政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/59669
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113451/144438 (79%)
Visitors : 51309535      Online Users : 893
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/140.119/59669


    Title: 政府網站資訊公開的委託代理分析
    A principal-agent analysis of government websites information disclosure
    Authors: 羅晉
    Lo, Chin
    Contributors: 施能傑
    蕭乃沂
    羅晉
    Lo, Chin
    Keywords: 政府資訊公開
    委託代理理論
    政府網站
    電子透明
    績效衡量
    課責
    freedom of information
    principal-agent theory
    government websites
    e-transparency
    performance evaluation
    accountability
    Date: 2010
    Issue Date: 2013-09-03 11:57:15 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 近年來，國際間政府推動資訊公開蔚為風潮，伴隨著資訊通信科技的發展，電子化政府和政府網站更普遍被各界視為一個低成本且高效率的透明化途徑。台灣的政府網站長期受到國際間高度評價，在發展中國家更是名列前茅。然而，既有的研究與調查大多數僅片面側重於政府供給面的探究，通常以化約且可標準化的指標來評鑑特定政府網站的介面資訊功能。相形之下，鮮少有關注民眾的需求認知、機關政策執行以及網站內容評估等較全面的研究成果供參。因而無法更深入地釐清政府網站、法制和政策執行績效不彰等困境與透明化治理之間的關聯。
    在委託代理理論的運用之下，本研究兼顧政府治理中委託方民眾的認知以及代理方政府機關的經驗與成效。目的在於釐清網站資訊公開供給和需求的現況與問題，並更具體地檢證政府網站資訊公開對機關施政資訊揭露、績效衡量和政府課責的影響。爰此，研究者參與多項網站資訊公開相關研究，以蒐集多元化次級資料，包括：量化的網路民眾問卷調查，各級機關的跨年度問卷調查，機關網站內容評估比較，以及質性的個別訪談、焦點團體座談。藉由理論聚焦與多重研究方法的交叉檢證分析，以達研究綜效。
    研究結果分為網站資訊公開對政府施政資訊揭露，施政績效衡量，以及政府課責的影響三個部分來討論。首先，相較於法制，網站資訊公開更有助於揭露政府施政資訊，特別是網站資訊公開實施過程可呈現出政府治理內、外部的多重代理關係及代理問題，甚至可緩和部分的代理問題。其次，網站資訊公開可具體地呈現並衡量施政績效，以因應傳統官僚體系內各層代理績效難以衡量的困境。但囿於目前整體制度缺乏績效誘因設計，而限制了此效益。最後，因整體資訊公開績效制度的匱乏，也使得網站資訊公開對政府課責的效益備受限制。
    整體而言，本研究揭示了代理理論應用於政府治理的價值，並檢證政府資訊公開、績效和課責等三項治理要件的關聯。研究成果可彌補實務與研究的落差，並對相關文獻做出貢獻。
    In recent years, governments from around the world have adopted Freedom of Information Act to increase transparency in their governance. With advancements in information and communication technologies (ICTs), e-Government has been seen as a cost-effective and possible mean to promote openness and transparency.
    Taiwan’s efforts to develop e-Government services have been well-recognized; especially, have made remarkable advantages among developing countries. Nevertheless, most of the existing researches in evaluating e-Government service are based on supply-side indicators and often assess websites alone; as yet, little information is available on the demand aspect of e-Government.
    The paper aims to explore the potential and practice of government website information disclosure in terms of the perspective of end user and government agencies. The results show the significance of three aspects in information disclosure of Taiwanese government websites through the application of quantitative and qualitative methodology, including self-administered questionnaire, website evaluation, individual interview, and focus group interview. First, government website information disclosure benefits the revelation of government information, manifestation of multi-agent relationships in internal and external governance of government, and alleviation of partial ageny problems. Second, government website information disclosure enhances revealing and measuring the performance of government agencies; nevertheless, in which the effectiveness is limited due to the absence of institutional incentives. Third, under the circumstances of unsound institution, the effectiveness of accountability has difficulties to be thoroughly realized through government website information disclosure.
    In sum, the finding contributes to a valuable reference for other countries in implementing information transparency of e-Government, and has significant implications for policy makers, government agencies, and system designers.
    Reference: 行政院法務部（2009）。政府資訊公開法改進之研究。行政院法務部，台北。
    行政院法務部（2010）。政府資訊公開制度實施成效評估。行政院法務部，台北。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會（1996）。政府資訊公開制度之研究。台北：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會（2007）。建置中央計畫型補助資訊公開與整合型管理機制之硏究。台北：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會（2008a）。政府透明化分析架構建立之研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會，台北。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會（2008b）。政府資訊主動公開事項辦理情形查核報告。行政院研究發展考核委員會，台北。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會（2008c）。九十七年數位落差調查報告。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告，台北。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會（2009a）。2020年台灣電子治理願景與方向：情境規劃的運用。行政院研究發展考核委員會，台北。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會（2009b）。政府網站服務品質提升及規範整合推廣—政府網站服務調查分析報告。行政院研究發展考核委員會，台北。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會（2010a）。透明化電子治理：以網站落實政府資訊公開。行政院研究發展考核委員會，台北。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會（2010b）。九十九年數位落差調查報告。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告，台北。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會（2011）。線上政府資訊公開的規則訂定：線上審議的應用與分析。行政院研究發展考核委員會，台北。
    李允傑（2000）。國防預算規模之分析：新制度論的觀點。發表於第三屆軍事與社會學術研討會，政戰學校主辦，台北。
    李世德（2009）。政府資訊公開法施行之成效、檢討與展望。研考雙月刊，第33卷第5期，頁88-93。
    李武育、易文生（2007）。政府機關施政績效評估之現況與展望。研考雙月刊，第31卷第2期，頁3-12。
    吳慧勤（2008）。政府機關資訊公開電子化執行現況之研究-以臺北縣政府為例。國立政治大學公共行政學碩士論文，未出版，台北。
    黃東益、蕭乃沂、陳敦源（2003）。網際網路時代公民直接參與的機會與挑戰：台北市「市長電子信箱」的個案研究。東吳政治學報，第17期，頁121-151。
    項靖（2001）。公務人員對政府資訊公開制度的見解之探究。法政學報，第12期，頁1-52。
    葉俊榮（1999）。邁向電子化政府:資訊公開與行政程序的挑戰。經社法制論叢，第22集，第1-34頁。
    張清雲、王仁越（2008）。政府資訊公開法要旨析論。國家菁英季刊，第4卷第3期，頁1-20。
    陳宜和（2006）。我國實施行政資訊公開之成效評估研究。研考雙月刊，第30卷第3期，頁86-98。
    陳志瑋（2005）。 邁向民主課責：透明化機制運用之分析。國家菁英季刊，第1卷第4期，頁131-147。
    陳恆鈞等譯（Weimer與Vining原著）（2001）。政策分析：概念與實踐。台北：韋伯。
    陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂、郭思禹（2006）。官僚回應性與內部顧客關係管理：台北市政府市長信箱個案研究。行政暨政策學報，第42期，頁143-182。
    劉昭博（1999）。資訊不對稱性與政府投機行為之研究。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
    蕭乃沂、羅晉（2010）。電子化政府的價值鏈評估觀點：以數位台灣e化政府計畫為例。公共行政學報，第36期，頁1-37。
    羅晉（2004）。網際審議式民主之實現與現實：以我國地方政府網際公共論壇為例。行政暨政策學報，第39期，頁105-142。
    羅晉（2008a）。電子化參與的效益與風險：民眾對政府網站的認知與使用行為之初探。資訊社會研究，第15期，第181-208頁。
    羅晉（2008b）。邁向電子化民主新階段？政府網站民主化指標建立與評估調查。東吳政治學報，第26卷第1期，頁143-198。
    羅晉（2008c）。實踐審議式民主參與之理想：資訊科技、網路公共論壇的應用與發展。中國行政。第79期，頁75-96。
    羅晉（2010）。線上「理想言談情境」有多理想？蘇花國道論壇的分析。行政暨政策學報。第51期，頁125-170。
    ADB (Asian Development Bank) (2006). Annual Report on ADB’s Country Performance Assessment Exercise. Retrieved June 2, 2009 from http://www.adb.org/Governance/gov_elements.asp
    Arrow, K. J. (1985). “The Economics of Agency” in J. Pratt & Z. Richard (eds.) Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business. MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    Article 19 (1999). The Public’s Right to Know: Principles on Freedom of Information Legislation. London: Article 19.
    Banisar, D. (2006). Freedom of Information around the World 2006: a global survey of access to government information laws, Privacy International.
    Barata K. & Cain, P. (2001). Information, not technology, is essential to accountability: electronic records and public sector financial management, The Information Society, 17(2): 247-58.
    Bekkers, V. (2007). The Governance of Back-office Integration -Organizing co-operation between information domains. Public Management Review, 9(3): 377-400.
    Bergen, M., Dutta, S. & Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1992). Agency relationships in marketing: A review of the implications and applications of agency and related theories. Journal of Marketing, 56(3): 1-24.
    Bertot, J. C. & Jaeger, P. T. (2006). User-centered E-Government: Challenges and benefits for government web sites. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2): 163-168.
    Bouckaert, G. & Halligan. J. (2008). Managing Performance, International Comparisons. Routledge: London.
    Bovens, M. & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: how information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2): 174-184.
    Brown University, (Center for Public Policy) (2007). Global E-government 2007. from http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt07int.pdf
    Callahan, K. (2007). Elements of Effective Governance: Measurement, Accountability and Participation. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC/Taylor & Francis.
    Chardwick, A. (2003). Bringing E-Democracy Back In -Why It Matters for Future Research on E-Governance. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4): 443-455.
    Cordella, A. (2007). E-government: towards the e-bureaucratic form? Journal of Information Technology, 22: 265-274.
    Coronel, S. S. (2001). “Fighting for the right to know”. In S. S. Coronel (ed.), The right to know: Access-to-information in Southeast Asia (pp. 1-20). Bangkok, Thailand: Raintree Publishing, Inc.
    Cotterrell, R. (1999). Transparency, mass media, ideology and community. Cultural Values, 3(4): 414-426.
    Cuillier, D. & Piotrowski, S. J. (2009). Internet information-seeking and its relation to support for access to government records. Government Information Quarterly, 26: 441-449.
    Curtin, D. & Meijer, A. J. (2006). Does transparency strengthen legitimacy? A critical analysis of European Union policy documents. Information Polity, 11(2): 109-122.
    Danker, T., Dohrmann, T., Killefer, N. & Mendonca, L. (2006). How can American government meet its productivity challenge? McKinsey & Company. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from http://www.mckinsey.com/aboutus/mckinseynews/pressarchive/pdf/American_govt_meet_prod_challenge.pdf
    Dixit, A. (2002). Incentives and Organizations in the Public Sector: An Interpretative Review. Journal of Human Resources, 37 (4): 696-728.
    Drew, C. H. & Nyerges, T. L. (2004). Transparency of environmental decision making: A case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area. Journal of Risk Research, 7(1): 33-71.
    Echenfelder, K. R. (2004). Behind the Web site: An inside look at the production of Web-based textual government information. Government Information Quarterly, 21: 337-358.
    Eggertsson, T. (1996). Economic Behaviorand Institutions. New York: Cambridge University. Press.
    Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31: 134-149.
    Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 57-74.
    Eschenfelder, K. R., Beachboard, J. C., McClure, C. R., & Wyman, S. K. (1997). Assessing US federal government Websites. Government Information Quarterly, 14(2): 173-189.
    Esteves, J. & Joseph, R. C, (2007). A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects. Government Information Quarterly, 25(1): 118-132
    Fama, E. F. & Jensen, M.C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of L aw and Economics, 26: 301-326.
    Fairbanks, J., Plowman, K. D. & Rawlins, B. L. (2007). Transparency in government communication. Journal of Public Affairs, 7: 23-37.
    Ferris, J. M. & Tang, S.-Y. (1993). The New Institutionalism And Public Administration: An Overview, Journal of Public Administration. Research and Theory, 3(1): 4-10.
    Finel, B. I. & Lord, K. M. (1999). The surprising logic of transparency. International Studies Quarterly, 43: 315-339.
    Finel, B. I. & Lord, K. M. (2000). “Transparency and world politics.” In B. I. Finel, & K. M. Lord (eds.), Power and conflict in the age of transparency (pp. 1-12). New York: Palgrave.
    Fisher, R., Laswad, F. & Oyelere, P. (2005). Determinants of voluntary internet financial reporting by local government authorities. Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, 24(2): 101-21.
    Florini, A. (2000). “Does the invisible hand need a transparent glove? The politics of transparency,” World Banks Annual Conference on Development Economics, pp.163-184.
    Florini, A. (2004). Behind closed doors: Governmental transparency gives way to secrecy. Harvard International Review, 26(1): 18-21.
    Fountain, J. E. (2001a). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
    Fountain, J. E. (2001b). “Public Sector: Early stage of a deep transformation,” in R. E. Litan (ed.), The Economic Payoff from the Internet Revolution, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
    Fountain, J. E. (2002). “Theory of Federal Bureaucracy.” In J. Nye and E. Kamarck (eds.), Governance.com. Democracy in the Information Age, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
    Frant, H. (1996). High-Powered and Low-Powered Incentives in the Public Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(3): 365-381.
    Frankfort-Nachmias, C. &Nachmias, D. (1999). Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6th eds.). New York: Worth ST.
    Freedominfo.org & Bank Information Center (2005). IFI Transparency Resource: Indicator Definitions and Recommended Transparency Standards. IFI Transparency Resources, Edition 10: 1-37.
    Freedomofinfo.org. (2009). European Court of Human Rights: Right to information essential to free expression. Retrieved March 1, 2010 from http://freedominfo. org/news/20090414.htm.
    Furubotn, E. G. & Richter, R. (2000). Institutions and Economic Theory: The Contribution of the New Institutional Economics. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
    Fuhr, H. (2001). Constructive pressure and incentives to reform: Globalization and its impact to public sector performance and governance in developing countries. Public Management Review, 3(3): 419-443;
    Garson, G. D. (2006). Public Information Technology & E-Governance: Managing the Virtual State, MA: J&B.
    Gigler, F. & Hemmer, T. (2004). On the value of transparency in agencies with renegotiation. Journal of Accounting Research, 42(5): 871-893.
    Gill, J. & Hughes, S. (2005). Bureaucratic compliance with Mexico`s new access to information law. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22(2): 121-137.
    Global Integrity (2010). Global Integrity Report. Retrieved March 2, 2011 from http://report.globalintegrity.org/.
    Gil-García, R. J. & Helbig, N. (2006). Exploring E-Government benefits and success factors. In nd Matti Malkia Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko (eds.), Encyclopedia of digital government Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
    Gil-Garcia, J. R. & Martinez-Moyano, I. J. (2007). Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Government Information Quarterly, 24: 266-290.
    Grönlund, Å. & Horan, T. A. (2004). Introducing e-Gov: History, definitions, and issues. Communications of the Association of Information Systems, 15: 713-729.
    Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E. W. T. & McGaughey, R. E. (2006). Information technology and systems justification: A review for research and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 173: 957-983.
    Heald, D. (2003). Fiscal transparency: Concepts, measurement UK practice. Public Administration, 81(4): 723-759.
    Heeks, R. (1998). Information technology and public sector corruption. Institute for Development Policy and Management. University of Manchester. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from http://www.man. ac.uk/idpm/idpm_dp.htm.
    Heeks, R. (2006). Benchmarking e-Government - Improving the National and International Measurement, Evaluation and Comparison of e-Government. iGovernment Working Paper Series. Development Informatics Group Institute for Development Policy and Management. University of Manchester, Precinct Centre.
    Heeks, R. (2008). eGovernment for Development Information Exchange. Retrieved October 17, 2009, from http://www.egov4dev.org/.
    Helbig, N, Ferro E. & Gil-Garcia, R. (2008). Understanding the Complexity in Electronic Government: Implications from the Digital Divide Literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26: 89-97.
    Heintze, T. & Bretschneider, S. (2000). Information Technology and Restructuring in Public Organizations: Does Adoption of Information Technology Affect Organizational Structures, Communications, and Decision-Making. Journal of Public Administration Theory and Research 10: 801- 830.
    Hesterly, W. S., Liebeskind, J. & Zenger, T. R. (1990). Organizational economics: An impending revolution in organization theory? Academy of Management Review, 15(3): 402-420.
    Hoek, F., van Montfort, C. & Vermeer, C. (2005). Enhancing Public Accountability in the Netherlands. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2): 69-86.
    Hong, S. Y., & Kim, J. (2004). Architectural criteria for website evaluation - conceptual framework and empirical validation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(5): 337-357.
    Holzer, H & Kim, S. T. (2005). Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide. Retrieved May 18, 2008 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ASPA/UNPAN022839.pdf
    Hood, C. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance? Public Management Review, 9(2): 191-210.
    Horn, M. J. (1995). The Political Economy of Public Administration: Institutional. Choice in the Public Sector, New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Horsley, J. (2008). Working group five: Indicators and measurement of ATI. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Right to Public Information, February 27-29, Atlanta.
    Ingram, R. S. (1984). Economic incentives and the choice of state government accounting practices. Journal of Accounting Research, 22(1): 126-144.
    Islam, R. (2006). Does more transparency go along with better governance? Economics & Politics, 18: 121-167.
    Jensen, M. C. & Meckling. W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 76: 305-360
    Kasper, W. & Streit, M.E. (1998). Institutional Economics Social
    Order and Public Policy. UK：Edward Elgar.
    Kenneth, K. & Dedrick, J. (1997). Computing and public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7: 89-112.
    Kim, S., H., Kim, J. & Lee, H. (2009). An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anti-corruption: The case of OPEN. Government Information Quarterly, 26: 42-50.
    Kippen, G. & Jenkins, G. (2002). “The challenge of e democracy for political parties.” The Honourable Robin Cook London Conference on Reviving Democracy, Retrieved June 10, 2009 from
    http://insites.heinz.cmu.edu:8080/insites/events/past_events/conferences/democracy/program.html/paper/kippen.pdf
    Koppell, J. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge. Public Administration Review, 65(1): 94-108.
    Kopits, G. (2000). “Transparency in Government Operations.” Paper presented at the Conference on Transparency and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Legal Department & the State and Civil Society Division of the Sustainable Development Department, Inter-American Development Bank.
    Kristiansen, S., Dwiyanto, A. & Pramusinto, A. (2008). Public sector reforms and financial transparency: Experiences from Indonesian districts. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 31(1): 64-87.
    La Porte, T. M. (2005). Being good and doing well: Organizational openness and government effectiveness on the World Wide Web. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 31(3): 23-27.
    LaFleur, J. (2004). Privacy exemptions may prove higher hurdle than national security. Retrieved May 9, 2009, from http://www.ire.org/foi/mayjune2004.html
    Landsbergen, D. & Wolken, G. (2001). Realizing the promise: government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology. Public Administration Review, 61(2): 206-220.
    La Porte, T. M., Demchak, C. C. & De Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of theWeb - Empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Administration & Society, 34(4): 411-446.
    Laegreid, P., Roness, P. G. & Rubecksen, K. (2006). Performance management in practice: The Norwegian way. Financial Accountability and Management, 22(3): 251-70.
    Lan, Z. & Falcone, S. (1997). Factors influencing internet use - A policy model for electronic government information provision. Journal of Government Information, 24(4): 251-257.
    Laswad, F., Fisher, R. & Oyelere, P. (2005). Determinants of voluntary internet financial reporting by local government authorities. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24: 101-121.
    Lu¨der, K. (1992). A contingency model of governmental accounting innovations in the polı´tical administrative environment. Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, 7: 99-127.
    Mendel, T. (2009). Freedom of information: A comparative legal survey, (2nd ed). Paris: UNESCO.
    Mitchell, R. B. (1998). Sources of transparency: Information systems in international regimes. International Studies Quarterly, (42): 109-130.
    Mnjama, N. & Wamukoya, J. (2007). e-government and records management: An assessment tool for e-records readiness in government. Electronic Library, 25(3): 274-284.
    Mulgan, R. (2000). Accountability: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3): 55-73.
    Moe, T. M. (1984). The New Economics of Organisation. American Journal of Political Science, 28: 739-77.
    Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4): 424-433.
    Moon, M. J. (2003). “Can IT Help Government to Restore Public Trust? Declining Public Trust and Potential Prospects of IT in the Public Sector”. Paper presented at 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, Hawaii. Retrieved May 18, 2009 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.2836
    Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2004). Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3): 421-439.
    Neyland, D. (2007). Achieving transparency: The visible, invisible and divisible in academic accountability networks. Organization, 14(4): 499-516.
    Niskanen, W. A. (1991). “A Reflection on Bureaucracy and Representative Government,” The Budget-Maximizing Bureaucrat: Appraisals and Evidence, University of Pittsburgh Press, pp13-29.
    Norris, D. F. (2003). “E-Government and E-Democracy at the American Grassroots.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Public Participation and Information Technologies. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA.
    Nilakant, V. & Rao, H. (1994). Agency theory and uncertainty in organization: An evaluation. Organization Studies 15(5): 649-672.
    Oakley, K. (2002) . What is E-governance? e-Governance Workshop , Strasbourg.
    OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2002). Publlic Sector Transparency and Accountanility: Making it Happen. France: OECD.
    OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2003). Open Government: Fostering Dialogue with Civil Society. France: OECD.
    OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2008). Transparency and Predictability for Investment Policies Addressing National Security Concerns: A Survey of Practices. France: OECD.
    Okot-Uma, R. W. O. (2000). “Electronic Governance: Re-inventing Good Governance.” Paper presented at the Commonwealth Secretariat: London.
    Orelli, R. L., Padovani, E. & Scorsone, E. (2009). “E-Government, Accountability, and Performance: A Comparative Analysis between European Governments.” Paper presented at the EGPA 2009 Conference, Malta.
    Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4): 404-428.
    Osborne, S. (1998). Voluntary Organisations and Innovation in Public Services. London: Routledge.
    Otenyo, E. E. & Lind, N. S. (2004). Faces and phases of transparency reform in local government. International journal of public administration, 27(5): 287-307
    Pan, S. L., Tan, C.W. & Lim, E. T. K. (2006). Customer relationship management (CRM) in e-government: A relational perspective. Decision Support Systems, 42: 237-250.
    Pérez, C.C., Bolívar, M. P. & Hernández, A. M. L. (2008). E-Government process and incentives for online public financial information. Online Information Review, 32(3): 379-400.
    Pina, V., Torres, L. & Acerete, B. (2005). Are ICTs promoting government accountability? A comparative analysis of e-governance developments in 19 OECD countries. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18: 583-602.
    Pina, V., L. Torres & Royo, S. (2007). Are ICT`s improving transparency and accountability in the EU regional and local governments? An empirical study. Public Administration, 85(2): 449-472.
    Pollitt, C. (2003). The Essential Public Manager. Open University Press: Berkshire, UK.
    Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance information for democracy. Evaluation, 12(1): 38-55.
    Pratt, J. W. & Zeckhauser, R.J. (1985). Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
    Relly, J. E. & Sabharwal, M. (2009). Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly, 26: 148-157.
    Roberts, A. (2002). Administrative discretion and the Access-to-information Act: An ‘internal law’ on open government. Canadian Public Administration, 45(2): 175-194.
    Romzek, B. S. & Dubnick M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3): 227-238.
    Romzek, B. S. & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Cross pressure of accountability: Initiative, command and failure in the Ron Brown plane crash. Public Administration Review, 60(30): 240-242.
    Samuel, A. (2002). “From Digital Divide to Digital Democracy: Strategies from the Community Networking Movement and Beyond.” Paper Presented at the Prospects for Electronic Democracy Conference, Retrieved May 10, 2009
    http://insites.heinz.cmu.edu:8080/insites/events/past_events/conferences/democracy/program.html/paper/samuel.pdf.
    Scott, C. (2000). Accountability and the regulatory state. Journal of Law and Society, 27(1): 38-60.
    Scott, J. K. (2006). ‘E’ the people: Do U.S. municipal government web sites support public involvement? Public Administration Review, 66(3): 341-353.
    Shepherd, E. & Ennion, E. (2007). How has the implementation of the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 affected archives and records management services. Records Management Journal, 17(1): 32 -51.
    Shiang, J., Hsiao, N. & Lo, J. (2007). “Democratization of Government Websites: Indicators and Comparing Perceptions of Citizens and Public Officials in Taiwan,” Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on e-Government, pp. 491-500.
    Smith, R., & Bertozzi, M. (1998). Principals and agents: An explanatory model for public budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 10(3): 325-353.
    Stirton, L. & Lodge, M. (2001). Transparency Mechanisms: Building Publicness into Public Services. Journal of Law and Society, 28(4): 471-489.
    Stewart, David W. & Kamins, Michael A. (1993). Secondary research : information sources and methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications
    Talbot, C., Wiggan, J. & Johnson, C. (2005). Exploring Performance Regimes- a new approach to understanding public sector performance, A report for the National Audit Office. Nottingham Policy Papers no.4.
    Tolbert, C. J. & Mossberger, K. (2006). Effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3): 356-369.
    Torres, L., Pina, V. & Acerete, B. (2006). E-governance developments in European Union cities: Reshaping government’s relationship with citizens, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 19(2): 277-302.
    UN & ASPA (United Nations & American Society for Public Administration) (2002). Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective. N.Y.: U.N.
    UNDP(United Nations Development Programme) (2008).UNDP Practice Note: Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption in Development, Retrieved June 28, 2009 Fromhttp://www.undp.org/governance/docs/Mainstreaming_Anti-Corruption_in_Development.pdf
    Verdegem , P. & Verleye, G. (2009). User-centered E-Government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly, 26:487-497.
    Verhoest, K. (2005). Effects of autonomy, performance contracting, and competition on the performance of a public agency: A case study. Policy Studies Journal, 33(2): 235-258.
    Vishwanath, T. & Kaufmann, D. (1999). Towards transparency in finance and governance. The World Bank Draft, pp.1-30..
    Wang, X. (2002). Assessing administrative accountability: Results from a national survey. American Review of Public Administration, 32(3): 350-370.
    Welch, E. W. & Wong, W. (2001). Global information technology pressure and government accountability: The mediating effect of domestic context on website openness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4): 509-538.
    West , D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64 (1): 15-27.
    Williams, A. (2009). On the release of information by governments: Causes and consequences. Journal of Development Economics, 89(1): 124-138.
    Wong, W. & Welch, E. W. (2004). Does E-Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Website Openness and Government Accountability. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17(2): 275-297.
    Worthy, B. (2008). The Future of Freedom of Information in the United Kingdom. The Political Quarterly, 79(1): 100-108.
    Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3): 646-665.
    Zimmerman, J. L. (1977). The municipal accounting maze: An analysis of political incentives. Journal of Accounting Research, 15: 107-144.
    Zhang, P., & von Dran, G. M. (2000). Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: A two-factor model for Website design and evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14): 1253-1268.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政研究所
    94256504
    99
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094256504
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Public Administration] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    650401.pdf1506KbAdobe PDF2683View/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