Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133438
題名: 公共政策的設計與變遷:以交通部觀光局觀光旅遊補助政策為例之研究(2018-2019)
The Design and Changes of Public Policy: Taking the Tourism Subsidy Policy as An Example (2018-2019)
作者: 蔡孟宏
Tsai, Meng-Hong
貢獻者: 陳敦源
Chen, Don-Yun
蔡孟宏
Tsai, Meng-Hong
關鍵詞: 政策設計
政策變遷
國內旅遊
旅遊補助
補助政策
Policy design
Policy change
Domestic tourism
Tourism subsidy
Subsidy policy
日期: 2020
上傳時間: 4-Jan-2021
摘要: 觀光旅遊已成為我國重要的產業,不僅創造許多工作機會,更帶來龐大的外匯,而隨著天災、國內外情勢等,讓國內觀光旅遊出現消退,政府隨而制定旅遊補助政策以挽救低靡的觀光。本研究分析從2018年到2019年間,交通部觀光局分別推出的「宜花東高屏暖冬遊」、「擴大國旅暖冬遊」、「春遊專案」、「擴大秋冬國民旅遊」等四個接續的政策,希望透過政策引導民眾前往旅遊以振興觀光產業。\n本研究以工具面、政治面、循環面,重新繪製了政策設計的概念,用以分析四次大型且連續的旅遊補助,希望能在政策設計過程中,理解政策轉變的原因,並說明政策設計的限制與要素。透過次級資料可以觀察政策是否有達成其目標,並透過利害關係人訪談內容說明政策設計的過程與回饋。次級資料中,可以看到在補助政策之下的旅遊人次、平日住房率都有所提升,可以宣稱政策有效果;而在訪談中也得知訪談對象認為旅遊補助政策雖然在短期間有助益,但對是否應持續推行則有所疑慮,擔心其產生負面效果,對觀光產業長遠發展造成不利。\n回到政策設計的概念中,可以觀察到旅遊補助政策是個政策設計空間受限的政策。目標已經從過往的「救急」轉而「救窮」,在政策設計過程中,也往往會受到其他關係人的影響,讓設計的空間受限,進而呈現出旅遊補助的大方向無法被改變,設計者僅能在有限的空間中進行設計。本研究也認為當政策被越多人所關注,就越不可能進行大刀闊斧的改革;被越多人注目,就代表著應該要有更多的努力與協調,才能讓政策順利運行。\n最後本研究認為旅遊補助的政策設計是在有限空間中被迫產出的調適,除了理性的分析外,更需要注意到非理性的層面與其他限制要素。在政策建議上,可以朝向建立旅客足跡與法規的明確化發展,讓政策更到位,並且重新反思旅遊的價值,為該政策提供正當性。
Tourism has become an important industry in Taiwan. It not only creates many job opportunities, but also brings huge foreign exchange. With natural disasters and domestic and foreign situations, domestic tourism has faded, and the government has subsequently formulated tourism subsidy policies to save the tourism industry in Taiwan. This study analyzes four successive policies, namely "Warm-Winter Tour Project ", "Expanding Warm-Winter Tour Project ", "Spring Tour Project", and "Expanding Autumn and Winter National Tourism Project", which were launched by the Tourism Bureau of the Ministry of Transport in Taiwan from 2018 to 2019. Expecting that policies will guide people to travel to revitalize the tourism industry.\nThis research redraws the concept of policy design from the aspects of tool, political, and circular to analyze four large-scale and continuous tourism subsidy, hoping to understand why these policies had changed in the process of the policy design, and explain restrictions and elements of it. Through secondary data, we can observe that whether the policies had achieved their goals, and explain the process and feedback of policy design through interviews with stakeholders. From the secondary data, we can tell that the number of tourists and the average housing rate under the subsidy policies did increase, and it can be claimed that the policies took effect. In the interview, it is also learned that although the tourism subsidy policy is helpful in a short period of time, whether if it should continue to be implemented, there are doubts about the negative effects that will be harmful to the development of tourism.\nAs for the concept of policy design, it can be observed that the tourism subsidy policy is a policy with limited space to change. Simultaneously, the process of policy design is strongly affected by other stakeholders, limiting the space that can be designed. The consequences not only show that the general direction of tourism subsidy cannot be changed, also designers can only design in a limited space. This research also finds that the more people pay attention to a policy, the less likely it is going to carry out drastic reforms, which means that more efforts and coordination are needed to make the policy run smoothly.\nIn conclusion, this research believes that the policy design of tourism subsidy is the adjustment of forced output in a limited space. In addition to rational analysis, it is necessary to pay attention to the irrational level and other restrictive factors. In terms of policy recommendations, we can move towards the establishment of a clearer development of passenger footprints and regulations, so that policies can be more on point, and the value of tourism can be reconsidered to provide legitimacy for policies.
參考文獻: 山崎亮(2018)。社區設計的時代:用「不造物的設計」概念打造二十一世紀理想社會,全面探究社區設計的工作奧義、設計總體方針,以及如何與社群團體培養合作默契,莊雅琇(譯),臺北:臉譜。\n王光旭(2005)。政策綱絡研究在公共行政領域中的核心地位與方法錯位。政策研究學報,5,61-102。\n王光旭、熊瑞梅(2014)。解嚴前後台灣都市政治的再檢視(1986-1992):網絡觀點下的台中市都市發展。都市與計劃,41(1),1-41。\n丘昌泰(2013)。公共政策:基礎篇。臺北:巨流。\n丘昌泰(2014)。公共管理。臺北:智勝。\n石慶賀、蔡漢生(2018)。台灣觀光政策之演進:從公元1945至2000年。島嶼觀光研究,11(1),37-60。\n江明修(2009)。研究方法論。臺北:智勝。\n江明修、曾冠球(2020)。解讀政策評估:領導者的決策心法。臺北:五南。\n交通部觀光局(2000)。觀光政策白皮書。臺北:交通部觀光局。\n交通部觀光局(2017)。Tourism 2020—台灣永續觀光發展方案(106-109年)(核定本)。臺北:交通部觀光局。\n交通部觀光局(2018a)。中華民國106年國人旅遊狀況調查報告。臺北:交通部觀光局。\n交通部觀光局(2018b)。交通部觀光局邀全民相揪,「前進宜花東高屏暖冬遊」,樂齡族出遊加碼優惠,2020年3月21日,取自:https://admin.taiwan.net.tw/ActivitiesDetailC001200.aspx?Cond=dd5dc235-5751-4fc0-9998-dfb593ed1363。\n交通部觀光局(2018c)。中華民國105年國人旅遊狀況調查報告。臺北:交通部觀光局。\n交通部觀光局(2019a)。Tourism 2030 觀光政策白皮書總諮詢會議—人人心中有觀光部會齊心拚觀光,2020年3月21日,取自:https://www.taiwan.net.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0029853。\n交通部觀光局(2019b)。中華民國107年國人旅遊狀況調查報告。臺北:交通部觀光局。\n交通部觀光局(2019c)。春遊專案住宿優惠措施Q&A,2020年3月21日,取自:https://swcoast-nsa.travel/file/10141/。\n交通部觀光局(2019d)。春遊專案結合在地資源,中央地方與旅遊業共同參與,精進國民旅遊發展,2020年3月21日,取自:https://admin.taiwan.net.tw/ActivitiesDetailC001200.aspx?Cond=330f9bd8-c4fc-48ef-8c24-46e5bfa1c547。\n交通部觀光局(2020a)。中華民國108年觀光統計年報。臺北:交通部觀光局。\n交通部觀光局(2020b)。中華民國108年國人旅遊狀況調查報告。臺北:交通部觀光局。\n交通部觀光局(n.d.)。擴大秋冬國民旅遊,2020年3月21日,取自:https://admin.taiwan.net.tw/FileUploadCategoryListC005100.aspx?CategoryID=e37e4a45-85b3-4baa-a555-02d9d80e797a&appname=FileUploadCategory5109。\n行政院(2019a)。Tourism 2020—台灣永續觀光發展方案,2020年3月21日,取自:https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/e628b12a-ea44-4ae0-9833-00df23ad624e。\n行政院(2019b)。暖冬旅遊方案執行成效,2020年3月21日,取自:https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/448DE008087A1971/f7b6959a-c9fb-4a1d-a09b-e8d9def155bd。\n行政院(2019c)。當前總體經濟情勢及未來展望,2020年3月21日,取自:https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/448DE008087A1971/529668dd-8ccb-4977-aee4-7dab4fd9a7d7。\n行政院(2019d)。蘇揆:擴大秋冬國民旅遊奬勵計畫,帶動內需及觀光,2020年3月21日,取自:https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/9277F759E41CCD91/9125709e-707f-4be6-8695-afa7c7e9ceac。\n李允杰、丘昌泰(2003)。政策執行與評估。臺北:元照。\n李宗祐、陳正國、陳正隆、饒兆興(1994)。標的群體之社會建構:政治與政策上的意涵。中國行政評論,3(3),213-238。\n吳定(2013)。公共政策辭典(4版)。臺北:五南。\n吳定(2017)。公共政策(2版)。臺北:五南。\n余致力、毛壽龍、陳敦源、郭昱瑩(2008)。公共政策。臺北:智勝。\n金之中(2010)。折價券特性對消費者購買意願之影響—以大學生為例。東海大學工業工程與經營資訊學系碩士論文,未出版,臺中。\n林水波、王崇斌(1996)。公共政策論述的倫理。中國行政評論,6(1),1-26。\n林水波、王崇斌(1998)。政策論述與政策變遷的關聯性-批判取向的分析。台灣政治學刊,3,245-273。\n林水波(2006)。政策變遷的三面向分析。政策研究學報,6,1-18。\n林淑馨(2015)。行政學。臺北:三民。\n周靜宜(2011)。大鵬灣風景特定區遊客旅遊動機與滿意度之研究。國立屏東教育大學社會發展學系碩士論文,未出版,屏東。\n周永暉、歐陽忻憶、陳冠竹(2018)。台灣觀光2020永續發展策略。台灣當代觀光,1(1),1-20。\n柯于璋(2009)。災後遷村計畫之政治可行性分析:以高雄縣藤枝新舊部落爲例。台灣政治學刊,13(1),107-159。\n紀怡禎(2012)。投資人對於本益比之定錨效應:以台灣市場為例。國立高雄大學金融管理學系碩士班碩士論文,高雄。\n徐仁輝、郭昱瑩(2014)。政策分析。臺北:智勝。\n翁筱婷(2012)。探討折價券兌換因素之研究─以家樂福量販店為例。國立中山大學企業管理學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。\n孫同文、林玉雯(2011)。一個或多個政策網絡?中部科學園區開發與營運的個案分析。空大行政學報,22,19-56。\n陳恒鈞(2009)。我國高速公路電子收費系統政策變遷之分析:整合型分析模式。政治科學論叢,39,1-53。\n陳雅琴(2011)。藝文政策間接補助機制規劃之研究(編號:RDEC-RES-099-005)。臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員會。\n陳怡婷(2012)。短期下投資人注意力與心理定錨效應─以台灣股票市場為例。國立政治大學國際經營與貿易研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。\n陳亦柔(2018)。我國國人境內旅行特徵之探討。國立臺北大學財政學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,新北。\n陳欽春(2018)。桃園觀音蓮花季效應評估的政策意涵:三、四代評估途徑的聚焦與對話。中國地方自治,71(4),21-59。\n陳敦源、郭政瑋(2011)。民主治理中之資訊交易關係:以臺北市政府府會聯絡機制為例之研究。文官制度季刊,3(3),37-87。\n陳敦源、劉宜君、蕭乃沂、林昭吟(2011)。政策利害關係人指認的理論與實務:以全民健保改革為例。國家與社會,10,1-65。\n張潤書(2017)。行政學(修訂四版)。臺北:三民。\n張秦瑞、孫同文、郭瑞坤、沈逸晴(2013)。地方觀光發展協力治理機制之探究:以南投縣觀光發展為例。觀光休閒學報,19(2),105-128。\n張筵儀、王俊元、吳政峰(2011)。政策設計、公部門網絡治理與標的人口社會建構之移轉-毒品危害防制政策之分析。競爭力評論,14,73-100。\n許藝齡(2011)。公務人員使用國民旅遊卡從事旅遊行為之研究-心理帳戶觀點之應用。國立高雄餐旅大學旅遊管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。\n黃紀(2005)。投票穩定與變遷之分析方法:定群類別資料之馬可夫鍊模型。選舉研究,12(1),1-37。\n黃靜吟(2014)。從後實證觀點探討碳排放交易與碳稅的政策工具選擇。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。\n葉華容(2018)。我國觀光市場結構變化與利基分析。經濟前瞻,180,86-92。\n楊明賢(2007)。觀光學概論(第二版)。新北:楊智。\n趙珮伊(2010)。國內股市定錨效應之研究─以2008年臺灣總統大選期間為例。國立宜蘭大學應用經濟學系碩士班碩士論文,未出版,宜蘭。\n劉濬誠(2019)。有別於西歐的東亞經驗:臺灣移工政策設計的考察(1980-2016)。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。\n潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究:理論與應用。新北:心理。\n謝宗學(2003)。政策工具選擇的政治經濟學:以經發會基本工資的爭議為例。公共行政學報,9,89-121。\n蘇貞如(2011)。公務人員國民旅遊卡及現金之消費行為研究-心理帳戶觀點之應用。國立高雄應用科技大學商務經營研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。\n\nBrown, T. (2010). 設計思考改造世界,吳莉君(譯),新北:聯經。譯自Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation.\nDunn, W. N. (2002). 公共政策分析,李明寰(譯),臺北:時英。譯自Public policy analysis : an introduction, 2nd ed.\nSchneider, J., & Stickdorn, M. (2013). 這就是服務設計思考,池熙璿(譯),臺北:中國生產力中心。譯自This is service design thinking: basics, tools, cases.\nSmith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2016). 公共政策入門(2版),蘇偉業(譯),臺北:五南。譯自The Public Policy Theory Primer.\nVerganti, R. (2013). 設計力創新,呂奕欣(譯),臺北:馬可孛羅。譯自Design-Driven Innovation: changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean.\nWeimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2004). 最新政策分析:概念與實踐,陳恒均、蔣麗君、韓家瑩、侯淑嫣、周劭彥(譯),臺北:韋伯。譯自Policy analysis : Concepts and practice, 3rd ed.\n\nAnderson, R. A. (1994). Stress effects on chromium nutrition of humans and farm animals. Biotechnology in the feed industry, 267-274.\nBuchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design issues, 17(4), 3-23.\nBrinkerhoff, D. W., & Crosby, B. (2002). Managing policy reform: Concepts and tools for decision-makers in developing and transitioning countries. Boulder, CO: Kumarian Press.\nCapano, G., & Lippi, A. (2017). How policy instruments are chosen: Patterns of decision makers’ choices. Policy Sciences, 50(2), 269-293.\nDahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics and welfare: planning and politico-economic systems, resolved into basic processes. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.\nDye, T. R. (1972). Policy analysis and political science: Some problems at the interface. Policy Studies Journal, 1(2), 103-107.\nDann, G. M. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of tourism research, 4(4), 184-194.\nEaston, D. (1955). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. Ethics 65 (3):201-205.\nFischer, F. (1980). Politics, values, and public policy: The problem of methodology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.\nGerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American political science review, 98(2), 341-354.\nHeclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The New American Political (pp. 87-124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.\nHood, C. (1983). The tools of government. London, UK: Macmillan.\nHowlett, 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.\nHowlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford university press.\nHowlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. London, UK: Routledge.\nHowlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187-207.\nHowlett, M. (2018). The criteria for effective policy design: character and context in policy instrument choice. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 11(3), 245-266.\nIngraham, P. W. (1987). Toward more systematic consideration of policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 15(4), 611.\nInman, J. J., & McAlister, L. (1994). Do coupon expiration dates affect consumer behavior? Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 423-428.\nIngram, H., Schneider, A. L. (2006). Policy analysis for democracy. In Goodin, R. E., Moran, M., & Rein, M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (Vol. 6). Oxford Handbooks of Political.\nIngram, H., Schneider, A. L., & DeLeon, P. (2007). Social construction and policy design. Theories of the policy process, 2, 93-126.\nKaplan, A. (1973). On the strategy of social planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 41-61.\nLasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: who gets what, when, how? New York, NY:McGraw-Hall.\nLowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public administration review, 32(4), 298-310.\nLinder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237-259.\nLinder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of public policy, 9(1), 35-58.\nLoewenstein, G., & Chater, N. (2017). Putting nudges in perspective. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 26-53.\nMeltsner, A. J. (1972). Political feasibility and policy analysis. Public administration review 32(6), 859-867.\nMcFarland, A. S. (1987). Interest groups and theories of power in America. British Journal of Political Science, 17(2), 129-147.\nMarsh, D., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (1992). Policy networks in British government. Clarendon Press.\nMitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review, 22(4), 853-886.\nMees, H. L., Dijk, J., van Soest, D., Driessen, P. P., van Rijswick, M. H., & Runhaar, H. (2014). A method for the deliberate and deliberative selection of policy instrument mixes for climate change adaptation. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 58.\nSalamon, L. M. (1989). Beyond privatization: The tools of government action. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Insitute.\nSchneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1988). Systematically pinching ideas: A comparative approach to policy design. Journal of public policy, 8(1), 61-80.\nSchneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1990). Policy design: Elements, premises and strategies. Policy theory and policy evaluation: Concepts, knowledge, causes and norms, 77-102.\nSchneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1993). The social construction of target populations. America Political Science Review, 87(2), 334-347.\nSchneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.\nSchneider, A., & Sidney, M. (2009). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 103-119.\nStone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: w.w. Norton.\nStraus, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.\nSimon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Lodon, UK: MIT press.\nUNWTO (n.d.). Policy and Destination Management. Retrived March, 21, 2020, from https://www.unwto.org/policy-destination-management.\nWTTC (n.d.). The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) represents the Travel & Tourism sector globally. Retrived May, 11, 2020, from https://wttc.org/en-gb/.\nWilson, J. Q. (1989). American Government: Institutions and Policies (2^nd ed.). Lexington, MA: D.C. Health.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
107256012
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107256012
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
601201.pdf4.68 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.