摘 要

本研究旨在建構治理互賴理論模型，用以說明台灣產業公會與政府在職能上的互動關係，並進一步探索在此一互動模式下產業公會的政策執行（policy implementation）效果，最後經由研究發現，建立實地理論。
本研究就章節安排而言，第一章是緒論，第二章與第三章分別探討本研究的兩個研究對象：「政府機關」與「產業公會」的理論與變遷。第四章與第五章分別介紹政府機關與產業公會彼此運作的影響。第六章提出全觀性整合型治理互賴理論模型建構。其主要特質是將政府部門與公民社會等量齊觀，透過對產業公會制度性的安排，與政府部門組成有效的治理結構，落實對產業政策的制定與執行。對政府機關而言，它必須要加強其基礎建構能力，也就是滲入產業的能力、萃取資源的能力、以及與產業公會協議的能力；就產業公會而言，它必須要加強培育其治理能力，也就是支撐政策的能力、倡導議題的能力、以及與產業環境互動的回饋能力。如此有助於政策目標的凝聚，減少協調的困難，增強彼此資源的交流與相互授能，以發揮合超（synergy）的效應，達到改善產業政策品質，提升政府的行政績效以及產業公會的服務能力。使產業公會成為業者最好的業務幫手，政府最佳的工作夥伴。第七章就治理互賴理論的實踐，也就是實務面提出看法。在針對產業公會內、外環境進行S.W.O.T分析之後，我們以派深思（Talcott Parsons）「行動體系」理論為分析模式，進一步提出實踐策略，並透過「個案分析」的方式，探討我國產業公會的實務運作，從組織功能面的瞭解，進而探究政府與產業公會之間的關係，用以檢視治理互賴模式的理論價值，並藉以發現現行制度的缺失與問題，最後於第八章提出研究發現與建議。
本研究主要係在觀察「產業公會」與「政府機關」之間的關係，並將產業政策的執行效果當成依變項（dependent variable），透過兩者在「自主性」與「功能性」兩個中介變項（intervening variable）的觀察，我們發現兩者既聯合而又複雜的行動意涵，也就是所謂的「自主性槓桿原理」（Autonomic Leverage）與「功能性槓桿原理」（Functional Leverage）。透過前者我們可以觀察從威權體制到公民社會，政府與公會自主性的消長情形；透過後者我們亦可觀察在「政府採購法」實施前、實施後以及如果落實治理互賴之後，政府與公會功能的消長關係。本論文最大的發現與貢獻，厥為以治理互賴模型檢驗出台灣政府機關與產業公會之間的互動問題，為現今台灣經濟發展由盛而衰提出反證。面對台灣產業的發展困境，我們亦試從「治理互賴理論」的角度，對產業公會提出延伸性的「果樹理論」（“The Fruit Tree Theory”）與「風箏原理」（“The Principle of Kite”），並進而提出多項標本兼治的改造建議，以作為政府部門與產業公會改進時之參考。

The functional interactions between the industry associations and the government in Taiwan-- a study based on the construction of a model of governance mutual-dependence theory

ABSTRACT

This study aims to establish a model for governance mutual-dependence theory in order to explicate the functional interactions between the government and industry associations in Taiwan. Furthermore, it intends to examine the effectiveness of industry associations’ policy implementation based on this model. Finally, through the research findings provided in this study, grounded theories pertinent to this subject matter will be established.

Chapters in this study are arranged as the following: the First Chapter provides an introduction to the study; the Second Chapter explores theories and shifting views on the subject of “government functions.” The Third Chapter discusses theories on the role of “professional associations” and the revolutionary progression of those theories. The Fourth Chapter introduces the effects of governmental functions on the operations of industry associations. In Chapter Five, we wish to present the effects of industry associations on governmental functions. In Chapter Six, an integrated framework for the governance mutual-dependence model is proposed. The major attribute of this model is to view as equal governmental agencies and the civic society; hence, by ways of institutionally organizing industry associations to form a joint governing body with governmental agencies, the formation and implementation of industrial polices can be realized. To governmental agencies, they must strengthen basic infrastructure capabilities—namely, their abilities to penetrate industries, extract resources, and negotiate with industrial associations. To industry associations, they must strengthen and develop their own governing capabilities—including their abilities to support policies, to promote relevant issues, and to provide feedback drawn from interactive engagements within the industrial environment. By so doing, it is conducive to consolidate policy objectives, minimize negotiation difficulties, and reinforce resource exchange and reciprocity, in order to achieve synergetic effects—to improve the quality of industrial policies, elevate government’s administrative effectiveness and industry associations’ service capabilities. Operating from the principle of “seeking common grounds among differences” and by adopting new approaches to search for possible solutions, as well as through concerted actions and collective efforts, difficulties and problems confronting industries may be resolved. Consequently, the industry associations may become the most helpful business support to the industry operators and the best partner to the government. The Seventh Chapter addresses the effectuation of the theory on governance mutual-dependence. Finally, The Eighth Chapter proposes some important findings and suggestions or recommendations.

This study focuses on making empirical observations on the relations between “industry associations” and “governmental agencies.” In addition, it posits the implementation effects of industry policies as a dependent variable. By making observations on the two intervening variables—autonomy and functionality—we have established that the industry associations and governmental agencies engage in combinational yet complex interactions: that of “autonomic leverage” and “functional leverage.” Through the former, observations can be made with regard to the phenomenon that as the authoritarian system is replaced by a civic society, the government and the industry associations automatically experiences growth and decline of the relative strength. Through the latter, we can then observe the growth and decline of the functions of government and industry associations before and after the enactment of the “Government Procurement Act”, as well as after the implementation of dependent governance. The most significant discovery and contribution of this study is derived from utilizing the governance mutual-dependence theory to examine inherent problems in the interactions between Taiwan’s governmental agencies and industry associations. Furthermore, this study attempts to provide countervailing evidence to the view that Taiwan economy has gone from growth to decline, and that the relationship between the governmental agencies and industry associations has weakened as a result of the government’s dismissal of the function and importance of industry associations—particularly, the current funding level for departments and agencies that provide guidance now reduced to nil, resulting in personnel layoffs, is one of the main structural factors that has weakened the industry associations’ organizational functions and caused the economic indexes to fall. Confronted by the hardship of Taiwan’s industries have experienced in its development, we have also attempted to propose “the Fruit Tree Theory” and “the Principle of Kite”—an extension from the broader perspective of “the Governance Mutual-independence Theory.” Finally, we wish to propose comprehensive solutions for future reforms that can serve as a reference to governmental agencies and industry associations.

Key words：governance , mutual-dependence ,industry associations, civic society, citizen participation

參考書目

一、中文部分

丁仁方（1995），《威權統合主義：理論、發展、與轉型》，台北：時英。
王文科編譯（1990），《質的教育研究法》，台北：師大書苑。
王俊元（2001），《企業捐贈非營利組織公共服務功能之研究》，東海大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版。
王振寰（1998），《誰統治台灣？－轉型中的國家機器與權力結構》，台北：巨流。
王朝枝（2000），《台灣工業團體特質與演變之探討》，政治大學中山人文社會科學研究所博士論文，未出版。
史美強、蔡武軒（2000），＜網路社會與治理概念初探＞，《中國行政評論》，第10卷第1期：頁33-74。
朱雲漢、黃德福（1997），《建立台灣的政治經濟新秩序－政治民主與社會福祉》，台北：業強。
巴巴力特著（J. M. Barbalet ），談谷錚譯（1997），《公民資格》，台北：桂冠。
亞當斯著（Paul S. Adams），＜統合主義與比較政治＞，收錄於李培元等譯（2005），《比較政治研究的新方向》，台北：韋伯文化。
吳英明（1996），《公私部門協力關係之研究：兼論公私部門聯合開發與都市發展》，高雄：麗文文化。
吳庚（1999），《行政法之理論與實用》，台北：三民。
江明修等（1994），《非營利組織領導行為之研究》，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告，計畫編號NSC82-0301-H004。
江明修（1998），＜再造社群政府＞，《政策與理論》，第12期第2卷，頁36-62。
江明修（1999），《台灣非營利組織的內部與外部環境-非營利組織與政府-非營利組織遊說功能之研究》行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告，計畫編號NSC88-2416-H-004-026-E21。
江明修（2000），《政府與非營利組織關係之理論辯證與實務析探（I）》行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告，計畫編號NSC89-2414-H-004-007。
江明修、王俊元，＜台灣企業基金會之公共服務功能＞，收錄於官有垣總策劃（2003）《台灣的基金會在社會變遷下之發展》，台北：洪建全基金會。
宋鎮照（2000），《發展政治經濟學》，台北：五南。
李德彼特（Charles Leadbeater），李振昌譯，（2001），《知識經濟大趨勢》，台北：時報文化。
法蘭西斯．福山（Francis Fukuyama），李婉蓉譯，（2004），《信任》，台北：立緒。
彼得．杜拉克（Peter Drucker）著，傅振焜譯（1994），《後資本主義社會 》，台北：時報文化。
汪可威（1997），《國家、資本、與層峰組織－工業總會如何代表與實踐資本家的利益？》，國立中山大學政治學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
金耀基（1993），《中國社會與文化》，香港，牛津。
官有垣（2002），＜第三部門的研究：經濟學觀點與部門互動理論的檢視＞，《台灣社會福利學刊（電子期刊）》，第3期，頁1-28。
官有垣（2003），《第三部門的理論：非營利組織與政府、企業、非正式部門之間的互動關係》，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告，計畫編號NSC91-2412-H-194-009。
周威廷（1996），《公共合產之理論與策略：非營利組織公共服務功能之觀察》，政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版。
周志忍、陳慶云（1999），《憲法的解釋與適用自律與他律：第三部門監督機制各案研究》，浙江：人民出版社。
沈宗瑞（2001），《國家與社會－中華民國的經驗分析》，台北：韋伯文化。
段加鋒、孫正豐、張世賢主編（1993），《論文寫作研究》，台北：三民。
施昭顯（2000），《我國工業團體法之研究》，台北：內政部專案研究報告。
施昭顯（2002），《我國商業團體法之研究》，台北：內政部專案研究報告。
施昭顯（2003），＜知識經濟時代非政府組織發展略之探討＞，《師大政治學學報》，創刊號：頁26-37。
吳忠吉、施昭顯等（2004），《職業團體之屬性暨在公民社會中角色研究》，內政部委託研究報告。
吳瓊恩（2004），＜公共行政學發展趨勢的探究：三種治理模式的互補關係及其政治理論基礎＞，收錄於吳瓊恩主編，《公共行政學》，台北：智勝，頁387-469。
胡國堅（1996），＜政策網絡理論與其運用＞，《空大行政學報》，第6期，頁289-302。
徐小波主持（2001），《國內非營利組織管理法規之研究》，行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告。
涂爾幹著，王了一譯（1996），《社會分工論》，台北：商務。
許禎元（1997），《政治研究方法與統計：SPSS for Windows的實例操作》，台北：五南。
黃茂榮主持（1991），《行政業務委託民間辦理之可行性極其範圍探討之研究》，行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告。
黃新福（1999），＜非營利組織的治理型態解析＞，收錄於Golembiewski、孫本初、江岷欽主編《公共管理論文精選（Ⅰ）》，台北：元照。
黃瑞琴（1991），《質的教育研究法》，台北：心理。
孫同文（2003），《從威權政府到民主治理－台灣公共行政理論與實務之變遷》，台北：元照。
張重昭（1985），＜探討社會行銷的意義、內涵及未來發展＞，《社會科學論叢》，第33期，頁295-310。
張秀雄（1999）《公民教育的理論與實施》，台北：師大書苑。
奧斯柏等著（Osborne ＆ Gaebler）（1992）， 張毓玲譯（1993），《新政府運動》，台北：天下。
詹中原（2001），＜全球化與公共行政改革：知識經濟觀點之檢視＞，《國政研究報告》，憲政研：090-047號電子檔，台北：國政研究基金會。
詹中原（2001），＜當代政府治理的政治哲學＞，《國家政策論壇季刊》，台北：國政研究基金會，頁100-114。
廖坤榮（2002），＜台灣農會經營管理的困境：網絡理論的分析＞，《政治科學論叢》，第16期，頁130-190。
劉坤億（2001），＜全球治理趨勢下的國家定未與程式發展－治理網絡的解構與重構＞，發表於城市外交與全球治理研討會，高雄：義守大學。
陳恆鈞（2002），《治理互賴與政策執行》，台北：商鼎。
陳金貴（1992），＜公民參與的研究＞，《行政學報》，第24期，頁95-128。
陳秉璋（2000），《政治社會學》，台北：三民。
陳明通（2001），《派系政治與台灣政治變遷》，台北：新自然主義。
陳惠馨（1995），《財團法人監督問題之探討》，行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告。
蔡文輝（1982），《行動理論的奠基者－派深思》，台北：允晨文化。
廖義男（1994），《國家賠償法》，台北：三民。
鄭怡世（2002），＜市民社會、非營利組織的策略聯盟與政策形成－以兒童及少年性交易防治條例立法過程為例＞，發表於民主政治與社會福利學術研討會，嘉義：台灣社會福利學會等主辦。
鄭勝分（2002），＜非營利管理之協力關係＞，收錄於江明修主編，《非營利管理》，台北：智勝，頁81-124。

二、英文部分

Anderson, J. E.（1994）. Public Policymaking: An Introduction. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Andreasen, A. R.（1995）. Marketing Social Change: Changing Behavior to Promote Health, Social Development and Environment. SF: Jossey-Bass.
Barrett, R. E. and M. K. Whyte（1982）.“Dependency Theory and Taiwan: Analysis of a Deviant Case,” American Journal of Sociology, 87: 1064-1089.
Bay, C.（1965）.The Structure of Freedom. Stanford Calif: Stanford University Press.
Berman, S. （1997）.“Civil Society and Political Institutionalization, ” American Behavioral Scientist, 40（5）：562-574.
Berry, Jeffery M.（1977）. Lobbying for the People: The Political Behavior of Public Interest Groups. Princeton, NJ：Princeton University Press.
Bickers, Kenneth N ＆ John T. Williams,（2001）. Public Policy Analysis: A Political Economic Approach. Boston, M.A.: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Bowman, A. O. and Kearney, R. C.（1986）. The Resurgence of the States. Englewood Cliffs，N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Brown, L. David and Kalegaonkar, A.（2001）.“Civil Society Support Organizations and Sector Challenges,” in Zhao Liqing and Carolyn Lyoya Irving（eds.）, The Non-profit Sector and Development, pp.291-298. Hong Kong Press for Social Science LTD.
Chan, Steve.（1987）. “The Mouse that Roared-Taiwan’s Management of Trade Relations with the United States,”Comparative Political Studies.20:251-292.
Clark, Cal.（1987a）. “The Taiwan Exception: Implications for Contending Political Economy Paradigms,” International Studies Quarterly. 31:327-356.
Clark, Cal.（1987b）. “Economic Development in Taiwan: A Model of Political Economy,” Journal of Asian and African Studies. XXII, 1-2:1-16.
Clark, Cal.（1989）. Taiwan’s Development: Implication for Contending Political Economy Paradigms. New York: Greenwood Press.
Cohen, J. L.and Arato, A.（1992）. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Colebatch , Hal and Peter Larmour,（1993）. Market, Bureaucracy and Community. Boulder. Colorado: Pluto Press.
Cooper, Terry L.（1991）. An Ethics of Citizenship for Public Administration. Englewood Cliffs，N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Ellis, S. J. and K. K. Noyes（1990）. By the People: A History of American as Volunteers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Elster, Jon.（1986）.Rational Choice. New York：New York University Press.
Encarnacion. O. G.（2001）. “Civil Society and the Consolidation of Democracy in Spain,” Political Science Quarterly, 116(1): 53-79.
Etzioni, A. (1996) .New Communitarian Thinking, Chariottesville: Virginia University Press.
Evans, S. M., Boyte, H. C.（1992）. Free Spaces： The Sources of Democratic Changes in America. Chicago： University of Chicago Press.
Evans, P. B.（1995）.Embedded Autonomy： State and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ：Princeton University Press.
Evans, P. B.（1996）. “Government Action, Social Capital and Development: Reviewing the Evidence on Synergy,” World Development, 24(6): 119-132.
Evans, P. B. （1997）.“Introduction: Development Strategies Across the Public-Private Divide,” In P. Evans (ed.), State-Society Synergy: Government and Social Capital in Development, pp.1-10. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Freeman, J. L.（1955）. The Political Process: Executive Bureau-Legislative Committee Relations. New York: Random House.
Fukuyama, F.（1995）. Trust: The Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Fukuyama, Francis, （1999）. The Great Disruption: Human Nature and The Reconstitution of Social Order. New York, NY: Simon ＆ Schuster.
Gardner, John W.（1990）. On Leadership. N. Y.: The Free Press.
Gold, Thomas.（1986）. State and Society in the Taiwan Miracle. Armonk: M. E. Shape.
Hansmann, H.（1987）. “Economic Theories of Nonprofit Organization,” In W. W. Powell (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, pp.3-26.New Haven: Yale University Press.
Harding, A.（1990）. “Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Regenetation,”in M. Cambell（ed.）, Local Economic Policy. Lodon: Cassell.
Harsanyi, John C.（1986）.“Advances in Understanding Rational Behavior ,”in Jon Elster（ed.）Rational Choice. New York：New York University Press.
Hawkins, D.（1967）. The Language of Nature: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Held, David （1996）. Model of Democracy. Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press.
Hult, K.M. and C. Walcott（1990）. Governing Public Organization: Politics, Structures, and Institutional Design. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks／Cole Publishing Company.
Inkeles, A.（2000）. “Measuring Social Capital and its Consequences,” Policy Science, 33:245-268.
Janoski, T.（1998）. Citizenship and Civil Society：A Framework of Rights and Obligations in Liberal, Traditional, and Social Democratic Regimes. Cambridge, UK： Cambridge University Press.
Kaufman, Robert R.（1977）. “Corporatism, clientelism, and Partisan Conflict: A Study of Seven Latin American Countries,” in James M. Malloy (ed.), Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America, pp.109-148. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Kearns, K. C.（1996）. Managing for Accountability: Preserving the public trust in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H. and Koppenjan, J. F. M.（eds.）（1997）.Managing Complex Networks. London: Sage.
Klijn, E. N. and Koppenjan, J. M. （2000）. “Public Management and Policy Networks, ” Public Management, 2,2:1136-158.
Kooiman, J. （1993）.“Governability: Using Complexity, Dynamics, and Diversity,” in J. Kooiman (ed.), Modern Governance: New Government-Society, pp.35-48. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Kotler, Philip and G.erald Zaltman（1971）. “Social Marketing: A Approach to Planned and Social Changed,” Journal of Marketing, 35（July）:3-12.
Leana, C. R. and H. J. Van Buren, （1999）. “Organizational Social Capital and Employment Practices,” Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 538-555.
Light, P. C.（1994）. “Federal Inspectors General and the Path to Accountability,” in T. L. Cooper (ed.), Handbook of Administrative Ethics, pp.267-283. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Lim, T. C.（1998）. “Power. Capitalism, and the Authoritarian State on South Korea,” Journal of Contemporary Asia. 28(4): 457-483.
Lodge, George.（1990）. Perestroika for America: Restructuring Business-Government Relation for World Competitiveness. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Macpherson, C. B.（1983）. “Participatory Democracy,”in Held, David, et al.（ed）. States and Societies, N. Y.: N. Y. University Press.
Mayntz, R.（1993）. “Governing Failures and the Problem of Governability: Some Comment on a Theoretical Paradigm,” in J. Kooiman（ed.）, Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions, pp.9-20. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Mazmanian, D. H. and P.A. Sabatier（1983）. Implementation and Public Policy. Glenview, Ⅲ.: Scott Foresman. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Montgomery, J. D.（2000）. “Social Capital as a Policy Resource,” Policy Sciences, 33:227-243.
Mulgan, R.（2000）. “Accountability: An Ever-Expanding Concept?” Public Administration, 79(3): 555-573.
Naidoo Kumi.（2001）. “Building Civil Society Globally：Reflections on Board Trends and Current Challenges, ” in Zhao Liqing and Carolyn Lyoya Irving （eds.）, The Non-profit Sector and Development, pp.81-94. Hong Kong Press for Social Sciences LTD.
Najam, A.（2000）. “ The four-C’s of third sector-government relations：Cooperation, confrontation, complementarity, and co-optation,” Nonprofit Management ＆ Leadership, 10（4）：375-396.
Nelson, W.（1980）. On Justifying Democracy. London: Rouledge ＆ Kegan Paul.
Newton, K. （1997）. “Social Capital and Democracy,” American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5): 575-586.
Nohria, N. and Eccles, R. G. （1992）. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form. And Action. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Oldfield, Adrian（1990）. Citizenship and Community: Civil Republicanism and the Modern World. London: Routledge.
O’Toole, L. J. （1988）. “Strategies for Intergovernmental Management: Implementing Programs in Interorganizational Network Management, ” Journal of Public Administration, 11, 4:417-41.
Pateman, C.（1978）. Participation and Democracy Theory.（reprinted）. N. Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, B. G. and Jon Pierre（2000）. .“Citizen Versus The New Public Manager: The Problem of Mutual Empowerment, ”Administration ＆ Society, 32（1）（March）: 9-28.
Peters, B. G. and Jon Pierre（2001）. .“Development in intergovernment relations: Towards multilevel governance,”Policy ＆ Politics, 29:2:131-135.
Peterson, M., ＆ Mets, L. (1987). Key Resources on Higher Education Governance, Management and Leadership. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Polit, C.（1990）. Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Powell, W. W.（1987）. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, （ed.）.New Haven: Yale University Press.
Putman, R. D.（1993a）. “The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life,” American Prospect, 13:35-42.
Putman, R. D.（1993b）. Making Democracy: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ：Princeton University Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W.（1985）. “Power-Dependence, Policy Communities and Intergovernment Networks,” Public Administration Bulletin, 49:4 -31.
Rhodes, R. A. W.（1988）. “Policy Networks: A British Perspective, ” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2,3:293-317.
Rhodes, R. A. W.（ 1997a）. “The New Governance: Governing Without Government”, Political Studies 44, 4:652-667.
Rhodes, R. A. W.（1997b）. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W.（2000）. “The Governance Narrative: Key Finding and Lessons From the ESRC’S White hall Programme,” Public Administration, 78（4）:345-363.
Riedel, James.（1988）. “Economic Development in East Asia: Doing What Comes Naturally？” In Helen Hughes, ed. Achieving Industrialization in East Asia, pp.1-38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riker, William H.（1990）. “Political Science and Rational Choice,” In James E. Alt and Kenneth A. Shepsle (eds.), Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, pp.25-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rochester, C.（1995）. “Voluntary Agencies and Accountability,” in J. D. Smith, C. Rochester and R. Hedley (eds.), An Introduction to the Voluntary Sector. pp.190-207. New York: Routledge.
Rosell, S. A.（1999）. Renewing Governance: Governing by Learning in the Information Age. Oxford： Oxford University Press.
Saidel, Judith R.（1991）. “Resource Interdependence: the Relationship between State Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations,” Public Administration Review, 51（6）:543-553.
Salamon, Lester M. (1987). “Partners in Public Service: The Scope and Theory of Government Nonprofit Relations,” In W. W. Powell (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, pp.99-117.New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Sandel, Michael（1983）. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. London: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitter, P. C.（1974）. “Still the Century of Corporatism？”Review of Politics. 36: 85-131.
Skinner, Quentin（1992）. “On Justice, the Common Good and the Priority of Liberty, ” in Chantal Mouffe（eds.）Dimension of Radical Democracy: Plurmalism, Citizenship, Community, 211. London: Verso.
Stivers, C.（1990）. “Active Citizenship in Public Administration,p in G. L. Wamsley, et al.（eds.）Refounding Public Administration, 124（4）:387-402.
Stoker, Gerry（1995）. “Intergovernment relations,” Public Administration, 73:（spring）:101-122.
Weber, E. P. （1999）. “The Question of Accountability in Historical Perspective: From Jackson to Contemporary Grassroots Ecosystem Management,” Administration & Society, 31(4): 451-494.
Weiss, L. ＆ J. M. Hobson（1995）. States and Economic Development: A Comparative Historical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolding, Henk E. S.（1998）.“State and Civil Social in the Political Philosophy of Alexis de Tocqueville,” VOLUNTAS , 9（4）:363-373.
Waddock, S. A.（1984）. “A Typology of Social Partnership Organization,” Policy Sciences, 44（6）: 41-56.
Weimer, D. L. and A. R. Vining（1992）. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Weiss, L.（1998）.The Myth of Powerless State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D.J.（1995）.“Governance and Ownership.” In Nicholson, N,(Ed.) The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior. , pp.194-195. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Zeigler, Harmon.（1988）. Pluralism and Corporatism, and Confucianism-Political Association and Conflict Regulation in the United States, Europe, and Taiwan. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.