本研究探討台灣針對懷孕外籍移工的支持性系統運作現況。研究採用服務主導邏輯理論框架服務系統觀與價值共創的概念，通過深度訪談孕產的合法印尼看護、NGO、中央與縣市政府，分析整體公共服務系統的運作情況。研究發現，政府與NGO已建立保障移工人權的共享價值主張，而不同NGO受到各自組織服務理念影響顯現服務的差異。此外，印尼看護在決定留台生產時主要考量經濟因素、社會支持和重返工作成本等，多數受訪者選擇隱瞞懷孕以維持工作，使用支持性服務後對孕產經驗有正面影響。然而，系統仍面臨諸多挑戰，如社會制度對移工的限制、移工對勞工專線的錯誤認知、來自雇主與仲介的壓力，以及後續托育資源缺乏等。研究顯示移工參與了日常價值共創，但在策略制定層面仍處被動角色；政府與NGO合作受雙方價值主張可配合程度影響，而安置資訊共享不足反映了資源整合不足。從研究的發現，本研究提出以下建議以增進移工懷孕生產的服務系統的效能：建立移工參與機制、鼓勵移工傳播服務資訊、擴大1955平台服務、促進資訊共享，並針對移工福祉議題，進行跨部門的溝通和協調，以整合資源，達到政府、民間機構、移工三者價值共創的效益。

This study examined the supporting systems for pregnant migrant workers in Taiwan. Employing the Service-Dominant (S-D) framework, focusing on service systems and value co-creation, the research analyzed the overall functioning of public service systems through in-depth interviews of pregnant Indonesian caregivers, NGOs, and representatives from related agencies of central and local governments. The findings show that governments and NGOs have established shared value propositions to protect migrant workers' rights, though service differences exist among NGOs due to varying organizational service principles.
Indonesian caregivers mainly considered economic factors, social support, and return-to-work costs when deciding whether to give birth in Taiwan. Many chose to conceal their pregnancies to keep their jobs. Those who used support services reported positive impacts on their experiences. However, the system still faces challenges, including societal restrictions, misunderstandings about labor hotlines, pressure from employers and brokers, and insufficient childcare resources.
The study reveals that while migrant workers participate in daily value co-creation, they remain passive in strategic decisions. The cooperation between the government and NGOs relies on the alignment of their value propositions, and a lack of information sharing reflects insufficient resource integration. Based on the findings of this study, we proposed several policies to enhance the service system performance for pregnant migrant workers, such as the participation of migrant workers to involve the design of service system,, expanding the 1955 platform, and improving cross-departmental communication on welfare issues to enhance value co-creation among governmental agencies, NGOs, and migrant workers.

1.公民行動影音紀錄資料庫 （2023年12月5日）。〈移工盟批政府7機關直聘失能 放任仲介壟斷、移工受害〉。公民行動影音紀錄資料庫。https://www.civilmedia.tw/archives/122846
2.王幼玲、王美玉 （2023）。移工如何在異鄉撫育孩子專案報告。國家人權委員會。
3.杜晉軒 （2024年8月2日）。印尼放寬婦女墮胎限制，允受孕後六周至十四周內墮胎。 TNL The News Lens 關鍵評論網。https://www.thenewslens.com/article/206086
4.陳美琪 （2021）。全球照顧鏈的悲歌：失聯社福女性移工生育安置歷程之初探 （未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。 https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202101507
5.勞動部 (2024)。產業及社福移工人數按國籍分（電子資料庫）。勞動統計查詢。https://statdb.mol.gov.tw/statiscla/webMain.aspx?sys=220&ym=11207&ymt=11307&kind=21&type=1&funid=wq1402&cycle=41&outmode=0&compmode=0&outkind=11&fldspc=16,2,19,3,&rdm=R64797
6.勞動部全球資訊網（2024年1月8日）。112年移工管理及運用調查統計結果 （電子資料庫）。勞動部全球資訊網。https://www.mol.gov.tw/1607/1632/1633/65922/
7.臺灣服務科學學會（2015）。服務科學: 服務系統觀與價值共創論。前程文化。
8.劉黃麗娟 （2022）。從國際勞工公約檢視我國社福類移工人權保護的現況與發展之研究。國家人權委員會。
9.潘淑滿（2022）。質性研究：理論與應用。心理。
10.藍佩嘉 （2005）。階層化的他者：家務移工的招募、訓練與種族化。臺灣社會學刊，34。https://doi.org/10.6786/TJS.200506.0001
11.藍佩嘉 （2006）。合法的奴工，法外的自由：外籍勞工的控制與出走。台灣社會研究季刊，64，107–150。
12.龔宜君（2014）。內捲化的跨國移動：來台印尼爪哇女性移工的道德經濟學。臺灣社會學刊，55。https://doi.org/10.6786/TJS.201412_(55).0002
13.Alomair, N., Alageel, S., Davies, N., & Bailey, J. V. (2020). Factors influencing sexual and reproductive health of Muslim women: A systematic review. Reproductive Health, 17(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-020-0888-1
14.Best, B., Moffett, S., Hannibal, C., & McAdam, R. (2018). Examining networked NGO services: Reconceptualising value co-creation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(7), 1540–1561. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2015-0644
15.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
16.Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation: Public Management Review. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192164
17.Chandler, J. D., & Lusch, R. F. (2015). Service Systems: A Broadened Framework and Research Agenda on Value Propositions, Engagement, and Service Experience. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514537709
18.Cheng, I. (2020). We want productive workers, not fertile women: The expediency of employing Southeast Asian caregivers in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 61(3), 453–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12275
19.Constable, & Nicole. (2014). Born Out of Place: Migrant Mothers and the Politics of International Labor.
20.Constable, N. (2015). Migrant Motherhood, ‘Failed Migration’, and the Gendered Risks of Precarious Labour. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 3(1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1017/trn.2014.13
21.Constable, N. (2020). Tales of two cities: Legislating pregnancy and marriage among foreign domestic workers in Singapore and Hong Kong. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(16), 3491–3507. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1592403
22.Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE.
23.Dudau, A., Stirbu, D., Petrescu, M., & Bocioaga, A. (2023). Enabling PSL and value co-creation through public engagement: A study of municipal service regeneration. Public Management Review, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2203148
24.Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public Money & Management, 14(3), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969409387823
25.Eriksson, E., Andersson, T., Hellström, A., Gadolin, C., & Lifvergren, S. (2020). Collaborative public management: Coordinated value propositions among public service organizations. Public Management Review, 22(6), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1604793
26.Fernandez, B. (2018). Health inequities faced by Ethiopian migrant domestic workers in Lebanon. Health & Place, 50, 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.01.008
27.Gadrey, J. (2002). The Misuse of Productivity Concepts in Services: In J. Gadrey & F. Gallouj (Eds.), Productivity, Innovation and Knowledge in Services. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/1840649690.00011
28.Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of Value Creation and Co-Creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3
29.Hu, Y. (Ed.). (2008). Zhi xing yan jiu: Li lun, fang fa ji ben tu nü xing yan jiu shi li (2 ban). Ju liu tu shu gu fen you xian gong si.
30.Joiner, K., & Lusch, R. (2016). Evolving to a new service-dominant logic for health care. Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Health, 25. https://doi.org/10.2147/IEH.S93473
31.Kemp, A., & Kfir, N. (2016). Wanted Workers but Unwanted Mothers: Mobilizing Moral Claims on Migrant Care Workers’ Families in Israel. Social Problems, 63(3), 373–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spw016
32.Lan, P.-C. (2022). Contested skills and constrained mobilities: Migrant carework skill regimes in Taiwan and Japan. Comparative Migration Studies, 10(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-022-00311-2
33.Lee, T., Jarupreechachan, W., & Tseng, Y.-C. (2022). Exploring low-income migrant workers’ health information-seeking behavior during COVID-19 in Taiwan: A qualitative study. DIGITAL HEALTH, 8, 20552076221133764. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076221133764
34.Loveband, A. (2004). Nationality Matters: SARS and Foreign Domestic Workers’ Rights in Taiwan Province of China. International Migration, 42(5), 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-7985.2004.00304.x
35.Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-Dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139043120
36.McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Vargo, S. L., Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C., & Kasteren, Y. V. (2012). Health Care Customer Value Cocreation Practice Styles. Journal of Service Research, 15(4), 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670512442806
37.Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (Fourth edition). John Wiley & Sons.
38.Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review, 20(2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461
39.Osborne, S. P., Nasi, G., & Powell, M. (2021). Beyond co-production: Value creation and public services. Public Administration, 99(4), 641–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12718
40.Osborne, S., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A New Theory for Public Management? Toward a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012466935
41.Paul, A. M., & Neo, P. (2018). Am I allowed to be pregnant? Awareness of pregnancy protection laws among migrant domestic workers in Hong Kong. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(7), 1195–1213. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1367651
42.Radl-Karimi, C., Nicolaisen, A., Sodemann, M., Batalden, P., & Von Plessen, C. (2018). Coproduction of healthcare service with immigrant patients: Protocol of a scoping review. BMJ Open, 8(2), e019519. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019519
43.Røhnebæk, M., & Bjerck, M. (2021). Enabling and Constraining Conditions for Co-production with Vulnerable Users: A Case Study of Refugee Services. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(9), 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1908355
44.Rother, S. (2017). Indonesian migrant domestic workers in transnational political spaces: Agency, gender roles and social class formation: Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 43(6), 956–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1274567
45.Rydzik, A., & Anitha, S. (2020). Conceptualising the Agency of Migrant Women Workers: Resilience, Reworking and Resistance. Work, Employment and Society, 34(5), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019881939
46.Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (2001). 質性研究入門: 紮根理論研究方法 (初版) (吳芝儀、廖梅花譯)。濤石文化。(原著出版於1998年)
47.Strokosch, K., & Osborne, S. P. (2016). Asylum Seekers and the Co-production of Public Services: Understanding the Implications for Social Inclusion and Citizenship | Journal of Social Policy. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279416000258
48.Trischler, J., & Charles, M. (2019). The Application of a Service Ecosystems Lens to Public Policy Analysis and Design: Exploring the Frontiers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 38(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915618818566
49.Tseng, Y., & Wang, H. (2013). Governing Migrant Workers at a Distance: Managing the Temporary Status of Guestworkers in Taiwan. International Migration, 51(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2010.00639.x
50.Vargo, S. L. (2018). Service-Dominant Logic: Backward and Forward. In S. Vargo & R. Lusch, The SAGE Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic (pp. 720–737). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526470355.n41
51.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
52.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
53.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3
54.Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003
55.Vargo, S., Koskela-Huotari, K., & Vink, J. (2020). Service-Dominant Logic: Foundations and Applications (pp. 3–23).
56.Weng, S.-F., Malik, A., Wongsin, U., Lohmeyer, F. M., Lin, L.-F., Atique, S., Jian, W.-S., Gusman, Y., & Iqbal, U. (2021). Health Service Access among Indonesian Migrant Domestic Workers in Taiwan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073759
57.Willen, S. S. (2023). Birthing “Invisible” Children: State Power, NGO Activism, and Reproductive Health among “Illegal Migrant” Workers in Tel Aviv, Israel.
58.Williams, C. P. (2008). Female transnational migration, religion and subjectivity: The case of Indonesian domestic workers. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 49(3), 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2008.00382.x
59.Wiryani, F., Andang, W., & Nasser, M. (2020). Abortion Legalization and Child in The Womb Right to Life: A Study from Indonesia. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.210
60.Yeoh, B. S. A., Huang, S., & Gonzalez, J. (1999). Migrant Female Domestic Workers: Debating the Economic, Social and Political Impacts in Singapore. The International Migration Review, 33(1), 114–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/2547324