社會正義與高等教育學費政策─當代自由主義觀點

Abstract

本研究為了解近年來於國內所引起之高等教育學費之爭議，試從當代自由主義觀點下之社會正義論述來探其與高等教育學費政策之間的辯證關係，並採用理論分析法、文獻分析法和比較研究法等三種方式來進行研究。 第二章由當代自由主義發展之時空背景為立基，探討當代政治哲學家John Rawls和Robert Nozick二位之正義理論。第三章則從Rawls和Nozick的正義論推論至高等教育經費之政府模式與市場模式，並說明其之關聯性，再從芬蘭、瑞典、美國及澳洲等四國為例來理解兩種政策模式在高等教育經費及學費政策實施上的差異。第四章回歸於台灣，了解台灣高等教育學費政策如何在經費政策的影響下發展。第五章分析台灣高等教育經費及學費政策所採行之政策模式，及其與社會正義之間的辯證關係。第六章則根據前述之研究發現，提出以下結論：(1) 在當代自由主義的多元發展下，自由與平等之論述彼此消長，發展出Rawls和Nozick二位具有高度相對性的社會正義理論；(2) Rawls與Nozick之正義論經推導後發現在高等教育經費政策上分別採政府模式與市場模式；(3)高等教育經費政策採政府模式與市場模式之國家，在學費政策的制定與實施確有所差異；(4) 台灣高等教育學費政策在制定發展方向上與經費政策各異其趣，造成政府與市場兩失靈的結果；(5) 在當代自由主義下發展的Rawls和Nozick，因各國社會體制及其意識型態之不同，而高等教育學費政策與社會正義之關係也會發展出不同之理念；(6) 我國於高等教育學費政策中常提及社會正義之概念，然而卻沒有針對於此做進一步的說明，導致何謂社會正義的說法是模糊不清的。

The research aims to investigate Taiwan's controversial higher education tuition policy in light of the social justice of contemporary liberalism. Methods adopted in this research include theoretical analysis, literature analysis and comparative study. In chapter two, employing the contemporary liberalism as the theoretical framework, theories of justice of contemporary political philosopher John Rawls and Robert Nozick are compared and contrasted. In chapter three, Rawls’ and Nozick's theories of justice are related to the government and market model of higher education funding policy. Then, Finland, Sweden, the United States and Australia as used as examples to illustrate the different models. Chapter four aims to understand how Taiwan's higher education tuition policy was developed under the influence of funding policy. In chapter five, the research analyses Taiwan's higher education funding and tuition policy and its impact on social justice. In chapter six, the research draws conclusions from preceding research findings: (1)With the multi-directional development of contemporary liberalism, theories of social justice are given different definitions and are likely to lead to different discourses. (2)Rawls’s and Nozick's theories of justice are related to government and the market model in higher education funding policy. (3)The government and market model of higher education funding policies will in turn result in different tuition policies.(4)Taiwan’s higher education funding policy follows the market model, but the government model is adopted in tuition policy. The disparity leads to both the government and market failure. (5)Due to the differences in ideologies and concepts of social justice, different countries are likely to develop different higher education funding and tuition policy. (6)Taiwan’s controversies in higher education tuition policy is at least partially caused by the ambiguous concept of social justice.