我國中央政府之財政透明度 —以國防預算為例

Abstract

在民主治理日益重視透明與課責的脈絡下，政府財政透明度成為衡量政府施政品質的重要指標之一，本研究以中央政府財政透明度出發，並聚焦以國防預算為探討個案，研究國防財政因保密或其他作業所引發之資訊揭露問題。鑑於機密預算長期不易受監督，本研究透過文獻整理、制度比較、個案剖析與專家訪談等方式，評估國防部在財政資訊「可接觸性」、「即時性」、「可讀性」、「必要性」與「充分揭露」等五項關鍵指標上的實務表現與挑戰。 研究首先回顧我國政府資訊公開與保密制度發展，指出現行規範雖已建立一定資訊揭露原則，惟於機密資訊核定、解密作業等層面，仍存裁量空間過大、標準模糊與執行落差之問題。研究並運用97年學者以OECD財政透明化架構檢視我國中央政府財政透明度與國際規範之落差情形為基礎，追蹤檢視截至113年底我國中央政府之遵循狀況，並透過中央政府2件爭議案例，分析其在預算編列與揭露等過程中所呈現的不透明現象；在探討國防預算部分，則是透過邀請4位熟悉國防財政之專家學者進行2階段式訪談，並以國防部3件爭議案例分析國防部在預算編列、審議與揭露過程中所呈現之不透明現象，結合國際規範比較與訪談調查，剖析我國財政透明化之現況、問題與改進方向。 本研究結果發現：國防部整體雖能於「可接觸性」與「即時性」上遵循法定程序，但在「可讀性」與「充分揭露」表現明顯不足，尤以涉及機密之支出與採購案為甚。主要是現行制度對「保密必要性」界定過於寬鬆，導致部分預算項目遭過度核密，進一步削弱課責效果。此外，解密制度亦未能有效補足資訊揭露之不足，致使結案後之歷史性資料仍難供社會檢視等。 本研究據此提出三項建議：第一，機密資料核定建立第三方審查機制，行政機關需明確說明核定標準，以前化外部監督力道；第二，建置定期檢討機密文件解密情形制度，並向大眾公告已解密文件範圍或可供查閱文件清單；第三，推動政府財政資訊可讀性，期能在合理維護國家安全與機密前提下，逐步強化國防財政之透明化。

In the context of democratic governance, where increasing emphasis is placed on transparency and accountability, fiscal transparency has become a key indicator in assessing the quality of government performance. This study begins with an evaluation of fiscal transparency at the central government level, using the defense budget as a focal case to explore the challenges related to information disclosure arising from confidentiality and operational constraints. Given the long-standing difficulties in overseeing classified budgets, the research adopts a multi-method approach—including literature review, institutional comparison, case analysis, and expert interviews—to assess the Ministry of National Defense’s (MND) practical performance and challenges across five key indicators of fiscal transparency: accessibility, timeliness, readability, necessity, and completeness of disclosure. The study first reviews the development of information disclosure and secrecy regulations in Taiwan, finding that while current legal frameworks establish certain disclosure principles, issues persist—such as excessive administrative discretion, vague classification criteria, and inconsistent implementation—especially in the designation and declassification of confidential information. Building upon a 2008 academic evaluation based on the OECD’s fiscal transparency framework, the study tracks Taiwan’s central government performance up to 2024, and analyzes two controversial cases at the central level to reveal systemic opacity in budget formulation and disclosure. For the defense budget, two-stage interviews were conducted with four experts familiar with defense finance, and three controversial defense cases were examined to highlight transparency issues throughout the budget preparation, review, and disclosure processes. These findings are further contextualized through comparisons with international standards and insights from expert interviews. The results reveal that while the MND generally complies with legal procedures in terms of accessibility and timeliness, its performance in readability and completeness of disclosure remains inadequate—particularly regarding classified expenditures and procurement cases. A key factor lies in the overly broad definition of "necessity of secrecy" within the current system, resulting in excessive classification of certain budget items and weakening mechanisms for accountability. Moreover, the declassification system fails to sufficiently compensate for disclosure deficits, making it difficult for the public to examine historical records even after case closure. Based on these findings, the study proposes three recommendations:Introduce a third-party review mechanism for classifying confidential information, requiring administrative agencies to clearly define and justify classification standards, thereby enhancing external oversight；Establish a routine review system for declassified documents, including public disclosure of declassified materials or searchable lists to improve accessibility；Promote the readability of government fiscal information, aiming to gradually enhance transparency in defense finance under the premise of safeguarding national security and legitimate confidentiality.