在食品安全暨衛生這個議題領域中,消費者、業者、政府是三個最主要的行為者(actors)。理論上,當此三個行為者的地位在市場上處於均衡狀態,就算彼此偏好(preferences)不同,食安品質仍得以維持一定水準。惟業者多半在實際上享有資訊優勢,並藉由此種優勢地位在市場交易過程中取得主導性影響,致使政府經常與其靠攏或是消費者受其宰制。有趣的是,臺灣因近幾年接續爆發各式各類食安醜聞,於是政府開始頻繁地修正食安法規並積極地介入市場進行管理。這使得上述三個行為者在食安法制中的「權責分配」出現明顯「失衡」,特別是業者承擔的義務量被大幅調升,而政府承擔的管理責任也明顯加重。本文認為,此種「失衡」現象不僅導致臺灣食安醜聞不減反增,還可能惡化三個主要行為者在市場上的互動,甚至催生仇敵文化,讓現行《食品安全衛生管理法》具有「敵人食安法制」的性質。鑒此,本文建議食安問題的治理需要認真思考如何較為妥適地分配消費者、業者、政府三方之權利與責任,同時藉助風險溝通機制來緩解目前市場與法制中的失衡問題。
Consumers, the food industry, and the government are the main actors in the area of food safety and the embedded domain of public health. Theoretically, only by balancing power among the three actors will desired food safety be maintained, even though the three actors have different preferences. Nevertheless, the industry frequently plays the leading role in the market because of its superiority in information possession. Thus, the government usually leans toward collaborating with the industry, leaveing consumers under industry domination in the long run. In recent years, food scandals broke out one after another in Taiwan, forcing the government to amend the Act for governing food safety and public health, while hoping to better manage the market. Yet, the government’s response to address food safety caused an imbalance of rights and liabilities distribution among the three actors. Particularly, the obligations of the food industry increased, and the responsibilities of the government extended. This paper argues that such imbalance not only induced the incremental incidence of food scandals in Taiwan over the past years, but also worsened the interaction between the three actors, sharpening hostility among the three parties. As a result, the Taiwan’s Act Governing Food Sanitation has features of the law of the enemy. This article argues for the appropriate distribution of rights and liabilities of the three actors, and risk communication as remedy to the imbalance in the market and legislation.
本文旨在釐清學界對於「權力平衡狀態」與「權力平衡體系」的內涵混淆,透過對「權力平衡體系」進行嚴謹的定義,推進權力平衡理論的解釋力。 學界一直對「權力平衡」的理解有許多誤解與偏見,其中,誤將「狀態」等同於「體系」是最常見的問題。本文先回顧華爾茲(Kenneth Waltz)對於體系的界定,指出其中的不足之處,並借用建構主義溫特(Alexander Wendt)的理論來補充。描繪出我們對於權力平衡體系的文化、結構與邏輯等論點。 藉由對體系進行嚴謹的定義,不但使得「權力平衡狀態..
This article aims to clarify the confusion among academic circles about the connotations of “Balance of Power Situation” and “Balance of Power System” and to advance the explanatory power of BOP theory through a rigorous definition of “Balance of Power System.” There have always been many misunderstandings and deviations in “Balance of Power.” Mistaking “situation” with “system” is the most common problem. This article first reviews the definition of “system&r..
國際關係學者瓦特(Stephen M. Walt)曾提出以「威脅平衡」概念為主的聯盟理論,挑戰了現實主義內部關於「權力平衡」的論點,後來又有學者提出「利益平衡」與「推卸責任」的論述加以反駁。經由本文的探討與重新檢視,這些學者爭論的焦點在於「制衡」與「扈從」概念上的界定。由於學界對於「扈從」在理論解釋與個案運用上的解讀不同,其實際上涵蓋了積極扈從(順從)與消極扈從(屈從)兩種相反的概念,吾人若僅從「制衡」與「扈從」兩種分類便欲判斷何者在國際關係中較為盛行,則易..
Stephen M. Walt proposed his theory of alliances, focusing mainly on the concept of balance-of-threat. His statement challenged the prevailing concept of balance-of-power theory of traditional realism, thereby receiving criticizisms of “balance-of-interest” and “buck-passing.” This article re- examines the debates, and finds out that the major controversy is in fact how to circumscribe “balancing” and “bandwagoning”. When using the concept of “bandwagoning”, scholars..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.