政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/137015
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113318/144297 (79%)
Visitors : 51083073      Online Users : 920
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/137015


    Title: 我國政府機關承辦人員在政策過程中之角色研究：基層官僚的分析觀點
    Exploring the roles of officers-in-charge in policy process in Taiwan: the perspective of street-level bureaucracy
    Authors: 楊雅淋
    Yang, Ya-Lin
    Contributors: 蘇偉業
    So, Wai-Yip
    楊雅淋
    Yang, Ya-Lin
    Keywords: 承辦人員
    基層官僚
    基層政策企業家
    政策過程
    Officers-in-charge
    Street-level bureaucrats
    Street-level policy entrepreneurs
    Policy process
    Date: 2021
    Issue Date: 2021-09-02 17:18:17 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 臺灣的公部門有一群「承辦人員」，他們與西方基層官僚有著高度相似的特質。國內外既有基層官僚的研究多聚焦於政策執行層次的討論，卻忽略了政策過程中的制度結構是影響基層官僚行為的重要變數，且基層官僚除了參與執行，也可能影響政策設計。國內既有研究未有從政策發展脈絡出發，藉此探究做為基層人員的政策承辦人員，在制度結構的影響下，如何採取行動以及回應其他政策參與者。本研究嘗試以政策承辦人員作為臺灣本土個案實證分析的對象，透過檢視政策個案的發展軌跡，瞭解承辦人員所在政策場域的制度結構，並探究承辦人員在政策過程中所扮演的角色功能，進一步與西方基層官僚研究對話。
    本研究採文獻分析法與深度訪談法進行資料蒐集，完整描繪臺北市政府四個創新政策個案：石頭湯計畫、田園城市計畫、北門街招計畫、臺北眾力方程式計畫，從政策形成到政策執行或終結的發展歷程，從而發現在公私協力關係下，承辦人員除對受託單位進行履約管理，還扮演資訊傳遞、跨機關溝通協調與資源連結等樞紐角色。雖然不直接在第一線進行服務輸送，但承辦人員透過一些基層管理行動，諸如轉譯計畫目標、動員協力夥伴、為受託執行單位與機關搭橋，甚至根據政策實務調整服務模式等方式間接回應民眾的需求，藉此辨識計畫的整體服務缺口。此外，本研究也發現在開放組織文化以及提案權力下放的治理結構下，做為基層人員的承辦人員可能扮演基層政策企業家的角色，成為政策變遷的推手。
    Officers-in charge —individuals who are in charge of specific projects and occupy low- and middle-level positions within hierarchy in Taiwan—are most frequently characterized as implementers. However, there has been little investigation of how organizational condition and institutional settings affect the strategies that officers-in-charge exercise in their jobs throughout the policy process. As more street-level bureaucracy and street-level policy entrepreneurship studies imply that bureaucrats working at the street level are sometimes successful at influencing the design of policy, not just implementing it, we may expect the officers-in-charge in Taiwan to do so.
    To explore the role of officers-in-charge in the policy process, this study draws on four policy programs under the Taipei City Government, combined with in-depth semi-structured interviews and documentary sources such as official documents and news reports. Findings reveal that in the public-private partnerships, officers-in charge manage contracting relationships and perform as boundary spanners. Their boundary spanning activities involve gathering or sharing information with the allies, building networks, and investing resources. Instead of engaging in direct public service delivery, officers-in-charge undertake the following functions: to mobilize contractors and other non-profit organizations, to reshape delivery arrangements to address implementation gaps identified on the ground, to help citizens articulate and meet their shared interests.
    We also demonstrate that street-level policy entrepreneurs are significantly motivated by flexible and reflexive organizational cultures and less hierarchical administration which allows low-level officials easier access to policy design, which in turn enables officers-in-charge to engage in actions for policy change.
    Reference: 壹、中文部分
    禾拓規劃設計顧問有限公司（2017）。田園城市推廣計畫策略規劃技術服務案-第1年度（105年）期末報告書，2018年12月4日，取自：http://211.79.137.114:5000/sharing/jO8zcsxbq
    朱達暉（1992）。規制性政策基層官僚執行行為之研究：我國公害防治法規之執行分析。國立中興大學公共政策研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺中。
    行政院（2015）。文書處理手冊，2018年1月28日，取自行政院官網：https://www.ey.gov.tw/news.aspx?n=950a35056632339b。
    宋秀英（2012）。基層行政人員角色與衝突：以臺北市交通事件裁決所為例。國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
    李仲彬（2016）。從哪來創新想法？地方政府創新來源與創新政策特質的分析。公共行政學報，（50），1-42。
    李臺榕（2011）。基層官僚組織回應性及其影響因素之檢證：民意電子信箱之測試。世新大學行政管理學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
    尚榮安（譯）（2001），個案研究法（Robert K.Yin原著）。臺北：弘智文化。
    林文琋（2014）。基層官僚對違章建築認定與拆除執行的工作壓力研究：以新北市為例。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
    林冠妙（2016 年1月27日）。整合長照軟實力．柯P推「石頭湯」等社區照顧計畫。民報，2018年7 月12日，取自：http://www.peoplenews.tw/news/a9a3a67b-3aa4-4a27-ab4b-2fdd25d14c80。
    邱毓玫（2007）。基層官僚政策執行裁量行為之研究：以基層員警執行交通違規舉發為例。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
    馬中哲（2016）。政府開放資料承辦人員之資料尋求歷程初探。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
    張文瓊、吳淑瓊（2014）。整合健康與長照服務：國際經驗與政策啟示。社區發展季刊，（145），98-110。
    張世杰（2016年7月10日）。重塑北門意象．北市府獎勵店家換招牌，聯合新聞網，2018年8月13日，取自：https://news.housefun.com.tw/news/article/163900135107.html。
    陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北：五南。
    陳智昆（2011）。國賠案件中基層官僚機關的行爲動機與行爲類型。公共行政學報，（38），75-113。
    陳瑞勇（2010）。區公所基層官僚執行社會救助的省思：以高雄市旗津區為例。國立中山大學政治學研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
    彭渰雯（2008）。基層員警取締性交易的執行研究：批判性詮釋途徑之應用。公共行政學報，（28），115-151。
    曾冠球（2004）。基層官僚人員裁量行為之初探：以臺北市區公所組織為例。行政暨政策學報，（38），95-140。
    黃立遠（2016年11月）。臺北市田園城市的推動。2016臺北市學習型城市願景國際研討會，臺北。
    黃浩瑋（2012）。我國促參業務承辦人員行為動機對組織承諾及工作投入影響研究：物質誘因、團隊關係、公共服務動機之比較。國立臺南大學行政管理學系碩士論文，未出版，臺南。
    廖洲棚（2006）。基層官僚提供線上申辦服務之評估：以臺北市政府為例。政策研究學報，（6），133-171。
    廖慧美（2004）。我國基層行政人員行政裁量行為之研究：以轉換型領導之觀點。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
    臺北市政府公園路燈管理處（2015）。臺北市田園城市推廣實施計畫，2018年8 月10日，取自：http://tcgwww.taipei.gov.tw/np.asp?ctNode=79646&mp=gardencity。
    臺北市都市更新處（2019）。臺北市議會工務委員會審議107年度臺北市都市更新基金整體規劃具體內容及成果報告，2020年7月18日，取自：http://tccmis.tcc.gov.tw/upload/OM_HTML/Attach/31748/5fac8a8bdfbd7cffffa259a3cdcb6a63_786975_1076000186_1_ATTACH1.pdf。
    臺北市都市更新處（編）（2019）。2018臺北眾力方程式成果專刊。臺北：臺北市都市更新處。
    戴于文（2014）。影響公所承辦人員行政裁量之主觀經驗分析：以「馬上關懷急難救助」為例。輔仁大學社會工作學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
    蘇偉業（譯）（2016）。公共政策入門（Kevin B. Smith和Christopher
    W. Larimer原著）。臺北：五南出版社。

    貳、英文部分
    Anderson, J. E. (2015). Public Policymaking: An introduction (8th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
    Arnold, G. (2014). Policy learning and science policy innovation adoption by street-level bureaucrats. Journal of Public Policy, 34(3), 389-414.
    Arnold, G. (2015). Street-level policy entrepreneurship. Public Management Review, 17(3), 307-327.
    Arnold, G. (2020). Distinguishing the street-level policy entrepreneur. Public Administration, 1-15.
    Aviv, I., J. Gal, & I. Weiss‐Gal. (2021). Social workers as street‐level policy entrepreneurs. Public Administration, 1–15.
    Bailey et al. (2017). The policy work of piloting: Mobilising and managing conflict and ambiguity in the English NHS. Social Science & Medicine, 179, 210-217.
    Bannink, D., F. Six, & van Wijk, E. (2016). Bureaucratic, market or professional control? A theory on the relation between street-level task characteristics and the feasibility of control mechanisms. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 205-225). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Barrett, S., & C. Fudge. (1981). Examining the Policy-Action Relationship. In Barrett, S., & C. Fudge (eds.), Policy and Action:Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy (pp. 3-32). London: Methuen.
    Bennett, C. J., & M. Howlett. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 275-294.
    Bernier, L., & T. Hafsi. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 488-503.
    Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), i253-i277.
    Brodkin, E. Z. (2016). The inside Story: Street-‐Level Research in the US and Beyond. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 25-42). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Buffat, A. (2016). When and why discretion is weak or strong: the case of taxing officers in a Public Unemployment Fund. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 79-96). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Cohen, N. (2018). How culture affects street-level bureaucrats’ bending the rules in the context of informal payments for health care: The Israeli case. The American review of public administration, 48(2), 175-187.
    Cohen, N., & N. Frisch-Aviram. (2021). Street-level bureaucrats and policy entrepreneurship: When implementers challenge policy design. Public Administration, 1- 12.
    De Corte, J., J. Devlieghere, G. Roets, & R. Roose. (2019). Top-Down Policy Implementation and Social Workers as Institutional Entrepreneurs: The Case of an Electronic Information System in Belgium. The British Journal of Social Work, 49(5), 1317-1332.
    DeLeon, P. (1999). The stages approach to the policy process: What has it done? Where is it going. Theories of the Policy Process, 1(19), 19-32.
    Dunn, W. N. (2016). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
    Durose, C. (2011). Revisiting Lipsky: Front‐line work in UK local governance. Political Studies, 59(4), 978-995.
    Elmore, R. F. (1978). Organizational models of social program implementation. Public Policy, 26(2), 185-228.
    Evans, T. (2016). Professionals and discretion in street-level bureaucracy. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 279-293). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Frisch-Aviram, N., N. Cohen, & I. Beeri. (2018). Low-level bureaucrats, local government regimes and policy entrepreneurship. Policy Sciences, 51(1), 39-57.
    Gassner, D., & A. Gofen. (2018). Street-level management: A clientele-agent perspective on implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 551-568.
    Gofen, A., G. Lotta, & M. Marchesini da Costa. (2021). Working through the fog of a pandemic: Street-level policy entrepreneurship in times of crises. Public Administration, 1-16.
    Harrison, S. (2016). Street-level bureaucracy and professionalism in health services. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 61-77). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Hill, M., & P. Hupe. (2009). Implementing Public Policy: An Introduction to the Study of Operational Governance (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
    Honig, M. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357-383.
    Hupe, P., & A. Buffat. (2014). A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548-569.
    Hupe, P., & E. van Kooten. (2016). First-line supervisors as gate-keepers: rule processing by head teachers. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 227-241). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Hupe, P., & M. Hill. (2007). Street‐Level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279-299.
    Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat. (2016). Introduction: defining and understanding street-level bureaucracy. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 3-24). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Jensen, D. C. (2015). Does Core Task Matter for Decision-Making?: A Comparative Case Study on Whether Differences in Job Characteristics Affect Discretionary Street-Level Decision-Making. Administration and Society, Prepublished 10, 8, 2015, DOI: 10.1177/0095399715609383.
    Juncos, Ana E. & K. Pomorska. (2010). Secretariat, Facilitator or Policy Entrepreneur? Role Perceptions of Officials of the Council Secretariat, In: Vanhoonacker, Sophie, Hylke Dijkstra and Heidi Maurer (eds). Understanding the Role of Bureaucracy in the European Security and Defence Policy, European Integration online Papers (EIoP), Special Issue 1, Vol. 14, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/2010-007a.htm.
    Keiser, L. R. (2010). Understanding Street‐Level Bureaucrats` Decision Making: Determining Eligibility in the Social Security Disability Program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247-257.
    Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (updated 2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Longman.
    Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A Pre-view of Policy Sciences. New York, NY: American Elsevier publishing company.
    Lavee, E., & N, Cohen. (2019). How street‐level bureaucrats become policy entrepreneurs: The case of urban renewal. Governance, 32(3), 475-492.
    Lavee, E., N. Cohen, & H. Nouman. (2018). Reinforcing public responsibility? Influences and practices in street‐level bureaucrats` engagement in policy design. Public Administration, 96(2), 333-348.
    Lipsky, M. (1969). Toward a Theory of Street-level Bureaucracy. Madison: Institute for Research on Poverty. Retrieved September 3, 2017, from: https://www.historyofsocialwork.org/1969_Lipsky/1969,%20Lipsky,%20toward%20a%20theory%20of%20street%20level%20bureaucracy%20OCR%20C.pdf
    Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
    May, P. J., & S. C. Winter. (2007). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453-476.
    Maynard-Moody, S., & M. Musheno. (2000). State Agent or Citizen Agent: Two Narratives of Discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329-358.
    McCuaig, L., T. Rossi, E. Enright, & K. Shelley. (2019). Schools, student health and family welfare: Exploring teachers’ work as boundary spanners. British Educational Research Journal, 45(5), 1001-1020.
    Murphy, M., & P. Skillen. (2015). The politics of time on the frontline: Street level bureaucracy, professional judgment, and public accountability. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(9), 632-641.
    Musheno, M., & Maynard-Moody, S. (2016). Playing the rules: Discretion in social and policy context. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 169-186). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Nielsen, V. L. (2016). Law enforcement behaviour of regulatory inspectors. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 115-131). Bristol: Policy Press.
    O’Sullivan, D. (2016). Power, politics and the street-level bureaucrat in Indigenous Australian health. Journal of Sociology, 52(4), 646-660.
    Pautz, M. C. (2012). Their views matter: Frontline regulators` perceptions of the regulated community in Ohio. Policy Studies Journal, 40(2), 302-323.
    Petchey, R., J. Williams, & Y. H. Carter. (2008). From Street‐level Bureaucrats to Street‐level Policy Entrepreneurs? Central Policy and Local Action in Lottery‐funded Community Cancer Care. Social Policy & Administration, 42(1), 59-76.
    Pressman, J. L., & A. B. Wildavsky. (1984). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why It`s Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of ruined hopes(3rd ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
    Sabatier, P. A., & H. C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.). (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder , CO: Westview Press.
    Sager et al. (2014). Street-level Bureaucrats and New Modes of Governance: How conflicting roles affect the implementation of the Swiss Ordinance on Veterinary Medicinal Products. Public Management Review, 16(4), 481-502.
    Schuppan, T. (2016). Service workers on the electronic leash? Street-level bureaucrats in emerging information and communication technology work contexts. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 243-260). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Siciliano, M. D. (2017). Professional networks and street-level performance: How public school teachers’ advice networks influence student performance. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 79-101.
    So, B. W. Y. (2012). Learning as a key to citizen-centred performance improvement: a comparison between the health service centre and the household registration office in Taipei City. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(2), 201-210.
    Sowa, J. E., & J. Lu. (2017). Policy and management: Considering public management and its relationship to policy studies. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 74-100.
    Teodoro, M. P. (2009). Bureaucratic job mobility and the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 175-189.
    Tummers et al. (2012). Public professionals and policy implementation: Conceptualizing and measuring three types of role conflicts. Public Management Review, 14(8), 1041-1059.
    Tummers, L., & V. Bekkers. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527-547.
    van der Aa, P., & van Berkel, R. (2016). Fulfilling the promise of professionalism in street-level practice. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 263-278). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Walker, C. (2016). Discretionary payments in social assistance. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 45-60). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Weible, C. M., T. Heikkila , & P. A. Sabatier. (2012). Understanding and influencing the policy process. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 1-21.
    Winter, S., & P. May. (2016). Street-level bureaucrats and regulatory deterrence. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 133-152). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Yang, K. (2015). From administration to management. In M. E. Guy & M. Rubin (eds.), Public Administration Evolving; From Foundation to the Future (pp. 103-122). New York, NY: Routledge.
    Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: structure, limitations, prospects.” In Paul A. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 65-92) Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政學系
    105256028
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105256028
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202101436
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Public Administration] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    602801.pdf3344KbAdobe PDF2214View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback