公民參與及公共價值創造：以臺北市公民參與委員會爲例

Public Participation and Public Value Creation: The Case of the Taipei Citizen Participation Committee

10.6166/TJPS.202209_(93).0002

林煥笙(Huan-sheng Lin)；黃東益(Tong-yi Huang)

公民參與 ； 公共價值創造 ； 政策制定 ； 制度安排 ； 跨部門協力 ； Public Participation ； Public Value Creation ； Policy Making ； Institutional Arrangements ； Cross-sector Collaboration

政治科學論叢

93期（2022 / 09 / 01）

45 - 95

繁體中文;英文

公民參與及公共價值之間的關係緊密，且對於公共行政領域有著重要意涵，然而，探究其兩者關係的實證研究仍十分有限。本研究以地方政府委員會組織涉入公民參與政策制定及執行作為主軸，並整合公共價值創造途徑的交互過程嘗試剖析此一關係，此過程體現了參與過程之特徵、組織文化與能力、系格特徵等核心面向，並跨越公民社會、政治和行政間界限的制度安排形式，在公共價值創造上發揮實際的效果。本研究訪談了臺北市政府公民參與委員會（簡稱公參會）之外部委員、臺北市政府的行政文官，以及立法機關之民意代表等研究對象。研究發現強調，公參會的制度安排可以幫助政策制定者在多層次治理的環境中建立實質的參與規範及程序、創造政策行動者信任及增強參與意識等無形價值，以及促進跨部門協力及共識等公共價值。然而，跨部門的委員會制度將產生課責上的難題。同時，該組織雖作爲政府與公眾兩方在參與式政策協力平臺之連結，但政府文官執行任務過程所遭遇的順服和溝通問題，以及如何促進公民積極參與和強化意見表達之意願等方面，卻面臨潛在的限制。最後，本研究針對公參會運作、公務人員內在動機，以及公民意願和能力等面向提出建議，並提供關於受訪者代表性作爲研究限制之討論。

The relationship between public participation and public values is highly interconnected. However, there are still large lacunae in the current empirical literature. This study uses policy implementation for local public participation as a context in which to explore this relationship further by integrating approaches of public value creation, providing an invaluable addition to the body of public administration scholarship. It identifies an iterative process of participatory characteristics, organizational culture and capacity, and contextual features, with institutional arrangements that cross the boundaries between civil society, politics, and administration. This study collected empirical data from official documents and in-depth interviews. We interviewed senior external committee members of the Taipei Citizen Participation Committee (TCPC), public officials of Taipei City, and elected officials (legislators and Taipei City councilors). The findings highlight that the institutional arrangements of the TCPC can help policymakers build specific participatory norms and procedures, as well as intangible values, such as enhancing the policy actors' trust and willingness toward participation, and organizing cross-sector collaborations in multi-level governance settings. However, the cross-boundary government committee faces a conundrum of accountability. Although this committee has been identified as a "collaborative platform" in participatory policy-making, one in which a public agency with collaborative legitimacy has acted as a conduit between public organizations and citizens, it has at the same time been facing two potential challenges. One is the issue of the public bureaucrats' compliance and communication in participatory practices. The other is how the government facilitates citizens' willingness to actively participate in the participatory processes. Based on our results, we provide recommendations about the development of the TCPC, the intrinsic motivation of public officials, and citizens' willingness and capacity to participate. The research limitations of qualitative data representativeness are also discussed.

1. Chien, H.(2016).Public Value Production in Cross-Sector Collaborations: Evidence from Problem Solving Cases in Taiwan.Public Administration & Policy,63,45-86.
   連結：
2. 傅凱若, Kai-jo(2019)。民主創新與公共價值創造的實踐－以臺灣都會區參與式預算為例。臺灣民主季刊，16(4)，93-141。
   連結：
3. 傅凱若, Kai-jo,張婷媗, Ting-syuan(2020)。當公民參與遇上專案管理：以臺北市參與式預算的專案管理為例。行政暨政策學報，71，43-88。
   連結：
4. Ansell, C.,Gash, A.(2018).Collaborative Platforms as a Governance Strategy.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,28(1),16-32.
5. Ansell, C.,Gash, A.(2008).Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,18(4),543-571.
6. Bache, I.,Chapman, R.(2008).Democracy through Multilevel Governance? The Implementation of the Structural Funds in South Yorkshire.Governance,21(3),397-418.
7. Baldwin, E.(2019).Exploring How Institutional Arrangements Shape Stakeholder Influence on Policy Decisions: A Comparative Analysis in the Energy Sector.Public Administration Review,79(2),246-255.
8. Baldwin, E.,Rountree, V.,Jock, J.(2018).Distributed Resources and Distributed Governance: Stakeholder Participation in Demand Side Management Governance.Energy Research and Social Science,39,37-45.
9. Bardach, E.(1998).Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship.Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press.
10. Bozeman, B.(2007).Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism.Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press.
11. Braun, V.,Clarke, V.(2006).Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2),77-101.
12. Bryson, J. M.,Berry, F.,Yang, K.(2010).The State of Public Strategic Management Research: A Selective Literature Review and Set of Future Directions.American Review of Public Administration,40(5),495-521.
13. Bryson, John M.(ed.),Crosby, Barbara C.(ed.),Bloomberg, Laura(ed.)(2015).Creating Public Value in Practice: Advancing the Common Good in a Multi-Sector, Shared-Power, No-One-Wholly-in-Charge World.New York:Taylor & Francis.
14. Crosby, B. C.,Hart, P.,Torfing, J.(2016).Public Value Creation through Collaborative Innovation.Public Management Review,19(5),655-669.
15. Dahl, A.,Soss, J.(2014).Neoliberalism for the Common Good? Public Value Governance and the Downsizing of Democracy.Public Administration Review,74(4),496-504.
16. De Vries, M. S.(2005).Trust and Governance Practices among Local Leaders.International Review of Administrative Sciences,71(3),405-424.
17. Eckerd, A.,Heidelberg, R. L.(2019).Administering Public Participation.The American Review of Public Administration,50(2),1-15.
18. Edelenbos, J.(2005).Institutional Implications of Interactive Governance: Insights from Dutch Practice.Governance,18(1),111-134.
19. Elkin, S. L.(ed.),Soltan, K. E.(ed.)(1999).Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions.Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press.
20. Emerson, K.,Nabatchi, T.(2015).Collaborative Governance Regimes.Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press.
21. Farrell, C. M.(2005).Governance in the UK Public Sector: The Involvement of the Governing Board.Public Administration,83(1),89-110.
22. Fung, A.(2006).Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance.Public Administration Review,66,66-75.
23. Fung, A.(2015).Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future.Public Administration Review,75(4),513-522.
24. Gabris, G. T.,Nelson, K. L.(2013).Transforming Municipal Boards into Accountable, High-Performing Teams: Toward a Diagnostic Model of Governing Board Effectiveness: Organizational Learning Mechanisms: A Structural-Cultural Approach to Organizational Learning.Public Performance & Management Review,36(3),472-495.
25. Geuijen, K.,Moore, M.,Cederquist, A.,Ronning, R.,van Twist, M.(2017).Creating Public Value in Global Wicked Problems.Public Management Review,19(5),621-639.
26. Hall, P. A.(2010).Historical Institutionalism in Rationalist and Sociological Perspective.Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power,New York:
27. Heidelberg, R. L.(2019).The Democracy Problem.Administration & Society,51(5),692-723.
28. Ho, A.,Coates, P.(2004).Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment: The Initial Iowa Experience.Public Performance & Management Review,27(3),29-50.
29. Hong, S.(2015).Citizen Participation in Budgeting: A Trade-Off between Knowledge and Inclusiveness?.Public Administration Review,75(4),572-582.
30. Jørgensen, T. B.,Bozeman, B.(2007).Public Values: An Inventory.Administration & Society,39(3),354-381.
31. Kernaghan, K.(2003).Integrating Values into Public Service: The Values Statement as Centerpiece.Public Administration Review,63(6),711-719.
32. Lachapelle, P. R.,Shanahan, E. A.(2010).The Pedagogy of Citizen Participation in Local Government: Designing and Implementing Effective Board Training Programs for Municipalities and Counties.Journal of Public Affairs Education,16(3),401-419.
33. Lavertu, S.,Weimer, D. L.(2010).Federal Advisory Committees, Policy Expertise, and the Approval of Drugs and Medical Devices at the FDA.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,21(2),211-237.
34. Leonard, H. B.,Moore, M. H.(2012).Pursuing Public Value: Frameworks for Strategic Analysis and Action.Ports in a Storm: Public Management in a Turbulent World,Washington, DC:
35. Li, M. H.,Feeney, M. K.(2014).Adoption of Electronic Technologies in Local U.S. Governments: Distinguishing between E-Services and Communication Technologies.The American Review of Public Administration,44(1),75-91.
36. Liao, Y.,Ma, L.(2019).Do Professional Associations Make a Difference? Linking Municipal Managers’ Association Participation and Attitudes Toward Citizen Participation.Public Management Review,21(12),1824-1847.
37. Liao, Y.,Zhang, Y.(2012).Citizen Participation in Local Budgeting: Mechanisms, Political Support, and City Manager’s Moderating Role.International Review of Public Administration,17(2),19-38.
38. Mansbridge, J.(1990).Beyond Self-Interest.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
39. Mitchell, J. J.(ed.)(1997).Representation in Government Boards and Commissions.Public Administration Review,57(2),160-167.
40. Moore, M. H.(2013).Recognizing Public Value.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
41. Moore, M. H.(2000).Managing for Value: Organizational Strategy in for-Profit, Nonprofit, and Governmental Organizations.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,29(1_suppl),183-204.
42. Moore, M. H.(1995).Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
43. Moore, M. H.(2014).Public Value Accounting: Establishing a Philosophical Basis.Public Administration Review,74(4),465-477.
44. Moore, M. H.,Fung, A.(2012).Calling Publics into Existence: The Political Arts of Public Management.Ports in a Storm: Public Management in a Turbulent World,Washington, DC:
45. Nabatchi, T.(2012).Putting the ‘Public’ Back in Public Values Research: Designing Public Participation to Identify and Respond to Public Values.Public Administration Review,72(5),699-708.
46. Nambisan, S.(2009).Platforms for Collaboration.Stanford Social Innovation Review,7,44-49.
47. Neshkova, M. I.,Guo, H. D.(2018).Policy Target Populations and Public Participation in Agency Decision Making.International Public Management Journal,21(2),297-325.
48. Neuman、 W. L.,朱柔若（譯）, Jou-juo(Trans.)(2000).社會研究方法－質化與量化取向.臺北=Taipei:揚智=Yang Chih.
49. Ostrom, E.(2005).Understanding Institutional Diversity.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
50. Page, S. B.,Stone, M. M.,Bryson, J. M.,Crosby, B. C.(2015).Public Value Creation by Cross-Sector Collaborations: A Framework and Challenges of Assessment.Public Administration,93(3),715-732.
51. Perry, J. L.,Porter, L. W.(1982).Factors Affecting the Context for Motivation in Public Organizations.The Academy of Management Review,7(1),89-98.
52. Peterson, P.(1995).The Price of Federalism.Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.
53. Ragin, C.(1997).Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Methods Challenge Variable-Oriented Methods.Comparative Social Research,16,27-42.
54. Santos, S. L.,Chess, C.(2003).Evaluating Citizen Advisory Boards: The Importance of Theory and Participant-Based Criteria and Practical Implications.Risk Analysis: An International Journal,23(2),269-279.
55. Sarzynski, A.(2015).Public Participation, Civic Capacity, and Climate Change Adaptation in Cities.Urban Climate,14,52-67.
56. Seddon, J.(2008).Systems Thinking in the Public Sector: The Failure to Reform Regime and a Manifesto for a Better Way.Axminster:Triarchy Press.
57. Smith, R. F. I.(2004).Focusing on Public Value: Something New and Something Old.Australian Journal of Public Administration,63(4),68-79.
58. Stoker, G.(2006).Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance?.The American Review of Public Administration,36(1),41-57.
59. Stout, M.,Dougherty, G. W.,Dudley, L.(2017).Citizen Advisory Bodies: New Wine in Old Bottles?.Leadership and Change in Public Sector Organizations,New York:
60. Strauss, A. L.(1987).Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists.New York:Cambridge University Press.
61. Toma, C.,Butera, F.(2009).Hidden Profiles and Concealed Information: Strategic Information Sharing and Use in Group Decision Making.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35(6),793-806.
62. Van der Wal, Z.,Nabatchi, T.,de Graaf, G.(2015).From Galaxies to Universe: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Analysis of Public Values Publications from 1969 to 2012.The American Review of Public Administration,45(1),13-28.
63. Wamsley, G. L.,Wolf, J. F.(1996).Refounding Democratic Public Administration: Modern Paradoxes. Postmodern Challenges.Sage Publications.
64. Weber, M. 1919 (1946). “Politics as a Vocation.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, eds. H. Gerth & C. Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, 77-128.
65. Williams, I.,Shearer, H.(2011).Appraising Public Value: Past, Present and Futures.Public Administration,89(4),1367-1384.
66. Wilson, W. 1887. “The Study of Administration.” Political Science Quarterly 2: 197-222.
67. Yang, K.(2016).Creating Public Value and Institutional Innovations across Boundaries: An Integrative Process of Participation, Legitimation, and Implementation.Public Administration Review,76(6),873-885.
68. Yang, K.,Pandey, S. K.(2011).Further Dissecting the Black Box of Citizen Participation: When Does Citizen Involvement Lead to Good Outcomes?.Public Administration Review,71(6),880-892.
69. Yin, R. K.(2006).Mixed Methods Research: Are the Methods Genuinely Integrated or Merely Parallel.Research in the Schools,13(1),41-47.
70. 張四明, Ssu-ming,胡龍騰, Lung-teng(2013)。後新公共管理時期政府績效管理的公共價值意涵。公共治理季刊，1(1)，73-83。
71. 陳敦源, Don-yun(2009)。透明之下的課責：臺灣民主治理中官民信任關係的重建基礎。文官制度季刊，1(2)，21-55。
72. 臺北市信義區永春國民小學總務處，2022，〈臺北市永春永吉國小EOD規劃〉，永春永吉兩校合併專區網頁，https://sites.google.com/ycps.tp.edu.tw/ycps/%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81. 2022/12/05。Office Of General Affairs, Taipei Municipal Yongchun Elementary School, 2022. “Taipei shi Yongchun Yongji guoxiao EOD guihua” [The EOD Initiative of the Taipei Municipal Yongchun Elementary School and Yongji Elementary School]. in https://sites.google.com/ycps.tp.edu.tw/ycps/%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81. Latest update 5 December 2022.
73. 臺北市政府都市發展局，2022，〈臺北市市有建物及用地整合運用導向之都市發展（EOD）專區〉，臺北市市有建物及用地整合運用導向之都市發展（EOD）專區網頁，https://www.udd.gov.taipei/events/f3gxcu9-10635，2022/12/05。Department of Urban Development, Taipei City Government, 2021. “Taipei she shiyou jianwu ji yongdi zhenghe yunyong daoxiang zhi dushi fazhan (EOD) zhuanqu” [Taipei City’s Education Oriented Development (EOD) projects]. in https://www.udd.gov.taipei/events/f3gxcu9-10635. Latest update 5 December 2022.