| Abstract: | 自九○年代以來，不少先進國家有感於中央政府之組織龐大，成員過多，影響行政效率，為提升國家行政效能，提高國家競爭力，而有縮減中央政府職能、組織及其員額之倡議及措施。我國政府自民國八十五年起，亦致力於組織合理化及員額精簡化，並於九十四年八月八日將「行政法人法草案」，送立法院審議。該草案特設行政法人制度，以執行具有專業需求或須強化成本效益及經營效能，惟不適合由政府機關推動亦不宜交由民間辦理，且所涉公權力行使程度較低之特定公共任務。日本為改革國家行政，期使中央行政機能精簡並促進其效率，基於政策制定及政策實施分離之理念，創設「獨立行政法人」制度，將原由中央機關執行之事務或事業移由獨立行政法人行使，使其成為中央政府之手臂。日本政府為確保國立大學能自律營運，透過各大學間之切磋琢磨，謀求其國際競爭力之提升；同時引進董事會及專業經理人制度，藉以實現國立大學之運作得以透明化且更具機動性與策略性；透過引進第三人評價之事後監督方式，使各大學之努力及業績得予以適切評價，進而促進國立大學朝向更有獨自特色之多元化發展方向，於二○○四年四月一日正式施行國立大學法人化之制度。日本之獨立行政法人制度是政治妥協之產物，其制度設計並不盡如人意。如國家公務員型獨立行政法人與獨立行政法人之性質格格不入；未設由國民監督或國會監督制度；以績效作為評價標準不一定正確，績效與公益性，有時實相互矛盾。獨立行政法人對於主管大臣之違法監督行為，可否提起訴訟？獨立行政法人違法侵害人民之權益時，如何救濟？政策制定與執行分離之標準為何？又是否所有之政府職能均適合如此劃分？經濟效率之低落，將導致獨立行政法人之民營化或廢止；相反的，經濟效率之提高，基於官不與民爭，政府不壓迫民間企業之理念，參照包括基本法在內之國家構造改革構想，論理上應選擇將之民營化。此種矛盾之存在，是否構成創設獨立行政法人制度之絆腳石，值得吾人注意。又現今有部分學者並包括行政院團隊在內，似認引進行政法人制度即可達成組織精簡及效率提升之目的，為破除此類迷思，本文試圖藉引介日本獨立行政法人制度，以作為我國現階段是否適合引進行政法人制度之論據。
Beginning in the 1990s, many developed countries started to reform governmental organization that has grown excessively large and rigid, in order to arrive at a streamlined, efficient and transparent government that permits effective execution of important state functions. Our country also began engaging in this kind of reform from 1996. The Executive Yuan passed the draft Law of Incorporating Administrative Agencies to provide a path for organizational change. The so-called Administrative Legal Person is, in short, a corporation established under public law that can perform a specific public task. The policy-making member of such a corporation is to be appointed by the state, which will continue to provide it with the necessary financial support to ensure the fulfillment of a public task. The system of incorporating administrative agencies is mainly designed to apply business entrepreneurship to the public sector, to make the related operations more professional, more efficient, and free from the personnel and accounting fetters common in an administrative organization. This is to say that when an administrative organization has become a corporation, it can hire someone whether he or she possesses the status of a civil servant or not. The main consideration is not qualifications but the evaluated performance. In Japan, for the purposes of contributing to the creation of high-level policy planning and drafting capabilities, to the ensuring of a fair, neutral and transparent governmental process, and to the provision of efficient administrative services, etc., steps shall be taken to enhance the government`s policy-drafting and execution capabilities, based on the principle of a separation of the policy-drafting function from the policy-execution function. The policy-drafting and policy-execution arms of government shall endeavor to work in close collaboration, based on a clearer designation of their respective responsibilities. Both arms shall establish a framework for evaluating policy. The government established an “Independent Administrative Corporation” system with independent legal status outside the state`s normal organizational framework. These corporations shall be designed to improve the efficiency and the quality of service of certain segments of the executing activity, and to ensure the transparency of such activities. Also it is very meaningful that each national university has become an independent corporation in order to increase its autonomy in building a “university with a distinctive identity” and development of education and academic research & study to the highest international standards. From the viewpoint of promoting university reform, the knowledgeable people of the Research and Discussion Council recommend (1) the possession by each university of its own status of a body corporate to secure autonomous management, (2) the introduction of private-sector management techniques, and (3) the concrete outline of a management system having outside members. But just because the “Independent Administrative Corporation” is a compromise, this design is not good enough. For example, questions remain, such as whether or not “Independent Administrative Corporations” can file a lawsuit against the illegal supervision of a related Ministry? When “Independent Administrative Corporation” violate people’s right and profits, is there any relief system? What is the standard for separating planning and policy-drafting functions from executing functions? Is it possible that all government functions can be divided into these two functions? If efficiency declines, the “Independent Administrative Corporation” should be privatized or eliminated, but if, on the contrary, efficiency is increased, according to the principle of “from the public to the private sectors”, the “Independent Administrative Corporation” should be privatized. This reasoning seems to be inconsistent. These phenomena need to be paid more attention. |
