透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.86.235.207
  • 學位論文

中國氣候治理的知識社群角色初探

A Preliminary Exploration of Epistemic Communities in China's Climate Governance

指導教授 : 林子倫
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


科學知識與公共政策和環境治理之間的互動關係,始終是政策研究和環境政治學者重視的核心。目前,「氣候變遷」幾乎已成為全球面臨最迫切的議題。人口數目、能源消耗與溫室氣體排放量皆為全球數一數二的中國,究竟如何著手應對氣候變遷的治理工作,無疑是影響全球環境的重要關鍵。 本論文以全球環境治理和國際關係理論的「知識社群途徑」為基礎,透過文獻分析與赴北京進行的深度訪談,探索在中國氣候治理的知識社群:(1)主要包含哪些成員;(2)如何連結國際與國內的政策協調和運作;(3)是否符合知識社群途徑之假定,具有共同的規範信仰、因果信念和政策志業;(4)如何向政府當局打交道、向有權者說真話;以及(5)在中國實存脈絡下的特徵為何。 本論文將中國氣候治理的知識社群,依照特性分為:幕僚型研究機構、智庫型研究機構與大學研究機構、國際非政府組織、本土民間組織,以及企業夥伴等六類。除了科學與學術研究外,知識社群透過引進國際資金、技術與專案計畫之方式,協助中國進行減緩與調適之工作;在國內層次,一方面針對政府和基層學校進行培訓、教育和宣導,另一方面則與企業密切合作,推動節能減排之落實。 其次,本論文指出,中國氣候治理的知識社群,普遍將國家利益優先之想法奉為圭臬,並以「節能減排」作為重要信念與指導原則。不過,當涉及採取各類的政策工具(手段)與政策結果(目的)之連結關係時,社群成員仍有多元見解,口徑未必一致。社群成員因對各自組織之角色定位不同,遂展現出不同行事風格。至於,知識社群影響政府決策的管道,則初步分為兩種:「局外人參與途徑」耗費成本較高,也端視政府當局是否採納知識社群的專業建議。另一種則是最為直接的「局內人參與途徑」,但亦可能面臨流於為政治權力說話、背書的工具。 中國氣候治理的知識社群,普遍將學術研究與政府決策之間劃清界線,不傾向採取強烈的政策倡議。此外,社群成員間同時存在合作(計畫)與競爭(經費)的關係,並試圖建立自身組織的品牌和口碑。 最後,本論文重新思考幾項後設問題:知識社群是否必須和權力結構緊密相連?我們是否過於以目的論之眼光,期待知識社群有意識地向有權者說真話?由於很難將「知識」變項自政治權力和利益之糾結中抽離出來,本論文主張,除了知識生產之外,研究者仍須注意知識的應用層面,包括其自生產、詮釋到散布的過程,究竟如何捲入當前的政治論述、意識形態與制度框架中。

並列摘要


Policy researchers have paid much attention to the interactions between scientific knowledge, public policy and environmental governance. Currently, China has the most population, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Since climate change has become a critical issue, China’s reaction to climate change will have a great impact on global environment. Based on the epistemic community approach (ECA) derived from global environmental governance and international relations theories, this paper uses literature analysis and in-depth interview in Beijing to explore epistemic communities in China’s climate governance. The study examines: (1) who the members of the epistemic communities are; (2) how these epistemic communities help facilitate international and domestic policy coordination; (3) whether these epistemic communities share common beliefs, casual beliefs, and policy enterprise; (4) how these epistemic communities interact with the government and tell the truth; and (5) what the characteristics of epistemic communities in the Chinese context are. The thesis classifies the epistemic communities in China’s climate governance into six types: government officials, think tanks, universities, international non-governmental organizations, grassroots organizations, and business. In addition to academic researches, epistemic communities also help China in mitigation and adaptation by introducing foreign funds, technologies and projects, as well as educating and training the officials and local schools, and cooperating with the enterprises at domestic levels.  Second, the study shows that epistemic communities in China’s climate governance often put great emphasis on the national interests, and regard energy conservation and emission reduction as the guiding principle. However, when it comes to policy instruments (means) and policy outcomes (goals), there are still different opinions among the members of the epistemic communities. The members also demonstrate different behaviors due to members’ various self-positions. As for the approaches which the epistemic communities can take to influence the government, the thesis points out two kinds of approaches: the “outsider” and “insider”. The former one costs more and may not be adopted by the authority; the latter can be more direct, however, may be manipulated by the authority. The epistemic communities in China’s climate governance tend to draw a line between academic researches and governmental decisions, and seldom accept strong policy advocacies. Besides, there are both cooperation (in implementing programs) and competition (to the funds) among the epistemic community members, eager to build a good reputation. Finally, the thesis reconsiders some meta-questions, such as “Do the epistemic communities have to stay closely to the power structures?” “Do we over expect the epistemic communities can always communicate truthfully to authority?” Since it is hard to take knowledge out of the struggle of power and interest, this study claims that, in addition to knowledge production, researchers should pay attention to the applications of knowledge, including the process from which it is produced, interpreted, and represented. Researchers should also pay attention to the fact that knowledge would be enmeshed in current political discourses, ideologies, and institutional frameworks.

參考文獻


陶儀芬,2008,〈全球化、民粹主義與公共知識社群〉,《思想》,9: 223-231。
黃俊傑,2000,〈論大學的知識社群特質〉,《通識教育季刊》,7(4): 1-17。
黃之棟、黃瑞祺,2008,〈科技與社會的交叉點:以全球暖化為例〉,《科學教育月刊》,306: 18-26。
林秀芬、李國光,2006,〈網路知識社群服務品質評估模式建構之研究〉,《電子商務研究》,4(2): 211-234。
陳恆鈞,2004,〈資訊運用與政策制定〉,《國家政策季刊》,3(1): 81-97。

被引用紀錄


陳文宮(2014)。中共應對氣候變化的政策問題形成初探(2005-2014)〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2014.10594
佘宜娟(2012)。我國溫室氣體減量政策:歷史制度論之觀點〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2012.00573

延伸閱讀