跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.204.48.64) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/01 09:57
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:林玉珉
研究生(外文):Yu-Min Lin
論文名稱:彰化縣社福宅急便資源整合計畫實施成效之探討─治理網絡觀點
論文名稱(外文):The Study on Performance for Social Welfare Service with Speedpost Resource Integration Plan in Chung Hua County:Perspective of Governance Network
指導教授:李長晏李長晏引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chang-Yen Lee
口試委員:陳恒鈞紀俊臣
口試日期:2015-07-11
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中興大學
系所名稱:國家政策與公共事務研究所
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:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:中文
論文頁數:389
中文關鍵詞:治理網絡跨機關資訊系統資源整合社福宅急便到宅服務
外文關鍵詞:Governance networkCross-sector information systemResource integrationSocial welfare with speedpostHome service
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:128
  • 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
福利治理係當今世界治理國家的重要方向。邇來臺灣社會結構急遽改變,外加受到國內外經濟影響,致使臺灣社會有關民眾因經濟困頓自殺事件、家暴事件、兒童遭虐死亡等事件層出不窮,究其原因除外在不可抗力之因素外,政府未正視社會福利服務輸送體系之問題,實屬主要因素之一。本研究以治理網絡觀點進行彰化縣社福宅急便資源整合計畫個案之研究,以文獻分析、深入訪談等方式進行探究彰化縣跨機關資源整合實施之成效,以作為其他政府參酌之價值。
本研究目的如下:1.了解彰化縣社福宅急便資源整合計畫之實施策略及執行成效。2.從「治理網絡觀點」分析個案中利害關係人的參與狀態,探討其網絡管理及各方組織間的信任議題,歸納出個案的治理網絡。3.於個案研究的基礎之上,希望針對研究個案經歷之困境提供解決建議,同時對個案運作的永續發展提出分析與建議。
根據本研究發現歸納出對於彰化縣社福宅急便資源整合計畫實施成效之建議:一、強化跨機關資源整合系統之功能:強化系統功能與電腦硬體設施設備、增加社會福利服務申請項目、免付任何證明文件並開放該系統之權限讓更多其他部門或基層人員參與,其次係強化走動式到宅服務之功能、擴展社區關懷據點,並活化慈善團體的功能,讓社會福利服務輸送可以落實關懷到每一位弱勢族群與真正需要幫助的人。二、改善公私部門網絡互動關係:公私部門之參與及網絡互動關係品質可以提升社會處、計畫處與鄉鎮公所承辦人及村里幹事,乃至社區與慈善團體的信任關係,在良善的互動關係品質下進行各種溝通、協調,進而凝聚共識,提供有利於社會福利服務輸送的各項解決方案,預防社會上各種經濟類型的社會案件發生。三、彰化縣社福宅急便資源整合計畫之永續發展:與其他縣市連結等,並結合其他地方之社區與慈善團體協會,讓整個社會福利服務輸送可以更具整體與全面性,使彰化縣社福宅急便資源整合得永續發展。

Welfare governance is the important direction in the governance state all over the world. Recently with the rapid and dramatic change of the society structure of Taiwan, and the influence from domestic and international economic, many social affairs are appeared constantly including the suicide from the strained circumstances, domestic violence affairs, the child abuse affairs and so on in the Taiwan’s society. The reason is that includes the government neglects the problem about the social welfare service delivery system except the unpredictable eventuality. The research will be based on governance network respective and then engage in research about the study of social welfare service with speedpost resource integration plan in Chung Hua County. Moreover, the research will be engaged in the performance on social welfare service with speedpost resource integration plan in literature analysis, deep interview method and so on in order to provide the value for other government reference.
The research attempt to describe as below: (1) To understand the strategic and effects on implementation about social welfare service with speedpost resource integration plan in Chung Hua County. (2) Analyze the participate circumstance about stakeholders and investigate issues about network management and trust of inter-organization. Finally, integrate governance network about the case. (3) On the basis of case research, it hopes that provides the suggest about the solution on the research case’s experience and then provide the analysis as well as suggest according to the case’s operation for the sustainable development.
According to the result about the research and provide the suggest about the effects of implementation on social welfare service with speedpost resource integration plan in Chung Hua County as below: (1) Strength the function of cross sector resource integration system: strength function of system and the performance of computer equipment increase the items about social welfare service, free of any attached identification document and grant the power about the information system so that let more other department or street-level administrator participate in the policy. Second, strength the function of home service by wondering around, broad the community care centers and activate the function of the charitable organizations so that social welfare service delivery can care each the economically and politically marginalized as well as help the person who need to be helped.(2) Improve the interaction relationship about public and private sectors: The quality through the participation from public and private sector and network interaction can facilitate the trust relationship among department of social affairs, department of planning, street-level bureaucracy, communities and the charitable organizations. Moreover, under the goodness interaction relationship, they can engage in reach the consensus by the communication and negotiation. Otherwise, it can provide all kinds of solution projects which are beneficial to social welfare service delivery and some social affairs about economically and politically marginalized can be prevented in advance. (3) The sustainable development about social welfare with speedpost resource integration plan in Chung Hua County: Through the combine with other counties on information system platform and the integration with communities and the charitable organizations, social welfare service delivery can facilitate more holistically and wholly. Hopefully, social welfare with speedpost resource integration plan can be developed sustainablely.

摘 要 i
Abstract ii
目 次 iv
表 目 次 vi
圖 目 次 vii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 2
第二節 研究目的與問題 4
第三節 研究方法與名詞解釋 5
第四節 研究範圍、流程及限制 12
第二章 彰化縣社福宅急便資源整合計畫現況與分析 15
第一節 社會福利服務輸送體系之內涵 15
第二節 彰化縣社福宅急便資源整合計畫之內涵 18
第三節 彰化縣社福宅急便資源整合計畫執行現況 25
第三章 治理網絡相關理論文獻探討 31
第一節 文獻回顧 31
第二節 網絡興起背景、意涵與特質 33
第三節 治理網絡之相關概念 45
第四節 治理網絡的現況發展 59
第五節 治理網絡的評估標準與影響因素 63
第四章 研究設計 71
第一節 研究架構 71
第二節 研究對象與倫理 72
第三節 訪談提綱 74
第五章 結果分析 77
第一節 利害關係人參與 77
第二節 網絡管理 96
第三節 信任 110
第六章 結論 127
第一節 研究發現 127
第二節 研究建議 131
第三節 後續建議 132
參 考 書 目 133
附 錄 145
附錄 一、跨機關資訊系統計畫架構圖 145
附錄 二、簡化流程規劃 146
附錄 三、跨機資源整合服務項目 147
附錄 四、彰化縣跨機關整合服務流程 148
附錄 五、跨機關資源系統減佐附書表達到無紙化目標 149
附錄 六、訪談說明函 150
附錄 七、研究參與者訪談同意書 151
附錄 八、訪談逐字稿 152

一、中文部分
(一) 專書
司徒達賢 (2013)。《管理學的新世界》 (修訂二版)。臺北市:遠見天下文化。
呂育誠 (2007)。《地方政府治理概念與落實途徑之研究》。臺北市:元照。
李英明 (2005)。《新制度主義與社會資本》。臺北市:揚智文化。
沈智慧 (2009)。《戰略聯盟網絡治理與績效研究─以臺灣光電產業為例》。台北縣汐止:風雲論壇。
林淑馨 (2010)。《質性研究:理論與實務》。新北市:巨流。
林萬億 (2012)。《臺灣的社會福利:歷史與制度的分析》。臺北市:五南。
紐文英 (2014)。《質性研究方法與論文寫作》。臺北市:雙葉書廊。
張芳全 (2013)。《論文就是要這樣寫》。臺北市:心理。
張菁芬、莫藜藜 (2006)。《多元取向的社會工作服務模式》。臺北市:松慧。
莊秀美 (2012)。《營利部門與非營利部門於照顧服務提供之競合:日本戒護保險制度的服務提供多元化政策分析》。臺北市:松慧。
陳向明 (2002)。《社會科學質的研究》。臺北市:五南。
陳恆鈞 (2001)。《公共政策:政府與市場的觀點》。臺北市:商鼎文化。
陳恆鈞 (2012)。《治理互賴理論與實務》。臺北市:五南。
陳麗芬、王順民 (2013)。《社會福利服務析論:當代台灣地區的方案計畫討論》。臺北市:洪葉文化。
陳麗芬、王順民 (2013)。《社會福利服務析論》。臺北市:紅葉文化。
劉宜君 (2010)。《網絡管理的理論與實務之研究─以臺灣醫療觀光政策為例》。臺北市:商鼎文化。
劉麗雯 (2004)。《非營利組織─協調合作的社會福利服務》。臺北市:雙葉書廊。
蕭新煌、官有垣、陸宛蘋 (2009)。《非營利部門:組織與運作》 (修訂二版)。臺北市:巨流。
賴兩陽、吳來信、彭淑華、曾中明、劉麗雯 (2008)。《社會福利服務)。臺北縣蘆洲市:空大。
韓乾 (2008)。《研究方法原理》。臺北市:五南。

(二) 期刊論文
王仕圖 (2013)。非營利組織在社區照顧服務的協調合作─以社區照顧關懷據點為例。《臺大社會工作學刊》,第27期,頁185-228。
石泱、孫健忠 (2011)。原鄉地區福利服務輸送網絡建構之研究。《台灣原住民族研究季刊》,第4卷第4期,頁33-60。
宋餘俠 (2006)。重組行政組織及資訊系統提供整合服務。《研考雙月刊》,第30卷,頁1-8。
沈瓊桃 (2008)。婚暴併兒虐服務整合的挑戰與模式初探。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,第12卷第1期,頁51-90。
林淑馨 (2006)。日本地方政府的非營利組織政策:以三重縣與神奈川縣為例。《估共行政學報》,第21期。
林淑馨 (2012)。日本地方政府促進非營利組織協力之理想與現實。《政治科學論叢》,第51期,頁91-128。
柯秋雪 (2008)。美國早期療育到宅服務之發展概述。《國小特殊教育》,第46期,頁44-53。
陳文瑛、莊千慧 (2012)。推動為民服務工作沿革與精進方向。《研考雙月刊》,第36卷第6期,頁26-33。
陳怡君 (2008)。優質網路政府主動服務新思維─民眾e管家。《研考雙月刊》,第32卷第1期,頁57-65。
陳泉錫 (2008)。建立毒品成癮者單一窗口服務─毒品防治政策之策略規劃建議。《研考雙月刊》,第32卷第1期,頁66-76。
黃子華、李蕙芬 (2010)。政府推動整合型服務之探討─以單一窗口為例。《研考雙月刊》,第34卷第5期,頁39-52。
黃宏森 (2006)。共享性資源的網絡治理:台灣農田水利資源管理個案分析。《公共行政學報》,第21期。
黃源協 (2003)。從「單一窗口」到「網絡建構」─社區化老人長期照護模式。《長期照護雜誌》,第7卷第2期,頁103-111。
黃源協 (2005)。正式照顧對非營利網絡互動關係之影響─以原住民部落老人居家/送餐服務為例。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,第9卷第1期,頁163-198。
葉嘉楠、簡良哲 (2012)。里幹事執行社會救助政策之研究─以基隆市為例。《中華行政學報》,第13期,頁137-166。
廖宗侯、陳世嫈等人 (2009)。村里幹事之社會救助審查行為與影響因素─以臺中縣為例。《東吳社會工作學報》,第21期,頁55-82。
趙善如 (2009)。兒童少年福利服務資源網絡連結現況與影響因素之探討。《臺灣社會工作季刊》,第7期,頁85-128。
劉怡君、陳敦源、蕭乃沂等人 (2005)。網絡分析在利害關係人概念之應用─以我國全民健保政策改革為例。《台灣社會福利學刊》,第4卷第1期,頁55-130。

(三) 學位論文
王國能 (2011)。國軍退除役官兵輔導委員會長期照護之醫養合一政策執行評估之研究。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文,臺北。
石晏宇 (2010)。馬上關懷急難救助之福利輸送體系分析。國立政治大學社會工作學系碩士論文,臺北。
吳蓉璧 (2013)。政府與非營利組織網絡治理之研究─以身心障礙者支持性就業為例。
林大豐 (2010)。從協力治理觀點解析三義木雕文化產業之發展。國立中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所碩士論文,臺中。
林玫慧 (2012)。社區資源整合模式的分析─以南投市永興社區與草屯鎮富寮社區為例。國立暨南大學公共行政與政策學系碩士論文,南投。
林峻儀 (2007)。從地方治理論里長功能與角色之研究-以臺北縣中和市為例。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文,臺北。
孫珮瑜 (2011)。非營利組織策略聯盟網絡治理結構之研究,「臺灣公益團體自律聯盟」為例。國立台灣大學政治研究所碩士論文,臺北。
莊書涵 (2013)。探討影響偏遠地區老年男性利用健檢服務相關因素之研究─以高雄市田寮區為例。國立成功大學老年學研究所碩士論文,臺南。
陳奕廷 (2008)。組織網絡運作型態之分析─以南港區長期照護體系為例。私立淡江大學公共行政所碩士論文,臺北。
曾幼龍 (2011)。「漂、留」在都市邊緣─河岸聚落原住民社會福利輸送體系之研究。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文,臺北。
賴盟欽 (2009)。社區災後規劃、重建與資源動員之運用探討─以臺南龜丹溫泉社區為例。國立中興大學農村規劃所碩士論文,臺中。
謝幼緯 (2008)。社區公設民營老人安居住宅之研究─以新店屈尺社區「頤能自費安養中心」為例。國立政治大學地政研究所碩士論文,臺北。
謝俊義 (2007)。公共網絡管理─臺北市政府戶政業務跨機關服務傳遞協力合作網絡實證研究。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文,臺北。
簡旭志 (2014)。南投縣原住民老人社區照顧執行成效之探討─社區意識觀點。國立中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所碩士論文,臺中。

(一)譯著
吳芝儀、李奉儒 (1995)。《質性評鑑與研究》(Michanel Quinn Patton原著)。臺北縣新店市:桂冠。
吳芝儀、李奉儒 (2008)。《質性研究與評鑑》(Michanel Quinn Patton原著)。嘉義市:濤石文化。
李政賢 (2014)。《質性研究:從開始到完成》。(Robert K. Yin原著)。臺北市:五南。
孫健忠、賴兩洋、陳俊全 (2005)。《人群服務組織管理》(Peter M Kettner原著)。臺北市:雙葉書廊。
藍毓仁 (2008)。《質性研究方法》(Jane Ritchie, Jane Lewis原著)。臺北:巨流。






二、西文部分
(一) 專書
Baumgartner, F.R. & Jones, B. (2009). Agenda and instability in American politics (2nd edition) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Benz, A., & Papadopoulos, Y. (2006). Governance and democracy. London: Routledge.
Berry, F., R. Brower, S. Choic, W. Goas, H. Jan, M. Kwon, & J. Ward. (2004). Three Traditions of Network Research: What the Public Management Research Agenda Can Learn from other Research Communities. Public Administration Review 64(5): 539-52.
Borra’s, S. (2007). Governance networks in the EU: The case of GMO policy. In Marcussen, M and Torfing, J (eds), Democratic Network Governance in Europe. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Castells, M. (2000)[1996]) The rise of the network society: economy, society and culture. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Cobb, R. W. & Elder, C.D. (1983). Participation in American politics: the dynamic of agenda-building. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dahl, R.A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Erik-Hans Klijn, Bram Steijn, Jurian Edelenbos & Brenda Vermeeren (2011). Steering for Social Outcome in Governance Networks: The Effects of Participation and Network Management. In Lawrence R. Jones (Eds), Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management(165-183). UK: Emerald Group.
Grote, J. R., & Gbikpi, B. (eds). (2002). Participatory governance. Opladen: Leske and Budrich.
Hajer, M. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: the case of acid rain in Britain. In Frank Fisher & John Forester (eds). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.
Hans-Klijn, E (2007). Policy and implementation networks: managing complex interactions. London: Sage Publications.
Hodge, G. & Greve, C. (eds) (2005). The challenge of public private partnerships, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. J. Oebbecke Nich normative steuerung in dezeltralen system, Stuttgart: Frans Steiner verlag.
Jacob Torfing, B. Guy Peters, Jon Pierre, and Eva S?rensen (2012). Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. New York: Oxford.
Jensen, L. & Kahler, H. (2007). The Danish ministry of finance as metagovernance: the case of public sector digitalizaiton’ in M. Marcussen & J. Torfing (2007). Democratic Network Governance in Europe Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp174-91.
Joris Voets & Wouter Van Dooren (2011). In Search of Network Performance. In Lawrence R. Jones (Eds), Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management(185-203). UK: Emerald Group.
Kahler, M. (2009). Network politics: agency, power and governance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Kaufmann, F.X.,Majone, G. & Ostrom, V.(eds) (1986) Guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector: The Brielefeld Interdisciplinary Project. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
Kenis, P. & Schneider, V. (1991). Policy network and policy analysis: scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. In Marin, B & Mayntz, R.(eds). Policy Network: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, 25-59.
Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H. & Kollenjan, J. F. M.eds (1997). Managing complex networks: strategies for the public sector, London: Sage.
Klijn, E. H. (2005). Networks and interorganizational management: challenging steering, evaluation and the role of public actors in E. Ferlie, L. Lynn & C. Pollitt (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klijn, E.-H., & Eising, R. (eds). (1990). The transformation of governance in the European Union. London: Routledge.
Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F.M. (2004). Managing uncertainties in network. London: Routledge.
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage.
Kooiman, J.(ed) (1993). Modern governance: new government-society interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publicaiton.
Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2012). The new public governance in public service interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Laia Martinez (2011). Governance networks as collaborative platforms for innovation in the public sector. Roskilde University, Denmark.
Lane, C. and Bachman, R. (eds) (1998). Trust within and between organizations: Conceptual issues and empirical applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lisa Blomgren Bingham & Rosemary O’Leary (2008). Big Ideas in Collaborative Public Management. Armonk, N Y . M E Sharpe.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995). Democratic network. New York: The Free Press.
Marcussen, M. & Torfing, J. (eds) (2007). Democratic networks governance in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Marin, B. & Mayntz, R.(eds) (1991). Policy networks: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Marsh, D. & Rhodes, R. A. W. eds (1992). Policy networks in British Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Marsh, D. ed. (1998). Comparing policy networks in British Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McLaverty, P. ed. (2002). Public participation and innovations in community governance, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Osborne, S. P. ed. (2000). Public-private partnership: theory and practice in international perspective, London: Routledge.
Robyn Keast, Myrna Mandell & Robert Agranoff (2014). Network Theory in the Public Sector: Building New Theoretical Frameworks. New York: Routledge.
Scharpf, E.W. (1978). Interorganizational policy studies: issues, concepts and perspectives’, in K.I. Hanf & F.W. Scharpf (eds) Interorganisational policy making. London: Sage Publications, 345-70.
Smith, G. (2005). Beyond the Ballot Box: 57 Democratic innovations from around the world. Report prepared for the Power Inquiry.
S?rensen, E. & Torfing, J. (eds) (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Steffek, J., Kissling, C., & Nanz, P. (eds). (2008). Civil society participation in European and global governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Tamyko Ysa, Marc Esteve (2011). Assessing Public Networks: Proposal for A New Unit of Analysis. In Lawrence R. Jones (Eds), Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management(41-56). UK: Emerald Group.
Teisman, G.R., van Buuren, A. & Gerrits, L. (2009). Managing complex governance networks. London: Routledge.
Torfing, J. (2007). Discursive governance networks in Danish activation policies. In M. Marcusssen & J. Torfing (eds), Democratic network governance in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Torfing, J. (2010). Assessing and improving effective interactive governance in Torfing, J., Peters, G.B., Pierre, J. & S?rensen, E.(eds). Interctive Govenance, Advancing Paradigm, 1-20.
Torfing, J.(2007). Introduction: democratic network governance in S?rensen, E. & Torfing, J.(eds): Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan, 1-22.
Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & S?rensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance: Advantage the paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(二) 未發表論文
Laia, M. (2011). Network Governance: Theories, Methods and Practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Roskilde University, Denmark.
(三) 電子期刊
Erik-Hans Klijn (2008). Governance and Governance Networks in Europe. In Public Management Review, Vol.10(4) . Retrieved 15 August 2008, from http:// dx.doi.org/10/1080/14719030802263954.
(四)期刊論文
Bekkers, V., Edwards, A., Moody, R. & Beunders, H. (2011) Caught by surprise? Micro-mobilization, new media and the management of strategic surprises. Public Management Review, 13(7):1003-21.
Borrás, S., & Conzelmann, T. (2007). Democracy, legitimacy and soft modes of governance in the EU: the empirical turn. European Integration. 29(5), 531-548.
Dent, M. (2006). Patient choice and medicine in health care: responsibilities, governance and proto-professionalization. Public and management revies. 8(3): 449-62.
Dente, B., Bobbio, L & Spada, A.(2005). Government or governance of urban innovation? A table of two cities. DisP, 162(3), 1-52.
Edelenbos, J. & Klijn, E. H. (2006). Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making: a comparative analysis of six interactive process in the Netherlands, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 16(3), 417-46.
Freeman, J.L. & Stevens, J.P. (1987). A theoretical and conceptual re-examination of subsystem politics’. Public Policy and Administration, 2(1),9-24.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. Amercian Journal of Sociology. 78(6), 1360-1380.
Hans-Klijn, E & Skelcher, C (2007). Democracy & governance networks: Compatible or not? Public Administration, 85(3), 587-608.
Hartly, L. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: past and presence. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 27-34.
Hjern, B. & Porter, D.O. (1981). Implementation structures: a new unit for administrative analysis’. Organizational Studies, 3:211-3.
J?rgenson, T.B. & Bozeman, B. (2002). Public values lost? Public Management Review, 4(1):63-81.
Kelly, J. (2006). Central regulation of English local authorities: an example of metagovernance. Public Administration, 84(3), 603-621.
Kleinnijenhuis, J., van Hoof, A.M.J. & Oegema, D. (2006). Negative news and the sleeper effect of distrust. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(2):86-104.
Klijn, E. H. & Koppenjan, J. F.M. (2000a). Public management and policy networks: foundations of a network approach to governance, Public Management. 2 (2),135-58.
Klijn, E. H. (2008). Complexity theory and public administration: what is new; key concepts in complexity theory compared to their counterparts in public administration research, Public Management Review. 10(3), 299-317.
Klijn, E.H. & Skelcher, C.K. (2007). Democracy and governance networks: compatible or not? Four conjectures and their implications for policy and practice. Public Administration, 85(3):587-608.
Klijn, E.H. (2008). Governance and governance networks in Europe. Public Management Review, 10(4): 505-25.
Le Galès, P. (2001). Urban governance and policy networks: on the boundedness of policy networks. A French case, Public Administration. 79(1), 167-84.
Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L. & Stoker, G. (2001).Trends in public participation: Part1-local government perspectives, Public Administration, (1),205-22
Manuel Laranja (2012). Network governance of innovation policies: The technological plan in Portugal. Science and Public Policy, 39, 655-668.
Milward, H. B. & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the Hollow state, Journal of Administration Research and Theory, 10(2),359-79.
Moulaert, F., & Cabaret, K. (2006). Planning, network and power relations: is democratic planning under capitalism possible? Planning Theory, 5(1), 51-70.
O’Toole, L. (1997). Treating networks seriously: practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45-52.
Olowu, D. (2002). Introduction-governance and public administration in the 21st century: A research and training prospectus. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68(3), 345-353. Doi: 10.1177/0020852302683003.
Paul Fawcett, Rob Manwaring $ David Marsh (2011). Network Governance and the 2020 Summit, 46(4): 651-667.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. N. (2008). Modes of network governance: structure, management. And effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252.
Provan, K.G., Huang, K. & Milward, B.H. (2009). The evolution of structural embeddedness and organizational social outcomes in a centrally governed health and human service network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19:873-93.
Reunanen, E.,Kunelis, R. & Noppari, E. (2010). Mediatization in context: consensus culture, media and decision making in the 21st century, the case of Finland. Communications, 35(3): 287-307.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies, ⅩLIV, 652-667.
Rogers, D.L. & Whetten, D.A. (eds) (1982). Interorganizational coordination: theory, research, and implementation. Ames, IA: Iowa Communication, 24(4), 284-92.
Scharpf, F. W. (1994). Games real actors could play; positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(1), 27-53.
S?rensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance notwork effective and demorcratic through metagovernacne. Public Administration, 87(2), 234-258.
S?rensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43(8): 842-868.
S?rensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2003). Network politics, political capital and democracy. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(6), 606-634.
S?rensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005a). Network governance and post-liberal democracy. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 27(2), 197-237.
S?rensen, E., & Torfing, J.(2005b). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195-237.
S?rensen, Eva (2006). “Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicans in Processes of Democratic Governance.” The American Review of Public Adminstraiton, 36(1):98-114.
S?rensen, Eva and Jacob Torfing (2007). Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Teece, D.J. (1992). Competition, cooperation, and innovation. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 18(1): 1-25.
Torfing, J., S?rensen, E., & Fotel, T. (2009). Democratic anchorage of infrastructural governance networks: the case of the Femern Belt Forum. Planning Theory, 8(3): 282-308.
Trubek, D. M., & Trubek, L. G. (2005). Hard and soft law in the construction of social Europe: The role of the open method of coordination. European Law Review, 11(3), 343-364.
Van Kersbergen, K. & Van Waarden, F. (2004). Governance as a bridge between disciplines: cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Reasearch, 43, 143-171.
Van Zoonen, L. (2012). I-pistemology: changing truth claims in popular and political culture. European Journal of Communication, 27(1): 56-67.
Warren, M. E. (2009). Governance-driven democratization. Critical Policy Studies, 3(1), 3-13.
(五)專書論文
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Weick, K.E. & Sctcliffe, K.M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: assuring high performance in an age of complexity. University of Michigan Business School Management Series, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
(六)研討會論文
Korthagen, I. & Klijn, E.H. (2012). Two clashing logics: the influence of media logic and mediatized politics on decision making process in governance networks. Paper presented at the International Research Society for Public Management conference, Rome, 11-13 April.
Montin, S. & Granberg, M. (2007). Local governance in Sweden. Local Governance in the Nordic Countries, ECPR conference, Pisa, 6-8 September.
Provan, K.G., & Kenis, P. N.(2005). Modes of network governance and implications for network management and effectiveness. Paper presented at the 8th Public Management Reaserch Conference, University of Southern California.
(七)研究計畫
Cepiku, D. & Meneguzzo, M. (2005). Interorganizational networks in the public sector: towards a multidisplinary theoretical framework. Conference of the international research seminar of public management. Budapest, April 2005.
Longstaff, P.H. (2005). Security, resilience, and communication in unpredictable environments such as terrorism, natural disasters, and complex technology. Cambridge: Program on Information Resources Policy, Center for Information Policy Research, Harvard University.
Patterson, T.E. (2000). Doing well and doing good: how soft news and critical journalism are shrinking the news audience and weakening democracy- and what news outlets can do about it. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
(八)網路等電子資料
IPCC (Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Climate change 2007: Synthesis report, Fourth assessment report [oline] www.ipcc.ch


電子全文 電子全文(本篇電子全文限研究生所屬學校校內系統及IP範圍內開放)
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 王仕圖 (2013)。非營利組織在社區照顧服務的協調合作─以社區照顧關懷據點為例。《臺大社會工作學刊》,第27期,頁185-228。
2. 葉嘉楠、簡良哲 (2012)。里幹事執行社會救助政策之研究─以基隆市為例。《中華行政學報》,第13期,頁137-166。
3. 黃源協 (2005)。正式照顧對非營利網絡互動關係之影響─以原住民部落老人居家/送餐服務為例。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,第9卷第1期,頁163-198。
4. 黃源協 (2003)。從「單一窗口」到「網絡建構」─社區化老人長期照護模式。《長期照護雜誌》,第7卷第2期,頁103-111。
5. 黃子華、李蕙芬 (2010)。政府推動整合型服務之探討─以單一窗口為例。《研考雙月刊》,第34卷第5期,頁39-52。
6. 陳泉錫 (2008)。建立毒品成癮者單一窗口服務─毒品防治政策之策略規劃建議。《研考雙月刊》,第32卷第1期,頁66-76。
7. 陳怡君 (2008)。優質網路政府主動服務新思維─民眾e管家。《研考雙月刊》,第32卷第1期,頁57-65。
8. 陳文瑛、莊千慧 (2012)。推動為民服務工作沿革與精進方向。《研考雙月刊》,第36卷第6期,頁26-33。
9. 柯秋雪 (2008)。美國早期療育到宅服務之發展概述。《國小特殊教育》,第46期,頁44-53。
10. 林淑馨 (2012)。日本地方政府促進非營利組織協力之理想與現實。《政治科學論叢》,第51期,頁91-128。
11. 沈瓊桃 (2008)。婚暴併兒虐服務整合的挑戰與模式初探。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,第12卷第1期,頁51-90。
12. 宋餘俠 (2006)。重組行政組織及資訊系統提供整合服務。《研考雙月刊》,第30卷,頁1-8。
 
無相關點閱論文