Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73512Full metadata record
| ???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 洪美仁(Mei-Jen Hung) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yan Hu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 胡艷 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T07:39:12Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2020-03-08 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2019-03-08 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2019-03-03 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 壹、 中文部分
內政部警政署，2017，〈警察機關將嚴謹審查民眾檢舉交通違規〉，內政部警 政署全球資訊網，https://www.pbs.gov.tw/cht/index.php?code=list&flag=detail&ids=46&article_id=10449，最後檢索日期：2018/3/25，。 王錦程，1993，《交通違規執法裁量行為之研究》，桃園：國立中央警察大學警 政研究所碩士論文。 朱道凱譯，2007，《政策弔詭－政治決策的藝術》，台北：群學。譯自Deborah Stone. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton. 2002. 吳春絲，2006，《影響交通違規舉發公平知覺因素之探討--以新竹市為例》，新竹：國立交通大學管理學院碩士在職專班管理科學組碩士論文。 宋宗哲，2013，《行車影像紀錄器應用於交通安全管理之研究》，桃園：國立中央警察大學交通管理研究所碩士論文。 李湧清，1990，〈簡論警察裁量權〉，《警學叢刊》，21(2): 47-51。 李銳、田曉明、凌文輇，2015，〈管理開放性和上下屬關係對員工親社會性規 違背的影響機制〉，《系統工程理論與實踐》，35(2): 342-357。 汪子錫，2015，《台灣民主警政的媒體再現研究》。台北：獨立作家。 林家賢，2007，《司法對交通秩序罰審查問題之研究—以普通法院交通法庭審查 為中心》，嘉義：國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 林淑馨，2010，《質化研究：理論與實務》，高雄：巨流。 邱毓玫，2007，《基層官僚政策執行裁量行為之研究－以基層員警執行交通違規 舉發為例》，台北：國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系研究所碩士論文。 袁志豪，2017，「法官：不能有人檢舉違規就開罰」，好房網，https://news.housefun.com.tw/news/article/200889173272.html，最後檢索日期 ：2018/3/25。 高鎮文，2004，《警察行政行為之探討－以舉發交通違規寬容值為例》，台北： 私立中國文化大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 張志鵬、王宏文、蔡逸敬，2017，〈從垂直課責到水平課責: 以獨立性探討部長 電子信箱之執行困境〉，《文官制度季刊》，9(1)：95-128。 張瑞，2015，《授權型領導對員工親社會性違規行為的影響機制研究》，廈門：廈門大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。 梅可望，1969，《警察學原理》，台北：中央警官學校。 畢恆達，2010，《教授為什麼沒告訴我》，新北市：小畢空間出版社。 陳世寬，1992，〈警察裁量權的運用與控制〉，《警專學報》，5: 17-40。 陳家福，1989，《台北市交通違規行為分析與執法策略之研究》，桃園：國立中央警察大學警政研究所碩士論文。 曾平毅、張瓊文、李素娟，2008，〈國道公路警察之工作壓力來源分析〉，「97年道路交通安全與執法研討會論文」（10月），桃園：中央警察大學。 黃建安，2003，《交通違規罰則有效性與執法行為之影響因素探討研究－以北部 地區為例》，新竹：國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系研究所碩士論文。 黃家齊譯，2011，《組織行為學》，台北：華泰。譯自Steven P. Robbins. and Timothy A Judge. Organizational Behavior (13th ed.) Pearson Education. 2009。 楊日青、李培元、林文斌、劉兆隆譯，2009，《Heywood’s政治學新論》，台北：韋伯。譯自Andrew Heywood. Politics (3rd ed.) Palgrave Macmillan. 2007. 廖建棠，2006，《我國基層警察巡邏勤務裁量行為之研究》，桃園：國立中央警 察大學行政警察研究所碩士論文。 監察院，2017，〈調查報告〉，監察院全球資訊網，https://www.cy.gov.tw/sp.asp?xdURL=./di/RSS/detail.asp&ctNode=871&mp=1&no=6022，最後檢索日期：2018/12/25。 翟海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞，2010，《社會及行為科學研究法（二）：質性研究法》，臺北：臺灣東華。 劉建宏，2013，〈行政爭訟證明度之研究－－交通裁決事件訴訟程序中法院裁判 證明度問題之檢討〉，《中原財經法學》，31: 133-189。 劉鶴群、林秀雲、陳麗欣、胡正申、黃韻如譯，2010，《社會科學研究方法》，台北：新加坡商聖智學習。譯自Earl Babbie. The Practice of Social Research(12th ed.) Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage. 2010. 蔡中志、林鼎泰，2014，〈運用錄影監視器輔助取締交通違規之研究〉，「103年道 路交通安全與執法研討會論文」（9月25日），桃園：中央警察大學。 蔡旼珊，2012，《嘉義市警察人格特質對其交通違規執法裁量行為之影響》，台中：國立中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所碩士論文。 戴元利，2017，「民眾檢舉浮濫？連續開罰 警政署暫喊卡」，TVBS新聞網， https://news.tvbs.com.tw/fun/773604，最後檢索日期 ：2018/3/28。 謝志忠，2008，《我國道路交通違規處罰及爭訟制度之研究》，桃園：國立中央 警察大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 藍應華，1998，《論交通裁罰之行政裁量》，桃園：國立中央警察大學行政警察 研究所碩士論文。 貳、 英文部份 Bing, J. 1990. Three Generations of Computerized Systems for Public Administration and Some Implications for Legal Decision‐Making. Ratio Juris, 3(2), 219-236. Borry, E. L. 2011. “Ethical Climate in The Public Sector: Its Influence On Rule Bending.” Paper presented in The Public Management Research Conference, Maxwell School, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Borry, E. L. 2013. Rule Bending and Red Tape: Organizational and Individual Influences and The Effect of Ethical Climate. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas. Borry, E. L. 2017. “Ethical Climate and Rule Bending: How Organizational Norms Contribute to Unintended Rule Consequences.” Public Administration, 95(1), 78-96. Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. 2002. From Street‐Level to System‐Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174-184. Bozeman, B. 1993. “A Theory of Government “Red Tape”.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273-304. Brewer, G. A. & Walker, R. M. 2010. “Explaining Variation in Perceptions of Red Tape: A Professionalism‐Marketization Model.” Public Administration, 88(2), 418-438. Brodkin, E. Z. 2012. Reflections on Street‐level Bureaucracy: Past, Present, and Future. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 940-949. Buffat, A. 2015. Street-level Bureaucracy and E-government. Public Management Review, 17(1), 149-161. Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (Eds.). 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. Oxford University Press. Campbell, D. 2012. “Public Managers in Integrated Services Collaboratives: What Works Is Workarounds.” Public Administration Review, 72(5), 721-730. Canales, R. 2011. “Rule Bending, Sociological Citizenship, and Organizational Contestation in Microfinance.” Regulation & Governance, 5(1), 90-117. Dahling, J. J., Chau, S. L., Mayer, D. M. & Gregory, J. B. 2012. “Breaking Rules for The Right Reasons? An Investigation of Pro‐Social Rule Breaking.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 21-42. Dehart‐Davis, L. 2007. “The Unbureaucratic Personality.” Public Administration Review, 67(5), 892-903. Dehart‐Davis, L. 2009. “Green Tape and Public Employee Rule Abidance: Why Organizational Rule Attributes Matter.” Public Administration Review, 69(5), 901-910. Evans, T. 2012. Organisational Rules and Discretion in Adult Social Work. British Journal of Social Work, 43(4), 739-758. Evans, T. & Harris, J. 2004. “Street-Level Bureaucracy, Social Work and The (Exaggerated) Death of Discretion.” British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871-895. Fleming, C. 2016. Public Employees and Workplace Rules: Determinants of The Pro-Social and Destructive Rule Breaking of Street-Level Bureaucrats. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Public Administration, North Carolina State University. Hannah, D. R. & Robertson, K. 2015. “Why and How Do Employees Break and Bend Confidential Information Protection Rules?” Journal of Management Studies, 52(3), 381-413. Hansen, H. T., Lundberg, K., & Syltevik, L. J. 2018. Digitalization, Street‐Level Bureaucracy and Welfare Users' Experiences. Social Policy & Administration, 52(1), 67-90. Harrison, J. A. 2015. The Things I Will Do for You: Investigating Gratitude's Effects on Prosocial Rule Breaking Willingness in Supervisor-Subordinate Relationships. Doctoral Dissertation, York University, Toronto. Herbert, S. 2001. From Spy to Okay Guy: Trust and Validity in Fieldwork with The Police. Geographical Review, 91(1‐2), 304-310. Huang, Y., Lu, X. & Wang, X. 2014. “The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Employee's Pro-Social Rule Breaking.” Canadian Social Science, 10(1), 128-134. Hupe, P. 2013. “Dimensions of Discretion: Specifying The Object of Street-level Bureaucracy Research.” der moderne staat–dms: Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 6(2), 425-440. Jansson, G., & Erlingsson, G. Ó. 2014. More e-Government, Less street-level Bureaucracy? On Legitimacy and The Human Side of Public Administration. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(3), 291-308. Johnson, R. R. 2011. Officer Attitudes and Management Influences on Police Work Productivity. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(4), 293-306. Jorna, F., & Wagenaar, P. 2007. The ‘Iron Cage’ StrengThened? Discretion and Digital Discipline. Public Administration, 85(1), 189-214. Keiser, L. R. 2010. Understanding Sreet‐level Bureaucrats' Decision Making: Determining Eligibility in The Social Security Disability Program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247-257. Kirchhoff, J., & Karlsson, J. (2009). Rationales for Breaking Management Rules—The Case of Health Care Workers. Journal of Workplace Rights, 14(4), 457. Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of The Individual in Public Service. NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Maynard-Moody, S. W. & Musheno, M. C. 2003. Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from The Front Lines of Public Service. University of Michigan Press. Mintzberg, H. 1979. The Structuring of Organization: A SynThesis of The Research. Prentice-Hall. Morrison, E. W. 2006. “Doing The Job Well: An Investigation of Pro-Social Rule Breaking.” Journal of Management, 32(1), 5-28. Oberfield, Z. W. 2009. “Rule Following and Discretion at Government's Frontlines: Continuity and Change during Organization Socialization.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 735-755. Portillo, S. & Dehart‐Davis, L. 2009. “Gender and Organizational Rule Abidance.” Public Administration Review, 69(2), 339-347. Portillo, S. 2012. “The Paradox of Rules: Rules as Resources and Constraints.” Administration & Society, 44(1), 87-108. Portillo, S., & Rudes, D. S. 2014. Construction of Justice at The Street Level. Annuassl Review of Law and Social Science, 10, 321-334. Reddick, C. G. 2005. Citizen Interaction with E-government: From The streets to Servers?. Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 38-57. Røhnebæk, M. 2014, Standardized Flexibility. On The Role of ICT in The Norwegian Employment and Welfare Services (NAV), Unpublished doctoral Thesis, University of Oslo. Schafer, J. A., & Mastrofski, S. D. 2005. Police Leniency in Traffic Enforcement Encounters: Exploratory Findings from Observations and Interviews. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(3), 225-238. Sekerka, L. E. & Zolin, R. 2007. “Rule-Bending: Can Prudential Judgment Affect Rule Compliance and Values in The Workplace?” Public Integrity, 9(3), 225-243. Tummers, L. L., Bekkers, V., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. 2015. Coping during Public Service Delivery: A Conceptualization and Systematic Review of The literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099 -1126. Van De Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L. & Koenig Jr, R. 1976. “Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations.” American Sociological Review, 322-338. Veiga, J. F., Golden, T. D. & Dechant, K. 2004. “Why Managers Bend Company Rules.” The Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 84-90. Walsh, J. & Dewar, R. 1987. “Formalization and The Organizational Life Cycle.” Journal of Management Studies, 24(3), 215–231. Wastell, D., White, S., Broadhurst, K., Peckover, S., & Pithouse, A. 2010. Children's Services in The Iron Cage of Performance Management: Street‐level Bureaucracy and The Spectre of Švejkism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(3), 310-320. Weichbrodt, J. & Grote, G. 2010. “Rules and Routines in Organizations: A Review and Extension.” In Fourth International Conference on Organizational Routines. Nice/France, 1-35. Welch, E. W. & Pandey, S. K. 2007. “E-Government and Bureaucracy: Toward A Better Understanding of Intranet Implementation and Its Effect on Red Tape.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3): 379-404. Wenger, J. B., & Wilkins, V. M. 2008. At The Discretion of Rogue Agents: How Automation Improves Women's Outcomes in Unemployment Insurance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 313-333. Wilson, J. Q. 1970. Varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of Law and Order in Eight Communities. New York: Atheneum. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73512 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在有關基層員警對交通違規案件的執法行為探討上，過去文獻多集中在「當場舉發」的行為情狀研究上，尚無對因「民眾檢舉」而起之檢舉舉發進行探究；面對越來越普遍的網路線上交通違規檢舉，本研究對系統審核案件的裁量權運用狀況進行探究。透過深度訪談兩個新北市警察分局在此項勤務上的監督上級與審核基層，本研究發現，高額罰鍰、法院撤銷判決、事證資料的限制、檢舉人自我揭露不完全等因素讓系統審核警察的裁量行為傾向保守；此外，若干與違規情狀無關的因素讓系統審核警察之間存在著裁量差異。最後本研究根據訪談結果提出可以降低審核警察勤務負擔、提升用法一致性的政策建議，以及未來研究應持續關注的研究方向。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | In the discussion on the law enforcement behaviors of the front-line police officers in dealing with traffic violations, the past works of literature have mostly focused on the behavioral analysis of ' on spot sanction ', no research in Taiwan is about the traffic enforcement caused by the 'people's report'. With more and more online traffic violation reports, this study explores the use of discretion of police officers in system audit cases.
By in-depth interviews aimed at the supervisors and police officers who undertake in two administrative districts of New Taipei City, this study discovers that the huge amount of fines, the court's withdrawal of administrative penalty, the limitations of the evidence, and the incomplete disclosure of the informants made the discretionary behavior of the police tends to be conservative; in addition, police officers have discretionary differences due to a number of factors that are unrelated to the violation. Based on the interview results, this study proposes policy recommendations that can reduce the burden of police duties, improve law enforcement consistency, as well as directions for future research that should be continuously focused on. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T07:39:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R04343002-1.pdf: 3530195 bytes, checksum: f3215112d12992113bbf9c04cf0ca5b5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 i
謝辭 ii 中文摘要 iii 英文摘要 iv 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景及動機 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 4 第三節 章節安排 5 第二章 文獻回顧 7 第一節 基層官僚理論：從過去到未來 7 第二節 警察裁量行為與交通執法 23 第三節 交通違規檢舉系統之執法特殊性 31 第三章 檢舉交通違規之制度與衝突 33 第一節 交通違規檢舉的法規設計 33 第二節 檢舉交通違規的組織與人力 38 第三節 交通違規檢舉制度的民意輿情 40 第四章 研究設計 45 第一節 研究架構 45 第二節 研究方法 51 第三節 訪談大綱設計 53 第五章 交通違規檢舉系統審核警察之裁量分析 57 第一節 檢舉系統的案件裁量形式與運作流程 57 第二節 影響裁量行為之因素 61 第三節 小結 97 第六章 結論與建議 103 第一節 研究發現 103 第二節 交通違規檢舉系統研究建議 105 參考文獻 109 附錄一 重要法規 119 附錄二 輕微違規勸導作業程序 127 附錄三 符合輕微違規之檢舉舉發處理作法之意見 129 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 交通違規檢舉系統審核警察裁量行為之研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Study of Discretionary Behavior of Police Officers Handling the Report System of Traffic Violations | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王宏文(Hong-Wung Wang),李俊達(Chun-Da Li) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 基層官僚,裁量行為,基層員警,交通違規舉發,檢舉系統,系統官僚, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | street-level bureaucracy,discretion,front-line police,traffic enforcement,report system,system-level bureaucracy, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 130 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201900632 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2019-03-04 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共事務研究所 | zh_TW |
| Appears in Collections: | 公共事務研究所 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-108-1.pdf Restricted Access | 3.45 MB | Adobe PDF |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.