跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(35.172.136.29) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/29 07:38
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:周佳蓉
研究生(外文):Chia-jung Chou
論文名稱:環保團體課責表現衡量架構之建立與實證研究
論文名稱(外文):Toward Environmental Organizations Accountability:Construction of an Evaluative Framework and Empirical Study
指導教授:高明瑞高明瑞引用關係林新沛林新沛引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ming-rea, KaoSan-pui, Lam
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立中山大學
系所名稱:公共事務管理研究所
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:公共行政學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:173
中文關鍵詞:環境運動自律非營利組織評估制度論
外文關鍵詞:institutional theoryself-regulationenvironmental movementassessment
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:19
  • 點閱點閱:401
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
環保團體是過去二十年台灣環境運動與環境意識推展的主動力,然而,近年由於組織逐漸制度化,使之受困於物質生存與使命追求之兩難間。如欲持續發揮其對政策體制改革與擴展社會環境保護的影響力,環保團體應努力於更好的表現。近年,隨政治與社會體制變革,政府賦予環保團體更多角色,允許其在政策制訂諮詢中更重要的位置。許多環保團體因此成為環境議題的社會中介機構,更需被課以責任。此外,環保團體以生態環境為其重要利益關係人,且許多團體具倡議性格;因之,環保團體的課責宜強調其過程表現的衡量。從自律角度,環保團體亦需自我管理的行為規範以獲取大眾的信任與認同;但實務上,台灣法規對環保團體或非營利組織的相關課責規定尚未成形。
本研究之主要目的是建構一套可供環保團體進行組織自我評估的課責表現衡量架構。採廣義的課責概念,本研究將課責定義為組織回應內、外期待,說明組織行為之結果與過程,以在社會中取得正當性。經由文獻探討,本研究結合實務、理論課責與對環保團體角色期待之內涵,建構出環保團體課責衡量之內容。這些衡量內容以制度論構面將其區分為「法規性」、「規範性」、「認知性」及「團體特性」四大類,共包含92 項課責衡量項目。為檢視本研究所提出之環保團體課責表現衡量架構之適用性,透過問卷發放蒐集環保團體領袖評估各項目之合理性、接受性、可執行性與重要性,最後從中篩選出45 項優先項目。這些優先項目可以界定一個「課責的」環保團體應衡量之內容,指引環保團體課責展現,有助於檢視環保團體自身的優缺點,因此具未來的實務價值。
此外,本研究深度訪談代表性環保團體領袖,以瞭解課責展現與執行的相關問題。整體而論,環保團體對課責展現與表現衡量之態度,傾向於遵循「法律性」規定;贊同多數「規範性」的行為表現,但認為這些規範內容在執行上相對困難;而「認知性」方面,環保團體也顯示其能堅守環保使命,同時體察社會變化,積極的尋求組織調適與生存。
本研究的重大發現是,雖然環保團體自認有社會責任且認同課責與表現衡量的好處,但社會整體與環保團體對課責的認知不足、可能面對課責展現風險、無積極性誘因與缺乏體制支援,是環保團體對課責展現與衡量的態度偏向接受「他律」多於「自律」的因素,同時也是環保團體目前無法積極推動課責展現與表現衡量之主要阻礙。本研究建議,欲協助環保團體自律,需要制度建構工程,即建立社會課責認知,給予組織合理誘因,使環保團體組織表現與效能之精進能與團體自我評量相結合。
For the past twenty years, environmental organizations have been the main force in Taiwan’s environmental movement. Meanwhile, the institutionalization of environmental organizations had placed them in a dilemma of organizational sustaining and mission pursuing. To continue its influence on public policy and environmental awareness, environmental organizations need to perform harder and better. In recent years, the government has cast environmental organizations in more roles, as well as allowed them to play a more important role in policy consulting. Many environmental organizations have thus become intermediate social institutions and should be held accountable. Moreover, since all environmental organizations have ecology as its stakeholder and many organizations are advocacy-orientated, their process performance needs to be evaluated in the accountability procedure. From a self-regulation perspective, environmental organizations should also develop behavioral norms for self-governance to earn social recognition and trust. In practice, however, laws concerning the accountability of environmental organizations or other NPOs are not well formulated.
The intent of this study is mainly to develop an accountability framework workable for self-assessment in environmental organizations. Taking a broad perspective, accountability is here defined as “accounts for the results and process of organizational activities are provided, by which nonprofit organizations are responsive to expectations generated within and outside the organization so as to gain legitimacy in society.” Synthesizing large literature on theoretical, practical accountability and role expectancy on environmental organizations, the framework, based on institutional theory, was constructed to evaluate accountability in “regulative”, “normative”, “cognitive” and “organizational characteristics” dimensions, totally consisting of 92 items. Survey data from the leaders of environmental organizations were collected to examine the evaluative framework’s feasibility by their assessing each item’s reasonability, acceptability, practicability, and importance. As a result, 45 priority items out of 92 were selected, which identify the evaluative contents for an “accountable” environmental organization, and can be taken as a useful checklist in future to scrutinize organizations’ accountability and performance.
Moreover, additional results from in-depth interviewing environmental organizations’ leaders showed that they generally regard regulative accountability as acceptable, normative accountability as reasonable but difficult to achieve, and cognitive accountability as important in delineate organizations’ mission and identity as well as adapting themselves to the society.
Among the major findings of this studyare that environmental organizations accept their social responsibility and acknowledge the benefit of performance evaluation, but organizations and the society know little about the concept of accountability. These organizations also believed that the present social institutions and organizational conditions are unhelpful or even harmful for them to take accountability actions. These reasons incline environmental organizations to agree to more external regulation than self-regulation. In the meantime, the above situations mostly hinder launching accountability and performance evaluation in organizations. To drive self-regulation in environmental organizations, institutional building is suggested; that is to couple organizations’ performance evaluation and advancement with self-assessment by expanding knowledge on accountability among the society and making institutional incentives available.
第1章 緒論 1-1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1-2
1.2 研究問題與目的 1-7
1.3 研究範圍定位 1-7
1.4 名詞界定 1-8
第2章 文獻探討 2-1
2.1 課責的概念與意涵 2-1
2.1.1 課責的意涵面向 2-1
2.1.2 課責的特性 2-12
2.1.3 課責的內容與機制 2-15
2.2 非營利組織課責 2-18
2.2.1 非營利組織課責之發展與研究 2-18
2.2.2 非營利組織課責之特性 2-24
2.2.3 非營利組織的課責內容與機制 2-32
2.3 環保團體的課責 2-44
2.3.1 環保團體的類型與行動內容 2-44
2.3.2 環保團體之性質與體制現狀 2-48
2.3.3 環保團體的角色期待 2-59
2.3.4 環保團體課責表現衡量架構之建構 2-70
第3章 研究方法 3-1
3.1 研究架構與問題 3-1
3.1.1 研究架構 3-1
3.1.2 研究問題 3-3
3.2 環保團體課責表現衡量架構與內容 3-5
3.2.1 課責衡量架構的構成 3-5
3.2.2 課責衡量架構的內容與項目 3-6
3.3 資料蒐集與分析方法 3-12
3.3.1 問卷調查與分析方法 3-12
3.3.2 深度訪談與分析方法 3-15
第4章 研究結果 4-1
4.1 問卷調查統計分析與項目篩選 4-1
4.1.1 環保團體領袖問卷 4-1
4.1.2 政府官員問卷 4-6
4.1.3 課責表現衡量項目篩選 4-9
4.2 深度訪談分析 4-11
4.2.1對課責展現的認知與態度 4-12
4.2.2 課責展現推動風險和建議 4-19
4.2.3課責展現與衡量之困難與問題 4-25
第5章 討論與建議 5-1
5.1 課責表現衡量架構與內容項目 5-1
5.1.1 環保團體領袖與政府官員調查意見 5-1
5.1.2 理論課責表現衡量架構之適用性 5-5
5.2 課責展現與衡量的施行 5-7
5.2.1 對課責展現的認知與態度 5-7
5.2.2推動課責展現與衡量的問題 5-10
5.2.3課責展現與衡量的施行與制度面關係 5-12
5.3 推動課責衡量機制的建議 5-16
5.4 研究限制與後續研究建議 5-18
5.5 研究貢獻 5-19
參考文獻
附錄
中文文獻
王俊秀(1999)。全球變遷下的NGO:歐美日主要環保團體的行動策略分析,見王俊秀(著)「全球變遷與變遷全球:環境社會學的視野」,頁49-78)。台北:巨流。
江明修,梅高文(2003)。自律乎?他律乎?財團法人監督機制之省思。「中國行政評論」,12(2),137-160。
江慧儀(2004)。「台灣民間環保團體的環境教育現況與社會實踐—一個批判的環境教育觀點」。台北:國立台灣師範大學碩士論文。
何明修(2000)。「民主轉型過程中的國家與民間社會:以台灣的環境運動為例1986-1998」。台北:台灣大學社會學研究所博士論文。
何明修(2001a)。台灣環境運動的開端:專家學者、黨外、草根(1980-1986)。 「台灣社會學」,2,97-162。
何明修 (2001b)。社會運動的制度化:以台灣的環境運動為例(1993-1999)。「組織、認同與運動者:台灣社會運動研究」研討會,中央研究院社會所,台北。
何明修(2003)。民間社會與民主轉型:環境運動在台灣的興起與持續。在張茂桂、鄭永年主編「兩岸社會運動分析」(頁29-67)。台北:新自然主義。
李丁讚、林文源(2003)。社會力的轉化:台灣環保抗爭的組織技術。「台灣社會研究季刊」,52,57-119。
張茂桂 (1991)。「社會運動與政治轉化」。台北市:財團法人張榮發研究基金會國家政策研究中心。
張晉芬、張恆豪(2003,11)。非營利組織的公信力:社會學的觀點。「2003年台灣社會學年會研討會」,政治大學,台北。
梁明煌(2001)。台灣地區環保團體的角色和環境糾紛解決機制的變遷。「環境與管理」,1(1),79-95。
許崇源, 2001, 我國非營利組織責任及透明度提升之研究:德爾菲法之應用。 「中山管理評論」,9(4),540-566。
馮燕(2002,10)。社會福利非營利組織與自律規範的建立。「2002年兩岸四地社會福利學術研討會」,中華文化社會福利事業基金會,香港。
馮燕(2004)。台灣非營利組織公益自律機制的建立。「第三部門學刊」,創刊號, 97-126。
蕭新煌(1999)。民間環保團體與政府的關係。「新世紀智庫論壇」,8,73-76。
蕭新煌(2002)。「台灣社會文化典範的轉移」。台北:立緒。
蕭新煌等(2003)。「永續台灣 2011」。台北:天下遠見。
顧忠華(2000)。台灣非營利組織的公共性與自主性。 「台灣社會研究季刊」,4,145-189。
顧忠華(2003)。社會運動的「機構化」:兼論非營利組織在公民社會中的角色 。在張茂桂、鄭永年主編「兩岸社會運動分析」(頁1-28)。台北:新自然主義。
譯著(英文譯本)
Castells, M. (2002).「認同的力量」。夏鑄九、黃麗玲等譯。台北:唐山。(原著出版年1997)。
英文文獻
Anheier, H. K. (2005). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. London: Routledge.
Balser, D., & McClusky, J. (2005). Managing stakeholder relationships and nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(3), 295-315.
Barry, J. (1996). Sustainability, political judgement and citizenship: Connecting green politics and democracy. In B. Doherty & M. de Geus, (Eds.), Democracy and green political thought: Sustainability, rights and citizenship (pp. 115-131). London: Routledge.
Brett, E.A. (1993). Voluntary agencies as development organizations: Theorizing the problem of efficiency and accountability. Development and Change, 24, 269-303.
Brody, E. (2002). Accountability and public trust. In L. M. Salamon, (Eds.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 471-498). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Brown, L. D., & Moore, M. H. (2001). Accountability, strategy, and international nongovernmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30 (3), 569-587.
Brulle, R. J. (1996). Environmental discourse and social movement organizations: A historical and rhetorical perspective on the development of U.S. environmental Organizations. Sociological Inquiry, 66(1), 58-83.
Bunda, M. A. (1979). Accountability and evaluation. Theory into Practice, 38(5), 357-362.
Burt, R. S. (1992). The social structure of competition. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.) Networks and organizations: structure, form and action (pp. 57-91). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Caldwell, L. K. (1990). International environmental policy: Emergence and dimensions. (2nd ed.). Durham: Duke University Press.
Chapman, J. (2002). Monitoring and evaluating advocacy. PLA Notes, 43, 48-52.
Choudhury, E., & Ahmed, S. (2002). The shifting meaning of governance: Public accountability of third sector organizations in an emergent global regime. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(4), 561-588.
Covey, J. G. (1996). Accountability and effectiveness in NGO policy alliance. In M. Edwards & D. Hulme, (Eds.), Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the Post-cold War World (pp. 198-214). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian.
Cutt, J., & Murray, V. (2000). Accountability and effectiveness evaluation in nonprofit organizations. London: Routledge.
De Geus, M. (1996). The ecological restructuring of the state. In B. Doherty & M. de Geus, (Eds.), Democracy and green political thought: Sustainability, rights and citizenship (pp. 188-211). London: Routledge.
Diani, M & Donati, P. R. (1999). Organizational change in Western European environmental groups: A framework for analysis. In C. Rootes, (Ed.), Environmental movements: Local, national and global (pp. 13-34). London: Frank Cass.
Doherty, B. & de Geus, M. (1996). Introduction. In B. Doherty & M. de Geus, (Eds.), Democracy and green political thought: Sustainability, rights and citizenship (pp. 1-15). London: Routledge.
Douglas, J. (1987). Political theories of nonprofit organization. In W. W. Powell (Ed.). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 43-64). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dryzek, J. S., Downes, D., Hunold, C., Schlosberg, D., & Nernes, H-K. (2003). Green states and social movements: Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Norway. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanism for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813-829.
Eckersley, K. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric approach. London: UCL Press.
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996a). Introduction: NGO performance and accountability. In M. Edwards and D. Hulme, (Eds.), Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world (pp. 1-20). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian.
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996b). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961-973.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford, UK: Capstone.
Elsbach, K. D. (2001). The architecture of legitimacy: Constructing accounts of organizational controversies. In J. T. Jost & B. Major, (Eds), The psychology of legitimacy (pp. 391-415). Cambridge, UK: The University of Cambridge Press.
Eyerman, R. & Jamison, A. (1991). Social movements: A cognitive approach. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Ezzamel, M., & Watson, R. (2005). Boards of directors and the role of non-excutive directors in the governance of corporations. In K. Keasy, S. Thompson, & M. Wright (Eds.), Corporate governance: Accountability, enterprises and international comparisons (pp. 97-116), West Sussex, England: The Wiley & Son.
Forbes, D. P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977-1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2), 183-202.
Fox, J. (2000, May). Civil society and political accountability: Propositions for discussion. Presented at Institutions, accountability and democratic governance in Latin America, the Helen Kellogg Institute for international studies, University of Notre Dame, IN.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1991). Making corporate actors accountable: Institution-building in Minneapolis-St. Paul. In W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp.293-310). Chicago: The Chicago University.
Giugni, M. (1999). How social movements matter: Past research, present problems, future developments. In M. Giugni., D. McAdam, & C. Tilly, (Eds.), How social movements matter (pp. xiii-xxxiii). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Goodin, R. E. (2003). Democratic accountability: The distinctiveness of the third sector. Archives Europeennes De Sociologie, 44(3), 359-396.
Gordenker, L., & Weiss, T. G. (1997). Devolving responsibilities: A framework for analyzing NGOs and services. Third World Quarterly, 18(3), 443- 455.
Hall, P. D. (1987). A historical overview of the private nonprofit sector. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 3-26). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Herman, R., & Renz, D. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 185-206.
Herzlinger, R. E. (1996). Can public trust in nonprofits and governments be restored? Harvard Business Review, Mar-Apr, 97-107.
Hilhost, D. (2003). The real world of NGOs: Discourses, diversity and development. London: Zed Books.
Jeanrenaud, S. (2002). Changing people/nature representations in international conservation discourses. IDS Bulletin, 33(1), 111-122.
Jenkins, J. C. (1987). Nonprofit organizations and policy advocacy. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 296-318). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jenkins, J. C. (2001). Social movement philanthropy and the growth of nonprofit political advocacy: Scope, legitimacy, and impact. In E. J. Reid & M. D. Montilla (Eds.), Exploring organizations and advocacy: Strategies and finances, issue 1, (pp. 51-66). Nonprofit advocacy and the policy process: A seminar series, Vol. 2. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Jepson, P. (2005). Governance and accountability of environmental NGOs. Environmental Scinece and Policy, 8(5), 515-524.
Jordan, L. (2005). Mechanisms for NGO accountability. Research paper series no. 3, Berlin, Germany: GPPi Research.
Kearns, K. P. (1994). The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An analytical framework. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 185-192.
Kearns, K. P. (1996). Managing for accountability: Preserving the public trust in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kelman, H. C. (2001). Reflecting on social and psychological processes of legitimization and delegitimization. In In J. T. Jost & B. Major, (Eds), The psychology of legitimacy (pp. 54-73), Cambridge, UK: The University of Cambridge Press.
Kilby, P. (2004). Accountability for empowerment: Dilemmas facing nongovernmental organisations. Discussion Papers, Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government.
Koppell, J. GS. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94-108.
Kraft, M. E. (2001). Environmental policy and politics (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Kuo, Liangwen (1997). The organization of Taiwan’s environmental movements: Analysis of leadership, consciousness and strategies. Chinese Sociology and Anthropology, 29(4), 66-98.
Lavis, J. N., Farrant, M. S. R., & Stoddart, G. L. (2001). Barriers to employment-related healthy public policy in Canada. Health Promotion International, 16(1), 9-21.
Lee, M. (2004). Public reporting: A neglected aspect of nonprofit accountability. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(2), 169-185.
Lucardie, P. (1993). Introduction. In A. Dobson & P. Lucardie, (Eds.), The politics of nature: Explorations in green political theory (pp. ix-xv). London: Routledge.
McAdam, D., & Scott, W. R. (2005). Organizations and movements. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald, (Eds.), Social Movements and organization theory (pp. 4-40). New York: The University of Cambridge Press.
Medawar, C. E. (1978). What is accountability? The Accountant’s Magazine, Nov. p.werwerwrwre. In K. Midgley, (Ed.), Management accountability and corporate governance: Selected readings (pp.155-162). London: Macmillan.
Midgley, K. (1978). To whom should the board be accountable and for what? In K. Midgley, (Ed.), Management accountability and corporate governance: Selected readings (pp. 61-82). London: Macmillan.
Mill, M. (1996). Green democracy: The search for an ethical solution. In B. Doherty & M. de Geus, (Eds.), Democracy and green political thought: Sustainability, rights and citizenship (pp. 97-114). London: Routledge.
Minkoff, D. (2003). Walking a political tightrope: Responsiveness and internal accountability in social movement organizations. In E. J. Reid & M. D. Montilla, (Eds.), Exploring organizations and advocacy: Governance and accountability, issue 2, (pp. 33-48). Nonprofit advocacy and the policy process: A seminar series, Vol. 2. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Mulgan, R. (2003). Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Najam, A. (1996). NGO accountability: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review, 14, 339-353.
Newell, P., & Bellour, S. (2002). Mapping accountability: Origins, contexts and implications for development. Background paper produced for the development research centre on citizenship, participation and accountability, IDS Working Paper 168, Institute of Development Studies.
Pepper, D. (1999). Environmentalism. In G. Browning, A. Halci & F. Webster (Eds.), Understanding contemporary society, theories of present (pp. 577-593). London: Sage.
Powell, W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Introduction. In W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-38). Chicago: The Chicago University.
Pratten, D., & Baldo, S. A. (1996). Return to the roots: Processes of legitimacy in Sudanese Migrant Associations. In M. Edwards, & D. Hulme, (Eds.), Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world (pp. 142-155). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian.
Radcliffe, J. (2000). Green politics: Dictatorship or democracy? London: Macmillan.
Reid, E. J. (1999). Nonprofit advocacy. In E. T. Boris, & C. E. Steuerle, (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Conflict or collaboration? (pp. 291-328). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Reid, E. J. (2000). Understanding the word ‘ advocacy’: Context and use. In E. J. Reid, (Ed.), Structuring the inquiry into advocacy (pp. 1-8). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Rhodes, R. A.W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexitivity and accountability. Maidenhead, UK: Open University.
Rootes, C. (1999). Acting globally, thinking locally? Prospects for a global environmental movement. In C. Rootes, (Ed.), Environmental movements: Local, national and global (pp. 290-310). London: Frank Cass.
Rosenbaum, W. A. (1991). Environmental politics and policy. ( 2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
Rucht, D. & Roose, J. (1999). The German environmental movement at a crossroads? In C. Rootes, (Ed.), Environmental movements: Local, national and global (pp. 59-80). London: Frank Cass.
Saward, M. (1993). Green Democracy? In A. Dobson & P. Lucardie, (Eds.), The politics of nature: Explorations in green political theory (pp. 63-80). London: Routledge.
Schedler, A. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner, (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 13-28). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Schedler, A., Diamondm, L., & Plattner, M. F. (1999). Introduction. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.) The self-restraining state: power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 1-10). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Schene, P. M. (1991). Accountability in nonprofit organizations: A framework for addressing the public interest. Doctoral thesis, University of Colorado, Denver.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organization. (2nd ed., 1st ed. 1994). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93(3), 623-658.
Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
Tandon, R. (1996). Board games:Governance and accountability in NGOs. In M. Edwards, & D. Hulme, (Eds.), Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world (pp. 53-63). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian.
The Aspen Institute. (2002). Foundation accountability and effectiveness: A statement for public discussion. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Tyler, T. R. (2001). A psychological perspective on the legitimacy of institutions and authorities. In J. T. Jost & B. Major, (Eds), The psychology of legitimacy (pp. 416-436), Cambridge, UK: The University of Cambridge Press.
Uphoff, N. (1996). Why NGOs are not a third sector: a sect oral analysis with some thoughts on accountability, sustainability, and evaluation. In M. Edwards, & D. Hulme, (Eds), Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world (pp. 23-39). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian.
Van Kersbergen, K. & Van Waarden, F. (2004). “Governance” as a bridge between disciplines: cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problem of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 143-171.
Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95-107.
Young, D.R. (2002). The influence of business on nonprofit organizations and the complexity of nonprofit accountability: Looking insides as well as outside. American Review of Public Administration, 32(1), 3-19.
Zeldith, M. Jr. (2001). Theories of legitimacy. In J. T. Jost & B. Major, (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy (pp. 33-53). Cambridge, UK: The University of Cambridge Press.
Zucker, L.G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53-111.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top