請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/22412
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 張佑宗(Yu-Tzung Chang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Chien-Ping Chiu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 邱千玶 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T04:17:14Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2010-08-02 | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2010-07-29 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
壹、中文部分 田弘茂、朱雲漢、Larry Diamond、Marc Plattner,1997,《鞏固第三波民主》,台北:業強出版社。 朱雲漢,1989,〈中產階級與台灣政治民主化〉,蕭新煌(編),《變遷中台灣社會的中產階級》,台北:巨流,頁233-243。 李酉潭,1999,〈邁向先進的民主﹕二十一世紀台灣民主化的展望〉,《跨世紀的政治願景學術研討會論文集》,台中:私立東海大學,頁43-65。 林佳龍,1999,〈解釋台灣的民主化〉,林佳龍、邱澤奇(編),《兩岸黨國體制與民主發展:哈佛大學東西方學者的對話》,台北:月旦,頁87-152。 林惠玲、陳正倉,2004,《統計學—方法與應用》,台北:雙葉書廊。 林聰吉,2007a,〈政治支持與民主鞏固〉,《政治科學論叢》,(34):71-104。 林聰吉,2007b,〈解析台灣的民主政治:以民主支持度與滿意度為觀察指標〉,《選舉研究》,14(1):61-84。 林震岩,2008,〈多變量分析:SPSS的操作與應用〉,台北:智勝文化。 吳乃德,1992,〈階級認知和階級認同:比較瑞典、美國、台灣,和兩個階級架構〉,許嘉猷(編),《階級結構與階級意識比較研究論文集》,1994,台北:中央研究院歐美研究所,頁109-149。 吳乃德、林佳龍,1989,〈中產階級與民主改革:現實或神話?—重構中產階級和民主化的關係〉,蕭新煌(編),《變遷中台灣社會的中產階級》,台北:巨流,頁217-232。 吳親恩,2009,〈經濟議題與民主體制評價—東亞國家的觀察〉,《台灣民主季刊》,6(1):1-39。 周曉虹,2005,《全球中產階級報告》,北京:社會科學文獻出版社。 胡佛,1990,〈民主政治的價值取向:一項實證性的探究〉,《自由民主的思想與文化》,台北:自立晚報,頁61-100。 胡佛,1998a,政治學的科學探究(一):方法與理論,台北:三民書局。 胡佛,1998b,政治學的科學探究(二):政治文化與政治生活,台北:三民書局。 紀登斯、簡惠美譯,1994,《資本主義與現代社會理論:馬克思•涂爾幹•韋伯》,台北:遠流。譯自Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. London : Cambridge University Press. 1971. 約翰•H.戈德索普、戈登•馬歇爾,1992,〈後工業社會中階級的繼續存在〉,戴維•李、布賴恩•特納主編,《關於階級的衝突—晚期工業主義不平等之辯論》,重慶:重慶出版社,頁122-136。 徐正光,1989,〈中產階級興起的政治經濟學〉,蕭新煌(編),《變遷中台灣社會的中產階級》,台北:巨流,頁33-47。 許嘉猷,1992,《社會階層化與社會流動》,文崇一/葉啟正(編),台北:三民。 1994,〈階級結構的分類,定位與估計:台灣與美國實證研究之比較〉,許嘉猷(編),《階級結構與階級意識比較研究論文集》,1994,台北:中央研究院歐美研究所,頁21-72。 張佑宗、朱雲漢與胡克威,2001。〈低度階級性投票背後的政治意涵:台灣與香港的比較〉,「2001年台灣政治學會年會暨政黨輪替後之台灣政治學術研討會」,台北:政治大學公企中心。2001/12/15-6.。 張佑宗,2000,《文化變遷與民主鞏固:台灣民主化經驗的比較觀》,台北:國立政治大學政治學研究所博士論文。 2009,〈選舉輸家與民主鞏固—台灣2004年總統選舉落選陣營對民主的態度〉,《台灣民主季刊》6(1):41-72。 張孝評 ,2003,《轉型、鞏固與深化—台灣民主化的分析》,台北:國立政治大學中山人文社會科學研究所碩士論文。 鍾君,2008,〈被模糊的馬克思階級理論〉,《中國社會科學院報》,2008/10/14。 邁克•霍特、科萊姆•布魯克斯、杰佛•曼扎,1993,〈後工業社會中階級的繼續存在〉,戴維•李、布賴恩•特納(編),《關於階級的衝突—晚期工業主義不平等之辯論》,重慶:重慶出版社,頁62-89。 蕭新煌,1989,〈台灣中產階級何來何去?〉,蕭新煌(編),《變遷中台灣社會的中產階級》,台北:巨流,頁5-17。 1994,〈新中產階級與資本主義:台灣、美國與瑞典的初步比較〉,許嘉猷(編),《階級結構與階級意識比較研究論文集》,台北:中央研究院歐美研究所,頁73-108。 蔡淑玲,1989,〈中產階級的分化與認同〉,蕭新煌(編),《變遷中台灣社會的中產階級》,台北:巨流,頁:77-96。 塞繆爾•杭廷頓,1998,《變革社會中的政治秩序》,北京:華夏。 2008,〈第三波 : 二十世紀末的民主化浪潮〉,臺北市 : 五南 貳、西文部分 Barro, Robert J. 1999. “Determinants of Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy 107(6):158-183. Bratton, M., and R. Mattes, 2001. “Support for Democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or Instrumental?” British Journal of Political Science 31(3):447-474. Chu, Yun-han. 1996. “Taiwan's Unique Challenges” Journal of Democracy 7(3): 69-82. Chu, Y.H., L. Diamond, A. Nathan, and D. C. Shin, eds. 2008. How East Asians View Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press. Dalton, Russell J. 1994. “Communist and democrats: Democratic Attitudes in the Two Germanies.” British Journal of Political Science 24(4):469-493. Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Easton, David. 1965. A systems Analysis of Political Life. N.Y:Wiley. 1976. “Theoretical Approaches to political Support.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 9(3):431-48. Englehart, Neil A. 2003. “Democracy and the Thai Middle Class: Globalization, Modernization, and Constitutional Change” Asian Survey 43(2): 253–279. Evans, Geoffrey. 2000. “The Continued Significance of Class Voting.” Annual Review of Political Science 3 (1):401. Evans, G., and S. Whitefield, 1995. “The Politics and Economics of Democratic Commitment: Support of Democracy in Transition Societies.” British Journal of Political Science 25(4):485-514. Feibleman, James. 1938. “Democracy and the Middle-Class Rule of Reason.” Ethics 48 (4): 536-542. Geissel, Brigitte. 2008. “Reflections and findings on the critical citizen: Civic education-What for?” European Journal of Political Research 47:34-63 Goldthorpe, H. J. 1987. Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Houtman, Dick. 2001. “Class, Culture, and Conservation-Reassessing Education as a Variable in Political Sociology.” In The Breakdown of Class Politics-A Debate on Post-Industrial Stratification, eds. Clark, T. N. and S. M. Lipset, Washington, D.C: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Hsiao, H. H. M. and A. Y. So, 1999. “The Making of the East Asian Middle Classes: The Five Propositions.” In East Asian Middle Classes in Comparative Perspective, eds. Hsiao, H. H. M. Taiwan: The Institute of ethnology, Academia Sinica, 3-49. Huang, M.H., Y.T. Chang, and Y.H. Chu, 2008. “Identifying Sources of Democratic Legitimacy: A Multilevel Analysis.” Electoral Studies 27(1):45-62. Huber, E., D. Rueschemeyer, and J. D. Stephen, 1993. “The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy.” The Journal of economic perspectives 7(3):71-85. Huntington, Samuel. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Jones, David Martin. 1998.'Democratization, Civil Society, and Illiberal Middle Class Culture in Pacific Asia.' Comparative Politics 30(2):147-169. Karatnycky, Adrian. l997. “Freedom on the March.” Freedom Review 28(1): 5-29. Kitschelt, Herbert. 1992. “The Formation of Party System in East Central Europe.” Politics and Society 20(1):7-50. Lawrence, B., and F. C. Licari, 1989. “Education and Political Tolerance: Testing the Effect of Cognitive Sophistication and Target Group Affect.” Public Opinion Quarterly 53:285-308. Linz, Juan J. 1990. “Transitions to Democracy.” Washington Quarterly 13(3):143-164. Linz, J. J. and A. Stepan, l996a. “Toward Consolidated Democracies,” Journal of Democracy 7(2):14-33. l996b. Problem of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post Communist Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Lipset, Seymour M. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review 53(1):68-105. Miller, Arthur H. 1974. “Political Issue and Trist in Government: 1964-1970.” American Political Science Review 68:951-972. Mishler, W., and R. Rose, 2005. “What are the Political Consequences of Trust? A Test of Cultural and Institutional Theories in Russia.” Comparative Political Studies 38(9):1050-1078. Morlino, L. and J. R. Montero, 1995. “Legitimacy and Democracy in Southern Europe.” In The Politics of Democratic Consolidation: Southern Europe in Comparative Perspective, eds. Richard Gunther, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, and Hans-Jurgen Phule. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 231-260. Norris, Pippa. 1999. “Introduction: The Growth of Critical Citizens?” In Critical Citizens: global Support for Democratic Governance, eds. Norris, Pippa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-30. Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reform in Eastern Europe and Latin American. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rueschemeyer, D., H. E. Stephens, and D. J. Stephens, 1992. Capitalist development and democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Rustow, Dankwart A. 1970. “Transitions to Democracy.” Comparative Politics 2(3):337-363. Schedler, Andreas. 1998, “What is Democratic Consolidation?” Journal of Democracy 9(2):91-107. Schedler, A., and R. Sarsfield, 2007. “Democrats with Adjectives: Linking Direct and Indirect Measures of Democratic Support.” European Journal of Political Research 46(5):637-659. Schmitter, Philippe C. 1994. “Dangers and Dilemmas of Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 5(2):57-74. Sorensen, Georg. 1998. Democracy and Democratization: Processes and Prospects in a Changing World. 2nd ed. Oxford: Westview Press. Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wright, E. O., C. Costello, D. Hachen, and J. Sprague. 1982. “The American Class Structure.” American Sociological Review 47:709-726. Wright, E. O. and D. Cho, 1992. “The Relative Permeability of Class Boundaries to Cross-class Friendships: A Comparative Study of the United States, Canada, Sweden, and Norway.” American Sociological Review 57:85-102. Yang, David D. 2007. “Classing Ethnicity: Class, Ethnicity, and the Mass Politics of Taiwan’s Democratic Transition.” World Politic 59(4):503-538. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/22412 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 對於已進入民主轉型過程之民主鞏固階段的台灣,在民眾對民主的支持上,該如何判定民主制度和價值不僅根深蒂固於政治文化過程中,且一般公民皆擁有高程度的民主支持和忠誠度?本文從階級差異的觀點出發,探討兩個主要問題:
一、不同社會階級民眾之民主態度是否顯著差異 二、台灣當代中產階級所具有的民主態度為何?相較於勞工階級,中產階級是否對台灣民主鞏固更具有影響力。 本文使用「亞洲民主動態調查:台灣地區調查計畫」(2006)的統計資料,以職業做為階級分類依據,及兩組分別針對民主支持和自由民主價值所設計的問題,分別建構出四種不同的民主態度分類:「民主支持者」(高民主支持、高自由民主價值)、「民主批判者」(低民主支持、高自由民主價值)、「民主反對者」(低民主支持、低自由民主價值)和「假民主者」(高民主支持、低自由民主價值)。透過對社會階級與民主態度進行之統計分析,發現台灣各個階級民眾之間的民主態度確實具有顯著不同,且影響民主態度的來源是透過民眾對政府表現的評價,而教育程度越高的民眾亦越傾向呈現民主支持者的態度。民眾透過自身的政治經歷來進行評估和理性選擇,進而選擇是否支持民主體制,當人民享受到民主化所帶來的政治成果時,便容易依此做為對民主政治支持與否的依據,且此種透過對政治產出評價來做為民主正當性的基礎,有助於民主的鞏固和穩定。同時,台灣的中產階級實際上是具有高自由民主價值、高民主支持的「民主支持者」,相較於偏向「民主反對者」的農工階級,台灣中產階級才是實際上推動並深化民主鞏固的重要角色,其所具有的民主價值和對經濟、政治民主的支持,使中產階級成為民主鞏固和深化不容忽視的關鍵角色。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This article attempts to use empirical measurement method to discuss how we determine that in Taiwan, a country which has already entered the period of democracy consolidation, citizens’ support of democracy have been deeply rooted. With regard to the division of social class, we’re trying to answer the following two questions:
1. Is there any significant difference in democratic attitudes between different social classes? 2. What’s the attitude toward democracy of Middle class in Taiwan? Compare to Working class, do middle class possess more influence in the democracy consolidation of Taiwan? We use the database from Asian Barometer Survey 2006, classify the respondents by their occupations, and use the questions which were designed for examining respondents’ support of democracy and their democratic value, construct a four-type model of democratic attitude: consistent democrats, critical democrats, non-democrats and superficial democrats. The result of the statistic research shows that, in Taiwan, different social classes have different attitudes toward democracy, which can be attributed to the evaluations of the government. People choose to support democracy or not through their own political experience. This kind of support of democracy is very helpful to consolidate and stabilize the democracy. Also, respondents who have higher education background are more likely to be the consistent democrats. As to the middle class, result shows that they’re the most consistent democrats, which means they have the highest democratic value and support. Compare to the working class which are more likely to be the non-democrats, middle class are the most important and influential role of democratic consolidation in Taiwan. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T04:17:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-R96322003-1.pdf: 833341 bytes, checksum: 24e840a5b7db440689b831bbdc317c26 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄
口試委員審定書...............Ⅰ 謝辭.........................Ⅱ 中文摘要.....................Ⅲ 英文摘要.....................Ⅳ 第一章 緒論 ......................1 第一節 研究背景與目的 ......1 第二節 相關文獻回顧 ........4 第三節 研究架構 ............14 第四節 研究假設 ............15 第五節 章節安排 ............16 第二章 研究設計 ..................19 第一節 對民主態度的測量 ........19 第二節 社會階級結構—中產階級的界定 .....23 第三節 資料來源 .........................29 第四節 研究方法 .................30 第三章 階級差異與民主支持 ...........37 第一節 社會階級與自由民主價值、民主支持的交叉分析...37 第二節 社會階級與民主態度的變異數分析 ..............42 第三節 台灣中產階級的民主態度 ..........................48 第四節 小結 ...........................52 第四章 民主支持的來源 .................55 第一節 民主支持的來源 .............55 第二節 影響民主態度的因素 .............59 第三節 個人背景與民主態度交叉分析 .....63 第四節 個人背景與民主態度的Logistic分析........68 第五節 小結 ...........................72 第五章 結論 ...........................75 第一節 台灣的民主鞏固 .................75 第二節 中產階級的民主態度 .........76 第三節 民主支持來源與階級政治 .....79 第四節 研究限制 ...................81 參考文獻 ...............................83 附錄 ...................................89 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 階級差異與民主支持—台灣中產階級對民主的態度 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Class Division and the Support of Democracy—the Attitude toward Democracy of Middle Class in Taiwan | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 98-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳親恩(Chin-En Wu),陳光輝(Kuang-Hui Chen) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 中產階級,民主支持, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | middle class,support of democracy, | en |
dc.relation.page | 96 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2010-07-30 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 政治學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-99-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 813.81 kB | 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。