- 學位論文
我國特別預算制度之政經分析，1949一2008
The Political Economy of Taiwan's Special Budget Development From 1945 To 2008
摘要
我國的特別預算是全世界獨一無二的制度，其設計之目的，在於因應國家緊急、重大的政事支出，但「緊急」、「重大」的認定，主觀而具彈性，相關規定又過於寬鬆。近年來，行政部門更據此規避公共債務法第4條第5項「每年度舉債額度之限制」與預算法23條「不得（舉債）充經常支出之限制」的規範，從1991年起，動輒以特別預算舉債數百億元，甚至上千億元，導致國庫赤字快速攀升，洛桑管理學院等國際知名評比機構，幾乎年年都因此調降我國競爭力。 本文以政治經濟學的歷史分析途徑，將1945至2008年間的特別預算，依國家政經體制及財經政策的變遷，分爲三大階段進行探討： 威權體制時期（1949至1987年）—強人掌控民間噤聲的特別預算，在兩蔣威權體制下，共提出20項特別預算案，主要樣貌是國防整備和農村水利建設，堪稱是反攻大陸到建設台灣。此期間財經政策採「量入爲出」，提出的特別預算次數較少、金額較低，且較少舉債。 威權轉型時期（1987至1996年）—政府民間衝狀折衝的特別預算，解嚴後民間逐漸抬頭，政府共提出7次特別預算因應，主要樣貌是回應民怨和偏重交通。在以「大有爲」政府爲目標下，財經政策改爲「量出爲入」，提出的特別預算次數增多、金額暴增，且開始鉅額舉債。 民主鞏固時期（1996至2008年）—選票掛帥包山包海的特別預算，勝選和回應選區左右了政府施政，共提出14項特別預算，主要樣貌是選票至上項目繁雜。財經政策在鞏固政權下變成「債多不愁」，幾乎年年提出特別預算，金額數百甚至上千億元，其中扁政府八年特別預算負債比高達84.83﹪。 以歷史爲研究途徑做一實存面的因果分析，發現在不同時期的政經背景下，特別預算有其特殊的樣貌，而不同的主政者，和每一時期政府機關和民間社會的互動，決定了當時的特別預算。所以，本文就三大部分做出結論： 一、特別預算制度—主政者最愛的巧門。 二、政府角色—善用或濫用一線間。 三、政府和民間關係—威權掌控到選票至上。 最重要的是，因特別預算幾乎已經和破壞財政紀律、鉅額舉債動搖國本劃上等號，本文結論認爲，此制度應「大修」或「休」﹗徹底廢除此財政漏洞，和日美英德等國一樣以追加預算方式因應緊急、重大事件，不然，應嚴格限制特別預算的提出，明訂需先籌措自有財源，「不得以舉債支應特別預算」。
並列摘要
The Special Budget in our country is unique around the world which is designed for national crucial emergent spending. However, to define to be “crucial” and “emergent” is very subjective and flexible while the relevant regulations is lenient. In the recent years, the government takes this as the excuse to avoid the Public Debt Act, Article 4 paragraph 5, “the limitation of annual debt”, and the Budget Act, Article 23, “(debts) shall not be used for current expenditures”. From 1991, our government had exploited the Special Budget to issue debt for up to hundred billions which cause the raising of financial deficit for our treasury. Authoritative international rating agency, such as IMD, revised the competitiveness of our country downward every year. This essay applies historical analysis based on political economy, discussing the Special Budget from 1945 to 2008 according to the changes of political and economical systems and financial policies in three main stages: Authoritarian System Period (1949-1987) The Special Budget was controlled by specific authoritarian figure and the public voice was muted. Under this system in Chiang’s times, 20 Special Budgets were proposed for the main purpose of national defense programme and rural water conservancy construction which was corresponded to “counterattack the mainland” and “construction of Taiwan”. The principle of financial policies during this time was “making ends meet”—fewer Special Budgets was proposed with smaller amount and less debts. Transformation of Authoritarian System Period (1987-1996) Special Budget was as a result of the conflict-compromise of government and the public. After abolishment of Martial Law, the public speaks out its voice. During this period, 7 Special Budgets were proposed mainly for resolving the public grievance and focusing on traffic issue. Building the image of a “capable government” as the objective, the financial policies were adjusted to “revenue according to expenditure” that much more Special Budgets were brought out with boosting amount and huge amount of debts were launched. Consolidation of Democracy Period (1996-2008) The political election started to lead the way and Special Budgets started a wide range of coverage. The purpose for winning the election and to flatter the electoral district became the base of leading the government execution. 14 Special Budgets were proposed containing miscellaneous items as the response for the election. In order to consolidate the regime, the financial policies were changed to “more debts, less worries”. Special Budget was brought out almost every year with the amount up to hundred billions. During the 8 years governing of President Chen, Shui-bien, the debt ratio of Special Budgets was 84.83%. According to the cause-and-effect analysis by historical study, we can find out that Special Budget has its different quality under different political and economical background. Different government authority interacting with the public in different period of time determines what the Special Budget is to be. Therefore, this essay comes to a conclusion as the following three points: 1.Special Budget systems—the favorite trick of the government authority. 2.The role of government—making use or abuse was a just slim difference. 3.The relationship of government and public—authority-controlled and election-oriented. Most important of all, Special Budget is now equal to destroying the financial discipline and huge amount of debt that threatening the financial base of our country. Our conclusion of this essay is that Special Budget system should be fully modified or totally abolished! This financial loophole of our country should be avoided and alignment to the resolution of supplementary budget systems from America, Britain and Germany should be applied for crucial and emergent issues. Otherwise, a strict restriction should be set for proposing of Special Budget that ensures the source of money is solid for certain expenditure and “no debt issuing is allowed for Special Budget”.