Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35398
|
| Title: | 我國非營利組織在立法過程中的議題倡導策略—以董氏基金會推動「菸害防制法」修訂為例 |
| Authors: | 林育生 |
| Contributors: | 黃秉德
林育生 |
| Keywords: | 非營利組織
議題倡導
立法過程
董氏基金會
菸害防制法
Non-profit Organizations
Bill Promotion
Legislation Processes
John Tung Foundation
Tobacco Hazard Prevention and Control Act |
| Date: | 2006 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-18 14:55:31 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 隨著台灣民主的多元深化，各種公共政策議題的倡議也愈趨複雜細膩，而利益團體及非營利組織在政策制訂過程的地位也愈趨重要，但實務上，台灣的非營利組織在政策制訂過程中的地位仍屬模糊，特別是在立法過程中的角色扮演與策略選擇，不僅在理論層次的研究中缺少關懷，在實務操作層次上也未獲一般的非營利組織重視，而使得非營利組織在政策立法過程中的未能適切的發揮其應有的功能。因此，本文希望透過非營利組織理論和議題倡導策略分析的結合，建構一個非營利組織在我國立法運作中倡導議題的基本框架，並作為未來相關非營利組織在立法過程中策略選擇的參考依據。
以非營利組織相關理論和公共政策類型區分，可知相關的組織角色和政策類型種類繁多，但本文限於研究範圍，主要將關注於「價值維護者」非營利組織對於「管制性政策」在立法過程中的倡導策略，並選擇以董氏基金會推動「菸害防制法」修訂作為主要的研究個案。本文並以立法過程作為時間的縱面，切割為程序委員會及院會一讀的「立法形成期」、委員會審查的「法案角力期」和黨團協商及院會二三讀的「折衝妥協期」等三個階段，分別分析董氏基金會在不同階段推動「菸害防制法」修訂所採取的各種議題倡導策略，並透過深度訪談等方式蒐集資料，對其所運用的議題倡導策略的利弊得失進行審視評估。
本文研究發現，董氏基金會在歷時兩年半的菸害防制法修法過程中所採取的議題倡導策略，主要有「道德化『困窘策略』的策略主軸」、「結合媒體訴求的行動策略模式」、「單一而執著的直線操作」等幾項特點，而可能忽略了立法院妥協的議事文化、並對於立法院議事技巧不夠熟悉，從而造成菸害防制法修訂的延宕與議題倡導的挫敗。從董氏基金會推動菸害防制法的案例中，本研究認為，有關國內非營利組織進行議題倡導及立法遊說時，最為缺乏而急迫需要的，就是議題倡導及立法遊說的專業化訓練，因此建議我國非營利組織應該加強對於在立法過程中議題倡導策略的專業訓練，使其能夠更為順暢地完成其議題倡導的使命。
關鍵字：非營利組織、議題倡導、立法過程、董氏基金會、菸害防制法
As the democracy in Taiwan became more intensely diversified, the promotion of various types of bills on public policies turned more complex and more delicate. In addition, the status of both profit-bearing and non-profit organizations in the process of policy establishment also became rather important. However, practically, the status of Taiwan’s non-profit organizations in the process of policy establishment is still blurred especially in the role-play and the strategy selection in the process of the theories of non-profit organizations, bill promotion and strategy analysis, and to use the research findings as a reference for the relevant non-profit organizations in strategy selections in future legislation processes.
It is evident that there are various types of relevant organization roles and policies if the categorization is divided into the relevant theories for non-profit organization and the types of public policies. Due to the limitations on the scope of research, this paper mainly focuses on the promotion strategies of the “value guardian”, the non-profit organizations on “control policies” in the legislation processes. Furthermore, the establishment of the “Tobacco Hazard Prevention and Control Act” promoted by John Tung Foundation, is selected as the main case study for the research. This paper then takes the period of legislation process as the timeline and divides the time into 3 stages: the “legislation formation period” for the Procedural Committee and where the 1st Reading is passed by the Legislation Session; the “bill wresting period” where the bills are examined by the Committees; and the “negotiation period” where negotiations take place between the parties and the organizations and the 2nd and 3rd Readings are passed by the Legislation Session. The 3 different stages are used to analyze the various types of bill promotion strategies employed by John Tung Foundation in the promotion for the establishment of the “Tobacco Hazard Prevention and Control Act” in the different stages, where information are collected through in-depth interviews and other methods to undergo examinations and evaluations on the pros and cons in the bill promotion strategies used.
It is found in this research that a number of characteristics including the “strategy focus of a moralized ‘impoverished strategy’”, the “mobile strategy model that combines media appeals”, and the “single and persistent linear operation” are the main bill promotion strategies taken by John Tung Foundation in the promotion for the establishment of the “Tobacco Hazard Prevention and Control Act” that took 2.5 years to get through. The bill discussion culture and the compromise of the Legislative Yuan may have been neglected and the unfamiliarity with bill discussion techniques in the Legislative Yuan may have caused the delay and the failure of the bill promotion in the establishment of the Tobacco Hazard Prevention and Control Act. This research feels that from the example of John Tung Foundation’s promotion of the Tobacco Hazard Prevention and Control Act, the most lacking and the most urgently required for local non-profit organizations in bill promotion and legislation persuasion would be the professional training for bill promotion and legislation persuasion. It is therefore recommended that the local non-profit organizations should strengthen their professional training for bill promotion strategies in the legislation processes in order for them to smoothly complete the mission in bill promotion.
Keywords: Non-profit Organizations, Bill Promotion, Legislation Processes, John Tung Foundation, Tobacco Hazard Prevention and Control Act. |
| Reference: | 王千美，1992，〈利益團體遊說活動對政策制訂的影響〉，政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文 。
王元廷，2000，〈立法院常設委員會制度與運作之評析〉，立法院法制局專題研究報告專題152號。
古登美、沈中元、周萬來，1997，《立法理論與實務》，台北：空大。
田麗虹，2001，《國會助理工作手冊 : 國會生態地圖總導覽》，台北：新自然主義。
何嵩婷，2005，〈立法院黨團協商制度對國會立法之影響分析：以第五屆立法院為例〉，東吳大學政治學系碩士論文。
李美華等譯，1998，《社會科學研究方法》，台北：時英。
吳宜蓁，1998，《議題管理—企業公關的新興課題》，台北：正中。
林玟純、詹建富，2002，《菸草戰爭》，董氏基金會。
周漳仁，1999，〈立法遊說之研究－以我國菸害防制法制訂過程為例〉，政治作戰學校政治學系碩士論文。
周萬來，2000，《議案審議：立法院運作實況》，台北：五南。
姜誌貞，1998，〈非營利組織政策倡導之研究—以婦女團體為例〉，東吳大學政治學系碩士班碩士論文。
孫秀蕙，1997，《公共關係—理論、策略與研究實例》，台北：正中。
徐木蘭、楊君琦、劉仲矩，1998，〈非營利組織公關策略之研究〉，民意研究季刊第204期，p1-25。
陳淞山，192005，《國會制度解讀：國會權力遊戲手冊》，台北：月旦。
黃雅文，1999，〈我國非營利組織議題倡導策略之研究〉，國立台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
黃敦硯，1998，〈我國菸害防制法執行之研究〉，國立中興大學公共政策研究所碩士論文。
黃瀚鋒，192005，〈利益團體在立法院遊說活動之研究〉，文化大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
蔡千惠，1998，〈非營利組織遊說策略之研究〉，國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文。
韓意慈，1999，〈非營利組織政策倡導角色之剖析--以台北市廢除公娼事件中的婦女團體為例〉，國立中正大學社會福利系碩士論文。
羅傳賢，2001，《立法程序與技術》，台北：五南。
Anne1, B. 2003. Strategies of Influence: How Interest Organizations React to Changes in Parliamentary Influence and Activity. Scandinavian Political Studies 26(4): 287-306.
Berry, J. M. 1977. Lobbying for the People: The Political Behavior of Public Interest Groups. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Brudney, J. L. 1993. Volunteer Involvement in the Delivery of Public Services: Advantages and Disadvantages. Public Productivity & Management Review. XVI(3): 283-297.
Fielding, J. E. 192007. Editorial: Revealing and Reversing Tobacco Industry Strategies. American Journal of Public Health. 86(8): 1073-1075.
Givel, M. S. and Glantz, S. 2000. Failure to Defend a Successful State Tobacco Control Program: Policy Lessons from Florida, American Journal of Public Health. 90(5):762-767.
Greenwald, C. 1977. Group power: lobbying & public policy. New York: Praeger.
Hojnacki, M. and Kimball, D. C. 1999. The Who and How of Organizations` Lobbying Strategies in Committee. Journal of Politics. 61(4): 999-1024.
Hrebenar, R. J. and Scott, R. K. 1982. Interest Group Politics in America. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Kingdon, J. W. 192006. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Harper Collins.
Lijphart, A. 1983. Democracies. New Heaven: Yale University Press.
Menashe, C. L. and Siegel, M. 1999. The Power of a frame: An Analysis of Newspaper Coverage of Tobacco Issues--United States, 1985-192007. Journal of Health Communication. 3(4): 307-325.
Renfro, S. A. 1993. Issues Management and the Use of Technologies in Public Relations. Public Relations Review, 19(3): 261-275.
Smucker, B. 1991. The Nonprofit Lobbying Guide: Advocating Your Cause and Getting Results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)
92932009
95 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0092932009 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [經營管理碩士學程EMBA] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
