本研究係對台灣政策企業家在高等教育進行政策過程研究

While governments expect citizens’ participation to improve public policies, top-down policymaking in higher education still dominates conventional practice in East Asia (Baiocchi, 2005; Genro, 1995). Unconventional cases have emerged since 2000. When most higher education institutions abided by the policy formulation dominated by their governments, a few universities led policy formulation in East Asia. This phenomenon reflects the emerging role of policy entrepreneurs, a concept derived from political science theory. The theory of policy entrepreneurship is relevant to institutional leaders (such as university presidents) and others seeking to introduce, translate and implement innovative ideas into the public sector (Kingdon, 1995).

This study explores two comparative longitudinal cases studies involving policy entrepreneurs inside and outside government in Taiwan. From 2003 to 2007, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan played the role of policy entrepreneur to initiate the “University Corporation Project”. And from 2008 to 2014, as a policy entrepreneur outside the government, National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) took the lead and proposed the “University Autonomous Governance Project”. This project sought an alternative solution based on public universities’ needs to improve university autonomy and accountability.

These cases allowed for a comparison of the strategies of policy entrepreneurs inside and outside the government and their impacts on policy formulation. In both cases, policy entrepreneurs sought to break through the traditional institutional structure by transferring or seeking significant strategic planning by universities themselves. This study shows how these two cases of increased policy formulation provide options for university autonomy in East Asia, causing universities and their leaders to exhibit greater policy entrepreneurship and effectiveness in policymaking.
1.How policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments go through a politics stream? Do they adopt different strategies?
2.How policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments go through a problem stream? Do they adopt different strategies?
3.How policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments go through a policy stream? Do they adopt different strategies?

This case study adopts the multiple streams theory for constructing the framework. Multiple methods are undertaken in this study, including interviews, documentary analysis and participant observation. After case analysis, this study constructs propositions for research questions aforementioned.

1.To both policy entrepreneurs, political coalition is the goal in a politics stream, but they should go through a multiple-principals competition as a prerequisite of political buffering. In order to attain effective power coalition, policy entrepreneurs adopted diverse strategies of power sharing. Their strategies are implemented in following steps, inclusive of obtaining information from critical stakeholders, persuading targeted stakeholders, and devising format of delegated power. However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a politics stream.

2.To policy entrepreneurs, gaining stakeholders’ problem preference is the goal in a problem stream, but they should meet the requirement on legitimacy of identity, a contextualized prerequisite. In order to obtain stakeholders’ problem preference, policy entrepreneurs demonstrate legitimacy of content by various strategies, which contain flexibility of issue framing and acuity of stakeholders. However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a politics stream. However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a problem stream.

3.To policy entrepreneurs, creating or seizing a window of policy is the goal of a policy stream. First, they should go through a contextualized prerequisite of political acceptability in a policy stream. After meeting the requirement above, policy entrepreneurs adopted strategies to demonstrate technological feasibility, consisting of scope of reform, available workforce and option of alternatives. However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a policy stream.
On the basis of propositions aforementioned, this study provides policy makers and potential researchers with implications about policy formation and future research.

1.Ahmad, A. R., Farley, A., & Naidoo, M. (2012). Impact of the government funding reforms on the teaching and learning of Malaysian public universities. Higher Education Studies, 2(2), p114.
2.Avritzer, L. (2002). Democracy and the Public Space in Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
3.Bailey, K. (1994). Methods of Social Research, Fourth Edition. New York: The Free Press.
4.Baiocchi, G. (2005). Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford: Stanford University Press).
5.Barzelay, M., & Gallego, R. (2006) From 'New Institutionalism' to 'Institutional Processual-ism': Advancing Knowledge about Public Management Policy Change. Governance, 19: 531-57.
6.Berdahl, R. (1990). Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities. Studies in Higher Education, 15(2), 169-180.
7.Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. DC: Georgetown University Press, Washington.
8.Brouwer, S., & Biermann, F. (2011). Towards adaptive management: examining the strategies of policy entrepreneurs in Dutch water management. Ecology and Society, 16(4). Doi:10.5751/ES-04315-160405.
9.Craig, R., Felix, H., Walker, J., & Phillips, M. (2010). Public health professionals as policy entrepreneurs: Arkansas's childhood obesity policy experience. American Journal of Public Health, 100(11), 2047-2052. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.183939
10.Cobb, R.W., and Elder, C.D. (1983). Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11.Crow, D.A. (2010). Policy Entrepreneurs, Issue Experts, and Water Rights Policy Change in Colorado. Review of Policy Research, 27(3), 299-315
12.Hammond (2013). Policy Entrepreneurship in China's Response to Urban Poverty. Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1, 21.02.2013, p. 119-146.
13.Department of Higher Education (2008). Introduction to higher education. Taipei, Ministry of Education.
14.Estermann (2009). University Autonomy in Europe I: Exploratory Study. European University Association
15.Estermann, T. & Nokkala, T. (2010). University Autonomy in Europe I: Exploratory Study. Brussels: European University Association.
16.Genro (1995). Utopia Possı´vel [A possible Utopia], 2nd edition. Porto Alegre: Artes e Ofı´cios.
17.Grindle, M. (2000). Audacious Reforms: Institutional Invention and Democracy in Latin America, Balitmore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
18.Heller, P. (2000) Degrees of democracy: some comparative lessons from India. World Politics, 52(4), pp. 484–519.
19.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20.Jones, B. (1994) Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.Jongbloed, B & Vossensteyn, H (2001). 'Keeping up performances: An international survey of performance-based funding in higher education', Journal of higher education policy & management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 127-45.
22.Kickert, W., & Koppenjan, J. (1997). Public management and network management: An overview. In W. Kickert, E. Klijn, & J. Koppenjan (Eds.), Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. (pp. 35-62). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446217658.n3
23.Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
24.King, P. J., & Roberts, N. C. (1992). An investigation into the personality profile of policy entrepreneurs. Public Productivity & Management Review, 16(2), 173–190.
25.Lane, J. E. (1983). Higher education public policymaking. Higher Education, 12, 519-565
26.Liefner, I (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems, Journal of Higher Education vol. 46, pp. 469-89.
27.Botterill (2013). Are Policy Entrepreneurs Really Decisive in Achieving Policy Change? Drought Policy in the USA and Australia. Australian Journal of Politics and History 59:97-112.
28.Lindblom (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review. 19(2): 79–88.
29.Lu (2009). Agenda Setting and Alternative Choices of Su-Hwa Highway Decision-making: A Multiple Streams Perspective. Soochow Journal of Political Science, 27(4), 171-240.
30.MacRae, D., & Wilde, J. (1979).Policy analysis for public decisions. Boston, MA: Duxbury
31.Heise (2013), Law and Policy Entrepreneurs: Empirical Evidence on the Expansion of School Choice Policy, Volume 87 Issue 5 Symposium: Educational Innovation and the Law, Notre Dame Law Review, Article 5.
32.Ministry of Education (2006). University Corporations. Taiwan: Ministry of Education
33.Ministry of Education. (2014). University autonomous governance project. Taiwan: Ministry of Education.
34.Mintrom. (1997) Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science 41:738-770.
35.MOK, K, H., and LEE, M. H. H.(2001). Globalization and Changing Governance: Higher Education Reforms in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China, Australian Association for Research in Education 2001 Conference, "Crossing Borders: New Frontiers for Educational Research", Australian Association for Research in Education, Australia, 2-6 December 2001.
36.National Taiwan University (2003) Stop the Revised Bill of the University Act – an open letter. Retrieved from: http://mis.cc.ntu.edu.tw/2734/%A4j%BE%C7%AAk%BB%A1%A9%AB%A1%5D%A7t%AA%FE%A5%F3%A4@%A1B%A4G).doc
37.Oba, J. (2007). Incorporation of national universities in Japan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(3), 291–303.
38.OECD (2003). Changing Patterns of Governance in Higher education in Higher Education, in Education Policy Analysis 2003, Chapter 3, Paris: OECD
39.Ostrom (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.Payne G. and Payne J. (2004) Key Concepts in Social Research. London: Sage, 2004.
41. Raza (2009). Higher Education in East Asia. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEASTASIAPACIFIC/Resources/HigherEducationGovernance.pdf
42.Raza (2010). “Higher Education Governance in East Asia,” A paper prepared for the East Asia Flagship Report on Higher Education. World Bank, Washington D.C.
43.Roberts and King. (1991). Policy Entrepreneurs: Their Activity Structure and Function in the Policy Process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1: 147–75.
44.Sabatier, A. (1988). An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences ,21, 29-68.
45.Sabatier and Hank. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Paul Sabatier. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
46.Saam (2007). Asymmetry in information versus asymmetry in power: Implicit assumptions of agency theory?. Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 825-40.
47.Scott (2001). Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
48.Shah, A. (2007) Participatory Budgeting. Washington, DC: World Bank.
49.Simon, H.A. (1957). Models of man, New York, Wiley & Sons. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, No. 3, pp. 567-583
50.Sporn, B. (2002). World class reform of universities in Austria, International Higher Education, Boston College, 29 (Fall): 18 – 19.
51.University World News (2013) Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130109145841884
52.Varghese, N.V. (Ed.) 2009. Reforms in higher education: Institutional restructuring in Asia. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.
53.Varghese, N.V., &Martin, M. (2014). Governance reforms in higher education: a study of institutional autonomy in Asian countries. Paris: UNESCO.
54.Wampler (2009). Following in the footsteps of Policy Entrepreneurs: Policy Advocates and Pro Forma Adopters. Journal of Development Studies, Forthcoming.
55.Wang& Hsung (2012). Using Network Analysis for Researching Brokerage Roles in Policy Process: The Case of Taichung City's Development Domain Before and After the Lifting of Martial Law, TASPAA 2012
56.World Bank (2011).Putting higher education to work: skills and research for growth in East Asia, Washington, DC.
57.Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: structure limitations, prospects. In: Sabatier, P. ed. Theories of the Policy Process: Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy, 2nd edition. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, pp. 65-92.
59.Zhu (2008). Strategy of Chinese Policy Entrepreneurs in the Third Sector: Challenges of Technical Infeasibility.” Policy Sciences 41: 315–34.