:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:台灣殯葬事業治理政策之研究:政策工具評估
作者:陳伯瑋
作者(外文):CHEN,PO-WE
校院名稱:中國文化大學
系所名稱:政治學系
指導教授:林忠山
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2023
主題關鍵詞:政策工具立意抽樣殯葬事業市場運作policy toolspurposive Sampling
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:1
本研究以台灣現行殯葬政策、殯葬管理條例及相關殯葬政策為標的,以政策工具的視角做多元性的評估。研究動機與目的部分,提出殯葬事業治理政策三項議題,為本研究製作焦點訪談半開放性結構問題之發端,依問題意識依次歸納相關內容為「法令規定」、「行政管理」、「殯葬業者」等三個類別作為研究議題之肇基。並且界定本研究相關的名詞、回顧殯葬政策相關系絡與文獻,最後說明本研究的範圍及限制。
研究架構部分,先從探尋相關理論成為本研究的基礎理論,援用系統論中的投入、產出與回饋的概念,強調在台灣殯葬事業治理體系中,投入了兩大類的政策工具,即市場型工具即非市場型工具,而非市場型工具又可分為三類,乃經濟性、法政性與社會性工具等。此四種政策工具分別投入於三個所治理之系統,即有墓園、殯儀館與殯葬禮儀等治理系統。再透過本文所採多元性評估的方式來投入評估其治理成效。研究方法部分,採立意抽樣(Purposive Sampling)之研究方法,以產、官、學作為研究對象進行研究。研究資料蒐集過程,一共進行2次焦點團體訪談,研究者將所有訪談錄音進行轉錄,發現不再出現新的議題,判斷實現理論飽和,結束資料收集階段,並對資料進行了初步分析,形成治理三大系統的政策議題。上述議題均是對殯葬服務業的治理所產生的議題,政策制定者必須理解他們自己可能採取政策工具的範圍,同時也理解在這些不同政策工具之間存在的某種差異。採用研究工具部分,首先,利用量性研究的列聯表(Contingency Table)分析殯葬管理條例所使用的政策工具,發現殯葬管理條例所採用的政策工具,是以強制性工具為主,然而在社會變遷快速的環境下,應依不同個案,採取不同的政策工具,以維持市場運作機制。其次,使用電腦輔助質性資料分析軟體(Computer Assisted/Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software,CAQDAS) Nvivo12分析焦點訪談的逐字稿,檢證本研究的信度跟效度,發現不同身份的研究對象最傾向於選擇法政型工具,法政型工具的適用範圍也最為廣泛,經濟型工具的適用範圍,市場型工具和社會型工具適用範圍最小,同時選擇社會型工具的研究對象也較少,說明研究對象認為社會型工具只適用於特殊情境。
本研究之重點在本文的第四、五、六章部分,分別就殯葬事業三大系統(墓園系統之治理、殯儀館管系統之治理、殯葬禮儀系統)進行政策工具之評估。首先,在「墓園系統之治理」的政策評估有5大面向:一、收取管理基金之適當性,二、公立民營化與競爭,三、墓園設立議題,四、環保自然葬之適宜性,五、遷葬之爭議。其主要爭議部分,包括殯葬設施管理費之規範、管理費以外之其他費用提撥百分之二設立公益信託、寺廟附設骨灰(骸)存放設施之處理、生前殯葬服務契約及醫院附設殮、殯、奠、祭設施之管理等,有加強規範或修正之必要。其次,在「殯儀館系統之治理」的政策評估有5大面向:一、火化場火化場問題之爭議,二、祭祀方式之爭議,三、單獨設立禮廳、禮堂之爭議,四、殯葬館管理問題之適當性,五、競爭之良窳。其主要爭議部分,(一)火化場設置爭議主要牽涉到2個問題面向,首先,要防止刑事案件的發生,因為遺體經火化之後,涉案的證據就會被消滅。其次,殯葬設施用地的取得非常的困難。(二)有關禮儀師得執行的業務「臨終關懷及悲傷輔導」其主責機關應該是由衛生部門或是由社會福利部門來做才適當。第三,在「殯葬禮儀系統之治理」有4大面向:一、公會設置之問題,二、完善禮儀師管理之政策,三、禮儀師管理之現存問題,四、競爭之良窳。其主要爭議部分,(一) 殯葬從業人員如欲執業,須辦理公司或商業登記,並加入當地的公會以及參加勞工保險。雖然,「強制入會」在法理層面,侵害了消極的結社自由,但是就積極的結社自由而言,卻維護個人權利及商業秩序。(二)不具禮儀師資格者,仍能從事殯葬禮儀服務相關工作,但不能自稱為「禮儀師」。既然,不具禮儀師資格者亦可以職業,對合法的禮儀師必然具有市場競爭的排他性,那麼在推動殯葬專業化的目的是否將大打折扣。(三)生前契約在政府制定「定型化契約應記載或不得記載事項」保護了消費者,卻壓縮了業者利潤空間,破壞了「交易均衡」(equilibrium),反倒造成政府失靈的情況發生。
最後,本研究提出研究發現,殯葬管理條例中使用實體性管制工具多於程序性管制工具,這表示殯葬管理條例所使用的政策工具偏重權利義務關係。其次,官方代表的關注點政策建議方面,而學者的關注點主要在存在問題方面 ,業者更傾向於從實際角度提出殯葬治理中的問題,因此,發現不同身份別在殯葬事業治理的關注,有不同的評估視角。研究建議部分,墓園系統治理方面政策工具,建議可多採用混和性政策工具為宜。在殯儀館系統治理方面政策工具,建議降低強制性工具的強度。在殯葬禮儀系統治理方面政策工具,建議加多採用自願性工具,以回歸市場運作機制。
關鍵字:政策工具、立意抽樣、殯葬事業、市場運作
This study takes Taiwan's current funeral policy, funeral management regulations and related funeral policies as the target, and makes a multi-dimensional evaluation from the perspective of policy tools. In the part of research motivation and purpose, three topics of governance policy of funeral and interment industry were proposed, and the semi-open structural issues of focus interviews were made for this research. The related contents were summarized as "laws and regulations", "administrative management", and "funeral industry operators" in order according to the problem awareness. " and other three categories as the basis for research topics. And define the terms related to this study, review the related contacts and literature of funeral policy, and finally explain the scope and limitations of this study.
In the part of the research structure, the basic theory of this study is to explore related theories, and to use the concepts of input, output, and feedback in the system theory to emphasize that in Taiwan's funeral industry governance system, two types of policy tools have been invested, namely, market-based Tools are non-market tools, and non-market tools can be divided into three categories, namely economic, legal and social tools. These four policy tools are invested in the three governance systems respectively, that is, the governance systems of cemeteries, funeral parlors, and funeral rites. Then use the diversity evaluation method adopted in this paper to evaluate its governance effectiveness. In the part of research methods, the research method of purposive sampling is adopted, and the research objects are industry, government and academia. During the research data collection process, a total of 2 focus group interviews were conducted. The researchers transcribed all the interview recordings, found that no new issues emerged, judged that the theory was saturated, ended the data collection stage, and conducted a preliminary analysis of the data to form a governance framework. Policy issues of the three major systems. The above-mentioned issues are all issues arising from the governance of the funeral service industry. Policymakers must understand the range of policy tools they may adopt, and at the same time understand certain differences between these different policy tools. In the part of using research tools, firstly, using the Contingency Table of quantitative research to analyze the policy tools used in the funeral management regulations, it is found that the policy tools used in the funeral management regulations are mainly compulsory tools, but in the society In a rapidly changing environment, different policy tools should be adopted on a case-by-case basis to maintain the market operation mechanism. Secondly, the computer assisted/aided qualitative data analysis software (Computer Assisted/Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software, CAQDAS) Nvivo12 was used to analyze the verbatim transcripts of the focus interviews to verify the reliability and validity of this study. When choosing legal and political tools, the scope of application of legal and political tools is the widest, and the scope of application of economic tools is the smallest, and the scope of application of market tools and social tools is the smallest. Social tools are only suitable for special situations.
The focus of this research is in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of this paper, which evaluate policy tools for the three major systems of the funeral industry (the governance of the cemetery system, the governance of the funeral home management system, and the funeral etiquette system). First of all, there are five major aspects of the policy evaluation in the "governance of the cemetery system": 1. The appropriateness of collecting management funds; 2. Public privatization and competition; 3. The issue of setting up cemeteries; 5. Disputes over relocation and burial. The main disputes include the standardization of management fees for funeral facilities, setting up charitable trusts with the appropriation of 2% of expenses other than management fees, handling of ashes (skeletal) storage facilities attached to temples, pre-mortem service contracts, and hospital-affiliated mortuaries and funeral services. It is necessary to strengthen the regulation or revise the management of facilities for , libation and sacrificial offerings. Secondly, there are 5 aspects to the policy assessment of "Governance of the Funeral Home System": 1. Controversy over cremation grounds; 2. Disputes over sacrificial offering methods; The appropriateness of the problem, five, the goodness of competition. The main contentious part, (1) The dispute over the establishment of the cremation site mainly involves two issues. First, to prevent the occurrence of criminal cases, because after the remains are cremated, the evidence involved in the case will be destroyed. Secondly, it is very difficult to obtain land for funeral facilities. (2) Regarding the business "hospice care and grief counseling" that etiquette teachers can perform, the responsible agency should be the health department or the social welfare department. Third, there are four major aspects in the "governance of the funeral etiquette system": 1. Problems in the establishment of guilds; The main contentious parts are: (1) If funeral practitioners want to practice, they must apply for company or business registration, join the local association and participate in labor insurance. Although "compulsory membership" violates the negative freedom of association on the legal level, but in terms of positive freedom of association, it protects individual rights and business order. (2) Those who do not have the qualifications of etiquette teachers can still engage in work related to funeral etiquette services, but they cannot call themselves "ceremonies teacher". Since those who do not have the qualifications of etiquette teachers can also work, and legal etiquette teachers must have the exclusivity of market competition, will the purpose of promoting the professionalization of funeral services be greatly reduced? (3) The pre-living contract protects consumers when the government enacts "items that should be recorded or should not be recorded in a stereotyped contract", but it reduces the profit margin of the industry, destroys the "equilibrium of transactions" (equilibrium), and instead causes the government to fail.
Finally, this study proposes that the use of substantive control tools in the funeral management regulations is more than that of procedural control tools, which means that the policy tools used in the funeral management regulations focus on the relationship between rights and obligations. Secondly, official representatives focus on policy recommendations, while scholars mainly focus on existing problems, and industry practitioners are more inclined to raise issues in funeral and interment management from a practical perspective. different assessment perspectives. In the research and suggestion part, policy tools for the governance of the cemetery system suggest that more hybrid policy tools should be used. In terms of policy tools for funeral home system governance, it is recommended to reduce the intensity of mandatory tools. In terms of policy tools for the governance of the funeral etiquette system, it is recommended to adopt more voluntary tools to return to the market operation mechanism.
Keywords: policy tools, purposive Sampling, funeral business, market operation
壹、中文文獻
一、專書
內政部,2012,《殯葬管理條例新舊條文對照暨總說明》,台北:內政部。
內政部,2016,《平等自主慎終追遠─現代國民喪禮》,台北:內政部民政司。
丘昌泰,1995,《公共政策-當代政策科學理論之研究》,台北:巨流圖書。
丘昌泰,2010,《公共管理》,台北:智勝文化。
丘昌泰,2013,《公共政策:基礎篇》,高雄:巨流圖書。
丘昌泰,2018,《公共政策─基礎篇(第五版)》,高雄:巨流圖書。
朱柔若譯,Neuman W. L.著,2000,《社會研究方法一質化與量化取向》,台北:揚智文化。
江吟梓、蘇文賢譯,Lichtman Marilyn著,2010,《教育質性研究:實用指南》,台北:學富文化。
江岷欽、林鍾沂,1999,《公共組織理論(修訂再版)》,新北:國立空中大學。
江啟臣,2017,《國際組織與全球治理概論》,台北:五南。
何星亮,1992,《中國自然神與自然崇拜》,上海:三聯書店。
何景榮譯,Burnham Peter等著,2008,《政治學研究方法》,新北:韋伯文化。
何景榮譯,Lane Jan-Erik著,2002,《新制度主義政治學》,新北:韋伯文化。
李允傑、丘昌泰,2003,《政策執行與評估》,台北:巨流圖書有限公司。
李宜培、湯新楣譯,Tocquevilli Alexis著,1993,《美國的民主〈上下卷〉》,香港:今日。
李明寰譯,Dunn William N.著 2002,《公共政策分析》,台北:時英出版社。
柯三吉,2019,《政策執行與公共治理》,台北:五南。
孫本初,2005,《公共管理》,高雄:巨流圖書。
孫本初,2013,《新公共管理(修訂五版)》。台北:一品文化。
張世賢,2015,《政策論證》,台北:五南。
張世賢、陳恆鈞,2001,《公共政策:政府與市場的觀念》,台北:商鼎文化。
張世賢編,2005,《公共政策分析》,台北:五南。
陳向明,2013,《社會科學質的研究》,台北:五南。
陳恆鈞、蔣麗君、韓家瑩、侯淑嫣、周劭彥譯,Weimer David L.與Vining Aidan R著,2004,《最新政策分析:概念與實踐》,新北:韋伯文化。
陳恆鈞譯,Lester James P.與Stewart JR Joseph著,2001,《公共政策-演進研究途徑》,台北:學富文化。
陳鴻瑜編,2014,《台灣殯葬史》,台北:中華民國殯葬禮儀協會。
楊國柱,2009,《殯葬政策與法規》,新北:國立空中大學。
楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢等,1989,《社會及行為科學研究法》,台北:臺灣東華。
劉瑞華譯,North Douglass著,2016,《經濟史的結構與變遷》,台北:聯經。
鄭玉波,2011,《法學緒論》,台北:三民書局。
鄭志明,2007,《殯葬文化學》,新北市:國立空中大學。
瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞主編,2013,《社會及行為科學研究法(二):質性研究》,台北:臺灣東華。
羅清俊,2020,《公共政策─現象觀察與實務操作(第二版)》,新北:揚智文化。
羅清俊、陳志瑋譯,Dye Thomas R.著,2010,《公共政策新論》,新北:韋伯文化
龐詩等譯,Howlett M.與Ramesh M.著,2006,《公共政策研究:政策循環與政策子系統》,北京:生活、讀書、新知三聯書店。
二、期刊
王松柏,2001,〈關於勞動者結社自由的幾個問題〉,《經濟前瞻》,第75期,頁52-56。
江綺雯、章坤儀,2011,〈臺灣非政府組織的國際參與及其作為-以國際志願服務為例〉,《正修學報》,第24期,頁145-162。
考茨基著、李麥麥譯,1936,〈行會制度之起源〉,《食貨半月刊》,第4卷第12期,頁1-11。
吳得源,2006,〈政策工具:分類與使用〉,《T&D飛訊》,第48期,頁1-2。
沈建文,2017,〈「社會價值創造」導向之公共服務新趨勢-以英國為例〉,《國土及公共治理》, 第5卷第1期,頁19-29。
林明鏘,2009,〈同業公會與經濟自律-評大法官及行政法院相關解釋與判決〉,《台北大學法學論叢》,第71期,頁41-79。
張世賢,2017,〈民主與治理的挑戰,公共政策典範的轉變〉,《科際整合月刊》,第2卷第6期,頁29-41。
張世賢,2019,〈公共政策研究的新典範:複雜性科學的觀點〉,《科技整合月刊》,第4卷第3期,頁24-40。
陳伯瑋、曾煥棠,2017,〈落實「環保自然葬」殯葬政策的作法〉,《中華禮儀》,第37期,頁43-47。
陳伯瑋,2022,〈殯葬政策採行之政策工具分析〉,《中國行政評論》,第28卷第4期,頁 1-37。
郭耀昌,2008,〈政策評估與決策模式〉,《研考雙月刊》,第32卷第2期,頁69-79。
曾小軍、蘇美權,2016,〈自費生出國留學仲介監管的政策工具選擇:基於政策文本的內容分析〉,《教育行政論壇》,第8卷第1期,頁133-145。
曾煥棠、陳伯瑋,2020,〈殯葬商品課程與銷售規範〉,《關照季刊》,第11期,頁26-36。
黃程貫,1992,〈強制入會!?〉,《台灣社會研究季刊》,第13期,頁31-62。
萬文隆,2004,〈深度訪談在質性研究中的應用〉,《生活科技教育月刊》,第37卷第4期,頁17-23。
鄭夙芬,2005,〈焦點團體研究法的理論與應用〉,《選舉研究》,第12卷第1期,頁211-239。
謝學宗,2003,〈政策工具選擇的政治經濟學:以經發會的基本工資的爭議為例〉,《公共行政學報》,第9期,頁89-121。
顧忠華,1999,〈公民結社的結構變遷-以台灣非營利組識的發展為例〉,《台灣社會研究季刊》,第36期,頁123-145。
三、博碩士論文
陳伯瑋,2013,〈自製調查問卷以瞭解現代台灣民眾及殯葬業者對喪禮態度之研究〉,台北:台北護理健康大學生死教育與輔導研究所碩士論文。
廖瑞榮,2005,〈我國殯葬政策之研究—政策過程論之分析〉,台北:中國文化大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
四、研討會論文
張世賢,2014,〈新傳媒與直接民主參與:「太陽花學運」個案研究〉,中國政治學會年會國際政經劇變與民主治理挑戰學術研討會,台北:政治大學政治研究所,11月8日。
貳、外文文獻
一、專書
Alkin, M. (1972). Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of instructional programs. In. C. Wulf (Ed.), Beshreibung und bewertung von unterricht, curricula und schulversuchen. Munchen, Germany: Piper. (in German)
Corbin, Juliet& Strauss, A. 2014. Basics of Qualitative Research. New York: Sage.
Dunn, William N. 1994. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. New York: Prentice Hall.
Dye, Thomas R. 2013. Understanding public policy(14th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Glaser,B.G. & Strauss,A. L.1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Hanekom, S. X. 1987. Public Policy. Johannesburg: Macmillan South Africa.
Henderson, K. A. 1991. Dimensions of Choice : A Qualitative Approach toRecreation, Pennsylvania:Venture.
Hennink, Monique, Hutter,Inge& Bailey, Ajay. 2011. Quazes Sciencelitative Research Humanizes Science. London: Sage.
Hood, Christopher C. 1983. The Tools of Government. London: Macmillian.
Howlett, Michael & Ramesh, M. 2003. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles And Policy Subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howlett, Michael. 2011. Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
International Organization for Migration. 2002. Irregular Migration and Smuggling of Migrants from Armenia. Yerevan: International Organization for Migration.
Jackson, Kristi& Bazeley, Pat. 2007 .Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. California: Sage Publications.
Jokela, Juha. 2011. THE G-20: A Pathway To Effective Multilateralism? Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.
Lane, J an-Erik & Ersson,Svante.2000. The New Institutional Politics: Outcomes and Consequences. New York: Routledge.
Lasswell, H. D. 1971. A Preview of Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier.
March, J. & Olsen J. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press.
Morçöl, Göktuğ. 2002. A new mind for policy analysis: toward a post-newtonian and postpositivist epistemology and methodology. London: Praeger.
Morçöl, Göktuğ. 2012. A Complexity Theory for Public Policy. New York: Routledge.
Nachmias, David & Chava Nachimas. 1979. Public Policy Evaluation: Approaches and Methods. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Patton, M. Q.1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. New York: Sage.
Peter H. Rossi, Mark W. Lipsey, Gary T. Henry. 2019. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Ingram International Inc
Peters, B. Guy, Van Nispen, Frans K.M. 1998. Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Instrument of Public Administration.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pressman, Jeffrey L. & Wildavsky, Aaron. 1973. Implementation. California: University of California Press.
Rossi, Peter H. & Freeman, E. 1982. Evaluation:A Systematic Approach. Beverly Hills. California: Sage.
Weimer, David L.& Vining, Aidan R. 2011.Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice(5th ed.). New York: Routledge Press.
二、期刊
Bolognesi, Thomas, Brochet, Antoine& Renou, Yvan.2021. “Assessing socio-technical resistance to public policy instruments: Insights from water performance indicators in the Grenoble area (France). ” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 39(7),1407-1435.
Gregor, A. Jame. 1968. “Political Science and the Uses of Function Analysis.” The American Political Science Review. 62(2), 425-439.
Hall, P. & Taylor, R. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.” Political Studies, 44, 936-957.
Lascoumes, Pierre & Gales, Patrick Le. 2007. “Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments-From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation.” Governance, 20(1), 1-21.
Linder, Stephen H& Peters, B. Guy.1989. “Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts.”Journal of Public Policy,9(1),35-58.
McDonnell, Lorraine M. & Elmore, Richard F. 1987. “Getting the Job Done: Alternative Policy Instruments.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2),133-152.
Morgan, David L .1996. “Focus Groups.” Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152.
Poister, Theodore H. & Streib, Gregory. 1989. “Management Tools in Municipal Government: Trends over the Past Decade.” Public Administration Review, 49(3), 240-248.
Savas, Emanuel S. 1990.“A Taxonomy o f Privatization Strategies.” Policy Studies Journal, 18(2), 341-355.
Schneider, Anne& Ingram, Helen. 1990. “Behaviorral Assumptions of Policy Tools.” Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510-529.
Woodside, Kenneth B. 1986. “Policy Instruments and the Study of Public Policy.” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 775-793.
三、專書論文
Lasswell, H. D. 1951. “The Policy Orientation.” in Lerner & Lasswell eds., Policy Sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Linder, S.H. & Peters, B. Guy. 1990. “The Design of Instruments for Public Policy.” in Nagle, S. S. ed., Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation: Concepts Knowledge, Causes, and Norms. New York: Greenwood Press.
Linder, S.H. & Peters, B. Guy. 1998. “The study of policy instruments: Four schools of thought. ” in Peters, B. Guy, Van Nispen, Frans K.M. eds., Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Instrument of Public Administration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Salamon, Lester M.& Lund, Micheal S. 1989. “The Tools Approach: Basic Analytics. ” in Salamon, Lester M. ed., Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action. Washington D. C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Schuty, M. C. 1985. “Suring en het recht.” in, Brovens, M.A.P. & Witteveen, W. J. eds., Het schip van ataat, beschouwingen over recht, staaten sturing. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink Press.
叁、網路資料
維基百科,2022,〈中華民國政府政府〉,資料來源:https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C,檢索日期:2022年12月10日。
維基百科,2022,〈聯邦貿易委員會〉,資料來源:https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%81%AF%E9%82%A6%E8%B2%BF%E6%98%93%E5%A7%94%E5%93%A1%E6%9C%83,檢索日期:2022年12月10日。
美國聯邦貿易委員會(FTC),2022,〈喪葬規則(Complying with the Funeral Rule)〉,資料來源:https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-funeral-rule,檢索日期:2022年12月10日。
中華人民共和國中央人民政府,2005,〈殯葬管理條例〉,資料來源:http://big5.www.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/ziliao/flfg/2005-08/06/content_20895.htm,檢索日期:2022年12月10日。
行政院公報資訊網,2013,〈殯葬相關專業課程範圍〉,資料來源:https://gazette.nat.gov.tw/,檢索日期:2022年12月10日。
內政部戶政司,2022,〈人口統計資料〉,資料來源:https://www.ris.gov.tw/app/portal/346,檢索日期:2022年12月10日。
內政部全國殯葬資訊入口網,2019,〈殯葬管理條例法規彙編〉,資料來源:https://mort.moi.gov.tw/frontsite/cms/serviceAction.do?method=viewContentDetail&iscancel=true&contentId=Mjc5MA==,檢索日期:2022年12月10日。

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE