Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49940
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor盛杏湲zh_TW
dc.contributor.author蔡韻竹zh_TW
dc.creator蔡韻竹zh_TW
dc.date2008en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-12-09T06:07:55Z-
dc.date.available2010-12-09T06:07:55Z-
dc.date.issued2010-12-09T06:07:55Z-
dc.identifierG0912525011en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49940-
dc.description博士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description政治研究所zh_TW
dc.description91252501zh_TW
dc.description97zh_TW
dc.description.abstract政黨是我國政治中最重要的行動者,然而多數有關於政黨政治的研究多由大黨的角度出發,忽略了其他中、小規模的政黨在其中所能發揮的影響作用。本文以小黨為主要研究對象,由小黨的觀點解釋其如何在政治運作過程中發揮政治影響力,或是以哪些手段達成更多的政黨目的。本研究選擇的研究對象是民主化以來存續時間較長、規模較大的三個小黨:新黨、親民黨與台灣團結聯盟,研究時間從立法院第3屆起(1995年)至第6屆結束(2008年)為止,共12年的時間。\n\n 本文結合國內外國會、政黨研究的相關研究成果,建構一套小黨的行動理論,接著從結構性的制度規則、質性的立委深入訪談資料,以及量化的立法紀錄,檢視與解釋三個小黨在立法院的各種行動及背後的政治動機。在台灣,小黨的出現常常是因大黨在政黨立場上先出現變動,小黨有取代大黨原有的政黨立場與選票支持的企圖而興起。隨後在議事規則的政黨化改革過程中,又給予小黨透過參與選舉、晉身進入立法議事參與者的政治機會。小黨的興起及運作機會既與外在的政黨政治及制度條件密切相關,也即預示小黨在立法院的策略行動及政治結果,也受到現實的政黨政治關係、自身的政黨立場及議事制度等現實條件所限制框架。經由對於三小黨的質化訪談與量化立法紀錄資料的分析後發現,小黨的政黨行動兼具持續與彈性的雙重特徵,在不同的政治條件下,小黨的某些政黨行動並不因為政治條件的改變而轉變,如團結與妥協。但小黨又常隨著不同的大黨對立程度,調整其於政治過程中的議價方式,是其靈活彈性的另一面。zh_TW
dc.description.tableofcontents表 次 4\n第一章 緒論 5\n第一節 問題意識 5\n第二節 研究方法 11\n第二章 文獻檢閱 16\n第一節 政黨體系中的小黨意義 16\n第二節 政黨在國會的影響力與政黨間互動 18\n第三節 我國立法院的政黨研究 24\n第四節 小結 27\n第三章 小黨的目的與行動策略 30\n第四章 小黨興起的政治背景與其政治影響力 46\n第一節 第3屆至第6屆立法院內的政黨政治運作 46\n第二節 新黨、親民黨與台灣團結聯盟的成立、政黨立場及決策方式 54\n第三節 新黨、親民黨與台聯的政黨團結度 63\n第四節 第3至第6屆立法院的各黨實力 72\n第五章 議事規則的政黨化過程 77\n第一節 法制化的黨團權力 77\n第二節 政黨角力與黨團門檻的變遷 83\n第六章 小黨在立法院的策略 89\n第一節 小黨的行動策略 90\n第二節 小黨的立法提案 102\n第三節 黨團協商及程序委員會的小黨行動 111\n第四節 小結 116\n第七章 小黨的表決行動 118\n第一節 地位、表決立場與表決結果 119\n第二節 不同屆期下的小黨關鍵性、表決立場與表決結果 128\n第三節 不同議題下的小黨關鍵性、表決立場與表決結果 139\n第四節 大黨對立程度與小黨關鍵性、表決立場與表決結果 158\n第五節 小結 172\n第八章 結論 174\n第一節 研究發現 174\n第二節 台灣小黨的未來空間 179\n參考書目 182\n中文部分 182\n英文部分 187\n附錄一 受訪者背景 193\n附錄二 深入訪談大綱 194\n附錄三 邀訪函 196\n附錄四 記名表決的議題內容分類表 197zh_TW
dc.format.extent150746 bytes-
dc.format.extent233969 bytes-
dc.format.extent253157 bytes-
dc.format.extent311405 bytes-
dc.format.extent365987 bytes-
dc.format.extent278358 bytes-
dc.format.extent444894 bytes-
dc.format.extent420837 bytes-
dc.format.extent223540 bytes-
dc.format.extent398308 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0912525011en_US
dc.subject政黨政治zh_TW
dc.subject立法院zh_TW
dc.subject新黨zh_TW
dc.subject親民黨zh_TW
dc.subject關鍵性zh_TW
dc.subject台灣團結聯盟zh_TW
dc.subjectparty politicsen_US
dc.subjectLegislative Yuanen_US
dc.subjectNPen_US
dc.subjectPFPen_US
dc.subjectTSUen_US
dc.subjectpivotalen_US
dc.title國會小黨的行動策略與運作zh_TW
dc.typethesisen
dc.relation.reference中文部分zh_TW
dc.relation.reference王甫昌,1998,〈台灣族群政治的形成及其表現〉,載於《民主、轉型?台灣現象?》,金耀基主編,台北:桂冠。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference王業立,2001,〈選舉制度對政黨合作的影響—一個制度面的分析〉,載於《政黨重組,台灣民主政治的再出發》,蘇永欽主編。台北:新台灣人文教基金會。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference何嵩婷,2006,〈立法院黨團協商制度對國會立法之影響分析:以第五屆立法院為例〉,東吳大學政治學系碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference吳玉山,2006,〈爭取樞紐:戰略三角模型在國內政治中的運用〉,載於《四分溪論學集》,劉翠溶主編,台北:允晨。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference吳安琪譯,Mancus Olsen著,1984,《集體行動的邏輯》,台北:允晨。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference吳宜蓁,2001,〈國會中政黨的立法聯合—第三屆立法院的探討〉,政治大學政治系碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference吳東欽,2008,〈從議事阻擾觀點探討我國中央分立政府運作之影響〉,《台灣民主季刊》,5(3): 71-120。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李博榮,1997,〈民主進步黨政黨轉型之研究〉,東吳大學政治學系碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference沈富雄,2000,〈第三勢力是重組政黨生態?被政黨生態重組?〉,《聯合報》, 3月30日,15版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林佳龍,2000,〈台灣民主化與政治體系的變遷: 菁英與群眾的選舉連結〉,《台灣政治學刊》。4: 3-55。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林繼文,2008,〈以輸為贏:小黨在日本單一選區兩票制下的參選策略〉,《選舉研究》。15(2): 37-66。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference徐火炎,1998,〈台灣的選舉與社會分歧結構:政黨競爭與民主化〉,載於《兩岸基層選舉與政治社會變遷》,陳明通、鄭永年主編,台北:月旦出版社。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,1999,〈李登輝情結的政治心理與選民投票行為〉,《選舉研究》,5(2): 35-71。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2002,〈台灣政黨版圖的重畫:民進黨、國民黨與親民黨的「民基」比較〉,《東吳政治學報》,14: 83-134。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference高朗,2001,〈從政黨結盟到多數執政〉,載於《政黨重組,台灣民主政治的再出發?》,蘇永欽主編,台北:新台灣人文教基金會。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference張肇鏵,2006,〈立法院內政黨合作賽局之研究—權力指數的觀點〉,台灣大學國家發展研究所碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference張慧英,2000,《李登輝1988-2000執政十二年》,台北:天下遠見。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference盛杏湲 陳義彥,2003,〈政治分歧與政黨競爭:2001年立委選舉的分析〉,《選舉研究》,10(1): 7-40。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference盛杏湲,1999,〈政黨配票與候選人票源的集散度:1983-1995年台灣地區立法委員選舉的分析〉,《選舉研究》,5(2): 73-102。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2001a,〈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:新台灣人文教基金會。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2001b,《立法委員的代表行為II》,台北:行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2002,〈統獨議題與台灣選民的投票行為:一九九0年代的分析〉,《選舉研究》,9(1): 41-80。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2003,〈政治競爭與政黨分歧:二00一年立法委員選舉的分析〉,《選舉研究》,10(1): 7-40。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2007,《政黨的國會領導:台灣政黨輪替前後的比較》,計畫編號:NSC 94-2414-H-004-028,台北:行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2008a,《選區、政黨與立法委員的三角關係:選制變遷前後的比較》,計畫編號:NSC 95-2414-004-046-MY3,台北:行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫期中報告。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2008b,〈如何評估選制變遷對國會議員角色行為的影響:研究方法的探討〉,如何評估選制變遷:方法論的探討學術研討會,7月5日,台北:政治大學。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2008c,〈政黨的國會領導與凝聚力:政黨輪替前後的觀察〉,《台灣民主季刊》,5(4): 1-46。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2009,〈台灣選民政黨偏好的持續與變遷:定群追蹤資料的應用〉,台灣選舉與民主化調查計畫學術研討會(TEDS2008L),1月17-18日,台北:台灣大學。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference許雅文,2002,〈議題型政黨的生存與發展:以德國綠黨和台灣新黨為例〉,中山大學政治學系碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference郭正亮,1998a,〈李登輝現象:民主轉型與政治領導〉,載於《民主、轉型?台灣現象?》,金耀基主編,台北:桂冠。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,1998b,《民進黨轉型之痛》,台北:天下文化。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳水扁,2001,《世紀首航:政黨輪替五百天的沈思》,台北:圓神出版社。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳宏銘,2004,〈半總統制下「少數政府」的形成與存續:台灣2000年至2004年之研究〉,東吳大學政治學系博士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳蓉怡 蔡韻竹,2008,〈選民與立委間的電子郵件接觸〉,台灣政治學會年會暨研討會,11月22-23日,南投:暨南大學。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳鴻鈞,2004,〈從記名投票中看台灣國會中政黨之互動:第三屆第一會期至第五屆第二會期〉,東吳大學政治學系碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference傅立葉,2000,〈老人年金、政黨競爭與選舉〉,載於林國明、蕭新煌主編《台灣社會福利運動》,台北:巨流。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference游清鑫,2002,〈政黨認同與政黨形象:面訪與焦點團體訪談的結合〉,《選舉研究》,9(2): 85-115。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃秀端,2000,〈立法院內不同類型委員會的運作方式〉,《東吳政治學報》,11: 35-70。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2004,〈政黨輪替前後的立法院內投票結盟〉,《選舉研究》,11(1): 1-32。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2005,《分立政府、程序委員會、議程設定與議程阻决》,計畫編號:NSC 93-2414-H-031,台北:行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2006,〈兩大黨對決局面儼然成形〉,《台灣民主季刊》,3(4): 181-190。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃秀端,何嵩婷,2007,〈黨團協商與國會立法:第五屆立法院的分析〉,《政治科學論叢》, 34: 1-44。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃秀端、陳鴻鈞,2006,〈國會中政黨席次大小對互動之影響—第三屆到第五屆的立法院記名表決探析〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》, 18 (3): 385-415。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃昭展,2005,〈選舉制度改革與台灣團結聯盟的發展〉,中山大學社會科學院高階公共政策在職班碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃德福,2000,〈少數政府與責任政治:台灣半總統制之下的政黨競爭〉,《問題與研究》,39(12): 1-24。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2001,〈競爭或合作—年底選舉中『在野聯盟』可能關係之分析〉,載於《政黨重組,台灣民主政治的再出發?》,蘇永欽主編,台北:新台灣人文教基金會。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃麗香,1999,〈國會政黨的組織又因與立法團結:以第二屆立法院為例的探討〉,東吳大學政治系碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference新黨,1995,《新黨政策白皮書》。台北:新黨。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference楊婉瑩,2002,〈立法院委員會的決策角色:以第三屆立法院為例〉,《問題與研究》41(4): 83-113。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference楊婉瑩、陳采葳,2005,〈國會改革風潮下黨團協商制度之轉變與評估〉,《東吳政治學報》,19: 111-150。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference雷飛龍譯,Sartori著,2000,《政黨與政黨制度》,台北:韋伯出版社。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference劉玉玲,2002,〈台灣地區政黨政治之發展—黨際及黨內民主之探索〉,成功大學政治經濟研究所碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference劉致賢、何景榮譯,Wolfgang C. Muller and Karre Strom著, 2004,《聯合內閣與少數政府 政策、官職或選票》,台北:韋伯。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference劉義周,2001,〈解嚴後台灣政黨體系的發展〉,載於《威權體制的變遷解嚴後的台灣》,中央研究院台灣研究推動委員會編,台北:中央研究院台灣史研究所籌備處。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------,2004,〈政黨民主與台灣民主化〉,《台灣民主季刊》, 1(1): 41-63。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference歐陽晟,2008,〈政府型態對於議案審議的影響:台灣一致政府與分立政府的比較〉,政治大學政治學系博士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference蔡韻竹,2005,〈代表理論在台灣的實踐—第三屆至第五屆立法院〉,台灣政治學會年會暨學術研討會,12月10-11日,台北:政治大學。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference鄧宇敦,2002,〈台灣政黨選舉結盟之探究─以國、親、新三黨為例〉,成功大學政治經濟研究所碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference蕭怡靖,2002,〈我國立法委員選擇常設委員會之研究-以第四屆立法委員為例〉,政治大學政治學系碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference謝復生、牛銘實、林慧萍,1995,〈民國八十三年省市長選舉中之議題投票:理性抉擇理論之分析〉,《選舉研究》,2(1): 77-92。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference羅月英,2005,〈政黨聯盟的經驗—兼論國民黨、親民黨之政黨整合〉,中國文化大學政治學研究所碩士學位論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference英文部分zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAdams, James, Clark Michael, Ezrow Lawrence, and Glasgow Garrett. 2006. “Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Cases and Electoral Consequence of Western European Parties Policy Shifts, 1976-1998.” American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 513-529.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. 1998. “Measuring Conditional Partying Government.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------. 2001. “The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the Electoral Connection.” In Congress Reconsidered 7th, eds. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington, DC: A Division of Congressional Quarterly.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceArnold, Douglas R.. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAxelrod, Robert. 1970. Conflict of Interest: A Theory of Divergent Goals with Applications to Politics. Chicago: Markham.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBäck, Hanna. 2003. “Explaining Coalitions: Evidence and Lessons from Studying Coalition Formation in Swedish Local Government.” Ph.D. diss. Uppsala University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------. 2008. “Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Formation: Evidence from Swedish Local Government.” Party Politics 14(1): 71-89.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBartolini, Stefano, and Peter Mair. 1990. Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: The Stabilisation of European Electorates 1885-1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBartolini, Stefano. 1998. “Coalition Potential and Governmental Power.” In Comparing Party System Change, eds. Paul Pennings and Jan-Erik Lane. London: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBlondel, Jean, and Maurizio Cotta. 1996. Party and Government: An Inquiry into the Relationship Between Governments and Supporting Parties in Liberal Democracies. New York: St. Martin`s Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBowler, Shaun. 2002. “Parties in Legislatures: Two Competing Explanations.” In Parties without Partisans, eds. Russell J. Dalton and Martin P. Wattenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarey, John, and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: a Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14(2): 417-439.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChaisty, Paul. 2005. “Party Cohesion and Policy-Making in Russia.” Party Politics 11(3): 299-318.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCheng, Tun-Jen, and Yung-Ming Hsu. 1996. “Issue Structure, the DPP’s Factionalism and Party Realignment.” In Taiwan’s Electoral Politics and Democratic Transition: Riding the Third Wave, ed. Hung-Mao Tien. New York: M.E. Shape.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCheng, Tun-Jen. 2006. “Strategizing Party Adaptation: The Case of the Kuomintang.” Party Politics 12(3): 367-394.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCopper, John Franklin. 1997. The KMT’s 15th Party Congress: The Ruling Party at a Crossroad. Baltimore, MD: School of Law, University of Maryland.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCox, Gary W. 1990. “Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentive in Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 34(4): 903-935.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkley: University of California Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDowns, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDuverger, Maurice. 1963. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEpstein, Leon D. 1980. Political Parties in Western Democracies. New Brunswick: NJ Transaction Books.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceErsson, Svante, and Jan-Erik Lane. 1998. “Electoral Instability and Party System Change in Western Europe.” In Comparing Party System Change, eds. Paul Pennings and Jan-Erik Lane. London and New York: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEvans, Diana. 2004. Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalition in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFell, Dafydd. 2005. Party Politics in Taiwan: Party Change and the Democratic Evolution of Taiwan, 1991-2004. London and New York: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------. 2006. “The Rise and Decline of the New Party: Ideology, Resources, and the Political Opportunity Structure.” East Asia 23(1): 47-67.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFenno, Richard F., Jr. 1973. Congress in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFisher, Stephen L. 1974. The Minor Parties of the Federal Republic of Germany: Toward a Comparative Theory of Minor Parties. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGerring, John. 2005. “Minor Parties in Plurality Electoral Systems.” Party Politics 11(1): 79-107.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHaspel, Moshe, Thomas F. Remington, and Steven S. Smith. 1998. “Election Institutions and Party Cohesion in the Russia Duma.” Journal of Politics 60(2): 417-439.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHeller, William B. and Carol Mershon. 2005. “Party Switching in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1996-2001.” Journal of Politics 67(2): 536-559.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------. 2008. “Dealing in Discipline: Party Switching and Legislative Voting in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1988-2000.” American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 910-925.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHertig, Hans-Peter. 1978. “Party Cohesion in the Swiss Parliament.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 3(1): 63-81.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHeywood, Andrew. 2002. Politics. New York: Palgrave.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHirano, Shigeo. 2008. “Third Parties, Elections, and Roll-Call Votes: The Populist Party and the Late Nineteenth-Century U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 33(1): 131-160.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHrebenar, Ronald J. 2000. Japan`s New Party System. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHsu, Yung-Ming. 2006. “Splitting and Making Parties: Analysis of Party Reconfiguration in Taiwan.” East Asia 23(1): 7-26.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJacobson, Gary C. 1987. The Politics of Congress Elections. Boston: Little, Brown.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJones, David R. 2001. “Party Polarization and Legislative Gridlock.” Political Research Quarterly 54(1): 125-141.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKovick, David. 2003. “Taiwan.” In Political Parties in Asia Promoting Reform and Combating Corruption in Eight Countries, eds. Peter M. Manikas and Laura L. Thornton. Washington, DC: The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKrehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivots Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------. 2005. “Pivots.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy, eds. Barry R. Weingast, Donald A. Wittman. New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLaver, Michael, and W. Ben Hunt. 1992. Policy and Party Competition. New York: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLayman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey, and Juliana Menasce Horowitz. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Reviews of Political Science 9: 83-110.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLebo, Matthew J., Adam J. McGlynn, and Gregory Koger. 2007. “Strategic Party Government: Party Influence in Congress, 1789-2000.” American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 464-481.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLin, Chiung-Chu. 2006. “The Evolution of Party Images and Party System in Taiwan, 1992-2004.” East Asia 23(1): 27-46.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLommis, Burdett A., and Wendy J. Schiller. 2006. The Contemporary Congress, 5th Edition. CA: Thomson Wadsworth.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMaor, Moshe. 1995. “Intra-Party Determinants of Coalition Bargaining.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 7(1): 65-91.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------. 1997. Political Parties & Party Systems: Comparative Approaches & The British Experience. London: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------. 1987. “The Electoral Connection and the Congress.” In Congress: Structure and Policy, eds. Mathew Daniel McCubbins and Terry O. Sullivan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMüller-Rommel, Ferdinand. 1989. New Politics in Western Europe: The Rise and Success of Green Parties and Alternative Lists. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePeabody, Robert L., and Nelson W. Polsby. 1963. New Perspectives on the House of Representatives. Chicago: Rand McNally.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePennings, Paul. 1998. “The Triad of Party System Change Votes, Office, and Policy.” In Comparing Party System Change, eds. Paul Pennings and Jan-Erik Lane. London and New York: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRigger, Shelly. 1999. Politics in Taiwan: Voting for Democracy. London and New York: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------. 2001. From Opposition to Power—Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRiker, William H. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRoberts, Jason M., and Steven S. Smith. 2003. “Procedural Contexts, Party Strategy, and Conditional Party Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1971-2000.” American Journal of Political Science 47(2): 305-317.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRosenstone, Steven J., Roy L. Behr, and Edward H. Lazarus. 1996. Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure. Princeton: Princeton University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRossiter, Clinton Lawrence. 1964. Parties and Politics in America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceScarrow, Howard A. 1986. “Duverger’s Law, Fusion, and the Decline of American Third Parties.” Political Quarterly 39(4): 634-647.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSheng, Shing-Yuan. 2007. “Issues, Political Cleavage, and Party Competition in Taiwan: From the Angles of the Elites and the Public.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceShih, Chih-Yu. 2007. Democracy (Made in Taiwan) the “Success” State As a Political Theory. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceShugart, Matthew Soberg. 2001. “Electoral Efficiency and the Move to Mixed-Member Systems.” Electoral Studies 20(2): 173-193.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSinclair, Barbara. 1999. “Transformational Leader or Faithful Agent? Principal-Agent Theory and House Majority Party Leadership.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24(3): 421-449.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------. 2000. “Dilemmas and Opportunities of Legislative Leadership in a Non-Parliamentary System: The U.S. Case.” In The Uneasy Relationships between Parliamentary Members and Leaders, eds. Lawrence D. Longley and Reuven Y. Hazan. London: Frank Cass.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, Steven S. 2000. “Positive Theories of Congressional Parties.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(2): 193-215.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-------. 2007. Party Influence in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, Steven S. and Gerald Gamm. 2001. “The Dynamics of Party Government in Congress.” In Congress Reconsidered 7th, eds. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSnyder, James M., Jr., and Tim Groseclose. 2000. “Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 193-211.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStrom, Kaare, Ian Budge, and Michael J. Laver. 1994. “Constrain on Cabinet Formation in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 38(2): 303-335.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStrom, Kaare. 1990. “A Behavioral Theory of Comparative Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 565-598.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTaagepera, Rein, and Matthew S. Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTsebelis, George. 1995. “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism, and Multipartyism.” British Journal of Political Science 25(3): 289-326.zh_TW
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
item.openairetypethesis-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
52501101.pdf147.21 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
52501102.pdf228.49 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
52501103.pdf247.22 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
52501104.pdf304.11 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
52501105.pdf357.41 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
52501106.pdf271.83 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
52501107.pdf434.47 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
52501108.pdf410.97 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
52501109.pdf218.3 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
52501110.pdf388.97 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.