日本政府分別於 2001 年與 2009 年兩度改革預算制度,都是在內閣層級設立新的組織,移轉部分預算編列權限到內閣,希望透過改變編列預算的方式,來提高首相與內閣領導力,並解決各省廳的本位問題。前者是在內閣府設立經財政諮詢會議,後者則是分別在內閣官房與內閣府設立國家戰略室與行政刷新會議。儘管小泉內閣時期,透過經濟財政諮詢會議改革原有的預算編列方式,也成功地刪減財政支出,以及民主黨執政初期,行政刷新會議做出刪減預算的決定,國家戰略室也有設定降低財政赤字的目標,但是整體來說,兩次改革效果有限。本文採用歷史制度論為研究途徑,檢證經濟財政諮詢會議、國家戰略室以及行政刷新會議的實際運作,以理解預算制度變遷的背景與過程,以及為何兩次預算改革效果有限。
The Japanese government reformed its budget institutions and budget processes in 2001 and 2009, establishing the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy(CEFP)in 2001, and the National Strategy Office(NSO)and the Government Revitalization Unit(GRU)in 2009. By moving the Ministry of Finance’s budget formulation authority to the Cabinet, it was expected that these new institutions would facilitate the prime minister’s leadership. However, despite institutional changes, the budget formulation processes and the existing power relations among actors in the budget processes have remained much of the same. With particular focuses on how the CEFP, NSO, and GRU operated, this paper adopts historical institutionalism to investigate the evolution of budget institutions in Japan, and explain why the reform effects have been limited.
本文旨在分析日本戰前藩閥與戰後自民黨派閥政治的關連,明瞭在歷史因素下政治寡頭者理念的傳承,且進一步影響現今政治的運作。以往有關派閥政治的研究,多數是以選區制度、權力均衡等觀點進行探討,然本文認為尚可由制度與歷史的因果關係,探究制度的動態與變遷、制度的柔軟性和限制性等要素說明。故本文取日本藩閥與派閥之例,認為兩者之間藉由近代政黨政治運作連結而起,對應政府體制轉變,成為民主政治理念的展現。本文發現近代日本藩閥政治與自民黨派閥的連續性上,存在有保守與改革派意識形態的對抗,藉由依賴路徑發展而來的..
This paper’s purpose is to analyze the relationship between the pre-war Hanbatsu politics and the post-war factional politics in Japan in order to understand the continued ideals of the political oligarchy and their effect on the operations of present politics. In terms of the studies on factional politics in Japan, most scholars use the viewpoints of the election system or the balance of power, etc. However, this paper tries to explore factional politics from the institutional and historical cause and effect viewpoint. To do so, this..
歷史制度論是一問題意識、方法立場與理論建構三者緊密結合的學派。研究者始自經驗的問題意識,欲解答大問題與真實世界的難題,並由此引導出特定的方法立場與理論建構模式。在方法立場上,歷史制度論者同意質化研究的「因果過程模式」,並運用比較方法進行系統性、脈絡性的歷史過程分析。但歷史制度論者並未拘泥於質化方法的基本教義,面對量化陣營的質疑,反而持開放的立場並提出多元的回應方式。在理論建構上,歷史制度論者具有「中程理論」的共識,並從整體觀點和權力途徑探討制度運作,能結合不..
As a school, historical institutionalism integrates research agenda, theory and method as a whole. Researchers in this field intend to answer “big questions” and to solve real-world puzzles, inducing specific characteristics in their theory and method. In aspect of method, historical institutionalists agree on “causal process model” in the qualitative researches and analyze historical process systematically with the comparative method. Facing the challenge from quantitative researchers, historical inst..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.