從新績效預算制度走向參與式預算制度

From New Performance Budgeting System to Participatory Budgeting System

新績效預算制度與參與式預算制度係近四十餘年來先後發展出來的預算制度，兩者的設計目的都在於加強政府機關的「課責」與「回應性」。新績效預算制度的主要作法係預算作業的彈性授權以及績效考核，藉此提升資金的使用效率，達到課責目的；同時按績效為基礎編製預算，實質上係要求顧客導向之企業型政府，應以民眾需求為依歸，施政計畫與預算反應民眾的偏好。參與式預算制度係將部分預算決策權交由公民參與，透過住民會議充分的溝通與理性思辨，提出反應民眾偏好且增進公共利益的計畫與預算；除了提升民主社會的公民素養外，亦讓預算決策過程更為透明，有利於課責。新績效預算與參與式預算制度雖都強調課責與回應性，但途徑與方法卻不同；本文分別檢視這兩種制度之設計目的與作法、施行問題與施行成效等；並從課責途徑、公民參與程度、執行規模、監督機制與實施成效等方面比較兩制的異同。又發現兩者有高度的互補性，最終提出融合兩制優點的建議作法。

The new performance budgeting system and the participatory budgeting system are two budget systems that have been developed over the past forty years or so. Both are designed to enhance the government's ''accountability'' and ''responsiveness.'' The new performance budgeting is characterized by flexibility and empowerment in budget operations and performance evaluation, aimed at improving the efficiency of fund usage to achieve accountability. At the same time, budgeting based on performance essentially requires a customer-oriented entrepreneurial government that responds to public needs, with policy plans and budgets reflecting the preferences of the people. The participatory budgeting system allows citizens to participate in part of the budget decision-making process. Through resident meetings, ample communication, and rational deliberation, it proposes plans and budgets that reflect public preferences and enhance the public interest. In addition to improving citizen literacy in a democratic society, it also makes the budget decision-making process more transparent, thereby enhancing accountability. The new performance budgeting and participatory budgeting systems both emphasize accountability and responsiveness, but their approaches and methods differ. This study examines their design purposes and practices, as well as issues related to their implementation and effectiveness. It compares the similarities and differences between the two systems in terms of accountability pathways, levels of citizen participation, scope of implementation, supervision mechanism, and effectiveness. It also discerns a high degree of complementarity between the two, ultimately proposing recommendations that integrate the advantages of both systems.