在台灣人口逐漸老化的情況下，如何延緩勞動者退出就業市場，攸關台灣的社會保險、年金體系及照顧體系之存續，但要勞工能夠延後退休，先決條件是身體健康與否，因此勞工的健康狀況，就不僅僅是個人問題，而是台灣社會面臨的整體危機。主管職業健康的各部門，未能意識到每個政策對於整體勞動生產力，之於經濟發展和社會福利、保險的深遠影響，以致於過度聚焦於對於勞工個人影響的層面，而缺乏思考這些行動背後，對於國家整體的宏觀意義 而在執行工作時中造成肌肉骨骼系統的任何不適、困難或疼痛，更是困擾的許多歐洲的勞工，因此歐盟無不以積極的政策來干預MSD，希望能延長停留在勞動市場的期間，並說明對於雇主、勞工、政府、財政所帶來的幫助。另外透過訪談發現，台灣的物流業從業人員，所處在的工作環境，恰如文獻所提，反覆、負重、工時過長…等，時常有受傷而繼續從事工作的情形，也導致物流業流動率高、從業人員較年輕及容易成為MSD的高風險群。 因此必須從增進MSD的概念、提升勞動條件及減少因病缺勤著手。政府方面則必須建構更完整的MSD數據，並制訂讓MSD勞工留在職場的積極性勞動力市場政策以及廣辦宣導會說明MSD對我國的重要性；雇主的重要性更是不可言喻，不僅扮演第一線的觀察者，快速做出因應措施，並著手改善從業人員勞動條件，並將干預措施予以制度化；勞工則必須透過積極參與有關MSD政策或方案的討論，更重要的是養成並維持良好的生活方式的習慣。 / Taiwan population is rapidly aging. How to persuade workers to delay withdrawing from employment market becomes an urgent challenge because this concern has significant implications to our social insurance, the annuity system and healthcare system. Therefore, the health of workers is not just a personal issue, but a public concern that everyone in this society needs to face. Government officials in charge of healthcare policy are not yet aware of its profound impact on labor productivity, economic development, social welfare and social insurance. Policy wise, we put too much attention on individual health promotion while lose sight of its macro impact. MSD, either caused by work or gene, inflicted many European workers, so that the EU actively deal with this issue with the hope that workers are able to stay longer around the labor market as long as possible. This study finds through the interview that workers of the logistics industry in Taipei endure heavy work-load, long working time, and often time have high rate of presenteeism (the tendency of workers to go to work when they are ill enough to stay at home), causing the logistics industry to have not only high exit rate but also high risk of MSD. Therefore, we have to promote the MSD concept, improve labor conditions and reduce presenteeism. For example employers have to include MSD into their pre-employment training courses for those new entrants, to reduce the hours of working time and to decrease presenteeism through providing subsidy to those who suffer from MSD. The government then has to build up a more complete MSD database, and introduces the concept of MSD and its preventive practice through seminars or workshops. Employers have key roles and duty in this issue. Specifically, they have to adopt as well as carry out preventive measures, and take quick actions whenever incidence of MSD occurs in the frontline of workplace. In addition, they have to improve working conditions and institutionalize those intervention measures. Workers then need to actively participate in MSD policy discussion other than maintaining a healthy life style. Workers, employers, health care system and social welfare system have a cause to this joint effort in keeping workers in Taiwan as healthy as possible so that every nationals can Fit For Work.

目前學界對於西塞羅與馬基維利兩者關係的看法有所不一，所爭論的是馬基維利是衝突或是延續著共和主義人文傳統，本文則嘗試論證西塞羅和馬基維利之間並非僅是傳統上的大相逕庭，而是兩者分別在當時所處環境中就各別看重的問題上，找到最好的解決辦法，在最終考量上皆以表現出國家利益為考量的傾向。西塞羅的關懷以高尚性意圖出發，藉由智慧明白事物真理，藉由正義保障人的生存，利用例外原則進而維持國家；馬基維利認為為了國家利益的目的，統治者應審慎明智的在必要時刻做出必要抉擇，利用具有美德樣貌的能力行事，那些能夠明白統治者難處的人，都能明白其目的的良善以寬宥其手段。然而，要注意到馬基維利的寬宥想法，有著看不到真正結果與國家利益是經常變動的兩個盲點。此外，即便兩者重視國家利益的態度可以如此相近，但西塞羅認為高尚性是國家利益的根本，而馬基維利並不如此。最後，本文整理出兩者可以從思想與時勢立場互相置換，進而指出：充分的理解尊重以達到對話的可能。進而不論是冀求理念融合或尊重其並立，行動與意圖都需要切中要義的把握合宜或時勢。或在規範之中尋找例外，或在極端之中遵循規範，權宜變通勢必成為不可忽略的方式之一。 / There are many arguments about the relation between Cicero and Machiavelli in academic circles. One of them argues that the thoughts of Machiavelli might conflict to republicanism and humanistic traditions. This article is trying to demonstrate another angle that Machiavelli is not merely different from Cicero and traditions, but similar to the purpose which is they are finding the seemliest way respectively at the specific circumstance in their time. Cicero is concerning the honourableness which is realizing the truth by wisdom, ensuring lives of men by justice, and using exceptions of principles in order to maintain the republic. Machiavelli thinks the ruler should make necessary decisions by prudence and use the abilities with virtue like at necessary time to maintain the existence of the state. And those people who know the dilemma of the ruler will know his great ends and excuse whatever means. However, the thought of excuse has two flaws. One is the real end cannot be seen, and another is the benefit of republic often changed. Yet, even though Cicero and Machiavelli are so close to each other because they are placing a high value on the benefit of republic, the former who argue the base of republican benefit is honourableness, not for the later. In the end, this article is trying to put each of them under the opposite thought and circumstances for making a conversation with sufficient respect and realization possible. No matter it is intermingling or separating both ideas, the actions and intentions must be appropriate to seemliness and circumstances. And no matter it is searching exceptions in norms or norms in extremes, the seemly ways for specific circumstances is absolutely necessary.

2013年聯合國於兩公約人權報告中揭示，「居住權」為重要的基本人權之一，然而，根據行政院研考會於2010年的網路民調，「房價高漲」為十大民怨之首，受到外在政治經濟環境影響，政府放任投資客自由進出房地產市場炒房的結果，使得一般市井小民欲在臺北都會區買房，得不吃不喝15.73年才得以買到一處安身立命的處所，由此可知，我國居住權人權狀況與國際人權標準尚有一段差距。 　　本研究目的在於以政策分析途徑界定政策問題，接著從「政策變遷」（policy change）的角度切入，比較臺灣住宅政策的主要政策方案，包括「只租不售」的社會住宅、「出售式」的合宜住宅，進而探討在多項政策方案供選擇的政策決策過程中（policy making process），政策行動者所採取的互動策略如何影響政策變遷的結果，並透過深度訪談了解不同行動者對這些變化過程的解釋為何、如何看待那些變化，並依據個案的合適性選擇莊文忠（2003）提出的整合性分析架構，從外在環境因素、政策本身特性、結構因素、政策網絡等面向，分析社會住宅與合宜住宅相互變遷的政策過程，歸納影響政策變遷的因素有哪些，進而提出政策建議。 　　基於文獻分析與訪談結果，本研究發現，政府推動社會住宅相較於合宜住宅面臨較大的困難，包括缺乏整體的社會住宅政策、心理上的抗拒、法規制度的限制等，《住宅法》於2011年底通過與地方政府重要政策轉變構築變遷的政策過程，然而，從2010年到2014年短短4年的時間，社會住宅卻取代合宜住宅成為中央政府或地方政府積極推動的住宅政策。 從社會住宅與合宜住宅相互變遷的政策過程來看，影響兩項政策變遷的因素有許多：在政策外在環境因素的部分，包含高房價民怨促使政府回應、2014年底九合一選舉的影響、政策學習不應照單全收、社會共識逐漸形成、葉世文行賄弊案的衝擊；在政策屬性因素的部分，包含從國宅政策思維到社會價值的展現、焦點事件促成民眾政策偏好的改變、民間參與並非住宅政策的萬靈丹、合宜住宅的無形政策成本超載；在結構因素的部分，包含政策選擇與政治績效形塑決策者的政策思維、決策者的意識型態會影響其住宅政策決策、中央與地方各有本位主義、中央住宅部門層級過低等等，再加上政策網絡中行動者互動的交互影響，使得複雜性、不確定性如此高的社會住宅成為目前的政策主流，許多政府單位因為首長選舉的政見承諾紛紛開始重視社會住宅這樣的政策，而政策不會一成不變，相反地，它們會受到政治結構變遷及決策者政策思維改變而持續不斷地演化，因此，社會住宅政策未來是否能維持主導地位，仍有待吾人持續關注後續的政策變遷。 / In 2013, the human rights reports in two International Covenants both disclosed that “right of residence“ as one of the most important fundamental human rights. However, according to an on-line poll conducted by Research Development and Evaluation Commission of Executive Yuan in 2010 showed that “rising house prices“ issue was top one grievances among others. Affected by political and economic environment externally, the result of letting free access of investors unlimited entering and exiting real estate market has made it very difficult for civilians to buy house around urban Taipei. In order to buy a new house around unban Taipei, a civilian has to live without drinking or eating for 15.73 years. Therefore, it clearly shows that there is still a big gap between the right of residence in Taiwan and international standard. The purpose of this study is to define policy issues through policy analysis approach. Furthermore, the study tries to compare major policy programs of housing policy in Taiwan from the perspective of policy change, including "only for rent not for sale" social housing and "sale type" affordable housing, so as to discuss how interactive strategies that policy actors adopted affect the result of policy changes in the policy making process. The study adopts in-depth interview method to understand how different actors explain and interpret the changes, along with specific case study based on the integrated analysis framework proposed by Wen-Jong Juang in 2003. Through the integrated analysis framework, from external environment factors, policy features, structural factors and policy networks, the study analyzes the policy changing process between social housing and affordable housing, concluding which factors affect the changes in policy. Additionally, hope to come up with some policy suggestions. By reviewing related literatures and conducting interviews, the study shows that government faces greater difficulties when promoting social housing rather than promoting affordable housing. The reasons include lack of comprehensive social housing policy, mental resistance, and restrictions on laws as well as institutions and so on. The passing of Housing Act in the end of 2011 and the significant policy changes in local governments have created the policy change process. However, from 2010 to 2014, instead of promoting affordable housing policy, both central and local governments promote strongly on social housing policy. By observing the policy changing process between social housing and affordable housing, the study shows that many factors affect policy changes. First, the external environmental factors, including the high housing price issue, influence of local election in the end of 2014, policy learning, social consensus, and bribery scandal of Shi-Wen Ye all have impacts externally. Second, the factors of policy features, including past public housing policy to social value; focus events led to changes of public preferences; private participation in housing policy is not a panacea; the intangible cost of affordable housing overloaded are all possible factors. Third, the structural factors, including policy thinking formed by policy chose and political performance; ideologies of decision makers; centralism and localism; hierarchy of residential department in central government and so on, all have different effects. Last but not least, the interactions among policy network actors cause interaction effects. Hence, factors above make social housing as mainly policy, even though it is still highly uncertain and complex. Many government agencies have begun to pay attention to social housing policy due to the promises made by local officials. On the other hand, policies change, continually evolve affected by changes in the political structure and the policy thinking of decision makers. Therefore, whether the social housing policy will maintain the dominant position still remains question, and we will keep follow up with what might change in future policies.