摘要(英) |
In recent years, the participatory budget has become an irresistible trend of the times, its development in many major cities around the world is one of the strategies of democratic political participation, in recent years, Taiwan’s local governments are in full swing to promote, in which Taoyuan City Yangmei District to promote the model is the sub-contractor, commonly known as the "Operating by Community " model.
The approach is for the executive authorities to implement the budget, through the government procurement process, a NGO or a team of colleges and universities to implement the budget in the significance and procedures of a participatory budget, just as the Taoyuan City Youth Affairs Bureau and the National Central University in 2018 to implement the "Participation budget and the Deliberative democracy training program", by which the team and the Youth Affairs Bureau and Civil Affairs office of Yangmei District, a 70% Hakka population in Taoyuan City Yangmei District, to participate budget promotion . Therefore, the Grassroots official of the Civil Affairs office of Yangmei District and Youth Affairs Bureau have become the core and bridge of communication in the implementation of the policy operation, which also has a considerable impact on the effectiveness of policy promotion.
This study provides a supplement to the practical experience of the promotion model from the perspective of the Grassroots executor, gives a more detailed discussion, and uses the discussion of the attitude of the executor to strengthen the policy planning and design, and enhances the reference of policy execution.
In order to deeply explore the influence of Grassroots bureaucrats in the policy process, the researchers obtain the intention of Grassroots bureaucrats in the implementation process, the difficulties encountered, the causes of problems and the response strategies to solve the problem, at the same time, it is supplemented by literature discussion and secondary data analysis methods to find out the role and interaction of Grassroots officer in the process of promoting participatory budget policies, this study has the following findings and recommendations at last:
1. The strong support of local heads for participatory budgets is one of the necessary factors to promote citizen participation.
2. The Grassroots officer should strengthen the professional knowledge and skills sufficient, the enough expertise to be able to reduce the sense of exclusion in implementation and enhance people′s sense of identity.
3. The lack of manpower and time can’t often provide the significance of participatory budget’s implemented.
4. A good communication channel allows the Grassroots bureaucrats to undertake subordinates have a better impetus.
5. Establish a complete set of standard operating procedures (SOP) to facilitate citizen participation or the implementation of new policies.
6. The grassroots bureaucracy walked out of the office and stepped into the countryside, listen to people, let the officials get the connection with people, find more people′s problems, and improve them to solve. |
參考文獻 |
壹、中文文獻
一、專書
Earl Babbie 著(林秀雲譯)(2016),《社會科學研究方法》,臺北:雙葉。
Michael Lipsky 著(蘇文賢、江吟梓譯)(2010),《基層官僚:公職人員的困境》,
臺北:學富文化。
王 東(1998)。《客家學導論》。臺北:南天書局有限公司。
王雲東(2012)。《社會研究方法:量化與質性取向及其應用》。新北市:威士曼文
化。
王雲東(2013)。《社會研究方法 (第二版) 》。新北市:威仕曼文化。
尹章義(2003)。《臺灣客家史研究》。臺北:臺北市政府客家事務委員會。
江運貴(1996)。《客家與臺灣》。臺北:常民文化事業股份有限公司。
洪 蘭(1995)。《心理學》。臺北:遠流出版社。
孫本初(2009)。《新公共管理》。臺北:一品文化。
陳運棟(1978)。《客家人》。臺北:東門出版社。
郭秋永(2001)。《當代三大民主理論(繁體版) 》。臺北:聯經出版社。
曾純純(2005)。《書寫客家生命:六堆鄉賢回憶錄》。臺北:南天書局有限公司。
張春興(1992)。《張氏心理學辭典》。臺北:台灣東華書局。
張春興(1995)。《現代心理學》,初版。臺北:台灣東華書局。
廖洲棚(2016)。《官僚回應性:臺灣經驗的觀察與省思》,臺北:翰蘆圖書。
鄭惠美(2006)。《藍衫與女紅:客家女子的衣飾美學》。新竹縣竹北市:行政院客家委
員會臺灣客家文化中心籌備處。
二、期刊論文
余致力(2000)。〈論公共行政在民主治理過程中的正當角色:黑堡宣言的内涵、定位與啓示〉。《公共行政學報》,第四期,第1頁至第29頁。
施能傑(2004)。〈公共服務倫理的理論架構與規範作法〉,《政治科學論叢》,第二
十期,第103頁至第140頁。
范祥儲(2002)。〈 政府業務委託民間辦理之理論與政策〉,《人事月刊》,第5期,
第54頁至第59頁。
孫 煒(2018)。〈臺灣地方文化活動契約委外的績效觀感:客家節慶利害關係人的角
度,《行政暨政策學報》,第66期,第1頁至第38頁。
徐仁輝(2014)。〈參與式預算度制度的理論與實踐〉,《財稅研究》,43(2):第1
頁至第11頁。
許國賢(2001)。〈商議式民主與民主想像〉,《政治科學叢書》,第十三期,第61頁
至第92頁。
陳敦源、黄東益、蕭乃沂、郭思禹(2006)。〈官僚回應性與内部顧客關係管理:台北
市政府市長信箱個案研究〉。《行政暨政策學報》,第42期,第143頁至第182
頁。
陳敦源、張世杰(2010)。〈公私協力夥伴關係的弔詭〉,《文官制度季刊》,第2卷,
第3 期,第17頁至第71頁。
陳重安(2011)。〈「政府契約委外的再檢視:目標、理論應用、績效衡量、與知識論
基礎〉,《公共行政學報》,第40 期,第111頁至第143頁。
黄榮護(2000)。〈以議題管理途徑形塑台北市政府多部門協力關係策略〉。台北市政
府研考會委託研究計畫。
黃東益、陳敦源、蕭乃沂(2006)。政策民意調查:公共政策過程中的公共諮詢。研考
雙月刊,30(4),第13頁至第27頁。
黃東益、施佳良、傅凱若(2007)。地方公共審議說理過程初探:2005 年宜蘭社大公民
會議個案研究。公共行政學報,(24),第71頁至第102頁。
曾冠球(2010)。〈「問題廠商」還是「問題政府」?電子化政府公私合夥協力困境之
個案分析〉,《公共行政學報》,第34 期,第77頁至第121頁。
曾冠球、江明修(2010)。〈跨機關合作中的政治與官僚辯證:「行政團隊」與「首長
間信任建立」之意涵與困局〉,《國家與社會》,第8 期,第1頁至第46頁。
曾冠球(2011)。〈協力治理觀點下公共管理者的挑戰與能力建立〉,《文官制度季刊》,
第3 卷,第1 期,第27頁至第52頁。
廖洲棚(2011)。〈公民社會中的官僚回應困境:理性選擇的觀點〉,《空大行政學報》,
第 22 期,第279頁至第307頁。
蔡允棟(2001)。〈官僚組織回應力之研究:個案實證分析〉,《政治科學論叢》,第
十五期,第209頁至第240頁。
蔡勝男(2005)。〈公共行政治理模式的研究:歷史詮釋分析的觀點〉,《T&D飛訊》,
第三十四期,第1頁至第17頁。
蘇彩足(2017)。〈公部門推動參與式預算之經驗與省思〉,《文官制度季刊》,第 9
卷第 2 期,第1頁至第22頁。
蘇彩足、孫煒(2015)。〈政府實施參與式預算之可行性評估〉,《國家發展委員會委
託研究報告》。
三、研究報告
莫永榮(2004)。〈政府服務委託外包的理論與實務:臺灣經驗〉,兩岸公共行政學術
參訪暨論文座談會,國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系。
許敏娟、黃琬瑜、曾豐彥、林德芳(2017)。〈推動臺北市參與式預算:程式與實踐的
觀點〉發表於《2017 年社會暨公共事務學術研討會:永續發展與公共治理》,臺北:
臺北市立大學社會暨公共事務學系。
廖洲棚、陳敦源、廖興中(2013)。《回應性政府的最後一哩路:政府公民關係管理資
料加值應用之研究》,行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告。
蘇彩足、孫煒、蔡馨芳(2015)。《政府實施參與式預算之可能性》(國家發展委員會
委託研究報告),臺北:國家發展委員會。
四、網絡文章
王亞男 (2017)。〈中國官僚政治研究〉,《每日頭條》。2020 年 03 月 13 日,取
自https://kknews.cc/culture/bq2y8oo.html。
桃園市政府 (2017)。〈參與式預算網:參與式預算由你我來決定〉,《桃園市政府》。
2019年12月13日,取自
https://www.tycg.gov.tw/budget/home.jsp?id=4&parentpath=0,3 。
桃園市政府 (2019)。〈認識桃園:各區簡介〉,《楊梅區》。2020年4月18日,取
自https://www.tycg.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=10106&parentpath=0,6,10099。
萬毓澤 (2013)。〈參與式預算的興衰浮沈:巴西愉港的故事〉,《巷仔口社會學》。
2019年12月12日,取自 https://twstreetcorner.org/2013/06/17/wanyuze/。
臺中市政府民政局 (2017)。〈臺中參與式預算:認識參與式預算〉,《臺中市政府民
政局》。2019年12月13日,取自http://pb.taichung.gov.tw/introduce。
貳、 外文文獻
Bolton, Ruth N. and James. H. Drew (1991), “A Multi-Stage Model of Customers Assessments of Service Quality and value, " Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375-384.
Demir,T andR. C Nyhan, 2008. " The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: an Empirical Search for Correspondence between Theory and Practice. " Public Administration Review, 68(1): 81-96
Etzioni-Halevy, E., 1983, Bureaucracy and Democracy: a Political Dilemma. Boston: Routledge & K. Paul.
Frederickson, H. G., 1997, The Spirit of Public Administration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Gormley, W. T. and S J. Balla, 2004, Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and
Performance. Washington, D. C.: CQ Press.
Goss, Sue. 2001. Making Local Governance Work: Networks, Relationships, and the
Management of Change. New York: Palgrave.
Heclo, H., 1977, A Government of Strangers: Executive Politics in Washington.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Kelly, J. R. (1987). Freedom to be-A new sociology of leisure. New York: MacMillan.
Kettl, D. F., 1993, Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets. Washington,
D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The question of participation:
Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public
administration review, 317-326.
Lara, Fernando Luiz. (2010). Beyond Curitiba: The rise of a participatory model for urban
intervention in Brazil. Urban Design International, 15(2), 119-128.
Lawton, A., 1998, Ethical Management for the Public Services. Philadelphia, PA.: Open
University Press.
Maranto, R., 2005, Beyond a Government of Strangers: How Career Executives and
Political Appointees Can Turn Conflict to Cooperation. Lanham MD: Lexington.
Mccray-Mccall, D., 2007, Embodying Politics and Administration: the World of the
Political Appointee in Municipal Government. Unpublished dissertation, State
University of Cleveland
Newman. Janet. 2001. Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society,
London: Sage Publications
O’ Leary, R., 2006, The Ethics of Dissent. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Peters, B.G., 1989, The Politics of Bureaucracy. New York: Longman.
Pine II, B. J. and J. H. Gilmore, 1999, The Experience Economy, Boston: Harvard Business
school press.
Robbins, M. D., Simonsen, B., & Feldman, B. (2008). Citizens and resource allocation:
Improving decision making with interactive web‐based citizen participation. Public
Administration Review, 68(3), 564-575.
Rubin, I. S.2000.The Politics of Public Budgeting : Getting and Spending, Borrowing and
Balancing, 4th ed. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
Ralph, P. hummel (1994), The Bureaucratic Experience :A Critique of Life in the Modern
Organization
Schmitt (1999). How to Get Customers to Sense , Feel, Think, Act, and Relate to Your Company
and Brands, New York .
Thomas, J. C. (2012). Citizen, customer, partner: Engaging the public in public management. ME Sharpe.
Waldo, D., 1984, The Administrative State. New York:Holmes and Mier Publishers.
Wampler, B. (2007) “A Guide to Participatory Budgeting.” Anwar Shah (ed). Participatory Budgeting. Washington, D.C: The World Bank.
Wilson, W., 1887, "The Study of Administration.” Political Science Quarterly,11(2):197-222.
Zhang, Y., & Yang, K. (2009). Citizen participation in the budget process: The effect of city managers. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 21(2), 289-317. |