解嚴前後台灣都市政治的再檢視（1986－1992）：網絡觀點下的台中市都市發展

Re-examining Taiwan's Urban Politics before and after the Lifting of Martial Law (1986-1992): Urban Development in Taichung from a Network Perspective

王光旭(Guang-Xu Wang) ； 熊瑞梅(Ray-May Hsung)

《都市與計劃》 41卷1期 (2014/03) Pp. 1-41

https://doi.org/10.6128/CP.41.1.1

摘要

本研究的重點在於透過網絡分析中結構對等的分析方法，並以台中市在解嚴前後的都市發展為案例，對過去台灣歷史轉折關鍵時期都市政治與發展的研究進行重新的梳理與對話。作者針對在1986到1992年間參與重要都市發展事件的78個都市菁英的四個網絡資料：都市事務討論網絡、信任關係網絡、技術諮商網絡、和資源動員網絡，整合成一個多重的網絡進行分析，以結構對等分析法找出四種社會網絡的隱藏（latent）結構位置，並深入討論都市菁英的權力結構與都市發展價值觀的差異。分析結果顯示與過去強調都市成長機器的研究結果有些許差異：一、當時的都市菁英不全然以都市成長意識為都市發展的主導方向，市政府的行政部門與市長間對於都市發展方向不見得一致；二、台中市都市發展網絡呈現了以市政府的行政部門與市長為核心的網絡結構，而學者專家在都市發展的意識型態與網絡中的位置與核心團體呈現對立的局面；三、從發展趨勢來看，自1986年起，台中市都市菁英的價值觀開始強調地方分權與接受民眾參與，台中市的都市政權在解嚴後愈來愈走向多元化與複雜化的治理機制。

關鍵字

政策網絡 ； 社會網絡 ； 都市政治 ； 都市菁英 ； 台中都市發展 ； 地方派系

並列摘要

This study analyzes the power distribution in urban politics before and after the lifting of martial law and explores the development values of urban elites through social network analysis of structural equivalence. For resource dependency analysis, this study used data from four policy networks (urban affair discussion, trust, technical advice, and resource exchange) that were collected from 78 urban elites and 8 critical urban development events in Taichung City. Analytical results show that (1) urban growth is not a dominant developmental direction for local elites in Taichung City. (2) The core of the urban development policy network is occupied by Block 2, the administrative sector in the Taichung City Government; the mayor is the most powerful block in urban development policy and scholars are isolated and located at the periphery of the policy network. (3) Finally, since actors in different positions accept the ideas of citizen participation and decentralization, the urban regime in Taichung City after the lift of martial law has become increasingly diverse and dynamic.

並列關鍵字

Policy network ； Social network ； Urban politics ； Urban elites ； Taichung urban development ； Local faction

參考文獻

Borgatti, S. P. and Everett, M. G. (1992). Notions of position in social network analysis, Sociological Methodology, 22: 1-35. DOI: 10.2307/270991.

Burt, R. S. (1987). Cohesion versus structural equivalence as a basis for network subgroups, Sociological Methods and Research, 7(2): 189-212. DOI: 10.1177/004912417800700205.

Friedkin, N. E. (1984). Structural equivalence and cohesion explanations of social homogeneity, Sociological Methods and Research, 12(3): 235-261. DOI: 10.1177/0049124184012003001.

Hodge, G. A. and Greve, C. (2007). Public-private partnerships: an international performance review, Public Administration Review, 67(3): 545-558. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00736.x.

Jessop, B. (1997). Capitalism and its future: Remarks on regulation, government and governance, Review of International Political Economy, 4 (3): 561-581. DOI: 10.1080/096922997347751.