:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:臺灣民主化後國民黨與民進黨不忠誠研究~一項菁英與民眾調查與討論
作者:鄭龍水
作者(外文):Long-Shui Cheng
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:國家發展研究所
指導教授:陳明通
葛永光
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2017
主題關鍵詞:不忠誠政黨不忠誠政黨尺度量表不合憲性不正當性不共同利益 性不安全性民主回潮political party disloyaltyparty disloyalty scaleunconstitutionalityillegitimacyagainst the common interestdetrimental to system securityretrenchment of democracy
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:5
本文採用政治學領域的「系統研究途徑political system approach」,主要由David Easton所創建,及其分析架構,包括「政治共同體層次political community」、「政治體制與規範層次regime」、「權威當局層次authorities」、「公共政策層次public policy(分為外交與大陸政策)」,並結合「不合憲性」、「不正當性」、「不共利性」及「不安全性」,透過筆者自創的「政黨不忠誠尺度量表」,探討國民黨與民進黨的不忠誠情況。研究發現顯示:1. 菁英評議:在40位藍、綠受訪菁英的認知中,民進黨的不忠誠評議總體略為高於國民黨,但是差距非常有限。總體來說,無論在李登輝、陳水扁與馬英九三個時期,民進黨的負面評議的平均值比國民黨高。在「政治共同體層次」民進黨高於國民黨。在分期來看,李登輝、陳水扁與馬英九三個執政時期,民進黨皆高過國民黨。2. 民眾評價:在抽樣調查1603位受訪者中,民進黨的總體忠誠評價高於國民黨,分別是48.4%和34.1%,但兩黨皆未過半,與菁英對民進黨的負面評議平均值較高的情況,呈現相反趨勢。若進一步分期來看李登輝時期,國民黨高於民進黨,分別是56.4%和53.4%,兩黨皆未過半; 陳水扁與馬英九時期,民進黨皆高於國民黨,分別是46.1%和44.2%,另一個是45.3%和30.6%,兩黨也皆未過半,並且呈現評價愈來愈差的趨勢,對照菁英負面評議的平均值,國民黨在馬英九時期最低,陳水扁時期最高,民進黨則是在李登輝時期最高,陳水扁時期最低。總結上述的評價,可說李登輝主政時期,無論菁英或民眾皆認為國民黨比民進黨忠誠; 扁、馬時期,菁英則認為民進黨較不忠誠,而民眾認為民進黨比國民黨忠誠。在四個層次的總節發現中,可以很明顯地看到下述的趨勢:首先,李登輝時期無論是國民黨或是民進黨,其負面評議和評價都是偏低的,而國民黨在四個層次的負面評議及評價也都低於民進黨; 陳水扁時期,兩黨的負面評議及不忠誠評價開始飛漲,國、民兩黨在不同層次上都有較高的負面評議和不忠誠評價,國民黨在「政治共同體層次」以及「政治體制與規範層次」的負面評議及評價較民進黨為高,而民進黨則在「權威當局層次」與「公共政策層次的大陸政策」兩個層次負面評議及評價較高; 最後,在馬英九時期,國民黨在四個層次的負面評議及評價都有非常顯著的增加,並且全面超越民進黨。而國民黨則在「政治共同體層次」及「權威當局層次」這兩個層次的負面評議和評價略為降低。不過,總體數據來看仍然呈現上升的趨勢。
This study applies the political system approach pioneered by David Easton to explore disloyalty to Taiwan’s political system by the country’s major political parties: the Kuomintang, or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The study’s analytical framework applies a “party disloyalty scale,” created by the author, to four levels of Taiwan’s political system: political community, regime, authorities, and public policy (including foreign and domestic policy). Survey research of elite and public opinion applies the concepts of unconstitutionality, illegitimacy, “against the common interest,” and “detrimental to system security” to measure disloyalty by the two parties during the eras of presidents Lee Teng-hui (1988-2000), Chen Shui-bian (2000-2008) and Ma Ying-jeou (2008-2016). The study makes the following findings. (1) Elite Assessment: a survey of 40 elite respondents showed that elites perceived higher disloyalty by the DPP than the KMT, although the difference was limited. Overall, elites viewed the DPP to be more disloyal in each of the three periods considered. At the level of political community however, elites saw the DPP as less disloyal than the KMT for each period. (2) Public Assessment: based on a random survey of 1603 citizens, Taiwanese viewed the DPP to be more loyal overall than the KMT (48.4% vs. 34.1%). Public perceptions thus trended in the opposite direction from elite views regarding loyalty and, notably, neither party was viewed by a majority of the public as loyal on the whole. Broken down over the three periods, the survey results show more Taiwanese viewed the KMT as more loyal than the DPP by a small margin during the Lee Teng-hui era (56.4% vs. 53.4%), while the DPP was seen as slightly more loyal during the Chen Shui-bian era (46.1% vs. 44.2%) and substantially more loyal during the Ma Ying-jeou era (45.3% vs. 30.6%). Public perceptions of loyalty for both parties trended downward over time and neither party was viewed as loyal by a majority of citizens after the Lee era. Both the public and elites viewed the KMT’s loyalty as lowest during the Ma period; however, elites viewed the DPP as more disloyal than the public during the Chen period. In summary, both elites and the public viewed the KMT as more loyal under Lee-Teng-hui, while elite and public perceptions diverged for the Chen and Ma periods; elites viewed the KMT as more loyal during those periods and the public, by contrast, viewed the DPP as more loyal. The study’s aggregate findings regarding the four system levels show the following trends. First, negative scores at all four levels were lower for both parties during the Lee era and negative scores for the KMT were lower than for the DPP at each level. Negative scores for both parties began to increase dramatically at all levels during the Chen era. Negative scores at the levels of political community and regime were higher for the KMT, while the DPP received more negative scores at the levels of authorities and public policy. Finally, there was a very clear rise in negative scores for the KMT for the Ma era and at each level negative scores for the KMT were higher than for the DPP in this period. Although negative scores for the KMT at the levels of political community and authorities dropped slightly over the Ma period, the overall data showed an upward trend in negative scores for the KMT during Ma’s presidency.
壹、中文
一、專書
林嘉誠、朱浤源(1990)。《政治學辭典》。臺北:五南圖書出版有限公司。
行政院大陸委員會(2002)。《政府大陸政策重要文件》。五版,臺北:行政院大陸委員會出版。
李登輝(1999)。《臺灣的主張》。臺北:遠流出版社。new window
周濂(2008)。《現代政治的正當性基礎》。北京:三聯、哈佛燕京學院共同出版。
林碧炤(1991)。《國際政治與外交政策》。臺北:五南出版社。
陳新民(2010)。《法治國家公法學的理論與實踐—陳新民法學論文集》(上、下冊)。臺北:三民書局。new window
陳明通等著(2005)。《民主化臺灣新國家安全觀》。臺北:先覺出版社。new window
陳寬裕、王正華(2011)。《論文統計分析實務:SPSS與AMOS的應用》。臺北:五南出版社。
周育仁(2003)。《政治學新論》。臺北:翰蘆圖書。
鄒景雯(2001)。《李登輝執政告白實錄》。臺北:印刻出版有限公司。
雷飛龍(1973)。〈政黨〉,載:羅志淵主編,《雲五社會科學大辭典,第三冊,政治學》。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。頁203。
呂亞力 (1995)。《政治發展》。臺北:黎明文化事業股份有限公司。
二、期刊論文
王甫昌(1994)。〈族群同化與動員:臺灣民眾政黨支持之分析〉。《中央研究院民族學研究集刊》77:1-34。
王甫昌(2008。〈族群政治議題在臺灣民主轉型中的角色〉。《臺灣民主季刊》5(2):89-140。new window
吳乃德(2002)。〈認同衝突和政治信任:現階段臺灣族群政治的核心難題〉。《臺灣社會學刊》4:75-118。new window
林瓊珠、蔡佳泓(2010)。〈政黨信任、機構信任與民主滿意度〉。《臺灣民主季刊》7(3), 45-85。new window
洪永泰(1987)。〈抽樣原理和常用的一些抽樣方法〉。《數學傳播》11(1):5-12。
三、專書譯著
陳一新、鄧毓浩、陳景堯(譯),Alan R. Ball and B. Guy Peters(原著)( 2003)。《最新現代政治與政府》。臺北:韋伯文化國際出版有限公司。
王業立、郭應哲、林佳龍(譯),Herbert M. Levine(原著)( 2003)。《最新政治學爭辯的議題》。臺北:韋伯文化國際出版有限公司。
國立編譯館(主譯),徐子婷、何景榮(譯),Barrie Axford, Gary K. Browning, Richard Huggins and Ben Rosamond(原著)( 2006)。《政治學的基礎》。臺北:韋伯文化國際出版有限公司。
葉啟芳、瞿菊農(譯),John Locke(洛克)(原著)(1986)。《政府論次講》。臺北:唐山出版社。
劉軍寧(譯),Samuel P. Huntington(杭廷頓)(原著)(2011)。《第三波:二十世紀末的民主化浪潮》。臺北:五南出版社。
潘明宏、陳志瑋(譯),C. Frankfort Nachmias and David Nachmias(原著)( 2003)。《最新社會科學研究方法》。臺北:韋伯文化國際出版有限公司。
高相澤、高全余(譯),Dennis H. Wrong(原著)( 2003)。《權利:它的形式、基礎和作用》。臺北:桂冠圖書有限公司。
何哲欣(譯),Global Democracy(原著)(2006)。《全球民主》。臺北:韋伯文化國際出版有限公司。
四、編著論文
王甫昌(1997)。〈臺灣民主政治與族群政治的衝突〉。載:游盈隆主編。1997。《民主鞏固或崩潰:臺灣二十一世紀的挑戰》,頁133-156。臺北:月旦出版社。
徐火炎(1997)。〈選舉與臺灣政黨重組的趨勢〉,游盈隆(編),《民主鞏固或崩潰:臺灣二十一世紀的挑戰》,頁245-262。臺北:月旦出版社。
徐火炎(1998)。〈臺灣的選舉與社會分歧結構~政黨競爭與民主化〉,載:陳明通、鄭永年主編。1988。《兩岸基層選舉與政治社會變遷》,頁127-168。臺灣研究基金會叢書二之三,臺北:月旦出版社。
張茂桂(1997)。〈談「身份認同政治」的幾個問題〉,載:游盈隆主編。1997。《民主鞏固或崩潰:臺灣二十一世紀的挑戰》,頁91-116。臺北:月旦出版社。
五、研討會論文
林崇義,2008,〈吾國二次政黨輪替與憲政運作之研究〉,《「二次政黨倫替與臺灣民主的再深化:理論、制度與經驗」學術研討會》,臺北:中國文化大學政治學系主辦,2008年10月23日。
胡克威、林宗弘、黃善國(2010)。〈階級政治的復興?臺灣的民主轉型與階級投票,1992-2004〉,《2010年度臺灣社會學會研討會》。臺北新莊:輔仁大學、臺灣社會學會主辦,2010年12月04-05日。
葛永光(2001)。〈政黨體系與責任政治:建立一個「負責任的政黨體系」〉,「政黨政治與選舉競爭學術研討會」論文。臺北:國家政策研究基金會暨中國政治學會合辦。2001年10月6日。new window
六、報紙雜誌
高希均(2012)。〈社會不和,國家不興─一步之遙:減少臺灣政黨惡鬥〉。《遠見雜誌》,第316期。
七、網路論文
中研院語言所(2012)。《漢語大字典》。http://words.sinica.edu.tw/ sou/sou.html。2012/12/24檢索。
中華民國國家安全局(2012)。〈國家安全政策〉。http://www.nsb. gov.tw/page04_09.htm。2012/12/24檢索。
全國法規資料庫(2006)。〈宣誓條例〉。http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/ LawAll_print.aspx?PCode=A0030013檢索。2012/12/24。
美麗島電子報(2014)。〈2014年民黨民調:逢中必反民眾最反感〉。http://www.my-formosa.com/article.aspx?cid=5&id=55315。2014/09/07檢索。
新黨全球資訊網(2013)。〈新黨大事記〉。http://www.np.org.tw/modules/ tinyd0/index.php?id=4。2013/07/14檢索。
貳、英文
一、專書
Campbell, Angus et al. (1954). The Voter Decides. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company.
Campbell, Angus et al. (1960). The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Michael G. Roskin et al. (2003). Political Science An Introduction (eighth edition). New Jersy: Prentice Hall.
John A. Jacobsohn (1998). An Introduction to Political Science. California: Wadsworth Publishing .
Easton, David (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Easton, David (1967). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Elmer E. Schattschneider(1942). Party Government : American Government in action. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.
Heywood, Andrew (1997). Politics. London: MacMillan Press Ltd.
Hu, Jason C. ed. (1994). Quiet Revolutions:On Taiwan, Republic of China. Taipei: Kwang Hwa Publishing Company
Klimovski, Savo (2000). Politics and Institutions. Taipei: Linking Publishing Company.
Kushner, Harvey W. (1998). Terrorism in America: A Structured Approach to Understanding the Terrorist Threat. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Leon D. Epstein. 1967.Political Parties in Western Democracies. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
Linz, Juan J. (1978). The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Martin P. Wattenberg(1990). The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1988. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Michael G. Roskin, Robert L. Cord, James A. Medeiros and Walter S. Jones(1974).Political Science: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Nie, Norman H. et al. (1979). The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Preston,Peter Wallace (1996).Development Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Samuel P. Huntington(1991).The third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Sartori, Giovanni (1976). Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro, Scott J. (2011). Legality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sugarman, David(1983). ed. Legality, Ideology and the State. London: Academic Press.
Ulmann, Walter (1975). Law and Politics in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vincent, Andrew (1987). Theories of the State. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Weber, Max (1978). Economy and Society. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. California: University of California Press.
二、期刊論文
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Capoccia, Giovanni (2002). “Anti-System Parties: A Conceptual Reassessment.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 14(1):9-35.
Collier, David and Steven Levitsky (1997). “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.” World Politics 49(3): 430-451.
Emerson, Rupert (1960). “The Erosion of Democracy.” Journal of Asian Studies 20(1): 1-8.
Gunther, Richard and Larry Diamond (2003). “Species of Political Parties: A New Typology.” Party Politics 9(2): 167-199.
Nettl, J. P. (1968). “The State as a Conceptual Variable.” World Politics 20(4): 559-592.
Nuechterlein, Donald (1979). “The Concept of National Interest: A Time for New Approach.” Orbis 23(1): 73-92.
Rigger, Shelley (2004). “Taiwan’s Best-Case Democratization.” Orbis48(2): 285-292.
Safran, William (2009). “The Catch-All Party Revisited: Reflections of a Kirchheimer Student.” Party Politics 15(5): 543-554.
Schedler,Andreas(1998).“What is Democratic Consolidation?” Journal of Democracy 9, 2 (April): 91-107.
Yu, Ching-hsin (2005). “The Evolving Party System in Taiwan, 1995–2004” Journal of Asian and African Studies 40(1/2May): 105-123.
三、編著論文
Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie and Cynthia McPherson Frantz (1997). “The Impact of Trauma on Meaning: From Meaningless World to Meaningful Life.” In Power, Michael J. and Brewin, Chris R. eds. 1997. The Transformation of Meaning in Psychological Therapies: Integrating Theory and Practice,pp. 91-106. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc,.
Mainwaring, Scott(1992). “Transitions to Democracy and Democratic Consolidation: Theoretical and Comparative Issues.” in Scott Mainwaring, Guillermo O’Donnell, and J. Samuel Valenzuela (eds.),Issue in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective, pp.294-341. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Mainwaring, Scott and Mariano Torcal(2006). “Party System Institutionalization and Party System Theory After The Third Wave of Democratization.”In Richard S. Katz & William Crotty eds. 2006. Handbook of Party Politics,pp.204-227. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.
O’Donnell, Guillermo (1992). “Transitions, Continuities and Paradoxes.” in Scott Mainwaring et al. (eds.),Issue in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective,pp.17-56. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Scaff, Lawrence A. (1985). “Legitimacy.” in Adam Kuper and Jessica Kuper (eds.),The Social Science Encyclopedia,pp.453-454. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sternberger, Dolf (1968). “Legitimacy.” in David L. Sills (ed.),International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 9, pp.244-247. New York: Macmillan.
四、網路論文
1911encyclopedia(2013). “Loyalty.” inhttp://www.1911encyclopedia.org/ Loyalty。Latest update 14 July 2013.
Durkin, Mary and Oonagh Gay (2006). “Her Majesty’s Opposition.” Parliament and Constitution Centre. inhttp://www.parliament.uk/documents/ commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-03910.pdf.Latest update 24 December 2012.
Gabsy, Mondher(2011). “Reflections on the Tunisian Revolution.” Tunisian Community Center. inhttp://www.tunisiancommunity.org/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=239&Itemid=544. Latest update 24 December 2012.
McKean, Erin (2005). New Oxford American Dictionary. in http://www. ehow.com/about_5376895_word-loyalty-mean.html. Latest update 14 July 2013.
Steger, Michael F. (2009). “Meaning.”The Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology. Lopez, Shane J. Blackwell Publishing, 2009. Blackwell Reference Online. http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode.html?id=g9781405161251_chunk_g978140516125115_ss1-4 Latest update 02 September2014
Wikipedia (2013).“Loyalty.” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty. Latest update 14 July 2013.
 
 
 
 
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