直轄市區級空間治理之研究

Abstract

臺灣地方體制承襲中國既有的地方設計框架，在民主化之後，經由修憲確立一省二市體制，但因省與中央政府的治權幾乎重疊，以及政府層級眾多引起的行政效率不彰，於是透過精省重構地方政府體制。精省之後，直轄市與縣(市)在資源分配上分別適用不同的分配方式，長期呈現直轄市優於縣市發展的現象，故而爭取改制直轄市成為追求地方發展的重要途徑。2010年縣市改制直轄市開啟新的地方自治時代，直轄市空間因而擴大，隨著直轄市空間擴大，區級空間呈現多元差異類型，區長的問責制度發生改變，區級空間治理議題值得進一步研究。 本研究將2010年臺灣直轄市改制後的區級空間型態分成城市型區、鄉村型區以及原住民區等三種類型。城市型區是區級治理的原型，其概念乃是都市化過程中為求行政便利性而設，因此，區公所成為局處的附屬機關，區長變成官派，同時也因為行政效率的考量而以單一標準作為區公所課、室設置的準則，上述制度安排全是企圖便於直轄市統籌管理轄下城市型區。現行鄉村型區則是從過去農漁村鄉鎮轉軌過來，至今則具一定程度有派系與宗族的社會資本連結，然而因為被迫比照城市型區改制後，首長改為官派，資源配置誘因扭曲，而使其回應在地農漁社會功能逐漸弱化，恐怕會有逐漸形成明顯的直轄市都市中心與農漁鄉村型區邊陲之空間關係之隱憂。至於原住民區在改制前，乃是族群與政治意義結合的行政空間，此種型態的區公所課、室組織在改制後,也因為被迫強行比照城市型區制度安排，無法因地制宜導致運作困難；其地方財政因改納入直轄市，喪失如同過去向中央原住民部會直接申請補助之機會，財政缺口反而有逐漸擴大的趨勢。 現今直轄市呈現多元區級空間，但卻適用單一體制的區級架構。雖然原住民區即將於2014年改為首長民選，仍難以反映其異質的空間屬性。本研究建議應建立多元化的空間發展意識，明確定位區級組織並規劃局處與區間的權責分工，同時建立具有空間回應能力之區級組織，以提升直轄市區級空間的治理品質。

Taiwan’s local government system derives from China’s local government system. After democratization, “one province, two centrally administered municipalities” were set up by constitutional amendment. Howerever, there is almost overlapping between province and nation and administrative inefficiency due to excess administrative tiers. Therefore, province system were downsized, reorganizing local government system. After downsizing province system, there are different resource allocation between centrally administered municipalities and counties and centrally administered municipalities are vastly superior to counties. With the result, it becomes an approach that counties or cities plan actively to upgrade themselves to centrally administered municipalities. Counties and cities reorganized to centrally administered municipalities by consolidation in 2010, unveiling a new era of Taiwan’s local self-government. After that, there are multiple district-level spaces in enlarged centrally administered municipalities, changing the accountabilities of director in district. For this reason, it is worth further studying concerning district-level space governance. Three types of district space are divided in the thesis, including urban-type, rural-type and indigenous district. Firstly, urban-type districts are original types of district-level governance and are set up for administrative governing easily, and district offices become subsidiary bodies of bureaus of municipalities. Even units of district office were set up according to unitary regulation for administrative efficiency and overall arrangement of centrally administered municipalities. Secondly, rural-type districts stem from rural or fishing villages. There are more stronger bonding of social capital of factions and clans in rural-type district than in urban-type district. After consolidation city with county, rural-type districts are forced to imitate urban-type districts, appointed director and distorted incentives lead to weakened democratic responding functions in rural-type district. Therefore, noticeable center-periphery space relations will gradually appear. Thirdly, indigenous districts are an administrative space connecting racial and political meaning. The units of indigenous district office are also forced to imitate urban-type districts. That can’t take actions to suit local special conditions. After fiscal systems of indigenous districts become a part of centrally administered municipalities, indigenous districts lost subsidies from indigenous ministry. That gradually leads to greater fiscal gaps of indigenous districts. Nowadays, it is a drawback for centrally administered municipalities that a unitary system applies to multiple spaces of districts. Directors of indigenous districts will be elected in 2014, but it is difficult to reflect heterogeneous space in centrally administered municipalities. There are some suggestions as follow. Firstly, it is necessary to set up cognition of multiple special developments. Secondly, it is also important to position district organizations and properly divide the work between bureaus and district offices. Thirdly, district organizations with special-responding capacities should be built up to improve the quality of district-level governance.