DSpace Community: Issues & Studies
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/64517
Issues & Studies2024-03-28T10:34:12Z從2020年新冠肺炎疫情探討威權是否比民主具備更優良的防疫效能
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/148063
題名: 從2020年新冠肺炎疫情探討威權是否比民主具備更優良的防疫效能; Is Autocracy More Efficient in Defending the Pandemic than Democracy? The Case of COVID-19 Pandemic
摘要: 在2020年新冠肺炎的肆虐之下,多數國家都面臨了疫情的挑戰,無論乎是在每日激增的感染人數、死亡人數、以及因為疫情而無法負載的醫療能量。在這種嚴峻的挑戰下,許多觀察家與學者卻看到了威權體制的優勢。因為威權體制可以忽略人權的問題,迅速進行大規模的疫區封鎖,或是對民眾強行進行檢測以及限制人身自由,進而可以較為快速的控制疫情。在這之中,中國與新加坡就是全球防疫的佼佼者。反過來說,對於歐美的民主國家,因為其防疫速度與政府反應較為緩慢,也因為其民主自由的特性而限縮了對人身自由過多的限制,進而導致疫情爆發,死傷慘重。本文討論民主制度是否在面對大規模疫情的挑戰時,較威權體制劣勢。筆者認為,在那些強調共識決與公民審議的民主國家中,政府面對疫情的考驗可以制定比較全面的防疫政策,因為審議民主的特質是會去納入不同的社會價值與觀點,來做最後的政策決定,而這種做法,可以更為有效的抑止疫情的擴散,並有效的控制疫情。而在威權國家之中,政府必須要先達到一定的統治效能以及經濟成長,才有足夠的政治實力與資源來對抗疫情。所以,民主體制與威權體制在防疫這件事上,並不是孰優孰劣的問題,而是在各自達成一定條件之後,它們的防疫效能就會比同儕來的更好。筆者採用大規模跨國資料,藉由這次2020年新冠肺炎為案例,以2021年的總染疫人數與因應新冠肺炎而死亡的總人數來分析,在不同的條件下,民主與威權國家是否可以達到更高的抗疫效能。本文發現,審議民主可以顯著地降低民主國家中的總染疫人數與死亡人數,而這些民主特質在威權國家中則不適用。另者,經濟發展無論在民主國家或是威權國家都與疫情的嚴重度成正相關,不過國家實力綜合指數則可以有效地幫助威權國家防疫。本文最後提出了政策的推薦,提倡審議民主的優勢。; Most countries have suffered from the COVID-19 pandemic since 2020. The numbers of confirmed cases and casualties and the overloading medical systems are all visible issues and problems each country is dealing with on a daily basis. Many observers and experts argue that authoritarian countries seem to be more capable of defending the COVID-19 pandemic because they can ignore human rights and intervene aggressively into the society to implement anti-pandemic policy, which allows quicker response to the COVID-19 pandemic and better control of it at the same time. China and Singapore are notable cases in this regard. In comparison, democracies do not allow such interventions to personal liberty and human rights, making the COVID-19 pandemic more devastating in their respective countries. In this paper, I question whether regime types (democracy and autocracy) and their respective features could lead to better combating the COVID-19 pandemic. I argue that democratic deliberation among democracies allows a more comprehensive policy-making process by incorporating different voices from the society, and this process could enhance better control of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, for autocracies, such democratic features do not matter as the only key factor in determining whether autocracies could defend themselves from the COVID-19 pandemic is the ability to govern powered by the level of development. Therefore, whether democracies outperform autocracies in combating the COVID-19 pandemic, or vice versa, depends on different sets of conditions. I use the total number of COVID-19 confirmed cases and COVID-19 confirmed casualties of each country as the dependent variables and investigate these mechanisms. I find that democratic deliberation indeed reduces the confirmed cases and casualties among democracies, but this feature along with other democratic measures, are not associated with the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic among dictatorships. I also find that the level of development is positively associated with the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is the opposite of my argument. In contrast, the alternative measure of development I employed, the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC), is supportive to my hypothesis for authoritarian states. I then conclude by promoting democratic deliberation in the policy-making process.2023-10-25T01:36:38Z重新找回「政治制度」在各國COVID-19防疫表現中的重要性
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/148062
題名: 重新找回「政治制度」在各國COVID-19防疫表現中的重要性; Bringing the “Political Institutions” Back-In to the Variation of Governments’ Performances in Fighting against COVID-19
摘要: 新冠肺炎從2020年的年初開始席捲全球,成為當代影響全球經濟和國際政治最重要的事件,而若以染疫人口占總人口數的比率來看,民主國家在防疫的表現上並未明顯優於非民主國家的這個事實,也引起了政治制度孰優孰劣的辯論。針對這個現象,本文試圖回答「為什麼民主國家的防疫表現沒有比非民主國家來得好」以及「在什麼情況之下民主制度所擁有的優勢才能夠在防疫的表現上展現出來」這兩個問題。關於第一個問題,本文認為,由於民主國家通常全球化的程度較高,使得其在疫情初期的防堵上失去先機,再加上民主國家受限於民主的制度與規範,使得其難以採行嚴厲的防疫手段,因此民主國家在壓低染疫人口的比率上並未取得比非民主國家更好的防疫表現;關於第二個問題,本文認為,在非民主的政治制度中,基於其政治生存的邏輯,防疫表現不一定是政治領袖的重要施政目標,而在民主的政治制度中,雖然政府在民主的競爭壓力下有較高的誘因提供防疫的表現,但民主國家在防疫政策的形成和推動的過程之中牽涉到許多不同的政治行為者彼此之間的關係,而政治的穩定程度愈高的民主國家,其防疫政策在這之間所引發的「政治性衝突」的程度愈低,政府的防疫措施愈能被順利推動,因此政治穩定程度愈高的民主國家,防疫的表現愈好。來自全球140幾個國家的經驗證據支持了本文的論點。本文的發現也找回了「政治制度」在COVID-19防疫表現上的重要性。; The COVID-19 pandemic that has been sweeping the world since the early 2020 is the most important contemporary political and economic event. The fact that democracies do not outperform non-democracies in fighting the pandemic (in terms of the confirmed case percentage to their total population) aroused the debate about which kind of the political institutions is the better one. The goal of this study aims to answer the two questions about “why democracies do not outperform non-democracies in fighting COVID-19” and “when they will do so”. For the first question, I argue that because democracies tend to have higher degree of globalization and are more restricted by democratic norms, which make them often miss the golden window of pandemic preventing and are more reluctant to use coercive and severe restriction policies. As a consequence, democracies do not perform better than non-democracies that usually have lower degree of globalization and are more willing to use coercive and severe restrictions. For the second one, I argue that, due to the logic of political survival, in non-democracies, fighting against the spread of COVID-19 may not be their leaders’ priority, and the democratic leaders are more committed to epidemic prevention. However, since in democracies the formation and implementation of the anti-epidemic policies involve the interaction between the incumbent and the oppositions, the different government departments, and the central-local governments, the degree of political stability conditions how “political” the whole policy process is. In democracies that have higher degree of political stability, the anti-epidemic policies are more likely to be passed and obeyed because they arouse less political tensions between these different policy actors. Therefore, the positive influence of democratic institutions on epidemic prevention performance is stronger when the countries have higher degree of political stability. Empirical evidence from about 140 countries around the world supports my argument. The findings of this study also bring back the importance of countries’ “political institutions” in terms of their epidemic-prevention performances.2023-10-25T01:36:19Z政體類型對於COVID-19防疫成效的影響
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/148061
題名: 政體類型對於COVID-19防疫成效的影響; The Effect of Regime Types on the COVID-19 Pandemic Prevention Effectiveness
摘要: 於2019年底爆發之COVID-19病毒大流行再度引起政治學界對於國家的政體類型與公衛治理效能兩者關聯性之關注,惟目前對於政體因素的影響力以及關於相異政體孰勝孰負的論點未見統一,故本文嘗試透過質性與量化混合的途徑重新審視此爭辯。綜合而言,以2020年為觀察年度的研究範圍中,本研究的量化分析顯示,在其他條件不變的情況下,愈民主的國家呈現愈高死亡率之相關性。再者,本文之個案研究發現,在東亞國家的防疫過程中,非民主政體的國家展現較高的政府擴權程度,進而使這類國家的政府呈現出相對於民主國家較好之防疫表現。; The COVID-19 pandemic that broke out at the end of 2019 has once again drawn the attention of political scientists to the correlation between regime types and public health governance. However, the current scholarly discourse lacks consensus on the influence of political regime factors and the comparative advantages or disadvantages among different regime types. Therefore, this paper attempts to re-examine this debate through a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach. In this study, a comprehensive analysis was conducted for the year 2020. The quantitative analysis reveals that, under controlled conditions, countries with a higher level of democracy tend to exhibit a higher mortality rate. Furthermore, through the case study of East Asian countries, it was observed that non-democratic regimes displayed a higher degree of expansion of government power, leading to relatively better performance in pandemic prevention compared to democratic countries.2023-10-25T01:36:05Z政體類型和能源價格補貼
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/148060
題名: 政體類型和能源價格補貼; Regime Type and Energy Price Subsidy
摘要: 本文研究政體類型與包括稅前和租稅補貼在內的能源補貼間的關係,並討論這種關係如何被通貨膨脹程度所制約。文中指出不同政權的生存邏輯和不同類型能源補貼的成本,是影響民主和威權政府能源補貼政策差異的重要因素。稅前補貼需要政府編列預算支應部分能源供應的成本,政府不易迴避。因為威權政體優先考量社會穩定,所以在稅前燃料補貼上的支出比民主政體來得多。租稅補貼是指刻意不對能源商品使用的外部性進行賦稅,處理外部性的重要性沒有滿足人民基本物資價格的穩定來得高,而且提供這些補貼的成本可以留給未來世代,所以兩種政體的政治領導人都較願意提供這些補貼。不過不同政體提供能源補貼的決定還與通貨膨脹程度有關,因為當一個國家的通貨膨脹情形嚴重時,政府提供補貼的意願會跟著降低。稅前補貼涉及能源供應的成本,政府不易迴避,民主政府在必須負擔較多公共財支出的情況下,當通貨膨脹率高,仍會選擇提供較少的稅前補貼。與此相對,租稅補貼是未來世代才會要負擔的成本,政府的財政壓力也小,因此通貨膨脹率高時,民主國家提供的租稅補貼也跟著增加,與威權體制間差異縮小。這些發現,清楚地說明不管通貨膨脹的高低,民主國家相對威權體制提供較少的稅前能源補貼,且在低通貨膨脹程度的情況下,也提供較少的租稅補貼。; This paper examines the relationship between regime type and energy subsidies, including pre-tax and tax subsidies, and discusses how these relationships are mediated by the degree of inflation. The paper suggests that the logic of political survival and the costs of energy subsidies are two of the main factors shaping energy subsidy policies. Pre-tax subsidies require the government to budget for part of the cost, which is not easy for the government to avoid. Since authoritarian regimes prioritize social stability, they spend more on pre-tax fuel subsidies than democracies. Dealing with the externality of energy commodities is less important for political survival than keeping the price of basic goods affordable. Moreover, the costs of providing tax subsidies can be passed on to future generations. Political leaders in both regimes are more willing to provide these subsidies. However, the decision to provide energy subsidies is also related to the level of inflation, as high inflation often preventing a country from reforming subsidies. Democratic governments tend to provide less pre-tax subsidies even when inflation is high because they have to bear more of the public`s financial costs. In contrast, tax subsidies are a cost that will only be borne by future generations, so governments are under less financial pressure to provide them. The subsidy behaviors of the two regimes are similar under this condition. These findings clearly show that, regardless of inflation, democracies provide less pre-tax energy subsidies than authoritarian regimes, and they also provide less tax subsidies given low levels of inflation.2023-10-25T01:35:49Z