臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著經濟型態的改變，在社會型態重組的過程中，勞動市場的成員不再擁有安全穩定的工作及社會網絡，失業、不穩定就業及部份工時等增加，更是動搖既有的社會融合及穩定性。本研究藉由社會排除的概念，重新檢視各種勞動類型在生活面臨之不同處境。

研究方法採用中央研究院學術調查研究資料庫所釋出之「台灣社會變遷基本調查」第四期第三次資料庫，針對18 - 64歲勞動人口進行社會排除的實證研究。本研究發現：（一）關係面向方面：1.有就業者相對於長期失業者，擁有較佳之關係網絡。失業者在尋職或需要幫忙時可援助的人際網絡較弱，相對能接觸的就業機會有限。2.就業類型群體與社會的互動性較高，較容易融入社會而成為主流群體。3.長期失業類型不論在情感性網絡、工具性網絡及與社會互動的機會上，相對其他勞動類型均受到較大程度的排除。（二）個人面向方面：1.長期失業者在社會標籤化及自卑心理下，認為自身階級不如人。2.穩定就業者主觀認定自己於社會中所處地位相對較高，其次分別為不穩定就業、短期失業，長期失業者多認定自己在社會中的地位偏低。3. 不穩定就業類型雖歸屬就業型態，惟其工作所帶來的成就較為有限，甚至與短期失業者自認的成就相當。（三）社團參與方面：缺乏社團參與在台灣是一普遍的情況，並非僅限於某種勞動類型群體，也因為國人並不認為參與社團的重要，也就沒有所謂的排除。（四）社區參與方面：各項社區活動中僅以捐錢給宗教團體或慈善機構之參與率較高，參與者以就業類型為主。

再者，研究亦發現穩定就業者對工作的未來能有較正面、較高的期待，不穩定就業者對自己未來工作發展的態度較為保守，顯示不穩定就業型態下，其心理對工作未來發展的態度亦受到影響。

With a changing economy, there is a social reorganization that has led to a loss in stable jobs and social networking in our labor force. As an increasing number of unemployment, temporary employment, and part time worker populations become a part of the labor force, its appearance fluctuate job stability in our society. This research will reassess the different labor status and their interactions with the society by using the concept of social exclusion.

Data analyzed in this paper is collected by the research project "The Fundamental Investigation Project on Taiwan Social Changes" (third edition, fourth periodical) and conducted by Central Research Yuan. The secondary data analyzed is adopted to do empirical research on social exclusion in Taiwan, targeting labor force aged from 18 to 64 with description analysis and regression analysis. The research findings show that :
I. Relationship：1. In terms of social interaction, the employed population has a better relational network than the long term unemployed population. Because there's a lack of social networking and human resources for the long term unemployed population, the chance of finding a job is also limited. 2. There are more opportunities for the employed population to interact with the society, making a shift into the mainstream an easier process for them. 3. The long term unemployed populations are more likely to suffer exclusion in areas of emotional network, instrumental network, and social interactions when compared to the other employment populations.
II. Personal：1. The long term unemployed, under the influences of social labeling and self accusation, will believe themselves inferior to others. 2. The population with a stable job status believe themselves belonging to the comparatively higher position in the society. The next in line are the precarious employment, short term unemployment, and then long term unemployment populations. They believe themselves to be lower on the social ladder. 3. Even though the precariously employed are classified as a part of the employed population, they tend to feel that they have a very limited job satisfaction, similar to those of the short term unemployed.
III. Associational participation： Low participation rate in organizational association is very widespread in Taiwan, therefore the rate of participation is not related to any specific groups or employment status. Because people in Taiwan do not believe in the importance of belonging to a specific organizational association, it is not related to the concept of exclusion.
IV. Community：Community involvement is predominantly through acts of donating money to religious groups or charities. These acts of donation are mainly contributed by the employed population.

Moreover, research shows that the stable employed populations have higher expectations from work because there is a sense of job security. On the other hand, because the precarious employed populations have uncertain factors such as salary and benefits, therefore lends to a more conservative outlook in terms of job expectation and security.

第一章 緒論 --------------------------------------1
第一節 研究動機與目的 -----------------------------2
第二節 研究問題 -----------------------------------3

第二章 文獻探討：失業、不穩定就業與社會排除 ----------5
第一節 社會排除的概念 ------------------------------5
第二節 社會排除相關理論 ----------------------------6
第三節 不穩定就業 ---------------------------------10
第四節 不穩定就業、失業與社會排除 -------------------13
第五節 國內研究回顧 -------------------------------15

第三章 研究設計與資料分析模型 ----------------------17
第一節 資料來源 -----------------------------------17
第二節 樣本特性 -----------------------------------18
第三節 變項說明 -----------------------------------20
第四節 資料分析架構與模型 --------------------------27

第四章 研究結果分-----------------------------------30
第一節 各勞動類型的背景特徵概述 ---------------------30
第二節 不同勞動類型的社會排除情況 -------------------32
第三節 不同就業類型下對工作期待與就業安全感受之差異-----51
第四節 討論 ---------------------------------------55

第五章 結論與---------------------------------------57
第一節 研究結論摘要 --------------------------------57
第二節 研究限制與建----------------------------------59

參考文獻 ------------------------------------------61
中文書目 ---------------------------------------------61
英文書目 -------------------------------------------62

中文部份：

王永慈（2001）＜『社會排除』：貧窮概念的再詮釋＞，《社區發展季刊》，第95期，頁72-95。

王濟川，郭志剛（2004）《Logistic迴歸模型-方法及應用》，台北：五南。

李易駿（2006）＜社會排除：流行或挑戰＞，社會政策與社會工作學刊，第十卷第1期，頁1-47。

李易駿（2006）＜社會排除人口之推算：兼析台灣的社會排除圖像＞，國科會「社會排除的產生：高風險個案之探討」。

李誠、辛炳隆、成之約（2000）《勞動市場彈性化與非典型僱用》。行政院勞工委員會委託研究。

李誠、薛琦等著（2003）《誰偷走了我們的工作？》。台北：天下文化出版社。

李劍明、黃洪（2001）＜被社會排斥的邊緣勞工＞，收錄於《華人社會社會排斥與邊緣性問題研討會》。香港：香港理工大學應用社會科學系社會政策研究中心。

陳樹強（2003）＜社會排斥﹕對社會弱勢群體的重新概念化＞，《中國勞工通訊》

張世雄（2001b）＜社會救助、新貧窮問題與多層次---多面向分析＞，《社區發展季刊》，第95期，頁55-71。

張菁芬（2004）＜空間的排除與區域網絡服務模式---以社子地區為例＞，《社區發展季刊》，第106期，頁271-286。

張菁芬（2005）《社會排除現象與對策：歐盟的經驗分析》。台北：松慧文化。

童小珠（2005）《從就業排除到社會排除：失業勞工的社會學分析》。中山大學學術研究所博士論文。

黃世鑫、林志鴻、林昭吟（2003）＜新貧問題與社會福利政策---科學VS.價值＆菁英VS.普羅＞ ，《國家政策季刊》，第二卷第4期，頁83-124。

蔡明璋（2006）＜工作消失了嗎？－台灣就業安全的長期分析 (1978-2004) ＞，政治大學社會學報，第38期，頁89-110。

謝文元、李易駿、古允文（2005）＜台灣勞動市場風險的深化與擴大:既有統計資料的初步觀察＞，社會暨健康政策的變動與創新趨勢:邁向多元、整合的福利體制國際學術研討會。

英文部份：

Atkinson, R. (1998) “Social Exclusion, Poverty and Unemployment.” in Atkinson, A. B. & Hill, John (eds.) Exclusion, Employment and Opportunity. CASE Paper 4, Center for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.

Barnes, Matt. (2005) Social Exclusion in Great Britain: An Empirical Investigation &Comparison with the EU. London: Ashgate.

Bauman, Zygmunt. (1998) Work, Consumption and the New Poor. Buckingham：Open University Press.

Bhalla, A, S., Lapeyre, F. (1999) Poverty and Exclusion in a Global World. London, Macmillan Press.

Burchardt, T., Le Gr&, J., & Piachaud, D. (1999)”Social Exclusion in Britain 1991-1995”, Social Policy & Administration, 33(3): 227-244

Burgess, J, Campbell, I. (1998) “The nature and dimensions of precarious employment in Australia”, Labour and Industry, Vol. 8 No.3, pp.5-21

Castel, Robert. (2000) “The Roads to Disaffiliation：Insecure Work and Vulnerable Relationships”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(3)：519-535.

Kim,A. and Kurz, K.(2001) “Precarious employment, education and gender: a comparison of. Germany and the United Kingdom”, MZES working paper Nr. 39.

Rodgers, Gerry & Rodgers, Janine (1989) Precarious Jobs in Labour Market Regulation: the Growth of Atypical Employment in Western Europe, International Institute for Labour Studies, International Labour Organization, Geneva.

Sen A.K. (2000) “Social exclusion: Concept, application and scrutiny”, Social Development Papers No 1, Asian Development Bank.

Silver, Hilary (1995) “Reconceptualizing Social Disadvantage: Three Paradigms of Social Exclusion”, in Gerry Rodgers, Charles Gore and Jose B. Figueiredo (eds.), Social Exclusion: Rhetoric, Reality and Response. Geneva: International Labor Organization.

Taskloglou, Panos & Papadopouulos, Fotis (2002) Aggregate Level & Determining Factors of Social Exclusion in Twelve European Countries, Journal of European Social Policy, 12(3):211-225.