English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 92429/122733 (75%)
Visitors : 26432830      Online Users : 173
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128628


    Title: 當審議參與遇上專業不對稱─以全民健康保險藥物給付項目支付標準共同擬訂會議為例之研究
    When Deliberation Participation meets Professional Asymmetry:Using Pharmaceutical Benefit and Reimbursement Scheme Joint Committee(PBRS) drugs as an example
    Authors: 鄭燕淑
    Cheng, Yen-Shu
    Contributors: 陳敦源
    Chen, Don-Yun
    鄭燕淑
    Cheng, Yen-Shu
    Keywords: 審議式民主
    專業不對稱
    代理人理論
    Deliberative Democracy
    Professional Asymmetry
    Principal-Agent Theory
    Date: 2020
    Issue Date: 2020-02-05 18:07:01 (UTC+8)
    Abstract:   我國自2013年起,新藥給付採「審議式民主」(deliberative democracy)的治理機制,決策需經「全民健康保險藥物給付項目支付標準共同擬訂會議」,然藥品給付政策屬高度專業的實證科學(evidence-based)議題,決策過程須具備醫藥法規、藥品核價作業原則、支付標準及醫療科技評估等專業知識,倘若以多元審議的方式運行,必須面對參與者「公民能力」(citizen competence)的問題,再者,審議式民主精神強調審議的場域必須有涵容(inclusion)、知情(well-informed)、說理(reasoning)、反思(reflections)及公共利益(public interest)等原則,而屬性多元的參與者在健保資源的集體競逐下,又有各自的價值與偏好,因此,審議與專業「如何」調和,便是公共管理者在治理上的重要課題。基於上述,本研究選定「藥品共同擬訂會議」作為研究個案,聚焦在「審議」及「專業不對稱」(Professional asymmetry)兩大主軸,探討現行審議機制下的專業不對稱與審議品質狀況。
      研究方法採質性研究方法中的參與觀察法、深度訪談法及內容分析法。首先,在參與觀察法部分,選定2017年10月至2018年10月,產生8次共同擬訂會議錄音實錄作為研究資料的基礎,並將此錄音實錄繕打成文字稿,錄音實錄(議程)總共分成四大部分,前三大部分逐案繕打,第四部份之討論案則以隨機分層抽樣方式,抽取三分之一的討論案進行分析。接續,在深度訪談部分,選定15位利害關係人進行半結構式訪談(semi-structured interview),並將訪談結果整理成逐字稿。最後將前述錄音實錄稿及訪談稿兩份資料,依「內容分析法」的原則予以編碼,並進行概念化的分析。
      研究發現,其一、審議過程存有專業不對稱現象,健保資源(財務)配置與價值偏好是主因。其二、專業不對稱造成,會議過程中出現雞同鴨講的狀況、參與者重複性的提問有關支付標準與核價原則的問題、不具醫藥背景的參與者必須依靠具有醫藥背景的參與者協助,才敢針對專業性的問題作回應。而公部門的幕僚對於處理共同擬訂會議的業務充滿挫折,其挫折在於,審議互動中有情緒性的發言,參與者缺乏尊重、包容與作決策的共識。其三、為降低審議的專業落差,公部門的作法為,在資訊提供部份,朝向簡化專業模式,如將議案做分級,不同議案提供的資訊不相同,會議手冊不呈現艱深且專業性的文字,幕僚必須不斷調整及修改會議資料,以防止專業性較低的代表產生質疑;此外,公部門會主動召開「共同擬訂會議會前會」,邀請非醫療背景的代表、外部幕僚及專家參加,模擬真實會議中可能會發生的狀況。在正式會議中則邀請專科醫師或專家代為宣讀案件基本資訊,借用專家的權威取代公部門幕僚或醫療科技評估的角色。在團體性方面,主張性較強列的代表,因受總額制度影響,審議的價值聚焦在健保財務面向上,在會議上出現故意不談專業的現象,如同樣的問題做重複性的提問。而決策外層的廠商,面對專業不對稱的困境,則是主動尋找專家進行解說,藉此降低評估的落差。整體而言,審議的品質及運作的效能不理想,審議過程有情緒性的態度及衝突,會議的專業性及公正性沒有受到重視,但健保新藥案件的通過率不受專業不對稱影響,代表公部門處理專業不對稱的方式有某種程度的成效。
      研究建議,健保政策須建立在實證科學(evidence-based)的專業上;首先採審議式民主模式的會議須面對「公民能力」有落差的問題,公共政策管理者應該在審議式民主性質的會議中扮演決策資訊提供者的角色,將決策資訊作「常民式」(layman)的公開,以解決專業不對稱的問題。再者解決審議的落差並降低審議參與所產生的不信任感,須從「機制設計」下手,並建立協力合作的關係;最後公共政策管理者應邀請不同利害關係人進行溝通,找到雙方可以調和的決策共識。
      Taiwan's national health insurance authority employs Pharmaceutical Benefit and Reimbursement Scheme Joint Committee (PBRS), a model of Deliberative Democracy, to decide what new drugs to be reimbursed since year 2013, and the process of PBRS is of highly professional and evidence-based, and in need of knowledge of medical regulatory laws, guidelines of drug reimbursement, criteria of health insurance reimbursement and capability of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). And considering PBRS is of deliberative democracy, with problems of Citizen Competence, and with problems of participants competing for the resources of national health insurance and problems of participants' self-value and preferences, and considering the Deliberate Democracy demands “Inclusion”, “Well-Informed”, “Reasoning”, “Reflection” and “Public Interest”, how to accommodate PBRS with deliberate democracy is becoming of much importance. This research focuses on the quality of PBRS with the coexistence of “Deliberate Democracy” and “Professional Asymmetry”, and explores the deliberate and professional asymmetry.
      This research employed methods of participant's observation, deep interview, content analysis. Firstly, respecting to participant's observation, take all eight times of PBRS meetings during October 2017 and October 2018 as raw material of this problem, and translate meeting recording into paper record in words. The meeting comprised four parts, and the first three parts are translated word by word, and the fourth part are drug cases discussed, which are randomly sampled in one third by stratum for analysing. Secondly, respecting to deep interview, choose 15 participants of PBRS as the subjects of semi-structured interviewing, and make full record of interview in context word by word. Thirdly, make the meeting record and the interview record encrypted according to the rule of content analysis, and make conceptual analysing.
      The research finds that, firstly, there is information asymmetry and professional asymmetry in PBRS, and the resources allocation of national health insurance and bias of evaluation are the reasons why. Secondly, the professional asymmetry causes "at cross purpose" talks during the meeting, participants keep asking questions of the standard of reimbursement and the criteria of drug pricing repeatedly, and participants of not medical back ground only dare to response to professional issues with the help from participants of medical back ground. The members of authority get frustration while dealing with PBRS, and the reasons are that there are emotional argument, participants' lack of respect for the other participants, lack of consensus in toleration and decision-making. Thirdly, in order to reduce the difference of professional background, the discussion issues should be put in grading, and offered with plenty footnotes without technical, difficult and obscure wording. The authority should keep adjusting the information for each discussion topic as to reduce the doubtfulness from the comparatively unprofessional participants. Besides, the authority should actively hold a prerun meeting for PBRS, and invites experts of not medical background, outsiders and related specialist to join, and to simulate the scenario of PBRS. When it comes to the real PBRS, the authority should invites the specialist doctors or experts to introduce and explain the discussion topic, and to take place of the roles of authority and roles of HTA. As for the participants,of which the strongly subjective ones, affected by the “Global Budget System” of NHI, prefer focusing on the financial solving than on choosing new drug for diseases curing. And they often speak of what they prefer on instead of professional medical discussions. The drug companies, who are away from the decision core and face with the professional asymmetry, would struggle to explain to the participants as to reduce the difference of evaluation and the gap of expectation. As conclusion, the delegation runs unwell and the quality is poor, and the profession and justice of the meeting is poor. The permission rate of new drug to the NHI is good though, it implies that some measurements the authority takes to deal with the professional asymmetry work out to a certain degree.
      The research suggests that the national health insurance system should work on the foundation of evidence-base profession. Firstly, the meetings with deliberate democracy are facing with the gap problems of Citizen Competence, and the authority should play the role of information providing in deliberate meetings, and open the decision information to the public in a way of layman as to solve the informational asymmetry and professional asymmetry. Secondly, as for reducing difference of deliberate and reducing untrustfulness from deliberate participate, the authority should reinforce the design of mechanism, and establish the alias relationship. Finally, the authority should invite participants of different interests for conversation and for consensus as to a final conclusion.
    Reference: 中文部分
    毛治國(2013)。決策。台北市:天下雜誌出版。
    王雲東(2012)。社會研究方法:量化與質性取向及其應該。新北市:威仕曼文化。
    王千文、陳敦源(2012)。形式上還是實質上的[公私協力]:全民健康保險總額支付制度個案分析。公共行政學報,(42), 99-137。
    台北市美國商會(2016)。2016年台灣白皮書,2018年11月30日,取自:網址https://www.ndc.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=3A9A81556C766495&sms=410817F53FCEA1C1&s=D2BF69E5E48DEF3A
    ___(2017)。2017年台灣白皮書,2018年11月30日,取自:網址https://www.ndc.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=3A9A81556C766495&sms=410817F53FCEA1C1&s=D2BF69E5E48DEF3A,頁96。
    ___(2018)。2018年台灣白皮書,2018年12月30日,取自:網址https://www.ndc.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=5306355C4DF53692&sms=96E2275A195E6D11&s=3DC4E29DD4F3AF46,頁84。
    江宜樺(2001)。自由民主的理路。台北市:聯經出版公司。
    行政院衛生署(2004)。二代全民健保規劃叢書系列(一):全民健保改革綜論。台北市:衛生署出版。
    行政院衛生署中央健康保險局(2011)。2011-2012 全民健康保險簡介。台北市:行政院衛生署中央健康保險局出版,頁21。
    吳中傑、蔡靚萱(2019)。獨家調查百憂解撤台背後的砍藥價危機-61%醫師、專家:健保藥已經「不堪用」,2019年4月5日,取自:網址https://www.businessweekly.com.tw/magazine/Article_mag_page.aspx?id=69117
    吳非凡、鄭瑟薰、徐儷珊(2008)。醫療經濟學(Santerre, Rexford E原著)。台北市,新加坡商聖智學習出版,五南總經銷。
    吳重慶(2001)。醫療管理的省思(三)總額預算制度下醫療產業的因應之道。台灣醫界,44(7),55。
    李少軍等(譯)(2003)。正義論(JOHN RAWLS原著)。台北:桂冠出版社。
    李玉春、黃昱瞳、黃光華、葉玲玲、陳珮青(2014)。全民健保支付制度改革之回顧與展望。臺灣醫學,18(1),53-66.
    李玉春(2001)。全民健保西醫總額支付制度之推動政策-基層與醫院預算之分立或統合?。臺灣醫界,44(7),43-47。
    ___(2005)。總額支付制度之規劃理念。台灣牙醫界,24(12),45-52。
    李仲彬、黃東益(2011)。審議式民主在臺灣實務推動的定位與價值:從公民會議的經驗分析。競爭力評論,14,51-71。
    李志宏、施肇榮(2008)。全民健康保險解讀系列9:總額支付制度。臺灣醫界,醫學倫理品質繼續教育專欄,51(11)。
    李健誠(2015)。更透明更公平健保給付決策與民主參與研討。全民健康保險雙月刊第113期,2018年12月31日取自:網頁http://www.nhi.gov.tw/epaper/ItemDetail.aspx?DataID=3959&IsWebData=0&ItemTypeID=3&PapersID=352&PicID&fbclid=IwAR3DaDpee9Un6WJwRWYPs17J7CpomFQqOztqWNhTQNlVLOpIihYsXZr34P4
    杜文苓(2010)。「環評決策中公民參與的省思:以中科三期開發爭議為例」。公共行政學報,35,29-60。
    汪明生、朱斌妤(1998)。衝突管理。臺北市:五南圖書公司。
    周思宇(2018)。綠委批健保會委員「代理變常態」 衛福部:會回去修正檢討,2018年12月20日,取自:網址https://www.storm.mg/article/457405。
    周海濤、李永賢、張蘅(譯)(2017)。個案研究-設計與方法(Robert K.Yin原著)。台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
    周葉中(2014)。代議制度比較研究(修訂版)。商務印書館。
    林水波、石振國(1999)。以直接民主改革間界民主的論述與評估。立法院院聞月刊,27(3),33-77。
    林水波、李長晏(2005)。跨域治理(初版)。臺北市:五南。
    林國民(1997)。國家與醫療專業權力:台灣醫療保險體系費用支付制度的社會學分析。台灣社會學研究:第一期,77-136頁(線上資料:https://www.ios.sinica.edu.tw/ios/publish/1st/lin1.htm)
    ___(2009)。國家、公民社會與審議民主:公民會議在台灣的發展經驗。台灣社會學,17,161-217。
    林國明、陳東升(2003)。公民會議與審議民主:全民健保的公民參與經驗。台灣社會學,6,61-118。
    林鍾沂(譯)(1988)。人類事務的理性(赫伯・賽蒙Herbert A Simon原著)。臺北市:森大。
    林淑馨(2010)。質性研究:理論與實務。台北市:巨流圖書公司。
    邱德祥(2018)。林靜儀籲衛福部 檢討健保會與共擬會之設置會議規範。2018年9月15日,取自:網址https://udn.com/news/story/6656/3231472
    侯俐安、林河名(2018)。普悠瑪司機關ATP未報備? 通聯紀錄戳破台鐵謊言。2018年11月8日,取自:網址https://udn.com/news/story/11311/3441027。
    侯勝茂(2000)。台灣醫療科技評估之建立與執行(第一年及第二年)委託研究報告(計畫編號:DOH89-NH-058+DOH91-NH-1013),院衛生署委託研究計畫。
    施如亮(2018)。健保藥價管理經驗談(上)。藥學雜誌電子報,34(1)。
    施佳良(2007)。從政策論證途徑檢視審議民主實踐過程:以二代健保法人論壇為例(碩士論文),未出版,台北市。
    張茵茹(2014)。統合主義下健保會委員之代表性分析:以利害關係團體內部民主治理為檢視標的。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文,台北市。
    莫永榮(2004)。政府服務委託外包的理論與實務:臺灣經驗。行政暨政策學報,第39期,頁75-104。
    許國賢(2000)。商議式民主與民主想像。社會科學論叢,13,61-92。
    郭秋永(2001)。當代三大民主理論。台北市:聯經出版公司。
    ___(2007)。多元民主理論-公民審議的一個理論基礎。臺灣民主季刊,4(3),63-107。
    郭秋永、鄭端耀、陳純如、林碧炤(1999)。強勢民主:新時代的政治參與。問題與研究,38(6),63-94。
    陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。台北:五南。
    陳如如(2009)。台灣建立醫藥科技評估(HTA)制度之研究(碩士論文),未出版,台北市。
    陳孝平(2011)。百年轉折看健保-「一代」的總結與「二代」的發軔。社區發展季刊(133)。
    陳俊川(2004)。探討地區醫院在全民健保政策下之經營管理—以中部地區為例。未出版,彰化。
    陳俊宏(1998)。永續發展與民主:審議式民主理論初探。東吳政治學報,9,85-121。
    陳昭姿(2014)。歷年健保新藥管理趨勢回顧,2018年12月30日,取自:網址https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-42462-98716957-74f7-4601-87ce-d1ac355ea836.html
    陳珮青、李玉春(2015)。以德菲法建構醫療資源配置:政策利害關係人觀點。臺灣公共衛生雜誌,34(2), 193-203.
    陳敦源、徐仁輝(1999)。新憲政架構下的立法行政關係:以預算法的修正為例。邁向二十一世紀的立法院:新國會、新規範、新挑戰研討會,國策研究院主辦,台北。
    陳敦源,王光旭(2007)。「為何與如何以委員會治理?以全民健保監理委員會為例」,發表於「第五屆公共行政聯合會(TASPAA)年會」,世新大學,台北。
    陳敦源、陳麗光、黃東益、呂佳螢(2008)。公共行政研究中之正義制度的設計與執行:以全民健保資源配置機制為例。2008 年全國公共行政系所聯合會年會(TASSPA),3-10。
    陳敦源、張世杰(2010)。公私協立夥伴關係的弔詭。文官制度季刊,2(3),17-71。
    陳敦源、蕭乃沂、蘇偉業(2012)。從消極規避到積極應用:政府資訊公開法下建構「臺灣文官調查資料庫」的芻議。文官制度季刊,4(4),35-59。
    陳敦源、劉宜君、林昭吟(2014)。二代健保擴大民眾參與對給付效益及行政能之影響評估。衛生福利部103年度委託研究計畫年度委託研究計畫。
    陳敦源、蘇孔志(2017)。論透明倫理的倡議與落實:新制度論的觀點。理論與政策,第20卷,第1期。
    陳敦源(1999)。跨域管理:部際與府際合作,收錄於黃榮護編,《公共管理》,頁227-269,台北:商鼎文化。
    ___(2000)。從代理人理論談台灣官僚的政治控制問題。公共行政學報,第4期,頁99-119。
    ___(2000)。誰掌控官僚體系?從代理人理論談台灣官僚體系的政治控制問題。公共行政學報,第4 期,頁99-129。
    ___(2002)。民主與官僚:新制度論的觀點。台北:韋伯出版社。
    ___(2004)。人民、專家與公共政策:民主理論下的參與式知識管理。國家政策季刊,3(1),99-133。
    ___(2006)。全民健康保險監理會未來運作機制規劃之研究。全民健康保險監理委員會委員會研究報告。
    ___(2008)。參與式治理:研究民主改革的新方向。人文與社會科學簡訊,9(2),頁36-47。
    ___(2009)。透明之下的課責:台灣民主治理中官民信任關係的重建基礎。文官制度季刊,第一卷第二期,21-55。
    ___(2012)。民主治理—公共行政與民主政治的制度性調和。台北:五南出版社。
    ___(2014)。公共政策規劃與評估:角色、思維、與制度環境下價值衝突管理的倫理問題。公共治理季刊,第二捲(第三期),12-28。
    陳閔翔、黃瑞祺(2013)。從審議民主到後國族民主哈伯馬斯民主理論的發展與反思。政治與社會哲學評論,47,65-118。
    彭懷恩(2013)。公共政策Q&A。新北市:風雲論壇有限公司。
    湯京平(1999)。鄰避性環境衝突管理的制度與策略-以理性選擇與交易成本理論分析六輕建廠與拜耳投資案。政治科學論叢,10,355-385。
    ___(2015)。社會及行為科學研究法-質性研究法,個案研究。台北:台灣東華書局股份有限公司,249-279。
    湯澡薰、莊博雅、巢杏悠(2009)。各國藥品支付制度及藥價政策分析及評估。行政院衛生署九十八年度委託研究計畫委託研究報告(計畫編號: DOH98-NH-1008)。
    黃東益、陳敦源(2004)。電子化政府與商議式民主之實踐。臺灣民主季刊,1(4),1-34。
    黃東益(2000)。審慎思辯民調-研究方法的探討與可行性評估?民意研究季刊,211,123-143。
    ___(2004)。公民參與:審議民主的實踐與全民健康保險政策。行政院衛生署。
    ___(2008)。審議過後—從行政部門觀點探討公民會議的政策連結。東吳政治學報,26(4),59-96。
    黃瑞琴(1999)。質性教育方法。台北:心理。
    楊意菁(1998)。民意調查的理想國-一個深思熟慮民調的探討。民意研究季刊,204,63-76。
    葉謹寧(2018)。全民健康保險委員會運作機制與成效評估之研究:委員會治理與社會網絡分析的觀點。國立臺南大學行政管理學系碩士班碩士論文,台南市。
    雷文玫(2004)。強化我國健保行政決策公民參與的制度設計-二代健保先驅性全民健保公民會議的建議方案。臺灣民主季刊,1(4),57-81。
    廖錦桂(2007)。民主之必要,審議之必要:一個行動者的思考途徑,收錄於廖錦桂等編,口中之光:審議民主的理論與實踐。台北:台灣智庫。
    劉正山(2009)。當前審議式民主的困境及可能的出路。中國行政評論,17(2), 109-132
    劉宜君(2014)。全民健康保險會運作過程評估相關研究。台北:行政院衛生福利部委託研究計畫報告。
    ___(2016)。全民健康保險會運作效能之評估研究:健保會委員之觀點。社會政策與社會工作學刊,20(1),85-128。
    劉宜君、王千文(2016)。委員會委員角色評估之研究:以全民健康保險會為初探案例。社會研究學報,2(2),33-55。
    劉宜君、陳敦源、林昭吟、王光旭(2016)。建構整合全民健保總額協定分配、給付範圍審議及費率審議之財務收支連動機制。
    劉昭博(1999)。資訊不對稱性與政府投機行為之研究。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
    潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究:理論與應用。台北市:心理。
    蔡甫昌、顧長芸(2016)。健康科技評估的倫理考量與挑戰。台灣醫學,20(2),177-188。
    蔡翔傑、黃東益、陳麗光、陳敦源(2009)。委員會治理過程之評估-「全民健保醫療給付協議會議」的個案研,台灣政治學會年會暨學術研討會-「動盪年代中的政治學:理論與實踐」,新竹。
    衛生福利部(2014)。二代健保總檢討報告,2018年9月15日,取自:網址https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-1612-3b9a802d-34f6-4258-8fc7-67d22daf8cdd.html
    衛生福利部(2018a)。全民健康保險會通過108年度健保總額成長4.217%,總醫療支出估計約7139.78億元,2018年12月3日,取自:網址https://www.mohw.gov.tw/cp-16-44142-1.html
    衛生福利部(2018b)。超越醫療天塹_全民健保二期規劃紀實。衛生福利部。
    衛生福利部中央健康保險署(2009)。總額支付制度意涵,2018年12月3日,取自:網址https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Resource/webdata/18167_2_8.1%EF%BC%9A%E7%B8%BD%E9%A1%8D%E6%94%AF%E4%BB%98%E5%88%B6%E5%BA%A6%E6%84%8F%E6%B6%B5.pdf
    衛生福利部中央健康保險署(2014a)。那些藥品可納入健保給付?如何給付?2018年12月3日,取自:網址
    https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=44359B92AD03B206&topn=0B69A546F5DF84DC
    衛福部中央健康保險署(2014b)。杏林暖流全民健保醫療品質與藥物管理施政紀實。臺中市:五南文化廣場。
    衛生福利部中央健康保險署(2017a)。2017-2018全民健康保險年報。台北市:行政院衛生署中央健康保險署出版。
    衛生福利部中央健康保險署(2017b)。健保民眾滿意度達8成5,再創歷史新高,2018年12月3日,取自:網址
    https://www.nhi.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=FC05EB85BD57C709&s=D48FEFD50E10690A
    衛生福利部中央健康保險署(2018)。2018-2019全民健康保險年報。台北市:行政院衛生署中央健康保險署出版。
    鄧宗業、李玉春(2002)。行政院二代健保規劃小組:第二階段規劃報告暨相關技術報告。台北:行政院二代健保規劃小組。
    魯俊孟(2011)。知情公民在公共治理決策程序的功能分析。空大行政學報,22,159-180。
    賴沅暉(2004)。新興科技發展對政策過程的影響:以健康照護政策中之醫療科技評估為例。公共行政學報,12, 93-129。
    賴美淑(2004)。公民參與─審議民主的實踐與全民健康保險政策。台北:行政院衛生署。頁100-104。
    聯合新聞網(2018)。十項公投太多記不住?讀投票秘笈作選擇 小抄幫你準備好了,2018年12月30日,取自:網址https://udn.com/news/story/12539/3496941
    薛桂文(2004)。陳建仁:半年內提代理孕母法草案,2018年12月30日,取自:網址http://sex.ncu.edu.tw/blognews/?p=1451
    謝宗學、劉坤億、陳衍宏(2002)。治理。政治與國家(Jon Piere; B.Guy Peters原著)。台北:智勝。
    謝宗學(2003)。網際民主與審議民主之實踐:資訊化社會的桃花源村。資訊社會研究,4,87-139。
    簡春安、鄒平儀(2005)。社會工作研究法。台北市:巨流。
    簡禎富(2014)。決策分析與管理:紫式決策分析以全面提升決策品質(第二版)。雙葉書廊。
    羅凱凌(2017)。誰說了算?台北全民健康保險會利害關係人政策參與之個案研究。臺灣民主季刊,14(3),103-145。


    英文部分
    Abrahamsson, B. (1977). Bureaucracy or Participation : The Logic of Organization (Sage library of social research ; v. 51). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The Market for Lemons: Quality and the Market Mechanism. Quarterly. Journal Economics, 84, 488-500.
    Alter, C. and J. Hage (1993). Organizations Working Together. Newbury Park: Sage.
    Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
    Arnwine, D. (2002). Effective Governance: The Roles and Responsibilities of Board Members. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 15(1), 19–22.
    Arrow, K. (1985). The Economics of Agency. In J. Pratt, & R. J. Zeckhauser (Eds.), Principalsand Agents: The Structure of Business (pp. 37-51). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
    Austen-Smith, D., & Banks, J. (1996). Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem. The American Political Science Review, 90(1), 34–45. Bader, B. S. and P. R. Knecht (2013). Most Commonly Asked Questions about Board Committees. Retrieved June 26,2019,from (https://trustees.aha.org/sites/default/files/trustees/faq-board-committees.pdf.)
    Banks, Jeffrey S., & Weingast, Barry R. (1992). The Political Control of Bureaucracies under Asymmetric Information. American Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 509-524.
    Bainbridge, W. (1989). Survey Research : A Computer-assisted Introduction. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth Pub.
    Banta, D. (2001). The Management of Healthcare Technology from a National Perspective. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management, 3(2-4), 177-190.
    Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong Democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Barr, H. (1998). Competent to Collaborate: Towards a Competency-based Model for Interprofessional Education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 12(2), 181-187.
    Barry, B. (1970). Sociologists, Economists and Democracy (Themes and issues in modern sociology). London: Collier-Macmillan.
    Beck, U. (1992). Thw Risk Society. London: Sage.
    Berle, A., & Means, Gardiner Coit. (1940). The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: Macmillan.
    Bogason, P., Kensen, S., & Miller, H. (2002). Pragmatic, Extra-Formal Democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 24(4), 675-692.
    Bohman, J. (1996). Public Deliberation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    Bohman, J. (1999). Democracy as Inquiry Inquiry as Democratic Pragmatism, Social Science, and the Cognitive Division of Labor. American Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 590-607.
    Borchers, J. (2005). Accepting Uncertainty, Assessing Risk: Decision Quality In Managing Wildfire, Forest Resource Values, and New Technology. Forest Ecology and Management, 211(1), 36-46.
    Bovaird, T. (2005). Public governance: Balancing Stakeholder Power in a Network Society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 217-228.
    Boyatzis, R. (1982). The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York : Wiley.
    Braun, C. (2013). The Driving Forces of Stability: Exploring the Nature of Long-Term Bureaucracy–Interest Group Interactions. Administration & Society, 45(7), 809-836.
    Brown, A. (2002). Collaborative Governance Versus Constitutional Politics: Decision Rules for Sustainability from Australia’s South East Queensland Forest Agreement. Environmental Science and Policy, 5(1), 19-32.
    Bryner, G. (1987). Bureaucratic Discretion : Law and Policy in Federal Regulatory Agencies (Pergamon government & politics series). New York: Pergamon Press.
    Catanese, A. J. (2004). Planning for Sound Governance: A Classical Approach for The Twenty-First Century. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Sound Governance: Policy and Administration Innovations (pp. 115-124). London: Westport.
    Chafetz, M.E. (1996). The Tyranny of Experts: Blowing the Whistle on the Cult of Expertise .Lanham: Madison Books.
    Chamber, S. (1996). Reasonable democracy: Jürgen Habermas and The Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, NY.: Cornell Univerity Press.
    Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307-326.
    Charles, Gafni, & Whelan. (1997). Shared Decision-Making In The Medical Encounter: What Does It Mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine, 44(5), 681-692.
    Cheng, T. (2003). Taiwan's New National Health Insurance Program: Genesis and Experience So Far. Health Affairs, 22(3), 61-76.
    Coase, R. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica,. 4, 16, 386-405.
    Cohen, J. (1986). An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics, 97, 26-38.
    Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. Hamlin, & P. Pettit (Eds.), The Good Polity (pp. 7-34). Oxford: Blackwell.
    Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed books.
    Cooke, M. (2002). Five Arguments For Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies, 48(5), 947-969.
    Cornforth, Chris (2001). What Makes Boards Effective? An Examination of the Relationships Between Board Inputs, Structures, Processes and Effectiveness in Non-profit Organizations, Corporate Governance, 9(3): 217-27.
    Cornforth, C.(2003). Introduction. In The Governance of Public and Non-profit Organizations – What do Boards do? , London: Routledge.
    Crawford , R. W., (1991) On Board: Guiding Principles for Trustees of Not-for-Profit Organizations, New Mexico: Western States Arts Federation.
    Creighton, J. (2005). The Public Participation Handbook : Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.
    Dahl, R. (1947). The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems. Public Administration Review, 7(1), 1-11.
    Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy: participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    Dahl, R. (1982). Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Autonomy vs. Control. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University.
    Dahl, R. (1994). A Democratic Dilemma: System Effectiveness versus Citizen Participation. Political Science Quarterly, 109(1), 23-34.
    Daniels, N., & Sabin, J. (1997). Limits to Health Care: Fair Procedures, Democratic Deliberation, and the Legitimacy Problem for Insurers. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 26(4), 303-350.
    Daniels, N., & Sabin, J. (1998). The Ethics of Accountability in Managed Care Reform. Health Affairs,17(5):50-64.
    Daniel, Norman.(2000). Accountability for Reasonabless: Establishing a Fair Process for Priority Setting is Easier than Agreeing on Priciples. BMJ, 321:1300-1301.
    Daum, J. (2003). Next stop: The governance committee. Directors & Boards, 27(3), 5.
    Dietz,T. (2003) What is a good decision? Criteria for Environment Decision Making. Human Ecology Review, 10(1):33-39.
    Dixit, A., & S. Skeath (1999). Games of Strategy. New York: W. W. Norton, Co.
    Doern, G. B., & Reed, T. (2001). Science and Scientists in Regulatory Governance: A Mezzo-Level Framework for Analysis. Science and Public Policy, 28(3), 195-204.
    Douglas, W. R. (1981). Equalities: Harvard University Press.
    Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York NY: Harper.
    Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive Democracy : Politics, Policy, And Political Science. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Dryzek, J. S. (1996). Democracy in Capitalist Times : Ideals, Limits, and Struggles. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Dryzek, J.S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy And Beyond : Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford political theory). Oxford [England] ; New York: Oxford University Press.
    Dryzek, J., and Simon Niemeyer. (2006). Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideal. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634-649.
    Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency Theory: an Assessment and Review. The Academy of Management Review;AMR, 14(1), 57-74.
    Elkin, S., & Sołtan, Karol Edward. (1999). Citizen Competence And Democratic Institutions. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    Elster, J. (1991). Local Justice: How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens. European Economic Review, 35(2), 273-291.
    Elster(1992). Local Justice: How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens. Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press ; New York : Russell Sage Foundation.
    Elster, J. (1998). Deliberative Democracy. (Cambridge studies in the theory of democracy). Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Epstein, D., & O'Halloran, S. (1994). Administrative Procedures, Information, and Agency Discretion. American Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 697-722.
    Evetts, J. (2013). Professionalism: Value and Ideology. Current Sociology, 61(5-6), 778–796.
    Farazmand, A. (2004). Building Partnerships For Sound Governance. In A. Farazmand(Ed.), Sound Governance: Policy and Administrative Innovations. (pp.77-98) London: Westport.
    Farrell,.C.M. (2005). Governance in the UK Public Sector: The Involvement of the Governing Board. Public Administration, 83(1):89-110.
    Feldman, M., & Khademian, A. (2002). To Manage is to Govern. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 541-554.
    Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reforms. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Fishkin, J. S. (1996). The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. Political Science Quarterly, 111(3), 534-535.
    Fischer, F. (2006). Participatory Governance as Deliberative Empowerment: The Cultural Politics of Discursive Space. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 19-40.
    Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and Power: Democracy In Practice. University of Chicago Press, PP.290
    Friedmann, J. (1981). Planning as Social Learning. IURD working paper 343 (February). UC Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development
    Frohlich, N. and J.A. Oppenhelme.(1999).Values, Policcies, and, Citizen Competence : An Experimental Perspective. In Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions. Stephen L. Elkin, Karol Edward Soltan
    Fukuyama, F. (2004). State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
    Gangl, A. (2003). Procedural jJustice Theory and Evaluations of the Lawmaking Process. Political Behavior, 25(2), 119-149.
    Greenfield, S. (2017). Making Real-World Evidence More Useful for Decision Making. Value in Health, 20(8), 1023-1024.
    Gruber, J. (1987). Controlling Bureaucracies : Dilemmas in Democratic Governance. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Gutmann, A., and Dennis Thompson. (1996). Why Moral Conflict Cannot be Avoided in Politics, and What Should Be Done about It. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    Gutmann, A., and Dennis Thompson. (1997). Deliberating about Bioethics. The Hastings Center Report, 27(3), 38-41.
    Gutmann, A., and Dennis Thompson. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
    Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
    Habermas, J. (1987). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity : Twelve lectures (Studies in contemporary German social thought). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    Habermas, J., & Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Sransformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT press.
    Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Habermas, J. (2006). Political Communication in Media Society. Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411-426.
    Habermas, J., Cronin, Ciaran, & De Greiff, P. (2001). The Inclusion of the Other Studies in political theory (Studies in contemporary German social thought): Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    Halvorsen E. K. (2003). Assessing the Effects of Public Participation. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 535-43.
    Hardin, Garrett. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162:1243-8.
    Hardin, R. (2002). Street‐Level Epistemology and Democratic Participation. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 212-229.
    Hart, D. K. (1974). Social Equity, Justice and the Equitable Administrator. Public Administration Review, 34(1), 3-11.
    Harmon, M., & Mayer, Richard T. (1986). Organization theory for public administration. Little, Brown.
    Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory.Cambridge, NY : Cambridge University Press.
    Hemmati, M. (2002). The Concepts: Key Values and Ideologies of MSPs. In Muti-Stekeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability. London: Earthscan Publications, 39-72.
    Horn, M. J. (1995). The Political Economy of Public Administration. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Horton, S. (2000). Introduction - the Competency Mmovement: Its Origins and Impact on the Public Sector. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(4), 306-318.
    Hughes, O. (1994). Public Management and Administration : An Introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England : New York: Macmillan Press ; St. Martin's Press.
    Hurwicz, L. (1973). The Design of Mechanisms for Resource Allocation. The American Economic Review, 63(2), 1-30.
    James E. Anderson .(2011). Public Policy-Making:An Introduction, Seventh Edition. N. Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, pp131-141.
    James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy.Ann Arbor, Mi:University of Michigan Press.
    Jackson, L. (2001). Contemporary Public Involvement: Towards a Strategic Approach. Local Environment, 6(2), 135-147.
    Johnson, J. (1998). Arguing for Deliberation: Some Skeptical Considerations. In Deliberative Democracy, Elster, Jon.ed. New York:Cambridge University Press. pp. 161-184
    Jun, J.S. (1986).Public Administration: Design and Problem Solving. New York: MacMillan.
    Kathi, Pradeep Chandra and Terry L. Cooper (2005). Democratizing the Administrative State: Connecting Neighborhood Councils and City Agencies. Public Administration Review, 65(5): 559-67.
    Kaufman, Herbet. (1956). Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrines of Public Administration. The American Political Science Review,50(4),1057-1073.
    Kelly, T. (2004). Unlocking the Iron Cage: Public Administration in the Deliberative Democratic Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Administration & Society, 36(1), 38-61.
    Kingdon, J. W., & Thurber, J. A. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies , 45,165-169. Boston: Little, Brown.
    Kernaghan, K. (1993). Partnership and Public Administration: Conceptual and Practical Considerations. Canadian Public Administration, 36(1), 57-76.
    Kierstead, J. (1998). Competencies and KSAO's. Research Directorate, Policy, Research and Communications Branch. Public Service Commission of Canada.
    Kiewiet, D., & McCubbins, Mathew D. (1991). The Logic of Delegation : Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process (American politics and political economy). Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
    Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy (2nd ed). New York: HarperCollins.
    Kreps, D. M. (1991). Game Theory and Economic Modeling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: Sage Publication.
    Langlois, Richard N. (1998).Transaction Costs, Production Costs, and the Passage of Time. Coasean Economics Law and Economics and the New Institutional Economics. Springer, Dordrecht, 1-21.
    Levine, C.H., B.G. Peters and F.J. Thompson (1990). Public Administration: Challenges,Choices, Consequences (pp.188-209). Glenview IL Scott, Foresman.
    Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1-14.
    Lindblom, C. E. & Woodhouse. E. J. (1993). The Policy Making Process (3rd ed). : Prentice Hall.
    Löffler, E., & Bovaird, T. (2004). Understanding Public Management and Governance. In Public management and governance (pp. 27-38). Routledge.
    Lowi,Theodore J. (1964). The End of Liberalism .New York :W.W.ORTON.
    Lupia and Mathew D. McCubbins. (1998) .The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need To Know? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Malloy, J. (1999). What Makes a State Advocacy Structure Effective?—Conflicts Between Bureaucratic and Social Movement Criteria, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 12(3), 267-288.
    March, J. G. (1994). Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: Free Press.
    Marent, Benjamin, Forster, R., & Nowak, P. (2013). Conceptualizing Lay Participation in Professional Health Care Organizations. Administration and Society, 47(7), 1-24.
    Maultsby. Jr., M. C. (1975). Help Yourself to Happiness: Through Rational Self-Counseling. New York: Institute for Rational Living.
    McClelland, M. (1973). Testing for Competence Rether Than Intelligence. The American Psychologist, 28(1), 1-14.
    McCombs, M., & Shaw, Donald L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Journal of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, 36(2), 176-187.
    McGregor, M. (1989). Technology and the allocation of resources. (column).The New England Journal of Medicine, 320(2), 118-120.
    McNollgast (1999). The Political Origins of the Administrative Procedure Act. Journal of
    Law, Economics and Organization, 15(1): 180-221.
    Meier, K. J., & L. J. O’Toole, Jr. (2006). Bureaucracy in a Democratic State: A governance Perspective. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press.
    Meier, K. J., & L. J. O’Toole. (2009). The Proverbs of New Public Management: Lesson from an Evidence-based Research Agenda. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(1): 4-22.
    Minnesota Council for Nonprofit (2013). Principles and Practices-Governance.Retrieved from:
    http://www.minnesotanonprofits.org/nonprofit-resources/principles-and-practices/principles-and-practices-for-nonprofit-excellence-2014/principles-and-practices-for-nonprofit-excellence
    Mitchell, J. (1997). Representation in Government Boards and Commissions, Public Administration Review, 57(2): 160-167.
    Moe, T. M. (1984). The New Economics of Organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739-777.
    Moe, Ronald C. and Robert S. Gilmour (1995). Rediscovering Principles of Public Administration: The Neglected Foundation of Public Law. Public Administration Review, 55(2): 135-46.
    Mouffe, C. (2000). Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism. Social Research; New York, 66(3), 745-758.
    O’Toole, L. J., & R. S. Montjoy (1984). Inter-Organizational Policy Implementation: A Theoretical Perspective. Public Administration Review, 44(6), 491-503.
    O'Toole, L., & Meier, K. (2015). Public Management, Context, and Performance: In Quest of a More General Theory. Journal Of Public Administration Research And Theory, 25(1), 237-256.
    Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Public Health Agency of Canada (2007). Core competencies for public health in Canada (Release 1.0). Retrieved from: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/php-psp/ccph-cesp/pdfs/zcard-eng.pdf
    Raelin, J. A., & Cooledge, A. S. (1995). From Generic to Organic Competencies. Human Resource Planning, 18(3), 24.
    Reich, S., & Reich, J. (2006). Cultural Competence in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: A Method for Respecting Diversity in Research Partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychologist, 38(1-2), 51-62.
    Rosenbloom, D. H. (1998). Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector, 4th ed.. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
    Ross, S. A. (1973). The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal's Problem. The American economic review, 63(2), 134-139.
    Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165-190.
    Rowe G., and L. J. Frewer (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
    Saltman, R. B., & Ferroussier-Davis, O. (2000). The Concept of Stewardship in Health Policy. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78, 732-739.
    Schramm, W. (1971). Notes On Case Studies of Instructional Media Projects. Stanford Univ, CA. Inst. for Communication Research.
    Schmitter, P.C. (1974). Still the Century of Corporatism? The Review of Politics, 36(1), 85-131.
    Schmitter, P. C. (2000). How to Democratize the European Union... and Why Bother?. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    Schuyt, Theo N. M.(2004). The Magnetism of Power in Helping Relationships. Professional Attitude and Asymmetry. Social Work and Society,2(1), 39-53.
    Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots, New York: Harper & Row.
    Sharma, A.(1997). Professional as Agent: Knowledge Asymmetry in Agency Exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 758-798.
    Shortell, S. M., E. M. Morrison, & S. Robbins (1996). Strategy Making in Health Care Organizations. In Altman S. H., & U. E. Reinhardt (Eds.), Strategic Choice for a Changing Health Care System. Chicago, IL: Chicago Health Administration Press, 101-148.
    Simon,H. (1946). The Proverbs of Administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1), 53-67.
    Simon, H. (1997). Administrative Behavior : A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations / Herbert A. Simon. (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
    Singer, P.A., Martin, D.K., Giacomini, M. & Purdy, L. (2000). Priority Setting for New Technologies in Medicine: Qualitative Case Study. BMJ, 321 (7272), 1316-1319.
    Spencer, L., & Spencer, S. (1993). Competence at Work : Models for Superior Performance / Lyle M. Spencer, Signe M. Spencer. New York: John Wiley.
    Spicer, M. W. (2001). Value pluralism and its implications for American public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31(4), 507-528.
    Spiller, P. T. (1990). Agency and the Role of Political Institutions, Information and Democratic Processes. J. A. Ferejohn and J. H.kuklinski, eds. Urbana, IL: Universityof Illinois Press.
    Sullivan, H. and C. Skelcher. (2002). Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services. Basingstoke: Palgrave macMillan.
    Teodorescu, T. (2006). Competence versus competency: What is the difference?. Performance Improvement, 45(10), 27-30.
    Thacher, D. R., Martin. (2004). Managing Value Conflict in Public Policy. Governance, 17(4), 457-486.
    Totten.M.k. (2013). A Unique Approach to Assessing Board Committee Efffiectiveness. Great.Boards, 2: 2-3.
    United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2009). What is Good Governance? Retrieved August 25, 2018, from:www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp
    Verkuil, P. R. (2017). Valuing Bureaucracy:The Case for Professional Government. Cambridge University Press
    Vigoda, E. (2002). From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527-540.
    Waldo, D. (1980). The Enterprise of Public Administration: A Summary View. Chandler and Sharp publications in political science.
    Waldo, D. (1981). The Enterprise of Public Administration. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp Publishers.
    Weber, M. (1977). Economy and Society. Burkeley: University of Canfornia Press.
    Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Theoretical Reflections from a Case Study. Administration & Society, 32(5), 566-595.
    Weeks, Edward C. (2000). The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: Results from Four Large-Scale Trials.Public Administration Review, 60(4): 360-372.
    Weimer, D., & Vining, A. (2011). Policy Analysis : Concepts and Practice / David L. Weimer, Aidan R. Vining. (5th ed.). Boston, Mass: Longman.
    Weimer, D. L. (2005) Institutionalizing Neutrally Competent Policy Analysis: Resources for Promoting Objectivity and Balance in Consolidating Democracies. Policy Studies Journal, 33(2): 131-146.
    Weimer, D. L. (2006). Medical Governance: Are We Ready to Prescribe? Prepared for the Annual Research Conference. Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
    White, W. D. (1992). Information and the control of agents. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 18(1), 111-117.
    Williams, I. (2008). Health Care in Taiwan : Why Can't the US Learn Some Lessons. Dissent, 55(1), 13-17.
    Wilson, W. (1887). The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197-222.
    Young, I. (2001). Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670-90.
    Yang, K. ( 2005). Public Administrators'Trust in Citizens: A Missing Link in Citizen Involvement Efforts. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 273-285.
    Yeomans, L. and L. Adshead.(2003). The Role of Public Relations in Non-electoral Participative Democracy: A Case Study Examining the Effectiveness of District Assemblies within Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. Journal of Public Affairs, 3(3): 245-259.
    Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.
    Yong, I. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford University Press.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    行政管理碩士學程
    106921007
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106921007
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202000051
    Appears in Collections:[行政管理碩士學程(MEPA)] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    100701.pdf5584KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback