臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

政治變遷對智庫角色之影響

中文摘要
台灣政治開放改革始於1980年代後期。智庫的角色甚或新興智庫興起的原因很大程度上並未引起學術研究的重視，當然由於智庫興盛於西方先進的民主國家，其中以歐美各國的發展最具代表性（Nelson Polsby,1983）。相較之下，我國政治轉化與智庫發展的歷程均較上述國家來得緩慢。從比較觀點，本研究首先提出一有趣的現象，亦即西方智庫興起的成因，大致上沿著兩次世界大戰冷戰前後、甚或環保意識思想的抬頭，而以歷史階段性的發展對政策作出影響（Dror,1980; Gellner,1995）。然而國內智庫的成立，大體上並未鑲嵌在此一歷史脈動中，反倒是與政黨輪替有程度上的關聯，是以相較於歐美智庫興起原因，台灣的政治開放與智庫發展的關係、與智庫在此間的角色兩議題，值得吾人重視。又本研究由文獻中發現一重要面向，多數學者（Stone,1996; Ricci,1993）均強調智庫之自主性與對政策過程的介入程度，亦即學者強調智庫之產出與其影響乃是與政策制定緊密結合。既然在於影響政策產出，智庫則必然與當政者維持一定程度的緊密關係，然而實證資料顯示，台灣的智庫其介入政治過程的程度較政策參與更為明顯。是以，這一重要議題將成為研究的主軸。本研究據此有趣現象與研究重點，運用紮根理論進行研究，發展命題，並形塑出概念架構圖，期以對理論作出貢獻。

關鍵字：智庫、智識自主、紮根理論、政治開放

The Impact of Political Changes on
the Roles of Taiwan’s Think Tanks

ABSTRACT
During the 1980s, think tanks in Taiwan played increasingly important roles in the arena of policy making process although they were all sponsored by Kuomintang (KMT) regime. Since the early 1990s, a series of social movements and collective protests has eroded the legitimacy of authoritarian KMT rule. The force of political reform has contributed to the decline of dominant role of KMT-led think tanks. Nevertheless, the directors of these non-governmental research institutes have personal connections with political elite. All of this indicates that the broader culture and historical context have become the obstacles to the emergence of independent think tanks in Taiwan. In particular, since Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the main opposition party, came to the power in 2000, the role of the KMT-led think tanks has become less important. Instead, think tanks sponsored by DPP began to play the dominant role by offering important indications of policy debates. In this thesis, the author considers the relative impacts of the context of paternalistic authority on the development of Taiwan’s think tanks. Drawing on the theory of think tank, this dissertation examines the current organizations in Taiwan’s think tanks, the evolution of this community, and the relations between policy makers and the members of think tanks. Finally, this thesis concludes with two matrices which locate the roles and function of Taiwan’s think tanks.

Key Words: Think Tanks; Paternalistic Authority; Culture and Historical context

第一章 緒論…………………………………………………...1
第一節 研究動機……………………………………………………3
第二節 研究目的與問題……………………………………………5
第三節 研究範圍與限制……………………………………………7
第四節 概念架構圖…………………………………………………9
第五節 章節安排 ………………………………………………… 15

第二章 文獻探討………………………………… ………….17
第一節 智庫在民主國家的發展…………………………………...18
第二節 智庫在台灣的發展與比較………………………………...25
第三節 文化結構與智識自主……………………………………...29
第四節 我國文化與知識分子的發展…………………...................39
第五節 本章結論……………………...……………………………44

第三章 研究方法與研究設計……… ……………………….45
第一節 紮根理論與質化研究的發展……………………………...46
第二節 研究設計…………………………………………………...58
第三節 個案研究之複現邏輯………………………………….......62
第四節 研究之執行………………………………………………...65
第五節 資料分析…………………………………………………...68
第六節 本章結論…………………………………………………...75




第四章 我國政治變遷與X智庫的發展…………………… 77
第一節 我國的政治變遷過程……………………………………..78
第二節 我國智庫發展之概述……………………………………...81
第三節 X智庫發展與背景之介紹…………………………………90
第四節 本章結論…………………………………………………...97

第五章 資料譯碼…………………………………………..... 98
第一節 現象─譯碼過程………………………………………….100
第二節 因果條件─譯碼過程…………………………………….106
第三節 情境─譯碼過程………………………………………….110
第四節 策略─譯碼過程………..………………………………...113
第五節 結果─譯碼過程………..………………………………...120
第六節 本章結論…………………………………………...……..125

第六章 實證資料之分析……………………………………126
第一節 故事線之發展與呈現..…………………………….……127
第二節 個案詮釋─故事線之詮釋……………………………….139
第三節 命題發展………………………………………………….144

第七章 結論……………………………………………….………149

參考文獻
中文
王振寰（1996），《誰統治台灣？轉型中的國家機器與權力結構》，台北：巨流。
王振寰（2002），「台灣的威權體制與民主轉型」，王振寰主編《台灣社會》，頁21-51。
石之瑜，黃競涓（1999），「我國第二軌道外交中的國家─社會論述」，《政治科學論叢》，11期，頁103-126。
朱柔若譯（2000），W. L. Neuman著，《社會研究方法》（Social Research Methods: Quantitative Approaches），台北：弘智文化。
吳芝儀，廖梅花譯（2001），A. Strauss and J. Corbin著，《紮根理論研究方法》（Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory Procedures），嘉義，濤石文化。
尚榮安譯（2001），Robert K. Yin,著，《個案研究》(Case Study Research)，台北：弘智文化。
宋定式（1990），「傳統社會與知識份子」，徐復觀主編《知識份子與中國》，頁97-98。
杜承榮（1999），《智庫與公共政策：台灣與美國智庫關於社會福利研究之初探》，國立中正大學社會福利研究所碩士論文。
何明修（2001），「台灣環境運動的開端：專家學者、黨外、草根（1980-1986）」，《台灣社會學》，2期，頁97-162。
林奇伯（2002），「從幕後獻策到多元發聲」，《光華月刊》，6-29
周陽山（2002），「從公民文化到公民社會─一項現實的考察」，《華岡社科學報》，16 卷，頁1-9。
周子詮，賽明成（2002），「公部門資訊委外鑲嵌效果之初探」，《第十三屆國際資訊管理學術研討會》，淡江大學。
李孝悌（1989），「再論市民社會（Civil Society）從黑格爾到葛蘭西」，《中國論壇》，340期，頁73-80。
金耀基（1992），《中國社會與文化》，香港：牛津。
官有垣（2000），《非營利組織與社會福利：台灣本土的個案分析》，台北：亞大。
杭之（1989），「社會運動之本質:一個概念性的反省」，《中國論壇》，29卷5期，頁39-43。
李宛容譯（1996），F. Fukuyama著，《誠信：社會道德與繁榮的創造》（Trust the Social Virtues and the Creation of prosperity），台北：立緒。
李宗勲，賽明成，吳光蔚（2003），「社區互動策略對社區信任的影響─以新竹市仁德里個案為例」，《第二屆地方發展策略學術研討會》，佛光人文社會學院公共事務學系。
吳文程（1996），《台灣的民主轉型：從權威型的黨國體系到競爭性的政黨體系》，台北：時英。
洪漢鼎，（2002），《詮釋學史》，台北：桂冠。
洪鎌德，黃德怡（1994），「葛蘭西國家觀的析評」，《中山社會科學學報》，8卷2期，頁1-40。
洪鎌德（1996），《跨世紀的馬克思主義》，台北：月旦。
南方朔（1986）「台灣的新社會運動」，《中國論壇》，23卷5期，頁36-40。
徐宗國（1994），「紮根理論研究法」，《香港社會科學學報》，4期，頁194-221。
徐宗國譯（1997），Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin著，《質性研究概論》(Basics of Qualitative Research)，台北：巨流。
徐光正（1990），「從異化到自主：台灣勞工運動的基本性格和趨勢」，徐光正、宋文里合編《台灣新興社會運動》，台北：巨流，頁103-125。
曾秉弘（1999），《美國民間公共政策智庫之研究》，國立中興大學公共政策研究所碩士論文。
唐大衛（2003），《智庫對國防政策的參與及影響》，私立南華大學非營利事業管理研究所碩士論文。
彭懷恩（2000），《台灣政治發展的反思》，台北：風雲論壇。
陳俊輝（1989）《邁向詮釋學論爭的途徑》，台北：唐山。
梁治平（2001），「“民間”、 “民間社會”和Civic Society─Civic Society概念再檢討」，《當代中國研究》，72期，頁63-89。
郭嘉玲（2003），《智庫與公共政策:美國智庫發展對我國智庫之啟示》，國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。
郭博文（1997），「弗格森社會哲學述論」，《人文及社會科學集刊》，9卷1期，頁1-38。
郭夀旺（2002），《華府智庫對美國臺海兩岸政策制定之影響─對李登輝九五年訪美案例之研究》，私立淡江大學美國研究所博士論文。
單德興譯（1996），Edward W.Said著，《知識分子論》（Representations of the intellectual），台北：麥田。
曹東衛譯（2002），Jurgen Habermas著，《公共領域的結構轉型》（The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere），台北：聯經。
齊光裕（1996），《中華民國的政治發展：民國38年以來的變遷》，台北：揚智。
鄧正來（1991），「台灣民間社會語式的研究」，《中國社會科學季刊》，5期，頁88-102。
張茂桂（2000），「知識分子與社會運動」，蕭新煌篇主編《變遷中台灣社會的中產階級》，台北：巨流，頁189- 209。
張明貴（1983），《費邊社會主義思想》，台北：聯經。
張祖桦（2002），「關於公民社會問題研究的綜述」，《當代中國研究》，79期，頁101-113。
張慧英（2000），《李登輝1988─2000執政12年》，台北：天下遠見。
楊國樞（1990），「台灣新興社會運動研討會總結報告」，《台灣新興社會運動》，台北：巨流，頁311-325。
趙 剛（1995），「1987年的台灣工會、國家與工運─以遠化工會的個案為例」，《台灣的國家與社會》，台北：三民，頁115-150。
趙素娟（2000），「Civic Society 與葛蘭姆西文化霸權論─兼評三民主義教育政策態度」，《人文及社會學科教學通訊》，3卷6期，頁123-133。
蕭新煌（2000），《非營利部門：組織與運作》，台北：巨流。
孫隆基（1990），《中國文化的深層結構》，台北：唐山。
劉曉波（1990），《中國當代政治與中國知識分子》，台北：唐山。
鄒 皙（2004），「歷史性原則與意識形態批判作為理解策略進路之論辯」，《當代中國研究》，197期，頁34-53。
潘德榮（1999），《詮釋學導論》，台北：五南。
顧忠華（2002），「公民社會在台灣形成的經驗」，瞿海源等編《法治、人權與公民社會》，台北：桂冠，頁161-188。
瞿海源（2002），「結社自由、團體參與、與民主」，瞿海源等編《法治、人權與公民社會》，台北：桂冠，頁197-236
鄭又平等譯，（1999），M. G. Roskin著，《各國政府與政治:：比較的觀點》(Countries and concepts: An Introduction to Comparative Politics)，台北：韋伯文化。
嚴 平譯（1992），R. E. Palmer著，《詮釋學》(Hemeneutics)，台北：桂冠。
羅慎平譯（1999），A.Vincent 著，《當代意識形態》(Mondern Political Ideologies )，台北：五南。

英文
Abelson, Donald E. (2000), “Public Visibility and Policy Relevance : Assessing the Impact and Influence of Canadian Policy Institute,” Canadian Public Administration, 42(2). , 45-89.
Abelson, Donald E. (1996), American Think-Tanks and Their Role in US foreign Policy, New York: ST. Martin’s Press.
Ashforth, Blake E. (1985), “Climate Formation: Issues and Extensions,” Academy of Management, Oct, 10(4): 837-847.
Abelson, Donald E. & Christine M. Carberry (1997), “Policy Experts in Presidential Campaigns: a Model of Think Tank Recruitment,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 27 (4): 679-697.
Avineri, Shlomo (1972), Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State, Cambridge University Press.
Adamson, W. L. (1980), Hegemony and revolution: a Study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural Theory, University of California Press.
Becker, M. B. (1994), The Emergence of Civil Society in the Eighteenth Century, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Beland, Daniel and Alex Waddan (2000), “From Thatcher (and Pinochet) to Clinton？Conservative Think Tanks, Foreign Models and U.S. Pensions Reform,” The Political Quarterly, 71(2): 202-210.
Bobbio, Norberto (1996), “Gramsci and the Concept of Civil Society,”In J. Keane(eds.), Civil Society and State, London: Verso.
Bryman, A. (1988), Quantity and Quality in Social Research, London: Unwin Hyman.
Habermas, jurgen(1989), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere of Bourgeois Society, Translated by Thomasy Burger, Polity Press.
Blumer, Herbert (1954), “What is Wrong With Social Theory？” American Sociological Review, 19: 3-10.
Bloor, M. (1978), “On the analysis of Observational data: A Discussion of the Worth and Uses of Inductive Techniques and Respondent Validation,” Sociology, 12(3): 542-552.
Carnall, C. A. (1990), Managing Change in Organizations, Prentice-Hall International (UK), Hemel Hempstead.
Dyer, W. G., Jr. and Alan L.Wilkins (1991), “Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, to Generate Better Story: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt,” Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 613-619.
Dickson, Paul (1971), Think tanks. New York: Kingsport Press.
Dunham, R. B.(1984), Organizational Behaviour, Irwin, Homewood.
Denham, Andrew (1996), Think- Tanks of The New Right, Aldershot, Dartmouth.
Dror, Y. (1980), “Think Tanks: A New Invention In Government,” in C. H. Weiss and A. H. Barton (eds), Making Bureaucracies Work, Beverley Hills, Sage.
Domhoff, G. William(1983), Who Rules America Now？A View For the ’80s, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Eliot, T. S. (1962), Notes Towards The Definition of Culture, London: Farber.
Elizur, D. and Louis Guttman (1976), “The Structure of Attitude Toward Work and Technological Change Within an Organization,” Administrative Science Quaterly, 21: 611-23.
Eisenhardt, K. M.(1989), “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532-550.
Foucault, M. (2000), Power, trans by Robert Hurley and others, New York: The New Press.
Foucault, M. (1980), “Questions on Geography,” in Colin Gordon (ed.), Power-Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, New York: Pantheon.
Feldman, Martha. S.& Kaj Skoldberg & Ruth Nicole Brown & Debrs Horner(2004), “Making Sense of Stories: A Rhetorical Approach to Narrative Analysis,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2):147-170.
Ferguson, A. (1966), An Essay on the History of Civil Society, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Femia, J. V. (1981), Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary process, Oxford: Clarendon
Goldfarb, Jeffrey C. (1998), Civility and Subversion: The Intellectual In Democratic Society, Cambridge: University Press.
Glaser, B. and Anselm L. Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine.
Gaffney, John (1991), “Political Think Tanks in The UK and Ministerial ‘Cabinets’ in France,” West European Politics, 14(1): 1-17.
Gellner, Winand (1995), “‘Political Think Tanks’ and Their Markets in the U.S.-Institutional Setting,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Summer: 497-510.
Habermas, Jurgen(1962),The Structural Transformation of The Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Translated By Thomas Burger & Frederick Lawrence (1989), Polity Press.
Hunt, C, (1987), “The Development Concept of Civil Society in Marx,” History of Political Thought, 8(2): 263-76.
He, Baogang (1991), “The Ideas of Civil Society in Mainland China and Taiwan, 1986-92,” Issues & Studies, June.
Hofstede, G..& B. Neuijen & D. Daval Ohayv & G. Sander (1990), “Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Cases,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2): 286-316.
James, Simon. (1993), “Their Idea Brokers : The Impact of Think Tanks on British Government,” Public Administration, 71: 491-506.
Khoo, Su-ming.(1998), “Think Tanks and Intellectual Participation In Malaysian Discourses of Development” in Diane Stone, Andrew Denham and Mark Garett(eds.), Think tanks across nations, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Krober, A. L. & C. Kluckhon (1963), “Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions,” New York: Vintage Books.
Lindquist, E. A.(1998), “A Quarter Century of Canadian Think Tanks: Evolving Institutions, Conditions and Strategies” in Diane Stone, Andrew Denham and Mark Garett(eds.), Think tanks across nations, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
McGann, James G. (1992), “Academic to Ideologues: A Brief History of the Public Policy Research Industry,” Political Science & Politics, 25（4）: 733-740.
McGann, James G. (2000), “How Think Tanks Are Coping With the Future,”The Futurist, 34（6）:16-23
Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.`
Nahavandi, Afsaneh and Ali R. Malekzadeh (1988), “Acculturation in Mergers and Acquisitions,” Academy of Management, Jan, 13(1): 79-90.
Orlans, Harold (1972), The Non-profit Research Institute: Its Origins, Operation, Problems and Prospects, New York, Carnegei Commission On Higher Education, McGraw Hill.
Potkay, C. R. & Bem. P. Allen (1986), Personality: Theory, Research, and Applications, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Platt, J. (1992),“‘Case study’ in American Methodological Thought,” Current Sociology, 40: 17~48.
Patton, A. Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage Publications.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1998), “Seven Practices of Successful Organizations,” California Management Review, Winter, 40(2): 96-124.
Polsy, Nelson(1983), “Tanks But No Tanks,” Public opinion, April/May: 14-16, 58-59.
Rich, Andrew (1999), Think Tank, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, Ph. D. Dissertation Yale University.
Ricci, David M. (1993), The Transformation of American Politics: The Washington and the Rise of Think Tanks, New haven: Yale University Press.
Robinson, W. S. (1951), “The Logical Structure of analytic Induction,” American Sociological Review, 16(6): 812~818
Sandle, Mark.(1998), “Russian Think Tanks, 1956-1996” in Diane Stone, Andrew Denham and Mark Garett(eds.), Think tanks across nations, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Schein, E. H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Shils, Edward (1991), “The Virtue of Civil Society”, Government and Opposition, （Winter）26 (1): 3-22.
Shai, M. C. and Diane Stone (2004), “The Chinese Tradition of Policy Research Institutes” in Diane Stone, Andrew Denham (eds.), Think Tank Traditions Policy Research and The Politics of Ideas, Manchester University Press .
Shai, M. C. and Tzu-Chuan Chou (2002), “Dynamic Structured Complexity: Adaptation to E-Government in Taiwan” International Conference on ePolicy and eGovernment Global ePolicy and eGovernment Institute, Sungkyungkwan University, Seoul, Korea.
Smith, James A. (1991), The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite, New York: Free Press.
Smith, James A. (1989), “Think Tanks and the Politics of Ideas,’’ in David Colander (ed.), The Spread of Economic Ideas, Canada, Cambridge University Press.
Stone, Diane (1996), Capturing the Political Imagination: Think Tanks and the Policy Process, London: Frank Cass.
Stone, Diane, Andrew Denham and Mark Garnett (1998), “Introduction: Think tanks, Policy Advice and Governance” in Diane Stone, Andrew Denham and Mark Garnett(eds.), Think tanks across nations, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Stone, Diane and Andrew Denham (2004), “Introduction: Think Tanks, Policy Advice and Government ” in Diane Stone, Andrew Denham (eds.), Think Tank Traditions Policy Research and The Politics of Ideas, Manchester University Press .
Strauss, A. L. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Sciences, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A. L. and Juliet Corbin (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Seligman, Adam B. (1992), The Idea of Civil Society, Prince on University Press.
Taylor, Charles. (1991), “Models of civil society,” Public Culture, 3 (1): 95- 118.
Tester, K. (1992), Civil Society, London: Routledge.
Ueno, Makiko (2000), “Northeast Asian Think Tank: Toward Building Capacity for More Democratic Societies,” Think Tanks & Civil Society-Catalysts for Ideas and Action, N. Y: New Brunswick and U. K.: Transaction Publishers.
Wong-MingJi, D. J. and Wayne R. Millette (2001), “Dealing with the Dynamic Duo of Innovation and Inertia: The ‘In-’ Theory of Organization Change,” Organization Development Journal, 20(1): 36-51.
Weaver, R. K. and J. G. McGann (2000), “Think Tanks and Civil Societies in a Time of Chang” in James G. McGann & R. Kent Weaver (eds.), Think Tanks & Civil Societies: Catalysts for Ideas and Action, New Brunswic, N. J. Publishers.
Weaver, R. K. (1989), “The Changing World of Think Tanks,” Political Science and Politics, (September): 563-578.
Weiss, Carol (1992a), “Preface,” in C. Weiss(ed.), Organizations for Policy Advice: Helping Government Think, California, Sage.
Weiss, Carol (1992b), “Introduction: Helping Government Think: Functions and Consequences of Policy Analysis Organization,” in C. Weiss(ed.), Organizations for Policy Advice: Helping Government Think, California, Sage.
Williams, Raymord (1993), Culture and Society, London: Hogarth.
Yin, R. K.(1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications.
Yin, R. (2000), “Rival Explanations as an Alternative to Reforms as ‘Experiment’,” in L. Bickman (ed.), Validity and Social Experimentation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 239-266.
Znaniecki, F. (1934), The Method of Sociology, New York: Farrar & Rinehart