從政策工具選擇省思臺灣高等教育治理
Reflections on Governance of Taiwan’s Higher Education Based on an Analysis of Government’s Choice of Policy Instruments
- 關鍵字：
- 政策工具、教育治理、高等教育改革、新自由主義 / policy instruments, education governance, higher education reform, neoliberalism
第六十三輯．第三期 - 2017-09-30
編輯的話卯靜儒
Words from the EditoralChin-Ju Mao
晚清戊戌變法前英人在華教育活動與英國教育經驗的輸入周愚文
Britons’ Educational Activities and Educational Transfer to China in the Qing Dynasty before the Wuxu ReformYU-WEN CHOU
從政策工具選擇省思臺灣高等教育治理謝卓君
Reflections on Governance of Taiwan’s Higher Education Based on an Analysis of Government’s Choice of Policy InstrumentsChuo-Chun Hsieh
大學學業退學制度的批判與反思何萬順、林俊儒
A Critical Review of the Policies of Academic Dismissal from UniversityOne-Soon, Her、Jun-Ru, Lin
Rogers革新擴散理論於課程推廣之意涵侯一欣
Rogers’ Theory of Innovation Diffusion Discussed for Curriculum DisseminationHou Yi-Hsin
從美國歷史教學變遷看教育改革：評《歷史教學的今昔:學校穩定與改變的故事》一書宋佩芬
Book Review on Teaching History Then and Now: A Story of Stability and Change in SchoolsPei-Fen Sung
- 摘要
- 英文摘要
- 參考文獻
- 全文下載
本研究旨在透過政策工具選擇的分析，探究臺灣高等教育改革的可能問題與治理的特性。研究之分析以公共政策學家Michael Howlett的理論為架構，針對台灣1994年以來重要的官方政策文本進行編碼與統計，透過內容分析之結果達成上述研究目的。本研究的主要結論為：（一）政府對於不同高等教育改革議題，選擇使用的政策工具類型與數量明顯不同，混合使用不同治理邏輯的政策工具進行高教改革。（二）雖然台灣政府用於高等教育改革的政策工具日顯多樣，但仍以權威型為主；此與過去二十年台灣高教治理多反映市場治理邏輯存在落差。本研究亦根據研究結果對於當前教育政策實務與未來研究提出建議。
The purpose of the study is to identify the problems of Taiwan's higher education reform and the features of governance through an analysis of the choice of policy instruments. In order to achieve that, this study applies content analysis on prominent official policy documents published during the years 1994-2013, in line with the theories formulated by the public policy scientist, Michael Howlett. The major conclusions are twofold. Firstly, the types and usage counts of policy instruments chosen by the government for different higher education reform issues were found diversified. Regarding the choice of policy instruments for higher education reform, Taiwan displays a mixture of different governance models. Secondly, although the policy tools used by the Taiwan government for higher education reform have been increasingly diverse, most of them still exhibit the characteristics of authority policy tools and do not reflect the logic of market governance. That governance logic identified in Taiwan’s higher education was theoretically inconsistent with the application of policy instruments. Based on these results, the study also makes suggestions to the current policy practice and future research in the field of higher education.
朱鎮明(2010)。競爭型計畫與臺灣府際果辦關係的實踐。公共行政學報,37,71- 110。
[Chu, C.-M. (2010). Competitive grant program and the practice of intergovernmental partnership in Taiwan. Journal of Public Administration, 37, 71-110.]
朱鎮明(2013)。跨域治理與府際夥伴關係:台灣的經驗‧省思與前瞻。臺北市:五 南。
[Chu, C.-M. (2013). Across boundary governance and intergovernmental partner relations: Taiwan’s experience, reflection and looking forward. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.]
吳清山(2006)。台灣教育改革的檢討與策進:1994-2006年。教育資料集刊,32,1-21。
[Wu, C.-S. (2006). Examination and improvement- The reform of university education in Taiwan: 1994-2006. Bulletin of Educational Resources and Research, 32, 1-21.]
吳清山、王令宜(2007)。我國大學教育改革的檢討與策進:1994-1997年。教育資料集刊,35,1-28。
[Wu, C.-S., & Wang, L.-Y. (2007). Examination and improvement- The reform of university education in Taiwan: 1994-1997. Bulletin of Educational Resources and Research, 35, 1-28.]
李長晏、詹立煒(2004)。跨域治理的理論與策略途徑之初探。中國地方自治,57 (3),4-31。
[Lee, C.-Y., & Chan, L.-W. (2004). Initiating exploration of theories and strategies regarding across boundary governance. Chinese Local Autonomy, 57(3), 4-31.]
李信興(2010)。暴雨來襲,小心高教土石流:我國高等教育擴張政策之評析與省思。 學校行政,70,190-206。
[Li, S.-S. (2010). Beware of the higher education mudflows- Evaluations and reflections on the higher education expansion policies in Taiwan. School Administrators, 70, 190-206.]
林水波(1999)。公共政策新論。臺北市:智勝。
[Lin, S.-P. (1999). New directions of public policy. Taipei, Taiwan: Bestwise.]
姜添輝(2015)。臺灣高等教育政策依循新自由主義的現象與缺失。臺灣教育社會學研究,15(2),131-165。
[Chiang, T.-H. (2015). Why do higher education policies in Taiwan incline towards neo-liberalism? A critique on this approach. Taiwan Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(2),131-165.]
張宜君、林宗弘(2013)。高等教育擴張與階級不平等:以台灣高等教育改革為例。取自http://www.ios.sinica.edu.tw/ios/msg/friday/20131227.pdf
[Chang, Y.-C., & Lin, T.-H. (2013). How the higher education expansion reproduce class inequality? The case of Taiwan, 1976-2012. Retrieved from http://www.ios.sinica.edu.tw/ios/msg/friday/20131227.pdf]
陳德華(2008)。臺灣高等教育面面觀。臺北市:文景。
[Chen, D.-H. (2008). Diverse aspects of Taiwan higher education. Taipei, Taiwan: Wenjoin.]
湯堯(2008)。世界主要國家高等教育體制改革分析與省思。研習資訊,25(6),69-76。
[Tang, Y. (20008). Analysis and reflection on the reform of higher education system in the main countries of the world. Inservice Education Bulletin, 25(6), 69-76.]
楊瑩(1998)。高等教育改革。教育資料集刊,23,125-147。
[Yang, Y. (1998). Higher education reforms. Bulletin of Educational Resources and Research,23, 125-147.]
詹盛如(2010)。台灣高等教育治理政策之改革:新管理主義的觀點。教育資料與研究雙月刊,94,1-20。
[Chan, S.-J. (2010). Reforming higher education governance policy in Taiwan: The perspective of new managerialism. Educational Resources and Research, 94, 1-20.]
戴伯芬(2012)。高教危機中的集體行動:台灣高等教育產業工會的反思與實踐。台灣教育,677,2-9。
[Tai, P.-F. (2012). Collective action in the crises of the higher education system: The case study of Taiwan higher education union. Taiwan Education Review, 677, 2-9.]
Aucoin, P. (1997). The design of public organizations for the 21st century: Why bureaucracy will survive in public management. Canadian Public Administration, 40(2), 290-306.doi:10.1111/j.1754-7121.1997.tb01511.x
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059-1066.
de Bruijn, H. A., & Hufen, H. A. M. (1998). The traditional approach to policy instruments. In B.G. Peters & F. K. M. van Nispen (Eds.), Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public administration (pp. 11-32). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Harman, G. (1998). Quality assurance mechanisms and their use as policy instruments: Major international approaches and the Australian experience since 1993. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 331-348.
Heidbreder, E. G. (2011). Structuring the European administrative space: Policy instruments of multi-level administration. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(5), 709-727. doi:10.1080/13501763.2011.586800
Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation: National approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1-21.
Howlett, M. (2005). What is a policy instrument? Tools, mixes, and implementation styles. In P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 31-50). Kingstone, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73-89.
Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. New York, NY:Routledge.
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Oxford University Press.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35-58. doi:10.2307/4007218
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359-380.
Mok, K. H. (2005). Globalisation and governance: Educational policy instruments and regulatory arrangements. Internatinal Review of Education, 51(4), 289-311.
Mok, K. H. (Ed.). (2010). The search for new governance of higher education in Asia. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2001). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peters, B. G. (1996). The future of governing: Fouremerging models. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Peters, B. G. (2002a). The changing nature of public administration: From easy answers to hard questions. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 24(2), 153-183. doi:10.1080/02598272. 2002.10800399
Peters, B. G. (2002b). The politics of tool choice. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 552-564). New York, NY: Oxford.
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. London, UK: Macmilan.
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York, NY: Oxford.
Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 31-68.
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334-347.
Stewart, J., & Walsh, K. (1992). Change in the management of public services. Public Administration, 70(4), 499-518.
Sursock, A., & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European higher education. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association.
van Vught, F. A. (1995). Policy models and policy instruments in higher education. The effects of governmental policy-making on the innovative behaviour of higher education institutions (IHS Political Science Series, 26). Vienna, Östereich: Institute for Advanced Studies.
.png)
