Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/106449


Title: 社會企業於臺灣遊民服務的角色 -以大誌與街遊的個案研究為例
The role of social enterprises in homeless services in Taiwan : case studies of the big Issue Taiwan and hidden Taipei
Authors: 林德棻
Contributors: 蔡培元
林德棻
Keywords: 工作整合型社會企業
遊民服務
大誌
街遊
社會融合
Work Integrated Social Enterprise
Homeless Service
The Big Issue Taiwan
Hidden Taipei
Social inclusion
Date: 2017
Issue Date: 2017-02-08 16:45:08 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 本研究透過比較大誌雜誌與街遊導覽活動社會企業方案對遊民服務產生的影響,以及兩者於服務系統中的角色,了解社會企業於遊民服務中的功能。雖然兩者均以促進遊民就業為社會目的,但是在牽涉教育訓練、生活安排與遊民長期規劃時,兩社會企業方案發展出不同的商業模式。相映著社會企業於臺灣社會福利供給體系日漸重要的角色,本研究關注社會企業的「社會性」如何與商業模式結合,社會與商業的互動如何影響遊民的生活安排,藉此了解社會企業發揮的功能以及對於遊民社會融合的影響。
本研究分析架構是藉由考察社會企業於工作模式與經營目標中的差異,了解其對遊民權益的影響。進一步觀察社會企業所提供的工作性質與企業中組成人員怎麼影響遊民於區域面向、經濟所得、教育訓練、社會參與、勞動市場面向的社會融合效果。此外,特別關注遊民在工作之餘,如何調適生活安排與工作之間的生存策略。
研究結果發現兩種社會企業方案的商業模式與社會目的反應於工作模式和經營目標之間的互動模式與平衡策略,如此的組織設計以及其衍生的互動與平衡策略也使其在遊民福利服務中發揮不同的功能。組織設計而言,大誌偏向以商業模式為主,組成人員為出版專業人員與志工,提供無工作門檻且時間彈性安排的工作機會,使參與者透過販售大誌累積資產與工作經驗。街遊則偏向以社會目的為主,組成人員為社工專業人員與志工,導覽工作需要長期的培訓,因此,街遊志工與社工人員參與個案生活安排的機會較多,因此個案能夠更直接地接觸所需的服務。
兩家社會企業都提供了具促進社會融合功能的支持性就業環境,一方面大誌提供了勞動市場多元的工作機會,另一方面街遊則是提供完整的教育訓練與社會服務,補充了穩定服務中的就業機會與過渡服務中的職業訓練。從兩個社會企業案例可發現,社會企業透過提供穩定工作機會,能夠舒緩社會排除的程度,也嫁接遊民與社會福利體系的連結。本研究認為由於社會企業所目前提供的收入水準仍無法使遊民穩定地維持居住需求,因此若可以搭配安置服務或居住相關的補助,較容易使社會企業方案發揮脫貧功能。次之,建議可以將社會企業納入遊民就業服務的資源之一,由於兩家社會企業方案都提供具有教育與訓練功能的工作機會,能夠補足目前遊民就業服務中較少職業訓練的部分。
By analyzing The Big Issue Taiwan and Hidden Taipei, in terms of their business models and social aims, this research investigates the role of social enterprise programme in the welfare service for the homeless and the impact of the programme on the latter. Both of the social enterprise programmes aims at offering supportive working environment and job opportunities. However, they have developed different resource balancing and transferring strategies on the issues of homeless’ income, education, training and housing needs. Responding to the gradually important role of social enterprise, this thesis aims at researching how a social enterprise copes with the balance between social aims and business model, and finally, how the balance effects the social inclusion of homeless.
The research investigates the differences between two business models to understand how it influences homeless’ rights. Furthermore, by investigating the business model, in terms of the numbers of employee and volunteer and the types of job opportunities being provided, we can understand the effect of social inclusion in various dimensions: for instance, housing, income, education and training, social participation and labour market. Special attention is paid to know how homeless navigate the balance between work and daily life.
The result shows the different interaction between social enterprise and homeless, and the balance strategies reflected from the different business models and social aims. Additionally, different business models and the balance strategies have different impacts on the homeless welfare services. As a business-inclined social enterprise, The Big Issue Taiwan offers job opportunities with flexible requirements and working hours. The Big Issue vendors can save money from selling the magazine and gain working experience for the next job. On the other hand, Hidden Taipei, which plays as a pro-social aim business model, offers job with high-quality requirements, which requires long-term training. Therefore, the social workers and volunteers could spend more time with the clients.
Both of the social enterprises offer and create a supportive employment environment promoting social inclusion of the homeless and various opportunities in the labour market. While The Big Issue Taiwan has created job opportunities, Hidden Taipei has offered complete employment training program and social service. By creating a stable and supportive working environment, social enterprise has not only changed the vulnerable status and promoted the social inclusion of homeless, but also the connection between homeless and social welfare system.
However, The Big Issue vendors and Hidden Taipei guides can still hardly afford the rent for their residence on a stable basis. Therefore, this research suggests that the income may have better effect if it has accompanied with housing-related benefit. Secondly, regarding the lack of the education and training program in homeless service, it is suggested that social enterprise could be integrated into the homeless service for its complete training program.
Reference: 一、 專書
官有垣、王仕圖,2012,〈工作整合型社會企業的特質與功能-五個個案的分析〉收錄於官有桓、陳錦棠、陸宛蘋、王仕圖等編,《社會企業:臺灣與香港的比較》。台北:巨流。頁285-301。
林萬億、陳東升,1995,遊民問題之調查分析。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告(編號:84001449)。台北市:行政院研考會。
陳錦棠、官有垣、王仕圖,2012a,〈香港與臺灣社會企業的組織類型、服務對象與營銷策略〉。收錄於官有桓、陳錦棠、陸宛蘋、王仕圖等編,《社會企業:臺灣與香港的比較》。台北:巨流。頁146-163。
——2012b,〈香港與臺灣社會企業的人力資源、資金來源以及決策與治理〉。收錄於官有桓、陳錦棠、陸宛蘋、王仕圖等編,《社會企業:臺灣與香港的比較》。台北:巨流。頁165-180。
張菁芬,2010,〈社會排除的多面向分析〉收錄於《臺灣地區社會排除之研究:指標建構與現象分析》。臺北:松慧。頁65-90。
鄭麗珍,2013,《建構我國遊民分級輔導整合性服務評估研究》。衛生福利部102年委託科技研究計畫。台北:衛福部。
鄭麗珍,2014,《遊民生活狀況調查研究》,內政部委託調查研究,台北:內政部。
Alter, K. , 2007., Social Enterprise Typology. Virtue Ventures LLC, 1–31. Retrieved from http://rinovations.edublogs.org/files/2008/07/setypology.pdf
Ascoli, U., & Ranci, C. , 2002, The Context of New Social Policies in Europe. In U. Ascoli & C. Ranci (Eds.), Dilemmas of the welfare mix: The new structure of welfare in an era of privatization. pp. 1–24. New York: Springer Science& Business Media.
Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (Eds.). , 2001, The Emergence of Social Enterprise (1st ed., p. 386). London and New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203278741
Caplan, M. A., 2010, Social Investment and Mental Health: The Role of Social Enteprise in Midgely, J.& Conley, A.(Eds.), 2010, Social Work and Social Development. Pp. 71-86. Oxford. London.
Defourny, J., Hulgard, L., & Pestoff, V. (Eds.). , 2014, Social Enterprise And The Third Sector: Changing European Landscapes in a Comparative Perspective. London and New York: Routledge.
Evers, A., 1993, The Welfare Mix Approach. Understanding the Pluralism of Welfare Systems in Balancing pluralism : new welfare mixes in care for the elderly. Edited by Evers, A.& Svetlik, I. Aldershot. Pp.3-31. Hants: Ashgate.
Ferguson, K., 2010, Social Development, Social Enterprise, and Homeless Youth in Midgely, J.& Conley, A.(Eds.), 2010, Social Work and Social Development. Pp. 145-166. Oxford: London.
Flora, P. and Heidenheimer, A. J. (eds.), 1981, The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, Norman, 1987, The Welfare State in Transition: the theory and practice of welfare pluralism. London: Harvester.
OECD, 1999, Social Enterprise. Paris.
Pestoff, Victor, A., 1998, Beyond the Market and State social enterprise and civil democracy in a welfare society. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate. pp.171-191.
Ridley-Duff, R.& Bull, M., 2011. Understanding Social Enterprise. Pp.82-111. London: Sage.
Volkmann, Christine K., 2012, Background, Characteristics and Context of Social Entrepreneurship. in Volkmann, Christine K., Tokarski, Kim O., Ernst, K.(Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business: An Introduction and Discussion with Case Studies. Chap 1. Springer. pp. 3-30.
二、 期刊論文
王仕圖、官有垣、林家緯、張翠予,2010,〈工作整合型社會企業的角色與功能-臺灣與香港的比較分析〉。《人文社會科學研究》4(2): 106-130。
沈慶盈、陳良輔,2013,社會企業與街友-從大誌雜誌的經營談起。社區發展季刊,143期,222-230。
古允文,2001,〈平等與凝聚:臺灣社會福利發展的思考〉。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,5:1,145-169。
李易駿(2001)。〈全球化對社會政策的挑戰:兼論臺灣個案初探〉。《臺灣社會福利學刊》(電子期刊)。2,119-154。
呂朝賢,2008,〈社會企業與創業精神:意義與評論〉。《政治大學社會學報》。39,81-117。
施淑惠,2011,〈當前政府推動社會企業的規劃與做法〉,《社區發展季刊》,143,7-18。
黃源協,2001,〈臺灣社區照顧的實施與衝擊-福利多元主義的觀點〉。《臺大社會工作學刊》 5: 53-101.
潘淑滿,2009,〈遊民政策與意識形態〉。《臺灣社會工作學刊》。7,49-83。
簡守邦,2008,〈Workfare:贊成與反對〉。《政治與社會哲學評論》。25,143-203。
鄭勝分,2007,〈社會企業的概念分析〉。《政策研究學報》,7:65-108。
鄭勝分、劉育欣,2013,〈社會企業政策支持系統之初探〉。《社區發展季刊》,143,28-38。
Castel, Robert, 2000, The Roads to Disaffiliation: Insecure Work and Vulnerable Relationships, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(3):519-535.
Defourny, J., and Nyssens. M., 2008, Social enterprise in Europe: recent trends and developments. Social enterprise journal. 4(3), 202-228.
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M., 2010, Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), pp.32–53. doi:10.1080/19420670903442053
Dey, P.& Steyaert, C., 2010, The politics of narrating social entrepreneurship, Journal of Enterprising Communities, 1(4), pp.85-108.
Evers, A., 2005, Mixed Welfare Systems and Hybrid Organizations: Changes in the Governance and Provision of Social Services. International Journal of Public Administration, pp.737–748. doi:10.1081/PAD-200067318
Hayllar, M. R., & Wettenhall, R., 2013, As Public Goes Private, Social Emerges: The Rise of Social Enterprise. Public Organization Review, 13(2), pp.207–217. doi:10.1007/s11115-013-0234-y
Kerlin, J., 2006, Social Enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and Learning from the Differences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), pp.246–262. doi:10.1007/s11266-006-9016-2
Pestoff, V., 2014, Hybridity, Coproduction, and Third Sector Social Services in Europe. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(11), pp.1412–1424. doi:10.1177/0002764214534670
Richard Hayllar, M., & Wettenhall, R., 2011, Social Enterprise: What is it, and How can it be Strengthened? Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 33(1), pp.17–36. doi:10.1080/23276665.2011.10779376
Teasdale, S., 2010, Models of social enterprise in the homelessness field. Social Enterprise Journal, 6(1). Pp.23–34.
Teasdale, S., 2012, Negotiating Tensions: How Do Social Enterprises in the Homelessness Field Balance Social and Commercial Considerations? Housing Studies, 27(4), pp. 514–532. doi:10.1080/02673037.2012.677015
三、 會議論文
官有垣,2010,服務型第三部門的研究—臺灣福利服務型NPO的特質,發表於「臺灣第三部門學會」成立大會暨座談會。
四、 碩博士論文
方孝鼎,2001,〈臺灣底層階級研究:以台中市遊民、拾荒者、原住民勞工、外籍勞工為例〉,東海大學社會學研究所博士論文。
王偉忠,1997,〈臺灣地區遊民服務網絡的初步分析──以國內四個機構為例〉,國立中正大學社會福利學研究所碩士論文。
江睿之,2011,〈「街友每天都在奮鬥,因為流浪時間都被安排好的」-臺北中老年男遊民的生產與再生產經驗探討〉,國立陽明大學衛生福利研究所碩士論文。
李素素,2010,〈臺灣社會企業發展之政治經濟分析〉,國立暨南大學公共行政與政策學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。
郭仲珈,2012,〈遊民使用社會福利之經驗與轉變:以大臺北地區為例〉,國立臺灣大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。
郭盈靖,2009,〈看不見的勞動者---臺灣遊民勞動權益剝奪的意識形態與建制分析〉,世新大學社會發展研究所碩士論文。
高召恩,2003,〈性別、勞動與公民權:以國家建構的遊民公民狀態為例〉,東海大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
陳自昌,1995,〈遊民的社區生活與遊民服務〉,國立臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
劉淑雲,2010,〈從警政到社政:臺北市遊民收容政策之變遷〉,世新大學社會發展研究所碩士論文。
五、 報刊
自由時報,〈中部〉擔當城市導覽員 社局招募街友。2016年1月26日。
六、 網頁資料
英國大誌基金會網站(最後查考日期:2015/4/3)
http://bigissueinvest.com
英國大誌基金會「歷史與達成」(history and achievement)網頁(最後查考日期:2015/7/10)https://www.bigissue.org.uk/about-us/history-and-achievements
英國北區大誌宣傳摺頁(最後查考日期:2016/1/25)
http://www.bigissuenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010BIITNFAQ_leaflet-revised.pdf
台北市政府社會局遊民服務資訊頁面(最後查考日期:2015/4/3)
http://www.dosw.gov.taipei/np.asp?ctNode=71202&mp=107001
遊民與居住排除型態官方網站(最後查考日期:2015/4/3)
http://www.feantsa.org/spip.php?article120
英國Unseen Tours官方網頁(最後查考日期:2015/5/12)
http://sockmobevents.org.uk/about-us-2/
臺灣街遊官方網頁Hidden Taipei(最後查考日期:2015/5/12)
http://www.hiddentaipei.org/
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
國家發展研究所
102261006
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1022610061
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[國家發展研究所] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
006101.pdf8110KbAdobe PDF2View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing