:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:土地使用審議組織之制度建立與組織運作--以新制度經濟學觀點分析
作者:郭冠宏
校院名稱:國立政治大學
系所名稱:地政學系
指導教授:張金鶚
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2017
主題關鍵詞:審議組織制度建立組織運作審議民主非正式規則聽證Deliberative organizationSystem establishmentOrganization of operationConsideration of democracyInformal rules
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:0
  • 點閱點閱:8
政府基於國家政策考量,為確保公共利益,並透過分散權力來減少(甚至是避免)主管機關因資訊不完全等因素產生政府失靈的現象,而於主管機關內部設置審議組織以為因應。此等政府內部審議組織之制度建立是否健全、是否能提供公平審議環境?均將嚴重影響主管機關後續行政處分。
本論文研究目的為:一、探討審議組織運作是否存在非正式規則?而此非正式規則是否影響正式規則運作?如有,則應如何評估檢討以避免扭曲正式規則運作。二、探討審議組織透過不同屬性組織成員的個體行為,如何完成組織運作?以使修正得獨立自主審議。三、探討政府內部審議組織之集體行動方式為何?使其行動之決議公平與避免黑箱作業。四、思考審議制度與民眾參與之關係,而聽證制度應如何與審議制度相互妥適安排,以建立公私合作、公開透明的行政審查制度。
考量研究者具有本論文所討論之審議組織客體身份(幕僚人員、申請人),係屬於探討審議組織運作之涉入者,有助於透過個人接觸進行深度訪談,並可現場參與觀察審議組織之運作情形,故在研究方法上係採取多重方法,兼採質性分析與量化分析,先以質性方法進行文獻分析,據以研擬訪談大綱依深度訪談法瞭解審議委員與幕僚人員對於審議組織運作之見解,再設計問卷進行調查以量化分析受訪者之態度異同,最後以質性之參與觀察法實地觀察確認相關議題,並進行歸納分析。
歸納出成功的審議制度建立應包含下列四項因素:一、提供公平、並能兼顧效率的審議制度。二、提供參與者均能獨立自主表達意見的審議組織運作環境。三、審議決議獲得大多數人支持,能影響主管機關決策且據以執行。四、能涵括多元意見,充分論辯、衡平衝突。
結論為:一、審議組織運作之非正式規則應適時檢討。二、提供審議委員獨立自主之審議環境。三、明確審議組織之決策模式,以提升審議公平與兼顧效率。四、集體規模擴大,健全多元參與、廣徵民意。
並提出建議:一、制度方面:(一)土地使用的評估是生活價值的判斷而非僅專業技術的規劃。(二)土地使用的民眾參與越早越好、越廣越好。(三)土地使用審議的公平應優先於效率。(四)不同角色多面向目的分析。二、組織方面:修正相關制度安排,並將政府內部審議組織定位為「公益型委託代理關係」。
The government is based on the political policy, the public interest, and through the decentralization of power to reduce (or avoid) the factors that lead to government failure. Are the systems for the establishment of such internal government deliberations sound and can they provide a fair environment for consideration? Will they seriously affect the follow-up administrative sanctions of the competent authorities?
The purpose of this paper is as follows: First, to discuss whether there are informal rules in the operation of the organization, and if so, do these informal rules affect the formal rules? How should the review be assessed to avoid distorting the formal rules? Second, to explore the organization through different members of the organization of individual behavior, how does one complete the operation of the organization so that the amendment is subject to independent consideration? Third, what are the collective actions of the government's internal deliberations that make the resolution of its action fair and avoid black box operations? Fourth, to consider the relationship between the system and public participation as to how the hearing system should be arranged with the review system to establish public and private cooperation and insure an open and transparent administrative review system?
Consider how the investigators who have discussed the objectivity of the organization in this paper (staff members and applicants) and are involved in the discussion of the operation of the organization facilitate in-depth interviews through personal contact, and can participate in observing the organization. There is use of multiple methods, and the nature of the analysis and quantitative analysis, the first qualitative method of literature analysis, to understand the members and staff members and their review of the organization. The questionnaires were then used to quantitatively analyze the similarities and differences of the interviewees. Finally, the relevant topics were confirmed by qualitative observation and the results were summarized and analyzed.
The establishment of a successful review system should include the following four factors: (i) a fair and balanced system of consideration. (ii) participants who can independently express their views on the organization of the operating environment. (iii) resolutions supported by the majority of people that can influence the implementation decisions of the competent authorities. (iv) multiple opinions and full arguments to balance the conflict.
Summary of conclusions: First, consider that the organizing process of the informal rules should be timely reviewed. Second, provide consideration of members of the independent review of the environment. Third, clearly review the organization's decision-making model to enhance the consideration of fairness and efficiency. Fourth, collectively expand and improve the diversity of participation through wide public opinion.
Recommendations: First, the institutional aspects: (a) the assessment of land use values life judgments rather than only professional and technical planning. (b) it is better for more people to participate and the sooner the better. (c) the fairness of land use consideration should prevail over efficiency. (d) include different roles for the purpose of multi-oriented analysis. Second, the organization should amend the relevant institutional arrangements, and the internal government should consider the organization as a "public agent" type agency.
Keywords: deliberative organization, system establishment, organization of operation, consideration of democracy, informal rules
一、中文參考文獻
1.中華民國都市計畫學會,1994,『都市計畫法全面修法重點之研究』,內政部營建署委託
2.王光旭,2005,『都市計畫審議機制之制度分析:以台中市為例』,行政暨政策學報第41期(94年12月),第35-80頁new window
3.王皓平,2009,『我國行政程序法中聽證制度與政府決策之連結性探討』,國政評論2009.03.04版,財團法人國家政策研究基金會
4.毛壽龍,2014,『規則與治理:理論、現實與政策選擇』初版,浙江,浙江大學出版社
5.林美蓮,2005,『行政程序法有關聽證制度之檢討』,台灣行政法學會主編『行政法人與組織改造、聽證制度評析』,台北:元照出版有限公司,第241-270頁
6.林建元,1994,『地方政府山坡地開發審查作業之改進方式』,都市與計畫,第21卷、第2期、第233-254頁new window
7.林森田、洪維廷,2004,『代理結構與制度執行:以土地使用分區制度執行為例』,公共行政學報,第11期:77--107new window
8.江明修與劉梅君翻譯,1995,『面對權力的規劃』(Forester著)初版,台北,五南書局
9.行政院研究發展考核委員會,1994,『行政委員會組織與功能之研究』,台北
10.行政院經濟建設委員會,2006,『土地使用變更作業手冊』,台北
11.朱芳妮、張金鶚,2013,集合住宅管理維護模式及績效表現之分析:代理關係之探討,管理評論, 32(3), 25-48new window
12.呂炳寬,2007,『管制行政與法律保留原則』發表於2008年TASPAA年會「夥伴關係與永續發展國際學術研討會」,東海大學行政管理暨政策學系主辦2008.5.24-25
13.吳清輝,2000,『發展許可制實務運作研究』,內政部營建署市鄉規劃局委託研究
14. 吳瓊恩主編,2004,『公共行政學』,初版,台北,智勝文化事業有限公司
15.吳瓊恩,2009,『行政學』,臺北,三民書局
16.施鴻志,1998,『地區開發計畫審議權責劃分之研究』,經社法制論叢第21期,行政院經濟建設委員會,第289--309頁
17.施鴻志,1999,『環境影響評估與開發許可相關審議機制建構之研究』,經社法制論叢第23期,行政院經濟建設委員會,第223--242頁
18.孫永祥,2003,『組織治理結構:理論與參與觀察』二版,上海,三聯書店
19.徐世榮,2001,『土地政策之政治經濟分析—地政學術之補充論述』初版,臺北,正揚出版社
20.徐世榮、許紹峰,2010,『以民眾觀點探討環境影響評估制度』,臺灣土地研究,第2期:101-130new window
21.蔡茂寅、周志宏等四人,2013,『行政程序法實用』,四版,台北,新學林出版股份有限公司new window
22.許雲霄,2007,『公共選擇理論』二版,北京,北京大學出版社
23.郭冠宏,2004,『非都市土地使用—審議法令彙編』初版,台北,詹氏書局
24.郭冠宏,2016,『土地使用審議組織之委託代理關係分析—以內政部區域計畫委員會為例』,土地經濟年刊,第27期new window
25.郭冠宏,2017,『政府內部審議組織之制度環境與組織運作—以新制度經濟學觀點分析非正式規則之形成與修正』,空中大學行政學報,第31期new window
26.郭冠宏,2017,『審議制度與聽證制度關係初探—以南鐵東移案與內政部舉行聽證作業要點為例』,土地經濟年刊,第28期new window
27.張其祿,2007,『管制行政:理論與經驗分析』第一版,台北:商鼎文化出版社new window
28.陳新民,2015,『行政法學總論』第9版,台北:三民書局
29.陳東升,2006,『審議民主的限制:台灣民眾會議的經驗』,台灣民主季刊3(1),92-104
30.陳志華,1987,『內政、財政、經濟、交通四部專設委員會的組織與運作』,台灣大學政治學研究所博士論文new window
31.陳香妃,2006,『從集體行動看社區意識與管理制度對公寓大廈管理維護之影響 : 主觀滿意度與客觀績效分析』,國立政治大學地政系碩士論文new window
32.陳敦源,2002,『民主與主管機關內部官員:新制度論的觀點』,韋伯文化事業出版社,臺北。
33.湯京平、邱崇原,2010,『專業與民主:台灣環境影響評估制度的運作與調適』,公共行政學報‧ 第35期:1-28new window
34.湯京平、黃詩涵,2008,『公共政策如何瓦解社區發展的集體行動:在地治理的政治與制度分析』,住宅學會年會發表
35.黃東益,2008,『審議過後-從行政部門觀點探討公民會議的改革連結』,東吳政治學報第26期,第59-96頁new window
36.劉介修、陳逸玲譯(國家教育研究院),2012,『審議民主指南—21世紀公民參與的有效策略(John and Peter合編著)』初版,臺北市,群學出版有限公司
37.張剛維,2008,『土地使用分區管制制度之執行與制度變遷—財產權觀點之分析』,國立政治大學地政學系博士論文new window
38.張維迎,2004,『博弈論與資訊經濟學』第一版,中國上海,上海人民出版社
39.廖元豪,2009,『儀式性質的聽證權—從正當程序觀點檢討「陳述意見」與「聽證」之制度與實踐』,收錄於台灣行政法學會主編之『行政程序法之實施經驗與存在問題聽證制度之理論、制度及實務』,台北:元照出版有限公司,第261-294頁
40.戚樹誠,2014,『組織行為—台灣經驗與全球視野』修訂第一版,台北,雙葉書廊new window
41.傅小隨,1999,『中國行政體制改革的制度分析』一版,北京,國家行政學院出版社
42.賴世剛,2002,『如何提昇市政審議機制之研究—以都市設計審議、環境影響評估及公共藝術審議為例』,台北市政府研究發展考核委員會委託
43.賴宗裕,2005,『國土計畫功能分區劃定與土地使用管制機制結合』,內政部營建署委託中國土地經濟學會研究
44.葉俊榮,1999,『政府再造與制度興革:以環境影響評估為例』,經社法制論叢第23期,行政院經濟建設委員會,第1--29頁
45.葉銀華,2008,『實踐公司治理』初版,臺北,聯經出版事業股份有限公司
46.鍾瑞蘭,2013,『我國行政程序法之修正與展望』,收錄於台灣行政法學會主編之『行政契約之基本理論、法理變革及實務趨勢/行政程序法之最新發展』,台北:元照出版有限公司,第317-395頁
47.監察院,2010,『各級政府對都市計畫、都市設計之審議,其審議權限是否符合依法行政原則與適法性專案調查研究報告』(監察委員:馬以工、林鉅銀、劉玉山、洪昭男、黃武次),臺北,監察院
48.傅玲靜,2013,『論德國行政程序法中程序瑕疵理論之建構與發展』,收錄於台灣行政法學會主編之『行政契約之基本理論、法理變革及實務趨勢/行政程序法之最新發展』,台北:元照出版有限公司,第267-316頁
49.顏愛靜、郭冠宏等合譯,2009,『制度與經濟學理論-新制度經濟學之貢獻』第二版,台北,五南圖書公司
50.邊泰明,1997,『土地使用權賦與過程協商制度之差異經驗』,經社法制論叢第20期,行政院經濟建設委員會,第217--239頁
51.蔡震榮,2009,『台灣行政聽證制度執行狀況與效率評估』,收錄於台灣行政法學會主編之『行政程序法之實施經驗與存在問題聽證制度之理論、制度及實務』,台北:元照出版有限公司,第245頁new window

二、外文參考文獻:
1.Alston,L.J., 1996,Empirical Work in Institutional Economics: an Overview,in Alston,L.J.,Eggertsson, T., and North, D.C.(eds.), Enpirical Studies in Institutional Change,New York:Cambridge University Press,25-30
2.Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969,A Ladder of Citizen Participation,Journal of the American Institute of Planner,35:216-224
3. Atkinson,G., and Oleson, T.,1996,Urban Sprawl as a Path Dependent Process,Journal of Economic Issues,XXX(2):609-615
4.Arrow,Kenneth J. 1974 ,The Limits of Organization,Princeton University Press.
5.Avinash K .Dixit,2004,Lawlesseness and Economics:alternative modes of governance,Princeton University Press
6.Bierstedt,Robert.,1950.An Analysis of Social Power.American sociological Review 15:730-736
7.Bonoli,G.,2001,Political institutions,veto points,and the proaess of walfare state adapation,In p.Pierson (ed.),The new politics of the welfare state,238-264.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
8.Coase, R. H., 1937,The Nature of the Firm , Economica , 4: 386-405.
9.Deng,Chun-yeh and Dung-sheng Chen,2007,Interaction between Citizens and Experts in Publice Deliberation:A Case Study of Consensus
10.Denhardt,Robert B. 2002,Managing Human Behavior in Public & Nonprofit Organzations,The University of Michigan Press
11.Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989. Agent theory:An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1):57-74
12.Furubotn, E. G. and Richter, R., 2005, Institutions and Economic Theory--the Contribution of the New Institution Economics. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
13.Jensen, M. and Meckling, W., 1976, Theory of the Firm Managerial Behavior, Agent Costs and Ownership Structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 3 (4):305 – 360.
14.Kantor, Shawn Everett. 1998, Politics and Property Rights : The Closing of the Open Range in the Postbellum South, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.Libecap,G.D. 1989,Distributional Issues in Contracting for Property Rights.,Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 145:6-24.
16.Martin,R.,2000,Institutional Approaches in Economic Geography,In Sheppard,E., and Barmes,T.J.(eds.),A Companion to Economic Geography,Oxford:Blackwell Press,77-94Hierarchy,Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press.
17.Miller,Gary J.1992,Managerial Dilemmas:The Political Economy of Hierarchy,Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press.
18.Menard,Claude.2000,Institutions,Contracts and Organizations,Edward Elgar
19.North,Douglass C.1981,Structure and chang in economic history,New york:Norton&Company,Inc.
20.North,Douglass C.1990,Institutions,institutional change,and economic performance,Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press.
21.North,Douglass C., 1991, Institutions, Institutions Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.Olson, M., 1971, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Group. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
23.Ostrom,Elinor.,1990,Governing the Commons:The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action,Cambridge University Press
24.Perrow, C., 1986, Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: Random House.
25.Pierson,Paul,2000,Increasing returns,rath dependence,and the study of polities,American Political Science Review 94(2):251-267
26. Prat, Andrea and Rustichini, Aldo. 2003, Games Played Through Agents Econometrica, 71 (4): 989–1026.
27.Robert B.Denhardt,2002,Managing Human Behavior in Public & Nonprofit Organzations,The University of Michigan Press
28.Simon,H.A.,1958,Organizations。New York,JohnWiley
29.Williamson,Oliver E.,1979,Transaction-Cost Economics:The Governance of Contactual Relations,Journal of Law and Economics 22:233-261.
30.Williamson, Oliver E., 1985, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Market, Relational Contracting. New York: The Free Press.
31.Williamson, Oliver E., 1996,Transaction cost economics and the Carnegie connection, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(2)
32.Williamson,Oliver E.,2000,The New Institutional Economic:Taking Stock, Looking Ahead,Journal of Economic Literature 38(3):595-613
33.Young,H.P.,1998,Individual Straegy and Social Structure:An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions,Princeton,NJ:Princeeton University Press.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top