永續發展評量系統中“制度回應指標”之理論基礎探討：制度量能提升與良善治理

Rationale of "Institutional Response Indicators" under Sustainable Development Indicators: Institutional Capacity-Building and Good Governance

10.6128/CP.32.2.203

施文真(Wen-Chen Shih)

永續發展評量系統 ； 制度回應指標 ； 制度量能提升 ； 良善治理 ； Sustainable development indicators ； Institutional response indicators ； Institutional capacity-building ； Good governance

都市與計劃

32卷2期（2005 / 06 / 01）

203 - 226

繁體中文

永續發展評量系統之主要功能，在於提供一套衡量的工具，以確保任何政策的制訂與執行，能關照整體環境邁向更為永續的方向進行。永續發展的觀念除了其實質內涵所包括之三面向：經濟永續性、社會永續性、以及環境永續性之外，有關於其制度以及執行面則較少被提及。「制度量能提升」(institutional capacity-building)以及「良善治理」(good governance)，於近年來係國際發展機構致力於開發中國家推行的永續發展制度性改革方案，本文將經由相關文獻之回顧，以「制度量能提升」以及「良善治理」之推行作為「制度回應」指標的主要立論基礎。「制度量能提升」係指如何建構一機制使其能夠在社會運作中適當地分配資源、協調衝突、避免錯誤，以達到在個別活動中能夠呈現出良質的結果；而「治理」係指一國在經營管理其經濟、社會、與環境資源時，其權力行使的方式或手段，「良善治理」代表的即是一健全的政府管理制度。如果要實質的落實與永續發展相關的政策，此兩者所代表的則是所需的整體制度配套條件，而其也可說是永續評量系統下制度回應指標背後的理論基礎。本文進而以「制度量能提升」以及「良善治理」兩個原則，探討其在永續發展之制度面與執行面之相關影響層面及扮演角色，並檢視一些具代表性之指標，分析檢討這些指標的選擇與永續發展制度回應的理論間之關連性，作為永續發展評量系統後續研究及發展之參考。

The main function of sustainable development indicators (SDI) is to provide a tool to measure and to monitor policy-making and implementation toward an environmentally sustainable society The concept of sustainable development has often been referred to as incorporating the following three dimensions economic sustainability, social sustainability, and environmental sustainability The institutional and implementation aspect, however, has not been analysed as extensively The notions of institutional capacity-building and good governance have been vigorously promoted by international development agencies as model institutional mechanisms to achieve sustainable development in developing countries This article, using mainly literature review puts forward the arguments that institutional capacity-building and good governance are key rationale of ”institutional response indicators” under SDI scheme Institutional capacity-building refer to the building up of a mechanism in which resources can be reasonably allocated and conflicts can be properly managed so that best results can be achieved Governance refers to the means in which power is exercised in the management of a country's economic and social resources for development Good governance refers, thus, to a sound government management system Institutional capacity-building and good governance provide a supporting environment in which sustainable development polices can be successfully implemented, and can be measured via a set of ”institutional response indicators” This article analyses how these two concepts can play an important role in the institutional aspect of sustainable development, examines institutional response indicators selected in several SDI schemes, and reviews whether these indicators reflect core elements of these two concepts.

1. Al-Jurf, S.(1999).Good governance and transparency: their impact on development.Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems,9,193-215.
2. Beutz, M.(2003).Functional democracy: responding to failures of accountability.Harvard International Law Journal,44,387-431.
3. Botchway, F. N.(2001).Good governance: the old, the new, the principle, and the elements.Florida Journal of International Law,13,159-201.
4. Franck, T. M.(2000).Legitimacy and the democratic entitlement.Democratic Governance and International Law.
5. Gathii, J. J.(1999).Good governance as a counter insurgency agenda to oppositional and transformative social project in international law.Buffalo Human Rights Law Review,5,107-174.
6. Ginther, K.(1992).Third World Legal StudiesThird World Legal Studies,未出版
7. Guruswamy, L. D.(2002).Cartography of governance: an introduction.Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy,13,1-13.
8. International Monetary Fund(1997).Good Governance: The IMF`s Role.
9. Kapur, D.,Webb, R.(2000).Governance-Related Conditionalities of the International Financial Institutions (G-24 Discussion Paper Series 6).
10. Lele, S. M.(1991).Sustainable development: a critical review.World Development,19(6),607-621.
11. Potter, D.(2000).Democratization, ‘good governance' and development.Poverty and Development into the 21st Century.
12. Sanitso, C.(2001).Good governance and aid effectiveness: the World Bank and conditionality.Georgetown Public Policy Review,7,1-22.
13. Thomas, C.(1999).Does the “good governance policy” of the international financial institutions privilege markets at the expense of democracy?.Connecticut Journal of International Law,14,551-562.
14. Tolentino, A.(1995).Sustainable Development and Good Governance.Leiden:Brill Academic Publishing.
15. United Nations(2001).Indicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies.
16. United Nations Development Program(1997).Governance for Sustainable Human Development.
17. Windsor, J.(2003).Democracy and development: the evolution of U.S. foreign assistance policy.Fletcher Forum of World Affairs,27,141-149.
18. World Bank(1989).World Development ReportWorld Development Report,Washington, DC:World Bank.
19. World Bank(1992).Governance and Development.
20. World Bank(1994).Governance: the World Bank Experience.
21. World Commission on Environment and Development(1987).Our Common Future.
22. 行政國家永績發展委員會(2003)。台灣永績發展指標：1998-2002。
23. 黃錦堂(1999)。民主化對環保政策之衝撀與因應之道。理論與政策，51，19-45。
24. 葉俊榮(1997)。Institutional capacity-building toward sustainable development: Taiwan`s environmental protection in the climate of economic development and political liberalization。環境理性與制度抉擇，台北:
25. 葉俊榮、劉錦添、李玲玲、駱尚廉、黃書禮、王俊秀、孫志鴻、蔡慧敏、施文真(2003)。永續台灣向前指。台北:詹氏書局。
26. 葉俊榮、駱尚廉、李玲玲、王俊秀、劉錦添、孫志鴻(1999)。永續臺灣的評量系統（第一年度報告書）永續臺灣的評量系統（第一年度報告書）,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫。

1. 陳元陽、李明儒(2007)。澎湖石滬群發展生態旅遊永續指標之建構。運動與遊憩研究，2(1)，101-115。
2. 鄒克萬、洪于婷(2006)。地方永續發展空間結構變遷之分析。都市與計劃，33(4)，321-344。