我國地方政府資料開放政策執行人員開放行為分析

The Study on the Local Government Administrative Personnel's Behavior in Open Government Data Policy

黃湘婷(Siang-Ting Huang)

指導教授 ： 黃心怡

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/公共事務研究所/碩士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201803052

摘要

隨著各國政府積極開放，開放政府資料政策於是成為新的研究焦點，不少學者曾針對政府的制度與資源配置進行調查，但較少研究者針對公務人員個人的開放行為進行深入的調查。在台灣開放政府資料政策執行已近五年，整體來看台灣的中央政府資料開放平台在國際評比中獲得佳績，但是分散來看地方政府的執行狀況差異很大，且有許多特殊的開放行為值得深入研究，因此本文針對地方政府中負責執行開放政府資料政策的公務人員進行問卷調查。
本文旨在瞭解影響公務人員的開放行為及影響行為的因素，藉此提出改善公務人員開放行為的政策建議。以政府資料開放行為模型測量公務人員的開放行為，調查個人因素包含：預期效益、人員特質；以及組織制度因素：主觀規範、相容性、便利條件等因素如何影響積極性與策略行的開放行為，此外因為開放政府資料需透過民眾使用才能產生附加價值，具有效益散佈民間成本、政府承擔責任的特性，使得公務人員對於風險認知更加敏感，因此本研究強調風險認知對兩種開放行為的影響力。
本次問卷調查回收600份問卷包含：直轄市政府419份、縣市政府181份，研究發現，直轄市與縣市的公務人員的認知與行為有顯著差異，直轄市的積極開放行為、主觀規範、與便利條件皆高於縣市，策略開放行為則顯著低於縣市，進一步透過模型檢測直轄市與縣市有不同的開放行為模式，共同點是由課責風險、組織風險組成的風險認知，會導致策略性開放行為提升。針對研究發現本文提出相關政策建議，首先建議政府應該正視策略開放行為的存在並設法降低，其次是提供降低風險認知的措施，並因地制宜推動不同的配套措施。

關鍵字

開放政府資料 ； 公務人員 ； 開放行為 ； 風險認知 ； 策略行為

並列摘要

Since governments all over the world actively release government data, Open Government Data (OGD) policy has become a popular research topic. Many researchers focused on the institution and resource allocation in government, however, seldom researcher studied personal behavior of administrative personnel. In Taiwan, OGD policy has been implemented for about 5 years. Overall the central government’s OGD performance was praised by several international organizations. When it comes to the local government, there are unique behaviors that make difference between local governments. Therefore the author surveyed administrative personnel in 22 counties.
The purpose of this study was to understand administrative personnel’s behavior and to analyze factors that influence their behavior. The author used the OGD behavior model. The independent variable included: expected effectiveness, the personalities, subjective norm, compatibility, and facilitating conditions. Last but not least, the author added risk perception as the most important independent variable in order to focus on the influence of risk perception. Since OGD policy has the feature that “citizen can gain benefits from the policy while government takes responsibility.”
600 valid samples were collected using questionnaires, including 419 of special municipality sample and 181 of county sample. The results revealed that the behavior of administrative personnel in special municipality and county were different. Administrative personnel in special municipality’s proactive behavior, subjective norm, and facilitating conditions was significantly higher than administrative personnel in county, with strategic behavior was significantly lower. By OGD behavior model the author pointed out that there was a huge difference between administrative personnel in special municipality and county. By contrast, the similarity was that risk perception, which was consist of responsibility risk and organization risk, would increase the occurrence of strategic behavior. According to the survey result, the author suggested that the government should deal with administrative personnel’s strategic behavior. Besides, the government had to develop some measures to relieve administrative personnel. The most important thing was government should take action that adapted to local conditions.

並列關鍵字

Open government data ； Administrative personnel ； Risk perception ； Open government data Behavior ； strategic behavior

參考文獻

(一)期刊論文

Ajzen,I. 1991. “The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.” Theories of Cognitive Self-Regulation 50(2): 179-211.

Attard, Judie. Fabrizio Orlandi, Simon Scerri, and Sören Auer.2015. “A systematic review of open government data initiatives.” Government Information Quarterly 32: 399-418.

Barry, Emily. and Frank Bannister. 2014. “Barriers to open data release: A view from the top.” Information Policy 19(1): 129-152.

Conradie, Peter.and Sunil Choenni. 2012. “Exploring process barriers to release public sector information in local government.” ICEGOV 12: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance 5-13.