公共參與眞的能提升效能感嗎？以全民健康保險會之利害關係團體參與為例

Does Public Participation Increase Stakeholders' Efficacy? A Case Study of the National Health Insurance Committee

10.30409/JPA.201709_(53).0002

羅凱凌(Kai-Ling Luo)

行政部門委員會 ； 利害關係人 ； 公共參與 ； 效能感 ； 全民健康保險會 ； governmental committee ； stakeholder ； public participation ； efficacy ； National Health Insurance Committee

公共行政學報

53期（2017 / 09 / 01）

25 - 77

繁體中文

「行政部門委員會」意指行政部門內針對特定政策或重大議題進行審議和協商的合議制組織，其決策者包含行政官員、專家學者以及相關團體代表。儘管利害關係人可透過委員會增加政策參與的機會，但也引發許多對參與程序和成效的批判。依此，本文試圖說明：委員會作為公共參與的重要機制，是否真能提升利害關係團體的效能感。為更深入分析參與對效能感的作用，作者將參與細分為制度與行為兩層次；效能感則以行政效能感、民主效能感和實質效能感三個次構面組成。本文以全民健康保險會為研究案例，透過健保的利害關係人問卷以及會議記錄編碼，分析利害關係人的委員會參與對效能感有何影響。研究結果發現：三項效能感皆傾向正面評價，民主效能感最高，行政效能感最低。就參與作用而言，出席次數愈多，三項效能感評價愈高；但發言和提案則分別對行政效能感和實質效能感呈現負相關。由此反映出委員會參與的本質：無論與會者對委員會的行政或民主功能多悲觀，制度賦權仍舊對實質效能感具有正面影響。然而，把參與成本和決策結果納入考量後，對委員會參與的規範性期待，將趨向政治利益的實務考量。

＂Governmental committees＂ are a type of collegial organization for negotiation and deliberation of critical policies in the executive branch, whereas decision makers are bureaucrats, experts and representatives of related groups. Although the stakeholders can strengthen the opportunity of policy participation through governmental committees, they are often criticized for their participatory procedures and outcomes. Thus, the aim of this research is to explore whether committee participation can improve the efficacy of stakeholder groups. In order to elaborate the impact of participation on the efficacy of stakeholders, in this study, the concept of participation is divided into the institutional and behavioral levels, while stakeholders' efficacy is discussed on administrative, democratic, and substantive sub-dimensions. By analyzing the survey of stakeholders and the meeting minutes of the National Health Insurance Committee, this study attempts to illustrate the relationship between participation and efficacy. The results are illustrated as follows: Three sub-dimensions of efficacy are more positive than negative. The democratic dimension holds the highest rating while the substantive efficacy is the lowest. In terms of participative behavior, the frequency of attendance is significantly positive correlated to the three efficacies. However, the statement and proposal variables separately result in negative outcomes of the administrative and substantive efficacy. These findings uncover the nature of committee participation: Regardless of whether participants are skeptical of the administrative and democratic function of governmental committees or not, the institutional factor has a positive effect, meaning empowered groups have positive feedback on substantive efficacy. Nevertheless, after the participatory cost and decision outcome are taken into account, the stakeholders' normative expectations of governmental committees are transferred to the pursuit of substantive political interests.

1. 杜文苓(2012)。環評制度中的專家會議－被框架的專家理性。臺灣民主季刊，9(3)，119-155。
   連結：
2. 杜文苓、彭渰雯(2008)。社運團體的體制內參與及影響－以環評會與婦權會為例。臺灣民主季刊，5(1)，119-148。
   連結：
3. 孫煒(2010)。我國族群型代表性行政機關的設置及其意涵。臺灣民主季刊，7(4)，85-136。
   連結：
4. 孫煒(2010)。設置族群型代表性行政機關的理論論證。台灣政治學刊，41(1)，105-158。
   連結：
5. 盛杏湲(2000)。政黨或選區？立法委員的代表取向與行為。選舉研究，7(2)，37-73。
   連結：
6. 湯京平、邱崇原(2010)。專業與民主：台灣環境影響評估制度的運作與調適。公共行政學報，35，1-28。
   連結：
7. Achen, C. H.(1978).Measuring representation.American Journal of Political Science,22(3),475-510.
8. Agranoff, R.(2006).Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers.Public Administration Review,66(1),56-65.
9. Alford, J.,O'Flynn, J.(2009).Making sense of public value: Concepts, critiques and emergent meanings.International Journal of Public Administration,32(3-4),171-191.
10. Ansell, C.,Gash, A.(2008).Collaborative governance in theory and practice.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,18(4),543-571.
11. Babbie, E.(2015).The practice of social research.New York, NY:Cengage Learning.
12. Barber, B. R.(2003).Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age.Oakland, CA:University of California Press.
13. Bardhan, I. R.,Demirkan, H.,Kannan, P. K.,Kauffman, R. J.,Sougstad, R.(2010).An interdisciplinary perspective on IT services management and service science.Journal of Management Information Systems,26(4),13-64.
14. Bell, S.,Hindmoor, A.(2009).Rethinking governance: The centrality of the state in modern society.Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.
15. Benington, J.(Ed.),Moore, M. H.(Ed.)(2011).Public Value: Theory and Practice.Basingstoke, UK:Palgrave.
16. Borrini, G.,Jaireth, H.(2007).Sharing power: Learning-by-doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world.London, UK:Earthscan.
17. Bozeman, B.,Feeney, M. K.(2011).Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research.Armonk, NY:M.E. Sharpe.
18. Briscoe, F.(2007).From iron cage to iron shield? How bureaucracy enables temporal flexibility for professional service workers.Organization Science,18(2),297-314.
19. Brown, D. S.(1955).The public advisory board as an instrument of government.Public Administration Review,15(3),196-204.
20. Bryer, T. A.(2009).Explaining responsiveness in collaboration: Administrator and citizen role perceptions.Public Administration Review,69(2),271-283.
21. Coleman, S.,Blumler, J. G.(2009).The internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy.Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.
22. Cooke, B.,Kothari, U.(2001).Participation: The new tyranny?.New York, NY:Zen Book.
23. Coston, J. M.(1998).Administrative avenues to democratic governance: The balance of supply and demand.Public Administration and Development,18(5),479-493.
24. Covington, M. V.(2000).Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review.Annual Review of Psychology,51(1),171-200.
25. Creighton, J. L.(2005).The public participation han dbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement.San Francisco:John Wiley and Sons.
26. Dansereau, F.,Cashman, J.,Graen, G.(1973).Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,10(2),184-200.
27. Davidson, R. H.,Oleszek, W. J.,Lee, F. E.,Schickler E.(2013).Congress and its members.Washington, DC:CQ Press.
28. DeLeon, P.(1995).Democratic values and the policy sciences.American Journal of Political Science,39(4),886-905.
29. Denhardt, R. B.,Denhardt, J. V.,Blanc, T. A.(2013).Public administration: An action orientation.New York, NY:Cengage Learning.
30. Edwards, M.(2009).Civil society.London, UK:Polity.
31. Elías, M. V.,Alkadry, M. G.(2011).Constructive conflict, participation, and shared governance.Administration and Society,43(8),869-895.
32. Eulau, H.,Karps, P. D.(1977).The puzzle of representation: Specifying components of responsiveness.Legislative Studies Quarterly,2(3),233-254.
33. Follett, M. P.(1998).The new state: Group organization the solution of popular government.University Park, PA:Pennsylvania State University Press.
34. Forester, J.(1999).The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
35. Fung, A.(2006).Varieties of participation in complex governance.Public Administration Review,66(1),66-75.
36. Fung, A.,Wright, E. O.(2003).Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance.New York, NY:Verso.
37. Golden, M. M.(1998).Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard?.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,8(2),245-270.
38. Goodliffe, J.,Rothenberg, L. S.,Sanders, M. S.(2005).From goals to actions: The dynamics of cosponsorship reconsidered.The Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association,Washington:
39. Hall, R. L.(1987).Participation and purpose in committee decision making.American Political Science Review,81(1),105-127.
40. Haynes, P.(2015).Managing complexity in the public services.New York, NY:Routledge.
41. Heinrich, C. J.(2002).Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness.Public Administration Review,62(6),712-725.
42. Held, D.(2006).Models of democracy.Cambridge:Polity press.
43. Hughes, O. E.(2012).Public management and administration.New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
44. Irvin, R. A.,Stansbury, J.(2004).Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?.Public Administration Review,64(1),55-65.
45. Kathi, P. C.,Cooper, T. L.(2005).Democratizing the administrative state: Connecting neighborhood councils and city agencies.Public Administration Review,65(5),559-567.
46. King, C. S.,Feltey, K. M.,Susel, B. O. N.(1998).The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration.Public Administration Review,58(4),317-326.
47. Laver, M.,Schofield, N.(1990).Multiparty government: The politics of coalition in Europe.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
48. Laver, M.,Shepsle, K. A.(1996).Making and breaking governments: Cabinets and legislatures in parliamentary democracies.Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.
49. Levi-Faur, D.(2012).The oxford handbook of governance.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
50. Levi-Faur, D.(Ed.)(2012).Oxford handbook of governance.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
51. Locke, E. A.,Latham, G. P.(2006).New directions in goal-setting theory.Current Directions in Psychological Science,15(5),265-268.
52. Loewenberg, G.(2015).On legislatures: The puzzle of representation.New York, NY:Routledge.
53. Luo, K. L.(2014).Governmental board: Puppet master or puppet.The 11th Annual Conference of the European Association of Taiwan Studies (EATS),Portsmouth:
54. Matland, R. E.(1998).Women's representation in national legislatures: Developed and developing countries.Legislative Studies Quarterly,23(1),109-125.
55. Meynhardt, T.(2009).Public value inside: What is public value creation?.International Journal of Public Administration,32(3-4),192-219.
56. Miner, J. B.(2015).Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership.New York, NY:Routledge.
57. Nelson, N.,Wright, S.(1995).Power and participatory development: Theory and practice.London:Intermediate Technology Development Group.
58. Oliver, R. L.(1980).A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions.Journal of Marketing Research,17(4),460-469.
59. Ordeshook, P. C.,Shepsle, K. A.(1982).Political equilibrium: A delicate balance.Boston:Kluwer-Nijhoff.
60. Östman, J.(2012).Information, expression, participation: How involvement in usergenerated content relates to democratic engagement among young people.New Media and Society,14(6),1004-1021.
61. Payne, T.,Skelcher, C.(1997).Explaining less accountability: The growth of local quangos.Public Administration,75(2),207-225.
62. Petracca, M. P.(1992).The politics of interests: Interest groups transformed.New York, NY:Westview Press.
63. Pierce, Richard J.(2006).Democratizing the administrative state.William & Mary Law Review,48,559-612.
64. Powell, G. B.(2000).Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions.New Haven:Yale University Press.
65. Reed, M. S.(2008).Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review.Biological Conservation,141(10),2417-2431.
66. Renn, O.,Webler, T.,Rakel, H.,Dienel, P.,Johnson, B.(1993).Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure.Policy Sciences,26(3),189-214.
67. Richards, C.,Carter, C.,Sherlock, K.(2004).Practical approaches to participation.Craigiebuckler:Macaulay Institute.
68. Rowe, G.,Frewer, L. J.(2000).Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.Science, Technology and Human Values,25(1),3-29.
69. Schwindt-Bayer, L. A.,Mishler, W.(2005).An integrated model of women's representation.The Journal of Politics,67(2),407-428.
70. Scott, T. A.,Thomas, C. W.(2016).Unpacking the collaborative toolbox: Why and when do public managers choose collaborative governance strategies?.Policy Studies Journal
71. Selden, S. C.,Brewer, G. A.,Brudney, J. L.(1999).Reconciling competing values in public administration understanding the administrative role concept.Administration & Society,31(2),171-204.
72. Shipley, R.,Utz, S.(2012).Making it count: A review of the value and techniques for public consultation.Journal of Planning Literature,27(1),22-42.
73. Sinclair, B.(2000).Unorthodox lawmaking: New legislative processes in the U.S. congress.Washington, DC:CQ Press.
74. Solitare, L.(2005).Prerequisite conditions for meaningful participation in brownfields redevelopment.Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,48(6),917-935.
75. Stout, M.(2012).Logics of legitimacy: Three traditions of public administration praxis.Florida:CRC Press.
76. Talbot, C.(2011).Paradoxes and prospects of 'public value'.Public Money and Management,31(1),27-34.
77. Talbot, C.(2009).Public value-the next "big thing" in public management?.International Journal of Public Administration,32(3-4),167-170.
78. Thatcher, M.,Sweet, A. S.(2002).Theory and practice of delegation to nonmajoritarian institutions.West European Politics,25(1),1-22.
79. Van Thiel, S.(2004).Trends in the public sector: Why politicians prefer quasiautonomous organizations.Journal of Theoretical Politics,16(2),175-201.
80. Van Thiel, S.(2001).Quangos: Trends, causes and consequences.England:Ashgate Publishing Company.
81. Vigoda, E.(2002).From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration.Public Administration Review,62(5),527-540.
82. Wang, X.,Montgomery, W. W.(2007).When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers' perceptions.Public Administration Review,67(2),265-278.
83. Warren, M. E.(2001).Democracy and association.Oxford::Princeton University Press.
84. Wawro, G. J.,Schickler, E.(2006).Filibuster: Obstruction and lawmaking in the US senate.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
85. Wesselink, A.,Paavola, J.,Fritsch, O.,Renn, O.(2011).Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners' perspectives.Environment and Planning A,43(11),2688-2704.
86. Williams, I.,Shearer, H.(2011).Appraising public value: Past, present and futures.Public Administration,89(4),1367-1384.
87. Woodford, M. R.,Preston, S.(2013).Strengthening citizen participation in public policy-making: A canadian perspective.Parliamentary Affairs,66(2),345-363.
88. Yang, K.,Callahan, K.(2007).Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality.Public Administration Review,67(2),249-264.
89. Yang, K.,Pandey, S. K.(2007).Public Responsiveness of Government Organizations: Testing a Preliminary Model.Public Performance & Management Review,31(2),215-240.
90. 江盈儀(2011)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，淡江大學公共行政學系。
91. 茆昔文(2010)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，臺灣大學政治學研究所。
92. 孫煒(2008)。民主國家獨立機關的創建理由與制度定位：兼論對於我國政府改造的啟示。行政暨政策學報，46，107-150。
93. 殷海光基金會編(2007)。自由主義與新世紀台灣。台北:允晨。
94. 張其祿(2009)。獨立管制機關的政治監督與治理：兼論對我國獨立機關之啟示。公平交易季刊，17(2)，89-138。
95. 盛杏湲(1997)。立法委員的立法參與：概念、本質與測量。選舉研究，36(3)，1-25。
96. 陳怡伃(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義，國立中正大學社會福利系。
97. 陳敦源、劉宜君、林昭吟(2014)。衛生福利部中央健康保險署委託研究計畫衛生福利部中央健康保險署委託研究計畫,衛生福利部中央健康保險署。
98. 陳敦源、羅凱凌(2010)。委員會治理：台灣全民健康保險決策參與的理論與實務。參與式治理：基層社會組織的角色與作用學術研討會，山東濟南:
99. 黃煌雄、沈美真、劉興善(2012)。全民健保總體檢。台北:五南。
100. 劉昱明(2012)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，臺灣大學法律學研究所。
101. 賴威廷(2010)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，臺灣大學國家發展研究所。
102. 謝佩穎(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所。
103. 羅凱凌(2016)。誰說了算？行政部門委員會之決策影響力評估，以全民健康保險會為例。台灣大學公共事務所前瞻性工作坊，台北:

1. 曾丰彥,許雲翔,宋威穎(2021)。青年公共參與的制度分析：政府青年專責單位與代表性形成。文官制度季刊，13(2)，65-90。
2. 陳潁峰(2020)。審議民主如何創造校園公民？以中國文化大學吸煙區規劃和英語畢業門檻之審議活動為例。高雄師大學報：教育與社會科學類，49，1-29。
3. 劉宜君,葉謹寧,陳敦源,林昭吟,王光旭(2021)。全民健康保險委員會決策參與影響因素之探析：社會網絡分析的觀點。行政暨政策學報，72，67-114。