從多元流程觀點談蘇花高興建決策之議程設定與政策選擇

Agenda Setting and Alternative Choices of Su-Hwa Highway Decision-Making: A Multiple Streams Perspective

魯炳炎(Bing-Yan Lu)

《東吳政治學報》 27卷4期 (2009/12) Pp. 171-240

https://doi.org/10.6418/SJPS.200912.0171

摘要

本文從多元流程(multiple streams)的觀點，運用內容分析法收集到的新聞事件為素材，試圖就民意的表達探究其對於蘇花高興建與否的衝擊，以解釋政策方案抉擇多變的軌跡。基於政策參與者的核心價值、議題的政策論述、以及對於議程設定的能力，本文的論述重點在於政策方案的選擇和決策作為的形成，是如何型塑出來、由誰進行運作、以及如何互動產生。研究結果顯示，多元流程彼此相互影響，但影響程度不一；政策視窗的關閉可能是因為決策者無力解決問題，行政首長認為政策性的宣示已經足夠，或是為了顧及選票考量而尊重環境影響評估之專業管轄權限。本文認為，Kingdon(1984; 1995)所建構的理論，並未能夠解釋重大政治事件對於議程設定的關鍵重要性，第二次政黨輪替使得政策方案的抉擇轉而朝向、並促成非漸進式替選方案的提出，這符合Durant 和Diehl(1989)對於趨同模式的界定指標，同時也否定Kingdon認為政策方案是漸進發展的看法。此外，成功的政策企業家可以透過焦點事件的發生以及運用公共議程、政策議程、媒體議程、以及菁英議程所發揮的功能，型塑出其所偏好政策方案的語言符號，向其他政策參與者傳遞出清楚的訊息，再進而將其連結到政策方案的最後抉擇。

關鍵字

多元流程 ； 政策企業家 ； 政策選擇 ； 議程設定 ； 蘇花高速公路

並列摘要

Based on the policy context of Su-Hwa Highway, this article explores four main themes as follows: how do policies get on the public agenda and get considered by decision makers; who sets the policy agenda; why do certain issues and policies make it onto the public policy agenda; what are the roles of the media agenda and elite agenda, especially when separate streams of problems, policies, and politics come together near the end of the policy-making process when an appropriate ”window” opens. The ideas the researcher explored in this paper are based on a four-phase content analysis during the period of 2007-2008 and have a few important properties that need highlighting. These properties fall into two general categories: the differences between Kingdon's pre-decision model and the researcher's notions of decision-making process, and agenda setting and alternative choices based on a case study of content analysis. In short, policymaking assumes choice and choice implies free will. Although multiple streams are not completely independent of one another, each can be viewed as having a life of its own. A policy window, either open in the problem stream or the politics stream, is a temporal stimulus for choice. Windows close for several reasons: policymakers have failed to generate action; they feel they have addressed the issue sufficiently; the persons whose presence opened the window are no longer in power; and the crisis or focusing events have passed from the scene. While convergent evolution of Durant and Diehl(1989)characterizes a trajectory of rapid propulsion to salience of persistently softened ideas, the author argues that the generation of specific alternatives in the policy stream is not incremental in that successful policy entrepreneurs employ various strategies, including agenda control, under conditions of ambiguity.

並列關鍵字

agenda setting ； multiple streams ； policy choice ； policy entrepreneur ； Su-Hwa Highway

參考文獻

Allison, Graham T.(1971).Essence of Decision.Boston, MA:Little, Brown.

Baumgartner, Frank,Bryan D. Jones.(1993).Agendas and Instability in American Politics.Chicago, IL:The University of Chicago Press.

Birkland, Thomas A.(1997).After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events.Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University Press.

Birkland, Thomas A.(2001).An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making.New York:M. E. Sharpe Inc..

Birkland, Thomas A.(2006).Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change after Catastrophic Events.Washington D.C.:Georgetown University Press.