:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:ECFA及服貿協議審議過程之比較分析
作者:詹立煒 引用關係
作者(外文):CHAN, LI-WEI
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:公共行政暨政策學系
指導教授:吳秀光
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2015
主題關鍵詞:兩岸經合協議服貿協議審議程序ECFAratification process
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:108
本研究所關切的:為什麼掌握行政與立法部門的執政黨,於2010年在立法院通過ECFA,但做為ECFA後續一部份的服貿協議卻迄今無法完成國會審議程序。這當中之間的差異何在,為本文的主要問題來源。基此,本研究先從國會審議程序和對外協議之間的關聯性切入,以行動者在集體決策場域的三個關鍵要素:結構、互動關係和策略運用,從相關文獻中彙整並討論,據以建立分析架構的基礎。同時針對立法院審議對外自貿協定的程序及案例,說明ECFA及服貿協議交付審議的規範,以及協議本身在政策透明化和貿易自由化兩個議題面向的正反論點,從而建立個案敘事基礎。
對此,本研究藉由以理性選擇制度論的分析敘事為途徑,運用因果程序追蹤為核心的個案內分析之方法,在方法論之個體主義的基礎下,將相關行動者區分為委託人(包括制度性否決者和利害關係人)及代理人(以總統為代表),蒐集立法院第7屆、第8屆會期與ECFA及服貿協議相關的公報內容、政府新聞稿,以及同時期媒體公布的民調數據為資料來源,就ECFA及服貿協議審議過程之間的異同予以比較分析。
本研究從政策透明化和貿易自由化兩個與個案相關的議題面向探討。基此,研究問題為:在ECFA及服貿協議的審議過程中,委託人、代理人和利害關係人對於政策透明化及貿易自由化的立場與策略是什麼?有沒有改變?以及當政策透明化和貿易自由化兩議題面向連結之後,委託人、代理人和利害關係人在此二維政策空間的立場與策略是什麼?有沒有改變
本研究發現,做為代理人的行政部門無論是政策透明化或貿易自由化的立場與策略並沒有明顯的變化,始終認為既有的機制足以符合透明化的要求,同時也堅持ECFA及服貿協議是能促進我國和中國大陸經貿關係自由化的措施。也因此原本部分在ECFA審議過程中,議題面向與代理人政策理想點接近的委託人與利害關係人,因代理人的立場與策略之故,而在服貿協議的審議過程開始改變,反而往要求政策透明度高的方向移動。當委託人和利害關係人的立場變動之後,使得ECFA和服貿協議最後有著不同的結果。
My dissertation is a comparative analysis about the difference between the ratification process of Economic Cooperative Framework Agreement (ECFA) and Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Service (CSATS) in Legislative Yuan. The Core question is, why did the ruling party (KMT) fail to pass the CSATS in ratification process? In perspective of theories and literatures, players have desire and tendency to win in collective decision-making, thus the theories concluded that players are inclined to choose fields that enable to be manipulated in political games in order to influence the outcome of legislative ratification process. I will seek answers to my research questions by conducting a qualitative with-in case study.
In the theoretical framework, I assume the Legislative Yuan is the Causal Mechanism (CM) that produces outcomes through the interaction of a series of parts that transmit causal force from the explanatory variables (X) to outcome variable (Y). Therefore, I concluded three factors that affect the players’ attitude and interactive strategies in ratification procedure. The explanatory variables are the relations between players’ strategies and interactions in the ratification procedure. The structural factor is the antecedent variable which prior to the X and Y. The structural factor diminishes or enhances the effect of the X and Y. The outcome variable is the difference of legislative ratification process between the ECFA and CSATS. It includes two issue dimensions: the degree of the policy transparency, and the degree of trade liberalization.
The result in this dissertation shows: first, when these two issues, the degree of the policy transparency and trade liberalization, are combined with one dimension, some players’ attitude had changed; especially the legislators of ruling party, who are the important player in the ratification process. Second, the executive branch (agent) had never changed the attitude and strategy in both issue dimensions. However, the legislative branch (principals) and policy stakeholders had changed the attitude and strategies to counter the agent. Therefore, the ruling party failed to pass the CSATS in ratification process.
壹、華文部分
王光旭、陳敦源,2010,〈政務領導、國會監督與官僚自主:台灣全民健保政策「否決者」之研究,1986-2004〉,《行政暨政策學報》,50:107-157。new window
立法院,2003,《立法院公報》,第92卷,第40期。臺北市:立法院。
立法院,2005,《立法院公報》,第94卷,第71期。臺北市:立法院。
立法院,2009,《立法院公報》,第98卷,第22期。臺北市:立法院。
立法院,2010a,《立法院公報》,第99卷,第7期。臺北市:立法院。
立法院,2010b,《立法院公報》,第99卷,第27期。臺北市:立法院。
立法院,2010c,《立法院公報》,第99卷,第50期。臺北市:立法院。
立法院,2013a,《立法院公報》,第102卷,第28期。臺北市:立法院。
______,2013b,《立法院公報》,第102卷,第47期。臺北市:立法院。
______,2013c,《立法院公報》,第102卷,第50期。臺北市:立法院。
______,2013d,《立法院公報》,第102卷,第51期。臺北市:立法院。
______,2013e,《立法院公報》,第102卷,第57期。臺北市:立法院。
______,2013f,《立法院公報》,第102卷,第62期。臺北市:立法院。
______,2013g,《立法院公報》,第103卷,第3期。臺北市:立法院。
立法院,2014a,《立法院公報》,第103卷,第17期。臺北市:立法院。
______,2014b,《立法院公報》,第103卷,第29期。臺北市:立法院。
田麗虹,2003,《兩岸關係的決策分析-解析行政立法關係下的大陸政策》,臺北:新文京。
朱敬一,2009,〈導論〉,朱敬一主編、林碧炤、劉大年副主編,2009,《ECFA:開創兩岸互利雙贏新局面》,臺北市:財團法人兩岸交流遠景基金會,頁1-12。
邱訪義、李誌偉,2012,〈立法院積極議程設定之理論與經驗分析:第二至六屆〉,《台灣政治學刊》,16(1):1-58。new window
何景榮譯、Jan-Erik Lane and Svante Ersson原著,2002,《新制度主義政治學》,臺北市:韋伯文化。
杜震華,2011,〈東亞自由貿易協定和兩岸經濟協議之異同〉,《國家發展研究》,11(1):1-42。new window
尚榮安譯,Robert K. Yin原著,1994,《個案研究》,臺北市:弘智。
吳玉山,1997a,〈抗拒或扈從:面對強鄰時的策略抉擇(上)〉,《問題與研究》,36(2):1-32。new window
______,1997b,〈抗拒或扈從:面對強鄰時的策略抉擇(下)〉,《問題與研究》,36(3):61-80。
吳文欽,2015,〈策略互動與實證分析;逆推統計法及其於外交政策研究的應用〉,《台灣政治學刊》,19(1):99-145。new window
吳四明譯、Ian Fletcher原著,2012,《自由貿易行不行?經濟學家不告訴你的秘密》,臺北市:三民。
吳玲君,2015,《規則優勢下的亞太區域經貿整合》,臺北市:洪葉文化。
吳秀光,2001,《政府談判之博弈理論分析》,臺北市:時英。new window
吳秀光、石冀忻,2009,〈兩岸談判的雙層賽局分析〉,包宗和、吳玉山主編,《重新檢視爭辯中的兩岸關係理論》,臺北市:五南,頁239-274。new window
吳秀光、陳敦源譯,William H. Riker原著,2014,《政治聯盟理論》,臺北市:聯經。
林繼文,2005,〈虛假霸權:台灣政治學研究中的理性選擇〉,《政治科學論叢》,25:67-104。new window
林繼文,2009,〈雙層三角:以空間模型分析國內政治對美中台戰略三角的影響〉,包宗和、吳玉山主編,《重新檢視爭辯中的兩岸關係理論》,臺北市:五南,頁275-302。new window
林繼文,2015,〈論述如何框限選擇?條件式統獨偏好對2012年台灣總統選舉的影響〉,《政治科學論叢》,63:55-90。new window
林正義,2009,〈立法院監督兩岸協議的機制〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,6(1):169-175。new window
林宗弘、胡克威,2011,〈愛恨ECFA:兩岸貿易與臺灣的階級政治〉,《思與言》,49(3):95-134。new window
林國榮、許聖民、徐世勳,2013,〈ECFA對我國勞動市場與所得分配的經濟影響評估〉,《臺灣經濟預測與政策》,44(1):27-80。new window
周萬來,2012,《立法院職權行使法逐條釋論》,臺北市:五南。new window
柯春共,2005,〈區域貿易協定主要類型之研析〉,《問題與研究》,44(2):147-188。new window
柯于璋,2013,〈政府委託研究案代理問題之探討:一個結合賽局理論與代理人理論的研究取向〉,《行政暨政策學報》,57:1-36。new window
洪財隆,2011,〈ECFA的爭議脈絡與自由化進程之探索:以「兩岸經貿關係正常化」做為分析視角〉,《思與言》,49(3):9-54。new window
胡瑋珊譯、Ha-Jon Chang原著,2010,《富國的糖衣:揭穿自由貿易的真相》,臺北市:五南。
夏道維,2012,《兩岸協議治理研究:以兩岸經濟合作架構協議(ECFA)為例》,國立政治大學公共行政學系博士論文。new window
浩平、蕭羨一譯、Murray J Horn原著,2003,《公共行政之政治經濟學:公部門的制度選擇》,臺北市:商周。
陳恆鈞,2002,《治理互賴與政策執行》,臺北市:商鼎。
陳德銘等,2014,《經濟危機與規則重構》,北京:商務印書館。
陳敦源,2005,《民主與官僚:新制度論的觀點》,臺北:韋伯。new window
陳敦源,2009,《民主治理:公共行政與民主政治的制度性調和》,臺北市:五南。new window
陳建良〔譯〕、Roger A. McCain〔原著〕,2008,《賽局理論》,臺北市:智勝。
陳明通,2011,〈馬政府兩岸協商的解析〉,吳釗燮主編,《台海兩岸關係與中國國際戰略》,臺北市:新台灣國策智庫,頁51-86。
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。new window
詹滿容,2003,《我國因應中共與東協建立自由貿易區之研究》,行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告(RDEC-RES-092-003)。
詹立煒,2014,〈臺北縣推動「準用直轄市」策略之理性決策分析〉,《中華行政學報》,15:27-49。new window
詹立煒,2015,〈臺灣國會制度中的遊說操控-地方制度法第四條「準用直轄市」修正案歷程剖析〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,12(1):55-114。new window
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):83-114。new window
楊婉瑩、陳采葳,2004,〈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。new window
趙弘章,2005,〈我國立法院委員會專業化與黨團協商透明化之分析〉,《中山人文社會科學期刊》, 13(1):37-54。
廖達琪,2012,《兩岸協議推動過程行政與立法機關權限及角色之研究》,行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告(RDEC-RES-100-004)。
蔡宏政,2011,〈如何看待ECFA簽訂的戰略利益:區域經濟分工轉型下的政治經濟分析〉,《思與言》,49(3):135-165。new window
蔡敦浩、劉育忠、王慧蘭,2011,《敘說探究的第一堂課》,臺北市:鼎茂。
劉瑞華譯、Douglass North原著,1994,《制度、制度變遷與經濟成就》,臺北市;時報。
劉碧珍、史惠慈、杜巧霞,2010,〈推動ECFA的經濟思維〉,《經濟前瞻》,127:39-51。
劉兵、李非,2002,〈台灣入世對島內經濟及兩岸經濟關係的影響〉,《南開經濟研究》,4:43-48。
劉光溪,2003,〈“入世”後海峽兩岸經貿關係發展的基本思考〉,曾建明主編,《上海台灣研究第三輯》,上海:上海台灣研究所,頁79-88。
謝復生,2013,《實證政治理論》,臺北市:五南。
總統府,2009,《馬英九總統97年言論選集》,臺北市:總統府。網址:http://www.president.gov.tw/Default.aspx?tabid=1278(下載日期:2015/04/14)。
總統府,2011,《馬英九總統99年言論選集》,臺北市:總統府。網址:http://www.president.gov.tw/Default.aspx?tabid=1353(下載日期:2015/04/14)。
蕭怡靖,2005,〈我國立法院資深制度之探討-委員會遊走及召集委員資深制度之變遷〉,《政治科學論叢》,25:105-34。new window
蕭怡靖,2007,〈我國立法委員選擇常設委員會之研究:以第五屆立法委員為例〉,《東吳政治學報》,25(3):131-82。new window
蘇起,2014,《兩岸波濤二十年紀實》,臺北市:天下文化。
羅傳賢,2001,《立法程序與技術(2版)》,臺北市:五南。
羅致政,2011,〈中國對台政策與台灣主權危機〉,吳釗燮主編,《台海兩岸關係與中國國際戰略》,臺北市:新台灣國策智庫,頁29-50。
顧瑩華, 2009,〈ECFA對臺灣的重要性〉,朱敬一主編、林碧炤、劉大年副主編,2009,《ECFA:開創兩岸互利雙贏新局面》,臺北市:財團法人兩岸交流遠景基金會,頁35-52。

貳、西文部分
Alexandrova, Anna. 2009. “When Analytic Narratives Explain.” Journal of the Philosophy of History, 3(1): 1-24.
Austen-Smith, David and Jeffery S. Banks. 2005. Positive Political Theory II: Stategy and Structure. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Axelrod, Robert. 2006. The Evolution of Cooperation (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
Bailey, Michael and David W. Brady. 1998. “Heterogeneity and Representation: The Senate and Free Trade.” American Journal of Political Science, 42(2): 524-544.
Bates, Robert H, Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, and Barry R. Weingast. 1998. Analytical Narratives. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Bates, Robert H, Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, and Barry R. Weingast. 2002. “The Analytic Narrative Project.” American Political Science Review, 94(3): 696-702.
Banks, Jeffrey. 1990. “Monopoly Agenda Control and Asymmetric Information.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(2): 445-464.
Barbieri, Katherine and Jack S. Levy. 1999. “Sleeping with the Enemy: The Impact of War on Trade.” Journal of Peace Research, 36(4): 463-479.
Bevir, Mark. 2009. Key Concepts in Governance. London: Sage.
Brady, Henry E. and David Collier ed. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.
Bűthe, Tim. 2002. “Taking Temporality Seriously: Modeling History and the Use of Narratives as Evidence.” American Political Science Review, 96(3): 481-493.
Butler, Christopher K. 2004. “Modeling Compromise at the International Table.” Conflict Management and Peace Science, 21(3): 159-177.
Carlsson, Lars. 2000. “Policy Networks as Collective Action.” Policy Studies Journal, 28 (3): 502-520.
Chapman, Terrence L, Johannes Urpelainen, and Scott Wolford. 2012. “International Bargaining, Endogenous Domestic Constraints, and Democratic Accountability.” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 25(2): 260-283.
Chow, Peter C.Y. and Dan Ciuriak. 2012. “The FTA Music Is Playing in Asia: After ECFA, Will Taiwan Join the Dance?” The International Trade Journal, 26(1): 61-75.
Clark, Kevin A. and David Primo. 2012. A Model Discipline: Political Science and the Logic of Representations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Conconi, Paola, Giovanni Facchini, and Maurizio Zanardi. 2012. “Fast-Track Authority and International Trade Negotiations.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(3): 146-189.
Conceição-Heldt, Eugénia da 2013. “Two-level games and trade cooperation: What do we now know?” International Politics, 50(4): 579-599.
Dai, Xinyuan. 2005. “Why Comply? The Domestic Constituency Mechanism.” International Organization, 59(2): 363-398.
Diermeier, Daniel and Keith Krehbiel. 2003. “Institutionalism as a Methodology.” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15 (2):123-144.
Dluhosch, Barbara and Nikolai Zigger. 2011. “The Paradox of Weakness in the Politics of Trade Integration.” Constitutional Political Economy, 22(4): 325-354.
Doeser, Fredrik. 2011. “Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Change in Small States: The Fall of the Danish‘Footnote Policy’.” Cooperation and Conflict, 46(2): 222-241.
Doron, Gideon and Itai Sened. 2001. Political Bargaining: Theory, Practice and Process. London: Sage.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Elsig, Manfred. 2011. “Principal-Agent Theory and the World Trade Organization: Complex Agency and ‘Missing Delegation’.” European Journal of International Relations, 17(3): 495-517.
Elster, Jon. “Rational Choice History: A Case of Excessive Ambition.” American Political Science Review, 94(3): 685-695.
Fearon, James D. “Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International Relations.” Annual Review of Political Science, 1: 289-313.
Feldman, Martha S., Kai Skőldberg, Ruth Nicole Brown, and Debra Horner. 2004. “Making Sense of Stories: A Rhetorical Approach to Narrative Analysis.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2): 147-170.
Friman, Richard H. 1993. “Side-payments versus Security Cards: Domestic Bargaining Tactics in International Economic Negotiations.” International Organization, 47(3): 387-410.
Gaertner, Wulf 2009. A Primer in Social Choice Theory (revised ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gallagher, Maryann, and Susan H. Allen 2014. “Presidential Personality: Not Just a Nuisance.” Foreign Policy Analysis, 10 (1): 1-21.
Garriga, Ana Carolina. 2009. “Regime Type and Bilateral Treaty Formalization: Do Too Many Cooks Spoil the Soup?” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53(5): 398-726.
George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Science, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldstein, Joshua S. 2003. International Relations. New York: Longman.
Granato, Jim and Frank Scioli. 2004. “Puzzles, Proverbs, and Omega Matrices: The Scientific and Social Significance of Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models (EITM).” Perspectives on Politics, 2 (2): 313-323.
Granato, Jim, Melody Lo, and M.C. Sunny Wong. 2010. “A Framework for Unifying Formal and Empirical Analysis.” American Journal of Politics Science, 54 (3):783-797.
Grant, Ruth W. and Robert O. Keohane. 2005. “Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics.” American Political Science Review, 99(1): 29-43.
Grossman, Gene M. and Elhanan Helpman. 1995. “The Politics of Free-Trade Agreement.” The American Economic Review, 85(4): 667-690.
Guisinger, Alexandra. 2009. “Determining Trade Policy: Do Voters Hold Politicians Accountable?” International Organization, 63(3): 533-557.
Hammond, Thomas. 1996. “Agenda Control, Organizational Structure, and Bureaucratic Politics.” American Journal of Political Science, 30 (2): 379-420.
Hames, David S. 2012. Negotiation: Closing Deals, Setting Disputes, and Making Team Decisions. London: Sage.
Hastie, Reid and Robyn M. Dawes. 2010. Rational Choice in an Uncertainty World: The Psychology of judgement and Decision Making. Los Angles: Sage.
Hotelling, Harold H. 1929. “Stability in Competition.” The Economic Journal, Vol. 39, No. 153:41-57.
Howlett, Michael, and M. Ramesh. 1995. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Howlett, Michael. 2007. “Analyzing Multi-Actor, Multi-Round Public Policy Decision-Making Process in Government: Finding from Five Canadian Cases.” Canadian Journal Political Science, 40(3):659-684.
Hughes, Owen E. 2003. Public Management and Administration (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hsu, Szu-Chien, 2011. “Advantages and Limitations of President Ma’s Cross-Strait Negotiation: CECA/ECFA as an Example.” Thought and Word, Journal of Humanities and Social Science (思與言 人文與社會科學期刊), 49 (3): 55-94.
Iida, Keisuke. 1993. “When and How Do Domestic Constraints Matter?” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(3): 403-426.
Immergut, Ellen M. 1998. “The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism.” Politics and Society, 26(1): 5-34.
Jessop, Bob. 2008. “Institutional and Institutionalism in Political Economy: a Strategic-Relational Approach.” in Jon Pierre, B. Guy Peters and Gerry Stoker (ed.) Debating Institutionalism. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Jones, Michael D. and Mark K. McBeth. 2010. “A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to Be Wrong?” Policy Studies Journal, 38(2): 329-353.
Jonsson, Christer and Jonas Tallberg. 2008. “Institutional Theory in International Relations.” in Jon Pierre, B. Guy Peters and Gerry Stoker (ed.) Debating Institutionalism. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Kastner, Scott L. 2009. Political Conflict and Economic Interdependence Across the Taiwan Strait and Beyond. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Katznelson, Ira and Barry Weingast. 2005. Preferences and Situations: Points of Intersection Between Historical and Rational Choice Institutionalism. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kibris, Arzu. 2012. “Uncertainty and Ratification Failure.” Public Choice, 150(3/4): 439-467.
Kingdon, John. 2011. Agenda, Alternatives, and Public Policies (update 2nd ed.), New York: Longman.
Ladewig, Jeffrey W. 2006. “Domestic Influences on International trade Policy: Factor Mobility in the United States, 1963 to 1992.” International Organization, 60(1): 69-103.
Levi, Margaret. 2002. “Modeling Complex Historical Processes with Analytic Narratives.” in Renate Mayntz eds., Akteure-Mechanismen-Modell: Zur Theoriefähigkeit makro-sozialer Analysen. (German) Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag GmbH.
Lindblom, Charles E. and Edward J. Woodhouse. 1993. The Policy-Making Process (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Lin, Jih-wen. 2000. “Two-Level Games Between Rival Regimes: Domestic Politics and Remarking of Cross-Strait Relations.” Issues and Studies, 36(6): 1-26.
Lin, Jih-wen. 2011. “A Veto Player Theory of Policymaking in Semi-Presidential Regimes: The Case of Taiwan’s Ma Ying-jeou Presidency.” Journal of East Asian Studies, 11 (3): 407-435.
Lo Chih-cheng and Jih-wen Lin. 1995. “Between Sovereignty and Security: A Mixed Strategy Analysis of Current Cross-Strait Interaction.” Issues and Studies, 31(3): 64-91.
Lo, Chang-fa. 2010. WTO-Plus in Free Trade Agreements. Taipei: Angle.
Lowenthal, Mark M. 2012. Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA.: CQ. Press.
Lowi, Theodore J. 1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies and Political Theory.” World Politics, 16(4): 677-715.
Lowi, Theodore J. 1969. The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority. New York: Norton & Company.
Lowndes, Vivien and Mark Roberts. 2013. Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Luce, Duncan R. and Howard Raiffa. 1985. Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. New York: Dover.
Maggi, Giovanni and Andres Rodriguez-Clare. 1998. “The Value of Trade Agreements in the Presence of Political Pressures.” Journal of Political Economy, 106(3): 574-601.
Mansfield, Edward D., Helen Milner and B. Peter Rosendorff. 2000. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade.” American Political Science Review, 94(2): 305-321.
Mansfield, Edward D., Helen Milner and Jon C. Pevehouse. 2007. “Vetoing Co-operation: The Impact of Veto Players on Preferential Trading Arrangements.” British Journal of Political Science, 37(3): 403-432.
Mansfield, Edward D. and Helen Milner. 2012. Votes, Vetoes, and the Political Economy of International Trade Agreements. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
McCain, Roger A. 2009. Game Theory and Public Policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
McKelvey, Richard D. 1976. “Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control.” Journal of Economic Theory, 2: 472-78.
Miller, Gary J. 2005. “The Political Evolution of Principal-Agent Models.” Annual Review of Political Science, 8: 203-225.
Milner, Helen V. 1997. Interest, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relation. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Milner, Helen V. and Peter Rosendorff. 1997a. “Domestic Politics and International Trade Negotiations: Elections and Divided Government as Constraints on Trade Liberalization.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41 (1): 117-146.
______. 1997b. “A Model of the Two-Level Game.” in Helen Milner, Interest, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relation. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Mo, Jongryn. 1994. “The Logic of Two-Level Games with Endogenous Domestic Coalitions.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(3): 402-422.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1993. “Introduction: Integrating International and Domestic Theories of International Bargaining.” in Peter B. Evans, Harold K. Jacobson and Robert D. Putnam ed., Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Olsen, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2014. “An Agenda for the Study of Institutions.” in Filippo Sabetti and Paul Dragos Aligica ed., Choice, Rrules and Collective Action: the Ostroms on the Study of Institutions and Governance, Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.
Pahre, Robert and Paul A. Papayoanou. 1997. “Using Game Theory to Link Domestic and International Politics.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1): 4-11.
Paine, Scott C. 1989. “Persuasion, Manipulation, and Dimension.” Journal of Politics,. 51(1): 36-49.
Parsons, Wayne. 1995. Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Peake, Jeffrey. 2001. “Presidential Agenda Setting in Foreign Policy.” Political Research Quarterly, 54(1): 69-86.
Peters, Guy. 2005. Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum.
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Prins, Brandon C. and Bryan W. Marshall. 2009. “Senate Influence or Presidential Unilateralism: An Examination of Treaties and Executive Agreements form Theodore Roosevelt and George W. Bush.” Conflict Management and Peace Science, 26(2): 191-208.
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization, 42(3):427-460.
Raiffa, Howard. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. MA: Harvard University Press.
Rasmusen, Eric. 2007. Games and Information An Introduction to Game Theory (4th ed.). Malden: Blackwell.
Riker, William H. 1980. “Implications from the Disequlibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review, 74(2): 432-446.
Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism Against Populism A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco : W. H. Freeman.
Riker, William H. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rutledge, Paul E. and Heather A. Larsen Price 2014. “The President as Agenda Setter-in-Chief: The Dynamics of Congressional and Presidential Agenda Setting.” The Policy Studies Journal, 42(3): 443-464.
Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones, and Mark K. McBeth. 2011. “Policy Narratives and Policy Processes.” Policy Studies Journal, 39(3): 535-561.
Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones, Mark K. McBeth, and Ross R. Lane. 2013. “An Angel on the Wind: How Heroic Policy Narratives Shape Policy Realities.” Policy Studies Journal, 41(3): 453-483.
Schelling, Thomas C. 1980. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1997. Games Real Actors Play Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research.: Oxford Westview.
Schneider, Christina J. and Johannes Urpelainen. 2014. “Partisan Heterogeneity and International Cooperation: The Case of the European Development Fund.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(1): 120-142.
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1979. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science, 23(1): 27-59.
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 2010. Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Shepsle, Kenneth A., Barry R. Weingast. 1987. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Political Science Review, 81(1): 85-104.
Singleton, Royce A. Jr. and Bruce C. Straits. 1999. Approaches to Social Research (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Hedrick (1988). The Power Game: How Washington Works. New York: Ballantine.
Stasavage, David. 2004. “453-Open-Door or Closed-Door? Transparency in Domestic and International Bargaining.” International Organization, 58(4):667-703.
Stinnett, Douglas M. 2007. “International Uncertainty, Foreign Policy Flexibility, and Surplus Majority Coalitions in Israel.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(3): 470-495.
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.”American Politics Science Review, 57(2):368-377.
Stone, Deborah. 1997. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, New York: W. W. Norton.
Talbert, Jeffery C. and Matthew Potoski 2002. “Setting the Legislative Agenda: The Dimensional Structure of Bill Cosponsoring and Floor Voting.” The Journal of Politics, 64(3) :864-91.
Tarar, Ahmer, 2001. “International Bargaining with Two-Sided Domestic Constraints.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(3): 320-340.
Tarar, Ahmer, 2005. “Constituencies and Preferences in International Bargaining.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(3): 383-407.
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players How Political Institutions Work. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Von Neumann, John and Oskar Morgenstern. 1953. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (3rd ed.). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Wagner, Harrison R. 1988. “Economic Interdependence, Bargaining Power, and Political Influence.” International Organization, 42(3): 461-483.
Weimer, David L. and Aidan R. Vining. 1999. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE