:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:跨域治理中互動結構及個體權重之研究-以高雄自由經濟示範區之地區觀點為例
作者:邱靖蓉
作者(外文):Ching-Jung Chiu
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:2013
主題關鍵詞:互動結構高雄自由經濟示範區個體權重跨域治理政策行銷Interaction StructureIndividual WeightsPublic Policy MarketingKaohsiung Free Economic Demonstration ZoneCross-domain Governance
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(3) 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:0
  • 點閱點閱:39
多元社會下,人們逐漸了解到民主社會中跨部門或跨領域 (multiple sectors)的重要性,以有效解決複雜之公共問題,且跨部門協力規劃強調納入利害關係人分析、對利害關係人之回應 (Bryson, Crosby and Stone, 2006),及利害關係人的共同參與及社會溝通。中央政府於今(2013)年4月提出自由經濟示範區規劃方案及規劃說明,特區試點概念第一階段將試辦於五港一空(高雄港、臺中港、臺北港、基隆港、蘇澳港,及桃園航空等),並結合鄰近園區。以高雄自由經濟示範區 (Free Economic Demonstration Zone)為例,主要是考量到高雄的先天條件,例如高雄港的腹地區位,以及後天的自由貿易港區、海空經貿城,乃至亞洲新灣區等規劃。然除經濟效益及風險評估與管理外,社會支持與政府效能為高雄自由經濟示範區之關鍵成功要素。
本研究以刻正進行之高雄自由經濟示範區課題作為案例,輔以跨部門協力架構、體制分析與發展架構,及公共事務管理架構等三個架構概念,及涵蓋治理結構之跨域治理與其操作步驟等,並以該課題案例中的公共管理者、複合領域專家與多方當事人作為母體。以事實判斷中的半結構式專家訪談彙整作為可測量相對權重及函數圖形的社會判斷理論 (Social Judgment Theory, SJT)決策參考變數之投入,而SJT產出之相對權重則作為下一階段可檢視確認互動結構及衡量個體社會權重的社會平均定理 (Social Averaging Theorem, SAT)之個體偏好投入與實驗設計。
研究發現:透過涵蓋治理結構之跨域治理與其操作步驟進行研究設計與操作,可藉以釐清問題,並將事實、價值,及人際作有效地分工及結合。首先,事實判斷之專家訪談彙整出利害關係人較關注社會支持與政府效能等;第二,SJT探求出相對權重及函數圖形,公共管理者呈社會支持39.1%、政府效能60.9%,複合領域專家呈社會支持45.6%、政府效能54.4%,及多方當事人呈社會支持34.7%、政府效能65.3%等;而第三,SAT則說明了群體決策中的互動結構及個體社會權重係可衡量且具體量化的,以社會權重與互動結構為例,從七組SAT實驗操作中發現互動結構排序呈多方當事人、公共管理者,及複合領域專家,說明多方當事人於群體決策時相對地社會影響力較大,其次為公共管理者,複合領域專家為末。而從受試者主觀感受與SAT群體決策對應中,說明SAT實驗操作係具理論效度。最後據以認知續線理論 (Cognitive Continuum Theory, CCT)概念詮釋,提出符合在地觀點角度之風險溝通與政策行銷策略,以提供相關部會、地方政府、學術單位、產業企業、與民間團體等在制定、執行與配合相關政策參考。
In pluralistic society, people gradually learned the importance of cross-department or multiple sectors in the democratic society in terms of solving complex public problems effectively, and to make an effort together to plan among the cross-departments emphasize that it should be incorporated into the analysis of stakeholders, the respond of stakeholders (Bryson, Crosby and Stone, 2006), and the common participation and social communication of stakeholders.
The central government submitted the Free Economic Demonstration Zone plan and in April 2013, the first phase of the trial free zone concept will be the five free trade port zones and one aerotropois (Keelung Harbor, Taipei Harbor, Kaohsiung Harbor, Taichung Harbor, Suao Harbor, and Taoyuan Aerotropolis), and combined with the adjacent park.
As example of Kaohsiung Free economic Demonstration Zone, it consider mainly the congenital circumstances, for example, Kaohsiung abdominal area spaces, the acquired condition of free trade port areas, sea-air economic trade city, even the planning of Asia''s New Bay Area. However, in addition to economics benefits and risk assessment and management, the critical success factors of Kaohsiung Free Economic Demonstration Zone will be the social support and government efficiency.
This study work with ongoing Kaohsiung Free Economic Demonstration Zone project as major case, supplemented by three framework concept such as cross-department cooperation framework, institutional analysis and development framework, and public affairs management framework, and cross-domain governance that cover governance framework and its operating procedures, and take the public administrator, composite-domain experts and multi-party stakeholders of this case as population. With summarizing the information of semi-structured interview of factual judgment is recognized as the input of measurable relative weights and function graph of decision-making reference variables of Social Judgment Theory (SJT), and the outcome of relative weights of SJT is recognized in the next level as Social Averaging Theorem (SAT) that can be viewed and confirmed the interactive structure and measure the individual social weights, and the inputs of individual preferences and experimental design.
This research findings, with the cross-domain governance and its operating procedures that covers governance structure to conduct the research design and operating can clarify the issues and division of labor and combined effectively with facts, values and interpersonal. First of all, the expert interviews of factual judgment organize that the stakeholders are more concerned about the social support and government efficiency. Second, SJT had explored the relative weights and function graphs, the public administrators show 39.1% of social support, 60.9% of government efficiency, composite-domain experts show 45.6% of social support, 54.4% of government efficiency, and multi-party stakeholders show 34.7% of social support, and 65.3% of government efficiency. Third, SAT indicates the interactive structure of group decision-making and individual social weights can be measured and quantified specifically, and take the social weights and interactive structure for example, the findings from these seven groups of the SAT experimental operation, the sequence shows the multi-party stakeholders, public administrator, and composite-domain experts, that indicated the multi-party stakeholders have relatively more social influence in group decision-making, followed by public administrator, and composite-domain experts the last.
Between subjective feeling from participants and corresponding with SAT group decision-making, indicate that the SAT experimental operating possess theoretical validity. Finally, according to the interpretation with concept of Cognitive Continuum Theory, submit the risk communication and policy marketing strategy that meet the local viewpoints, to provide the reference in developing, implementing and coordinating the policy to relevant ministries, local government, academic institutions, industrial enterprises, and civil groups, etc.
一、中文部份
中華公共事務管理學會,www.pam.org.tw
中華經濟研究院ECFA研究團隊(2009)。兩岸經濟合作架構協議之影響評估報告。http://www.ecfa.org.tw/
王中天(2003,9月)。社會資本 (Social Capital):概念、源起、及現況。問題與研究,42(5),139-163。new window
王文貴(2007)。互動與耦合︰非正式制度與經濟發展。北京:中國社會科學。
行政院(2012)。經濟動能推升方案簡報。http://www.cepd.gov.tw/Upgrade/
何貴兵、張平(2004,1月)。個人影響力在群體決策整合過程中的作用:對SDS理論的擴展。心理學報 (Acta Psychology Sinica),36(1),37-43。
吳瓊恩、周光輝、魏娜、盧偉斯(2004)。公共行政學。台北:智勝。
吳瓊恩、李允傑、陳銘薰(2001)。公共管理。台北:智勝。
宋濤 譯(2007)。公共部門的社會問責:理念探討及模式分析。北京:中國人民大學。
李美淵(2003)。創業風險資訊與利益知覺之調整研究-心理決策理論之實驗檢定。未出版之碩士論文,國立高雄第一科技大學金融營運所,高雄市。
杜文苓(2012,9月)。環評制度中的專家會議-被框架的專家理性。臺灣民主季刊,9(3),119-155。new window
杜文苓(2011,6月)。環境風險與科技決策:檢視中科四期環評爭議。東吳政治學報,29(2),57-110。new window
杜文苓、施麗雯、黃廷宜(2007,10月)。風險溝通與民主參與:以竹科宜蘭基地之設置為例。科技、醫療與社會,5,71-110。new window
汪明生、黃煒能、高煜雄(2012,10月)。以決策判斷觀點詮釋與試擬治理結構的理論架構-個體認知、人際聯結、與情境條件。在蘭州大學管理學院、蘭州大學中國地方政府績效評價中心主辦,公共績效治理:國際學術前沿與全球實踐經驗高端論壇,中國蘭州。
汪明生、胡象明(2010)。公共管理實用分析方法(21世紀公共管理系列教材)。北京:中國人民大學。
汪明生(2010)。公共事務研究方法(二版)。台北:五南。
汪明生(2009)。跨域分析簡述-方法、問題與操作步驟。blog.roodo.com/mingshen/
汪明生(2008,8月)。兩岸MPA教育之體制建構與條件檢視。中國行政管理,2008年(7),120-125。
汪明生(2006)。公共事務管理研究方法。台北:五南。new window
汪明生、黃國良、郭文俊(2005,8月)。酒後駕車風險知覺之實驗研究-資訊整合理論之應用。管理學報,22(4),429-447。new window
汪銘生主持(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(行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告,NSC 90-2416-H-110-029)。高雄市:國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所。
周桂田(2008,3月)。新興科技與風險治理。科技發展政策報導,2008年3月,16-31。
周桂田(2005,6月)。知識、科學與不確定性-專家與科技系統的「無知」如何建構風險。政治與社會哲學評論,13,131-180。new window
周桂田(2004,12月)。獨大的科學理性與隱沒(默)的社會理性之「對話」-在地公眾、科學專家與國家的風險文化探討。臺灣社會研究,56,1-63。new window
林水波(2007)。「全球化下的都會治理-臺北縣市合併問題探討」與談內容。地方制度改造與跨域治理座談會(北區)紀錄。www.moi.gov.tw/upload/m_39311_4700115741.docnew window
林水波、李長晏(2005)。跨域治理。台北:五南。new window
林傑毓、陳澤祿(2005,9月)。行動電話消費者風險與利益知覺調整模式之研究。行銷評論,2(3),367-389。new window
洪鴻智(1995,8月)。空間衝突管理-策略規劃方法之應用。法商學報,31,172-206。
財團法人台灣智庫(2010)。南部區域產業空間利用調查暨國公有土地活化開發規劃案(高雄市政府都市發展局委託研究報告)。台北市:財團法人台灣智庫。
張傳賢、張佑宗(2006,12月)。選舉課責:拉丁美洲國家政府經濟施政表現與選舉得票相關性之研究。臺灣政治學刊,10(2),101-147。new window
張寧主持(2011)。科技風險政策之選舉責信:社會判斷理論之應用(行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,NSC 99-3011-P-214-001-)。高雄市:義守大學企業管理學系。
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。未出版之博士論文,國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所,高雄市。new window
許育銘(2010)。開放美國牛肉進口之問題建構與認知衝突分析。未出版之碩士論文,義守大學企業管理學系暨研究所,高雄市。
陳建寧、陳文俊、林錦郎、汪明生(2007,3月)。多元社會下民眾的公平與關懷道德認知之研究:以高雄市為例。公共行政學報,22,111-147。new window
陳素櫻(2001)。環境風險之社會擴展-灰色與SDS理論之應用。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺北大學都市計劃研究所,台北市。
陳敦源、王干文、蕭乃沂、黃東益(2007,8月)。金魚缸中的服務:全民督工的個案討論。研考雙月刊,31(4),88-101。
陳敦源(2003,4月)。透明與課責:行政程序控制的資訊經濟分析。在世新大學行政管理學系、台灣透明組織、政大公企中心主辦,倡廉反貪與行政透明學術研討會,台北市。
陳碧珍(2006)。群體共識判斷中社會影響網絡之研究-資訊整合理論之應用。未出版之博士論文,國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所,高雄市。new window
陳碧珍(2001,4月)。集體決策中的社會決策基模及社會平均定理。公共事務評論,2(1),183-207。new window
陳碧珍(1996)。科技風險知覺之資訊整合實驗-以石化業為例。未出版之碩士論文,國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所,高雄市。
陳碧珍(1993,4月)。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
陳燕(2007)。公平與效率。北京:中國社會科學。
黃慶源、高明瑞、汪明生(2004,6月)。非營利組織目標認知與經營管理策略探討-以國立科學工藝博物館為例。中國行政評論,13(3),29-74。new window
楊日青、李培元、林文斌、劉兆隆(2002)。政治學新論。台北韋伯。
經濟部(2011)。自由經濟示範區規劃構想簡報。www.moea.gov.tw/Mns/
廖達琪、張其祿、李予綱主持(2010)。兩岸經濟協議簽定前後臺灣南部社會變遷與民眾意向之研究(行政院研究發展考核委員會委託之專題研究成果報告RDEC-RES-099-020)。高雄市:國立中山大學逸仙社會科學研究中心。
劉坤億(2006,9月)。臺灣地方政府間發展夥伴關係之制度障礙與機會。臺灣民主季刊,3(3),1-33。new window
劉坤億(2007)。「全球化下的都會治理-臺北縣市合併問題探討」與談內容。地方制度改造與跨域治理座談會(北區)紀錄。www.moi.gov.tw/upload/m_39311_4700115741.doc
諸葛俊、黃于恬、汪明生(2012,4月)。地下電臺傳播行為對臺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
謝宗翰(2009)。兩岸金融合作之認知分析。未出版之碩士論文,國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所,高雄市。


二、英文部份
Arrow, Kenneth J. (1951; 1963). Social choice and individual values. New York: John Wiley &; Sons, Inc.
Arrow, Kenneth J. (1970). Social choice and individual values, second edition (Cowles Foundation Monographs Series). Yale University Press.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., and Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Anderson, N. H. (2008). Unified social cognition. New York: Psychology Press.
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Acadamic Press.
Anderson, N. H, and Graesser, C. C., (1976). An information integration analysis of attitude change in group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 210-222.
Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193-217.
Brunswik, E. (1943). Organismic achievement and environmental probability. Psychological Review, 50(3), 255-272. doi: 10.1037/h0060889
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., and Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66 (Special Issue: Collaborative Public Management), 44-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
Brehmer, B. and Joyce, C. R. B. (1988). Human judgement: the sjt view (advances in psychology). North-Holland Press.
Campbell S. and Fainstein S. S. (1996). Readings in planning theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cooksey, R. W. (1996). Judgment analysis: theory, methods, and applications. San Diego: Academic Press.
Denhardt, R. B., and Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549-559.
Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80(2), 97-125. doi: 10.1037/h0033951
Davis, J. H. (1982). Social interaction as a combinatorial process in group decision. In H. Brandstaetter, J. H. Davis, and G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Group Decision Making (pp. 27-58). London: Academic Press.
Edwards, W. (1954). Theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 308-417
Graesser, C. C. (1991). A social averaging theorem for group decision making. In N. H. Anderson (Ed.), Contribution to information integration theory volume II: social (pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hammond, K. R., Hamm, R. M., Grassia, J., and Pearson, T. (1987). Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-17 (5), 753-770.
Hammond, K. R., McClelland, G. H., and Mumpower, J. (1980). Human judgment and decision making. Praeger Press.
Hammond, K. R., Rohrbaugh, J., Mumpower, J., and Adelman, L. (1977). Social judgment theory: applications in policy formation. In M.F. Kaplan and Steven Schwartz (Eds.). Human Judgment and Decision Process in Applied Settings. N.Y.: Academic Press.
Hammond, K. R., Stewart, T. R., Brehmer, B. and Steinmann, D. O. (1975). Social judgment theory. In M. f. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (eds.). Human judgment Decision Process. New York: Academic Press.
Hammond, K. R., and Brehmer, B. (1973). Quasi-rationality and distrust: Implication for international conflict. In L. Rappoport and D. A. Summers (Eds.). Human Judgment and Social Interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Hastie, R. (1986). Experimental evidence on group accuracy. In B. Grofman and G. Owea (eds.), Decision research (vol.2). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hinsz, V. B. (1999). Group decision making with responses of a quantitative nature: The theory of social decision schemes for quantities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80(1), 28-49. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2853
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Keeney, R. L, and Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional Rational Choice: an Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, Second Edition (pp. 21-64). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Rohrbaugh, J., and 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.
Tolman, E. and Brunswik, E. (1935). The Organism and the Causal Texture of the Environment. Psychological Review, 42, 43-77.
Von Wintwefeldt, D., and Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. New York: Cambridge university Press.
Warfield, J. N. (1989). Social Systems. C.A.: Intersystems Publications.
Warfield, J. N., and Cárdenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management (Second Edition). Iowa State University Press.
Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
 
 
 
 
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