研究資料首頁-> 承接政府部門、產學及技術服務案
研究資料明細
| 計畫案/服務案名稱 | 比較衛生區域間主義之性質、角色與挑戰 |
| 執行起始日期 | 2015-08-01 |
| 執行結束日期 | 2017-03-31 |
| 專案案號 | 103WFDD603001 |
| 專案類型 | 政府學術研究計畫-科技部專題研究計畫 |
| 計劃性質(選擇項為複選，請依照實際性質勾選) | 非產學計畫案,A1專題研究 |
| 是否為補助教師或在籍學生之人才培育相關課程(計畫)或就業學程 | |
| 工作類別 | 主持人 |
| 計劃主持人 | |
| 共同(協同)主持人 | |
| 經費狀態 | 原核定 |
| 計畫總金額(元) | 620000 |
| 政府出資金額(元) | |
| 企業出資金額(元) | |
| 其他單位出資金額(元) | |
| 學校出資金額(元) | |
| 主要經費來源 | 科技部 |
| 主要經費來源單位名稱 | 科技部 |
| 次要經費來源單位名稱 | |
| 他校轉入的專案 | 否 |
| 專案已轉至他校 | 否 |
[摘要] :
歐亞衛生區域間主義之機構的建設、多邊功能上的效用、制度的平衡性、跨國界後的規範之維持、與身份（認同感）上的建構都是此角色所涵蓋到的性質和它所扮演的角色功能，也同時是它所面臨的挑戰，而這些性質、角色功能與挑戰正是我們近年來對此研究所專注於的範圍。然而在先前完成的學術研究中發現，衛生區間主義的理念，不再只是一個被架構在純理論上探討的現象，而是個已實際被使用在區域一體化的工具，並且被先前的實證研究所支撐著，論述了衛生區域間主義與全球衛生議題上的治理有著互相影響的關係。
此研究目的主要是，在區域間主義的範疇之下，歐亞衛生區域間主義，這角色的性質、角色功能與要面臨的挑戰，這些所涵蓋到的特性是否和其他地區間的區域一體化比較起來是否有它的特殊性，差異性，又或者是相似性。事實上，探討世界不同地區之間來進行區域間主義的比較研究是必要的，但在此方面已有的相關研究貢獻目前是少數。然而，在區域間主義之區域一體化的範疇發展至今，歐盟地區與亞太地區已開發了相對較大規模且全面性的互動，因此，首先，歐洲地區範圍的歐盟與非洲和亞太地區範圍的亞洲與非洲，這兩項範圍是此比較研究的兩大主軸，次而更深入至以下三個不同層次：第一、非跨地域與跨地域的衛生區域間主義和衛生跨地域主義之探討，第二、衛生區域間主義它所扮演角色的功能之了解，如前段已經提及到的，機構的建設、多邊功能上的效用、制度的平衡性、跨國界後的規範的維持、與身份（認同感）上的建構。第三、探究這些區域在實施衛生區域間主義所面臨到的挑戰。以以上三點來對此比較研究分析出亞洲、非洲與歐洲這三大區域之間的區域衛生主義的差異性與關聯性。
在全球衛生治理的背景下，以研究探討的區域衛生主義不只是焦點於它所面對的限制，還有目標於去發現它能產生的其附加價值，從了解它所牽制的成員之參與動機，再至成員之間的互相影響之關係，願呈現出一個更有代表性的基準去理解與衡量所謂區域間主義的區域一體化行動。
關鍵字：區域間主義、區域一體化、全球衛生治理、衛生外交政策
[英文摘要] :
Our recent study focusing on Asia-Europe health interregionalism sheds light on the complex nature, the challenges as well as the functional role of such phenomenon, notably in terms of institutional/norms balancing, norms transmission, institution-building, multilateral utility and identity-building. This confirms that health interregionalism did not represent an epiphenomenon today but rather a growing trend and a tool of soft power and of regional integration. While these conclusions significantly contribute to the academic efforts to better appreciate interregionalism in general as well as global health governance, one have to recognize that they only apply to Asia-Europe health interregionalism which was the empirical ground of our previous research.
Thus, in order to draw more general conclusions about the nature, the role and the challenges of health interregionalism, the main questions are:
Do the nature, the functional role and the challenges identified in the context of Asia-Europe health interregionalism present similitudes, specificities and differences with health interregionalism occurring between other regions of the world? In the light of such comparison, would it be possible to identify some trends characterizing health interregionalism in general today and to explain why such level of interaction has become one of the distinctive characteristics of the global health scene?
In order to answer this problématique and then to draw general conclusions on health interregionalism, a comparative study of health interregionalism between different regions of the world is vital, especially now that to our knowledge there are no other academic studies related to health interregionalism. Comparison will then focus on EU-Africa and EU-Pacific health interregionalism as well as on Asia-Africa and Asia-Pacific health interregionalism as these regions have so far developed rather comprehensive interactions in the domain of health.
Given that comparative study of interregionalism is still in its infancy, comparison of health interregionalism between these different regions will be done through an analytical framework inspired by the research framework we previously used to study Asia-Europe health interregionalism. Thus, in order to identify similarities, specifies and difference of health interregionalism between Asia, Africa, Europe and the Pacific, three levels of comparison will be adopted: 1) comparison of the nature of these health interregionalism (pure/hybrid health interregionalism and health transregionalism), 2) comparison of the functional role of these health interregionalism (institutional/norms balancing, norms channel, institution-building, multilateral utility and identity-building) and 3) comparison of the main challenges of these health interregionalism.
This research aims to contribute to the study of interregionalism and notably to its comparison, to better appreciate the added-value and limits of interregional health initiatives in the context of global health governance and, to represent a valuable benchmark for those regional actors interested in initiating or participating to interregional health partnerships.
Keywords: Interregionalism, regional integration, global health governance, health diplomacy.
