兩種準公共化：衛福部與教育部的托育政策分化成因

Two Models of Quasi-Public: Driving Forces for Taiwan’s Childcare Policy and Its Divergence

2018年，行政院在賴清德院長的主導下推出準公共化托育政策，但主管0-2歲的衛福部與主管2-6歲的教育部，發展出兩種不同的準公共化。衛生福利部的準公共化採需求端，教育部的準公共化則採供給端模式。本文認為，兩部會的政策理念、制度遺緒及國家行動者的策略是分化主因。本文採歷史過程論的研究取徑，以深度訪談蒐集經驗資料為主，輔以次級資料分析。前者受訪者共計26人，包括中央行政部門的高階官員、中央及地方行政部門的基層官員、民意代表及其幕僚、學者專家、民間團體及相關智庫。後者則有衛福部和教育部會議紀錄，以及媒體報導，作為重建歷史脈絡的根據。對於理解社會政策的發展，理念、行動者、制度因素雖然作用力不同，但三者都不可缺。其中，供給端的政策設計信念、公共化的施政意圖這兩項理念因子的有無，尤其是準公共化政策設計分歧的關鍵。這也導致台灣的政策個案，在東亞國家托育政策發展看似趨同的方向中，增添關鍵差異。

In 2018, under the leadership of Premier Lai Ching-te, the Executive Yuan launched the quasi-public childcare policy. However, the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW), which oversees childcare for ages 0-2, and the Ministry of Education (MOE), which supervises childcare for ages 2-6, developed two different models of quasi-public childcare. The MOHW adopted a demand-side approach, while the MOE adopted a supply-side model. This paper argues that the differing policy ideas, institutional legacies, and strategies of state actors within the two ministries are the main reasons for this divergence. This study employs a historical process approach, primarily collecting empirical data through in-depth interviews, supplemented with secondary data analysis. The interviews involved 26 respondents, including senior officials from the central government, frontline officials from both central and local government agencies, legislators and their staff members, scholars, civil society organizations, and relevant think tanks. The secondary data consists of meeting records from the MOHW and MOE, along with media reports, which both serve as the basis for reconstructing the historical context. Though the influences of ideas, actors, and institutional factors diff er, all three are indispensable for understanding the development of social policies. Among these, the presence or absence of supply-side policy design ideas and the intent of pursuing the care-going-public are particularly critical in explaining the divergence in quasi-public policy design. This also leads to differences in Taiwan’s policy case when compared to the general convergence of childcare policy development in East Asian welfare states.