文化創意產業園區治理模式之比較研究

A Comparative Study on the Governance Models of Creative and Cultural Industry Centers in Taiwan

林厚君(Hou-Chun Lin)

指導教授 ： 江大樹

國立暨南國際大學/人文學院/公共行政與政策學系/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6837/NCNU.2011.00043

摘要

2002年行政院提出「挑戰2008•國家發展重點計畫」，並將文化創意產業列為六大新興產業之一，同時文化創意產業園區亦納入國家文化政策之中。為此，將五個閒置的舊酒廠規劃為文化創意產業園區（華山文化創意產業園區、台中文化創意產業園區、花蓮文化創意產業園區、嘉義文化創意產業園區、台南文化創意產業園區），以做為推動文化創意產業的起點。
然而，對於文化創意產業園區的經營模式還在試驗階段，行政院文化建設委員會現階段將五個文化創意產業園區分屬於三個單位來經營：台灣文創發展公司、嘉義市政府文化局、文建會。在文化創意產業園區的經營過程中，不同的經營者對於文化創意產業園區的想像也會有所不同。因此，本文在此則選擇台灣五個文化創意產業園區的治理模式進行研究與探討，期盼對此研究領域有所貢獻。
根據本文研究發現，文化創意產業園區發展至今將近十年的時間，其發展速度與效果卻不如想像中的發揮作用，其不如預期的主要原因除了政府經費上的問題之外，還有政府法令上制定太過於緩慢，以至於投資業者與藝術工作者無所適從；其次，文建會將文化創意產業園區一年一年的委外政策，雖然是希望讓園區的能見度提高，卻在每年不同的經營者從零開始的經營之下停滯不前，對園區的整體發展與成長並沒有太大的效用。由此可見，對於園區的規劃，無論是硬體設施或是軟體，皆應以長期性規劃為主，同時搭配目前已制定出來的法令規範，給予中小型企業適當的協助與補助，使台灣文化創意產業能夠更完善且快速的發展，達到帶動地方經濟及發展創意城市的主要目標。

關鍵字

文化創意產業 ； 文化創意產業園區 ； 治理模式 ； 產業群聚

並列摘要

In 2002, the project “Challenge 2008─the Six-year National Development Plan” was proposed by the Executive Yuan. The Cultural and Creative Industry was listed in the one of six key emerging industries. For the first time in Taiwanese history the Cultural and Creative Industries Park is listed among the National Cultural Policy. Therefore, the five abandoned spaces was planned to Cultural and Creative Industries Park (there are Huashan Cultural and Creative Industries Park, Taichung Cultural and Creative Industries Park, Hualien Cultural and Creative Industries Park, Chiayi Cultural and Creative Industries Park, Tainan Cultural and Creative Industries Park), and to promote the beginning of Cultural and Creative Industries.
However, Business models of Cultural and Creative Industries Park have a test now. Council for Cultural Affairs of the Executive Yuan let the five of Cultural and Creative Industries Parks to three kind of business units: Taiwan Cultural and Creative Development Company (Huashan Cultural and Creative Industries Park), Cultural Affairs Bureau of Chiayi City (Chiayi Cultural and Creative Industries Park), and Council for Cultural Affairs of the Executive Yuan (Taichung Cultural and Creative Industries Park, Hualien Cultural and Creative Industries Park, Tainan Cultural and Creative Industries Park). When Cultural and Creative Industries Parks operate, different operators for the imagination of cultural and creative industry park will be different. Therefore, I choose five of Cultural and Creative Industries Parks to be my study place, and study the different kind of governance models.
According to the study, Cultural and Creative Industries Parks are developed for ten years, but the pace of development and the effect is not as good as imagined and expected. The reason is not only the problem of government funding, but also the law progressed at a slow pace, so that the investors and artists don’t know what to do. Also Council for Cultural Affairs let Cultural and Creative Industries Parks contracting out year by year. Although they hoped to raise the popularity of Cultural and Creative Industries Parks, but the development had always been to stay in situ. Thus it can be seen, whether hardware or software infrastructure should be a long-term plan, and give small and medium-sized enterprises help and subsidies by the law. It can make better and faster, and hope that stimulate the local economy and the development of the creative city.

並列關鍵字

Cultural and Creative Industry ； Cultural and Creative Industries Parks ； Governance Model ； Industrial Cluster

參考文獻

李宗勳，2004，〈公私協力與委外化的效應與價值：一項進行中的治理改造工程〉，《公共行政學報》，第12期，頁41-77。

張秀慧，2004，《台南創意文化園區營運團隊選擇暨產業引進之多重準則評估》，國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。

一、中文部分

Jon Pierre, B. Guy Peters著，謝宗學、劉坤億、陳衍宏譯，2002，《治理•政治與國家》，台北市：智勝文化。譯自Governance, politics and the state. Basingstoke : Macmillan. 2000.

丹麥文化部、貿易產業部，2003，《丹麥的創意潛力》。台北：典藏藝術。