管理主義下的政府機關人力彈性化：台灣與香港政府契約人力制度之比較分析

Government's Personnel Flexibilization under Managerialism: A Comparative Study of Contract Personnel System in Taiwan and Kong Hong

10.30409/JPA.200706_(23).0002

蘇偉業(Bennis Wai Yip So)

彈性化 ； 政府契約僱員 ； 大陸法 ； 習慣法 ； 管理主義 ； Flexibilization ； Government Contract Staff ； Continental Law ； Common Law ； Managerialism

公共行政學報

23期（2007 / 06 / 01）

29 - 66

繁體中文

人力進用彈性化是近年公共部門改革的重要措施之一，當中契約進用人力是主要手段之一。表面上契約用人的方法都是大同小異，但在公共部門中的契約人力涵意則較為複雜，意義會因其相對於公務員系統的關係而有所變異。本文是以台灣與香港之政府機關契約人力制度作比較，突出這些差異及探討其背後之意義。 本文會指出由於香港是使用習慣法(common law)之地區；而台灣是使用大陸法(continental law)之地區，使兩地在推動「管理主義」改革上產生不同之實效。前者由於習慣法的彈性體系使香港政府有較大的空間進行「管理主義」式改革；而後者仍留於「法條化」式的改革，這不僅意味著「成文化」的程序滯後；在實際操上更是「非彈性化」。 就以上觀點，本文會利用香港一九九九年引進的非公務員合約僱員與台灣一直沿用的政府機關約聘僱人員及正在研擬中的契約人力制度作比較，指出香港的非公務員合約僱員雖然在人事系統及薪資福利上與傳統公務員分開，但在職責權力上是與傳統公務員重疊，加上香港沒有國家考試制度，這意味著契約人力對傳統公務員的可替代性及對該系統的潛在衝擊性。相反地，台灣政府機關的約聘僱人員及未來的契約人力不單在人事系統，也在職責權力上與傳統公務員區隔，公務員的特殊權力地位仍然是神聖不可侵犯的。最終，本文會指出台灣以多元化進用人力方式並不能達至真正的彈性化，而香港的「讓管理者管理」配以財務上的彈性才能達至彈性化之效果。

Personnel flexibilization is one of recent significant reform measures in the public sector, in which contractualization is a major vehicle. It seems that methods of contractualization are more or less the same, but their implications are more complicated for the public sector. The implications vary with how it is associated with the civil service system. This paper is an attempt to single out the variation and implications behind the contractualization through comparing the cases of Taiwan and Hong Kong. This paper pinpoints that there is variation of outcomes between the two places in adopting the managerial reforms due to the common law background of Hong Kong and the continental law background of Taiwan. Hong Kong with the flexibility endowment under the common law system is better able to wield the tools of the managerial reforms; while Taiwan's reform is largely confined to lingering ”codification” of reform policies and ironically it is per se not flexibilization but ”deflexibilization.” To substantiate the above point, this paper compares the example of the ”non-civil service contract staff” (NCSCS) introduced into Hong Kong in 1999 with the existing government contract staff system and with a newly-proposed contract staff system in Taiwan. It argues that even though there is a division in terms of personnel and compensation systems between NCSCS and careerbased civil servants in Hong Kong, the authority and the responsibility of two forces are largely overlapped. Without such a civil service examination as in Taiwan, it implies that there is a high potential of substitutability of careerbased civil servants by the contract-based workforce. By contrast, not only the personnel and the compensation systems but also the authority and the responsibility between contract-based staff and career-based civil servants are divided. The privileged status of career-based civil servants is kept intact under the contractualization. In a word, the paper argues that the diversification of public employment in Taiwan is unable to cause the effect of flexibilization, but ”let the managers manage” approach of Hong Kong plus financial flexibilities is indeed conducive to flexibilization.

1. 蘇偉業(2005)。香港公營部門「資源增值計畫」的實踐：對新公共管理改革的批判性分析。台灣政治學刊，9(1)，83-117。
   連結：
2. Burns, J. P.(2004).Government capacity and the Hong Kong civil service.Hong Kong:Oxford University Press.
3. Burns, J. P.,Lau Siu-Kai (ed.)(2002).The First Tung Chee Hwa Administration: The First Five Years of the Hong Kong Special Administration Regime.Hong Kong:Chinese University Press.
4. Clark, D.,Ian Scott,John P. Burns (eds.)(1984).The Hong Kong Civil Service Personnel Policies and Practices.Hong Kong:Oxford University Press.
5. Cole, A.,Jones, G.(2005).Reshaping the State: Administrative Reform and New Public Management in France.Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions,18(4),567-588.
6. Common, R.(2001).Public management and policy transfer in southeast Asia.Burlington:Ashgate.
7. Hood, C.,Peters, G.(2004).The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age Of Paradox.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,14(3),267-282.
8. Hughes, O. E.(1998).Public management & administration: An introduction.Hampshire:Macmillan Press.
9. Kickert, W. J. M.(2005).Distinctiveness in the Study of Public Management in Europe: A Historical-institutional Analysis of France, Germany and Italy.Public Management Review,7(4),537-563.
10. Löffler, E.(1997).Flexibilities in the German Civil Service.Public Policy and Administration,12(4),73-87.
11. Meyer, R.,Hammerschmid, G.(2006).Public management reform: An Identity project.Public Policy and Administration,21(1),99-115.
12. OECD(2005).Modernising government: The way forward.Paris:OECD.
13. Pollitt, C.(1993).Managerialism and the public services.Oxford:Blackwell.
14. Pollitt, C.(2001).Convergence: The useful myth.Public Administration,79(4),933-947.
15. Ridley, F. F.(1996).The New Public Management in Europe: Comparative Perspectives.Public Policy and Administration,11(1),16-29.
16. Ridley, F. F.,David Farnham,Sylvia Horton (eds.)(2000).Human Resources Flexibilities in the Public Services International Perspectives.Hampshire:Macmillan Press.
17. Schedler, K.,Proeller, I.,Kate McLaughlin (eds.)(2002).New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects.London:Routledge.
18. Scott, I.(2005).Public administration in Hong Kong: Regime change and its impact on the public sector.Singapore:Marshall Cavendish Academic.
19. 中邨章、許淑滿譯(2003)。評論日本政府改革：新公共管理議題及增長中的表面主義與法條主義。公務人員月刊，82，34-42。
20. 仝志敏、唐可(1992)。香港現行公務員制度。北京:中國人民大學出版社。
21. 朱愛群(2004)。考銓研究報告考銓研究報告,台北:考試院。
22. 考試院編(2005)。94年全國人事行政會議分區會議書面資料。台北:考試院。
23. 李紹芬(2003)。非常任文官進用問題之研究。人事行政，141，40-51。
24. 聯合報(2005/09/02)
25. 林嘉誠(2005)。政府改造、菁英流動及其影響。國家菁英季刊，1(1)，1-22。
26. 施能傑、蔡秀涓(2004)。契約性人力制度之規劃作法。公務人員月刊，102，15-34。
27. 施能傑、蔡秀涓(2003)。契約性人力運用之理論與現實。公務人員月刊，81，15-26。
28. 洪國平(2004)。建構聘用人事制度相關問題之探討。公務人員月刊，102
29. 孫本初(1996)。組織員額精簡之策略（下）。人事月刊，23(6)，16-31。
30. 孫同文(2003)。從威權政府到民主治理－台灣公共行政理論與實務之變遷。台北:元照。
31. 徐有守(1999)。考試權的危機：考銓制度的腐蝕與改進。台北:台灣商務印書館。
32. 黃舒芃(2003)。法治(Rule of Law)或法治國(Rechtsstaat)概念在台灣的繼受。2005年法理學國際學術研討會，台北:
33. 銓敘部銓審司(2003)。我國臨時人員法制修法三部曲。公務人員月刊，81，4-14。
34. 蔡良文(2006)。政府改造與彈性用人政策。考銓季刊，46，28-63。
35. 鄭瓊華(2005)。專案精簡（裁減）優惠退離措施之現況與未來。人事月刊，40(5)，38-41。
36. 謝正君(2003)。契約式聘僱人力之探討－以台北市政府爲例。公務人員月刊，81，27-33。
37. 蘇偉業、林雪湘(2006)。人力派遣制度應用於公共部門之可行性研究：以高雄市政府爲例。台灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會2006年年會暨學術研討會，台北:

1. (2024)。公部門人力資源管理措施對約聘僱人員離職傾向之影響：工作滿意度的中介效果。中國行政評論，30(1)，75-100。