:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:「治理責任」的思考:民主時代中的儒法治道
書刊名:東吳政治學報
作者:許雅棠 引用關係
作者(外文):Hsu, Ya-tang
出版日期:2005
卷期:21
頁次:頁63-113
主題關鍵詞:權責職責威信誠信治重於政The Duty pointdimension of responsibilityThe power pointdimension of responsibilityRule by law and rule of lawGoverning realities and behaviors are more important than the political documents and institutions
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(1) 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:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:1356
  • 點閱點閱:39
從君主到民主,傳統中國政治思想的光環消退殆盡,不是看成過時古董,就是看成有害毒物。總之,都已不值得身處民主時代的讀書人嚴肅對待。本文對此則仍有遲疑,我從「治理責任」的問題入手,分別「職責論」與「權責論」兩種看待治理責任的思考,前者淵源於古老中國,後者則是西方的產物,而由於西力普罩,中國的「職責論」乃湮沒不彰,以主權或權力為著眼的權責論則成為讀書人論述研究的主題與思考的憑藉。不過,本文以R.A. Dahl和M. Weber的思考為例,說明治理責任在自由民主的思想浪潮之中,不是消解於民主選舉的程序,流於各種無止盡的學說爭議,即是委由主政者個人的世界觀決定,當代政治學受人重視卻不受人敬重的道理或在於此。我乃引介比論儒法兩家最在乎的「為政立信」,並輔以浦薛鳳「治重於政」的認識,以及「案例實證」、「信任評鑑」和「誠信治理」三個實踐層面的證據,嘗試為政立信具有獨立客觀的普世實踐意義找一些思考的資源和實證注脚,用以支持治理責任實有其獨立於民主思維,並足以決定一國治理成敗的人事律則與具體內容。如果這種說法還有可信服之處,那麼古老中國的政治思想也許就不再是過時的古董或有害的毒物。
From the Imperial age to the Democratic age, the laurel of Chinese traditional political thoughts has been dying out to be looked as outdated antique or even harmful article. Although there are some doubts about it, intellectuals seldom take it seriously now. This article proposes two thinking modes of governing responsibility: “the duty dimension of responsibility” and “the power dimension of responsibility”. The former originated from the ancient China, and the latter from the West. Although the power dimension of responsibility dominates the thinking mode in modern times, the discussions of the thoughts of R.A. Dahl and M. Weber make us understand that the responsibilities of governing may dissolve into nothing in the procedure of elections, become confused in the endless disputes or decided by the personal believes of the power holder. These may be the reasons that the discipline of political science is looked upon importantly but not respectfully. In order to defend the thesis that there are definite demands to force the power holder to be responsible to his governing behaviors, I take the “governing to win the public trust” in the ancient thinking modes of Confucianism-Legalism’ governing thinking as representative of “the duty dimension of responsibility”, and introducing the thesis of “governing realities and behaviors are more important than the political documents and institutions” of Pu Sheua-Fong as its modern edition. Lastly, I illustrate three kinds of positive evidence to support that the Confucianism-Legalism’ insights about the “governing to win the public trust” are still influential around the real world. If this article is somewhat persuasive, the Chinese traditional political thoughts may then not be really outdated, and may not be looked harmful to the democracy.
期刊論文
1.張福建(19990600)。北美立憲前後「代表理念」的爭議:一個革命式的轉折。政治科學論叢,10,113-129。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.朱雲漢(20040300)。臺灣民主發展的困境與挑戰。臺灣民主季刊,1(1),143-162。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.許雅棠(20010900)。常道--「論語」政治思想試說。東吳政治學報,13,175-223。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.許雅棠(1999)。釋西式選舉-讀Manin, Bernard(1997)The Principles of Representative Government。東吳政治學報,10,219-229。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.天下編輯部(2003)。2004年國情調查。天下雜誌,289,148-156。  延伸查詢new window
6.邱文昌(1999)。我國建立信用評等制度之規劃與檢討。證交資料月刊,442,1-24。  延伸查詢new window
7.詹康(2002)。二十世紀後期中美儒學的正統異端論述。國立政治大學歷史學報,19,221-257。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.施能傑(2003)。建立公共服務倫理規範--以OECD的標竿經驗。倡廉反貪與行政透明學術研討會,(會議日期: 2003/4/11)。台灣透明組織。13-20。  延伸查詢new window
2.黃榮護(2003)。從公共事務管理觀點論肅貪防腐之功能:以香港廉政公署社區關係處為例。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.梁漱溟(1992)。中國文化要義。中國文化要義。臺北:里仁。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Lijphart, Arend、高德源(2001)。民主的類型:三十六個現代民主國家的政府類型與表現。台北:桂冠書局。  延伸查詢new window
3.嚴復(1996)。社會劇變與規範重建--嚴復文選。上海:上海遠東出版社。  延伸查詢new window
4.王爾敏(1969)。晚清政治思想史論。臺北市:華世書局。  延伸查詢new window
5.Birch, Anthony Harold(1993)。The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy。Routledge。  new window
6.Giuliani, Rudolph W.、Kurson, Ken、韓文正(2002)。決策時刻。臺北:大塊文化。  延伸查詢new window
7.Arblaster, Anthony(1987)。Democracy。Milton Keynes:Open University Press。  new window
8.朱雲漢、王紹光、趙全勝(2002)。華人社會政治學本土化研究的理論與實踐。臺北:桂冠。  延伸查詢new window
9.南方朔(2004)。語言之鑰。臺北市:大田出版有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
10.Walzer, Michael(1983)。Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality。Oxford:Martin Robertson。  new window
11.Weber, Max、錢永祥(1985)。韋伯選集1:學術與政治。台北:允晨文化。  延伸查詢new window
12.周天瑋(1999)。蘇格拉底與孟子的虛擬對話--建構法治理想國。臺北:天下遠見。  延伸查詢new window
13.趙剛(19980000)。告別妒恨 : 民主危機與出路的探索。臺北:臺灣社會研究雜誌。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.de Soto, Hermando、王曉冬(2001)。資本的秘密。臺北:經濟新潮社。  延伸查詢new window
15.蔣慶(1995)。公羊學引論。遼寧教育出版社。  延伸查詢new window
16.Manin, Bernard、Przeworski, Adam、Stokes, Susan(1999)。Democracy, Accountability and Representation。Cambridge:Cambridge University Press。  new window
17.郭敏華(2000)。債信評等。臺北市:智勝文化。  延伸查詢new window
18.許國賢(1997)。倫理政治論:一個民主時代的反思。台北:揚智文化。  延伸查詢new window
19.Popper, Karl R.(1997)。The Lesson of This Century: With Two Talks in Freedom and the Democratic State。Routledge。  new window
20.Dahl, Robert Alan(1989)。Democracy and Its Critics。New Haven:Yale University Press。  new window
21.Manin, B.(1997)。The Principles of Representative Government。Cambridge:Cambridge University Press。  new window
22.何信全(1996)。儒學與現代民主--當代新儒家政治哲學研究。臺北:中央研究院中國文哲所籌備處。new window  延伸查詢new window
23.郭秋永(20010000)。當代三大民主理論。臺北:聯經出版事業公司。new window  延伸查詢new window
24.錢穆(1996)。政學私言。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。  延伸查詢new window
25.侯家駒(1983)。先秦儒家自由經濟思想。台北:聯經出版公司。  延伸查詢new window
26.江宜樺(20010000)。自由民主的理路。臺北:聯經。new window  延伸查詢new window
27.Arendt, Hannah(1958)。The Human Condition。University of Chicago Press。  new window
28.俞可平(2000)。治理與善治。社會科學文獻出版社。  延伸查詢new window
29.瞿同祖(19840000)。中國法律與中國社會。臺北:里仁書局。new window  延伸查詢new window
30.李光耀(20000916)。李光耀回憶錄(1965-2000)。臺北:世界書局。  延伸查詢new window
31.蔣慶(2003)。政治儒學--當代儒學的轉向、特質與發展。生活.讀書.新知三聯書店。  延伸查詢new window
32.牟宗三(1980)。政道與治道。臺北:臺灣學生書局。new window  延伸查詢new window
33.徐復觀(1979)。儒家政治思想與自由民主人權。儒家政治思想與自由民主人權。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
34.蒲薛鳳(1955)。政治論叢。臺北:正中。  延伸查詢new window
35.陳介玄(1997)。香港的法治文明。香港:文明的延續與斷裂?。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
36.張君勱(1997)。中國專制君主政制之評議。中國專制君主政制之評議。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
37.張文亮(1999)。電學之父:法拉第的故事。臺北市:文經社。  延伸查詢new window
38.許雅棠(2003)。近代中國民主思想的兩點觀察。東亞自由化、民主化與區域和平。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
39.錢穆(1966)。國史新編。國史新編。香港。  延伸查詢new window
40.Powell, G. B., Jr.(2000)。Election as Institutions of Democracy。Election as Institutions of Democracy。New Haven。  new window
41.呂亞力(1998)。民主理論選讀。民主理論選讀。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
42.杜維明(1997)。儒學發展的宏觀透視:新加坡一九八八年儒學群英會紀實。儒學發展的宏觀透視:新加坡一九八八年儒學群英會紀實。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
43.O'Neil, Onora(2004)。我們為什麼不再信任。我們為什麼不再信任。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.劉憶如(2001)。由國際主權信用評等現況論我國信用展望,0。  延伸查詢new window
2.Barro, Robert J.(2000)。Rule of Law, Democracy, and Economic Performance,0。  new window
3.National Academy of Public Administration(1999)。A Government to Trust and Respect: Rebuilding Citizen-Government Relations for the 21st Century,0。  new window
4.The European Ombudsman(2001)。The European Code of Good Administrative Behavior,0。  new window
5.Transparency International(2000)。TI Source Book 2000: Chapter 4: The National Integrity System,0。  new window
6.9999泛亞人力銀行(2004)。2004上班族對治安問題意見調查,0。  延伸查詢new window
7.民間司法改革基金會(2004)。觀察監督,0。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE