請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21215
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 | Ying-Yu Pan | en |
dc.contributor.author | 潘暎舁 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T03:28:50Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2019-08-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-08-16 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部分
1. 王靖興(2009)。立法委員的立法問政與選區服務之分析:2000 年政黨輪替前後的持續與變遷。臺灣政治學刊,13(2),113-169。 2. 田麗虹(2001)。國會助理工作手冊,台北:新自然主義。 3. 吳宜侃(2005)。立法委員連任預測模型分析:以第四屆立法委員為例。選舉研究,12(1),173-210。 4. 吳定(2004)。公共政策,台北:國立空中大學。 5. 盛杏湲(1999)。政黨配票與立法委員候選人票源的集散度:一九八三至一九九五年臺灣地區立法委員選舉的分析。選舉研究,5(2),73-102。 6. 盛杏湲(2000)。立法問政與選區服務:第三屆立法委員代表行為的探討。選舉研究,6(2),89-120。 7. 盛杏湲(2001)。立法委員正式與非正式立法參與之研究:以第三屆立法院為例。問題與研究,40(5),81-104。 8. 盛杏湲(2001)。政黨或選區?立法委員的代表取向與行為。選舉研究,7(2),37-70。 9. 盛杏湲(2003)。立法機關與行政機關在立法過程中的影響力:一致政府與分立政府的比較。臺灣政治學刊,7(2),51-105。 10. 盛杏湲(2005)。選區代表與集體代表:立法委員的代表角色。《東吳政治學報》,21,1-40。 11. 盛杏湲(2006~2008)。選區、政黨與立法委員的三角關係:選制變遷前後的比較。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫(編號:NSC95-2414-H004-046-MY3),臺北市:行政院國科會。 12. 盛杏湲(2008)。政黨的國會領導與凝聚力:2000年政黨輪替前後的觀察。臺灣民主季刊,5(4),1-46。 13. 盛杏湲(2014)。選制變革前後立委提案的持續與變遷:一個探索性的研究。臺灣政治學刊,18(1),73-127。 14. 盛杏湲(2011~2014)。選區服務與立法問政:選制變遷前後的比較。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫(編號:NSC100-2410-H-004-096-MY2), 臺北市:行政院國科會。 15. 黃紀、王鼎銘、郭銘峰(2005)。日本眾議院 1993 及 1996 年選舉—自民黨之選票流動分析。人文及社會科學集刊,17(4):853-883。 16. 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。 17. 黃秀端(1994)。選區服務:立法委員心目中連任之基礎。臺北市:唐山出版社。 18. 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。 19. 張世熒、許陳偉(2009)。我國立法委員公費助理之建立與改革。2009年臺灣政治學會年會暨學術研討會,玄奘大學公共事務管理學系主辦。 20. 游清鑫(2007)。論單一選區兩票制及其對2007年立法委員選舉之影響。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫(編號:NSC95-2414-H004-052- SSS),臺北市:行政院國科會。 21. 蕭怡靖(2003)。我國立法委員選擇常設委員會之研究:以第四屆立法委員為例,臺北市:國立政治大學政治學系碩士論文。 22. 廖達琪、李承訓、陳柏宇(2013)。選舉制度與立法者競選政見及立法表現:臺灣立法院第六屆及第七屆區域立委之比較。選舉研究,20,73-119。 23. 羅清俊(2002)。立法院常設委員會審查功能之實證研究:資深程度與不分區立委角色對於審查功能的影響。《月旦法學雜誌》,86,36-61。 24. 羅清俊、張皖萍(2008)。立法委員分配政治行爲分析:選區企業與立法委員企業背景的影響。政治科學論叢,35,47-94。 25. 羅清俊、廖健良(2009)。選制改變前選區規模對立委分配政策提案行為的影響。臺灣政治學刊,13(1),3-53。 26. 羅清俊、謝瑩蒔(2008)。選區規模與立法委員分配政策提案的關連性研究:第三、四屆立法院的分析。行政暨政策學報,46,1-48。 貳、英文部分 1. Ames, Barry. 1995. “Electoral Rules, Constituency Pressures, and Pork Barrel: Bases of Voting in the Brazilian Congress.” The Journal of Politics 57(2):324-343. 2. Baumgartner, F. R. and Mahoney, C. 2005. “Social Movements, the Rise of New Issues, and the Public Agenda.” Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy 65-86. 3. Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D., and Mortensen, P. B. 2014. “Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking.” Theories of the policy process 8:59-103. 4. Carey, J. M., and Shugart, M. S. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14(4):417-439. 5. Cox, G. W. 1987. “The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England”, NY: Cambridge University Press. 6. Downs, A. 1957. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy 65(2):135-150. 7. Fenno, R. F. 1978. “Home Style: House Members in Their Districts, Glenview.”, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company. 8. Freeman, P. K., and Richardson, L. E. 1996. “Explaining Variation in Casework Among State Legislators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 41-56. 9. Fujimura, N. 2015. “The Influence of Electoral Institutions on Legislative Representation: Evidence From Japan’s Single Non-transferable Vote and Single-member District Systems.” Party Politics 21(2):209-221. 10. Gao, S. 2019. Electoral Candidates’ Position-Taking on Nuclear Energy in Post-Fukushima Japan. CA: University of California Press. 11. Hayes, Danny. 2008. “Party Reputation, Journalistic Expectations: How Issue Ownership Influences Election News.” Political Communication 5(4):377-400. 12. Hirano, S. 2006. “Electoral Institutions, Hometowns, and Favored Minorities: Evidence from Japanese Electoral Reforms.” World Politics 59(1):51-82. 13. Lancaster, T. D. 1986. “Electoral Structures and Pork Barrel Politics.” International Political Science Review 7(1):67-81. 14. Lee, Frances E. 2003. “Geographical Politics in the U.S. House of Representatives: Coalition Building and Distribution of Benefits.” American Journal of Political Science 47(4):714-728. 15. Lowi, T. J. 1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case-studies, and Political Theory.” World politics 16(4):677-715. 16. Lijphart, A. and Aitkin, D. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-seven Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 17. Mayhew, D. R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. CT: Yale University Press. 18. Rabinowitz, G. and MacDonald, S. E. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83:93-121. 19. Samuels, D. J. 2002. “Pork Barreling is not Credit Claiming or Advertising: Campaign Finance and the Sources of the Personal Vote in Brazil.” Journal of Politics 64(3):845-863. 20. Shing Yuan, Sheng. 2006. “The Personal Vote-seeking and the Initiation of Particularistic Benefit Bills in the Taiwanese Legislature.” In Legislatures and Parliaments in the 21st Century Conference, Soochow University, Taiwan. 21. Schiller, Wendy J. 1995. “Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Using Bill Sponsorship to Shape Legislative Agendas.” American Journal of Political Science 39(1):186-203. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21215 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 回顧我國立法委員選舉的歷程,在2004年8月23日通過第七次修憲提案後,即開始對選舉制度的改革拉開序幕,接著在第六屆立法委員的任期內正式通過了立法委員選舉的新制度,讓熟悉舊有制度的立法委員產生許多不確定性,立法委員為了爭取連任的機會,會如何因應制度所帶來的影響。基此,本研究檢視第六屆立委的提案行為,是否會受到選制改變的影響,延伸出下列問題:首先,從整體提案的角度來看,立委在第六屆面臨選制改變下的提案型態,與第五屆有何不同?其次,立法委員在提案上的行為,是否會傾向跟著行政院版本來修改?與第五屆相比有何明顯差異?在新選制的影響下,是否會為了追求更多的選民利益,而增加法案提出的多樣性?
研究單位的選定上以第六屆區域立委為觀察對象,比較其在第五屆與第六屆時的提案行為,另一方面,為了檢視立委提案內容的多樣性變化,本研究採用美國政策議程計畫(PAP)來對提案內容進行編碼,並透過負二項迴歸模型來進行研究分析。 研究結果發現,整體而言提案總數量雖然沒有因為選制改變的關係,產生積極提案的情形,但是仔細探究其提案的類型選擇上,卻有明顯的改變,透過迴歸驗證下列兩項發現:第一,第六屆的立法委員在提案上的表現,不像以往第五屆傾向跟著行政院提對案的模式;其次,在自主提案的表現上,第六屆區域立委相對於第五屆提案的積極程度來得高。另一部份,在選制改革影響立委提案內容的多樣性上發現,第六屆相較於第五屆時,提案的多樣性並沒有有增加的情形。 上述結果驗證了區域立委在面臨選制改變時,不會傾向以增加提案數量的方式來表現自己,反將心力著重在選區服務的工作,維持以往的提案數量,形成無偏廢亦無提升的提案總數成果,在提案行為上也不會僅依賴跟著行政院提案的版本來節省時間、人力成本,同時也會考量到當前的政治情勢,在提案行為上做出適宜的方式,以展現自身的立法政績。另外,在提案多樣性上的觀察顯示出立法委員在面臨選制改革下,即使有意要去關注其他選區內的選民需求,但也會受制於現實中的能力與資源問題,無法積極增廣自身在提案類型上的政策領域。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Reviewing the process of the election of the Members of the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan, the prelude to the reform of the electoral system started right after the passing of the seventh constitutional amendment bill on August 23, 2004. This was followed by the formal passing of the new system during the term of the members of the Sixth Term of the Legislative Yuan, which gave rise to many uncertainties among those familiar with the old system. How members of the Legislative Yuan responded to the impacts brought about by the change in the system in their bid for re-election is what gave rise to the following issues. Firstly, from the perspective of the bills introduced, what were the difference between the bill types of the Members of the Sixth Term of the Legislative Yuan and those of the Fifth? Secondly, with respect to their bill-initiation behavior, would the legislators tend to follow the version proposed by the Executive Yuan in making revisions? What were the significant differences from those of the Fifth Term of the Legislative Yuan in this respect? Under the influence of the new electoral system, would the legislators increase the diversity of their bills for the sake of more broadly pursuing the interests of their constituents?
In the choice of research unit, the district members of the Sixth Term of the Legislative Yuan were selected as the subjects of observation to compare their bill-initiation behavior in the Fifth and Sixth Term of the Legislative Yuan. On the other hand, in order to examine the changes in the diversity of their bill contents, the study adopted the Policy Agendas Project (PAP) of the USA for encrypting content, and the research and analysis were conducted through negative binomial regression. The research results found that, in terms of the total number of bills, the overall change in the electoral system was not conducive to legislators actively introducing bills, a careful investigation of their choice of bill types showed an obvious change. Through regression validation, the following two findings were yielded: First, in the performance in bill initiation, the Members of the Sixth Term of the Legislative Yuan, unlike those of the Fifth Term of the Legislative Yuan, tended not to follow the Executive Yuan’s model for making such proposals. Second, the proactivity in self-initiating bills, the members of the Sixth Term of the Legislative Yuan were far more proactive than those of in the Fifth Term of the Legislative Yuan. In another section, it was discovered that in the impact of the electoral system reform on the contents of the bills, there was no increase in the diversity of bills introduced by the Sixth Term of the Legislative Yuan compared to the Fifth. The above results prove that, faced with changes to the electoral system, district legislators would not be inclined to increase the number of bills to improve their performance. They would rather focus their mental effort on the work of constituency services and maintain the number of bills they introduced in the past, which resulted in not neglecting either while at the same time not raising the total number of bills. In their bill-initiation behavior, they also would not only depend on and follow the version of the Executive Yuan-proposed bills to save time and human resources. They would also consider the current political situation and devise an appropriate way to introduce their bills to draw attention to their own legislative achievements. Furthermore, the diversity of the bills introduced indicated that, when faced with electoral system reform, the legislators would also be limited by real capability and resources issues, rendering them unable to broaden their policy areas with respect to bill types even if they had the intention to pay attention to the needs of voters in other constituencies. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T03:28:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R06343008-1.pdf: 2556036 bytes, checksum: 9aa92e6533b1dccae94b6977df598fec (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄
第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究問題 4 第二章 文獻回顧與探討 5 第一節 立法行為影響因素之探討 5 第二節 選舉制度改變對立委行為的影響 10 第三節 研究假設 25 第三章 研究設計與方法 28 第一節 分析單位 28 第二節 資料篩選與分類 30 第三節 變數說明 33 第四節 統計方法 37 第四章 資料分析 39 第一節 第五、六屆立委在提案類型與多樣性的描述性分析 39 第二節 選區規模在立委提案類型與多樣性的描述性分析 41 第三節 個別立委在提案類型與多樣性的描述性分析 44 第四節 第五、六屆提案類型與多樣性的迴歸分析 50 第五節 選區劃分下不同屆期中提案類型與多樣性的回歸分析 52 第五章 研究結果與討論 56 第六章 結論 61 參考文獻 62 附錄一 PAP編碼 67 附錄二 第五、六屆皆連任區域立委之名單列表 74 附錄三 第五、六屆立委提案數量的差異排名列表 77 附錄四 第五、六屆立委提案多樣性的差異排名列表 80 圖目錄 圖1第六屆立法委員任期與選制改革的重要歷程 11 表目錄 表1 我國立法委員選舉制度改變前後的比較 15 表2 第六屆與第七屆各類立法委員員額的差異 18 表3 日本與我國主要政黨在首次實施單一選區結果之比較 23 表4 與行政院提案連動的標準 30 表5 第五、六屆提案數量的基本描述統計 40 表6 第五、六屆提案多樣性的基本描述統計 41 表7 區域立法委員在兩屆期中提案類型、多樣性與自主提案比例的平均數 43 表8 第六屆相較於第五屆時立法委員提案數量增加排名 45 表9 第六屆相較於第五屆時立法委員提案數量減少排名 46 表10 第六屆相較於第五屆時立法委員提案多樣性增加排名 48 表11 第六屆相較於第五屆時立法委員提案多樣性減少排名 49 表12 以屆期為劃分下第五、六屆區域立法委員提案類型與多樣性的 負二項迴歸分析 51 表13以選區為劃分下第五、六屆區域立法委員提案類型與多樣性的 負二項迴歸分析 55 表14 研究假設與結果 60 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 第六屆立法委員提案分析:選制改變前的騷動 | zh_TW |
dc.title | How Legislators Respond to a New Electoral System:Analysis of Legislative Proposals in the 6th Congress in Taiwan | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃秀端(Shiow-Duan Hawang),陳宏銘(Hong-Ming Chen) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 立法委員,提案,立法院,SNTV,行政院提案, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Members of the Legislative Yuan,Bills,Legislative Yuan,Single Non-transferrable Vote (SNTV),Executive Yuan-proposed Bills, | en |
dc.relation.page | 82 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201903894 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-08-17 | |
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-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.5 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。