主要內容摘述如次： 第一章、導論。簡述主要之研究目的、方法、及分析架構。 第二章、改革之環境。概述影響美國文官改廿之地理條件，歷史背景與聯邦政府現況 。 第三章、改革之緣起。尋繹該法案之主要形成原因，包括介紹美國文官制度之演變情 形、功績制度實行方法之檢討與社會大眾對於文管改革之要求。 第四章、改革之過程。探討在政治體系中，如何將要求改革之意見，轉化而為法案之 互動行為。主要包括了「政策規劃」及「政策合法化」兩大部份。 第五章、改革法之內容。研究改革之「產出」部份。亦即評述於合法化過程之後，經 由總統簽署並公佈之法律內涵。 第六章、改革之效果。討論法案之執行及在環境中所造成之影響。例如：官僚之迴響 、輿論之評估等等。 第七章、結論。對改革法之本身做一總評，同時探討美國文官改革法、其立法精神對 我國人事制度之啟示。

立法院由立法委員所組成，依據憲法之規範，負責審議行政機關函送之議案，而行政機關為增進雙方互動，順暢相關法案、預算案之審議，設有國會聯絡人負責前揭事項之推動與協調，以期完成政策合法化之作業。因各部會業務迥異，國會動態變化莫測，導致國會聯絡工作困難度增加，故如何尋求良方，提升政策合法化之成效，並促進國會聯絡工作經驗之累積與傳承，實為本研究關注之焦點。 　　2000年Denhardt氏提出新公共服務之概念，適逢我國首次完成政黨輪替，在意識形態掛帥、政黨情勢緊繃、行政立法互動不佳之情況下，可否藉由新公共服務所倡導之信任合作、公共利益、服務、共享等核心價值，來改善行政立法之互動關係，及促進國會聯絡工作與推動策略之進行，實值得進行探討，故本研究乃以新公共服務之面向切入，期能建構出具體之國會聯絡工作推動策略。 　　本研究以深度訪談及參與觀察等質化研究方法，蒐集多位立法委員、資深國會助理、資深議事人員、資深國會聯絡主管及人員之寶貴意見，並經由內容分析法進行資料分析，發現新公共服務所倡導的信任合作、公共利益、服務、共享等理念，確能增進行政機關首長、國會聯絡人與立法委員、國會助理間之互信、互動，也能凝聚為民服務之共識，在維護公共利益之前提下，共同完成政策合法化的目標。 　　最後，本研究呼籲應建立新公共服務之國會聯絡工作、掌握化解法案及預算案之負面因素，並對機關首長、業務單位、國會聯絡人及議事運作等方面，提出順暢國會聯絡之具體建議；期能拋磚引玉，與行政機關國會聯絡先進相互討論，並提供新進人員之參考運用。 / The Legislative Yuan is composed of legislators, and according to the stipulations of constitution the legislature will deliberate the bills submitted to it by the executive branch. In order to facilitate mutual interaction, speed up review of relevant drafts, deliberation of appropriation bill, congressional liaison personnel is established at the executive branch and they will be responsible for the facilitation and coordination of the above-mentioned issues so as to complete the operation of policy legitimation. Since the business of every department varies and trends of development at the congress fluctuate, it has led to further difficulty for congressional liaison. Therefore, it is the crux of this study as what resolution can be achieved to enhance the efficiency of policy legitimation as well as facilitate the accumulation and pass-over of liaison work in the congress. 　　In year 2000, Robert Denhardt and Janet Denhardt put forth the concept of the new public service, and then it happened to be the time of the first rotation of political party in our country. Nonetheless, under the context of ideology that commands all, tensed relationship between parties, unfavorable interaction between the legislative and the executive branch it is wondered that if such core values as trust, cooperation, public interest, service, and sharing proposed by the new public service can be exploited to improve the interactive relationship between the legislative and executive as well as to facilitate congressional liaison work and impetus of strategy. It is, indeed, a task that deserves much investigation, and it is why this study has attempted to cut into the investigation from the aspect of the new public service, and hope to construe substantial impetus strategy for congressional liaison work. 　　This study would employ qualitative research methods as in-depth interview and participant-as-observation to collect precious opinions from several legislators, senior congress’ assistant, senior session staff, and senior congressional liaison head and personnel. Then, content analysis method is used to conduct information analysis, and it is found that ideas as trust, cooperation, public interest, service, and sharing proposed by the new public service can enhancing the interaction and mutual trust among heads of executive branch, congressional liaison personnel, legislator, congress’ assistant as well as coalesce the consensus to render service to the mass. Therefore, the objective to jointly furnish policy legitimation can be done under the pretext to maintain and preserve public interest. 　　At length, this study calls upon the establishment of congressional liaison work for the new public service so as to master and resolve those negative factors for legislation draft and budget bill, and put forth substantial suggestions that can help smoothen congressional liaison with regard to department head, business branch, congressional liaison personnel, and session operation. It would hope that it can turn itself as pioneer in this regard to solicit further opinions and advices so as conduct mutual discussions with those seniors, and the results of which can be cited as reference for novice of the congressional liaison.

本研究旨在探討2000年我國中央政府政黨輪替前後，不同的政府型態對於重大法案審議的影響。我們運用統計、內容分析（content analysis）、深度訪談等方法，檢視第2屆至第6屆立法院（1993年2月至2007年1月）期間，行政院提出的249個重大法案在立法院審議的情形，屬於「貫時性分析」（longitudinal analysis）。 就分立政府（divided government）與一致政府（unified government）的比較而言，研究結果發現：台灣的分立政府之重大法案審議結果，與一致政府的確有所差異，但差異並不大。值得強調的是，吾人企圖跳脫「分立vs.一致」的二元思考，嘗試作更細膩的觀察──本研究以二元對數勝算比模型（binary logit model）檢視影響重大法案通過與否的因素，藉由兩個模型的比較，最重要的發現在於：本研究提出的「四個階段」（一致政府前期、一致政府後期、分立政府前期、分立政府後期）之分析方式，較傳統「一致政府vs.分立政府」二元對立的分類，更具意義。分析結果顯示：「分立政府後期」的重大法案通過情形，明顯較「一致政府前期」好，分立政府的重大法案生產力未必不如一致政府。而且，分立政府本身有顯著差異，一致政府後期與前期的差異則更為顯著。易言之，本研究發現：分立政府的情形不能一概而論，分立初期行政部門的重大法案在國會常遭擱置延宕，頗符合Sundquist等傳統派學者的看法，但分立後期，重大法案通過率大幅回升甚至略高於一致政府的平均數，此階段的情況大致符合修正派學者Mayhew的觀點（分立政府無損於重大法案之制定），惟國會對於法案主導權的爭奪明顯較一致政府時期嚴重。另一方面，一致政府的情形亦不能一概而論，一致政府前期的重大法案推動情形並不順暢，頗值得2008年重回一致政府「完全執政」的新政府借鏡。

行政官員與立法委員於立法院的政策論述，是代議民主體制中政策合法化過程的核心，論述內容是否具備審議民主精神係影響政策合法性及未來執行過程的關鍵因素，但相關主題過去卻為學界所忽略。本文從審議民主觀點探究行政官員與立法委員的政策合法化論述，透過個案比較研究法，選取大學法與私立學校法的修法過程進行內容分析。研究結果顯示，立法委員的政策合法化論述主要以監督、連任、與政策為目標，其互惠性、多元性、尊重性、與合理性皆有待加強；行政官員的論述則是基於課責、回應、及責任等考量，但大多論述皆過於保守與消極，缺乏合理性之精神。兩者論述內容的差異及審議民主精神之缺乏，應與各自的制度性角色要求相關。基於研究發現，本文主張立法委員的論述應多聚焦於政策方案內容，行政官員則應更為主動、積極，以更符合回應與責任的要求、提升政策論述的審議精神。本文亦建議，立法院應針對政策合法化過程建立完整的公開記錄制度。本文為一初探性嘗試，未來學界可根據實務觀察，設計更完善的評估指標，或輔以制度論角度，裨益於對立法委員與行政官員的政策合法化論述有更完整地解釋。 / Administrators and legislators’ policy discourse in the Legislative Yuan is the core of policy legitimation under the representative democracy. The content of discourse with deliberative democracy spirit, ignored by the academics in the past, will influence policy legitimation and policy implementation. This study investigates administrators and legislators’ policy legitimation discourse from the perspective of deliberative democracy. The author selected the processes of amending the University Act and the Private School Law by comparative study of cases, and used content analysis method. The results show legislators take the supervision, reelection, and policy as their purposes in the discourse of policy legitimation. The attributes such as reciprocity, diversity, respect, and reasonableness in the legislators’ policy legitimation discourse have a great room for improvement. Administrators would mainly consider accountability, responsiveness, and responsibility during the discourse. Administrators are always conservative and passive, and the discourse is a lack of the reasonableness. The difference between legislators and administrators’ discourses may relate to respective institutional roles. Accordingly, this study suggests legislators focus on the content of policy proposal. This study also recommends administrators be more active and enthusiastic to answer to the requirement of responsiveness and responsibility, and to promote the deliberative spirit of the discourse. Besides, the author proposes the Legislative Yuan institutionalize the complete and open records of the policy legitimation. This research is the pilot study. Therefore, in the future, the academics could design more appropriate evaluative indicators, or can be integrated by the perspective of the institutionalism for better explanation of administrators and legislators’ policy legitimation discourse.