中央與地方政府間的垂直分工為分析政府效能時的核心議題之一,但如何分工並非易事。本論文藉由交易成本途徑,探究我國中央與地方政府間權責劃分此一議題,試圖分析影響決策者判斷中央與地方政府權責歸屬的因素,並嘗試提出一套適用於權責劃分模式選擇的操作機制。 本文首先透過交易成本經濟學與交易成本政治學相關理論內涵與實證研究,擬定一套判斷決策者如何決定中央與地方政府權責劃分的模式。該模式假設決策者可能基於經濟理性或政治理性兩種作用而加以判斷;經濟理性包含資產專用性、交易頻率與不確定性三種次類型變數,政治理性則包括政策類型、政黨意識形態、選舉年度、重大事件、預算自主性與利益團體等六項次類型變數。其次,本文以高雄港此一個案,透過深度訪談法實際操作前述所建立判斷分工的模式,作為該分析模式信度與效度的進一步檢證。 本研究發現指出,在高雄港此個案中,資產專用性、交易頻率此兩項經濟理性變數與預算自主性、政黨意識形態、選舉年度、利益團體此四項政治理性變數,相當程度影響了決策者對於經濟與政治交易成本的計算,進而左右其權責劃分判斷。當面臨權責劃分爭議時,本研究建議應用經濟理性與政治理性兩種角度所建立的分析模式,將可更進一步釐清決策者經濟與政治效率考量下的差異,有助於權責劃分爭議事件的理解以及解釋相關行為者的行動邏輯,進而作為該項政策權責劃分判斷的基礎。
The division of powers between central and local governments is one of the major issues when discussing functions of government, and it anything but easy. By applying the transaction cost approach, this study aims at figuring out the main factors which decision makers are influenced by, and establishing a model which is used to estimate the division of powers between central and local governments. Based on Transaction Cost Economics and Transaction Cost Politics, this study assumes that decision makers may determine the division of powers by economic rationale or political rationale. The former includes asset specificity, frequency and uncertainty; the latter includes types of public policy, political party ideology, election year, focusing events, budget autonomy, and interest groups. Further more, the study attempts to operate and test the model by employing the Port of Kaohsiung as a case. It concludes that the calculation of economic and political transaction cost of decision makers in this case are mainly influenced by two economic rationale factors: asset specificity, frequency; and four political rationale factors: political party ideology, election year, budget autonomy, and interest groups. It suggests that controversy about the division of powers could be solved through the model by following methods: distinguish the difference between economic efficiency and political efficiency that decision makers pursue; realize the ins and outs of the event and the last, explaining logic of actions of related stakeholders.