English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 111253/142169 (78%)
造訪人次 : 48144673      線上人數 : 768
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧:
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號",以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋,建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位,可獲得較完整資料
  • 進階搜尋
    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/127739


    題名: 從社會企業行動方案到社會創新行動方案:以政策變遷觀點
    Social Enterprise Action Plan to Social Innovation Action Plan: Perspectives on Policy Change
    作者: 張浩榕
    Chang, Hao-Jung
    貢獻者: 江明修
    Chiang, Min-Hsiu
    張浩榕
    Chang, Hao-Jung
    關鍵詞: 社會企業行動方案
    社會創新行動方案
    社會企業
    社會創新
    政策變遷
    Social Enterprises Action Plan
    Social Innovation Action Plan
    Social enterprise
    Social innovation
    Policy change
    日期: 2019
    上傳時間: 2019-12-06 09:24:19 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 隨著社會不斷進步發展,公共服務的需求更加多元,原本政府、公司企業、非營利組織提供服務的方式產生間隙,近年來「社會企業」(Social Enterprise)成為解決社會問題的新方式,其具備社會與經濟雙重底線目標,相較於非營利組織更有財務自主性,而相對於企業具有更多社會使命。進入新世紀後我國逐漸發展相關政策,但散見於各部會施政計畫中,直到行政院於民國103年核定「社會企業行動方案」統整相關政策,然而公共政策並非一成不變,行政院於民國107年核定「社會創新行動方案」延續前方案。
    本研究蒐集政策方案、相關專書、學術期刊、碩博士論文、報章雜誌以及政府資料,並檢閱社會企業、社會創新及政策變遷理論,形成具體研究問題:
    1.從社會企業行動方案到社會創新行動方案的政策過程為何?受到那些因素的影響?並呈現何種政策變遷態樣?
    2.社會企業行動方案及社會創新行動方案的政策變遷是否符合政策標的團體需求?
    本研究依據Kingdon(1984)的多元流程模型以及莊文忠(2003)的政策變遷影響因素建構研究架構,透過次級文件分析法分析相關研究資料,與政府部門及政策標的團體進行深度訪談,發現執行機關與政策標的團體相同,前後政策是漸進式的政策賡續,而變遷主要力量來自政治流與政策流的互動,執政權輪替影響施政目標轉變,而執行機關調整備選方案,但對政策標的團體來說,行動方案有政策產出但政策影響較小,仍大多專注於自身營運狀況。
    本研究因此建議政府部門重新檢討政策方案內涵,或可建立專責的任務編組組織來推動政策,並逐步修正相關法規與制度,且為落實政策方案,加強公務員教育訓練,以此為基礎進一步調整政策方向。
    The variety of demand for public services has increased rapidly due to continuous social development, and the gap between government, enterprises and non-profit organizations (NPOs) for providing public service has become more significant. To solve social problems arising from the above facts, the concept of “Social Enterprise” has created a new path. Social Enterprise has multiple characteristics to solve both social and economic problems: it is more financially independent comparing to NPOs, and it has more awareness of social responsibility comparing to profit-oriented enterprises.
    Entering the 21st century, the government of the Republic of China has developed policies regarding Social Enterprise. Most of them were not formulated and scattered in political projects written by various ministries until the approval of “Social Enterprise Action Plan” by the Executive Yuan in 2014. In a short amount of time, such plan has been further changed into “Social Innovation Action Plan” by the Executive Yuan in 2018.
    Based on the materials collected from policies, monographs, academic journals, thesis, journalism, public government information and after reviewing theories relating to Social Enterprise, Social Innovation as well as Policy Change, this paper is concerned with the following questions:
    1.How does policy change from “Social Enterprises Action Plan” to “Social Innovation Action Plan”? What form of policy change does it demonstrate?
    2.Does “Social Enterprises Action Plan” to “Social Innovation Action Plan” meet the requirements of policy target groups?
    This paper constructs its research framework based on Multiple Streams Model (Kingdon, 1984) and theories regarding policy change factors (Wen-Jong Juang, 2003). The main research methods used in this paper are secondary document analysis and in-depth interview with government sectors and policy target groups. The result of the research shows that the latter policy is incrementally policy succession of the former policy. Because there are the same executive agencies and policy targets groups, and the main factors to such policy change are the interactions between political stream and policy stream, the impacts of change in policy goals resulting from political ruling party alternation and the actions made by executive agencies as well as changes in policy alternatives. This paper also finds out that, while the action plans do have policy outputs, such policy does not have significant impact on the policy target groups; most entities rather focus on its own commercial operation.
    Therefore, this paper suggests that the government should review the substance of the policy thoroughly and/or establish a dedicated unit/sector or fund to enforce the policy, as well as amend relevant laws and regulations. Furthermore, no matter how policy changes in the future, to enforce the policy effectively, civil servants must be trained properly to ensure that the enforcement of the policy is tied to its goal.
    參考文獻: Ⅰ中文部分
    大衛.伊斯頓(1992)。政治生活的系統分析,王浦劬(譯),臺北:桂冠。譯自 A systems analysis of political life. David Easton. 1965.
    中小企業處談空總提案(2017)。2019年10月3日,取自:https://reurl.cc/EKrXX0。
    丘昌泰(2010)。公共政策:基礎篇。新北:巨流。
    王秉鈞(2015)。社會創新的起源-以臺灣經驗重新溯源社會責任與使命。社區發展季刊,152,83-95。
    台灣競爭力論壇學會(2015)。政府吸納社會創新強化公共治理之研究。國家發展委員會委託研究報告(編號:NDC-DSD-103-003),未出版。
    行政院(2018)。社會創新行動方案(107-111年),2018年11月20日,取自:https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/448DE008087A1971/f1eed6f0-a226-4ebd-9e71-83327ae0bcef
    李仲彬(2017)。政策創新的影響因素: 我國地方政府的分析(1999-2013)。東吳政治學報,35(2),139-206。
    吳定(2005)。公共政策辭典 台北:五南。
    邢瑜(2015)。台灣社會企業的內涵與範圍圖像建構。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系博士論文,未出版,台北。
    林水波(2006)。政策變遷的三面向分析。政策研究學報,6,1-18。
    林怡君(2007)。英國社會企業發展之研究。推動社會企業促進就業政策規劃建議書,勞委會職訓局委託。
    官有垣(2007)。社會企業組織在臺灣的發展。中國非營利評論,1,146-182。
    彼得.杜拉克(2009)。創新與創業精神:管理大師彼得.杜拉克談創新實務與策略,蕭富峰、李田樹(譯),臺北:臉譜。譯自 Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Peter F. Drucker. 1985.
    星展銀行、聯合報(2017)。2017社企大調查 社企產業調查,2019年3月31日,取自:http://p.udn.com.tw/upf/vision/2017/2017visionstory79004.pdf
    星展銀行、聯合報與台灣經濟研究院(2019)。2019社創大調查 社企產業調查,2019年9月19日,取自:https://sme.moeasmea.gov.tw/startup/modules/infopack/detail/?sId=30
    社企政委與馮燕前政委對談(2016)。2019年10月3日,取自:https://reurl.cc/L1mMry。
    社創中心第三十二次Office Hour蔡慧玲、吳秀卿(2018)。2019年10月3日,取自:https://reurl.cc/W4rq07。
    社會企業行動方案第十次聯繫會議(2016)。2019年10月3日,取自:https://reurl.cc/lLoe2q。
    社會企業行動方案第11次聯繫會議(2017)。2019年10月3日,取自:https://reurl.cc/zyZNGy。
    施淑惠(2013)。當前政府推動社會企業的規劃與作法。社區發展季刊,143,7-18。
    施聖文、陳東升(2014)。「人文創新與社會實踐」計畫推動與協調簡介。人文與社會科學簡訊,15(4),17-31。
    約瑟夫.熊彼得(2015)。經濟發展理論(創新之父熊彼得‧百年經典重譯版),蕭美惠(譯),臺北:商周出版。譯自The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Joseph A. Schumpeter. 1911.
    莊文忠(2003)。政策體系與政策變遷之研究:停建核四政策個案分析。國立政治大學公共行政學系博士論文,未出版,台北。
    教育部(2014)。教育部社會企業推動計畫,2019年9月10日,取自:https://reurl.cc/lLekYj
    陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。臺北:五南。
    陳恆鈞、劉紹祥(2007)從政策選擇觀點談政策變遷。T&D飛訊,56,1-18。
    陳瑋慈(2016)。社會企業行動方案建平臺之政策執行研究─以育成輔導平臺為例。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系碩士論文,未出版,台北。
    黃秀玲(2018)。社企踹共: 社會創新行動巡迴座談。國土及公共治理季刊,6(1),94-100。
    黃德舜、鄭勝分、陳淑娟與吳佳霖(2014)。社會企業管理。新北:指南書局。
    楊承修(2013)。由政策倡導聯盟架構探討廢除死刑議題之爭議。T&D飛訊,179,1-25。
    詹翊偵(2018)。多元就業開發方案與培力就業計畫。國土及公共治理季刊,6(1),88-93。
    溫肇東(2008)。「社會企業」的創新價值。經理人月刊,38,182。
    經濟部(2014)。社會企業行動方案(103-105年),2018年11月20日,取自:https://www.ey.gov.tw/Upload/RelFile/26/716149/8d8b6be7-0e21-4a37-9c72-871e28b325d2.pdf
    廖俊松(1999)。從理論到政策形成:政策窗模型的推介與適用。社區發展季刊,87,300-311。
    劉子琦(2015)。英國社會企業之旅:以公民參與實現社會得利的經濟行動。臺北:新自然主義。
    魯炳炎、張永明(2006)。政策倡導聯盟架構之研究:以國道五號蘇花段高速公路為例。政治科學論叢,30,131-164。
    潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究:理論與應用。臺北:心理。
    鄭勝分(2005)。歐美社會企業發展及其在臺灣應用之研究。國立政治大學公共行政學系博士論文,未出版,台北。
    鄭勝分(2007)。社會企業的概念分析。政策研究學報,7,65-108。
    鄭勝分(2008)。社會企業:市場、公共政策與公民社會的交叉點。公共行政學報,27,199-206。
    盤點社會企業行動方案(103-105年)現行執行成效(2016)。2019年10月3日,取自:https://reurl.cc/xD9Q4e。
    謝易儒(2014)。「人文創新與社會實踐」計畫之推動。人文與社會科學簡訊,15(4),12-16。
    羅吉斯(2006)。創新的擴散-為什麼有些好觀念、好產品會一炮而紅,有些卻流行不起來?,唐錦超(譯),臺北:遠流。譯自 Diffusion of Innovations. Everett M. Rogers. 1962.
    羅晉(2014)。政策變遷整合性分析架構之研究:臺灣菸害防制政策的觀察。政策研究學報,13,1-31。
    Babbie, E(2013)。社會科學研究方法(第二版),林秀雲(譯),臺北市:新加玻商聖智出版。譯自The Practice of Social Research, 13th Edition, 2012。
    Frankfort-Nachmias, C. & D, Nachmias(2003)。最新社會科學研究方法,潘明宏、陳志瑋(譯),新北市:韋伯文化國際。譯自Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 5th Edition, 1996。

    Ⅱ英文部分
    Baumgartner, F. R. & D. J. Bryan (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Borzaga, C. & J. Defourny (2001). Social enterprises in Europe: A diversity of initatives and propospects., In Borzaga, C. & Defourny, J. (Eds. ), The Emergence of Social Enterprise(pp.350-369), London & New York: Routledge..
    Cohen, M., J. March, & J. Olsen (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organization Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
    Dees, J.G. (1998). Enterprising Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76, 55-67.
    Dees, J.G. & B.B. Anderson (2006). Framing a Theory of Social Entrepreneurship: Building on Two Schools of Practice and Thought. ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series, 1(3), 39-66.
    Defourny, J. (2001). Introduction:From Third Sector to Social Enterprise., In Borzaga, C. & Defourny, J. eds. The Emergence of Social Enterprise. (pp.1-28) , London & New York: Routledge..
    Defourny, J. & M. Nyssens (2010). Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1, 32-53.
    Defourny, J. & M. Nyssens (2017). Mapping social enterprise models: some evidence from the “ICSEM” project", Social Enterprise Journal, 13(4), 318-328.
    Department of Trade and Industry. (2002). Social Enterprise:a strategy for success. Retrieved from, http://www.faf-gmbh.de/www/media/socialenterpriseastrategyforsucess.pdf
    Harris, M., & D. Albury (2009). The Innovation Imperative. Retrieved from, https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/the_innovation_imperative.pdf
    Hogwood, B. W., & B. G. Peters (1983). Policy dynamics. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.
    Howaldt, J., & M. Schwarz (2010). Social Innovation: Concepts, research fields and international trends. Retrieved from, http://www.asprea.org/imagenes/IMO%20Trendstudie_Howaldt_englisch_Final%20ds.pdf
    Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
    Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of "Muddling Through". Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.
    Moulaert, F., F. Martinelli, E. Swyngedouw & S. Gonza´lez (2005). Towards Alternative Model(s) of Local Innovation. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1969–1990.
    Moulaert, F., A. Mehmood, D. MacCallum & B. Leubolt (Eds.). (2017). Social Innovation as a Trigger for Transformations - The Role of Research. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/policy_reviews/social_innovation_trigger_for_transformations.pdf
    Mumford, M. D. (2002). Social Innovation: Ten Cases From Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 253-266.
    OECD. (1999). Social Enterprises. OECD.
    OECD. (2003). The Non-profit Sector in a Changing Economy. OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/leed-forum/publications/The%20Non-profit%20Sector%20in%20a%20Changing%20Economy.pdf
    OECD. (2010). SMEs, Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Retrieved from http://rosted.nu/attachments/File/2010/SMEs_Entrepreneurship_and_Innovation_2010.pdf
    OECD. (2013).Policy Brief on Social Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurial Activities in Europe. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Social%20entrepreneurship%20policy%20brief%20EN_FINAL.pdf
    Phills, J. A., K. Deiglmeier & D. T. Miller (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.
    Rhodes, R.A.W.(1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    Sabatier, Paul. A. & H. C. Jenkins-Smith (1999). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment. In Sabatier, Paul A. (Ed.), In Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 117-166).Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Sabatier, Paul. A. & C. M. Weible (2007). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In Sabatier, Paul A. (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, (pp. 189-220). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    TEPSIE(2014). Social Innovation Theory and Research: A Guide for Researchers. A deliverable of the project: “Thetheoretical, empirical and policy foundationsfor building social innovation in Europe”(TEPSIE), European Commission – 7thFramework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research. Retrieved from https://iupe.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/tepsie-research_report_final_web.pdf
    The Young Foundation (2012). Social Innovation Overview: A deliverable of the project:“The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research Retrieved from https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TEPSIE.D1.1.Report.DefiningSocialInnovation.Part-1-defining-social-innovation.pdf
    Westall, A. (2007), How Can Innovation in Social Enterprise be Understood, Encouraged and Enabled? Retrieved from www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/third_sector/assets/innovation_social_enterprise.pdf
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政學系
    102256038
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102256038
    資料類型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU201901253
    顯示於類別:[公共行政學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    603801.pdf2226KbAdobe PDF240檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    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。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    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。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋