跨域治理理論之比較分析－－以兩個個案為例

Abstract

現今社會事務日趨複雜，單純以地理轄區來劃分管理不太足以處理特定議題，因此跨域治理的相關議題益受重視。本研究探討大台北地區自來水案例與污水案例兩個領域的管理與合作過程。本研究有以下兩個研究目的：一個為案例之比較，亦即比較自來水案例與污水案例之異同；另一個則是理論之比較，也就是比較脈絡、內容與過程架構（Context, Content, and Process Framework; CCP Framework）與五項常見的跨域治理理論，即社會網絡理論、制度理論、利害關係人理論、資源依賴理論、以及交易成本理論。 在自來水案例中，分析結果顯示，起因為經濟部水利署因應桃園地區與板新地區的用水需求成長，因此制定水資源調度之板新計畫。進而影響北水處與台水公司的關係結構，並且，由於兩者的參與誘因、合作意願與互賴認知皆不高，導致兩者在最為關鍵的清水買賣之價格與數量議題上意見頗為分歧。 在污水案例中，分析結果顯示，起因為內政部營建署為改善大台北地區的環境衛生以及防治河川污染，規劃淡水河系污水下水道系統一併處理台北市、新北市與基隆市的污水，而後透過兩號行政院公共建設督導會報會議裁示、以及與該系統營運管理委員會相關的兩號要點，奠定台北市政府代為管理該系統之地位。而台北市衛工處是否移交八里污水處理廠給新北市水利局接管之議題，是兩者關係的重要因素。此外，由於可透過營管會居中協調，台北市與新北市互動良好，雖然因為兩者的本身條件與能力不同，但是皆有參與誘因且互賴認知程度很高。 第二個研究目的是進行理論之比較，研究結果發現，CCP架構更具有包容性。CCP架構的外部脈絡因素是遠因，制度脈絡因素是基礎，而跨組織脈絡因素和組織脈絡因素則是事態發展的近因。CCP架構不僅涵蓋以上五項理論之內涵，又能補強應用單一理論解釋案例不足之處，因此CCP架構確實比理論為一個較佳分析架構。 最後，透過上述兩種比較分析的結果，期望能夠對於跨域治理理論與具體案例之討論有所助益。

Nowadays social affairs tend to be more complicated than the past; thus, it would not be enough to deal with some issues by classifing jurisdictional districts based on geographic areas. As a result, cross-boundary governance issues not only become more and more popular but also arouse highly attention from the public. This thesis basically explores the process of management and collaboration from the following two cases, one is Pan-Hsin Area Water Supply Improvement Plan and the other is Bali Sewage Treatment Plant, which both located in the Taipei Metropolitan area. This thesis mainly includes two purposes: one is the comparison of two cases, and the other is the comparison of Context, Content, and Process Framework (CCP Framework) and five cross-boundary governance theories, that is, Social Network Theory, Institutional Theory, Stakeholder Theory, Resource Dependence Theory and Transactional Cost Theory. Observing from the analyzed result in the tap water case, owing to the growth of water demand in Taoyuan area and Pan-Hsin area, Water Resources Agency Ministry of Economic Affairs establishes Pan-Hsin Area Water Supply Improvement Plan. Moreover, the relationship of Taipei Water Department and Taiwan Water Corporation is affected by this consequence. Besides, incentives, attitude and interdependent recognition of the cooperated project are obviously unable to reach a consensus resulting that Taipei Water Department and Taiwan Water Corporation are on the diverse side of the price and quantity of the water dealings issue. In the sewage case, in order to improve environmental sanitation and prevent river pollution in the Taipei Metropolitan area, Construction and Planning Agency Ministry of the Interior designs the Danshui River Sewage Piping System to manage the sewage of Taipei City, New Taipei City and Keelung City. After that, through two Executive Yuan Public Construction Superintend Meetings, Taipei City Government becomes the substitute authority of the system. Thus, whether Taipei City Government Public Works Department Sewage Systems Office transfers Bali Sewage Treatment Plant to New Taipei City Government Water Resources Department or not will be a crucial issue. Indeed, the relationship of Taipei City and New Taipei City keeps very well through the assistance of the Danshui River Sewage Piping System Operation and Management Committee. Although Taipei City and New Taipei City have different conditions and abilities, their recognition and perceived level of interdependency is very high. The second research purpose is the comparison of theories, and the result shows that CCP Framework can include other cross-boundary governance theories. The external context is the remote cause, the institutional context is the base, and the interorganizational collaboration context and the organizational context are the occasions. CCP Framework not only contains five cross-boundary governance theories’ content, but also reinforces the shortcomings of the explanation of single theory; thus, CCP Framework is probably a better analytic framework than other cross-boundary governance theories. Last of all, through the results of the two comparisons, the final goal of the thesis is hope to offer referable value of cross-boundary governance theories and the specific cases.