:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:小蝦米對大鯨魚 : 2009年澎湖博弈公投反對與贊成動員形式的比較研究
書刊名:思與言
作者:蔡依倫 引用關係
作者(外文):Tsai, I-lun
出版日期:2016
卷期:54:3
頁次:頁79-117
主題關鍵詞:澎湖博弈公投社會運動公民投票動員政策公投Penghu Casino ReferendumSocial movementReferendumMobilizationPolicy referendum
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(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:166
  • 點閱點閱:44
2009年 1月離島建設條例博弈條款使賭博除罪化,並將爭議十餘年觀光賭場交付地方性公民投票決定,同年 9月的澎湖博弈公投否決了賭場進駐。這是自公投法實施以來,正反雙方最激烈動員的公投案之一,觀光賭場是澎湖地方政治菁英長期爭取的經濟政策,反對方則是由地方公民團體訴諸守護家園。本研究分析贊成方與反對方各自如何進行集體動員?研究結果顯示,像博弈公投這類的政策公投,贊成方在動員過程受益於地方政府,享有較多專屬的在地資源。反觀,反對方則須自行生產資源或汲取無專屬性的文化資源與道德資源,以致於衍生出「小蝦米對大鯨魚」的不對等競爭。其次,該次公投仍受到在地政治生態的影響。澎湖博弈公投案的小蝦米固然搏倒大鯨魚,但是基於上述兩點討論,本文指出公民投票(政策公投)對公民參與政治仍有侷限。
The enactment of Offshore Islands Development Act in January 2009 paved way for the tourist casino, which can be legalized with the positive result of a local referendum. In Penghu, where the casino dispute has lasted for nearly a decade, local people voted against the gaming industry in a referendum in September 2009. While local political elites are the proponent of tourist casino, the opponents are made up of civil-society organizations which vowed to protect hometown identity. This article researches the diverse patterns of mobilization between the two camps in the first casino referendum in Taiwan. In terms of resources, the pro-casino force outnumbered its rival. Moreover, my study reveals that local politics played an important role in affecting the referendum outcome as public participation was constrained in many ways.
期刊論文
1.徐永明(20040600)。公投民主與代議民主的關係--以臺灣經驗為例。臺灣民主,1(2),1-26。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Leduc, Lawrence(2002)。Opinion Change and Voting Behaviour in Referendums。European Journal of Political Research,41(6),711-732。  new window
3.林瓊珠、蔡佳泓(20100900)。從成案到投票--2008年討黨產與入聯公投的公投意向與參與行為。臺灣民主,7(3),45-85。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.陳英鈐(20040600)。公民投票法的制度設計。臺灣民主,1(2),73-93。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.黃舒芃(20110600)。抗拒直接民主的公民投票法?從憲法及法學方法論觀點檢視公民投票審議委員會對臺聯ECFA公投提案之認定。政治與社會哲學評論,37,75-126。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.何明修(2003)。自主與依賴:比較反核四運動與反美濃運動的政治交換模式。臺灣社會學刊,30,1-49。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.Cress, Daniel M.、Snow, David A.(1996)。Mobilization at the Margins: Resources, Benefactors, and the Viability of Homeless Social Movement Organizations。American Sociological Review,61(6),1089-1109。  new window
8.Earl, Jennifer、Martin, Andrew、McCarthy, John D.、Soule, Sarah A.(2004)。The Use of Newspaper Data in the Study of Collective Action。Annual Review of Sociology,30(1),65-80。  new window
9.Gould, Roger V.(1991)。Multiple Networks and Mobilization in the Paris Commune, 1871。American Sociological Review,66,716-729。  new window
10.Hobolt, Sara B.(2007)。Taking Cues on Europe? Voter Competence and Party Endorsements in Referendums on European Integration。European Journal of Political Research,46(2),151-182。  new window
11.Lutz, Georg(2007)。Low Turnout in Direct Democracy。Electoral Studies,26(3),624-632。  new window
12.Schuck, Andreas R.、de Vreese, Claes H.(2009)。Reversed Mobilization in Referendum Campaigns How Positive News Framing Can Mobilize the Skeptics。The International Journal of Press/Politics,14(1),40-66。  new window
13.Polletta, Francesca、Jasper, James M.(2001)。Collective Identity and Social Movements。Annual Review of Sociology,27(1),283-305。  new window
14.Setälä, Maija(2006)。On the Problems of Responsibility and Accountability in Referendums。European Journal of Political Research,45(4),699-721。  new window
15.Eadington, William R.(2003)。Measuring Costs from Permitted Gaming: Concepts and Categories in Evaluating Gambling's Consequences。Journal of Gambling Studies,19,185-213。  new window
16.McCarthy, John D.、Zald, Mayer N.(1977)。Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory。American Journal of Sociology,82(6),1212-1241。  new window
17.王金壽(20040600)。重返風芒縣:國民黨選舉機器的成功與失敗。臺灣政治學刊,8(1),99-146。new window  延伸查詢new window
18.徐火炎(20051200)。認知動員、文化動員與臺灣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  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.澎湖縣政府(2013)。人口統計。  延伸查詢new window
2.澎湖縣政府主計處(2009)。民國98年第1季澎湖縣統計季刊。  延伸查詢new window
3.行政院主計處(2011)。99年人口及住宅普查初步統計結果。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.陳香蘭(2012)。絕地逢生,反賭逆轉勝:澎湖公民力量的展現--臺灣首次公投勝利的故事。臺北:法界。  延伸查詢new window
2.McAdam, Doug(1982)。Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970。Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press。  new window
3.何明修(20060000)。綠色民主:臺灣環境運動的研究。臺北:群學。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.蔡明惠(20070000)。澎湖的政治生態。臺北:洪葉文化。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.Yin, Robert K.(1994)。Case study research: Design and methods。Sage Publications。  new window
其他
1.許玉娟(20131009)。澎湖公投捲土重來,澎縣府:不支持。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳民峰(20021019)。遊說開放觀光博弈特區:澎湖團結自救聯盟拜會立院,王金平承諾率團考察。  延伸查詢new window
3.陳彥伯(20010308)。林炳坤:不免稅、禁賭場,離島吃啥。  延伸查詢new window
4.陳素玲(20020429)。博弈條款傳余政憲不反對,業者鎖定民進黨立委進行遊說。  延伸查詢new window
5.肇瑩如(20090927)。輸在臨門一腳?林炳坤:沒配套怎說服鄉親。  延伸查詢new window
6.肇瑩如(20090927)。菊島選民對馬投不信任票。  延伸查詢new window
7.澎湖縣議會(2004)。澎湖縣政府施政報告,澎湖:澎湖縣議會。  延伸查詢new window
8.澎湖縣議會(2008)。縣長施政總報告,澎湖:澎湖縣議會。  延伸查詢new window
9.澎湖縣議會(2008)。澎湖國際觀光度假區附設觀光賭場加強宣導專案報告,澎湖:澎湖縣議會。  延伸查詢new window
10.澎湖縣議會(2009)。縣政總質詢,澎湖:澎湖縣議會。  延伸查詢new window
11.蔡慧貞(20010308)。離島設觀光賭場 總統點頭。  延伸查詢new window
12.(20090225)。博弈說明會,後寮村民全面贊成。  延伸查詢new window
13.(20090306)。博弈說明會昨東衛舉行,里長伺機表決,贊成59反對4人。  延伸查詢new window
14.(20011022)。開放博弈活動不能草率為之。  延伸查詢new window
15.澎湖縣政府(2011)。澎湖縣執行大型投資計畫案彙整總表,https://www.penghu.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%88%E7%95%AB%E6%A1%88mserno=201111070095&serno=201111070096&contlink=ap/bulletin51_view.jsp&dataserno=201109080001&mclassname=%E6%8A%95。  new window
圖書論文
1.Bryant, Clifton D.、Peck, Dennis L.(2007)。Chapter 40: The Sociology of Gambling。21st Century Sociology。Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications。  new window
2.Edwards, Bob、McCarthy, John D.(2004)。Resource and Social Movement Mobilization。The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements。Oxford:Blackwell Publishers。  new window
3.McCarthy, John D.(1996)。Mobilizing Structures: Constraints and Opportunities in Adopting, Adapting and Inventing。Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements。New York:Cambridge University 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