分析東亞社會福利發展的不同意見。
政治經濟學觀點
一般而言，資本主義意指一個經濟體從自然資源 到財貨與勞務生產方式均為私有(Macionis, 2006)。該經 濟體具有下列三大核心特色：財產私有、強調個人利 益追求、強調勞動商品化(Macionis, 2006; Room, 1979;
Giddens, 1985)。資本主義並非一個靜止的系統，而是
持續不斷變化(Lee & Ching, 2011)。歷史見證了資本主 義可以有不同的型態，例如：重商主義、自由市場資 本主義、國家資本主義等(註2.)。資本主義國家是資本 主義經濟體的一部分，必須維護資本主義的核心要素(Chau, 1995; Walker & Wong, 2004)。一方面，資本主義
國家的重要工作包括：保護私有財產、鼓勵人民參與 市場機制追求個人利益、調節就業市場上勞動商品的 販售等(Gough, 1979; Offe, 1984)。另一方面，資本主義 國家也需尋求高度政治合法性(Mishra, 1984)。因此，國 家的執行部門－資本主義政府，必須採行政策以達到 下列三個統治目標：鞏固資本主義價值(如：以獲利為 目的、個人主義)、創造累積資本機會、獲得政治合法providing the opportunities for capital accumulation and gaining political legitimacy. Recently it is increasingly recognized that welfare capitalism becomes an important form of capitalism especially in Western Europe and members of the Anglo-Saxon world (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Holliday & Wilding, 2003).
Welfare capitalism in general refers to an economic and politi- cal system that combines a mostly market-based economy with extensive social welfare programmes (Macionis, 2006). In the welfare capitalism, the government relies heavily on the pro- vision of social welfare for meeting the ruling goals. However, it is important to note that there is a lack of universal form of welfare capitalism. Instead analysts have been developing differ- ent frameworks for classifying the forms of welfare capitalism (Mishra, 1984; Titmuss, 1974; Room, 1979). A widely discussed classiication research is the ‘three worlds of welfare capitalism’
thesis presented by Esping-Andersen (1990) - the liberal, the conservative and the social democratic. The social democratic world emphasizes the principle of universalism, providing ben- eits and services based on citizenship; the conservative world stresses the principle of subsidiarity and the dominance of social insurance schemes; and the liberal world is based on the ideas of market dominance and private provision (Bambra, 2007; Ger- ragina & Seeleib-Kaiser, 2011). In developing the thesis of ‘the three worlds of welfare capitalism’, Esping-Andersen (1990) focuses on studying 18 OECD countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States). Japan is the only country located in East Asia among these 18 coun- tries.
Since 1990, there have been discussions about whether East Asian capitalist countries should form the fourth world of welfare capitalism (Ku & Jones, 2007; Jones, 1993; Goodman
& Peng, 1996). However, there is an absence of a unanimous view on this issue. Instead, different analysts study whether the East Asian capitalist countries should be seen as a part of the
‘three worlds of welfare capitalism’ or should be regarded as a separate world of welfare capitalism from different perspectives.
A widely discussed perspective on these issues is the cultural perspective on welfare. This perspective is well represented by Jones’ research. In studying the question of whether East Asian countries might it into Esping-Andersen’s comparative frame- work for the analysis of welfare regimes, Jones (1993) stresses that they do not it. She argues that East Asian countries having a Confucian heritage should be classiied as the fourth world of capitalism (Jones, 1993). This world of capitalism has several distinguishable features:
Conservative corporatism without (Western-style) worker participation; subsidiarity without the Church; solidarity
性。近年來，越來越多學者認為福利資本主義是資本主 義的一個重要形式，在西歐與英語系國家尤然(Esping-
Andersen, 1990; Holliday & Wilding, 2003)。一般而言，福
利資本主義意指一個政治經濟體系結合了大致以市場為 本的經濟體與廣泛的社會福利計劃(Macionis, 2006)。於 福利資本主義經濟體，政府高度仰賴社會福利的提供達 成統治目標。值得注意的是，福利資本主義並沒有世界 通行的單一形式；學者仍在建立不同的架構，以對福 利資本主義進行分類(Mishra, 1984; Titmuss, 1974; Room,1979)。其中，一份曾引起廣泛討論的研究是Esping- Andersen(1990)的論文《福利資本主義的三個世界》，
即自由主義、保守主義、社會民主主義的福利體制分 類。其中，社會民主主義強調普及(universalism)原則，
凡具公民權(citizenship)者即享有照護優待和服務；保守 主義強調輔助(subsidiary)原則與社會保險制度為先；自 由主義則以市場為本，由私部門提供照護(Bambra, 2007;
Gerragina & Seeleib-Kaiser, 2011)。Esping-Andersen(1990)
建構其《福利資本主義的三個世界》時，以18個經合組 織會員國（即澳洲、奧地利、比利時、加拿大、丹麥、芬蘭、法國、德國、愛爾蘭、義大利、日本、荷蘭、紐 西蘭、挪威、瑞典、瑞士、英國、美國）為依據，其中 只有日本位於東亞。
1990年起開始有學者討論東亞資本主義國家是
否屬於第四個福利資本主義體制 (Ku & Jones, 2007;Jones, 1993; Goodman & Peng, 1996)，然而各界對
此議題目前尚未有共識，仍從不同觀點探討東亞資 本主義國家係應歸於原來的三種體制內，或是自成 一類。東亞資本主義國家的福利議題中，廣受討論 的是福利的文化觀點，此觀點可以J o n e s的研究為代表。
Jones(1993)強調東亞國家並不適用Esping-
Andersen的福利體制對比架構，而主張受儒家傳統
影響的東亞國家應屬於第四類資本主義福利架構。這類社會福利架構具有下列鮮明特色：
具保守統合主義特色，但無(西方國家形式的)勞 工參與；具輔助功能，但無教會媒介；沒有平等 的社會連帶關係；採取放任態度，但並非奉行自
without equality; laisseiz faire without libertarianism…
household economy welfare states – run in the style of a would-be traditional, Confucian, extended family (Jones, 1993; p.124).
The importance of the cultural factor in shaping the develop- ment of social welfare in East Asia has also been discussed by other analysts (Karim, et al, 2010; Bambra, 2007; Chau& Yu, 2013; Yu, 2012). For example, Bambra (2007) argues that East Asian countries such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea can be identiied as Confucian welfare regimes. Goodman and Peng (1996) argue that East Asian welfare states are shaped by Confu- cian principles.
However, not all studies of East Asian welfare regimes attach importance to the cultural perspective. Some analysts study the development of social welfare in East Asia from the polit- ical economy perspective (Walker & Wong, 2005; Chau &Yu, 2009). They stress that the development of social welfare in East Asian countries is mainly the results of the governments’
responses to the political and economic factors (Walker & Wong, 2005; Kim, 2006; 2008). They argue that the similarities in how welfare is organized between East Asian countries and Western countries should not be overlooked. On the one hand, similar to their counter-parts in western capitalist societies, capitalist governments in East Asia are worried about the negative impacts of social welfare on capitalism (Walker & Wong, 2005). For example, the provision of social welfare may reduce people’s willingness to sell their labour in the job market, strengthen some values such as social solidarity and social equality at the expense of the values of making proits and encourage people to demand for meeting their needs through collective means such as national industries and national enterprises (Walker, 1984; Chau & Yu, 2009; Mishra, 1984). Despite these worries, it is common for them to try to strengthen capital accumulation and secure politi- cal legitimacy through the provision of social welfare (Walker &
Wong, 2005; Kim, 2006). For example, studies show that they are keen to secure a steady supply of quality labour by develop- ing comprehensive health care and public education programmes (Yu, 2012; Wilding, 1997; Walker & Wong, 2004). For this rea- son, analysts (such as Walker & Wong, 2004; Chau &Yu, 2009) argue that it is not reasonable to overlook the similarities in how social welfare is organized between Western capitalist societies and East Asian societies. To substantiate their claims, Walker and Wong (2004) use Hong Kong as an example. They argue that Hong Kong is not given a welfare state status in comparative studies, not because of its government’s limited commitment to social welfare but due to its lack of a parliamentary democratic institution (Walker & Wong, 1996). Yet, as a matter of fact, Hong Kong government provides more social welfare than allowed
由主義……以家庭經濟為本的福利國家，透過 類似傳統儒家文化延伸的家庭結構施行社會福利
(Jones, 1993, 124頁)。
其他學者(Karim, et al., 2010; Bambra, 2007;
Chau & Yu, 2013; Yu, 2012)也曾探討文化因素在
形 塑 東 亞 社 會 福 利 制 度 發 展 上 的 重 要 地 位 ， 如 ：Bambra(2007)主張日本、新加坡、南韓等東亞國家
可視為儒家文化福利國家；Goodman與Peng(1996)則 認為東亞福利國家由儒家思想要義形塑而來。然而，並非所有東亞福利體制的研究都側重文化 觀點。部分學者從政治經濟學的角度切入(Walker &
Wong, 2005; Chau & Yu, 2009)，強調東亞國家的社會
福利發展導因於政府對政治與經濟要素作出的因應(Walker & Wong, 2005; Kim, 2006; 2008)，主張不應忽
視東亞國家與西方國家間社會福利規劃的共通點。一 方面，東亞資本主義政府與西方資本主義國家同樣憂 心社會福利制度對資本主義造成負面衝擊(Walker &Wong, 2005)，例如：提供社會福利照護可能降低人
民在就業市場出售勞力的意願，或犧牲資本主義社會 根本的「獲利」價值觀，轉而鞏固社會連帶、社會平 等等價值觀，甚至鼓勵人民透過集體手段(如國營產 業、國營企業等)滿足個人需求(Walker, 1984; Chau &Yu, 2009; Mishra, 1984)。儘管有這些憂慮，東亞資本
主義政府仍常藉由提供社會福利照護強化資本累積、鞏固政治合法性(Walker & Wong, 2005; Kim, 2006)。
例如：研究顯示，資本主義政府往往藉由提供發展綜 合性醫療保健與公眾教育，確保高品質勞動力的供給
(Yu, 2012; Wilding, 1997; Walker & Wong, 2004)。因此
有學者(如Walker & Wong, 2004; Chau & Yu, 2009)認 為，忽視西方資本主義社會與東亞社會間社會福利規 劃上共通點是不合理的。Walker與Wong(2004)以香港 為例，指出對比研究中未將香港列為福利國家，不是 因為政府不致力於社會福利，而是因為缺乏議會民主 體制(Walker & Wong, 1996)。實際上，香港政府提供 的社會福利照顧比殘補體制提供的更多(Chau & Yu,2009)。根據Walker與Wong的論點，我們不應低估政
by the residual welfare model (Chau & Yu, 2009). Based on the Walker and Wong’s argument, we should not underestimate the importance of the political and economic factors in shaping the development of social welfare in Hong Kong.