從政策論證的技術理性到政策對話的溝通理性──民宿管理政策個案分析

Abstract

本文基於公共政策學者W. Dunn所提出之政策論證理論概念，探討以下的問題。首先，比較2004年和1994年不同版本理論概念的演進和差異。其次，針對我國《民宿管理辦法》規範下的政策系絡環境，有關「家庭副業」與「五間客房」的政策爭議進行分析，驗證理論概念差異對於案例論證分析的影響。研究結果發現，經過反證後，可信度的被強化或是被削弱，仍然難以擺脫正向論證過程、以實現己方政策主張為目的之質疑；政策問題的爭議主要來自於政策價值的堅持和順應民意與從善如流的考量，而只有從政策論證正反並陳的技術理性到政策對話互動的溝通理性，所形成的政策建議才能夠化解衝突意見，提出更多元、更有可信度的政策方案，裨益決策者的政策選擇。

Policy argumentation is central to policy analysis and policymaking process. Based on William Dunn’s theoretical foundations, this paper explores three following research questions. To compare the theoretical concept differences of Dunn (1994,2004) in modes and elements of policy arguments is the first research question,whereas the authors testify substantial influences of different concepts upon rebuttal, backing, qualifier, and claims in the bed and breakfast policy contexts of practice, such as regulations of Family Side Job and Five-Room Maximum Limit. In the end, after rebuttals being strengthened or weakened, policy recommendations of consensus mode and adversarial mode may need continuing mutual learning through policy discourse to resolve conflicts. Since persuasion involves the marshaling of facts, data, and information, and the skillful construction of arguments, it is significant to convince policy stakeholders and provide more diverse and valuable policy alternatives based on policy values and the use of reason and logic.