請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21985
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 王宏文(Hong-Wung Wang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Kai-Sheng Cheng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 鄭凱升 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T03:56:28Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-16 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-08-14 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部分
王光旭,2008,〈數位民主行政與官僚回應性:民意電子信箱強化回應性認知研究初探〉,《政策研究學報》8期,P77-115。 吳秀光、廖洲棚,2003,〈運用資訊科技再造政府:以臺北市政府線上服務的推行為例〉,《國家政策季刊》2(1),P151-176。 宋餘俠、蔡世田,2011-08,〈政府參與社會網絡新思維〉,《研考雙月刊》,35(4),P10-22。 林宇玲,2014-01-01,〈網路與公共領域:從審議模式轉向多元公眾模式〉,《新聞學研究》118期,P55-85。 林雨潔、王國政、楊惠敏,2018,〈「公共政策網路參與平臺」三周年執行情形報告〉,《政府機關資訊通報》351期。 林國明,2016,〈審議造就積極公民?公民審議、社會資本與政治參與〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》28(2),P133-177。 張志鵬、王宏文、蔡逸敬,2017,〈從垂直課責到水平課責: 以獨立性探討部長電子信箱之執行困境〉,《文官制度季刊》第九卷第一期,民106年1月,P95-128。 陳俊明、周韻采、廖益興,2015,〈政府因應公民運用網路參與施政意見表達之研究〉,《行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告》,未出版。 陳敦源、李仲彬、黃東益,2007,〈應用資訊通訊科技可以改善 “公眾接觸” 嗎? 台灣個案的分析〉,《東吳政治學報》25(3),P51-92。 陳敦源、黃心怡、廖洲棚、陳恭、陳揚中,2016-12-1,〈政府推動電子連署(e-petition)的機遇與挑戰〉,《國土及公共治理季刊》,4卷4期,P41-53。 陳敦源、黃東益,2008,〈運用網路進行公民連署之評估與機制設計〉,行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究案。 陳敦源、潘競恆,2011,〈政府就是『我們』:Web 2.0時代民主治理的希望或幻夢?〉,《研考雙月刊》第35卷第4 期:P10-22。 曾冠球、陳敦源、胡龍騰,2009,〈推展公民導向的電子化政府: 願景或幻想? 〉,《公共行政學報 Journal of Public Administration》 33, P1-43。 曾柏瑋、李梅君,2017,〈開放政府觀察報告2014-2016〉,開放文化基金會出版。 劉宗熹、林雨潔、莊宜貞,2017-08,〈公共政策網路參與平臺提點子提議檢核未通過分析〉,《政府機關資訊通報》348期。 鄭宇君、陳百齡,2016,〈探索線上公眾即時參與網絡化社運-以台灣318運動為例〉,《傳播研究與實踐》第6卷第1 期,P117-150。 蕭乃沂、黃東益、陳敦源、羅晉,2007。〈數位治理的實踐:「國家政策網路智庫」初評與前瞻〉,《研考雙月刊》第31卷第3期,P71-80。 羅晉,2008,〈電子化參與的效益與風險:民眾對政府網站的認知與使用行為之初探〉,《資訊社會研究》,P181-208。 貳、西文部分 Agre, P. E. (2002). Real-time politics: The Internet and the political process. The information society, 18(5), 311-331. Ayres, J. M. (1999). From the streets to the Internet: The cyber-diffusion of contention. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 132-143. Barber, B. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Univ of California Press. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2015). The politics of information: Problem definition and the course of public policy in America. University of Chicago Press. Bellamy, C., & Taylor, J. A. (1998). Governing in the information age. Open Univ Pr. Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity, 31(1), 133-160. Böhle, K., & Riehm, U. (2013). E-petition systems and political participation: About institutional challenges and democratic opportunities. First Monday, 18(7). Buchstein, H. (1997). Bytes that bite: The Internet and deliberative democracy. Constellations, 4(2), 248-263. Cairncross, F. (1997). The death of distance: How the communications revolution will change our lives. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press. Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. Oxford University Press. Elinor, O. S. T. R. O. M. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Elinor, O. S. T. R. O. M. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Escher, T., & Riehm, U. (2017). Petitioning the German Bundestag: political equality and the role of the internet. Parliamentary Affairs, 70(1), 132-154. Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press. Fishkin, J. S. (2011). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press. Fung, A., Gilman, H. R., & Shkabatur, J. (2015). Technology for Democracy in Development: Lessons from Seven Case Studies. Deliberation and Development: Rethinking the Role of Voice and Collective Action in Unequal Societies, 229-236. Fung, A., Russon Gilman, H., & Shkabatur, J. (2013). Six models for the internet+ politics. International Studies Review, 15(1), 30-47. Galston, W. (1999). does the Internet affect community. Democracy. com, 45-69. Graddol, D. J. Swann (1989) Gender Voices. Grant, R. (2004). The democratisation of diplomacy: negotiating with the Internet. Grossman, L. K. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the information age. Viking Penguin. Hagen, L., Harrison, T. M., Uzuner, Ö., May, W., Fake, T., & Katragadda, S. (2016). E-petition popularity: Do linguistic and semantic factors matter?. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 783-795. Hindman, M. (2008). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton University Press. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. University of Chicago Press. Kampen, J. K., & Snijkers, K. (2003). E-democracy: A critical evaluation of the ultimate e-dream. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 491-496. Newell, A. (1994). Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press. O’Leary, R. and L. B. Bingham (Eds.) (2009). The Collaborative Public Manager: New Ideas for the Twenty-first Century. Georgetown University Press. Pierson, P. (1997). Path dependence, increasing returns, and the study of politics. Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University. Rose, R., & Davies, P. L. (1994). Inheritance in public policy: Change without choice in Britain. Yale University Press. Sassi, S. (2000). The controversies of the Internet and the revitalization of local political life. Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice, 90-104. Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and technology. Guilford Press. Simon, H. A. (1946). The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1), 53-67. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo chambers: Bush v. Gore, impeachment, and beyond. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tasgrousianou, R. (1998). Cyberdemocracy: Technology, Cities and Civic Networks. New York: Routledge. Vigoda, Eran. (2002). “From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review, 62, 527-540. Wilhelm, A. G. (1998). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is on‐line political discussion?. Information Communication & Society, 1(3), 313-338. Williams, W. (1998). Honest numbers and democracy. In Social policy analysis in the White House, Congress, and the federal agencies. Georgetown University Press, Washington. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21985 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 網路科技強化了民眾的認知與參與公共政策,而公共政策網路參與平臺提供了一個與民眾互動的良好媒介,但民眾提案的成案比例卻不高,本研究希望藉由分析成案的特性及影響政府回應的因素,更瞭解我國推行電子參與的成效,而利用成案的資料建檔與統計分析,來瞭解成案的特性,及透過深度訪談瞭解政府回應方式及影響回應的因素,結果發現延長回應時間有助改變政府的想法及許多成案政府都不採納,故建議政府應該有更明確的提案審查機制與回應程序的一致性,才能有效提升成案後被採納的機會。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Information and communication technologies bring the knowledge and participation in the public policy, and “Join Platform” gives a well bridge of communication between government and people, but the proportion of people’s proposals that passing the threshold is not high. So the study hopes to analyze the effectiveness of e-participation in Taiwan by the characteristics of cases and the factors that influence the government's response. Through the cases data filing and statistical analysis to understand the case characteristics, and understand the government's response and the factors that the response through in-depth interviews.
It was found that prolonging the response time helped change the government's decision and many cases governments did not adopt it. It is suggested that the government should have a clearer review mechanism for proposes and response program consistency in order to improve the chances of being adopted. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T03:56:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-P05322006-1.pdf: 3334174 bytes, checksum: bc28cf0cb849a5e35a5b03c6f70bbe36 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I
謝辭 II 中文摘要 III 英文摘要 IV 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 問題意識 4 第二章 臺灣公共政策網路參與平臺簡介 9 第一節 政策推動背景 9 第二節 公共政策網路參與實施要點修法情形 14 第三節 參與平臺「提點子」未成案之分析 19 第四節 其他國家的推動情形 21 第三章 文獻回顧 25 第一節 政府獲得資訊的途徑 25 第二節 政府如何處理資訊與決策 29 第三節 電子參與對政府的影響 31 第四節 研究假設 34 第四章 研究設計 37 第一節 研究範圍 37 第二節 研究方法 37 第五章 研究結果 45 第一節 成案特性之敘述統計說明 45 第二節 統計分析結果 66 第三節 深度訪談情形 76 第四節 質化與量化資料之差異 83 第六章 結論 85 第一節 研究與建議 85 第二節 參與平臺政策建議 88 第三節 研究限制與未來研究方向 93 參考文獻 99 壹、中文部分 99 貳、西文部分 101 附錄一、通過連署提議資料表 105 附錄二、公共政策網路參與實施要點 111 附錄三、統計資料建檔 124 附錄四、訪談資料整理 128 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 公共政策網路參與平臺民眾提議成案之特性與政府回應之分析 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The“Propose”in the Join Platform:Analysis of Relationship Between the Case Characteristics and the Government Response | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李仲彬,曾冠球 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 網路科技,公共政策,參與平臺,電子參與,成案特性,政府回應, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Information and Communication Technologies,public policy,Join Platform,e-participation,case characteristics,government’s response, | en |
dc.relation.page | 150 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201803095 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-08-15 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 政治學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 3.26 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。