以系統治理處理雲林封井問題的視框衝突

Abstract

當代政府正面臨風險社會的轉型挑戰，荊棘難理（wicked）的政策衝突與複合式危機一再出現，考驗政府的治理能力。重大的政策爭議涉及行動者與利害關係人的視框衝突，但政府卻經常未能有效突破視框衝突（frame conflict）。或囿於透視角度過於狹隘，或未能深刻理解視框反省（frame reflection）的重要性，使得政府的治理能力與其驅動互動治理的能力乃成為化解衝突的重要關鍵。而系統治理（metagovernance）作為國外正方興未艾發展的新興研究途徑，導入了權變基礎，靈活運用不同治理模式的優勢，以引領治理結構的變遷，成為政府解決衝突的創新思維。 本研究欲探討的問題乃為：（1）視框衝突處於複雜的治理網絡（governance networks）中，對於突破衝突所展現的特性與重要性；（2）系統治理係為當代新興的研究途徑，對於視框衝突導致的嚴重政策衝突，能夠給予政府何種啟發；（3）系統治理的四大治理工具：網絡設計、網絡建構、網絡管理與網絡參與，如何促進治理網絡的效能與民主，並處理視框衝突。 針對上述問題意識，本研究以系統治理的四大治理工具為基礎，透過對國外系統治理研究的探討與整理，配合我國本土系絡背景，以雲林封井政策為研究個案，對系統治理致力於化解衝突、驅動互動治理、成就治理網絡的效能與民主進行研究。於分析雲林封井問題的視框衝突後，本研究係以系統治理的四大治理工具，逐一發展其核心內涵與具體作為，並配合選定個案進行應用分析。 研究發現，視框衝突係為雲林封井個案中的政策衝突核心。而政府在政策的發展過程中，應用不同的治理工具，有助於建構、穩定以封井議題為核心的治理網絡，啟動了互動治理能量，連結多元行動者聚焦於議題發展與問題解決上。不過，雖然治理網絡追求效能的結果逐漸顯現，民主程度並未有太多提升。利害關係人與受政策影響的公民並沒有充分的管道影響決策過程。 儘管封井衝突在政策計畫核定後逐漸平息，自2012年開始，仍不時出現政策相關爭議。本研究乃認為，未來不論針對淺水井進行封填行動，抑或修改政策方案，仍可能導致衝突發生。屆時，政府如何運用系統治理的權變觀念，啟動治理結構變遷，將持續成為重要關鍵。 最後，本研究指出治理者運用系統治理工具處理嚴重視框衝突的可行行動建議。研究者並可注意系統治理途徑於其他重要議題的研究潛力。

Nowadays governments are facing the challenges of the transformation of risk society, examining governments’ capacities to deal with wicked problems. The major factor of policy dispute is the frame conflicts among the actors and stakeholders. However, the government are often failed to solve frame conflicts effectively. It may be confined to the limited view of government, or scanty of understanding the importance of frame reflection, reducing the ability of the governance capacity. Thus, triggering interactive governance is the key to resolve conflicts. Recently, foreign researchers have paid much more attention to ‘metagovernance’, which introduces a contingency basis, using the advantages of different modes of governance to guide the transformation of governance structure. This concept becomes the innovative thinking of the government to solve conflicts.

This study attempts to analyze: (1) as frame conflict in complex governance networks, what the characteristics and importance of metagovernance for addressing conflicts are ; (2) as metagovernance becomes a newer approach, what are the inspirations they can give to the governments while facing serious policy conflicts; (3) how do the four tools of metagovernance: network design, network framing, network management and network participation, can enhance the effectivity and democracy of governance networks and deal with frame conflicts. In order to answer the questions above, this study bases on the four metagovernance tools, opens the discussion of metagovernance derived from foreign researches. Choosing YunLin Sealing Wells policy as the case, this study tries to apply the new approach in the context of Taiwan. The aim of the study is to see how can metagocernance help to resolve conflicts, drive interactive governance, and contribute to the effectivity and democracy in Taiwan. Analyzing the frame conflicts of YunLin Sealing Wells, this study develops the crucial meaning and feasible action of the four tools, and applies to the chosen case. The study found that the frame conflict of YunLin Sealing Wells is the core reason of policy conflicts. In the policy process of this case, the government used different tools to help constructing and stabling governance networks around the issue. The four tools drove the energy of interactive governance and connected multiple actors focus on the issue and problem solving. However, while the effectivity of governance was more achieved, the degree of democracy did not get much promotion. Stakeholders and citizens affected by the policy did not have appropriate ways to influence decision-making process. Despite the conflicts of YunLin Sealing Wells temporarily subsided after the policy was approved, since 2012, policy-related dispute gradually emerged again. Whether to seal shallow wells or to modify the policy options may still lead to conflicts. Then, how to use the contingency feature of metagovernance will be the key to good governance. Finally, the study pointed out some feasible actions which governors can take while facing serious frame conflicts. Also, researchers can note that the metagovernance approach has the research potential to apply of other important issues.