Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159055
|
| Title: | 弱勢群體的倡議策略：蛋雞福利政策倡議中的弱勢策略分析
Advocacy strategies of disadvantaged groups: An analysis of strategies used in laying hen welfare policy advocacy |
| Authors: | 黃小閔
Huang, Hsiao-Min |
| Contributors: | 廖興中
Liao, Hsin-Chung
黃小閔
Huang, Hsiao-Min |
| Keywords: | 蛋雞福利政策
政策倡議
網絡分析
行動者角色
政策價值主張
Laying hen welfare policy
Policy advocacy
Social network analysis
Actor roles
Policy value claims |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-09-01 14:53:45 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近年來，隨著動物福利意識高漲，蛋雞福利逐漸受到社會各界關注。是以本研究聚焦於蛋雞福利政策的倡議過程，透過網絡分析方法探討行動者間的互動結構與政策價值主張的分布樣態。研究目的在於釐清政策推動中的參與角色及價值擴散潛能，提供政策分析與倡議策略的參考依據。
研究方法採用質量並行，先蒐集訪談逐字稿與政策文本，並針對文本進行編碼，建構行動者與政策價值的立場資料，並透過Discourse Network Analyzer（DNA）與UCINET軟體建構共識網絡、衝突網絡與二模議題與行動者網絡，進行角色分類與價值指標的中心性分析。
研究結果顯示，不同行動者在兩類網絡中的功能樣態不盡相同。共識網絡中的主導型行動者為動保團體、企業團體與友善蛋農，展現高度價值連結與參與強度；衝突網絡中則以傳統蛋農與政府單位為對立核心。記者與學者於兩網絡中皆扮演協調型角色，有助於跨立場對話與資訊流通。潛力型行動者於共識網絡包括代議士與消費者，於衝突網絡則包括企業團體、消費者、動保團體與友善蛋農，顯示其參與潛能受情境與網絡關係影響。邊緣型行動者如標準認證團體（出現在兩張網絡中）、學生、學校與代議士（僅出現在衝突網絡），在其所屬網絡中的互動連結皆相對稀疏。
在政策價值方面，根據三項中心性指標將價值區分為三類：高核心價值包括動物自由、轉型效率與食品安全；中階價值為消費導向轉型、知情公平與成本控制；邊緣價值則包括法規修訂、國際制度參照、產銷自由與供應安全。此外，資源公平雖為政策討論中具潛在意涵的重要價值，但在本研究蒐集與編碼的文本中未被行動者明確主張，故未納入網絡分析。
綜合而言，本研究呈現出蛋雞福利政策倡議中行動者的參與位置與價值擴散潛能，並揭示不同角色在溝通結構中的功能，為理解政策倡議提供結構性分析視角。
In recent years, with the growing awareness of animal welfare, the issue of laying hen welfare has drawn increasing attention from various sectors of society. This study focuses on the advocacy process of laying hen welfare policies, using network analysis to explore the interaction structures among stakeholders and the distribution patterns of policy value positions. The research aims to clarify the roles of participants in policy advancement and the diffusion potential of value claims, providing a reference for policy analysis and advocacy strategies.
Both qualitative and quantitative methods were employed. Interview transcripts and policy documents were collected and coded to generate actor–value position data. Using Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA) and UCINET software, congruence networks, conflict networks, and two-mode issues and actor networkssubtract networks were constructed to classify actors and analyze centrality indicators of policy values.
The findings reveal differentiated actor functions across networks. In the congruence network, dominant actors—such as animal protection organizations, business groups, and friendly egg farmers—exhibited strong participation and value linkage. In the conflict network, traditional egg farmers and government agencies emerged as the core of opposition. Journalists and scholars consistently played coordinating roles in both networks, serving as information brokers and facilitators of cross-position dialogue. Potential actors included legislators and consumers in the consensus network, while the conflict network featured business groups, consumers, animal protection groups, and friendly egg farmers—indicating that participatory potential is shaped by relational and contextual dynamics. Marginal actors such as standard-setting organizations (appearing in both networks), and students, legislators, and schools (appearing only in the conflict network), showed sparse interaction within their respective networks.
Regarding policy values, three levels were identified based on centrality indicators: high-core values included animal freedom, transition efficiency, and food safety; mid-level values consisted of consumer-oriented transition, informational fairness, and cost control; and peripheral values encompassed amendment of regulations, refer to international systems, production and consumption autonomy, and supply security. Additionally, although resource fairness was recognized as a potentially meaningful concept in the broader discourse, it was not explicitly advocated by actors in the dataset and therefore excluded from the network analysis.
In summary, this study reveals the positional roles of actors and the diffusion potential of values within the advocacy network for laying hen welfare policy. It also highlights the functional dynamics among actors in the communication structure, offering a structural perspective for understanding policy advocacy processes. |
| Reference: | 王振軒（2006）。非政府組織治理能力的建構。非政府組織學刊，1，23-44。
王淑音（2019）。經濟動物友善飼養——蛋雞篇。台灣科技媒體中心，07月10日。網址：https://smctw.tw/4934/
王慧婷（2021）。台灣動物社會研究會為母雞發聲。PeoPo公民新聞，12月02日。網址：https://www.peopo.org/news/562082?utm_source=chatgpt.com
台灣動物社會研究會（2012）。好蛋在哪裡？清楚標示雞蛋生產系統才不會「混（ㄏㄨㄣˇ）蛋」立委、蛋農、動保組織要求市售鮮蛋應清楚標示生產系統讓消費者有所依循。09月11日，網址：https://www.east.org.tw/action/1417
台灣動物社會研究會（2023）。企業落實社會影響力 用一顆雞蛋改變世界。05月03日。網址：https://www.east.org.tw/action/8682
台灣動物社會研究會（2024）。一起回顧為母雞發聲的重要歷程。02月29日。網址：https://www.east.org.tw/action/869550
克里本多夫（Krippendorff, K.）（2014）。內容分析：方法學入門（曹永強譯）。五南。（原著出版於1980）[Krippendorff, K. (2014). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. (W.-K. Cho. Trans.). Wu-Nan Book Inc. (Original work published 1980)]
吳佩璇（2012）。建構台灣再生能源之議題網絡圖像：以第六屆至第七屆立法院為例〔碩士論文〕。國立臺灣大學。[Wu, P.-S. (2012) Constructing issue network diagrams of renewable energy in Taiwan: The case of the sixth and seventh terms legislative yuan [master’s thesis]. National Taiwan University.]
吳肇展（2010）。基金會品牌知名度與捐贈意願關係之研究--以品牌形象為中介變項。非營利組織管理學刊，9，87-102。
李佳欣（2013）。社區治理網絡中非營利組織政策倡議之研究－台北市八頭里仁協會之個案研究﹝碩士論文﹞。國立中央大學。[Lee, C.-H. (2013) Policy advocacy of non-profit organizations in community network: A case study of the association of Peitou Li Zen of Taipei city [master’s thesis]. National Central University.]
李慕義（2013）。我國信仰型非營利組織從事政策倡議之研究：以基督教為取向﹝碩士論文﹞。國立臺灣大學。[Li, M.-Y. (2013) A study on the policy advocacy of faith-based nonprofits in Taiwan: A perspective of Christianity [master’s thesis]. National Taiwan University.]
那滈（2023）。台灣80%蛋雞不自由 動社服行政院籲停止新建格子籠養雞場。社會創新平台，11月14日。網址：https://si.taiwan.gov.tw/Home/citizensSay/view/2114?utm_source=chatgpt.com
官有垣、陸宛蘋（2004）。政府暨準政府機構創設的非政府組織之治理分析：以台灣的農業財團法人為例。第三部門學刊，1，127-168。
林子倫（2008）。台灣氣候變遷政策之論述分析。公共行政學報，（28），153-175。
林敬殷（2024）。蛋雞非籠飼評比台灣落後韓國 朝野立委籲政府改善。中央社，02月22日。網址：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/202402220156.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com
林瑜婷（2013）。非營利組織政策倡議之研究－以2008-2014年台南老屋欣力為例﹝碩士論文﹞。國立政治大學。[Lin, Y.-T. (2013) The policy advocacy process of nonprofit organizations－A case study on “Old house, New life” movement in Tainan from 2008 to 2014 [master’s thesis]. National Chengchi University.]
林慧貞（2014a）。反格子籠飼養學生扮蛋雞推廣福利蛋。上下游新聞，4月16日。網址：https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/49328/
林慧貞（2014b）。鼓勵放牧、平飼雞蛋，轉型友善生產可獲1.5%低利貸款，上下游，11月04日。網址：https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/60082/
洪欣隆（2016）。中華民國（臺灣）參與APEC政策倡議研究（2000-2016）﹝碩士論文﹞。國立政治大學。[Hong, X.-L. (2016) Policy initiatives of the republic of China (Taiwan) in the APEC (2000-2016) [master’s thesis]. National Chengchi University.]
孫本初、吳宗憲（2010）。政府與非營利組織互動模式研究之回顧與前瞻。研習論壇，116，25-43。
徐木蘭、楊君琦、劉仲矩（1998）。非營利組織公關策略之研究。民意研究季刊，（204），1-25。
梁淑媛、莊宇慧、吳淑芳（2012）。內容分析技巧在護理質性資料之初步應用。護理雜誌，59（5），84-90。
莊文忠、徐明莉、張鐙文（2009）。非營利組織的議程設定與政策倡議的形成：質化研究的檢證。公共行政學報，（33），121-163。
莫瑞‧霍恩（Horn, M. J.）（2003）。公共行政之政治經濟學：公部門的制度選擇（浩平、蕭羨一譯）。商周出版。（原著出版於1995）[Horn, M. J. (2003). The political economy of public administration: Institutional choice in the public sector. (P. Hao, & S.-Y. Hsiao, Trans.). Shang-Chou Publishing. (Original work published 1995)]
郭昱瑩（2012）。政策弔詭：政治決策的藝術。文官制度季刊，10（1），121-128。
郭琇真（2018）。歐洲動福蛋轉型走了20年，關鍵在「消費者覺醒」。農傳媒，11月18日。網址：https://www.agriharvest.tw/archives/12859
陳玉敏（2012）。動物有福利，人類有福氣！善待機，才有好蛋！，上下游，02月25日。網址：https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/2776/
陳定銘（2008）。臺灣非營利組織在新移民婦女照顧政策之研究。非政府組織學刊，（4），35-50。
陳威亨（2006）。我國非營利組織公共關係之運作現況探討：以董氏基金會為例〔碩士論文〕。國立彰化師範大學。[Chen, W.-H. (2006) A study on the current operation of public relations in Taiwan’s non-profit organizations—A case study of john tung foundation [master’s thesis]. National Changhua University of Education.]
陳彥伶（2021）。從黑鳶中毒事件到環境友善農業品牌：老鷹紅豆個案之政策倡議過程﹝碩士論文﹞。國立中山大學。[Chen, Y.-L. (2021) From poisoning incidents of black kites to an eco-friendly agricultural brand: The policy advocacy process of eagle red bean [master’s thesis]. National Sun Yat-sen University.]
陳筱婷（2015）。我國同志團體推動同性婚姻政策倡議之研究﹝碩士論文﹞。世新大學。[Chen, H.-T. (2015) The study of gay groups' policy advocacy of same-sex marriage in Taiwan [master’s thesis]. Shih Hsin University.]
彭思舟、吳建忠（2011）。馮京當馬涼。論國際話語權與中國大陸拓展國際話語權的新思路。展望與探索，9（7），74-89。
黃天如（2022）。道安不定時炸彈1》酒駕重罰有用嗎？盤點各國罰則，專家曝最有效手段。風傳媒，01月06日。網址：https://new7.storm.mg/article/4133657
黃仲丘（2023）。台灣八成蛋雞關「格子籠」動物研究會帶萬人赴政院陳情籲「讓雞自由」。三立新聞網，10月26日，網址：https://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=1372848
楊語芸（2021）。友善雞蛋標章有幾種？超市「動物蛋專區」卻放格子籠蛋？認明「五章三詞」有保障。上下游新聞，10月12日。網址：https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/159918/
農委會（2014）。農委會將提供低利代款 鼓勵雞農投入友善生產。10月03日。網址：https://www.moa.gov.tw/theme_data.php?theme=news&sub_theme=agri&id=5030
農傳媒（2018）。響應動物福利！家樂福首創設置非籠飼雞蛋專賣區，以通路消費支持蛋農轉型。05月15日。網址：https://www.agriharvest.tw/archives/14844?utm_source=chatgpt.com
廖見文（2012）。非營利組織志工的組織認同與工作投入關係之研究。多國籍企業管理評論，6（2），1-21。
福壽百貨（2023）。人道飼養、友善蛋雞的概念是什麼？為何逐漸受到重視？，09月20日。網址：https://shop.fwusow.com.tw/Article/Detail/74955?utm_source=chatgpt.com
韓意慈（2013）。非營利組織決策者認知的法規障礙：遊說法與倡導行動的研究。社會政策與社會工作學刊，17（2），1-37。
黛博拉·斯通（Stone, D. A.）（2007）。政策弔詭：政治決策的藝術（朱道凱譯）。群學。（原著出版於1997年）[Stone, D. A. (2007). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (T.-K. Chu, Trans.). Qunxue Publishing. (Original work published 1997)]
羅金棟（2007）。國家治理中非政府組織的角色與政策倡議策略：以菸害防制法為例。非政府組織學刊，（2），69-90。
蘇暐勝（2017）。立法院政策過程之論述網絡分析研究—以2008至2015年產業創新條例修法歷程為例〔碩士論文〕。國立臺灣大學。[Su, W.-S. (2017) Discourse network analysis of the policy process in legislative yuan: The case of the statute for industrial innovation (SII) from 2008 to 2015 in Taiwan [master’s thesis]. National Taiwan University.]
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Georgetown University Press.
Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. C., & Leech, B. L. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, Who loses, and Why. University of Chicago Press.
Berry, J. M. & Arons, D. F. (2003). A voice for nonprofits. Brookings Institution Press.
Bryson, J. M., & Anderson, S. R. (2002). Applying large-group interaction methods in the planning and implementation of major change efforts. Public Administration Review 60 (2): 143–162.
Buchanan, J. M., Tollison, R. D. & Tollock, G. (1980). Toward a theory of rent-seeking society. Texas A & M University Press.
Buffardi, A. L., Pekkanen, R. J., & Smith, S. R. (2015). Shopping or specialization? Venue targeting among nonprofits engaged in advocacy. Policy Studies Journal, 43(2), 188-206.
Casey, J. (2011). Understanding advocacy: A primer on the policy making role of nonprofit organizations. Baruch College Press.
Chaves, M., Stephens, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Does government funding suppress nonprofits’ political activity? American Sociological Review, 69(2), 292-316.
Child, C. D., & Grønbjerg, K. A. (2007). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Their characteristics and activities. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 259–281.
Cullerton, K., Donnet, T., Lee, A., & Gallegos, D. (2018). Effective advocacy strategies for influencing government nutrition policy: A conceptual model. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 15(1), 83.
Donaldson, L. (2007). Advocacy by nonprofit human service agencies: Organizational factors as correlates to advocacy behavior. Journal of Community Practice, 15(3), 139-158.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper.
Ezell, M. (2001). Advocacy in the human services. Brooks.
Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. The Journal of Political Economics, 88(2), 288-307.
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.
Freeman, J. L. (1955). The political press. Doubleday.
Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.
Freeman, L. C., Roeder, D., & Mulholland, R. R. (1979). Centrality in social networks: II. Experimental results. Social Networks, 2(2), 119-141.
Fyall, R., & Allard, S. W. (2017). Nonprofits and political activity: A joint consideration of the political activities, programs, and organizational characteristics of social service nonprofits. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(3), 275-300.
Geller, S. L., & Salamon, L. M. (2009). Listening post project roundtable on nonprofit advocacy and lobbying: Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society.
Gen, S., & Wright, A. C. (2018). Strategies of policy advocacy organizations and their theoretical affinities: Evidence from q-methodology. Policy Studies Journal, 46(2), 298-326.
Graauw, E. (2008). Nonprofit organizations and the contemporary politics of immigrant incorporation in San Francisco [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.
Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2010). Voice-in, Voice-out: Constituent participation and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 1(1), Article5.
Hoefer, R. (2000). Making a difference: Human service interest group influence on social welfare program regulations. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 27(3), 21–38.
Hoefer, R. (2005). Altering state policy: Interest group effectiveness among state-level advocacy groups. Social Work, 50(3), 219–227.
Hoefer, R., & Ferguson, K. (2007). Controlling the levers of power: How advocacy organizations affect the regulation writing process. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 34(1), 83–108.
Jensen, M. C. & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, gency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
Jones, C. O. (1977). An introduction to the study of public policy. Duxbury Press.
Kagan, R. A. (1991). Adversarial legalism and american government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Managemen, 10(3), 369–406.
Kagan, R. A. (1998). Adversarial Legalism: Tamed or Still Wild? New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 2(2), 217–245.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and public policies. Longman.
Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 104-111.
Leech, B. L., Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., & Kimball, D. C. (2007). Does money buy power? Interest group resources and policy outcomes. [Paper presented]. Midwest Political Science Association, April 12-15, Chicago, IL.
Leifeld, P. (2010). Political discourse network -The missing link in the study of policy-oriented discourse. [Paper presented], ECPR joint sessions of workshops, March 1-31, Munster.
Leifeld, P. (2015). Discourse network analysis: Policy debates as dynamic networks. International Public Policy Association，6月2日。https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/1433921659.pdf
LeRoux, K. (2007). Nonprofits as civic intermediaries: The role of community-based organizations in promoting political participation. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 410-422.
LeRoux, K. (2009). The effects of descriptive representation on nonprofits’ civic intermediary roles: A test of the “racial mismatch” hypothesis in the social services sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(5), 741-760.
LeRoux, K. M., & Goerdel, H. (2009). Political advocacy by nonprofit organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 514-536.
Li, H., Lo, C. W. H., & Tang, S. Y. (2017). Nonprofit policy advocacy under authoritarianism. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 103-117.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
Linsky, M. (1988). Impact: How the press affects federal Policy Making. W. W. Norton & Company.
Lowi, T. J. (1979). The end of liberalism: The second republic of the United States. W. W. Norton.
Lu, J. (2018). Organizational antecedents of nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy: A meta-analytical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4S), 177S–203S.
MacIndoe, H. (2014). How competition and specialization shape nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 5(2), 307-333.
MacIndoe, H., & Whalen, R. (2013). Specialists, generalists, and policy advocacy by charitable nonprofit organizations. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 40(2), 119-149.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (2006). Resource mobilization theory: Vigorous or outmoded?, In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory, Springer Science & Business Media.
Mellinger, M. S. (2014). Beyond legislative advocacy: Exploring agency, Legal, And community advocacy. Journal of Policy Practice, 13(1), 45-58.
Mellinger, M. S., & Kolomer, S. R. (2013). Legislative advocacy and human service nonprofits: What are we doing? Journal of Policy Practice, 12(2), 87–106.
Mosley, J. (2013). Recognizing new opportunities: Reconceptualizing policy advocacy in everyday organizational practice. Social Work, 58(3), 231–239.
Mosley, J. E. (2010). Organizational resources and environmental incentives: Understanding the policy advocacy involvement of human service nonprofits. Social Service Review, 84(1), 57-76.
Neumayr, M., Schneider, U., & Meyer, M. (2013). Public funding and its impact on nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 297-318.
Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2009). The stages and strategies of advocacy among nonprofit reproductive health providers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(6), 1044-1053.
Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2011). Nonprofit organizations, bureaucratic agencies, and policy: Exploring the determinants of administrative advocacy. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 61-74.
Niskanen, W. A. (1975). Bureaucrats and politicians. Journal of Law and Economics, 18(3), 617-643.
O'Connell, S. (2015). Policy development and policy advocacy training courses. National Democratic Institute.
Olsen, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press.
Pekkanen, R. J., & Smith, S. R. (2014). Nonprofit advocacy in Seattle and Washington, DC. In R. J. Pekkanen, S. R. Smith, & Y. Tsujinaka (Eds.), Nonprofits and advocacy: Engaging community and government in an era of retrenchment (pp. 47-65). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Peltzman, S. (1976). Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2), 211-240.
Reisman, J., Gienapp, A., & Stachowiak, S. (2007). A guide to measuring advocacy and policy. Annie E. Casey Foundation by Organizational Research Services.
Roberts, N. C., (2008). The age of direct citizen participation. Routledge.
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy- oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences 21, 129–168.
Salamon, L. M. (2002). Explaining nonprofit advocacy: An exploratory analysis. Center for Civil Society Studies, Johns Hopkins University.
Salamon, L. M., & Geller, S. L. (2008). Nonprofit America: A force for democracy? Center for Civil Society Studies, Johns Hopkins University.
Schmid, H., Bar, M., & Nirel, R. (2008). Advocacy activities in nonprofit human service organizations: Implications for policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 581–602.
Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism “Old” and “New”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 270–277.
Smith, G. E., & Huntsman, C. A. (1997). Reframing the metaphor of citizen-government relationship: A value-centered perspective. Public Administration Review, 57(4), 309–318.
Stigler, G. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3–21.
Suárez, D. F. (2009). Nonprofit advocacy and civic engagement on the internet. Administration & Society, 41(3), 267-289.
Suárez, D. F., & Hwang, H. (2008). Civic engagement and nonprofit lobbying in California, 1998-2003. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(1), 93-112.
Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, Professions, And social movements. University of Michigan Press.
Zhang, Z., & Guo, C. (2012). Advocacy by Chinese nonprofit organisations: Towards a responsive government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(2), 221-232. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
112256008 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112256008 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [公共行政學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 600801.pdf | | 3628Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
