廉政評鑑指標架構之建立

The Construction of Integrity Assessment Index Framework

為達到公共治理的良善，近年來我國政府積極提倡各項倡廉反貪作為，廉政評鑑即是其中一種執行工具。廉政評鑑雖在國外已經有介紹說明，我國並有實際操作經驗，但對於廉政評鑑內容以及架構等部分，尚未從學術觀點提出完整說明。因此，本文目的在於運用質化與量化研究方法，說明廉政評鑑指標建構的內容，期望透過本文的引介達到拋磚引玉的效果，啟發更多政府廉政研究。本文首先回顧國內外文獻與現有各種廉政指標系統，說明擬定廉政評鑑架構的四大面向：第一，「廉政投入與努力」面向中分為：客觀投入、訓練與宣導、首長決心與持續改善機制等指標構面，第二，「透明與揭露」面向中則分為：行政透明、採購業務透明、廉政倫理等指標構面。第三，在「內部課責與控制」面向中分為：陳情與申訴、違法與違失、內控稽核課責等指標構面。第四，「廉潔評價」面向中則分為：民意評價以及媒體報導與機關回應之指標構面。再者，利用深度訪談與焦點座談之質化方法，進行評鑑項目及效標細項的內容及用字之修改，並且將上述的四大面向調整為：第一，「機關廉政投入與首長支持度」面向：客觀投入、訓練與宣導、首長決心與持續改善機制。第二，「機關透明度」面向：行政資訊透明度、採購流程透明度、人力遴選公開度。第三，在「機關課責與內控制機制完備度」面向：廉政風險業務辨識、管理與內控、採購品質與稽核、廉政倫理行為。第四，「機關廉潔度」面向：廉政陳情與舉發、廉政違法與違失、廉政民意評價蒐集與分析。最後，本文採用分析層級程序法（analytic hierarchy process; AHP），由專家及參與試評機關的政風主管填答AHP問卷，用以分析計算各構面評分權重比例。

Nowadays governments have proactively instituted a variety of anticorruption measures in order to promote good governance. Among them, the integrity assessment as a policy tool is acclaimed for implementing anticorruption policy. Integrity assessment has never been implemented domestically until 2013 despite that various kinds of performance assessments have already adopted and practiced. Before its adoption, the theoretical underpinning and practical construct of what constitute integrity assessment should be delineated. The purpose of this article is to outline the operational framework, using qualitative and quantitative research methods, for the integrity assessment. We first review relevant literature and existing indicators capturing the conceptual construct of integrity, which boiled down to four dimensions of empirical endeavor. First, Input and effort of integrity: objective input, training and advocacy, determination and continuous improvement mechanism. Second, transparency and disclosure: transparency in administration and public procurement, ethical code of conduct. Third, accountability and internal control: statement and appeal, violations and misconduct, internal auditing. Four, Integrity evaluation: public attitude, media exposure and agency responsiveness. We then conduct in-depth interviews and focus group discussion to fine-tune the sub-dimensions of the integrity assessment. Lastly, the Analytic Hierarchy Process was employed to analyze and calculate the weight ratio of each dimension score, and the implications were discussed accordingly.