1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 社會科學學院
  3. 政治學系
  4. 學位論文
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/51616
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor何思因zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorHo, Szu yinen_US
dc.contributor.author蘇俐貞zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorSu, Li chenen_US
dc.creator蘇俐貞zh_TW
dc.creatorSu, Li chenen_US
dc.date2009en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-11T09:02:12Z-
dc.date.available2011-10-11T09:02:12Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-11T09:02:12Z-
dc.identifierG0097252008en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/51616-
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.description97252008zh_TW
dc.description98zh_TW
dc.description.abstract本文的研究問題為「同樣在國家介入引導的經濟發展過程下，是什麼原因使台灣與韓國在1998-2008之間金融改革的政策制定過程出現差異？」。藉由Oliver Williamson的四層次研究法，本文將台灣與韓國的金融改革分為社會鑲嵌、制度環境、治理機制、資源分配四層次，並藉此了解制度環境設計對行為者的能力給與或限制，也通過檢視政策制定過程中行為者的互動來了解金融改革的推動與資源分配。本文分開檢視四個層次的內容，再綜觀探討層次間的相互影響。政策的制定雖然是行為者之間的角力，但是同時也必須看環境賦予行為者的能力與限制，這是在分析任何政策的制定與執行時都必須注意到的。在台灣與韓國，因為制度的設計，使得總統可以主導政策的立法與執行。但是因為非正式制度的環境因素影響，使陳水扁與金大中兩位總統在政策的推動上有很大的差異。同時，因為台灣與韓國的政黨體系、財團結構不一樣，加上金融改革推行時的環境也不同，因此最後兩國改革的成果呈現很大的差異。此外，針對金融改革是否解決了原本的問題，本文也藉由國家主權債信評等以及金融機構的逾放比等指標來做出評比。藉由分析比較文獻，本文討論出主要是由於兩國的制度環境給與兩國的行為者不同的能力與限制，致使行為者在政策制定的治理機制層次擁有不同的考量，進而影響了政策執行的結果。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThis thesis ponders over the following question: under the same process of state led economic development, what caused the difference in the policy-making process for financial reforms between Taiwan and Korea in the decade 1998 – 2008? Applying Oliver Williamson’s “four-levels of social analysis,” this thesis divides the financial reforms in Taiwan and Korea into embeddedness, institutional environment, governance and resource allocation and employment. Through level analysis, we will come to understand how design of the institution setting gives or restricts the capability of political actors. Even though policy making is a competition of force among actors, contextual restrictions and endowments on actor capability should be taken into account at the same time, as it is a notable factor in policy formation and execution. Due to institution design, the president dominates policy making and execution in both Taiwan and Korea. However, due to influence from informal institutional setting, Chen Shui-Bien and Kim Dae-Jung demonstrated great differences on the movement of policy. Moreover, because of differences in party system, conglomerates and the setting for financial reform, the outcome of reform shows a wide difference in the two countries. Regarding the issue of whether financial reform resolved the basic problem, this thesis grounds its evaluation based on indices such as sovereign rating and percentage of non-performing loans of financial units. Through comparison and analysis of existent literature, this author concludes that that the difference in institution setting provides actors in the two countries with different capabilities and restrictions, which generates different considerations in actors on the governing level and influence the outcome of policy execution.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents第一章 緒論………………………………………………………………… 1\n第一節 研究動機與範圍……………………………………………………1\n第二節 文獻檢閱……………………………………………………………4\n第三節 研究途徑、方法與架構…………………………………………… 16\n第四節 章節安排…………………………………………………………… 25\n第二章 台灣金融改革的政治分析…………………………………………26\n第一節 台灣傳統金融體系結構…………………………………………… 26\n第二節 民進黨時期的金融改革…………………………………………… 34\n第三節 台灣「再管制」金融改革的政治分析…………………………… 55\n第四節 結論………………………………………………………………… 65\n第三章 韓國金融改革的政治分析…………………………………………67\n第一節 韓國傳統金融體系結構…………………………………………… 67\n第二節 金大中的金融改革………………………………………………… 77\n第三節 韓國金融改革的政治分析………………………………………… 85\n第四節 結論………………………………………………………………… 99\n第四章 結論……………………………………………………………… 100\n第一節 台灣與韓國金融改革比較…………………………………………100\n第二節 總結與建議…………………………………………………………108\n參考文獻…………………………………………………………………… 110zh_TW
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097252008en_US
dc.subject台灣zh_TW
dc.subject韓國zh_TW
dc.subject金融改革zh_TW
dc.subject制度環境zh_TW
dc.subject治理機制zh_TW
dc.subjectTaiwanen_US
dc.subjectKoreaen_US
dc.subjectfinancial reformen_US
dc.subjectinstitutional environmenten_US
dc.subjectgovernanceen_US
dc.title台韓金融改革的政治分析比較：1998-2008zh_TW
dc.titleA Political Comparative Analysis on Financial Reform in Taiwan and Korea: 1998 - 2008en_US
dc.typethesisen
dc.relation.reference中文部分zh_TW
dc.relation.reference學位論文：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李宗榮，1994，〈國家與金融資本：威權侍從主義下國民黨政權銀行政策的形成與轉型〉，東海大學社會學研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林文斌，2007，〈日本、韓國、台灣金融體制改革的比較政治經濟分析〉，國立台灣大學政治研究所博士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林佑儒，2003，〈日、韓、台三國金融重整之比較〉，國立台北大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林姍姍，2003，〈亞洲金融危機之政治經濟分析─以南韓和台灣為例〉，國立中正大學政治學研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference楊媛玉，1995，〈三商銀民營化與新銀行開放設立政策演變之探討〉，國立政治大學政治研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference張軒榮，2008，〈金融管制政策之執行評估：以二次金改金融整併政策為例〉，國立台北大學公共行政暨政策研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference薛健吾，2007，〈台灣金融改革的政治經濟分析〉，國立政治大學政治研究所碩zh_TW
dc.relation.reference士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference康益智，2008，〈1997年韓國金融危機的研究〉，國立政治大學經營管理碩士學程全球經營與貿易組碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference學術期刊：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference朱雲漢，2004，〈台灣民主發展的困境與挑戰〉，《台灣民主季刊》，1(1)：143-162。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference呂秋遠，2000，〈政黨理念與政治現實的碰撞：國民黨與民進黨財經政策之比zh_TW
dc.relation.reference較〉，《問題與研究》，39(11)：27-28。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference杜慶承，2005，〈中央政權輪替對地方派系的影響：彰化縣個案研究〉，《選舉研究》，12(1)：117-145。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林文斌，2003，〈金融自由化與國家金融能力：台灣個案研究，1949-2000〉，《思與言》，41(3)： 83-154。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference---------，2008，〈台灣『發展型國家』的調適或轉型？政府、金融與企業間關係zh_TW
dc.relation.reference的考察〉，《政治科學論叢》，37：95-150。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林繼文，2006，〈政府體制、選舉制度與政黨體系：一個配套論的分析〉，《選zh_TW
dc.relation.reference舉研究》，13(2)：1-35。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference吳家興，2006〈近十年臺、韓經濟表現之比較〉，《台灣經濟金融月刊》，42(11)：1-28。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference徐永明、陳鴻章，2004，〈地方派系與國民黨：衰退還是深化？〉，《台灣社會學》，8：193-228。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳宏銘，2009，〈台灣半總統制下的黨政關係：以民進黨執政時期為焦點〉，《政治科學論叢》，41: 1-56。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳尚懋，2005，〈台灣金融改革的政治分析：ACTA模型的檢驗〉，《東吳政治zh_TW
dc.relation.reference學報》，25(1)：115-160。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference馬君潞，1996，〈西方國家金融管制理論與實踐的變革〉，《城市金融論壇》（現更 名《金融論壇》，1。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃宗昊，2004，〈台灣政商關係的演變：歷史制度論分析〉，《問題與研究》，zh_TW
dc.relation.reference43(4)：35-67。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference---------，2009，〈政治經濟學分析架構的三項發展〉，《全球政治評論》，25：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference151-196。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃(口麗)莉，2007，〈M型政黨vs. 鐘型意識──台灣國族認同之意識型態及其心zh_TW
dc.relation.reference理基礎〉，《中華心理學刊》，49(4)：451-470。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference鄭明德，2005，〈民進黨立法院黨團組織問題之研究〉，《政治科學論叢》，25：135-166。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference廖坤榮，2004，〈台灣與南韓監理制度的改革〉，《問題與研究》，43(5)：59-87。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference蔡增家，2005，〈九七金融風暴與南韓政經體制的轉變：超越發展國家論〉，《問zh_TW
dc.relation.reference題與研究》，44(4)：75-100。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference新聞與雜誌zh_TW
dc.relation.reference王時齊，2002/10/10，「扁：金融改革 如刮骨去毒」，聯合晚報，1版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李恆宇、邱金蘭，經濟日報，2005/5/25，〈RTC案周五審查變數大〉，A2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李莉珩，聯合報，2001/7/23，〈清理問題金融機構 金融重建基金今啟動〉，11版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李惟平、羅曉荷，經濟日報，2002/11/17，〈農業金融主管機關 將改為農委會〉，1版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李淑慧，經濟日報，2001/11/2，〈惠譽：金控公司系統風險未規範 不利債信〉，3版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李淑慧，聯合報，2002/11/19，〈金改煞車 國家主權評等將受影響〉，2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference邱金蘭，經濟日報，2002/3/4，〈金融改革 不能全靠重建基金〉，2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference宋宗信、傅沁怡、邱金蘭，經濟日報，2001/12/7，〈金監會 集萬千關懷 遲不露面〉，6版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林美玲、彭威晶，聯合報，2002/11/20，〈扁：調整步伐 非改革退縮〉，1版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林淑媛，經濟日報，2004/10/21，〈神秘時程表，何來？〉，A3版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林瑞陽，經濟日報，2001/5/24，〈顏慶章：金融三法 盼本會期立法〉，3版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference夏淑賢、邱金蘭，經濟日報，2007/6/13，〈開發金決戰 看見府的影子…〉，A2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference胡若梅，聯合報，2002/10/30，〈1029農漁會行動 立委聲援〉，17版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference郭文平，「南韓 刷卡呆帳埋地雷」，聯合報，2003/6/1，C2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference張志榮，經濟日報，2003/7/7，〈劉憶如：看緊荷包 3,200億先用再說〉，3版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference張運祥、宮能慧，經濟日報，2003/8/7，〈非存款債權賠不賠 歧見大〉，8版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference孫中英、羅兩莎、鄒秀明，聯合報，2004/6/22，〈「他是誰」 金融圈滿地找眼鏡〉，A3版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference徐碧華，經濟日報，2002/7/4，〈財部變小了〉，2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳家齊，「南韓七大銀行 恐遭降評」，經濟日報，2008/10/17，B2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳素玲，經濟日報，2001/6/27，〈立院臨會上午通過三法〉，4版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳素玲，2007/5/23，「扁：二次金改 目標正確 繼續拚」，聯合晚報，4版zh_TW
dc.relation.reference馬道容，聯合報，2002/11/20，〈游錫堃願為政策負全責〉，2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference葉憶如，2007/7/17，「二次金改 啃噬公權力」，聯合晚報，4版zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃國棟，經濟日報，2004/12/5，〈林明成 人脈豐厚 悠遊藍天綠地〉，A4版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃國樑，2005/10/17，「二次金改 謝長廷說不強調時程」，聯合晚報，2版zh_TW
dc.relation.reference鄭秋霜，聯合報，2002/9/25，〈總統：農漁會問題拖一年 得多負擔100 億〉，2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference蔡沛恆，經濟日報，2001/6/28，〈金控法立法 金融業掀併購整合風〉，1版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference賴昭穎，聯合報，2005/9/15，〈聘金太低 才結不成婚〉，A10版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference謝偉姝、林淑媛，經濟日報，2004/10/21，〈總統宣示 14家金控 後年減為七家〉，A1版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference華英惠，經濟日報，2001/2/26，「野村研究所：台股大空頭 景氣第四季才會復甦」，2版zh_TW
dc.relation.reference經濟日報，2002/6/29，〈經濟學人：台灣金改只做一半〉，7版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference經濟日報，2003/2/7，〈國泰金富邦金目標價 外資調降〉，6版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference經濟日報，2005/8/11，〈台企銀工會賣股票 籌抗爭經費〉，A4版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference經濟日報，2005/12/30，〈農產資產管理公司 明年成立〉，B2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference經濟日報，2007/7/17，〈莫非…又是一套政治戰略〉，A4版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference聯合報，2002/9/15，（農漁會信用部分級 財部拒絕延後），17版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference聯合報，2003/4/12，〈扁：黨政同步和以黨領政不同〉，A4版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference聯合報，2005/5/31，〈RTC案今三讀 漲至1100億〉，A4版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference聯合報，2005/9/11，〈二次金改不要「呷緊弄破碗」〉，A2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference聯合報，2005/11/3，〈陳水扁出賣了謝長廷與姚文智〉，A2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference聯合報，2007/6/28，〈公股輸掉的何只是開發金〉，A2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference聯合報，2007/12/17，〈立委新選制 激化買票地下戰爭〉，A4版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference聯合晚報，2002/9/20，（陳主席將宣示整頓基層金融），1版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference聯合晚報，2002/10/29，〈反消滅 ！各縣市農漁會同步大遊行〉，2版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference商業周刊，2006/7/3，〈兵不血刃　得大位〉，971期：48。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference商業周刊，2006/10/30，〈東元五十歲　黃茂雄只請父母官〉，988期：70。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference研討會論文：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林寶安，2002，〈臺灣1990 年代的金融擠兌、合併與金融秩序〉，臺灣社會學會年會論文，2002年12月14-15日，台中：東海大學。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃宗昊，2005，〈左右共治vs.藍綠共治─法國與台灣共治與否的賽局分析〉，zh_TW
dc.relation.reference2005年中國政治學會年會暨學術研討會，2005年10月1日，台北：中央研究院。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference孫克難，1999，〈1980年代以來的財政收支與財政改革〉，1980年代台灣經濟發展經驗研討會，1999年3月26-27日，台北：中華經濟研究院。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference專書：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference于宗先，2005，《浴火中的台灣經濟》，台北：五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference王振寰，1996，《誰統治台灣？：轉型中的國家機器與權力結構》，台北：巨流。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference朱雲漢，1992，〈寡佔經濟與威權體制〉，《解剖台灣經濟：威權體制下的壟斷與剝削》，台北：前衛，頁139-160。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李桐豪，2006，「整併過程中之政府角色：市場機制vs.政治機制」，《面對公與義：台灣金融的健全化、效率化、全球化》，台北：時報文教基金會，頁193-208。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林秋山，2009，《韓國憲政與總統選舉》，台北：台灣商務印書館。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林濁水，2009，《歷史劇場—痛苦執政八年》，台北：印刻。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference森山茂德著，吳明上譯，2005，《韓國現代政治》，台北：五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference周添城，1992，〈權力邊陲的中小企業〉，《解剖台灣經濟：威權體制下的魯段與剝削》，台北：前衛。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference段承璞編，1992，《台灣戰後經濟》，台北：人間。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference若林正丈著，洪金珠、許佩賢譯，1994，《台灣─分裂國家與民主化》，台北：月旦。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference郭承天、陳尚懋、黃宗昊，2000〈有錢大家賺？民主化對台灣金融體系的影響〉，《民主轉型與經濟衝突》，朱雲漢、包宗和主編，台北：桂冠，頁75-111。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference張晉芬，2001，《台灣公營事業民營化：經濟迷思的批判》，台北：中央研究院社會學研究所。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳明通，1995，《派系政治與台灣政治變遷》，台北：月旦。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference隅谷三喜男、劉進慶、涂照彥合著，雷慧英、吳偉健、耿景華譯，2005，《台灣之經濟─典型NIES之成就與問題》，台北：人間。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference賴英照，1997，《台灣金融版圖的回顧與前瞻》，台北：聯經。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference瞿宛文，2003，《全球化下的台灣經濟》，台北：唐山。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference蘇子琴等著，1992，《權與錢─透視台灣政商關係》，台北：新新聞文化。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference蔡增家，2005，《南韓轉型：政黨輪替與政經體制的轉變（1993-2003）》，台zh_TW
dc.relation.reference北：巨流。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference網路資源：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳建良，2003，〈亞洲金融風暴後韓國結構性改革經驗對我國之啟示〉，http://beaver.dlc.ncnu.edu.tw/projects/emag/article/200305/download/韓國金融暨企業結構調整_3.doczh_TW
dc.relation.reference英文部分zh_TW
dc.relation.reference專書：zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAlmond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sydeny. 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAmsden, Alice H. 1989. Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and late industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChan, Steve. 1993. East Asian dynamism: Growth, order, and security in the Pacificzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceregion. 2nd. Ed. Boulder, CO: Westview.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChu, Yun-han. 1994. \"The Realignment of Business-Government Relations and Regime Transition in Taiwan.\" In Andrew MacIntyre eds. Business and Government in Industrialising Asia. pp. 113-141. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference----------------. 1998. \"Taiwan’s Unique Challenge,\" In Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner ed. Democracy in East Asia. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference-----------------. 1999. “Surviving the East Asian Financial Storm: The Political Foundation of Taiwan’s Economic Resilience,” in T. J. Pempel eds., Politics of the East Asian Crisis. pp. 184-202. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCukierman, Alex and Tommasi, Mariano. 1998. “Credibility of Policymakers and of Economic Reforms,” in Federico Sturzenegger and Mariano Tommasi eds., The political economy of reform. pp. 329-47. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy, Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDuverger, Maurice. 1972. Party Politics and Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHaggard, S., W. Lim, and E. Kim, eds. 2003. Economic Crisis and Corporate Reconstructing in Korea: Reforming the Chaebol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKang, David. 2002. Crony capitalism: corruption and development in South Korea and the Philippines. London: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKim, Chae-Han. 1999. “Election and Macroeconomic Policy: An Examination of Political Business Cycle Theory,” in Jongryn Mo and Chung-In Moon eds. Democracy and the Korean Economy. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKureger, Anne O. 1993. Political Economy of Policy Reform in Developing Countries. Cambridge: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMathieson, Donald J., and Liliana Rojas-Suarez. 1994. \"Capital Controls and Capital Account Lib-eralization in Industrial Countries.\" in Capital Mobility: The Impact on Consumption, Investment and Growth, eds. Leonardo Leiderman and Assaf Razin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNorth, Douglass C. 1990. Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePye, Lucian W. 1985. Asian Power and Politics. The Power Dimensions of Authority. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRueschemeyer, Dietrich and Evans, Peter B. 1985. “The State and Economic Transformation: Towards an Analysis of Conditions Underlying Effective Intervention,” in Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol, eds. Bring the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceShim, Young. 2000. Korean Bank Regulation and Supervision: Crisis and Reform. Kluwer Law International.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSlaughter,M atthew J., and Kenneth F Scheve. 2000. Worker Perception and Pressures in the Global Economy. Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSobel, Andrew C. 1994. Domestic Choices, International Markets: Dismantling National Barriers and Liberalizing Securities Markets. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTien, Hung-mao. 1989. Transition, Political and Social Change in the Republic of China. Stanford: Hoover Institute Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWoo-Cumings, Meredith. 1997. “Slouching Toward the Market: The Politics of Financial Liberalization in South Korea.” In M. Loriaux, M. Woo-Cumings, K. Kalder, S. Maxfield, and S. Perez, eds. Capital Ungoverned: Liberalizing Finance in Interventionist States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference------------------------------. 1999. “The State, Democracy, and the Reform of the Corporate Sector in Korea.” In T. J. Pempel eds. The Politics of Asian Economic Crisis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWorld Bank. 1993. The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference學術期刊：zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAbdul, Abiad and Mody, Ashoka. 2005. “Financial Reform: What Shakes It? What Shapes It?” The American Economic Reviews 95(1): 66-88.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAlesina, Alberto and Roubini, Nouriel. 1998. \"Political Cycles in OECD Economies,\" Review of Economic Studies 59(4), pp. 663-88.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChang, Ha-Joong. 1998. “Korea: the Misunderstood Crisis,” World Development 26(8): 1555-61.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCheng, Tun-jen. 1989. “Democratizing the Quasi-Leninist Regime in Taiwan,” World Politics 41(4): 471-499.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChu, Yun-han. 1996. “Taiwan’s Unique Challenge,” Journal of Democracy 7(3): 69-72.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCorsetti, Giancarlo. 1999. “Interpreting the Asian Financial Crisis: Open Issues in Theory and Policy,” Asian Development Review 16(2): 1-46.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDiamond, Douglas W. and Dybvig, Philip H. 1983, “Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance, and Liquidity,” The Journal of Political Economy 91(3): 401-419.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFernandez, Raquel and Rodrik, Dani. 1991. “Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty,” The American Economic Review 81(5): 1146-1155.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFrieden, Jeffrey. 1991. \"Invested Interests: The Politics of National Economic Policies in a World of Global Finance,\" International Organization 45(4): 425-51.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGoodman, John B., and Louis W Pauly. 1993. \"The Obsolescence of Capital Controls? Economic Management in an Age of Global Markets.\" World Politics 46(1): 50-82.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHa, Yong-chool. 2001. “South Korea in 2000: A Summit and the Search for New Institutional Identity,” Asian Survey 41(1): pp. 30-39.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHeo, Uk, and Alexander C. Tan. 2003. “Political Choices and Economic Outcomes: A Perspective on the Differential Impact of the Financial Crisis on South Korea and Taiwan,” Comparative Political Studies 36: 679-700.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHo, Sze-yin and Lee, Jih-chu. 2001. “The Political Economy of Local Bankong in Taiwan,” Issue & Studies 37(4): 69-89.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJesse, Neal G., Heo, Uk, and DeRouen, Karl Jr. 2005. “A Nested Game Approach to Political and Economic Liberalization in Democratizing States: Case of South Korea,” International Studies Quarterly 46(3): 401-422.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKang, David. 1995. ” Review: South Korean and Taiwanese Development and the New Institutional Economic,” International Organization 49(3): 555-587.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKim, Hong-Nack. 2000. “The 2000 Parliamentary Election in South Korea,” Asian Survey 40(6): 894-913.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKim, Jung. 2005. “The Political Logic of Economic Crisis in South Korea,” Asian Survey 45(3): 453-474.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKong, Tat Yan. 2004. “Corruption and the Effect of Regime Type: The Case of Taiwan.” New Political Economy 9(3): 341-364.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKwon, Keedom. 2004. “Regionalism in South Korea: Its Origins and Role in Her Democratization,” Politics Society, vol. 32, pp. 545-574.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKrasner, Stephen D. 1984. “Approach to State,” Comparative Politics 16: 223-246. Asian Survey 40(6): 894-913.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKuo, Cheng-tian. 2000. \"Taiwan`s Distorted Democracy in Comparative Perspective,\" Journal of Asian and African Studies 35(1): 85-111.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLee, Hong Yung. 1992. “South Korea in 1991: Unprecedented Opportunity, Increasing Challenge,” Asian Survey, 32(1): 66-67.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference--------------------. 2004. “South Korea in 2003: A Question of Leadership?” Asian Survey 44(1): 130-138.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLee, Yeonho. 2005. “Participatory Democracy and Chaebol Regulation in Korea: State-Market Relations under the MDP Governments, 1997-2003,” Asian Survey 45(2): 279-301.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLin, Jih-wen. 2003. “Institutionalized Uncertainty and Governance Crisis in Posthegemonic Taiwan,” Journal of East Asian Studies 3: 433-460.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMahoney, James. 2004. “Revisiting General Theory in Historical Sociology,” Social Forces 83: 459-489.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePark, Tong Whan. 1999. ”South Korea in 1998: Swallowing the Bitter Pills of Restructuring,” Asian Survey: 39(1): 133-139.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics,” The American Political Science Review 94(2): 251-276.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceQuinn, Dennis P., and Carla Inclan. 1997. \"The Origins of Financial Openness: A Study of Current and Capital Account Liberalization,\" American Journal of Political Science 41(3): 771-813.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSimmons, Beth A. and Elkins, Zachary. 2004. “The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in International Political Economy,” American Political Science Review 98(1): 171-189.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSuh, Kyung-Yoon. 2000. “Falling Behind,” Far Eastern Economic Review 163(16) : 42.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceThelen, Kathleen. 1999. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 381-384.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWilliomson, Oliver E. 2000. “The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead,” Journal of Economic Literature 38(3): 595-613zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZhang, Xiaoke. 2002. “Domestic Institutions, Liberalization Patterns, and Uneven Crises in Korea and Taiwan,” The Pacific Review 15(3): 418-421.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference網路資源：zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKrugman, Paul. 1998. “What Happened to Asia?” January 1998.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencehttp://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~partha/asia%20Paul%20Krugman%20What%20Happened%20To%20Asia.pdf (December 9, 2009)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference手稿zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePaul Krugman, 1998. \"What Happened to Asia?\" manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference韓文部分zh_TW
dc.relation.reference新聞zh_TW
dc.relation.reference中央日報，2000/4/12，〈與民會面 金正日「攻擊力漸強，包容力漸減」〉，http://article.joins.com/article/article.asp?total_id=602860zh_TW
dc.relation.reference中央日報，2000/4/12，〈南北基本協議應如何形成〉，http://article.joins.com/article/article.asp?total_id=602853zh_TW
dc.relation.reference文化日報，2000/6/28，〈國會三委員會認為在各方面：「與北韓會談消息走漏，政府須負全責」〉，http://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=200006285000401zh_TW
dc.relation.reference每日經濟，2000/9/4，〈產生距離感的國會〉，http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=100&oid=009&aid=0000045663zh_TW
dc.relation.reference東亞日報，2007/12/28，〈以道德性自豪的「自稱進步」者，被側近揭發的汙點〉，http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?n=200712280130zh_TW
dc.relation.reference韓國經濟，1998/12/8，〈「草圖告一段落」…各界反應〉，http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=1998120800231&intype=1zh_TW
dc.relation.reference韓國經濟，2000/4/3，〈自民聯選舉總擔當金學元：「有自信最少能保住60席」〉，http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=100&oid=015&aid=0000223968zh_TW
dc.relation.reference聯合新聞，2009/12/10，〈金監院立即綜合調查三星生命〉，http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=001&aid=0003017834zh_TW
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
item.openairetypethesis-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
200801.pdf1.65 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


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