決策者、傳媒和外界社會通常會以佛教慈濟功德會（以下簡稱：慈濟）在臺灣對救濟院的管理以及對教育的貢獻為例，來關注宗教團體在提供社會服務過程中對社會做出的有利貢獻。有些決策者認為，政府在提供醫療保健和社會福利事業上的投入太大，而一些像慈濟這樣的組織卻證明了在醫療保健和災難救助等關鍵的社會服務方面，民間社會組織可以比政府做得更好。本文認為，儘管慈濟在醫療保健，教育和救災等方面取得了顯著的成就。但以此聲稱宗教團體可以替代政府作為一個有效的機構，未免有些太過於樂觀了。為了探討這個問題，本文首先將介紹臺灣「九二一」大地震後主要參與到震後重建工作的組織與機構。其次，本文展示強調依靠民間社會和宗教組織為社會服務的專家論點。第三，文章還將強調來自特有不同宗教觀的政治家、參與社會政策和宗教事務管理的公務員，以及媒體、學者和一些臺灣當代的宗教人士對這種模式的反對。然後，本文將提供慈濟和其他佛教組織對緊急救災的提供和維持重建住宅房屋和學校的詳細資料。最後，文章將討論政府行政措施在對宗教團體災難救助方面依賴的局限。

Policy-makers, media, and outsiders often look at the achievements of the Buddhist Compassion Merit Society for Relief (Fojiao Ciji Gongdehui 佛教慈濟功德會, hereafter Ciji) in the management of its hospitals and its contribution to education in Taiwan as an example of the benefits to society made possible by the involvement of religious institutions in the delivery of social services. Some of the policy-makers who believe that the state is spending too much for the provision of health care and social welfare services see in the activities of organizations such as Ciji proof that civil society organizations can do better than the state for the provision of key social services such as health care and disaster relief. This paper argues that despite the remarkable achievements of Ciji in health care, education and disaster relief, these claims that religious institutions can represent an effective alternative to the state may be too optimistic.It discusses this issue by first presenting the major organizations involved in the reconstruction effort following the 921 earthquake. Then, it will present the arguments of the experts who emphasize reliance on civil society and religious organizations for social services. In a third section, it will underline the opposition this model receives from politicians with different views on religion, civil servants involved with social policy and religious affairs, media, academics, and some of the religious actors themselves in Taiwan. Then, the paper provides
details about Ciji and other Buddhist organizations’ efforts to provide emergency disaster relief andjldl sustain the reconstruction of residential housing and schools. The paper concludes with a discussion of the limits of the government’s strategy of reliance on religious institutions for the provision of disaster relief.