2012年11月5日星期一
Fwd: 對______政策或_____公共議題的分析\ 建議書
Subject: 對______政策或_____公共議題的分析\ 建議書
對______政策或_____公共議題的分析\ 建議書
提案者名稱
議題形成之背景
核心問題
政策目標\ 評價政策的大原則及次原則 （可提及相關地方之政策或情況作為支撐點）
官方方案\ 現行政策
替代方案簡介
方案的比較
評估、建議、後續工作
參考資料
提案者之簡歷\ 組織背景
\\\\\\\\
Best wishes
From 陳卓華博士/Dr. Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士及哲學碩士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士，
澳門公共政策學會會長
澳門多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（城市規劃，交通政策，青少年問題，環保政策，公共行政改革，電子政務改革，人口政策，全澳人力資源規劃，科技政策，民主發展及政治參與，病態賭博防治，青年生涯規劃，保護文化遺產及文化產業發展，科學民意調查技術等），
Cwchan@ipm.edu.mo
Tel. +853-66357631
66485225
對______政策或_____公共議題的分析\ 建議書
提案者名稱
議題形成之背景
核心問題
政策目標\ 評價政策的大原則及次原則 （可提及相關地方之政策或情況作為支撐點）
官方方案\ 現行政策
替代方案簡介
方案的比較
評估、建議、後續工作
參考資料
提案者之簡歷\ 組織背景
\\\\\\\\
Best wishes
From 陳卓華博士/Dr. Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士及哲學碩士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士，
澳門公共政策學會會長
澳門多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（城市規劃，交通政策，青少年問題，環保政策，公共行政改革，電子政務改革，人口政策，全澳人力資源規劃，科技政策，民主發展及政治參與，病態賭博防治，青年生涯規劃，保護文化遺產及文化產業發展，科學民意調查技術等），
Cwchan@ipm.edu.mo
Tel. +853-66357631
66485225
Fwd: 澳門，夜市，問題 - Google 搜尋
Subject: 澳門，夜市，問題 - Google 搜尋
http://www.google.com.tw/search?q=%E6%BE%B3%E9%96%80%EF%BC%8C%E5%A4%9C%E5%B8%82%EF%BC%8C%E5%95%8F%E9%A1%8C&hl=zh-TW&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ei=-CmXUOazKceziQfKw4GQBg&ved=0CB8QpwUoAw&biw=768&bih=946
Best wishes
From 陳卓華博士/Dr. Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士及哲學碩士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士，
澳門公共政策學會會長
澳門多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（城市規劃，交通政策，青少年問題，環保政策，公共行政改革，電子政務改革，人口政策，全澳人力資源規劃，科技政策，民主發展及政治參與，病態賭博防治，青年生涯規劃，保護文化遺產及文化產業發展，科學民意調查技術等），
http://www.google.com.tw/search?q=%E6%BE%B3%E9%96%80%EF%BC%8C%E5%A4%9C%E5%B8%82%EF%BC%8C%E5%95%8F%E9%A1%8C&hl=zh-TW&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ei=-CmXUOazKceziQfKw4GQBg&ved=0CB8QpwUoAw&biw=768&bih=946
Best wishes
From 陳卓華博士/Dr. Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士及哲學碩士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士，
澳門公共政策學會會長
澳門多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（城市規劃，交通政策，青少年問題，環保政策，公共行政改革，電子政務改革，人口政策，全澳人力資源規劃，科技政策，民主發展及政治參與，病態賭博防治，青年生涯規劃，保護文化遺產及文化產業發展，科學民意調查技術等），
2012年10月29日星期一
Fwd: 中國評論新聞：城市化率50%是一條社會動蕩的危險警戒線
Subject: 中國評論新聞：城市化率50%是一條社會動蕩的危險警戒線
http://www.chinareviewnews.com/doc/1022/4/8/9/102248980.html?coluid=13&kindid=97&docid=102248980
http://www.chinareviewnews.com/doc/1022/4/8/9/102248980.html?coluid=13&kindid=97&docid=102248980
hk poverty - ppt- 2006
誰製造了貧窮? - 社會工作學系
web.swk.cuhk.edu.hk/~hwong/publication/.../Cause%20of%20Poverty.ppt - 頁庫存檔 - 類似內容
2006年10月28日 ... 在九七年前，香港政府一方面認為貧窮問題並不嚴重，亦視收入不平等是資本 ... 這種
合理化貧窮的態度導致了今天香港貧窮問題愈來愈嚴重的惡果。 ..... 在八十年代及九
十年代初期，雖然香港的製造業經已開始向中國大陸北移，製造 ...
web.swk.cuhk.edu.hk/~hwong/publication/.../Cause%20of%20Poverty.ppt - 頁庫存檔 - 類似內容
2006年10月28日 ... 在九七年前，香港政府一方面認為貧窮問題並不嚴重，亦視收入不平等是資本 ... 這種
合理化貧窮的態度導致了今天香港貧窮問題愈來愈嚴重的惡果。 ..... 在八十年代及九
十年代初期，雖然香港的製造業經已開始向中國大陸北移，製造 ...
中國改革開放以來存在的部分問題
9.1. 改革開放以來存在的部分問題.ppt
fk1ss.fungkai.school.hk/system/readfile.php?charset... - 頁庫存檔
農業問題︰政府對農業投資不足，導致農業發展緩慢，技術落後。 中國農業技術 ....
外國農產品向中國大量傾銷，對國內農民造成極大衝擊，加劇了農村的貧窮問題。
fk1ss.fungkai.school.hk/system/readfile.php?charset... - 頁庫存檔
農業問題︰政府對農業投資不足，導致農業發展緩慢，技術落後。 中國農業技術 ....
外國農產品向中國大量傾銷，對國內農民造成極大衝擊，加劇了農村的貧窮問題。
china poverty, land, city, rural, public policy
活動3.3
home.sbc.edu.hk/~lcs/sbcls/10-13/CHINA/ppt/act_3_3.ppt - 頁庫存檔
中國城鄉居民不僅在收入上存在較大差距，所享受的各種社會福利也存有較大差距。
... 中國政府須為城鄉貧富懸殊負上最大責任。 ... 業的發展，令農村貧窮問題持續。
活動3.4 三農問題
home.sbc.edu.hk/~lcs/sbcls/10-13/CHINA/ppt/act_3_4.ppt - 頁庫存檔
中國農業面對生態環境惡化的挑戰，包括水資源短缺及土地荒漠化等問題，以致人均
耕地面積連年銳減，從1996年的近1.6畝降到2007 ... 繳付國家規定的款項已對農民
構成一定壓力，地方政府卻向農民亂收費、亂集資，加重農民負擔。 .... 民貧窮問題。
3.2 改革開放下的社會民生問題1 貧富懸殊
home.sbc.edu.hk/~lcs/sbcls/10-13/CHINA/ppt/3_2_1.ppt - 頁庫存檔
近年來，中國的堅尼系數正不斷上升，反映中國的貧富懸殊問題日益加劇。 ... 自1978
年改革開放以後，中國政府在「讓一部分人先富起來」的原則下，改變了地域發展 ....
令農村不少農田遭荒廢，進一步打擊了農村及農業的發展，令農村貧窮問題持續。
Best wishes
From 陳卓華博士, Dr Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士，
澳門公共政策學會, Chairman,
澳門特區政府多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（交通，青少年問題，環保，城市規劃，公共行政改革，科技政策等），
思匯網絡政策研究總監.
Cwchan@ipm.edu.mo
Tel. +853-66357631 ; 66485225
home.sbc.edu.hk/~lcs/sbcls/10-13/CHINA/ppt/act_3_3.ppt - 頁庫存檔
中國城鄉居民不僅在收入上存在較大差距，所享受的各種社會福利也存有較大差距。
... 中國政府須為城鄉貧富懸殊負上最大責任。 ... 業的發展，令農村貧窮問題持續。
活動3.4 三農問題
home.sbc.edu.hk/~lcs/sbcls/10-13/CHINA/ppt/act_3_4.ppt - 頁庫存檔
中國農業面對生態環境惡化的挑戰，包括水資源短缺及土地荒漠化等問題，以致人均
耕地面積連年銳減，從1996年的近1.6畝降到2007 ... 繳付國家規定的款項已對農民
構成一定壓力，地方政府卻向農民亂收費、亂集資，加重農民負擔。 .... 民貧窮問題。
3.2 改革開放下的社會民生問題1 貧富懸殊
home.sbc.edu.hk/~lcs/sbcls/10-13/CHINA/ppt/3_2_1.ppt - 頁庫存檔
近年來，中國的堅尼系數正不斷上升，反映中國的貧富懸殊問題日益加劇。 ... 自1978
年改革開放以後，中國政府在「讓一部分人先富起來」的原則下，改變了地域發展 ....
令農村不少農田遭荒廢，進一步打擊了農村及農業的發展，令農村貧窮問題持續。
Best wishes
From 陳卓華博士, Dr Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士，
澳門公共政策學會, Chairman,
澳門特區政府多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（交通，青少年問題，環保，城市規劃，公共行政改革，科技政策等），
思匯網絡政策研究總監.
Cwchan@ipm.edu.mo
Tel. +853-66357631 ; 66485225
2012年10月14日星期日
Stpa, week 8, Dr Sunny Chan
Stpa, week 8, Dr Sunny Chan
公共政策、民意、政策議程、政策規劃、決策制定 （丘昌泰，ch.10)
「政策議程是民意與公權力的互動結果。」
@ 民意與公共政策形成
@ 民意調查
@ 民眾參與
@ 參與式民主與政策分析
////////
澳门政策征民意不应少于30天
关键字：澳门 民意 来源：南方都市报 。发布时间： 2012/5/21
公共政策咨询期不应少于30天，此后180天内须公布总结报告。澳门政府公布昨天刊登特首批示，对政策出台前公开咨询进行规范，包括政策咨询须面对有利害关系人士，咨询方式可以是落区探访、民意调查以及上电台与电视节目等。
澳门《公共政策咨询规范性指引》将于今日生效，澳门所有公共部门及实体等机构与组织须按此行事。指引将公共政策按层次分为"重大政策"及"政策项目及措施"，后者指为配合重大政策的实施而推出的各项具体项目及措施。重大政策以及被纳入施政报告的"政策项目及措施"均须按指引规定进行咨询。
该指引对政策咨询的对象、方式等细节进行了详细规范。直接、间接或潜在利害关系人、相关公共部门及实体、相关咨询组织等被特别纳入咨询对象。指引将政策咨询定位前期准备、咨询推行及总结评估三阶段。
政策推行机构需对相关利害关系人、或将涉及的群体等公众，进行前期性的意见及数据收集。公开咨询期间可依实际情况合理订定，但不应少于30天。
至于咨询的方式，指引称应以咨询文本为基础，并对文本进行详细规范。方式除讲解会、座谈会、研讨会等，还包括游戏活动、落区探访、民意调查、电台与电视节目等互动方式。而咨询项目总结报告须在结束后的180天内以书面方式公布。若该政策属法律及法规，自咨询期结束日至颁布期间少于180天，总结报告须于其颁布前公布。
\\\\\\\\
例子：香港國民教育政策。
澳門控制樓市政策，2012年10月。
\\\\\\\\\
討論：民主政治 vs 民粹政治，有什麼不同？
\\\\\\\\
民粹主義（平民主義）沒有特定的思想內涵，基本上它可以與任何意識形態結合，端視其社會情境或反對的對象而定。
民粹主義認為平民的利益被社會中的菁英所壓制或阻礙，而國家這個工具需要從這些自私自利的菁英團體復原健康，用來改善全民的福祉和進步。因此民粹主義者常被誤認為是運用巧妙辭令來訴諸於一般人民關切的經濟、社會、及其它常見的問題。1980年以後，大部份對民粹主義的學術研究都把它當成一種可以推廣許多不同的意識型態的政治語言來討論。
最近數十年來，民粹主義運動領袖在左翼和右翼都有見過。
民粹主義的相反詞是精英主義，尤其是政治菁英主義。
有些民粹主義者會主張移除政治菁英階層的腐化成分，並且倡導「人民優先」。民粹主義反對集權的執政政權的政見。許多民粹主義者將訴求重心放在特定的地區或是特定的社會階級，例如勞工階級，中產階級或是農民等等。通常他們自稱代表多數人民，並反對極權。
所謂「平民主義」作為一種政治立場，歸根結底是訴諸「民主」，通常反對極權的菁英份子，其形式多種多樣。對人民的信任最直接地導致平民主義的直接民主制訴求，它反對變質的代議制，力求讓權力真正的掌握在普通公民手裡。其最具特色的制度設計為：公投；另外便是公眾創制權；還有罷免權，它能迫使極權的政治菁英在公民出現不滿時接受民主選舉。20世紀初期，美國許多州在平民主義影響下頒布了憲法條款。平民主義在這個意義上可視為民主的一種表現形式。
值得注意的是，並不是所有進行民粹主義式活動的政治人物都是真正的民粹主義者，菁英主義者也會誤導平民主義。有些政治人物也會採行民粹主義式的政治語言，他們被批評為只是利用民粹主義式的政治語言當作組織的策略，而實際上，並無意也無心做平民的代表。甚至在二十世紀末的某些國家，民粹常被菁英主義者視為是挑動族群衝突、以獲取政治利益的代名詞。
\\\\\\\\\\\
民意，定義？如何產生？社會建構角度。
（丘昌泰，p.177)
民意調查，台灣，美國。
丘，p.178, footnote.
///////
民意的表達
直接表達
是由民眾親自對特定公共事務的表達意見，其方式有請願、遊行、抗議、Call-in、投書、連署、民意調查、公民投票、參與鄉里座談會等。
間接表達
指民眾透過他人，代為表達其對公共事務的意見。例如：請民意代表或大眾傳播媒體來傳達意見等。
投票是最常見的民意表達方式。除此之外，常見的民意表達方式包括：
意見領袖常會引領民意形成輿論；壓力團體經常匯集民意、表達民意；透過民意調查了解民意。
以影響力而言，經由意見領袖、壓力團體、以及民意調查等所匯集的民意，較易受到重視。
意見領袖與民意表達
▲ 意見領袖的特質
意見領袖
Opinion leader
又譯為輿論領袖
是指社會中的某些人，他們能經由言論而影響一定程度人數的態度或外在行為者。
就民主社會而言，通常應該是由民意來影響政策的形成，然而，實際上在民意的形成和表達過程中，意見領袖常具有重要的影響力。
意見領袖們經常將他們對於公共議題或政策的看法與分析，透過媒體進行傳播或溝通，影響民眾對於公共議題的看法，進而形成輿論。
意見領袖通常具有下列特質：
豐富的知識；創新的觀念；積極的參與；特定的魅力。
▲意見領袖如何代為表達民意
掌握民意的變化，維持其對政府決策的影響力。
積極參與各項活動來代為表達民意。
將選擇性的事實告訴民眾、傳達自己的理念、一般民眾不關心公共議題。
● 壓力團體與民意匯集
人民如果希望自己的意見能夠有效影響政策，就需要將意見相同之人結合起來共組團體，如此一來，其意見被聽見及被重視的程度將可以大幅增加。
在現代國家中，除了政黨之外，社會中還存在許多具有共同態度或共同利益，但並非以取得執政權為目的的團體，政治學者稱其為壓力團體（pressure group）或利益團體（interest group）。
由於利益團體為了特定權益，會透過各種管道向政府或政黨進行請求，企圖影響法案的草擬和審議，這無形中也對政府或政黨形成壓力，因而也是一種壓力團體。
壓力團體和政黨不同之處在於，政黨係以贏得選舉，獲得執政權為目的，而壓力團體則以爭取其所關心之理念或利益為目的，因此壓力團體常會藉由捐款或是支持某些候選人，這些候選人當選後，將會支持合乎該壓力團體理念或維護該團體利益之政策。
需要注意的是，壓力團體雖然能夠匯集民意，成為民意表達的重要管道，但是，由於這些壓力團體組成的人數、成員的社經地位、團體所擁有的資源等並不相同，因此對於政策之影響力也會有所不同。
▲ 壓力團體的種類
以組成性質區分
組織性團體
經由法定程序所組成的團體。
非組織性團體
基於階級、血緣、特殊關係，而無正式組織與溝通方式所形成的團體。
依組成之目的區分
公益性團體
以追求公共利益為主要目的。
私立性團體
以追求團體成員之利益為目的。
政治學者依壓力團體組成之目的，將壓力團體分為兩大類：
宣傳型團體
這類的壓力團體，其成員關心共享的價值、理念或原則，一般被稱為宣傳型團體，例如：動物保護團體、環境保護團體或反墮胎團體等。
功能型或部門型團體
有一類的壓力團體，則是以促進或保護成員的利益為目的，一般被稱為功能型或部門型團體，例如：各種工會、商會等。
▲壓力團體的民意功能
遊說的英文是lobby
原本是指議場外的大廳，是民眾向議員請願或是政治人物會商政治事務的場所。
台灣 遊說法1條
為使遊說遵循公開、透明之程序，防止不當利益輸送，確保民主政治之參與，特制定本法。
台灣，遊說法2條
本法所稱遊說，指遊說者意圖影響被遊說者或其所屬機關對於法令、政策或議案之形成、制定、通過、變更或廢止，而以口頭或書面方式，直接向被遊說者或其指定之人表達意見之行為。
本法所稱遊說者如下：
一、進行遊說之自然人、法人、經許可設立或備案之人民團體或基於特定
目的組成並設有代表人之團體。
二、受委託進行遊說之自然人或營利法人。
本法所稱被遊說者如下：
一、總統、副總統。
二、各級民意代表。
三、直轄市政府、縣（市）政府及鄉（鎮、市）公所正、副首長。
四、政務人員退職撫卹條例第二條第一項所定之人員。
政務人員退職撫卹條例2條1項
本條例適用範圍，指下列有給之人員：
一、依憲法規定由總統任命之人員及特任、特派之人員。
二、依憲法規定由總統提名，經立法院同意任命之人員。
三、依憲法規定由行政院院長提請總統任命之人員。
四、其他依法律規定之中央或地方政府比照簡任第十二職等以上職務之人
員。
●民意調查
也稱為民意測驗，指利用系統性、科學性的方法，蒐集公眾對於公共事務的意見，以檢視公眾態度的變化。
由於一個社會的成員非常多，政府施政時，不可能去詢問每一個民眾對於每一件事的看法，因為如此做將會勞民傷財且曠日廢時。
政府如要探求民意，勢必只能從經過統計抽樣所選出的少數民眾去發掘民意。民意調查就是一種透過少數人來掌握全體民眾意見的方式。
簡單的說，它是一種針對特定對象，採取抽樣調查的方式，亦即從整個母體範圍內，抽出一部分樣本予以調查，而推論其統計具有代表母體事實之性質的作法。
民意調查的過程
擬定問卷→抽取樣本→進行訪問→分析與解釋
擬定問卷
問卷應避免引導性提問
所謂引導性問題是研究者利用一種架構（frame）給受測者應該回答問題的線索。在問卷中，應避免引導性敘述，以免造成受測者答案的偏差。
常見的引導式問題如提出的問題不是「持中」的，而是暗示出研究者的觀點和見解，力求使受訪者跟著這種傾向回答，這種提問就是「引導性提問」。
例如：「消費者普遍認為電子現金的好處很多，你的印象如何?」之問句。
引導性提問會導致兩個不良後果：
一是受訪者不加思考就同意所引導問題中暗示的結論；二是由於引導性提問大多是引用權威或大多數人的態度，受訪者考慮到這個結論既然已經是普遍的結論，就會產生心理上的順向反應。
此外，對於一些敏感性問題，在引導性提問下，不敢表達其他想法等，故這種提問是調查的大忌，常常會引出有嚴重偏差的結論。
舉例而言，研究者可能在問項中加入「你不同意嗎？」這樣的敘述，例如：李登輝在擔任總統12年的時間，非常了解百姓的辛苦，您不同意嗎？
抽取樣本
一般常用隨機抽樣等方式，從調查之母群體中抽出一部分足以代表母群體的樣本。
在抽取樣本的過程中，不受研究人員或取樣者任何人為的影響，純粹按照隨機方式取樣，使母體中的每一個個體都有同等被抽出的機會。
進行訪問
臺灣民意調查方式主要有三種
當街、上門派發或郵寄問卷，電話詢問調查和網上投票民調。採用的方式不同，其結果就可能大相逕庭。
由於調查的技術日益進步，調查的結果與推論，也往往頗能掌握民意。
分析與解釋
數字說的未必全是真話。
如果沒有探究數字產生的過程與脈絡，不曾注意數字如何被操作使用，也不清楚背後牽涉的利益與意識形態，那麼遭到數字誤導所造成的不良後果。
▲民意調查的重要發展歷程
1930年代中期
民意調查在美國興起。
1950年代
民意調查的發展趨於穩定。
1960年代以後
運用民意調查的情形更加普及。
▲ 民意調查的功能
民意調查的功能：
了解社會問題；反映基層民意；監督政策執行；影響投票行為。
民意調查可以做為政府決策和施政的重要依據，也可以做為候選人預估選情的重要工具。
為了防止民調結果干擾選民的投票取向，有些民主國家會規定投票前一週或前十天即不可再發布民調的數字。
公職人員選舉罷免法53條
政黨及任何人自選舉公告發布之日起至投票日十日前所為有關候選人或選舉民意調查資料之發布，應載明負責調查單位或主持人、辦理時間、抽樣方式、母體及樣本數、經費來源及誤差值。
政黨及任何人於投票日前十日起至投票時間截止前，不得以任何方式，發布有關候選人或選舉之民意調查資料，亦不得加以報導、散布、評論或引述。
▲ 民意調查的限制
正確性問題
調查的問卷設計
民調問卷的問題是否精準而恰當，深深影響調查的可信度與準確度。
質量發展不均問題
民意的蒐集過程、數據解讀是否客觀。
適用性問題
民意調查結果能否為相關單位採用，做為政策參考依據。
● 小結
民調是有其奧妙之處的，就如同我們在做抽血檢查時，5c.c.的血就可以代表我們身體的狀況。
要得到精確足以代表群體意見的民調結果，必須要有足夠的樣本數量，接下來選擇樣本的抽樣工作也必須謹慎進行。
如果訪問人數過少或是抽樣方式錯誤，導致樣本不佳或是抽樣誤差過高時，調查結果就毫無價值可言。
美國幽默作家馬克吐溫曾將謊言分成三種：謊言、可惡的謊言、統計學。
我們應該謹慎看待民調數字，否則遭到數字誤導所造成的不良後果，可能比聽信可惡的謊言更嚴重。
\\\\\\
Class work
請評論澳門特區政府在近年的政制改革諮詢手法。
500 words
/////////
公民社會、民眾參與
自發性，自己意志
社群主義，集體意識
公共利益
保障弱勢社群
超越家庭與市場
民眾參與的形式：
社區組織，地區為本
利益團體，命題關注
公聽會
公民諮詢委員會
商議式民主
示威遊行
全民投票，公民投票
擴大民眾參與 vs 專業決策、行政效率
\\\\\\
商議式民主與電子政府系統
\\\\\\\\
From 陳卓華博士, Dr Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士，
澳門公共政策學會, Chairman,
澳門特區政府多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（交通，青少年問題，環保，城市規劃，公共行政改革，科技政策等），
思匯網絡政策研究總監.
Cwchan@ipm.edu.mo
Tel. +853-66357631 ; 66485225
公共政策、民意、政策議程、政策規劃、決策制定 （丘昌泰，ch.10)
「政策議程是民意與公權力的互動結果。」
@ 民意與公共政策形成
@ 民意調查
@ 民眾參與
@ 參與式民主與政策分析
////////
澳门政策征民意不应少于30天
关键字：澳门 民意 来源：南方都市报 。发布时间： 2012/5/21
公共政策咨询期不应少于30天，此后180天内须公布总结报告。澳门政府公布昨天刊登特首批示，对政策出台前公开咨询进行规范，包括政策咨询须面对有利害关系人士，咨询方式可以是落区探访、民意调查以及上电台与电视节目等。
澳门《公共政策咨询规范性指引》将于今日生效，澳门所有公共部门及实体等机构与组织须按此行事。指引将公共政策按层次分为"重大政策"及"政策项目及措施"，后者指为配合重大政策的实施而推出的各项具体项目及措施。重大政策以及被纳入施政报告的"政策项目及措施"均须按指引规定进行咨询。
该指引对政策咨询的对象、方式等细节进行了详细规范。直接、间接或潜在利害关系人、相关公共部门及实体、相关咨询组织等被特别纳入咨询对象。指引将政策咨询定位前期准备、咨询推行及总结评估三阶段。
政策推行机构需对相关利害关系人、或将涉及的群体等公众，进行前期性的意见及数据收集。公开咨询期间可依实际情况合理订定，但不应少于30天。
至于咨询的方式，指引称应以咨询文本为基础，并对文本进行详细规范。方式除讲解会、座谈会、研讨会等，还包括游戏活动、落区探访、民意调查、电台与电视节目等互动方式。而咨询项目总结报告须在结束后的180天内以书面方式公布。若该政策属法律及法规，自咨询期结束日至颁布期间少于180天，总结报告须于其颁布前公布。
\\\\\\\\
例子：香港國民教育政策。
澳門控制樓市政策，2012年10月。
\\\\\\\\\
討論：民主政治 vs 民粹政治，有什麼不同？
\\\\\\\\
民粹主義（平民主義）沒有特定的思想內涵，基本上它可以與任何意識形態結合，端視其社會情境或反對的對象而定。
民粹主義認為平民的利益被社會中的菁英所壓制或阻礙，而國家這個工具需要從這些自私自利的菁英團體復原健康，用來改善全民的福祉和進步。因此民粹主義者常被誤認為是運用巧妙辭令來訴諸於一般人民關切的經濟、社會、及其它常見的問題。1980年以後，大部份對民粹主義的學術研究都把它當成一種可以推廣許多不同的意識型態的政治語言來討論。
最近數十年來，民粹主義運動領袖在左翼和右翼都有見過。
民粹主義的相反詞是精英主義，尤其是政治菁英主義。
有些民粹主義者會主張移除政治菁英階層的腐化成分，並且倡導「人民優先」。民粹主義反對集權的執政政權的政見。許多民粹主義者將訴求重心放在特定的地區或是特定的社會階級，例如勞工階級，中產階級或是農民等等。通常他們自稱代表多數人民，並反對極權。
所謂「平民主義」作為一種政治立場，歸根結底是訴諸「民主」，通常反對極權的菁英份子，其形式多種多樣。對人民的信任最直接地導致平民主義的直接民主制訴求，它反對變質的代議制，力求讓權力真正的掌握在普通公民手裡。其最具特色的制度設計為：公投；另外便是公眾創制權；還有罷免權，它能迫使極權的政治菁英在公民出現不滿時接受民主選舉。20世紀初期，美國許多州在平民主義影響下頒布了憲法條款。平民主義在這個意義上可視為民主的一種表現形式。
值得注意的是，並不是所有進行民粹主義式活動的政治人物都是真正的民粹主義者，菁英主義者也會誤導平民主義。有些政治人物也會採行民粹主義式的政治語言，他們被批評為只是利用民粹主義式的政治語言當作組織的策略，而實際上，並無意也無心做平民的代表。甚至在二十世紀末的某些國家，民粹常被菁英主義者視為是挑動族群衝突、以獲取政治利益的代名詞。
\\\\\\\\\\\
民意，定義？如何產生？社會建構角度。
（丘昌泰，p.177)
民意調查，台灣，美國。
丘，p.178, footnote.
///////
民意的表達
直接表達
是由民眾親自對特定公共事務的表達意見，其方式有請願、遊行、抗議、Call-in、投書、連署、民意調查、公民投票、參與鄉里座談會等。
間接表達
指民眾透過他人，代為表達其對公共事務的意見。例如：請民意代表或大眾傳播媒體來傳達意見等。
投票是最常見的民意表達方式。除此之外，常見的民意表達方式包括：
意見領袖常會引領民意形成輿論；壓力團體經常匯集民意、表達民意；透過民意調查了解民意。
以影響力而言，經由意見領袖、壓力團體、以及民意調查等所匯集的民意，較易受到重視。
意見領袖與民意表達
▲ 意見領袖的特質
意見領袖
Opinion leader
又譯為輿論領袖
是指社會中的某些人，他們能經由言論而影響一定程度人數的態度或外在行為者。
就民主社會而言，通常應該是由民意來影響政策的形成，然而，實際上在民意的形成和表達過程中，意見領袖常具有重要的影響力。
意見領袖們經常將他們對於公共議題或政策的看法與分析，透過媒體進行傳播或溝通，影響民眾對於公共議題的看法，進而形成輿論。
意見領袖通常具有下列特質：
豐富的知識；創新的觀念；積極的參與；特定的魅力。
▲意見領袖如何代為表達民意
掌握民意的變化，維持其對政府決策的影響力。
積極參與各項活動來代為表達民意。
將選擇性的事實告訴民眾、傳達自己的理念、一般民眾不關心公共議題。
● 壓力團體與民意匯集
人民如果希望自己的意見能夠有效影響政策，就需要將意見相同之人結合起來共組團體，如此一來，其意見被聽見及被重視的程度將可以大幅增加。
在現代國家中，除了政黨之外，社會中還存在許多具有共同態度或共同利益，但並非以取得執政權為目的的團體，政治學者稱其為壓力團體（pressure group）或利益團體（interest group）。
由於利益團體為了特定權益，會透過各種管道向政府或政黨進行請求，企圖影響法案的草擬和審議，這無形中也對政府或政黨形成壓力，因而也是一種壓力團體。
壓力團體和政黨不同之處在於，政黨係以贏得選舉，獲得執政權為目的，而壓力團體則以爭取其所關心之理念或利益為目的，因此壓力團體常會藉由捐款或是支持某些候選人，這些候選人當選後，將會支持合乎該壓力團體理念或維護該團體利益之政策。
需要注意的是，壓力團體雖然能夠匯集民意，成為民意表達的重要管道，但是，由於這些壓力團體組成的人數、成員的社經地位、團體所擁有的資源等並不相同，因此對於政策之影響力也會有所不同。
▲ 壓力團體的種類
以組成性質區分
組織性團體
經由法定程序所組成的團體。
非組織性團體
基於階級、血緣、特殊關係，而無正式組織與溝通方式所形成的團體。
依組成之目的區分
公益性團體
以追求公共利益為主要目的。
私立性團體
以追求團體成員之利益為目的。
政治學者依壓力團體組成之目的，將壓力團體分為兩大類：
宣傳型團體
這類的壓力團體，其成員關心共享的價值、理念或原則，一般被稱為宣傳型團體，例如：動物保護團體、環境保護團體或反墮胎團體等。
功能型或部門型團體
有一類的壓力團體，則是以促進或保護成員的利益為目的，一般被稱為功能型或部門型團體，例如：各種工會、商會等。
▲壓力團體的民意功能
遊說的英文是lobby
原本是指議場外的大廳，是民眾向議員請願或是政治人物會商政治事務的場所。
台灣 遊說法1條
為使遊說遵循公開、透明之程序，防止不當利益輸送，確保民主政治之參與，特制定本法。
台灣，遊說法2條
本法所稱遊說，指遊說者意圖影響被遊說者或其所屬機關對於法令、政策或議案之形成、制定、通過、變更或廢止，而以口頭或書面方式，直接向被遊說者或其指定之人表達意見之行為。
本法所稱遊說者如下：
一、進行遊說之自然人、法人、經許可設立或備案之人民團體或基於特定
目的組成並設有代表人之團體。
二、受委託進行遊說之自然人或營利法人。
本法所稱被遊說者如下：
一、總統、副總統。
二、各級民意代表。
三、直轄市政府、縣（市）政府及鄉（鎮、市）公所正、副首長。
四、政務人員退職撫卹條例第二條第一項所定之人員。
政務人員退職撫卹條例2條1項
本條例適用範圍，指下列有給之人員：
一、依憲法規定由總統任命之人員及特任、特派之人員。
二、依憲法規定由總統提名，經立法院同意任命之人員。
三、依憲法規定由行政院院長提請總統任命之人員。
四、其他依法律規定之中央或地方政府比照簡任第十二職等以上職務之人
員。
●民意調查
也稱為民意測驗，指利用系統性、科學性的方法，蒐集公眾對於公共事務的意見，以檢視公眾態度的變化。
由於一個社會的成員非常多，政府施政時，不可能去詢問每一個民眾對於每一件事的看法，因為如此做將會勞民傷財且曠日廢時。
政府如要探求民意，勢必只能從經過統計抽樣所選出的少數民眾去發掘民意。民意調查就是一種透過少數人來掌握全體民眾意見的方式。
簡單的說，它是一種針對特定對象，採取抽樣調查的方式，亦即從整個母體範圍內，抽出一部分樣本予以調查，而推論其統計具有代表母體事實之性質的作法。
民意調查的過程
擬定問卷→抽取樣本→進行訪問→分析與解釋
擬定問卷
問卷應避免引導性提問
所謂引導性問題是研究者利用一種架構（frame）給受測者應該回答問題的線索。在問卷中，應避免引導性敘述，以免造成受測者答案的偏差。
常見的引導式問題如提出的問題不是「持中」的，而是暗示出研究者的觀點和見解，力求使受訪者跟著這種傾向回答，這種提問就是「引導性提問」。
例如：「消費者普遍認為電子現金的好處很多，你的印象如何?」之問句。
引導性提問會導致兩個不良後果：
一是受訪者不加思考就同意所引導問題中暗示的結論；二是由於引導性提問大多是引用權威或大多數人的態度，受訪者考慮到這個結論既然已經是普遍的結論，就會產生心理上的順向反應。
此外，對於一些敏感性問題，在引導性提問下，不敢表達其他想法等，故這種提問是調查的大忌，常常會引出有嚴重偏差的結論。
舉例而言，研究者可能在問項中加入「你不同意嗎？」這樣的敘述，例如：李登輝在擔任總統12年的時間，非常了解百姓的辛苦，您不同意嗎？
抽取樣本
一般常用隨機抽樣等方式，從調查之母群體中抽出一部分足以代表母群體的樣本。
在抽取樣本的過程中，不受研究人員或取樣者任何人為的影響，純粹按照隨機方式取樣，使母體中的每一個個體都有同等被抽出的機會。
進行訪問
臺灣民意調查方式主要有三種
當街、上門派發或郵寄問卷，電話詢問調查和網上投票民調。採用的方式不同，其結果就可能大相逕庭。
由於調查的技術日益進步，調查的結果與推論，也往往頗能掌握民意。
分析與解釋
數字說的未必全是真話。
如果沒有探究數字產生的過程與脈絡，不曾注意數字如何被操作使用，也不清楚背後牽涉的利益與意識形態，那麼遭到數字誤導所造成的不良後果。
▲民意調查的重要發展歷程
1930年代中期
民意調查在美國興起。
1950年代
民意調查的發展趨於穩定。
1960年代以後
運用民意調查的情形更加普及。
▲ 民意調查的功能
民意調查的功能：
了解社會問題；反映基層民意；監督政策執行；影響投票行為。
民意調查可以做為政府決策和施政的重要依據，也可以做為候選人預估選情的重要工具。
為了防止民調結果干擾選民的投票取向，有些民主國家會規定投票前一週或前十天即不可再發布民調的數字。
公職人員選舉罷免法53條
政黨及任何人自選舉公告發布之日起至投票日十日前所為有關候選人或選舉民意調查資料之發布，應載明負責調查單位或主持人、辦理時間、抽樣方式、母體及樣本數、經費來源及誤差值。
政黨及任何人於投票日前十日起至投票時間截止前，不得以任何方式，發布有關候選人或選舉之民意調查資料，亦不得加以報導、散布、評論或引述。
▲ 民意調查的限制
正確性問題
調查的問卷設計
民調問卷的問題是否精準而恰當，深深影響調查的可信度與準確度。
質量發展不均問題
民意的蒐集過程、數據解讀是否客觀。
適用性問題
民意調查結果能否為相關單位採用，做為政策參考依據。
● 小結
民調是有其奧妙之處的，就如同我們在做抽血檢查時，5c.c.的血就可以代表我們身體的狀況。
要得到精確足以代表群體意見的民調結果，必須要有足夠的樣本數量，接下來選擇樣本的抽樣工作也必須謹慎進行。
如果訪問人數過少或是抽樣方式錯誤，導致樣本不佳或是抽樣誤差過高時，調查結果就毫無價值可言。
美國幽默作家馬克吐溫曾將謊言分成三種：謊言、可惡的謊言、統計學。
我們應該謹慎看待民調數字，否則遭到數字誤導所造成的不良後果，可能比聽信可惡的謊言更嚴重。
\\\\\\
Class work
請評論澳門特區政府在近年的政制改革諮詢手法。
500 words
/////////
公民社會、民眾參與
自發性，自己意志
社群主義，集體意識
公共利益
保障弱勢社群
超越家庭與市場
民眾參與的形式：
社區組織，地區為本
利益團體，命題關注
公聽會
公民諮詢委員會
商議式民主
示威遊行
全民投票，公民投票
擴大民眾參與 vs 專業決策、行政效率
\\\\\\
商議式民主與電子政府系統
\\\\\\\\
From 陳卓華博士, Dr Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士，
澳門公共政策學會, Chairman,
澳門特區政府多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（交通，青少年問題，環保，城市規劃，公共行政改革，科技政策等），
思匯網絡政策研究總監.
Cwchan@ipm.edu.mo
Tel. +853-66357631 ; 66485225
民意理論與研究取向, 政大新聞 phd paper
14 Oct 2012 22:57:40 +0800 (CST)
Subject: 民意理論與研究取向
http://ccs.nccu.edu.tw/UPLOAD_FILES/HISTORY_PAPER_FILES/994_1.pdf
Subject: 民意理論與研究取向
http://ccs.nccu.edu.tw/UPLOAD_FILES/HISTORY_PAPER_FILES/994_1.pdf
what is public opinions - 民意，ppt, Tw, nccu
14 Oct 2012 22:56:37 +0800 (CST)
Subject: 民意，ppt, Tw, nccu
http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~tsaich/PO/publicopinion_Taiwan.ppt
Subject: 民意，ppt, Tw, nccu
http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~tsaich/PO/publicopinion_Taiwan.ppt
2012年10月11日星期四
Stpa, quiz , 10-10-2012
Stpa, quiz , 10-10-2012
Selected topics in public administration
Open book format, three hours
五題選答三題。每題字數約一千字。
Student name ______________
Remarks ：本測驗之目的，是考核學員對本科目的內容及相關文獻是否充分理解，並且能否把理論及概念應用在現實社會或政治情況之分析當中。在有限的時間，使用有限的字數，握要地寫出最重要及相關的論點，並有系統地舖陳其思路。
請學員以端正的字體作答，並在適當的位置加上小標題，及註明參考資料來源。
1\ 根據丘昌泰之＜公共政策＞一書，「公共政策」的主要定義包含什麼內容？
「公共政策」與「公共管理」在概念上有何分別？
何謂「政策網絡分析」？其包含什麼主要理論或概念？
它與「多元主義角度」及「統合主義角度」有什麼分別？
在目前澳門之情況，你會採用上述三種分析角度中那一種來作為分析概念工具？為什麼？
2\ 公共政策過程包含那幾個階段？
有人認為「公共政策過程即是政治過程」，這是什麼意思？
在公共政策之問題建構階段，政治價值觀或意識型態角度（如功利主義、自由主義、社會公義論等）具有什麼角色或影響？
簡述上述其中一種角度之主要內容。
請以澳門某一公共政策為例，嘗試採用上述三種角度之其中一種，進行問題建構。
3\ 簡述西方福利國家制度之三種模型：自由福利國家形態、歷史統合國家主義、社會民主體制之特徵。它們與政治情況有什麼關係？
澳門近年的福利政策，你認為是較為接近上述那一種模型？試說明之。
4\ 請簡述「凱恩斯主義」、「第三條路」、「瑞典模式」、「發展國家論」的主要內容。
目前澳門正面臨高通脹、經濟結構單一、本地經濟容易受外來因素影響、貧富懸殊加劇、本地政府的公共行政質素引人病疚。上述四種模式，那一種比較適合澳門目前及在可見的未來應用實踐？為什麼？
5/ 「人權」是什麼意思？
人權保障與民主政治制度（三權分立、民主選舉、法治、立憲政體、自由獨立傳媒、多政黨、強大民間社會、民主文化植根人民等）有什麼關係？
人權保障程度及情況在中國及美國怎樣？有何不同？
不同的政治制度為何產生不同之人權保障？
奉行民主政治制度之美國亦常被批評忽視人權，為什麼？
\\\\\\\
Selected topics in public administration
Open book format, three hours
五題選答三題。每題字數約一千字。
Student name ______________
Remarks ：本測驗之目的，是考核學員對本科目的內容及相關文獻是否充分理解，並且能否把理論及概念應用在現實社會或政治情況之分析當中。在有限的時間，使用有限的字數，握要地寫出最重要及相關的論點，並有系統地舖陳其思路。
請學員以端正的字體作答，並在適當的位置加上小標題，及註明參考資料來源。
1\ 根據丘昌泰之＜公共政策＞一書，「公共政策」的主要定義包含什麼內容？
「公共政策」與「公共管理」在概念上有何分別？
何謂「政策網絡分析」？其包含什麼主要理論或概念？
它與「多元主義角度」及「統合主義角度」有什麼分別？
在目前澳門之情況，你會採用上述三種分析角度中那一種來作為分析概念工具？為什麼？
2\ 公共政策過程包含那幾個階段？
有人認為「公共政策過程即是政治過程」，這是什麼意思？
在公共政策之問題建構階段，政治價值觀或意識型態角度（如功利主義、自由主義、社會公義論等）具有什麼角色或影響？
簡述上述其中一種角度之主要內容。
請以澳門某一公共政策為例，嘗試採用上述三種角度之其中一種，進行問題建構。
3\ 簡述西方福利國家制度之三種模型：自由福利國家形態、歷史統合國家主義、社會民主體制之特徵。它們與政治情況有什麼關係？
澳門近年的福利政策，你認為是較為接近上述那一種模型？試說明之。
4\ 請簡述「凱恩斯主義」、「第三條路」、「瑞典模式」、「發展國家論」的主要內容。
目前澳門正面臨高通脹、經濟結構單一、本地經濟容易受外來因素影響、貧富懸殊加劇、本地政府的公共行政質素引人病疚。上述四種模式，那一種比較適合澳門目前及在可見的未來應用實踐？為什麼？
5/ 「人權」是什麼意思？
人權保障與民主政治制度（三權分立、民主選舉、法治、立憲政體、自由獨立傳媒、多政黨、強大民間社會、民主文化植根人民等）有什麼關係？
人權保障程度及情況在中國及美國怎樣？有何不同？
不同的政治制度為何產生不同之人權保障？
奉行民主政治制度之美國亦常被批評忽視人權，為什麼？
\\\\\\\
2012年10月8日星期一
Stpa, week 6-7, Dr Sunny Chan
Stpa, week 6-7, Dr Sunny Chan
什麼是公共政策？
政府選擇去做或不去做的任何事情。（Dye, 1972)
政府的作為與不作為
有公共機關計劃，有目標導向，為了解決社會問題，涉及政治過程, 尋求共識。
資本主義的內在矛盾
維持社會秩序
保障私有產權、人權、自由
增加開拓公共資源
社會再分配、社會福利
不同層次的公共政策：
政治原則性政策，例如：自由放任資本主義政策。
較具體的政府政策，需經立法機構同意。
行政長官訂立的行政法規。
各部門首長訂立的行政運作程序及制度。
不同性質的公共政策：
管制性質，regulatory policy
給予政府部門或獨立機關自我管制之權限, self-regulatory policy
分配性，把利益或義務分配予各部門或某些團體，distributive policy
再分配，redistributive policy, 如福利政策
公共政策模型：
菁英主義
多元主義
統合主義
制度主義：公共政策是政府制度的產物。而制度是暫時凝固了的權力關係。
政策利害關係人考慮Stakeholders consideration
Win-win situation 多贏局面
Rent-seeking 尋租行為
Policy beneficiary 政策得益者
Policy victims 政策受害者
Stakeholders may have：各方利害關係人，持份者
Self-interest, motive，自利
Value, belief, loyalty，價值觀
Resources, talents, strategies, 各項資料
Opinions, Knowledge, legal, professional，意見及知識
power relations, social network，權力關係，社會網絡
media support, public relations channels，媒體關係
How to find out the stakeholders
弱勢社群
公共部門首長、民間團體領導…
社會聲譽考慮者
政治參與活躍人士
意見領袖
某人口統計相關群體
組織關係，競爭者、顧客、…
什麼是公共政策的過程？（game in class)
／／／／／
政策分析
事實，歷史，因果關係。
主流價值觀，各方價值觀，理想。
行動建議。
多元調查方法。含科學化元素。
遊說各方。
系統化整理資訊。
考慮政治現實環境。
／／／／
制定公共政策背後的大原則是什麼？
功利主義, 考慮大多數人的快樂。
自由主義，考慮生命權、財產權、自由權。政府權利須要被約束。
社會公義論，考慮個人對社會的義務，保障社會弱勢群體之利益。強者要照顧弱者。公民權、政治權、社會權。
如何分析公共政策及挑選合適政策方案？
經濟及效率
公共利益
公正的分配（對於各利益持份者）
行政上的可行性
/////
政策問題建構
社會現象：個別事件。
政策問題：包含主觀及客觀元素。有某些社會狀況越來越令人不滿。引起人們關注。在公共場合及媒體討論。認知、定義。涉及多個領域或社會系統。基於利益或信念，有某些群體或社會階層倡導，或延續討論。有動態性。
政策制定：涉及政府及多個組織。嘗試解決問題。從新認知，從新定義。
例如，大陸來澳賭客減少，賭收減少。怎麼辦？？
\\\\\\
政策網絡
利益團體
商會
工會
專業團體
弱勢群體
親建制社團
民主派、反對派政治團體
國際組織
宗教組織
少數族裔
\\\\\\\\\
Best wishes
From 陳卓華,Dr Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士，
澳門公共政策學會會長
澳門特區政府多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（交通，青少年問題，環保，城市規劃，公共行政改革，科技政策等），
思匯網絡政策研究總監，
Cwchan@ipm.edu.mo
Tel. +853-66357631
66485225
什麼是公共政策？
政府選擇去做或不去做的任何事情。（Dye, 1972)
政府的作為與不作為
有公共機關計劃，有目標導向，為了解決社會問題，涉及政治過程, 尋求共識。
資本主義的內在矛盾
維持社會秩序
保障私有產權、人權、自由
增加開拓公共資源
社會再分配、社會福利
不同層次的公共政策：
政治原則性政策，例如：自由放任資本主義政策。
較具體的政府政策，需經立法機構同意。
行政長官訂立的行政法規。
各部門首長訂立的行政運作程序及制度。
不同性質的公共政策：
管制性質，regulatory policy
給予政府部門或獨立機關自我管制之權限, self-regulatory policy
分配性，把利益或義務分配予各部門或某些團體，distributive policy
再分配，redistributive policy, 如福利政策
公共政策模型：
菁英主義
多元主義
統合主義
制度主義：公共政策是政府制度的產物。而制度是暫時凝固了的權力關係。
政策利害關係人考慮Stakeholders consideration
Win-win situation 多贏局面
Rent-seeking 尋租行為
Policy beneficiary 政策得益者
Policy victims 政策受害者
Stakeholders may have：各方利害關係人，持份者
Self-interest, motive，自利
Value, belief, loyalty，價值觀
Resources, talents, strategies, 各項資料
Opinions, Knowledge, legal, professional，意見及知識
power relations, social network，權力關係，社會網絡
media support, public relations channels，媒體關係
How to find out the stakeholders
弱勢社群
公共部門首長、民間團體領導…
社會聲譽考慮者
政治參與活躍人士
意見領袖
某人口統計相關群體
組織關係，競爭者、顧客、…
什麼是公共政策的過程？（game in class)
／／／／／
政策分析
事實，歷史，因果關係。
主流價值觀，各方價值觀，理想。
行動建議。
多元調查方法。含科學化元素。
遊說各方。
系統化整理資訊。
考慮政治現實環境。
／／／／
制定公共政策背後的大原則是什麼？
功利主義, 考慮大多數人的快樂。
自由主義，考慮生命權、財產權、自由權。政府權利須要被約束。
社會公義論，考慮個人對社會的義務，保障社會弱勢群體之利益。強者要照顧弱者。公民權、政治權、社會權。
如何分析公共政策及挑選合適政策方案？
經濟及效率
公共利益
公正的分配（對於各利益持份者）
行政上的可行性
/////
政策問題建構
社會現象：個別事件。
政策問題：包含主觀及客觀元素。有某些社會狀況越來越令人不滿。引起人們關注。在公共場合及媒體討論。認知、定義。涉及多個領域或社會系統。基於利益或信念，有某些群體或社會階層倡導，或延續討論。有動態性。
政策制定：涉及政府及多個組織。嘗試解決問題。從新認知，從新定義。
例如，大陸來澳賭客減少，賭收減少。怎麼辦？？
\\\\\\
政策網絡
利益團體
商會
工會
專業團體
弱勢群體
親建制社團
民主派、反對派政治團體
國際組織
宗教組織
少數族裔
\\\\\\\\\
Best wishes
From 陳卓華,Dr Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士，
澳門公共政策學會會長
澳門特區政府多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（交通，青少年問題，環保，城市規劃，公共行政改革，科技政策等），
思匯網絡政策研究總監，
Cwchan@ipm.edu.mo
Tel. +853-66357631
66485225
2012年10月7日星期日
hi, dear friends, welcome to add sunny chan's facebook
hello, dear friends,
welcome to add sunny chan's facebook;
Best wishes
From 陳卓華博士, Dr Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士 [the top five university in UK]
澳門公共政策學會, Chairman,
澳門特區政府多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（交通，青少年問題，環保，城市規劃，公共行政改革，科技政策等）
Cwchan@ipm.edu.mo
Tel. +853-66357631 ; 66485225
welcome to add sunny chan's facebook;
Best wishes
From 陳卓華博士, Dr Sunny Chan
香港中文大學政治與行政學博士，
英國 Lancaster University 社會學碩士 [the top five university in UK]
澳門公共政策學會, Chairman,
澳門特區政府多項公共政策調查研究項目總監（交通，青少年問題，環保，城市規劃，公共行政改革，科技政策等）
Cwchan@ipm.edu.mo
Tel. +853-66357631 ; 66485225
2012年9月23日星期日
Stpa, Class exercise
Stpa, Class exercise
24/9/2012
1_2人一組。
Student name
澳門或香港特區政府近年提供之社會福利不斷增加，是否已經成為福利國家模式？什麼模型較為近似它們目前的狀況？現實上為什麼它們須要加大提供社會福利？這樣發展下去，可能有什麼危機？請您嘗試向本地政府提供一些關於社會福利政策的建議。當中須包括論述一些您認為本地政府必須考慮的政策原則。
（800_1500字左右）
24/9/2012
1_2人一組。
Student name
澳門或香港特區政府近年提供之社會福利不斷增加，是否已經成為福利國家模式？什麼模型較為近似它們目前的狀況？現實上為什麼它們須要加大提供社會福利？這樣發展下去，可能有什麼危機？請您嘗試向本地政府提供一些關於社會福利政策的建議。當中須包括論述一些您認為本地政府必須考慮的政策原則。
（800_1500字左右）
Stpa, week 5, notes, dr sunny chan
Stpa, week 5, notes, dr sunny chan
政府、經濟、公民社會、全球化
福利國家、第三條路、發展型國家
Models of governance
Welfare state models （參考，林萬億，2006，＜福利國家：歷史比較的分析＞,第四章）
福利國家階段之前：最低救助，資產審查，貧民救濟。
福利國家的三個模型
@ 俾斯麥模型：德國，十九世紀中期開始，承認自由資本主義帶來的缺點，對個人或家庭之風險。國家行動介入，有需要建立社會保險制度，以男性勞工為主，須要繳交保費。
@ 貝彿里奇模型：英國，二十世紀初期開始，近似凱因斯主義，普及式社會保險，包括所有國民。保險給付劃一，保險費均等。維持國民最低基本生存標準。另提供國民健康服務，作為全國福利服務之例子。
@ 瑞典模式：瑞典，二十世紀初期開始，勞工組織為了整體福利政策目標而廣泛地與其他利益團體尋求妥協和合作。強大工會，勞工參與工會比率高。形成集中化的議價體系制度，促成勞工和平、工作訓練、工作安全等。混合經濟模式包括生產市場自由經濟，大型公共部門進行再分配政策。價格穩定，充分就業（工資水平有各方共識）。受雇者投資基金，改變資本所有權結構。全民保險，政府部分資助支持。退休年金制度成為社會權。工作權，再訓練。不強調失業救濟之現金給付。
免費學校午餐。健康保險。親職保險。
歐洲十八世紀：個人自由、人權、平等、法治 --> 公民權
十九世紀：政治自由 ,投票權 --> 政治權
二十世紀：經濟自由，年金保險 --> 社會權 （所有國民擁有一定之經濟資源、教育、醫療、住宅、福利服務等）
三個福利資本主義世界
@ 自由福利國家：資產調查先於社會救助。弱勢社群才是福利的受益者。階級政治二元化。自由市場地位仍是主流。
@ 歷史組合國家主義：統合主義，大工會、大商會權力大。國家成為福利的主要提供者。社會保險排除家庭主婦。
@ 社會民主體制：福利普及主義，服務去商品化。社會高度公平。所有國民均加入社會保險體系。強調充分就業。婦女走出家庭投入全職工作。家庭成本社會化，政府照顧兒童、老人、無助者。
\\\\\\\\
第三條路
（美國新民主黨克林頓、英國新工黨布萊爾）
離開傳統的社會民主主義，也不走新自由主義。
@ 強大的公民社會，乃是民主政府及市場機制可以良好運作的必要條件。
政府、經濟制度、公民社會三者，必須在社會團結和社會公義的原則下互相制約。
反對政府中央集權化。削減政府角色。增加「非政府組織」的參與及貢獻。
@ 權利與責任必須平衡，貧者和富者都應接受這概念。社會主義的道德：人們彼此依賴，人們對彼此負有責任。強者有責任照顧弱者。
人們互助合作，造成全體福祉，因而亦帶來個人福祉，社會繁榮。社會各界一起打擊貧窮，一起對付失業問題。
@ 政府強調平等原則，以機會平等為主，輔以適當的結果平等，因此，資源再分配策略是必須的。政府透過社會政策，對資本主義社會進行控制和改革。
讓市民樂於工作，不是等待救濟。支援受助者就業，in-work benefits：support single parent families and low-income workers, child care, re-training.
"Workfare state". Minimum wage policy.
Life-long learning and re-training.
@ supply-side economic policy, 「供應」主導政策，政府把資源投在提高生產力，促進投資等。不是透過公共開支及福利以剌激「需求」。政府可利用市場經濟，來創造財富。
@ 強調個人對家庭之責任，父親有責任供養離婚後之子女。
@ 強化跨國性統理制度，理性及宏觀地控制全球化的負面影響。
\\\\\\\\\
發展型國家，特徵：
@ 威權政治，行政主導，一黨獨大，政府有相對自主性，持續推動政策
@ 理性化官僚，半官方\公司化公共實體，EDB, HDB.
@ 發展型領導，以經濟發展手段來維持政治認受性
@ 適量干預經濟，大量公共投資及扶持政策，培育本地大企業及工業
@ 大量投資基建及教育
\\\\\\\\\\\\
政府、經濟、公民社會、全球化
福利國家、第三條路、發展型國家
Models of governance
Welfare state models （參考，林萬億，2006，＜福利國家：歷史比較的分析＞,第四章）
福利國家階段之前：最低救助，資產審查，貧民救濟。
福利國家的三個模型
@ 俾斯麥模型：德國，十九世紀中期開始，承認自由資本主義帶來的缺點，對個人或家庭之風險。國家行動介入，有需要建立社會保險制度，以男性勞工為主，須要繳交保費。
@ 貝彿里奇模型：英國，二十世紀初期開始，近似凱因斯主義，普及式社會保險，包括所有國民。保險給付劃一，保險費均等。維持國民最低基本生存標準。另提供國民健康服務，作為全國福利服務之例子。
@ 瑞典模式：瑞典，二十世紀初期開始，勞工組織為了整體福利政策目標而廣泛地與其他利益團體尋求妥協和合作。強大工會，勞工參與工會比率高。形成集中化的議價體系制度，促成勞工和平、工作訓練、工作安全等。混合經濟模式包括生產市場自由經濟，大型公共部門進行再分配政策。價格穩定，充分就業（工資水平有各方共識）。受雇者投資基金，改變資本所有權結構。全民保險，政府部分資助支持。退休年金制度成為社會權。工作權，再訓練。不強調失業救濟之現金給付。
免費學校午餐。健康保險。親職保險。
歐洲十八世紀：個人自由、人權、平等、法治 --> 公民權
十九世紀：政治自由 ,投票權 --> 政治權
二十世紀：經濟自由，年金保險 --> 社會權 （所有國民擁有一定之經濟資源、教育、醫療、住宅、福利服務等）
三個福利資本主義世界
@ 自由福利國家：資產調查先於社會救助。弱勢社群才是福利的受益者。階級政治二元化。自由市場地位仍是主流。
@ 歷史組合國家主義：統合主義，大工會、大商會權力大。國家成為福利的主要提供者。社會保險排除家庭主婦。
@ 社會民主體制：福利普及主義，服務去商品化。社會高度公平。所有國民均加入社會保險體系。強調充分就業。婦女走出家庭投入全職工作。家庭成本社會化，政府照顧兒童、老人、無助者。
\\\\\\\\
第三條路
（美國新民主黨克林頓、英國新工黨布萊爾）
離開傳統的社會民主主義，也不走新自由主義。
@ 強大的公民社會，乃是民主政府及市場機制可以良好運作的必要條件。
政府、經濟制度、公民社會三者，必須在社會團結和社會公義的原則下互相制約。
反對政府中央集權化。削減政府角色。增加「非政府組織」的參與及貢獻。
@ 權利與責任必須平衡，貧者和富者都應接受這概念。社會主義的道德：人們彼此依賴，人們對彼此負有責任。強者有責任照顧弱者。
人們互助合作，造成全體福祉，因而亦帶來個人福祉，社會繁榮。社會各界一起打擊貧窮，一起對付失業問題。
@ 政府強調平等原則，以機會平等為主，輔以適當的結果平等，因此，資源再分配策略是必須的。政府透過社會政策，對資本主義社會進行控制和改革。
讓市民樂於工作，不是等待救濟。支援受助者就業，in-work benefits：support single parent families and low-income workers, child care, re-training.
"Workfare state". Minimum wage policy.
Life-long learning and re-training.
@ supply-side economic policy, 「供應」主導政策，政府把資源投在提高生產力，促進投資等。不是透過公共開支及福利以剌激「需求」。政府可利用市場經濟，來創造財富。
@ 強調個人對家庭之責任，父親有責任供養離婚後之子女。
@ 強化跨國性統理制度，理性及宏觀地控制全球化的負面影響。
\\\\\\\\\
發展型國家，特徵：
@ 威權政治，行政主導，一黨獨大，政府有相對自主性，持續推動政策
@ 理性化官僚，半官方\公司化公共實體，EDB, HDB.
@ 發展型領導，以經濟發展手段來維持政治認受性
@ 適量干預經濟，大量公共投資及扶持政策，培育本地大企業及工業
@ 大量投資基建及教育
\\\\\\\\\\\\
2012年9月17日星期一
2012年9月16日星期日
STPA- WEEK4 NOTES- DR SUNNY CHAN
Week 4, stpa, dr sunny chan, 17-9-2012.
Review
Good governance ， but what are the values and perspectives？
自由、民主、尊重人權、公義、法治、問責性、回應性、公共利益（自由主義、功利主義、正義論、社群主義）
\\\\\\\\
Governance models
Laissez faire state 自由放任型政府
Neo-classical model 新古典模型
Keynesian model 凱恩斯模型
Welfare state 福利國家型
The third way 第三條路模式
Developmental state 發展型國家
Plural state 多元主義模式
Elitist state 精英主義模式
Corporatist state 統合主義\ 社團主義模式
///////
Laissez-faire
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
'Laissez-faire' means 'leave to do'; a more colloquial translation might be 'let them get on with it'. Since the late eighteenth century such phrases as 'a laissez-faire policy' and 'laissez-faire economics' have suggested a belief in the virtues of allowing individuals to pursue their interests through market transactions with minimal government interference.
However, laissez-faire in a broad sense, as opposed to the use of the phrase in particular contexts with respect to particular sections of production, is vague and its historical location elusive. Laissez-faire economics is not normally based on libertarian ethics but rather on the utilitarian calculation that absence of interference functions better than interference. But nearly all market theories are also theories of market failure and it is difficult to identify any leading economic thinker who thought that laissez-faire was the best solution to all problems. Adam Smith, for example, did not believe that unregulated markets could provide the kind of educational system which a commercial society needed.
— Lincoln Allison
///////////////////////////
Oxford Dictionary of British History:
Laissez-faire
The transition from the medieval to the modern economy was characterized by the progressive removal of restrictions on individuals and groups in favour of the operation of market forces. The balance between complete un-restriction and some control is still strenuously debated. In reality the state of complete laissez-faire has never existed. John Stuart Mill defined what has become accepted as the minimum level of state intervention. Amongst such interventions for the greater good, he included the power to enforce contracts and secure property rights, the administration of justice, the right to tax in order to provide public goods such as transport systems, sanitation and public health, and state-supported education.
While the notion of laissez-faire is usually associated with the decline of the medieval and mercantilist economic regimes, it has an enduring modern counterpart in the views of the neoclassical and new classical economists, who may use different terminology, but whose essential view is that individual freedom to function within un-trammeled markets, with little involvement from government, represents the best type of economic organization. All these strands of thought assert the right of the individual and depict state involvement in the economy as ineffectual or malign.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
Keynesian model --
J M Keynes, (1883-1946) British economist, who made a leading contribution to economic theory, particularly through The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), to economic policy, and to international economic negotiations. The use of the word 'Keynesian' to describe a particular mix of economic and social policy is a reflection of the success of his attempt to provide an intellectual justification for a form of government intervention that would save capitalism and liberal democracy, a task which appeared to be a compelling and urgent one in the 1930s. In a chapter entitled 'Concluding Notes on the Social Philosophy towards which the General Theory might Lead', Keynes admits that his theory is moderately conservative in its implications. The state would intervene in some areas, including the use of the tax system to influence the propensity to consume, but wide fields of activity would be unaffected. A comprehensive socialization of investment would be necessary to achieve full employment, but this could be achieved by what would later be called public-private partnerships. There was no obvious case for a comprehensive system of state socialism, and most of the necessary measures could be introduced gradually, and without a general break in the traditions of society.
Keynes was a product of an essentially Victorian milieu which had set aside religious belief, but maintained a strong interest in moral rules of conduct, underpinned by rational justification rather than faith in the existence of a deity. From Eton he went to King's College where he graduated in mathematics and then spent a fourth year reading economics, then dominated by Alfred Marshall and his Principles of Economics. While at Cambridge, Keynes wrote a long prize essay on Burke which gives a good indication of Keynes's developing political beliefs. He emphasized Burke's advocacy of expediency against abstract rights, and, like Burke, he was uncertain about the value of basing action on absolute principles. Keynes supported Burke's view that war should be approached with prudence, and in the First World War he attempted to register as a conscientious objector, but was exempted because of his work at the Treasury. 1919 he published a critique of the Versailles settlement entitled The Economic Consequences of the Peace, which achieved substantial worldwide sales and had a considerable influence on political opinion. Keynes argued that the Versailles settlement would impoverish Europe.
In the early 1920s, Keynes became involved with the Liberal Party. 1926 he became a member of a Liberal Industrial Inquiry, drafting substantial parts of the report on Britain's Industrial Future, better known as the Yellow Book. One of the proposals was that the investment funds of all public concerns should be put into a separate capital budget under the direction of a national investment board. The disappointing performance of the Liberals in 1929, and their reactions to the depression, lessened his enthusiasm for the party. He gave some financial support to individual Labour candidates in the 1930s, and made some favourable comments about Labour policies. When he became a peer 1942 he sat as an independent, although he continued to express some sympathy for the Liberals and gave them a small donation in 1945. As one of Keynes's biographers, Robert Skidelsky, has pointed out, Keynes was a political economist rather than a political animal, someone who was interested in influencing public policy, but who believed that the intellectual argument had to be won before the political argument. Although Keynes wrote extensively for the popular press in the middle period of his life, he was of a generation that believed that rational decision-making could be left to a well-informed elite based in London and the ancient universities. Keynes had the economist's habit of referring to political difficulties as second-order problems for which economists had no professional responsibility to provide solutions. He recognized that full employment could lead to upward pressures on wages, a problem which eventually led economists working in the Keynesian tradition to advocate incomes policies. He argued that the task of keeping wages reasonably stable was a 'political rather than an economic problem', and that the combination of collective bargaining and full employment was an 'essentially political problem' where analytical methods were of little assistance. His involvement in important economic negotiations with the Americans during and immediately after the Second World War showed that he had good negotiating skills, and an awareness of political realities and the need for mutual accommodation. Keynes's advocacy of macroecomic economic management did not provide an enduring solution to the problem of maintaining full employment, even less that of curbing inflation, but no discussion of the politics of economic management in the latter half of the twentieth century can proceed very far without reference to Keynes and his influential, if often ambiguous, ideas.
Wyn Grant
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Investopedia
Neo-classical Model --
An approach to economics that relates supply and demand to an individual's rationality and his or her ability to maximize utility or profit. Neoclassical economics also increased the use of mathematical equations in the study of various aspects of the economy. This approach was developed in the late-nineteenth century, based on books by William Stanley Jevons, Carl Menger and Leon Walras.
Since its inception, neoclassical economics has grown to become the primary take on modern-day economics. Although it is now the most widely taught form of economics, this school of thought still has its detractors. Most criticism points out that neoclassical economics makes many unfounded and unrealistic assumptions that do not represent real situations. For example, the assumption that all parties will behave rationally overlooks the fact that human nature is vulnerable to other forces, which cause people to make irrational choices. Therefore, many critics believe that this approach cannot be used to describe actual economies.
Neoclassical economics is also sometimes blamed for inequalities in global debt and trade relations because the theory holds that such matters as labor rights will improve naturally, as a result of economic conditions
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Welfare state
[Oxford dictionary of politics]
A system in which the government undertakes the main responsibility for providing for the social and economic security of the state's population by means of pensions, social security benefits, free health care, and so forth. 1942 the Beveridge Report in the United Kingdom proposed a far-reaching 'settlement', as part of a wider social and economic reconstruction, once victory in the Second World War was secured, and became the blueprint for the British welfare state.
By 1944 a White Paper made full employment the first goal of government economic policy, and the Butler Act provided for universal secondary education. Labour, however, won the 1945 general election, to a considerable extent because they appeared more wholeheartedly in favour of the Beveridge plan. The key measures which followed, largely implementing the plan's essential features, were the National Insurance Act 1946, the National Health Service Act 1946, and the National Assistance Act 1948. An ambitious programme to build a million homes was also launched. By 1948 The Times newspaper proclaimed in an editorial that these measures had created 'security from the cradle to the grave' for every citizen.
These measures were the foundation of the 'welfare state', which was seen as synonymous with 'social security'. In a specific sense this meant entitlements to benefits under the newly established national insurance and assistance schemes. In a wider sense it referred to the other reforms implemented at the time, particularly the guarantees of full employment and access to a national health service free at the point of use. Underlying all this, however, was a new conception of the relationship between the state and the individual within a market-based society. This was based on an acceptance of the need for extensive intervention to ensure that its worst effects were mitigated, on the grounds that their causes were systemic rather than the fault or responsibility of individuals.
Nevertheless, behind the apparent consensus on the need for a welfare state, there was political conflict on its meaning between 'reluctant collectivists' in the liberal tradition (such as Beveridge himself) who saw the reforms of the 1940s as a high-water mark, and reformist socialists who saw it as a framework for developing a more concerted shift towards a planned and egalitarian society. A small minority of commentators, such as Hayek, were never convinced of the need for the welfare state in the first place and remained resolutely 'anti-collectivist'.
The growing 'crisis' of the welfare state since the 1970s can be seen as due to changed economic and social circumstances, a disintegration of the post-war consensus, or both of these. Undoubtedly, growing economic pressures were making it harder to meet more insistent demands for improved services, and increased social needs due to changes in family patterns, more older people, and growing numbers of unemployed people. On the other hand, the 'welfare state' had been increasingly criticized within a more polarized political culture. Critics from the right argued that by removing responsibility from the individual, the welfare state stifled people's initiative to solve their own problems. Critics from the left agreed in part that the welfare state as it currently stood was often 'oppressive', but attributed this to a failure to attack the root causes of class, gender, and 'race' inequalities.
Even before 1979 there were discernible shifts by the 1974-9 Labour government after the expenditure crisis of 1976 towards retrenchment and 'restructuring' of welfare in ways that responded most to right-wing rather than left-wing critics. However, after the Conservative election victory of 1979, this shift occurred in a more concerted way and there have been substantial reforms in all of the services established as a result of the Beveridge Report, though only in one, housing, could there be said to have been significant retrenchment in provision. In other areas, there have been a tightening of eligibility rules and shifts to decentralization of managerial responsibility within tighter centralized control of finance. Perhaps most controversial of all has been the reform of the National Health Service in 1990, against widespread opposition, to create an 'internal' market within a socialized system.
In a wider sense, there has been a significant shift from Beveridge's assumptions. Most importantly, there was a shift in economic priorities from maintaining full employment to controlling inflation. The modest redistribution of income and wealth achieved up to the 1970s, was reversed by cuts in income tax and a shift to more regressive forms of indirect taxation like value added tax (VAT). Despite all this, by the end of the 1980s the welfare state had been 'restructured' rather than abolished. It was suggested that a new 'welfare pluralist' consensus had emerged in which it was accepted that private, state, and voluntary sectors could exist side by side. In the 1990s the growing internationalization of the global economy, which has undermined the autonomy of national governments, led to pressure to reduce wage and social security costs in order to attract highly mobile investment.
It is probably most helpful to situate the British variant analytically and comparatively as a 'welfare state regime'. These, G. Esping-Anderson argues in The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, fall into three main types within market societies: 'conservative', 'social democratic', and 'liberal', depending on the extent to which they seek to work with, or to counter the effects of, the market on social inequalities. An example of a conservative regime is Germany, characterized by high welfare provision within a hierarchical and ordered society, while Sweden is closest to an egalitarian 'social democratic' regime. Though 1948 the British welfare state was among the most developed, by the 1970s provision had become more extensive in conservative and social democratic regimes, and the British welfare state looked closest to the 'liberal' model, with only limited attempts to use welfare to mitigate social inequalities. Though all welfare state regimes have been under pressure, in Britain and the United States the shift towards liberalism has been particularly pronounced, nor was it reversed on Labour coming to power in 1997.
— Mick Carpenter
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
THE THIRD WAY
Generally, any ideology that claims that it lies in between two traditional approaches that the writer believes are too limited. Specifically, the ideology claimed to underlie the actions of New Labour in Britain after the succession of Tony Blair to the leadership of the Labour Party in 1994. In this case, the two old ways are often understood to be socialism and capitalism. However, both its main ideologue in the UK (Anthony Giddens) and Prime Minister Blair emphasize that it is supposed to be a modernized form of social democracy, rather than an alternative to it.
Although critics of the New Labour Third Way claim that it has no empirical content, its defenders see it as a route between what was seen as the excessive paternalism (and statism) of traditional left policies and the excessive individual personal responsibility of the right. The policy of welfare to work—dubbed 'tough love' by British thirdwayers—was an early example: a combination of a greater emphasis on personal responsibility to find work backed with the threat of withdrawal of benefits, but at the same time a reinforcing of a framework of public support. For a while in the late 1990s, the German Social Democratic Party imitated New Labour with a claim to pursue die neue Mitte, but that claim too disappeared in the 2000s. The concept has a modest salience in the USA where it has become central to the philosophy of the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist pressure group in the Democrats. See also social exclusion; social market.
— Iain McLean
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Developmental State
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.2019.pdf
A developmental state is a state where government is intimately involved in the macro and micro-economic planning in order to grow the economy (Onis, 1991). It has generally been observed that successful developmental states are able to advance their economies much faster than regulatory states that use regulations to manage the economy.
Characteristics of a Developmental State
In order to understand the concept of a developmental state, it is important to highlight some of the characteristics of a developmental state (Thompson, 1996; Woo-Cumings, 1999).
Developmental states generally put strong emphasis on technical education and the development of numeracy and computer skills within the population. This technically oriented education is strategically used to capacitate government structures particularly the bureaucracy. What emerges out of this strategy is that the political and bureaucratic layers are populated by extremely educated people who have sufficient tools of analysis to be able to take leadership initiatives, based on sound scientific basis, at every level of decision making nodes within the government structure.
Developmental states have been observed to be able to efficiently distribute and allocate resources and, therefore, invest optimally in critical areas that are the basis of industrialisation such as education. The complexity of the transformation agenda in South Africa makes the task of efficiently distributing and allocating resources difficult to achieve (Marwala, 2005c).
The other characteristic that has been observed in successful developmental states is economic nationalism. This characteristic is also observed in developed states such as the USA during tough economic times. The characteristic of the national question in South Africa, which makes the notion of "South Africaness" a highly complex concept given the vast diversity of the South African population, makes economic nationalism not a viable option in South Africa.
The other characteristic of a developmental state is its emphasis on market share over profit. The developed segment of the South African capitalist system is sophisticated and it has a huge component of short term investments also known as "hot money". This makes profit, particularly short term profit, a significant factor in the investment decision making process.
Developmental states have been observed for their protection of their embryonic domestic industries and have also been observed to focus on aggressive acquisition of foreign technology. This they achieve by deploying their most talented students to overseas universities located in strategic and major centres of the innovation world and also by effectively utilizing their foreign missions (Marwala, 2005c; Marwala, 2006).
Furthermore, they encourage and reward foreign companies that invest in building productive capacity such as manufacturing plants with the aim that the local industrial sector will in time be able to learn vital success factors from these companies. On constructing a harmonious social-industrial complex, developmental states strike a strategic alliance between the state, labour and industry in order to increase critical measures such as productivity, job security and industrial expansion. Even though developmental states do not create enemies unnecessarily and do not participate in the unnecessary criticism of countries with strategic technologies that they would like to acquire, they are, however, skeptical of copying foreign values without translating and infusing them with local characteristics.
Developmental states generally believe that they will attain state legitimacy through delivery of services to citizens rather than through the ballot. In South Africa, state legitimacy is achieved through the ballot however the main shortcoming is that the society has not reached an equilibrium stage where the feedback mechanism between voting pattern and service delivering reinforce each other. Now that the characteristics of a developmental state have been highlighted it is important to briefly describe industrialisation because it is an important component of a developmental state.
The vital driver for success in developmental states is industrialisation. The goal of industrialisation is to create a country that produces goods and services with high added values. For example, instead of exporting minerals unprocessed, people can be employed to beneficiate these minerals and manufacture goods such as watches and thus add economic value to the final products. The process by which countries add aggregate economic values to the products and services they offer is directly dependant on the level of industrialisation in the country's economy.
Keys to success -- Education, scientific and technological development, e.g. Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
pluralism
Literally, a belief in more than one entity or a tendency to be, hold, or do more than one thing. This literal meaning is common to all the political and social applications of the word, but it has applied in contexts so varied that the uses seem like separate meanings. The most established of these is pluralism as the tendency of people to hold more than one job or benefice, most specifically in the context of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. In the late nineteenth century, pluralism was applied to philosophical theories or systems of thought which recognized more than one ultimate principle, as opposed to those which were 'monist'. At the same time, the word came to be applied in the United States to the view that the country could legitimately continue to be formed of distinct ethnic groups, the Jewish-Americans, Irish-Americans, and so on, rather than that all differences should dissolve into a 'melting-pot' (see also multiculturalism).
All of these uses have had at least a slight influence on the primary contemporary meaning in which the pluralist model of society is one in which the existence of groups is the political essence of society. Pluralists in this sense contrast with elitists because they see the membership of village and neighbourhood communities, trade unions, voluntary societies, churches, and similar organizations as being more important than distinctions between a ruling class and a class that is ruled: vertical distinctions in society are less important than horizontal.
The forerunner of this kind of pluralism was F. R. de Lammenais who edited the journal L'Avenir in France in the early nineteenth century. Lammenais attacked both the individualism and the universalism of the Enlightenment and the Revolution. The individual, he said, was 'a mere shadow', who could not be said to exist at all socially except in so far as he was part of one or more groups. Both Lammenais and modern pluralists, including such notable American writers as Robert Dahl and Nelson Polsby, tend to believe both that society consists essentially of groups, with its political life a competition for group influence, and that this state of affairs is a good thing. Thus pluralism is often a relatively conservative doctrine, at least in relation to Marxism or radical democratic theory, which both tend to portray society as a predominance of an elite over a non-elite rather than a competition between groups
Lincoln Allison
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Gale Encyclopedia of US Foreign Policy:
Elitism
Classical and New Elite Theory
Although the idea probably always has been present in some form, elitism emerged as a recognizable and clearly defined part of Western political thought in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The leading contributors to the theory were Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and Robert Michels. These writers attacked classical democratic thought and also Aristotle and Karl Marx. Majority rule, they insisted, is impossible. Every society is divided into those who rule and those who are ruled; and the rulers constitute only a small minority of any society. Aristotle's classification, which divided political systems into three types (rule by one, rule by a few, and rule by the many), does not fit reality either, for no man is capable of ruling by himself, and the many, too, lack the ability to govern. It is the few, under any political system, who exercise effective control. And Marx, with his emphasis on a class struggle that in the end (following the victory of the working class) leads to social harmony in a classless society, was also wrong. History features a continuing struggle among elites. That struggle will never end, and a classless society cannot be created. Moreover, to the pioneers in the development of elitist theory, Marx placed too much emphasis on economics and not enough on politics, which could be autonomous.
Classical elitist theory did not maintain merely that the active, socially recognizable people in a country made its important decisions—whether from within offices of government, from somewhere behind the scenes, or from completely outside the state apparatus. It emphatically asserted that the common man, however numerous within a society in absolute or relative terms, did not. Analysts of elites, who generally focus on the distribution of power rather than on the allocation of values, or on property and other wealth forms, differ somewhat over the degree of participation in government or, more generally, the political process that is necessary for a member of the elite accurately to be judged a member of what Mosca characterizes as "the ruling class." A society's elite is usually thought to be a stable entity, self-sustaining and constant over time. Yet the actual group that is in office can change markedly and very quickly. The concept of an elite therefore may need to be understood as encompassing all those who might govern as well as those who in fact do govern.
However "elite" is precisely understood, elitist theory is clear in the basic point that a minority, rather than the masses, controls things. The general population of a country—the common man—is ineffective. Even in societies with elections and other democratic mechanisms, it is posited, the ruling elite functions in a way that is largely independent of control by a popular majority. However, it made need a justifying doctrine. That the elite ordinarily functions according to a "political formula," in Mosca's term, is what makes its rule effective and acceptable to the masses. Thus, in theory, there can be a democratic elitism, however paradoxical that may seem.
A "new elite paradigm," building on the work of Mosca and other classical theorists, emerged in the 1980s and 1990s among comparative political sociologists. It drew attention to the occurrence, and the important effects, of divisions that may arise within the elite of a society. Its central proposition, as stated by John Higley and Michael Burton (1989), is as follows: "A disunified national elite, which is the most common type, produces a series of unstable regimes that tend to oscillate between authoritarian and democratic forms over varying intervals. A consensually unified national elite, which is historically much rarer, produces a stable regime that may evolve into a modern democracy, as in Sweden, or Britain, or the United States, if economic and other facilitative conditions permit."
In the United States, normally, internal and external conditions have favored consensual unity within the nation's elite. Of course, the American Revolution and, later, the Civil War, are the major exceptions to this generalization. During those periods, divisions ran so deep as to produce counter-elites. As the political sociologist Barrington Moore, Jr., and the political historian C. Vann Woodward have shown, the reconciliation between North and South that occurred following post–Civil War Reconstruction was in significant part a result of a complex bargain between the elites in formerly opposed geographical sections. After the late nineteenth century, issues of foreign policy have on occasion divided the American elite as well. A by-product of this has been a widening of participation in the national debate over foreign policy. That this amounts to a "democratization" of American foreign policymaking, however, is highly disputable.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
Corporatism
The central core of corporatism is the notion of a system of interest intermediation linking producer interests and the state, in which explicitly recognized interest organizations are incorporated into the policy-making process, both in terms of the negotiation of policy and of securing compliance from their members with the agreed policy. However, one of the characteristics of the debate in the social sciences from the mid-1970s onwards about corporatism was the failure of the participants to agree about the meaning of the term. There was agreement that the area being studied was that of relations between organized interests and the state. There was some agreement that the discussion was particularly concerned with interests that arose from the division of labour in society, and particularly attempts to reconcile conflicts between capital and labour. However, while some analysts insisted that corporatist arrangements had to be tripartite, involving the state, organized employers, and organized labour, others insisted that they could be bipartite between the state and one of the other 'social partners', or between the 'social partners' themselves. There was a measure of agreement that whereas conventional pressure groups made representations about the content of public policy, corporatism involved a mixture of representation and control. In return for being involved in the formulation of public policy, corporatist interest groups were expected to assist in its implementation. This was sometimes captured through the idea of 'intermediation' which some analysts saw as central to the idea of corporatism (A. Cawson), although others doubted whether intermediation was unique to corporatism and therefore could be regarded as its distinguishing feature.
Although the modern debate started in the mid-1970s, the idea of corporatism has a long history. Guilds or corporations were important institutions in mediaeval life, but attracted little attention from political theorists. Conscious reflection about the potential prescriptive value of corporatist arrangements really started in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), Leo XIII tackled the problems of the poverty of the working classes, the development of trade unions, and the prevalent 'spirit of revolutionary change'. It was argued that class conflict was not inevitable, but that capital and labour were mutually dependent. Noting the general growth of associative action, Leo XIII argued that problems such as working conditions and health and safety could be dealt with by specially established organizations or boards, with the state sanctioning and protecting such arrangements. The object of proceeding in this way was 'in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State'. This concern with limiting direct state intervention, and finding alternative forms of state-sanctioned associative action, has remained a central theme of the corporatist debate. The association between corporatism and Catholic social theory has also remained a strong one.
After the First World War, the idea of corporatism was taken up by the radical right, in particular by Mussolini, who placed it at the centre of the fascist regime in Italy. As a consequence, corporatism suffered from guilt by association. It came to be regarded as a synonym for fascism and disappeared from most political discussion, although it survived in Spain and especially Portugal.
There was, nevertheless, an alternative liberal version of corporatism which was clearly distinct from the surviving remnants of authoritarian corporatism. Samuel Beer made use of the term in his Modern British Politics (1965), forecasting that 'The further development of corporatism is surely to be expected'. Andrew Shonfield's Modern Capitalism, published in the same year and one of the most influential mid-century works on political economy, discussed the concept in terms of a corporatist management of economic planning in which the main interest groups were brought together to conclude bargains about their future behaviour.
The index entry for 'corporatism' in Shonfield's book reads 'see also Fascism', and it was the objective of the new generation of neocorporatist writers, led by Philippe Schmitter, to strip corporatism of its fascist associations, and to reinvent the concept as a means of analysing observable changes in a number of Western democracies. In 1974, Schmitter published Still the Century of Corporatism?, the title referring to Mihail Manoilesco's 1934 prediction that, just as the nineteenth century was that of liberalism, the twentieth century would be that of corporatism. Schmitter wished to escape from what he saw as an unhelpful dominance of pluralist analysis in American political science.
Schmitter triggered off an academic 'growth industry' on corporatism. In part, this was because it helped the understanding of long-term political phenomena such as the social pacts in Sweden and Switzerland, or the Parity Commission in Austria. Corporatism's appeal was wider, however, than explaining the politics of some of the more prosperous smaller European democracies where it was always difficult to decide whether corporatism promoted prosperity, or prosperity made corporatism possible because everyone came away from the bargaining table with something. Modern neocorporatism can best be understood as part of the breakdown of neo-Keynesianism. In the post-war period, Western governments had attempted to maintain full employment through techniques of aggregate demand management. This had, however, led to inflationary pressures, which became much worse after the first oil shock in 1973. Hence, governments increasingly turned to incomes policies as a means of restraining inflation while maintaining a demand management policy. This inevitably led them into agreements with the large producer groups, even in countries like Britain which had a predisposition for liberal solutions to economic problems. In particular, the unions were often offered concessions on social issues (employment law, taxation, social benefits) in return for agreeing to assist in the restraint of wage increases. The organized employers were also brought into the bargaining picture, in part because their assistance might be required in relation to price restraint, but also to act as a counterweight to the unions. The link between incomes policy and corporatism is illustrated in a study by Helander of the development of incomes policy in Finland which required the creation of new institutions and alterations in the functions of some existing ones. The Finnish political system changed into a two-tier one with parliamentary and corporatist subsystems
Although the debate on corporatism produced a considerable volume of research output, it is often regarded as flawed for a number of reasons. First, there was the failure to agree on what was actually being discussed. Second, although corporatism claimed to be distinctive from pluralism, it shared many of pluralism's assumptions, and could be presented by its opponents as little more than a subtype of pluralism. Third, the debate really developed just as the phenomena it was examining became less central to the political process. More liberal solutions to problems of economic policy became favoured in a number of European countries in the 1980s as social democratic parties lost power. Moreover the focus of debate moved away from the politics of production to the politics of collective consumption, as issues such as environmental problems moved higher up the political agenda. They are less amenable to corporatist solutions, and the relevance of a modernist concept like corporatism to more post-modernist forms of politics is open to question. Fourth, the debate was characterized by a failure to separate analysis and prescription. Many, although not all, of the writers on corporatism were either openly (C. Crouch) or covertly sympathetic to its use as a means of providing a 'middle way' that would satisfy the legitimate aspirations of organized labour whilst maintaining a capitalist mode of production. Corporatism was often defended in terms of its effectiveness in securing desired economic goals (high growth, low inflation, low unemployment), but there was a recognition that it could have undesirable political consequences. It lacked legitimacy as a mode of governance, emphasizing functional rather than territorial representation. It tended to bypass legislatures by creating new unelected bodies, such as economic councils of various kinds, and while it included some interests, it excluded others (smaller businesses, consumers). Fifth, as the debate developed in the 1980s, it focused increasingly on examples of sectoral or meso corporatism rather than at the macro level. Although many examples of corporatism were uncovered in particular policy areas (such as training policy and in many areas of agricultural policy), the explanatory value of corporatism as a model of the polity as a whole was thereby diminished.
Schmitter's article made a clear distinction between societal corporatism to be found in countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, and state corporatism to be found in countries such as Spain, Portugal, and Mexico, as well as Fascist Italy and Pétinist France. Much of the subsequent debate focused on societal (or 'liberal') corporatism, although Coleman showed that the concept of state corporatism could be applied in a liberal democracy through his analysis of Quebec.
The concept of corporatism has been applied to the European Community, which certainly has been influenced by the Catholic tradition of 'social partnership', exemplified by the 'val Duchesse' discussions between the Community, employers, and labour initiated in 1985. The protocol on social policy in the Maastricht treaty includes provisions both for consultation with management and labour, and arrangements for the joint implementation of directives by management and labour. This is an unambiguously corporatist arrangement, but if the Community had generally followed a corporatist path, the Economic and Social Committee would have been a central institution, instead of being marginalized.
The corporatist debate stimulated comparative empirical research on pressure groups as, for example, in the Organization of Business interests project co-ordinated by Schmitter and Wolfgang Streeck. Whether it provided theoretical 'value added' beyond the insights provided by pluralism remains contentious.
Wyn Grant
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Review
Good governance ， but what are the values and perspectives？
自由、民主、尊重人權、公義、法治、問責性、回應性、公共利益（自由主義、功利主義、正義論、社群主義）
\\\\\\\\
Governance models
Laissez faire state 自由放任型政府
Neo-classical model 新古典模型
Keynesian model 凱恩斯模型
Welfare state 福利國家型
The third way 第三條路模式
Developmental state 發展型國家
Plural state 多元主義模式
Elitist state 精英主義模式
Corporatist state 統合主義\ 社團主義模式
///////
Laissez-faire
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
'Laissez-faire' means 'leave to do'; a more colloquial translation might be 'let them get on with it'. Since the late eighteenth century such phrases as 'a laissez-faire policy' and 'laissez-faire economics' have suggested a belief in the virtues of allowing individuals to pursue their interests through market transactions with minimal government interference.
However, laissez-faire in a broad sense, as opposed to the use of the phrase in particular contexts with respect to particular sections of production, is vague and its historical location elusive. Laissez-faire economics is not normally based on libertarian ethics but rather on the utilitarian calculation that absence of interference functions better than interference. But nearly all market theories are also theories of market failure and it is difficult to identify any leading economic thinker who thought that laissez-faire was the best solution to all problems. Adam Smith, for example, did not believe that unregulated markets could provide the kind of educational system which a commercial society needed.
— Lincoln Allison
///////////////////////////
Oxford Dictionary of British History:
Laissez-faire
The transition from the medieval to the modern economy was characterized by the progressive removal of restrictions on individuals and groups in favour of the operation of market forces. The balance between complete un-restriction and some control is still strenuously debated. In reality the state of complete laissez-faire has never existed. John Stuart Mill defined what has become accepted as the minimum level of state intervention. Amongst such interventions for the greater good, he included the power to enforce contracts and secure property rights, the administration of justice, the right to tax in order to provide public goods such as transport systems, sanitation and public health, and state-supported education.
While the notion of laissez-faire is usually associated with the decline of the medieval and mercantilist economic regimes, it has an enduring modern counterpart in the views of the neoclassical and new classical economists, who may use different terminology, but whose essential view is that individual freedom to function within un-trammeled markets, with little involvement from government, represents the best type of economic organization. All these strands of thought assert the right of the individual and depict state involvement in the economy as ineffectual or malign.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
Keynesian model --
J M Keynes, (1883-1946) British economist, who made a leading contribution to economic theory, particularly through The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), to economic policy, and to international economic negotiations. The use of the word 'Keynesian' to describe a particular mix of economic and social policy is a reflection of the success of his attempt to provide an intellectual justification for a form of government intervention that would save capitalism and liberal democracy, a task which appeared to be a compelling and urgent one in the 1930s. In a chapter entitled 'Concluding Notes on the Social Philosophy towards which the General Theory might Lead', Keynes admits that his theory is moderately conservative in its implications. The state would intervene in some areas, including the use of the tax system to influence the propensity to consume, but wide fields of activity would be unaffected. A comprehensive socialization of investment would be necessary to achieve full employment, but this could be achieved by what would later be called public-private partnerships. There was no obvious case for a comprehensive system of state socialism, and most of the necessary measures could be introduced gradually, and without a general break in the traditions of society.
Keynes was a product of an essentially Victorian milieu which had set aside religious belief, but maintained a strong interest in moral rules of conduct, underpinned by rational justification rather than faith in the existence of a deity. From Eton he went to King's College where he graduated in mathematics and then spent a fourth year reading economics, then dominated by Alfred Marshall and his Principles of Economics. While at Cambridge, Keynes wrote a long prize essay on Burke which gives a good indication of Keynes's developing political beliefs. He emphasized Burke's advocacy of expediency against abstract rights, and, like Burke, he was uncertain about the value of basing action on absolute principles. Keynes supported Burke's view that war should be approached with prudence, and in the First World War he attempted to register as a conscientious objector, but was exempted because of his work at the Treasury. 1919 he published a critique of the Versailles settlement entitled The Economic Consequences of the Peace, which achieved substantial worldwide sales and had a considerable influence on political opinion. Keynes argued that the Versailles settlement would impoverish Europe.
In the early 1920s, Keynes became involved with the Liberal Party. 1926 he became a member of a Liberal Industrial Inquiry, drafting substantial parts of the report on Britain's Industrial Future, better known as the Yellow Book. One of the proposals was that the investment funds of all public concerns should be put into a separate capital budget under the direction of a national investment board. The disappointing performance of the Liberals in 1929, and their reactions to the depression, lessened his enthusiasm for the party. He gave some financial support to individual Labour candidates in the 1930s, and made some favourable comments about Labour policies. When he became a peer 1942 he sat as an independent, although he continued to express some sympathy for the Liberals and gave them a small donation in 1945. As one of Keynes's biographers, Robert Skidelsky, has pointed out, Keynes was a political economist rather than a political animal, someone who was interested in influencing public policy, but who believed that the intellectual argument had to be won before the political argument. Although Keynes wrote extensively for the popular press in the middle period of his life, he was of a generation that believed that rational decision-making could be left to a well-informed elite based in London and the ancient universities. Keynes had the economist's habit of referring to political difficulties as second-order problems for which economists had no professional responsibility to provide solutions. He recognized that full employment could lead to upward pressures on wages, a problem which eventually led economists working in the Keynesian tradition to advocate incomes policies. He argued that the task of keeping wages reasonably stable was a 'political rather than an economic problem', and that the combination of collective bargaining and full employment was an 'essentially political problem' where analytical methods were of little assistance. His involvement in important economic negotiations with the Americans during and immediately after the Second World War showed that he had good negotiating skills, and an awareness of political realities and the need for mutual accommodation. Keynes's advocacy of macroecomic economic management did not provide an enduring solution to the problem of maintaining full employment, even less that of curbing inflation, but no discussion of the politics of economic management in the latter half of the twentieth century can proceed very far without reference to Keynes and his influential, if often ambiguous, ideas.
Wyn Grant
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Investopedia
Neo-classical Model --
An approach to economics that relates supply and demand to an individual's rationality and his or her ability to maximize utility or profit. Neoclassical economics also increased the use of mathematical equations in the study of various aspects of the economy. This approach was developed in the late-nineteenth century, based on books by William Stanley Jevons, Carl Menger and Leon Walras.
Since its inception, neoclassical economics has grown to become the primary take on modern-day economics. Although it is now the most widely taught form of economics, this school of thought still has its detractors. Most criticism points out that neoclassical economics makes many unfounded and unrealistic assumptions that do not represent real situations. For example, the assumption that all parties will behave rationally overlooks the fact that human nature is vulnerable to other forces, which cause people to make irrational choices. Therefore, many critics believe that this approach cannot be used to describe actual economies.
Neoclassical economics is also sometimes blamed for inequalities in global debt and trade relations because the theory holds that such matters as labor rights will improve naturally, as a result of economic conditions
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Welfare state
[Oxford dictionary of politics]
A system in which the government undertakes the main responsibility for providing for the social and economic security of the state's population by means of pensions, social security benefits, free health care, and so forth. 1942 the Beveridge Report in the United Kingdom proposed a far-reaching 'settlement', as part of a wider social and economic reconstruction, once victory in the Second World War was secured, and became the blueprint for the British welfare state.
By 1944 a White Paper made full employment the first goal of government economic policy, and the Butler Act provided for universal secondary education. Labour, however, won the 1945 general election, to a considerable extent because they appeared more wholeheartedly in favour of the Beveridge plan. The key measures which followed, largely implementing the plan's essential features, were the National Insurance Act 1946, the National Health Service Act 1946, and the National Assistance Act 1948. An ambitious programme to build a million homes was also launched. By 1948 The Times newspaper proclaimed in an editorial that these measures had created 'security from the cradle to the grave' for every citizen.
These measures were the foundation of the 'welfare state', which was seen as synonymous with 'social security'. In a specific sense this meant entitlements to benefits under the newly established national insurance and assistance schemes. In a wider sense it referred to the other reforms implemented at the time, particularly the guarantees of full employment and access to a national health service free at the point of use. Underlying all this, however, was a new conception of the relationship between the state and the individual within a market-based society. This was based on an acceptance of the need for extensive intervention to ensure that its worst effects were mitigated, on the grounds that their causes were systemic rather than the fault or responsibility of individuals.
Nevertheless, behind the apparent consensus on the need for a welfare state, there was political conflict on its meaning between 'reluctant collectivists' in the liberal tradition (such as Beveridge himself) who saw the reforms of the 1940s as a high-water mark, and reformist socialists who saw it as a framework for developing a more concerted shift towards a planned and egalitarian society. A small minority of commentators, such as Hayek, were never convinced of the need for the welfare state in the first place and remained resolutely 'anti-collectivist'.
The growing 'crisis' of the welfare state since the 1970s can be seen as due to changed economic and social circumstances, a disintegration of the post-war consensus, or both of these. Undoubtedly, growing economic pressures were making it harder to meet more insistent demands for improved services, and increased social needs due to changes in family patterns, more older people, and growing numbers of unemployed people. On the other hand, the 'welfare state' had been increasingly criticized within a more polarized political culture. Critics from the right argued that by removing responsibility from the individual, the welfare state stifled people's initiative to solve their own problems. Critics from the left agreed in part that the welfare state as it currently stood was often 'oppressive', but attributed this to a failure to attack the root causes of class, gender, and 'race' inequalities.
Even before 1979 there were discernible shifts by the 1974-9 Labour government after the expenditure crisis of 1976 towards retrenchment and 'restructuring' of welfare in ways that responded most to right-wing rather than left-wing critics. However, after the Conservative election victory of 1979, this shift occurred in a more concerted way and there have been substantial reforms in all of the services established as a result of the Beveridge Report, though only in one, housing, could there be said to have been significant retrenchment in provision. In other areas, there have been a tightening of eligibility rules and shifts to decentralization of managerial responsibility within tighter centralized control of finance. Perhaps most controversial of all has been the reform of the National Health Service in 1990, against widespread opposition, to create an 'internal' market within a socialized system.
In a wider sense, there has been a significant shift from Beveridge's assumptions. Most importantly, there was a shift in economic priorities from maintaining full employment to controlling inflation. The modest redistribution of income and wealth achieved up to the 1970s, was reversed by cuts in income tax and a shift to more regressive forms of indirect taxation like value added tax (VAT). Despite all this, by the end of the 1980s the welfare state had been 'restructured' rather than abolished. It was suggested that a new 'welfare pluralist' consensus had emerged in which it was accepted that private, state, and voluntary sectors could exist side by side. In the 1990s the growing internationalization of the global economy, which has undermined the autonomy of national governments, led to pressure to reduce wage and social security costs in order to attract highly mobile investment.
It is probably most helpful to situate the British variant analytically and comparatively as a 'welfare state regime'. These, G. Esping-Anderson argues in The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, fall into three main types within market societies: 'conservative', 'social democratic', and 'liberal', depending on the extent to which they seek to work with, or to counter the effects of, the market on social inequalities. An example of a conservative regime is Germany, characterized by high welfare provision within a hierarchical and ordered society, while Sweden is closest to an egalitarian 'social democratic' regime. Though 1948 the British welfare state was among the most developed, by the 1970s provision had become more extensive in conservative and social democratic regimes, and the British welfare state looked closest to the 'liberal' model, with only limited attempts to use welfare to mitigate social inequalities. Though all welfare state regimes have been under pressure, in Britain and the United States the shift towards liberalism has been particularly pronounced, nor was it reversed on Labour coming to power in 1997.
— Mick Carpenter
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
THE THIRD WAY
Generally, any ideology that claims that it lies in between two traditional approaches that the writer believes are too limited. Specifically, the ideology claimed to underlie the actions of New Labour in Britain after the succession of Tony Blair to the leadership of the Labour Party in 1994. In this case, the two old ways are often understood to be socialism and capitalism. However, both its main ideologue in the UK (Anthony Giddens) and Prime Minister Blair emphasize that it is supposed to be a modernized form of social democracy, rather than an alternative to it.
Although critics of the New Labour Third Way claim that it has no empirical content, its defenders see it as a route between what was seen as the excessive paternalism (and statism) of traditional left policies and the excessive individual personal responsibility of the right. The policy of welfare to work—dubbed 'tough love' by British thirdwayers—was an early example: a combination of a greater emphasis on personal responsibility to find work backed with the threat of withdrawal of benefits, but at the same time a reinforcing of a framework of public support. For a while in the late 1990s, the German Social Democratic Party imitated New Labour with a claim to pursue die neue Mitte, but that claim too disappeared in the 2000s. The concept has a modest salience in the USA where it has become central to the philosophy of the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist pressure group in the Democrats. See also social exclusion; social market.
— Iain McLean
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Developmental State
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.2019.pdf
A developmental state is a state where government is intimately involved in the macro and micro-economic planning in order to grow the economy (Onis, 1991). It has generally been observed that successful developmental states are able to advance their economies much faster than regulatory states that use regulations to manage the economy.
Characteristics of a Developmental State
In order to understand the concept of a developmental state, it is important to highlight some of the characteristics of a developmental state (Thompson, 1996; Woo-Cumings, 1999).
Developmental states generally put strong emphasis on technical education and the development of numeracy and computer skills within the population. This technically oriented education is strategically used to capacitate government structures particularly the bureaucracy. What emerges out of this strategy is that the political and bureaucratic layers are populated by extremely educated people who have sufficient tools of analysis to be able to take leadership initiatives, based on sound scientific basis, at every level of decision making nodes within the government structure.
Developmental states have been observed to be able to efficiently distribute and allocate resources and, therefore, invest optimally in critical areas that are the basis of industrialisation such as education. The complexity of the transformation agenda in South Africa makes the task of efficiently distributing and allocating resources difficult to achieve (Marwala, 2005c).
The other characteristic that has been observed in successful developmental states is economic nationalism. This characteristic is also observed in developed states such as the USA during tough economic times. The characteristic of the national question in South Africa, which makes the notion of "South Africaness" a highly complex concept given the vast diversity of the South African population, makes economic nationalism not a viable option in South Africa.
The other characteristic of a developmental state is its emphasis on market share over profit. The developed segment of the South African capitalist system is sophisticated and it has a huge component of short term investments also known as "hot money". This makes profit, particularly short term profit, a significant factor in the investment decision making process.
Developmental states have been observed for their protection of their embryonic domestic industries and have also been observed to focus on aggressive acquisition of foreign technology. This they achieve by deploying their most talented students to overseas universities located in strategic and major centres of the innovation world and also by effectively utilizing their foreign missions (Marwala, 2005c; Marwala, 2006).
Furthermore, they encourage and reward foreign companies that invest in building productive capacity such as manufacturing plants with the aim that the local industrial sector will in time be able to learn vital success factors from these companies. On constructing a harmonious social-industrial complex, developmental states strike a strategic alliance between the state, labour and industry in order to increase critical measures such as productivity, job security and industrial expansion. Even though developmental states do not create enemies unnecessarily and do not participate in the unnecessary criticism of countries with strategic technologies that they would like to acquire, they are, however, skeptical of copying foreign values without translating and infusing them with local characteristics.
Developmental states generally believe that they will attain state legitimacy through delivery of services to citizens rather than through the ballot. In South Africa, state legitimacy is achieved through the ballot however the main shortcoming is that the society has not reached an equilibrium stage where the feedback mechanism between voting pattern and service delivering reinforce each other. Now that the characteristics of a developmental state have been highlighted it is important to briefly describe industrialisation because it is an important component of a developmental state.
The vital driver for success in developmental states is industrialisation. The goal of industrialisation is to create a country that produces goods and services with high added values. For example, instead of exporting minerals unprocessed, people can be employed to beneficiate these minerals and manufacture goods such as watches and thus add economic value to the final products. The process by which countries add aggregate economic values to the products and services they offer is directly dependant on the level of industrialisation in the country's economy.
Keys to success -- Education, scientific and technological development, e.g. Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
pluralism
Literally, a belief in more than one entity or a tendency to be, hold, or do more than one thing. This literal meaning is common to all the political and social applications of the word, but it has applied in contexts so varied that the uses seem like separate meanings. The most established of these is pluralism as the tendency of people to hold more than one job or benefice, most specifically in the context of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. In the late nineteenth century, pluralism was applied to philosophical theories or systems of thought which recognized more than one ultimate principle, as opposed to those which were 'monist'. At the same time, the word came to be applied in the United States to the view that the country could legitimately continue to be formed of distinct ethnic groups, the Jewish-Americans, Irish-Americans, and so on, rather than that all differences should dissolve into a 'melting-pot' (see also multiculturalism).
All of these uses have had at least a slight influence on the primary contemporary meaning in which the pluralist model of society is one in which the existence of groups is the political essence of society. Pluralists in this sense contrast with elitists because they see the membership of village and neighbourhood communities, trade unions, voluntary societies, churches, and similar organizations as being more important than distinctions between a ruling class and a class that is ruled: vertical distinctions in society are less important than horizontal.
The forerunner of this kind of pluralism was F. R. de Lammenais who edited the journal L'Avenir in France in the early nineteenth century. Lammenais attacked both the individualism and the universalism of the Enlightenment and the Revolution. The individual, he said, was 'a mere shadow', who could not be said to exist at all socially except in so far as he was part of one or more groups. Both Lammenais and modern pluralists, including such notable American writers as Robert Dahl and Nelson Polsby, tend to believe both that society consists essentially of groups, with its political life a competition for group influence, and that this state of affairs is a good thing. Thus pluralism is often a relatively conservative doctrine, at least in relation to Marxism or radical democratic theory, which both tend to portray society as a predominance of an elite over a non-elite rather than a competition between groups
Lincoln Allison
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Gale Encyclopedia of US Foreign Policy:
Elitism
Classical and New Elite Theory
Although the idea probably always has been present in some form, elitism emerged as a recognizable and clearly defined part of Western political thought in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The leading contributors to the theory were Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and Robert Michels. These writers attacked classical democratic thought and also Aristotle and Karl Marx. Majority rule, they insisted, is impossible. Every society is divided into those who rule and those who are ruled; and the rulers constitute only a small minority of any society. Aristotle's classification, which divided political systems into three types (rule by one, rule by a few, and rule by the many), does not fit reality either, for no man is capable of ruling by himself, and the many, too, lack the ability to govern. It is the few, under any political system, who exercise effective control. And Marx, with his emphasis on a class struggle that in the end (following the victory of the working class) leads to social harmony in a classless society, was also wrong. History features a continuing struggle among elites. That struggle will never end, and a classless society cannot be created. Moreover, to the pioneers in the development of elitist theory, Marx placed too much emphasis on economics and not enough on politics, which could be autonomous.
Classical elitist theory did not maintain merely that the active, socially recognizable people in a country made its important decisions—whether from within offices of government, from somewhere behind the scenes, or from completely outside the state apparatus. It emphatically asserted that the common man, however numerous within a society in absolute or relative terms, did not. Analysts of elites, who generally focus on the distribution of power rather than on the allocation of values, or on property and other wealth forms, differ somewhat over the degree of participation in government or, more generally, the political process that is necessary for a member of the elite accurately to be judged a member of what Mosca characterizes as "the ruling class." A society's elite is usually thought to be a stable entity, self-sustaining and constant over time. Yet the actual group that is in office can change markedly and very quickly. The concept of an elite therefore may need to be understood as encompassing all those who might govern as well as those who in fact do govern.
However "elite" is precisely understood, elitist theory is clear in the basic point that a minority, rather than the masses, controls things. The general population of a country—the common man—is ineffective. Even in societies with elections and other democratic mechanisms, it is posited, the ruling elite functions in a way that is largely independent of control by a popular majority. However, it made need a justifying doctrine. That the elite ordinarily functions according to a "political formula," in Mosca's term, is what makes its rule effective and acceptable to the masses. Thus, in theory, there can be a democratic elitism, however paradoxical that may seem.
A "new elite paradigm," building on the work of Mosca and other classical theorists, emerged in the 1980s and 1990s among comparative political sociologists. It drew attention to the occurrence, and the important effects, of divisions that may arise within the elite of a society. Its central proposition, as stated by John Higley and Michael Burton (1989), is as follows: "A disunified national elite, which is the most common type, produces a series of unstable regimes that tend to oscillate between authoritarian and democratic forms over varying intervals. A consensually unified national elite, which is historically much rarer, produces a stable regime that may evolve into a modern democracy, as in Sweden, or Britain, or the United States, if economic and other facilitative conditions permit."
In the United States, normally, internal and external conditions have favored consensual unity within the nation's elite. Of course, the American Revolution and, later, the Civil War, are the major exceptions to this generalization. During those periods, divisions ran so deep as to produce counter-elites. As the political sociologist Barrington Moore, Jr., and the political historian C. Vann Woodward have shown, the reconciliation between North and South that occurred following post–Civil War Reconstruction was in significant part a result of a complex bargain between the elites in formerly opposed geographical sections. After the late nineteenth century, issues of foreign policy have on occasion divided the American elite as well. A by-product of this has been a widening of participation in the national debate over foreign policy. That this amounts to a "democratization" of American foreign policymaking, however, is highly disputable.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
Corporatism
The central core of corporatism is the notion of a system of interest intermediation linking producer interests and the state, in which explicitly recognized interest organizations are incorporated into the policy-making process, both in terms of the negotiation of policy and of securing compliance from their members with the agreed policy. However, one of the characteristics of the debate in the social sciences from the mid-1970s onwards about corporatism was the failure of the participants to agree about the meaning of the term. There was agreement that the area being studied was that of relations between organized interests and the state. There was some agreement that the discussion was particularly concerned with interests that arose from the division of labour in society, and particularly attempts to reconcile conflicts between capital and labour. However, while some analysts insisted that corporatist arrangements had to be tripartite, involving the state, organized employers, and organized labour, others insisted that they could be bipartite between the state and one of the other 'social partners', or between the 'social partners' themselves. There was a measure of agreement that whereas conventional pressure groups made representations about the content of public policy, corporatism involved a mixture of representation and control. In return for being involved in the formulation of public policy, corporatist interest groups were expected to assist in its implementation. This was sometimes captured through the idea of 'intermediation' which some analysts saw as central to the idea of corporatism (A. Cawson), although others doubted whether intermediation was unique to corporatism and therefore could be regarded as its distinguishing feature.
Although the modern debate started in the mid-1970s, the idea of corporatism has a long history. Guilds or corporations were important institutions in mediaeval life, but attracted little attention from political theorists. Conscious reflection about the potential prescriptive value of corporatist arrangements really started in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), Leo XIII tackled the problems of the poverty of the working classes, the development of trade unions, and the prevalent 'spirit of revolutionary change'. It was argued that class conflict was not inevitable, but that capital and labour were mutually dependent. Noting the general growth of associative action, Leo XIII argued that problems such as working conditions and health and safety could be dealt with by specially established organizations or boards, with the state sanctioning and protecting such arrangements. The object of proceeding in this way was 'in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State'. This concern with limiting direct state intervention, and finding alternative forms of state-sanctioned associative action, has remained a central theme of the corporatist debate. The association between corporatism and Catholic social theory has also remained a strong one.
After the First World War, the idea of corporatism was taken up by the radical right, in particular by Mussolini, who placed it at the centre of the fascist regime in Italy. As a consequence, corporatism suffered from guilt by association. It came to be regarded as a synonym for fascism and disappeared from most political discussion, although it survived in Spain and especially Portugal.
There was, nevertheless, an alternative liberal version of corporatism which was clearly distinct from the surviving remnants of authoritarian corporatism. Samuel Beer made use of the term in his Modern British Politics (1965), forecasting that 'The further development of corporatism is surely to be expected'. Andrew Shonfield's Modern Capitalism, published in the same year and one of the most influential mid-century works on political economy, discussed the concept in terms of a corporatist management of economic planning in which the main interest groups were brought together to conclude bargains about their future behaviour.
The index entry for 'corporatism' in Shonfield's book reads 'see also Fascism', and it was the objective of the new generation of neocorporatist writers, led by Philippe Schmitter, to strip corporatism of its fascist associations, and to reinvent the concept as a means of analysing observable changes in a number of Western democracies. In 1974, Schmitter published Still the Century of Corporatism?, the title referring to Mihail Manoilesco's 1934 prediction that, just as the nineteenth century was that of liberalism, the twentieth century would be that of corporatism. Schmitter wished to escape from what he saw as an unhelpful dominance of pluralist analysis in American political science.
Schmitter triggered off an academic 'growth industry' on corporatism. In part, this was because it helped the understanding of long-term political phenomena such as the social pacts in Sweden and Switzerland, or the Parity Commission in Austria. Corporatism's appeal was wider, however, than explaining the politics of some of the more prosperous smaller European democracies where it was always difficult to decide whether corporatism promoted prosperity, or prosperity made corporatism possible because everyone came away from the bargaining table with something. Modern neocorporatism can best be understood as part of the breakdown of neo-Keynesianism. In the post-war period, Western governments had attempted to maintain full employment through techniques of aggregate demand management. This had, however, led to inflationary pressures, which became much worse after the first oil shock in 1973. Hence, governments increasingly turned to incomes policies as a means of restraining inflation while maintaining a demand management policy. This inevitably led them into agreements with the large producer groups, even in countries like Britain which had a predisposition for liberal solutions to economic problems. In particular, the unions were often offered concessions on social issues (employment law, taxation, social benefits) in return for agreeing to assist in the restraint of wage increases. The organized employers were also brought into the bargaining picture, in part because their assistance might be required in relation to price restraint, but also to act as a counterweight to the unions. The link between incomes policy and corporatism is illustrated in a study by Helander of the development of incomes policy in Finland which required the creation of new institutions and alterations in the functions of some existing ones. The Finnish political system changed into a two-tier one with parliamentary and corporatist subsystems
Although the debate on corporatism produced a considerable volume of research output, it is often regarded as flawed for a number of reasons. First, there was the failure to agree on what was actually being discussed. Second, although corporatism claimed to be distinctive from pluralism, it shared many of pluralism's assumptions, and could be presented by its opponents as little more than a subtype of pluralism. Third, the debate really developed just as the phenomena it was examining became less central to the political process. More liberal solutions to problems of economic policy became favoured in a number of European countries in the 1980s as social democratic parties lost power. Moreover the focus of debate moved away from the politics of production to the politics of collective consumption, as issues such as environmental problems moved higher up the political agenda. They are less amenable to corporatist solutions, and the relevance of a modernist concept like corporatism to more post-modernist forms of politics is open to question. Fourth, the debate was characterized by a failure to separate analysis and prescription. Many, although not all, of the writers on corporatism were either openly (C. Crouch) or covertly sympathetic to its use as a means of providing a 'middle way' that would satisfy the legitimate aspirations of organized labour whilst maintaining a capitalist mode of production. Corporatism was often defended in terms of its effectiveness in securing desired economic goals (high growth, low inflation, low unemployment), but there was a recognition that it could have undesirable political consequences. It lacked legitimacy as a mode of governance, emphasizing functional rather than territorial representation. It tended to bypass legislatures by creating new unelected bodies, such as economic councils of various kinds, and while it included some interests, it excluded others (smaller businesses, consumers). Fifth, as the debate developed in the 1980s, it focused increasingly on examples of sectoral or meso corporatism rather than at the macro level. Although many examples of corporatism were uncovered in particular policy areas (such as training policy and in many areas of agricultural policy), the explanatory value of corporatism as a model of the polity as a whole was thereby diminished.
Schmitter's article made a clear distinction between societal corporatism to be found in countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, and state corporatism to be found in countries such as Spain, Portugal, and Mexico, as well as Fascist Italy and Pétinist France. Much of the subsequent debate focused on societal (or 'liberal') corporatism, although Coleman showed that the concept of state corporatism could be applied in a liberal democracy through his analysis of Quebec.
The concept of corporatism has been applied to the European Community, which certainly has been influenced by the Catholic tradition of 'social partnership', exemplified by the 'val Duchesse' discussions between the Community, employers, and labour initiated in 1985. The protocol on social policy in the Maastricht treaty includes provisions both for consultation with management and labour, and arrangements for the joint implementation of directives by management and labour. This is an unambiguously corporatist arrangement, but if the Community had generally followed a corporatist path, the Economic and Social Committee would have been a central institution, instead of being marginalized.
The corporatist debate stimulated comparative empirical research on pressure groups as, for example, in the Organization of Business interests project co-ordinated by Schmitter and Wolfgang Streeck. Whether it provided theoretical 'value added' beyond the insights provided by pluralism remains contentious.
Wyn Grant
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
2012年9月10日星期一
2012年9月9日星期日
Fwd: Week 3 stpa, 10-9-2012, dr sunny chan
Week 3 stpa, 10-9-2012, dr sunny chan
Group work, (2~3 students as a group,)
嘗試瞭解近日澳門廉政公署及審計署對於運輸基建辦公室涉嫌行政失當之兩份調查報告，以 1000~2000 字，握要說明其論點，並提出您的分析或見解, 須運用公共行政學之理論或概念。
Deadline : week 5, Monday.
另外，同學們亦有機會在堂上作口頭報告或與教授互動討論此題目。
## 注意：本功課之目的是希望學員能夠反思什麼是「善治」？政府在制定具體政策的過程中，有什麼原則必須遵守？
\\\\\\\
善治：
@ 合法性、認受性，legitimacy ，社會大多數人之政治認同感。
@ 政策透明性、公開化，transparency ，讓公民有機會參與公共決策過程，監督政府工作。
@ 問責性，accountability ，各政府部門及官員權責清晰，如有任何行政失當，立刻可以找出誰人或那個部門須要負責，或受到譴責。
@ 法治原則，rule of law ，任何人以及政府，都在法律以下，都必須依法行事。法令穩定。
@ 回應性，responsiveness，政府部門或官員，必須對公民的要求作出及時的反應。
@ 高效率，efficiency ，節省資源，最少投入，獲得最大產出。
@ 高效能，effectiveness ，最大程度達致預期目的。
@ 公共參與政策制定過程，民主化，democratic 。
@ 良好職效管理，performance measurement.
@ 政治穩定與暴力程度。
@ 貪污控制。
@ 制衡，check and balance. 權力分立，separation of powers.
\\\\\\\
管治的理念系統\ 道德價值判斷之標準
自由主義
功利主義：興起於西方工業革命年代。新中產階級，爭取政治自由和公民權利。
Jeremy Bentham
Happiness as end-in-itself。
Moral rule ~ Maximization of utility。創造出有價值的事態。
Focus on states of affairs, not individual human beings.
Good Public policies aim at Good consequences ~ the greatest happiness of the greatest number, consequentialism 後果論。
all kinds of happiness are equal in value。
John Stuart Mill
Modified the perspective
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
Happiness should be in a social and collective sense, public interests 公共利益，virtue 美德，(morality 道德觀）。
Human behaviors can be divided as two kinds :
Self-regarding behaviors - free.
Other-regarding behaviors - controlled by law.
當一個社會的基本制度及政策，能在該社會所有人中間產生最大的效益淨值（快樂、欲望獲得滿足），這情況便是合理及公正的。
只考慮整體效益的增加，欲不理會這些效益如何在公民之間進行分配；在某些情況下，個人基本自由和權利會被政府以整體利益之名而犧牲。
\\\\
社會正義論
對功利主義及右派自由主義的批評。
正義原則
1\ 每個人都有同等的權利，在與所有人同樣的自由體系相容的情況下，擁有最廣泛的平等的基本自由體系。
2\ 社會和經濟的不平等應這樣安排：
A/ 在和公正的儲蓄原則一致的前提下，對社會中最弱勢的人最為有利；
B/ 在公平的平等機的條件下，職位與工作向所有人開放。
在無知之幕下訂立契約。
人人生而平等。
反對功利主義，反對犧牲小部分人的利益。
平等主義，反對右派自由主義，反思天賦及家庭背景使社會貧富懸殊，機會不均等。
反對「至善主義」，否定人類有特定卓越目標。反對政府推動某種內在價值觀，意識形態洗腦。
\\\\\\
民粹主義
Populism - 人民不滿現狀，激進地反對統治階級壟斷經濟、政治、文化…
@ 主角：弱勢群體、農民、新移民、工人、教育水平低之人士、黑人、被邊緣化的人…
@ 反體制，但不一定會革命。二元對立化、妖魔化對立者。
帶有點非理性，激進之政治參與行動。
較少考慮長遠性、整體性利益。
@ 政客的民粹
@ 民粹主義式獨裁，例如，1940，阿根廷，貝隆。
\\\\\\\\
社群主義
反對個人主義，
主張集體、制度、人類關係等的存在及其重要性。
倫理之價值不在於個人。
強調，互惠、團結、信任、傳統美德…
發現倫理原則之方法是：嘗試詮釋與定義已存在於真實現存團體生活方式中的價值。
個人是屬於特定文化、傳統、社群下的自我。
自我認同- 受到社群價值觀所影響。
社群價值、傳統；但不是單一套正義原則。
Charles Taylor , 自我不可能與社群傳統文化脫離。
人是根屬於社群脈絡下而存在。
社群文化乃先於個人而存在，是構成自我認同的因素。
人際關係是處於對話的結構狀態。
Self identity and significant others, interaction and recognition.
愛國心及道德價值觀：是一種基於對社群共同歷史記憶，共同命運所自然產生之情感及價值觀。
會在成員參與社群事務中逐漸增強，形成集體認同。
\\\\\\\
Group work, (2~3 students as a group,)
嘗試瞭解近日澳門廉政公署及審計署對於運輸基建辦公室涉嫌行政失當之兩份調查報告，以 1000~2000 字，握要說明其論點，並提出您的分析或見解, 須運用公共行政學之理論或概念。
Deadline : week 5, Monday.
另外，同學們亦有機會在堂上作口頭報告或與教授互動討論此題目。
## 注意：本功課之目的是希望學員能夠反思什麼是「善治」？政府在制定具體政策的過程中，有什麼原則必須遵守？
\\\\\\\
善治：
@ 合法性、認受性，legitimacy ，社會大多數人之政治認同感。
@ 政策透明性、公開化，transparency ，讓公民有機會參與公共決策過程，監督政府工作。
@ 問責性，accountability ，各政府部門及官員權責清晰，如有任何行政失當，立刻可以找出誰人或那個部門須要負責，或受到譴責。
@ 法治原則，rule of law ，任何人以及政府，都在法律以下，都必須依法行事。法令穩定。
@ 回應性，responsiveness，政府部門或官員，必須對公民的要求作出及時的反應。
@ 高效率，efficiency ，節省資源，最少投入，獲得最大產出。
@ 高效能，effectiveness ，最大程度達致預期目的。
@ 公共參與政策制定過程，民主化，democratic 。
@ 良好職效管理，performance measurement.
@ 政治穩定與暴力程度。
@ 貪污控制。
@ 制衡，check and balance. 權力分立，separation of powers.
\\\\\\\
管治的理念系統\ 道德價值判斷之標準
自由主義
功利主義：興起於西方工業革命年代。新中產階級，爭取政治自由和公民權利。
Jeremy Bentham
Happiness as end-in-itself。
Moral rule ~ Maximization of utility。創造出有價值的事態。
Focus on states of affairs, not individual human beings.
Good Public policies aim at Good consequences ~ the greatest happiness of the greatest number, consequentialism 後果論。
all kinds of happiness are equal in value。
John Stuart Mill
Modified the perspective
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
Happiness should be in a social and collective sense, public interests 公共利益，virtue 美德，(morality 道德觀）。
Human behaviors can be divided as two kinds :
Self-regarding behaviors - free.
Other-regarding behaviors - controlled by law.
當一個社會的基本制度及政策，能在該社會所有人中間產生最大的效益淨值（快樂、欲望獲得滿足），這情況便是合理及公正的。
只考慮整體效益的增加，欲不理會這些效益如何在公民之間進行分配；在某些情況下，個人基本自由和權利會被政府以整體利益之名而犧牲。
\\\\
社會正義論
對功利主義及右派自由主義的批評。
正義原則
1\ 每個人都有同等的權利，在與所有人同樣的自由體系相容的情況下，擁有最廣泛的平等的基本自由體系。
2\ 社會和經濟的不平等應這樣安排：
A/ 在和公正的儲蓄原則一致的前提下，對社會中最弱勢的人最為有利；
B/ 在公平的平等機的條件下，職位與工作向所有人開放。
在無知之幕下訂立契約。
人人生而平等。
反對功利主義，反對犧牲小部分人的利益。
平等主義，反對右派自由主義，反思天賦及家庭背景使社會貧富懸殊，機會不均等。
反對「至善主義」，否定人類有特定卓越目標。反對政府推動某種內在價值觀，意識形態洗腦。
\\\\\\
民粹主義
Populism - 人民不滿現狀，激進地反對統治階級壟斷經濟、政治、文化…
@ 主角：弱勢群體、農民、新移民、工人、教育水平低之人士、黑人、被邊緣化的人…
@ 反體制，但不一定會革命。二元對立化、妖魔化對立者。
帶有點非理性，激進之政治參與行動。
較少考慮長遠性、整體性利益。
@ 政客的民粹
@ 民粹主義式獨裁，例如，1940，阿根廷，貝隆。
\\\\\\\\
社群主義
反對個人主義，
主張集體、制度、人類關係等的存在及其重要性。
倫理之價值不在於個人。
強調，互惠、團結、信任、傳統美德…
發現倫理原則之方法是：嘗試詮釋與定義已存在於真實現存團體生活方式中的價值。
個人是屬於特定文化、傳統、社群下的自我。
自我認同- 受到社群價值觀所影響。
社群價值、傳統；但不是單一套正義原則。
Charles Taylor , 自我不可能與社群傳統文化脫離。
人是根屬於社群脈絡下而存在。
社群文化乃先於個人而存在，是構成自我認同的因素。
人際關係是處於對話的結構狀態。
Self identity and significant others, interaction and recognition.
愛國心及道德價值觀：是一種基於對社群共同歷史記憶，共同命運所自然產生之情感及價值觀。
會在成員參與社群事務中逐漸增強，形成集體認同。
\\\\\\\
harvard prof. michael sandel - justice lecture 1-4.
第1講-正義：一場思辨之旅-Michael Sandel
請來觀看 YouTube 上的影片：
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHHa4ETr2jE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
intro; utilitarianism; J Bentham;
第2講-正義：一場思辨之旅-Michael Sandel
請來觀看 YouTube 上的影片：
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCx3O3gygok&feature=youtube_gdata_player
critics on utilitarianism;
第3講-正義：一場思辨之旅-Michael Sandel
請來觀看 YouTube 上的影片：
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EwJRUzVYxk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
J S Mill 's utilitarianism ;
critics on it;
taxation as a theft ?
第4講-正義：一場思辨之旅-Michael Sandel
請來觀看 YouTube 上的影片：
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9btigv8l4s&feature=youtube_gdata_player
liberalism, negative freedom.
請來觀看 YouTube 上的影片：
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHHa4ETr2jE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
intro; utilitarianism; J Bentham;
第2講-正義：一場思辨之旅-Michael Sandel
請來觀看 YouTube 上的影片：
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCx3O3gygok&feature=youtube_gdata_player
critics on utilitarianism;
第3講-正義：一場思辨之旅-Michael Sandel
請來觀看 YouTube 上的影片：
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EwJRUzVYxk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
J S Mill 's utilitarianism ;
critics on it;
taxation as a theft ?
第4講-正義：一場思辨之旅-Michael Sandel
請來觀看 YouTube 上的影片：
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9btigv8l4s&feature=youtube_gdata_player
liberalism, negative freedom.
Fwd: 政府再造, 全球化，政府治理，Tw
globalization, good governance, civil society, public-private partnership
Subject: 政府再造的基本精神：小而美或小而能？全球化，政府治理，Tw
http://research.ncnu.edu.tw/proj5/staff/https___webmail.ncnu.edu.tw_cgi-bin_downfile_B_22728212196_tmp1.pdf_9803%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E5%8C%96%E8%A7%80%E9%BB%9E%E4%B8%8B%E7%9A%84%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C%E6%B2%BB%E7%90%86_T_D%E9%A3%9B%E8%A8%8A.pdf_HTTP_COOKIE=%20key=$F111F65F.S95106520_tw%26fake=_9803%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E5%8C%96%E8%A7%80%E9%BB%9E%E4%B8%8B%E7%9A%84%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C%E6%B2%BB%E7%90%86_T_D%E9%A3%9B%E8%A8%8A.pdf
Subject: 政府再造的基本精神：小而美或小而能？全球化，政府治理，Tw
http://research.ncnu.edu.tw/proj5/staff/https___webmail.ncnu.edu.tw_cgi-bin_downfile_B_22728212196_tmp1.pdf_9803%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E5%8C%96%E8%A7%80%E9%BB%9E%E4%B8%8B%E7%9A%84%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C%E6%B2%BB%E7%90%86_T_D%E9%A3%9B%E8%A8%8A.pdf_HTTP_COOKIE=%20key=$F111F65F.S95106520_tw%26fake=_9803%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E5%8C%96%E8%A7%80%E9%BB%9E%E4%B8%8B%E7%9A%84%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C%E6%B2%BB%E7%90%86_T_D%E9%A3%9B%E8%A8%8A.pdf
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)