Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/77902
|
| Title: | 民主治理下政務官與事務官互動關係：以「是的，部長（Yes, Minister）」影集之文本分析為例
The interaction between political appointees and civil servants in democratic governance: A text analysis of the TV series “Yes, Minister.” |
| Authors: | 林俐君
Lin, Li Chun |
| Contributors: | 陳敦源
Chen, Don Yun
林俐君
Lin, Li Chun |
| Keywords: | 政務官與事務官
行政效能
影視產品分析
文本分析
制衡
鐘擺效果
Political Appointees and Civil Servants
Administrative Efficiency
Film and Television Product Analysis
Textual Analysis
Check and Balance
the Pendulum Effect |
| Date: | 2015 |
| Issue Date: | 2015-08-24 10:23:52 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 隨著民主治理的發展，有效調和民主憲政與文官專業價值，才能夠確保民主政治運作的效能。背景因素使得政務官與事務官間的互動，愈具舉足輕重的角色。從相關研究可以理解，欲直接觀察政務官與事務官細部的互動並不容易，兩者間細部的互動對外界而言始終是一個黑盒子。因此，本研究使用鮮少作為該議題研究主體的影視產品進行分析。選擇英國經典影集「Yes, Minister」，乃因該劇主要以描繪政務官與事務官互動為主，描寫程度相當細膩。藉此旁觀的角度一窺政務官與事務官的互動，確實是個能夠協助深入理解該議題的良好個案。
研究設計的基礎為文本分析法，透過建構分析路徑，分別從兩者本質、選擇偏好、表現作為，以及互動後對政策產出的討論。先將14集研究樣本進行相同路徑的文本化，再將文本化的樣本進行論述與類型化。研究發現事務官的互動技巧，包括行政權力的作為與不作為、可行性評估、影響政務體系與政務官以及納入外部勢力等，目的為提升參與決策的條件，細部列出24項互動技巧；另一方面，政務官則可透過經驗複製、行政學習、媒體與聲望經營與納入外部力量等，目的為提升統治便利性與正當性，細部列出13項互動技巧。兩者的互動呈現出互相制衡的本質，若各自無法有效負責與調和時，易形成雙重價值選擇的壓力。
本研究提出以「鐘擺效果」解釋政務官與事務官的互動，兩者在制衡關係的基礎上，隨著時序性的影響而改變互動模式。基本上的互動如鐘擺式擺盪，進而系統性因素將會因時序性遞減，激發出最適的政策結果。最終提出兩大項建議：首先，從制衡到動態平衡的關係，正視制衡現象的存在、立基於分權制衡上的信任關係、減少彼此錯誤解讀的機會，以及培養持續監督與自省能力；其二，設定政策決策的妥協底線，認知非任務型指標的超然價值，以及試著創造沒有共識的共識。
In any democratic state’s development, how to effectively reconcile the two values of constitutional democracy and bureaucratic expertise is fundamental to ensure the proper functioning and efficacy of democratic politics. As Taiwan further consolidates its democracy, the interaction between the political appointees and senior civil servants becomes ever more important in achieving a balance of pluralistic values on the one hand, and government’s administrative efficiency, on the other. Yet past research has found that it is not easy to observe directly the details of the interaction between political appointees and civil servants; to the external world, the actual interaction between the two has always been a black box. Therefore, to shed light on that black box, this study analyzes the interaction between appointees and civil servants as depicted in film and television programs. The classic British series, “Yes Minister,” was chosen as the study’s research subject because it portrays the minister-bureaucrat interactive behavior skillfully and poignantly, which allows a deeper understanding of the issue.
The study employs textual analysis as the principal research method. Each of the series’ 14 episodes had been textually reinterpreted by using the same analytical paths, which were constructed by first categorizing the nature, choice preferences, display behaviors, and post-interaction reaction to policy outputs for both political appointees and senior civil servants. The research has found that civil servants, in their pursuit for greater participation in decision-making, exhibit as many as 24 distinct interactive behaviors with their political superiors. Some of these behaviors include administrative action and inaction, call for feasibility assessment, manipulation of the political system, and incorporation of external forces. On the other hand, political appointees, in their effort to achieve political expediency and legitimacy, have 13 behaviors of their own through experience replication, administrative learning, media and reputation management, and inclusion of external forces. Both sets of interactive behaviors are essentially parts of a checks-and-balances system. When responsibilities are unclear and actions cannot be coordinated effectively, the agency then becomes vulnerable to role ambiguity and double value selection problems.
This research proposes a “pendulum effect” to explain the interaction between political appointees and civil servants. Because the appointees and civil servants have a mutual checks and balances relationship, both parties will alter their interactive behavior depending on the timing of events. Essentially, the interaction between the two sides will initially swing freely like a pendulum; subsequently, system factors will cause the pendulum to progressively decrease its swing, ultimately arriving at the most optimal policy result. In conclusion, this study makes two major recommendations. First, both political appointees and civil servants need to understand that they are in a dynamic equilibrium, in which they check and balance each other’s actions. By acknowledging the check and balance nature of their relationship, both minimize the chance of misinterpreting each other, and may develop the healthy capacity of ongoing oversight and self-introspection. Second, both political appointees and civil servants must establish a baseline in any policy negotiation and compromise, recognize the (sometimes) extraordinary value of non-mission-based indicators, and attempt to create a consensus when no consensus exists. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
E. H. Eva著，吳友明譯（1998）。官僚政治與民主，臺北：桂冠。
Furubotn E. G. and Richter, R.合著，顏愛靜主譯（2001）。制度與經濟理論-新制度經濟學之貢獻，台北：五南。
王千文（2008）。官僚體制中 “服從” 與 “自主” 矛盾現象之探討-韋伯觀點的詮釋。中國行政，80，101-127。
王石番（1990）。傳播內容分析法：理論與實證，臺北：幼獅。
王光旭（2007）。官僚組織殺人嗎？從理性化的弔詭看官僚組織的矛盾與衝突。師大政治論叢，7 & 8，1-33。
--- （2012）。文官政治認知是否與行政中立行為衝突？2008年台灣政府文官調查的初探性分析。政治科學論叢，52，117-170。
王光旭、陳敦源（2010）。政務領導、國會監督與官僚自主：台灣全民健保政策「否決者」之研究，1986-2004。行政暨政策學報，50，107-157。
王俊元（2010）。高階文官在決策過程扮演的角色之研究。考試院委託研究報告
丘昌泰（2010）。公共政策‧基礎篇，臺北：巨流。
江明修（2000）。政權移轉與文官體系的改革。國策專刊，15，12-14。
余致力（2000）。論公共行政在民主治理過程中的正當角色：黑堡宣言的內涵、定位與啟示。公共行政學報，1，1-29。
--- （2002）。台灣行政學研究的新課題：政黨輪替對文官體系的衝擊與影響。載於中國行政學會（編印），張金鑑教授百齡誕辰紀念會暨學術研討會論文集（127-169頁），臺北：國立政治大學公共行政暨企業管理中心。
吳定（1994）。威爾遜的行政學研究，行政管理論文選集─第八輯，臺北：天一圖書，1-31。
--- （2005）。公共政策辭典，臺北：五南。
林明煌（2010）。各國公務人員行政中立制度之探討。萬能商學學報，15， 1-15。
邱育琤、徐永明（2004a）。民進黨執政菁英的形成：以第一次中央政黨輪替為觀察對象。台灣政治學刊，8(2)，121-183。
---（2004b）。「新」政府，「舊」官僚？：中央政黨輪替與行政菁英的流動。公共行政學報，12，1-40。
施能傑（2006）。文官體系能力與政府競爭力：策略性人力資源管理觀點。東吳政治學報，22，1-46。
--- （2012）。政府訓練機構運用個案教學法的執行分析：公務人員薦任升簡任官等訓練個案。東吳政治學報，30(4)，1-49。
--- （2013）。公共行政學領域發展概況，吳玉山、林繼文、冷則剛、蕭高彥主編，政治學的回顧與前瞻，臺北：五南。
施嘉明（1998）。英國的文官制度政務官與事務官的角色任務。公務人員月刊，19，29-33。
胡紹嘉（2008）。敘事，自我與認同：從文本考察到課程探究，臺北：秀威資訊。.
胡龍騰（2007）。政黨輪替前後高階行政主管流動之比較。國家菁英季刊，3(4): 31-42。
孫本初（2005）。公共管理，臺北：智勝文化。
馬紹章（1998）。民意機構與政務領導，黃榮護主編，公共管理，臺北：商鼎，178-225。
張潤書（2007）。行政學，修訂三版四刷，臺北：三民出版社。
許立一（2002）。黑堡觀點的興起及其與新公共行政的關係。行政管理論文選輯（銓敘部發行），16，1-28。
許志雄（2000）。憲法秩序之變動，臺北：元照出版年。
陳怡如（2003）。英國文官長制度對我國常任文官行政中立之啟示。行政管理學報，4，95-110。
陳敦源（2000）。誰掌控官僚體系？從代理人理論談台灣官僚體系的政治控制問題。公共行政學報，4，99-129。
--- （2005）。民主與官僚：新制度論的觀點，臺北：韋伯。
--- （2009）。透明之下的課責：台灣民主治理中官民信任關係的重建基礎。文官制度季刊，1(2)，21-55。
--- （2011）。公務倫理教得出來嗎？哲學、循證、與教學的反思。研習論壇月刊，130，24-34。
--- （2012a）。民主治理：公共行政與民主政治的制度性調和，臺北：韋伯。
--- （2012b）。應用影視產品推動公務倫理教學：理論與實務。研習論壇月刊，142，1-12。
陳敦源、吳祉芸、許耿銘（2012）。公部門訓練應用「問題導向學習法」之成效評估：以二○一○年地方行政研習中心地方機關科(課)長班為例。文官制度季刊，4(2)：59-91。
陳敦源、呂佳螢（2009）。循證公共行政下的文官調查：台灣經驗的觀點、方法、與實務意義。公共行政學報，31，187-225。
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，42，143-182。
陳雍正（2006）。文本分析。載於管倖生、阮綠茵、王明堂、王藍亭、李佩玲、高新發、黃鈴池、黃瑞崧、陳思聰、陳雍正、張文山、郭辰嘉、楊基昌、楊清田、童鼎鈞、董皇志、鄭建華、盧麗淑（74-84頁），設計研究方法，臺北：全華科技圖書股份有限公司。
彭錦鵬（1998）。高級文官甄補與培訓之模式。政治科學論叢，9，329-362。
--- （2002）。政治行政之虛擬分際：由「兩分說」到「理想型」。政治科學論叢，16，89-118。
黃東益（2013）。從價值差異到夥伴關係：政務官事務官的互動管理，臺北：五南。
熊忠勇（2005）。英美文官制度雇用政策變革之研究：政策價值的觀點。國立政治大學公共行政學系博士論文，未出版，臺北。
--- （2009）。我國公務倫理的困境與出路：從政務官與事務官的關係談起。哲學與文化，36(1)，45-68。
--- （2012）。合作還是背叛？：談政務官與高階文官的互動倫理。職場權責與專業倫理，國立高雄大學政治法律學系/主編：巨流圖書公司。
趙庭輝（2006）。偶像劇《流星花園》的文本分析：青少年次文化的建構與再現。藝術學報（革新版），78，101-123。
蔡秀涓（2004）。公務人員組織信任模型之建構：以台北市政府為例。人文及社會科學集刊，16(2)，241-277。
--- （2008）。民主轉型前後台灣文官甄補政策轉型正義分析：制度改革觀點。國家菁英季刊，4(2)，19-38。
--- （2009）。台灣文官的公共服務價值觀與新公共服務精神的比較：經驗調查初探。文官制度季刊，1(4)：112-113。
--- （2012）。台灣民主治理：政務官與官僚體系的磨合，臺北：新台灣國智庫。
蔡秀涓、林宗憲（2010）。台灣文官官僚代表性分析：以2008台灣政府文官意見調查為例。發表於《循證調查與文官制度研究: 理論與實際學術研討會》，國立政治大學公共行政學系；臺北。
蔡琰（1995）。電視戲劇類型與公式分析，臺北：國科會專題研究計畫報告。
--- （1996）。電視歷史劇價值系統與社會意識分析，臺北：電視文化研究委員會。
賴維堯（1995）。高級文官的政策制定角色認知。空大行政學報，4，21-34。
顏秋來（2006）。政務官與事務官體制運作之研究。國家精英，2(1)，21-28。
羅燦煐（1998）。性暴力的文化再現：港台強暴電影的文本分析。新聞學研究，57， 159-190。
蘇偉業（2012）。南轅北轍的議題與路徑：政治轉型下臺灣與香港文官中立機制之比較。公共行政學報，43，35-62。
蘇彩足（1998）。因應「公共預算新紀元」之危機。中國行政評論，8(1)，23-42。
--- （1999）。民主化對於政府預算決策的衝擊與因應之道。理論與政策，13(3)，47-64
二、英文部分
Appleby, P. (1945). Big Government. New York: AA Knopf.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
Dunn,W. N. (1994). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Dye, T. R. (1972). Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Felton, S., Dimnik, T., & Bay, D. (2007). Perceptions of Accountants’ Ethics: Evidence from Their Portrayal in Cinema. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2): 217-232.
Finer, H. (1941). Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government. Public Administration Review, 1: 335-350.
Friedrich, C. J., (1940). Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility. In Carl J. Friedrich (ed). Public Policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Geddes, B. (1994). Politician`s Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America. Univ of California Press.
Goodnow, F. J. (1990). Politics and Administration. N. Y.: Macmillan.
Goodsell, C. and Murray, N. (1995), Public Administration Illuminated and Inspired by the Arts. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Gulick, L., and Urwick, L. (1937). Papers in the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.
Harmon, M. M. (1989). “The Responsible Actor as "TORTURED SOUL": The Case of Horatio Hornblower,” Administration and Society, 21(6): 283-312.
Henry, N. (1989). Public Administration and Public Affairs, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
Ingraham, P. W., Sowa, J. E., & Moynihan, D. P. (2004). Linking Dimensions of Public Sector Leadership to Performance. The Art of Governance: Analyzing Management and Administration, 152-170.
Jacobsen, D. I. (2005). “Sand in the Machinery? Comparing Bureaucrats’ and Politicians’ Attitudes toward Public Sector Reform.” European Journal of Political Research, 44: 767-799.
--- (2006). The Relationship between Politics and Administration: The Importance of Contingency Factors, Formal Structure, Demography, and Time. Governance, 19: 303–323.
Karl, B. (1987). “The American Bureaucrat: A History of Sheep in Wolves Clothing.” Public Administration Review, 47(1): 26-34.
Kaufman, H. (1956). Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrines of Public Administration. The American Political Science Review 50(4): 1057-1073.
Lee, K. and Raadschelders, J. (2008). Political-Administration Relations: Impact of and Puzzles in Aberbach, Putnam, and Rockmen, 1981. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, administration, and institutions, 21(3): 419-438.
Lee, Mordecai. (2001). The Image of the Government Flack: Movie Depictions of Public Relations in Public Administration. Public Relations Review, 27(3): 297-315.
Levine, C. H., B. G. Peters, and F. J. Thompson. (1990). Public Administration: Challenges, Choice, Consequences. Glenview IL: Scott, Foresman..
Lippman, W. (1955). The Public Philosophy. Boston: Little Brown.
Long, N. E. (1949). Power and Administration. Public Administration Review, 9(4): 257-264.
Lynn, J., & Jay, A. (Eds.). (1989). The Complete Yes Minister: The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister by the Right Hon. James Hacker MP. Random House.
Marshall, E. O. (2003). Making the Most of a Good Story: Effective Use of Film as a Teaching Resource for Ethics. Teaching Theology & Religion, 6(2): 93–98.
Marshall, G.S. (2012). Applying Film to Public Administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 34(1): 133-142.
McCurdy, H. (1973). “Fiction, Phenomenology, and Public Administration”, Public Administration, 33(1): 52-60.
Meier, K.J. & O’Toole, L.J. (2006). Bureaucracy in a Democratic State: A Government Perspective Baltimore, MD.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mosher, F. C. (1968). Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press.
O`Leary, R. (2014). The Ethics of Dissent: Managing Guerrilla Government (2nd ed.). Cq Press.
Overeem, P. (2005). The Value of the Dichotomy: Politics, Administration, and the Political Neutrality of Administrators. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(2): 311-329.
--- (2006). In Defense of the Dichotomy: A Response to James H. Svara. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 28(1): 140-147.
Pautz, Michelle C., Warnement, Megan K. (2013). Government on the Silver Screen: Contemporary American Cinema`s Depiction of Bureaucrats, Police Officers, and Soldiers. Political Science & Politics, 46: 569-579.
Peters, B. G. (1987). Politicians and Bureaucrats in the Politics of Policy Making. In J E. Land(Ed.), Bureaucracy and Public Choice, 256-282. London: Sage.
--- (1995). The Politics of Bureaucracy. New York: Longman.
Piotrowski, S. J., & Rosenbloom, D. H. (2002). Nonmission–Based Values in Results–Oriented Public Management: The Case of Freedom of Information. Public Administration Review, 62(6): 643-657.
Ranny, A., Kendall, W. (1951). Democracy: Confusion and Agreement. Political Research Quarterly, 4(3): 430-439.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies, 44(4): 652-667.
--- (2005). Everyday Life in a Ministry: Public Administration as Anthropology. The American Review of Public Administration, 35(3): 3-25.
Selden, S. C., Brewer, G. A. & Brudney, J. L. (1999). Reconciling Competing Values in Public Administration: Understanding the Administrative Role Concept. Administration & Society, 31(2): 171-204.
Sementelli, A. (2009). Images in Public Administration: Using Popular Media to Bridge Theories and Practices. Journal of Management Development, 28(7): 607-621.
Simon, H. A. (1946). The Proverbs of Administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1): 53-67.
Starling, G. (1998). Managing the Public Sector. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Praeger, Westport, CT.
Svara, J. H. (1985). Dichotomy and Duality: Reconceptualizing the Relationship between Policy and Administration in Council-manager Cities. Public Administration Review, 221-232.
--- (1998). “The Politics-Administration Dichotomy Model as Aberration.” Public Administration Review, 58(1): 51-58
--- (1999). “Complementarity of Politics and Administration as a Legitimate Alternative to the Dichotomy Model.” Administration & Society, 30(6): 676-705.
--- (2006). The Search for Meaning in Political-Administrative Relations in Local Government. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(12): 1065-1090.
Taylor, F. W. (1998). The Principles of Scientific Management. 1911. Atlanta, Georgia: Engineering and Management Press.
Thacher, D., Rein, M. (2004). Managing Value Conflict in Public Policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17(4): 457-486.
Waldo, D. (1948). The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Publlic Administration. Ronald Press.
--- (1952). Development of Theory of Democratic Administration. American Political Science Review, 46(1): 81-103.
--- (1980). The Enterprise of Public Administration. Novato, C.A.: Chadnler and Sharp Publishers, Inc.
Wamsley, G. L., Bacher, R. N., Goodsell, C. T., Kronenberg, P. S., Rohr, J. A., White, O. F., Wolf, J. F., & Stivers, C. (1990). Refounding Public Administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wilson, W. (1887). The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2): 197-222.
Wolf, M. (1988). Communication Research and Textual Analysis: Prospects and Problem of Theoretical Convergence. European Journal of Communication, 3: 135-149. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政研究所
100256035 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1002560351 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [公共行政學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 035101.pdf | 5122Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 2340 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
