美國府際合作機制的建構與經驗學習－ACIR與NRDP的比較分析

The Establishment of Intergovernmental Cooperation Mechanism in America and the Lesson-Drawing for Taiwan: The Comparative Study of ACIR and NRDP

10.6712/JCPA.200706_(4).0004

石振國(Chen-Kuo Shih)

府際合作機制 ； 府際關係諮詢委員會 ； 全國鄉村發展夥伴關係 ； 府際關係 ； intergovernmental cooperation mechanism ； Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations ACIR ； National Rural Development Partnership NRDP ； intergovernmental relations

中華行政學報

4期（2007 / 06 / 01）

67 - 80

繁體中文

在美國具法定地位的正式府際合作機制中，府際關係諮詢委員會(ACIR)與全國鄉村發展夥伴關係(NRDP)為具特殊性與代表性者。這兩者亦代表建構府際合作機制兩種不同方向的努力與嘗試。其中府際關係諮詢委員會是由國會所創設、成員具多元背景的政策幕僚機構，但在一九九六遭到終結。而全國鄉村發展夥伴關係的創設則是由下而上、以地區偉主體，並由中央扮演催化與促成角色的跨部會、公私協力機制，其成效並受各州的肯定與學習。本文除了透過機制的創設、成員的結構、組織定位、目標設定與課責方式等層面對兩者進行比較分析外，並由其中進行經驗學習，發現包括功能定位清晰、成員背景廣納、政治地雷避免及創造短期績效等因素為建構有效府際合作機制的重要因素。

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) and National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP) are formal and legal intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms in America, that is why they are specific and representative. And they represent different directions in the establishment of intergovernmental cooperation mechanism. In the case of ACIR, it's an advocatory agent initiated by Congress, constituted by multiple representative membership, and terminated caused by political factor in 1996. In the case of NRDP, it's a collaborative mechanism initiated from bottom up, constituted by federal, state, local and private sector membership, and became a successful and lesson-drawing case of many states. Through the comparative study of agency initiation, constitution of membership, organizational goal and accountability of ACIR and NRDP, it finds that four factors are crucial in the establishment of intergovernmental cooperation mechanism, including clearness of legal and functional position, inclusiveness of membership, avoidance of political pitfall, and the generating of short-term effectiveness.

1. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations(1976).Partnership within the States: Local Self-government in the Federal System.Urbana:Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois.
2. Agranoff, R.,M. McGuire(2003).Collaborative Public Management.Washington, D. C.:Georgetown University Press.
3. Agranoff, R.,M. McGuire,M. P. Mandell (ed)(2001).Getting Results Through Collaboration.Westport:Quorum.
4. Burns, J. M.(1987).Government by the People.N. J.:Prentice-Hall.
5. Carroll, G.R.,J. Delacroix,Cameron, Sutton,Whetten (eds.)(1988).Readings in Organizational Decline.Mass:Ballinger.
6. Christensen, K. S.(1999).Cities and Complexity.Thousand Oaks:Sage.
7. Cliger, B. A.,M. P. Mandell (ed)(2001).Getting Results Through Collaboration.Westport:Quorum.
8. Cole, Richard L.,John Kincaid(2000).Public Opinion and American Federalism Perspectives on Taxes, Spending, and Trust-An ACIR Update.Publius: The Journal of Federalism,30(1-2),189-201.
9. Gardner, R.,R. Shaffer(eds.),Lovan, W. R.,Murray, M.(2004).Participatory Governance.Burlington:Ashgate.
10. Hannan, M.T.,J. H. Freeman,Cameron, Sutton,Whetten (eds.)(1988).Readings in Organizational Decline.Mass:Ballinger.
11. Hyden, G.,J.Gourt,K. Mease(2004).Making Sense of Governance.London:Lynne Rienner.
12. Jordan, A.,Rudiger K.,W. Wurzel,Anthony Zito(2005).The Rise of 'New' Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government?.Political Studies,53(3),477-496.
13. McDowell, Bruce D(1997).Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in 1996: The end of an era.Publius: The Journal of Federalism,27(2),111-127.
14. Radin, B. A.(eds.)(1996).New Governance for Rural America.Kansas:Univ. Press of Kansas.
15. Thompson, B. H.,Anderson, T. L.,P. J. Hill (eds.)(1997).Environmental Federalism.Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield.
16. 大前研一、王德玲、蔣雪芬譯(2001)。看不見的新大陸－知識經濟的四大策略。台北:天下雜誌。
17. 李長晏(2005)。我國府際治理之分析模式。中區《推動府際合作公共論壇》研討會，台中:
18. 林水波(2005)。政治終結的探索。國家政策季刊，4(4)，129-152。
19. 林水波、王崇斌(2005)。文官核心能力與良善公共治理的關連性。《強化文官核心能力再造政府競爭力》學術研討會，台北:
20. 孫同文、趙永茂、江大樹主編(2004)。府際關係。台北:元照。

1. 江欣彥、丁仁方(2011)。資本主義經濟發展成本歸屬弔詭－從風險社會課責觀點析之。人文暨社會科學期刊，7(2)，1-15。
2. 林文謙(2011)。全球環境治理與國內政治之互動：以ICCAI削減台灣大目鮪配額案為例。政治科學論叢，50，141-180。