Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/22104
標題: 影響基層裁量權之因素探討─以台中市執行「馬上關懷專案」為例
The Factors of Street-level Bureaucracy Discretion: The Case of Implementing Urgent Caring System and Scheme in Taichung City
作者: 陳弘章
Chen, Hong-Cheng
關鍵字: street-level bureaucrats
基層官僚
policy implementation
discretion
Urgent Caring System and Scheme
政策執行
裁量權
馬上關懷專案
出版社: 國家政策與公共事務研究所
引用: 一、中文部份: (一)專書 林鐘沂(2004)。《行政學》。臺北:三民。 吳定(2006)。《公共政策辭典》。臺北:五南。 吳庚(2003)。《行政法之理論與實用》。臺北:三民。 李惠宗(2008)。《行政法要義》。臺北:元照。 李震山(2007)。《行政法導論》。臺北:三民。 邱皓政(2009)。《量化研究與統計分析》。臺北:五南。 楊世瑩(2008)。《SPSS統計分析實務》(第二版)。臺北:旗標。 陳春生(1996)。《行政法之學理與體系》。臺北:自刊本。 陳敦源(2002)。《民主與官僚:新制度論的觀點》。臺北:韋伯文化。 蔡志方(1997)。《行政法三十六講》。臺北:三民。 翁岳生(1990)。《行政法與現代法治國家》(第十一版)。臺北,台大叢書編委會。 蕭武桐(2001)。《公務倫理》。臺北:智勝文化。 (二)期刊論文 林鍾沂,王瑞夆(2009)。〈廉能政府的理論意涵〉,《文官制度季刊》。第1期,台北:考試院。 曾冠球(2004)。〈基層官僚人員裁量行為之初探:以台北市區公所組織為例〉。《行政暨政策學報》,第38期,頁95-140。 (三)專書論文 陳清秀(2006)。〈依法行政與法律的適用〉載於翁岳生《行政法》,頁205。臺北市:元照。 (四)學位論文 邱毓政(2007)。《基層官僚政策執行裁量行為之研究─以基層員警執行交通違規舉發為例》。國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文,未出版,台北。 廖慧美(2004)。《我國基層行政人員行政裁量行為之研究─以轉換型領導之觀點》。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。 廖宗侯(2006)。《社會救助制度中村里幹事的審查行為與影響因素之探討—以台中縣為例》。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文,未出版,南投。 謝忠安(2008)。《村里基層行政人員民主價值觀與行政裁量之探析》。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。 (五)報紙及官方資料 王秀燕(2008年7月2日)。〈近貧、新貧、結構貧…別讓他們一世貧〉。聯合報,A13版。 內政部社會司(2008)。馬上關懷急難救助作業手冊。 何明國(2008年6月12日)。〈「馬上關懷」授權村里長…縣市長吃味〉。聯合報,A13版。 陳秋雲(2008年6月28日)。〈力挺馬上關懷,徐中雄槓地方。加強照顧弱勢專案,部分鄉鎮指為疊床架屋,徐盼地方社政官員別怕麻煩,傾聽民眾聲音〉。聯合晚報,A3版。 (六)譯著 張宇樑、吳樎椒譯(2007)。《研究設計:質化、量化及混合方法取向》(J. W. Creswell原著)。台北:學富。 (七)電子資源 台中市政府全球資訊網。網址:http://www.tccg.gov.tw/sys/SM_theme?page=3fd6bc3c。檢索日期:2009年12月26日 孫健忠(2008)。〈對「馬上關懷急難救助」的觀察與期待〉,載於國政評論,網址:http://www.npf.org.tw/post/1/4982。檢索日期:2009年10月11日。 二、西文部份: (一)專書 Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public Policy-Making. New York: Praeger. Appleby, Paul H. 1949. Policy and Administration. AL: University of Alabama Press. Bryner, G. C. (1987). Bureaucratic Discretion: Law and Policy in Federal Regulatoty Ageinces. NY: Pergamon Press. Carroll, B. W. & D. Siegel (1999). Service In the Field: The World of Front-Line Public Servants. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Cooper, T.L. (1982). The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role. Port Washington, NY.: Kennikat Press. Davis, K.C. (1971). Discretion Justice: A Preliminary Inquiary. Chicago: University of Illinois Press Dunsire, A. (1978). The Execution Process, (vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Martin Robertson. Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating Public Policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Flores, F & J. Gray. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the Wired Life: Work in the Wake of Careers, London: Demos. Handler, Joel F. (1986). The Conditions of Discretion: Autonomy, Community, Bureaucracy. New-York: Russell Sage. Hill, M. & P. Hupe (2009). Implementing Public Policy: An Introduction to the Study of Operational Governmance. London: Sage. Howlett, M. & M. Ramesh (2003). Studying Public Policy. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press. John, P. (1998). Analysing Public Policy. London: Sage. Kindon, J. D. ([1984]1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Knegt, R. (1986). Regels en Redelijkheid in de Bijstandsverlening: Participerende Observatie bij een Sociale Dienst. (Rules and Reason in Social Welfare. Participatory Observation within a Welfare Department). Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff. Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as Governance. London: Sage. Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. Lineberry R. L, (1977). American Public Policy: What Government Does and What Difference it Makes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lincoln, Y. (1985). Organization Theory and Inquiry: The Paradigm Revolution. Beverly Hills, Calif. Sage. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New-York: Russell Sage Foundation. Maynard-Moody, S. & M. Musheno (2003). Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Palumbo, D. J. (1988). Public Policy in America: Government in Action. Orlando,Fla.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Prottas, J. M. (1979). People-processing: The Street-level Bureaucrat in Public Service Bureaucracies. Lexirigton, Mass.: Heath. Pressman, J. L. & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation. 3rd edn. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press(1st edn, 1973; 2nd edn, 1979). Ranson, S. & Stewart, J. (1995). Management for the Public Domain: Enabling the Learning Society. NY: St. Martin Press, Inc. Vinzant, J. & L. Crothers. (1998). Street-Level LeadeMp-Discretion and Legitimy in Frontline Public Service. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What Governent Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New-York: BasicBooks.. (二)期刊 Bovens, M. & S. Zourdis (2002). From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology Is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control. Public Administration Review, 58(2): 175. Carpenter, M. A. & B. R. Golden (1997). Perceived Managerial Discretion: A Study of Cause and Effect. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3):187-206. Carrington, K. (2005). Street-level Discretion: Is There a Need for Control? Public Administration Quarterly, 29(2): 140-162. Deleon, P. (1999). The Missing Link Revisited: Contemporary Implementation Research. Policy Studies Review, 16(3/4): 311-38. Forsyth, A, (1999, August). Administrative Discretion and Urban and Regional Planners’ Values. Journal of Planning Literatire, 14(1): 5-15 Goodsell, C. (1980). Client Evaluation of Three Welfare Programs. Administration and Society, 12(2):123-36. __________ (1981). Looking Once Again at Human Service Bureaucracy. Journal of Politics, 43:763-778. Hupe P., and M. Hill (2007). Street Bureaucracy and Public Accountability. Public Administration, 85(2): 281-296. Keiser, L. R. & Soss, J. (1996). With good cause: Bureaucratic Discretion and the Politics of child Support Enforcement. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4): 1133-56. Keiser, L. R. (1999). State Bureaucratic Discretion and the Administration of Social Welfare Programs: The Case of Social Security Disability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1): 87-106. Kroeger, N. (1975). Bureaucracy, Social Exchange, and Benefits Received in a Public Assistance Agency. Social Problems, 23: 182-196. Lindblom, C.E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19(2): 79-88. Linder, S. H. & B. G. Peters (1987). A Design Perspective on Policy Implementation: The Fallacies of Misplaced Prescription. Policy Studies Review, 6:459-76. Lynn, L. E. Jr, Heinrich, C. J. & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying Governance and Public Management: Challenges and Prospects, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2): 233-61. Maupin J. R. (1993). Control, Efficiency, And The Street-Level Bureaucrat. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3): 335-357. Maynard-Moody, S. & M. Musheno. (2000). State Agent or Citizen Agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10 (2): 329-358. May, P. J. & S. C.Winter. (2007). Politicians, Managers, and Street-Level Bureaucrats: Influences on Policy Implementation, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19 (3): 453-476. McCubbins, M. D., R. G. Noll & B. R. Weingast. (1987). Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 3(2):243-277. Meyers, M. K., B Glaser & K.M. Donald. (1998). On the Front Lines of Welfare Delivery: Are Workers Implementing Policy Reforms? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(1):1-21 Palumbo, D. J. & D. J. Calista (1987). Symposium: Implementation,What Have We Learned and Still Need to Know. Policy Studies Review, 53: 91-102. Riccucci, N. M., (2005). Street-Level Bureaucrats and Intrastate Variation in the Implementation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Policies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1); 89-111. Sabatier, P. A. & D. Mazmanian, (1979). The Conditions of Effective Implementation: A Guide to Accomplishing Policy Objectives. Policy Analysis, 5(Fall):481-504. Scott P. G. (1997). Assessing Determinants of Bureaucratic Discretion: An Experiment in Street-Level Decision Making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1): 35-57. Taylor I. & J. Kelly (2006). Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK: re-visiting Lipsky. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(7):630. Tripi, F.G. (1984). Client Control in Organizational and Settings. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20(1):39-47. Weissert, C. S. (1994). Beyond the Organization: The Influence of Community and Personal Values on Street-Level Bureaucrats'' Responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2): 225-254. Wrzesniewski, A & J. E. Dutton (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No.2, pp 181. (三)專書論文 Deutsch, Karl. (1985). On Theory and Research in Innovation. In R. Merrit and A. Merrit (eds.), Innovation in the Public Sector. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Elmore, Richard F. (1982). Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions. In Walter Williams (ed.), Studying Implementation: Methodological and Administrative Issues (pp. 18-35). Chatham, N.J: Chatham House. McGregor, J. (1996). From the State of Nature to Mayberry: The Nature of Police Discretion. In J. Kleinig (Ed.), Handled with discretion: Ethical Issue in Police Decision Making (pp.47-64).Lanham. MD: Rowman & Littlefleld Publishers, Inc. Meyer M. K. & S. Vorsanger (2003). Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Implementation of Public Policy. Handbook of Public Administration (pp. 153-165) London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Reirnan, J. (1996). Is Police Discretion Justified in a Free Society? In J. Kleinig (ed.) Handled with Discretion: Ethical Issues in Police Discretion Making (pp. 71-84). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Sabatier, P. A. (2007). The need for Better Theories. In P.A. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. (四)研討會論文 Gulick, L. (1933). Politics, Administration, and the “New Deal”, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 169:55-66 Goggin, M. & Laubacher, S. (1990). Administrative Initiative in Policy Implementation: Mental RetardationDeinstitutionalization Policy in Texas, A Paper Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. Sabatier, P., Loomis, J & McCarthy, C. (1990). Professional Norms, External Constituencies and Hierarchical Controls: An Analysis of U.S. Forest Service Planning Decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco. Winter, S. C. (2002). Explaining Street-Level Bureaucratic Behavior in Social and Regulatory Policies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
摘要: 2008年全球金融海嘯的衝擊,使得中低收入民眾的經濟困境更形嚴峻,政府為保障此期間經濟弱勢者的消費能力,遂實施「馬上關懷急難救助要點」(簡稱「馬上關懷專案」),期待加強照顧社會弱勢之配套措施,透過村里基層組織與社工、慈善機構合作,建立社會安全網,協助遭受急難民眾獲得及時、有效的救助。 然而,馬上關懷專案於基層實際執行時,在審核與發放業務出現疑義,部分原因在於專案之訪查、核定和撥款屬於各縣(市)鄉(鎮、市、區)公所之權責,因此,公所的基層公務人員在認定個案是否適格時,具備相當程度的裁量權限。故本文欲探究基層公務人員在專案的執行過程中如何行使其裁量權?是否會因其他因素而影響其裁量權行使? 本文首就行政裁量權之文獻進行探討,並藉由問卷調查,檢驗任職於台中市各區公所之基層公務人員,包含里幹事和社會建設課之課員,其於執行「馬上關懷專案」中所表現的裁量行為以及影響其行使裁量之因素。自變項分別為「政治力因素」、「組織管理因素」、「專業素養」、「工作壓力」和「經濟環境」。依變項則為「裁量權之行使程度」,透過線性迴歸模型的建立,進而探求兩者之間之關係。 迴歸模型顯示「政治力因素」、「專業素養」為影響台中市基層公務人員裁量權行使之主要顯著變項。相關研究發現與政策建議如本文末節說明。
Due to the global financial crisis in 2008, which led people with low to moderate incomes to a situation of worse financial difficulty, the government implemented the Operation Directive for Urgent Caring System and Scheme (UCSS) to alleviate the financial shock to the economic minorities during this period. Through the collaboration among the township administration, social workers, and charity organizations, the government expects to use UCSS as complementary measures of building a better social safety system to assist people in urgent need specifically during this period and benefit the economic minorities in general. However, when the township and districts offices implemented UCSS, there were some controversies in the procedure of qualification screening and allowance rationing. Some of reasons rooted in the fact that the responsibility of inquiry, ratification and appropriation of the scheme belonged to each township and districts office, where the street-level staffs had the discretion to decide whether a case was eligible or not. Consequently, this study aimed to explore how the street-level bureaucrats exercised their discretion in the case of UCSS. What were the key factors that affected the use of discretion? The authors first surveyed the literature on administrative discretion. The authors then surveyed the district officers and the social and construction affairs section officers in Taichung city to explore how they performed the discretion in implementing UCSS and the variables affecting their use of discretion. A linear regression model was built to specify the causal relationships of variables. The independent variables were the political factor, organizational factor, professional capacity, working pressure, and economic condition. The dependent variable was the degree of using discretion independently. The data showed that political factors and professional capacity were the significant variables that affected the use of discretion among the street-level bureaucrats in this case. More detailed findings and policy implications are also offered toward the end of this paper.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/22104
其他識別: U0005-2008201017550900
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-2008201017550900
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.