Abstract: The traditional form of hearing is an adversary trial-type process, which meets some predicaments when it is transplanted to the administrative process. It makes a trap that the formal hearing is an adversary trial-type one, which cannot fit in with different kind of administrative tasks. This study finds two ideal pure types of hearing procedure: case-deciding and policy-making. It is a reciprocal communication in adjudication hearing process, while a communication with common aims in policy making hearing process. There are two sets of characteristics of these ideal types: simplicity and diversity, defensiveness and constructiveness. The different functions between case-deciding type of hearing and policy-making type of hearing lead to the divergence of their procedures.

Key words: Administrative Hearing, Ideal Type, Communication, Case-deciding, Policy-making

摘要： 从现有行政听证制度的历史来看，脱胎于抗辩式庭审过程的听证程序，在被移植到行政过程中出现了适用困境。“司法型”听证所营造的“正式化”陷阱，使其难以和行政任务的多样化需求相匹配。以理想类型的研究进路，在现有制度雏形的基础上，并结合行政机关功能的变迁，可提炼出行政听证的两种纯粹类型——个案裁决型听证和政策形成型听证。这两者分别代表了基于互利互惠和共同目标的沟通过程，其中个人主体地位从消极地防御侵害发展为积极地形成公共秩序，相应的互动关系也呈现出对抗型与协调型的特征。沟通目的以及程序结构的不同决定了，两种行政听证理想类型在程序主体的角色分化和相应功能，以及听证程序产生之拘束力上存在的差异。

关键词: 行政听证, 理想类型, 沟通, 个案裁决, 政策形成