政府介入vs.社區自主：台灣社區發展工作的根本議題

Government intervention vs. Community autonomy: Fundamental Issues in Taiwan's Community Development

賴兩陽(Leang-Yang Lai)

政府介入 ； 社區自主 ； 社區發展 ； 基進社區工作 ； government intervention ； community autonomy ； community development ； radical community work

國家與社會

22期（2021 / 06 / 01）

71 - 91

繁體中文

本文探討社區發展工作長久以來爭議不休的問題：到底政府與社區之間的關係為何？在社區工作的理念共識是社區需要自助（self-help）、自決（self-determination）、自主自立（self-reliance）；但在實際的情況上，政府往往執行許多社區發展計畫，引導社區的發展方向。遂產生批評社區因要得到政府的經費補助造成對政府的依賴而欠缺自主性；政府亦被視為過度介入社區事務而有干預之嫌，造成理念與實務上的矛盾。本文認為社區工作典範上的差異，往往是各說各話的主因，並提出聯合國社區發展（community development）與基進社區工作（radical community work）兩種工作取向加以比較，以釐清彼此之間的差異。為了理解政府與社區的互動關係，本文歸納社區工作相關的觀點，提出垂直、對立與線性三種關係，並認為台灣的社區工作已經逐漸突破傳統「由上而下」或「由下而上」的思維，而依據社區能力與需求在「自我治理」與「行政導向」之間取得平衡。

This article discusses a long-standing controversial issue in Taiwanese community development: What is the relationship between the government and the community? The consensus of the community work principle is that a community needs self-help, self-determination, and self-reliance; however, in reality, the government often implements many community development plans to guide the community's work. This led to the criticism that communities lacked autonomy because of their dependence on the government's funding subsidies; the government's intervention in community affairs, resulted in contradictions between principle and practice. The differences in community work paradigms are often the main reason for each saying what they say. A comparison between the community development approach and radical community work approach to clarify the differences between the two, is proposed. To understand the interactive relationship of the government and the community, this article summarizes the views related to community work and proposes three relationships: vertical, oppositional, and linear, believing that Taiwan's community work has to gradually break through the traditional ＂top-down＂ or ＂bottom-up＂ thinking, and strike a balance between ＂self-governed＂ and ＂administration-oriented＂ based on community capabilities and needs.

1. 黃源協,劉素珍,蕭文高(2011)。英國社區新政對台灣社區工作的啟示與借鏡─社區治理觀點的分析。臺大社會工作學刊，23，1-46。
   連結：
2. Butcher, H.,Banks, S.,Henderson, P.,Robertson, J.(2007).Critical Community Practice.London:The Policy press.
3. Craig, G., M.Gorman and I. Vercseg（2004）.‘The Budapest Declaration: building European civil society through community development’, available from Community Development Exchange at〈www.cdx.org.uk〉.
4. Henderson, P.,Vercseg, I.(2010).Community Development and Civil Society.Bristol:The Policy Press.
5. Ledwith, M.(2008).Community Development: A Critical Approach.Bristol, UK:The Policy Press.
6. Pawar, M.(2010).Community Development in Asia and the Pacific.New York:Routledge.
7. Popple, K.(1995).Analysing Community Work Theory and Practice.Bristol, Pa.:Open University Press.
8. Rubin, H.(ed.),Rubin, I.(ed.)(2008).Community Organizing and Development.Boston:Person Education, Inc.
9. 李易駿(2008).當代社區工作：計畫與發展實務.台北:雙葉書廊.
10. 邱智欣(2004)。東吳大學社會工作系。
11. 徐震(1980).社區與社區發展.台北:正中書局.
12. 曾旭正(2007).台灣的社區營造.台北:遠足文化公司.
13. 黃源協,蕭文高(2010).社區工作.台北:國立空中大學.
14. 詹火生（編）,古允文（編）(1998).新世紀社會福利政策厚生白皮書──社會福利篇.台北:財團法人厚生基金會.
15. 蔣昆生（編）,戚學森（編）(2011).中國社會工作發展報告（2009-2010）.中國:社會科學文獻出版社.
16. 蔡宏進(2012).社區工作方法與技巧.台北:揚智文化公司.
17. 鄧湘漪（譯）,陳秋山（譯）,Stepney, p.,Popple, K.(2011).社會工作與社區：實踐的批判性脈絡.臺北:心理出版社.
18. 賴兩陽(2016).聯合社區的理念、實踐與反思：以「福利化社區旗艦型計畫」為例.台北:洪葉文化公司.
19. 蘇景輝(2009).社區工作──理論與實務.台北:巨流圖書公司.

1. 蕭文高(2023)。社區照顧關懷據點督導人員之專業角色壓力與職能需求。臺大社會工作學刊，48，115-155。
2. (2024)。社區治理下的公民參與、網絡與權力—對社區工作的意涵。社區發展季刊，186，110-125。