Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/22069
標題: 以公私協力觀點探析災後住宅重建政策-以高雄縣甲仙鄉五里埔為例
An Evaluation from Public-Private Partnership Perspective on The Housing Restoration Policy after Natural Disaster-The Case of Wulipu, Jiaxian District in Kaohsiung City
作者: 林嘉鴻
Lin, Chia-Hong
關鍵字: public-private collaboration
公私協力
housing restoration
strategic management
MAXQDA
住宅重建
策略管理
MAXQDA
出版社: 國家政策與公共事務研究所
引用: 一、中文部分 (一)專書 司徒達賢(1995)。《策略管理》。台北:遠流。 陳向明(2007)。《社會科學質的研究》。台北:五南。 張奕華、許正妹(2010)。《質化資料分析:MAXQDA軟體的應用》。台北:心理。 劉麗雯(2004)。《非營利組織-協調合作的社會福利服務》。台北:雙葉。 榮泰生(2006)。《策略管理學》。台北:三民。 (二)期刊論文 李長晏、鄧怡婷(2002)。〈多重組織夥伴關係:治理模式與信任建構〉。《中國地方自治》,第 57 卷 8 期,頁19-47。 柯于章(2009)。〈災後遷村計畫之政治可行性分析:以高雄縣藤枝新舊部落為例〉。《台灣政治學刊》,第 13 卷第 1 期,頁107-159。 陳恆鈞、梁瑋倩(2009)。〈建成圓環再生計畫失敗因素之探討:參與治理觀點〉。《文官制度季刊》,第 1 卷第 3 期,頁81-124。 謝志誠、張紉、蔡培慧、王俊凱(2008)。〈臺灣災後遷村政策之演變與問題〉。《住宅學報》,第 17 卷第 2 期、頁81-97。 (三)專書論文 江明修、鄭勝分(2004)。〈非營利組織之協力管理〉。載於江明修(編),《非營利組織》(頁81-117)。台北:智勝。 陳介英 (2005)。〈深度訪談在經驗研究地位的反思〉。載於齊力、林本炫(編),《質性研究方法與資料分析(二版)》(頁117-127)。高雄:復文。 孫煒 (2008)。〈論促進我國非營利組織發展的法制化〉。載於江明修(編),《第三部門與政府:跨部門治理》。台北:智勝。 孫煒 (2007)。〈台灣第三部門與政府互動的政策分析〉。載於邱昌泰(編),《非營利部門硏究 : 治理,部門互動與社會創新》(頁157-203)。臺北 : 智勝。 王仕圖、吳敏慧 (2005)。〈深度訪談與案例演練〉。載於齊力、林本炫(編),《質性研究方法與資料分析(二版) 》(頁97-116)。高雄:復文。 (四)學位論文 王俊棟(2005)。《原住民部落遷村政策之研究-以瑞岩和中原口兩部落為例》。暨南國際大學公共行政與政策學系碩士論文,未出版,南投。 李怡萱(2006)。《公私協力機制之探討-以台灣石化工業為例》。淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士班論文,未出版,台北。 林子強(2007)。《政府與社會福利性非營利組織夥伴關係建構之研究-以家扶中心為例》。國立東華大學公共行政研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。 洪郁婷(2002)。《建構危機狀態下的公私協力關係-九二一緊急醫療與安置照顧在災難管理過程中的角色》。東海大學公共行政學系碩士論文,未出版,台中市。 姚泰山(2003)。《社會化治理下非營利組織的協力策略-以慈濟基金會「921希望工程」為檢証對象》。國立東華大學公共行政研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮。 黃寶中(2004)。《災變事件福利體系資源管理-危機處理中的公私協力關係》。東海大學社會工作學系碩士論文,未出版,台中市。 曾清芸(2005)。《非營利組織策略聯盟之研究-以教育基金會終身學習列車為例》。南華大學非營利事業管理學系碩士論文,未出版,嘉義。 曾淑娟(2009)。《區域聯盟治理結構之比較以北臺與高高屏區域聯盟為例》國立中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所碩士論文,未出版,台中市。 (五)電子資源 九二一震災重建基金會(2009)。〈住宅重建計畫系列〉。http://www.taiwan921.lib.ntu.edu.tw/921pdf/FH0000.pdf,檢索日期:2010年6月20日。 行政院九二一震災災後重建推動委員會(2001)〈九二一地震重建區住宅政策與實施方案〉。http://www.taiwan921.lib.ntu.edu.tw/921pdf/GD001.pdf,檢索日期:2011年1月2日。 行政院莫拉克颱風災後重建推動委員會(2010)。〈重建會災滿周年重建成果報告〉。http://88flood.www.gov.tw/general_news_detail.php?gn_id=24,檢索日期:2011年1月2日。 行政院莫拉克颱風災後重建推動委員會(2010)<莫拉克颱風災後家園重建計畫>。http://88flood.www.gov.tw/files/committee_plan2/5.pdf,檢索日期:2010年9月30日。 行政院莫拉克颱風災後重建推動委員會(2010)。〈永久屋安置基地家園重建資源整合與推動方案〉。http://download-88flood.www.gov.tw/Resource_Integration/Resource_Integration.htm,檢索日期:2011年1月3日。 行政院莫拉克颱風災後重建推動委員會(2010)。〈莫拉克風災重建成果之旅-高雄縣:旗山-杉林-甲仙-小林路線〉。http://88flood.www.gov.tw/general_news_detail.php?gn_id=52,檢索日期:2010年9月27日。 高雄縣政府(2009)。〈災後重建第3次會議專案報告〉。 http://88flood.kscg.gov.tw/Morakot/CP.aspx?s=3192&cp=1&n=13087,檢索日期:2011年1月2日。 高雄縣政府(2010)。〈災後重建第10次會議專案報告〉。http://88flood.kscg.gov.tw/Morakot/CP.aspx?s=3192&cp=1&n=13087,檢索日期:2011年1月2日。 謝志誠(2009)。〈遷村?可以多一點溫柔〉。http://www.88news.org/?p=515,檢索日期:2010年7月15日。 謝志誠、蔡培慧(2006)。〈遷村之推動與省思〉。http://www.taiwan921.lib.ntu.edu.tw/mypdf/my-village-m01.pdf,檢索日期:2010年7月15日。 二、西文部分 (一)專書 Agranoff, R. & M. McGuire (2003). Collaborative Public Management-New Strategies for Local Government. Washington, D.C. : Georgtown University Press. Brinkerhoff, D. W. & B. L. Crosby (2002). Managing Policy Reform-Concepts and Tools for Decision-Makers in Developing and Transitioning Countries. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Burkhart, P. J. & S. Reuss (1993). Successful Strategic Planning-A Guide for Nonprofit Agencies and Organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage publication. Heracleous, L. (2003). Strategy and Organization-Realizing Strategic Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Howlett, M. & M. Ramesh (1995). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. NY: Oxford University Press. Knoepfel, P., C. Larrue, F. Varone & M. Hill (2007). Public Policy Analysis. Bristol: Policy Press. Sullivan, H. & C. Skelcher (2002). Working Across Boundaries-Collaboration in Public Service. New York: Palgrave Press. (二)期刊論文 Ansell C. & A. Gash (2007). Collaborative Government in Theory and Practice. Journal of public Administration Review, 18: 543-571. Blair, R. (2002). Policy Tools Theory and Implementation networks: Understanding State Enterprise zone Partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and theory, 12(2): 161-190. Bryson, J. M., B. C. Crosby & M. M. Stone (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaboration: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 66 (Supplement): 44-55. Cigler, B. A. (1999). Pre-conditions for the Emergence of Multicommunication Collaborative Organization. Policy Studies Review, 16(1): 87-102. Frederickson, H. G. (1999). The Repositioning of American Public Administration. Political Science and Political, 32(4): 701-711. Gazley, B. (2008). Beyond the Contract: The Scope and Nature of Informal Government-Nonprofit Partnerships, Public Administration Review, 68(1):141-154. Ghere, R. K. (2001). Probing the Strategic Intricacies of Public-Private Partnership: The Patent as a Comparative Reference. Public Administrative Review, 61(4): 441-451. Human, S. E. & K. G. Provan (2000). Legitimacy Building in the Evolution of Small-Firm Multilateral Network: A Comparative Study of Success and Demise. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2): 327-365. Huxham, C. (1995). Theorizing Collaboration Practice. Public Management Review, 5(3):401-423. Lipsky, M. & S. R. Smith (1989). Nonprofit Organizations, Government, and the Welfare State. Political Science Quarterly, 104 (4): 625-648. Margerum, R. D. (2001). Organizational Commitment to Integrated and Collaborative Management: Matching Strategies to Constraints. Environment Management, 28(4): 421-431. McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It. Public Administration Review, Special Issue: 33-43. Najam, A. (2000). The Four-C’s of Third Sector-Government Relations-Cooperation, Confrontation, Complementarity, and-Cooptation. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10(4): 375-396. Reilly, T. (2001). Collaboration in Action. Administration in Social Work, 25 (1): 53-74. Saidle, J. R. (1991). Resource interdependence: The relationship between state agencies and nonprofit organizations, Public Administration Review, 56(6): 543-553. Smith, C. R. (2007). Institution Determinants of Collaboration: An Empirical Study of County Open-Space Protection. Journal of Public Administration Research, 19: 1-21. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571-610. Thomson, A. M. & J. L. Perry (2006). Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box. public Administration Review, 66(Supplement): 22-32. (三)專書論文 Bingham, L., R . O’Leary & C. Carlson (2008). Frame shifting Lateral Thinking for Collaborative Public Management. In L. Bingham & R. O’Leary (Eds.), Big Ideas in Collaborative Public Management (pp. 3-16). Armonk, NY : M.E. Sharpe. Bryson, J. M. & B. C. Crosby (2008). Frame shifting Lateral Thinking for Collaborative Public Management. In L. Bingham & R. O’Leary (Eds.), Big Ideas in Collaborative Public Management (pp. 55-79). Armonk, NY : M.E. Sharpe. Jenkins, J. C. (2006). Nonprofit Organizations and Political Advocacy. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The Non-profit Sector-A Research Handbook (pp. 307-332). New Haven : Yale University Press. Klijn, E. & G. R. Teisman (2005). Public-Private Partnerships as the Management of Co-production: Strategic and Institution Obstacles in a Difficult Marriage. In G. Hodge, & C. Greve (Eds.), The Challenge of Public-Private Partnerships-Learning from International Experience (pp. 95-116). Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar Pub. Peter, B. G. (2002) .The Politics of Tool Choice. In L. M. Salamon (Ed), The tools of government :a guide to the new governance (pp. 553-559). NY: Oxford University Press. Peter, B. (1998). With a Little Help From Our Friends: Public-Private Partnership as Institutions and Instruments. In j. Pierre (Ed), Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experiences (pp. 11-34). NH: Macmillan Press. Smith, S. R. & K. A. Gronbjerg (2006). Scope and Theory of Government-Nonprofit Relations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The Non-profit Sector-A Research Handbook (pp. 221-242). New Haven : Yale University Press. Steinberg, R. (2006). Economic Theories of Nonprofit Organizations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The Non-profit Sector-A Research Handbook (pp. 117-139). New Haven : Yale University Press. Vigoda, E. & E. Gilboa (2002). The Quest for Collaboration-Toward a Comprehensive Strategy for Public Administration. In E .Vigoda (Ed), Public administration: an interdisciplinary critical analysis (pp. 99-117). NY : Marcel Dekker Press.
摘要: 2009年8月8日我國遭受莫拉克颱風侵襲,造成中南部山區村落遭受土石流掩埋。本研究以高雄縣甲仙鄉五里埔小林村作為研究個案之原由有二:第一、小林村災損的嚴重性為各界所關注;第二,高度的自主參與意識。莫拉克重建,地方政府為主要辦理者,並將永久屋興建事項委由第三部門協助籌措資金與辦理。公私協力的趨勢,又顯示政府將第三部門納為重建體系中不可或缺的策略夥伴。不論莫拉克重建條例的原則性規範,亦或政府與第三部門的非正式關係,皆賦予行動者廣泛的自主權限。因此,行動者對自我目標與利益的堅持,又影響各方是否遵從協力規範的意願。從策略管理的角度,地方政府如何在「自我利益」與「雙贏假設」的均衡下,取得行動者對協力的支持,則成為協力效益達成的關鍵要素。 本研究為質性分析之取向,透過深度訪談所蒐集之資料,分別驗證初始條件、組織目標、制度設計以及催化領導如何影響協力過程之良窳,以及協力過程之行動與結構面之因果關連,如何影響協力效益的達成。實證資料之歸納則利用質性軟體MAXQDA進行編碼與分析,並依據分析結果提出實務上的政策建議。 研究結果顯示,行動者在一致目標的趨使下,而能充分利用協力的功效,並兼顧落實個別與集體的目標。結論的因果命題,包括「資源與權力不對稱影響行動者參與的地位」、「組織目標的差易影響決策自主權以及資源結構的配置」、「制度原則性規範強化共識關係的發展」、「領導統御彈性化功能,充分整合與發揮行動者的執行效力」、「政治領導的強力支持而獲得協力成員的承諾」、「暢通的資訊與溝通管道,促進行動者對協力運作的合法認同」、「互惠型的資源依賴使行動者能從雙贏的立場兼顧自我與他人的利益」、「協力過程透過雙贏策略的執行而獲得一加一大於二的合超效益」。 最後、本研究針對未來住宅重建公私協力之建議:效率導向與民主參與的權衡、土地權限轉移制度的訂定、援助對象與標準應建立分級制度、提升地方政府重建的專業能力、深化行動者的互動、資源結構的整合、建置有效的標竿學習模式。
In August 8, 2009, Taiwan was invaded by the typhoon “Morakot”, causing landslide to damage many villages at the mountain areas in central and and southern Taiwan. There are two reasons of researchingon the case of Shiao Lin Village, Wulipu, Jiaxian District in Kaohsiung City : First, the deadly disaster drew great attention from all sides. The second is that the survivors exhibited strong sense of participatory autonomy. During the restoration process, the local government was in charge of most executive responsibilities, and outsourcing the housing restoration project to the non-profit sector, which also assisted in rasing funds and other reletive works. The trend of public-private collaboration indicates the needs of including the third sector as a strategic partner with the government in post-natural disaster reconstruction. Both Morakot regulation and the informal relationship between the government and the third sector give each actor extensive autonomy. Therefore, organizational goals and self-interest influence an actor's willingness to conforming to the rules of collaboration. From the strategic management perspective, how to realize self-interest while achieving a ‘win-win situation' for all actors becomes the main challenge for local government to win supports from actors. This reaserch applied the method of in-depth interview to gather pragmatic data to verifyhow key factors including initial conditions, organization goals, institutional design, and facilitative leadership affecting the collaborative process, , and how the relationship between the actions and structures of collaboration influences the outcome. The software MAXQDA was used to analyse the data, and practical policy recommendations were offered. The results of this research shows actors driven by the same goals can effectively benefit more from collaboration and achieve the indiviual goals and collective goals at the same time. The findings include: (1) resource and power asymmetry influence the position of actors participating the process, (2) the difference in organization goals influence autonomy and resource structure, (3) blurred institutions strengthen the development of consensus relationship, (4) the flexibility of facilitative leadership helps intergrate resources and benefit from collaboration among the actors, (5) strong political supports earn the commitments from actors, (6) mataining effective exchange of transparent information and communication to promote actors to recognize the legitimacy of collaboration, (7) resource dependence with reciprocity among actors help achieve win-win results, (8) achieving win-win situations brings in synergy effects. Finally, this research offers some recommendations for future operation of collaboration in housing restoration after natural disaster: (1) strike a balanc between efficiency and democratic participation, (2) establish formal institution or law for land property transfer, (3) establish standards or criteria of relief level for victims, (4) enhance professional capacities of disaster reief for local governments, (5) strengthen interactions among actors, (6) intergrate resource structures, (7) establish effective benchmark learning model.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/22069
其他識別: U0005-1002201109160600
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-1002201109160600
Appears in Collections:國家政策與公共事務研究所

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.