請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/81831完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 郭銘峰(Ming-Feng Kuo) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Jia-En Wu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 吳嘉恩 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-11-25T03:04:36Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-07-10 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2021-08-18 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2021-07-23 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 呂寶靜，2012，〈台灣老人社會整合之研究：以社區生活參與為例〉，《人文與社會科學簡訊》，13（2）：90–96。 林宗弘，2009，〈台灣的後工業化：階級結構的轉型與社會不平等，1992-2007〉，《臺灣社會學刊》， 43：93–158。 林麗惠，2006，〈台灣高齡學習者成功老化之研究〉，《人口學刊》，33：133–170。 施清發、陳武宗與范麗娟，2000，〈高雄市老人休閒體驗與休閒參與程度之研究〉《社區發展季刊》，92：346–358。 連雅棻、黃惠滿、蘇貞瑛，2007，〈社區獨居老人人格韌性、社區獨居老人人格韌性、社會支持與生活滿意度相關性研究〉，《長期照護雜誌》，12（1）：161–178。 陳正芬，2017，〈成功老化或活躍老化？輸送基礎以及未來轉型之探討對〈社區據點服務品質與成功老化提升程度關連性之初探：政府角色認知的調節效果的對話與回應〉，《公共行政學報》，53：121–129。 臺北市政府社會局，2017，〈臺北市共餐據點多元發展 接軌長照提供銀髮長者完整照顧〉，台北市政府社會局網頁：www.dosw.gov.taipei/ct.asp?xItem=347353240 ctNode=79033 mp=10700m，2020/01/20。 臺北市政府研究發展考核委員會，2017，〈專案：10600523〉，台北市政府：https://www.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=F0DDAF49B89E9413 sms=72544237BBE4C5F6 s=7122C9A6C9A3E9D0，2020/01/20。 劉曉雲，2012，〈社區老人長期照護之文獻探討〉，《中華職業醫學雜誌》，19（2）：83–92。 顏維婷，2019，〈重陽敬老金有影響到台北市長選情嗎？〉，菜市場政治學：https://whogovernstw.org/2019/02/18/weitingyen14/，2020/01/20。 羅清俊，1998，〈分配政策的研究發展與應用〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，10（4）：575–609。 羅清俊，2000，〈政策利益分配的型態：最小獲勝聯盟？還是通通有獎？〉《政治科學論叢》，13：201–232。 臺北市政府社會局，2019。〈臺北五心政策〉，臺北五心資訊網：https://elders.gov.taipei，2020/01/20。 邱瓊玉，2015，〈北市老人福利擬排富〉，《聯合報》，6/22，A1版。 聯合報，1986，〈重陽節敬老將改發紅包〉，《聯合報》，8/3，第6版。 張麗芳，2008，〈社交活動 社交活動對老人的影響〉，《護理論壇》，178：9–14。 中國時報，2018，〈重陽敬老金排富？丁守中：又不是社會救濟金〉，《中國時報》，11/18，https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20181118001690-260407?chdtv，2020/01/20。 Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., Williams, M. (1994). Combining Revealed and Stated. Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(3), 271–292. Aizaki, H., Nakatani, T., Sato, K. (2015). Stated Preference Methods Using R. New. York: Chapman and Hall. Alatas, V., Banerjee, A., Hanna, R., Olken, B., Tobias, J. (2012). Targeting the Poor: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia. American Economic Review, 102(4), 1206–1240. Alexander, C. S., Becker, H. J. (1978). The Use of Vignettes in Survey Research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(1), 93–104. Alkon, M., Urpelainen, J. (2018). Trust in Government and Subsidy Reform: Evidence from a Survey of Indian Farmers. Studies in Comparative International Development, 53(4), 449–476. Arrow, K. J. (1973). Social choice and individual values. New Haven. Auspurg, K., Hinz, T. (2015). Factorial Survey Experiments. Los Angeles: SAGE. Ballard-Rosa, C., Martin, L., Scheve, K. (2017). The Structure of American Income Tax Policy Preferences. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 1–16. Baltes, P., Baltes, M. (1990). Psychological Perspectives on Successful Aging: The. Model of Selective Optimization with Compensation. In: P. Baltes, M. Baltes, Successful Aging: Perspectives from the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, Ch1. Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D., Yamamoto, T. (2019). Beyond the. breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Science Research and Methods, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.13. Barber, M., Pope, J. C. (2019). Conservatism in the Era of Trump. Perspectives on Politics, 17(3), 719–736. Bardach, E. (2012). A practical guide for policy analysis: the eightfold path to more effective problem solving (4th ed.). LA: Sage. Barry, B. (1965). Political argument. New York: Humanities Press. Baumgartner, J. (1991). Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074. Bergstrom, T., Goodman, R. (1973). Private demands for public goods. The American economic review, 63(3), 280–296. Birol, E., Kontoleon, A., Smale, M. (2006). Combining revealed and stated preference methods to assess the private value of agrobiodiversity in Hungarian home gardens: IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1698097587/ Blomberg, H., Kallio, J., Kangas, O., Kroll, C. Niemelä, M. (2017). Social Assistance Deservingness and Policy Measures: Attitudes of Finnish Politicians, Administrators and Citizens. In Van Oorschot, W., Roosma, F., Meuleman, B. Reeskens, T. The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. UK: Edward Elgar, Ch11. Bobo, L. (2011). Somewhere between Jim Crow Post-Racialism: Reflections on the Racial Divide in America Today. Daedalus, 140(2), 11–36. Bonica, A. (2015). Measuring public spending preferences using an interactive budgeting questionnaire. Research Politics, 2(2), 1–9. Borcherding, T., Deacon, R. (1972). The Demand for the Services of Non-Federal Governments. The American Economic Review, 62(5), 891–901. Borkowski, J. J, Valeroso, E. S. (2001). Comparison of Design Optimality Criteria of Reduced Models for Response Surface Designs in the Hypercube. Technometrics, 43(4), 468–477. Bowman, R. (1975). The role of utility in the state-preference framework. Journal of financial and quantitative analysis, 10(2), 341–352. Boxall, P., Englin, J., Adamowicz, W. (2003). Valuing aboriginal artifacts: a combined revealed-stated preference approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45(2), 213–230. Branham, J., Jessee, S. (2017). Modeling spending preferences public policy. Electoral Studies, 49(C), 155–172. Brown, M., Knopp, L., Morrill, R. (2005). The culture wars and urban electoral politics: sexuality, race, and class in Tacoma, Washington. Political Geography, 24(3), 267–291. Buchanan, J. M., Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent, logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Carey, G., Crammond, B. (2017). A glossary of policy frameworks: the many forms of 'universalism' and policy 'targeting'. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 71(3), 303–307. Carney, D., Jost, J., Gosling, S., Potter, J. (2008). The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807–840. Carson, R., Louviere, J. (2011). A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49(4), 539–559. Cinelli, C., Hazlett, C. (2020). Making sense of sensitivity: extending omitted variable bias. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 82(1), 39–67. Clark, M., Determann, D., Petrou, S., Moro, D., Bekker-Grob, E. (2014). Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature. Pharmaco Economics, 32(9), 883–902. Clawson, M., Knetsch, J. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation . Baltimore: Published for Resources for the Future by Johns Hopkins Press. Curren, R., Nelson, J., Marsh, D S., Noor, S. Liu, N. (2016). “Racial Equity Action Plans, A How-to Manual.” Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society, University of California, Berkeley. In: http://www.racialequityalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GARE-Racial-Equity-Action-Plans.pdf. Retrieved 20 January 2018. Dean, H. (2019). Social policy (3th e.d.). MA: Polity Press. Denzau, A., Weisz, R., Walcutt Jr. , J. (1977). A quasi-experimental method for. studying public sector demands. Southern economic journal, 44(2), 306–312. Deslatte, A. (2020). Managerial Friction and Land‐Use Policy Punctuations in the Fragmented Metropolis. Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), 700–726. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy . New York: Harper. Druckman, J., Peterson, E., Slothuus, R. (2013). How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation. The American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Earnhart, D. (2001). Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Economics : a Quarterly Journal of Planning, Housing Public Utilities, 77(1), 12–29. Ebdon, C, Franklin, A. (2006). Citizen Participation in Budgeting Theory. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 437–447. Ellis, C., Faricy, C. (2019). Race, “Deservingness,” and Social Spending Attitudes: The Role of Policy Delivery Mechanism. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-09521-w. Evans, D. (2004). Greasing the wheels : using pork barrel projects to build majority coalitions in Congress. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Ewing, G., Sarigöllü, E. (2000). Assessing consumer preferences for clean-fuel vehicles : a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Public Policy Marketing : JPP M ; an Annual Publ. of the Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Michigan, 19(1), 106–118. Fang, A., Huber, G. (2020). Perceptions of Deservingness and the Politicization of Social Insurance: Evidence From Disability Insurance in the United States. American Politics Research, 48(5), 543–559. Ferejohn, J. A. (1974). Pork barrel politics; rivers and harbors legislation, 1947-1968. CA: Stanford University Press. Fishkin, J. (1997). The voice of the people : public opinion and democracy. Boston: Yale University Press. Frohlich, N. (1975). Instability of Minimum Winning Coalitions. American Political Science Review, 69(3), 943–946. Galston, W., Nivola, P. (2006). Delineating the problem. In Nivola, P., Brady, D. (2006). Red and blue nation? : characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics: 1–48. CA: Stanford University Press. Gielens, E., Roosma, F., Achterberg, P. (2019). Deservingness in the eye of the beholder: A vignette study on the moderating role of cultural profiles in supporting activation policies. International Journal of Social Welfare, 28(4), 442–453. Gilens, M. (2001). Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences. The. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 379–396. Gilbert, N. (2004). Transformation of the welfare state : the silent surrender of public responsibility. UK: Oxford University Press. Golden, M., Min, B. (2013). Distributive Politics Around the World. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 73–99. Gooden, S. T. (2017). Social Equity and Evidence: Insights from Local Government. Public Administration Review, 77(6), 822-828. Groot, H., Pommer, E. (1987). Budgetgames and the private and social demand for. mixed public goods. Public Choice, 52(3), 257–272. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. (2015). The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D., Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., Yamamoto, T. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 112(8), 2395–2400. Hall, J., Kenny, P., King, M., Louviere, J. (2002). Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination. Health Economics, 11(5), 457–465. Hardin, R. (1976). Hollow Victory - Minimum Winning Coalition. American Political Science Review, 70(4), 1202–1214. Haselswerdt, J. (2020). Who Benefits? Race, Immigration, and Assumptions About Policy. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09608-3. Hatzenbuehler, M., Phelan, J., Link, B. (2013). Stigma as a Fundamental Cause of Population Health Inequalities. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 813–821. Hayo, B., Neumeier, F. (2019). Public Preferences for Government Spending Priorities: Survey Evidence from Germany. German Economic Review, 20(4), 1–37. Hedegaard, T. F. (2014). The Policy Design Effect: Proximity as a Micro-level Explanation of the Effect of Policy Designs on Social Benefit Attitudes. Scandinavian Political Studies, 37(4), 366–384. Hetherington, Marc J. (2004). Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hinckley, B. (1972). Coalitions in Congress - Size and Ideological Distance. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16(2), 197–207. Hirano, S., Snyder J., Ansolabehere, S., Hansen, J. 2010. Primary elections and partisan polarization in the U.S. Congress. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5(2), 169–191. Hooyman, N. R., Kiyak, H. A. (2011). Social gerontology : a multidisciplinary perspective (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn Bacon. Iyengar, S., Westwood, S. (2015). Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization: Fear And Loathing Across Party Lines. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. Iyengar, S., Sood, D., Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective On Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. Jacobson, G. (2003). Partisan Polarization in Presidential Support: The Electoral Connection. Congress the Presidency, 30(1), 1–36. Jaeger, W., Lyons, J., Wolak, J. (2017). Political Knowledge and Policy. Representation in the States. American Politics Research, 45(6), 907–938. James, J. (2009). Policy Knowledge, Policy Formulation, and Change: Revisiting a Foundational Question. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 141–162. James, W. S., Arnold, V., Xinsheng, L. (2015). The Influence of Specific Risk Perceptions on Public Policy Support : An Examination of Energy Policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 102–120. Jensen, C., Petersen, M. B. (2017). The Deservingness Heuristic and the Politics of Health Care. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 68–83. Johnson, F. R, Kanninen, B., Bingham, M., Ozdemir, S. (2015). Experimental Design for Stated Choice Studies. In Kanninen, B. Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice. The Netherlands: Springer, Ch7. Kammermann, A., Angst, M. (2020). The Effect of Beliefs on Policy Instrument Preferences: The Case of Swiss Renewable Energy Policy: The Effect of Beliefs on Policy Preferences. Policy Studies Journal, https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12393. Karni, E. (1983). Risk aversion for state-dependent utility functions: measurement and. applications. International Economic Review, 24(3), 637–647. Kinder, D., Mendelberg, T. (2000). Individualism Reconsidered: Principles and Prejudice in Contemporary American Opinion. In: Racialized Politics: The Debate about Racism in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press King County. (2015). The Determinants of Equity. In:https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/elected/executive/equity-social-justice/2015/The_Determinants_of_Equity_Report.ashx. Retrieved 20 January 2020. King County. (2016). Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan 2016-2022. In:http://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/equity-socialjustice/strategic-plan.aspx. Retrieved 20 January 2020. Kriström B. (1997). Practical Problems in Contingent Valuation. In: Kopp R.J.,Pommerehne W.W., Schwarz N. Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods. Germany: Springer, Ch10. Krosnick, J. A., Milburn, M. A. (1990). Psychological determinants of political. opinionation. Social Cognition, 8(1), 49–72. Kuhfeld, W. F. (1997). Efficient Experimental Designs Using Computerized Searches. In: http://homepage.stat.uiowa.edu/~gwoodwor/AdvancedDesign/KuhfeldTobiasGarratt.pdf. Retrieved 20 January 2020. Kuhfeld, W. F. (2010). Experimental Design: Efficiency, Coding, and Choice Designs. In: http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/mr2010c.pdf. Retrieved 20 January 2020. Kuhfeld, W. F. , Randall, T., Mark, G. (1994). Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications. Journal of Marketing Research 31(4), 545–557. Kuklinski, J, Sniderman, P., Knight, K., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P., Lawrence, G., Mellers, B. (1997). Racial Prejudice and Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action. American Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 402–419. Laenen, T. Meuleman, B. (2017). A Universal Rank Order of Deservingness? Geographical, Temporal and Social-Structural Comparisons. In Van Oorschot, W., Roosma, F., Meuleman, B. Reeskens, T. The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. UK: Edward Elgar. Liu, B. (2010). The Election of Barack Obama How He Won. New York: Palgrave. Macmillan. Liu, R., Robinson, S., Vedlitz, A. (2020). A Micro Model of Problem Definition and Policy Choice: Issue Image, Issue Association, and Policy Support of Power Plants. Policy Studies Journal, 48(1), 11–37. Lowi, T. J. (1964). American-Business and Public-Policy - the Politics of Foreign-Trade - Bauer,Ra, Pool,Id, Dexter,La. World Politics, 16(4), 677–715. Madonna, A. J. (2011). Winning Coalition Formation in the US Senate: The Effects of Legislative Decision Rules and Agenda Change. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 276–288. Mangham, L., Hanson, K., McPake, B. (2009). How to do (or not to do) …Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy and Planning, 24(2), 151–158. Mason, L. (2018). Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of. Ideological Identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(1), 866–887. McLaren, L., Petit, R. (2018). Universal and targeted policy to achieve health equity: a critical analysis of the example of community water fluoridation cessation in Calgary, Canada in 2011. Critical Public Health, 28(2), 153–164. Mendelsohn R., Brown G.M. Jr. (1983). Revealed preference approaches to valuing outdoor recreation. Natural Resources Journal, 23(3), 607–618. Midgley, J. (2008). Developmental Social Policy: Theory and Practice, In Singh, S. Aspalter, C., Debating Social Development, Casa Verde: Taoyuan, Taiwan, Ch26. Mitchell, R., Carson, R. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods : the contingent valuation method. Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future. Nall, C. (2015). The Political Consequences of Spatial Policies: How Interstate Highways Facilitated Geographic Polarization. The Journal of Politics, 77(2), 394–406. OECD. (2003). Government at a Glance 2013: Trust in government, policy. effectiveness and the governance agenda. In: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/government-at-a-glance-2013/trust-in-government-policy-effectiveness-and-the-governance-agenda_gov_glance-2013-6-en. Oxley, D., Smith, K., Alford, J., Hibbing, M., Miller, J., Scalora, M., Hatemi, P., Hibbing, J. (2008). Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits. Science, 321(5896), 1667–1670. Patton, C. V., Sawicki, D. S. (2013). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson. Pendse, D., Wyckoff, J. (1976). Measurement Of Environmental Trade-Offs And. Public Policy: A Case Study. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 12(5), 919–930. Pletzer, J. L., Balliet, D., Joireman, J., Kuhlman, D. M., Voelpel, S. C., Van Lange, P. A. M. (2018). Social Value Orientation, Expectations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(1), 62–83. Powell, J. A. (2009). Post-Racialism or Targeted Universalism? Denver University Law Review, 86, 785–806. Powell, J. A. (2012). Racing to justice : transforming our conceptions of self and other to build an inclusive society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Powell, J. A. (2016). Targeted Universalism: Equity 2.0. In: http://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/20161025-kidscount-v2.pdf. Retrieved 20 January 2020. Powell, J. A. Ake, W. (2017). Creating Structural Changes. In A. Flynn, D. Warren, F. Wong, S. Holmberg, The Hidden Rules of Race: Barriers to an Inclusive Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Randall, A. (1994). A difficulty with the travel cost method. Land Economics: a. Quarterly Journal of Planning, Housing Public Utilities, 70(1), 88–96. Randall, A., Ives, B., Eastman, C. (1974). Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1(2), 132–149. Reardon, S., Bischoff, K. (2011). Income Inequality and Income Segregation. The American Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1092–1153. Richman, J. (2011). Parties, Pivots, and Policy: The Status Quo Test. The American. Political Science Review, 105(1), 151–165. Riker, W. H. (1962). The theory of political coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rohrer, J. (2018). Thinking Clearly About Correlations and Causation: Graphical. Causal Models for Observational Data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 27–42. Romer, T., Rosenthal, H. (1979). The elusive median voter. Journal of Public Economics, 12(2), 143–170. Rossi, P. H. (1979). Vignette analysis: Uncovering the normative structure of complex judgments. In R. K. Merton, J. S. Coleman, P. H. Rossi. Qualitative and quantitative social research: Papers in honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld. New York: Free Press. Rossi, P. H. Anderson, A. (1982). The Factorial Survey Approach: An Introduction. In: Rossi, P. Nock, S. Measuring Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach. CA: Sage, Beverly Hills. Roux, C., Goldsmith, K., Bonezzi, A. (2015). On the Psychology of Scarcity: When Reminders of Resource Scarcity Promote Selfish (and Generous) Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 615–631. Rowe, J. W., Kahn, R. L. (1987). Human aging: usual and successful. Science, 237(4811), 143–149. Rowe, J. W., Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful aging. Gerontologist, 37(4), 433–440. Ryan, T. (2017). No Compromise: Political Consequences of Moralized Attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 409–423. Samuelson, P. (1938). A note on the pure theory of consumerʹs behavior. Economica, 5(17), 61–71. Samuelson, P. (1948). Consumption theory in terms in revealed preference. Economica, 15(60), 243–253. Sanou, A., Kouyate, B., Bibeau, G., Nguyen, V. K. (2011). Evaluability Assessment of an immunization improvement strategy in rural Burkina Faso: intervention theory versus reality, information need and evaluations. Eval Program Plan, 34(3), 303–315. Schick, A. Controlling nonconventional expenditure: tax expenditures and loans. Public Budgeting Finance, 6(1), 3–19. Schlapfer, F. (2017). Stated Preferences For Public Services: A Classification And Survey Of Approaches. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(1), 258–280. Schneider, A., Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347. Schneider, A., Ingram, H. (2019). Social Constructions, Anticipatory Feedback Strategies, and Deceptive Public Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 206–236. Sears, D. O., Henry, P. (2005). Over Thirty Years Later: A Contemporary Look at Symbolic Racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 95–150. Shepsle, K. A., Weingast, B. R. (1981). Political Preferences for the Pork Barrel - a Generalization. American Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 96–111. Shur, D. D. (2006). Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis?. In Kimberly J. L, SUGI 31 Proceedings, San Francisco, CA. Spector, P., Brannick, M. (2010). Methodological Urban Legends: The Misuse of. Statistical Control Variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 287–305. Stevens, J. B. (1993). The economics of collective choice. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press. Stimson, J. (2012). On the Meaning Measurement of Mood. Daedalus, 141(4), 23–34. Strauss, R., Hughes, G. (1976). A new approach to the demand for public. goods. Journal of Public Economics, 6(3), 191–204. Tesler, M. (2015). Priming Predispositions and Changing Policy Positions: An Account of When Mass Opinion Is Primed or Changed: Priming Predispositions. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 806–824. Then, V., Schober, C., Rauscher, O., Kehl, K. (2017). Social return on investment. analysis: measuring the impact of social investment. Cham: Springer. Thompson, S, Hoggett, P. (1996). Universalism, Selectivism and. Particularism: Towards a Postmodern Social Policy. Critical Social Policy 16(46), 21–42. Titmuss, R. M. (1968). Commitment to welfare (1st ed.). New York,: Pantheon Books. Valentino, N., Brader, T. (2011). The Sword’s Other Edge: Perceptions of. Discrimination and Racial Policy Opinion after Obama. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 201–226. Valenzuela, M. (2017). King County's Journey in Institutionalizing Equity and Social Justice. Public Administration Review, 77(6), 818–821. Van Oorschot, W. (2000). Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy and Politics, 28(1), 33–48. Van Oorschot, W. Roosma, F. (2017). The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare. and Welfare Deservingness. In Van Oorschot, W., Roosma, F., Meuleman, B. Reeskens, T. The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. UK: Edward Elgar. VanderWeele, T. (2019). Principles of confounder selection. European Journal of. Epidemiology, 34(3), 211–219. Wallander, L. (2009). 25 Years of Factorial Surveys in Sociology: A Review. Social. Science Research, 38(3), 505–520. Wardman, M. (1988). A Comparison of Revealed Preference and Stated Preference. Models of Travel Behavior. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22(1), 71–91. Weingast, B. R. (1979). A Rational Choice Perspective on Congressional Norms. American Journal of Political Science, 23(2), 245–262. WHO. (2002). Active Ageing - A Policy Framework. In: https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/active_ageing/en/. Retrieved 11 May 2019. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/81831 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 公共政策的目標是維持人類的基本人權以及提升民眾的社會福祉，但是公共政策背後隱含的分配價值，使決策者必須謹慎思考背後的分配邏輯：誰能獲得利益？為何是這群人獲得？應給予多少資源？社會認同理論闡述的社會決策以及個人決策的衝突導致的集體行為困境，即是在於如何體現分配政策的路線選擇－採取納入所有人的「普遍性政策」抑或設計排斥條款的「針對性政策」。不論在理論或實務上，莫不期待在政策設計階段能全面瞭解受益者的實際需求，並增強政策論述證明受益者是值得獲得利益且預算都是有效率的花費，以緩解分配政策的分群衝突。 然而遺憾的是，既有的決策偏好調查中，多數未能有效地釐清不同族群、特質的受益者中多樣的需求，特別地方決策往往囿限選舉主義，使得擬定政策時雖有理想，但實務上卻難以落實資源分配的有效性與公平性的窘境。基於此一社會需要，本文選定以台北市2015年老人政策改革為例，提出分配政策設計架構，並透過聯合分析法同時也結合預算遊戲與因果推論方法，讓政府藉以思考如何有效理解受益者的需求和大眾不平衡的成因，進而緩解針對性與普遍性的選擇困境。本文透過實驗一與實驗二分別探究年長者的需求以及非年長者的不平衡感。在實驗一中發現台北市年長者與政府對於老人政策想像不同，認為改變後的針對性政策反而造福高社經地位的年長者，並沒有滿足其政策需求；而在實驗二則發現，多數與年長者無密切接觸的非年長者，容易忽視其他因素，認為經濟弱勢是領取政策資源的唯一標準。也就是說，政策並沒有滿足受益群體需求，導致出現增加補助的聲音，但是這卻成為非受益族群不平衡感的起源，甚至造成更為激烈的社會衝突與對立。本文期待透過新的調查方法的提出，更細緻的理解各族群需求，促進分配政策的討論能為證據為本的理性討論，緩解分群極化的社會，減少施政衝突並提升社會福祉。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2022-11-25T03:04:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2207202121382600.pdf: 5388068 bytes, checksum: 93b9b3aa111f7d92d80ae8507b4f0174 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2021 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章、緒論…………………………………………………………………..01 第一節、研究動機與研究問題……………………………………………..01 第二節、研究目的與重要性………………………………………………..03 第二章、分配政策理論回顧與探討…………………………………………..06 第一節、分配政策的矛與盾–針對性與普遍性的衝突…………………..06 第二節、分配政策的癥結–誰可以獲得利益？…………………………..07 第三節、微觀視角–個人特質對政策偏好的影響………………………..09 第四節、針對普遍性：一項可能解方的提出？…………………………..10 第五節、本文觀點：分配政策的選擇架構與可能思考的解方…………..13 第三章、案例介紹與政策變遷分析…………………………………………..17 第一節、台北市老人政策沿革……………………………………………..17 第二節、老人政策改革考量………………………………………………..18 第三節、台北市老人政策變遷分析………………………………………..19 第四章、實證方法與設計…………………………………………………......22 第一節、公共預算偏好測量方法與困境…………………………………..22 第二節、聯合分析法(conjoint analysis)的應用..…..…………………..…..25 第三節、模型設計與因子選擇……………………………………………..30 第五章、實驗過程以及研究結果……………………………………………..33 第一節、精準需求理解：「老人偏好調查」（實驗一）…………………..33 第二節、社會觀感成因：「世代衝突調查」（實驗二）…………………..43 第三節、實證結果以及政策效益檢視……………………………………..59 第六章、結論與未來研究方向………………………………………………..63 第一節、理論與實務意涵…………………………………………………..63 第二節、研究貢獻…………………………………………………………..65 第三節、檢討與未來研究方向……………………………………………..67 參考文獻………………………………………………………………………..70 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 政策偏好 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 台北市 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 聯合分析法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 預算遊戲 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 分配政策 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | bidding game | en |
| dc.subject | Taipei city (Taiwan) | en |
| dc.subject | policy preference | en |
| dc.subject | conjoint analysis | en |
| dc.subject | distribution policy | en |
| dc.title | 政策利益分配的新途徑： 以聯合分析法論析台北市老人政策資源分配 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A New Approach to the Distribution of Policy Benefit: Evidence from a Conjoint Analysis of Aging Policy in Taipei City | en |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 109-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃心怡(Hsin-Tsai Liu),羅清俊(Chih-Yang Tseng) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 分配政策,聯合分析法,預算遊戲,政策偏好,台北市, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | distribution policy,conjoint analysis,bidding game,policy preference,Taipei city (Taiwan), | en |
| dc.relation.page | 81 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202101675 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2021-07-26 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共事務研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2023-07-10 | - |
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-2207202121382600.pdf | 5.26 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。