English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113656/144643 (79%)
Visitors : 51718930      Online Users : 664
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153511


    Title: 國家、官僚、助人者─社會救助工作者的救助方法與影響因素
    The State, Bureaucracy, and Street-Level Bureaucrats: Examining Social Assistance Methods and Influencing Factors in Taiwan
    Authors: 廖偉迪
    LIAO, WEI-TI
    Contributors: 蔡培元
    廖偉迪
    LIAO, WEI-TI
    Keywords: 社會救助
    低收入戶
    基層官僚理論
    情緒
    混合研究
    Social assistance
    Low-income households
    Street-Level Bureaucracy Theory
    Emotions
    Mixed-methods research
    Date: 2024
    Issue Date: 2024-09-04 15:49:19 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 社會救助是整個社會保障體系中最後一個安全網,而維繫著福利身分與生活扶助的低收資格的審查准駁與社會救助福利服務之提供,是由村里幹事、鄉鎮市區公所社會救助業務承辦人、地方政府社會局處的社會工作員/師、社會行政人員等社會救助工作人員,從鄉市鎮區公所、社會福利服務中心/家庭福利服務中心至社會局處,跨機關多方協力的結果。
    截至目前為止,我國既有社會救助相關研究多係探討社會救助法制中資格審查標準之公平性與合理性,而針對社會救助工作人員的經驗性研究,多數僅針對單一縣市以及單一工作角色之研究,並以質性方法側重於探討裁量過程,本研究立基於此,以基層官僚理論、新公共管理與基模理論作為理論視角,採取混合研究方法中的解釋性序列研究設計,以有一年以上社會救助低收入戶資格審查工作經驗的現職社會救助工作者作為研究對象,透過網路調查方式共回收全臺427份有效問卷,從中以立意抽樣完成9位社會救助工作者之半結構式深度訪談,並透過解釋性現象學之分析視角,藉由量化與質性資料建立社會救助工作者提供社會救助方法之內涵與影響因素之模型。
    本研究檢視社會救助制度、組織環境以及社會救助工作者所提供的救助方法,指出現行制度在政治上遵守國家財政量入為出原則,在照顧倫理上奉行家庭親屬照顧優先原則,同時依照工作倫理就業導向原則,區別個案是否值得獲取政府資源;並透過質性訪談指出現行社會救助制度在面對多元個案以及複雜社會情境的僵固限制,有「裁量權使用與資格審查不穩定性」、「審查標準嚴苛且不近人情」以及「制度的設計系統性排除近貧者」等議題。組織環境的檢視發現社會局處科別之間、社會局處與鄉鎮市區公所之間存在合作上的溝通挑戰,同時也發現高階常任文官、同儕支持與主管的領導風格以及民選首長與代議士等地方政治人物對於資格審查過程有重要的影響。對於社會救助方法之內涵,本文共建構出4種資格審查行為、9種社會救助服務,並創造社會救助服務多元性之變項,逐一透過獨立樣本t檢定、皮爾森積差相關、單因子變異數分析與階層迴歸分析進行統計檢定。
    研究發現就資格審查行為而言,受試者普遍認同他們會主動協助民眾提出申請,但較不傾向於運用社會救助法539條款排除列計人口,而在各項審查行為的階層多元迴歸中,裁量權與正向情緒因素對於多數的資格審查行為達到顯著;社會救助服務多元性之階層迴歸分析顯示,顯著之自變項包括清查案案量、地理區域、職業角色、審查模式、服務機關、正向情緒與裁量權,對於社會救助工作者服務多元性變異的整體解釋力為48.6%,且情緒因素為整個模型中最重要之影響因素。就地理區域而言,低扶助率與低社會救助支出的縣市更傾向於提供多元的社會救助服務;而在不同的工作角色來說,研究發現村里幹事的訪視品質需要被重視與檢視、相較於其他工作角色,社會工作者的特殊性在於提供較為多元的社會救助方法,並將「案主最佳利益」和「家庭功能促進為基礎」作為服務提供的理念。本文據此對於社會救助政策、組織環境、社會救助工作者的教育訓練與未來研究方向提出建議。
    本研究在實務與理論上均有貢獻,相對於過往研究主要針對單一縣市或單一工作角色進行探討,本研究所採用之混合研究方法,整合量化與質化資料,蒐集全國性與跨職業身份之樣本,得以進行跨地理區域、跨職業身份的比較探討。在理論貢獻上,本研究藉由跨理論的整合,提供了一個更為全面的視角來理解社會救助實務的複雜性,循徑由基模理論縫補了基層官僚理論與新公共管理視角中,預設政府組織中基層官僚均為理性行為之預設,由實證資料驗證情緒因素對於裁量權與社會救助服務的影響,展現出基層官僚的情緒與認知和行為的連結;由於情緒的影響,使得基層官僚在資格審查與社會救助服務提供的行政行為有著順從、修改或抵抗國家體制與社會救助政策原本的設計等不同的回應方式,從而更深的理解基層官僚作為國家代理人與助人者,在科層體制與行政管理之中的應對機轉,並點出情緒因素對於社會救助實務的重要影響。
    在研究限制上,本研究為橫斷式研究,相關發現僅能顯示出變項間的相關性,無法進行因果推論,同時因樣本選擇和問卷設計之限制,本研究之結果並無法代表所有社會救助工作者的觀點。
    Social assistance serves as the final safety net within the broader social security system. The eligibility review process for low-income status, which determines welfare benefits and social assistance services, is a collaborative effort involving village officers, township social assistance staff, social workers, social administrators in local government social affairs departments, and other social assistance personnel. This multi-agency cooperation extends from township offices and social welfare service centers to family welfare service centers and social affairs departments.
    To date, most existing research on social assistance in Taiwan has focused on the fairness and reasonableness of eligibility criteria within the legal framework. Empirical studies on social assistance personnel have largely been limited to single municipalities and specific roles, primarily utilizing qualitative methods to explore the discretion process. Building on this foundation, this study adopts Street-Level Bureaucracy Theory, New Public Management, and Schema Theory as its theoretical perspectives, employing an explanatory sequential design within a mixed-methods approach. The study targets current social assistance workers with more than one year of experience in low-income eligibility assessments. A total of 427 valid responses were collected through an online survey across Taiwan, followed by semi-structured in-depth interviews with nine purposefully sampled social assistance workers. Through the lens of interpretative phenomenological analysis, the study integrates quantitative and qualitative data to develop a model that outlines the content and influencing factors of the methods employed by social assistance workers in providing social assistance.
    This study examines the social assistance system, organizational environment, and the methods employed by social assistance workers. It highlights that the current system politically adheres to the principle of fiscal prudence, ethically prioritizes family care, and follows an employment-oriented work ethic to distinguish whether a case is worthy of receiving government resources. Through qualitative interviews, the study identifies the rigid limitations of the current social assistance system in addressing diverse cases and complex social situations, raising issues such as "instability in the use of discretion and eligibility reviews," "strict and inhumane review standards," and the "systematic exclusion of near-poor individuals." The examination of the organizational environment reveals communication challenges in collaboration between departments within social welfare offices and between social welfare offices and township offices. It also finds that senior permanent civil servants, peer support, supervisors' leadership styles, and the influence of locally elected officials and legislators significantly impact the eligibility review process.
    Regarding the methods of social assistance, the study identifies four types of eligibility review behaviors and nine types of social assistance services, introducing a variable for service diversity. These were statistically tested using independent samples t-tests, Pearson correlation, one-way ANOVA, and hierarchical regression analysis. For eligibility review behaviors, respondents generally agreed on proactively assisting the public in applying but were less inclined to use Article 5, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 9 of the Social Assistance Act to exclude listed populations. In the hierarchical regression analysis of various review behaviors, discretion and positive emotional factors significantly influenced most eligibility review behaviors. The hierarchical regression analysis of social assistance service diversity revealed significant independent variables, including case workload, geographic region, occupational role, review model, service agency, positive emotions, and discretion, with an overall explanatory power of 48.6% for service diversity. The study also finds that regions with lower assistance rates and lower social assistance expenditures are more likely to offer a diverse range of social assistance services. Emotional factors emerged as the most critical influencing factor in the model.
    The study further reveals that the quality of visits conducted by village officers requires greater attention and scrutiny. Compared to other roles, social workers are distinguished by their ability to provide more diverse social assistance methods, emphasizing "the best interests of the client" and "family function promotion" as foundational principles of service provision. Based on these findings, the study offers recommendations for social assistance policies, organizational environments, social assistance worker training, and future research directions.
    This research contributes both practically and theoretically. Unlike previous studies that focused on single municipalities or specific job roles, this study employs a mixed-methods approach that integrates quantitative and qualitative data, collecting national and cross-occupational samples, enabling cross-regional and cross-occupational comparisons. Theoretically, this study provides a more comprehensive perspective on the complexities of social assistance practice by integrating multiple theories. It bridges gaps in Street-Level Bureaucracy Theory and New Public Management by incorporating Schema Theory, which challenges the assumption that grassroots bureaucrats in government organizations always act rationally. Empirical data demonstrate the impact of emotional factors on discretion and social assistance services, revealing the link between grassroots bureaucrats' emotions, cognition, and behavior. The influence of emotions leads to different responses, such as compliance, modification, or resistance to the original design of state systems and social assistance policies. This deepens our understanding of how grassroots bureaucrats, as agents of the state and helpers, navigate the mechanisms within bureaucratic systems and administrative management, and highlights the significant impact of emotional factors on social assistance practice.
    The study's limitations include its cross-sectional design, which only reveals correlations between variables without inferring causality. Additionally, due to sample selection and questionnaire design constraints, the results may not be generalizable to all social assistance workers.
    Reference: 中文部分
    Alford, R.著,王志弘譯(2011)。好研究怎麼做—從理論、方法、證據構思研究問題。台北:群學出版社。(原書 Robert R. Alford [ 1998] The Craft of Inquiry: Theories, Methods, Evidence. Oxford University Press.)
    Bauman, Z.著,王志弘譯(2002)。工作、消費與新貧。臺北:巨流出版社。
    Rubin & Babbi著,傅從喜等譯(2009)。社會工作研究方法。新北:心理出版社。
    何思嫻(2012)。低收入戶資格認定經驗與感受之探討-以高雄市社會救助服務使用為例。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文。
    侯建州、黃源協(2012)。專業主義 v.s. 管理主義:英國社會工作歷史的檢視。臺灣社會工作學刊,10,1-46。
    內政部(2001)。九十年度中央對臺灣省各縣(市)政府執行社會福利績效實地考核報告。
    內政部(2022)。內政統計月報——現住人口。https://ws.moi.gov.tw/001/Upload/400/relfile/0/4413/79c158fd-d51f-4061-b24b-fbcdb0fb92d9/month/month.html。最後檢閱日期:2022年12月24日。
    劉佳珍(2009)。迎戰貧窮:一位貧窮家庭女性生命之敘事探究。國立花蓮教育大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
    劉威辰、鄭麗珍(2019)。社工教育、意識型態、貧窮歸因對社工系學生貧窮態度之影響。臺大社會工作學刊,40,1-42。
    劉獻文(2001)。福利國家理論之考察:詮釋方法的建構與批判。文藻學報,15,139-159。
    卓馨怡、利翠珊(2008)。成年子女的孝道責任與焦慮:親子關係滿意度的影響。本土心理學研究,30,155-197。
    吳家伶(2017)。我國社會救助法制面下低收入戶資格認定影響因素之探討。南臺科技大學財經法律研究所碩士論文。
    吳映慧(2020)。基層人員執行低收入戶資格認定與審查 -以臺北市某行政區為例。中國文化大學青少年兒童福利碩士學位學程碩士論文。
    吳震能(2009)。社會救助法修正芻議-論補充性原則。東海大學法學研究,30,161-198。
    呂朝賢 (2015) 。社會救助的福利條件及其反省。社區發展季刊,151,28-37。
    呂朝賢、王德睦(2011)。 我國社會救助法令與措施的二項弔詭─區域性差別待遇和貧窮陷阱。社區發展季刊,133,187-196。
    孫健忠(1999)。社會價值與社會控制:以社會救助為例。台大社會工作學刊,1,77-109。
    孫健忠(2002)。我國社會福利行政體制現況與問題的初探。社區發展季刊,98,40-48。
    孫健忠(2003)。親屬責任與社會救助:扶助或控制。社區發展季刊,103 ,184-194。
    孫健忠(2011)。建國百年社會救助發展重要紀事。社區發展季刊,133 ,174-186。
    宋曜廷、潘佩妤(2010)。混合研究在教育研究的應用。教育科學研究期刊,55(4),97-130。
    廖宗侯、陳世嫈、詹宜璋(2009)。村里幹事之社會救助審查行為與影響因素-以台中縣為例。東吳社會工作學報,21,55-81。
    廖宗侯(2006)。社會救助制度中村里幹事的審查行為與影響因素之探討—以台中縣為例。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文。
    張景淞(2021)。經濟弱勢家庭子女的貧窮與就業脫貧經驗探討。國立政治大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。
    張英陣(2014)。「後」現代李爾王。社會政策與社會工作學刊,18(1),45-88。
    張貽安(2015)。社會救助資源分配與服務輸送之研究:以淡水地區為例。東吳大學社會學系碩士論文。
    彭莞婷(2018)。從基層官僚的觀點探討參與式預算的政策執行—以臺北市區公所為例。國立政治大學公共行政學系研究所碩士論文。
    徐學陶(2011)。小康計畫的時代意義與影響。社區發展季刊,133,222-232。
    方格正、李佩怡(2016)。詮釋現象心理學方法論之整理與補充。本土心理學研究,46,121-148。
    施蘊芳(2014)。台灣民眾對貧窮歸因態度之研究。國立政治大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
    李健鴻(1998)。邊陲統制與倫理教化-台灣社會救濟體制形成之研究(1683-1945)。國立臺灣大學社會學系博士論文。
    李秀如(2014)。助人者?或法規的執行者?-論社會救助資格認定下依法行政與行政裁量的衝突。新竹教育大學人文社會學報,7(2),49-83。
    林佩瑾(2023)。臺灣社會工作督導實務之初探:比較被督者、督導者以及主管之觀點。社會工作實務與研究學刊,13,39-72。
    林幸誼(2010)。社會救助中強制工作條款之合憲性檢驗。國立成功大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
    林文婷(2008)。運用優勢觀點探討青少年之貧窮生活經驗。國立臺灣師範大學社會工作學研究所碩士論文。
    林正達(2005)。貧窮動態--以嘉義家庭扶助中心扶助個案為例。南華大學非營利事業管理研究所碩士論文。
    林美伶(1999)。我國貧窮門檻之建構、調整與影響。國立中正大學社會福利系碩士論文。
    林芬芸(2020)。從里幹事行政實務反思社會救助之施行。世新大學社會發展研究所碩士論文。
    林萬億(2012)。臺灣的社會福利:歷史與制度的分析(2版)。台北:五南。
    柯俐妘(2021)。社會救助資格與扶養義務訴訟:訴訟歷程與困境之探討。國立政治大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。
    江吉民(2017)。穿越時光迴廊‧再現戶政風華。彰化:彰化縣社頭鄉戶政事務所。
    洪伯勳(2010)。製造低收入戶-鄉愿福利國家之社會救助官僚實作。國立臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
    洪琬茹(2016)。警盾之後:太陽花學運中警察的情緒勞動。國立臺灣大學公共事務研究所碩士論文。
    潘思薇(2015)。社政人員行使行政裁量權之析探-以臺中市低收入戶審查為例。逢甲大學公共政策研究所碩士論文。
    潘淑滿( 2017)。質性研究─理論與應用。臺北:心理出版社。
    王仕圖、官有垣(1999)。社會政策過程中行政科層與國會互動之研究:以1997年社會救助法之修訂爲例。社會政策與社會工作學刊,3(1),141-177。
    王增勇(2003)。照顧與控制之間-以「個案管理」在社工場域的論述實踐為例。臺灣社會研究季刊,第51期,頁143-183。
    王永慈(2017)。公職社會工作師教考訓用制度的評析。考選集粹,https://wwwc.moex.gov.tw/main/ExamEssence/wHandExamEssence_File.ashx?id=2。線上閱覽時間:2023年2月24日。
    王淑月(2004)。社會救助審查中工作能力人口群界定問題之探討─以台中縣為例。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文。
    王行(2013)。走調的音符-台灣少數基層社會工作者的發聲、行動與期盼。台灣社會研究季刊,91,93-123。
    石泱、孫健忠(2008)。對貧窮者與社會救助的態度:基層社會救助行政人員的觀點。社區發展季刊,122 ,159-182。
    石泱(2020)。社會福利行政人員對低收入戶與貧窮態度之研究。逢甲人文社會學報,41,35-68。
    立法院(1979a)。立法院公報。委員會紀錄,69(11)。
    立法院(1979b)。立法院公報。委員會紀錄,69(28)。
    立法院(1995)。立法院公報。委員會紀錄,84(42)。
    立法院(2010a)。立法院公報。委員會紀錄,99(58)。
    立法院(2010b)。立法院公報。委員會紀錄,99(65)。
    立法院(2010c)。立法院公報。委員會紀錄,99(69)。
    立法院(2018)。立法院公報。院會紀錄,107(19)。
    立法院(2022)。立法院議案整合暨綜合查詢系統:https://misq.ly.gov.tw/MISQ//IQuery/misq5000Action.action 。最後檢索日期:2022年8月2日。
    簡原隆(2012)。我國貧窮線設定何以無法涵蓋實際貧窮人口─一個執行面的研究。國立暨南國際大學公共行政與政策學系碩士論文。
    簡君如(2014)。新北市社會救助行政審查爭議與權衡。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文。
    簡春安、鄒平儀(2004)。社會工作研究法。台北:巨流圖書公司。
    簡玉雪(2010)。我國社會救助法律規範之研究--以給付審核標準為中心。國立暨南國際大學公共行政與政策學系碩士論文。
    翁岳生(1978)。行政法與現代法治國家。台北:台大叢書編委員會。
    臺灣省政府(1963)。台灣省社會救濟調查辦法。臺灣省政府公報,夏字第40期,2-7。
    臺灣省政府(1972)。訂頒「臺灣省消滅貧窮計劃綱要(小康計劃)」。臺灣省政府公報,冬字第39期,2-6。
    莊正和(2020)。社會救助請求權-低收、中低收入戶審核標準的再檢視。國立中山大學中國與亞太區域研究所碩士論文。
    葉光輝(2009)。台灣民眾的代間交換行為:孝道觀點的探討。本土心理學研究,31,97-141。
    葉嘉楠、簡良哲(2013)。里幹事執行社會救助政策之研究-以基隆市為例。中華行政學報,13,137-166。
    葉崇揚、古允文(2022)。社會政策與社會工作專業之間的連結:以英國為例。社會工作與社會福利學刊,1,81-112。
    葉柏均(2014)。我國社會救助制度變遷過程-歷史制度主義的觀點。國立中山大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
    蔡培元(2020)。沒有情緒,何以為人?:一個社工員勞動敘事的情緒社會學考察。慈濟大學人文社會科學學刊,25,80-107。
    蔡晴晴(2002)。單親家庭貧窮歷程之研究----以台中縣家扶中心受扶助家庭為例。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文。
    蔡維音(2009)。低收入戶認定之需求審查。興大法學, 5,頁 19-20。
    蔡維音(2018)。低收入戶審查之家庭人口認定的實務觀察與修法建議。月旦法學雜誌,277,200-210。
    蕭斐華(2020)。我們與「善」的距離— 從社會救助法制探討生活扶助之法律問題。國立高雄科技大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
    蘇航立(2022)。COVID-19疫情下基層公務人員情緒勞務與裁量行為之研究:里幹事之觀點。國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
    行政院主計總處(2022a)。福祉衡量指標。https://www.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=41132&CtNode=6408&mp=4。最後檢閱日期:2022年12月24日。
    行政院主計總處(2022b)。戶數五等分位組之所得分配比與所得差距-年。最後檢閱日期:2022年10月16日。
    衛生福利部(2021)。強化社會安全網第二期計畫(110-114年)核定本。
    衛生福利部(2022)。社會福利公務統計——低收入戶戶數及人數、中低收入戶戶數及人數。https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOS/cp-5337-62357-113.html。最後檢閱日期:2022年12月24日。
    衛生福利部(2023)。急難救助。網址:https://www.mohw.gov.tw/cp-190-226-1.html。最後檢閱日期:2024年2月8日。
    衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2024)。各年度社福績效考核實施計畫與指標。https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=487。最後檢閱日期:2024年5月15日。
    許宗瓦(2019)。村里幹事對低收入戶家庭資格審查的認知與作為-以澎湖縣為例。中華行政學報,24,119-136。
    趙彥寧(2005)。社福資源分配的戶籍邏輯與國境管理的限制:由大陸配偶的入出境管控機制談起。台灣社會研究季刊,59,43-90。
    邱千睿(2015)。低收入戶社會救助制度經驗之研究。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文。
    邱皓政(2016)。量化研究與統計分析-SPSS 資料分析範例。台北:五南。
    鄭怡世(2007)。台灣社會工作發展的歷史分析:1949-1963年“社會部所從事的工作”與“美式專業社會工作”雙元化的社會工作認識。社會政策與社會工作學刊,11(1),153-197。
    鄭怡世(2016)。台灣脫貧方案中的窮人與社工:以論述分析為方法的探究。科技部補助專題研究計畫。
    鄭麗珍(2000)。親屬互助原則與社會救助審查:以女性單親家庭為例。國立政治大學社會學報,30,113-143。
    鄭麗珍(2004)。工作貧窮與社會救助的關係。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫。
    鄭麗珍(2018)。106 年度脫離貧窮措施成效評估研究計畫。衛生福利部委託研究。
    陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。臺北:五南。
    陳怡婷(2007)。從制度性排除探討社會救助法中親屬責任--以台北市社福中心社工員為例。東吳大學社會工作學系碩士論文,台北市。
    陳時英(1974)。小康計畫與學校教育。師友月刊,88,9-13。
    顏志龍、鄭中平(2016)。給論文寫作者的統計指南。台北:五南。
    高稹(2018)。社會救助法上「擬制收入條款」之問題及其調整建議-以「生存權」與「補充性」理念衝突為中心。法令月刊,69(1),90-116。
    黃毓芬(2002)。探討貧窮青少年生活經驗及因應之道。國立臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
    黃源協(2014)。社會工作管理(第三版)。臺北:雙葉。
    黃閔琪(2017)。社會工作者服務貧窮處境者的經驗探究。社區發展季刊 ,160,308-320。
    黃鼎馨(2008)。給付抑或不給付?-從憲法受益權╱社會權保障功能論社會救助給付行政之目的及正當程序。東吳大學法律學系碩士論文。

    外文部分
    Adkisson, R. (1998). Multi-level administrative structure and the distribution of social service expenditures: A Nebraska example. The Social Science Journal, 35, 303–318.
    Alase, A. (2017). The Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA): A Guide to a Good Qualitative Research Approach. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 5(2), 9-19.
    Alcock, P. (2005). From social security to social inclusion: The changing policy climate. The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 13(2), 83-88.
    Alcock, P. (2006). Understanding Poverty. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Andreetta, S. (2022). Granting ‘Human Dignity’: How Emotions and Professional Ethos Make Public Services. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 40(2), 36-53.
    Andreetta, S., Enria, L., Jarroux, P., & Verheul, S. (2022). States of Feeling: Public Servants’ Affective and Emotional Entanglements in the Making of the State. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 40(2), 1-20.
    Arlotti, M., Parma, A., & Ranci, C.(2021). Multi-level governance and central-local tensions: The issue of local discretion in long-term care policy in Italy. Social policy administration, 55(7), 1129–1144.
    Asselineau, A., Grolleau, G., & Mzoughi, N. (2022). A Good Servant But a Poor Master: The Side Effects of Numbers and Metrics. Administration & Society, 54(5), 971-991.
    Auguste, D. (2018). Income Inequality, Globalization, and the Welfare State: Evidence from 23 Industrial Countries, 1990–2009. Sociological Forum, 33(3), 666–689.
    Barrientos, A. (2016). Justice-based social assistance. Global Social Policy, 16(2), 151–165.
    Beavers, A.S., Lounsbury, J.W., Richards, J., Huck, S.W., Skolits, G.J., & Esquivel, S.L. (2013). Practical Considerations for Using Exploratory Factor Analysis in Educational Research. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 18, 1-13.
    Bell, E., & Smith, K. (2022). Working Within a System of Administrative Burden: How Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Role Perceptions Shape Access to the Promise of Higher Education. Administration & Society, 54(2), 167–211.
    Bennett, R. M., Raiz, L., & Davis, T. S. (2016). Development and Validation of the Poverty Attributions Survey. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(3), 347–359.
    Billaud, J., & Cowan, J. K. (2020). The bureaucratisation of utopia: Ethics, affects and subjectivities in international governance processes. Social Anthropology/Anthropologie sociale, 28(1), 6-16.
    Blank, R. M., Card, D., Levy, F., & Medoff, J. L. (1993). Poverty, Income Distribution, and Growth: Are They Still Connected? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1993(2), 285–339.
    Bonoli, G., & Trein, P. (2016). Cost-shifting in multitiered welfare states: Responding to rising welfare caseloads in Germany and Switzerland. The Journal of Federalism, 46, 596–622.
    Boone, K., Roets, G., & Roose, R. (2019). Social work, participation, and poverty. Journal of Social Work, 19(3), 309–326.
    Bullock, H. E. (2004). From the front line of welfare reform: An analysis of social worker and welfare recipient attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(6), 571-588.
    Burton, J., Van Den Broek, D. (2009). Accountable and countable: Information management systems and the bureaucratization of social work. British Journal of Social Work, 39(7), 1326–1342.
    Cohen, N & Hertz, U. (2020). Street-level bureaucrats’ social value orientation on and off duty. Public Administration Review, 80(3): 442–453.
    Corus, C., Saatcioglu, B., Kaufman-Scarborough, C., Blocker, C. P., Upadhyaya, S., & Appau, S. (2016). Transforming Poverty-Related Policy with Intersectionality. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 211–222.
    Cozzarelli, C., Wilkinson, A.V., & Tagler, M.J. (2001). Attitudes Toward the Poor and Attributions for Poverty. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 207-227.
    Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
    Dan, S. & Pollitt, C. (2015). NPM can work: an optimistic review of the impact of new public management reforms in central and Eastern Europe. Public Management Review,17(9), 1305-1332.
    Denzin, N. K. (2017). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. London: Routledge.
    Deveaux, M. (2018). Poor-Led Social Movements and Global Justice. Political Theory, 46(5), 698–725.
    Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New Well-being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive and Negative Feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156.
    Dimaggio, P. (1997). Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 263.
    Drisko, J. W., & Grady, M. D. (2012). Evidence-based practice in clinical social work. Springer Science Business Media.
    Evans, T. (2013). Organisational rules and discretion in adult social work. British Journal of Social Work, 43(4), 739–758.
    Evans, T. (2016). Street-level bureaucracy, management and the corrupted world of service. European Journal of Social Work, 19(5), 602–615.
    Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.
    Feagin, J. R. (1975). Subordinating the Poor: Welfare and American Beliefs. Prentice-Hall.
    Gariglio, L. (2019). Challenging Prison Officers’ Discretion: “Good Reasons” to Treat Courteously Mafiosi in Custody in Italy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 48(1), 80-102.
    Gómez-García, R., Lucas-García, J., & Bayón-Calvo, S. (2022). Social workers’ approaches to ethical dilemmas. Journal of Social Work, 22(3), 804–823.
    Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
    Hassan, M. S., Ariffin, R. N. R., Mansor, N., & Al Halbusi, H. (2021). The Moderating Role of Willingness to Implement Policy on Street-level Bureaucrats’ Multidimensional Enforcement Style and Discretion, International Journal of Public Administration, DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2021.2001008 (筆者註:本文於2021年公開於期刊網站,並於2023年收錄於該期刊46(6), 430–444)
    Homan, P., Valentino, L., & Weed, E. (2017). Being and Becoming Poor: How Cultural Schemas Shape Beliefs About Poverty. Social Forces, 95(3), 1023–1048.
    Hunt, M. O. (2002). Religion, Race/Ethnicity, and Beliefs about Poverty. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 810–831.
    Hunzaker, M. B. F., & Valentino, L. (2019). Mapping Cultural Schemas: From Theory to Method. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 950–981.
    Hupe, P., Hill, M. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299.
    Hupe, P., Hill, M., & Buffat, A. (Eds.). (2015). Understanding street-level bureaucracy (1st ed.). Bristol University Press.
    Jilke, S.,& Tummers ,L. (2018). Which clients are deserving of help? A theoretical model and experimental test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 226–238.
    Keulemans, S., & Van de Walle, S. (2020). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ attitude towards clients Towards a measurement instrument. Public Policy and Administration, 35(1), 84–113.
    Krumer-Nevo, M. (2005). Listening to ‘life knowledge’: A new research direction in poverty studies. International Journal of Social Welfare, 14, 99–106.
    Krumer-Nevo, M. (2016). Poverty aware social work: A paradigm for social work practice with people in poverty. British Journal of Social Work, 46, 1793–1808.
    Lipsky, M. (1969). Toward a Theory of Street-level Bureaucracy. Madison: Institute for Research on Poverty. Retrieved April 12, 2022, from:https://www.historyofsocialwork.org/1969_Lipsky/1969,%20Lipsky,%20toward%20a%20theory%20of%20street%20level%20bureaucracy%20OCR%20C.pdf
    Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
    Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th Anniversary Expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
    Lister, R. (2002). A politics of recognition and respect: Involving people with experience of poverty in decision making that affects their lives. Social Policy & Society, 1, 37–46.
    Lötter, H. P. P. (2016). Poverty, ethics and justice revisited. Res Publica, 22(3), 343-361.
    Lötter, H. P. P.(2011). Poverty, ethics and justice. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
    May, P. J., Winter, S. C. (2009). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453–476.
    Maynard-Moody, S. W., Musheno, M. C. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. University of Michigan Press.
    McGann, M. (2022). Meeting the numbers: Performance politics and welfare-to-work at the street-level. Irish Journal of Sociology, 30(1), 69–89.
    Merolla, D. M., Hunt, M. O., & Serpe, R. T. (2011). Concentrated Disadvantage and Beliefs about the Causes of Poverty- A Multi-Level Analysis. Sociological Perspectives, 54(2), 205–228.
    Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. 2d Edition. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
    Murphy, M., & P. Skillen. (2015). The politics of time on the frontline: Street level bureaucracy, professional judgment, and public accountability. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(9), 632-641.
    Nussbaum M. (2001). Upheavals in Emotion. The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    OECD (2022). Poverty rate (indicator). doi: 10.1787/0fe1315d-en (Accessed on 11 April 2022)
    Raeymaeckers, P., & Dierckx, D. (2013). To Work or Not to Work? The Role of the Organisational Context for Social Workers’ Perceptions on Activation. The British Journal of Social Work, 43(6), 1170–1189.
    Rice, D. (2013). Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Welfare State: Toward a Micro-Institutionalist Theory of Policy Implementation. Administration & Society, 45(9), 1038–1062.
    Schilling, J (2006). On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: Designing the process for content analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(1): 28–37.
    Seale, E., Buck, A., & Parrotta, K. (2012). Who’s to Blame? The Identity Talk of Welfare-To-Work Program Managers. Sociological Perspectives, 55(3), 501–527.
    Sebrechts, M., & Kampen, T. (2022). Divide and Conquer: Social Assistance Clients’ Competing Frames of Social Justice. Work, Employment and Society, 36(4), 741–757.
    Shutes, I., & Taylor, R. (2014). Conditionality and the financing of employment services: Implications for the social divisions of work and welfare. Social Policy and Administration, 48(2): 204–220.
    Siltala, J. (2013). New Public Management: The Evidence-Based Worst Practice? Administration & Society, 45(4), 468-493.
    Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychology & Health, 11(2), 261–271.
    Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 51–80). Sage Publications, Inc.
    Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory, method, and research. London: Sage.
    Soss, J, Fording, R, Schram, S (2011). The organization of discipline: From performance management to perversity and punishment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21: i203–i232.
    Strauss, C., Quinn, N. (1997). A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Ming. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Talbot, D. (2020). Institutional Ethnography and the Materiality of Affect- Affective Circuits as Indicators of Other Possibilities. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 49(5), 691-709.
    Tier, M. van der, Hermans, K., & Potting, M. (2022). Social workers as state and citizen-agents. How social workers in a German, Dutch and Flemish public welfare organisation manage this dual responsibility in practice. Journal of Social Work, 22(3), 595–614.
    Tolofari, S. (2005). New Public Management and Education. Policy Futures in Education, 3(1), 75-89.
    Tummers, L. L. G., Bekkers, V., Vink, E. & Musheno, M. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126.
    Turtiainen, J., Anttila, E., & Väänänen, A. (2022). Social work, emotion management and the transformation of the welfare state. Journal of Social Work, 22(1), 68-86.
    Vonk, G., & Bambrough, E. (2020). The human rights approach to social assistance: Normative principles and system characteristics. European Journal of Social Security, 22(4), 376–389.
    Walker, C. (2016). Discretionary payments in social assistance. In Hupe, P., M. Hill, & A. Buffat (eds.), Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy (pp. 45-60). Bristol: Policy Press.
    Walker, R., Kyomuhendo, G. B., Chase, E., Choudhry, S., Gubrium, E. K., Nicola, J. Y.,. Ming, Y. (2013). Poverty in global perspective: Is shame a common denominator? Journal of Social Policy, 42(2), 215-233.
    Watkins-Hayes, C. (2009). The new welfare bureaucrats: Entanglements of race, class, and policy reform. The University of Chicago Press.
    Zacka, B. (2017). When the state meets the street. Public service and moral agency. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    社會工作研究所
    104264501
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104264501
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[社會工作研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    450101.pdf8766KbAdobe PDF2View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    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 ©   - Feedback