:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:制度變遷、社會資本與政治參與間關係
作者:張芳華
作者(外文):Jhang, Fang Hua
校院名稱:國立政治大學
系所名稱:國家發展研究所
指導教授:李酉潭
李宗榮
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2014
主題關鍵詞:社會資本制度變遷政治參與台灣社會變遷調查資料多層次分析模型Social capitalinstitutional changepolitical participationTaiwan Social Change Surveymultilevel analysis model
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(0) 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:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:308
台灣民主轉型的成功除執政菁英的主動變革外,公民參與政治和支持改革亦有其重要性。有鑑於逐年下滑的投票率和工具性社團參與率,本研究主要從制度變遷與社會資本論點來進行探討,以縣市層次制度變項為自變項,三類型社會資本為中介變項,投票與競選活動參與為依變項,目的在了解於民主鞏固時期前後,社會資本的分佈狀況和影響社會資本、政治參與的因素,以提升民眾的社會和政治參與。中介變項與依變項資料來自1993年與2005年台灣社會變遷調查資料(TSCS),自變項資料整合自臺灣地區社會意向調查、各縣市社福資訊與政大選研中心資料庫,主要採用多層次迴歸與邏輯迴歸分析模型來分析資料。
在社會資本分布變化上,結合式社會資本與工具性社參未有顯著改變,情感性社參則顯著增加。相較於情感性社團參與,工具性社團參與的比例較高,在兩個年代中,民眾參與工具性社團比例約在22%左右。在社團內異質性資源分佈上,不同社團的年齡異質性與性別異質性隨不同時期而有所變化。相對地,各類社團在成員的教育、收入與族群組成上反而較為穩定。由於在2005年,民眾教育與收入顯著較1993年為高,意謂著在民主鞏固時期,團體參與者可接觸的社團內異質性資源較多。
並非所有社會資本皆受外在制度所影響,研究結果顯示出國家制度較難影響立基於儒家文化的結合式社會資本。在民主鞏固時期前,縣市執政評價氛圍與生活扶助資源如理論所預期,可影響民眾的情感性社會參與,但其影響力似乎亦有減弱情形。一致性社福資源雖對工具性社團參與有跨期影響力,但卻產生資源排擠效果,而非是資源溢注效果。
政治態度論與社會資本論皆能部份說明為何民眾要參與兩類傳統政治活動,但相較於投票,參與競選活動屬於較耗費成本的參與行為,因此個體資源論較能解釋競選活動的參與。以多層次中介分析步驟檢視縣市制度變項對政治參與的作用後,證實了制度論的作用。在制度變項可能透過社會資本影響政治參與的三條中介路徑,僅一條路徑得到實證上支持。在2005年,縣市急難救助資源可透過工具性社團參與進而影響競選活動參與。
制度變遷的觀點能說明不同時期情感性社團參與和投票的變化。傳統文化價值觀的現代化改變了縣市執政評價氛圍對情感性社團參與的作用。隨著非正式制度環境的改變,情感性社團參與對競選活動參與的作用亦可能隨之改變。而隨著社會福利政策綱領的施行,人均生活扶助資源量的提升,則促進個人的投票行為。總言之,中央政府應注意自身的施政效能,並透過社福資源的適度分配,來促進民眾的社會參與與政治參與行為。
The success of the transition to democracy in Taiwan should attribute not only to the active reform of the ruling party' cadre, but also to citizens’ participation and political support for the political reformer. In view of the gradual declining turnout rate and instrumental group participation rate, the study tends to describe the distribution of social capital, and explore the potential factors influencing social capital and political participation before and after democratic consolidation period. The paper’s framework from the perspective of institutional change and social capital treats institutional change as the independent variable, three kinds of social capital as the mediated variable, and voting and electoral campaign participation as dependent variables. The study mainly applies the multilevel linear regression and logistic regression model to analyze the mediated and dependent variables from the Taiwan Social Change Survey in 1993 and 2005, separately. As for independent variables, the data is integrated from the Social Image Survey, the social welfare report across counties, and online database of election study center in national Chengchi University.
As far as the distribution of social capital is concerned, the results show that the distribution of bonding social capital and instrumental group participation do not have significant change between 1993 and 2005. Compared with participation in 1993, in 2005, the increase of this emotional group participation is apparent. In both year, the instrumental group participation rate is about 22% and is higher than the emotional group participation. In the distribution of diverse resources within groups, age diversity and sex diversity change a lot as the time went by. In contrast, education diversity, income diversity and ethnicity diversity stay stable between groups. In comparison with 1993, people in 2005 have higher education and income level, resulting in the increase of group members’ education and income level. It means that in the democratic consolidation period, it is probable for group participators to approach more diverse resources existing within groups .
The effect of institutional variables on the three kinds of social capital is not as same as previous literatures report. Bonding social capital based on confucianism is difficult to be enhanced by the national institutions. Before the democratic consolidation, the effect of living assistance resources, and the atmosphere where people are satisfied with the central government performance which is consistent with theoretical prediction affects people’s participation in the emotional group. However, the effect seems to weaken gradually at the later period. Universal social welfare resources influence the instrumental group participation across different periods, but the negative effect belongs to the crowing out effect rather than the crawling back effect.
Political attitudes theory and social capital theory both can partly account for why people participate in these two kinds of traditional political activities. Individual resources theory is suitable for explaining the participation of electoral campaign in that it takes people much more time and cost to engage in the electoral campaign participation than in voting. After examing the effect of institutional variables at the county-level on the political participation through the procedure of multilevel mediation analysis, the findings proven the argument of institution theory. Among the three potential mediation paths in which the institutional variables impact on the political participation through social capital, just one path is supported by the data. In 2005, emergent assistant resources can affect the electoral campaign through the instrumental group participation.
The perspective of institutional change can explain the change of the emotional group participation and voting between 1993 and 2005. With the modernization of individual’s traditional attitudes, the county-level effect of evaluation of the central government on the participation in the emotional group is abated. It is probable that the effect of the emotional group participation on the electoral campaign participation differs according to the different environment of the informal institution The increase of living assistant resources per capita, because of the execution of the guiding principle of the social welfare policy, promote people’s voting significantly. In sum up, the attention should be paid by the central authority to strengthen the efficiency of the administration and distribute the social welfare resources appropriately based on the contemporary social condition, in order to improve people’s social participation and political participation.
一、中文文獻
丁仁方,1999,〈統合化、半侍從結構、與台灣地方派系的轉型〉。《政治科學論叢》10:59-82。new window
小笠原欣幸,2012,〈2012 年台灣總統選舉:投票結果分析〉。收錄於小笠原欣幸、佐藤幸人主編,《馬英九再選―2012 年台湾総統選挙の結果とその影響》。日本:アジア経済研究所。頁7-25。
王中天,2003,〈社會資本(Social capital):概念、源起及現況〉。《問題與研究》42(5):139-163。new window
王金壽,2004,〈瓦解中的地方派系:以屏東為例〉。《台灣社會學》7:177-207。new window
王金壽,2006,〈台灣的司法獨立改革與國民黨侍從主義的崩潰〉。《台灣政治學刊》11(1):103-162。new window
方凱弘,2006,〈初探地方財政分權化及其在我國之政策意涵〉。《政策研究學報》6:51-88。new window
王鼎銘,2011,〈參選人競選支出效果及其外部性:單記非讓渡投票制下之黨內競爭性分析〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》23(3):341-370。new window
王嵩音,2006,〈網路使用與選舉參與之研究―以2004 年立法委員選舉為例〉。《臺灣民主季刊》3(4):71-102。new window
王業立,2006,《比較選舉制度》。台北:五南。new window
王靖興、王德育,2007,〈台灣民眾的政治參與對其政治功效意識之影響:以2004年總統選舉為例〉。《台灣政治學刊》11(1):69-107。new window
內政部,1995,《內部統計年報》。台北:內政部統計處。
內政部,1998,《全國社會福利會議特刊:跨世紀社會福利的新方向》。台北:內政部社區發展雜誌社。
內政部,2000,《中華民國內政統計月報》。台北:內政部。
內政部,2005a,《中華民國93年各縣市內政統計指標》。台北:內政部統計處。
內政部,2005b,《中華民國93年低收入戶生活狀況調查報告》。台北:內政部統計處。
內政部,2010,《中華民國內政統計月報》。台北:內政部。
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。new window
王躍生,1997,《新制度主義》。台北:揚智文化。
包正豪,2010,〈政黨政治甄補的影響因素:以 1992 到2008 政黨不分區立委提名人選為範例〉。《選舉評論》9:49-82。new window

江明修、陳欽春,2004,《充實社會資本之研究》。台北:經建會。
行政院主計處,2007,《社會指標統計年報》。台北:行政院主計處。
行政院主計處,2013。國情統計通報(第063號)。取自:http://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Data/34917172071.pdf
朱雲漢、吳重禮,2012,《2009年至2012年「選舉與民主化調查」三年期研究規劃(3/3) : 民國一百零一年總統與立法委員選舉面訪案》。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
朱瑞玲、章英華,1990,《臺 灣 地 區 社 會 意 向 調 查第一次定期調查報告》。台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
朱瑞玲、章英華,2001,〈華人社會的家庭倫理與家人互動:文化及社會的變遷效果〉,發表於華人家庭動態資料庫學術研討會,台北:中央研究院經濟研究所、國科會社會科學研究中心主辦,2001年7月27-28日。
伊慶春,1991,《臺灣地區社會意向調查:八十年十月專題調查報告》。臺北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
伊慶春,1992,《臺灣地區社會意向調查:八十一年二月定期調查》。臺北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
江豐富、劉克智,2005,〈台灣縣市失業率的長期追蹤研究:1987-2001〉。《人口學刊》31:1-39。new window
李丁讚,2004,〈導論:市民社會與公共領域在台灣的發展〉。收錄於李丁讚主編,《公共領域在台灣》。台北:桂冠圖書公司。頁1-62。new window
沈有忠,2005,〈制度制約下的行政與立法關係:以我國九七憲改後的憲政運作為例〉。《政治科學論叢》23:27-60。new window
李仲彬、陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂,2008,〈網路投票可以提昇投票率嗎?—以政治大學學生會網路投票為例〉。《臺灣民主季刊》5(3),1-32。new window
李酉潭,2006,〈民主鞏固或崩潰:臺灣與俄羅斯之觀察(1995~2005年)〉。 《問題與研究》45(6):33-77。new window
李酉潭,2007,〈臺灣民主化經驗與中國未來的民主化--以杭亭頓的理論架構分析之〉。《遠景基金會季刊》8(4):1-47。new window
李柏榆,2006,〈選舉制度對政黨體系之影響:台灣總統、縣市長、立法委員、任務型國大選舉之實例比較〉,《政治科學論叢》27:69-112。
李宗榮,2012,〈探索風險投資的社會機制:社會資本與股市、共同基金的參與〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》24(4):439-467。new window
李俊達,2009,〈歐洲國家公民投票經驗之跨國比較:議題、時程與結果〉。《東吳政治學報》27(1):53-121。new window
呂朝賢,1999,〈社會救助問題:政策目的、貧窮的定義與測量〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》11(2):233-263。new window
宋學文,2008,〈層次分析對國際關係研究的重要性及模型建構〉。《問題與研究》47(4):167-199。new window
吳乃德,2004,〈尋找民主公民:社團參與的理論與實際〉。收錄於李丁讚主編,《公共領域在台灣》。台北:桂冠圖書公司。頁177-214。new window
吳介民、李丁讚,2008,〈生活在臺灣:選舉民主及其不足〉。《思想》9:33-68。new window
林玉春,2000,〈中央對地方政府補助制度之檢討改進情形〉。《主計月報》540:49-55。
林全,2000,〈政府財政與效率-落實地方財政制度〉。《新世紀智庫論壇》10:58-59。
林永吉,2005,〈從政治參與觀點探討公民投票的立法建制〉。《通識研究集刊》8:107-148。
林南,2007,〈社會資本理論與研究簡介〉。《社會科學論叢》1(1):1-32。new window
林南、陳志柔、傅仰止,2011,〈社會關係的類型和效應:台灣、美國、中國大陸的三地比較〉。《臺灣社會學刊》45:117-162。new window
林佳龍,1999,〈解釋臺灣的民主化:政體類型與精英的策略選擇〉。收錄於林佳龍、邱澤奇主編,《兩岸黨國體制與民主發展:哈佛大學東西方學者的對話》。台北:月旦出版社。頁87-152。
周育仁、劉嘉薇、黎家維,2012,〈2012年總統立委合併選舉結果與影響之分析〉。收錄於蔡政文主編,《2012年台灣展望》。台北:國家政策研究基金會。頁157-188。
吳俊德、陳永福,2005,〈投票與不投票的抉擇—2004年總統大選與公民投票的探索性研究〉。《臺灣民主季刊》2(4):67-98。new window
吳重禮、許文賓,2003,〈誰是政黨認同者與獨立選民?─以二○○一年台灣地區選民政黨認同的決定因素為例〉。《政治科學論叢》18:101-140。new window
吳重禮、鄭文智、崔曉倩,2006,〈交叉網絡與政治參與:2001年縣市長與立法委員選舉的實證研究〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》18(4):599-638。new window
吳統雄,1985,「態度與行為之研究的信度與效度:理論、應用、反省」。《民意學術專刊》,夏季號,第29-53頁
周陽山,1988,〈民主化、自由化與威權轉型﹣國際經驗的比較〉。《中山學術論叢》8:79-93。new window
林勝偉、顧忠華,2004,〈「社會資本的理論定位與經驗意義:以戰後台灣社會變遷為例」〉。《國立政治大學社會學報》37:113-166。
周新富,2006,〈Coleman社會資本理論在台灣地區的驗證—家庭、社會資本與學業成就之關係〉。《當代教育研究》14(4):1-28。new window
周碧娥,1981,〈美國鄉村地區的都巿化:社會、經濟與規範的變遷,1950-1970〉,《美國研究》11(4):31-55。
林聰吉、楊湘齡,2008,〈台灣社會資本的分佈及其民主效果〉。《東吳政治學報》26(2):39-81。new window
林聰吉、游清鑫,2009,〈政黨形象與台灣選民的投票行為:1996-2008年總統選舉的實證分析〉。收錄於陳陸輝、游清鑫、黃紀主編,《2008年總統選舉:論二次政黨輪替之關鍵選舉》。台北:五南。頁177-208。
林瓊珠、蔡佳泓,2010,〈政黨信任、機構信任與民主滿意度〉。《政治與社會哲學評論》35:147-194。new window
政大選研中心(2013)。歷屆公職人員選舉資料。取自
http://vote.nccu.edu.tw/cec/vote4a.asp
紀俊臣,1994,《台北都會區建設體制與民眾參與》。台北:馬陵出版社。
胡藹若,2005,〈從資源動員理論的觀點論臺灣婦女體制外的政治參與〉。《復興崗學報》83:281-306。new window
徐火炎,1991,〈政黨認同與投票抉擇:台灣地區選民的政黨印象、偏好與黨派投票行為之分析〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》,4(1):1-57。new window
徐火炎,2005,〈認知動員、文化動員與台灣2004年總統大選的選民投票行為:選舉動員類型的初步探討〉。《臺灣民主季刊》,2(4):31-66。new window
高雄市統計處,1992,《高雄市統計年報》。高雄:高雄市政府主計處。
袁頌西、李錫錕、郭秋永,1983,〈台灣地區政治參與研究〉。《中研院三研所叢刊》,12: 5-46。new window
張世熒、許金土,2004,〈社會關係取向對選民投票行為之影響:2001年金門縣長選舉個案研究〉。《中國行政評論》13(4):143-175。new window
張世熒、樊中原,2010,〈我國實施移轉投票可行性分析〉。《中國行政評論》18(1):41-68。new window
張佑宗,2006,〈選舉事件與選民的投票抉擇:以台灣2004年總統選舉為分析對象〉。《東吳政治學報》22:121-159。new window
張佑宗、趙珮如,2006,〈社會脈絡、個人網絡與臺灣2004 年立法委員選舉
選民的投票抉擇〉。《臺灣民主季刊》,3(2):1-38。
盛杏湲、黃士豪,2006,〈臺灣民眾為什麼討厭立法院?〉。《臺灣民主季刊》3(3):85-128。new window
盛治仁,2006,〈單一選區兩票制對未來臺灣政黨政治發展之可能影響探討〉。《臺灣民主季刊》3(2):63-86。new window
盛治仁、白瑋華,2008,〈陳水扁總統首任施政評價影響因素探討〉。《東吳政治學報》26(1):1-50。new window
郭秋永,1992,〈政治參與的意義:方法論上的分析〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》,5(1):173-211。new window
郭秋永,2000,〈發展中國家的政治參與:S. Huntington的參與理論〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》,12(3):387-432。new window
張芳華,2011,〈鄰里層次社會資本與個人層次特質對嚼檳榔行為之多層次分析〉。《臺灣公共衛生雜誌》30(5):468-480。new window
章英華、杜素豪、廖培珊,2010,《台灣社會變遷調查計劃第六期第一次調查計劃執行報告》。台北:中央研究院社會學研究所。
章英華、傅仰止,2004,《台灣社會變遷調查計劃第四期第五次調查計劃執行報告》。台北:中央研究院社會學研究所。
章英華、傅仰止,2006,《台灣社會變遷調查計劃第五期第一次調查計劃執行報告》。台北:中央研究院社會學研究所。
崔曉倩、吳重禮,2011,〈年齡與選舉參與:2008 年總統選舉的實證分析〉。《調查研究》26:7-44。new window
許繼峰,1999,〈我國工會組織參與政治過程之探討-以銀行員工會與勞動基準法擴大適用為例〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》11(3):395-433。new window
黃光國,1995,〈儒家價值觀的現代轉化:理論分析與實徵研究〉。《本土心理學研究》3:276-338。new window
黃光國,2001,〈儒家關係主義的理論建構及其方法論基礎〉。《教育與社會研究》2:1-34。new window
傅仰止、伊慶春,1999,《社會意向電話調查:八十八年二月至六月》。台北:中央研究院社會學研究所。new window
傅仰止,2002,《社會意向電話調查:Si02A_2002年5月》。台北:中央研究院社會學研究所。new window
傅仰止、伊慶春,2001,《社會意向電話調查執行報告:九十年度》。台北:中央研究院社會學研究所。
隋杜卿,2002,〈立委選制改革對政治運作的影響-以單一選區兩票制為例〉。收錄於陳健民、周育仁主編,《國會改革與憲政發展》。臺北:國家政策研究基金會。頁143-192。
傅恆德,2003,《政治文化與政治參與》。台北:韋伯文化。new window
彭 芸,2001,〈兩千年總統大選的媒介使用、選舉參與與投票對象〉。《選舉研究》7(1):21-52。
黃秀端,1995,〈一九九四年省市長選舉選民參與競選活動之分析〉。《選舉研究》2(1):51-76。new window
黃信豪,2005,〈多層模型於選民投票行為研究的應用:以2004年總統選舉為例〉。《東吳政治學報》21:161-201。new window
黃信豪,2007,〈量化研究的比較問題邏輯:因果異質性與縣市長選舉投票模型的建立〉。《問題與研究》46(3):125-154。new window
黃厚銘、林意仁,2013,〈流動的群聚(mob-ility):網路起鬨的社會心理基礎〉。《新聞學研究》115:1-50。
張清富,2009,〈從理論觀點談工作與貧窮〉。《社區發展季刊》124:58-72。new window
楊文山,2009,〈臺灣地區家戶組成變遷與家人關係〉。《人文與社會科學簡訊》10(2):20-27。
楊文山、瞿海源、伊慶春、傅仰止、李宗榮,2005,《2005 第二次社會意向調查》。台北:中央研究院社會學研究所。
詹火生、李安妮、戴肇洋,2004,《社會福利城鄉差距與對策之研究》。台北:內政部社會司。
楊孟麗,2003,〈投票意願與經濟不景氣:台灣的情形〉。《選舉研究》10(2):159-191。new window
楊國樞,1992,〈傳統價值觀與現代價值觀能否同時並存〉。收錄於楊國樞主編,《中國人的價值觀—社會科學觀點》。臺北:桂冠。頁65-119。new window
溫福星、邱皓政,2009a,〈多層次模型方法論:階層線性模式的關鍵議題與試解〉。《臺大管理論叢》19(2):263-292。new window
溫福星、邱皓政,2009b,〈組織研究中的多層次調節式中介效果:以組織創新氣氛、組織承諾與工作滿意的實證研究為例〉。《管理學報》26(2):189-211。new window
臺北市政府主計處,1992,《臺北市統計要覽》。台北:臺北市政府主計處。
廖坤榮,2004,〈台灣農會的社會資本形成與政策績效〉。《政治科學論叢》22:181-220。new window
熊瑞梅、張峰彬、林亞鋒,2008,〈社會資本與市民參與〉。發表於「台灣社會學年會」,台北:中研院社會所主辦,2008年12月13-14日。
熊瑞梅、張峰彬與林亞鋒,2010,〈解嚴後民眾社團參與的變遷:時期與世代的效應與意涵〉。《臺灣社會學刊》44:55-105。new window
臺灣省政府主計處,1992,《中華民國臺灣省各縣市重要統計指標:含本省與臺北市、高雄市比較》。南投縣:臺灣省政府主計處。 劉子鍵、陳正昌,2003,〈階層線性模式〉。收錄於陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵主編,《多變量分析方法-統計軟體應用》。台北:五南。頁423-452。
陳介玄,1997,〈派系網路、樁腳網路及俗民網路:論台灣地方派系成之社會意義〉,收錄於東海大學東亞社會經濟研究中心主編,《地方社會》。台北:聯經出版公司。頁31-67。
陳明通、朱雲漢,1992,〈區域性聯合獨佔、地方派系與省議員選舉:一項省議員候選人背景資料的分析〉。《國家科學委員會研究彙刊:人文及社會科學》,2(1): 77-97。
陳明通,1995,《派系政治與台灣政治變遷》。台北:月旦出版社。
陳俊瑋,2010,〈國中教師集體效能感、教師自我效能感及教師組織公民行為關聯之研究:多層次中介效果之分析〉。《當代教育研究》18(2):29-69。new window
陳陸輝,2006,〈政治信任的政治後果—以2004 年立法委員選舉為例〉。《臺灣民主季刊》,3(2):39-62。new window
陳陸輝、陳映男,2012,〈寧信地方,不信中央:政治信任的類型及其政治後果〉。《社會科學論叢》6(1):15-58。new window
陳運財、王業立,2002,《競選活動規制之研究》。台北:中央選舉委員會。
陳錦煌、翁文蒂,2003,〈以社區總體營造推動終身學習、建構公民社會〉。《國家政策季刊》2(3):63-90。
蔡佳泓,2001,〈解析台灣選民的投票參與〉。《選舉研究》8(2):125-154。
蔡明砡,2005,〈我國社會立法發展歷程〉。《社會發展季刊》109:66-83。new window
蔡奇霖,2010,〈別訪問我!我對政治沒興趣:主題效應與TEDS高估投票率之研究〉。《選舉研究》17(2):135-175。new window
鄧哲偉,2004,〈九十四年度中央政府總預算評析報告〉,財團法人國家政策研究基金會,自http://old.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/FM/093/FM-R-093-012.htm
劉義周,2005,〈典型的回顧型投票-2005年三合一選舉結果的解析〉。《臺灣民主季刊》2(4):147-153。new window
瞿海源,1993,《台灣社會變遷調查計劃第二期第四次調查計劃執行報告》。台北:中央研究院民族學研究所。
瞿海源,1995,《台灣社會變遷調查計劃第三期第一次調查計劃執行報告》。台北:中央研究院民族學研究所。
瞿海源,2003,《2003 年第二次社會意向調查》。台北:中央研究院社會學研究所。
謝俊義,2010,《多層次線性分析—理論、方法與實務》。台北:鼎茂圖書。new window
蕭全政,2004,〈經濟發展與台灣的政治民主化〉。《臺灣民主季刊》1(1):1-25。new window
薛承泰,2005,〈台灣的低收入戶與脫貧政策〉,財團法人國家政策研究基金會,取自http://old.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/SS/094/SS-R-094-005.htm
薛承泰,方姿云,2005,〈社會救助法第四條的影響與修正建議〉。《社區發展季刊》108:164-184。new window
薛承泰、杜慈容,2006,〈家庭變遷與社會救助政策-以臺北市為例〉。《社區發展季刊》114:139-146。new window
蕭怡靖,2008,《單一選區兩票制下台灣選民之投票行為:2008年立法委員選舉的多層分析》。台北:國立政治大學政治學研究所博士論文。new window
蕭怡靖、蔡佳泓,2010,〈政治責任與投票—2009年苗栗縣第一選區立法委員補選之探析〉。《臺灣民主季刊》7(2):1-32。new window
蕭怡靖、黃紀,2010,〈單一選區兩票制下的一致與分裂投票-2008年立法委員選舉的探討〉。《臺灣民主季刊》7(3):1-43。new window
蕭怡靖、黃紀,2011,〈施政表現在不同層級地方選舉中的影響:2009 年雲林縣縣長及鄉鎮市長選舉之分析〉。《選舉研究》18(2):59-86。new window
關秉寅、王永慈,2005,〈寧靜革命:台灣社會價值觀的變化〉。收錄於王振寰、章英華主編,《凝聚台灣生命力》。台北:巨流。頁65-99。
蘇麗瓊、胡彩惠,2005,〈內政部社會福利政策與組織變革〉。《社區發展季刊》109:212-226。new window
二、英文文獻
Abrams, Samuel, Torben Iversen, and David Soskice, 2011, “Informal Social Networks and Rational Voting.” British Journal of Political Science 41(2): 229-257.
Alesina, Alberto and Paola Giuliano, 2011,” Family Ties and Political Participation.” Journal of the European Economic Association 9(5): 817-839.
Arrow, Kenneth J., 2000,” Observations on Social Capital.“ In Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. Edited by Partha Dasgupta and Ismail Serageldin. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Pp. 3–5.
Ayala, Louis J., 2000, “Trained for Democracy: The Differing Effects of Voluntary and Involuntary Organizations on Political Participation.” Political Research Quarterly 53(1): 99-115.
Belanger, Eric &; Richard Nadeau, 2005, “Political trust and the vote in multiparty elections: The Canadian case.” European Journal of Political Research 44: 121–146.
Berry, Christopher R., and William G. Howell, 2007,” Accountability and Local Elections: Rethinking Retrospective Voting.” The Journal of Politics 69(3): 844–858.
Bezanson, Kate, 2006, “Gender and the Limits of Social Capital.“ Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie 43(4): 427-443.
Boix, Carles and Daniel Posner, 1998, “Social Capital: Explaining Its Origins and Effects on Government Performance.” British Journal of Political Science 28 (4): 686-693.
Booth, John A., and Mitchell A. Seligson, 1978, Images of Political Participation in Latin America. In Political Participation in Latin America: Citizen and State, edited by John A. Booth, and Mitchell A. Seligson. New York: Holmes and Meier.Pp. 3–33.
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1986, The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by Jhon G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood. Pp. 241-258.
Brady, Henry E., Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, 1995, “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” The American Political Science Review 89(2): 271–294.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Christoforou, Asimina, 2011, “Social Capital Across European Countries: Individual and Aggregate Determinants of Group Membership.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70(3): 699-728.
Chuang Ying C., and Kun.Y Chuang, 2008, “Gender Differences in Relationships Between Social Capital and Individual Smoking and Drinking Behavior in Taiwan.” Social Science &; Medicine 67(8):1321-1330.
Coleman, James S., 1988, “Social capital in the creation of human capital.” The American Journal of Sociology(Supplement)94, s95-s120.
Dahl, Robert A., 1989, Democracy and it’s Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Freire ,Andre, Rodrigo Martins, Manuel Meirinho, 2012, “Electoral Rules, Political Competition and Citizens’ Participation in the Portuguese Local Elections,
1979–2009.” Portuguese Journal of Social Science 11(2): 189-208.
Freitag, Markus, 2003, ” Beyond Tocqueville: The Origins of Social Capital in Switzerland.” European Sociological Review 19(2): 217-232.
Fukuyama, Francis, 2001,” Social Capital, Civil Society and Development.” Third World Quarterly 22(1):7-20.
Fung, Archon, 2003, “Associations and Democracy: Between Theories, Hopes, and Realities.” Annual Review of Sociology 29: 515-539.
Gelissen,John P.T.M., Wim J.H. van Oorschot, and Ellen Finsveen, 2012, “How Does the Welfare State Influence Individuals’ Social Capital?” European Societies 14(3) :416-440
Guillen, Laura, Lluis Coromina and Willem E. Saris, 2011, “Measurement of Social Participation and its Place in Social Capital Theory.” Social Indicators Research 100: 331–350.
Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C.R. Taylor, 1996, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalism,” Political Study 44(4):936~957.
Harder, Joshua and Jon A. Krosnick, 2008,” Why Do People Vote? A Psychological Analysis of the Causes of Voter Turnout.” Journal of Social Issues 64(3): 525-549.
Harpham, Trudy, Emma Grant, and Carlos Rodriguez, 2004, “Mental Health and Social Capital in Cali, Colombia.” Social Science &; Medicine 58: 2267-2277.
He, Kai and Huiyun Feng, 2008, “A Path to Democracy: In Search of China’s Democratization Model.” Asian Perspective 32(3): 139-169.
Hetherington, Marc J., 1999, “ The Effect of Political Trust on the Presidential Vote, 1968-96.” The American Political Science Review 93(2): 311-326.
Hodgson, Geoffrey M., 1996, “What Are Institutions?” Journal of Economic Issues 1: 1-25.
Huang Kai P., and Karen Y. Wang, 2011, “How Guanxi Relates to Social Capital? A Psychological Perspective.” Journal of Social Sciences 7(2): 120-126.
Ingen, Erik Van and Tom Van Der Meer, 2011, “Welfare state expenditure and inequalities in voluntary association participation.” Journal of European Social Policy 21(4): 302-322.
Ikeda, Ken’ichi and Sean E. Richey, 2005,” Japanese Network Capital: The Impact of Social Networks on Japanese Political Participation.” Political Behavior 27(3): 239-260.
Jicha, Karl A., Gretchen H. Thompson, Gregory M. Fulkerson and Jonathan E. May, 2011,” Individual Participation in Collective Action in the Context of a Caribbean Island State: Testing the Effects of Multiple Dimensions of Social Capital.” Rural Sociology 76(2): 229–256.
Jottier, Dimi and Bruno Heyndels, 2012,” Does Social Capital Increase Political Accountability? An Empirical Test for Flemish Municipalities.” Public Choice 150: 731–744.
Kaariainen, Juha and Lehtonen Heikki, 2006, ‘The Variety of Social Capital in Welfare State Regimes -A Comparative Study of 21 Countries.” European Societies 8(1): 27-57.
Kerrissey Jasmine and Evan Schofer, 2013, “Unions Membership and Political Participation in the United States.” Social Forces 91(3): 895-928.
Kiewiet, Roderick and Douglas Rivers, 1984, “A Retrospective on Retrospective Voting.” Political Behavior 6(4): 369-393.
Koster, Ferry., and Jeroen Bruggeman, 2008,” The Institutional Embeddedness of
Social Capital: A Multi-Level Investigation across 24 European Countries.”Policy &; Politics 36(3):397-412.
Klesner, Joseph L., 2007, ”Social Capital and Political Participation in Latin America Evidence from Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Peru.” Latin American Research Review 42(2): 1-32.
Klesner, Joseph L., 2009,” Who Participates? Determinants of Political Action in Mexico.” Latin American Politics and Society 51(2):59-90.
Krishna, Anirudh, 2007, “How Does Social Capital Grow?A Seven-Year Study of Villages in India.” The Journal of Politics 69(4): 941–956.
Kumlin, Staffan and Bo Rothstein, 2005,” Making and Breaking Social Capital: The Impact of Welfare State Institutions.” Comparative Political Studies 38(4):339-365.
Larsen, Christian A., 2007, ” How Welfare Regimes Generate and Erode Social Capital: The Impact of Underclass Phenomena.” Comparative Politics 40(1) :83-101.
Lee, Aie R., 2010, “The Quality of Social Capital and Political Participation in South Korea.” Journal of East Asian Studies 10: 483-505.
Lee, Jaechul, 2008,” Path Toward Democracy in South Korea: Social Capital and Democracy Embedded in the Citizens.” Asian Survey 48(4): 580-602.
Lister, Michael, 2007, “Institutions, Inequality and Social Norms: Explaining Variations in Participation.” British Journal of Politics &; International Relations 9(1): 20-35.
Lorenzini, Jasmine., and Marco Giugni, 2012,” Employment Status, Social Capital, and Political Participation: A Comparison of Unemployed and Employed Youth in Geneva.” Swiss Political Science Review 18(3): 332–351
Malhotra, Neil and Jon A. Krosnick, 2007, “Retrospective and Prospective Performance Assessments during the 2004 Election Campaign: Tests of Mediation and News Media Priming.” Political Behavior 29(2): 249-278.
Marschall Melissa J., and Dietlind Stolle, 2004, “Race and the City: Neighborhood Context and the Development of Generalized Trust.” Political Behavior 26(2):125-153.
Marsden, Peter V., 2005, “The Sociology of James S. Coleman.” Annual Review of Sociology 31:1-24.
Mathieu, Jhon E., and Scott R. Taylor, 2007, “A Framework for Testing Mesomediational Relationships in Organizational Behavior.” Journal of Organization Behavior 28:141-72.
McClurg, Scott D., 2003, “Social Networks and Political Participation: The Role of Social Interaction in ExplainingPolitical Participation.” Political Research Quarterly 56(4) :449-464
McFarland, Daniel A., and Reuben J. Thomas, 2006, ” Bowling Young: How Youth Voluntary Associations Influence Adult Political Participation.” American Sociological Review 71: 401–425.
Meer, Tom V. D., and Erik V. Ingen, 2009,” Schools of Democracy? Disentangling the Relationship Between Civic Participation and Political Action in 17 European Countries.” European Journal of Political Research 48: 281–308.
Mierina, Inta, 2011, Political Participation and Development of Political Attitudes in Post-Communist Countries. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Latvia University.
Mishler, William and Richard Rose, 2005,” What are the Political Consequences of Trust? A Test of Cultural and Institutional Thories in Rusia.” Comparative Political Studies 38(9): 1050-1078.
North, Douglass C. 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Brien, David J., 2011,” Formal Institutional Solutions to the Development of Social Capital.” International Social Science Journal 62:217-228.
Onis, Ziya. 1991. “Review: The Logic of the Developmental State.” Comparative Politics, 24 (1): 109-126.
Oorschot Wim V., and Ellen Finsveen, 2009, “The Welfare State and Social Capital Inequality.” European Societies 11(2): 189-210.
Oorschot Wim V., Wil Arts., and Loek Halman, 2005a, ” Welfare State Effects on Social Capital and Informal Solidarity in the European Union: Evidence from the 1999/2000 European Values Study.” Policy &; Politics 33 (1) :33–54.
Oorschot Wim V., and Wil Arts, 2005b, “The Social Capital of European Welfare States: the Crowding Out Hypothesis Revisited.” Journal of European Social Policy 15(1): 5-26.
Patulny, Roger., 2004, Social Capital and Welfare: Dependency or Division?
Examining Bridging Trends by Welfare Regime, 1981 to 2000. Sydney, Australia: Social Policy Research Centre .
Paxton, Pamela, 2002,” Social Capital and Democracy: An Interdependent
Relationship.” American Sociological Review 67(2): 254-277.
Plutzer, Eric, 2002, “Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood.” American Political Science Review 96(1): 41-56.
Poder, Thomas G., “What is Really Social Capital? A Critical Review.” The American Sociologist 42(4): 341-367.
Portes, Alejandro, 1998, “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 24:1-24.
Portes, Alejandro, 2000, “The Two Meanings of Social Capital.” Sociological Forum
15(1):1-12.
Portes, Alejandro, 2006, “Institutions and Development: A Conceptual Reanalysis.”Population and Development Review, 32(2): 233-262.
Putnam, Rober D., 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, Robert D., 1995, “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65-78.
Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Anthony S. Bryk, 2002, Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. London: Sage.
Roberts, John M., 2004, “What’s ‘Social’ about ‘Social Capital’? “The British Journal of Politics &; International Relations 6(4): 471-493.
Rostila, Mikael, 2011,” The Facets of Social Capital.” Journal for Theory of Social Behaviour 41(3): 308-326.
Rothstein, Bo, 2000, “Trust, Social Dilemmas and Collective Memories.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 12: 477-501.
Rothstein, Bo, 2001, “Social Capital in the Social Democratic Welfare State.” Politics &; Society 29(2): 207–241.
Rothstein, Bo and Dietlind Stolle, 2008,” The State and Social Capital: An
Institutional Theory of Generalized Trust.” Comparative Politics
40(4) :441-459.
Scott, Jhon, 2000, Rational Choice Theory. In Understanding Contemporary Society:
Theories of The Present, edited by Browning, Gary, Abigail Halcli, and Frank
Webster. London: Sage. Pp.126-138.
Skidmore, Paul, Kirsten B., and Hannah Lownsbrough, 2006, Community Participation:Who Benefits?. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Son, Joonmo and Nan Lin, 2008, “Social Capital and Civic Action: A network-based Approach.” Social Science Research 37:330–349
Spicker, Paul, 1984, Stigma and Social Welfare. London: Croom Helm.
Steinhardt, Christoph H., 2012,” How is High Trust in China Possible? Comparing the Origins of Generalized Trust in Three Chinese Societies.” Political Studies 60: 434–454.pos
Stockemer, Daniel, 2012, “District Magnitude and Electoral Turnout: A Macro-Level Global Analysis.” Presented for The Effects of District Magnitude Conference .Lisbon: Institute of Social Sciences, May 29-30, 2012, p.18.
Swartz, Teresa Toguchi, Amy Blackstone, Christopher Uggen and Heather McLaughlin., 2009, “Welfare and Citizenship: The Effects of Government Assistance on Young Adults’Civic Participation.” The Sociological Quarterly 50 :633–665.
Szreter, Simon, 2002, “The State of Social Capital: Bringing Back in Power, Politics, and History.” Theory and Society 31: 573-621.
Szreter, Simon, and Michael Woolcock, 2004, “Health by Association? Social
Capital, Social Theory, and the Political Economy of Public Health.”
International Journal of Epidemiology 33(4): 650–667.
Thomson, Irene Taviss, 2005, “The Theory That Won't Die: From Mass Society to the
Decline of Social Capital.” Sociological Forum 20(3) :421-448.
Urwin, Peter, Giorgio Di Pietro, Patrick Sturgis and Gregor Jack, 2008, “Measuring
the Returns to Networking and the Accumulation of Social Capital.” American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, 67(5): 941-968.
Valdivieso, Patricio, 2012, “Policies for Participation, Life in Association and
Confidence, Implications in the Case of Chile.” Bulletin of Latin American
Research 31(3): 336–351.
Verba, Sidney., and Norman H. Nie, 1972, Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper &; Row.
Wallace, Claire and Florian Pichler, 2007,” Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: Which is More Prevalent in Europe?” European Journal of Social Security 9: 29-54.
Wang, Chin S., and Charles Kurzman, 2007, “Dilemmas of Electoral Clientelism: Taiwan, 1993.” International Political Science Review 28(2):225-245.
Weiner, Myron, 1971, “ Political Participation: Crisis of The Political Process.” In Crisis and Sequences in Political Development, edited by Leonard Binder et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pp.159-204.
Woolcock, Michael, 1998,” Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a
Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework.” Theory and Society 27(2):
151-208.
Wright, Matthew, 2014,” Economic Inequality and the Social Capital Gap in the
United States across Time and Space.” Political Studies. Advance online
publication. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12113.

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