審議民主模式強調公民為中心的政策參與；傳統多元主義式政治參與則強調利益團體對政府決策的影響，公民與利益團體皆是公民社會中不可或缺的重要組成，本研究聚焦於兩者在政策參與上的互動關係。本研究選擇原能會委託辦理之「核廢何從公民討論會」審議模式為個案，利用深度訪談與次級資料分析，探究利益團體對審議民主之態度及其與公民之間的互動關係。
本研究主要的研究結果如下：
（一） 主管機關採用審議民主模式之因素：溝通過程不順利、嘗試增加社會層面思考、建立對話平台及傳達正確資訊。
（二） 利益團體參與審議民主之因素：包含監督審議民主模式進行、提供正確資訊以及嘗試新型態參與管道等；然而，受到過去互動經驗、團體自主性考量以及效果不確定，對參與審議民主模式的呈現負面考量。
（三） 利益團體與公民在審議活動過程中交相產生影響。
（四） 審議民主模式有利於利益團體與公民的互動關係中提升公民能力，然而，在弱勢聲音投入方面有所限制；在制度設計上，一方面能突破團體在政策資訊蒐集之困境，另一方面卻限制了議題討論的範疇。最後，團體與審議民主在決策影響上，尚未產生具體的作用。
據此，本研究提出三項實務建議：加強政策資訊公開流程、建立審議民主制度化體制以及利益團體廣泛參與審議民主活動。 / Deliberative democracy emphasizes citizen-orientation in decision-making and pluralist democracy emphasizes interest groups’ influence on public policy. Since both citizens and interest groups are important components of civil society, this article focuses on the interaction between deliberative democracy and interest groups in policy participation.
This research takes “Public Forum for Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Siting” as the empirical case and explores it by secondary data and in-depth interview.
The findings are as follow:
1. The reasons for government to adopt public deliberation as policy tool were to face the obstacles in communication process, to increase social discussions in this issue, to build up a new communication platform, and to disclose accurate information to the public.
2. The motives for interest groups to participate deliberative process are monitoring public forum, providing accurate information, and attempting to create new forms of public participation. Nevertheless, there are also some concerns which might cause interest groups’ unwillingness to participate the deliberative process, including their prior experiences of interacting with governments, the maintenance of group autonomy, and uncertain effects from deliberative process.
3. This study shows that both interest groups and deliberative democracy have mutual effect deliberative process.
4. Deliberative process in the interaction could enhance civic competence, but restrict the voice from social minority; in the dimension of the institutional design, deliberative process can help interest groups collect necessary information, but limit the scopes of policy issues for discussion. Finally, there is no apparent evidence supporting that interest groups and deliberative democracy process can make decision making difference.
In the end, this study proposes that the governments should strengthen information disclosure, build infrastructure regarding deliberative democracy as well as promote deliberative activities.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/G0096256024 |
| Creators | 林心睿 |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds