English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 92604/122928 (75%)
Visitors : 26870144      Online Users : 430
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/140.119/98638


    Title: 委員會參與真能回應政策需求嗎? 以全民健康保險會參與為例之評估
    Can Committee Participation Be Responsive to Policy Demands? An Evaluation of Participation in Taiwanese NHIC
    Authors: 羅凱凌
    Luo, Kai Ling
    Contributors: 陳敦源
    Chen, Don Yun
    羅凱凌
    Luo, Kai Ling
    Keywords: 行政部門委員會
    公共參與
    代表性
    回應性
    全民健康保險會
    民主治理
    governmental committee
    representativeness
    responsiveness
    public participation
    national health insurance committee
    democratic governance
    Date: 2016
    Issue Date: 2016-07-01 15:23:17 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 行政部門委員會為政府內具有公共參與特質的合議制組織,來自社會層級的利害關係人被納入決策圈,並共同決定政策內容,作者稱之為委員會參與機制。此決策模式結合了社會與政府對公共參與的期待,並在世界各國廣泛使用。行政管理者宣稱可透過社會代表性的提升,提高政策的正當性與回應性;但實務上,委員會卻遭遇密室協商、激化對立、政治操弄等質疑。對此,本研究提出以下疑問:公共參與是否真能回應社會的政策需求?該如何具體評估參與績效?
    依據委員會的決策結構特質,作者由公共參與的理論視野探討代表性和回應性的因果機制,提供一套以委員會為主體的參與評估標準。代表性在理論上有形式與實質代表性兩個層次,共包含參與制度、議事行為與會議影響力三個面向;回應性則強調利害關係人對委員會回應需求的主觀評價,又分為民主程序與實質利益的需求回應能力兩類。參與概念落實在制度賦權和議事行為,應該會同時強化兩類回應性。在研究方法上,本文以全民健康保險委員會為分析案例:首先透過跨國比較,分析台灣、日本、韓國、加拿大以及德國在類似的審議機制中,如何建構委員會代表性的制度。依此基礎,再針對第一屆健保會的運作進行分析,透過利害關係人問卷、健保會會議記錄內容分析、深度訪談與焦點團體等方法,深入探討健保會之政策回應能力。
    研究結果發現:一、委員會參與的制度賦權和正當性皆來自代議機關,尚無法取而代之。台灣健保會之形式代表性,在行政單位主導下仍偏好具有政治動員能力的團體,較忽略社會連帶或保障弱勢的價值。二、健保會在民主功能和實質結果兩個回應性面向的評價皆為正面,而民主程序的評價又優於後者。然而,相互理解的功能評價再高,卻未對實質回應性產生顯著影響。三、是否具有健保會席次並不影響回應性評估;但直接與會者以及實際參與愈積極者,卻反而對委員會回應利害關係人需求的能力抱持較悲觀的看法。最後,在程序面和實質面評價上最為顯著的因素為會議影響力,會議影響力愈大的團體,其回應性也就愈高。
    總結上述來回答核心問題:參與是否會提高利害關係人的回應性?在極大化個體利益的動機下,參與制度和行為都只提供爭取權益的機會,不必然導致實質利益。再加上負擔參與成本以及競爭資源的政治現實,參與者進入體制後,反而對委員會的政策回應能力持質疑的態度。是故,會議影響力為關鍵因素,只有在參與過程中獲利愈多者,其回應性才有直接的正面作用;若忽略參與途徑和結果的連結以及權力互動,就過度簡化了參與的政治本質。基於此,行政管理者掌握了決策結構與行政資源,若想取得較佳的回應性評價,就必須在制度和過程面中平衡不同的社會力量,才能使委員會發揮多元參與的功能,而不只是優勢團體的工具。
    Governmental committees are a kind of public participatory mechanism, whereby policy stakeholders are incorporated in the decision making procedure and negotiate with each other to policy outcomes. This mechanism accords with the expectations of both society and government and is frequently used by executive branches all over the world. Ideally, social representativeness can strengthen legitimacy and thereby increase responsiveness. However, in practice, there have also been some criticisms of the committee mechanism, including black box decision making, conflict enlargement, and administrative manipulation. To response this debate, my study addresses whether this type of public participation is responsive to policy demands as well as how to substantially evaluate its effectiveness.
    Theoretically, participation has a positive impact on policy demands, I provide more precise analysis using the concepts of representativeness and responsiveness. The former refers to how interests are presented in the decision making process, including in both the formal and substantive dimension. The latter refers to the committee’s ability to respond to procedural and substantive demands from society.
    To illustrate the theoretical framework, the National Health Insurance Committee (NHIC) in Taiwan is taken as my case study. The empirical section is divided into two parts, Fist, I explore original guiding values and institutional design of five committees that emerged under different political-social contexts in Japan, South Korea, Canada, Germany and Taiwan. Based on the results of this comparison, the NHIC in Taiwan is my main topic in the second part. The participatory behavior of committee members and their evaluation of the NHIC system are discussed through the various research methods, such as interviews, focus groups, stakeholder surveys, and also context analysis of meeting minutes.
    Four results of the study are illustrated as follows: 1. Because the legitimacy of the committee mechanism is empowered by traditional representative authority (the elected legislative or executive branch), it serves a supplementary rather than substitutive function to the existing system. Especially in Taiwan, the administration prefers the advantaged groups more capable of mobilizing social supports over the vulnerable groups which may bring the values of social solidarity and justice into the decision-making of the committee. 2. Stakeholders positively appraised the NHIC’s responsive capacity, both in the procedural and substantive dimensions, with the former appraised more highly than the latter. However, a high level of communication functions had no impact on responsiveness. 3. The institutional variable has no impact on responsiveness. However, direct participation in meetings was associated with more pessimistic views of the NHIC when compared to the non-participators. In addition, the more actors were involved in the NHIC, the more negative their evaluations were. 4. The most significant variable for responsiveness is the decision influence of stakeholders.
    Does participation strengthen stakeholders’ responsiveness? Under the condition that individuals are motivated by interest maximization, while institutional design and participatory behavior seek to pursue individual interest, it may not always realize substantial benefits. Furthermore, after becoming institutional insiders, the costs of participation and the political reality of power competition will make stakeholders more skeptical about the responsiveness of committee mechanisms. In other words, whether participation can increase the stakeholders’ satisfaction mainly depends on the benefit they can obtain from it. Without taking into account the link between participatory approaches and results, as well as the interaction between various stakeholders, we cannot gain a full picture of the nature of policy participation.
    In terms of practical reforms, to increase performance responsiveness, administrators who control the structures and resources of the NHIC should incorporate different social forces and interests on the input and process dimensions. This will enable the committee mechanism to perform the function of pluralistic participation, rather than simply serving as a political tool for advantaged groups.
    Reference: Achen, C. H. (1978). Measuring Representation. American Journal of Political Science, 22(3), 475-510.
    Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 56-65.
    Alkadry, M. G. (2003). Deliberate Discourse Between Citizens and Sdministrators: If Citizens Talk, Will Administrators Listen? Administration and Society, 35(2), 184-209.
    Amirkhanyan, A., Kim, H. J., and Lambright, K. T. (2013). The Performance Puzzle: Understanding the Factors Influencing Alternative Dimensions and Views of Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 1-34.
    Anderson, C. J., and Guillory, C. A. (1997). Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 66-81.
    Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Moon, M. J., and Walker, R. M. (2010). Assessing Organizational Performance: Exploring Differences between Internal and External Measures. International Public Management Journal, 13(2), 105-129.
    Ankersmit, F. R. (2002). Political Representation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    Ansell, C., and Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
    Arai, Y., and Ikegami, N. (1998). Health Care Systems in Transition II. Japan, Part I. An Overview of the Japanese Health Care Systems. Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 29-33.
    Armor, J. C. (1994). Why Term Limits? Because They Have It Coming. Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books.
    Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
    Ashworth, R., Boyne, G., and Delbridge, R. (2009). Escape from the Iron Cage? Organizational Change and Isomorphic Pressures in the Public Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 165-187.
    Aucoin, P. (2012). New Political Governance in Westminster Systems: Impartial Public Administration and Management Performance at Risk. Governance, 25(2), 177-199.
    Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. New York: Cengage Learning.
    Baccaro, L. (2003). What is Alive and What is Dead in the Theory of Corporatism. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(4), 683-706.
    Bailer, S., Bodenstein, T., and Heinrich, V. F. (2008). What Makes Civil Society Strong? Testing Bottom-up and Top-down Theories of a Vibrant Civil Society. Global Survey of The State of Civil Society, 2(1), 217-234.
    Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory Politics For A New Age. New York: University of California Press.
    Bardach, E., and Lesser, C. (1996). Accountability in human services collaboratives—for what? and to whom? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 197-224.
    Barnes, M., Newman, J., and Sullivan, H. (2007). Power, Participation and Political Renewal. Bristol: The Policy Press.
    Bauroth, N. (2005). The Influence of Elections on Special District Revenus Policies: Special Democracies or Automatons of the State?. State and Local Government Review, 37(3), 193-205.
    Beierle, T. C. (2002). The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 739-749.
    Bekkers, V., and Edwards, A. (2007). Legitimacy and democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Governance Practices. In Governance and the Democratic Deficit: Assessing The Democratic Legitimacy of Governance Practices, ed., Dijkstra, G., Fenger, M., Bekkers, V., and Edwards, M. A., NewYork: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..
    Bell, S., and Hindmoor, A. (2009). Governance Through Associations. In Rethinking governance: the Centrality of the State in Modern Society, ed., Bell, S. and A. Hindmoor, A, New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Benington, J., and Moore, M. H. (2011). Public Value: Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Bertelli, A. M. (2006a). The Role of Political Ideology in the Structural Design of New Governance Agencies. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 583-595.
    Bertelli, A. M. (2006b). Delegating to the Quango: Ex Ante and Ex Post Ministerial Constraints. Governance, 19(2), 229-249.
    Bevir, M. (2010). Democratic Governance. New York: Princeton University Press.
    Bishop, P., and Davis, G. (2002). Mapping Public Participation in Policy Choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 14-29.
    Borrini, G., and Jaireth, H. (2007). Sharing Power: Learning-by-doing in Co-management of Natural Resources Throughout The World. London: Earthscan.
    Bovaird, T. (2005). Public Governance: Balancing Stakeholder Power in a Network Society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 217-228.
    Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468.

    Boyne, G. A. (2006). Public Service Performance: Perspectives on Measurement and Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Bozeman, B. (2007). Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism. New York: Georgetown University Press.
    Bozeman, B., and Feeney, M. K. (2011). Rules and Red Tape: A Prism For Public Administration Theory and Research. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
    Brehm, J., and Gates, S. (2014). Bureaucratic Politics Arising From, Not Defined by, a Principal–Agency Dyad. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 27-42.
    Briscoe, F. (2007). From Iron Cage to Iron Shield? How Bureaucracy Enables Temporal Flexibility for Professional Service Workers. Organization Science, 18(2), 297-314.
    Brown, D. S. (1955). The Public Advisory Board as an Instrument of Government. Public Administration Review, 15(3), 196-204.
    Bryer, T. A. (2009). Explaining Responsiveness in Collaboration: Administrator and Citizen Role Perceptions. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 271-283.
    Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., and Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing Public Participation Processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23-34.
    Callahan, K. (2006). Elements of Effective Governance: Measurement, Accountability and Participation. NewYork: CRC Press.
    Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen Participation: Models and Methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(11), 1179-1196.
    Cameron, K. S., and Whetten, D. A. (2013). Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. NewYork: Academic Press.
    Castiglione, D., and Warren, M. E. (2006). Rethinking Democratic Representation: Eight Theoretical Issues. Paper Presented at the Conference on Rethinking Democratic Representation, Vancouver.
    Caulfield, J. L. (2004). Measuring Autonomy in Social Security Agencies: A Four Country Comparison. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 137-145.
    Childs, S., and Krook, M. L. (2008). Critical Mass Theory and Women's Political Representation. Political Studies, 56(3), 725-736.
    Chun, C., Kim, S., Lee, J., and Lee, S. (2009). Republic of Korea. Health System Review. Health Systems in Transition, 11(7), 1-185.
    Cohen, J., and Rogers, J. (1995). Associations and democracy. Social Philosophy and Policy, 10(2), 282-312.
    Colvin, R. M., Witt, G. B., and Lacey, J. (2016). Approaches to identifying stakeholders in environmental management: Insights from practitioners to go beyond the ‘usual suspects’. Land Use Policy, 52, 266-276.
    Conway, M. Margaret. (1991). Political participation in the United States. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

    Cooke, B., and Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny? NewYork: Zed Books.
    Cooper, T. L., Thomas, A. B., and Meek, J. W. (2006). Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public Management. Public Administration Review, 66, 76-88.
    Cornwall, A. (2003). Whose Voices? Whose Choices? Reflections on Gender and Participatory Development. World development, 31(8), 1325-1342.
    Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal Theory, Motivation, and School Achievement: An Integrative Review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 171-200.
    Cox, G. W., and Niou, E. (1994). Seat Bonuses under the Single Non-transferable Vote System: Evidence from Japan and Taiwan. Comparative Politics, 26(2), 221-236.
    Cox, G. W., and McCubbins, M. D. (2005). Setting The Agenda: Responsible Party Government in The U.S. House of Representatives. Leiden: Cambridge University Press.
    Craig, B. H., and Gilmour, R. S. (1992). The Constitution and Accountability for Public Functions. Governance, 5(1), 46-67.
    Creighton, J. L. (2005). The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement. Cambridge: Wiley. com.
    Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., and Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10(2), 184-200.
    De Stefano, L. (2010). Facing the water framework directive challenges: A baseline of stakeholder participation in the European Union. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(6), 1332-1340.
    DeLeon, P. (2005). Social Construction for Public Policy. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 635-637.
    Denhardt, R. B., and Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549-559.
    Denhardt, R. B., and Denhardt, J. V. (2003). The New Public Service: An Approach to Reform. International Review of Public Administration, 8(1), 3-10.
    Denhardt, R., Denhardt, J., and Blanc, T. (2013). Public Administration: An Action Orientation. NewYork: Cengage Learning.
    Denhardt, R., and Catlaw, T. (2014). Theories of Public Organization. NewYork Cengage Learning.
    Dolan, J. (2000). The Senior Executive Service: Gender, Attitudes, and Representative Bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(3), 513-530.
    Dolan, J., and Rosenbloom, David H. (2003). Representative Bureaucracy: Classic Readings and Continuing Controversies. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
    Dryzek, J. S. (2005). Deliberative Democracy in Divided Societies: Alternatives to Agonism and Analgesia. Political Theory, 33(2), 218-242.
    Dryzek, J. S., and Niemeyer, S. (2008). Discursive Representation. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 481-493.
    Dryzek, J. S., and Tucker, A. (2008). Deliberative Innovation to Different Effect: Consensus Conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review, 68(5), 864-876.
    Eaton, A. E., and Nocerino, T. (2000). The Effectiveness of Health and Safety Committees: Results of a Survey of Public‐Sector Workplaces The Effectiveness of Health and Safety Committees. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 39(2), 265-290.
    Edwards, M. (2009). Civil Society: Polity. Cambridge: Polity Press
    Eger, R. J. (2006). Casting Light on Shadow Government: A Typological Approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 125-137.
    Einsiedel, E. F., Jelsøe, E., and Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the Technology Table: The Consensus Conference in Demark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 83-98.
    Elías, M. V., and Alkadry, M. G. (2011). Constructive Conflict, Participation, and Shared Governance. Administration and Society, 43(8), 869-895.
    Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., and Balogh, S. (2012). An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29.
    Etgeton, S. (2009). Patientenbeteiligung im Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss. In Gesundheitsreform 2007, ed. Schroeder, Wolfgang and Paquet, Robert. Berlin: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
    Etzioni-Halevy, E. 1993. The Elite Connection: Problems and Potential of Western Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Eulau, H., and Karps, P. D. (1977). The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 2(3), 233-254.
    Evans, R. G., and Stoddart, G. L. (1990). Producing Health, Consuming Health Care. Social Science and Medicine, 31(12), 1347-1363.
    Farrell, C. M. (2005). Governance in The UK Public Sector: The Involvement of The Governing Board. Public Administration, 83(1), 89-110.
    Flinders, M V and Smith, M J. (1999). Quangos, Accountability and Reform: The Politics of Quasi-Government. Hampshire : Macmillan Press.
    Follett, M. P. (1998). The New State: Group Organization The Solution of Popular Government. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    Freeman, R. E., and McVea, J. (2001). A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. Darden Business School Working Paper No. 01-02 .
    Friedman, K. V. (1981). Legitimation of Social Rights and The Western Welfare State: A Weberian perspective. New York: University of North Carolina Press.
    Fung, A. (2015). Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513-522.
    Fung, A. (2007). Democratic Theory and Political Science: A Pragmatic Method of Constructive Engagement. American Political Science Review, 101(03), 443-458.
    Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 66-75.
    Fung, A., Wright, E. O., and Abers, R. (2003). Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. New York: Verso.
    Gelman, A., and Hill, J. (2006). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.
    Glucker, A. N., Driessen, P. P. J., Kolhoff, A., and Runhaar, H. A. C. (2013). Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 104-111.
    Godfrey, P. C., and Madsen, G. C. (1998). Bureaucracy in the postmodern world: problems and solutions. International Journal of Public Administration, 21(5), 691-721.
    Golden, M. M. (1998). Interest Groups in the Rule-making Process: Who Participates? Whose Voices Get Heard? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 245-270.
    Goodliffe, J., Rothenberg, L. S., Sanders, M. S., and Interactive, H. (2005). From Goals to Actions: The Dynamics of Cosponsorship Reconsidered. Unpublished manuscript. Brigham Young University.
    Gradinger, F., Britten, N., Wyatt, K., Froggatt, K., Gibson, A., Jacoby, A., Popay, J. (2015). Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review. Health Expectations, 18(5), 661-675.
    Greve, C. (1999). Quangos in Demark and Scandinavia: Trends, Problems and Perspectives. In Quangos, Accountability and Reform: The Politics of Quasi-Government, ed. Flinders, M. V. and Smith, M. J.. London: Macmillan.
    Greve, C., Flinders, M., and Van Thiel, S. (1999). Quangos - What's in a Name? Defining Quangos from a Comparative Perspective. Governance, 12(2), 129-146.
    Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of The Public Sphere: An Inquiry into A Category of Bourgeois Society. London: Reutlege Press.
    Hall, Richard L.. (1987). Participation and Purpose in Committee Decision Making. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 105-127.
    Haynes, P. (2015). Managing Complexity in The Public Services. New York: Routledge.
    Head, B. W. (2008). Assessing Network-based Collaborations: Effectiveness for Whom? Public Management Review, 10(6), 733-749.

    Heinrich, C. J. (2002). Outcomes–based performance management in the public sector: implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 712-725.
    Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy. Cambridge: Polity press.
    Held, D. (1992). Democracy: From City-states to a Cosmopolitan Order? Political Studies, 40, 10-39.
    Herman, R. D., and Renz, D. O. (2004). Doing Things Right: Effectiveness in Local Nonprofit Organizations, a Panel Study. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 694-704.
    Herman, R. D., and Renz, D. O. (1998). Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness: Contrasts Between Especially Effective and Less Effective Organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9(1), 23-38.
    Hibbing, J., and Theiss-Morse, E. (1999). Americans as Democrats or Anti-Democrats: Exploring What the American People Want in Their Government. In Annual Meeting of the Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
    Ho, A., and P. Coates. 2004. Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment. Public Performance and Management Review 27(3): 29-50.
    Hodge, G. A., and Greve, C. (2007). Public–private Partnerships: An International Performance Review. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 545-558.
    Hood, C., and Schuppert, G. F. (1988). Delivering Public Services in Western Europe: Sharing Western European Experience of Para-Government Organization. London: Sage Pubns.
    Hughes, O. E. (2012). Public Management and Administration: An Introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Hunold, C. (2001). Corporatism, Pluralism, and Democracy: toward a Deliberative Theory of Bureaucratic Accountability. Governance, 14(2), 151-167.
    Hur, M. H. (2006). Empowerment in Terms of Theoretical Perspectives: Exploring a Typology of the Process and Components across Disciplines. Journal of community psychology, 34(5), 523-540.
    Ingraham, P. W. (1995). The Foundation of Merit: Public Service in American Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    Ingraham, P. W., and Lynn, L. E. (2004). The Art of Governance: Analyzing Management and Administration. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    Irvin, R. A., and Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is it Worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.
    Jeong, H.-S. (2011). Korea’s National Health Insurance—Lessons from the Past Three Decades. Health Affairs, 30(1), 136-144.
    Julnes, P. de L. and M. Holzer. 2008. Performance Measurement: Building Theory, Improving Practice. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

    Kathi, P. C., and Cooper, T. L. (2005). Democratizing the administrative state: Connecting neighborhood councils and city agencies. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 559-567.
    Kim, S. (2005). Individual-level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 245-261.
    King, C. S., and Stivers, C. (1998). Governement is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-Government Era. California: SAGE Publications.
    King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., and Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317-326.
    Kingsley, J. Donald.1944. Representive Bureaucracy: An Interpretation of the British Civil Service. OH: The Antioch Press
    Krehbiel, K., Shepsle, K. A., and Weingast, B. R. (1987). Why Are Congressional Committees Powerful? The American Political Science Review, 81(3), 929-945.
    Laird, F. N. (1993). Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision Making. Science, Technology and Human Values, 18(3), 341-361.
    Lan, Z., and Rainey, H. G. (1992). Goals, Rules, and Effectiveness in Public, Private, and Hybrid Organizations: More Evidence on Frequent Assertions about Differences. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(1), 5-28.
    Lasswell, Harold D. (1950). Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
    Laver, M., and Schofield, N. (1990). Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
    Laver, M., and Shepsle, K. A. (1996). Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Levi-Faur, D. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
    Lijphart, A. (1990). The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 1945-85. American Political Science Review 84(2), 481-96.
    Lipset, S. M., and Rokkan, S. (1967). Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. NewYork: Free press.
    Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2006). New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268.
    Loewenberg, G. (2015). On Legislatures: The Puzzle of Representation: Routledge. New York: Routledge, 2015.
    Long, N. E. (1952). Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism. American Political Science Review, 46(03), 808-818.
    Luo, Kailing. 2014. Governmental Board: Puppet Master or Puppet. Conference Paper presented at the EATS Annual Conference 2014, Portsmouth, UK.
    Luyet, V., Schlaepfer, R., Parlange, M. B., and Buttler, A. (2012). A framework to implement Stakeholder participation in environmental projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 111, 213-219.
    Mansbridge, J. (2003). Rethinking Representation. American Political Science Review, 97(4), 347-372.
    Mansbridge, J. (1994). Using Power/Fighting Power. Constellations, 1(1), 53-73.
    Matland, R. E. (1998). Women's Representation in National Legislatures: Developed and Developing Countries. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23(1), 109-125.
    Matthews, D. R. (1980). U.S. Senators and Their World. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
    Matthews, F. (2012). Governance and State Capacity. In Oxford Handbook of Governance, ed. Levi-Faur, D.. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
    Meier, K. J., and O’Toole, L. J. (2013). Subjective Organizational Performance and Measurement Error: Common Source Bias and Spurious Relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 429-456.
    Meier, K. J., and Stewart, J. (1992). The Impact of Representative Bureaucracies: Educational Systems and Public Policies. The American Review of Public Administration, 22(3), 157-171.
    Melkers, J., and Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of Performance-Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180-190.
    Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Forces, 18(4), 560-568.
    Meynhardt, T. (2009). Public Value Inside: What is Public Value Creation? International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3-4), 192-219.
    Miller, W. E., and Stokes, D. E. (1963). Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review, 57(1), 45-56.
    Mishler, W., and Rose, R. (2001). What Are the Origins of Political Trust?: Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-communist Societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 30-62.
    Mishler, W., and Rose, R. (1997). Trust, Distrust and Skepticism: Popular Evaluations of Civil and Political Institutions in Post-Communist Societies. The Journal of Politics, 59(2), 418-451.
    Mitchell, J. (1997). Representation in Government Boards and Commissions. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 160-167.
    Molina, O., and Rhodes, M. (2002). Corporatism: The Past, Present, and Future of a Concept. Annual Review of Political Science, 5(1), 305-331.
    Mosher Frederick, C. (1982). Democracy and the Public Service. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Nabatchi, T. (2010). Addressing the Citizenship and Democratic Deficits: The Potential of Deliberative Democracy for Public Administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 40, 376-399.
    Nie, N. H., and Kim, J. O. (1978). Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Comparison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    No, W. (2013). Health Care Co-operatives in South Korea: An Effective Alternative to the Health Care System in the Future?. Oxford: Texas ScholarWorks.
    Nordström, E.-M., Eriksson, L. O., and Öhman, K. (2010). Integrating Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in Participatory Forest Planning: Experience from a Case Study in Northern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(8), 562-574.
    Norris, Pippa, and Mark Franklin. (1997). Social Representation. European Journal of Political Research 32(2), 185-210.
    Noveck, Beth Simone. 2004. The future of citizen participation in the electronic state. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 1, 1–32.
    Octavio, Amorim Neto and Fabiano Santos.(2003). The Inefficient Secret Revisited: The Legislative Input and Output of Brazilian Deputies. Legislative Studies Quarterly 28(4), 449-479.
    O'Faircheallaigh, C. (2010). Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(1), 19-27.
    Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 1-24.
    Ordeshook, P. C., and Shepsle, K. A. (1982). Political Equilibrium. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
    Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2001). Distributed Public Governance: Agencies Authorities and Other Autonomous Bodies. Paris: OECD.
    Ostrom, E. (1991). Rational Choice Theory and Institutional Analysis: Toward Complementarity. American Political Science Review, 85(1), 237-243.
    O'Toole Jr, L. J., and Meier, K. J. (2011). Public Management: Organizations, Governance, and Performance. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
    Overeem, P. (2012). The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: Toward A Constitutional Perspective. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.
    Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Payne, T., and Skelcher, C. (1997). Explaining Less Accountability: The Growth of Local Quangos. Public Administration, 75(2), 207-224.
    Pennings, J. M., and Goodman, P. S. (1977). New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass San Francisco: CA.
    Peters, B. G., and Pierre, J. (2000). Citizens Versus the New Public Manager: The Problem of Mutual Empowerment. Administration and Society, 32(1), 9-28.
    Petracca, M. P. (Ed.). (1992). The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed. New York: Westview Press.
    Petts, J., and Brooks, C. (2006). Expert Conceptualisations of the Role of Lay Knowledge in Environmental Decisionmaking: Challenges for Deliberative Democracy. Environment and Planning A, 38(6), 1045.
    Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The Concept of Representation. New York: Univ of California Press.
    Platt, M. B. and Sinclair, Valeria C. 2008. Legislative Problem-Solving: Exploring Bill Sponsorship in Post-War America. Presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Pollak, J. (2007). Contested Meanings of Representation. Comparative European. Politics, 5(1), 87-103.
    Pollitt, C., and Talbot, C. (2004). Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of The Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. New York: Routledge.
    Powell, G. B. (2000). Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
    Powell, W. (1990). Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. In Research in Organizational Behavior, ed. Staw, Barry M. and Cummings, L., Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    Prost, A., Colbourn, T., Seward, N., Azad, K., Coomarasamy, A., Copas, A., Lewycka, S. (2013). Women's Groups Practising Participatory Learning and Action to Improve Maternal and Newborn Health in Low-resource Settings: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The Lancet, 381(98), 1736-1746.
    Przeworski, A., and Teune, H. (1982). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.
    Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C., and Manin, B. (1999). Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: and New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Quinn, R. E., and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377.
    Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: a Literature Review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431.
    Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N. (2009). Who's in and Why? A Typology of Stakeholder Analysis Methods for Natural Resource Management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933-1949.
    Rehfeld, A. (2005). The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation, Democratic Legitimacy, and Institutional Design. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Rehfuss, J. A. (1986). A Representative Bureaucracy? Women and Minority Executives in California Career Service. Public Administration Review, 46(5), 454-460.
    Reingold, B. (2000). Representing Women: Sex, Gender, and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. New York: Univ of North Carolina Press.
    Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., and Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 189-214.
    Riedwyl, H. and Steiner, J. (1995). What is Proportionality Anyhow? Comparative Politics, 27(3), 357–369.
    Rocca, M. S., and Micozzi, J. P. (2012). Explaining Simple Resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives. Presented at the Midwest Political Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.
    Rodrik, D., and Zeckhauser, R. (1988). The dilemma of government responsiveness. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7(4), 601-620.
    Rohde, D. W. (1991). Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
    Ron, A. (2012). Modes of Democratic Governance. In Oxford Handbook of Governance , ed. Levi-Faur, D., New York: Oxford University Press.
    Roseland, M. (2012). Toward Sustainable Communities: Solutions for Citizens and Their Governments. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
    Rosenbloom, D. H. (2002). Building a Legislative-centered Public Administration: Congress and the Administrative State, 1946-1999. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: Univ. of Alabama Press.
    Rosener, J. B. (1982). Making Bureaucrats Responsive: A study of the Impact of Citizen Participation and Staff Recommendations on Regulatory Decision Making. Public Administration Review, 42(4), 339-345.
    Rowe, G., and Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
    Rule, W. (1987). Electoral Systems, Contextual Factors and Women's Opportunity for Election to Parliamentin Twenty-Three Democracies. Western Political Quarterly, 40(3), 477-98.
    Sapiro, V. (1981). When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women. American Political Science Review, 75(3), 701-16.
    Schaap, A. (2007). Political Theory and The Agony of Politics. Political Studies Review, 5(1), 56-74.
    Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? New York: OUP Oxford.
    Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. New York: Sage Publications.
    Schubert, G. A. (1957). “The Public Interest” in Administrative Decision-Making: Theorem, Theosophy, or Theory? American Political Science Review, 51(02), 346-368.
    Schwindt-Bayer, L. A., and Mishler, W. (2005). An Integrated Model of Women's Representation. The Journal of Politics, 67(2), 407-428.
    Sclove, Richard. (2000) Town Meetings on Technology: Consensus Conference as Democratic Participation. In Science, Technology and Democracy, ed. Klieman, D. L., Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
    Scott, T. A., and Thomas, C. W. (2016). Unpacking the Collaborative Toolbox: Why and When Do Public Managers Choose Collaborative Governance Strategies? Policy Studies Journal, 1-24.
    Selden, S. C., Brewer, G. A., and Brudney, J. L. (1999). Reconciling Competing Values in Public Administration Understanding the Administrative Role Concept. Administration and Society, 31(2), 171-204.
    Shand, D., and Arnberg, M. (1996). Responsive Government. Paris: OECD.
    Shepsle, K. A., and Weingast, B. R. (1987). The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 85-104.
    Shepsle, K. A., Weingast, B. R. (1994). Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    Shipley, R., and Utz, S. (2012). Making it Count: A Review of the Value and Techniques for Public Consultation. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1): 22–42.
    Siaroff, A. (1999). Corporatism in 24 Industrial Democracies: Meaning and Measurement. European Journal of Political Research, 36(2), 175-205.
    Skelcher, C. (1998). Reforming the Quangos. The Political Quarterly, 69(1), 41-47.
    Skelcher, C., and Davis, H. (1998). The Appointed State: Quasi-governmental Organizations and Democracy. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    Skelcher, C., Mathur, N., and Smith, M. (2003). Partnership Doscourse and The Democratic Governance of Local Communities: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment. Paper Presented at the Conference on Democratic Network Governance, Centre for Democratic Network Governance, Denmark.
    Smith, S. S. (2007). Party Influence in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Smith, S. S. (1989). Call To Order: Floor Politics in the House and Senate. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
    Soma, K., and Vatn, A. (2014). Representing the common goods – Stakeholders vs. citizens. Land Use Policy, 41, 325-333.
    Song, Y. J. (2009). The South Korean Health Care System. Japan Medical Association Journal, 52(3), 206-209.
    Sørensen, E., and Torfing, J. (2007). Theoretical Approaches to Democratic Network Governance. In Theories of Democratic Network Governance, ed. Sørensen, E., and Torfing, J.. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillian.
    Stivers, C. (1994). The Listening Bureaucrat: Responsiveness in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 364-369.
    Stout, M. (2012). Logics of Legitimacy: Three Traditions of Public Administration Praxis. CRC Press.
    Strom, K. (1990). Minority Government and Majority Rule. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Talbot, C. (2011). Paradoxes and Prospects of ‘Public Value’. Public Money and Management, 31(1), 27-34.
    Talbot, C. (2009). Public Value—The Next “Big Thing” in Public Management? International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3), 167-170.
    Tatara, K., and Okamoto, E. (2009). Japan. Health System Review. Health Systems in Transition, 11(5), 1-164.
    Thatcher, M. (2002). Delegation to Independent Regulatory Agencies: Pressures, Functions and Contextual Mediation. West European Politics, 25(1), 125-147.
    Thatcher, M., and Sweet, A. S. (2002). Theory and Practice of Delegation to Non-Majoritarian Institutions. West European Politics, 25(1), 1-22.
    Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 369-404.
    Thomas, J. C. (2015). Public involvement in public management. The Age of Direct Citizen Participation, 50(4), 443.
    Thomas, J. C. (1990). Public Involvement in Public Management: Adapting and Testing a Borrowed Theory. Public Administration Review 50(4): 435–45.
    Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497-520.
    Thompson, F. J. (1976). Minority Groups in Public Bureaucracies: Are Passive and Active Representation Linked? Administration and Society, 8(2), 201-226.
    Urbinati, N., and Warren, M. E. (2008). The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 387-412.
    Van Buuren, A., and Klijn, E.-H. (2012). Democratic Legitimacy and New Forms of Water Management. International Journal of Water Resources Development , 28(4), 629- 645.
    Van Thiel, S. (2009). Political Influence on Public Appointments in the Netherlands: The X-factor?. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    Van Thiel, S. (2004). Trends in The Public Sector: Why Politicians Prefer Quasi-autonomous Organizations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16(2), 175-201.
    Van Thiel, S. (2001). Quangos: Trends, Causes and Consequences. England: Ashgate Publishing Company.
    Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G., and Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 101-118.
    Vigoda, E. (2002). From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the next Generation of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527-540.
    Walters, L. C., Aydelotte, J., and Miller, J. (2000). Putting More Public in Policy Analysis. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 349-359.
    Warren, M. E. (2001). Democracy and Association. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    Weber, M. (1989). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London: Routledge.
    Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O., and Renn, O. (2011). Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners' Perspectives. Environment and planning A, 43(11), 2688-2704.
    Williams, I., and Shearer, H. (2011). Appraising Public Value: Past, Present and Futures. Public Administration, 89(4), 1367-1384.
    Wilson, W. (1887). The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197-222.
    Woodford, M. R., and Preston, S. (2013). Strengthening Citizen Participation in Public Policy-Making: A Canadian Perspective. Parliamentary Affairs, 66(2), 345-363.
    Woolhandler, S., Campbell, T., and Himmelstein, D. U. (2003). Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada. New England Journal of Medicine, 349(8), 768-775.
    Yang, K., and Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen Involvement Efforts and Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Participatory Values, Stakeholder Pressures, and Administrative Practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249-264.
    Yang, K., and Pandey, S. K. (2007). Public Responsiveness of Government Organizations: Testing a Preliminary Model. Public Performance and Management Review, 31(2), 215-240.
    Young, I. M. (2001). Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670-690.
    Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    Young, I. M. (1996). Political Theory: An Overview. In A New Handbook of Political Science , ed. Goodin, RE and Klingemann, H-D. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Zielinski, J. (2002). Translating Social Cleavages into Party Systems: The Significance of new Democracies. World Politics, 54(2), 184-211.
    Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment Theory Handbook of Community Psychology (pp. 43-63). Oxford: Springer.
    Zysman, J. (1994). How Institutions Create Historically Rooted Trajectories of Growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(1), 243-283.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    政治學系
    99252501
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0992525011
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML150View/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