國立臺灣大學政治科學論叢

Abstract / Chinese PDF Download

In recent years, the municipalities in Taiwan have promoted participatory budgeting, which is without a doubt the most noticed act of democratic innovation. Street-level bureaucrats play a crucial role in exercising discretion and autonomy by contracting out. This paper uses a framework with four dimensions, namely the professional and technical knowledge, policy perceptions, work environments, and operational approaches of street-level bureaucrats in Taoyuan City. They were interviewed regarding their perceptions of and operations in promoting participatory budgeting by exercising discretion and autonomy. This paper found that under the current new public management paradigm, the main reason behind the street-level bureaucracies’ adoption of contracting out the promotion of participatory budgeting is their lack of professionalism. Despite the street-level bureaucrats’ acknowledgement of the value that participatory budgeting has in enhancing local residents’ public awareness, they deem that the local residents’ proposals are not entirely reasonable or feasible. How to fulfill the policy directives of elected executive heads under the premise of the street-level bureaucracies’ mission and policy focuses, and how to respond to the opinions of the local residents, remain the primary considerations of street-level bureaucrats. The street-level bureaucrats’ exercise of autonomy and discretion is well-demonstrated in the institutional arrangement of work items and performance indicators in the participatory budgeting contract setup and promotion in supervising communication between vendors and community leaders to understand local characteristics and needs, and in conveying the mission and policy focuses of street-level bureaucracies. Furthermore, the street-level bureaucrats steered the local residents’ initiatives, combined and adjusted the local residents’ proposals, and voted for budget expenditure plans through the vendor-manipulation of deliberative procedures. This paper deems that the governance arising from the street-level bureaucrat’s promotion of participatory budgeting and exercise of discretion and autonomy has substantively overseen and shaped the process and output of participatory budgeting. Ostensibly, it enhances the local residents’ density of participation in public affairs, but whether it truly reflects the spirit of participatory budgeting is worth pondering.