国家、市场和家庭间托育责任的分担：一种福利体制的前瞻性研究

论文总字数：37496字

摘 要

20世纪中叶以来，全球范围内托育的变化趋势是传统的由家庭承担的托育责任逐渐由市场和国家来帮助分担。但是在这一趋势下，中国的托育政策改动不大，依然把家庭作为托育服务的输出主体，承担很大部分的托育责任，尤其在全面二孩的政策环境中，势必会对家庭造成巨大的负担。尽管我国市场中出现了一些民办托育机构，但是幼儿侵害案件的频频发生导致市场分担托育责任的作用被削弱，家庭对于缺乏规范和管理的托育市场产生不信任感，托育责任“去家庭化”的步伐停滞不前。因此，本文从福利体制的理论视角出发，探讨国家、市场和家庭托育责任的集体分担问题，试图回答：托育责任具体指什么？托育责任为何要国家、市场和家庭集体分担？托育责任如何被合理划分以做到国家、市场和家庭三位一体为0-3岁幼儿提供福利保障？

埃斯平·安德森对福利体制的划分是本文分析托育责任承担的理论视角，也是划分托育责任的重要参照。福利供给市场化程度决定了不同的责任划分方法。保守主义福利体制国家的托育政策在总体偏向保守，国家承担责任较少；社会民主主义福利体制国家的托育政策在福利供给的质和量方面都远超另外两者模式；自由主义福利体制国家倡导个人在市场中获取福利，同时对无法正常获取市场化福利的群体进行补贴，主要由市场承担托育责任。从三种福利体制的运行情况来看，保守主义仍偏向于将所有托育责任加诸于家庭，社会民主主义则强调国家大部分承担，而自由主义则强调市场在社会福利实现中的主体作用，国家起到市场补缺作用。随着该理论的发展，东亚国家模式作为一个新的体制被提出，由于东亚国家与我国有大量相似之处，故本文在此基础上结合其他三种福利体制的优势进行中国模式的探索。

本文的结构分为绪论、正文、结语三大部分。绪论部分介绍了研究的背景以及研究设计、论文框架等。正文部分共四章，首先讨论不同福利体制下的托育政策和责任划分，其次分析中国的政策演变与责任分担现状，紧接着提出第四种可能的模式——东亚模式，并分析东亚国家的托育政策，然后将对东亚与中国进行比较，分析中国在借鉴时需要规避的风险或不足。最后，在上述理论的基础上，进行我国0-3岁幼儿托育责任划分的方式和确保责任落实的方案设计。

关键词：福利体制，儿童托育，公共政策，政府责任，家庭责任，市场化

Abstract

Since the middle of the 20th century, the changing trend of childcare on a global scale is that the traditional family-assuming responsibilities have gradually been shared by the market and the country. However, under this trend, China’s childcare policy has not changed much. It still regards the family as the exporting subject of childcare services, and assumes a large part of the responsibility for childcare, especially in the policy environment of comprehensive two children, which is bound to affect the family. Create a huge burden. Although there are some private childcare institutions in the Chinese market, the frequent occurrence of child abuse cases leads to the weakening of the role of the market sharing of childcare responsibilities. The family has a sense of mistrust of the lack of standardized and managed childcare markets, and the responsibility for childcare is The pace of "familyization" has stagnated. Therefore, from the theoretical perspective of the welfare system, this article explores the collective sharing of responsibilities for the state, the market, and the family, and attempts to answer: What does the responsibility for internship specifically refer to? Why should the responsibility for childcare be shared by the country, the market, and the family? How can the responsibilities for childcare be divided reasonably to ensure that the country, the market and the family trinity provide welfare for 0-3 year-old children?

The division of the welfare system by Espin Anderson is the theoretical perspective of this paper to analyze the responsibility of internship, and it is also an important reference to divide the responsibility of internship. The degree of marketization of welfare provision determines different methods of division of responsibilities. Conservatism welfare system countries have a generally conservative education policy, and the country bears less responsibility. The education policy of social welfare welfare state countries far exceeds the other two methods in the quality and quantity of welfare provision; Liberal welfare system. The state encourages individuals to obtain welfare in the market, and at the same time subsidizes groups that cannot normally obtain marketized benefits, mainly by the market. From the perspective of the operation of the three welfare systems, conservatism still prefers to impose all responsibility for childcare on the family. Social democracy emphasizes that the state bears most of it. Liberalism emphasizes the role of the market in the realization of social welfare. The country plays a role in filling the market. With the development of this theory, the East Asian national model was proposed as a new system. Because East Asian countries and China have a lot of similarities, this paper will explore the Chinese model based on this combination of the advantages of the other three welfare systems.

The structure of this article is divided into three parts: introduction, text, and conclusion. The introduction part introduced the research background, research design, thesis framework and so on. The main body consists of four chapters. First, it discusses the division of childcare policies and responsibilities under different welfare systems. Second, it analyzes China’s policy evolution and responsibility sharing. It then proposes the fourth possible model, the East Asia model, and analyzes the East Asian countries’ The internship policy will then compare East Asia with China and analyze the risks or deficiencies that China needs to avoid when drawing lessons. Finally, on the basis of the above-mentioned theory, the method of division of responsibility for childcare of 0-3 year-old children in China and the design of schemes for ensuring the implementation of responsibility are carried out.

Key Words: Welfare regime; Child care; Public policy; Government’s responsibility; Family’s responsibility; Marketization

目录

摘要 II

Abstract III

第一章 绪论 1

第一节 研究背景及意义 1

第二节 研究现状 2

(1) 福利体制下家庭、市场与国家的关系 2

(2) 托育的相关研究 2

第三节 研究设计 4

一、 相关概念界定 4

(1) 托育责任 4

(2) 托育机构 4

(3) 福利体制 4

二、 理论视角 5

三、 分析框架 5

四、 研究思路 6

五、 研究方法 7

(1) 政策文献研究 7

(2) 访谈研究 7

(3) 比较研究 7

第二章 各福利体制下托育政策与责任划分分析 8

第一节 保守主义福利体制 8

一、 托育政策背景与模式 8

二、 托育政策内容分析 8

第二节 社会民主主义福利体制 9

一、 托育政策背景与模式 9

二、 托育政策内容分析 9

第三节 自由主义福利体制 10

一、 托育政策背景与模式 10

二、 托育政策内容分析 10

第三章 中国托育政策的演变及托育责任分配的现状分析 11

一、 中国托育政策的演变 11

(1) 新中国成立到1980年代中期 11

(2) 1980年代中期至今 12

二、 对中国托育政策演变的分析 13

三、 中国托育责任分配现状 13

(1) 家庭为主 13

传统托育提供者——母亲 13

剩余内容已隐藏，请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：37496字