請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/93278完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 童涵浦 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Hans H. Tung | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 吳舒婷 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Shu-Ting Wu | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-23T16:38:53Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-07-24 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2024-07-23 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2024-07-17 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻
中華民國住宅法。取自全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0070195。 中華民國社會救助法。取自全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0050078。 中華民國社會福利基本法。取自全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0050213。 中華民國國民年金法。取自全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=D0050152。 中華民國勞工保險條例。取自全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=N0050001。 中華民國公教人員保險法。取自全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=S0070001。 中華民國農民健康保險條例。取自全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0050084。 中華民國軍人保險條例。取自全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=F0050001。 中華民國全民健康保險法。取自全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0060001。 行政院，2007，行政院 96 年 11 月 21 日院臺建字第 0960050731 號函核定。 行政院，2012，中華民國建國一百年社會福利政策綱領，行政院 101 年 1 月 9 日院臺內字第 1010120382 號函修正核定。 吳介民、廖美（2015）。從統獨到中國因素：政治認同變動對投票行為的影響。台灣社會學，(29)，89-132。 林宗弘（2012）。ECFA之後的中國效應：兩岸貿易對臺灣貧富差距與階級政治的影響。載於尹寶珊（主編），面對挑戰：臺灣與香港之比較，(頁287-325)。臺北市：中央研究院社會學研究所。 林宗弘（2015）。臺灣階級不平等擴大的原因與後果。臺灣經濟預測與政策， 45(2)， 45-68。 林宗弘、胡克威（2011）。 愛恨 ECFA：兩岸貿易與臺灣的階級政治。思與言：人文與社會科學雜誌，49(3)，99-138。 林琮盛、耿曙（2005） 。從「安全」與 「利益」的兩難中解套：再思兩岸關係中的市場力量。遠景基金會季刊，6(4)，239-281。 林萬億（2010）。《社會福利》，臺北：五南出版社。 林萬億（2016）。《臺灣的社會福利：歷史與制度的分析》，臺北：五南出版社。 高朗（1999）。從整合理論探索兩岸整合的條件與困境。載於包宗和、吳玉山編，爭辯中的兩岸關係理論。臺北市：五南圖書出版公司。 孫健忠（2000）。臺灣社會津貼實施經驗的初步分析。社會政策與社會工作學刊， 4(2)，5-41。 耿曙（2009）。經濟扭轉政治？中共「惠台政策」的政治影響。問題與研究，48(3)，1-32。 耿曙、劉嘉薇、陳陸輝（2009）。打破維持現狀的迷思：台灣民眾統獨抉擇中理念與務實的兩難。台灣政治學刊，13(2)，3-56。 張亞中（2000）。兩岸統合之理論與實踐：歐盟經驗的啟示。美歐季刊，14(1)， 35-81。 張淑卿（2019）。國民年金繳交保費政策宣導之探討。立法院。2024 年 5 月 4 日， 取自 https://www.ly.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=6590&pid=190575 張峻豪（2019）。2018年選後兩岸政策走向研析。展望與探索月刊，17(1)，87-95。 童振源（2000）。台灣與中國經貿關係：經濟與安全的交易。遠景基金會季刊，1(2)，31-81。 童振源（2003）。兩岸經濟整合與臺灣的國家安全顧慮。遠景基金會季刊，4(3)，41-58。 童振源（2013）。兩岸經貿關係的機遇與挑戰 。臺北市：新銳文創。 盛杏湲（2002）。統獨議題與台灣選民的投票行為：一九九○年代的分析。選舉研究，9(1)，41-80。 葉崇揚、蔡明璋、呂建德（2017）。台灣民眾對社會福利的態度-體制評價，道德經濟，階級與世代的影響。臺灣民主季刊，14(2)，1-48。 葉崇揚、 陳盈方（2013）。 民主，資本主義與年金體系的發展：臺灣經驗的分析。人文及社會科學集刊，25(1)，45-86。 黃志隆（2017）。臺灣年金改革基礎的重構:新社會公民地位之社會平等觀點。社 會政策與社會工作學刊，21(1)，197-236。 黃崇憲（2008）。利維坦的生成與傾頹：台灣國家研究範例的批判性回顧，1945-2005，載於謝國雄（主編），群學爭鳴：台灣社會學發展史，1945-2005，（頁321-392）。臺北：群學。 黃德福、謝俊義、劉嘉薇（2010）。 《臺灣民眾政治信任與政策偏好之研究》。臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。 陳方隅、林添貴（譯）（2019）。台灣的中國兩難：台灣認同下的兩岸經貿困境。臺北市：商周出版。(Lin, S., 2016) 陳琇惠（2015）。國民年金保險被保險人時間序列之預測研究。社會政策與社會工 作學刊，19(1)，187-242。 陳陸輝（2018）。情緒政治與 2016 年總統選舉。選舉研究，25(2)，31-53。 陳陸輝、耿曙、涂萍蘭、黃冠博（2009）。理性自利或感性認同？影響台灣民眾兩岸經貿立場因素的分析。東吳政治學報，27(2)，87-125。 傅從喜、施世駿、林宏陽（2019）。我國社會安全年金制度可攜性分析。臺大管理論叢，29(2)，173-199。 蔡宏政（2016）。世界體系、中國崛起與臺灣價值。載於吳叡人（主編），照破：太陽花運動的振幅、縱深與視域 (頁49-73)。新北市：左岸文化。 劉嘉薇、耿曙、陳陸輝（2009）。務實也是一種選擇:台灣民眾統獨立場的測量與商榷。臺灣民主季刊，6(4)，158。 譚偉恩（2014）。貿易自由化與國家安全：以《 海峽兩岸服務貿易協議》 為例。國防雜誌，29(5)，21-42。 英文文獻 Abramson, S. F., Koçak, K., & Magazinnik, A. (2022). What do we learn about voter preferences from conjoint experiments?. American Journal of Political Science, 66(4), 1008-1020. Alesina, A. & Giuliano, P. (2011). Preferences for Redistribution. In: J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 93–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5-6), 897–931. Baker, A., & Murphy, R. (2020). Modern monetary theory and the changing role of tax in society. Social Policy and Society, 19(3), 454-469. Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2023). Using conjoint experiments to analyze election outcomes: The essential role of the average marginal component effect. Political Analysis, 31(4), 500–518. Bansak, Kirk, Jens Hainmueller, Daniel J. Hopkins, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2018. “The Number of Choice Tasks and Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis, 26 (1): 112–19. Bansak, Kirk, Jens Hainmueller, Daniel J Hopkins, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2019. “Beyond the Breaking Point? Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Science Research and Methods, 9 (1): 53–71. Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Barth, E., Bryson, A., Davis, J. C., & Freeman, R. (2016). It’s where you work: Increases in the dispersion of earnings across establishments and individuals in the United States. Journal of Labor Economics, 34, S67–S97. Bean, C., & Papadakis, E. (1998). A comparison of mass attitudes towards the welfare state in different institutional regimes, 1985–1990. International Journal of Public Opinion, 10(3), 211–236. Boden, R. (2004). Taxation research as social policy research. In M. Lamb, A. Lymer, J. Freedman, & S. James (Eds.), Taxation: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Research(pp. 130–152). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borre, O., & Scarbrough, E. (1995). The Scope of Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Lundberg, K. B., & McKee, S. (2017). The politics of socioeconomic status: How socioeconomic status may influence political attitudes and engagement. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 11–14. Brunner, E., Ross, S. L., & Washington, E. (2011). Economics and policy preferences: Causal evidence of the impact of economic conditions on support for redistribution and other ballot proposals. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 888–906. Byrne, D., & Ruane, S. (2017). Paying for the Welfare State in the 21st Century: Tax and Spending in Post-Industrial Societies. Bristol: Policy Press. Carbonnier, C., Malgouyres, C., Py, L., & Urvoy, C. (2022). Who benefits from tax incentives? The heterogeneous wage incidence of a tax credit. Journal of Public Economics, 206, 104577. Clark, C. (2003). Does European integration provide a model for moderating cross-strait relations?. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 29(4), 195-215. Cook, F. L., & Barrett, E. J. (1992). Support for the American Welfare State: The Views of Public. New York: Columbia University Press. Corneo, G. & Grüner, H. P. (2002). Individual preferences for political redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 83(1), 83–107. Cusack, T., Iversen, T., & Rehm, P. (2006). Risks at work: The demand and supply sides of government redistribution. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(3), 365–389. Dawtry, R. J., Sutton, R. M., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). Why wealthier people think people are wealthier, and why it matters. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1389–1400. Edlund, J., & Svallfors, S. (2011). Cohort, class and attitudes to redistribution in two liberal welfare states: Britain and the United States, 1996–2006. In A. Goerres & V. Pieter (Eds.), Generational Politics and Policies: Comparative Studies of Ageing Post-industrial Democracies (pp. 206–224). London: Routledge. Engelhardt, C., & Wagener, A. (2014). Biased perception of income inequality and redistribution (No. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 4838). Hannover, Germany. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2463129 Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press. Evans, M., & Kelley, J. (2018). Strong welfare states do not intensify public support for income redistribution, but even reduce it among the prosperous: A multilevel analysis of public opinion in 30 countries. Societies, 8(4), 1–52. Fong, C. (2001). Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 82, 225–246. Franko, W., Tolbert, C., & Witko, C. (2013). Inequality, self-interest, and public support for 'Robin Hood' tax policies. Political Research Quarterly, 66(4), 923–937. Furman, J., & Orszag, P. (2018). A firm-level perspective on the role of rents in the rise in inequality. In Toward a just society: Joseph Stiglitz and twenty-first century economics (pp. 19-47). Columbia University Press. Ganter, F. (2023). Identification of preferences in forced-choice conjoint experiments: Reassessing the quantity of interest. Political Analysis, 31(1), 98-112. García-Sánchez, E., Van der Toorn, J., Rodriguez-Bailon, R., & Willis, G. B. (2019). The vicious cycle of economic inequality: The role of ideology in shaping the relationship between “what is” and “what ought to be” in 41 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(8), 991-1001. García-Sánchez, E., Willis, G. B., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Palacio Sañudo, J., David Polo, J., & Rentería Pérez, E. (2018). Perceptions of economic inequality and support for redistribution: The role of existential and utopian standards. Social Justice Research, 31(4), 335-354. Gijsberts, M. (2002). The legitimation of income inequality in state-socialist and market societies. Acta Sociologica, 45(4), 269–285. Gimpelson, V., & Treisman, D. (2017). Misperceiving inequality. Economics and Politics, 30(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12103 Hadler, M. (2005). Why do people accept different income ratios? A multi-level comparison of thirty countries. Acta Sociologica, 48(2), 131–154. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. Hauser, J. R. (2007). A note on conjoint analysis. Unpublished manuscript, MITSloan Management. Retrieved from http://www.mit.edu/~hauser/Papers/NoteonConjointAnalysis.pdf. Hills, J. (2015). Good Times, Bad Times: The Welfare Myth of Them and Us. Bristol: Policy Press. Hsieh, John Fuh-sheng. (1995). Chiefs, Staffers, Indians, and Others: How Was Taiwan's Mainland Policy Made? In T.-j. Cheng, C. Huang, & S. S. G. Wu (Eds.), Inherited Rivalry: Conflict Across the Taiwan Strait (pp. 137-152). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Hsieh, John Fuh-sheng. (2005). Ethnicity, National Identity, and Domestic Politics in Taiwan. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 40, 13–28. Jenke, Libby, Kirk Bansak, Jens Hainmueller, and Dominik Hangartner. 2021. “Using Eye-Tracking to Understand Decision- Making in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis, 29 (1): 75–101. Kahler, M., & Kastner, S. L. (2006). Strategic uses of economic interdependence: Engagement policies on the Korean Peninsula and across the Taiwan Strait. Journal of Peace Research, 43(5), 523-541. Kastner, S. L. (2009). Political conflict and economic interdependence across the Taiwan Strait and beyond. Stanford University Press. Kato, J. (2003). Regressive Taxation and the Welfare State: Path Dependence and Policy Diffusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kiatpongsan, S., & Norton, M. I. (2014). How much (more) should ceos make? a universal desire for more equal pay. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 587–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691614549773 Kim, H., Huh, S., Choi, S., & Lee, Y. (2018). Perceptions of inequality and attitudes towards redistribution in four East Asian welfare states. International Journal of Social Welfare, 27(1), 28–39. Kitschelt, H., & Rehm, P. (2006). New social risk and political preferences. In K. Armingeon & G. Bonoli (Eds.), The Politics of Post-Industrial Welfare States. Adapting Postwar Social Policies to New Social Risks(pp. 52–82). London: Routledge. Kline, P., Petkova, N., Williams, H., & Zidar, O. (2019). Who profits from patents? rent-sharing at innovative firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134, 1343–1404. Kuziemko, I., Norton, M., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2015). How elastic are preferences for redistribution? Evidence from randomized survey experiments. American Economic Review, 105(4), 1478–1508. Kraus, M. W., Horberg, E. J., Goetz, J. L., & Keltner, D. (2011). Social class rank, threat vigilance, and hostile reactivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(10), 1376-1388. Krumbein, F. (2023). Explaining Cross-Strait Relations with Regional Integration Theory. International Journal of Taiwan Studies, 7(1), 7-36. Leeper, T. J., Hobolt, S. B., & Tilley, J. (2020). Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis, 28(2), 207-221. Lupu, N., & Pontusson, J. (2011). The structure of inequality and the politics of redistribution. American Political Science Review, 105(02), 316–336. Margalit, Y. (2013). Explaining social policy preferences: Evidence from the Great Recession. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 80–103. Mattlin, M. (2005). Structural and institutional integration: Asymmetric integration and symmetricity tendencies. Cooperation and Conflict, 40(4), 403-421. Mazumder, S., & Yan, A. N. (2024). What do Americans want from (private) government? Experimental evidence demonstrates that Americans want workplace democracy. American Political Science Review, 118(2), 1020-1036. Meltzer, A. H., & Richard, S. F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of political Economy, 89(5), 914-927. Millar, J. (2003). From wage replacement to wage supplement: benefits and tax credits. In J. Millar (Ed.), Understanding Social Security (pp. 123–143). Bristol: Policy Press. Moisio, P., Lahtela, K. M., & Mukkila, S. (2016). Poverty reduction effects of taxation and benefits policies in Finland, 1993-2013. European Journal of Social Security, 18(1), 30–45. Moon, T. S. (2022). Capital gains taxes and real corporate investment: Evidence from Korea. American Economic Review, 112, 2669–2700. Niehues, J. (2014). Subjective perceptions of inequality and redistributive preferences: An international comparison. Cologne Institute for Economic Research. IW-TRENDS Discussion Paper, 2(1), 23. Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011). Building a better America – one wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 9–12. OECD (2019). Society at a Glance 2019: OECD Social Indicators. OECD Publishing. Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2019-en. Ohrn, E. (2023). Corporate tax breaks and executive compensation. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 15(3), 215-255. Orton, M., & Davies, R. (2009). Exploring neglected dimensions of social policy: the SDW, fiscal welfare and the exemplar of local taxation in England. Social Policy and Administration, 43(1), 33–53. Philippon, T., & Reshef, A. (2012). Wages and human capital in the US finance industry: 1909–2006. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(4), 1551-1609. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press. Pittau, M. G., Massari, R., & Zelli, R. (2013). Hierarchical modelling of disparities in preferences for redistribution. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 75(4), 556-584. Rehm, P. (2009). Risks and redistribution: An individual-level analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 7(2), 855–881. Rehm, P. (2011). Social policy by popular demand. World Politics, 63(2), 271–299. Risch, M. (2024). Does taxing business owners affect employees? Evidence from a change in the top marginal tax rate. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 139(1), 637-692. Rowlingson, K. and Connor, S. (2011) ‘The “deserving rich”? Inequality, morality and social policy’. Journal of Social Policy, 40, 3, 437–52. Sen, Maya. 2017. “How Political Signals Affect Public Support for Judicial Nominations: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly, 70 (2): 374–93. Sloman, P. (2018). Universal basic income in British politics, 1918-2018: from a "vagabond’s wage" to a global debate. Journal of Social Policy, 47(3), 625–642. Smyth, R., Mishra, V., & Qian, X. (2010). Knowing one’s lot in life versus climbing the social ladder: The formation of redistributive preferences in urban China. Social Indicators Research, 96, 275-293. Song, J., Price, D. J., Guvenen, F., Bloom, N., & Von Wachter, T. (2018). Firming up inequality. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(1), 1–50. Steinmo, S. (1993). Taxation and Democracy: Swedish, British and American Approaches to Financing the Modern State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Steinmo, S. (2010). The Evolution of Modern States: Sweden, Japan and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stiglitz, J. E. (2015). Inequality and economic growth. The Political Quarterly, 86(S1), 134–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923x.12237 Swank, D., & Steinmo, S. (2002). The New Political Economy of Taxation in Advanced Capitalist Democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 642–655. Svallfors, S. (2006). The Moral Economy of Class: Class and Attitudes in Comparative Perspective. Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University Press. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/93278 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本文探討了兩岸經貿交流如何影響臺灣民眾對於支應社會福利政策的看法。透過問卷調查實驗和聯合分析法。本文假設自身或其家庭成員曾與中國大陸有任何經貿往來的受試者，偏好下滲經濟學的觀點。他們可能會傾向支持透過企業減稅或擴大兩岸經貿交流以擴大稅基的觀點來支應社會福利政策的支出。相反地，自身或其家庭成員未曾與中國大陸有任何經貿往來的受試者，則可能偏好公平分配的觀點，並傾向支持以改革軍公教年金或提高前 5% 富人資本利得稅來支應社會福利政策。研究結果顯示，臺灣民眾對於支應社會福利政策的看法存在多樣性，與中國大陸有經貿往來的受試者並未顯著支持下滲經濟學的觀點；相反地，與中國大陸沒有經貿往來的受試者中，一部分受試者（特別是對中國大陸未來經濟持樂觀預期、自認收入足夠、或政黨認同為藍營者）支持下滲經濟學和擴大兩岸經貿交流以擴大稅基的政策。無論是否與中國大陸有經貿往來，受試者普遍支持公平分配觀點，特別是提高前 5% 富人資本利得稅以支應社會福利政策的選項。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study explores how Cross-Strait economic interactions influence Taiwanese people’s views on funding social welfare policies. Using a survey experiment and conjoint analysis, this paper hypothesizes that respondents or their family members with any economic exchanges with mainland China favor the trickle-down economics perspective. They may tend to support funding social welfare policies through corporate tax cuts or expanding Cross-Strait economic exchanges to broaden the tax base. Conversely, respondents or their family members without any economic exchanges with mainland China may prefer the equitable distribution perspective and tend to support funding social welfare policies through pension reforms for civil servants or raising the capital gains tax on the wealthiest 5%. The results show that Taiwanese people’s views on funding social welfare policies are diverse. Respondents with economic exchanges with mainland China do not significantly support the trickle-down economics perspective. Conversely, among respondents without economic exchanges with mainland China, some (especially those optimistic about mainland China's future economic performance, self-assessed as having sufficient income, or identifying with the Blue camp) support trickle-down economics and expanding Cross-Strait economic exchanges to broaden the tax base. Regardless of whether respondents have economic exchanges with mainland China, they generally support the equitable distribution perspective, particularly the option of raising the capital gains tax on the wealthiest 5% to fund social welfare policies. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-07-23T16:38:53Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-07-23T16:38:53Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 i
謝辭 ii 中文摘要 iv 英文摘要 v 目次 vi 圖次 viii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究動機 10 第三節 研究問題與目的 11 第二章 文獻回顧 14 第一節 人民對於重分配政策的態度 14 第二節 兩岸經貿交流的政經影響 16 第三節 稅收與重分配政策 17 第三章 理論與假設 21 第一節 下滲經濟學 22 第二節 公平分配 25 第四章 資料、研究方法與結果 28 第一節 資料 28 第二節 研究方法 29 第三節 問卷題項 35 第四節 研究結果 37 第五節 小結 57 第五章 結論與建議 60 第一節 結論 60 第二節 研究限制與建議 64 參考文獻 65 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.title | 兩岸經貿交流與重分配政策的支出財源 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Cross-Strait Economic Interactions and Fundings for Redistributive Policies | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳親恩;江淳芳 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chin-en Wu;Chun-Fang Chiang | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 兩岸經貿交流,下滲經濟學,公平分配,問卷調查實驗,聯合分析法, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | cross-strait economic interactions,trickle-down economics,equitable distribution,survey experiment,conjoint analysis, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 74 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202401774 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2024-07-17 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2029-07-16 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 政治學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-112-2.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 7.28 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。