政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/95294
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113303/144284 (79%)
造访人次 : 50822522      在线人数 : 617
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/95294


    题名: 行政官員與立法委員之政策合法化論述—審議民主觀點的內容分析
    作者: 劉姵吟
    Liu, Pei-Yin
    贡献者: 黃東益
    Huang, Tong-Yi
    劉姵吟
    Liu, Pei-Yin
    关键词: 審議民主
    政策合法化
    政策論述
    內容分析
    立法院
    deliberative democracy
    policy legitimation
    policy discourse
    content analysis
    the Legislative Yuan
    日期: 2009
    上传时间: 2016-05-09 15:39:00 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 行政官員與立法委員於立法院的政策論述，是代議民主體制中政策合法化過程的核心，論述內容是否具備審議民主精神係影響政策合法性及未來執行過程的關鍵因素，但相關主題過去卻為學界所忽略。本文從審議民主觀點探究行政官員與立法委員的政策合法化論述，透過個案比較研究法，選取大學法與私立學校法的修法過程進行內容分析。研究結果顯示，立法委員的政策合法化論述主要以監督、連任、與政策為目標，其互惠性、多元性、尊重性、與合理性皆有待加強；行政官員的論述則是基於課責、回應、及責任等考量，但大多論述皆過於保守與消極，缺乏合理性之精神。兩者論述內容的差異及審議民主精神之缺乏，應與各自的制度性角色要求相關。基於研究發現，本文主張立法委員的論述應多聚焦於政策方案內容，行政官員則應更為主動、積極，以更符合回應與責任的要求、提升政策論述的審議精神。本文亦建議，立法院應針對政策合法化過程建立完整的公開記錄制度。本文為一初探性嘗試，未來學界可根據實務觀察，設計更完善的評估指標，或輔以制度論角度，裨益於對立法委員與行政官員的政策合法化論述有更完整地解釋。
    Administrators and legislators’ policy discourse in the Legislative Yuan is the core of policy legitimation under the representative democracy. The content of discourse with deliberative democracy spirit, ignored by the academics in the past, will influence policy legitimation and policy implementation. This study investigates administrators and legislators’ policy legitimation discourse from the perspective of deliberative democracy. The author selected the processes of amending the University Act and the Private School Law by comparative study of cases, and used content analysis method. The results show legislators take the supervision, reelection, and policy as their purposes in the discourse of policy legitimation. The attributes such as reciprocity, diversity, respect, and reasonableness in the legislators’ policy legitimation discourse have a great room for improvement. Administrators would mainly consider accountability, responsiveness, and responsibility during the discourse. Administrators are always conservative and passive, and the discourse is a lack of the reasonableness. The difference between legislators and administrators’ discourses may relate to respective institutional roles. Accordingly, this study suggests legislators focus on the content of policy proposal. This study also recommends administrators be more active and enthusiastic to answer to the requirement of responsiveness and responsibility, and to promote the deliberative spirit of the discourse. Besides, the author proposes the Legislative Yuan institutionalize the complete and open records of the policy legitimation. This research is the pilot study. Therefore, in the future, the academics could design more appropriate evaluative indicators, or can be integrated by the perspective of the institutionalism for better explanation of administrators and legislators’ policy legitimation discourse.
    "第一章 緒論 1
    第一節 研究動機 1
    第二節 研究背景 3
    第三節 研究目的 4
    第四節 研究問題 6
    第二章 文獻回顧 8
    第一節 政策合法化的基礎概念 8
    第二節 立法院政策合法化階段之相關研究 11
    第三節 審議民主的意涵與理論範疇 14
    第三章 理論基礎與研究設計 19
    第一節 政策合法化論述之理論基礎 19
    第二節 審議民主精神之理論基礎 22
    第三節 研究架構 26
    第四節 個案挑選 27
    第五節 內容分析法 30
    第四章 政策合法化論述內容 46
    第一節 大學法的政策合法化過程與論述內容 46
    第二節 私立學校法的政策合法化過程與論述內容 59
    第三節 綜合比較 68
    第四節 整體分析 77
    第五章 政策合法化論述之審議民主精神 82
    第一節 政策合法化論述的審議民主精神 82
    第二節 政策合法化論述的多元性 86
    第三節 政策合法化論述的互惠性 89
    第四節 政策合法化論述的尊重性 94
    第五節 政策合法化論述的合理性 97
    第六節 整體分析 104
    第六章 結論與建議 112
    第一節 研究發現與討論 112
    第二節 實務建議 116
    第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 119
    參考文獻 121
    附錄一 內容分析編碼題項表 127
    附錄二 內容分析編碼者說明文件 129
    參考文獻: 王石番（1989）。傳播內容分析法。台北：幼獅。
    丘昌泰（2004）。公共政策基礎篇。台北市：巨流。
    田麗虹（2001）。國會助理工作手册。臺北市：新自然主義。
    朱志宏（2000）。公共政策（二版）。台北市：三民。
    余致力、毛壽龍、陳敦源、郭昱瑩（2008）。公共政策。台北市：智勝。
    吳定（2002）。公共政策。台北市：中華電視。
    吳定（2006）。公共政策辭典。台北市：五南。
    吳東欽（2008）。從議事阻撓觀點探討我國中央分立政府運作之影響。臺灣民主季刊，5（3）：71-120。
    吳重禮（2002）。SNTV的省思：幣端肇因或是代罪羔羊？問題與研究，41(3)：45-60。
    李天任、藍莘（譯）（1995）。大眾媒體硏究（R. D. Wimmer, & J. R. Dominick原著）。臺北：亞太圖書。
    李莅蒂（2004）。立法院議事資訊公開之研究—以黨團協商機制法制化實施前後為例。世新大學行政管理學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
    林水波（2008）。威脅潛存國會與填補課責落差。臺灣民主季刊，5(1)：149-159。
    林水波、張世賢（1999）。公共政策（三版）。台北市：五南。
    林震岩（2007）。多變量分析。台北：智勝。
    邱太三（2001）。國會質詢制度的改革芻議。載於蘇永欽（編），國會改革：台灣民主憲政的新境界（275-283頁）。臺北市：新臺灣人基金會。
    施佳良（2007）。從政策論證途徑檢視審議民主實踐過程：以二代健保法人論壇為例。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
    紀俊臣（1984）。地方政府公共政策合法化過程的探討。行政學報，16：95-102。
    馬紹章（1999）。民意機構與政務領導。載於黃榮護（編），公共管理（2nd Ed.）（178-225頁）。臺北市：商鼎文化。
    盛杏湲（2001）。立法委員正式與非正式立法參與之研究：以第三屆立法院為例。問題與研究，40(3)：81-104。
    盛杏湲（2003）。立法機關與行政機關在立法過程中的影響力：一致政府與分立政府的比較。台灣政治學刊，7(2)：51-105。
    盛杏湲、黃士豪（2006）。臺灣民眾為什麼討厭立法院？臺灣民主季刊，3(3)：85-128。
    黃秀端（2004）。政黨輪替前後的立法院內投票結盟。選舉研究，11(1)：1-32。
    黃秀端（2008）。國會監督、立委表現與選舉課責。臺灣民主季刊，5(1)：161-169。
    黃秀端、何嵩婷（2007）。黨團協商與國會立法：第五屆立法院的分析。政治科學論叢，34：1-44。
    黃秀端、陳鴻鈞（2006）。國會中政黨席次大小對互動之影響-第三屆到第五屆的立法院記名表決探析。人文及社會科學集刊，18(3)：385-415。
    黃煥榮（2000）。政策合法化過程所應用的政策論證-全民健康保險法的個案分析。立法院院聞，324：69-87。
    新時代基金會增額立委問政表現評估小組（1990）。立法院擂台：增額立委問政評估。台北市：時報文化。
    楊婉瑩（2002）。立法院委員會的決策角色：以第三屆立法院為例。問題與研究，41(4)：83-113。
    楊堤雅（2000）。網際網路虛擬社群成員之角色與溝通互動之探討。國立中正大學企業管理系碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
    廖達琪、黃志呈、謝承璋（2006）。修憲對立法院功能與角色之影響―從表演場到表演場。臺灣民主季刊，3(1)：27-58。
    趙弘章（2005）。我國立法院委員會專業化與黨團協商透明化之分析。中山人文社會科學期刊，13(1)：37-54。
    蔡學儀（2002）。國會改造之選舉制度方案比較。選舉研究，9(2)：117-150。
    鄭明德（2004）。民進黨立法院黨團的黨鞭制度。中華人文社會學報，1：38-55。
    鄭明德（2005）。民進黨立法院黨團組織問題之研究。政治科學論叢，25：135-166。
    魯炳炎（2003）。政策合法化與政策網絡-以我國自由貿易港區政策為例。經社法制論叢，32：161-210。
    蕭怡靖（2005）。我國立法院資深制度之探討-委員會遊走及召集委員資深度之變遷。政治科學論叢，25：105-134。
    簡名君（2006）。政府網路公共論述空間之研究：以中央政府機關網路論壇為例。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
    羅曉荷（2004年12月12日）。泛藍過半 藍114 綠101 投票率59.16％ 歷年新低。聯合報，A1版。
    顧忠華（2008）。國會監督與公民社會。臺灣民主季刊，5(1)：181-189。
    Alesina, A., & G. Tabellini (2008a). Bureaucrats or Politicians? Part I: A Single Policy Task. The American Economic Review, 97(1): 169-179.
    Alesina, A., & G. Tabellini (2008b). Bureaucrats or Politicians? Part II: Multiple Policy Tasks. Journal of Public Economics, 92: 426-447.
    Bächtiger, A., M. Spörndli, M. R. Steenbergen, & J. Steiner (2005). The Deliberative Dimensions of Legislatures. Acta Politica, 40: 225–238.
    Baynes, K. (2002). Deliberative Democracy and the Limits of Liberalism. In René von Schomberg, & K. Baynes (Eds.), Discourse and Democracy: Essays on Habermas`s between Facts and Norms (pp. 15-60). Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
    Bendor, J., S. Taylor, & R. van Gaalen (1985). Bureaucratic Expertise versus Legislative Authority: A Model of Deception and Monitoring in Budgeting. The American Political Science Review, 79(4): 1041-1060.
    Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (5th Ed.). Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.
    Bessette, J. M. (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Chambers, S. (1996). Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
    Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In J. Bohman, & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (pp. 67-91). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Dryzek, J. S. (2004). Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy. In C. Farrelly (Ed.), Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader (pp. 242-259). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
    Dunleavy P., G. W. Jones, J. Burnham, R. Elgie, & P. Fysh (1993). Leaders, Politics and Institutional Change: The Decline of Prime Ministerial Accountability to the House of Commons, 1868-1990. British Journal of Political Science, 23: 267-298.
    Ekeli, K. S. (2005). Giving a Voice to Posterity-Deliberative Democracy and Representation of Future People. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18: 429-450.
    Elgie, R., & J. Stapleton (2006). The Parliamentary Activity of the Head of Government in Ireland. In N. D. J. Baldwin (Ed.), Executive Leadership and Legislative Assemblies (pp. 154–173). New York: Routledge.
    Elster, J. (1998). Deliberation and Constitution Making. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative Democracy (pp. 97-122). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Fiorina, M. P. (1985). Congress and Bureaucracy: A Profitable Partnership. In F. E. Rourke (Ed.), Bureaucratic Power in National Policy Making (4th Ed.) (pp. 220-230). Boston: Little, Brown.
    Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
    Franklin, M., & P. Norton (1993). Questions and Members. In M. Franklin, & P. Norton (Eds.), Parliaments Questions (pp. 104–122). New York: Clarendon Press.
    Fuest, C. (2000). The Political Economy of Tax Coordination as a Bargaining Game between Bureaucrats and Politicians. Public Choice, 103: 357–382.
    Gangl, A. (2003). Procedural Justice Theory and Evaluations of the Lawmaking Process. Political Behavior, 25(2): 119-149.
    George, A. L., A. Bennett (2004). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Giddings, P. (1993). Questions and Department. In M. Franklin, & P. Norton (Eds.), Parliaments Questions (pp. 123–149). New York: Clarendon Press.
    Gutmann, A., & D. Thompson (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    Gutmann, A., & D. Thompson (2004a). Deliberative Democracy Beyond Process. In C. Farrelly (Ed.), Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader (pp. 232-241). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
    Gutmann, A., & D. Thompson (2004b). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
    Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (W. Rehg trans.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Habermas, J. (2005). Concluding Comments on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics. Acta Politica, 40: 384-392.
    Hsieh, H.-F. (2007). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. In A. Bryman (Ed.), Qualitative Research 2 (pp. 110-124). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
    Irwin, H., A. Kennon, D. Natzler, & R. Rogers (1993). Evolving Rules. In M. Franklin, & P. Norton (Eds.), Parliaments Questions (pp. 23–72). New York: Clarendon Press.
    Jensen, J. L. (2003a). Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(4): 349-374.
    Jensen, J. L. (2003b). Virtual Democratic Dialogue? Bringing Together Citizens and Politicians. Information Polity, 8(1-2): 29-47.
    Lascher, E. L. Jr. (1996). Assessing Legislative Deliberation: A Preface to Empirical Analysis. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21(4): 501–519.
    Laver, M., & K. A. Shepsle (1996). Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Dmocracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Lazarus, R. J. (2006). Congressional Descent: The Demise of Deliberative Democracy in Environmental Law. Georgetown Law Journal, 94(3): 619-681.
    Levine, C. H., B. G. Peters, & F. J. Thompson (1990). Public Administration: Challenges, Choices, Consequences. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.
    Lindblom, C. E., & E. J. Woodhouse (1993). The Policy-Making Process (3rd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
    Little, D. (1991). Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview Press.
    Loomis, B. A. (Ed.). (2000). Esteemed Colleagues: Civility and Deliberation in the U.S. Senate. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
    Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    Mann, T. E., & N. J. Ornstein (1993). A Second Report of the Renewing Congress Project. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the Brookings Institution.
    Meier, K. J. (1997). Bureaucracy and Democracy: The Case for More Bureaucracy and Less Democracy. Public Administration Review, 57(3): 193-199.
    Muramatsu, M., & E. S. Krauss (1984). Bureaucrats and Politicians in Policymaking: The Case of Japan. The American Political Science Review, 78(1): 126-146.
    Norton, P. (1993). Introduction: Parliamentary since 1960. In M. Franklin, & P. Norton (Eds.), Parliaments Questions (pp. 1–22). New York: Clarendon Press.
    Oleszek, W. J. (1996). Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process (4th Ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
    Olson, D. M. (1994). Democratic Legislative Institutions: A Comparative View. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
    Peters, B. G. (1999). Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism. New York: Pinter.
    Przeworski, A., & H. Teune (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
    Quirk, P. J. (1991). Evaluating Congressional Reform: Deregulation Revisited. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10(3): 407-425.
    Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Ragin, C. C. (1994a). Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press.
    Ragin, C. C. (1994b). Introduction to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. In T. Janoski, & A. Hicks (Eds.), The Comparative Political Economy of the Welfare State (pp. 299-319). New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
    Rawls, J. (1997). The Idea of Public Reason. In J. Bohman, & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (pp. 93-141). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Richardson, H. S. (1997). Democratic Intentions. In J. Bohman, & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (pp. 347-382). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Rosenbloom, D. H. (2000). Building a Legislative-Centered Public Administration: Congress and the Administrative State, 1946-1999. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: University of Alabama Press.
    Stanford, K. A. (1996). State Budget Deliberations: Do Legislators Have a Strategy? Public Administration Review, 52(1): 16–26.
    Steenbergen, M. R., A. Bächtiger, M. Spörndli, & J. Steiner (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1: 21-48.
    Steiner, J., A. Bächtiger, M. Spörndli, & M. R. Steenbergen (2004). Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Tsaliki, L. (2002). Online Forums and the Enlargement of Public Space: Research Findings from A European Project. The Public, 9(2): 95-112.
    Uhr, J. (1998). Deliberative Democracy in Australia: The Changing Place of Parliament. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Weatherford, M. S. (1994). Responsiveness and Deliberation in Divided Government: Presidential Leadership in Tax Policy Making. British Journal of Political Science, 24(1): 1-31.
    Wiberg, M. (1995). Parliamentary Questioning: Control by Communication? In H. Döring (Ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe (pp. 179–222). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
    Wilson, G. K., & A. Barker (2003). Bureaucrats and Politicians in Britain. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 16(3): 349–372.
    Woodhouse, D. (1994). Ministers and Parliament: Accountability in Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Young, I. M. (2004). The Deliberative Model. In C. Farrelly (Ed.), Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader (pp. 227-231). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政學系
    95256002
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095256002
    数据类型: thesis
    显示于类别:[公共行政學系] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    没有与此文件相关的档案.



    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    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 ©   - 回馈