以社會網絡分析法探討治理網絡的權力關係與互動模式－以基隆市兩案例為例

Investigate the Power Relationship and Interaction Mode of Governance Network by Using Social Network Analysis - The Case Study in Keelung City

10.6128/CP.202009_47(3).0001

邱英浩(Yin-Hao Chiu)；劉陳傳(Chen-Chuan Liu)；洪瑞陽(Jui-Yang Hung)

跨域治理 ； 組織權力結構 ； 社會網絡分析 ； Across boundary governance ； Power structure of organization ； Social network analysis

都市與計劃

47卷3期（2020 / 09 / 30）

189 - 218

繁體中文

邁入全球化時代後，新的空間關係透過都會區域產生與作用，城市間的網絡關係比過去更為多元複雜，治理模式也隨之改變。本研究以跨域治理及權力網絡的角度切入，利用社會網絡分析法分析網路中的行動者與其權力關係，嘗試找尋決策過程中的問題。並以作為北部重要的港口城市基隆市為研究對象，其具有良好的物流條件，但在貿易全球化與周邊城市的競爭下，港口功能逐漸衰退，地方政府為了提升競爭力，積極拉攏各界推動再生策略復甦都市面對變遷。本研究以「基隆火車站暨西二三碼頭都市更新案」及「捷運南港汐止基隆線」兩案進行治理網絡之比較，透過不同的權力關係，以「資訊」、「知識」與「決策」三種網絡做為討論對象，研究結果顯示，兩案例的治理網絡中都顯示部分參與者的缺漏，互動大多集中於少數單位；另外，不同網絡中的重要行動者連結度不足，雖然各自在自身的權力網絡中有極高的中心性，但在其他網絡中卻缺乏參與，可能會對決策的品質造成影響。

With the advent of globalization, new spatial relationships occur in metropolitan areas. The network relationship between cities is more diverse and complex, and the governance model changes. This study applied the boundary governance perspective in a power relationship network analysis of the relationship and power structure between actors by social network analysis, try to find problems in the decision-making process. Keelung City was selected because it is the only port city that has key logistics in the region. Trade globalization has a caused a decline in its port function and the competition from other port cities in neighboring countries, although the local government has been actively attracting private enterprises to promote regeneration strategies and revive the city to face regional changes. Power relationships were investigated in two governance networks: ＂The Keelung Station and West Passenger Terminal Reconstruction Project＂ and the ＂MRT Nangang Xizhi and Keelung lines Project＂. ＂Information＂, ＂knowledge＂, and ＂decision-making＂ networks were compared. The research results show the governance networks of the two cases show the gaps of some actors. Most of the interactions are concentrated in a few actors. Additionally, the important actors in different networks are insufficient even if they have a very high power in own network. However, the lack of participation in other networks may affect the result of decision-making.

1. 江大樹(2004)。府際關係的憲法解釋。公法學與政治理論─吳庚大法官榮退論文集，臺北:
   連結：
2. 柯于璋(2015)。都市治理的權力與政策網絡之研究：以高雄市溫室氣體減量策略計畫為例。政治學報，60，41-70。
   連結：
3. 劉坤億(2006)。台灣地方政府間發展夥伴關係之制度障礙與機會。台灣民主季刊，3(3)，1-34。
   連結：
4. 簡博秀(2010)。新區域主義，區域治理與長江三角洲城市區域的策略。國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報，15，1-19。
   連結：
5. Abbasi, A.,Altmann, J.,Hossain, L.(2011).Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures.Journal of Informetrics,5(4),594-607.
6. Alexander, M. C.,Danowski, J. A.(1990).Analysis of ancient network.Social Network,12,313-335.
7. Bonacich, P.(1987).Power and centrality: A family of measures.American Journal of Sociology,92(5),1170-1182.
8. Christensen, K. S.(1999).Cities and Complexity: Making Intergovernmental Decision.London:Sage.
9. Chung, K. S. K.,Hossain, L.(2010).Towards a social network model for understanding information and communication technology use for general practitioners in rural Australia.Computers in Human Behavior,26(4),562-571.
10. Debrie, J.,Raimbault, N.(2016).The port-city relationships in two European inland ports: A geographical perspective on urban governance.Cities,50,180-187.
11. Edelenbos, J.,Klijn, E. H.(2007).Trust in complex decision-making networks: A theoretical and empirical exploration.Administration and Society,39(1),25-50.
12. Edelenbos, J.,Van Meerkerk, I.(2015).Connective capacity in water governance practices: The meaning of trust and boundary spanning for integrated performance.Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,12,25-29.
13. Even, W. M.(1965).Toward a theory of inter-organizational relations.Management Science,11(10),B-217.
14. Fliervoet, J. M.,Geerling, G. W.,Mostert, E.,Smits, A. J. M.(2016).Analyzing collaborative governance through social network analysis: A case study of river management along the Waal River in The Netherlands.Environmental Management,57(2),355-367.
15. Freeman, L. C.(2004).The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science.Vancouver:Empirical Press.
16. Freeman, L. C.(1979).Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification.Social Networks,1(3),215-239.
17. French, J. R.,Raven, B.,Cartwright, D.(1959).The bases of social power.Classics of Organization Theory,7,311-320.
18. Hood, C.(1991).Public management for all seasons?.Public Administration,69(1),3-19.
19. Hooghe, L.,Marks, G.(2003).Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multilevel governance.American Political Science Review,97(2),233-243.
20. Horgan, G. W.(2003).Devolution and intergovernmental relations: The emergence of intergovernmental affair agencies.Public Policy and Administration,18(3),12-24.
21. Keating, M.(2003).The Invention of Regions: Political Restructuring and Territorial Government in Western Europe.Oxford:Blackwell.
22. Kochen, M.(1989).The Small World.New York:Ablex Pub.
23. Levina, N.,Vaast, E.(2005).The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems.MIS Quarterly,29(2),335-363.
24. Lienert, J.,Schnetzer, F.,Ingold, K.(2013).Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes.Journal of Environmental Management,125,134-148.
25. Milward, H. B.,Provan, K.(2003).Managing the hollow state collaboration and contracting.Public Management Review,5(1),1-18.
26. Mitchell, J. C.(1969).The Concept and Use of Social Networks, Social Network in Urban Situation Manchester.England:Manchester University Press.
27. Mossberger, K.,Stoker, G.(2001).The evolution of urban regime theory: The challenge of conceptualization.Urban Affairs Review,36(6),810-835.
28. Perrow, C.(1970).Departmental power and perspectives in industrial firms.Power in Organizations,7,59-89.
29. Pfeffer, J.(1982).Organization and Organization Theory.Boston:Pitman.
30. Pfeffer, J.(1981).Power in Organizations.Marshfield:Pitman.
31. Plummer, R.,Crona, B.,Armitage, D. R.,Olsson, P.,Tengo, M.,Yudina, O.(2012).Adaptive co-management: A systematic review and analysis.Ecology and Society,17(3),11.
32. Prerre, J.(ed.)(2000).Debating Governance.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
33. Rhodes, R. A. W.,Marsh, D.(1992).New directions in the study of policy networks.European Journal of Political Research,21(1-2),181-205.
34. Robbins, S. P.(1990).Organization Theory.New York:Prentice-Hall.
35. Robinson, D.(2005).The search for community cohesion: Key themes and dominant concepts of the public policy agenda.Urban Study,42(8),1411-1427.
36. Snyder, D.,Kick, E. L.(1979).Structural position in the world system and economic growth, 1955-1970: A multiple-network analysis of transnational interaction.American Journal of Sociology,84(5),1096-1126.
37. To, W. M.(2015).Centrality of an urban rail system.Urban Rail Transit,1(4),249-256.
38. Wegelin, P.,Arx, W. V.(2016).The impact of alternative governance forms of regional public rail transport on transaction costs.Case evidence from Germany and Switzerland, Research in Transportation Economics,59,133-142.
39. Wright, D. S.(1998).Understanding Intergovernmental Relations.California:Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
40. Yigitcanlar, T.,Lönnqvist, A.(2012).Benchmarking knowledge-based urban development performance: Results from the international comparison of Helsinki.Cities,31,357-369.
41. 內政部（2018），土地面積、戶數與人口數─按區域別分，「內政統計查詢網」，http://statis.moi.gov.tw/micst/stmain.jsp?sys=100，2017 年 12 月 12 日。
42. 柯志昌(2014)。地方環境治理中利害關係人確認與網絡互動分析模式─以臺東美麗灣度假村 BOT 開發案為例。法治與公共治理學報，2，29-62。
43. 柯志昌,謝維鈞(2009)。檢視治理指標的發展歷程與內涵─新竹科學園區與地方政府治理指標適宜性分析。第四屆《地方政府與公共管理》國際學術研討會，新竹:
44. 陳立剛(2001)。府際關係研究─區域治理問題及其策略。中國地方自治，54(1)，20-29。
45. 陳金貴(1990)。美國府際關係和府際管理的探討。行政學報，22，13-26。
46. 劉毓玲（譯）,Osborne, D.(1995).新政府運動.臺北:天下文化.
47. 顏聰玲(2014)。雲嘉南區域合作平台發展歷程與落實區域合作關鍵因素分析。政策與人力管理，5(2)，1-32。

1. 簡子文,張浩也,孫同文,林晏生(2023)。地方議會分配政治網絡分析：以南投縣第 17 與 18 屆議員提案為例。文官制度季刊，15(2)，121-157。
2. (2024)。不同組織層級跨系統協作之探究觀點。學校行政，149，1-16。