Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/118705
|
| Title: | 公部門專案管理的協調之初探 ─以臺北市參與式預算提案為例
A Preliminary Study of Project Management in the Coordination of the Public Sector: The Case of Proposals of Participatory Budgeting in Taipei City |
| Authors: | 張婷瑄
Jhang, Ting-Syuan |
| Contributors: | 傅凱若
Fu, Kai-Jo
張婷瑄
Jhang, Ting-Syuan |
| Keywords: | 協調
參與式預算
主責機關
提案執行過程
Coordination
Participatory Budgeting
PM (Project Management in public sector)
Process of project implementation |
| Date: | 2018 |
| Issue Date: | 2018-07-17 11:29:42 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 隨著公民民主意識抬頭，政府面臨政策議題日益複雜，再加上機關業務分工細緻，使得行政機關的協調工具成為影響政策執行過程的重要因素。在這樣的趨勢環境下，臺北市政府推動參與式預算制度試圖讓政府預算使用能更貼近民意需求，且為了讓提案執行更順暢，引進私部門專案管理的概念至參與式預算，為每一件提案指派主責機關，由該機關負責協調整體進度。換言之，機關間協調會影響到提案執行狀況。因此，本研究意旨在於探討主責機關執行臺北市參與式預算提案的協調過程，包含產生主責機關原則、影響機關間執行提案的協調因素以及可能的問題。
根據上述的研究目的，本文研究問題分為三個階段探詢機關執行提案的互動過程，第一為主責機關誕生，在協力初始階段，係以瞭解公部門運用專案管理的理念選擇主責機關的原則及該機關對於角色的認知；第二為經由協力互動過程分析影響機關間執行提案因素、協調合作形式；第三則從評估機制探究機關執行完畢結案的原因以及評估主責機關對於課責提案管理系統之想法。
為回應本研究目的與問題，本研究採用質性訪談方式，針對參與式預算制度提案之管理層級、主責機關以及協辦機關進行半結構式訪談模式，其中主責機關是依據三項變項來挑選， 包括資源多寡、組織層級及協調複雜度程度，從105-106年參與式預算134件提案中抽樣出8件提案，並以立意抽樣方式選擇協辦機關與管理單位各2位受訪者，總計本研究訪談12位參與式預算相關人員以瞭解提案執行過程。
從研究發現與結論得知，首先，在初始條件過程內，歸納出四項選擇主責機關考量因素並確立主責機關任務，並進一步將公部門的主責機關與私部門的專案管理進行比較，發現在初始、執行、監控以及結束的協力過程中存在差異性，且主責機關彈性空間小於私部門的專案管理；其次，互動過程中，研究發現在協調溝通、法規權責、機關自主以及資源配置等四項因素對於主責機關執行提案有所影響，其中法規權責因素是最為重要，並且本研究認為提案人的身分對於協調過程亦有所影響。另外，透過機關自主因素，得出主責機關與協辦機關協調形式為合作但獨立，然而主責機關與區公所則是合作且互助。再者，五項因素僅有信任度沒有足夠資料得以佐證機關間已建立信任關係。最後，結果與課責構面則將結案原因區分為三種類型：一般性結案、特殊性結案與例外性結案，並從研究結果分析提案管理系統發現此系統仍偏向研考管制，彈性小。
綜上，本研究的實務建議如下：一、主責機關業務量需分散化；二、主責機關機制彈性化，如彈性授權、提升提案管理系統管理彈性，盡量貼近私部門的專案管理理念；三、增加執行人員參與式預算的相關資訊，如預算認知；四、減少非必要之結案程序，提高結案程序的彈性空間。
Facing with more complicated policy issues and the needs of citizen participation, governments have to find an innovative channel and coordination methods to deal with these challenges. As participation budgeting (PB) becomes one of the trends around the world, Taipei government takes an active role and implement it in the city-wide scope to meet citizens’ needs. In order to achieve the goal of each project proposed in the PB process, the government introduces the concept of project management (PM) from private sectors. Since PB in Taipei covers city-wide issues, projects implementation sometimes need to involve inter-agency coordination. In order to accomplish every project, the Department of Civil Affairs in Taipei assigns the most relevant agency to take on the role of PM. That is the inter-agency coordination is the key factor to affect the project implementation. In consequence, the goal of this research aims to examine the role of PM in the coordination process of PB in Taipei, including the rules to select PM, the plausible factors to influence the coordination process among the agencies and figuring out the potential problems.
Therefore, the research questions are divided into three aspects. The first part is the initial stage, which aims to understand the role of PM in the public sector, the rules to select PM and its obligations. The second part is the interaction stage, which analyzes negotiation and coordinating types of PM as well as finds out the potential factors in the project implementation process. The third part is about outcomes and accountability stage focusing on the reasons resulting in PM to close the projects.
Based on the theoretical framework, this study uses a qualitative study to conduct a semi-structured interview. The interviewees are from the management level, the PM agency, and the support coordination agency of the PB. The sample selection of PM in this study is based on the amount of budget resources, the level of hierarchical structure and the complexity of inter-agency coordination. This study selects 8 out of 134 projects from the year of 2016 to 2017 PB projects. In addition, this study involves 2 interviewees from the support coordination agencies and two interviewees from the management level respectively. The total sample contains 8 projects and participants in the study interview.
This study find that the rules for selecting PM should be clear in the initial stage; however, the definition of PM is inconsistent between public and private sectors. In the interaction process, it can be seen that regulations and authority is the most significant factor than the other four factors in the research. Moreover, the roles of proposer (eg., borough chief) has influential influence toward negotiation. Furthermore, this research also finds that the relationship between PM and support coordination agency is cooperation but independent with each other. On the other hand, the relationship between PM and the district office shows cooperation and help each other. When considering the factor of trust among all five factors affecting negotiation, there is not sufficient evidence to prove mutual trust in the inter-agency coordination. Lastly, on the aspect of outcomes and accountability, the research demonstrates that the reasons to close the case could be categorized into three types including general closure, specific closure, and exceptional closure. The results show that there is less flexibility in the proposal management system, which is still followed the traditional evaluation management.
Based on this research findings, there are several suggestions for practical work:
At first, work division in PM should be well-organized, and current situation shows that the work division is overly dense for PM. Secondly, mechanism of PM should be more flexible. For example, adopting flexible authorization and enhancing the flexibility of proposal management system can be closer to the idea of project management in private sector. Thirdly, all participants should be informed and have more information about PB such as knowledge about budget. At last, it is necessary to reduce unnecessary procedure for case closure to adapt different circumstances. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
方凱弘、陳楊中（2016）。預算治理：臺北市參與式預算實施的經驗與省思。地方治理的過去、現在、未來 臺灣經驗的分析學術研討會，臺北。
王光旭（2010）。行政中立的過去, 現在與未來。T & D飛訊，107，1-19。
王嘉男、朱彥貞（2014）。專案管理。科學發展，494，64-70。
丘昌泰（2009）。政策執行與評估。臺北：元照出版社。
田哲榮、司徒懿（譯）（2010）。解析執行研究法與資料（David Silverman 原著）。臺北：韋伯文化國際出版。
朱柔若（譯）（2000）。社會研究方法－質化與量化取向（W. Lawrence Neuman 原著）。臺北：揚智。
朱鎮明（2011）。政策協調機制及其評估制度。研考雙月刊。35(3)。23-39。
吳定（2007）。行政學。臺北：空大。
吳庚（2007）。行政法之理論與實用。臺北：三民書局。
吳芳瑜（2009）。參與治理下的公共政策決策品質管理--以全民健保牙醫總額預算制度為例。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士班，未出版，臺北。
吳錦錩、余秀慧譯（2015）。管理學（修訂第六版）。（Gareth R. Jones, Jennifer M. George. Essentials of contemporary management 6th ed）。臺北：華泰文化。
吳瓊恩（2016）。行政學（修訂五版）。臺北：三民。
呂育誠（2001）。地方政府管理—結構與功能的分析。臺北：元照。
宋威穎、吳偉寧（2016年5月）。地方政府辦理參與式預算之觀察與省思_以臺中市中區參與式預算為例。臺灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會TASPAA學術研討會，臺北大學。
李元墩（1999）。組織溝通研究之回顧與展望。中華管理評論，2(5)，121-131。
李長晏、林煥笙（2009）。中央與地方協力夥伴關係之分析--以臺中縣潭子段旱溪整治工程為例。公共行政學報，31，49-100
李政賢（譯）（2006）。質性研究—設計與計畫撰寫（Marshall C.& Rossman G. B.原著者）。臺北：五南出版社。
李翠萍（2006）。社會福利政策執行網絡探析。臺北：秀威。
林水波、李長晏（2005）。跨域治理。臺北：五南。
林德芳（2018a）。參與式預算成案類型化分析與比較—以臺北市為例。地方治理與發展學術研討會暨七校聯合行政管理專題研討會，東海大學
林德芳（2018b）。參與式預算報告，未出版。
林德芳、曾國俊（2018）。參與式預算成案的實踐與反思—以臺北市為例。第十四屆兩岸四地公共管理研討會，泉州。
邱明斌、任文姍、鄭錫鍇、詹靜芬、陳恆鈞、潘競恆、林子倫、方凱弘、陳志瑋、李長晏（譯）（2010）。行政學（B. Guy Peters、Jon Pierre著）。臺北：五南。
洪文玲、章光明、許義寶、陳輝淵（2015）。跨機關協助機制及其相關法制之研究。國家發展委員會研究委託報告（NDC-DSD-103-010），未出版。
胡龍騰、曾冠球、張智凱、黃榮志（2013）。電子化跨域治理影響因素之研究：多個案之探索。公共行政學報，45，1-39。
孫本初（2010）。公共管理（修訂第五版）。臺北：智勝文化。
張行道（2004）。跨階段工程計畫之組織協調與工作整合。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫（NSC93-2211-E-006-073-），未出版。
張其祿、廖達琪（2010）。強化中央行政機關橫向協調機制之研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告。臺北：行政院研究發展考核委員會
許立一（2009）。公務倫理思維及其實踐行動的再思考—從人性假定出發。文官制度季刊，1，77-96。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北：五南出版社。
陳志瑋（2014）。以專案管理打造公共組織學習的基礎:利害關係人分析法的應用.。T&D飛訊，185。
陳怡安（2014）。政府運用公私協力治理之研究：以臺北市都市再生前進基地為例。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
陳恆鈞（2008）。協力治理模式之初探。T&D飛訊，69，26-37。
陳恆鈞（2010）。協力網絡治理之優點與罩門。研習論壇精選，3(2)。165-190。
陳凱玲（2016）。市政府與區公所跨單位合作研究—以「新北市客家桐花祭」為例。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
陳敦源（1999）。跨域管理：部際與府際關係（修訂第二版）。載於黃榮護（編）。公共管理（228）。臺北：商鼎文化。
陳敦源（2005）。民主與官僚：新制度論的觀點。臺北：韋伯文化國際出版有限公司。
陳敦源、張世杰（2010）。公私協力夥伴關係的弔詭。文官制度季刊，2(3)，17-71。
陳敦源、賴美淑、鐘國彪、游宗憲（2008年10月）。從政府介入到醫療治理：論我國醫療品質政策之困境與發展。探索台灣社會福利問題研討會，國家政策研究院。
曾冠球（2006）。行政機關間合作的邏輯與限制。國立政治大學公共行政學系博士論文，未出版，臺北。
曾冠球（2011）。協力治理觀點下公共管理者的挑戰與能力建立。文官制度季刊，3(1)，27-52。
黃昭儒（2015）。中石化安順廠汙染整治問題之協力治理分析。國立臺北大學公共行政暨策學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
黃家齊、李雅婷、趙慕芬譯（2014）。組織行為學（修訂第十五版）。Stephen P. Robbins & Timothy A. Judge著作。臺北：華泰文化。
楊淑貞（1991）。管理心理學。臺北：三民書局。
葉欣怡、陳東升；林國明；林祐聖（2016）。參與式預算在社區－文化部推展公民審議及參與式預算實驗計畫。國土及公共治理季刊，4(4)，29-40。
葉欣怡、林祐聖（2017）。參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗：以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例。民主與治理，4(1)，69-95。
廖洲棚（2011）。公民社會中的官僚回應困境：理性選擇的觀點。空大行政學報，22（特刊），279-308。
廖洲棚（2014）。論跨機關管制行政之政策協調：賽局理論的觀點。行政暨政策學報，59，89-126。
廖慧美（2005）。我國基層行政人員行政裁量行為之研究─以轉換型領導之觀點。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士學位論文，未出版，臺北。
臺北政府民政局（2017）。臺北市政府105年度參與式預算成果報告專書（初版）。臺北：臺北政府民政局。
劉麗雯（2004）。非營利組織 :協調合作的社會福利服務。臺北：雙葉書廊。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究－理論與運用。臺北：心理出版社。
蔡勇美、廖培珊、林南（2007）。社會學研究方法。臺北：唐山出版社。
蔣喬玫（2014）。新北市政府導入公民參與預算過程可行性研究。淡江大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
謝丞堯（2018年6月）。咱的預算，誰來決定？ ―臺北市參與式預算住民大會參與者特性分析。台灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會年會暨國際學術研討會，東吳大學。
顏榮昌（2006）。從政府機關組織溝通現況檢視其組織效能之研究。T & D飛訊，43，1-15。
蘇彩足（2017）。公部門推動參與式預算之經驗與省思。‧文官制度季刊，9(2)，1-22。
蘇彩足、孫煒、蔡馨芳（2015）。政府實施參與式預算之可行性評估。國家發展委員會委託研究報告，未出版。
萬毓澤（2016）。臺灣當前的參與式預算概況：反省與前瞻。2018年1月6日，取自：https://twstreetcorner.org/2016/03/01/wanyuze-2/。
臺北市政府公民提案參與式預算資訊平台，2018年5月20日，取自：https://pb.taipei/。
臺北市市政白皮書（2014）。參與式預算。2017年12月23日，取自：https://doctorkowj.gitbooks.io/kppolicy/content/chapter_1/1_i-voting__3.html。
臺北市政府公民提案參與式預算資訊平台。認識參與式預算推廣，2017年12月23日，取自：https://goo.gl/AlZ2Fp。
中華民國105年度台北市地方總預算案總說明（2016）。總預算之綜合分析。2017年12月24日，取自：https://goo.gl/W2oSeM。
中華民國106年度台北市地方總預算案總說明（2017）。總預算之綜合分析。2017年12月24日，取自：http://w2.dbas.taipei.gov.tw/budget/ofbudget/106budget/BUDGET/bfbud/106A04.pdf。
二、西文部分
Bailey, D.& K. M. Koney, (2000). Strategic alliances among health and human services organizations. From affiliations to consolidations (Vol. 41). Sage.
Becerra, M. & A. Gupta (1999, Summer). Trust within the organization: Integrating the trust literature with agency theory and transaction cost economics. Public Administration Quarterly,23, 178-203.
Brill, J. M., M. J Bishop, & A. E. Walker. (2006). The competencies and characteristics required of an effective project manager: A web-based Delphi study. Educational technology research and development,54(2), 115-140.
Bryson, J. M., B. C. Crosby, & M. M. Stone (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 66 (1), 44-55.
Chen, B., & E. A. Graddy. (2005). Inter-organizational collaborations for public service delivery: A framework of preconditions, processes, and perceived outcomes. In ARNOVA Conference, November (Vol. 17), 19.
Craig, P.; M. Campbell & O. Escobar. (2017). The impact of Participatory Budgeting: a systematic scoping review of evaluations and outcomes. European Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 1101-1262.
Crosby, B. C., & J. M. Bryson. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power worl. (Vol. 264). John Wiley & Sons.
Denhardt, R. B. & J.V. Denhardt. (2003). The new public service: Serving, not steering. New York: M.E.: Sharpe.
Donahue, J. D. (2004). On Collaborative Governance. Working paper, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Center for Business and Government.
Dowling, B., M. Powell & C. Glendinning. (2004). Conceptualising successful partnerships. Health & social care in the community, 12(4), 309-317.
Elmore, R. (1978). Organizational Model of Social Program Implementation. Public Policy,26(2), 185-228.
Freeman, J.& J. Rossi. (2012). Agency Coordination in Shared Regulatory Space. Harvard Law Review, 125(5), 1131-1211.
Freeman, T. & E. Peck. (2007).Performing Governance: A Partnership Board Dramaturgy. Public Administration ,85(4), 907–929.
Gaddis, P. O. (1959). The project manager. Boston: Harvard University.
Ganuza, E. & G. Baiocchi. (2012). The Power of Ambiguity: How Participatory Budgeting Travels the Globe.Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), Art. 8。
Gibson, J.W., & R.M. Hodgetts. (1991). Organizational Communication – A Managerial Perspective. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the Theory of Organization. Classics of organization theory,3(1937), 87-95.
Himmelman, A. T. (1996). On the theory and practice of transformational collaboration: From social service to social justice. In Creating collaborative advantage, ed. C. Huxham, 19-43. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Human, S. E., & K. G. Provan. (2000). Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-firm multilateral networks: A comparative study of success and demise. Administrative Science Quarterly,45(2), 327-365.
Huxham, C. & S. Vangen. (2013). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.
Huxham, C. & S. Vangen. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. London: Routledge.
Huxham, C. (1996). Collaboration and collaborative advantage. In Creating collaborative advantage. ed. C. Huxham, 1-18. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jung, Y. D., D. Mazmanian, & S. Y. Tang. (2009). Collaborative governance in the United States and Korea: Cases in negotiated policymaking and service delivery. International Review of Public Administration,13(1), 1-11.
Keast, R. & M. P. Mandell (2009). What is Collaboration? In ARACYx Advancing Collaboration Practice, 1-3. (Fact Sheet). Canberra: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth
Kooiman, J. (1993). Governance and Governability: Using Complexity, Dynamics, and Diversity. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions, 35-48. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
Kramer, R. M., M. B. Brewer, & B. A. Hanna. (1996). Collective trust and collective action. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 357-389.
Lawson, H. (2002). Improving conceptual clarity, accuracy, and precision and facilitating more coherent institutional designs. The Contribution of Interprofessional Collaboration and Comprehensive Services to Teaching and Learning, The National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 30-45.
Lewis, P.V., (1975).Organizational Communication: The Essence of Effective Management. Columbus, OH: Grid.
Lipsky, M. (1978). Standing the study of public policy implementation on its head. American politics and public policy, 391-402.
Mandell, M. P. (Ed.). (2001). Getting Results throughCollaboration: Networks and Network Structures for Public Policy and Management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books
March, J. G., & H. A. Simon. (1958). Organizations. 2nd Edition. Wiley, New York.
Mattessich, P. W., & B. R. Monsey. (1992). Collaboration: what makes it work. A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 919 Lafond, St. Paul, MN 55104..
McDonald, D. W., I. Beschastnikh, T. Kriplean, A. Borning, & M. Zachry. (2009). System design for social translucence in socially mediating technologies. In Socially Mediating Technologies Workshop, CHI.
McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It. Public Administration Review, 66 (1), 33-43.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). The structuring of organizations. In Readings in Strategic Management , 322-352. Macmillan Education UK.
Moore , M. H .(1995) . Creating Public Value .Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
OECD (2017). Embracing innovation in government: Global trends. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Osborne, D.& T. Gaebler. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. England: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ostrom, E.. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association. American Political Science Review ,92, 1-22.
Peters, B.G. (2006). Concepts and Theories of Horizontal Policy Management. In B.G. Peters, and J. Pierre (eds.) Handbook of Public Policy, Sage, London, 116-138.
Pierre J. & B. G.. Peters (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
PMI（2013）. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)，5^th ed. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute, Inc.
PMI（2017）. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)，6^th ed. Management Institute, Inc.
Powell, W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
Rethemeyer , R. K. (2005) . Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaborative Networks . Public Administration Review, 65(1), 117-121.
Rosenbloom, D. H., R. S. Kravchuk, & R. M. Clerkin. (2009). Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector (7th ed.). New York.
Ryan, C. (2001) Leadership in collaborative policy-making: An analysis of agency roles in regulatory negotiations. Policy Sciences, 34(3/4), 221–245.
Scott, W. G., & T. R. Mitchell, (1976). Organization theory: A structural and behavioral analysis. New York: Irwin.
Selden, S. C., J. E. Sowa, & J. Sandfort, (2006). The impact of nonprofit collaboration in early child care and education on management and program outcomes. Public Administration Review,66(3), 412-425.
Simon, H.A., (1957). Administrative Beheavior,2nd ed., New York: Macmillan
Sintomer, Y., C. Herzberg, & A. Röcke. (2012). Transnational models of citizen participation: the case of participatory budgeting. Sociologias, 14(30), 70-116.
Kim, S., & S H. Lchachter. (2013). Citizen Participation in the Budget Process and Local Government Accountability: Case Studies of Organizational Learning from the United States and South Korea. Public Performance and Management Review,.36(3), 456-471.
Souza. C. (2001). Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions. Environment and Urbanization, 13(1), 159-184.
Starling G. (1993). Managing the Public Sector. 4th ed. Belmont, C.A. Wadsworth Publishers.
Sullivan, H., & C. Skelcher (2002). Working across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public. Services. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Thomas, C. W. (2003). Bureaucratic Landscapes: Interagency Cooperation and the Preservation of Biodiversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Transaction publishers.
Thomson, A.M., J. Perry, & T. Miller. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 23-56.
Tinnirello, P C. (2000) Best Practices Series- Project Management. USA: Auerbach.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2004). Frequently Asked Questions about Participatory Budgeting. University Press.
Van de Ven, A. H., & G. Walker. (1984). The dynamics of interorganizational coordination. Administrative science quarterly, 598-621.
Van de Ven, A. H., D. C Emmett., & Jr, R. Koenig (1975). Frameworks for interorganizational analysis. Interorganizational theory, 19-38.
Vangen, S., & C. Huxham. (2003). Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: Dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers. British Journal of Management, 14(1), 61-76.
Wampler, B. (2007). Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. Pennsylvania State Univ Pr.
Wampler, B. (2012). Participatory Budgeting: Core principles and Key Impacts. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), Article 12.
Warren, R. L. (1967). The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation. Administrative science quarterly,12, 396-419.
Wood, D. J., & B. Gray. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139-162.
Liao, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Citizen participation in local budgeting: Mechanisms, political support, and city manager’s moderating role. International review of public administration, 17(2), 19-38. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
104256009 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104256009 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/THE.NCCU.PA.002.2018.F09 |
| Appears in Collections: | [公共行政學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 600901.pdf | 3009Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 166 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
