請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21112
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 王宏文(Hong-Wung Wang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Ya-Chu Chang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 張雅筑 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T03:27:10Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-01-15 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-01-06 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部分
丘昌泰,2013,《公共政策:基礎篇(五版)》,臺北:巨流圖書公司。 邱訪義、李誌偉,2016,〈影響行政部門提案三讀通過之制度性因素─總統、官僚與政黨〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,13(1):39-84。 李鳳玉、黃建實,2015,〈總統兼任黨主席對政府法案通過的影響〉,《政治科學論叢》,(64):85-136。 李華球,〈李華球:馬英九蜜月期為何快速結束?〉,中國評論新聞網: http://hk.crntt.com/doc/1006/3/3/8/100633895.html?coluid=7&kindid=0&docid=100633895,2018/03/16。 政治中心,〈接受挑戰!開啟改革路 蔡英文10 大政見你了解多少?〉, ETtoday 新聞雲,https://www.ettoday.net/news/20160118/632550.htm, 2018/04/02。 馬英九、蕭萬長,2008,〈馬蕭新世紀健康政策─增加健康投資,穩固醫療基業,創造醫病雙贏〉,《臺灣醫界》,51(3):92-93。 莊文忠、徐明莉、張鐙文,2009,〈非營利組織的議程設定與政策倡議的形成:質化研究的檢證〉,《公共行政學報》,33:121-163。 黃士豪,2017,〈誰要議題所有權? 立法委員立法提案與議題所有權的建立〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,14(1):1-51。 張卿卿,2009,〈競選廣告之效果探討: 以議題所有權策略爲例〉,《中華傳播學刊》,16:93-129。 盛杏湲,2003,〈一致政府與分立政府在時立法機關與行政機關的立法影響力〉,《台灣政治學刊》,7(2),51-105。 陳恆鈞、劉邵祥,2007,〈由政策決則觀點談政策變遷〉,《T&D 飛訊》,56:1-18。 陳宏銘,2009,〈台灣半總統制下的黨政關係:以民進黨執政時期爲焦點〉,《政治科學論叢》,(41):1-56。 陳宏銘,2011,〈行政機關與國會的相對立法影響力-以2008 年後台灣「一致政府」為例證〉,《人文社會科學研究》,5(2):77-103。 陳宏銘,2012,〈半總統制下總統的法案推動與立法影響力:馬英九總統執政時期的研究〉,《東吳政治學報》,30(2):1-70。 陳宏銘,2016,〈半總統制下總統是否兼任黨主席與其黨政關係型態─比較視野下的馬英九總統經驗〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,13(4):1-42。 陳宏銘,2018,〈臺灣半總統制下總統決策機制的困境:一個比較視野的研究〉,《政治學報》,(65):1-35。 國家發展委員會,2016,〈重要統計資料手冊〉,國家發展委員會: https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspxn=507E4787819DDCE6,2018/10/27。 葉素萍,〈蔡總統:別用100 天評斷我執政成敗〉,中央通訊社: http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201608200221-1.aspx,2018/03/12。 蔡政文,2010,〈總統政見形成、落實執行與成效評估之研究〉,行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究。 蔡榮祥、陳宏銘,2012,〈總統國會制的一致政府與憲政運作:以馬英九總統第一任期為例〉,《東吳政治學報》,30(4):121-176。 蔡昕俞,2013,〈臺灣總統大選與經濟成長的政治景氣循環—1996-2012〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,10(1):36-69。 貳、西文部分 Bélanger, É., & Meguid, B. M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership, and issuebased vote choice. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 477-491. Blais, A., Blake, D., & Dion, S. (1993). Do parties make a difference? Parties and the size of government in liberal democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 40-62. Boydstun, A. E., Bevan, S., & Thomas, H. F. (2014). The importance of attention diversity and how to measure it. Policy Studies Journal, 42(2), 173-196. Brody, R. (1991). Assessing the president: The media, elite opinion, and public support. Stanford University Press. Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: An alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892-915. Damore, D. F. (2004). The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 391-397. Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2005). The politics of presidential agendas. Political Research Quarterly, 58(2), 257-268. Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2010). The importance of policy scope to presidential success in Congress. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40(4), 708-724. Gene Zucker, H. (1978). The variable nature of news media influence. Annals of the International Communication Association, 2(1), 225-240. Geys, B. (2012). Success and failure in electoral competition: Selective issue emphasis under incomplete issue ownership. Electoral Studies, 31(2), 406-412. Greene, Z. (2016). Competing on the issues: How experience in government and economic conditions influence the scope of parties’ policy messages. Party Politics, 22(6), 809-822. Green‐Pedersen, C. & Mortensen, P. B. (2010). Who sets the agenda and who responds to it in the Danish parliament? A new model of issue competition and agenda‐setting. European Journal of Political Research, 49(2), 257-281. Green, J., & Hobolt, S. B. (2008). Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 460-476. Hobolt, S. B., & De Vries, C. E. (2015). Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies, 48(9), 1159-1185. Holian, D. B. (2004). He's stealing my issues! Clinton's crime rhetoric and the dynamics of issue ownership. Political Behavior, 26(2), 95-124. Kuhlmann, J., & van der Heijden, J. (2018). What Is Known about Punctuated Equilibrium Theory? And What Does That Tell Us about the Construction, Validation, and Replication of Knowledge in the Policy Sciences?. Review of Policy Research, 35(2), 326-347. Lovett, J., Bevan, S., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2015). Popular presidents can affect congressional attention, for a little while. Policy Studies Journal, 43(1), 22-43. Meguid, B. M. (2005). Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 347-359. Schmidt, M. G. (1996). When parties matter: A review of the possibilities and limits of partisan influence on public policy. European Journal of Political Research, 30(2), 155-183. Seeberg, H. B. (2013). The opposition's policy influence through issue politicisation. Journal of Public Policy, 33(1), 89-107. Seeberg, H. B. (2016). Opposition Policy Influence through Agenda‐setting: The Environment in Denmark, 1993–2009. Scandinavian Political Studies, 39(2), 185-206. Sigelman, L., & Buell, E. H. (2004). Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in US presidential campaigns, 1960–2000. American Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 650-661. Somer‐Topcu, Z. (2015). Everything to Everyone: The Electoral Consequences of the Broad‐Appeal Strategy in Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 841-854. Spoon, J. J., Hobolt, S. B., & Vries, C. E. (2014). Going green: Explaining issue competition on the environment. European Journal of Political Research, 53(2), 363-380. Soroka, S. N. (2002). Issue attributes and agenda‐setting by media, the public, and policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(3), 264-285. Sullivan, T. (1991). The bank account presidency: A new measure and evidence on the temporal path of presidential influence. American Journal of Political Science, 686-723. Thesen, G. (2013). When good news is scarce and bad news is good: Government responsibilities and opposition possibilities in political agenda‐setting. European Journal of Political Research, 52(3), 364-389. Van Heck, S. (2016). Appealing broadly or narrowing down? The impact of government experience and party organization on the scope of parties’ issue agendas. Party Politics, 1354068816657374. Vliegenthart, R., & Walgrave, S. (2011). Content matters: The dynamics of parliamentary questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies, 44(8), 1031-1059. Walgrave, S., Lefevere, J., & Nuytemans, M. (2009). Issue ownership stability and change: How political parties claim and maintain issues through media appearances. Political Communication, 26(2), 153-172. Walgrave, S., Lefevere, J., & Tresch, A. (2012). The associative dimension of issueownership. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(4), 771-782. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21112 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 在臺灣半總統制的憲政體制下,總統缺乏實質政策決定權,也沒有提案權,更沒有立法權,如此情勢之下的總統,會如何在蜜月期內把握憲法賦予其之權力(唯一具有直接任命行政院院長權力者)去推動政策?在總統的帶領下,兩大政黨的執政方向為何?目前達成的共識是以國家認同的議題作為主要區分兩黨的方式,因而大部分議題都演變成統獨的光譜,至於兩大政黨在其他領域上提出之政策差異不大。兩黨施政領域有無差異是值得探討的。再從議題競爭的角度觀之,兩大政黨在執政後,會針對具議題所有權的政策領域強化施政,還是針對具爭議的議題進行討論,進而產生議題重疊的現象。這也是值得探討的議題。
本文的研究問題是:臺灣兩政府上任後,其施政重點的領域是否有差異?兩政府施政重點會聚焦於具議題所有權的政策領域?還是會產生議題重疊的現象? 研究結果為:兩政府的施政重點基本上是不一樣的,馬政府主要在法律議題、健康、商業活動與對外貿易等議題中有較多關注;而蔡政府主要關注與環境、政府業務、健康與交通等相關的議題。本文大致上與過去研究兩大黨有關議題所有權的結果符合,即使兩政府在健康的議題上有政策領域重疊的情況,兩政府著重的議題卻是不同的:馬政府強調用藥安全、提升病患權益與醫療設備上的改進;而蔡政府則主要是強調長期照顧服務法的完備。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Under the constitutional system of Taiwan’s semi-presidential system, the president lacks the power to make substantive policy decisions. In such a situation, how will the president, in the honeymoon period, seize the power given to him by the Constitution (the only person with the power to directly appoint the President of the Executive Yuan) to promote policy? Under the leadership of the President, what are the ruling directions of the two major political parties? The consensus reached so far is based on nationally recognized issues as the main way to distinguish the two parties, so most issues have evolved into a spectrum of reunification and independence. As for the policies proposed by the two major parties in other areas, there is not much difference. Whether there are differences between the two parties' governance areas is worth exploring. It is also an issue worth exploring from the perspective of the competition of issues, after the two parties take power, they will strengthen the administration of the policy areas with issue ownership, or discuss the issues that are controversial, and then resulted in overlapping issues.
The research question of the article is: After the two governments take office, are there any differences in the areas of governance? Will the two governments' policy priorities focus on policy areas with issue ownership? Or will there be overlapping issues? The findings are as follows: The two governments' governance priorities are basically different. The Ma government has paid more attention to legal issues, health, commercial activities and foreign trade issues; while the Tsai government focuses on issues related to the environment, government affairs, health and transportation. The article is broadly in line with the results of past research on issue ownership related to the two major parties. Even if the two governments have overlapping policy areas on health issues, the two governments' priorities are different: the Ma government emphasizes medication safety, improves patient rights and the improvements of medical equipment; while the Tsai mainly emphasized the completeness of the Long-Term Care Services Act. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T03:27:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-109-R05343012-1.pdf: 2551729 bytes, checksum: 400b71f33d336f74285834fc6314bf51 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書... I
謝辭... II 摘要...III Abstract... IV 第一章、緒論...1 第一節、前言...1 第二節、現況介紹...3 第二章、文獻回顧...5 第一節、政策議程...5 第二節、政黨競爭...8 第三節、我國憲政體制下的總統、行政權與立法權...12 第三章、研究問題...18 第四章、研究方法...20 第五章、研究結果...24 第一節、兩政府的提案情形...24 第二節、兩政府提案的結果...25 第三節、兩政府通過法案的情形...27 第四節、重要法案與議題所有權...36 第六章、結論...42 參考文獻...44 附錄一...50 附錄二 兩政府提案的結果...56 附錄三 刪除法案...65 附錄四 兩政府通過法案─清理資料後...66 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 總統上任一年內之立法產出比較–以馬政府及蔡政府為個案之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Legislation during the First Year of Presidency: A Comparison between the Ma and Tsai Administrations | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 108-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 羅清俊(Ching-Jiun Luo),俞振華(Zhen-Hua Yu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 總統,立法,馬英九,蔡英文,議題所有權,議程設定, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | President,Legislation,Ma Ying-Jeou,Tsai In-wen,Issue ownership,Agenda setting, | en |
dc.relation.page | 73 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202000033 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-01-07 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共事務研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 公共事務研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-109-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.49 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。