自國際透明組織(Transparency International, TI)1993年創立以來，國內學者積極參與國際相關事務，引入國家廉政體系(National Integrity System)、推動聯合國反貪腐公約(United Nations Convention against Corruption, UNCAC)以及倡導清廉印象指數(Corruption Perception Index, CPI)等，我國於2011年7月20日成立廉政署(Agency Against Corruption, AAC)，目標定調為落實國家廉政政策，實務界並論述反貪、防貪及肅貪為「廉政範圍」，其中「防貪」是經常性且不分機關性質均須重視的業務，惟以往政風機構在執行此類業務時忽略「社會資本」(Social Capital)的重要性，造成只統計業務數量及參加人次等數據，而未了解標的團體對防貪業務的主觀感受，流於形式的現象難以讓公務員(包含政風人員)信任政風人員、無意願參加政風舉辦的活動以及不認同政風防貪業務的內容。
本研究之目的為「社會資本(自變項)對16類防貪業務(依變項)的影響」，以標的團體「臺北市政府公務員」為問卷調查對象，了解「公務員分別認為16類防貪業務是否有效」、「社會資本對16類防貪業務的影響力」以及「由社會資本的角度看防貪業務未來的方向」三項問題，在非常不同意(1)、不同意(2)、同意(3)及非常同意(4)四點尺度上的回答，以滾雪球方式發放1,228份結構式問卷，並回收1,071份(回收率87.21%)。
統計量部分，受試者(臺北市政府公務員)認為16項防貪業務的成效在四點尺度上，平均數最高排序前三名為為預警措施(3.16)、受理或調查利益衝突迴避案(3.06)以及清查採購弊端(3.04)，最低後三名為增加政風預算(2.35)、廉政指數(2.58)以及增加政風人數(2.64)；受試者對政風的社會資本構面的要素在4點尺度上，由高排序為認同政風很重要(3.02)、認同政風對機關有價值(3.00)、認同政風會維護機關的廉潔(2.99)、認同政風工作(2.90)、信任政風維護廉潔的功能(2.88)、信任政風人員是無私的(2.87)、信任政風(2.86)、認同政風(2.85)、知道提供意見給政風的管道(2.81)、認為政風會保護機關公務員(2.77)、認為政風工作是公開透明的(2.74)、知道如何取得政風舉辦活動的訊息(2.72)、認為政風人員容易親近(2.51)、會積極參與政風舉辦的活動(2.48)。
社會資本構面對防貪業務的解釋力部分，由高排序為倡導廉能(39.9%)、訂定廉政法規(38.6%)、增加政風預算(38.2%)、廉政會報(32.2%)、增加政風人數(31.7%)、公開透明措施(29.3%)、清查採購弊端(27.9%)、財產申報及利益衝突說明會(27.5%)、促進民眾參與公共事務(27.1%)、廉政研究(26.6%)、受理或調查利益衝突迴避案(26.1%)、專案稽核(24.2%)、預警措施(22.0%)、協助財產申報(20.9%)、防貪報告(20.9%)、廉政指數(4.7%)。
受試者對政風的社會資本要素對防貪業務的個別影響力部分，分述如下：
1、對倡導廉能(宣導廉政倫理規範、獎勵廉潔事蹟或表揚廉潔楷模)具有正面影響力者為信任政風維護廉潔的功能(.268)、政風讓大家喜歡親近(.224)、政風會保護公務員(.175)及認同政風很重要(.146)，負面影響力為認同政風(-.285)；
2、對訂定廉政法規具有正面影響力者為信任政風維護廉潔的功能(.284)、積極參加政風活動(.211)及認同政風工作(.166)，負面影響力為信任政風(-.152)；
3、對增加政風預算具有正面影響力者為積極參與政風活動(.337)、相信政風維護廉潔的功能(.285)及具有政風人員身分(.110)，負面影響力為教育程度(-.118)；
4、對廉政會報具有正面影響力者為積極參與政風活動(.258)、政風會保護公務員(.193)、對機關很重要(.184)及大家喜歡親近(.136)，負面影響力為維護機關廉潔(-.146)、提供政風意見(-.137)及具有政風人員身分(-.112)；
5、對增加政風人數具有正面影響力者為積極參與政風活動(218)、信任政風維護廉潔的功能(163)及認同政風工作(150)，面影響力為教育程度(-.104)；
6、對公開透明措施具有正面影響力者為信任政風維護廉潔的功能(.363)及對機關有價值(.267)；
7、對清查採購弊端具有正面影響力者為保護公務員(.215)、對機關有價值(.207)、對機關很重要(.184)及認同政風工作(.163)，負面影響力為信任政風(-.170)及具備政風人員身分(-.114)；
8、對公職人員利益衝突迴避或財產申報說明會具有正面影響力者為對機關有價值(.184)、認同政風工作(.162)及保護公務員(.161)，負面影響力為具有政風人員身分(-.127)；
9、對促進民眾參加公共事務具有正面影響力者為認同政風工作(.317)、對機關很重要(.210)、讓大家喜歡親近(.156)及保護公務員(.146)，負面影響力是認為政風是無私的(-.164)及認同政風(-.159)；
10、對廉政研究具有正面影響力者為積極參加政風活動(.204)、信任政風維護廉潔的功能.192、認同政風工作(.141)及年齡(.107)；
11、對受理或調查利益衝突迴避案具有正面影響力者為信任政風維護廉潔的功能(.249)、對機關很重要(.200)、提供意見給政風(.193)及保護公務員(.138)，負面影響力為信任政風(-.165)及具備政風人員身分(-.113)；
12、對專案稽核具有正面影響力者為認同政風工作(.190)、對機關很重要(.178)及保護公務員(.169)；
13、對預警措施(對可能發生違法的事件或人員提早採取防範措施)具有正面影響力者為保護公務員(.193)、信任政風維護廉潔的功能(.190)及認同政風工作(.164)；
14、對協助公職人員財產財產具有正面影響力者為對機關有價值(.396)、保護公務員(.214)及積極參與政風活動(.151)；負面影響力為信任政風(-.161)、維護機關廉潔(-.159)及政風人員身分(-.131)；
15、對防貪報告(就社會矚目案件撰寫檢討報告的防貪成效)具有正面影響力者為認同政風工作(.244)、積極參與政風活動(.184)及年齡(.165)；
16、社會資本對廉政指數無具有影響力之要素。 / Since the foundation of Transparency International (TI) in 1993, the scholars in Taiwan have been playing an active role on the international stage, introducing the National Integrity System, promoting the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), and advocating the Corruption Perception Index (CPI).
Taiwan founded the Agency Against Corruption (AAC) on 20 July 2011, aiming to implement the national policies of a clean government. In practicum, the dimensions of establishing a clean government include “Anti-Corruption,” “Corruption Prevention,” and “Malpractices Investigation.”
Among the three, “Corruption Prevention” is a regular task crucial to all agencies and offices. However, when the Government Employee Ethics Units were executing the tasks, they overlooked the importance of social capital. They focused only on the sheer number of cases and participants without understanding the subjective perceptions of the target groups. Their formalities can hardly earn the trust of public servants, decreasing the willingness to participate in activities and challenging the identification with the tasks.
This research aims to investigate the influences of social capital (independent variable) on the 16 tasks of Corruption Prevention. It surveys the public servants of the Taipei City Government to understand three aspects, including “wether the 16 tasks of Corruption Prevention are effective,” “the influence of social capital on the tasks of Corruption Prevention,” and “the future direction of the tasks of Corruption Prevention from the perspective of social capital.”
The questionnaires are designed with a 4-level rating scale of “strongly disagree (1),” “disagree (2),” “agree (3),” and “strongly agree (4).” 1,288 questionnaires have been sent out through snowball sampling and 1,071 have been collected (response rate at 87.21%).
According to the means derived from the statistics, the surveyed subjects (public servants of the Taipei City Government) have shown their preferences with regard to the 16 tasks of Corruption Prevention. The top three are “precautionary measures (3.16),” “handling or investigating cases with conflict of interest (3.06),” and “investigating the malpractices in purchases (3.04).” The bottom three are “increasing the budget of ethic units (2.35),” “Corruption Perception Index (2.58),” and “increasing the number of ethics officers (2.64).”
On the influences of social capital on the government ethics units, the surveyed subjects have also shown their preference on the 4-level scale. From top to bottom they are “recognizing that government ethics units are important (3.02),” “recognizing that government ethics units are valuable to agencies (3.00),” “believing that government ethics units will protect the honesty of agencies (2.99),” “identifying with the tasks of government ethics units (2.90),” “trusting the functions of government ethics units in keeping the government clean (2.88),” “believing that the officers of the government ethics units are not biased (2.87),” “trusting the government ethics units (2.86),” “identifying with the government ethics units (2.85),” “knowing the means to provide opinions for the government ethics units (2.81),” “thinking that the government ethics units will protect public servants of agencies (2.77),” “believing that the tasks of the government ethics are transparent (2.74),” “knowing how to acquire information about the activities held by the government ethics units (2.72),” “thinking that the officers of the government ethics are approachable (2.51),” “participating actively in the activities held by the government ethics units (2.48).”
The coefficients of determination between the aspects of social capital and the tasks of corruption prevention are also ranked. From top to bottom they are “promoting ethics (39.9%),” “making ethical regulations (38.6%),” “increasing the budget for the government ethics units (38.2%),” “reports on ethical governance (32.2%),” “increasing the number of officers of the government ethics units (31/7%),” “making administration transparent (29.3%),” “investigating malpractices of purchases (27.9%),” “briefing on asset declaration and conflicts of interests (27.5%),” “encouraging the public to participate in public affairs (27.1%),” “research on clean governance (26.6%),” “handling or investigating cases that avoid conflicts of interests (26.1%),” “auditing projects (24.2%),” “precautionary measures (22.0%),” “assisting with asset declaration (20.9%),” “reports on anti-corruption (20.9%),” “Corruption Perception Index (4.7%).”
The subjects are also asked to evaluate the individual impact of the social capital of government ethics on the tasks of corruption prevention. Their views are surveyed as the following:
1.The positive influences on ethical governance (promoting the regulations of ethical governance, rewarding ethical behaviors, or awarding ethical models) are “trusting the functions of government ethics units in keeping the government clean (.268),” “thinking that the officers of the government ethics units are approachable (.224),” “believing that government ethics units will protect the honesty of agencies (.224),” and “recognizing that government ethics units are important (.146).” The negative influence aspect is “identifying with the government ethics units (-.285).”
2.The positive influences on making ethical regulations are “trusting the functions of government ethics units in keeping the government clean (.284),” “participating actively in the activities held by the government ethics units (.211),” and “identifying with the tasks of government ethics units (.166).” The negative influence is “trusting the government ethics units (-.152).”
3.The positive influences on increasing the budget for ethic units are “participating actively in the activities held by the government ethics units (.337),” “trusting the functions of government ethics units in keeping the government clean (.285),” and “possessing the membership of the government ethics units (.110).” The negative influence is “level of education (-.118).”
4.The positive influences on the reports on ethical governance are “participating actively in the activities held by the government ethics units (.258),” “the government ethics will protect public servants (.193),” “important to the agencies (.184),” and “people enjoy drawing near (.136).” The negative influences are “keeping the agencies ethical (-.146),” “providing opinions for the government ethics units (-.137),” and “possessing the membership of the government ethics units (-.112).”
5.The positive influences on increasing the number of officers of the government ethics units are “participating actively in the activities held by the government ethics units (.218),” “trusting the functions of government ethics units in keeping the government clean (.163),” and “identifying with the tasks of government ethics units (.150).” The negative influence is “level of education (-.104).”
6.The positive influences on administrative transparency are “trusting the functions of government ethics units in keeping the government clean (.363)” and “valuable to agencies (.267).
7.The positive influences on investigating the malpractices in purchases are “protecting public servants (.215),” “valuable to the agencies (.207),” “important to the agencies (.184),” and “identifying with the tasks of government ethics units (.163).” The negative influences are “trusting the government ethics units (-.170)” and “possessing the membership of the government ethics units (-.114).”
8.The positive influences on avoiding conflicts of interests among public servants or the asset declaration of public servants are “valuable to the agencies (.184),” “identifying with the tasks of government ethics units (.162) and “protecting public servants (.161).” The negative influence is “possessing the membership of the government ethics units (.127).”
9.The positive influences on encouraging citizens to participate in public affairs are “identifying with the tasks of government ethics units (.317),” “important to the agencies (.210),” “making everyone like to draw near (.156),” and “protecting public servants (.146).” The negative aspect is “believing the officers of the government ethics units are not biased (-.164)” and “identifying with government ethics units (-.159).”
10.The positive influences on the research on clean governance is “participating actively in the activities held by the government ethics units (.204),” “trusting the functions of government ethics units in keeping the government clean (.192),” “identifying with the tasks of government ethics units (.141),” and “age (.107).”
11.The positive influences on handling or investigating cases that avoid conflicts of interests are “trusting the functions of government ethics units in keeping the government clean (.249,” “important to the agencies (.200),” “providing opinions for the government ethics units (.193),” and “protecting public servants (.138).” The negative influences are “trusting the government ethics units (-.165) and “possessing the membership of the government ethics units (-.113).”
12.The positive influences on auditing projects are “identifying with the tasks of government ethics units (.190), “important to the agencies (.178)” and “protecting public servants. (.169).”
13.The positive influences on precautionary measures are “protecting public servants. (.193),” “trusting the functions of government ethics units in keeping the government clean (.190), and “identifying with the tasks of government ethics units (.164).”
14.The positive influences on assisting with asset declaration are “valuable to the agencies (.396), “protecting public servants (.214)” and “participating actively in the activities held by the government ethics units (.151).” The negative influences are “trusting the government ethics units (-.161), “keeping the agencies clean (-.159),” and “the membership of the government ethics units (-.131).”
15.The positive influences on reports on anti-corruption are “identifying with the tasks of government ethics unit (.244)” “participating actively in the activities held by the government ethics units (.184) and “age (.165).”
16.There is no significance positive influence of social capital on Corruption Perception Index.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/G0101256037 |
| Creators | 陳文富, Chen, Wen Fu |
| 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 0.0028 seconds