政策綱絡研究在公共行政領域中的核心地位與方法錯位

The Core Position and Methodological Mismatch of Policy Network Research in the Field of Public Administration

10.7070/PR.200406.0061

王光旭(Guang-Xu Wang)

政策綱絡 ； 綱絡分析 ； 資源依賴 ； 方法錯位 ； 新制度論 ； policy network ； network analysis ； resource interdependency ； methodological mismatch ； new-institutionalism

政策研究學報

5期（2004 / 06 / 01）

61 - 102

繁體中文

政策綱絡作爲探討政策形成過程的一種新興方法，將政策過程理解爲具有不同立場、多元利益的群體複雜的動態博奕過程，突破了本文傳統決策研究領域中，菁英決策或是理性決策的分析方法。由於政策綱絡的分析方式能切實反應社會的現狀，有關政策綱絡方面的文獻如雨後春筍般湧出，充分反映出公共行政學界對政策綱絡之研究有著濃厚的興趣。雖然政策綱絡在實務的應用上，已經累積了相當多的研究個案，但概念的分析與理論的建構上，仍然遭受極大的批評，甚至不同學派之間持續的大辯論，以及後續對政策綱絡提出補充觀點的學者，由於觀點的失焦，也似乎沒有清楚的理解並解決理論上根本的問題。 本文最主要的目的，即是針對過去迄今公共行政領域中使用政策綱絡途徑的研究成果做一反省與討論。從筆者所檢閱的政策綱絡相關文獻中，公共行政的學者確實如批評所述，大將政策綱絡的探討侷限於綱絡的態樣，綱絡的表現方式大多爲靜態結果上的呈現，而非動態權變的權力互動過程。政策綱絡要走出僅具描述性的隠喻批判而成爲具有解釋力的理論，Dowding建議可以結合社會綱絡分析法的建議是非常中肯的。首先，對於政策綱絡的分析，我們應該試圖以綱絡分析的思維解答下列的問題：行動者間是否存在著關係連帶？關係連帶背後所代表的實質內容爲何？交換的資源爲何？誰是綱絡的中心？誰是綱絡的邊陲？行動者間關係的強度、距離、頻率各爲何？這樣的政策綱絡對於政策結果有什麽樣的影響？再者，政策綱絡的研究需要更精緻化。筆者並不排斥連續其他分析概念加強政策綱絡的解釋力，然而在方法的使用上，分析問題的角度應該是要回答綱絡所要關心的問題意義，而非是補充性的理論所關心的議題，才不會有錯失焦點之虞，如此才能更正確的精緻化政策綱絡的分析方法，並進一步對實務的政策問題提出正確可行的政策建議。

Governing by Bureaucracy has been the focus of Public Administration. However, as the power of the government systems fall, and the private organizations rise. Policies are implemented in complex organizational network and target population. Power is the central concept in the dependent model and connects with the possession of resources or with the asymmetry of the dependent relations among actors. The research on policy networks is always at the core of policy-making process developed since 1970s. Only by talking policy network research, rather than other general policy making process research, as a starting point, people could understand and hold the true situation of policy-making process in the society nowadays. Furthermore, nothing that the traditional research on policy network has been sometimes inattentive to their work. The Rhodes' researches on policy network suffer a lot of critiques from Dowding, Raab and other researchers. The critic argues that network approaches are failed because the driving force of the explanation and the independent variables are not the network per se but rather characteristics of components within the networks. Many scholarships like Blom-Hansen combine the views of new institutionalism and policy network to break policy network away from vague description like a metaphor. But Blom-Hansen leads to the wrong result of his work by using the incorrect view to explain the policy network. In this article, social network analysis is applied to provide theoretical and research insights for those who focus primarily on traditional policy network research. Finally, the article will be concluded with recommendations for advancing current scholarship on policy network.

1. Atkinson, Michael M.,William D. Colemam(1992).Governance,5(2),154-180.
2. Benson, J. Kenneth.(1974).The Interorganizational Network as a Political Economy.Administrative Science Quarterly,2,229-249.
3. Berry, Frances S.,Ralph S. Brower(2004).Three Traditions of Network Research: What the Public Management Research Agenda Can Learn from Other Research Communities.Public Administration Review,64(5),539-552.
4. Blom-Hansen, Jens(1997).A New Institutional Perspective on Policy Network.Public Administration,75,669-693.
5. Boase, Joan Price(1996).Institutions, Institutionalized Networks and Policy Choices: Health Policy in the US and Canada.Governance,9(3),287-310.
6. Borzel, Tanja A.(1998).Organizing Babylon-on the Different Conceptions of Policy networks.Public Administration,76(2),253-273.
7. Breiger, R. L.,J. G. Ennis(1979).Personae and Social Roles: the Network Structure of Personality Types in Small Group.Social Psychology Quarterly,42,262-270.
8. Carlsson, Lars.(2000).Policy Networks as Collective Action.Policy Studies Journal,28(3),502-520.
9. Daugbjerg, Carsten,David Marsh,David Marsh (ed.)(1998).Comparing Policy Network.Buckingham:Open University Press.
10. Dowding, Keith(2001).There Must Be End to Confusion: Policy Network, Intellectual Fatigue, and the Need for Political Science Methods Courses in British Universities.Political Studies,49,89-105.
11. Dowding, Keith(1995).Political Studies.XLIII.
12. Emirbayer, M.,J. Goodwin(1994).Network Analysis, Culture and Problem of Agency.American Journal of Sociology,99,1411-1451.
13. Evans, Mark(2001).Understanding Dialectics in Policy Network Analysis.Political Studies,49,542-550.
14. Galaskiewicz, J.(1979).Exchange Network and Community Politics.New York:Academic Press.
15. Galaskiewicz, J.(1985).Orlando.FL:Academic Press.
16. Kenis, Patrick,Volker Schneider,Bernd Marin,Renate Mayntz (eds.)(1991).Policy Network : Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations.Frankfurt am Main:Campus Verlag.
17. Kickert, Walter J. M.,Erik-Hans Klijn,Joop F. M. Koppenjan,Kickert, Walter J. M.,Erik-Hans Klijn,Joop F. M. Koppenjan (eds.)(1997).Managing Complex Network: Strategies for the Public Sector.London:Sage.
18. Kilduff, M.,Tasi, W.(2003).Social Networks and Organizations.London:SAGE.
19. Klijn, Erik-Hans(1996).Analyzing and Managing Policy Process in Complex Networks: A Theoretical Examination of the Concept Policy Network and Its Problems.Administration and Society,28(1),90-119.
20. Klijn, Erik-Hans,Joop F. M. Koppenjan,Katrien Termeer(1995).Managing Networks in The Public Sector: A Theoretical Study of Management Strategies in Policy Networks.Public Administration,Autumn,437-454.
21. Klijn, Erik-Hans,Walter J. M. Kickert,Erik-Hans Klijn,Joop F. M. Koppenjan (eds.)(1997).Managing Complex Network: Strategies for the Public Sector.London:Sage.
22. Knoke, David,James H. Kuklinski(1982).Network Analysis.Beverly Hills:Sage.
23. Laumann, Edward O.,David Knoke(1987).Madison.Wis:University of Wisconsin Press.
24. Lin, N.(2001).Social Capital: A Theory of social Structure and Action.UK:Cambridge Uni. Press.
25. Marin, Bernd,Renate Mayntz (eds.)(1991).Policy Network: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations.Frankfurt am Main:Campus Verlag.
26. Marsh, David.,David Marsh (ed.)(1998).Comparing Policy Network.Buckingham:Open University Press.
27. Marsh, David,Martin J. Smith(2001).There is More then One Way to Do Political Science: on Different Ways to Study Policy Networks.Political Studies,49,528-541.
28. Marsh, David,Martin J. Smith(2000).Understanding Policy Networks: toward a Dialectical Approach.Political Studies,48,4-21.
29. Michael M.,William D. Colemam(1992).Policy Networks, Policy Communities and the Problems of Governance.Governance,5(2),154-180.
30. Mitchell, J. C.,Mitchell (ed.)(1969).Social Network in Urban Situations.Manchester:Manchester University Press.
31. Mizruchi, M. S.,M. Schwartz.(1987).Intercorporate Relation.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
32. Mizruchi, M. S.,M. Schwartz.,David Marsh (eds.)(1998).Comparing Policy Network.Buckingham:Open University Press.
33. Access on
34. Pfeffer, J.,G. Salancik.(1987).The External Control of Organization: A Resource Dependence Perspective.New York:Harper and Row.
35. Rabb, Charles D.(2001).Understanding Policy Networks: a Comment on Marsh and Smith.Political Studies,49,551-556.
36. Rhodes, R.A.W.(1997).Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability.Buckingham:Open University Press.
37. Rhodes, R.A.W.(1996).Political Studies.XLIV.
38. Rhodes, R.A.W.,David Marsh(1992).Policy Network in British Government.Oxford, UK:Clarendon Press.
39. Schneider, Volker(1991).The Structure of Policy Networks: A comparison of the Chemicals Control and Telecommunication Policy Domains in Germany.European journal of Political Research,21,109-129.
40. Scott, John(2002).Social Network: Critical Concepts in Sociology.New York:Routledge.
41. Smith, Martin J(1993).Pressure, Power and Policy: State Autonomy and Policy Networks in Britain and The United States.Sussex:Harvester Wheatsheaf.
42. Toke, David,David Marsh(2003).Policy Networks and GM Crops Issue: Assessing the Utility of a Dialectical Model of Policy Networks.Public Administration,81(2),229-252.
43. Wasserman, S.,K. Faust(1994).Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
44. 丁仁方(1999)。威權統合主義：理論、發展與轉型。台北:時英出版社。
45. 丁仁方、中正大學政治系暨研究所主辦(2000)。比較研究的中問分析層次及其於台灣研究之應用。發表於政治分析的層次問題國際學術研討會
46. 丘昌泰(1995)。剖析我國公害糾紛。台北:淑馨。
47. 丘昌泰(2000)。公共政策：基礎篇。台北:巨流。
48. 史美強、空中大學主辦(2000)。組織網絡與治理。行政管理學術研討會
49. 林水波、張世賢(1984)。公共政策。台北:五南。
50. 邱澤奇譯、Turner, J. H．著(2001)。社會學理論的結構下冊。北京:華夏出版社。
51. 陳恆鈞、世新大學行政管理系主辦。團體在決策過程中的分析模式。發表於世新大學政策分析研討會
52. 熊瑞梅(1993)。中研院民族所中研院民族所,未出版
53. 劉軍(2004)。社會網絡分析導論。北京:社會科學文獻出版社。
54. 劉瑞華譯、North, Douglas C．著(1994)。制度、制度變遷與經濟成就。台北:時報。
55. 邊燕杰(1999)。社會網絡與求職過程。國外社會學，82，1-13。

1. 黃柏岡(2017)。韓國電信民營化—以政策網絡分析。國立臺灣大學政治學系學位論文。2017。1-91。