政策合法化過程行政官員與立法委員論述的內容分析－審議民主的觀點

Content Analysis of Administrators' and Legislators' Discourse in Policy Legitimation-Deliberative Democracy Perspective

10.30409/JPA.201103_(38).0001

劉姵吟(Pei-Yin Liu)；黃東益(Tong-Yi Huang)

審議民主 ； 政策合法化 ； 內容分析 ； 立法院 ； 政策論述 ； deliberative democracy ； policy legitimation ； content analysis ； the Legislative Yuan ； policy discourse

公共行政學報

38期（2011 / 03 / 01）

1 - 47

繁體中文

政策合法化階段為政策執行的基礎前提，在代議民主的制度設計下，政策合法化係行政官員與立法委員相互對話之結果，且兩者應透過具備審議民主精神的論述內容，強化決策的正當性與品質，然而此主題過去卻為學界所忽略。本文從多元性、互惠性、尊重性、與合理性等面向探究政策合法化論述之審議民主精神，透過個案比較研究法，選取大學法與私立學校法的修法過程進行內容分析。研究結果顯示，立法委員論述的互惠性、多元性、尊重性、與合理性皆有待加強；行政官員的論述則過於保守與消極，缺乏合理性精神。審議民主精神的不足應與兩者的制度性角色要求相關。基於研究發現，本文建議應於現制中增加立法委員彼此間互動與對話的誘因，以更接近審議民主之理想；並鼓勵行政官員發表積極論述，強化其合理性進而發揮更多影響力。本文為一初探性嘗試，未來學界可根據實務觀察，建構更完善的評估指標，甚至輔以制度論角度，裨益於對政策合法化論述的審議精神有更全面性地解釋。

Policy legitimation is the prerequisite of policy implementation. Under the representative democracy, policy legitimation results from the interaction between administrators and legislators. And they should strengthen the legitimacy and quality of decision-making by deliberative discourse. However, this process is ignored by the academia in the past. This study investigates the policy legitimation discourse from the perspective of deliberative democracy, specifically from the aspects of diversity, reciprocity, respect, and reasonableness. The author selected the processes of amending the University Act and the Private School Law by comparative study of cases, and used the content analysis as the research method. The results show the attributes such as reciprocity, diversity, respect, and reasonableness in the legislators' policy legitimation discourse have a great room for improvement. Administrators are always conservative and passive, and there is a lack of the reasonableness in the discourse. The difference between legislators and administrators' discourses may relate to respective institutional roles. Accordingly, this study suggests current system should give legislators more incentives to interact with each other, and to promote the deliberative spirit of the discourse. The institution should encourage administrators to be more active in making arguments, to enhance reasonableness and exert more influence. This study also gives suggestions to further studies.

1. 吳東欽(2008)。從議事阻撓觀點探討我國中央分立政府運作之影響。臺灣民主季刊，5(3)，71-120。
   連結：
2. 盛杏湲(2003)。立法機關與行政機關在立法過程中的影響力：一致政府與分立政府的比較。台灣政治學刊，7(2)，51-105。
   連結：
3. 盛杏湲(2001)。立法委員正式與非正式立法參與之研究：以第三屆立法院為例。問題與研究，40(3)，81-104。
   連結：
4. 黃秀端(2004)。政黨輪替前後的立法院內投票結盟。選舉研究，11(1)，1-32。
   連結：
5. 黃秀端,何嵩婷(2007)。黨團協商與國會立法：第五屆立法院的分析。政治科學論叢，34，1-44。
   連結：
6. 黃秀端,陳鴻鈞(2006)。國會中政黨席次大小對互動之影響—第三屆到第五屆的立法院記名表決探析。人文及社會科學集刊，18(3)，385-415。
   連結：
7. 楊婉瑩(2002)。立法院委員會的決策角色：以第三屆立法院為例。問題與研究，41(4)，83-113。
   連結：
8. 鄭明德(2005)。民進黨立法院黨團組織問題之研究。政治科學論叢，25，135-166。
   連結：
9. 蕭怡靖(2005)。我國立法院資深制度之探討-委員會遊走及召集委員資深度之變遷。政治科學論叢，25，105-134。
   連結：
10. Alesina, A.,Tabellini, G.(2008).Bureaucrats or politicians? Part I: A single policy task.The American Economic Review,97(1),169-179.
11. Alesina, A.,Tabellini, G.(2008).Bureaucrats or politicians? Part II: Multiple policy tasks.Journal of Public Economics,92,426-447.
12. Bächtiger, A.,Spörndli, M.,Steenbergen, M. R.,Steiner, J.(2005).The deliberative dimensions of legislatures.Acta Politica,40,225-238.
13. Baynes, K.(2002).Deliberative democracy and the limits of liberalism.Discourse and democracy: Essays on Habermas’s between facts and norms,Albany, NY.:
14. Bendor, J.,Taylor, S.,van Gaalen, R.(1985).Bureaucratic expertise versus legislative authority: A model of deception and monitoring in budgeting.The American Political Science Review,79(4),1041-1060.
15. Berg, B. L.(2004).Qualitative research methods for the social sciences.Boston, Mass.:Allyn and Bacon.
16. Bessette, J. M.(1994).The mild voice of reason: Deliberative democracy and American national government.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
17. Chambers, S.(1996).Reasonable democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the politics of discourse.Ithaca, NY.:Cornell University Press.
18. Dryzek, J. S.(2000).Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations.NY.:Oxford University Press.
19. Dunleavy, P.,Jones, G. W.,Burnham, J.,Elgie, R.,Fysh, P.(1993).Leaders, politics and institutional change: The decline of prime ministerial accountability to the house of commons, 1868-1990.British Journal of Political Science,23,267-298.
20. Ekeli, K. S.(2005).Giving a voice to posterity-deliberative democracy and representation of future people.Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,18,429-450.
21. Elgie, R.,Stapleton, J.(2006).The parliamentary activity of the head of government in Ireland.Executive leadership and legislative assemblies,NY.:
22. Elster, J.(1998).Deliberation and constitution making.Deliberative democracy,NY.:
23. Fiorina, M. P.(1985).Congress and bureaucracy: A profitable partnership.Bureaucratic power in national policy making,Boston:
24. Fishkin, J. S.(1991).Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform.New Haven, Conn.:Yale University Press.
25. Gangl, A.(2003).Procedural justice theory and evaluations of the lawmaking process.Political Behavior,25(2),119-149.
26. Giddings, P.(1993).Questions and department.Parliaments questions,NY.:
27. Gutmann, A.,Thompson, D.(1996).Democracy and disagreement.Cambridge, Mass.:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
28. Gutmann, A.,Thompson, D.(2004).Why deliberative democracy?.Princeton, NJ.:Princeton University Press.
29. Habermas, J.(2005).Concluding comments on empirical approaches to deliberative politics.Acta Politica,40,384-392.
30. Habermas, J.,Rehg, W.(Trans.)(1996).Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy.Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
31. Jensen, J. L.(2003).Public spheres on the internet: Anarchic or government-sponsored.Scandinavian Political Studies,26(4),349-374.
32. Jensen, J. L.(2003).Virtual democratic dialogue? Bringing together citizens and politicians.Information Polity,8(1-2),29-47.
33. Lascher, E. L., Jr.(1996).Assessing legislative deliberation: A preface to empirical analysis.Legislative Studies Quarterly,21(4),501-519.
34. Laver, M.,Shepsle, K. A.(1996).Making and breaking governments: Cabinets and legislatures in parliamentary democracies.NY.:Cambridge University Press.
35. Lazarus, R. J.(2006).Congressional descent: The demise of deliberative democracy in environmental law.Georgetown Law Journal,94(3),619-681.
36. Levine, C. H.,Peters, B. G.,Thompson, F. J.(1990).Public administration: Challenges, choices, consequences.Glenview, Ill.:Scott, Foresman.
37. Little, D.(1991).Varieties of social explanation: An introduction to the philosophy of social science.Boulder:Westview Press.
38. Loomis, B. A.(Ed.)(2000).Esteemed colleagues: Civility and deliberation in the U.S. senate.Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution Press.
39. Majone, G.(1989).Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process.New Haven:Yale University Press.
40. Mann, T. E.,Ornstein, N. J.(1993).A second report of the renewing congress project.Washington, D.C.:American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
41. Meier, K. J.(1997).Bureaucracy and democracy: The case for more bureaucracy and less democracy.Public Administration Review,57(3),193-199.
42. Oleszek, W. J.(1996).Congressional procedures and the policy process.Washington, D.C.:CQ Press.
43. Olson, D. M.(1994).Democratic legislative institutions: A comparative view.Armonk, NY:M.E. Sharpe.
44. Peters, B. G.(1999).Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism.NY.:Pinter.
45. Quirk, P. J.(1991).Evaluating congressional reform: Deregulation revisited.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,10(3),407-425.
46. Ragin, C. C.(1987).The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies.Berkeley:University of California Press.
47. Ragin, C. C.(1994).Constructing social research: The unity and diversity of method.Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Pine Forge Press.
48. Rawls, J.(1997).The idea of public reason.Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics,Cambridge, Mass.:
49. Rosenbloom, D. H.(2000).Building a legislative-centered public administration: Congress and the administrative state, 1946-1999.Tuscaloosa, Ala.:University of Alabama Press.
50. Stanford, K. A.(1996).State budget deliberations: Do legislators have a strategy?.Public Administration Review,52(1),16-26.
51. Steenbergen, M. R.,Bächtiger, A.,Spörndli, M.,Steiner, J.(2003).Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index.Comparative European Politics,1,21-48.
52. Steiner, J.,Bächtiger, A.,Spörndli, M.,Steenbergen, M. R.(2004).Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse.NY.:Cambridge University Press.
53. Tsaliki, L.(2002).Online forums and the enlargement of public space: Research findings from a European project.The Public,9(2),95-112.
54. Uhr, J.(1998).Deliberative democracy in Australia: The changing place of parliament.NY.:Cambridge University Press.
55. Weatherford, M. S.(1994).Responsiveness and deliberation in divided government: Presidential leadership in tax policy making.British Journal of Political Science,24(1),1-31.
56. Wiberg, M.(1995).Parliamentary questioning: Control by communication?.Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe,NY.:
57. Wilson, G. K.,Barker, A.(2003).Bureaucrats and politicians in Britain.Governance: An international journal of policy, administration, and institutions,16(3),349-372.
58. Woodhouse, D.(1994).Ministers and parliament: Accountability in theory and practice.NY.:Oxford University Press.
59. 王石番(1989).傳播內容分析法.台北:幼獅.
60. 田麗虹(2001).國會助理工作手冊.臺北市:新自然主義.
61. 朱志宏(2000).公共政策.台北市:三民.
62. 余致力,毛壽龍,陳敦源,郭昱瑩(2008).公共政策.台北市:智勝.
63. 李天任（譯）,藍莘（譯）,Wimmer, R. D.,Dominick, J. R.(1995).大眾媒體研究.臺北:亞太圖書.
64. 李莅蒂(2004)。台北，世新大學行政管理學系。
65. 林水波,張世賢(1999).公共政策.台北市:五南.
66. 林震岩(2007).多變量分析.台北:智勝.
67. 邱太三(2001)。國會質詢制度的改革芻議。國會改革：台灣民主憲政的新境界，臺北市:
68. 施佳良(2007)。台北市，國立政治大學公共行政學系。
69. 紀俊臣(1984)。地方政府公共政策合法化過程的探討。行政學報，16，95-102。
70. 黃榮護（編）(1999).公共管理.臺北市:商鼎文化.
71. 楊堤雅(2000)。高雄市，國立中正大學企業管理系。
72. 趙弘章(2005)。我國立法院委員會專業化與黨團協商透明化之分析。中山人文社會科學期刊，13(1)，37-54。
73. 鄭明德(2004)。民進黨立法院黨團的黨鞭制度。中華人文社會學報，1，38-55。
74. 魯炳炎(2003)。政策合法化與政策網絡-以我國自由貿易港區政策為例。經社法制論叢，32，161-210。
75. 簡名君(2006)。台北市，國立政治大學公共行政學系。

1. Huang, Tong-yi,Hsieh, Chung-an(2013).Practicing Deliberative Democracy in Taiwan Processes, Impacts, and Challenges.Taiwan Journal of Democracy,9(2),79-104.
2. 蕭全政、孫煒(2013)。全球化潮流下台灣公私部門組合型態的制度性安排。政治科學論叢，58，109-138。
3. (2012)。教育政策與教育立法關係之分析。教育研究月刊，222，19-32。