到國家女性主義之路─臺灣性別平等機制的新制度論與組織理論分析

本研究以新制度論和組織理論的觀點為取徑，分析行政院性別平等機制自1997年至2020年的發展歷程，解釋性別平等機制如何由規模較小且鬆散的婦女權益促進委員會臨時編制，至2012年變革為行政院性別平等會和性別平等處後運作迄今，演變為具有諮詢、倡議和督導重大性別平等政策議題且有影響力的組織。延伸自以往國際間既有國家女性主義比較研究的相關概念，說明國家如何可能被重構為促進和實踐性別平等政策的重要體制與場域，而逐漸具有國家女性主義（state feminism）的特徵，進一步開展和深化對於婦女政策機構如何成形與演變的研究和理解。經由訪談歷屆行政院婦權會和性平會民間委員、行政部門文官、民間團體工作者和性別專家等不同部門的行動者，分析其實作與敘事，以及相互參照次級資料後，本文發現，初創時期婦權會由於沒有具體目標與功能，亦無實體的組織和正式成員，因此經常處於正當性爭議狀態，但亦在此爭議中逐漸產生其正當性應建立於行政體系和民間社會共同認可的基礎。然而在2000年首次政黨輪替而政治機會結構改變時，部分民間婦女團體代表進入婦權會，運用其過去與執政者在台北市的網絡與經驗，在體制內尋求擴大參與機制的面向，自2002年起陸續提升婦權會召集人層級、建立三層級會議體制並增加民間團體代表。並在與各個行政部門的會議互動與實作中，以制度企業家的精神將原本定位不明的民間委員職務，逐步制度化為具體的專業定位與認同。於此同時，體制外民間婦女團體共同提出要求設置獨立機關的性別平等機制以實踐性別主流化這項國際規範，雖然無法在當時的政治結構中完成組織改造，不過性別主流化卻得到行政體系的承諾，並訂定自2006年起的實施計畫。此後婦權會民間委員以倡議、定義、授權、理論和教育等制度工作，開創性別主流化在行政體系內的制度化進程。這些實作不只鞏固婦權會的正當性地位，使其與政府體制更為嵌合，也使民間委員因此再專業化並在集體行動中強化身分認同。而經由與行政文官的協商共作，性別主流化也由規範性概念具體化為操作性工具。其制度化更影響性別平等機制的組織變革，使2009年後的行政組織改造強化原有體制的制度選擇，而非早先期待的獨立機關委員會，並在2012年將婦女權益促進委員會更名為性別平等會，新增行政院性別平等處為專責機關和幕僚單位。在組織變革和制度鞏固後，組織特質的因素與性別業務的實作交互作用，使得性別平等機制的制度運作在不同場域和面向有多樣的發展情況。就組織而言，性別平等會由於政治首長的態度，政黨光譜間接作用，加上不同屆次的民間委員在性別價值的主張、受聘身份認知、區域經驗和對職位認同等分殊性擴大，使性平會本身的體制效果充滿機遇性特質。相對的，性別平等處的常設組織特徵，在行政體系中則擔任更多日常機制運作工作重要，也使性別平等機制趨於雙元模式。就制度化面向而言，性別業務和行政組織的制度邏輯經由行動者實作而形成了性別─行政秩序，在此狀況下，雙元的性平機制在經由性別平等處強化性別業務的管控和賦能等組織制度工作，也進一步經由行政規則的獎勵向地方政府擴散。卻也讓性別主流化的操作更傾向工具化和技術官僚模式，而使得性別平等會委員反思並重新定位性別主流化與性別平等政策議題。這些歷程也顯示，當處於制度複雜性的環境中，組織將會持續回應來自不同面向的壓力而生成各種混合策略與制度秩序，而組織與政策之間也始終存在著彼此相嵌和互相構作的關係。

關鍵字

國家女性主義；性別主流化；歷史制度論；組織制度論；制度工作

並列摘要

Based on the perspectives of new institutionalism and organization theory, this study analyzes the development process of the gender equality mechanism of the Executive Yuan from 1997 to 2020. It explains how this mechanism transformed from the Committee of Women's Rights Promotion (CWRP), a small, loose and provisional unit, into the Gender Equality Council (GEC) and the Department of Gender Equality (DGE), which can influence equality policies through consulting, advocating and supervising the administrative. Extending related concepts from previous international comparative studies of state feminism, it explains how the state may be reconstructed as a critical system and field for promoting and practicing gender equality policies and gradually have the characteristics of state feminism and develops further research to understand how women's policy agency have formed and evolved. After interviewing actors from different sectors, including the civil members of CWRP and GEC, civil servants in the executive branch, non-government organization workers, and gender experts, analyzing their narratives, as well as cross-referencing secondary data, this research finds that. In the early days, CWRP had neither specific goals and functions nor physical organization and formal members; it was often in a state of debated legitimacy. However, it also gradually emerged from this controversy that its legitimacy should be based on the mutual recognition of the administrative system and civil society. Even so, when the political opportunity structure changed because of the first party rotation in 2000, representatives of some civil women's groups joined the CWRP, using their network and experience with those in power in Taipei City to seek to expand the participation mechanism within the system. Since 2002, the level of convener of the CWRP has gradually increased, a three-level conference system has been established, and representatives of civil society have also been increased. Through the interaction and implementation of meetings with various administrative departments, the CWRP's civil members with institutional entrepreneurship gradually institutionalized specific professional positioning and identification of this committee. Meanwhile, non-governmental women's groups jointly requested the establishment of an independent gender equality mechanism to implement the international norm of gender mainstreaming. Although it was impossible to realize that advocate under the political structure at that time, gender mainstreaming was supported by the administrative system and then set the implementation plan in 2005. This plan assigned the advisory status to civil members of CWRP, and they adopted various forms of institutional work such as advocacy, defining, vesting, theorizing, and educating to create the institutionalization of gender mainstreaming. These practices not only consolidate the legitimacy of CWRP and integrate it with the government more closely, but also re-professionalize these civil members and strengthen their identity in collective action. Gender mainstreaming has also been transformed from a normative concept into an operational tool through consultation and collaboration with administrative and civil servants. Most important, the institutionalization affected the organizational reform of the gender equality mechanism, making the reformation of CWRP after 2009 to choose the proposal that maintained the original system and strengthened it by DGE, rather than the earlier expected independent committee. Thus, in 2012, CWRP was renamed GEC, and DGE was added as a special agency and staff unit. After the reformation, the characteristics of two components of the gender equality mechanism and the practices of gender tasks made the institutional operation diversely in different fields and dimensions. As far as organizations are concerned, the effects of GEC are contingently influenced by the attitude of political will, the indirect effect of the party spectrum, the differences in gender values, members' position recognition, regional experience, and identification of civil members. In contrast, the permanent characteristics of DGE play a more crucial role in maintaining the day-to-day practices in the administrative system, which also lead the gender equality mechanism to be a dual model. As far as institutionalization is concerned, the institutional logics of gender tasks and administrative organization are practiced forming a gender-administrative order. Under this situation, DGE has made efforts to diffuse the gender equality mechanism to local government by strengthening the controlling and rewarding rules and also has maintained the mechanism through some other forms of institutional work such as policing and enabling work. These efforts result in gender mainstreaming being more expert-bureaucratic mode and make GEC members reflect and reposition the policy issues of gender mainstreaming and gender equality. These processes also indicate that in an environment of institutional complexity, organizations will continue to respond to pressures from different aspects, and there is always an embedded and mutually constructive relationship between organizations and policies.