從福利體制探討臺灣文化政策對地方文化館發展之影響

The Welfare State and the Development of Local Museum Policy in Taiwan

10.6686/MuseQ.201004_24(2).0005

田潔菁(Chieh-Ching Tien)；林詠能(Yung-Neng Lin)

福利體制 ； 臺灣地方文化館政策 ； welfare state ； local museum policy in Taiwan

博物館學季刊

24卷2期（2010 / 04 / 01）

83 - 95+97

繁體中文

本文旨在檢視臺灣福利體制對地方文化館發展之影響，並以李易駿與古允文在2003所提出的發展型模式做為研究臺灣福利體制之架構。研究結果顯示，臺灣的文化政策在於維持現況，並為促進菁英文化和傳統的藝術機構之間的接合。目前文建會除了延續社區總體營造計畫之外，也試圖建造文化生活圈等措施；可以預期的是政府對於私人藝術家的補助是強烈涉入、慷慨且長期的，同時文化服務被視為公共領域的終極目標，文建會朝向以中央撥款支持藝術機構為主，並以去中心化及施行文化公民權為重點。然而，政府在臺灣地方文化館政策的角色，卻也隨著經濟環境的變動而有所變化。因此政府雖倡議文化公民的口號，但如同發展型的福利模式，臺灣的社會政策無論從範圍與結構觀之，目前皆是經濟成長目標優於福利分配，文化政策亦是如此；文化只是一種手段，經濟發展才是重要的目標。

The article examines the links between the welfare state and the local cultural policy in Taiwan. It provides a way to analyse local museum policy. This research is based on the development welfare model drawn up by Lee and Ku(2003). The model posits that the aim of social policy is to maintain the status quo and to connect different societies. The research result indicates there being a connection of ＂high culture＂ and traditional culture in Taiwan. The development welfare model can anticipate generous, long term subsidies from Government. Taiwan’s Council for Cultural Affairs supports cultural services by appropriating funds to art institutes, and the local museum policy is established to practice decentralization as well as cultural citizenship. However, the role of Taiwan’s Government in local museum policy has changed due to the shift of social conditions. The focus now is more on economic growth than on cultural rights.

1. 文建會，2002。地方文化館計畫（93年至96年）。臺北：文建會。
2. 文建會，2007。磐石行動：地方文化館第二期計畫（97年至102年）。臺北：文建會。
3. Cummings, M. C.(ed.),Katz, R. S.(ed.)(1987).The Patron State: Government and the Arts in Europe, North America, and Japan.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
4. Esping-Andersen, G.(1990).The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
5. Esping-Andersen, G.(1984).Social policy as class politics in Post-War Capitalism: Scandinavia, Austria, and Germany.Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism,Oxford:
6. Hillmann-Chartrand, H.,McCaughey, C.(1989).The Arm's Length Principle and the arts: An international perspective-past, present, and future.Who's to Pay for the Arts? The International Search for Models of Support,New York:
7. Littoz-Monnet, A.(2007).The European Union and Culture: Between Economic Regulation and European Cultural Policy.Manchester:Manchester University Press.
8. Mulcahy, E. V.(1998).Cultural patronage in comparative perspective: Public support for the arts in France, Germany, Norway, and Canada.Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society,27(4),247-263.
9. Simmer, A.,Toepler, S.(1996).Cultural policies and the welfare state: The case of Sweden, Germany, and the United States.The Journal of Arts Management, Law and Sociey,26(3),167-192.
10. 李易駿、古允文(2003)。另一個福利世界？東亞發展型福利體制初探。臺灣社會學刊，31，189-541。
11. 研考會(2010)。我國文化藝術補助政策與執行評估。臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員會。
12. 張譽騰(2007)。臺灣的文化政策與博物館發展。研習論壇，73，28-31。
13. 陳其南、劉正輝(2005)。文化公民權之理念與實踐。國家政策季刊，4(3)，77-88。
14. 漢寶德(2001)。漢寶德談文化。臺北:典藏雜誌社。

1. 蔡怡怡、黃靖惠(2013)。類博物館的地方文化館參與節慶與地方意識之連結─以平溪為例。博物館學季刊，27(1)，5-32。