政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/79540
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113648/144635 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51595096      線上人數 : 750
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋
    政大機構典藏 > 教育學院 > 教育學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/79540


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/79540


    題名: 以政策企業家模式做為大學自主權規劃之研究:大學自主政策制定歷程之個案探討
    Policy Entrepreneurship as an Emerging Autonomy for Universities in Taiwan: a Case Study of University Autonomy on Policy Processes
    作者: 徐聿靖
    貢獻者: 陳木金
    Chen, Mu Jin
    徐聿靖
    關鍵詞: 政策企業家
    高等教育
    policy process
    policy entrepreneurs
    multiple streams framework
    higher education
    日期: 2015
    上傳時間: 2015-12-02 17:02:44 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本研究係對台灣政策企業家在高等教育進行政策過程研究
    While governments expect citizens’ participation to improve public policies, top-down policymaking in higher education still dominates conventional practice in East Asia (Baiocchi, 2005; Genro, 1995). Unconventional cases have emerged since 2000. When most higher education institutions abided by the policy formulation dominated by their governments, a few universities led policy formulation in East Asia. This phenomenon reflects the emerging role of policy entrepreneurs, a concept derived from political science theory. The theory of policy entrepreneurship is relevant to institutional leaders (such as university presidents) and others seeking to introduce, translate and implement innovative ideas into the public sector (Kingdon, 1995).

    This study explores two comparative longitudinal cases studies involving policy entrepreneurs inside and outside government in Taiwan. From 2003 to 2007, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan played the role of policy entrepreneur to initiate the “University Corporation Project”. And from 2008 to 2014, as a policy entrepreneur outside the government, National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) took the lead and proposed the “University Autonomous Governance Project”. This project sought an alternative solution based on public universities’ needs to improve university autonomy and accountability.

    These cases allowed for a comparison of the strategies of policy entrepreneurs inside and outside the government and their impacts on policy formulation. In both cases, policy entrepreneurs sought to break through the traditional institutional structure by transferring or seeking significant strategic planning by universities themselves. This study shows how these two cases of increased policy formulation provide options for university autonomy in East Asia, causing universities and their leaders to exhibit greater policy entrepreneurship and effectiveness in policymaking.
    1.How policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments go through a politics stream? Do they adopt different strategies?
    2.How policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments go through a problem stream? Do they adopt different strategies?
    3.How policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments go through a policy stream? Do they adopt different strategies?

    This case study adopts the multiple streams theory for constructing the framework. Multiple methods are undertaken in this study, including interviews, documentary analysis and participant observation. After case analysis, this study constructs propositions for research questions aforementioned.

    1.To both policy entrepreneurs, political coalition is the goal in a politics stream, but they should go through a multiple-principals competition as a prerequisite of political buffering. In order to attain effective power coalition, policy entrepreneurs adopted diverse strategies of power sharing. Their strategies are implemented in following steps, inclusive of obtaining information from critical stakeholders, persuading targeted stakeholders, and devising format of delegated power. However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a politics stream.

    2.To policy entrepreneurs, gaining stakeholders’ problem preference is the goal in a problem stream, but they should meet the requirement on legitimacy of identity, a contextualized prerequisite. In order to obtain stakeholders’ problem preference, policy entrepreneurs demonstrate legitimacy of content by various strategies, which contain flexibility of issue framing and acuity of stakeholders. However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a politics stream. However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a problem stream.

    3.To policy entrepreneurs, creating or seizing a window of policy is the goal of a policy stream. First, they should go through a contextualized prerequisite of political acceptability in a policy stream. After meeting the requirement above, policy entrepreneurs adopted strategies to demonstrate technological feasibility, consisting of scope of reform, available workforce and option of alternatives. However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a policy stream.
    On the basis of propositions aforementioned, this study provides policy makers and potential researchers with implications about policy formation and future research.
    參考文獻: Reference
    1.Ahmad, A. R., Farley, A., & Naidoo, M. (2012). Impact of the government funding reforms on the teaching and learning of Malaysian public universities. Higher Education Studies, 2(2), p114.
    2.Avritzer, L. (2002). Democracy and the Public Space in Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    3.Bailey, K. (1994). Methods of Social Research, Fourth Edition. New York: The Free Press.
    4.Baiocchi, G. (2005). Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford: Stanford University Press).
    5.Barzelay, M., & Gallego, R. (2006) From `New Institutionalism` to `Institutional Processual-ism`: Advancing Knowledge about Public Management Policy Change. Governance, 19: 531-57.
    6.Berdahl, R. (1990). Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British
    universities. Studies in Higher Education, 15(2), 169-180.
    7.Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. DC: Georgetown University Press, Washington.
    8.Brouwer, S., & Biermann, F. (2011). Towards adaptive management: examining the strategies of policy entrepreneurs in Dutch water management. Ecology and Society, 16(4). Doi:10.5751/ES-04315-160405.
    9.Craig, R., Felix, H., Walker, J., & Phillips, M. (2010). Public health professionals as policy entrepreneurs: Arkansas`s childhood obesity policy experience. American Journal of Public Health, 100(11), 2047-2052. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.183939
    10.Cobb, R.W., and Elder, C.D. (1983). Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    11.Crow, D.A. (2010). Policy Entrepreneurs, Issue Experts, and Water Rights Policy Change in Colorado. Review of Policy Research, 27(3), 299-315
    12.Hammond (2013). Policy Entrepreneurship in China`s Response to Urban Poverty. Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1, 21.02.2013, p. 119-146.
    13.Department of Higher Education (2008). Introduction to higher education. Taipei, Ministry of Education.
    14.Estermann (2009). University Autonomy in Europe I: Exploratory Study. European University Association
    15.Estermann, T. & Nokkala, T. (2010). University Autonomy in Europe I: Exploratory Study. Brussels: European University Association.
    16.Genro (1995). Utopia Possı´vel [A possible Utopia], 2nd edition. Porto Alegre: Artes e Ofı´cios.
    17.Grindle, M. (2000). Audacious Reforms: Institutional Invention and Democracy in Latin America, Balitmore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    18.Heller, P. (2000) Degrees of democracy: some comparative lessons from India. World Politics, 52(4), pp. 484–519.
    19.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture`s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    20.Jones, B. (1994) Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    21.Jongbloed, B & Vossensteyn, H (2001). `Keeping up performances: An international survey of performance-based funding in higher education`, Journal of higher education policy & management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 127-45.
    22.Kickert, W., & Koppenjan, J. (1997). Public management and network management: An overview. In W. Kickert, E. Klijn, & J. Koppenjan (Eds.), Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. (pp. 35-62). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446217658.n3
    23.Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
    24.King, P. J., & Roberts, N. C. (1992). An investigation into the personality profile of policy entrepreneurs. Public Productivity & Management Review, 16(2), 173–190.
    25.Lane, J. E. (1983). Higher education public policymaking. Higher Education, 12,
    519-565
    26.Liefner, I (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems, Journal of Higher Education vol. 46, pp. 469-89.
    27.Botterill (2013). Are Policy Entrepreneurs Really Decisive in Achieving Policy Change?
    Drought Policy in the USA and Australia. Australian Journal of Politics and History 59:97-112.
    28.Lindblom (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review. 19(2): 79–88.
    29.Lu (2009). Agenda Setting and Alternative Choices of Su-Hwa Highway Decision-making: A Multiple Streams Perspective. Soochow Journal of Political Science, 27(4), 171-240.
    30.MacRae, D., & Wilde, J. (1979).Policy analysis for public decisions. Boston, MA: Duxbury
    31.Heise (2013), Law and Policy Entrepreneurs: Empirical Evidence on the Expansion of School Choice Policy, Volume 87 Issue 5 Symposium: Educational Innovation and the Law, Notre Dame Law Review, Article 5.
    32.Ministry of Education (2006). University Corporations. Taiwan: Ministry of Education
    33.Ministry of Education. (2014). University autonomous governance project. Taiwan: Ministry of Education.
    34.Mintrom. (1997) Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science 41:738-770.
    35.MOK, K, H., and LEE, M. H. H.(2001). Globalization and Changing Governance: Higher Education Reforms in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China, Australian Association for Research in Education 2001 Conference, "Crossing Borders: New Frontiers for Educational Research", Australian Association for Research in Education, Australia, 2-6 December 2001.
    36.National Taiwan University (2003) Stop the Revised Bill of the University Act – an open letter. Retrieved from: http://mis.cc.ntu.edu.tw/2734/%A4j%BE%C7%AAk%BB%A1%A9%AB%A1%5D%A7t%AA%FE%A5%F3%A4@%A1B%A4G).doc
    37.Oba, J. (2007). Incorporation of national universities in Japan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(3), 291–303.
    38.OECD (2003). Changing Patterns of Governance in Higher education in Higher Education, in Education Policy Analysis 2003, Chapter 3, Paris: OECD
    39.Ostrom (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    40.Payne G. and Payne J. (2004) Key Concepts in Social Research. London: Sage, 2004.
    41. Raza (2009). Higher Education in East Asia. Retrieved from
    http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEASTASIAPACIFIC/Resources/HigherEducationGovernance.pdf
    42.Raza (2010). “Higher Education Governance in East Asia,” A paper prepared for the East Asia Flagship Report on Higher Education. World Bank, Washington D.C.
    43.Roberts and King. (1991). Policy Entrepreneurs: Their Activity Structure and Function in the Policy Process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1: 147–75.
    44.Sabatier, A. (1988). An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences ,21, 29-68.
    45.Sabatier and Hank. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Paul Sabatier. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
    46.Saam (2007). Asymmetry in information versus asymmetry in power: Implicit assumptions of agency theory?. Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 825-40.
    47.Scott (2001). Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
    48.Shah, A. (2007) Participatory Budgeting. Washington, DC: World Bank.
    49.Simon, H.A. (1957). Models of man, New York, Wiley & Sons. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, No. 3, pp. 567-583
    50.Sporn, B. (2002). World class reform of universities in Austria, International Higher Education, Boston College, 29 (Fall): 18 – 19.
    51.University World News (2013) Retrieved from
    http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130109145841884
    52.Varghese, N.V. (Ed.) 2009. Reforms in higher education: Institutional restructuring in Asia. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.
    53.Varghese, N.V., &Martin, M. (2014). Governance reforms in higher education: a study of institutional autonomy in Asian countries. Paris: UNESCO.
    54.Wampler (2009). Following in the footsteps of Policy Entrepreneurs: Policy Advocates and Pro Forma Adopters. Journal of Development Studies, Forthcoming.
    55.Wang& Hsung (2012). Using Network Analysis for Researching Brokerage Roles in Policy Process: The Case of Taichung City`s Development Domain Before and After the Lifting of Martial Law, TASPAA 2012
    56.World Bank (2011).Putting higher education to work: skills and research for growth in East Asia, Washington, DC.
    57.Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    58.Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: structure limitations, prospects. In: Sabatier, P. ed. Theories of the Policy Process: Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy, 2nd edition. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, pp. 65-92.
    59.Zhu (2008). Strategy of Chinese Policy Entrepreneurs in the Third Sector: Challenges of Technical Infeasibility.” Policy Sciences 41: 315–34.
    描述: 博士
    國立政治大學
    教育學系
    98152511
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0981525111
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[教育學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    511101.pdf4753KbAdobe PDF298檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    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 ©   - 回饋