台灣性別法案推法歷程的比較分析

Abstract

本文以比較性的分析架構並透過訪談分析，將一九九○年以來看似個別化與零碎分散的性別法案推法歷程，區分為競爭性多元主義、統合多元主義、以及自由統合主義等，三種不同的利益代表以及國家與社會團體關係，並由不同模組的歸類中推論性別法案推法難易的解釋。同時，本文關切的是長期以來，不同的性別法案推動的過程，各自獨立的國家部門與社會團體在複雜的交會過程中提煉出不同的立法結果，這些立法歷程自然展現為不同的「模式」後，是否能夠以及如何可以有意識 地移植到不同的性別政策場域。本文試圖釐清各種性別推法模式之間的結構紋理與關係，使得政策模組的圖像清晰後，人為的學習與移植複製成為可能，同時強調其轉移必須建立在一系列的社會團體與國家，在各自與相互的場域中，利益與權力配置模式的重組與搭配。

Through interview and the application of comparative and dynamic lawmaking framework, this study categorizes the varied and fragmentary process of gender law-making since the 1990s into competing pluralism, corporate pluralism, and liberal corporatism; three different types of interest intermediation and state-society-relationships. This study further infers the causal explanation of the effectiveness of different law-making models. Meanwhile, during the differing and prolonged law-making process, the power configuration between the state sectors and social groups has produced different results. As the process is displayed as different causal modules, this study also concerned with whether and how to transfer certain models to different policy sectors. This study attempts to clarify the structural composition and relationships between various gender law-making modules. Through mapping out the policy models, intentional learning and transfer among them becomes possible. However, this must be based upon a series of interests, power reconfiguration and coordination between social groups and state, in their respective and interactive arenas.