政大學術集成


Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133916


Title: 臺北市政府汲取首爾市參與式預算經驗之可行性評估
A Feasibility Assessment on the Lesson-Drawing of Participatory Budgeting of Seoul Special City in Taipei City Government
Authors: 張雅瑄
Chang, Ya-Hsuan
Contributors: 傅凱若
Fu, Kai-Jo
張雅瑄
Chang, Ya-Hsuan
Keywords: 參與式預算
首爾市公民參與預算
經驗汲取
Participatory budgeting
Participatory budgeting in Seoul Special City
Lesson-drawing
Date: 2020
Issue Date: 2021-02-01 14:15:51 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 臺北市辦理參與式預算多年,除展現初步成果,亦逐漸走向常態化,然而,未鑲嵌於體制內之公民參與易因不同政治首長所持有之理念與態度而有所變動,故於臺北市市長柯文哲已連選連任一次之際,下一任市長是否將繼續肯定與支持臺北市參與式預算之推動,便成為本研究所關切之處。韓國首爾市以韓國《地方財政法》第39條與《地方財政法執行法令》第46條作為其推動公民參與預算之基礎,並自行訂定《首爾市公民參與預算條例》,提供了其實施公民參與預算之體制與框架,亦使其推動能夠具備持續性;故本研究以經驗汲取作為理論基礎,並透過深入訪談法,以政府人員、專家學者與議會人員共9位對象為受訪者,探討首爾市公民參與預算於「法律規範」、「主責機關」、「預算學校」與「預算來源」方面之經驗,是否具有值得臺北市經驗汲取之處,以及若臺北市欲汲取首爾市之經驗,該以何種汲取經驗方法汲取之,該些經驗又是否能被臺北市所採用並執行。
本研究之研究結果有三:第一,首爾市推動公民參與預算之經驗具部分值得臺北市經驗汲取之處;第二,若臺北市欲汲取首爾市之經驗,得以「啟發」作為主要之汲取經驗方法;第三,前瞻性評估結果之不同,形成不同之經驗汲取情形,若臺北市欲採用並執行首爾市於「法律規範」與「預算學校」方面之經驗,將可能產生「可取」之經驗汲取情形,惟若臺北市欲採用並執行首爾市於「主責機關」與「預算來源」方面之經驗,則將可能面臨「雙重拒絕」之經驗汲取情形,或產生該經驗對臺北市而言,僅為「不需要的行政(技術)解決方案」情況。因此,本研究根據上述研究結果,提出五點研究建議:
一、短期內可藉由法制化確保臺北市參與式預算推動之持續性。
二、爭取中央法令對於參與式預算推動之支持。
三、培養臺北市市民參加參與式預算之習慣,並提升推動成效,以維持臺北市參與式預算之長期推動。
四、為初任公民參與委員會委員提供實務比例性高之強化教育課程。
五、提升局處承辦參與式預算窗口之位階。
The participatory budgeting (PB) in Taipei City has been held for many years, except showing its preliminary results, it is also gradually becoming normalized. However, citizen participation that is not embedded in the system is liable to change due to different mayors’ ideas and attitudes. Therefore, whether the next mayor of Taipei City continues to support the implementation of PB in Taipei City by the time the mayor of Taipei City, Wen-Je Ko, has already been won re-election, become the concern of this research. On the other hand, the PB of Seoul Special City based its implementation on Article 39 of the Local Finance Act and Article 46 of the Enforcement Ordinance of the Local Finance Act. Besides, Seoul Metropolitan Government formulated the Seoul City Citizen Participation Budget System Operation Ordinance to provide the system and framework for implementing PB and make the implementation sustainable. Thus, this research is based on lesson-drawing theory and takes the in-depth interview as the research method. Hope to understand if it is worth that Taipei City Government to draw a lesson from the PB implementation experience of Seoul Special City in terms of “legal norm,” “PM agency,” “budget school,” and “budget source.” Besides, what kind of lesson-drawing method should be selected and whether the PB implementation experience of Seoul Special City can be adopted and implemented in Taipei City Government are also important issues of this research.
The results indicate that, first of all, part of the PB implementation experience of Seoul Special City is worth lesson drawing. Second, if the Taipei City Government wants to draw a lesson from the PB implementation experience of Seoul Special City, it can take “inspiration” as the primary lesson-drawing method. Third, the difference in prospective evaluation results will form different lesson-drawing situations. If the Taipei City Government wants to adopt and implement the PB implementation experience of Seoul Special City in terms of “legal norm” and “budget school,” it may form a “desirable” lesson-drawing situation. However, suppose the Taipei City Government intends to adopt and implement the PB implementation experience of Seoul Special City in terms of “PM agency” and “budget sources.” In that case, it may form a “doubly rejected” lesson-drawing situation or face the situation that such experience is just an “unwanted administrative (technical) solution” for Taipei City Government. Accordingly, this research puts forward five research recommendations based on the above research results:
1. In the short term, legalization can ensure the continuity of the PB implementation in Taipei City.
2. Strive for the support of the central act of PB implementation.
3. Develop citizens’ habit of participating in PB and improve implementation effectiveness to maintain long-term implementation.
4. Offer an intensive educational course with a high practical proportion for new members of the Citizen Participation Committee.
5. Enhance the grade level of the PB contact person of the bureau in Taipei City Government.
Reference: 王文科、王智弘(2010)。質的研究的信度和效度。彰化師大教育學報,17,29-50。
王玉麟(1998)。美國中小學校長培育制度在我國實施之可行性研究。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
王嵩音(2017)。社交媒體政治性使用行為與公民參與之研究。資訊社會研究,32,83-111。
丘昌泰(2010)。公共政策基礎篇(四版)。臺北市:巨流。
丘昌泰、余致力、羅清俊、張四明、李允傑(2001)。政策分析(初版)。新北市:國立空中大學。
朱志宏(2000)。公共政策(二版)。臺北市:三民。
吳定(1998)。自政策學習觀點論政府再造之推動。公教資訊季刊,3(1),10-23。
吳定(2008)。公共政策(初版)。臺北市:五南。
余致力、毛壽龍、陳敦源、郭昱瑩(2007)。公共政策(初版)。臺北市:智勝文化。
李春興(2007)。美國營利性大學及其在我國可行性之研究。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
林水波(2004)。政策移植的策略性評估—以公投法為例。國家政策季刊,3(1),49-80。
林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花(2005)。質性研究方法:訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究,3(2),122-136。
林雨潔、劉宗熹、莊宜貞(2017)。我國參與式預算推動現況,2019年12月12日,取自:https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL3JlbGZpbGUvMC8xMTE5Mi8yZGI3Mzg5OS0xMDM1LTQ4MWQtYTNhZC04MmNhODc3ZjQ3ZTYucGRm&n=5oiR5ZyL5Y%2BD6IiH5byP6aCQ566X5o6o5YuV54%2B%2B5rOBLnBkZg%3D%3D&icon=..pdf
林彥丞(2008)。日本自行車政策移植之可行性分析:以台北市為例。淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士班碩士論文,未出版,新北。
林國明(2015)。參與式預算的操作程序與國外經驗。鄭麗君(編),參與式預算: 咱的預算咱來決定。臺北:財團法人青平台基金會。
周明秋(2012)。中興新村污水下水道建設之研究:政策移植觀點。國立中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺中。
呂冠瑩(2018)。參與式預算的幕後:臺北市基層公務人員情緒勞務與信任之研究。政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
孟旭華(2005)。地方政府參加國際組織之政策學習探討—以臺北市參加「亞洲主要都市網」為例。世新大學行政管理學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
侯珮諭(2011)。嬰幼兒閱讀運動(Bookstart)的政策學習與擴散:台中縣的個案分析。國立暨南國際大學公共行政與政策學系碩士論文,未出版,南投。
洪崇惟(2011)。臺灣污水下水道建設政策之政策學習分析—以嘉義市污水下水道建設為例。南華大學公共行政與政策研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義。
徐仁輝(2014)。參與式預算制度的理論與實踐。財稅研究,43(2),1-11。
徐淑敏、高光義、蔡馨芳、李俊達(2018)。推動參與式預算的借鏡與體制磨合之研究。臺北市政府研究發展考核委員會委託市政專題研究報告(編號: PG10611-0114),未出版。
陸秀琪(2015)。從政策學習觀點分析臺中市戶政事務所隱私櫃檯之設置。國立中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺中。
陳序廷、黃東益(2011)。為什麼創新先驅成為後進者?臺北市政府的行車倒數計時顯示器政策學習過程。公共行政學報,40,77-110。
陳亭妤(2018)。從公民與里長提案看臺北市參與式預算之推行。臺灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
陳恆鈞(2000)。二十一世紀的新課題:政策學習。法政學報,10,1-115。
陳家樹(2005)。政策學習的應用與成效分析─台北大眾捷運系統為例。南華大學公共行政與政策研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義。
張世賢(1986)。公共政策析論(初版)。臺北市:五南。
張玲玲(2017)。代議政治與參與式預算之競合─以臺北市參與式預算為例。國立臺灣大學社會科學院政治學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
張婷瑄(2018)。公部門專案管理的協調之初探—以臺北市參與式預算提案為例。臺灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
黃羽薇(2019)。臺灣公務員行政中立之研究-以政策學習觀點分析。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
黃東益(2004)。全球治理下政府知識管理的新面向:府際政策學習。國家政策季刊3(1),135-153。
黃怡萱(2017)。行政透明與公共信任─禽流感應變過程中的政策學習。世新大學國際廉能治理碩士在職學程碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
黃美芳(2002)。美國學校教育績效責任制及其在我國實施可行性之研究。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
黃秋燕(2011)。台北縣垃圾費隨袋徵收政策移植過程之研究。國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
黃雪曄(2013)。地方政府的政策學習—新北市公共托育中心政策個案研究。國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
許皓萱(2005)。我國國立大學校院校務基金委外經營可行性之研究。淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士論文,未出版,新北。
許敏娟、黃琬瑜、曾丰彥、林德芳(2017年11月)。推動臺北市參與式預算:程序與實踐的觀點。2017年社會暨公共事務學術研討會—永續發展與公共治理,臺北。
游于穎(2019)。參與式預算下公民參與:以臺北市新移民為例。臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
葉欣怡(2017年9月)。社區培力與參與式預算。社區發展新視野:全球觀點與在地推展國際研討會,臺北。
葉欣怡、林祐聖(2017)。參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗:以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例。民主與治理,4(1),69-95。
葉欣怡、陳東升、林國明、林祐聖(2016)。參與式預算在社區—文化部推展公民審議及參與式預算實驗計畫。國土及公共治理季刊,4(4),29-40。
彭莞婷(2018)。從基層官僚的觀點探討參與式預算的政策執行—以臺北市區公所為例。政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
萬毓澤(2015)。巴西愉港的參與式預算:神話與現實。鄭麗君(編),參與式預算:咱的預算咱來決定。臺北:財團法人青平台基金會。
萬毓澤(2016)。台灣當前的參與式預算概況:反省與前瞻,2019年11月10日, 取自:https://twstreetcorner.org/2016/03/01/wanyuze-2/。
臺北市政府民政局(2017)。臺北市政府105年度參與式預算成果報告專書(重新參與你的生活)。臺北:臺北市政府民政局。
臺北市政府(2017)。參與式預算(市級)SOP-106年版(1051229修正版),2019年11月5日,取自:https://pb.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=1EB2B5C16DE8EACB&s=463C3BF69A6BE62E。
臺北市政府(2017)。參與式預算(區級)SOP-106年版(1051229修正版),2019年11月5日,取自:https://pb.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=1EB2B5C16DE8EACB&s=463C3BF69A6BE62E。
臺北市政府(2018)。公民提案參與式預算資訊平台,2019年11月5日,取自:http://pb.taipei/lp.asp?ctNode=82089&CtUnit=3684&BaseDSD=7&mp=100012。
臺北市政府(2014)。柯P新政#3參與式預算,2019年11月5日,取自:http://kptaipei.tumblr.com/post/94296838864/柯P新政 3-參與式預算。
臺北市政府(2017)。臺北市參與式預算提案說明會執行計畫,2019年11月7日,取自:https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvMzE4L3JlbGZpbGUvMjg3MzMvNzQwOTM2MC83OTI3MTQ0NjQ0MzQucGRm&n=NzkyNzE0NDY0NDM0LnBkZg%3d%3d&icon=..pdf。
臺北市政府研究發展考核委員會(2018)。臺北市公民參與—開放政府的實踐。臺北:臺北市政府。
鄭宜婷(2018)。從政策網絡觀點探討參與式預算下社區營造之成效—以臺北市松山區為例。政治大學行政管理碩士學程學位論文,未出版,臺北。
劉宗熹、王國政(2018)。現階段我國參與式預算推動樣態分析,2019年11月10日,取自:https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL3JlbGZpbGUvMC8xMTM5NS9iNDc0MTdjZS0yZTRkLTRjOTUtOWFiOC1kNDJjM2I4NWI1NjkucGRm&n=54%2B%2B6ZqO5q615oiR5ZyL5Y%2BD6IiH5byP6aCQ566X5o6o5YuV5qij5oWL5YiG5p6QLnBkZg%3D%3D&icon=..pdf
劉宜君(2012)。臺灣推動醫療照護產業化之分析:政策學習的觀點。社會政策與社會工作學,16(1),183-232。
龍子煜(2008)。從政策學習觀點研究日本的管制影響評估(RIA):以日本環境省為例。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文,未出版,新北。
鍾起岱(1997)。再造政府與前瞻規劃。臺中:台灣省政府公務人員培訓處。
顏志豪(2016)。廉政平台之政策學習現象研究─以交通部及所屬機關為例。世新大學國際廉能治理碩士在職學程碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
蘇彩足(2017)。公部門推動參與式預算之經驗與省思。文官制度季刊,9(2),1-22。
蘇彩足、孫煒、蔡馨芳、陳思穎、廖唯傑(2015)。政府實施參與式預算之可行性評估。國家發展委員會委託研究報告(編號:NDC-DSD-103-020-005),未出版。
蘇淑婷(2017)。臺中市推動參與式預算之研究。中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺中。
顧正佩(2011)。中臺區域公共運輸系統整合之前瞻性評估研究:政策移植觀點。國立中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺中。
Ali, A. Md., & H. Yusof (2011). Quality in Qualitative Studies: The Case of Validity, Reliability and Generalizability. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, 5(1), 25-64.
Baxter, J., & J. Eyles (1997). Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: Establishing “Rigor” in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22, 505-525.
Bennett, C., & M. Howlett (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 275-294.
Bogdan, R. C., & S. K. Biklen (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Collins, M. E., A. Augsberger, W. Gecker, & K. Lusk (2018). What does youth-led participatory budgeting reveal about youth priorities? Ideas, votes, and decisions. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(4), 478-496.
Etheredge, L. S. (1981). Government Learning: An Overview. In L. L. Samuel (Ed.), The Handbook of Political Behavior, 2, 73-161. New York: Plenum Press.
Geurtz, C. & T. van de Wijdeven (2010). Making citizen participation work: The challenging search for new forms of local democracy in The Netherlands. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 531-549.
Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275-296.
Hwang, J. G., & D. H. Song (2013). Participatory Budgeting in Korea: A Focus on Participatory Budgeting in Yeonsu-Gu, Incheon. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from https://solidaritystorieskr.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/participatory-budgeting_e1848be185a7e186bce18486e185aee186abe1848ee185ace1848ce185a9e186bce18487e185a9e186ab.pdf
Jieun, O. (2019). A Study on the Effect of Participatory Budgeting on Strengthening Citizen’s Sovereignty: Focus on the Reinforcement Factors of the Citizen’s Sovereignty. Unpublished master dissertation, Department of Political Science & Policy Study, Sungkonghoe University, Seoul. 오지은 (2019). 주민참여예산제가 시민주권 강화에 미치는 효과 연구: 시민주권 강화요소를 중심으로. 미발표 석사 논문, 정 치 정책 학과, 성공회대학교, 서울.
Jimoon, L., & K. Jakyung (2013). The Effect of Participation Budgeting on Corruption Prevention. Korean Corruption Studies Review, 18(4), 189-214. 이지문 & 권자경 (2013). 주민참여예산제도가 부패방지에 미치는 영향 연구. 한국부패학회보, 18(4), 189-214.
Jimoon, L., & K. Jakyung (2015). Determinants of Efficacy on Participatory Budgeting in Local Governments: A Case of Seoul. The Korean Journal of Local Government Studies, 19(1), 121-145. 이지문 & 권자경 (2015). 주민참여예산제도 효과의 결정요인에 관한 실증연구: 서울시를 중심으로. 지방정부연구, 19(1), 121-145.
Jinyoung, K. (2015). A Study on the Problems on the Public Law and Improvements of the Seoul Metropolis Participatory Budgeting. InHa Law Review, 18(1), 189-220. 김진영 (2015). 서울특별시 주민참여예산제도의 공법적 문제점과 개선방안의 연구. 법학연구, 18(1), 189-220.
Jongpil, S., & K. Daejin (2017). Prospects and Limitations of Participatory Democracy in a Big Community: Focusing on the Participatory Budget System of Seoul Metropolitan City. Journal of Budget and Policy, 6(1), 113-151. 손종필 & 김대진 (2017). 예산과정에 있어서참여민주주의의 한계와 발전과제: 서울시 참여예산제도 사례를 중심으로. 예산정책연구, 6(1), 113-151.
Junghee, K. (2016). A Study on the Participation and Deliberation of the Civil Participatory Budget System: Focused on Seoul, Busan, and Daegue. Journal of Local Government Studies, 28(1), 77-104. 김정희 (2016). 주민참여예산제 운영의 참여성과 심의성 연구 - 서울, 부산, 대구 3개 광역도시를 중심으로. 한국지방자치학회보, 28(1), 77-104.
Kapoor, K. K., A. Omar, & U. Sivarajah (2017). Enabling multichannel participation through ICT adaptation. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 13(2), 66-80.
Myeonggoo, J. (2014). The Analysis for the residential participation budgeting system as Local Finance Act: The case study for the residential participation budgeting system in Seoul. Civil society and NGO, 12(2), 3-35. 진명구 (2014). 지방재정법상 주민참여제도에 대한 고찰 -서울시 주민참여예산제도 사례를 중심으로-. 시민사회와 NGO, 12(2), 3-35.
Patton, C. V., & D. S. Sawicki (1993). Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning (2^nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rose, R. (1991). What is lesson-drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), 3-30.
Rose, R. (1993). Lesson-drawing in public policy. New Jersey: Chatham House.
Rose, R. (2005). Learning from comparative public policy: A practical guide. London & New York: Routledge.
Sabatier, P. A. (1987). Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning, and Policy Change: An Advocacy Coalition Framework. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(4), 649-692.
Sangho, J. (2014). A Study on the Citizens’s Participatory Budgeting System of Seoul Metropolitan City: From the viewpoint of participatory democracy. Civil society and NGO, 12(1), 3-34. 정상호 (2014). 참여민주주의의 관점에서 본 서울시 주민참여예산제 연구. 시민사회와 NGO, 12(1), 3-34.
Sarang, K., & K. Daejin (2017). Prospects and Limitations of Participatory Democracy in a Big Community: Focusing on the Participatory Budget System of Seoul Metropolitan City. Journal of Budget and Policy, 6(1), 113-151. 손종필 & 김대진 (2017). 예산과정에 있어서참여민주주의의 한계와 발전과제: 서울시 참여예산제도 사례를 중심으로. 예산정책연구, 6(1), 113-151.
Seongil, Y., & I. Dongwan (2019). Indigenization of Participatory Budgeting. Seoul Association of Public Administration, 29(4), 89-115. 윤성일 & 임동완 (2019). 주민참여예산제도의 토착화. 한국사회와 행정연구, 29(4), 89-115.
Seoul Metropolitan Government (2017). Seoul Citizen Participation Budget White Paper: The Review of 2016 Citizen Participation Budget. Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government. 서울특별시 (2017). 서울시 시민참여 예산백서: 주민참여예산제 돌아보기 2016. 서울: 서울특별시.
Seoul Metropolitan Government (2018). Seoul Citizen Participation Budget White Paper: 2017 Citizen Participation Budget. Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government. 서울특별시 (2018). 서울시 시민참여 예산백서: 2017시민참여예산제 돌아보기. 서울: 서울특별시.
Seoul Metropolitan Government (2019). Seoul Citizen Participation Budget White Paper: 2018 Citizen Participation Budget. Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government. 서울특별시 (2019). 서울시 시민참여 예산백서: 2019시민참여예산제 돌아보기. 서울: 서울특별시.
Seoul Metropolitan Government & The Hope Institute(2019). 2019 Seoul Citizen Participation Budget School. Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government. 서울특별시 & 희망제작소 (2019). 2019 서울시 시민참여예산학교. 서울: 서울특별시.
Soojin, K., & S. Hindy Lauer (2013). Citizen participation in the budget process and local government accountability: Case studies of organizational learning from the United States and South Korea. Public Performance and Management Review, 36(3), 456-471.
Sowon, S. (2018). The Prospects of Overcoming the City Limit Model through Citizen Participation: Focusing on Local Government Participatory Budgeting. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 56(4), 59-91. 선소원 (2018). 시민참여를 통한 도시한계모형의 극복가능성: 기초자치단체의 주민참여예산제도를 중심으로. 행정논총, 56(4), 59-91.
Taeseop, Y., & B. Jungah (2016). A Re-evaluate of Citizen Participatory Budget System on the Effect of Local Finance Soundness and Efficiency. The Korea Journal of Local Public Finance, 21(1), 73-100. 윤태섭 & 배정아 (2016). 주민참여예산제도의 지방재정 건전성과 효율성 측면에서의 재조명. 한국지방재정논집, 21(1), 73-100.
Tobin, I., C. Wonhyuk, & W. C. Jesse (2014). Citizen preference and resource allocation: The case for participatory budgeting in Seoul. Local Government Studies, 40(1), 102-120.
Tobin, I., L. Hyunkuk, C. Wonhyuk & W. C. Jesse (2014). Citizen Preference and Resource Allocation: The Case for Participatory Budgeting in Seoul. Local Government Studies, 40, 102-120.
Yan, W., & W. Wen (2012). Does participatory budgeting improve the legitimacy of the local government: A comparative case study of Two Cities in China. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(2), 122-135.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
106256032
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106256032
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[Department of Public Administration ] Theses

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
603201.pdf19970KbAdobe PDF11View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing