歐洲行政空間之初探：兼論對於兩岸行政互動啟示

The Introduction of European Administrative Space and the Implication for Cross-Strait Administrative Relation

10.7070/PR.201107.0121

朱鎮明(Cheng-Ming Chu)；徐筱婷(Hsiao-Ting Hsu)

比較行政 ； 歐洲行政空間 ； 整合式行政 ； 行政文化 ； comparative administration ； European administrative space ； integrated administration ； administrative culture

政策研究學報

11期（2011 / 07 / 01）

121 - 145

繁體中文

有關歐洲行政空間的討論，是指在歐洲區域之內運作的公共行政，逐漸有一些共享的原則或是共識，而此共識與原則，是與歐陸公法傳統密切相關的。EAS表示在各國行政法秩序與行政實務上，存在一種演化並增加同質性的趨勢。而此趨勢的內涵是指向善治與共有行政法傳統，主要的原則包括：可靠性與可預測性、聞放與透明、課責，以及效率效能等。這些基本的公共行政與價值，也被用來檢視中東歐候選國家申請加入歐盟的行政條件，以確保／確定這些國家能夠改善行政能力、能與歐盟既有會員國體制接軌、能夠執行泛歐層次的共同政策與法令。除此之外，歐盟相關組織也以利誘與壓力，促使候選國家改善行政能力。不過，目前有關EAS的討論集中在趨同或是差異性，而且沒有共識，仍有許多因素猶持釐清。一般來說，各國仍有各自的行政傳統、價值與實務經驗，很難說EAS已經取得優勢論點。由歐洲行政空間的討論來展望同屬區域整合的兩岸關係，我們也能找出若干對於ECFA運作與協商的啟示，並從中鼓勵互動機制中能夠納入社會夥伴關係以及強化各類文官的互動，從而讓台灣較優質的行政體制與行政文化，能夠影響大陸行政體制，共同學習民主治理的精神。

The idea of an emerging EAS, which denotes that public administration operate on the basis of European principles, has roots in continental public law tradition. The term EAS represents an evolving process of increasing convergence between national administrative legal orders and administrative practices of member states. Over time, a general consensus on key component of good governance and public law has emerged among EU Member States. These main principles are as follows: 1. Reliability and Predictability; 2. Openness and transparency; 3. Accountability; 4. Efficiency and effectiveness.These basic public administration values and principles are deemed to have led to some convergence amongst national administration. The employment of these principles also creates standards to which the candidate states are expected to conform in order to improved administrative capacity and preparations for accession and enlargement process, and to align their public administrations to those of the EU Member States.In addition, EU institutions have increased pressure and disbursed funds to boost administrative capacity in central and eastern European candidate countries. These institutions have tried to ensure that, when becoming EU members, candidate countries will able to implement the ever-expanding body of EU law and policy. At present, the discussion about EAS is concentrating on convergence or not, but several factors make it difficult to give more precise answers. In general, member states have managed to preserve their specific administrative tradition, practices, and values.The ECFA is the same as EAS that we can deliberate where Cross-Strait relation go. We are looking forward to [A Cross- Strait Space] by which civil servant and social partner can be increased; moreover, implement Cross-Strait public governance.

1. 朱景鵬(2003)。歐洲聯盟發展合作政策之研究：以地中海夥伴關係建構為例。遠景基金會季刊，4(4)，67-116。
   連結：
2. 黃偉峰(2003)。剖析歐洲聯盟正再成型的治理體系。歐美研究，33(2)，291-344。
   連結：
3. Hoffmann, Herwig C. H., 2006, "Mapping the European Administrative Space", www.arena.uio.no/events/LondonPapers06/HOFMANN.pdf
4. (1998).PREPARING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS FOR THE EUROPEAN ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE.Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
5. Nizzo, Carlo, 2001, "National Public Administrations and European Integration," Paris: OECD/SIGMA, http:/www1.OECD.org/puma/sigmaweb
6. Radaelli, C. M., 2000, "Whither Europeanization? Concepts Stretching and Substantive Change," http://eiop.org.at/eiop/texte2000-008.htm.
7. Bossaert D.(2001).Civil Services in the Europe of Fifteen: Trends and New Developments.Maastricht:European Institute of Public Administration.
8. Caporaso, James A.,Wittenbrinck, Joerg(2006).The New Modes of Governance and Political Authority in Europe.Journal of European Public Policy,12(4),471-480.
9. Cardona, Francisco(1999).Civil Service for the European Administrative Space.Public Management Forum,V(2)
10. Cardona, Francisco(2001).The European Administrative Space: Assessing Approximation of Administrative Principles and Practices among EU Member States.Public Management Forum,V(4)
11. Demmke, C.(2002).Undefined Boundaries and Grey Areas: the Evolving Interaction between the EU and National Public Services.EIPASCOPE,2002(2)
12. Feiock, Richard C.,Jeong, Moon-Gi(2002).Regulatory Reform and Urban Economic Development.State and Local Government Review,34(3),153-159.
13. Goetz, K. H.,Wollmann, H.(2001).Governmentalizing Central Executives in Post-Communist Europe: a Four-Country Comparison.Journal of European Public Policy,8(6),864-887.
14. Hanf, K.(ed.),Soetendorp, B.(ed.)(1998).Adapting to European Integration: Small States and the European Union.London:Longman.
15. Harlow, Carol(2005).Law and Public Administration: Convergence and Symbiosis.International Review of Administrative Sciences,71(2),279-294.
16. Harmsen, R.(1999).The Europeanization of National Administrations: a Comparative Study of France and the Netherlands.Governance,12(1),81-113.
17. Héritier, A.(ed.)(2002).Common Goods: Reinventing European and International Governance.Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield.
18. Hodson, D.,Maher, I.(2001).The Open Method as a New Mode of Governance: The Case of Soft Economic Policy.Journal of Common Market Studies,39(4),719-746.
19. Joerges, C.(ed.),Dehousse, R.(ed.)(2002).Good Governance in Europe's Integrated Markets.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
20. Knill, Christoph,Lehmkuhl, Dirk(2002).The National Impact of European Union Regulatory Policy: Three Europeanization Mechanisms.European Journal of Political Research,41,255-280.
21. Olsen, Johan(2003).Toward a European Administrative Space?.Journal of European Public Policy,10(4),506-531.
22. Pierre, Jon(ed.)(1995).Bureaucracy in the Modern State.Aldershot:Elgar.
23. Pollitt, Christopher(2000).Public management reform: a comparative analysis.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
24. Radaelli, C. M.(2003).The Open Method of Coordination: A New Governance Architecture of the European Union?.Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.
25. Scherpereel, John A.(2004).Renewing the Socialist Past or Moving toward the European Administrative Space? Inside Czech and Slovak Ministries.Administration & Society,36(5),553-593.
26. Schwarze, J.(ed.)(1996).Administrative Law under European Influence: On the Convergence of the Administrative Laws of the EU Member States.London:Sweet & Maxwell/Nomos.
27. Shapiro, M.(2001).The Institutionalization of European Administrative Space.The Institutionalization of Europe,Oxford:
28. Siedentopf, Heinrich,Speer, Benedikt(2003).The European Administrative Space from a German Administrative Science Perspective.International Review of Administrative Sciences,69,9-28.
29. SIGMA(1998).Preparing Public Administration for the European Administrative Space.Paris:OECD.
30. SIGMA(1999).European Principles for Public Administration.Paris:SIGMA.
31. SIGMA(ed.)(1998).Preparing Public Administrations for the European Administrative Space.Paris:SIGMA.
32. Viks, K. li(2002).,Berlin:.
33. Weber, Max(1978).Economy and Society.Berkley:University of California Press.
34. 何燦成(2006)。從法規影響分析之角度談我國專利法因應WTO公共衛生議題之修正。智慧財產權，85，34-56。
35. 林桓(2005)。行政院經濟建設委員會委託研究行政院經濟建設委員會委託研究,台北:行政院經濟建設委員會。
36. 林桓(2002)。我國建立法規衝擊分析機制之初論。研考雙月刊，26(5)，40-49。
37. 施世駿(2005)。歐盟新治理模式與社會政策發展：『開放協條法』興啟的歷史脈絡與政策意涵。臺灣社會福利學刊，4(1)，1-50。
38. 張其祿(2006)。政府管制政策績效評估─以OECD國家經驗為例。經社法制論叢，38，49-97。
39. 譚功榮(2004)。歐洲服務憲章運動：背景、原則、戰略及啟示。國家行政學院學報，6月號，89-91。