從公民與里長提案看臺北市參與式預算之推行

參與式預算自1980年代於巴西愉港發跡後，近年來在世界各國蔚為風潮，作為彌補代議政治不足及實施直接民主的公民參與管道。臺灣在社會運動和政治氛圍的擾動下，公民參政的呼聲越趨高漲，自2014年六都選舉後，也陸續引進參與式預算作為公民直接參政的管道。本研究以全面推行參與式預算的臺北市為研究對象，以內容分析法及深度訪談法，比較以公民為參與主體的參與式預算，以及以里長為主的市長與里長市政座談會（簡稱市政座談會）兩個管道所提出的提案，在提案範圍、涉及對象及建設類型等三個面向是否有所差異，以實證研究的方式探討參與式預算的意義，並討論參與式預算所面臨的挑戰及未來制度改進建議。　　研究發現，參與式預算與市政座談會兩個管道所產出的提案頗具差異。在提案範圍上，參與式預算雖以單一里別為大宗，但有為數不少跨里別的提案，而市政座談會的提案則強調地域性、以單一里別為主；參與式預算提案所涉及對象，較易包含不同族群的需求，反映其主張「全民參與」所帶入的多元意見；在建設類型上，參與式預算仍以小範圍的建設為主（例如鄰里公園改善），而市政座談會則類似市長與里長的溝通管道，故提案較偏向意見反映性質，且建設類型規模較大（例如都市更新計畫）。整體而言，參與式預算與市政座談會的提案差異，具有彌補代議政治不足、擴大公民參與的意義。除此之外，公民在參與式預算中，透過理性審議的過程，與政府官員彼此換位思考，最終商議出更貼近在地需求的政策。這些都是參與式預算所帶來的正面效果。　　然而，參與式預算亦面臨不少挑戰，例如行政機關預算編列的困境、依法行政與民眾提案之間的落差、較難回應制度性提案，以及舊有政治勢力介入等。本研究建議，未來臺北市參與式預算之推行，應考慮改變里長的參與模式，並賦予行政機關預算編列及行政流程的彈性，在制度運作上須落實提案把關機制，並思考將民眾提案建立為資料庫分析需求，納入未來政策及施政規劃之中。

關鍵字

參與式預算；市政座談會；公民參與；里長；直接民主

並列摘要

Participatory Budgeting rose from Porto Alegre, Brazil since the 1980s and became a trend worldwide as a citizen participatory method to supplement the representative democracy and to enforce direct democracy in recent years. Due to social movements and political atmosphere in Taiwan, the demand for citizen participation is getting higher. After the Mayor elections in 6 municipalities in 2014, Taiwan started to introduce participatory budgeting as a citizen participatory method. With content analysis and in-depth interview, the study focuses on Taipei City where the participatory budgeting is fully implemented, to compare the proposals from two methods in the perspectives of proposal range, subjects involved and construction types: one is participatory budgeting, which is mainly citizen participation-centered; the other is municipal forum, which is mainly village chiefs-centered. Through empirical research to argue the definitions of participatory budgeting, the study discusses the challenges of participatory budgeting and provides the suggestions for future improvement. The study finds out that there are significant differences between the proposals from participatory budgeting and municipal forum. In the perspective of proposal range, most proposals from participatory budgeting are limited within single villages, and still some proposals are cross-village, while proposals from municipal forum emphasize on territoriality and mainly within single villages. In the perspective of subjects involved, subjects from participatory budgeting meet the needs of different communities and reflect the diversified opinions introduced by citizen participation. Regarding construction types, proposals from participatory budgeting are limited within small-scale construction, such as neighborhood park improvement, while proposals from municipal forum tend to express the opinions from the village chiefs and most of them are large scale, such as urban renewal plan. In general, the difference between the proposals from participatory budgeting and municipal forum shows the meanings to supplement the representative democracy and to expand citizen participation. Besides, through the process of rational deliberation and transposition thinking in the participatory budgeting, citizen and governmental officers eventually come up with the policies fit the needs of locals. There are the positive effects of participatory budgeting. However, there are still some challenges for participatory budgeting, such as budgets difficulty of governmental agencies, the gaps between regulations and proposals, unresponsive to systematic proposals and traditional politician involvement. Hence, the study suggests that Taipei City should change the village chiefs’ participatory patterns and authorize agencies flexibility in budgets and administration procedures in future participatory budgeting. Also, the City should implement the verification mechanism for proposals and establish the database of proposals to analyze their needs and put them into future policies.