邁向福利治理：國民年金監理機制運作模式之分析

監理制度是年金治理中不可忽視的一環，不同政體、社會、保險及年金制度的監理模式各有差異，且經由委員會議所推動，難稱僅單純是政府以行政管理的角度進行督導及管理。國民年金監理制度負責監督國民年金保險業務及審議爭議事項，亦提供政策制度與實務執行的諮詢與建議，皆涉及保險的品質與成效的展現。本研究希望能探析國民年金制度中的監理圖像，並以福利治理的概念探討能否達到年金治理的多樣性與風險控管的靈活性；並探究監理制度設計與發展脈絡，以及其行動者之間的互動網絡及治理展現，以理解當前年金監理運作機制的制度意涵。本研究以深度訪談為主，以次級資料分析法為輔，將訪談內容、資料分析及研究者的觀察相互驗證，藉由梳理相關組織定位、法制基礎及實際監理作為，彙整及統計委員會議及各場域之辦理情形，並藉由訪談監理委員及相關官僚，描繪出監理運作中的福利治理展現。研究發現，首先，國民年金監理核心行動者是監理委員，而監理運作中的力度會隨著委員的類型、受監督的對象及所觸及的議題而有所差異，加上組織層級與行政委託關係的設計，在功能上不僅展現的多元性，從監理力度的分析上也可以看出是有互補性的意味。其次，監理的核心場域在於委員會議，但仍發展不同功能的場域及非正式連結強化整體網絡，各場域的行動者組成與角色不同，亦形成互補並支援委員會議的運作，建構治理的生態網絡；最後，國民年金監理的動態發展過程是逐步展現社會自主特質的趨勢，代表監理效能已形成外溢效果，從既有偏於國家中心的監理架構，由行動者們積極邁進符合福利治理概念的監理模式。藉由探析國民年金監理機制的運作，發現治理理論中不同層次的決策型態，可能分別呈現不同的治理展現，儘管可以將治理概念的發展大致視作社會力量參與公共決策的邁進，但在觀察福利治理的實踐上，應思考國家如何面對制度快速解組的危機及瞬息萬變的環境，與社會如何因應國家能力的退縮，增進公共決策的權能及整合多元價值，以強化建制或改革的正當性。

關鍵字

福利治理；網絡治理；委員會議；監理；國民年金

並列摘要

Supervision is an important part of the pension governance. The supervision modes of polity, society, insurance and pension systems, promoted by the committee, are different, so the administrative management is not the only dimension for monitoring and management. The pension supervision is responsible for monitoring the insurance operations, reviewing disputes as legally prescribed, and offering advice with regard to the related policies and practices, as well as the quality of the insurance, and the performance of the efficacy. This study explores the supervision of the National Pension Insurance through the concept of welfare governance, in an attempt to comprehend the diversity of pension governance and the feasibility of risk management, and to understand the policy implications of the current pension supervision by exploring the system design and development route, and actors’ interactive networks. Through in-depth interviews, secondary data analysis, cross-examines interview content, and this author's own field observations, this research sorts out organizational positions, legal bases, supervisory actions, statistics and the outputs of the committee meetings. I also interviewed the committee members and the officials involved, trying to depict the welfare governance of the pension supervision. Major findings include, first, the core actor of the pension supervision is the committee members, whose supervision powers vary not only in their organizational affiliations and the natures of the issues, but also relate to the organizational levels and administrative entrustment relationship. It demonstrates the diversity of functions, and shows the complementarity as well. Second, the core of supervision lies in the committee, but it still develops different functional fields and informal links to strengthen the overall network governance. As actors and roles in each field are rather different, they complement each other in support of the committee. In the end, dynamic development of the pension supervision shows a trend to social autonomy, meaning that the supervisory effectiveness has spilled over from the supervision structures to organizations, and the actors are actively forging the concept of the welfare governance. By analyzing the operation of the National Pension Supervision, we found that different levels of governance theory could present different governance manifestations. Although pension governance can be regarded as the advancement of social forces, we should think about how Taiwan faces the crisis arising from rapid disintegration and changing circumstances when observing the practice of welfare governance. Moreover, we should also seek to promote the abilities of society members to join public policies so as to incorporate multiple values and to strengthen the legitimacy of future reforms.