從課責觀點探討臺灣都市計畫委員會審議制度設計

都市計畫委員會審議為使都市計畫合乎正當法律程序之重要行政程序，對最終計畫內容有決定性影響。然近年都委會相關爭議不斷，公信力受到質疑。而「課責」向來為政府行政體系建制的重要考量，以避免濫權。因此本研究由課責的角度，探討現行制度加諸於都委會的課責系統，是否能滿足各界對其審議應秉持專業、客觀、中立的期待。研究結果發現，現行都委會組織規程與審議制度偏重行政課責的設計，賦予都市計畫各級主管機關首長極大的操作空間去影響所屬層級之都委會審議，依首長意志，的確能影響都委會審議的客觀中立性。但專家問卷的結果顯示，規劃界人士對於現行制度的高度認同，預期將造成制度改革的困境。因此本研究認為制度改革非一蹴可幾，需透過各界長期的溝通與討論，但短期應可透過組織規程的調整，建構都委會的多重課責主體，強化都委會的社會課責關係，弱化其行政課責，合理限縮其所屬都市計畫各級主管機關首長的管轄權限，落實多層級審查之公正性，讓都委會的功能運作更符合社會期待。

關鍵字

都市計畫委員會；課責；多重課責主體結構

並列摘要

Review of Urban Planning Commission (UPC) is a part of the legal process in Taiwan urban planning system. It plays a decisive role to determine the final content of a master or a detail plan. In recent years, however, several controversial urban planning projects have harmed the credibility of the UPC review system. People question the objectivity and impartiality of the UPC. In light of this, this study aims to explore the institutional dilemma of the UPC review system from an accountability perspective. The result shows that the institutional design does give the heads of different levels of government, who are responsible for the urban planning review affairs, considerable jurisdiction to manipulate the review result of UPC. Nevertheless, the result of expert questionnaire survey shows that planning community in Taiwan highly support present institutional design. This situation would make the reform of the institutional arrangement of UPC review system become difficult. Based on the understanding, a more pragmatic way is suggested - to adjust the accountability mechanism and to create a multi-principal structure embedded in the UPC review system. By strengthening social accountability and decreasing administrative accountability of the UPC, the jurisdiction of the heads of different levels of government can be reasonably confined and let the operation of UPC in accordance with the expectation of the society.

並列關鍵字

Urban Planning Commission ； accountability ； multi-principal structure

參考文獻

Bovens, M. 2010. “Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism.” West European Politics, 33: 946-967. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486119.

O’Loughlin, M. 1990. “What is Bureaucratic Accountability and How Can We Measure it?” Administration and Society, 22(3): 275-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009539979002200301.

王光旭，2005，〈都市計畫審議機制之制度分析：以臺中市為例〉，《行政暨政策學報》，41：35-80。