朝向積極勞動市場政策（1996-2011）：台灣政黨的差異與趨同

Toward Active Labor Market Policies (1996-2011): The Divergence and Convergence of Partisan Preferences in Taiwan

本文試圖從意識形態和選舉競爭的動態觀點，探討台灣在1996年之後的消極／積極勞動市場政策改革路徑。本文發現國民黨在第一階段執政時期，失業給付支出呈現限縮的現象，僅針對最弱勢者提供有限的支持；積極勞動市場政策（ALMP）亦僅針對關廠歇業之失業者，並消極地補貼雇主和勞工。但國民黨在第三階段執政時期，受到核心支持者（大財團）式微，以及政黨競爭等影響，必須調整其既有的策略，以獲得最多數的跨階級聯盟。因此，該階段的改革逐漸向左發展，但這些改革仍建構在最弱勢者的介入，並回應了國民黨早期的生產主義式思維。其次，民進黨在第二階段執政時期的改革，為拉攏勞工階級和中小企業以創造政治多數聯盟，必須逐漸向右靠攏；如在給付條件上加重失業者的義務，並減緩中小企業主的福利負擔，ALMP也趨近於國民黨的方針，但更為重視就業服務與技能提升。最後，兩黨的改革路徑雖有趨同的現象，但似乎僅存在工具性的聚合，尚未達到理念或意識型態的根本變革。

Unlike the western literature, which contends that a ruling party’s policies are “statically” shaped by its ideology, this article argues that policy differences between political parties are “dynamic”. Ideology and political competition compel the ruling party to modify its policy strategies and attract different classes’ votes. This article examines Taiwan’s partisan influences on social policies, with respect to passive and active labor-market policies since 1996. The findings of our study indicate that the policy preferences of the KMT and the DPP are converging, though incrementally. The KMT’s labor policy reforms were characterized by productivism in the first phase. The reforms of unemployment benefits and ALMP were limited to the most disadvantaged groups. As the KMT came back to power in 2008, however, it modified its productivist strategy and moved to the left in response to fierce electoral competition in order to attract more votes from different classes. Thus, in the third phase, the KMT expanded unemployment benefits and the expenditure of ALMP. But these changes still concentrated on targeting groups, as did the KMT’s productivist ideology. Conversely, the DPP government (2000-2008) was characterized by a social democratic ideology. In addition, the DPP endeavored to forge a majority political coalition by including their core constituencies, such as the working class and SMEs. Thus, they expanded unemployment benefits to cover more of the working class, but meanwhile reinforced the unemployed’s obligations to reduce welfare dependency. Furthermore, most of the DPP’s ALMP programs concentrated on work incentive strategies and employers subsidies, just like the KMT. The DPP, however, tried to enhance employment assistance and human capital development gradually in order to follow its social democratic ideology. Nevertheless, the scope of these strategies was very limited.