防救灾之政策顺服探究—小区与地方治理统合之可能模式
Policy Compliance in Disaster Management—Integrating Community into a Local Governance Model

作者: 庄淑琼 :国立嘉义大学公共政策研究所,台湾 嘉义;

关键词: 社区防救灾政策顺服地方治理公共参与Disaster Management Policy Compliance Local Governance Public Participation

摘要:
位于太平洋西北侧与台湾海峡之间,特殊的地理位置造成台湾年年都要面对台风的威胁。台风造成的风灾水患等灾情常使得社会责难政府未能充分响应人民的需求,民众对政府信任度下滑,各级政府的效能一再被质疑。政府单一治理能力的不足凸显灾害防救课题急需地方协力治理的重要性。本文以Kübler与Heinelt所提都会治理架构为参考,尝试建立一个以小区为主体强调参与的防救灾治理概念模型。本研究以风灾事件历史新闻报导,检视个别事件,观察受灾民众与政府灾害管理政策作为间之互动;并以嘉义市防灾小区为个案,透过现行小区防救灾行动的实践,检视在面临灾变危机时,小区如何能在治理架构下,协力政府提升政策效能与正当性,在政府统理能力与民众对政府的统理需求间进行动态整合,建构出具有社会资本实质内涵并具有危机响应能力的民主治理系统。

Abstract: Threats of typhoons to Taiwan have never been less; disasters and the resulting destruction of storms kill people, make lots of them homeless and cause devastated villages or cities, in which the residents are piling up their grievance protesting about the late and ineffective response from governments. Typhoons keep destroying infrastructures and people’s trust in governments, which signals an inefficient disaster management and highlights a governing crisis. This paper, with reference to the theoretical framework aiming at metropolitan governance by Kübler and Heinelt [1], tries to propose a conceptual model for participative governing in disaster management, with emphases on community level from the perspectives of policy compliance and public participation. Reviewing typhoons related disaster news reports, the author examines how residents interact with local governments responding to typhoons and look at those citizens’ compliance with regarding policies and regulations. The paper also explores a particular community on their efforts in disaster management trying to give a better description on the roles that communities could play in local governance.

文章引用: 庄淑琼 (2017) 防救灾之政策顺服探究—小区与地方治理统合之可能模式。 社会科学前沿, 6, 28-42. doi: 10.12677/ASS.2017.61004

参考文献

[1] Kübler, D. and Heinelt, H. (2002) An Analytical Framework for Democratic Metropolitan Governance. Workshop “The Politics of Metropolitan Governance” of ECPR Joint Sessions, Turin, March 2002, 2-27.

[2] Habermas, J. (1994) Three Normative Models of Democracy. Constellations, 1, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.1994.tb00001.x

[3] Habermas, J. (1976) Legitimation Crisis. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London.

[4] 丘昌泰, 杨永年, 赵家民, 郑问堂, 杨聿儒. 台北市政府防灾组织与功能研究: 纳莉风灾的省思[J]. 行政暨政策学报, 2003, 36: 1-38.

[5] Kettl, D.F. (2000) The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution, and the Role of Government. Public Administration Review, 60, 488-497.

[6] 邱昌泰. 公共政策-基础篇[M]. 台北: 巨流图书公司, 2010.

[7] Terry, L.D. (1998) Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement. Public Administration Review, 58, 194-200.

[8] Crozier, M., Huntington, S.P. and Watanuki, J. (1975) The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission. New York University Press, New York, 6-7.

[9] Rose, R. and Peters, G. (1977) The Political Consequences of Economic Overload: On the Possibility of Political Bankruptcy. Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.

[10] Offe, C. (1984) Contradictions of the Welfare State. Hutchison, London.

[11] 陈钦春. 民主治理与社会资本: 台湾地区公民信任实证研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 台北: 国立台北大学, 2004.

[12] Held, D. (1996) Models of Democracy. 2nd Edition, Polity Press, Cambridge.

[13] Stoker, G. (1998) Governance as Theory: Five Propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50, 17-28.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00106

[14] Pierre, J. and Peters, G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

[15] Sites, W., Chaskin, R.J. and Parks, V. (2007) Reframing Community Practice for the 21st Century: Multiple Traditions, Multiple Challenges. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29, 519-541.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2007.00363.x

[16] Glass, J.J. (1979) Citizen Participation in Planning: The Relationship between Objectives and Techniques. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45, 180-189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367908976956

[17] Paul, S. (1987) Community Participation in Development Projects. The World Bank, Washington DC.

[18] Hester, R.T. 造坊有理: 小区设计的梦想与实践[M]. 张圣琳译. 台北: 远流出版事业有限公司, 1999.

[19] Sheng, Y.K. (1990) Community Participation in Low-Income Housing Projects: Problems and Prospects. Community Development Journal, 25, 56-65.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/25.1.56

[20] 詹桂绮. 小区防救灾推动方式与流程之比较研究: 以小区防救灾总体营造实施计划案例为对象[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 台北: 国立台湾大学建筑与城乡研究所, 2003.

[21] 陈亮全, 刘怡君, 詹桂绮. 小区防救灾学习前后居民灾害与防救灾认知之比较研究[M]. 台北: 防灾国家型科技计划91年度成果报告, 2002.

[22] 吴杰颖, 康良宇. 小区防灾推动之探讨——以 “小区防救灾总体营造计划” 为例[J]. 小区发展季刊, 2005, 116: 213-231.

[23] Hanekom, S.X. (1987) Public Policy: Framework and Instrument for Action. MacMillan, South Africa.

[24] 吴定. 公共政策(全)[M]. 台北: 中华电视公司, 1999.

[25] 吴定. 公共政策辞典[M]. 台北: 五南图书公司, 2001.

[26] Anderson, J.E. (2003) Public Policymaking: An Introduction. 5th Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

[27] 李棕盛. 公共政策析论[M]. 台北: 学儒数字科技, 2011.

[28] 沈坦毅. 北市大学生公民信任与效能之调查分析——一个政治积极主义视野[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 台北: 铭传大学公共事务学系硕士班, 2006.

[29] Kettl, D.F. and Milward, H.B. (1996) The State of Public Management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

[30] 詹瑞益. 公共政策之顺从理论[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 台北: 国立中兴大学公共行政暨政策研究所, 1982.

[31] 魏武盛. 基层官员政策执行与政策顺服之研究: 以大台北地区违反道路交通管理事件处罚为例[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 台北: 国立台北大学公共行政暨政策学系, 2004.

[32] 陈巧如. 环境主义与政策顺服: 以台北市限用塑料袋政策为例[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 台北: 国立台北大学公共行政暨政策学系, 2004.

[33] 林冠伶. 台北市政府民政局 “宗教团体财务查核签证项目” 执行之研究——标的团体顺服的观点[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 台北: 国立台北大学公共行政暨政策学系, 2006.

[34] 杨华兴. 政策利害关系人对联政政策顺服与政治信任感关联性之研究——以环保署业务往来之厂商为例[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 台北: 国立政治大学行政管理硕士学程, 2009.

[35] Hogwood, B.W. and Gunn, L.A. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[36] 林聪吉. 政治支持与民主巩固[J]. 政治科学论丛, 2007, 34: 71-104.

[37] 林启峰. 国内外防灾小区成功案例分享. 嘉义市政府101年度兴村里防灾小区说明会演讲简报, 2012.

分享
Top