English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91280/121421 (75%)
Visitors : 25396017      Online Users : 89
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/140.119/35630


    Title: 政策體系與政策變遷之研究:停建核四政策個案分析
    Policy Systems and Policy Change: The Case Study of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant Policy Discontinuity
    Authors: 莊文忠
    Wen-Jong Juang
    Contributors: 林水波
    施能傑

    Shoei-Po Lin
    Jay N.Shih

    莊文忠
    Wen-Jong Juang
    Keywords: 政策體系
    政策變遷
    政策接續
    政策終結
    政策風格
    制度設計
    政策網絡
    政策行動者
    核四
    policy systems
    policy change
    policy succession
    policy termination
    policy style
    institutional design
    policy network
    policy actors
    the fourth nuclear power plant
    Date: 2003
    Issue Date: 2009-09-18 15:32:46 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 公共政策是藉由重大公共議題的討論來分析政府活動的一種研究途徑,將公共政策的過程切割成議題設定、政策規劃、政策合法化、政策執行、政策評估及政策終結等階段,雖可以獲致清晰的流程架構,但此一單向的線性思考方式,不但簡化了政策問題解決的複雜性,亦會喪失政策過程的動態本質。再者,公共政策的研究領域日益蓬勃壯大,研究途徑與方法亦漸趨多元發展,理論概念與分析架構的整合自然日趨重要,如此將有助於研究者將研究議題與經驗資料作最佳的組合。是以,本研究採取非線性的政策動態概念,對政策的演變作一有系統性的探索,在融合有關政策變遷的各種觀點後,提出「政策體系」的理論概念,建立「宏觀」的分析架構作為探索政策變遷現象的基礎。
    政策體系乃是以政策過程為焦點,所有與政策性質相關的要素,都可視為政策體系的構成要素。首先,政策是在開放的體系中形成、維持、接續與終結,自環境中汲取養分同時受到環境的限制,由此觀之,外在環境因素是政策體系中不可忽略的一環。其次,討論政策體系自然不能遺漏政策本身的因素,政策乃為解決社會問題而生,沒有社會問題的存在,當然就不會有政策制定的需求,另一方面,政策本身的組構方式則是攸關問題的解決與否。再者,在民主體制中,任何的政策形成與改變都必須取得正當性的依據,只有問題的存在並不保證一定會被政府所處理,必須通過政治結構的考驗才可能有政策產出。最後,政策體系是一個互動的體系,政策參與者之間就政策方案的選擇所從事的各種行為與活動,都可能影響最後的政策產出。歸納言之,一個完整的政策體系至少應該包括幾個要素:外在環境的因素、政策本身的特性、結構性因素的作用及政策行動者的互動行為,這些要素的互動作用會導致政策的變遷。
    最後,政策是政府選擇目標與工具來解決社會問題的重要活動,它不是在真空中運作,而是不斷與社會進行互動的連續性過程,這也是政策走進歷史之前會出現變遷的原因,本研究雖然提出具有規範意涵的分析政策變遷的理論架構,但是基於「真實個案是檢驗理論效度的最佳途徑」的法則,本研究以民進黨首次執政時期所推動的停建核四政策個案為例,利用文本中所建立的分析架構來詮釋此一政策變遷的過程,並在結論中整合理論與個案的研究發現,就政策體系的各個面向提出幾個有關政策變遷的假設性命題,以供後續研究之參考與檢證,進而促成政策變遷知識的深化。
    Public policy is a research approach to analyze governmental activities by discussing public issues. However, in most articles, the policy process is seen as a logical succession of steps: agenda setting, policy formulation, policy legitimation, policy implementation, policy evaluation, and policy termination. Although this progression of stages provides a clear and useful framework, it often obscures the complexities of public issues. In other words, most policies are not a process of linear development, from agenda setting to policy termination. Policy change is a common phenomenon. In this way, if we want to understand the dynamics of policy, it is helpful to take a nonlinear perspective.
    Policy change is used by a wide range of authors in public policy and other disciplines, but there is no consensus on what the definition of policy change is. In fact, this question has not been systematically explored until now. Policy change is not simply a label, but is an important part of the policy process. It is worth drawing more attention to this phenomenon. The aim of this study is to construct an analytical framework of policy change. Within this framework, we distinguish between different types of policy change: policy succession and policy termination, firstly. And we can find some cues from policy change, including organization, statutes, budget, personnel, and media. Secondly, we use the concept of policy system to connect with policy change. This concept contains several elements: external environment, policy attributes, institutional factor, and policy networks. These elements interact with each other to produce policy change. We use this framework to analyze policy discontinuity for the fourth nuclear power plant in 2000.
    Finally, policy is essentially about government. The major activity of government is seen as choosing goals and instruments to solve social problems. Policy does not exist in a vacuum; it is made in a concrete environment. We should see policy as a continuing process of social action and interaction. This is why policy may be changed before it is terminated. Finally, we provide some hypotheses and suggestions for further research at the end of this study.
    Reference: 一、中文部分
    王振寰,民85,誰統治台灣?初版,台北市:巨流。
    王塗發,民82,解剖「核電經濟」的神話。初版,台北市:前衛。
    王塗發,民89a,「不廢核四的損失知多少」,自由時報,89/09/14,十五版。
    王塗發,民89b,「一位經濟學者反核的心路歷程」,自由時報,89/06/05,十五版。
    王業立,民87,比較選舉制度。二版,台北市:五南。
    王榮德,民89,「核四有替代方案」,自由時報,89/05/04,十五版。
    王榮德,民84,「攤開核四利弊真面貌」,核四公投促進會(編),核四公投.千里
    苦行。初版,台北市:玉山社。
    石振國,民92,政黨趨同之研究:國民黨與民進黨的比較分析。國立台灣大學
    政治學研究所博士論文。
    立法院編,民90,立法權之維護與堅持--核四電廠釋憲案相關文獻彙編。立法院
    編印。
    任德厚,民91,比較憲法與政府。初版,台北市:作者自印。
    朱雲漢,民90,「國民黨與臺灣的民主轉型」,二十一世紀,第六十五期,頁4-13。
    朱敬一、林全,民92,經濟學的視野。初版,台北市:聯經。
    何明修,民91,「為何民進黨政府的廢核政策失敗?」,台灣政治學刊,第六期,
    頁86-136。
    何明修,民92,「自主與依賴:比較反核四運動與反美濃水庫運動中的政治交換
    模式」,台灣社會學刊,第三十期,頁1-49。
    余致力,民91,民意與公共政策—理論探討與實證研究。初版,台北市:五南。
    杜震華,民89,「核能政策,專業價值沉淪」,中央日報,89/10/01,三版。
    阮大年,民89,「讓經濟的科技的專家來替頭家決定」,聯合報,89/09/22,
    十五版。
    吳乃德,民89,「人的精神理念在歷史變革中的作用—美麗島事件和台灣民主
    化」,台灣政治學刊,第四期,頁57-103。
    吳文雅,民91,「我國加入世界貿易組織之展望」,立法院院聞,第三十卷
    第一期,頁32-52。
    吳再益,民89,3E與電力政策,核四該不該建--『核電政策與安全』研討會專輯,
    中國工程師學會主辦。
    吳庚,民85,行政法之理論與應用。增訂三版,台北市:作者自印。
    吳重禮,民89,「美國『分立性政府』研究文獻之評析:兼論台灣地區政治發展」,
    問題與研究,第三十九卷三期,頁75-101。
    吳重禮,民90,「分立政府:肇因;影響、改革」,中國行政評論,第十卷四期,
    頁1-22。
    吳義雄,民89,「停建核四,國家利益大損失」,自由時報,89/10/26,十五版。
    呂郁女,民89,「自由化生態環境中台灣廣電媒體的發展」,理論與政策,第十
    四卷第一期,頁115-140。
    李宗勳,民90,「社區、學區安全聯防之資源聯結與組際學習」,中國行政評論,
    第十卷第三期,頁1-52。
    李念祖,民90,「釋字五二○號解釋的六項推論基礎」,全國律師,第五卷
    第三期,頁4-8。
    周旭華(譯),John P. Kotter等著,民89,變革。初版,台北市:天下遠見。
    林水波(編著),民88a,公共政策新論。初版,台北市:智勝。
    林水波,民88b,制度設計。初版,台北市:智勝。
    林水波,民90,「停建核四的正當性」,全國律師,第五卷第一期,頁100-102。
    林水波、王崇斌,民87,「政策論述與政策變遷的關聯性」,台灣政治學刊,
    第三期,頁245-273。
    林水波、陳敦源、何鴻榮,民91,黨政關係健全化。邁向「正常國家」研討會,
    群策會主辦。
    林佳龍,民87,「地方選舉與國民黨政權的市場化:從威權鞏到民主轉型(1946-
    94)」,陳明通和鄭永年主編,兩岸基層選舉與政治社會變遷。台北市:
    月旦。
    林佳龍,民89,「台灣民主化與政黨體系的變遷:菁英與群眾的選舉連結」,
    台灣政治學刊,第四期,頁3-55。
    林明雄,民89,「你不知道的核能,請再靠近一點」,中央日報,89/09/24,
    二十版。
    林信義,民89,「我主張廢核的決策因素及過程」,中央日報,89/10/01,三版。
    林俊義,民89,「反核是為了反獨裁」,自由時報,89/05/26,十四版。
    林建昌,民89,「處置簡易核廢料—美國經驗」,中國時報,89/03/14,十四版。
    林富美,民91,「台灣媒體工會意識與集體行動之初探」,新聞學研究,
    第七十三期,頁63-94。
    林碧堯,民89,「莫讓核四綁架台灣未來」,自由時報,89/04/27,十五版。
    林碧堯,民83,「台灣的反核運動」,鄭先佑(編),核四決策與輻射傷害,初版,
    台北市:前衛。
    林寶安,民90,「開放新銀行政策的政治經濟分析」,余致力、郭昱瑩、陳敦源(編),
    公共政策分析的理論與實務。初版,台北市:韋伯文化。
    林繼文,民90,「政黨輪替改變了甚麼?」,二十一世紀,第六十五期,頁20-24。
    近代法制研究基金會主編,民89,透視廢核四決策。初版,台北市:正中書局。
    邵宗海,民86,兩岸關係與兩岸對策。初版,台北:時報文化。
    邱文彥,民89,「停建核四,是對台灣土地負責的新倫理」,自由時報,89/09/21,
    十五版。
    邱俊忠,民89,「日本選擇核能,台灣為何不能」,自由時報,89/10/01,十五版。
    政府改造委員會,民91,行政院組織改造的目標與原則。第三次幕僚會議討論
    事項。
    施能傑,民92,建立公共服務倫理規範—以OECD的標竿經驗。「倡廉反貪與行
    政透明」學術研討會,台灣透明組織主辦。
    洪讀,民89,「環能源不足核四興建勢在必行」,中央日報,90/06/27,12版
    紀駿傑,民89,「環保運動的春天還未來臨」,中國時報,89/05/09,十五版。
    胡湘玲,民84,核工專家V.S.反核專家。初版,台北市:前衛。
    孫煒,民89,「中國大陸經濟轉型之制度分析:方法論的觀點」,理論與政策,
    第十四卷第二期,頁29-53。
    徐仁輝,民90,「近十年來我國預算政策成因剖析」,余致力、郭昱瑩、陳敦源(編),
    公共政策分析的理論與實務。初版,台北市:韋伯文化。
    徐恩普,民87,「我國國家資訊基礎建設(NII)之探討」,理論與政策,第十二卷
    第一期,頁89-100。
    徐振國,民89,「從威權論統合論到新國家論的轉折和檢討」,理論與政策,
    第十四卷第二期,頁1-27。
    翁興利,民89,「我國流域管理機制之規劃研究」,理論與政策,第十四卷
    第二期,頁65-86。
    袁鶴齡,民89,「國家認同外部因素之初探—美國因素、中國因素與台灣的國家
    認同」,理論與政策,第十四卷第二期,頁141-163。
    張正修,民83,「人民和地方政府的參與—從核四廠興建案談起」,鄭先佑(編),
    核四決策與輻射傷害,初版,台北市:前衛。
    張其祿、葉一璋、張文豪,民92,貪瀆與治理—台灣現況之法制分析與建言。「倡
    廉反貪與行政透明」學術研討會,台灣透明組織主辦。
    張學海,民90,「從『核四』到『核釋』」,全國律師,第五卷第三期,頁11-28。
    張璠,民91,「危機與轉機—工業區開發之問題與對策」,立法院院聞,
    第三十卷第一期,頁107-118。
    張鏡湖,民89,「環保人士應反對的是骯髒的火力發電?潔淨的核能發電」,
    聯合報,89/10/27,十五版。
    曹俊漢、陳朝政,民90,「國民黨與民進黨執政表現之比較」,國家政策論壇,
    第一卷第三期,頁17-25。
    莊文忠,民86,政策設計理論的建構:全面性(Holistic)觀點初探,台灣大學政治
    所碩士論文。
    莊文忠,民92,「制度的研究:『新制度論』觀點的比較與『後現代制度論』的
    發展」,理論與政策,第十六卷第四期,頁15-44。
    許志義、陳澤義,民82,能源經濟學,初版。台北:華泰書局。
    陳國誠,民89,「當石化燃料用盡時,核廢料—後代子孫的能源?」,聯合報,
    89/10/03,十五版。
    陳敦源,民91,民主與官僚:新制度論的觀點,初版。台北市:韋伯文化。
    陳敦源,民92,透明與課責:行政程序控制的資訊分析。「倡廉反貪與行政透明」
    學術研討會,台灣透明組織主辦。
    陳華昇、楊鈞池,民90,「民進黨派系政治與家族政治」,國家政策論壇,
    第一卷第三期,頁47-55。
    陳進益,民89,「核四興廢,尊重專業少政治干預」,中央日報,89/09/27,
    二十五版。
    陳新民,民91,「法定預算的法律性質—釋字520號解釋的檢討」,劉孔中、
    陳新民(主編),憲法解釋之理論與實務,初版。台北市:中研院社科所。
    陳憶寧,民91,「公共議題之遊戲框架初探—以核四議題為例」,新聞學研究,
    第七十二期,頁85-117。
    陶在樸,民89,「由歐洲民調變化看台灣核四存廢」,中國時報,89/09/16,
    十五版。
    湯京平,民90a,「民主治理與環境保護—從中埔慈濟案例檢視我國資源回收的政
    策體系」,台灣政治學刊,第五期,頁178-217。
    湯京平,民90b,「災難、官僚與民主—台灣九二一震災援救行政的政治與制度
    分析」,中國行政評論,第十一卷第一期,頁67-98。
    湯德宗,民91,「憲法結構與違憲審查—司法院大法官釋字第520號解釋評釋」,
    劉孔中、陳新民(主編),憲法解釋之理論與實務,初版。台北市:中研院
    社科所。
    黃世鑫,民89,「不是科學問題,也非單純法律問題,而是典型政治問題—不執
    行核四預算,並無違法疑慮」,聯合報,89/09/30,十五版。
    黃怡(編),民89,核電真相:核能神話大解剖。初版,台北市:牛頓。
    黃紀、吳重禮,民89,「台灣地區縣市層級『分立政府』影響之初探」,台灣政
    治學刊,第四期,頁105-147。
    黃瑞祺,民89,現代與後現代。初版,台北市:巨流。
    楊日青,民89,「憲法修改與政黨重組對憲政體制的影響」,理論與政策,
    第十四卷第二期,頁199-218。
    楊日青等譯,Andrew Heywood著,民91,最新政治學新論。初版,台北市:
    韋伯文化。
    楊世緘,民89,「科技化國家建設與NII推動政策之分析」,理論與政策,
    第十四卷第一期,頁173-189。
    楊肇岳,民89,「台灣被封鎖時,能使用核電嗎?」,自由時報,89/06/24,
    十五版。
    經濟部(編),民90,2001產業技術白皮書,經濟部技術處。
    葉一璋、張其祿,民90,「管制政策之交易成本途徑」,余致力、郭昱瑩、
    陳敦源(編),公共政策分析的理論與實務。初版,台北市:韋伯文化。
    葉俊榮,民88,「行政程序法的代理人觀點」,全國律師,第三卷第四期,頁33-37。
    廖本達,民87,鄉土情懷:核電與環保政治。初版,台灣電力公司。
    廖坤榮,民90,「後現代主義的政策分析」,余致力、郭昱瑩、陳敦源(編),公共
    政策分析的理論與實務。初版,台北市:韋伯文化。
    廖述銘,民91,媒體議題與政策議題互動關係之研究—以核四興廢決策為例。
    世新大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
    趙雅麗,民90,「民進黨社會運動的『語藝』批評,新聞學研究,第六十八期,
    頁151-192。
    劉宜君,民90,「國家機關與我國全民健康保險政策:政策執行過程之分析」,
    余致力、郭昱瑩、陳敦源(編),公共政策分析的理論與實務。初版,
    台北市:韋伯文化。
    劉坤億,民90,治理概念與政府治理模式變革:評估性分析架構的提出。
    第二屆全國公共行政博碩士生論文研討會,政治大學公共行政學系主辦。
    劉瑞華(譯),Douglass C. North著,民84年,制度、制度變遷與經濟成就。初版,
    台北市:時報文化。
    劉毓玲譯,Peter F. Drucker著,民89,21世紀的管理挑戰。初版,台北市:
    天下文化。
    蔡昉、林毅夫,民92,中國經濟。初版,台北市:麥格羅.希爾。
    鄭天佐,民89,「核四爭議的理想和現實」,自由時報,89/10/04,十五版。
    鄭武國譯,Anthony Giddens著,民88,第三條路:社會民主的更新。初版,
    台北市:聯經。
    鄭鍚鍇,民88,BOT統理模式的研究—兼論我國興建南北高速鐵路政策發展,
    政治大學公共行政學系博士論文。
    鍾堅,民89,「面對能源短缺,面對臨戰狀態—核電有長長久久的安全魅力」,
    聯合報,89/10/24,十五版。
    瞿海源,民92,「獨言獨行演獨腳戲」,中國時報,92/10/12,A2版。
    魏陌、陳敦源、郭昱瑩,民90,「政策分析在民主政黨當中的機會與挑戰」,
    中國行政評論,第十一卷第一期,頁1-28。
    二、英文部分
    Amenta, Edwin and Theda Skocpol. 1989. “Taking Explaining the Distinctiveness of
    American Public Policies in the Last Century,” In F.G. Castles (ed.), The
    Comparative History of Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Argyris, C. 1996. Organizational Learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in
    American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Bardach, Eugene. 1976. “Policy Termination as A Political Process,” Policy Sciences,
    7(2):123-131.
    Behn, Robert D. 1976. “Closing the Massachusetts Public Training Schools,” Policy
    Sciences, 7(2):151-171.
    Behn, Robert D. 1977. “The False Dawn of the Sunset Laws,” The Policy Interest,
    49:103-118.
    Behn, Robert D. 1978. “How to Terminate a Public Policy: A Dozen Hints for the
    Would-be Terminator,” Policy Analysis, 4(3):393-413.
    Beierle, Thomas C. 1999. “Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in
    Environmental Decisions,” Policy Studies Review, 16(3/4):75-103.
    Bennett, Colin J. 1991. “What Is Policy Convergence and What Cause It,” British
    Journal of Political Science, 21(3):215-233.
    Bennett, Colin J. and Michael Howlett. 1992. “The Lesson of Learning: Reconciling
    Theories of Policy Learning and Policy Change,” Policy Sciences, 25:275-
    294.
    Biller, Robert P. 1976. “On Tolerating Policy and Organizational Termination: Some
    Design Considerations,” Policy Sciences, 7(2):133-149.
    Birkland, T. A. 1998. “Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting,” Journal
    of Public Policy, 18(1):55-74.
    Braybrooke David and Chareles E. Lindblom. 1970. A Strategy of Decision: Policy
    Evaluation as a Social Process. New York: Macmillan.
    Brewer, Garry D. 1974. “The Policy Science Emerge: To Nurture and Structure a
    Discipline,” Policy Science, 5(3):239-244.
    Brewer, Garry D. 1978. “Termination: Hard Choices—Harder Question,” Public
    Administration Review, 4:338-344.
    Brinkerhoff, Derick D. and Benjamin L. Croby. 2002. Managing Policy Reform:
    Concepts and Tools for Decision-Makers in Developing and Transitioning
    Countries. Bloomfield, N. J.: Kumarian.
    Brown, Anthony E. and Joseph Atewart, Jr. 1993. “Competing Advocacy Coalitions,
    Policy Revolution, and Airline Deregulation,” In Sabatier, Paul A. and Hank
    C. Jenkins-Smith (eds.), Policy Change and Learning: A Advocacy
    Coalition Approach. Boulder CO: Westview.
    Browne, William P. 2001. The Failure of National Rural Policy: Institutions and
    Interests. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
    Caiden, Gerald E. 1994. “Excessive Bureaucratization: The J-Curve Theory of
    Bureaucracy and Max Weber Through the Looking Glass.” In Farazmand, Ali
    (eds.) Handbook of Bureaucracy. New York: Marcel Dekker.
    Cameron, James M. 1978. “Ideology and Policy Termination: Restructuring
    California’s Mental Health System,” In May, J. V. and A. Wildavsky (eds.),
    The Policy Cycle. Beverley Hills, Calif.: Sage.
    Coase, Ronald A. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm,” Economics, 4:386-405.
    Coase, Ronald A. 1960. “The Problem of the Social Cost,” Journal of Law and
    Economics, 3:1-44.
    Cohen, M., J. March and J. Olsen. 1972. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational
    Choice,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1):1-25.
    Colebatch, Hal K. 2002. Policy: Concepts in the Social Science. 2nd ed. Buckingham,
    PA: Open University Press.
    Coleman, William D., Grace D. Skogstad and Michael M. Atkinson. 1996. “Paradigm
    Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in Agriculture,” Journal of
    Public Policy, 16(3):273-301.
    Cooper, Harris. 1998. Synthesizing Research: A Guide For Literature Reviews. 3rd
    ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
    Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s
    Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Coyle, D. and A. Wildavsky. 1987. “Requisites of Radical Reform: Income
    Maintenance Versus Tex Preferences,” Journal of Policy Analysis and
    Management, 7(1)”1-16.
    Daniels Mark R. 1994. “Termination and Bureaucracy: Ending Government
    Programs, Policies, and Organizations.” In Farazmand, Ali (eds.) Handbook
    of Bureaucracy. New York: Marcel Dekker.
    Daniels Mark R. 1995. “Organizational Termination and Policy Continuation: Closing
    the Oklahoma Public Training Schools,” Policy Sciences, 28:301-316.
    DeLeon, Peter. 1978a. “Public Policy Termination: An End and a Beginning,” Policy
    Analysis, 4(3): 369-392.
    DeLeon, Peter. 1978b. “A Theory of Policy Termination,” In May, J. V. and A.
    Wildavsky (eds.), The Policy Cycle. Beverley Hills, Calif: Sage.
    Denhardt, R. B. and J. V. Denhardt. 2000. “The New Public Service: Serving Rather
    than Steering,” Public Administration Review, 60(6):549-559.
    Dolowitz, David and David Marsh. 1996. “Who Learns What From Whom: a Review
    of the Policy Transfer Literature,” Political Studies, 44(2):343-357.
    Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
    Downs, A. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
    Dye, Thomas R. 1998. Understanding Public Policy. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River,
    N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
    Easton, D. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. Upper Saddle River N. J.:
    Prentice-Hall.
    Easton, D. 1979. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Chicago: University of
    Chicago Press.
    Etheredge, Lloyd S. 1981. “Government Learning: A Overview,” In Long, Samuel L.
    (ed.), The Handbook of Political Behavior. New York: Plenum.
    Evans, Mark and Jonathan davies 1999. “Understanding Policy Transfer: A Multi-
    level , Multi- Disciplinary Perspective,” Public Administration, 77(2):
    361-385.
    Fiorina, Morris P. 1996. Divided Government. 2nd ed., Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
    Frantz, Janet E. 1992. “Reviving and Revising a Termination Model,” Policy
    Sciences, 25:175-189.
    Godwin, Marcia L. and Jean Reith Schroedel 2000. “Policy Diffusion and Strategies
    for Promoting Policy Change: Evidence From California Local Gun Control
    Ordinances,” Policy Studies Journal, 28(4):760-776.
    Golden, Olivia 1990. “Innovation in Public Sector Human Services Programs: The
    Implications of Innovation by ‘Groping Along’,” Journal Policy Analysis and
    Management, 9(2):219-248.
    Goodin, Robert E. (ed.) 1996. The Theory of Institutional Design. New York:
    Cambridge University Press.
    Gortner, Harold F., Julianne Mahler and Jeanne Bell Nicholson 1997 Organization
    Theory: A Public Perspective. 2nd, Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College.
    Gunther, Richard 1996. “The Impact of Regime Change on Public Policy: The Case of
    Spain,” Journal of Public Policy, 16,2:157-201.
    Hall, Peter A. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of
    Economic Policymaking in Britain,” Comparative Politics, 25(3):275-297.
    Hayes, Michael T. 1992. Incrementalism and Public Policy. New York: Longman.
    Hayes, Michael T. 2001. The Limits of Policy change: Incrementalism, Worldview,
    and the Rule of Law. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    Heclo, Hugh 1974. Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden. New Haven, CT:
    Yale University Press.
    Hermann, Charles F. 1990 “Change Course: When Governments Choose to Redirect
    Foreign Policy” International Studies Quarterly, 34:3-21.
    Hogwood, W. Brian and B. Guy Peters. 1983. Policy Dynamics. New York: St.
    Martin’s Press.
    Hogwood, W. Brian and Lewis A. Gunn. 1984. Policy Analysis for the Real World.
    New York: Oxford University Press.
    Hood, Christopher. 1983. The Tools of Government. London: Macmillan.
    Howlett, Michael. 1991. “Policy Instruments, Policy Styles, and Policy
    Implementation: National Approaches to Theories of Instrument Choice,”
    Policy Studies Review, 12(1): 3-24.
    Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT:
    Yale University Press.
    Huy, Quy N. 2001. “Time, Temporal Capability, and Planned Change,” Academy of
    Management Review, 26(4):601-623.
    Jenkins-Smith, H. C. 1990. Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove,
    CA: Broos-Cole.
    Jones, Bryan D., Frank R. Baumgartner, and James L. True 1998. “Policy
    Punctuations: U.S. Budget Authority, 1947-1995,” The Journal of Politics,
    60(1):1-33.
    Kaufman, Herbert. 1985. Time, Chance, and Organizations. Chatham, N. J.:
    Chatham House.
    Kettl, Donald F. 2000. “The Transformation of Governance: Globalization,
    Devolution, and the Role of Government,” Public Administration Review,
    60(6):488-497.
    Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed., New
    York: HarperCollins.
    Kübler, Daniel 2001. “Understanding Policy Change With the Advocacy Coalition
    Framework: An Application to Swiss Drug Policy,” Journal of European
    Public Policy, 8(4):623-641.
    Kirkpatrick, Susan E., James P. Lester and Mark R. Peterson. 1999. “The Termination
    Process: A Conceptual Framework and Application to Revenue Sharing,”
    Policy Studies Review, 16,1:209-236.
    Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed., Chicago:
    University of Chicago Press.
    Lasswell, Harold D. 1956. The Decision Process. College Park, MD: University of
    Maryland Press.
    Lester, James P. and Joseph Stewart, Jr. 2000. Public Policy. 2nd ed., Belmont, Calif:
    Thomson Learning.
    Lindblom, C. E. 1959. “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’,” Public Administration
    Review, 19:79-88.
    Lindblom, C. E. 1979. “Still Muddling, not yet Through,” Public Administration
    Review, 39:517-526.
    Majchrzak, Ann 1984. Methods For Policy Research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
    Majone, Giandomenico 1996. “Public Policy and Administration: Ideas, Interests, and
    Institutions,” In Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.), A New
    Handbook of Political Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
    March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. 1989. Recovering Institutions. New York: Free
    Press.
    Mintrom, Michael and Sandra Vergari 1998 “Policy Networks and Innovation
    Diffusion: The Case of State Education Reforms,” The Journal of Politics,
    60(1):126-148.
    Munro, John F. 1993. “California Water Politics: Explaining Policy Change in a
    Cognitively Polarized Subsystem.” In Sabatier, Paul A. and Hank C.
    Jenkins-Smith (eds.), Policy Change and Learning: A Advocacy Coalition
    Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Munger, Michael C. 2000. Analyzing Policy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
    Neef, D. 1998. “The Knowledge Economy: An Introduction,” In D. Neff (ed.), The
    Knowledge Economy. Boston: Batterworth-Heinemamn.
    North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance.
    Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Presss.
    Olson, Mancur 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the
    Theory of Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    Ostrom, Elinor. 1999. “Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the
    Institutional Analysis and Development Framework,” In Sabatier, Paul A.
    (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Peters, B. Gay. 1994. “Government Reorganization: A Theoretical Analysis.” In
    Farazmand, Ali (eds.), Handbook of Bureaucracy. New York: Marcel Dekker.
    Peters, B.Gay. 1998. Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods. New York: New
    York University Press.
    Peters, B.Gay. 1999. Institutional Theory in Political Science. London: Pinter.
    Polsby, Nelson W. 1984. Political Innovation in America: The Politics of Policy
    Initiation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Pontusson, Jonas. 1995. ”From Comparative Public Policy to Political Economy,”
    Comparative Political Studies, 28(1):117-147.
    Powell, W. and P. DiMaggio. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational
    Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Pressman, Jeffrey and Aaron Wildavsky. 1979. Implementation. 2nd ed., Berkeley,
    Calif.: University of California Press.
    Putnam, Robert 1993 Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
    Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
    Roberts, Nancy C. and Paula J. King. 1996. Transforming Public Policy: Dynamics
    of Policy Entrepreneurship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Rose, Richard. 1991. “What Is Lesson-Drawing?” Journal of Public Policy, 2:3-30.
    Rose, Richard. 1993. Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: a Guide to Learning Across
    and Space. Chatham, N. J.: Chatham House.
    Rose, Richard and Phillip L. Davies 1994. Inheritance in Public Policy: Change
    Without Choice in Britain. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Rothstein, Bo. 1998. “Political Institutions: An Overview.” In Goodin, Robert E. and
    Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.), A New Handbook of Political Science. New
    York: Oxford University Press.
    Sabatier, Paul A. 1987. ”Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning, and Policy Change,”
    Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8:649-692.
    Sabatier, Paul A. 1988. ”An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the
    Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein,” Policy Sciences, 21:129-168.
    Sabatier, Paul A. (ed.) 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview
    Press.
    Sabatier, Paul A. and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: A
    Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Sabatier, Paul A. and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. “The Advocacy Coalition
    Framework: An Assessment,” In Sabatier, Paul A. (ed.) Theories of the Policy
    Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Salamon, Lester M. and Odus V. Elliott.(ed.) 2002. The Tools of Government: A
    Guide to the New Governance. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
    Scharpf, Fritz W. 2000 “Institutions in Comparative Policy Research,” Comparative
    Political Studies, 33(6/7):762-790.
    Schlager, Edella. 1995. “Policy Making and Collective Action: Defining Coalitions
    within the Advocacy Coalition Framework,” Policy Sciences, 28:242-270.
    Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur M. 1986. The Cycles of American History. Boston : Houghton
    Mifflin Company.
    Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1939. Business Cycle: A Theoretical, Historical and
    Statistic Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    Scott, John. 2000. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. 2nd, London: Sage.
    Seo, Myeong-Gu and W. E. Douglas Creed. 2002. “Institutional Contradictions,
    Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective,” Academy of
    Management Review, 27(2):222-247.
    Sieber, Sam D. 1981. Fatal Remedies: The Ironies of Social Intervention. New York:
    Plenum Press.
    Simon, Herbert A. 1985. “Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology
    with Political Science,” American Political Science Review, 79:293-304.
    Stewart, David W. and Michael A. Kamins. 1993. Secondary Research: Information
    Sources and Methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
    Stone, Deborah A. 1989. “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas,”
    Political Science Quarterly, 104(2):281-300.
    Stone, Deborah A. 1997. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making.
    New York: W.W. Norton.
    Stone, Diane. 1999. “Learning Lessons and Transferring Policy Across Time, Space
    and Disciplines,” Politics, 19(1):51-59.
    True, James L., Bryan D.Jones, and Frank R. Baumgartner. 1999. “Punctuated-
    Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in American
    Policymaking,” In Sabatier, Paul A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process.
    Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Van Waarden, Frans 1992 “Dimensions and Types of Policy Networks,” European
    Journal of Political Research, 21(1):29-52.
    Vira, Bhaskar. 1997. “The Political Coase Theorem: Identifying Differences Between
    Neoclassical and Critical Institutionalism,” Journal of Economic Issues,
    31(3):761-779.
    Wildavsky, A. 1979. Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis.
    Boston: Littie, Brown.
    Wildavsky, A. 1980. The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. London: Macillan.
    Wildavsky, A. 1982. “The Three Cultures: Explaining Anomalies in the American
    Welfare State.” Public Interests, 69:45-58.
    Wolf, Jr. Charles. 1987. “Market and Non-Market Failures: Comparison and
    Assessment,” Journal of Public Policy, 7(1):43-70.
    Wolf, Jr. Charles. 1988. Markets or Governments: Choosing Between Imperfect
    Alternatives. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case study research : design and methods. 2nd ed. Thousand
    Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
    Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 1999. “Ambiguity, Time, and Multiple Streams,” In Sabatier,
    Paul A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政研究所
    86256504
    92
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0086256504
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    25650401.pdf45KbAdobe PDF1185View/Open
    25650402.pdf105KbAdobe PDF1203View/Open
    25650403.pdf85KbAdobe PDF2039View/Open
    25650404.pdf79KbAdobe PDF1138View/Open
    25650405.pdf493KbAdobe PDF1713View/Open
    25650406.pdf392KbAdobe PDF2382View/Open
    25650407.pdf449KbAdobe PDF5923View/Open
    25650408.pdf340KbAdobe PDF2380View/Open
    25650409.pdf349KbAdobe PDF2373View/Open
    25650410.pdf412KbAdobe PDF2806View/Open
    25650411.pdf506KbAdobe PDF2755View/Open
    25650412.pdf330KbAdobe PDF1315View/Open
    25650413.pdf223KbAdobe PDF1785View/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