協力決策後的績效弔詭：以性別影響評估和生態檢核表為例

Performance Paradox after Collaborative Decision-Making: Lessons from the Gender Impact Assessment and Eco-checklist Initiatives in Taiwan

在民主化的趨勢之下，民間團體進入體制內參與決策過程的協力治理模式，日愈受到公部門的肯認與重視。不過，經由協力與共識討論出的政策、計畫或工具，真的能將民間進步理念帶入官僚體系嗎？或者成為形式化的書面作業？既有的協力治理研究，多半著重於中觀或微觀層次討論協力治理成功的所需條件或影響因素，而較少探討在仍受績效管考機制支配下的公部門行政體系，如何可能達到原本民間團體參與協力決策的初衷？因此，本文以性別主流化與水庫集水區保育治理兩個政策個案為研究對象，檢視由官方與民間委員共同決策討論出的政策工具—性別影響評估和生態檢核表—實際執行時產生的弔詭現象。透過內容分析法及訪談法的運用，本文呈現了這兩個協力決策下的政策工具在執行過程的「績效弔詭」現象—即使在代表性、參與品質、回應性方面，超過半數以上並不理想，卻照樣可通過「結果導向」的管考程序（測量失靈）；更嚴重的是出現許多故意的操弄、欺瞞或迴避作為（負面效應），使得協力改革的理念推動不僅事倍功半，更對行政倫理與基層士氣造成傷害。對此本文建議，對於協力治理的實踐不能停留在決策層級的改變，而必須從制度層級，以協力的方式共同思考如何建立對話、學習導向的課責體系與組織文化；同時在操作層級，也透過真正平等伙伴的協力模式，降低績效失靈與弔詭的困境。 Under the tendency of democratization, the model of collaborative governance through which NGOs participate in policy decision-making process is becoming more widely recognized and valued by the public sector. However, could a policy plan produced through a collaborative process really bring progressive ideas into to a bureaucratic system? Or does it just produce more formalist paperwork? Existing literatures often focus on the necessary institutional arrangements or interpersonal factors contributing to the success of collaborative governance. Few studies assess the actual process of implementation and evaluation after a collaborative decision is made. This study uses the Gender Impact Assessment and the Eco-checklist initiatives in Taiwan as two cases to address the above-mentioned concerns. In particular, it reviews how both tools initiated by collaborative efforts between the government and NGOs are enacted in practice. Using content analysis and in-depth interview approaches, this paper reveals how both initiatives encountered “performance paradoxes.” More than half of the GIA and Ecological checklist reports were unable to survive our evaluation in terms of representation, quality participation, and responsiveness, but these problems were not identified in the result-based performance management mechanism. More seriously, there were unintended and deliberate performance paradoxes that need to be addressed at the normative level, namely by replacing or revising the idea of performance management per se. In conclusion, the authors emphasize that the discussion on collaborative governance should place more attention at the implementation as well as the institutional levels, and efforts should be put into collaborative innovation of a learning-oriented, dialogue-based accountability system.

Under the tendency of democratization, the model of collaborative governance through which NGOs participate in policy decision-making process is becoming more widely recognized and valued by the public sector. However, could a policy plan produced through a collaborative process really bring progressive ideas into to a bureaucratic system? Or does it just produce more formalist paperwork? Existing literatures often focus on the necessary institutional arrangements or interpersonal factors contributing to the success of collaborative governance. Few studies assess the actual process of implementation and evaluation after a collaborative decision is made. This study uses the Gender Impact Assessment and the Eco-checklist initiatives in Taiwan as two cases to address the above-mentioned concerns. In particular, it reviews how both tools initiated by collaborative efforts between the government and NGOs are enacted in practice. Using content analysis and in-depth interview approaches, this paper reveals how both initiatives encountered “performance paradoxes.” More than half of the GIA and Ecological checklist reports were unable to survive our evaluation in terms of representation, quality participation, and responsiveness, but these problems were not identified in the result-based performance management mechanism. More seriously, there were unintended and deliberate performance paradoxes that need to be addressed at the normative level, namely by replacing or revising the idea of performance management per se. In conclusion, the authors emphasize that the discussion on collaborative governance should place more attention at the implementation as well as the institutional levels, and efforts should be put into collaborative innovation of a learning-oriented, dialogue-based accountability system.