近年來，我國直轄市推動的參與式預算無疑是最受矚目的民主創新之舉，而基層官僚透過簽約委外運用裁量權與自主性在其中扮演了關鍵性角色。本文運用基層官僚的專業知識與技術、政策觀感、工作環境、操作方式等四個核心面向作爲分析架構，訪談桃園市基層行政機關的基層官僚運用裁量權與自主性推動參與式預算的感知與操作。本文的研究發現在當前新公共管理思潮之下，基層行政機關採用簽約委外來推動參與式預算的主要理由是本身的專業不足。基層官僚雖然肯認參與式預算具有提升在地居民公共意識的價値，但是認爲在地居民的提案並非完全合理可行。如何在完成民選行政首長之政策指示以及基層行政機關的使命與政策主軸的前提下，回應在地居民的意見是基層官僚的主要考量。基層官僚的自主性與裁量權展現在設定推動參與式預算的契約中工作項目與績效指標的制度性安排，以及監督廠商與社區領袖進行溝通來了解地方特性與需求，並傳達基層行政機關的使命與政策主軸。此外，基層官僚也進一步透過廠商操控審議程序，主導在地居民提案，合併與調整在地居民的方案，再票選出預算支出計畫。本文認爲上述基層官僚推動參與式預算的治理模式，運用裁量權與自主性實質地監督並型塑了參與式預算的過程與產出，固然在表面上提升了在地居民參與公共事務的密度，但是否眞實地反映參與式預算的精神値得深思。

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.