台灣的新自由主義轉向：發展型國家的變異與挑戰

The Neoliberal Turn: The Metamorphosis and Challenge of Developmental State in Taiwan

夏傳位(Chuan-Wei Hsia)

指導教授 ： 謝國雄

國立清華大學/人文社會學院/社會學研究所/博士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6843/NTHU.2015.00529

摘要

本研究以「正當性鬥爭」(legitimacy struggle)為核心線索，探討新自由主義在台灣如何從一個邊緣學說，逐漸成為主導的意識形態與經濟組織原則。其中特別注意重大歷史危機時刻，不同行動者對於危機的詮釋、動員、說服與鬥爭，以奪取政治權力，最後造成「政策典範」(policy paradigm)之轉移與革命。
在方法論上，本研究結合了馬克思主義政治經濟學、社會學制度主義(sociological institutionalism)與STS的建構論(constructionism)取向，同時針對新自由主義及發展型國家的理論系譜進行反省批判：就前者而言，主要是在概念上澄清新自由主義是一個動態的過程，如何既具有全球性、系統性的根源，又與在地歷史脈絡與文化意義緊密結合？就後者而言，則強調理念(idea)在制度建構與變遷中的關鍵角色，凸顯發展型國家變遷的任意性、相對性與政治性；最後並以台灣為案例，探究兩者相互勾連、此消彼長的歷史。
1950年代是新自由主義的史前史，雖然後者與當時的時代氛圍格格不入，但尹仲容等改革者在奠立台灣發展型國家的特殊性格時，也在非預期的情況下埋下了日後讓新自由主義成長、茁壯的種子。關鍵在於國民黨統治下，政治秩序(political order)因為血腥鎮壓與黨國體制壟斷，而存在著內在弱點；於是在產業秩序(industrial order)上，該黨用「市場」的象徵意涵修補黨國體制先天不足的公共性。在此解釋中，市場不是國家消極不作為的產物，而是一種兼具政治與經濟治理意涵的技術。
1980年代是新自由主義昂揚的轉捩點。本研究處理了國際局勢變化、象徵領域鬥爭及實際政策作為三者之間的來回互動，說明新古典經濟學家如何透過遊說、說理、宣傳與恫嚇，提供人們一套道德與認知的框架，結果是「獨占對現實的解釋」，樹立新自由主義的霸權。
2000年以後，新自由主義的深化及其後果，展現在台灣企業的「金融化」程度(financialization)愈來愈高之上。同時，本研究亦探討「金融化」透過會計準則(accounting standard)的全球齊一化(harmonization)而推展，顯示新自由主義政策典範適應全球局勢的最新變化而持續微調與演進之中。

關鍵字

新自由主義 ； 發展型國家 ； 政策典範 ； 正當性 ； 金融化

並列摘要

This study using “legitimacy struggle” as a core theoretical mechanism to explore how Neoliberalism rise from a peripheral doctrine to become the dominant ideology and economic organizing principles in Taiwan, by focusing on a few important historical crises at which different state bureaucratic sects or actors responded by trying to interpret it differently, offer different solutions, mobilize support, and struggle to win political power, eventually cause policy paradigms shift and revolution, bringing Neoliberalism to fruition.
Theoretically, this study combine Marxist Political Economy, Sociological Institutionalism, and Science, Technology and Society (STS) approach inspired by Michel Callon into a synthetic framework, to proceed to critically reflect both Neoliberal Studies and Developmental State Studies. To the former, this study stresses neoliberalization as dynamic processes, which are as much global and systemic phenomena as locally articulated and embedded ones, full of historical legacies and cultural meanings. To the latter, this study highlights the arbitrariness, relativeness, and politics of changing trajectories of developmental states, emphasizing the role “idea” plays in the institution-building and change. Using Taiwan as an exemplar, this study traces the complicated and dialectical relationships of Neoliberalism and Developmental State.
Substantially, historical narratives divide into three periods. The 1950s was the prehistory of neoliberalism. Although the policy paradigms and worldviews of the developmental state were at odds with neoliberal values, reformers such as K. Y. Yin（尹仲容）could partially incorporating neoclassical idea of market into the prevailing industrial order, just because the “at arm’s length”, “unbiased and evenhanded” nature of market relationships symbolically provided a “public” imagination to fix the defective political order, in which power and resources were monopolized by a Party-State centered conglomerate. In this explanation, “market” was established not owing to state’s retreat, but because of its being an useful governing technology adopted by the state.
The 1980s saw the rise of Neoliberalism. The roles of neoclassical economists were critical. Facing the crisis caused by the foreign-exchange reserves huge surplus, neoclassical economists could maneuver through changing international pressures,
actual policy responses, and symbolic and political struggle inside the state, to install a moral and cognitive framework for the crisis, to the effects that they’ve colonized the interpretation of reality, and eventually consolidated the neoliberal hegemony.
After the year 2000, the ongoing neoliberalization and its consequences will exhibit in the financialization of Taiwan’s enterprises. This study also explore the way financialization proceed globally through the harmonization of the accounting standards, testifying the adapting capacity and evolving course of neoliberal policy paradigm.

並列關鍵字

neoliberalism ； developmental state ； policy paradigm ； legitimacy ； financialization

參考文獻

丁克華(2009)證券市場國際化之現況與展望。政大財政學系課堂講義。

于宗先、王金利(2003)一隻看得見的手：政府在經濟發展過程中的角色。台北：聯經。

文馨瑩(1990)經濟奇蹟的背後：台灣美援經驗的政經分析1951-1965。台北：自立晚報社。

林景源(1981)台灣工業化之研究。台北：台灣銀行經濟研究室。

吳泉源(1993)金融自由化的迷思：一個經濟社會學的考察。台灣社會研究季刊15: 1-37。