請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101193完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 郭乃菱 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Nai-Ling Kuo | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陽庭妮 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Ting-Ni Yang | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-12-31T16:16:27Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-01-01 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2025-12-31 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2025-12-02 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文文獻
孔翎蓁（2012）。性別主流化的交織性挑戰- 中國農村與台灣偏鄉托育問題省思［未出版之碩士論文］。國立政治大學。 王秀紅（2011）。性別主流化與護理。護理雜誌，58(6)，5-10。 王儷靜（2010）。性別主流化在教育機構的實踐：我們可以做些什麼？。城市發展99年專刊 (二) 性別主流專刊, 26-44。 李元貞（2014）眾女成城：台灣婦運回憶錄。女書。 朱金池、王俊元、郭銘峰（2014）。從利害關係人途徑析探公部門績效管理: 我國地方政府之經驗。文官制度, 6(4), 1-26。 沈建中、吳美雲、施乃元（2017）。政府績效管理之變革。國土及公共治理季刊, 5(3), 94-107。 林雅珍（2011）。性別主流化下基層公務人員性別意識認知之研究- 以台北市戶政事務所為例［未出版之碩士論文］。國立臺北大學。 林虢鋐（2015）。縣市政府性別平等之研究- 以花蓮縣政府為例［未出版之碩士論文］。國立東華大學。 許道然、林文燦（2015）。考銓制度（初版）。國立空中大學。 莊文忠（2008）。績效衡量與指標設計：方法論上的討論。公共行政學報，(29)，61-91。 莊文忠（2015）。公民導向的績效衡量與課責模式- 以透明治理與開放政府為基礎。國土及公共治理季刊，3(3)，7-19。 張四明、胡龍騰（2013）。後新公共管理時期政府績效管理的公共價值意涵。公共治理季刊， 1(1), 73-83。 盧孟宗（2022）。到國家女性主義之路─ 臺灣性別平等機制的新制度論與組織理論分析［未出版之博士論文］。國立臺灣大學。 黃長玲（2008）。民主深化與婦運歷程。載於王宏仁、李廣均、龔宜君（編），跨戒：流動與堅持的台灣社會（頁263-279）。群學。 黃長玲（2016）。彼此協力或相互抵銷？國家女性主義的動能與挫折。載於楊巧玲、張盈堃（編）發聲與行動：大學教師的學術勞動與性別運動（頁201-211）。女書。 黃長玲（2017）。性別主流化的在地實踐：高雄與釜山的比較。載於黃淑玲（編）性別主流化：臺灣經驗與國際比較（頁43-66）。五南。 黃淑玲（2008）。性別主流化－台灣經驗與國際的對話。研考雙月刊，32(4)，3-12。 黃淑玲（2014）。全球典範！？瑞典性別主流化實施模式。公共治理季刊，2(2)，69-82。 黃淑玲、伍維婷（2016）。當婦運衝撞國家：婦權會推動性別主流化的合縱連橫策略。台灣社會學，(32)，1-55。 黃淑玲（2020）。政治意志與社會資本對性別平等機制的影響: 以柯文哲市長與台北市女委會為例。女學學誌，(47)，41-92。 陳俞安（2016）。行政院性別平等政策機制運作之研究。［未出版之碩士論文］國立政治大學。 彭渰雯（2008）。當官僚遇上婦運：台灣推動性別主流化的經驗初探。東吳政治學報，26(4)，1-58。 彭渰雯、李秉叡（2011）。推動性別主流化之過程評估：架構建立與先導研究。公共行政學報，(38)，115-150。 彭渰雯、黃淑玲、黃長玲、洪綾（2015）。行政院性別主流化政策執行成效探討。行政院性別平等處。 彭渰雯（2018）。慢速革命還是作文比賽？「性別主流化」在地方層級的變與不變（編號：106-2410-H-110 -028 -MY2）。行政院科技部。 胡龍騰（2007）。公民引領之政府績效管理：初探性模式建構。行政暨政策學報，（44），79-128。 胡龍騰、張國偉（2010）。美國績效管理改革作法。研考雙月刊，34(3)，24-36。 胡龍騰（2016）。績效悖理之潛因探析：制度邏輯與心理帳戶觀點。東吳政治學報，34(1)，209–268。 胡龍騰（2019）。政府績效管理與OKR應用之可行性。主計月刊，766，44-50。 胡龍騰（2020）。第二章：績效管理與運用。載於國家文官學院（編），109年委任公務人員晉升薦任官等訓練。國家文官學院。 陳向明（2024）。社會科學質的研究。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 蘇偉業（2009）。公共部門事前定向績效管理: 反思與回應。公共行政學報，(30)，105-130。 郭昱瑩（2009）。政府績效管理與執行力建構。研考雙月刊，33(2)，30-47。 郭昱瑩（2018）。績效管理思維驅動之執行力。國土及公共治理季刊， 6(3)，6-15。 顧燕翎、范情（2009）。性別平等專責機制之硏析。行政院硏究發展考核委員會。 顧燕翎（2019）。女性主義理論與流變。貓頭鷹出版社。 吳定（2003）。政策管理。聯經出版社。 潘淑滿（2022）。質性研究：理論與應用。心理。 鄭欣娓（2012）。以性別主流化觀點檢視我國援外政策［未出版之碩士論文］國立臺灣大學。 賴麗如（2011）。我國性別主流化政策績效評估─女性主管之晉用［未出版之碩士論文］國立東華大學。 楊婉瑩（2004）婦權會到性別平等委員會的轉變: 一個國家女性主義的比較觀點分析。政治科學論叢，(21)，117-147。 馬榕曼（2014）。性別主流化在中央教育行政機關的推動與實踐：政策工具觀點［未出版之博士論文］國立臺灣師範大學。 貳、英文文獻 Aaronson, S., Cajner, T., Fallick, B., Galbis-Reig, F., Smith, C., & Wascher, W. (2014). Labor force participation: Recent developments and future prospects. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 45(2), 197–275. Ahrens, L. (1980). Battered Women's Refuges. Feminist Cooperatives Vs. Social Service Institutions. Radical America Sommerville, Ma, 14(3), 41-47. Andersson, R. (2018). Gender mainstreaming as feminist politics: A critical analysis of the pursuit of gender equality in Swedish local government (PhD dissertation, Örebro University). Retrieved from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-65313 Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reis, (77/78), 345-348. Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I., & Steccolini, I. (2015). Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(1), 1-22. Bacchi, C., & Eveline, J. (2010). Gender mainstreaming or diversity mainstreaming? The politics of ‘doing.’ In C. Bacchi & J. Eveline (Eds.), Mainstreaming politics: Gendering practices and feminist theory (pp. 311–334). University of Adelaide Press. Beckwith, K. (2000). Beyond compare? Women's movements in comparative perspective. European Journal of Political Research, 37(4), 431-468. Behn, R. D. (2003). Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606. Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517-538. Beveridge, F., & Nott, S. (2002). Mainstreaming: A case for optimism and cynicism. Feminist Legal Studies, 10(3), 299-311. Bouckaert, G. (1993). Measurement and Meaningful Management. Public Productivity & Management Review, 17(1), 31–43. Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2007). Managing performance: International comparisons. Routledge. Bratton, K. A., & Haynie, K. L. (1999). Agenda Setting and Legislative Success in State Legislatures: The Effects of Gender and Race. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 658–679. Brignall, S., & Modell, S. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’. Management Accounting Research, 11(3), 281–306. Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl_2), i253–i277. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq093 Brouwers, R. (2013). Revisiting gender mainstreaming in international development: Goodbye to an illusionary strategy (No. 556). ISS Working Paper Series / General Series (Vol. 556, pp. 1–36). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/39504 Callahan, K. (2006). Elements of effective governance: Measurement, accountability and participation. Routledge. Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2-3), 127-168. Connell, R. (2013). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. John Wiley & Sons. Dale, J., & Foster, P. (2012). Feminists and State Welfare (RLE Feminist Theory). Routledge. Daly, M. (2005). Gender mainstreaming in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 433-450. Daly, M. (2020). Gender inequality and welfare states in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing. De Bruijn, H. (2002). Performance measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(7), 578-594. De Bruijn, H., & Van Helden, G. J. (2006). A Plea for Dialogue Driven Performance-Based Management Systems: Evidence from the Dutch Public Sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 22(4). DeGroff, A., Schooley, M., Chapel, T., & Poister, T. H. (2010). Challenges and strategies in applying performance measurement to federal public health programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(4), 365-372. de Lancer Julnes, P., & Holzer, M. (2014). Performance Measurement: Building Theory, Improving practice. Routledge. de Lancer Julnes, P. (2019). The utilization of performance measurement information: Adopting, implementing, and sustaining. In Public productivity handbook (pp. 370–393). CRC Press. Dodson, D. L. (2006). The Impact of Women in Congress. Oxford University Press. Doerr, J. (2018). Measure what matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation rock the world with OKRs. Penguin. Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. Routledge. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74. Eisenstein, H. (1996). Inside agitators: Australian Femocrats and the State. Temple University Press. Esmark, A. (2017). Maybe it is time to rediscover technocracy? An old framework for a new analysis of administrative reforms in the governance era. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(3), 501-516. Eveline, J., & Bacchi, C. (2010). What are we mainstreaming when we mainstream gender?. International Feminist Journal of Politics 7(4):496-512 Ferguson, K. E. (1984). The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy. Temple University Press. Franco‐Santos, M., & Otley, D. (2018). Reviewing and theorizing the unintended consequences of performance management systems. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(3), 696-730. Garrow, E. E., & Grusky, O. (2013). Institutional logic and street-level discretion: The case of HIV test counseling. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 103-131. Gerrish, E. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta‐analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48-66. Guthrie, J., & English, L. (1997). Performance information and programme evaluation in the Australian public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10(3), 154-164. Grizzle, G. A. (2002). Performance measurement and dysfunction: The dark side of quantifying work. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 363-369. Halachmi, A., & Holzer, M. (2010). Citizen participation and performance measurement: Operationalizing democracy through better accountability. Public Administration Quarterly, 378-399. Hankivsky, O. (2013). Gender mainstreaming: A five‐country examination. Politics & Policy, 41(5), 629-655. Hatry, H. P. (2002). Performance measurement: Fashions and fallacies. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 352-358. Hernandez, M. (2012). Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 172-193. Holzer, M., & Kloby, K. (2005). Public performance measurement: An assessment of the state‐of‐the‐art and models for citizen participation. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(7), 517-532. Kantola, J., & Outshoorn, J. (2007). Changing state feminism. In J. Kantola & J. Outshoorn (Eds.), Changing state feminism (pp. 1–19). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Kelman, S., & Friedman, J. N. (2009). Performance improvement and performance dysfunction: an empirical examination of distortionary impacts of the emergency room wait-time target in the English National Health Service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 917-946. Kuhlmann, S., Bogumil, J., & Grohs, S. (2008). Evaluating administrative modernization in German local governments: Success or failure of the “new steering model” ?. Public Administration Review, 68(5), 851-863. Lonti, Z., & Gregory, R. (2007). Accountability or countability? Performance measurement in the New Zealand public service, 1992–2002. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 468-484. Lovenduski, J., Guadagnini, M., McBride, D. E., Mazur, A. G., Outshoorn, J., & Sauer, B. (2010). Political representation. In D. E. McBride & A. G. Mazur (Eds.), The politics of state feminism: Innovation in comparative research (pp. 164–192). Temple University Press. Lowe, T. (2013). New development: The paradox of outcomes—the more we measure, the less we understand. Public Money & Management, 33(3), 213-216. Ma, L. (2017). Performance management and citizen satisfaction with the government: Evidence from Chinese municipalities. Public Administration, 95(1), 39-59. Mannion, R., Davies, H., & Marshall, M. (2005). Impact of star performance ratings in English acute hospital trusts. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(1), 18-24. Mannion, R., & Braithwaite, J. (2012). Unintended consequences of performance measurement in healthcare: 20 salutary lessons from the English National Health Service. Internal Medicine Journal, 42(5), 569-574. McBride, D. E., & Mazur, A. G. (2010). The politics of state feminism: Innovation in comparative research. Temple University Press. Mehra, R., & Gupta, G. R. (2006). Gender mainstreaming: Making it happen. International Center for Research on Women (ICRW). Meier, P., & Celis, K. (2011). Sowing the seeds of its own failure: Implementing the concept of gender mainstreaming. Social Politics, 18(4), 469-489. Meyer, M. W., & O'Shaughnessy, K. (1993). Organizational design and the performance paradox. In R. Swedberg (Ed.), Explorations in economic sociology (pp. 249–278). Russell Sage Foundation. Meyer, M. W., & V. Gupta (1994). The Performance Paradox. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16: 309-369. Milward, K., Mukhopadhyay, M., & Wong, F. F. (2015). Gender mainstreaming critiques: signposts or dead ends? IDS Bulletin, 46(4), 75–81. Mkasiwa, T. A., & Gasper, A. F. (2014). Complexities in performance measurement and the reaction of actors: The case of Tanzania. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 2(3), 41–50. Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Goal‐based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 203-216. Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 77-89. Nott, S. (2018). Accentuating the positive: Alternative strategies for promoting gender equality. In Making Women Count (pp. 247-276). Routledge. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179. Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Outshoorn, J., McBride, D. E., Mazur, A. G., Lovenduski, J., Sauer, B., & Guadagnini, M. (2010). Social movements and women's movements. In D. E. McBride & A. G. Mazur (Eds.), The politics of state feminism: Innovation in comparative research (pp. 143–163). Temple University Press. Perrin, B. (1998). Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. The American Journal of Evaluation, 19(3), 367-379. Pidd, M. (2005). Perversity in public service performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(5/6), 482–493. Pitkin, H. F. (2023). The concept of representation. University of California Press. Porter, T. M. (1996). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press. Pollitt, C. (2013). The logics of performance management. Evaluation, 19(4), 346-363. Prügl, E., & Lustgarten, A. (2006). Mainstreaming gender in international organizations. In Women and gender equity in development theory and practice: Institutions, resources, and mobilization (pp. 53–70). Duke University Press. Radin, B. A. (1998). The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydra-headed monster or flexible management tool?. Public Administration Review, 307-316. Rueschemeyer, D., Skocpol, T., & Evans, P. B. (1985). Bringing the state back in. Cambridge University Press Cambridge. Sainsbury, D., & Bergqvist, C. (2009). The promise and pitfalls of gender mainstreaming: the Swedish case. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11(2), 216-234. Sanderson, I. (2001). Performance management, evaluation and learning in ‘modern’ local government. Public Administration, 79(2), 297-313. Shiva, V., & Mies, M. (2014). Ecofeminism. Bloomsbury Publishing. Siverbo, S., Cäker, M., & Åkesson, J. (2019). Conceptualizing dysfunctional consequences of performance measurement in the public sector. Public Management Review, 21(12), 1801-1823. Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2–3), 277–310. Speklé, R. F., & Verbeeten, F. H. (2014). The use of performance measurement systems in the public sector: Effects on performance. Management Accounting Research, 25(2), 131-146. Squires, J. (2005). Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation. Social politics: international studies in gender, state & society, 12(3), 366-388. Squires, J. (2007). The new politics of gender equality. Bloomsbury Publishing. Swers, M. L. (2005). Connecting descriptive and substantive representation: An analysis of sex differences in cosponsorship activity. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30(3), 407-433. Talbot, C. (2005). Performance management. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn Jr., & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 491–517). Oxford University Press. van den Broek, J., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2013). Multiple Institutional Logics in Health Care: ‘Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care.’ Public Management Review, 16(1), 1–20. van Thiel, S., & F. L. Leeuw (2002). The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3): 267-281. Verbeeten, F. H. (2008). Performance management practices in public sector organizations: Impact on performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3), 427-454. Verloo, M. (2001). Another velvet revolution? Gender mainstreaming and the politics of implementation (IWM Working Paper No. 5/2001). IWM. Verloo, M. (2005a). Mainstreaming gender equality in Europe. A critical frame analysis approach. The Greek Review of Social Research, 11–34. Verloo, M. (2005b). Displacement and empowerment: Reflections on the concept and practice of the Council of Europe approach to gender mainstreaming and gender equality. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 344-365. Walby, S. (2005). Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 321-343. Wachter, M. L., Tobin, J., Duesenberry, J., Schiff, F., Mishkin, F., Holt, C., Solow, R., Whitman, M., Okun, A., & Perry, G. (1977). Intermediate Swings in Labor-Force Participation. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1977(2), 545–576. Wittbom, E. E., & Häyrén, A. I. (2021). Post-NPM gender accounting—can public value management enhance gender mainstreaming? . Public Money & Management, 41(7), 507-515.）。 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101193 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究以我國自2016年以來行政院性平處所實施的「直轄市與縣（市）政府推動性別平等業務輔導獎勵計畫」（輔導獎勵計畫）為案例，探討績效管理機制的運作效果會如何受到政治支持、官僚感知、組織資源與外部因素等不同政策環境條件之影響，具體而言關注何種條件有助於績效管理機制發揮預期作用，何種條件則增加績效悖理之問題。
經由訪談我國地方政府文官、婦權會和性平會民間委員、行政院性別平等處文官，並參照次級資料進行分析，本研究發現評核機制功能發揮受政策環境條件影響。政治首長積極態度有助機制建立；高階文官若重視評核能促成跨局處合作，承辦人投入意願、組織資源充裕程度，以及重大社會事件都影響地方政府全面投入推動之程度。以激發創新策略而言，政治首長與幕僚單位的積極態度、財務資源充裕、與民間委員良好協力關係都有助於創新發展。以民間倡議而言，民間委員若能掌握評核要求，能透過指標敦促政府採納倡議。 本研究也發現輔導獎勵計畫的引導使地方政府的推動產生績效悖理現象，且受政策環境調節。高階文官要求隱藏資料、承辦人流動率高或知能不足、民間委員過度協助優化呈現，以及重大事件導致指標簡陋，都會加劇衡量不精確之問題。目標錯置可以透過官僚釐清長期策略或是累積在地知識改善，但承辦人知能不足或民間委員過度關注指標則加劇問題。策略性行為包括高階文官捨難取易、政治首長重視表面成績導致粉飾、財務資源缺乏導致重新包裝、資源豐富或高階文官要求導致隱藏資料，以及民間委員缺乏督促誘因協助壓低成效。人力資源不足時機關將缺乏創新餘力，加劇評核機制阻礙創新之情形。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | To explore how policy environments influence the effectiveness of performance management mechanisms, this study examines the “Guidance Program for Promoting Gender Equality by Municipal and County (City) Governments” implemented by the Executive Yuan's Department of Gender Equality since 2016. Specifically, this study investigates which conditions enable performance management mechanisms to achieve their intended effects and which conditions exacerbate performance paradoxes. These conditions include political support, bureaucrats’ perceptions, organizational resources, and external factors.
Through interviews with local government civil servants, civil society representatives of women’s rights and gender equality committees, and civil servants from the Executive Yuan’s Department of Gender Equality, supplemented by analysis of secondary data, this study finds that the functioning of evaluation mechanisms is moderated by policy environments. The support of political figures facilitates mechanism establishment; when high-level civil servants value the policy goals the performance management promoting, it promotes cross-departmental collaboration. The willingness of civil servants to engage, the adequacy of organizational resources, and major social incidents all affect the extent of local governments’ comprehensive commitment to implementation. Regarding innovation stimulation strategies, proactive attitudes of political figures and staff units, adequate financial resources, and good collaborative relationships with the civil society all contribute to innovative development. Regarding civil advocacy, if civil society representatives are well versed with the performance evaluation requirements, they can guide governments to adopt advocacy initiatives through performance indicators. This study also finds that the Guidance Program induces performance paradoxes in local government implementation, which are also moderated by policy environments. First, measurement inaccuracy problems are aggravated by high-level civil servants demanding data concealment, high turnover or insufficient competence of staff, civil society representatives excessively assisting in optimizing presentations, and major incidents leading to sloppy indicator designs. Secondly, goal displacement can be mitigated through bureaucrats adopting strategies for long-term goals or accumulating local knowledge, but insufficient competence of responsible personnel or civil society representatives’ excessive focus on indicators can worsen the problem. Third, strategic behaviors include senior civil servants cream skimming by avoiding harder tasks, political figures prioritizing superficial achievements leading to window- dressing, lack of financial resources leading to repackaging, abundant resources or high-level civil servant demands leading to data concealment, and civil members lacking incentives to supervise or assisting in gaming. Insufficient human resources leave agencies without capacity for innovation, thereby exacerbating the hinderance of performance management systems on innovation. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2025-12-31T16:16:27Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2025-12-31T16:16:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I
摘要 II ABSTRACT III 目次 V 圖次 VIII 表次 VIII 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與研究動機 1 第二節 研究問題與研究目的 7 第二章 文獻探討 11 第一節 公部門績效管理 11 第二節 績效悖理 18 第三節 性別主流化之緣起與國際趨勢 27 第四節 我國性別主流化的推行與研究 35 第三章 研究設計與方法 40 第一節 研究設計 40 第二節 研究方法 43 第四章 性別主流化績效考核制度之正面影響 48 第一節 我國性別主流化績效考核制度 48 第二節 輔導獎勵計畫引導地方政府推動性別主流化之實務見解 60 第三節 小結 98 第五章 輔導獎勵計畫產生之績效悖理 103 第一節 衡量不精確 103 第二節 目標錯置 113 第三節 策略性操弄 129 第四節 阻礙創新 142 第五節 小結 149 第六章 研究結論與建議 154 第一節 結論 155 第二節 政策建議 181 第三節 研究限制與未來研究方向 186 參考文獻 188 附錄一 訪談大綱 203 附錄二 116年行政院辦理直轄市與縣（市）政府推動性別平等業務輔導獎勵評審項目衡量標準表 212 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 性別主流化 | - |
| dc.subject | 績效評估 | - |
| dc.subject | 績效悖理 | - |
| dc.subject | 政策環境 | - |
| dc.subject | gender mainstreaming | - |
| dc.subject | performance evaluation | - |
| dc.subject | performance paradox | - |
| dc.subject | policy environment | - |
| dc.title | 地方政府性別主流化的績效管理 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Performance Management of Gender Mainstreaming in Local Governments | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 114-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 黃長玲 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | Chang-Ling Huang | en |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 郭昱瑩;彭渰雯 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Yu-Ying Kuo;Yen-Wen Peng | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 性別主流化,績效評估績效悖理政策環境 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | gender mainstreaming,performance evaluationperformance paradoxpolicy environment | en |
| dc.relation.page | 243 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202504747 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2025-12-02 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共事務研究所 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2026-01-01 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 公共事務研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-114-1.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用（校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務） | 4.42 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。