:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:市場、國家與社會:從制度論探討臺灣戰後壽險市場的發展
作者:蘇薰璇
作者(外文):Hsun-Hsuan Su
校院名稱:臺灣大學
系所名稱:社會學研究所
指導教授:陳東升
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2013
主題關鍵詞:壽險市場場域國家自主性制度論life insurancemarketfieldstate autonomyinstitutionalism
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:69
本文是以戰後臺灣壽險市場的發展為研究主題。臺灣壽險市場已是國際社會所稱保險成熟市場,但臺灣的死亡保障缺口卻未隨國人保費支出的增加而減少,反倒擴大。為了瞭解究竟是什麼因素造成臺灣壽險市場的獨特性,本文主張必須從影響市場結構之制度環境如何形成著手,並強調完整的市場研究需探討有關市場形成的兩個息息相關的制度化過程:(1)國家如何在本身所處制度環境中制訂正式規則?(2)市場行動者如何在國家所規範的正式規則中形成市場結構?本文預設國家與市場是兩個相互依賴的策略行動場域。這個預設具有兩個意涵。其一,本文的「國家自主性」不是國家不受社會羣體影響的自主性,而是鑲嵌於具體的社會關係中。但國家有可能因為組織形態,而使某個部門的政策意見相較於其他部門的政策意見更有機會被採納,因此,當政體結構與國際情勢有所變化,不同政治行動者在決策過程中的角色與權力也會有所變化。其二,在國家場域與市場場域(或稱非國家場域)中的行動者有所謂「在位者」與「挑戰者」之分,在位者或挑戰者為了促使其他行動者與他合作,會嘗試使其政策觀點成為政策選項之一,進而主導市場發展的走向。然而,儘管行動者會對「外在於」國家場域與非國家場域的歷史事件進行策略性詮釋與利用,使某個歷史事件成為影響政策制訂與市場發展的重要因素,行動者在推動某個政策時卻是基於自身短期的利益考量而非政策的長遠影響,以致政策發展的長遠結果往往是短期政治考量的副產品,或者即使政策制訂者確實是基於政策的長遠影響推動某個政策,卻也會因為有太多行動者參與其中、有太多政策制訂工作要持續進行,以致難以監督政策的實際成效而產出意想不到的政策結果(即市場發展)。
基於上述預設,本文以「威權主義」、「分配主義」、「重商主義」三個不同類型的發展型國家階段來表達國家自主性在不同時期的表現。同時,由於與壽險市場相關的政策議題非常多,限於篇幅,本文選擇以「保險資金運用」、「保險契約關係」、「保險通路管理」這三個政策議題,探討它們在這三個不同類型的發展型國家階段如何形成與發展,又如何經過市場行動者的運用,而為下一階段的政策變遷埋下伏筆。最後,本文亦透過考察每個階段的在位者與挑戰者,來瞭解行動者根據政策所發展出來的市場策略如何影響市場文化的形成。
研究結果發現,就經驗現象而言,臺灣壽險市場的獨特性不只與消費者的觀點及社會經濟的發展有關,亦與國家政策有關。更精準的說法是,社會經濟的發展會影響國家監理壽險市場的相關政策,消費者的觀點則是市場發展的結果。以本文一開始所指出的死亡保障缺口而論,死亡保障缺口隨著國民所得的提高反而擴大的原因多少與國家未以建立國人的保險觀念為政策選項有關,因壽險公司所採取與「保險資金運用」、「保險契約關係」、「保險通路管理」這三個議題相關的策略行動據此就以能夠達到快速累積資本的目的為優先考量,消費者觀點任由壽險公司形塑。就理論意涵而言,臺灣壽險市場的發展經驗清楚說明,國家與市場兩者密切互動。同時,「國家自主性」不能只從國家「獨斷性權力」與「基礎構造權力」的構成來判斷。更重要的是國家的「政策能力」。而國家的政策能力是建立在公民社會的健全之上。亦即,只要國家是個民主政體,公民社會始終對公共議題保持高度關注並採取相應的政治行動,國家與特定資本家或社會羣體之間的特殊關係不會產生只有利於特定資本家或社會羣體的政策發展,只要政策不是圖利特定資本家或社會羣體,市場發展的結果自然朝向有利於社會整體的方向進行。
The subject of this dissertation is the development of the postwar life insurance market in Taiwan. Life insurance market in Taiwan is a so-called “mature insurance market” but the mortality protection gap becomes bigger and bigger even though the total premium people pay annually becomes more and more. In order to understand the distinctions of life insurance market in Taiwan, this dissertation argues that the institutional environment affecting the market structure has to be understood, and emphasizes that the complete market research shall be composed of two relevant institutionalizing processes: (1)How the state makes the formal rules?(2)How the market actors develop the market structure in the frame of these formal rules. This article assumes that the state and the market are two interdependent strategic action field. This assumption implies two meanings. First, the state autonomy in this dissertation is the autonomy of the state embedded in the ongoing social relationship between the state and the society rather than the autonomy of the state based on the insulation of the state to the society. However, due to the pattern of the organization of the state, the policy viewpoint of certain authority of the state may prevail over that of others. Therefore, when the polity changes and the international situation changes, the roles and powers of different actors in the policy making process of the state field may change. Second, there are incumbents and challengers in the state field and market field (or nonstate field). Incumbents or challengers will try to make their policy viewpoint become one of the policy options and to dominate the development of the market. However, actors’ strategic interpretation and appropriation of the historical events only make the historical events to be the important factors affecting the policy making and market development, but actors are unable to control how the interpretation and appropriation of the historical events affect the market development.
Based on the above-mentioned assumption, this dissertation distinguishes three stages of developmental state in the history of postwar Taiwan: authoritarianism, distributionalism, commercialism. In view too many issues have something to do with the life insurance market; this dissertation chooses three of them: the appropriation of the insurance capital, the conclusion of the insurance contracts, and the management of the insurance channels. Through exploring how these three issues formed and developed in the state field as well how actors use them to advance in creating the probability of policy changes in the nonstate field, this dissertation explains how the strategic actions the actors took influence the formation of the market culture.
There are two results come out from this research. With respect to the empirical phenomena, the distinctions of life insurance market in Taiwan not only have something to do with the consumer viewpoints and the level of the socio-economic development of Taiwan but also the state policies. As far as the mortality protection gap concerned, the increase of mortality protection gap is more or less caused by the state action that providing the insurance education to citizens is not one of the policy options. Under these circumstances, the life insurance companies’ strategic actions relative to the appropriation of the insurance capital, the conclusion of the insurance contracts, and the management of the insurance channels are all aiming at speedy capital accumulation and make consumers develop insurance conception which serve the same purpose. With respect to the theoretical inference, the developmental experiences of the life insurance market in Taiwan represent a close interaction of the state and the market. In addition, it also entails that state autonomy shall not only be recognized by the despotic power and the infrastructural power but also the policy power. The policy power of the state is built on the robust civil society that the actors concern public issues and take political actions to defend their rights. Only when the civil society is robust, will the specific relationship between the state and the capitalists or certain social groups bring the market development advantages only these capitalists or certain social groups.
于宗先與王金利,1999,《臺灣通貨膨脹(1945-1998)》。台北市:聯經。
尹仲容,1961,《我國金融事業》。台北市:美援運用委員會。
—,1962,《我對臺灣經濟的看法三編》。台北市:美援運用委員會。
文馨瑩,1990,《經濟奇蹟的背後—臺灣美援經驗的政經分析(1951-1965)》。台北市:自立晚報。
王文靜,1993,《南山人壽蛻變之路》。台北市:商周文化。
王作榮,2006,《為臺灣補上一堂經濟課:王作榮的政策經濟學》。台北市:天下遠見。
—,2009,《壯志未酬:王作榮自傳》。台北市:天下遠見。
王克敬,1987,《臺灣民間產業40年》。台北市:自立晚報。
王昭明,1988,〈保險事業與經濟發展〉。《保險專刊》12:1-14。new window
王振寰,1996,《誰統治臺灣?轉型中的國家機器與權力結構》。台北市:巨流。new window
—,2003,〈全球化與後進國家:兼論東亞的發展路徑與轉型〉。《臺灣社會學刊》31:1-45。
—,2010,〈現代國家的興起:從殖民、威權到民主體制的國家機器〉。頁101-136,收錄於黃金麟、汪宏倫、黃崇憲主編,《帝國邊緣:臺灣現代性的考察》。台北:群學。
王康旼,1972,〈經驗生命表編制芻議〉。《壽險季刊》1(3):11-22。
王景弘,2008,《強權政治與臺灣—從開羅會議到舊金山和約》。台北市:玉山社。
石正德,1987,〈由臺灣高等法院七十四年度訴易字第六十六號判決論告知義務之受領權人〉。《壽險季刊》63:46-53。
朱雲漢,1992,〈寡佔經濟與威權政治體制〉。頁139-160,收錄於臺灣研究基金會編,《解剖臺灣經濟—威權體制下的壟斷與剝削》。台北市:前衛出版社。
朱雲鵬,1999,〈1980年代以來自由化政策的探討:遲延、躍進與學習機制的演化〉。頁5-1-5-34,收錄於中華經濟研究院主編,《1980年代以來臺灣經濟發展經驗學術研討會》。台北:中華經濟研究院。
司馬嘯青,1988,《企業巨龍》。台北市:文經。
—,1991,《中日政商風雲誌》。台北市:卓越出版。
—,2000,《臺灣新五大家族》。台北市:玉山社。
—,2002,《臺灣企業家的美國經驗》。台北市:玉山社。
何明修,2002,〈為何民進黨政府的廢核政策失敗?社會動員、改革機會與政治策略的分析〉。《臺灣政治學刊》6:86-137。new window
—,2004,〈文化、構框與社會運動〉。《臺灣社會學刊》33:157-199。
何顯重,1964,〈臺灣之保險事業〉。《臺灣銀行季刊》15(4):36-57。new window
江東亮,2006,《醫療窮人不再有:全民健康保險論文集》。台北市:台大出版中心。
吳忠吉,1992,〈資源分配與勞資關係〉。頁73-96,收錄於臺灣研究基金會編,《解剖臺灣經濟—威權體制下的壟斷與剝削》。台北市:前衛出版社。
吳嘉苓,1999,〈醫療專業、性別與國家:臺灣助產士興衰的社會學分析〉。《台灣社會學研究》4:191-268。new window
吳鴻章,1976,〈保險契約告知義務違反效果之分析〉。《壽險季刊》21:1-8。
呂建德,2010,〈臺灣福利國家與現代性〉。頁445-476,收錄於黃金麟、汪宏倫、黃崇憲主編,《帝國邊緣:臺灣現代性的考察》。台北:群學。
吳家錄,1983,〈簡介人壽保險業之概況〉。《壽險季刊》49:13-14。
吳家錄口述,洪詩棠著,2010,《討厭人壽保險的人》。台北市:允晨文化。
沈英明,1984,《地下金融之研究》。台北市:中華民國加強儲蓄推行委員會金融研究小組。
李易駿與古允文,2003,〈另一個福利世界?東亞發展型福利體制初探〉。《臺灣社會研究季刊》51:51-94。
李俊毅,1995,《醜陋的立法院》。台北市:福爾摩沙出版社。
李家泉,1971,〈壽險展業‧核保‧理賠應注意之規定〉。《壽險季刊》1(2):22-26。
李國鼎口述,劉素芬編著,2005,《李國鼎:我的臺灣經驗》。台北市:遠流出版社。
周泰華與俞祖慰,2005,〈臺灣壽險業行銷通路之探討〉。《壽險管理》18:59-75。
周添城,1995,《區域主義下的臺灣經濟》。台北市:正中書局。
林文斌,2008,〈臺灣「發展型國家」的調適或轉型?〉。《政治科學論叢》37:95-150。
林光裕,1979,《民間互助會之探討》。台北市:第一銀行徵信室。
林忠正,1992,〈威權主義下弱勢團體相互剝削的循環—臺灣經濟體系的解剖〉。頁161-196,收錄於臺灣研究基金會編,《解剖臺灣經濟—威權體制下的壟斷與剝削》。台北市:前衛出版社。
林芝安,2007,《關鍵時刻:邁向全民健保改革新紀元》。台北市:衛生署。
林國明,1997,〈國家與醫療專業權力〉。《臺灣社會學研究》1:77-136。
林荻洋,1972,〈我國保險經紀人制度之發展與改進〉。《產險季刊》5:10-19。
林鐘雄,1998,《臺灣經濟經驗一百年》。台北市:三民書局。
青雲,1984,〈道德危險與保險犯罪〉。《壽險季刊》53:24-33。
邱靖博、涂念祖與葉明憲,1990,〈臺灣地區保險市場之研究〉。《臺灣銀行季刊》41(1):259-320。new window
洪燦楠,2006,〈臺灣壽險業發展歷程與展望(上)〉,《壽險季刊》142:7-19。
施文森,1975,〈臺灣保險外務員之法律地位〉,《臺灣銀行季刊》26(3):174-191。new window
徐瑞希,1991,《政商關係解讀:臺灣企業實用政治學入門》。台北市:遠流出版社。
涂宜均,2003,《全民健保部份負擔調整對民眾門診醫療利用的影響:以門診高利用者為對象》。台北市:臺灣大學衛生政策與管理研究所博士論文。
袁宗蔚,1998,《保險學》。台北市:三民書局。
郝充仁、李雅婷與黃惠貞,2004,〈投資型保險商品糾紛之研究〉,《保險學報》創刊號:41-70。
張仲源,1986,〈容易引發爭論的壽險死亡理賠〉,《壽險季刊61》:16-30。
—,1992,〈談人壽保險核保技巧與理賠的互動關係〉,《保險專刊》:94-102。
張宗利,1965,〈臺灣之國民所得〉。《臺灣銀行季刊》16(4):1-22。new window
張明暉,2009,《南山人壽半世紀風雲變幻》。台北市:秋雨文化。
張鐵志,2008,〈臺灣經濟自由化的政治邏輯:黨國資本主義的轉型與新政商聯盟1980-2000〉。《臺灣政治學刊》12(1):101-145。new window
曾玉瓊,1989,〈強化人壽保險分紅制度 因應保險自由化〉。《保險專刊》17:154-161。new window
曾憲政,1992,《我國人壽保險商品多元化之研究》。台北市:保險事業發展中心。
曹慧玲,2001,《國家與市場—日據時期臺灣壽險市場的發展》。台北市:臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
第八屆保險文馨獎「保戶類」得獎者,2007,《保險愛我》。台北:平安出版社。
第八屆保險文馨獎「壽險類」得獎者,2007,《我愛保險》。台北:平安出版社。
第九屆保險文馨獎「保戶組」得獎者,2008,《我的保險業務員》。台北:平安出版社。
第九屆保險文馨獎「壽險組」得獎者,2008,《我的保險之路》。台北:平安出版社。
第十屆保險文馨獎「保戶組」得獎者,2009,《保險之愛》。台北:平安出版社。
第十屆保險文馨獎「壽險組」得獎者,2009,《保險之愛》。台北:平安出版社。
許美惠,1998,《好好活一下:南山人壽林文英從老師、業務員到總經理》。台北市:廣場文化。
郭承天等人,2000,〈有錢大家賺?民主化對臺灣金融體系的影響〉。頁75-112,收錄於朱雲漢、包宗和編,《民主轉型與經濟衝突》。台北市:桂冠圖書。new window
陳東升,2006,〈臺灣社會組織原則的轉換:衝突或自然演化?〉,論文發表在「從實驗室的臺灣到臺灣研究的深化-紀念陳紹馨教授百年冥誕研討會」,主辦單位:國立臺灣大學社會學系。new window
陳東升與周素卿,1993,〈國家結構、政商關係與空間形構〉。《國立臺灣大學社會學刊》22:149-183。
陳明通,1995,《派系政治與臺灣政治變遷》。台北市:月旦出版社。
陳怡伶與黎德星,2010,〈新自由主義化、國家與住宅市場〉。《地理學報》59:105-131。
陳政亮,2010,〈社會保險的失敗:從勞基法到勞工退休金條例〉。《臺灣社會研究》79:5-50。new window
陳紹馨,1979,《臺灣的人口變遷與社會變遷》。台北市:聯經出版事業公司。new window
陳雲中,1972,〈論人壽保險告知義務違反之成立要件及其效果(二)〉。《壽險季刊》1(4):26-37。
—,1976,〈論臺灣地區人壽保險之經營及保險單條款上之若干問題〉。《社會科學論叢》25:49-86。
—1995,《國民健康保險與商業保險之關係研究》。台北市:保險事業發展中心。
陳榮富,1956,《六十年來臺灣之金融與貿易》。台北市:三省書店。
陸早行,1985,〈人身保險告知義務之探討〉。《壽險季刊》55:10-22。
彭蕙仙,1993,《億兆傳奇》。台北市:商周文化。
—,1998,《真誠、創新、卓越—異軍突起的安泰人壽》。台北市:安泰心文化。
彭懷恩,1997,《認識臺灣—臺灣政治變遷五十年》。台北市:風雲論壇出版社。
黃川口,1978,〈人壽保險業務員之管理與法律責任問題〉。《台北市銀月刊》9(11):70-76。
黃天麟,1987,《金融市場》。台北市:三民書局。
黃文鴻等,1995,《全民健康保險Q&A》。台北市:商周文化。
黃宗昊,2004,〈臺灣政商關係的演變:歷史制度論分析〉。《問題與研究》43(4):35-72。new window
黃崇憲,2010,〈從開港到加入WTO:當代臺灣資本主義的歷史與結構轉型〉。頁137-170,收錄於黃金麟、汪宏倫、黃崇憲主編,《帝國邊緣:臺灣現代性的考察》。台北:群學。
黃進興,2006,《半世紀的奮鬥—吳火獅先生口述傳記》。台北市:允晨文化。
黃煌雄,2003,《我國金融國際競爭力總體檢調查報告》。台北市:監察院。
陽肇昌,1975,〈三十年來的保險事業〉。《產險季刊》18:54-74。
新光人壽三十年史編輯委員會,1993,《新光人壽三十年史》。台北市:新光人壽。
葉惠芬編著,2009,《陳誠先生從政史料選輯:行政院美援運用委員會會議記錄》。台北縣新店市:國史館。
楊佳璋與張子,2001,《經營權爭霸:企業敵意併購攻防戰》。台北市:商周出版。
趙既昌,1971,〈臺灣保險事業之改進與發展〉。《產險季刊》1:3-6。
趙剛,2001,〈為何反全球化?如何反—關於全球化的一些問題的思考與對話〉。《臺灣社會研究季刊》44:49-146。new window
潘國正,1995,《五百塊錢打天下:新竹區中小企業銀行傳奇》。台北市:商周文化。
劉士永,1996,《光復初期臺灣經濟政策的檢討》。台北市:稻鄉出版社。
劉進慶,1992,《臺灣戰後經濟分析》。台北市:人間出版社。new window
劉壽祥,1988,〈臺灣家庭部門的儲蓄與資產選擇之實證研究〉。《臺灣銀行季刊》39(1):1-38。
潘志奇,1980,《光復初期臺灣通貨膨脹的分析》。台北市:聯經出版社。
潘燊昌口述,刁明芳著,2002,《聽老闆的,就錯了:Patrick’s Way》。台北市:天下遠見。
蔣碩傑,1960,〈臺灣之利率問題〉。《臺灣銀行季刊》11(1):192-202。new window
蔡明璋,2010,〈臺灣與世界:「接」與「結」的歷史〉。頁63-100,收錄於黃金麟、汪宏倫、黃崇憲主編,《帝國邊緣:臺灣現代性的考察》。台北:群學。
蔡滿雄,1970,〈人壽保險與通貨膨脹〉。《公保月刊》11(8):13-14。
謝世佳,1975,〈臺灣壽險業與經驗生命表〉。《臺灣銀行季刊》26(3):136-168。new window
謝爾普與艾爾巴,劉真如譯,2007,《AIG保險王國:從上海走向世界的金融巨人》。台北市:財訊出版社。
賴本隊,2002,〈臺灣壽險業投資型保險商品的發展與現況〉。《壽險季刊》126:69-79。
蕭全政,2000,〈臺灣民主化對政府經濟和社會職能的挑戰與因應〉。頁27-50,收錄於朱雲漢、包宗和編,《民主轉型與經濟衝突》。台北市:桂冠圖書。new window
蕭新煌,1992,〈臺灣新興社會運動的剖析:自主性與資源分配〉。頁9-32,收錄於臺灣研究基金會編,《解剖臺灣經濟—威權體制下的壟斷與剝削》。台北市:前衛出版社。
應式文,1974,〈中華民國之保險事業〉。《產險季刊》13:3-42。
Akerlof, George A. and Robert J. Shiller著、李芳齡譯,2010,《動物本能》。台北:天下文化。(Akerlof, George A. and Robert J. Shiller, 2009, Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.)
Archer, Margaret S, 1996, “Social integration and system integration: developing the distinction.” Sociology 30: 679-699.
Beckert, Jens, 1996, “What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty and the embeddedness of economic action.” Theory and Society 25: 803-840.
—,2009, “The social order of markets.” Theory and Society 38: 24-269.
Block, Fred, 1990, Postindustrial Possibilities: A Critique of Economic Discourse. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chorev, Nitsan, 2005, “The Institutional Project of Neo-Liberal Globalism: The Case of the WTO.” Theory and Society 34(3): 317-355.
Clark, Cal and Jung Changhoon, 2002, “The Implications of the Asian Flu for Developmental State Theory: The Cases of South Korea and Taiwan.” Asian Affairs 29(1): 16-42.
Coase, Ronald, 1937, "The Nature of the Firm," Economica, 4(6): 386-405.
DiMaggio, Paul J., 1997, “Culture and Cognition.” Annual Review Sociology 23: 263-287.
—, 1998, “The New Institutionalism: Avenues of Collaboration.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 154: 696-705.
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Hugh Louch, 1998, “Socially embedded consumer transactions: for what kinds of purchases do people most often use networks?” American Sociological Review 63: 619-637.
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell, 1991a, “Introduction,” in Walter W. Powell and Paul DiMaggio (eds),. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 1-38, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
—,1991b. “Iron Cage Revised, in Walter W. Powell and Paul DiMaggio (eds),. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 63-82, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Evans, Peter, 1995, Embedded Autonomy: States & Industrial Transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
—,1997, “The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalization,” World Politics 50(1): 62-87.
Fligstein, Neil,1991, “The Structural Transformation of American industry: An Institutional Account of the Causes of Diversification in the Largest Firms, 1919-1979,” in Walter W. Powell and Paul DiMaggio (eds),. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 311-336, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
—, 1996, “Markets as Politics: A Political-Cultural Approach to Market Institutions.” American Sociological Review 61: 656-673.
—2002, The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Twenty-First-Century Capitalist Societies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Fligstein, Neil & Doug McAdam, 2012, A Theory of Fields. New York: Oxford University Press.
Friedland Roger, & Robert R. Alford, 1991, “Bring Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions.” Pp. 232-263, in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Woody W. Powell and Paul DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giddens, Anthony, 1986, The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gold, Thomas B., 1986, State and Society in the Taiwan Miracle. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Granovetter, Mark, 1985, “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481-510.
Guillen, Mauro F, 2003, “The economic sociology of markets, industries, and firms.” Theory and Society 32: 505-515.
Hall, Peter, 1993, “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25(3): 275-296.
Hamilton, Gary G., and Nicole Woolsey Biggart, 1988, “Market, Culture, and Authority: a Comparative Analysis of Management and Organization in the Far East.” American Journal of Sociology 94 (supp.): S52-S94.
Hawley, Amo, 1968, “Human Ecology,”pp. 328-337 in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. David L. Sills. New York: Macmillan.
Healy, Kieran, 2000, “Embedded Altruism: Blood Collection Regimes and the European Union’s Donor Population.” The American Journal of Sociology, 105(6): 1633-1657.
Healy, Kieran, 2006, Last Best Gifts: Altruism and the Market for Human Blood and Organs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Heilbroner, Robert L., 1964, The Worldly Philosophers. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ikenberry, G. John, 1988, “Conclusion: An Institutional Approach to American Foreign Economy Policy.” International Organization 42:219-243.
Immergut, 1992, “The Rules of the Game: The Logic of Health Policy-Making in France, Switzerland, and Sweden.” Pp.57-89 in Structuring Politics: Historical Iinstitutionalism in Comparative Analysis, edited by Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jepperson, Ronald L., 1991, “Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism.” Pp. 143-163 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, Chalmers, 1982, MITI and the Japanese Miracles: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Kay, Adrian, 2005, “A Critique of the Use of Path Dependency in Policy Studies.” Public Administration 83(3): 553-571.
Kim, Yun Tae, 1999, “Neoliberalism and the Decline of the Developmental State.” Journal of Contemporary Asia, 29(4): 441-461.
Krasner, Stephen D., 1984, “Appproaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics.” Comparative Politics 16(2): 223-246.
Krippner, Greta R, 2001, “The Elusive Market: Embeddedness and the Paradigm of Economic Sociology.” Theory and Society 30(6): 775-810.
Kuhn, Thomas S., 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago.
Lie, John, 1997, “Sociology of Markets.” Annual Reviews of Sociology 23: 341-360.
Mahoney, James, 2000, “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29: 507-548.
Mann, Michael, 1984, “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results.” European Journal of Sociology 25: 185-213.
Marx, Karl, 2000, Karl Marx: Selected Writings, edited by David McLellan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McNally, David, 1988, Political Economy and the Rise of Capitalism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan, 1977, “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology 83: 340-363.
North, Douglass C, 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Orru, Marco, Nicole Woolsey Biggart and Gary G. Hamilton, 1991, “Organizational Isomorphism in East Asia,” in Walter W. Powell and Paul DiMaggio (eds),. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 361-389, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Pierson Paul, 1996, “The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Approach.” Comparative Political Studies 29(2):123-163.
Polanyi, Karl, 2001a, “The Economy as Instituted Process.” Pp.31-50 in The Sociology of Economic Life, edited by Mark Granovetter and Richard Swedberg. Boulder: Westview Press.
—, 2001b, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.
Powell, Walter W, 1990, “Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization.” Research in Organizational Behavior 12: 295-336.
Rothstein, Bo, 1992, “Labor-Market Institutions and Working-Class Strength.” Pp.33-56 in Structuring Politics: Historical Iinstitutionalism in Comparative Analysis, edited by Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, W. Richard, 1991, “Unpacking Institutional Arguments,” in Walter W. Powell and Paul DiMaggio (eds),. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 164-182, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
—,1994, “Institutions and Organizations: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis.” Pp. 55-80 in Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism, edited by W. Richard Scott, John W. Meyer, and Associates. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
—, 2008, “Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory.” Theory and Society 37: 427-442.
Skocpol, Theda著、劉北成譯,1998,《國家與社會革命》。台北:桂冠。(Skocpol, Theda, 1979, States and Social Revolutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.)
—, 1992, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers. Harvard University Press.
—, 1995, “Why I Am an Historical Institutionalist.” Polity 28(1): 103-106.
Swidler, Ann, 1986, “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51: 273-286.
Tan, Alexander C., 2009, “The Politics of Financial Reform in Taiwan: Actors, Institutions, and the Changing Sate.” Asian Affairs 36(4): 201-212.
Thelen, Kathleen, 1999, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” Annual review of Political Science 2(1): 369-404.
Thelen, Kathleen and Sven Steinmo, 1992, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” Pp.1-32 in Structuring Politics: Historical Iinstitutionalism in Comparative Analysis, edited by Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Uzzi, Brian, 1996, “The Sources and Consequences of embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect.” American Sociological Review 61:674-98.
—, 2001, “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness.” Pp.207-238 in The Sociology of Economic Life, edited by Mark Granovetter and Richard Swedberg. Boulder: Westview Press.
Vogel, Steven Kent., 1996, Freer Markets, More Rules: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Industrial Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Weber, Max, 1946, From Max Weber. New York: Oxford University Press.
—,1949, The Methodology of the Social Sciences, translated and edited by Shils, Edward A. and Finch, Henry A. Glencoe: Free Press.
Weir, Margaret, 1992, “Ideas and the Politics of Bounded Innovation.” Pp.188-216 in Structuring Politics: Historical Iinstitutionalism in Comparative Analysis, edited by Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, Linda, 2000, “Developmental States in Transition: Adapting, Dismantling, Innovating, not ‘Normalizing’,” The Pacific Review 13(1): 21-55.
White, Harrison C., 1981, “Where Do Markets Come From?” American Journal of Sociology 87: 517-547.
Williamson, Oliver, 1975, Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press.
—, 2000, “The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead,” Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595-613.
Wong, Joseph, 2005, “Re-Making the Developmental State in Taiwan: The Challenges of Biotechnology,” International Political Science Review 26(2): 169-191.
Zafirovski, Milan, 2007, “Markets.” Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, edited by George Ritzer. Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell Reference Online. 01 August 2009.
Zelizer, Viviana A., 1983, Morals and Markets: The Development of Life Insurance in the United States. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
—, 1988, “Beyond the Polemics on the Market: Establishing a Theoretical and Empirical Agenda.” Sociological Forum 3(4): 614-634.
Zukin & DiMaggio, 1990, “Introduction,” Structures of Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy, Zukin, Sharon & DiMaggio Paul (eds.). Cambridge University Press.


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE