門裡門外誰照顧、平價普及路迢迢？台灣嬰兒照顧政策之體制內涵分析

The Analysis of Infant Care Policies and Debates in Taiwan

福利國家在發展的黃金時期，主要透過所得移轉與再分配的策略，達到去商品化與去階層化的目標。但在過去兩個世紀裡，各國經歷重要的社會與人口變遷，無疑帶來新的挑戰，其中低生育率不僅深化高扶養比的社會風險，也對勞動市場產生質變。父母親的「養家者」角色及「照顧者」角色，成為重要分析與介入面向。據此，在討論「兒童照顧責任去家庭化」時，必須清楚區分「兒童照顧責任」並非單一面向，金錢（兒童津貼制度）、時間（親職假）、及服務（托育體系），構成三大軸心內涵。但各國對不同政策之偏好與組合，呈現了「去」家庭化與「再」家庭化兩種截然不同的影響方向。因此各國採取了不同比重的政策組合，於焉其適用對象、所得替代水準、給付期限、財務可負擔性、服務品質與可近性，均有相當的差異存在。台灣嬰兒照顧政策歷經幾番轉折，在2001 年前幾乎被視為家庭責任，殘補是主要精神，因此補助對象均為中低收入戶，是典型「隱含的家庭主義」；直到2001年保母系統成立、2002 年育嬰假立法通過，政府才開始分擔一般家庭的照顧責任，且去／再家庭化的路徑在此階段同時萌芽，但因缺乏財務補貼，因此受益人口有限；直到2008 年至2011 年，保母托育費用補助及育嬰留職津貼上路，正式邁向「選擇性家庭主義」，兩者均強調工作福利的特色，家長可在勞動參與及家庭照顧間較自由的移動。但這特色在2012年因未就業家長育兒津貼、及去管制化的保母補助新制，轉向為「明顯的家庭主義」。整體而言台灣0～未滿兩歲的照顧制度在2012 年塵埃落定，在受益對象上看似從殘補擴張到每種照顧者都有國家政策支持，在體制建構上踏出重要的一步，且給付金額也在各方案中力求等值均一，看似重視公平與支持家庭選擇。但本文指出，因制度設計及文化價值的限制，使得普及平價的公共性目標看來路迢迢：在制度層次，雖去／再家庭化的策略並存，但過於倚賴提倡消費者自主的津貼，給付水準又低，無法保障實際照顧者的經濟自主，缺乏去商品化的效果；家外照顧的收費仍奉行自由市場邏輯，未實施定價機制，削弱去家庭化的誘因強度。再者，文化層次上，受限於競爭論述、對政府提供的服務不夠信任、未處理密集母職的迷思、與家戶內性別分工不均等文化與價值議題，也阻礙了制度分擔家庭照顧責任的程度。

East Asian countries present as exemplary cases of male breadwinner welfare model in the sense that childcare is always considered as family responsibility. However, an increase in female labor force participation as well as dramatic declining fertility rate simultaneous occurred during the past decades, thus posed challenges in most East Asian countries in general, and specifically for Taiwan, as the fertility rate is one of the lowest in the world recently. As a result, childcare policies have been undergone transformation and reconfiguration. Accordingly, whether these newly policy developments represent the ideal and institutional break with the male breadwinner model becomes the heated debate. This paper aims to identify what are the major features of childcare expansion? What are the policy discourses and debates regarding the ideal role of state in terms of governing, funding, and provision? And what kinds of strategies government actually or intends to implement in order to creating a conducive environment for childbearing? The preliminary results shows that, though with more financial investment and regulation from government, the structure of care provision, and caring ideology still remains unchanged. However, the core feature of infant care is strong re-familiailsm and limited liberal de-familialism. In terms of the changing role of government, though increasing intervention and investment in childcare, major strategy is subsidyoriented, in the discourse of market mechanism and parental choice.