| 英文摘要 |
Utilizing learning from others as a prototype for policy solutions to reduce the risk of policy experimentation and address unprecedented issues has become a standard tool in public governance. However, for policy learning to succeed, it is crucial to obtain useful ''lesson'' information that enhances policy quality. Unfortunately, research in the field of policy learning has not systematically addressed a fundamental epistemological question: Where do the sources of lessons originate (from countries providing helpful information or from friendly, neighboring, or linguistically similar countries)? Do different policy areas follow the same selection mechanism? These questions have yet to be systematically discussed. This study conducts a textual analysis of written materials from the Executive Yuan of Taiwan to understand the distribution of sources for the government's policy learning over the past few years and to answer the abovementioned questions. The findings indicate that the selection mechanism for Taiwan's international policy learning targets predominantly follows an institutionalist approach, operating according to established organizational procedures and public servants' cognitive limitations and habits. This means that the selection often follows pre-existing networks established for other needs (such as political diplomacy, trade, etc.) or opts for regions where information is easily accessible (such as those that are easily reached or share the same language). This trend is consistent across various policy domains. Although this study cannot determine whether the quality of current policy learning information is ''good'' or ''bad'' or whether it is sufficiently diverse, it is advisable to institutionalize the evaluation work of the current information network and integrate it into policy learning practices. In terms of research, it is recommended that changes in the information networks that the government relies on for policy learning over time be monitored and the impact of geographical factors considered. |