Title

我國管制行政革新政策之研究—以法定工程造價為例

Translated Titles

The Study of Regulatory Reform Policy: A Case of Statutory Construction Cost

Authors

郭柏賢

Key Words

法定工程造價 ; 管制革新 ; 層級分析法 ; statutory construction cost ; regulatory reform policy ; analytic hierarchy process

PublicationName

中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2013年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

潘競恒

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

為了矯正市場失靈造成市場機能無法發揮,以及面對社會不斷提高對於公益的需求,致使政府須透過行政手段介入干預人民生活。因此,為了維護市場有效運作或保障社會公益,即成為政府管制正當性的來源。隨著管制目的、對象不同,管制的手段也會有所差異。舉凡各種服務項目的價格、品質、提供的條件都可能成為管制的內容。就政府而言,政府有責任監督各行各業,以確保業者提供具品質的商品及服務;對業者來說,業者希望加諸其上的管制與服務標準愈低愈少愈好;而對一般大眾來說,希望政府多加干涉;因此行為管制涉及利益衝突之兩造為業者與消費大眾。本研究藉由管制的本質、政府進行管制的原因來觀察我國法定工程造價,嘗試將該制度從理論與實務上與政府管制政策改革結合,並提出符合管制正當性之政策建議。本文研究架構根據政府管制的三種型式:經濟管制、社會管制、行政管制,並且運用層級分析法分析影響在法定工程造價制度之管制政策革新之影響因素,在本研究之研究結論中「行政管制」為所有構面中最為重要之一構面,而在整體排序結果顯示「簡化以及合併管制法規」為管制革新政策中排序第一。

English Abstract

In order to correct market failures that cause the inability of the market mechanism to serve its purpose and to meet the society’s increasing demand for public welfare, the government has to intervene in people’s daily lives by using administrative means. Therefore, the government gains the legitimacy of regulation for the purpose of ensuring effective functioning of the market and upholding public interests, . The means of regulation vary depending upon the differences in purposes and subjects. The price, quality, and condition of provision of various services may very well become the content of regulation. As far as the government is concerned, it is obligate to oversee all walks of life in order to ensure the products and services provided by the industry. As far as the industry is concerned, it prefers fewer regulations and lower service standards. But the general public would like more interference from the government. Thus the conflict of interest caused by regulation lies between the industry and the public. This study examines the statutory construction costs in our country from the perspective of regulatory rationales and attempts to combine the theories and practices of regulatory reform and propose policy recommendations that comply with the legitimacy of regulations. This study is structured according to three dimensions of government regulation: economic, social, and administrative regulation. And this study uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process to identify the key elements of the reforming the statutory construction cost policy. This study concludes that the administrative regulation is the most essential dimension, of which “simplified and streamlined regulations” is ranked number one priority among the reform measures.

Topic Category 法政學院 > 國家政策與公共事務研究所
社會科學 > 政治學
Reference
  1. 黃朝盟、吳濟安(2007)。〈電子化政府影響評估〉。《研考雙月刊》,第257期,頁76-85。
    連結:
  2. Bernstein, M. H. (1955). Regulating Business by independent Commission. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
    連結:
  3. Huber ,G. and W. Click (1993). Organizational change and redesign :ideas and insights for improving performance. New York : Oxford University Press.
    連結:
  4. Lane, J. (2005). Public Administration and Public Management: The Principal-Agent Perspective. New York: Routledge.
    連結:
  5. Giandomenico, M. (1990). Deregulation or Re-regulation?:Regulation Reform in Europe and the United States. London : Pinter ; New York : St. Martin's Press.
    連結:
  6. Massey, A. (1993). Managing the Public Sector: A Comparative Analysis of the United Kingdom and the United States. Aldershot, Hants: Edward Elgar.
    連結:
  7. Niskanen, W.A. Jr. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine.
    連結:
  8. OECD (1997). The OECD Report on Regulatory Reform: Synthesis. Paris: OECD Publications.
    連結:
  9. OECD(2002). Regulatory Policies in OECD Countries: From Interventionism to Regulatory Governance. Paris: OECD Publications.
    連結:
  10. Theobald, R. (1990). Corruption, Development and Under-development. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
    連結:
  11. Vickers, J. and G. Yarrow (1988). Privatization: An Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    連結:
  12. Craig, J. (2000). Evaluating Privatisation in Zambia: A Tale of Two Processes. Review of African Political Economy, 27(85), 357-66.
    連結:
  13. Duckett, J. (2001). Bureaucrats in Business, Chinese Style: The Lessons of Market Reform and State Entrepreneurialism in the People’s Republic of China. World Development, 29(1), 23-37.
    連結:
  14. Guasch, J. L. and R.W. Hahn (1999). The Costs and Benefits of Regulation: Implications for Developing Countries. World Bank Research Observer, 14(1), 137-58.
    連結:
  15. Hahn, R. W. (1998). Policy Watch: Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Regulation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(4), 201-10.
    連結:
  16. Kirkpatrick, C. and D. Parker (2004). Regulatory Impact Assessment and Regulatory Governance in Developing Countries. Public Administration and Development, 24(4), 333-344.
    連結:
  17. Majone, G. (1997). From the Positive to the Regulatory State: Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance. Journal of Public Policy, 17(2), 139-67.
    連結:
  18. Minogue, M. (2002). Governance-based Analysis of Regulation. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 73(4), 649-666.
    連結:
  19. Moran, M. (2002). Understanding the Regulatory State. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 391-413.
    連結:
  20. Parker, D. (2002). Economic Regulation: A Review of Issues. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 73(4), 493-519.
    連結:
  21. Peltzman, S. (1976). Toward a More General Theory of Regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2), 109-48.
    連結:
  22. Stigler, G. (1971). The Theory of Economic Regulation. Journal of Economics and Management, 2(1), 3-21.
    連結:
  23. Stirton, L. and M. Lodge (2001). Transparency Mechanisms: Building Publicness into Public Services. Journal of Law and Society, 28(4), 471-489.
    連結:
  24. Tangri, R. and A. Mwenda (2001). Corruption and Cronyism in Uganda’s Privatization in the 1990s. African Affairs, 100(398), 117-33.
    連結:
  25. 一、中文部分
  26. (一)專書
  27. 丘昌泰 (1995)。《台灣環境管制政策》。台北市:淑馨。
  28. 行政院人事行政局(1998)。《政府再造的工作簡化成功實案》。
  29. 行政院人事行政局(2001)。《推動全國行政單一窗口化運動實錄》。
  30. 宋餘俠(2003)。《資訊科技與政府再造》。數位化政府,空大。
  31. 吳定(1995a)。《公共政策辭典》。台北:五南。
  32. 吳定(1995b)。《公共政策》。台北:空中大學。
  33. 林禎中、王鵬堯、余家均(2010)。《營造工地主動式RFID快速勞工定位及警示技術開發,勞工安全研究報告》。台北:行政院勞工委員會安全衛生研究所,頁1-85。
  34. 周育仁、鄭又平(1998)。《政治經濟學》。台北:空中大學。
  35. 周韻采(2006)。《赴新加坡考察市政計畫暨電子化政府推動出國報告》。臺北市政府研究發展考核委員會。
  36. 張世賢、陳恆鈞(1997)。《公共政策-政府與市場的觀點》。台北:商鼎。
  37. 張清溪、許嘉棟、劉鶯釧、吳聰敏(2000)。《經濟學理論與實務》(四版)。台北:翰蘆。
  38. 陳櫻琴(2001)。《管制革新之法律基礎與政策調適》。收錄於劉孔中、施俊吉主編,管制革新(1-67)。台北市:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所專書。
  39. 簡宏偉(2012)。《出席新加坡GovTech 2012 論壇會議及拜會新加坡資訊通信發展管理局(Infocomm Development Authority,簡稱IDA)報告》。行政院研究發展考核委員會。
  40. 謝地(2003)。《政府規制經濟學》。北京:高等教育。
  41. (二)期刊論文
  42. 朱斌妤、李洛維(2009)。〈電子治理的發展與挑戰〉。《研習論壇月刊》,第107期,頁1-13。
  43. 林元霄(2005)。〈對我國出租車行業實行政府管制合理性的探討〉。《貴州商業高等專科學校學報》,第9期,頁29-31。
  44. 高凱聲(2007)。〈通訊新技術與價格監管政策〉。《空大學訊》,第388期,頁57-72。
  45. 張佳弘(2000)。〈從政府管制探討競爭政策〉。《公平交易季刊》,第8卷,第3期,頁1-32。
  46. 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989)。〈層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上)〉。《中國統計學報》,第27卷,第6期,頁5-22。
  47. 鍾起岱(1998)。〈從政府再造來談政府管制的改革〉。《台灣經濟》,第264期,頁14-19。
  48. 趙揚清(1999)。〈競爭政策與解除管制〉。《公平交易季刊》,第7 卷,第1 期,頁138。
  49. (三)研討會論文
  50. 葉一璋(2007)。〈社會管制與公民社會管制〉。發表於治理與公民社會學術研討會,國立臺北大學公部門與公民社會人力資源發展學程、公共行政暨政策學系主辦:台北。
  51. 張其祿(2007)。〈管制治理與公民社會:理論檢視〉。發表於治理與公民社會學術研討會,國立臺北大學公部門與公民社會人力資源發展學程、公共行政暨政策學系主辦:台北。
  52. 朱雲鵬(1997)。〈各國解除管制之研究〉。發表於公平交易法學術研討會論文集,公平交易委員會主辦:台北。
  53. (四)學位論文
  54. 王慧萍(2001),《台灣固定通信網路互連規範研究-市場行為管制觀點之分析》。國立中正大學電訊傳播研究所碩士論文,未出版:台北。
  55. 林娟慧(1999),《國家機關管理市場-以泰國為例》。成功大學政治經濟所碩士論文,未出版:台南。
  56. 莊祿二(1998),《政經環境與管制政策有效性之探討-以我國銀行業的管制過程為例》。輔仁大學經濟研究所碩士論文,未出版:台北。
  57. 俞凱菱(2006),《管制政策的治理網絡:我國有機農產品驗證制度之運作》。暨南國際大學公共行政與政策學系碩士論文,未出版:南投。
  58. 陳建宏(2003),《我國油品市場管理規範與競爭機制之研究-以供油業者與銷售通路業者之市場行為為例》。國立台北大學公共行政與政策學院碩士論文,未出版:台北。
  59. 陳毓如(2003),《我國電業管制機關之研究》。台北大學公共行政暨政策學系研究所碩士論文,未出版:台北。
  60. 廖慧君(1999),《電信產業與有線電視整合趨勢之研究》。國立中正大學電訊傳播研究所碩士論文,未出版:嘉義。
  61. 溫博煌(2003),《台中市舊市中心區再發展目標與策略之研究-分析階層層序法之應用》,逢甲大學土地管理學系碩士論文,未出版:台中。
  62. 二、外文部分
  63. (一)專書
  64. Blundell, J. and C. Robinson (2000). Regulation Without the State…The Debate Continues(Readings 52). London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
  65. Clark, T. (1993). The Political Economy of the UK Privatization Programme: A Blueprint for other Countries? Political Economy of Privatization, London: Routledge Press.
  66. Cook, P., Kirkpatrick, C., Minogue, M. and D. Parker (2003). Competition, Regulation and Regulatory Governance in Developing Countries: An Overview of the Research Issues. Working Paper No5, Centre on Regulation and Competition, University of Manchester, Manchester.
  67. Cosh, A. and A. Hughes (2003). Innovation Activity: Outputs, Inputs, Intentions and Constraints. in A. Cosh and A. Hughes (eds.) Enterprise Challenged. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.
  68. Levy, B. and P. Spiller (1996). Regulations, Institutions and Commitment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  69. Lowi, T. (1979). The End of Liberalism(2nd ed). New York: W. W. Norton.
  70. Gore, A. (1993). From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
  71. Grimstone, G. (1990). The British Privatization Programme, in J. J. Richardson ed. Privatization and Regulation in Canada and British, Aldershot: Dartmouth.
  72. Jacobs, S. (2002). Convergence in Impact Analysis: Toward an Integrated Framework for RIA and SIA in European Institutions’. paper presented at the Sustainability Impact Appraisal Seminar, British Embassy, Brussels.
  73. Ladegaard, P. (2001). Good Governance And Regulatory Management. Paper presented at the Regulatory Management and Reform Seminar. Moscow, Russian Federation.
  74. Morrall, J. F. III (2001). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Efficiency, Accountability and Transparency. Mimeo. Washington, DC: US Office of Management and Budget.
  75. Meiners, R. E. and Y. Bruce (1989). Regulatory Lessons from Reagan Era: Introduction, in Meiners and Yandle, Regulation and the Reagan Era. New York: Holmes and Meier..
  76. Mitchell, W. C. (1988). Government as it Is. Hobart Paper 109,London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
  77. Mitsuhiro, K. and T. Masatsugu (2000). Privatization, Deregulation and Economic Efficiency:A Comparative Analysis of Asia, Europe and the Americas, Cheltenham, UK:E. Elgar Publishers. Northampton, MA.
  78. Ogus, A. I. (2001). Regulation, economics and the law. Cheltenham, U.K. ; Northampton,Mass. : Edward Elgar Pub,8-9.
  79. Owen, P. W. and M. Courtney. (2002). The policy framework for better regulation. in P. Vass (ed.) Accountability and Regulation–Reporting Performance, Bath: Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries, University of Bath.
  80. Rosenblom, D. H. and R. S. Kravchuk (2005). Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector. New York: McGraw Hill.
  81. Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization, the Key to Government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
  82. Tullock, G. (1976). The Vote Motive. Hobart Paper 9, London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
  83. Tullock, G., Seldon, A. and G. L.Brady (2000). Government: Whose Obedient Servant?(Readings 51). London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
  84. (二)期刊論文
  85. Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. and A. Shleifer (2002). The Regulation of Entry. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 1-37.
  86. Kreuger, A. O. (1974). The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society. American Economic Review, 64(3), 291-303.
  87. Shepsle, K. (1992). Bureaucratic Drift, Coalitional Drift and Time Consistency. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 8(1), 111-118.
  88. (三)網路等電子化資料
  89. Eriksen, T. H. (1991). The Cultural Contexts of Ethnic Differences. Engaging the World. Retrieved July 3, 2008, form http://folk.uio.no/geirthe/Culturalcontexts.html