影響臺灣電子提案通過成案門檻之因素

The Factors Affecting the Success of Passing the Threshold of an Electronic Proposal in Taiwan

10.29865/PAP.202012_(71).0001

林宛萱(Wan-Hsuan Lin)；王宏文(Hong-Wung Wang)；王禕梵(Yi-Fan Wang)

電子參與 ； 電子提案 ； 電子連署 ； 利益團體 ； 網路參與平臺 ； e-participation ； electronic proposal ； e-petition ； interest group ； Join Platform

行政暨政策學報

71期（2020 / 12 / 01）

1 - 42

繁體中文

在電子治理的浪潮中，臺灣公共政策網路參與平臺的「提點子」機制提供民眾參與公共事務的機會，如果提案能在60天內獲得5,000個連署數，則政府必須對民眾提案做出回應，因此這是一種新的從下而上的政策議程設定機制，希望能鼓勵民眾參與，但過去研究顯示利益團體對於政策議程有很大的影響力，因此這新的電子提案平臺能否減少利益團體的影響力？或是說，利益團體在電子提案平臺的影響究竟為何？是本文的第一個研究焦點。另外，因為通過成案門檻的提案很少，因此本文想要探索到底有哪些因素會影響提案通過門檻的可能性。筆者蒐集提點子平臺在2016年的504筆提案資料作為分析標的，透過卡方分析與統計模型分析，本研究發現有利益團體支持的提案比較會通過成案門檻，而成本分布廣泛的提案比較不容易通過。從學術的角度來看，研究結果顯示利益團體的影響力，不僅限於傳統的政策議程設定，在電子連署上，也扮演重要的角色。在實務上，此研究成果隱含若民眾想要在電子平臺上成功地倡議一項提案，則他們可能要考慮與利益團體合作，以增加提案通過門檻的機會。對利益團體而言，他們應思考如何形塑提案的形象以及框架，以提高通過門檻的可能性。

In the wave of e-governance, the electronic proposal platform provides people with the opportunity to participate in public affairs in Taiwan. If proposers gather more than 5,000 signatures within 60 days, the government must respond to those submitted proposals. Therefore, this is a new bottom-up policy agenda setting mechanism, hoping to encourage public participation. However, past studies show that interest groups have a great influence on policy agenda. Can this new electronic proposal platform reduce the influence of interest groups? In other words, what is the influence of interest groups on the electronic proposal platform? It is the first research focus of this article. In addition, because few proposals passed the threshold, this article wants to explore what factors affected the likelihood of a proposal passing this threshold. We collected the data of 504 proposals submitted by citizens on the Join Platform in 2016. Data were analyzed using chi-square analysis and statistical models. Results show that proposals supported by interest groups are more likely to exceed the threshold. Proposals with broad cost distribution are more difficult to pass. From the academic point of view, the results show that the influence of interest groups is not limited to the traditional policy process, but also plays a pivotal role in electronic signatures. In practice, the result implies that if people want to successfully advocate for a proposal on the electronic platform, they should work with interest groups to increase their chances of passing the threshold. For interest groups and their supporters, they should also consider how to shape the image or frame of the proposal to increase the possibility of passing the threshold.

1. 李仲彬,陳敦源,蕭乃沂,黃東益(2006)。電子化政府在公共行政研究的定位與價值：議題連結的初探性分析。東吳政治學報，22，73-120。
   連結：
2. 杜文苓,施麗雯,黃廷宜(2007)。風險溝通與民主參與：以竹科宜蘭基地之設置為例。科技醫療與社會，5，71-110。
   連結：
3. 盛杏湲(2012)。媒體報導對企業型政治立法成敗的影響。東吳政治學報，30(1)，1-42。
   連結：
4. 莊文忠,徐明莉,張鐙文(2009)。非營利組織的議程設定與政策倡議的形成：質化研究的檢證。公共行政學報，33，121-163。
   連結：
5. 陳敦源,李仲彬,黃東益(2007)。應用資訊通訊科技可以改善「公眾接觸」嗎？台灣個案的分析。東吳政治學報，25(3)，51-92。
   連結：
6. Anzia, S. F.(2019).When Does a Group of Citizens Influence Policy? Evidence from Senior Citizen Participation in City Politics.Journal of Politics,81(1),1-14.
7. Baek, Y. M.(2010).To buy or not to buy: Who are political consumers? What do they think and how do they participate?.Political Studies,58(5),1065-1086.
8. Baumgartner, F. R.,Breunig, C.,Green‐Pedersen, C.,Jones, B. D.,Mortensen, P. B.,Nuytemans, M.,Walgrave, S.(2009).Punctuated equilibrium in comparative perspective.American Journal of Political Science,53(3),603-620.
9. Baumgartner, F. R.,Carammia, M.,Epp, D. A.,Noble, B.,Rey, B.,Yildirim, T. M.(2017).Budgetary change in authoritarian and democratic regimes.Journal of European Public Policy,24(6),792-808.
10. Baumgartner, F. R.,Jones, B. D.(2015).The politics of information: Problem definition and the course of public policy in America.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
11. Baumgartner, F. R.,Jones, B. D.,Wilkerson, J.(2011).Comparative studies of policy dynamics.Comparative Political Studies,44(8),947-972.
12. Bergan, D. E.(2009).Does Grassroots Lobbying Work? A Field Experiment Measuring the Effects of an e-Mail Lobbying Campaign on Legislative Behavior.American Politics Research,37(2),327-352.
13. Binderkrantz, A.S.,Christiansen, P. M.,Pedersen, H. H.(2015).Interest Group Access to the Bureaucracy, Parliament, and the Media.Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions,28(1),95-112.
14. Bryson, J. M.,Quick, K.S.,Slotterback, C. S.,Crosby, B. C.(2013).Designing public participation processes.Public Administration Review,73(1),23-34.
15. Chalmers, A. W.(2013).Trading information for access: informational lobbying strategies and interest group access to the European Union.Journal of European Public Policy,20(1),39-58.
16. Copeland, L.(2014).Value Change and Political Action: Postmaterialism, Political Consumerism, and Political Participation.American Politics Research,42(2),257-282.
17. Esterling, K.M.(2007).Buying Expertise: Campaign Contributions and Attention to Policy Analysis in Congressional Committees.American Political Science Review,101(1),93-109.
18. Fouirnaies, A.,Hall, A. B.(2017).How Do Interest Groups Seek Access to Committees?.American Journal of Political Science,62(1),132-147.
19. Fung, A.,Gilman, H. R.,Shkabatur, J.(2013).Six Models for the Internet + Politics.International Studies Review,15,30-47.
20. Gil de Zúñiga, H.,Jung, N.,Valenzuela, S.(2012).Social media use for news and individuals social capital, civic engagement and political participation.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,17(3),319-336.
21. Gormley, W.T.(1986).Regulatory Issue Network in a Federal System.Polity,18(4),595-620.
22. Hagen, L.,Harrison, T.M.,Uzuner, O.,May, W.,Fake, T.,Katragadda, S.(2016).E-petition popularity: Do linguistic and semantic factors matter?.Government Information Quarterly,33,783-795.
23. Heaney, M.T.(2004).Issue Networks, Information, and Interest Group Alliances: The Case of Wisconsin Welfare Politics, 1993-99.State Politics and Policy Quarterly,4(3),237-270.
24. Hersh, E. D.,Schaffner, B.F.(2018).Postmaterialist Particularism: What Petitions Can Tell Us About Biases in the Policy Agenda.American Politics Research,46(3),434-464.
25. Hinterleitner, M.(2018).Policy failures, blame games and changes to policy practice.Journal of Public Policy,38(2),221-242.
26. Jones, B. D.,Baumgartner, F.R.(2005).The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
27. Jones, B. D.,Baumgartner, F.R.(1993).Agendas and instability in American politics.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
28. Jones, B.D.,Theriault, S.M.,Whyman, M.(2019).The Great Broadening: How the Vast Expansion of the Policymaking Agenda Transformed American Politics.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
29. Kahneman, D.(2011).Thinking Fast and Slow.New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
30. Lee, C.,Chen, D.,Huang, T.(2014).The Interplay Between Digital and Political Divides: The Case of e-Petitioning in Taiwan.Social Science Computer Review,32(1),37-55.
31. Lindblom, C.E.(1977).Politics and Markets: The Worlds Political Economic Systems.New York:Basic Books.
32. Lindner, R.,Riehm, U.(2011).Broadening Participation Through E-Petitions? An Empirical Study of Petitions to the German Parliament.Policy & Internet,3(1),0-23.
33. Macintosh, A.(2004).Characterizing e-participation in policy-making.37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,New Jersey:
34. Macintosh, A.,Whyte, A.(2006).Evaluating How Eparticipation Changes Local Democracy.e-Government Workshop,London:
35. Noshokaty, A. E.,Deng, S.,Kwak, D.(2016).Success Factors of Online Petitions: Evidence from Change.org.49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,Hawaii:
36. Page, B. I.,Shapiro, R. Y.(1983).Effects of public opinion on policy.The American political science review,77(1),175-190.
37. Peixoto, T.,Fox, J.(2016).When Does ICT-Enabled Citizen Voice Lead to Government Responsiveness?.IDS Bulletin,47(1),23-40.
38. Puschmann, C.,Bastos, M.T.,Schmidt, J-H.(2017).Birds of a feather petition together? Characterizing e-petitioning through the lens of platform data.Information, Communication & Society,20(2),203-220.
39. Ringquist, E. J.,Worsham, J.,Eisner, M.A.(2003).Salience, complexity, and the legislative direction of regulatory bureaucracies.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,13(2),141-164.
40. Robbins, M.B.,Simonson, B.,Feldman, B.(2008).Citizens and Resource Allocation: Improving Decision Making with Interactive Web-Based Citizen Participation.Public Administration Review,68(3),564-575.
41. Schnakenberg, K.E.(2017).Informational Lobbying and Legislative Voting.American Journal of Political Science,61(1),129-145.
42. Seaton, J.(2005).The Scottish Parliament and E-democracy.Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives,57(4),333-337.
43. UNDESA(2017).United Nations E-Government Survey 2016.New York:United Nations.
44. United Nations(2018).United Nations E-Government Survey 2018.New York:United Nations.
45. Wilson, J.Q.(1980).The Politics of Regulation.New York:Basic Books.
46. Yackee, J.W.,Yackee, S.W.(2006).A Bias Towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy.The Journal of Politics,68(1),128-139.
47. 林雨潔,王國政,楊慧敏(2018)。「公共政策網路參與平臺」三周年執行情形報告。政府機關資訊通報，351，1-9。
48. 莊明芬(2015)。公民參與提點子。國土及公共治理季刊，3(4)，102-109。
49. 陳佳宏(2018)。如何以開放平臺有效推進政策之案例與啟示。臺灣經濟研究月刊，41(10)，62-69。
50. 陳敦源,黃心怡,廖洲棚,陳恭,陳揚中(2016)。政府推動電子連署（e-petition）的機遇與挑戰。國土及公共治理季刊，4(4)，41-53。
51. 陳敦源,黃東益(2009)。行政院研究發展考核委員會研究計畫行政院研究發展考核委員會研究計畫,未出版
52. 劉宗熹,王國政(2019)。「公共政策網路參與平臺」四周年執行情形報告。政府機關資訊通報，357，1-11。
53. 蕭全政(1997)。組織與制度的政治經濟分析。暨大學報，1，1-16。

1. 呂嘉穎(2022)。分析公共政策網路參與平臺之效益－以有關臺中市之提議議案為例。弘光學報，89，83-95。