近年來，台灣對於治理相關理論的議題在學術界與實務界幾乎是全 盤性的接受。亦即是在政策初始點即把治理視爲一種民主政體既定的發 展路徑與模式，鮮少回溯到治理理論在規範性國家理論、政治理論與方 法論的爭辯上來討論。然而，西方國家尤其是英國與歐盟地區卻已悄悄 的興起另一股對於「治理」概念的反思與批判浪潮。因此，本文試圖從 解構規範性國家理論的方式，以回歸到理論根源、權力機制與方法論的 層次討論「治理」典範，並論證全球化與民主化中的治理模式與國家職 能並不需要建立在國家是否已被其他權力結構與行動者侵蝕而「空洞 化」的兩難辯證上。本文首先以分析治理理論根源爲起點，論述新多元與自由貨幣主 義、傅科主義與「可治理性」、季登斯的「內省現代性」與哈伯瑪斯的 參與及審議式民主等四大理論對整個治理理論典範發展與變遷的影響。 其次，剖析三波治理理論建構的假設與權力機制，驗證治理理論本質上 即是一種具有時空獨特性的工具性國家理論。第三、進而針對治理理論 的假設與機制提出批判，指出其實踐範圍的限制與可能缺失。最後，本文 主張政策規劃與實踐在引用「治理」典範時，需要先釐清該政策層次與 屬性以及執行政策所需的國家職能差異，始能有效達到政策目標。

In recent years, studies on governance in Taiwan have universally accepted the network-based model of governance and its predetermined development path following globalization and democratization. At both academic and practical levels,little of the existing empirical literature calls into question the theoretical propositions that set out from the normative state theory, political theory, power theory (institutions and mechanisms) and methodological arguments. As such, there are two purposes of this article. First, the article will anatomize “governance”according to its theoretical origins, mechanisms, and methodological inferences. By
doing so, it will help to clarify the concept of governance and verify the state hollowing-out dilemmas in globalization and democracy. Second, at an empirical level, drawing on the insights from “state-centric meta-governance,” this article suggests that the employment of governance-related theories in any particular spatio-temporal fix should take the character and level of policy seriously. The article also attempts to clarify the differentiated state capacities needed for warfare,workfare and welfare policies. Concerns with contingency between the global environment, form of capitalism, and civil society are emphasized.