臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：以理性選擇觀點論我國監察制度的存續
書刊名：行政暨政策學報
作者：汪林玲
作者(外文)：Uang, Lin-ling
出版日期：2016
卷期：63
頁次：頁87-122
主題關鍵詞：監察制度；監察院；理性選擇；利害關係人；成本效益；Ombudsman；Ombudsman system；The Control Yuan；Stakeholder；Rational choice；Cost-and-benefit
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(1) 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:32
  • 點閱點閱:58
追溯近代世界各國監察制度的濫觴，因為時代與文化背景以及政治體制的不同，所以成立的原因各異。為了釐清監察制度存續的必要性，實有必要先探究其發展之淵源。故本文先以歷史制度的角度分析監察制度的發展，並植基於理性選擇當中效益最大化的觀點，將我國監察院從2008 年8 月至2014 年7 月為止，因為行使法定職權所花費的成本與獲致的財務效益予以貨幣化，並從事成本利益分析。除此之外，本文也以演繹的途徑，從利害關係人的心理取向分析監察制度當中最重要的功能─「受理人民陳情」的救濟成本。以理性選擇途徑衡量政策或制度的取捨雖然有其限制，尤其對於重視公共性的政府機關更是如此，因為理性選擇觀點無法涵蓋政府所追求的公共性價值。但是，理性選擇途徑的應用自有其一定的歷史定位與貢獻。因此，本文以理性選擇的觀點，透過成本利益分析以及利害關係人對於人民陳情成本的心理分析，嘗試論證我國監察制度存續的理由。
After discussing the historical and institutional developments of ombudsman system around the world, this paper analyzes the performance of Control Yuan (representing the ombudsman system) in Taiwan from the perspective of rational choice. Specifically, the author estimates the monetary benefits accrued due to the investigation and corrective measures exerted by the Control Yuan from August 2008 to July 2014. Meanwhile, the costs are estimated in terms of outlay of the Control Yuan during that time period. Cost-Benefit-Analysis is then employed and the results show that benefits exceed costs, in the sense that the Control Yuan achieves desirable performance and seems legitimate to survive. In addition to conducting the Cost-Benefit-Analysis, this paper also infers, by the deductive way, that citizens would like to file petition to the Control Yuan rather than to apply other possible remedies, because the filing cost of petition is the lowest. Citizens are rational so that they choose the cheaper one. Together with the estimated results of Cost-Benefit-Analysis, the author concludes that the ombudsman system or the Control Yuan in Taiwan is legitimate to exist.
期刊論文
1.Smelser, Neil J.(1992)。The Rational Choice Perspective a Theoretical Assessment。Rationality and Society，4(4)，381-410。  new window
2.Skelcher, Chris、Torfing, Jacob(2010)。Improving design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe。Regulation & Governance，4，71-91。  new window
3.Soelberg, P. O.(1967)。Unprogrammed decision making。Industrial Management Review，8，19-29。  new window
4.王千文(20081200)。官僚體制中「服從」與「自主」矛盾現象之探討--韋伯觀點的詮釋。中國行政，80，101-127。  延伸查詢new window
5.Cutright, P.(1963)。National Political Development: Measurement and Analysis。American Sociological Review，28，253-264。  new window
6.林繼文(20050900)。虛假霸權：臺灣政治學研究中的理性選擇。政治科學論叢，25，67-104。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.陳敦源、吳秀光(20051200)。理性選擇、民主制度與「操控遊說」：William H. Riker新政治經濟學的回顧與評述。政治科學論叢，26，175-221。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.Abedin, Najmul(2011)。Conceptual and Functional Diversity of the Ombudsman Institution: A Classification。Administration & Society，43(8)，896-929。  new window
9.Frank, B.(1975)。The Ombudsman: Revisited。International Bar Journal，1975(May)，48-60。  new window
10.Reif, Linda C.(2011)。Transplantation and Adaptation: The Evolution of the Human Rights Ombudsman。Boston College Third World Law Journal，31，269-310。  new window
11.汪林玲(20141200)。人民陳情制度之探討--以監察陳情制度為例。中國行政評論，20(特刊)，81-114。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.吳鴻昌(20140600)。經濟學帝國主義抑或行動理論的重建：對社會學理性選擇理論的反思。政治與社會哲學評論，49，109-157。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.陳淳文(20120400)。論獨立行政機關之監督。政大法學評論，126，155-237。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.鄭任汶、馮美瑜(20110600)。我國立法院朝野黨團協商制度--理性選擇制度主義的初步分析。北臺灣科技學院通識學報，7，219-234。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.Androniceanu, Armenia(2009)。Good Governance European Standards。Administraţie Şi Management Public，12，97-109。  new window
16.Wennergren, B.(1968)。The rise and growth of Swedish institutions for defending the citizen against official wrong。Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science，377，1-9。  new window
17.Hill, L. B.(2002)。The ombudsman revisited: Thirty years of Hawaii's ombudsman。Public Administration Review，62，24-41。  new window
18.Jonassen, David H.(2012)。Designing for decision making。Educational Technology Research and Development，60(2)，341-359。  new window
19.盛治仁(20030900)。理性抉擇理論在政治學運用之探討。東吳政治學報，17，21-51。new window  延伸查詢new window
20.Hall, Peter A.、Taylor, Rosemary C. R.(1996)。Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms。Political Studies，44(5)，936-957。  new window
研究報告
1.Dethier, J. J.、Ghanem, H.、Zoli, E.(1999)。Does Democracy Facilitate the Economic Transition? An Empirical Study of Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union。Washington, D. C.。  new window
2.龐嘉潁、黎耀祥(2009)。亞洲行政申訴制度比較研究--對澳門、韓國及印度的考查。澳門：澳門特別行政區廉政公署。  延伸查詢new window
3.陳祥(2008)。人民陳情案件處理機制之改進。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.林鐘沂(2005)。行政學。臺北：三民書局股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
2.彭懷恩(2006)。政治學：全球化時代的觀點。臺北：風雲論壇出版社。  延伸查詢new window
3.Green, Donald P.、Shapiro, Ian(1994)。Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science。Yale University Press。  new window
4.Frederickson, H. G.(1980)。New Public Administration。Tuscaloosa, AL：University of Alabama Press。  new window
5.Wildavsky, Aaron(1984)。The Politics of the Budgetary Process。Boston, MA：Little, Brown and Company。  new window
6.Olson, M.(1971)。The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and Theory of Groups。MA：Harvard University Press。  new window
7.Buck, Trevor、Kirkham, Richard、Thompson, Brian(2011)。The Ombudsman Enterprise and Administrative Justice。England：Ashgate Publishing Limited。  new window
8.Frahm, Michael(2013)。Australasia and Pacific Ombudsman Institutions-Mandates, Competences and Good Practice。Berlin：Springer-Berlin Heidelberg。  new window
9.Heady, Ferrel(2001)。Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective。New York：Marcel Dekker。  new window
10.吳庚(1993)。行政法之理論與實務。臺北：三民書局股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
11.監察院(2009)。中華民國97年監察統計提要。臺北：監察院。  延伸查詢new window
12.監察院(2010)。中華民國98年監察統計提要。臺北：監察院。  延伸查詢new window
13.監察院(2011)。中華民國99年監察統計提要。臺北：監察院。  延伸查詢new window
14.監察院(2012)。中華民國100年監察統計提要。臺北：監察院。  延伸查詢new window
15.監察院(2013)。中華民國101年監察統計提要。臺北：監察院。  延伸查詢new window
16.監察院(2014)。中華民國102年監察統計提要。臺北：監察院。  延伸查詢new window
17.監察院(2015)。中華民國103年監察統計提要。臺北：監察院。  延伸查詢new window
18.Tuck, R.(1991)。Thomas Hobbes / Leviathan。Cambridge：Cambridge University Press。  new window
19.United Nation Development Program(1997)。Governance for Sustainable Human Development: A UNDP policy document。New York：UNDP。  new window
20.U.S. Government Accountability Office(2016)。GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015。Washington, DC：GAO。  new window
21.Watson, Joel(2013)。Strategy: An Introduction to Game Theory。New York：W. W. Norton Congress, Inc.。  new window
22.Stacey, F.(1978)。Ombudsmen Compared。Oxford：Clarendon。  new window
23.Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Gabriele(2008)。European Ombudsman Institutions: A comparative legal analysis regarding the multifaceted realisation of an idea。Wien：Springer。  new window
24.Reif, Linda C.(2004)。The Ombudsman, Good Governance and the International Human Rights System。Martinus Nijhoff。  new window
25.Huntington, Samuel Phillips(1991)。The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century。University of Oklahoma Press。  new window
26.Morrow, James D.(1994)。Game Theory for Political Scientists。Princeton University Press。  new window
其他
1.Barro, Rober J.(1996)。Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-country Empirical Study，http://www.nber.org/papers/w5698。  new window
2.Gottehrer, Dean M.，Hostina, Michael(1998)。Essential Characteristics of a Classical Ombudsman，http://www.usombudsman.org/documents/PDF/References/Essential.pdf。  new window
3.La Porta, R.，Lopez-de-Silane, F.，Pop-Eleches, C.，Shleifer, A.(2002)。The guarantees of freedom，http://www.nber.org/papers/w8759。  new window
4.Diamandouros, P. Nikiforos(2015)。The ombudsman institution and the quality of democracy，http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/speeches/en/2006-10-17a.htm。  new window
圖書論文
1.Taylor, Michael(1996)。When Rationality Fails。The Rational Choice Controversy: Economic Models of Politics Reconsidered。Yale University。  new window
2.李炳南、吳豐宇(2012)。導論：世界各地區監察制度的發展過程與簡介。世界監察制度手冊。台北：監察院。  延伸查詢new window
3.周陽山(2012)。各國監察制度的比較分析與發展趨勢。世界監察制度手冊。台北：監察院。  延伸查詢new window
4.Bizjack, I.(1998)。The Role and Experience of an Ombudsman in a New Democracy。The International Ombudsman Yearbook。The Hague：Kluwer Law International。  new window
5.Weber, Max(1978)。The Types of Legitimate domination: Legal Authority with a Bureaucratic Staff。Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology。University of California Press。  new window
6.Sladecek, V.(2000)。Parliamentary Commissioners for Civil Rights in the Republic of Hungary。Righting wrongs。Amsterdam：IOS Press。  new window
7.Kelly, Stanley Jr.(1996)。The Promise and Limitations of Rational Choice Theory。The Rational Choice Controversy: Economic Models of Politics Reconsidered。New Haven, CT：Yale University Press。  new window
8.Giddings, P.、Sladecek, V.、Bueso, L. D.(2000)。The Ombudsman and Human Rights。Righting wrongs。Amsterdam：IOS Press。  new window
9.Busck, Lars(1995)。The History and Development of the Institution of Ombudsman。The Danish Ombudsman。Copenhagen：Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs。  new window
10.謝復生(2000)。理性抉擇理論的回顧與前瞻。邁入二十一世紀的政治學。臺北：中國政治學會。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：698（臺灣：691，外國：7） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1931025 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67724965
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上