1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Social Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 我國不穩定就業者對無條件基本收入偏好研究
Research on Unconditional Basic Income Preference among Different Groups of Precarious Workers in Taiwan
作者 陳陽明
Chen, Yang-Ming
貢獻者 劉梅君
Liu, Mei-Chun
陳陽明
Chen, Yang-Ming
關鍵詞 不穩定就業
人工智慧
自動化
失業
無條件基本收入
Precarious employment
Artificial intelligence
Automation
Unemployment
Universal basic income
日期 2023
上傳時間 2-Aug-2023 14:30:41 (UTC+8)
摘要 1970年以來新自由主義的興起使資本主義擺脫流通限制，僱用關係開始往市場化及個體化發展，使不穩定的就業性型態自20 世紀後期起於勞動力市場上的佔比逐漸增加。近年來科技的進步除了使勞動力的使用更加彈性化與零碎化外，人工智慧技術的發展使得人力有被機器取代的趨勢，而COVID-19對經濟造成的衝擊使企業開始增加人工智慧及自動化技術投資與使用的比例，這將對不穩定就業者造成更大的衝擊。
無條件基本收入被認為能夠作為因應人工智慧導致勞動市場劇烈變動的一種社會保障，作為首當其衝的不穩定就業者或許會對無條件基本收入持正面看法。因此本研究將探討不穩定就業者對無條件基本收入的偏好，並根據文獻以政府傾資方態度與家戶所得探討其是否會中介不穩定就業者對無條件基本收入的偏好。
本研究使用中央研究院社會學研究所之「2018年第一次社會意向調查」問卷資料，並以羅吉斯迴歸進行分析，結果發現不穩定就業者中的部分工時工作者及低技術工人與無條件基本收入具有正向顯著關係，而政府傾資方態度對部分工時工作者及低技術工人與無條件基本收入之關係具有部分中介效果。
根據研究結果，顯示身處於勞動市場邊緣的部分工時工作者與低技術勞工對現今社會福利及安全制度保障不足的擔憂，而政府保護的不足，會增加兩者對無條件基本收入的偏好，此結果不僅可作為推廣無條件基本收入者參考，也考驗者政府如何解決勞動市場邊緣者保護不足的困境。
Since the 1970s, the rise of neo-liberalism has led to the de-regulation of capitalism, and the employment relationship has begun to move towards marketization and individualization. As a result, the proportion of precarious employment in the labor market has gradually increased since the late 20th century.
In recent years, the progress of technology has made the use of labor more flexible and fragmented, and the development of artificial intelligence technology has led to a tendency for manpower to be replaced by machines. The impact of COVID-19 on the economy has also led companies to increase their investment and use of artificial intelligence and automation technologies, which will have a greater impact on precarious employment.
Unconditional basic income(UBI) is believed to be able to provide social security in response to the dramatic changes in the labor market caused by artificial intelligence. As the first group to be affected, precarious employment may have a positive view of UBI. Therefore, this study will explore the preferences of precarious workers for UBI, and explore whether the attitude of the government towards capitalists and household income will mediate the preferences of precarious workers for UBI..
This study analyzed the questionnaire data of the "2018 First Social Intention Survey" conducted by the Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica, by using logistic regression as the research method. The results show that part-time workers and low-skilled workers in precarious employment have a positive and significant relationship with UBI, and the attitude of the government towards capitalists has a partial mediating effect on the relationship between part-time workers and low-skilled workers and UBI.
According to the research results, part-time workers and low-skilled workers who are at the margin of the labor market worried about the lack of social welfare and security system in the present. The lack of government protection will increase their preference for UBI. This result can not only be used as a reference for the promotion of UBI, but also challenges the government to solve the dilemma of insufficient protection for the vulnerable in the labor market.
參考文獻 外文部分
AI Index Steering Committee. (2022). The AI Index 2022 Annual Report. Stanford University.
Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L., & Wilkins-Yel, K. G. (2021). Precarious work in the 21st century: A psychological perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, 103491.
Allmendinger, J., Hipp, L., & Stuth, S. (2013). Atypical employment in Europe 1996-2011. WZB Discussion Paper.
Alt, J., & Iversen, T. (2017). Inequality, labor market segmentation, and preferences for redistribution. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 21-36.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Berg, A., Buffie, E. F., & Zanna, L. F. (2016). Robots, growth, and inequality. Finance & Development, 53(3), 10-13.
Bhalla, A. S., Lapeyre, F. (2004). Towards an analytical and operational framework. Poverty and exclusion in a global world, 33-58.
Birnbaum, S. (2016). Basic income. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
Birnbaum, S., & De Wispelaere, J. (2021). Exit strategy or exit trap? Basic income and the ‘power to say no’in the age of precarious employment. Socio-Economic Review, 19(3), 909-927.
Broughton, A., Green, M., Rickard, C., Swift, S., Eichhorst, W., Tobsch, V., & Tros, F. (2016). Precarious employment in Europe: Patterns, trends and policy strategies. Brussels: European Parliament Directorate General for Internal Policies.
Cunliffe, J., & Erreygers, G. (2001). The enigmatic legacy of Charles Fourier: Joseph Charlier and basic income. History of political economy, 33(3), 459-484.
Debus, M. E., Probst, T. M., König, C. J., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Catch me if I fall! Enacted uncertainty avoidance and the social safety net as country-level moderators in the job insecurity–job attitudes link. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 690-698.
Fleckenstein, T., Saunders, A. M., & Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2011). The dual transformation of social protection and human capital: Comparing Britain and Germany. Comparative Political Studies, 44(12), 1622-1650.
Florczak, I. (2020). Precarious Employment V. Atypical Employment in the EU. In In: Wratny, J., Ludera-Ruszel, A. (ED.), New Forms of Employment: Current Problems and Future Challenges (pp. 203-214). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. Basic Books.
Frade, C., Darmon, I., & Laparra, M. (2004). Precarious employment in Europe: A comparative study of labour market related risk in flexible economies. Final report, ESOPE Project.
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?. Technological forecasting and social change, 114, 254-280.
Gilbert, R., Huws, U., & Yi, G. (2019). Employment market effects of basic income. The palgrave international handbook of basic income, 47-72.
Harvey, D. (2001). Globalization and the “spatial fix”. geographische revue: Zeitschrift für Literatur und Diskussion, 3(2), 23-30.
Häusermann, S., & Kriesi, H. (2015). What do voters want? Dimensions and configurations in individual-level preferences and party choice. The politics of advanced capitalism, 202-230.
Horemans, J., Lohmann, H., & Marx, I. (2018). Atypical employment and in-work poverty. Handbook on in-work poverty, 146-170.
Horemans, J., & Marx, I. (2013). In-work poverty in times of crisis: Do part-timers fare worse? Improve Working Papers 13/14.
Hoynes, H., & Rothstein, J. (2019). Universal basic income in the United States and advanced countries. Annual Review of Economics, 11, 929-958.
Iversen, T. (2005). Capitalism, Democracy, and Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jæger, M. M. (2006). Welfare regimes and attitudes towards redistribution: The regime hypothesis revisited. European Sociological Review, 22(2), 157-170.
Jansen, G. (2019). Self-employment as atypical or autonomous work: diverging effects on political orientations. Socio-Economic Review, 17(2), 381-407.
Johnston, R., Banting, K., Kymlicka, W., & Soroka, S. (2010). National identity and support for the welfare state. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 43(2), 349-377.
Johnstone, R., McCrystal, S., Nossar, I., Quinlan, M., Rawling, M., & Riley, J. (2012). Beyond employment: the legal regulation of work relationships. Sydney, NSW, Australia: The Federation Press.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American sociological review, 74(1), 1-22.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2018). Precarious lives: Job insecurity and well-being in rich democracies. John Wiley & Sons.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Hewison, K. (2013). Precarious work and the challenge for Asia. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(3), 271-288.
Kreshpaj, B., Orellana, C., Burström, B., Davis, L., Hemmingsson, T., Johansson, G., Kjellberg K., Jonsson J., Wegman D. H., & Bodin, T. (2020). What is precarious employment? A systematic review of definitions and operationalizations from quantitative and qualitative studies. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 46(3), 235-247.
Kretsos, L., & Livanos, I. (2016). The extent and determinants of precarious employment in Europe. International journal of manpower , 37(1), 25-43.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual review of psychology, 50(1), 537-567.
Lee, S. (2018). Attitudes toward universal basic income and welfare state in Europe: A research note. Basic Income Studies, 13(1), 1-9.
Lewchuk, W., & Clarke, M. (2011). Working without commitments: The health effects of precarious employment. Montreal: McGill-Queen`s University. Press
Mai, Q. D., Jacobs, A. W., & Schieman, S. (2019). Precarious sleep? Nonstandard work, gender, and sleep disturbance in 31 European countries. Social Science & Medicine, 237, 112424.
Matsaganis, M., Özdemir, E., Ward, T., & Zavakou, A. (2016). Non-standard employment and access to social security benefits. Social Situation Monitor, Research note 8/2015.
Mevissen, J., & van den Berg, N. (2011). De januskop van de zzp’er: De zelfstandige zonder personeel: ondernemer of eigenlijk een werknemer?. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 27(3), 264-280.
Nettle, D., Johnson, E., Johnson, M., & Saxe, R. (2021). Why has the COVID-19 pandemic increased support for Universal Basic Income?. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-12.
Olsthoorn, M. (2014). Measuring precarious employment: A proposal for two indicators of precarious employment based on set-theory and tested with Dutch labor market-data. Social Indicators Research, 119, 421-441.
Pateman, C. (2003). Freedom and democratization: Why basic income is to be preferred to basic capital. The ethics of stakeholding, 130-148. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Ravallion, M. (2015). The economics of poverty: History, measurement, and policy. Oxford University Press.
Rehm, P. (2005). Citizen support for the welfare state: Determinants of preferences for income redistribution. WZB Markets and Political Economy Working Paper No. SP II, 2.
Rehm, P. (2016). Risk Inequality and Welfare States: Social Policy Preferences, Development, and Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rehm, P., Hacker, J. S., & Schlesinger, M. (2012). Insecure alliances: Risk, inequality, and support for the welfare state. American political science review, 106(2), 386-406.
Roberto, K. J., Johnson, A. F., & Rauhaus, B. M. (2020). Stigmatization and prejudice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(3), 364-378.
Sage, D. (2015). Do active labour market policies promote the well-being, health and social capital of the unemployed? Evidence from the UK. Social Indicators Research, 124, 319-337.
Shin, Y. K., Kemppainen, T., & Kuitto, K. (2021). Precarious work, unemployment benefit generosity and universal basic income preferences: a multilevel study on 21 European countries. Journal of Social Policy, 50(2), 323-345.
Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.
Standing, G. (2017). Basic income: And how we can make it happen. Penguin UK.
Thelen, K. (2014). Varieties of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity. Cambridge university press.
Van Parijs, P. (1995). Real freedom for all: What (if anything) can justify capitalism?. Clarendon Press.
Van Parijs, P., & Vanderborght, Y. (2017). Basic Income: A radical proposal for a free society and a sane economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vlandas, T. (2021). The political economy of individual-level support for the basic income in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 31(1), 62-77.
Vosko, L. F. (2011). Managing the margins: Gender, citizenship, and the international regulation of precarious employment. OUP Oxford.
Weisstanner, D. (2022). COVID-19 and welfare state support: the case of universal basic income. Policy and Society, 41(1), 96-110.
Widerquist, K., & Lewis, M. A. (2009). The Basic Income Guarantee and the goals of equality, efficiency, and environmentalism. In Environment and Employment: A Reconciliation. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Widerquist, K. (2013), Independence, Propertylessness and Basic Income, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Widerquist, K., Noguera, J., Vandeborght, Y., & Wispelaere, J. (2013). Basic income. Chichester: Wiley.
World Economic Forum, V. (2020). The future of jobs report 2020. Retrieved from Geneva.
Wren, A., & Rehm, P. (2013). Service expansion, international exposure, and political preferences. The political economy of the service transition, 248.
Wu, C. H., Wang, Y., Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2020). Effects of chronic job insecurity on Big Five personality change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(11), 1308-1326.
 
中文部分
牛傑薇（2020），以性別，年齡，社經地位探討勞動保護態度和工作價值取向:國際比較分析，國立台灣大學健康政策與管理研究所碩士論文。
吳柏緯（2021），基本收入之研究—以社會安全制度之再建構為中心，國立政治大學法律學研究所。
吳寶華（2018），無條件基本收入—以臺灣為例之初探。國立台灣師範大學高階經理人企業管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。
呂建德（2001），從福利國家到競爭式國家?:全球化與福利國家的危機。台灣社會學，2期，頁263-313。
李健鴻，（2009），社會排除風險與不穩定就業風險之間:台灣長期失業者的尋職困境。政大勞動學報，25期，頁57-114。
李健鴻，（2010），台灣新貧階級的形成與因應對策，新社會政策，10期，頁16-20。
李健鴻（2011），我國派遣勞工之政策及人權保障之檢視，《監察院人權保障工作研討會論文集》，頁173-213，台北：監察院人權保障委員會。
李健鴻（2018），「就業機會的新途徑」或是「勞動保護的新挑戰」？「零工經濟」下勞動者的就業風險分析。臺灣勞工季刊，53期，頁4-19。
辛炳隆，（2005），我國產業結構調整對就業的影響與因應，台灣經濟論衡，3卷3期，頁21-47。
林宗弘，（2017），台灣民眾如何看待全民基本收入制度？，思想，34期，頁127-146。
林東清（2022），資訊管理：智慧化企業的核心競爭能力（八版），台北：智勝。
林信廷，（2014），可實現的烏托邦?基本收入在當代的美麗與哀愁，臺灣社會福利學刊，1卷2期，頁185-196。
林曉嬋（2019），新興科技對未來勞動市場的挑戰與因應，人力規劃及發展研究報告，頁1-40。
邱嬿蓉，（2011），我國自營作業者勞動條件與權益之探討—以台北市便當販售業者為例，國立政治大學勞工研究所碩士論文。
金正傑，（2018），一例一休之態度對工作者工作壓力與勞資關係氣氛影響之研究:以薪酬滿意度為調節變項，淡江大學企業管理學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。
倪世傑，（2017），全民基本收入：希望還是幻影？，思想，34期，頁173-197。
張妤臻、張世雄（2014），基本所得之於當代福利國家的再思索：「所得」與「時間」的雙重隱憂，台灣社會福利學刊，11卷2期，頁47-87。
張晉芬，（2013），勞動社會學。台北：政大出版社。
張珮青，（2013），「墊腳石還是陷阱？台灣非典型工作者薪資與職務流動情形」，國立台灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
陳文學、羅清俊，（2012），影響臺灣民眾重分配政策偏好的因素。人文及社會科學集刊，24卷3期，頁367-397。
陳秉宏，（2018），實施一例一休之企業員工幸福感與工作績效關係之研究，國立暨南大學終身學習與人力資源發展碩士學位學程在職專班碩士論文。
黃月盈（2019），非典型就業對國內薪資影響之研究，國家發展委員會，經濟研究第19期。
黃宇弘、柯志哲，（2019），當代臺灣低度就業與工作身份之關聯性:探討低度就業的新視角。勞資關係論叢，21卷2期，頁27-67。
楊昀，（2021），已開發國家基本收入試驗之比較ㄝ國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
萬海遠、李實、盧雲鶴（2020），全民基本收入理論與政策評介，經濟學動態，1期，頁98-113。
葉崇揚、蔡明璋、呂建德，（2017），台灣民眾對社會福利的態度-體制評價，道德經濟，階級與世代的影響，臺灣民主季刊，14卷2期，頁1-48。
楊文山（2022），2018年第一次社會意向調查（C00337）【原始數據】。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。
廖美，（2017），全民基本收入是一種補償，思想，34期，頁159-172。
蕭文龍（2009），多變量分析最佳入門實用書—SPSS+LISREL（2版），碁峰資訊。
戴匡，（2020），無條件基本收入對社會公義與社會福利制度之影響：兼論台灣當代福利境況，國立台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
謝世民，（2017），全民基本收入與正義，思想，34期，頁147-158。
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
勞工研究所
109262007
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109262007
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 劉梅君zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Liu, Mei-Chunen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳陽明zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Yang-Mingen_US
dc.creator (作者) 陳陽明zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen, Yang-Mingen_US
dc.date (日期) 2023en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Aug-2023 14:30:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Aug-2023 14:30:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Aug-2023 14:30:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109262007en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146685-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 勞工研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 109262007zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 1970年以來新自由主義的興起使資本主義擺脫流通限制，僱用關係開始往市場化及個體化發展，使不穩定的就業性型態自20 世紀後期起於勞動力市場上的佔比逐漸增加。近年來科技的進步除了使勞動力的使用更加彈性化與零碎化外，人工智慧技術的發展使得人力有被機器取代的趨勢，而COVID-19對經濟造成的衝擊使企業開始增加人工智慧及自動化技術投資與使用的比例，這將對不穩定就業者造成更大的衝擊。
無條件基本收入被認為能夠作為因應人工智慧導致勞動市場劇烈變動的一種社會保障，作為首當其衝的不穩定就業者或許會對無條件基本收入持正面看法。因此本研究將探討不穩定就業者對無條件基本收入的偏好，並根據文獻以政府傾資方態度與家戶所得探討其是否會中介不穩定就業者對無條件基本收入的偏好。
本研究使用中央研究院社會學研究所之「2018年第一次社會意向調查」問卷資料，並以羅吉斯迴歸進行分析，結果發現不穩定就業者中的部分工時工作者及低技術工人與無條件基本收入具有正向顯著關係，而政府傾資方態度對部分工時工作者及低技術工人與無條件基本收入之關係具有部分中介效果。
根據研究結果，顯示身處於勞動市場邊緣的部分工時工作者與低技術勞工對現今社會福利及安全制度保障不足的擔憂，而政府保護的不足，會增加兩者對無條件基本收入的偏好，此結果不僅可作為推廣無條件基本收入者參考，也考驗者政府如何解決勞動市場邊緣者保護不足的困境。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Since the 1970s, the rise of neo-liberalism has led to the de-regulation of capitalism, and the employment relationship has begun to move towards marketization and individualization. As a result, the proportion of precarious employment in the labor market has gradually increased since the late 20th century.
In recent years, the progress of technology has made the use of labor more flexible and fragmented, and the development of artificial intelligence technology has led to a tendency for manpower to be replaced by machines. The impact of COVID-19 on the economy has also led companies to increase their investment and use of artificial intelligence and automation technologies, which will have a greater impact on precarious employment.
Unconditional basic income(UBI) is believed to be able to provide social security in response to the dramatic changes in the labor market caused by artificial intelligence. As the first group to be affected, precarious employment may have a positive view of UBI. Therefore, this study will explore the preferences of precarious workers for UBI, and explore whether the attitude of the government towards capitalists and household income will mediate the preferences of precarious workers for UBI..
This study analyzed the questionnaire data of the "2018 First Social Intention Survey" conducted by the Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica, by using logistic regression as the research method. The results show that part-time workers and low-skilled workers in precarious employment have a positive and significant relationship with UBI, and the attitude of the government towards capitalists has a partial mediating effect on the relationship between part-time workers and low-skilled workers and UBI.
According to the research results, part-time workers and low-skilled workers who are at the margin of the labor market worried about the lack of social welfare and security system in the present. The lack of government protection will increase their preference for UBI. This result can not only be used as a reference for the promotion of UBI, but also challenges the government to solve the dilemma of insufficient protection for the vulnerable in the labor market.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第一項 、不穩定就業的增長 1
第二項 、COVID-19對不穩定就業者的影響 3
第三項 、人工智慧與無條件基本收入 6
第二節 研究目的 10
第二章 文獻回顧 11
第一節 不穩定就業 11
第一項 、不穩定就業概念 11
第二項 、不穩定就業者與不安全感 12
第三項 、國家政策與不穩定就業者間之關係 14
第二節 無條件基本收入 18
第一項 、無條件基本收入緣起及發展 18
第二項 、無條件基本收入概念 20
第三項 、無條件基本收入的預期目標 21
第四項 、無條件基本收入的一些爭論 23
第三章 研究方法 25
第一節 資料來源 25
第二節 研究架構 25
第三節 研究假設建立 28
第一項 、不穩定就業者與無條件基本收入之關係 28
第二項 、家戶所得對不穩定就業者與無條件基本收入間之關係 30
第三項 、政府傾資方態度與無條件基本收入之關係 31
第四節 變項界定 33
第一項 、依變項 33
第二項 、自變項 33
第三項 、中介變項 34
第五節 資料分析方法 37
第一項 、描述性統計分析（Descriptive Statistics Analysis） 37
第二項 、卡方檢定（Chi-Squared Test） 37
第三項 、獨立樣本t檢定（Independent Samples T-Test） 37
第四項 、羅吉斯迴歸分析（Logistic Regression Analysis） 37
第四章 資料分析 38
第一節 敘述性統計 38
第一項 、自變項 38
第二項 、依變項 39
第二節 無條件基本收入差異性分析 41
第三節 各變項之羅吉斯迴歸分析 44
第一項 、人口變項與無條件基本收入之羅吉斯迴歸分析 44
第二項 、不穩定就業者與無條件基本收入之羅吉斯迴歸分析 44
第三項 、中介效果羅吉斯迴歸分析 46
第五章 結論與建議 51
第一節 研究結論 51
第一項 、部分工時工作者 51
第二項 、低技術工作者 52
第三項 、自營作業者 53
第四項 、失業者 54
第五項 、家戶所得 54
第二節 實務意涵 55
第一項 、政策意涵 55
第二項 、學術意涵 58
第三節 研究限制及後續研究建議 59
第一項 、研究限制 59
第二項 、後續研究建議 60
參考文獻 62
附錄 72		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 6795346 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109262007en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 不穩定就業zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 人工智慧zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 自動化zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 失業zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 無條件基本收入zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Precarious employmenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Artificial intelligenceen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Automationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Unemploymenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Universal basic incomeen_US
dc.title (題名) 我國不穩定就業者對無條件基本收入偏好研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Research on Unconditional Basic Income Preference among Different Groups of Precarious Workers in Taiwanen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 外文部分
AI Index Steering Committee. (2022). The AI Index 2022 Annual Report. Stanford University.
Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L., & Wilkins-Yel, K. G. (2021). Precarious work in the 21st century: A psychological perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, 103491.
Allmendinger, J., Hipp, L., & Stuth, S. (2013). Atypical employment in Europe 1996-2011. WZB Discussion Paper.
Alt, J., & Iversen, T. (2017). Inequality, labor market segmentation, and preferences for redistribution. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 21-36.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Berg, A., Buffie, E. F., & Zanna, L. F. (2016). Robots, growth, and inequality. Finance & Development, 53(3), 10-13.
Bhalla, A. S., Lapeyre, F. (2004). Towards an analytical and operational framework. Poverty and exclusion in a global world, 33-58.
Birnbaum, S. (2016). Basic income. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
Birnbaum, S., & De Wispelaere, J. (2021). Exit strategy or exit trap? Basic income and the ‘power to say no’in the age of precarious employment. Socio-Economic Review, 19(3), 909-927.
Broughton, A., Green, M., Rickard, C., Swift, S., Eichhorst, W., Tobsch, V., & Tros, F. (2016). Precarious employment in Europe: Patterns, trends and policy strategies. Brussels: European Parliament Directorate General for Internal Policies.
Cunliffe, J., & Erreygers, G. (2001). The enigmatic legacy of Charles Fourier: Joseph Charlier and basic income. History of political economy, 33(3), 459-484.
Debus, M. E., Probst, T. M., König, C. J., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Catch me if I fall! Enacted uncertainty avoidance and the social safety net as country-level moderators in the job insecurity–job attitudes link. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 690-698.
Fleckenstein, T., Saunders, A. M., & Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2011). The dual transformation of social protection and human capital: Comparing Britain and Germany. Comparative Political Studies, 44(12), 1622-1650.
Florczak, I. (2020). Precarious Employment V. Atypical Employment in the EU. In In: Wratny, J., Ludera-Ruszel, A. (ED.), New Forms of Employment: Current Problems and Future Challenges (pp. 203-214). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. Basic Books.
Frade, C., Darmon, I., & Laparra, M. (2004). Precarious employment in Europe: A comparative study of labour market related risk in flexible economies. Final report, ESOPE Project.
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?. Technological forecasting and social change, 114, 254-280.
Gilbert, R., Huws, U., & Yi, G. (2019). Employment market effects of basic income. The palgrave international handbook of basic income, 47-72.
Harvey, D. (2001). Globalization and the “spatial fix”. geographische revue: Zeitschrift für Literatur und Diskussion, 3(2), 23-30.
Häusermann, S., & Kriesi, H. (2015). What do voters want? Dimensions and configurations in individual-level preferences and party choice. The politics of advanced capitalism, 202-230.
Horemans, J., Lohmann, H., & Marx, I. (2018). Atypical employment and in-work poverty. Handbook on in-work poverty, 146-170.
Horemans, J., & Marx, I. (2013). In-work poverty in times of crisis: Do part-timers fare worse? Improve Working Papers 13/14.
Hoynes, H., & Rothstein, J. (2019). Universal basic income in the United States and advanced countries. Annual Review of Economics, 11, 929-958.
Iversen, T. (2005). Capitalism, Democracy, and Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jæger, M. M. (2006). Welfare regimes and attitudes towards redistribution: The regime hypothesis revisited. European Sociological Review, 22(2), 157-170.
Jansen, G. (2019). Self-employment as atypical or autonomous work: diverging effects on political orientations. Socio-Economic Review, 17(2), 381-407.
Johnston, R., Banting, K., Kymlicka, W., & Soroka, S. (2010). National identity and support for the welfare state. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 43(2), 349-377.
Johnstone, R., McCrystal, S., Nossar, I., Quinlan, M., Rawling, M., & Riley, J. (2012). Beyond employment: the legal regulation of work relationships. Sydney, NSW, Australia: The Federation Press.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American sociological review, 74(1), 1-22.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2018). Precarious lives: Job insecurity and well-being in rich democracies. John Wiley & Sons.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Hewison, K. (2013). Precarious work and the challenge for Asia. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(3), 271-288.
Kreshpaj, B., Orellana, C., Burström, B., Davis, L., Hemmingsson, T., Johansson, G., Kjellberg K., Jonsson J., Wegman D. H., & Bodin, T. (2020). What is precarious employment? A systematic review of definitions and operationalizations from quantitative and qualitative studies. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 46(3), 235-247.
Kretsos, L., & Livanos, I. (2016). The extent and determinants of precarious employment in Europe. International journal of manpower , 37(1), 25-43.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual review of psychology, 50(1), 537-567.
Lee, S. (2018). Attitudes toward universal basic income and welfare state in Europe: A research note. Basic Income Studies, 13(1), 1-9.
Lewchuk, W., & Clarke, M. (2011). Working without commitments: The health effects of precarious employment. Montreal: McGill-Queen`s University. Press
Mai, Q. D., Jacobs, A. W., & Schieman, S. (2019). Precarious sleep? Nonstandard work, gender, and sleep disturbance in 31 European countries. Social Science & Medicine, 237, 112424.
Matsaganis, M., Özdemir, E., Ward, T., & Zavakou, A. (2016). Non-standard employment and access to social security benefits. Social Situation Monitor, Research note 8/2015.
Mevissen, J., & van den Berg, N. (2011). De januskop van de zzp’er: De zelfstandige zonder personeel: ondernemer of eigenlijk een werknemer?. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 27(3), 264-280.
Nettle, D., Johnson, E., Johnson, M., & Saxe, R. (2021). Why has the COVID-19 pandemic increased support for Universal Basic Income?. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-12.
Olsthoorn, M. (2014). Measuring precarious employment: A proposal for two indicators of precarious employment based on set-theory and tested with Dutch labor market-data. Social Indicators Research, 119, 421-441.
Pateman, C. (2003). Freedom and democratization: Why basic income is to be preferred to basic capital. The ethics of stakeholding, 130-148. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Ravallion, M. (2015). The economics of poverty: History, measurement, and policy. Oxford University Press.
Rehm, P. (2005). Citizen support for the welfare state: Determinants of preferences for income redistribution. WZB Markets and Political Economy Working Paper No. SP II, 2.
Rehm, P. (2016). Risk Inequality and Welfare States: Social Policy Preferences, Development, and Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rehm, P., Hacker, J. S., & Schlesinger, M. (2012). Insecure alliances: Risk, inequality, and support for the welfare state. American political science review, 106(2), 386-406.
Roberto, K. J., Johnson, A. F., & Rauhaus, B. M. (2020). Stigmatization and prejudice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(3), 364-378.
Sage, D. (2015). Do active labour market policies promote the well-being, health and social capital of the unemployed? Evidence from the UK. Social Indicators Research, 124, 319-337.
Shin, Y. K., Kemppainen, T., & Kuitto, K. (2021). Precarious work, unemployment benefit generosity and universal basic income preferences: a multilevel study on 21 European countries. Journal of Social Policy, 50(2), 323-345.
Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.
Standing, G. (2017). Basic income: And how we can make it happen. Penguin UK.
Thelen, K. (2014). Varieties of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity. Cambridge university press.
Van Parijs, P. (1995). Real freedom for all: What (if anything) can justify capitalism?. Clarendon Press.
Van Parijs, P., & Vanderborght, Y. (2017). Basic Income: A radical proposal for a free society and a sane economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vlandas, T. (2021). The political economy of individual-level support for the basic income in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 31(1), 62-77.
Vosko, L. F. (2011). Managing the margins: Gender, citizenship, and the international regulation of precarious employment. OUP Oxford.
Weisstanner, D. (2022). COVID-19 and welfare state support: the case of universal basic income. Policy and Society, 41(1), 96-110.
Widerquist, K., & Lewis, M. A. (2009). The Basic Income Guarantee and the goals of equality, efficiency, and environmentalism. In Environment and Employment: A Reconciliation. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Widerquist, K. (2013), Independence, Propertylessness and Basic Income, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Widerquist, K., Noguera, J., Vandeborght, Y., & Wispelaere, J. (2013). Basic income. Chichester: Wiley.
World Economic Forum, V. (2020). The future of jobs report 2020. Retrieved from Geneva.
Wren, A., & Rehm, P. (2013). Service expansion, international exposure, and political preferences. The political economy of the service transition, 248.
Wu, C. H., Wang, Y., Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2020). Effects of chronic job insecurity on Big Five personality change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(11), 1308-1326.
 
中文部分
牛傑薇（2020），以性別，年齡，社經地位探討勞動保護態度和工作價值取向:國際比較分析，國立台灣大學健康政策與管理研究所碩士論文。
吳柏緯（2021），基本收入之研究—以社會安全制度之再建構為中心，國立政治大學法律學研究所。
吳寶華（2018），無條件基本收入—以臺灣為例之初探。國立台灣師範大學高階經理人企業管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。
呂建德（2001），從福利國家到競爭式國家?:全球化與福利國家的危機。台灣社會學，2期，頁263-313。
李健鴻，（2009），社會排除風險與不穩定就業風險之間:台灣長期失業者的尋職困境。政大勞動學報，25期，頁57-114。
李健鴻，（2010），台灣新貧階級的形成與因應對策，新社會政策，10期，頁16-20。
李健鴻（2011），我國派遣勞工之政策及人權保障之檢視，《監察院人權保障工作研討會論文集》，頁173-213，台北：監察院人權保障委員會。
李健鴻（2018），「就業機會的新途徑」或是「勞動保護的新挑戰」？「零工經濟」下勞動者的就業風險分析。臺灣勞工季刊，53期，頁4-19。
辛炳隆，（2005），我國產業結構調整對就業的影響與因應，台灣經濟論衡，3卷3期，頁21-47。
林宗弘，（2017），台灣民眾如何看待全民基本收入制度？，思想，34期，頁127-146。
林東清（2022），資訊管理：智慧化企業的核心競爭能力（八版），台北：智勝。
林信廷，（2014），可實現的烏托邦?基本收入在當代的美麗與哀愁，臺灣社會福利學刊，1卷2期，頁185-196。
林曉嬋（2019），新興科技對未來勞動市場的挑戰與因應，人力規劃及發展研究報告，頁1-40。
邱嬿蓉，（2011），我國自營作業者勞動條件與權益之探討—以台北市便當販售業者為例，國立政治大學勞工研究所碩士論文。
金正傑，（2018），一例一休之態度對工作者工作壓力與勞資關係氣氛影響之研究:以薪酬滿意度為調節變項，淡江大學企業管理學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。
倪世傑，（2017），全民基本收入：希望還是幻影？，思想，34期，頁173-197。
張妤臻、張世雄（2014），基本所得之於當代福利國家的再思索：「所得」與「時間」的雙重隱憂，台灣社會福利學刊，11卷2期，頁47-87。
張晉芬，（2013），勞動社會學。台北：政大出版社。
張珮青，（2013），「墊腳石還是陷阱？台灣非典型工作者薪資與職務流動情形」，國立台灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
陳文學、羅清俊，（2012），影響臺灣民眾重分配政策偏好的因素。人文及社會科學集刊，24卷3期，頁367-397。
陳秉宏，（2018），實施一例一休之企業員工幸福感與工作績效關係之研究，國立暨南大學終身學習與人力資源發展碩士學位學程在職專班碩士論文。
黃月盈（2019），非典型就業對國內薪資影響之研究，國家發展委員會，經濟研究第19期。
黃宇弘、柯志哲，（2019），當代臺灣低度就業與工作身份之關聯性:探討低度就業的新視角。勞資關係論叢，21卷2期，頁27-67。
楊昀，（2021），已開發國家基本收入試驗之比較ㄝ國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
萬海遠、李實、盧雲鶴（2020），全民基本收入理論與政策評介，經濟學動態，1期，頁98-113。
葉崇揚、蔡明璋、呂建德，（2017），台灣民眾對社會福利的態度-體制評價，道德經濟，階級與世代的影響，臺灣民主季刊，14卷2期，頁1-48。
楊文山（2022），2018年第一次社會意向調查（C00337）【原始數據】。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。
廖美，（2017），全民基本收入是一種補償，思想，34期，頁159-172。
蕭文龍（2009），多變量分析最佳入門實用書—SPSS+LISREL（2版），碁峰資訊。
戴匡，（2020），無條件基本收入對社會公義與社會福利制度之影響：兼論台灣當代福利境況，國立台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
謝世民，（2017），全民基本收入與正義，思想，34期，頁147-158。		zh_TW