國立臺灣大學政治科學論叢

The relationship between public participation and public values is highly interconnected. However, there are still large lacunae in the current empirical literature. This study uses policy implementation for local public participation as a context in which to explore this relationship further by integrating approaches of public value creation, providing an invaluable addition to the body of public administration scholarship. It identifies an iterative process of participatory characteristics, organizational culture and capacity, and contextual features, with institutional arrangements that cross the boundaries between civil society, politics, and administration. This study collected empirical data from official documents and in-depth interviews. We interviewed senior external committee members of the Taipei Citizen Participation Committee (TCPC), public officials of Taipei City, and elected officials (legislators and Taipei City councilors). The findings highlight that the institutional arrangements of the TCPC can help policymakers build specific participatory norms and procedures, as well as intangible values, such as enhancing the policy actors’ trust and willingness toward participation, and organizing cross-sector collaborations in multi-level governance settings.

However, the cross-boundary government committee faces a conundrum of accountability. Although this committee has been identified as a “collaborative platform” in participatory policy-making, one in which a public agency with collaborative legitimacy has acted as a conduit between public organizations and citizens, it has at the same time been facing two potential challenges. One is the issue of the public bureaucrats’ compliance and communication in participatory practices. The other is how the government facilitates citizens’ willingness to actively participate in the participatory processes. Based on our results, we provide recommendations about the development of the TCPC, the intrinsic motivation of public officials, and citizens’ willingness and capacity to participate. The research limitations of qualitative data representativeness are also discussed.