受到「新公共管理」（new public management）思惟的洗禮，過去二十年來各國政府普遍致力於電子化政府的服務創新，期以「資訊通訊科技」（Information and Communication Technologies, ICTs）來改善民主回應性。儘管如此，本研究認為，傳統「由上而下」（top-down）、「機關導向」（agency-centered）的電子化政府之政策規劃模式，具有忽略使用者需求的盲點，在資源有限的政策配置過程中，電子化政府的龐大投資所帶來民眾的低使用意願，容易引發外界對政府資源錯置的批評。因此，電子化政府不應只是一種促成「善治」（good governance）的管理工具，其政策成形過程中亦需要民主正當性的洗禮。本研究以為，電子化政府應該從「協力型治理」（collaborative governance）、「政策民主化」（policy democratization）與「審議式民主」（deliberative democracy）等觀點重新定位其未來發展。據此而論，本研究旨在探究「公民導向」（citizencentered）的電子化政府之政策規劃模式「如何」以及「是否」可能的問題。方法論上，本研究以台灣2020 電子治理願景工作坊為例，藉由事前與事後質性與量化並重的研究方法，歸納出以下結論：（1）有關參與效果方面，參加者對電子化政府與審議式民主的知識略有增加，對民眾參加專業決策的信心有顯著的提升，但是對於參加民眾的政治效能感並無太大助益；（2）有關會議結論方面，參加者願景與行動方案的滿意度高，但政府官員相較起來較為保守，另外，參加者對於方案的可行性與正當性評價也高，最後，參加者對於再次參與以及未 來政府是否應該舉辦類似活動的認同度高；（3）有關這些共識政府能否落實，參加者乃分別從內容、制度與官僚素養等層面提出質疑，這顯示電子化政府乃至於台灣政策制定的民主化，還有很長的路程要走。

Due to the influence of the movement towards new public management, governments around the world strive to provide e-government innovation services to improve the responsiveness through the application of ICTs. However, the authors observe that traditional “top-down” and “agency-centered” egovernment policy planning model neglect users’ needs. It also generates suspicion of inefficient resource allocation if there are only a small portion of citizenry would like to accept these e-services. Therefore, e-government should not only be seen as a kind of managerial tool to accomplish the goal of “good governance”, but also be supported by the public in the policy formation process to gain democratic legitimacy. The authors believe that e-government policymaking orientation in future should be discussed from the perspectives of “collaborative governance”, “policy democratization” and “deliberative democracy”. Accordingly, this paper intends to inquire the question of “how” can we promote “citizen-centered” e-government policy planning model and “if” this will actualize? Methodologically, the Taiwan 2020 scenario workshop is held and as a way to collect both of the qualitative and quantitative data. The findings are as follows: (1) as for the effects of participation, we find that the participants’ knowledge of e-government and deliberative democracy rise gradually, and confidence in the citizens’ ability of participating in the decisionmaking increases significantly, but unfortunately the participants’ political efficacy do not change; (2) regarding the results of the conference, we find that the participants are satisfied with the vision and the action plans, but public officials have relatively conservative attitudes toward it. Besides that, all of the participants would agree that the results are feasible and legitimate. Finally, the participants recognized and identified with the similar activities when they were asked the willingness to participate and if governments should hold the conference again in the future; (3) we find that the participants suspect it from the contents, institution and bureaucratic training background when they were asked if the government authorities can certainly fulfill the workshop consensus. Apparently, the results reveal that democratization of e-government policy in Taiwan still has a long way to go.