我國國防預算層級體系之研究

Abstract

預算層級分類是協助行政體系取得與運用資源，以及達成施政目標之重要財政機制；因此，適切之預算層級體系關乎國防部門預算管理良窳至鉅。然現行國防預算採「國防部本部」及「國防部所屬」二個單位預算之層級分類方式，屢遭立法院及審計部質疑，並要求作進一步層級區分，以提昇審計與監督之效能。此外，國防部於民國91年，實施國防二法後，國防組織由軍政、軍令體制，調整為「軍政」、「軍令」、「軍備」一元化，國防組織運作已做相當幅度之調整，預算層級分類亦有通盤檢討之必要，因此乃引發本研究之動機。 為了分析此高度複雜性議題，本研究首先依據文獻整理與專家訪談，彙整出「適法性」、「工作負荷」、「管理效率」與「審監效能」四個主要分析構面，進而採取二階段方式探討此議題。第一階段以質化法，分析設置多個單位預算或分預算(候選方案)對「適法性」、「工作負荷」、「管理效率」與「審監效能」等構面之影響。研究結果指出：在現行法律架構下，預算層級分類有相當程度之彈性；在候選方案評估指標上，作業負荷面主要應考量「工作負荷量」及「作業複雜度」；管理效率面應考量「預算彈性」、「任務達成」、「組織運作效率」及「預算自主性」；審監效能面應考量「監督程度」、「審核作業」及「部會一致性」指標。 本研究進一步依據上述指標設計問卷，作第二階段「方案適切性」專家意見調查，研究結果指出：(1)在三個面向中，作業負荷面與管理效率面調查結果趨於一致，然此二構面與審監面迥異，此結果顯示「審監」與「行政管理」面具有對立之看法；(2)在假定各構面具相同權重下，方案一「一個單位預算，不設分預算」為最佳方案，而方案六「七個單位預算，設五個分預算」最劣。另外，本研究亦提出具體之建議與配套措施，供相關政策單位研擬預算層級之參考。

Budgetary hierarchical classification, a fundamental mechanism of fiscal system, is designed to help agencies acquire and use resources in order to fulfill their policy objectives. While the design is crucial to the performance of defense budget management, however, the present defense regime which employs a two-track system in hierarchical design, Headquarters of Ministry of National Defense and Subordinates of Ministry of National Defense, is criticized by the Legislative Yuan and Ministry of Audit, demanding further hierarchical categorization to enhance their functions in auditing and supervision. The demand for modification on current system becomes urgent while considering the passage of the National defense law and the Organic Law of the Ministry of National Defense（normally called as Two Laws of National Defense）in 2002 and the following drastic transformation in defense organization. This study is motivated to meet the urge. According to literature review and discussion with practitioners, four research dimensions for advanced study are proposed: Legitimacy, Workload, Management Efficiency, and Auditing-and-Checking Capacity. To further conduct such complicated issue, the whole project is broken down into two stages. The first stage focuses on qualitative analysis which evaluates the options and their impact in terms of the four dimensions－for multiple Agency Budgets or Divisions of Agency Budgets (alternative options). The findings indicate that the hierarchical system of defense budget exercises considerable flexibility under the current legal system. For option evaluation and selection, some more indicators should be included. For example, Workload dimension should include “budget flexibility,” “mission accomplished,” “organizational operational efficiency,” and “budget sovereignty.” For Auditing-and-Checking Capacity dimension, the indicators, “auditing-and-checking degree,” “auditing process,” and “consistency among ministries” should be contained. In order to examine the appropriateness of the options, this research at the second stage conducts a questionnaire survey based on the indicators found at the first stage, and major conclusions are reached as follows. First, among the dimensions exclusive of Legitimacy, Workload and Management Efficiency derive similar outcomes while differs with Auditing-and-Checking Capacity. Such conflicting results imply the inconsistent opinions between auditing-and-checking and administrative management units. Second, assigning equal weights to different dimensions, Option 1, one unitary budget with no divisions of agency budgets, is the most preferred and Option 6, seven unitary budgets with five divisions of agency budgets, is the least desirable. Finally, solid policy recommendations and accompanying measures are summarized and recommended for policy consideration.