本文從「新社會風險」觀點分析台灣爲因應金融危機而在2008年至2012年實施的就業政策與治理困境。探討議題爲：台灣自1999年以後建構形成的「後工業社會」時期的就業政策體系，是否能夠有效因應金融危機引發的大量失業風險與長期失業風險？台灣在「後工業社會」形成的就業政策體系脈絡下，爲因應金融危機引發大量失業與長期失業風險所實施的就業政策措施，面臨的治理困境爲何？研究發現，台灣的就業安全體系，面對金融危機引發失業風險所曝露出的治理困境是：政府雖然採取了強化「積極促進」政策途徑的失業風險調控策略，但是以就業保險制度爲核心所建構的就業政策體系，回應金融危機引發失業風險的治理能力卻明顯不足，難以有效提供多數失業者所需要的「所得安全」基本保障，同時也無法提供多數失業者所需要的就業促進政策措施，因此政府才會依循過去失業危機時期的路徑依賴，實施各項「非制度性」的短期積極性勞動市場政策方案，企圖彌補就業安全體系的破漏，以因應失業風險問題，可是這些短期勞動市場政策方案的實際成效，至2012年執行結束時，雖然使失業率有所下降，但是整體的失業人數與長期失業人數仍相對然多於金融危機初期的人數，顯示「非制度性」的短期積極性勞動市場政策方案也面臨著治理的限制。

This article aim to explore the employment policies and governance dilemma from the “New Social Policies Approach”, in response to financial crisis since 2008 to 2012 in Taiwan. The issues include: whether the employment policies system in postindustrial society had been constructed since 1997 was able to cope with the risk of massive unemployment risk and long-term unemployment risk triggered by the financial crisis? What the employment policies system had been faced governance dilemma in response to the risk of massive unemployment and the risk of long-term unemploymenttriggered by the financial crisis? The main findings is that although the government performing unemployment risk regulatingstrategies according to activation governance principle, but governance capacityof employment insurance institutions as the core ofemployment policies system is obviously insufficient, it is difficult to effectively provide basic income security and employment promotion measures for most unemployedin response to the unemployment risk caused by financial crisis, bringing forth the government “path dependence” of “non-institutional” short-term active labor market policy programs in an attempt to compensate for the leaking of employment safety net to cope with high risk of unemployment problem. In fact,the actual effectiveness of these “non-institutional” short-term labor market policy programs is limited until 2012, although the decline in the unemployment rate, but the overall numbers of unemployed and the numbers of long-term unemployed is still higher than the numbers of the early financialcrisis , there is a clear governance restrictions that “non-institutional” short-term active labor market policy programs.