協力決策後的績效弔詭：以性別影響評估和生態檢核表為例

Performance Paradox after Collaborative Decision-Making: Lessons from the Gender Impact Assessment and Eco-checklist Initiatives in Taiwan

10.30409/JPA.201803_(54).0002

彭渰雯(Yen-Wen Peng)；林依依(Yi-Yi Lin)；楊和縉(Ho-Chin Yang)

協力治理 ； 績效管理 ； 績效弔詭 ； 課責 ； 雙圈學習 ； collaborative governance ； performance management ； performance paradox ； accountability ； double-loop learning

公共行政學報

54期（2018 / 03 / 01）

41 - 78

繁體中文

在民主化的趨勢之下，民間團體進入體制內參與決策過程的協力治理模式，日愈受到公部門的肯認與重視。不過，經由協力與共識討論出的政策、計畫或工具，真的能將民間進步理念帶入官僚體系嗎？或者成為形式化的書面作業？既有的協力治理研究，多半著重於中觀或微觀層次討論協力治理成功的所需條件或影響因素，而較少探討在仍受績效管考機制支配下的公部門行政體系，如何可能達到原本民間團體參與協力決策的初衷？因此，本文以性別主流化與水庫集水區保育治理兩個政策個案為研究對象，檢視由官方與民間委員共同決策討論出的政策工具—性別影響評估和生態檢核表—實際執行時產生的弔詭現象。透過內容分析法及訪談法的運用，本文呈現了這兩個協力決策下的政策工具在執行過程的「績效弔詭」現象—即使在代表性、參與品質、回應性方面，超過半數以上並不理想，卻照樣可通過「結果導向」的管考程序（測量失靈）；更嚴重的是出現許多故意的操弄、欺瞞或迴避作為（負面效應），使得協力改革的理念推動不僅事倍功半，更對行政倫理與基層士氣造成傷害。對此本文建議，對於協力治理的實踐不能停留在決策層級的改變，而必須從制度層級，以協力的方式共同思考如何建立對話、學習導向的課責體系與組織文化；同時在操作層級，也透過真正平等伙伴的協力模式，降低績效失靈與弔詭的困境。

Under the tendency of democratization, the model of collaborative governance through which NGOs participate in policy decision-making process is becoming more widely recognized and valued by the public sector. However, could a policy plan produced through a collaborative process really bring progressive ideas into to a bureaucratic system? Or does it just produce more formalist paperwork? Existing literatures often focus on the necessary institutional arrangements or interpersonal factors contributing to the success of collaborative governance. Few studies assess the actual process of implementation and evaluation after a collaborative decision is made. This study uses the Gender Impact Assessment and the Eco-checklist initiatives in Taiwan as two cases to address the above-mentioned concerns. In particular, it reviews how both tools initiated by collaborative efforts between the government and NGOs are enacted in practice. Using content analysis and in-depth interview approaches, this paper reveals how both initiatives encountered ＂performance paradoxes.＂ More than half of the GIA and Ecological checklist reports were unable to survive our evaluation in terms of representation, quality participation, and responsiveness, but these problems were not identified in the result-based performance management mechanism. More seriously, there were unintended and deliberate performance paradoxes that need to be addressed at the normative level, namely by replacing or revising the idea of performance management per se. In conclusion, the authors emphasize that the discussion on collaborative governance should place more attention at the implementation as well as the institutional levels, and efforts should be put into collaborative innovation of a learning-oriented, dialogue-based accountability system.

1. 胡龍騰(2016)。績效悖理之潛因探析：制度邏輯與心理帳戶觀點。東吳政治學報，34(1)，209-268。
   連結：
2. 彭渰雯、李秉叡(2011)。推動性別主流化之過程評估：架構建立與先導研究。公共行政學報，38，115-150。
   連結：
3. 游美惠(2000)。內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究，8，5-42。
   連結：
4. 蔡允棟(2006)。民主行政與網絡治理：「新治理」的理論探討及類型分析。臺灣政治學刊，10(1)，163-209。
   連結：
5. 蘇偉業(2009)。公共部門事前定向績效管理：反思與回應。公共行政學報，30，105-130。
   連結：
6. Ansell, C.,Gash, A.(2008).Collaborative governance in theory and practice.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,18(4),543-571.
7. Arnaboldi, M.,Lapsley, I.,Steccolini, I.(2015).Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge.Financial Accountability & Management,31(1),1-22.
8. Bell, S.,Hindmoor, A.(2009).Rethinking governance: The centrality of the state in modern society.Port Melbourne, Australia:Cambridge University Press.
9. Bergrud, E.(Ed.),Yang, K.(Ed.)(2008).Civic engagement in a network society.Charlotte, NC:Information Age Publishing.
10. Brodkin, E. Z.(2011).Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,21(s2),i253-i2377.
11. Christensen, T.(2012).Post-NPM and changing public governance.Meiji Journal of Political Science and Economics,1(11),1-11.
12. Christensen, T.,Lægreid, P.(2007).The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform.Public Administration Review,67(6),1059-1066.
13. Cooper, T. L.,Bryer, T. A.,Meek, J. W.(2006).Citizen-centered collaborative public management.Public Administration Review,66(s1),76-88.
14. Daly, M.(2005).Gender mainstreaming in theory and practice.Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society,12(3),433-450.
15. De Bruijn, H.(2007).Managing performance in the public sector.London, England:Routledge.
16. Denhardt, R. B.,Denhardt, J. V.(2000).The new public service: Serving rather than steering.Public Administration Review,60(6),549-559.
17. Dunleavy, P.,Margetts, H.,Bastow, S.,Tinkler, J.(2005).New public management is dead-long live digital-era governance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,16(3),467-494.
18. Emerson, K.,Nabatchi, T.(2015).Collaborative governance regimes.Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press.
19. Emerson, K.,Nabatchi, T.,Balogh, S.(2012).An integrative framework for collaborative governance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,22(1),1-29.
20. Ferlie, E.(Ed.),Lynn, L. E., Jr.(Ed.),Pollitt, C.(Ed.)(2005).The Oxford Handbook of Public Management.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
21. Fischer, F.(2001).Beyond technocratic environmentalism: Citizen inquiry in sustainable development.Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis,New Brunswick, NJ:
22. Gerring, J.(2006).Case Study Research: Principles and Practices.Boston, MA:Cambridge University Press.
23. Hood, C.(1991).A public management for all seasons?.Public Administration,69(1),3-19.
24. Imperial, M. T.(2005).Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs.Administration & Society,37(3),281-320.
25. Lipsky, M.(1980).Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.New York, NY:Russell Sage Foundation.
26. Moynihan, D. P.(2005).Goal-based learning and the future of performance management.Public Administration Review,65(2),203-216.
27. O'Reilly, D.,Reed, M.(2011).The grit in the oyster: Professionalism, managerialism, and leaderism as discourses of UK public services modernization.Organizational Studies,32(8),1079-1101.
28. Osborne, S. P.(2006).The new public governance?.Public Management Review,8(3),377-387.
29. Phillips, S.,Levasseur, K.(2004).The snakes and ladders of accountability : Contradictions between contracting and collaboration for Canada's voluntary sector.Canadian Public Administration,47(4),451-474.
30. Pollitt, C.(2007).The new public management: An overview of its current status.Administratie si Management Public,8,110-115.
31. Salamon, L. M.(2001).The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction.Fordham Urban Law Journal,28(5),1611-1674.
32. Sørensen, E.,Torfing, J.(2012).Collaborative innovation in the public sector.The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal,17(1),1-14.
33. Squires, J.(2005).Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation.Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society,12(3),366-388.
34. Sullivan, H.,Barnes, M.,Matka, E.(2006).Collaborative capacity and strategies in area-based initiatives.Public Administration,84(2),289-310.
35. Terry, L. D.(1998).Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public management movement.Public Administration Review,58(3),194-200.
36. Van Thiel, S.,Leeuw, F. L.(2002).The performance paradox in the public sector.Public Performance & Management Review,25(3),267-281.
37. Wise, L. R.(2002).Public management reform: Competing drivers of change.Public Administration Review,62(5),556-567.
38. Yin, R. K.(2013).Case study research: Design and methods.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
39. 王石番(1991)。傳播內容分析法─理論與實證。台北:幼獅文化事業公司。
40. 行政院農委會水土保持局(2010)。行政院農委會水土保持局（2010）。生態檢核表檢討與建議。2013 年10 月30日，取自：www.wra.gov.tw/public/Data/022316382371.doc。http://www.wra.gov.tw/public/Data/022316382371.doc
41. 吳輝龍、王晉倫、鐘啟榮(2010)。水庫集水區保育治理執行現況及檢討。石門水庫及其集水區整治計畫（第 1 階段）執行成果檢討座談會
42. 林淑馨(2012)。公共管理。台北:巨流。
43. 徐仁輝、蔡馨芳(2007)。結果導向的學習：績效管理與組織學習。T&D 飛訊季刊，3，20-30。
44. 張四明、胡龍騰(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。
45. 莊文忠(2015)。公民導向的績效衡量與課責模式—以透明治理與開放政府為基礎。國土及公共治理季刊，3(3)，7-19。
46. 陳金燕、王曉丹(2011)。性別影響評估實施檢討及成效評估。台北:行政院研究發展考核委員會。
47. 陳敦源、張世杰(2010)。公私協力夥伴關係的弔詭。文官制度季刊，2(3)，17-71。
48. 彭渰雯(2015)。,台北:行政院。
49. 黃修文(2015)。民眾參與的檢討與建議。與署長有約－全國河川社群座談會，台北:
50. 蘇偉業(2009)。什麼是公部門的良好表現？公部門績效管理之回顧與再定位。T&D 飛訊，88，1-20。

1. 陳昆皇,邱保龍,吳永明,余一鳴(2023)。貪污審判存在性別差異嗎？2011-2020年地方法院裁判書的文字探勘。公共行政學報，64，1-33。
2. 彭渰雯(2020)。是的，問題就在「不夠協力」－回應蘇偉業教授之評論。公共行政學報，58，139-148。
3. 蘇偉業(2020)。「績效弔詭」是否為不夠「協力」之反映？對〈協力決策後的績效弔詭：以性別影響評估和生態度檢核表為例〉之回應與反思。公共行政學報，58，127-138。