台灣與香港在一九八○～九○年代不約而同地面臨政治轉型，前者開展和平民主化，政黨輪替呈現；而後者則從英國殖民地回歸中國，實行一國兩制，港人治港。縱然兩者政治系絡之差異性，但因應兩地同步激化中的治理體制政治化，台港政府皆必須要建立文官中立制度，以確保政府運作之穩定及延續性。惟本文將指出，台港兩地文官中立制度並非建立在完全相同的價值取向上。本文利用Patrick Overeem提出的「政黨政治」（partisan politics）與「政策政治」（policy politics）分野作為分析架構，點出台灣在建立公務人員文官中立制度時僅理解為將公務人員排除於「政黨政治」外，而完全忽略公務人員涉入「政策政治」的問題。而香港的文官中立制度則涵蓋「政黨政治」及「政策政治」兩方面，但在制度問題的爭議上卻聚焦在「政策政治」上。為何在同時期發生的政治轉型過程下所建立的文官中立機制，會有如此不同的取向？本文將從兩地公共行政脈絡、相關人士對問題認知及歷史偶然因素解釋這歧異情況之發生原因。透過這比較，本文企圖就我國剛建立的公務人員行政中立制度作有意義的反思與啟示。

Both Taiwan and Hong Kong witnessed political transition during the1980-90s. The former launched peaceful democratization, expecting a rulingpartyturnover; he latter experienced its sovereignty handover to Mainland China, with a colonial rule replaced by the “one country two system” governedby local people. Despite their different political contexts, the governments of the two places coincidentally managed to establish a mechanism of civil serviceneutrality in response to their simultaneously rising politicization of public governance. This establishment could help maintain and stabilize thegovernment’s normal operation. This paper, however, indicates that the civilservice neutrality mechanisms in the two places were not founded on the same value. Drawing on Patrick Overeem’s distinction between “partisan politics”and “policy politics,” this paper argues that the civil service neutralitymechanism in Taiwan only focuses on “partisan politics,” ignoring thedimension of “policy politics.” The case of Hong Kong covers the twodimensions but the point of contention is more on “policy politics.” Why do the approaches of the two civil service neutrality mechanisms installed in the sameperiod diverge from each other? This paper will account for causes of thedivergence in terms of their different public administration contexts and issuerecognition, and an accidental historical factor. This comparison will contribute some significant insight to Taiwan’s civil service neutrality.