臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：為何廢棄混合式選舉制度？--義大利、俄羅斯與泰國選制改革之研究
書刊名：東吳政治學報
作者：蘇子喬 引用關係／王業立 引用關係
作者(外文)：Su, Tzu-chiao／Wang, Yeh-lih
出版日期：2010
卷期：28:3
頁次：頁1-81
主題關鍵詞：選舉制度；單一選區兩票制；新制度論；歷史制度論；杜瓦傑法則；Electoral system；Mixed-member system；New institutionalism；Historical institutionalism；Duverger's law
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(10) 博士論文(2) 專書(2) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:9
  • 共同引用共同引用:352
  • 點閱點閱:300
在二十世紀末，許多新興民主國家與先進民主國家在選舉制度的選擇上，紛紛選擇了混合式選舉制度，儼然形成一波採行混合式選舉制度的浪潮。然而在晚近，採行混合制的義大利、俄羅斯與泰國，卻又不約而同廢棄了混合制，改採其他的選舉制度。本文乃以新制度論的研究途徑，探討這三個國家選舉制度發生變遷的成因，藉此對當前混合式選舉制度看似「退潮」的跡象進行初探性的研究。 本文的主要發現有三，首先，義大利、俄羅斯與泰國三個國家廢棄混合制的主要因素各有不同：俄羅斯是基於普亭試圖持續壟斷權力的制度佈局；泰國是因為軍方力量的復辟；義大利則是肇因於小黨的要脅。其中，俄羅斯與泰國的選制變遷，都是在民主倒退的脈絡下發生；而義大利和泰國的選制變遷，皆回到該國最初始的選舉制度。其次，從三國過去採取混合制的經驗可以發現，混合制中單一選區相對多數制的施行，未必能夠塑造兩大黨為主的政黨體系，此一事實透露了杜瓦傑法則(Duverger’s law)的侷限性。第三，這三個國家的選制變遷經驗也顯示，政治菁英追求權力極大化，不見得是單純地追求其所屬政黨的國會席次極大化，亦即「權力極大化」不完全等同「國會席次極大化」，菁英個人的利益也不完全等同於組織團體的利益。
The mixed-member electoral system was riding high globally at the end of the 20th century with many nascent and mature democracies such as Italy, Russia and Thailand, adopting it one after another. However, these three countries have abandoned the system recently and adopted another electoral system. This paper tries to explore, by the new-institutional approach, the factors of electoral system reform of these three countries, and do primary research on the seeming ebb of the mixed-member electoral system. There are three major findings in this paper. Firstly, the main causes of the renouncement of mixed-member electoral system in these three countries are different. In Russia, it is based on Putin’s attempt to continue his monopoly of power; in Thailand, it is due to the restoration of military power; while in Italy, it is caused by the small parties’ blackmail. Furthermore, the electoral system transition in Russia and Thailand occurred while democracy was in recession, and the electoral system transition in Italy and Thailand was transited back into its original state. Secondly, plurality with a single-member-district system in a mixed-member electoral system does not promise a two-party system. This is exemplified again from the experiences of these three country’s electoral system reform, and it also disclosed the limitedness of Duverger’s law. Last but not least, the electoral system transition of these three countries also demonstrates that the purpose of the political elites’ pursuit of power maximization is not simply to seek for the maximization of seats in the parliament for the party they belong to. That is, power maximization and seat maximization in the parliament are not entirely equal, neither are the elites’ individual or the organizations’ benefits.
期刊論文
1.郭武平(20041000)。普丁總統將把俄羅斯帶往何方？。展望與探索，2(10)，16-19。  延伸查詢new window
2.趙竹成(20060100)。俄羅斯聯邦選舉制度與總統職權。問題與研究，45(1)，53-79。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Schafferer, C.(2009)。The Parliamentary Election in Thailand, December 2007。Electoral Studies，28(1)，167-170。  new window
4.譚國安(19980700)。泰國政治改革的原因、理念和新憲法的內容。東南亞季刊，3(3)，1-13。  延伸查詢new window
5.陳佩修(20000100)。軍事政變的成因、結果與影響：泰國個案研究。問題與研究，39(1)，35-65。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.Shepsle, Kenneth A.(1989)。Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach。Journal of Theoretical Politics，1(2)，131-147。  new window
7.林永芳(20061200)。俄羅斯的政黨體系與民主化。俄羅斯學報，5，25-50。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.Pierson, Paul(2000)。Increasing Return, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics。American Political Science Review，94(2)，251-267。  new window
9.Riker, William H.(19821200)。The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science。American Political Science Review，76(4)，753-766。  new window
10.Massicotte, Louis、Blais, André(1999)。Mixed Electoral Systems: A Conceptual And Empirical Survey。Electoral Studies，18(3)，341-366。  new window
11.林繼文(19990600)。單一選區兩票制與選舉制度改革。新世紀智庫論壇，6，69-79。  延伸查詢new window
12.Krasner, Stephen D.(19840100)。Review Article: Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics。Comparative Politics，16(2)，223-246。  new window
13.Hall, Peter A.、Taylor, Rosemary C. R.(1996)。Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms。Political Studies，44(5)，936-957。  new window
14.Immergut, Ellen M.(1998)。The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism。Politics & Society，26(1)，5-34。  new window
15.張台麟(19940900)。義大利政黨政治之發展及其特性。問題與研究，33(9)，65-74。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.陳尚懋(20080600)。塔克辛執政前後的泰國政商關係。問題與研究，47(2)，151-179。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.陳佩修(20090300)。泰式民主的脆弱性--2006年919軍事政變與泰國民主的逆轉。臺灣民主季刊，6(1)，73-106。new window  延伸查詢new window
18.Mahoney, James W.(2000)。Path Dependence in Historical Sociology。Theory and Society，29(4)，507-548。  new window
19.Moraski, Bryon.(2007)。“Electoral System Reform in Democracy's Grey Zone: Lessons from Putin's Russia.”。Government and Opposition，42, 4，536-563。  new window
20.Murray, David.(1998)。“Thailand’s Recent Electoral Reforms.”。Electoral Studies，17, 4，525-535。  new window
21.Ockey, James.(2008)。“Thailand in 2007: The Struggle to Control Democracy.”。Asian Survey，48, 1，20-28。  new window
22.Renwick, Alan, Chris Hanretty, and David Hine.(2009)。“Partisan Self-interest and Electoral Reform: The New Italian Electoral Law of 2005.”。Electoral Studies，28, 3，437-447。  new window
23.Sanchez, Omar.(2002)。“An Open-Ended Transition: The Effects of Electoral Reform in Italy.”。Journal of European Area Studies，10, 2，259-281。  new window
24.Bardi, Luciano.(2007)。“Electoral Change and Its Impact on the Party System in Italy.”。West European Politics，30, 4，711-732。  new window
25.Bartolini, Stefano et al.(2004)。“The Italian Party System between Parties and Coalitions.”。West European Politics，27, 1，1-19。  new window
26.Bellucci, Paolo.(2008)。“The Parliamentary Election in Italy, April 2006.”。Electoral Studies，27, 1，185-190。  new window
27.Bull, Martin and Gianfranco Pasquino.(2007)。“A Long Quest in Vain: Institutional Reforms in Italy.”。West European Politics，30, 4，670-691。  new window
28.Croissant, Aurel, and Daniel J. Pojar, Jr.(2005)。“Quo Vadis Thailand? Thai Politics after the 2005 Parliamnetary Election.”。Strategic Insights，4, 6，3-20。  new window
29.Ferrara, Federico.(2006)。“Two in One: Party Competition in the Italian Single Ballot Mixed System.”。Electoral Studies，25, 2，329-350。  new window
30.Gallagher, Michael.(1992)。“Comparing Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: Quotas, Thresholds, Paradoxes and Majorities.”。British Journal of Political Science，22，469-496。  new window
31.Hewison, Kevin.(2007)。“Constitutions, Regimes and Power in Thailand.”。Democratization，14, 5，928-945。  new window
32.Hicken, Allen.(2006)。“Party Fabrication: Constitutional Reform and the Rise of Thai Rak Thai.”。Journal of East Asian Studies，6，381-407。  new window
33.Hicken, Allen, and Yuko Kasuya.(2003)。“A Guide to the Constitutional Structures and Electoral Systems of East, South and Southeast Asia.”。Electoral Studies，22, 1，121-151。  new window
34.Sawasdee, Siripan Nogsuan.(2005)。“The 2005 General Elections in Thailand: Toward a Single-Party Government.”。Philippine Journal of Third World Studies，20, 1，48-71。  new window
35.Thames, Frank.(2005)。“A House Divided: Party Strength and the Mandate Divide in Hungary, Russia, and Ukraine.”。Comparative Political Studies，38, 3，282-303。  new window
36.陳佩修(2000)。〈泰國的軍人與文人關係：回顧與展望〉。戰略與國際研究，2，4，97-127。  延伸查詢new window
37.陳佩修(2002)。〈泰國「新政治」的發展與危機〉。海華與東南亞研究，2，3，1-19。  延伸查詢new window
38.劉向文、張璐(2007)。〈談俄羅斯聯邦國家杜馬的新選舉制度〉。俄羅斯中亞東歐研究，3，28-36。  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.Bartolini, Stefano.(2002)。“The Political Consequences of the Italian Mixed Electoral System (1994-2001).”。Lisbon。  new window
2.Moraski, Bryon.(2005)。“More Proportional but Less Fair: Electoral Sysyem Reform in Putin’s Russia.”。Washington, DC。  new window
學位論文
1.李雅惠(2004)。〈論義大利選舉制度改革對政黨體制的衝擊〉。  延伸查詢new window
2.林右峰(2002)。〈泰國一九九七年選舉制度改革〉。  延伸查詢new window
3.張靜尹(2008)。〈塔信政權與泰國政治變遷〉。  延伸查詢new window
4.黃世光(2003)。〈泰國「泰愛泰黨」的發展策略研究〉。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.吳重禮(2008)。政黨與選舉：理論與實踐。臺北：三民書局。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.蔡學儀(2009)。單一選區兩票制新解。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
3.Scott, Richard W.(2001)。Institutions and Organization。Sage Publications。  new window
4.Lijphart, Arend(1998)。Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries。New Haven：Yale University Press。  new window
5.Sartori, Giovanni(1976)。Parties and Party Systems。Cambridge University Press。  new window
6.顧長永(2000)。東南亞政府與政治。臺北：五南圖書出版公司。  延伸查詢new window
7.Dhiravegin, Likhit(1992)。Demi-Democracy: The Evolution of the Thai Political System。Times Academic Press。  new window
8.Mainwaring, Scott P.(1999)。Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil。Palo Alto, CA。  new window
9.LeDuc, Lawrence、Niemi, Richard G.、Norris, Pippa(1996)。Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective。Thousand Oaks, CA：SAGE。  new window
10.Sartori, Giovanni(1997)。Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes。New York, NY：New York University Press。  new window
11.Alexander, Jeffrey C.、Giesen, Bernhard、Munch, Richard、Smelser, Neil J.(1987)。The Micro-Macro Link。University of California Press。  new window
12.Rae, Douglas W.(1971)。The Political Consequences of Electoral Law。New Haven, CT：Yale University Press。  new window
13.Norris, Pippa(2004)。Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior。New York, NY。  new window
14.謝復生(1992)。政黨比例代表制。臺北市：理論與政策雜誌社。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.March, James G.、Olsen, Johan P.(1989)。Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics。New York：The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc.。  new window
16.吳玉山(20000000)。俄羅斯轉型1992-1999：一個政治經濟學的分析。臺北：五南。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.Samudavanija, Chai-Anan(2002)。Thailand: State-Building, Democracy and Globalization。Institute of Public Policy Studies。  new window
18.王業立(2008)。比較選舉制度。五南。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.Moser, Robert G.(2001)。“The Impact of Parliamentary Electoral Systems in Russia.”。Contemporary Russian Politics。New York。  new window
20.Nohlen, Dieter.(1996)。“Electoral Systems and Electoral Reform in Latin America.”。Institutional Design in New Democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America。Boulder, CO。  new window
21.Ostrow, Joel M. et al.(2007)。The Consolidation of Dictatorship in Russia: an Inside View of the Demise of Democracy。Westport, CT。  new window
22.Partridge, Hilary.(1998)。Italian Politics Today。Manchester。  new window
23.Sakwa, Richard.(2008)。Russian Politics and Society。New York。  new window
24.Clark, Martin.(2008)。Modern Italy: 1871 to the Present。Harlow, England。  new window
25.Cotta, Maurizio and Luca Verzichelli.(2007)。Political Institutions in Italy。New York:。  new window
26.Hesli, Vicki L.(2007)。Governments and Politics in Russia and the Post-Soviet Region。Boston, MA。  new window
27.Smith, Steven S. and Thomas F. Remington.(2001)。The Politics of Institutional Choice: The Formation of the Russian State Duma, Princeton。Princeton, NJ。  new window
28.Steinmo, Sven and Kathleen Thelen.(1992)。“Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis.”。Structuring Politics。New York。  new window
29.Thelen, Kathleen.(2002)。“How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative -Historical Analysis.”。Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences。Cambridge。  new window
圖書論文
1.Shugart, Matthew Soberg、Wattenberg, Martin P.(2001)。Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: A Definition and Typology。Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?。Oxford University Press。  new window
2.Levi, Margaret(1997)。A Model, a Method, and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis。Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure。Cambridge：Cambridge University Press。  new window
3.Sartori, Giovanni(1986)。The Influence of Electoral Systems: Faulty Laws or Faulty Methods?。Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences。New York：Agathon Press。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：653（臺灣：632，外國：21） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1498098 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67298998
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上