Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131772| 題名: | 競選政見與立法表現：第九屆立法委員立法行為的探討 Platform and Legislative Performance: A Study on Legislative Behaviors of Taiwan’s Legislators Elected in 2016 |
作者: | 黃庭暄 Huang, Ting-Hsuan |
貢獻者: | 蔡宗漢 Tsai, Tsung-Han 黃庭暄 Huang, Ting-Hsuan |
關鍵詞: | 競選政見 立法行為 立法問政 選舉制度 campaign platform legislative behavior law-making electoral system |
日期: | 2020 | 上傳時間: | 2-Sep-2020 | 摘要: | 在代議民主中，選民、立法委員、政黨三者之間透過定期選舉建立委託－代理關係，形成政治課責。競選政見作為契約的內容，是立法委員對於選民的承諾，同時也是選民日後對於立法委員立法行為的考核依據。然而，選民最在意的是這些透過民選所產生的立法代表是否能確實將民意轉化為政策，這過程必須仰賴立法委員於國會中一系列的問政行為。本研究認為立法委員會受到不同的選舉制度設計所產生的激勵差異而有不同的行為表現，這樣的差異將反映在選舉階段時所提出的競選政見以及進入國會後的立法行為。\n本研究透過「二元勝算對數模型」與「無序多項勝算對數模型」分析第九屆立法委員的競選政見和立法行為，用以釐清不同選制之下，立法委員在選舉階段時所提出的競選政見以及進入國會後履行政見的情況、選擇履行政見時採用的問政方式之差異。研究結果發現，當選舉制度的設計越強調個人時，立法委員有較大的機率提出個人政見，履行個人政見的可能也越大，且履行政見時選擇使用發言的機率大於質詢和提案；反之，當選舉制度越強調政黨時，結果將會與強調個人時截然不同。 In a representative democracy, the principal-agent relationship between voters, legislators, and political parties is established on regular election to form political accountability. As the content of the contract, the platforms are not only the commitment of the legislators to the voters but also the basis for the voters to evaluate their legislative behavior in the future. However, what the voters are concerned about most is whether the legislative representatives can indeed translate public opinion into policy. The process must rely on the legislators’ law-making in Congress. This study considered that legislators’ behaviors may vary due to the different incentives generated under distinct electoral systems. Such differences will reflect on the platforms during the election process and the legislative behavior after entering Congress.\nThis study analyzed the platforms and legislative behaviors of the ninth legislators by “binary logit model” and “multinomial logit model”. The study aimed to clarify the difference between the platforms raised by the legislators during the election process, the platforms implementation after entering Congress, and the methods of law-making when choosing to implement the platforms under different electoral systems. Results suggested that the more electoral system emphasizes individual, the higher the chances are that legislators present and implement their personal platforms. Also, when implementing platforms, they prefer speech to interpellations and proposal of bills. On the contrary, when the electoral system emphasizes the party, the results will be very different. |
參考文獻: | I.中文文獻\n王鼎銘，2003，〈政策認同下的投票效用與選擇：空間投票理論在不同選舉制度間的比較〉，《選舉研究》，10(1)：171-206。\n包正豪，2009，〈原住民籍立法委員的代表取向與問政行為：1993-2008之法律提案內容分析〉，《選舉研究》，16(1)：95-129。\n呂亞力，2014，《政治學》（六版），台北：三民。\n林玗靜、戴敏育、汪志堅、陳建彰，2017，〈植基於文字探勘的立委候選人選舉政見相似度分析〉，TANET2017臺灣網際網路研討會，991-996。\n林季福，2002〈九十年縣市長選舉候選人體育運動政見之分析研究〉，《大專體育學刊》，4(1)：55-64。\n林東穎，2010，〈立法委員競選政見的提出與選後立法表現的連結性─以第六、七屆高雄市立法委員為例〉，國立中山大學政治學研究所碩士學位論文。\n林繼文，1999，〈單一選區兩票制與選舉制度改革〉，台北：中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。\n范惕維，2013，〈不同立委選制下民眾課責行為之研究〉，國立政治大學政治學研究所碩士學位論文。\n俞振華，2018，〈變，或不變？2016年總統立委選舉主要政黨的候選人甄補機制〉，載於《2016台灣大選新民意與新挑戰》，陳陸輝主編，台北：五南。\n盛治仁，2006，〈單一選區兩票制對未來臺灣政黨政治發展之可能影響探討〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，3(2)：63-85。\n盛杏湲，1997a，〈國會議員的代表行為：研究方法的探討〉，《問題與研究》，36(9)：37-58。\n盛杏湲，1997b，〈立法委員的立法參與：概念，本質與測量〉，《問題與研究》，36(3)：1-25。\n盛杏湲，1999，〈立法問政與選區服務：第三屆立法委員代表行為的探討〉，《選舉研究》，6(2)：89-120。\n盛杏湲，2000，〈政黨或選區？立法委員的代表取向與行為〉，《選舉研究》，7(2)：37-73。\n盛杏湲，2001，〈我國政黨主導立法的困境與解決之道〉，載於《國會改革：台灣民主憲政的新境界？》，蘇永欽主編，台北：財團法人新台灣人文教基金會。\n盛杏湲，2008，〈政黨的國會領導與凝聚力-2000年政黨輪替前後的觀察〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，5(4)：1-46。\n盛杏湲，2013，〈再探選區服務與立法問政: 選制改革前後的比較〉，2013年國會與政府體制學術研討會，2013，台北：東吳大學。\n盛杏湲，2014，〈選制變革前後立委提案的持續與變遷: 一個探索性的研究〉，《台灣政治學刊》18(1)：73-127。\n盛杏湲，2016，〈民主政治〉，載於《政治學》，陳義彥主編，台北：五南。\n盛杏湲，2019，〈立法委員立法成功表現的影響因素〉，載於《國會立法與國會監督》，黃秀端主編，台北：五南。\n盛杏湲、蔡韻竹，2011，〈政黨在國會的動員策略：集體性與選擇性誘因的運用〉，載於《政黨關係與國會運作》，黃秀端主編，台北：五南。\n許俊湧，2005，〈政見允諾的跳票與兌現-以陳水扁在兩千年大選時核四停建與客家的政見為例〉，臺灣大學政治學研究所學位論文。\n陳永峰，2005，〈政見在選戰中扮演的角色之研究—以2004年立委選舉為例〉，逢甲大學公共政策研究所碩士學位論文。\n陳張榮，1996，〈中央公職人員體育運動政見之分析研究-以八十四年立法委員選舉候選人爲對象〉，《中華體育季刊》，10(3)：91-97。\n陳賢舜，2007，〈2004年立法委員選舉教育政見之分析研究〉，《人文與社會學報》， 1(10)：185-214。\n陳進郁，2019，〈立法委員論述框架與選區的關係：以老農津貼及軍公教優惠存款的修法為例〉，載於《國會立法與國會監督》，黃秀端主編，台北：五南。\n彭懷恩，2011，《比較政治新論》，風雲論壇出版社。\n黃秀端，1994，《選區服務: 立法委員心目中連任之基礎》，唐山出版社。\n黃國敏，2011，〈個案研究探討地方首長選舉政見的實證分析〉，《政策與人力管理》，2(2)：41-71。\n楊婉瑩，2001，〈性別差異下的立法院〉，《政治科學論叢》，15：135-170。\n廖達琪、林福仁、黃郁慈、劉子昱、李承訓，2012，〈台灣立法委員政見資料庫之建置〉，《選舉研究》，19(2)：129-158。\n廖達琪、李承訓、陳柏宇，2013，〈選舉制度與立法者競選政見及立法表現：臺灣立法院第六屆及第七屆區域立委之比較〉，《選舉研究》，20(1)：73-119。\n蔡宗漢、游清鑫，2018，〈政府責任與課責行為：理論與測量〉，《台灣政治學刊》，22(2)：47-102。\n鄭恆昇，2011，〈候選人背景與選區特質對立法委員競選政見形成及內容的影響─ 以第七屆立法委員為例〉，國立中山大學政治學研究所碩士學位論文。\n劉從葦，2006，〈台灣政黨的政策位置：非介入式與介入式測量的比較研究〉，《台灣政治學刊》，10(2)：3-62。\n魏中仁、楊志良，1997，〈立委選舉之醫療保健政見分析，1969 ~ 1995〉，《中華公共衛生雜誌》，16(5)：435-442。\n羅傳賢，2004，《國會與立法技術》，台北：五南。\n \nII.外文文獻\nAldrich, J. H., and Rohde, D. W..2000. “The logic of conditional party government: Revisiting the electoral connection.” PIPC.\nAlemán, E., Micozzi, J. P., and Ramírez, M. M.. 2018. “The hidden electoral connection: analysing parliamentary questions in the Chilean Congress.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 24(2): 227-244.\nArnold, R. D.. 1990. The logic of congressional action. Yale University Press.\nArrow, Kenneth J..1985. “Informational structure of the firm.” The American Economic Review 75(2): 303-307.\nBatto, N. F.. 2012. “Differing mandates and party loyalty in mixed-member systems: Taiwan as a baseline case.” Electoral Studies 31(2): 384-392.\nBawn, K., and Thies, M. F.. 2003. “A comparative theory of electoral incentives: representing the unorganized under PR, plurality and mixed-member electoral systems.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(1): 5-32.\nBrox, Brian J., and Shaw, Daron R.. 2006. “Political parties, American campaigns, and effects on outcomes.” Handbook of Party Politics: 146-159.\nCallander, Steven, and Wilson, Catherine H.. 2007. “Turnout, polarization, and Duverger`s law.” The Journal of Politic 69(4): 1047-1056.\nCarey, John M., and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1995 . “Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas.” Electoral studies 14(4): 417-439.\nCarey, John M.. 2007. “Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting.” American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 92-107.\nCrisp, B. F., Escobar-Lemmon, M. C., Jones, B. S., Jones, M. P., and Taylor-Robinson, M. M.. 2004. Vote-seeking incentives and legislative representation in six presidential democracies. The Journal of Politics 66(3): 823-846.\nCox, Gary W.. 1990. “Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems.” American Journal of Political Science: 903-935.\nCox, Gary W. and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.\nDowns, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.\nEisenhardt, Kathleen M.. 1989. “Agency theory: An assessment and review.” Academy of management review 14(1): 57-74.\nElling, Richard C.. 1979. “State Party Platforms and State Legislative Performance: A Comparative Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 23: 383-405.\nEulau, Heinz, and Karps, Paul D.. 1977. “The puzzle of representation: Specifying components of responsiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly: 233-254.\nFenno, Richard. 1978. “Home style: House members in their districts.” HarperCollins.\nFine, Terri S.. 1994. “Interest groups & the framing of the 1988 democratic & republican party platforms.” Polity 26(3): 517-530.\nGailmard, Sean. 2012. “Accountability and Princupal-Agent Models.” Chapter prepared for the Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability.\nGerber, Elisabeth R., and Lewis, Jeffrey B.. 2004. “Beyond the median: Voter preferences, district heterogeneity, and political representation.” Journal of Political Economy 112(6): 1364-1383.\nHall, Richard L.. 1987. “Participation and purpose in committee decision making.” American Political Science Review 81(1): 105-127.\nHall, Richard. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.\nHirano, S.. 2006. “Electoral institutions, hometowns, and favored minorities: Evidence from Japanese electoral reforms.” World Politics, 59(1): 51-82.\nHuang, Chi, Kuo, Ming-Feng, and Stockton, Hans. 2016. “the Consequences of MMM on Party Systems.” NF Batto, C. Huang, AC Tan, & GW Cox, Mixed-Member Electoral Systems in Constitutional Context: Taiwan, Japan, and Beyond: 25-51.\nJensen, Michael C., and William H. Meckling. 1976. “Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure.” Journal of financial economics 3(4): 305-360.\nJones, Bryan D.. 1973. “Competitiveness, role orientations, and legislative responsiveness.” The Journal of Politics 35(4): 924-947.\nKam, C. J.. 2009. Party discipline and parliamentary politics. Cambridge University Press.\nKingdon, John W.. 1989. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. University of Michigan Press.\nLancaster, Thomas. D.. 1986. “Electoral structures and pork barrel politics.” International Political Science Review 7(1): 67-81.\nMartin, S.. 2011. Parliamentary questions, the behaviour of legislators, and the function of legislatures: An introduction. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17(3): 259-270.\nMasket, Seth E., and Noel, Hans. 2012. “Serving two masters: Using referenda to assess partisan versus dyadic legislative representation.” Political Research Quarterly 65(1): 104-123.\nMayhew, David R..1974. Congress: The electoral connection. Yale University Press.\nMayhew, David R.. 1987. “Congress: The Electoral Connection.” In The American Congress Reader, eds. Steven S. Smith, Jason M. Robert and Ryan J Vander Wielen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 126-137.\nMiller, Warren. E., and Stokes, Donald. E.. 1963. “Constituency influence in Congress.” American political science review 57(1): 45-56.\nNorris, Pippa. 2004. Electoral engineering: Voting rules and political behavior. Cambridge university press.\nOlson, David M., and Nonidez, Cynthia T.. 1972. “Measures of legislative performance in the US House of Representatives.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16(2): 269-277.\nOlson, Mancur. 1965. “The theory of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups.” Harvard UniversityPress. Cambridge.\nPanebianco, Angelo. 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.\nRanney, Austin. 2001. Governing, eighth edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.\nRich, Timothy S.. 2013. “The electoral incentives for legislator perceptions in mixed systems: integrating evidence from East Asia.” Representation 49(1): 17-31.\nRich, Timothy S.. 2014. “Party Voting Cohesion in Mixed Member Legislative Systems: Evidence from Korea and Taiwan.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 39(1): 113-135.\nRoss, Stephen A.. 1973. “The economic theory of agency: The principal`s problem.” The American economic review 63(2): 134-139.\nSinclair, Barbara. 1999. “Transformational leader or faithful agent? Principal-agent theory and house majority party leadership.” Legislative Studies Quarterly :421-449.\nWalters, Ronald W.. 1990. “Party Platforms as Political Process.” Political Science and Politics 23: 436-438. | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 政治學系 106252018 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106252018 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 201801.pdf | 2.29 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.