跨機關合作中的政治與官僚辯證：「行政團隊」與「首長間信任建立」之意涵與困局

The Dilemma of Politics and Administration in Cross-agency Cooperation: Exploring the Meanings and Barriers of the Administrative Team and the Trust-building among Political Executives

10.30174/JSS.201006.0001

曾冠球(Kuan-Chiu Tseng)；江明修(Min-Hsiu Chiang)

行政團隊 ； 首長間信任建立 ； 官僚政治 ； 跨機關合作 ； Administrative Team ； Political Executives' Mutual Trust ； Bureaucratic Politics ； Cross-agency Cooperation

國家與社會

8期（2010 / 06 / 01）

1 - 45

繁體中文

政府部門的「行政團隊」(administrative team)是「實存」(reality)？還是「修辭」(rhetoric)？欲維繫一個行政團隊，信任無疑是關鍵要素，首長間信任尤其具有影響力，並表現在跨機關合作成果上。引人好奇的是：首長間是否容易與如何建立互信關係？在這過程中可能遭遇哪些阻力？作者檢閱官僚研究的重要文獻，並聚焦於政治任命者的組成關係，以及其等與常任文官之間互動兩項議題，作為訪談資料的分析架構。研究發現顯示，首長間信任並無法一廂情願地達成，在客觀因素制約下，首長間信任經常面臨一些挑戰。其次，跨機關合作是一種多層次關係，除了水平關係外，政治任命者仍須就部門立場與底下文官達成共識，因此，政治任命者難以迴避「角色衝突」問題。面對上述困境，當民選首長之行政領導力明顯不足時，則其對外所宣稱的「行政團隊」，很可能只淪為一種政治修辭之用。

Does ”administrative team” in the government sector belong to a ”reality” or ”rhetoric”? Actually, trust is a key element of the teamwork; political executives' mutual trust particularly makes a great impact on the interagency cooperation. Against this background, we are curious about the following questions: for those political executives, if it is easy and how to build trust in their relationships? What factors might potentially hinder the possibilities for building trust among them? The author firstly reviewed crucial related researches in the fields of public bureaucracy, and then concentrated on two issues as a way to analyze the data: the composition of political appointees, and the interaction between the political executives and career civil servants. According to our findings, it reveals that political executives' mutual trust can't be built on his or her way. Within the context of the public sector, political executives' activities of trust-building often confront challenges. In addition, interagency cooperation is multi-layer relationships; that is, political appointees not only have to deal with the trust between the horizontal relationships but also have to achieve consensus with their subordinates on the basis of the agency's aim. Hence, it is difficult for political appointees to avoid ”role conflicts”. When facing such dilemma, the so called ”administrative team” will become a political rhetoric if top elected politician can't exert administrative leadership well.

1. 施能傑(2004)。公共服務倫理的理論架構與規範作法。20，103-140。
   連結：
2. 蔡秀涓(2006)。虛幻或實存？組織信任概念與影響原因回顧暨展望。21，163-178。
   連結：
3. Alexander, E. R.(1995).Luxembourg:Gordon and Breach.
4. Alter, C.,Hage, J.(1993).Los Angeles, CA:Sage.
5. Chisholm, D. W.(1989).Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
6. Corbin, J.,Strauss, A.(2008).Los Angeles, CA:Sage.
7. Demir, T.,Nyhan, R. C.(2008).The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: an Empirical Search for Correspondence between Theory and Practice.68(1),81-96.
8. Downs, A.(1967).Boston:Little, Brown and Company.
9. Dunn, W. N.(1994).Englewood Cliffs NJ.:Prentice Hall.
10. Etzioni-Halevy, E.(1983).Boston:Routledge & K. Paul.
11. Frederickson, H. G.(1997).San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
12. Frederickson, H. G.、江明修譯(2002)。台北:五南。
13. Gormley, W. T.,Balla, S. J.(2004).Washington, D.C.:CQ Press.
14. Granovetter, M.(1985).Economic Action and Social Structure: the Problem of Embeddedness.91,481-510.
15. Heclo, H.(1977).Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution.
16. Hood, C. C.(1976).London:John Wiley and Sons.
17. Kaufman, H.(1981).Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution.
18. Kettl, D. F.(1993).Washington, D.C.:The Brookings Institution.
19. Lawton, A.(1998).Philadelphia, PA.:Open University Press.
20. Maranto, R.(2005).Lanham MD:Lexington.
21. March, J. G.,Olsen, J. P.(1989).New York:Free Press.
22. Mccray-Mccall, D.(2007).State University of Cleveland.
23. Meier, K. J.,L. J. O''Toole(2006).Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.
24. Miller, G. J.(1992).New York:Cambridge University Press.
25. Miller, G. J.(2000).Above Politics: Credible Commitment and Efficiency in the Design of Public Agencies.10(2),289-327.
26. Moe, T. M.(1984).The New Economics of Organization.28,739-777.
27. O''Leary, R.(2006).Washington, D.C.:CQ Press.
28. Perrow, C.(1986).New York:McGraw-Hill.
29. Peters, B. G.(1989).New York:Longman.
30. Pfiffner, J. P.(2007).The Institutionalist: a Conversation with Hugh Heclo.67(3),418-423.
31. Rainey, H. G.(1997).San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
32. Seidman, H.(1998).New York:Oxford University Press.
33. Waldo, D.(1984).New York:Holmes and Mier Publishers.
34. Warwick, D. P.(1975).Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
35. Wasserman, S.,Faust, K.(1994).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
36. Wilson, J. Q.(1989).New York:Basic Books.
37. Wilson, W.(1887).The Study of Administration.11(2),197-222.
38. 余致力(2000)。論公共行政在民主治理過程中的正當角色：黑堡宣言的內涵、定位與啟示。4，1-29。
39. 陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂、郭思禹(2006)。官僚回應性與內部顧客關係管理：台北市政府市長信箱個案研究。42，143-182。
40. 黃榮護(2000)。,台北市政府研考會。

1. 黃東益,黃宗賢(2020)。新問題、舊矛盾？三級機關政務與常務雙軌制分析。東吳政治學報，38(2)，1-54。
2. 葉嘉楠,李秩義(2019)。機關間合作之研究：以北部二縣市調查站與警察局為例。中華行政學報，25，43-62。