:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:台灣南北差異下當事人觀點之公平衡量與跨域分析-旗津海岸公園與淡水漁人碼頭之比較
作者:黃于恬
作者(外文):Yu-tien Huang
校院名稱:國立中山大學
系所名稱:公共事務管理研究所
指導教授:汪銘生
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2012
主題關鍵詞:公平衡量跨域分析資訊整合理論經濟公平社會公平程序正義fairness measurementCross-domain analysisInformation Integration Theoryeconomic equitysocial fairnessprocedure justice
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:112
多元社會下的公共政策須能釐清與處理公共問題本質所存在的「多方當事人、多元價值及主觀判斷」等複雜特性 (Farkas & Anderson, 1974)。故此,衡量資源配置或評估政策績效時,不能僅以結果論斷,亦須考量投入面。其次,民眾與政府本身所之判斷標準與指標不同,多方當事人間亦因認知不一,而產生「不公平」的爭議。簡言之,公平衡量之重點應包括當事人之界定,及投入面與結果面指標之界定。
本研究以高雄市旗津海岸公園與新北市淡水漁人碼頭為例,以公共事務管理架構為基礎,進行公平衡量與跨域分析,探討經濟公平、社會公平與程序正義等三構面之公平認知,以次級資料分析與專家訪談解析與歸納PAM 架構中的載體條件與事實判斷,以資訊整合實驗之公平衡量探討PAM 架構中的價值判斷與人際判斷之面向,其以Anderson 提出的公平模式 為一理論基礎,同時強調個體自身投入與結果之比較與人際比較。研究結果如下:
一、 經濟公平構面之個體價值分析,旗津海岸公園與淡水漁人碼頭之在地商家與遊客皆逾10 位為遊客數之單因子模式。
二、 社會公平構面之個體價值分析,旗津海岸公園在地商家中有10 位為民意支持單因子模式,旗津海岸公園遊客與淡水漁人碼頭在地商家及遊客各皆逾8 位以上為民意支持因子與實質需求因子之相加模式。
三、 程序正義構面之個體價值分析,旗津海岸公園與淡水漁人碼頭在地商家與遊客皆逾14 位為政策支持因子與行政配合因子之不等權重平均模式。
四、 經濟公平構面之人際比較,實證結果旗津海岸公園與淡水漁人碼頭在地商家與遊客對兩地遊客數因子之整合皆為不等權重平均模式,旗津海岸公園與淡水漁人碼頭在地商家與遊客對兩地營收(消費水平)因子之整合皆為不等權重平均模式,而旗津海岸公園與淡水漁人碼頭在地商家與遊客對各自的遊客數因子與營收(消費水平)因子皆為相加模式,實證支持「不公平整合」規則。
五、 社會公平構面之人際比較,旗津海岸公園與淡水漁人碼頭兩地在地商家對於民意支持因子為不等權重平均模式,對於實質需求因子之亦為不等權重平均模式。旗津海岸公園與淡水漁人碼頭遊客對於民意支持因子為不等權重平均模式,對於實質需求因子亦為不等權重平均模式。
六、 程序正義構面之人際比較,旗津海岸公園與淡水漁人碼頭在地商家對於政策支持因子為不等權重平均模式,對於行政配合因子亦為不等權重平均模式。旗津海岸公園與淡水漁人碼頭遊客對於政策支持因子為不等權重平均模式,對於行政配合因子亦為不等權重平均模式。
續以跨域分析整合以上研究結果與次級資料分析、專家訪談之研究結果,提出相關研究建議與政策建議,並歸納公平衡量之操作步驟。
Public policies in a pluralistic society should be able to clarify and cope with the complicated nature of public issues dominated by “multiple parties, multiple values, and subjective judgment.” (Farkas & Anderson, 1974) Therefore, instead of merely concluding with the outcome, we should also take input into account when evaluating resource allocation or assessing policy effectiveness. In addition, since the public and the government differ in their judgment criteria and indicators, and multiple parties also have different understandings, the controversy of “inequity” thus arises. In short, to conduct fairness measurement, we should focus on defining the parties as well as the input and outcome indicators.
This research adopted the Public Affairs Management framework to analyze Cijin Seaside Park in Kaohsiung City and Tamshi Fishers’ Wharf in New Taipei City.
We have conducted a fairness measurement and cross-domain analysis to explore the equity perception in three aspects: economic equity, social fairness, and procedure justice. Moreover, we conducted a secondary data analysis, analyzed expert interviews, and generalized the carrier condition and factual judgment of the PAM framework. Furthermore, we explored the value judgment and interpersonal judgment in PAM framework with fairness measurement of the information integration theory. Our theory is based on the equity rule proposed by Anderson, which also emphasizes the individual and interpersonal comparison of individual input and outcome. Our results are demonstrated as follows:
1. In the individual value analysis of economic equity, both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers’ Wharf have over 10 local stores and tourists that fits one-factor rule of the tourist number factor.
2. In the individual value analysis of social fairness, Cijin Seaside Park has 10 local stores that support one-factor rule of the public support factor. However, Cijin Seaside Park has over eight tourists that fit the adding rule of public support factor and actual request factor, whereas Tamshi Fishers’ Wharf has over eight local
stores and tourists that fit the same rule.
3. In individual value analysis of procedure justice, both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers’ Wharf have over 14 local stores and tourists that fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of policy support factor and administrative cooperation factor.
4. In interpersonal comparison of economic equity, the experimental result shows that the local stores and tourists in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers’ Wharf fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the integration of their tourist number factors. Also, the local stores and tourists in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers’ Wharf fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the integration of their revenue (consumption) factors. Moreover, the local stores and tourists in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers’ Wharf both fit the adding rule of their respective tourist number factor and revenue (consumption) factor. This result also supports the “rule of inequity integration.”
5. In interpersonal comparison of social fairness, the local stores in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers’ Wharf fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the public support factor. They also fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the actual request factor. As for the tourists, those in both two places fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the public support factor. Also, they fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the actual request factor.
6. In interpersonal comparison of procedure justice, the local stores in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers’ Wharf fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of policy support factor. They also fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the administrative cooperation factor. As for the tourists, those in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers’ Wharf fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of policy support factor. Also, they fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the administrative cooperation factor.
We continued to conduct a cross-domain analysis to integrate the above research results, as well as the results of secondary data analysis and expert interviews. As a result, we thereby propose related suggestions and generalize the operation steps of fairness measurement.
參考文獻
王聰智 (2000)。科技倫理與功利主義的反思。哲學與文化,27(4),382-407。
何慧卿 (2007)。性別平等教育法下的校園性騷擾暨性侵害調查之程序正義:受害人保護及行為人權益之兼顧。台灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系博士論文。new window
汪明生 (2002)。集體決策中社會權重、妥協與個體偏好之研究-資訊整合理論之應用。國科會專題計畫報告書。
余致力 (2002)。民意與公共政策:理論探討與實證研究。台北:五南。
汪明生、陳正料 (2003)。企業型文官績效公平衡量之資訊整合研究。收錄於第四屆兩岸公共事務與跨世紀發展研討會論文輯,25-36。
汪明生、陳碧珍 (2005)。風險資訊整合模式與風險知覺之研究-以石化業為例。管理學報,20(2) ,251-287。new window
汪明生、馬群傑 (2007)。地區行銷理論與實證:公共事務管理觀點。台北:巨流圖書。new window
汪明生 (2008)。公共事務管理架構。取自http://www.pam.org.tw/files/15-1000-267,c90-1.php
汪明生 (2008)。跨域分析。取自http://www.pam.org.tw/files/15-1000-269,c90-1.php
紀駿傑 (1998)。我們沒有共同的未來:西方主流環保關懷的政治經濟學。台灣社會研究季刊,31,141-168。new window
施啟揚 (1998)。建立廉能公正的司法。法令月刊,49 (10),3-5。
林萬億 (1994)。福利國家-歷史比較分析。台北:巨流。new window
林俊杰 (2003)。公務人員資績與陞遷關係之研究:以彰化縣政府為例。東海大學公共事務碩士學程班碩士論文。
邱炳乾 (2001)。影響預算參與之因素與效能的結構關係。中山大學企業管理研究所博士論文。new window
張清讚 (1996)。論股利收入比照免稅銷售額之公平正義性。稅務,1603,13-16。
張寧 (2004)。社會判斷理論之集體決策程序對互動管理成果之驗證—兼論政策分析中集體決策方法之比較。中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
許立一 (2003)。慎思熟慮的民主行政。台北:韋伯。new window
許立一 (2004)。地方治理與公民參與的實踐:政治後現代性危機的反思與解決。公共行政學報,10,63-94new window
陳建民 (2000)。維護社會公平正義、邁向新世紀。智庫研究報告,2000年8-9月號,37-41。
陳碧珍 (2001)。決策與判斷分析領域簡介。公共事務評論,2(1),171-182,new window
陳正料 (2004)。民眾與政府對政策公平衡量多元認知之資訊整合研究:以登革熱防治為例。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(報告編號:NSC92 -2414-H-110-004)。new window
陳敦源 (2004)。人民、專家、與公共政策:民主理論下的「參與式知識管理」。國家政策季刊,3(1),99-134。
陳正料 (2006)。多元社會下政策績效之公平衡量:登革熱防治的資訊整合研究。中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。new window
陳建寧 (2006)。多元社會下北高兩市公民文化之比較研究:價值觀、道德認知與社會資本。中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
陳建寧、馬群傑、汪明生 (2008)。台灣北高兩市民眾對公平與關懷道德認知之研究。師大學報,53(2),43-68。new window
黃才容 (2005)。商務仲裁的公正性 -探討仲裁參與者之正義知覺及其文化價值觀的干擾效果。台灣大學商學研究所博士論文。new window
黃于恬 (2008)。南北發展差距下之高雄市政策資源配置與支持。97年統計學術研討會-公共事務管理與統計的對話,台灣高雄市政府主計處。
郭建志、張適年 (2011)。組織任用面談的結構特徵:程序正義知覺與應徵者反應之研究。中華心理學刊,53(1) ,97-114。new window
彭懷恩 (2000)。台灣政治發展的反思。台北:風雲論壇。
詹立煒(2005)。台灣跨域治理機制之研究-理論、策略與個案。中華大學經營管理研究所碩士論文。
趙永茂 (2000)。法國區政府等體制對精省後政府組織變革的啟發-區域政府對中間機關等理論的分析。理論與政策,14(1),43-63。new window
劉坤億 (2006)。台灣地方政府間發展夥伴關係之制度障礙與機會。台灣民主季刊,3(3),1-34。new window
鄧怡婷 (2005)。多重組織夥伴治理之研究-以處理嚴重急性呼吸道症候群為例。中華大學經營管理研究所公共管理組碩士論文。
諸葛俊、黃于恬、汪明生 (2010)。高高屏派系政治影響永續發展之社會認知分析。選舉評論,9,1–26。new window
諸葛俊、黃于恬、汪明生(2012)。地下電台傳播行為對台灣高雄地區公民社會影響之研究。傳播與社會學刊,20,115-150。new window
關復勇 (1998)。專業服務接觸互動行銷中關係品質知覺之研究-以護理人員與病患間關係為例。中山大學企業管理研究所博士論文。new window
羅正忠 (2000)。從亞洲金融風暴談政府振興景氣措施與社會公平正義。台灣經濟金融月刊,2,1-12。
鐘金玉 (2000)。公務人員績效考核公平與工作態度之研究-以高雄市政府所屬警察、醫療、稅務人員為對象。中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
觀光局 (2010)。中華民國99年國人旅遊狀況調查報告。交通部觀光局。
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz(ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299.
Anderson, N. H. (1974). Cognitive algebra: Integration theory applied to social attribution. In L. Berkowitz (ed), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 1-101.
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Anderson, N. H. (1982). Methods of Information Integration Theory. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Anderson, N. H. (1996). A Functional Theory of cognition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Anderson, N. H. (2005). Unified Theory of cognition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Benveniste, G. (1977). The politics of expertise. San Francisco: Boyd and Fraser.
Chen, D. Y., Huang, T. Y. & Hsiao, N. Y. (2006). Reinventing government through on-line citizen involvement in the developing world: A case study of Taipei city mayor''s E-mail box in Taiwan. Public Administration and Development, 26(5), 409-423
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. In C. Scott & F. Susan S. (ed), Readings in planning theory.
deLeon, P. (1998). Models of policy discourse: Insights versus prediction. Policy Studies Journal, 26 (1), 147-161.
DiIulio, J., Garvey, G. & Kettle, D. (1993). Improving government performance: An owner’s manual. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and politicalscience. Cambridge University Press.
Dunn, W. N. (2004). Public policy analysis: An introduction (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Farkas, A. J., & Anderson, N. H. (1975). Integration theory applied to models of inequity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 588-591.
Farkas, A. J. (1991). Cognitive algebra of interpersonal unfairness. In N. H. Anderson (ed), Contributions to Information Integration Theory Volume II : Social (pp. 43-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Farkas, A. J., & Andersion N. H. (1974). Input summation and equity summation in multi-cue equity judgements. CA: Center for Human Information Processing, University of California, San Diego.
Farrow, S. (1997). Environmental equity and sustainability: Rejecting the Kaldor-Hicks criteria. Ecological Economics, 27, 183-188.
Friedman, M.(1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Frederickson, H. G. (1990). Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review, 50(2), 228-237.
Griffin, J. (1996). Value judgment: Improving our ethical beliefs. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Hammond, K. R., McCelland, G. H., and Mumpower, J. (1980). Human judgment and decision making: Theories, methods, and procedures. New York, NY: Praeger Scientific.
Harmon, M. M. (1974). Social equity and organizational man: Motivation and organizational theory. Public Administration Review, 34 (1), 11-18.
Hart, D. K. (1974). Social equity, justice, and the equitable administrator. Public Administration Review, 34 (1), 3-10.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Iannantuono, A., & Eyles, J. (1999). Environmental health metanarratives: An analysis of policy making in Ontario, Canada. Health & Place, 5, 139-156.
Johnson, N. (1990). Reconstructing the welfare state: A decade of change 1980-1990. London, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Krumholz, N.(1982). A retrospective view of equity planning: Cleveland 1969-1979. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48 (2), 163-174
Marshall, R., & Lee, C. K. C. (1995). Toward the external validity of the information paradigm. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 78-83.
Miller, D. (1999). Principles of social justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Patchen, M. (1961). The choice of wage comparisons. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap of Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3), 223-251.
Reams, M. A., & Templet P. H. (1996). Political and environmental equity issues related to municipal waste incineration siting. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 47, 313-323.
Rohrbaugh, J., & McClelland, G. (1980). Measuring the relative importance of utilitarian and egalitarian values: A study of individual differences about fair distribution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 34-49.
Sandel, M. J. (1982). Liberalism and the limit of justice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sayles, L.R. (1958). Behavior of industrial work groups: Prediction and control. New York, NY: Wiley.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of economic analysis. Oxford University Press.
Stone, D. A. (1997). Policy paradox and political reason. Glenville, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Tobin, J. (1970). On limiting the domain of inequality. Journal of Law and Economics, 13, 263-277.
Torgerson, D. (1986). Between knowledge and politics: Three faces of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 19, 33-59.
Varian, H. R. (1990). Equity, envy and efficiency. Journal of Economic Theory, 9, 63-91.
Wang, M. S. (1987). Addition of a cognitive dimension to the analytical hierarchy process- A land use decision- making example (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Warfield, J. N., & Cárdenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Iowa State University Press.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE