Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 社會科學院
  3. 政治學系
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/34489
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor林水波
dc.contributor.authorJing-Hung Chiuen
dc.contributor.author邱靖鈜zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-13T06:11:14Z-
dc.date.available2007-03-21
dc.date.copyright2006-03-31
dc.date.issued2006
dc.date.submitted2006-03-25
dc.identifier.citation參考書目
中文部分
丘昌泰,1995,《公共政策:當代政策科學理論之研究》,台北:巨流圖書公司。
---------,2004,《公共政策—基礎篇》,台北:巨流圖書公司。
---------、李允傑,2003,《政策執行與評估》,台北:元照出版。
江宜樺,2001,《自由民主的理路》,台北:聯經出版。
江明修,曾冠球,2003,〈公共行政制度設計之辯證:公民治理型模的檢視〉,《中國行政評論》,12(3):119–138。
林水波,2005a,〈解析商議式民主〉,「魏鏞教授逝世週年紀念研討會-政治文化研究的現狀與開展」論文集(3月10日),台北:國立台灣大學政治學系。
------------2005b,〈領導者的對話治理角色〉,《人事月刊》,40(2):10-23。
----------、石振國,2005c,〈參與治理的解析〉,「第四屆地方發展策略研討會暨
公共事務與公共行政青年論壇」,宜蘭:佛光大學人文社會學院公共事務學系。
-----------、李長晏,2005d,《跨域治理》,台北:五南圖書出版有限公司。
-----------、王崇斌,2005e,〈文官核心能力與良善公共治理的關聯性〉,「強化文官核心能力 再造政府競爭力」學術研討會(9月19-20日),台北:行政院人事行政局。
------------2004a,〈制度移植的策略性評估〉,《國家政策季刊》,3(1):49–80。
------------2004b,〈公投覆議與制度反省〉,《立法院院聞》,32(10):11–24。
------------2001 ,《公共政策新論》,台北:智勝。
------------1999a,《制度設計》,台北:智勝。
------------1999b,《政府再造》,台北:智勝。
----------、石振國,1999c,〈以直接民主改革間接民主的論述與評估〉,《立法院院聞》,27(3):33–43。
林子倫,2004,〈書評:審議式民主及其超越,約翰卓瑞克(Deliberative Democracy: Liberals, Critics, Contestations),by John s. Dryzek〉,《台灣民主季刊》,1(4):181-184。
林國明,2004,〈公民會議突顯多元性〉,《新新聞》,914:54–55。
---------、陳東升,2005,〈審議民主、科技決策與公共討論〉,《科技、醫療與社會》,3:1-49。
----------、陳東升,2003,〈公民會議與審議民主:全民健保的公民參與經驗〉,《臺灣社會學》,6:61–118。
林諭林,2004,「社區采風 公民會議初試啼聲 一鳴驚人」,《中國時報》,7/11,C4版。
林志成,2004,〈「二○○四青年國是會議系列二 :審議式公民會議學習深度民主」〉,《中國時報》,9/11,A8版。
林啟樺,2005,〈John Keane 談民主:站在新時代 思考舊理想〉,《台灣智庫通訊》,17:14-15。
朱雲漢,2004,〈台灣民主的發展困境與挑戰〉,《台灣民主季刊》,1(1):143-62。
吳 定,2005,《公共政策辭典》,台北:五南書局。
---------,2004,《公共政策》,台北:國立空中大學。
吳英明、亞天恩,2005,《民主DNA筆記書—攜手打造一流的公民社會》,初版。台北:新自然主義股份有限公司。
南方朔,2005,〈願大家都成為有智慧的群眾〉,《群眾的智慧》,頁8-15,台北:遠流出版事業股份有限公司。
胡龍騰,2005,〈民主審議中專家的角色:以公民會議在台灣之經驗觀察〉,「2005年台灣政治學會年會暨台灣民主的挑戰與前景」學術研討會(12月11日),台北:政治大學政治系、台灣政治學會。
黃東益,2003a,〈審慎思辯民調「全民健保公民論壇」評估報告〉,行政院二代健保規劃小組技術報告,行政院衛生署委託計畫。
---------,2003b。〈審慎思辯、議題資訊與政策偏好形成--核四議題意見調查結果的初探〉,《理論與政策》,16(4):65–87。
---------、陳敦源、陳俊明、蕭乃沂,2004a,〈數位時代商議式民主的實驗原型:
線上公民顧問團〉,《研考雙月刊》,28(1):81–91。
---------、陳敦源,2004b,〈電子化政府與商議式民主之實踐〉,《台灣民主季刊》,1(4):1-34。
黃榮護、林明志,2004,「社區大學公民訓練與發展策略之研究」,台北:政治大學優質世界公民通識教育研討會。
黃錦堂,2005,《行政組織法論》,台北:翰盧出版。
黃世團,2005,〈以「代理孕母公民會議」觀察台灣地區商議式民主機制的實踐經驗〉,《國立台灣大學國家發展研究所碩士在職專班民主行政專題期末報告》,未出版。
邱俊吉,2004,「代理孕母糾紛率低 公民會議:不礙公序良俗解禁是共識」,《中時晚報》,9/18,03版。
曾文生,2004,〈「青年國是會議參與式民主初步」〉,《中國時報》,10/24,A15版。
張鐵志,2005.08.22,〈尋找民主新動力〉,中時電子報。
張文貞,2005,〈台灣第二階段憲改的程序思考:從新興民主國家的經驗談起〉,總統府國父紀念月會專題報告,未出版。
陳家剛,2004,《協商民主》,上海:三言書局。
陳敦源,2002,《民主與官僚:新制度論的觀點》,初版。台北市:韋伯文化。
陳東升 等 編審,2005,《審議式民主公民會議—操作手冊》,行政院青年輔導委員會出版。
陳俊宏,1998,〈永續發展與民主:審議式民主理論初探〉,《東吳政治學報》,9:85-122。
陳志瑋,2003,〈政策課責的設計與管理〉,台大政治學研究所博士論文。
陳欽春,2004,〈民主治理與社會資本:公民信任實證研究〉,台北大學公共行政暨政策學系博士論文。
李伯光、林猛譯,2003,《論民主》,初版。台北市:聯經出版事業公司。
李淑珍 譯 Moses I. Finley著,1991,《古典民主原論》,台北:巨流出版。
施能傑 審訂,作者Amy Gutmann & Dennis Thompson ,2006,《why deliberative democracy?》商議式民主。台北市:智勝出版社。
施能傑、謝宗學,2004,〈民主政治與信任:商議民主決策過程之研究〉,2004年台灣政治學會年會。
周文欽,2002,《研究方法—實徵性研究取向》,台北市:心理出版社。
許國賢,2000,〈商議式民主與民主想像〉,《政治科學論叢》,13:61–91。
許立一,2004,〈地方治理與公民參與的實踐:政治後現代性危機的反思與解決〉,《國立政治大學公共行政學報》,10:63–94。
楊 照,2005,《十年後的台灣》,初版。台北市:INK印刻出版有限公司。
楊志彬,2005,〈公民會議品質指標〉,《公民會議種仔工作坊》,未出版。
郭秋永,2001,《當代三大民主理論》,初版。台北市:聯經出版事業公司。
郭宏治,2004,〈公民會議的推手陳東升–它的夢想不在公共電視〉,《新新聞》,919:56–57。
葉保強,2001,〈建立公民參與的科技社會〉,《應用倫理研究通訊》,18:3–4。
葉嘉楠、李長晏,2004,《行政革新與政府再造之落實》,行政院經建會綜合計畫處,未出版,頁12、13。
蔡宏政,2004,〈書評:審議式民主:理性與政治論文集(Deliberative Democracy:Essays on Reasons and Politics),由詹姆斯波曼與威廉萊格所編(edited by James Bohman and William Rehg)〉,《台灣民主季刊》,1(4):175-180。
鄧宗業、吳嘉苓,2004,〈法人論壇—新興民主國家的公民參與模式〉,《台灣民主季刊》,1(4):35-56。
顧爾德,2005,〈變調的審議民主〉,《中國時報》,09/12,A6版。 
雷文玫,2004,〈強化我國健保行政決策公民參與的制度設計—二代健保先驅性公民會議的建議方案〉,《台灣民主季刊》,1(4):57-81。
蔣欣欣、張天韻,2004,〈德國基因檢測公民會議共識報告〉,《應用倫理研究通訊》,31:62-69。
鄭興弟、胡至沛,2002,〈審慎思辯民調在我國運作模式之研究與方法論問題之探討〉,第四屆「調查研究方法與應用」學術研討會。台北市:中央研究院。
賴沅暉,2005,《新興科技發展中的民主與治理》,台北市:韋伯文化國際出版有限公司。
蔡秀美,2005,〈從社區看台灣empowerment社區改造行動---淺談社區「增權展能」〉,《台灣日報》,11/7,12版。
聯合報,2005,〈從核四反應爐吊裝竣工談核能政策走向〉,04/18,A2焦點。
布魯斯•艾克曼、葉俊榮,2005,〈民主修憲,期待全國審議日〉,《中國時報》, 11/22,A15版。
中國時報,2005,〈社區公民會議帶動民主改革〉,08/29,A12版。
世新大學,2005,「稅制改革公民共識會議」計畫書,未出版。

英文部分
Ackerman, B.& Fishkin, J.S. 2004 Deliberation Day. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Adams,B.2004. “Public Meetings and the Democratic Process,”Public Administration Review , 64(1):43-52.
Abelson、Forest、Eyles、Smith、Martin& Gauvin.2003. “Deliberations about Deliberative Methods: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Participation Processes,”Social Science & Medicine, 57:239-251.
Aldred, J. 2002. “It’s Good to Talk: Deliberative Institutions for Environmental Policy,”Philosophy & Geography, 5(2):133-152
Andersen, Ida-Elisabeth & Jager Birgit. 1999.“Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards More Democratic Decision-Making,”Science and Public Policy,26(5)331-340.
Barber, B. R. 2000. A Passion for Democracy : American Essays. N.J. : Princeton University Press.
------------------2003. Strong Democracy : Participatory Politics for A New Age. Berkeley : University of California Press.
Badescu, G.&Uslaner, E. M. 2003. Social Capital and The Transition to Democracy .New York : Routledge.
Baradat,L. P. 1997. Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact. Pretice Hall Inc. , a Simon & Schuster Company.
Bessette, J. M. 1980.“Deliberative Democracy :The Majority Principle in Republican Government,’’ in Goldwin, R. A. & Scham-bra, W. A.(ed.), How Democratic Iis the Constitution? Washington: American Enterprise Institure.pp102-117.
Box, R.C. 1998. Citizen Governance: Leading American Communities into The 21st Century. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Booher, D. E. 2004.“Collaborative Governance Practices and Democracy,”National Civic Review, Winter:32-46
Bohman, J. 1996.Public Deliberation:Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press.
----------& Rehg, W. 1997. Deliberative Democracy :Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press.
Carter, A. &Stokes, G.. 2002. Democratic Theory Today : Challenges for the 21st Century. Cambridge, UK : Polity ; Malden, MA : Blackwell.
Carpini, M.X. Delli, Cook F. Lomax, and Jacobs Lawrence R. 2004. “Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement : A review of The Empirical Literature,”Annual Review of Political Science, 7:315-344.
Chen, D. S. 2005.“The Limitations of Deliberative Democracy: The Case of Citizen Conferences in Taiwan”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, August 29-30, Taipei, Taiwan.
Child, J. 2005. Organization: Contemporary Principles and Practice. USA: Blackwell
Cohen, J. 1997 “Deliberation and Democracy Legitimacy,” in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: MA: The MIT Press.
Cooke, M. 2000. “Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy,” Political Studies, 48:947-969.
Clark, J. D. 2003 .Globalizing Civic Engagement : Civil Society and Transnational Action .London ; Sterling, VA : Earthscan Publications.
Curtin, D. M.1999. “Transparency and Political participation in E.U Governance:A Role for Civil Society?”Cultural Value, 3(4):445-471
Dahl, R.1999. On Democracy. New Haven :Yale University Press.
Denhardt, J.V.&Denhardt, R.B. 2003.The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering .N.Y. : M.E. Sharpe.
Dryzek, J.S.1990.Discursive Democracy : Politics, Policy, and Political Science. New York : Cambridge University Press.
--------------2000.Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford University.
--------------&List, C. 2003.“Social Choice Theory and Deliberative Democracy: A Reconciliation,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol.33:1-28.
Dunn, W. N. 2004 Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Einsiedel, E. F & Eastlick Deborah L. .2000.“Consensus Conferences as Deliberative Democracy:A Communications Perspective. Science Communication, 21(4):323-343.
Elster, J. 1998. Deliberative Democracy. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Eriksen, E. O. 2003. Understanding Habermas : Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy. New York : Continuum.
Fearon, J. D. 1998 “Deliberation as Discussion,” in Jon Elster(eds.) Deliberative Democracy. New York : Cambridge University Press.:44-68.
Frederickson, H. G.. 1997. The Spirit of Public Administration. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Fishkin, J. S. 1991.Democracy and Deliberation : New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press.
--------1995. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. Yale University Press.
--------------&Laslett, P.2003.Debating Deliberative Democracy. Mass. : Blackwell.
------------ &Rosell, S. A. 2004. “Choice Dialogues and Deliberative Polls: Two Approaches to Deliberative Democracy,” National Civic Review, Winter:55-63.
Fischer, F. 2004. Professional Expertise in a Deliberative Democracy: Facilitating Participatory Inquiry. Good Socity, 13(1):21-27.
--------------2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. U. K. London: Oxford.
Fung , A. 2004.“Deliberation’s Darker Side: Six Questions for Iris Marion Young and Jane Mansbridge,”National Civic Review, Winter:47-54.
Gaventa, J. 2004.“Strengthening Participatory Approaches to Local Governance: Learning the Lessons From Abroad,”National Civic Review, Winter:16-27
Gerston, L. N. 2004. Public Policy Making : Process and Principles. N.Y. :M.E. Sharpe.
Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Goodin, R. E. 2003. Reflective Democracy. New York.Oxford University Press.
Grogan, C. M.&Gusmano, M. K. 2005.“Deliberative Democracy in Theory and Practice: Connecticut’s Medicaid Managed Care Council,”State Politics and Policy Quarterly,5(2):126-146.
Halpern, D.2005. Social Capital .U.K:Polity Press
Hajer, M. A. &Wagenaar, H(eds).2003.Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge University Press.
Harwood, R. C. 2004. “Finding the Right Path: Public Agencies and Civic Engagement,” National Civic Review, Winter:74-76
Heierbacher, S.& Gonzalez, Tonya, Feustel Bruce &Booher David E.2004.“Deliberative Democracy Networks: A Resource Guide”.National Civic Review, Winter:64-67.
Hirst, P. & Bader, V. 2001. Associative Democracy : The Real Third Way. OR : Frank Cass.
Henton, D. , Melville, J. . 2004. Civic Revolutionaries : Igniting the Passion for Change in America's Communities .San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Hudspith, R. 2001. “Using a Consensus Conference to Learn about Public Participation in Policymaking in Areas of Technical Controversy,” Political Science and Politics,34(2):313-317.
Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. 2003 “Collaborative Policymaking: Governance Through Dialogue,” in M.A. Hager & A. Wagenner (eds.) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press: 33-59.
Irvin, R. A. &Stansbury, J. 2004.“Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth The Effort?”Public Administration Review. 64(1):55-63.
James, M. R. 2004. Deliberative Democracy and the Plural Polity. Lawrence, KA: Univ. Press of Kansas.
Jong, J. S. 2002. Rethinking Administrative Theory: The Challenge of the New Century.
Kettl, D. F. 2002.The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kim, W. C.& Mauborgne, R .2005 Blue Ocean Strategy : How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Mass. : Harvard Business School Press.
King, C. S. 1998a. Government Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-Government Era. Sage Publications.
King, C. S.& Felrey, K.M. 1998b.“The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration,”Public Administration Review. 58(4):317-326.
Kluver, L. 2005.“Deliberative Democracy in Denmark”,Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, August 29-30, Taipei, Taiwan.
Kin, Myung-Sik. 2002.“Cloning and Deliberation :Korean Consensus”, Developing World Bioethics,2:159–172.
Kobayashi, Tadashi. 2005. “Techno-Democracy and Public Participation: Japanese Experience Since 1990,” Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, August 29-30, Taipei, Taiwan.
Levi-Faur, D.&Vigoda-Gadot, E. 2005.International Public Policy and Management : Policy Learning Beyond Regional, Cultural, and Political Boundaries. Marcel Dekker.
Lovan, W. R., Murray, M.&Shaffer, R. 2004. Participatory Governance : Planning, Conflict Mediation and Public Decision-Making in Civil Society.VT : Ashgate.
Marries, C. & Pierre-Benoit, J. 1999.“Between Consensus and Citizens : Public Participation in Technology Assessment in France,”Science Studies,12(2):3-32.
McCoy, M. L.& Scully, P. L. 2002.“Deliberative Dialogue to Expand Civic Engagement: What Kind of Talk Does Democracy Need?”National Civic Review, 91(2):117-135.
Miller, W. L., Malcolm, D.& Stoker, G.. 2000. Models of Local Governance: Public Opinion and Political Theory in Britain. New York : Palgrave.
Miller, D. 2002. Is Deliberative Democracy Unfair to Disadvantaged Groups?in Maurizio Passerin D’entreves(eds.) Democracy as Public Deliberation:New Perspectives. Manchester University Press.
McLaverty, P. 2002. Public Participation and Innovations in Community Governance. Ashgate Burlington.
Oliver, C. 1992.“The Antecedents of Deinstitutionalization,”Organization Studies,13(4):563-588.
Perri 6, D. Leat, K. Seltzer&Stoker, G. 2002.Towards Holistic Governance:The New Reform Agenda. NY:Palgrave.
Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J. 2000. Governance, Politics, and the State. New York:St. Martin's Press.
----------------------------------1998. Taking Stock: Assessing Public Sector Reforms. McGill-Queen's University Press.
Rehg, W. 2005. Commentary Remarks on “Managing Political Cleavages through Deliberative Democracy in Taiwan”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, August 29-30, Taipei, Taiwan.
Renn, O. ,Webler T., Wiedemann P. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. U.S.: Kluwer Academic.
Roberts, N. 1997.“Public Deliberation: An Alternative Approach to Crafting Policy and Setting Direction”. Public Administration Review, 57(2):124-132
----------------2002.“Keeping Public Officials Accountable Through Dialogue: Resolving the Accountability Paradox,”Public Administration Review, 62(6):658-669.
Rowe, G. & Fewer, L. J. 2000.“Public Participation Methods : A Framework for Evaluation,” Science, Technology,& Human Values,25(1):3-29.
Scott, W. R. 2003. Organization: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Prentice Hall.
Sulkin, T. 2005. Issue Politics in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer. Press.
Smith, G.. 2003. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. New York: Routledge.
Stoker, G. .2004. Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New Lab our. New York: Pal grave Macmillan.
Stokes, S. C. 1998,“Pathologies of Deliberation,”in Elster, Jon(ed.),Deliberative Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.pp123-139.
Surowiecki, J. 2004.The Wisdom of Crowds:Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. New York:Doubleday.
Thomas, J. C. 1995. Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers. Jossey-Bass.
Vig ,N. J. & Paschen, H. 2000. Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York.
Vigoda, E. 2002.“From Responsiveness to Collaboration:Governance, Citizen, and The Next Generation of Public Administration,”Public Administration Review, 62(5):527-540.
Valadez, J. M. 2001.Deliberative Democracy, Political Legitimacy, and Self-Democracy in Multicultural Societies. USA: Westview Press.
Wamsley, G. L.& Wolf, J. F.1996.Refounding Democratic Public Administration : Modern Paradoxes, Postmodern Challenges. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Warren, M. .1999. Democracy and Trust. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Weeks, E. C. 2000“The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: Results from Four Large-Scale Trials,” Public Administration Review, 60(4):360-371.
Weihrich, H. 1982. The SWOT Matrix-A Tool for Situational Analysis. Long Range Planning, 15(2): 60.
Williamson, A. & Fung, A. 2004 “Public Deliberation:Where We Are and Where Can We Go?”National Civic Review, Winter:3-15.
Wolf, G.. 2004. “Oregon Experience Launches Community Solutions Partnership,” National Civic Review, Winter:71-73.
Yankelovich, D. 1999 .The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage.
Zack﹐M. H. 1999. ”Developing a Knowledge Strategy,” California Management Review,41(3):125-145.
網站與網絡資源
丹麥科技委員會http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?page=forside.php3&language=uk
美國洛卡機構 http://www.loka.org/
TSD科技民主與社會http://tsd.social.ntu.edu.tw/
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/34489-
dc.description.abstract公民會議的制度形成,乃緣自於歐美商議式民主的理念,進而演化發展出的一種公眾商議制度。台灣引進該制不久,亦嘗試使用其相關運作模式與理念,辦理爭論性與價值衝突叢生相關的公民會議,但是其中仍出現許多問題,需要去克服與解決。本文主旨乃針對公民會議的理論、核心價值予以深度剖析與分解,再以稅制改革公民會議的實際個案,觀察其辦理與運作的情形,予以檢視與了解實務進行的情形。之後再對公民會議的制度屬性與功能,作一番較為周延的解析,描繪出公民會議的制度樣貌。再歸結公民會議實踐與運作評估的面向為四項,即代表性、程序規範性、可接受性及結果性,以之建構公民會議良善運作的評估面向與標準,可以作為其他商議民主機制運營的參考標竿。此外,首度以SWOT分析的方法,評估公民會議制度在台灣的發展。
嗣經理論研究及個案分析,發現商議式民主對於台灣民主發展有兩大省思:第一,其對於政策形成與制定的啟發;第二,補強民主參與品質失衡的部分。本文最後再提出行政、立法、民間社會三方面的政策建議。首先就行政相關面向有六項:行政院成立跨部會的商議民主推動專責小組整合相關資源,增進國家文官對於商議民主的知能,促成商議民主研究基金會或中心,設置電子化商議溝通平台,定期舉辦相關公民會議與商議民主的種仔培訓營,與強化公民教育。次之就立法面向也有三項建議:本位主義與攬權心態的調整,設立國會通過立法的「科技與政策評估獨立委員會」組織,以運營公民會議與商議式民主機制與模式,及檢視、整合及修正既有相關公眾商議的法規。有關民間社會面向的建議亦有三項:民間社會與政府協力運營商議民主機制的落實,以社區、社群為治理主體,將公民會議與商議民主機制,有效結合切身日常生活的公眾議題,並適切汲取歐美先進國家的商議民主運營經驗。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractAbstract
The institution the citizen consensus conference is originated from the concept of European and American deliberative democracy, and has developed into a type of public deliberation institution. Taiwan has recently adopted this notion and made an attempt to transplant its operation mode and conception to conduct the citizen consensus conference on the aspect controversial and value conflicting issues. Nevertheless, there are lots of problems that still need to be tackled and solved. The study delves into the theory and core value of the consensus conference and observes its handling and operation through the real case study on the citizen consensus conference of national tax reform in an effort to conduct a review and get a comprehensive picture of its integral process. The study also gives us a complete analysis on the institutional attributes and functions of consensus conference and depicts the shapes. The practice and operational evaluation of the citizen consensus conference may be divided into four categories:namely representation, procedural standards, acceptability and outcomes evaluation. According to these four dimensions, the study also aims at constructing a good evaluation system and setting standards which may be employed in other deliberative democracy mechanism as reference to. Moreover, the study initiaties to apply SWOT to evaluate the development of the citizen consensus conference in Taiwan.
The deliberative democracy comprises two major reflections toward the democratic development in Taiwan: first, the enlightenment of policy formation and formulation; second, the strengthening of the unbalanced democratic participation quality. In conclusion, the study provides policy suggestions for administration agency, legislaters and the civil society.
The suggestions for the administrative agency include:
1. Establishment of promoting cross-agency deliberative democracy task force to integrate relevant resources;
2. Enhancement of civil servants’ knowledge in deliberative democracy;
3. Furtherance of deliberative democracy research foundation or center;
4. Establishment of e-communication platform for deliberation;
5. Regular organization of the citizen consensus conference and deliberative democracy training camps or programs;
6. Reinforcement of civil education.
The suggestions for the legislature include:
1. Adjustment of the attitude toward sectionalism and power centralization;
2. Establishment of “Technology and Policy Evaluation Independent Committee” through the legislation of the Congress;
3. Employment of the citizen consensus conference and deliberative democracy mechanism to evaluate, integrate and amend the existing public deliberation laws and regulations.
The suggestions for the civil society include:
1. Cooperation of the civil society and government to accelerate the implementation of deliberative democracy mechanism;
2. Effective combination of the citizen consensus conference and deliberative democracy mechanism with the public daily issues under the principle of putting community and society as the subject of governance;
3. Absorption of the essence of the deliberative democracy operation experiences from developed countries in Europe and America.
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T06:11:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-95-R92322034-1.pdf: 1203511 bytes, checksum: af5e9d98318502566346d2166ac5d353 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2006
en
dc.description.tableofcontents目 錄
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究緣起與研究動機……………………………………………..01
第二節 研究目的與研究範圍……………………………………………..05
第三節 重要概念界定……………………………………………………..09
第四節 研究途徑與研究方法……………………………………………..25
第五節 文獻回顧與分析架構……………………………………………..27
第二章 公民會議的理論基礎………………………………………..43
第一節 民主政治的發展與困境……………………………………………43
壹、 民主政治理論發展與思索……………………………………..43
貳、 現今代議民主的特色與思索…………………………………..48
第二節 民主政治的轉向…………………………………………………..50
—商議民主的建構
壹、 商議式民主的理論內涵與特性………………………………..51
貳、 商議式民主的目的與效應……………………………………..56
參、 商議式民主的論證……………………………………………..58
肆、 商議所潛在病象與政策的價值偏好…………………………..60
伍、 商議式民主的治理內涵………………………………………..66
第三節 商議民主的對話來深化與拓展公民參與………………………..70
壹、 深化與拓展公民參與……………………………………………..70
貳、 美國學習圈計畫的啟示…………………………………………..71

本章小結………………………………………………………………………75
第三章 台灣稅制改革的公民會議………………………………...77
第一節 舉辦公民會議的原因……………………………………………..77
第二節 舉行過程的前、中、後段現象觀察……………………………..79
第三節 對稅制改革公民會議的透視……………………………………..91
本章小結……………………………………………………………………..99
第四章 公民會議的屬性與功能……………………………………101
第一節 公民會議的屬性分析………………………………………………101
第二節 稅改公民會議在台灣運作所呈現的制度屬性……………………109
第三節 公民會議的角色分析………………………………………………114
第四節 公民會議的功能……………………………………………………117
壹、 促成政策形成…………………………………………………117
貳、 強化民主參與深度……………………………………………118
參、 形塑知情公民…………………………………………………119
肆、 運營討論與對話的公共空間…………………………………119
伍、 組織革新與轉化………………………………………………120
陸、 調和民意與精英政治…………………………………………125
本章小結……………………………………………………………………..129
第五章 公民會議之評估……………………………………………133
第一節 評估公民會議的標準…………………………………………….133
壹、 代表性評估(representation)…………………………………...133
貳、 程序性規範評估(procedural rules) ………………………...134
參、 可接受性評估(acceptance)…………………………………....140
肆、 結果性評估(outcomes/decision)………………………………143
第二節 公民會議制定發展之評估………………………………………147
—SWOT分析
壹、制度發展優勢(Strength)…………………………………………148
貳、制度發展劣勢(Weakness)………………………………………..150
參、制度發展機會(Opportunities)……………………………………153
肆、制度發展威脅(Threat)…………………………………………...156
伍、優勢創造SO策略(Strength Opportunities)……………………..157
陸、劣勢改善WO策略(Weakness Opportunities)…………………..159
柒、暫緩推展ST策略(Strength Threat)……………………………..160
捌、劣勢避免WT策略(Weakness Threat)…………………………..162
本章小結……………………………………………………………………165
第六章 結論…………………………………………………………167
第一節 本文特色…………………………………………………………167
第二節 商議民主對於台灣民主發展的省思……………………………168
第三節 政策建議…………………………………………………………171
第四節 後續研究建議……………………………………………………176
參考書目………………………………………………………………179
附錄:台灣公民會議辦理大事紀……………………………………191
圖表目次
圖次:
圖1-3-1:公民會議實施的步驟與階段……………………………….......................15
圖1-3-2:丹麥科技委員會組織關係圖……………………………….......................20
圖1-5-1: 研究架構…………………………………………………….....................39
圖1-5-2:研究流程…………………………………………………….....................40
圖2-1-1:民主系統的三個面向……………………………………….....................47
圖2-2-1:商議式民主的動態圖……………………………………….....................51
圖2-2-2:策略商議與公平機制安排………………………………….....................54
圖2-2-3:商議病象之一…………………………………………………………….61
圖2-2-4:商議病象之二……………………………………………….....................62
圖2-2-5:商議病象之三…………………………………………………………….63
圖2-2-6:商議病象之四……………………………………………….....................64
圖2-2-7:商議病象之五…………………………………………………………….65
圖3-2-1:稅制改革公民共識會議實施的步驟與階段…………………………….80
圖3-2-2:稅制改革公民會議公民小組教育背景………………………………….83
圖4-1-1:多元而互賴的參與者進行真誠對話的網絡動態……………………...104
圖4-1-2:公民會議的制度屬性………………………………………...................109
圖4-4-1:轉化與革新公共組織慣性……………………………………………...125
圖4-5-1:公民會議的功用…………………………………………………………131
圖5-2-1:SWOT分析矩陣………………………………………………….............148
圖5-2-2:台灣公民會議發展策略之SWOT分析矩陣………………………….164
表次:
表1-3-1:日本舉行的公民會議………………………………………......................23
表1-5-1:國內對於公民會議、商議式民主的相關研究………………………….31
表2-3-1:學習圈計畫所造成的行動與變遷面……………………………………..74
表3-2-1:稅制改革公民會議公民小組性別……………………………………….83
表3-2-2:稅制改革公民會議公民小組職業背景………………………………….84
表3-2-3:稅制改革公民會議公民小組居住區域………………………………….85
表3-3-1:稅制改革公民會議共識與委託主事者的對應……………………….....97
表4-2-1:稅改公民會議所呈現的制度屬性……………………………………...113
表5-1-1:設計與評估商議與公民參與的原則……………………………………139
表5-1-2:對全民健保的一般態度之變遷………………………………………...145
表5-1-3:特定政策偏好之變遷……………………………………………………146
表5-1-4:價值(社會連帶感)之變遷……………………………………………….146
表5-2-1:稅改公民會議教育程度發言次數的比率情形………………………….152
dc.language.isozh-TW
dc.title公民會議在台灣的運作與評估zh_TW
dc.titleThe Operation and Analysis on The Citizen Concensus Conference in Taiwanen
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear94-2
dc.description.degree碩士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee施能傑,黃東益,黃榮護
dc.subject.keyword公民會議,商議式民主(審議式民主),民主治理,公民參與,學習圈,深化民主,公民社會,制度評估,史瓦特分析,稅制改革公民會議,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordcitizen consensus conference,deliberative democracy,democratic governance,citizen participation,policy deliberation,study circle,deep democracy,civic society,institutional evaluation,SWOT analysis,Citizen Consensus Conference of National Tax Reform,en
dc.relation.page192
dc.rights.note有償授權
dc.date.accepted2006-03-27
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-95-1.pdf
  目前未授權公開取用
1.18 MBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


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。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved