Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/62010| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 游清鑫 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Yu, Ching Hsin | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | 范惕維 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator | 范惕維 | zh_TW |
| dc.date | 2012 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-12-02T09:48:55Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2013-12-02T09:48:55Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2013-12-02T09:48:55Z | - |
| dc.identifier | G0098252011 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/62010 | - |
| dc.description | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 政治研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 98252011 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 101 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 推究民主政治的源頭來講，民主政治根源希臘兩個文字：demo及kratica，前者意味平民，後者代表統治，兩者合一便是平民統治的政府。而在代議政治之下，要實現主權在民的方式就是透過定期選舉來決定政治領袖的去留，此種決定政治人物去留的過程也是一個簡單的課責行為。既然民主政治的內涵包括實現人民主權以及強調領導者的責任時，政府理所當然應為其所表現負起責任，並透過選舉接受人民的檢驗，這也帶出了政治課責「political accountability」在民主運作過程中的必要性。\n過去學界在討論臺灣選民是否有選舉課責之行為時，多在探討投票抉擇與施政表現或經濟表現之間的關聯性，忽略了制度的重要性，從選舉制度的觀點上，不同的選舉制度會形塑出不同的政治效果，選民對於投票的對象也受限於選制差異的影響，課責行為當然也會有不同程度的差異，本文探討臺灣選舉是否存在選舉課責？而影響選民進行課責的選制差異有何不同？透過過去十年來的選舉經驗，瞭解選舉課責在臺灣現有的立委選舉制度之下的發展狀況。\n本研究透過「二元勝算對數模型」來理解不同的選制之下民眾的課責行為之差異，研究發現根據選舉課責之定義，三種不同的立委選制都有明顯選舉課責之行為，且以政黨作為課責連結的投票方式，PR選制比SMD的課責強度更是明顯，在2008及2012都可以得到驗證；SNTV雖較不強調政黨間的競爭，但仍有明顯之選舉課責行為，但礙於資料限制無法與其他選制進行比較。換句話說，選制因素在課責表現上所造成的差異並不是「有無之分」，而是「強弱之別」。一致政府責任歸屬問題雖較分立政府明顯，但因台灣並無共治之經驗，課責的區分依然不明顯。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1\n第一節 研究緣起及目的 1\n第二章 理論基礎與文獻檢閱 5\n第一節 委託-代理理論 5\n第二節 課責概念的定義與意涵 9\n第三節 選舉課責 12\n第四節 選舉制度與選舉課責 16\n第三章 研究設計 19\n第一節 研究架構與研究假設 19\n第二節 研究方法、變數建構與資料來源 25\n第四章 實證分析 32\n第一節 單記不可讓渡投票制的選舉課責情形 32\n第二節 單一選區兩票並立制的選舉課責情形（2008年） 43\n第三節 單一選區兩票並立制的選舉課責情形（2012年） 49\n第四節 小結 56\n第五章 結論 60\n第一節 研究發現 60\n第二節 檢討與建議 63\n參考文獻 66\n附錄一 變數建構表 74\n附錄二 其他相關模型 78 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 1177449 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.source.uri | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098252011 | en_US |
| dc.subject | 立委選舉 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 選舉課責 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 政治課責 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 選舉制度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 施政滿意度 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | 不同立委選制下民眾課責行為之研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Study of Citizen`s Electoral Accountability under Different Legislative Electoral Systems | en_US |
| dc.type | thesis | en |
| dc.relation.reference | 中文部分\n王柏燿，2004，〈經濟評估與投票抉擇：以2001年立委選舉為例〉，《選舉研究》，11(1): 171-195。\n何思因，1991，〈影響我國選民投票抉擇的因素〉，《東亞季刊》，23(2): 39-50。\n吳皇昇，2010，〈政黨認同與施政評價對選民投票行為的影響：「情義相挺」還是「拂袖而去」？〉，國立政治大學政治學系碩士學位論文。\n吳重禮、李世宏，2003，〈總統施政表現對於國會選舉影響之初探：以2001年立法委員選舉為例〉，《理論與政策》，17(1): 27-52。\n吳重禮、李世宏，2004，〈政府施政表現與選民投票行為：以2002年北高市長選舉為例〉，《理論與政策》，17(4): 1-24。\n林啟耀，2011〈票房良藥或毒藥？探討馬政府施政滿意度對立委補選之影響〉，《選舉研究》，18(2): 31-57。\n周育仁、詹富堯、張敦程，2008，〈從課責與監督概念探討美國政府負責機制〉，2008年TASPAA年會暨「夥伴關係與永續發展」國際學術研討會，5月24日，台中：東海大學行政管理暨政策學系。\n周育仁、詹富堯、傅澤民，2008d，〈從政治課責觀點探討雙首長制下之政府負責機制：以法國與俄羅斯為例〉，2008年臺灣政治學會年會暨「全球競爭，民主鞏固，與治理再造－2008臺灣新課題」學術研討會，11月22日，南投：國立暨南大學公共行政與政策學系。\n俞振華， 2012，〈 探討總統施政評價如何影響地方選舉：以2009年縣市長選舉為例〉，《選舉研究》，19(1)：69-95\n陳敦源， 2000，〈誰掌控官僚體系？：從代理人理論看臺灣官僚體系的政治控制問題〉，《公共行政學報》，4: 99-130。\n陳志瑋，2003，〈政策課責的設計與管理〉，臺灣大學政治學博士學位論文。\n張傳賢、張佑宗，2006，〈選舉課責：拉丁美洲國家政府經濟施政表現與選舉得票相關性之研究〉，《臺灣政治學刊》，10(2): 101-147。\n張佑宗，2009，〈搜尋臺灣民粹式民主的群眾基礎〉，《臺灣社會研究季刊》，75: 85-113。\n張政亮，2011，〈從民主憲政體制的變革中論我國的總統課責〉，國立臺灣大學政治學系碩士學位論文。\n黃秀端，1994，〈經濟情況與選民投票抉擇〉，《東吳政治學報》，3: 97-123。\n劉嘉薇，2008，〈2005年縣市長選舉選民投票決定之影響因素：台北縣、台中市、雲林縣以及高雄縣的分析〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，5(1): 1-43。\n蕭怡靖、游清鑫，2008，〈施政表現與投票抉擇的南北差異—2006年北高市長選舉的探討〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，5(2): 1-25。\n蕭怡靖、黃紀，2010，〈2008年立委選舉候選人票之分析：選民個體與選區總體的多層模型〉，《臺灣政治學刊》，14(1): 3-53。\n蕭怡靖，2013，〈臺灣民眾的政治課責觀：認知、評價與影響〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，10(2): 73-104。\n\n\n英文部分\nBerle, A., and G. Means. 1932. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: MacMillan.\nBovens, M. 1998 The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nBudge, Ian and Richard I. Hofferbert 1990.”Mandates and Policy Outputs: U.S.Party Platforms and Federal Expenditures”. The American Political Science Review, 84(1): 111-131.\nCampbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald Stokes, 1960, The American Voter. N. Y.: John Willey & Sons, Inc.\nCrespi, Irving. 1980. “The Case of Presidential Popularity.” In Polling on the Issues, ed. Albert H. Cantril. Washington D.C.: Seven Locks Press.\nCutt, J. , & Murray, V. 2000. Accountability and Effectiveness Evaluation in Non-Profit Organizations. London: Routledge.\nDay, Patricaia and Rudolf Klein. 1987. Accountability: Five Pubic Services. London and New York: Tavistock.\nDowns, Anthony 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.\nEisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989 “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review,” Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 57-74.\nFiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Election. New Haven: Yale University Press.\nFisher Stephen D, Lessard-Phillips Laurence, Hobolt Sara and Curtice John. 2007. ”Accountability and Representation: How do Voters Approach Election?” Presented at Voters, Coalitions, and Democratic Accountability, University of Exeter. \nHendry, John 2002 “The Principle’s Other Problems: Honest Incompetence and the Specification of Objectives,” Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 98-113.\nHuntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.\nJohnson, G. B. and B. F. Crisp. 2003. “Mandates, Powers and Policies.” American Journal of Political Science. 47(1): 128-142.\nKearns, Kerin P. 1996 Managing for Accountability: Preserving the Public Trust in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.\nKeohane, R. O. 2002. Political Accountability. Paper Prepared for Conference on Delegation to International Organization. Park City, Utah: 28.\nKeys, V. O. Jr. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.\nKiewiet, D. Roderick. 1983. Marco-Economics and Micro-Politics: The Electoral Effects of Economic Issues. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.\nKlingemann, Hans-Dieter Richard I. Hofferbert, and Ian Budge 1994. Parties,Policies, and Democracy. In Parties Policies, and Democracy,eds..Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Richard I. Hofferbert,and Ian Budge with Torbjorn Bergman, Hans Keman, Francois Petry, and KaareStrom, Boulder: Westview, 240-270.\nLazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernard P. Berelson, and H. Gaudet, 1944, The People’s Choice: How the Voter Make Up His Mind in Presidential Campaign. N. Y.: Columbia University Press.\nLewis-Beck, Michael S. 1988. Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.\nLight, P. C. 1994. Federal Inspectors General and the Paths to Accountability. In Philanthropy and Law in Asia: A Comparative Study of Nonprofit Legal Systems in Ten Asia Pacific Societies, eds. T. L. Cooper.. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.\nLinz, Juan. 1994. “Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy: Does It Make a Difference?” In The Failure of Presidential Democracy, eds. Juan J. Linz and Arturo Valenzuela. Baltimore: John Hopkins University.\nLinz, Juan J. and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.\nMainwaring, Scott. 2003.”Introduction: Democratic Accountability in Latin America.” In Democratic Accountability in Latin America,eds. Scott Mainwaring and Christoper Welna. New York: Oxford University Press.\nMainwaring, Scott and Christoper Welna,eds. 2003. Democratic Accountability in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.\nMulgan, R. 2000. Accountability: An Ever-Expanding Concept? Publlic Adminstration, 78(3): 555-573.\nNadeau, Richard, Richard G. Niemi and Antoine Yoshinaka 2002.”A Cross-NationalAnalysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context Across Timeand Nations.” Electoral Studies, 21(3): 403-423.\nO’Donnell, Guillermo. 1999. “Horizontal Accountability in New Democracy.”In The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies, eds. Andreas Schedler, Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.\nPowell, G. Bingham Jr. and Guy D. Whitten 1993. “A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context.” American Journal of Political Science, 37(2): 391-414.\nPowell, G. Bingham, Jr. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press:.\nPrzeworski, Adam, Susan C. Stokes and Bernard Manin, 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nPual, Samuel. 1992. “Accountability in Public Services: Exit, Voice, and Control.”World Develpoment 29(7): 1047-1060.\nRoss, S. A., “The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principals Problem,” American Economic Review LXII, May 1973: pp 134–139\nSchedler, Andreas. 1999. ”Conceptualizing Accountability.”In The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies, eds. Andreas Schedler, Larry Diamind and Marc F. Plattner. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers..\nSchedler, Andreas, Larry Diamind and Marc F. Plattner, eds. 1999. The Self-restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.\nSchumpeter, Joseph A. 1975: Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.\nShafritz J. M. ed. 1998. International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration, v. 1. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.\nShank, J. Merrill and Warren E. Miller. 1990. “Policy Direction and Performance Evaluation: Complementary Explanations of the Reagan Elections” British Journal of Political Science, 20(2): 143-235.\nSlomczynski, Kazimierz, Goldie Shabad, and Jakub Zielinski. 2008. “Fluid Party Systems, Electoral Rules and Accountability of Legislators in Emerging Democracies: The Case of Ukraine.” Party Politics, 14(1): 91-112.\nSpiro, Herbert J. 1969. Responsibility in Government: Theory and Practice. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.\nStone, Deborah 1997 Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.\n\nThompson, D. F. 1987 Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\nTsai, Chia-hung. 2008. “Making Sense of Issue Position, Party Image, Party Performance, and Voting Choice: A Case Study of Taiwan’s 2004 Legislative Election.”Journal of Social Science and Philosophy《人文及社會科學集刊》, 20(1): 1-24.\nTsebelis, G. 1995. “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Player in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicammeralism and Multipartyism.” British Journal of Political Science. 25(3): 289-325.\nWang, Ding-ming. 2001.”The Impacts of Policy Issues on Voting Behavior in Taiwan: A Mixed Logit Approach.”Journal of Electoral Studies《選舉研究》, 8(2): 95-123. | zh_TW |
| item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
| item.grantfulltext | open | - |
| item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec | - |
| item.languageiso639-1 | en_US | - |
| item.openairetype | thesis | - |
| item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 201101.pdf | 1.15 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.