| Summary: | 博士 === 國立政治大學 === 公共行政研究所 === 103 === The scientific assessment in the traditional environment regulation policy is generally regarded as a rational technique. The common impression of scientific assessment is neutral and specialized, which is similar to the major principle of Bureaucracy, organization by functional specialty, defined by Max Weber. Therefore, the scientific assessment has been not only a foundation of environmental administration procedure, but also a resource of legitimacy. On the contrary, while the government just focuses on the scientific evidence in administrative procedure, there will be the political debates unable to resolve effectively. Because administrative procedure is unable to include multi-knowledge from different stakeholders, administration deal with environmental problems only limits to the sufficiency of scientific evidences. Consequently, administration transfers the responsibility about decision making to the experts committee. But experts committee could not make decision definitely, and the decision would be conservative, because of scientific uncertainty. As a result, the interpretation of environmental problems is narrowed to the proof of causal relationship between pollutants and environmental impacts. Since unknown causal relationships always exist, there will be ongoing arguments and disputes of environmental problems. Taking two examples of the environment impact assessment of a fire accident in the sixth naphtha cracking project in July, 2010, and the KuoKuang Petrochemical Project, 2011, the research analyze the hidden science framework and limitation behind the administrative procedure. The finding is that the technicalization of administration leads to government role shrinking and erodes the legitimacy of decision. In order to strengthen the foundation of legitimacy, administration should rebuild an open administrative procedure to foster socially robust knowledge.
|
|---|
