那些「不成功的參與式預算提案」告訴我們的事

Lessons from Unsuccessful Proposals of Participatory Budgeting

參與式預算不僅提供了民眾公共預算運用的提案權及決定權，行政機關亦能透過辦理參與式預算建立起關心民眾需求的正面形象。然而，當仔細探究民眾提案的內容後卻發現，許多提案內容本就屬於行政機關依法定職責應處理的事項，那為何需要民眾走過繁複且冗長的提案過程，來解決政府本來就該解決的問題？如果這樣的現象在「已獲通過的案件」中都明顯存在，那麼那些「未獲通過的提案」或是「根本胎死腹中的意見」，是不是可能有更高的比例也是希望政府出面處理類似的問題？
本文透過分析2017年至2020年所有臺北市參與式預算的提案內容（同時包含「未成案」與「逕予執行」的提案）後發現，有23.7%的提案內容符合「市容查報機制所明列的範圍」或是符合「國賠案件常見原因」等類型。也就是說，在過去參與式預算的提案中，約有四分之一民眾提出的問題是政府因「無作為」、「作為無明顯實益」或「作為延遲」而造成的問題，屬於「政府該做、不做會有麻煩」的類型。本文透過分析參與式預算的提案內容來探究政府「行政不作為」的隱憂，並提出相關建議，以期改善當前政府機關普遍存在的治理困境。

Participatory budgeting (PB) not only allows citizens to independently decide how to manage public budgets, but also supports administrative agencies in building a positive image whereby citizens’needs are addressed through PB. However, some of the things raised in PB proposals should have been handled mandatorily by government agencies because those were statutory duties. If that is the case, then why should citizens go through the PB process to solve something that government agencies should have solved themselves? Furthermore, if such a phenomenon exists in the“successfully passed proposals”, is it possible that a higher proportion of those proposals that“failed to pass”and/or were“executed in advance”were trying to address similar problems?
This study analyzes the contents of PB proposals in Taipei City from 2017 to 2020 (including the proposals that“failed to pass”and/or were“executed in advance”) and finds that 23.7% of the proposals involved the types of problems that the“System of City Street Inspection”and“State Compensation”may hold the government agencies accountable for. In other words, the problems raised by citizens in the proposals were due to“omissions”or“actions of government agencies without apparent benefit”or“delays in action”. This study explores the problems of administrative inaction by analyzing the content of PB proposals and provides suggestions to modify this dilemma in governance.