Items with full text/Total items : 85800/114447 (75%)
Visitors : 22910854
Online Users : 176
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Performance Paradox after Collaborative Decision-Making: Lessons from the Gender Impact Assessment and Eco-checklist Initiatives in Taiwan
collaborative governance;performance management;performance paradox;accountability;double-loop learning
|Issue Date: ||2019-03-22 16:18:24 (UTC+8)|
Under the tendency of democratization, the model of collaborative governance through which NGOs participate in policy decision-making process is becoming more widely recognized and valued by the public sector. However, could a policy plan produced through a collaborative process really bring progressive ideas into to a bureaucratic system? Or does it just produce more formalist paperwork? Existing literatures often focus on the necessary institutional arrangements or interpersonal factors contributing to the success of collaborative governance. Few studies assess the actual process of implementation and evaluation after a collaborative decision is made. This study uses the Gender Impact Assessment and the Eco-checklist initiatives in Taiwan as two cases to address the above-mentioned concerns. In particular, it reviews how both tools initiated by collaborative efforts between the government and NGOs are enacted in practice. Using content analysis and in-depth interview approaches, this paper reveals how both initiatives encountered ＂performance paradoxes.＂ More than half of the GIA and Ecological checklist reports were unable to survive our evaluation in terms of representation, quality participation, and responsiveness, but these problems were not identified in the result-based performance management mechanism. More seriously, there were unintended and deliberate performance paradoxes that need to be addressed at the normative level, namely by replacing or revising the idea of performance management per se. In conclusion, the authors emphasize that the discussion on collaborative governance should place more attention at the implementation as well as the institutional levels, and efforts should be put into collaborative innovation of a learning-oriented, dialogue-based accountability system.
|Relation: ||公共行政學報, 54, pp.41-78|
|Data Type: ||article|
|Appears in Collections:||[公共行政學報 TSSCI] 期刊論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.