budget review, and publicize relevant information. 2. Since law is the means to form the policy of subsidization, clear regulations and specific authorization are needed. 3. Define things like important public interests and creating local residents’ rights so that they may be followed. 4. Research to set the limit and deadline of subsidy so as to establish an adjustment mechanism. 5. Establish supportive measures of subsidizing social welfare. 6. Establish the basic law of administrative subsidization or Leistungsverwaltung. Finally, this study suggests that the future study may focus on two aspects: 1. Design substantial laws and supportive measures regarding the basic law of subsidization or Leistungsverwaltung. 2. Discuss issues concerning the management and politics of groups and individuals in the private sector subsidized by the government.