Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 社會科學院
  3. 公共事務研究所
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21779
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor王宏文
dc.contributor.authorCheng-Hui Suen
dc.contributor.author蘇琤惠zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-08T03:46:26Z-
dc.date.copyright2019-02-14
dc.date.issued2018
dc.date.submitted2019-02-12
dc.identifier.citation參考文獻
壹、中文部分
王鼎銘、詹富堯,(2006),〈台灣地方財政支出的政治預算循環理論分析─固定效果及隨機效果模型的估算比較〉,《台灣政治學刊》,10 (2):63-100。
邱訪義。(2010)。台灣分立政府與立法僵局-理論建立及其實證意涵。臺灣民主季刊,7(3):87-121。
邱訪義與李誌偉。(2012)。立法院積極議程設定之理論與經驗分析: 第二至第六屆。臺灣政治學刊,16(1):1-58。
邱訪義與李誌偉。(2013)。立法院消極議程控制的邏輯與經驗分析, 1993-2011。東吳政治學報,31(4):1-70。
邱訪義與李誌偉。(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。
邱訪義與鄭元毓。(2014)。立法院黨團協商: 少數霸凌多數亦或是多數主場優勢。政治科學論叢,(62):155-194。
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。
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
盛杏湲。(2014)。從立法提案到立法產出: 比較行政院與立法院在立法過程的影響力。東吳大學政治學系國會研究中心主編,《 轉型中的行政與立法關係》: 23-60。
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 '。 台灣政治學刊, 7(2):51-105。
盛杏湲。(2012)。媒體報導對企業型政治立法成敗的影響. 東吳政治學報, 30(1), 1-42.
盛杏湲與黃士豪。(2017)。黨團協商機制: 從制度化觀點分析。東吳政治學報,35(1):37-92。
傅彥凱,2006,〈地方政府預算制定之政治經濟分析〉,《選舉研究》,13 (1):119-162。
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。
黃秀端等著,2014,《轉型中的行政與立法關係》,台北:五南。
黃秀端、陳中寧、許孝慈。(2017)。認識立法院。台北市:五南出版公司。
楊婉瑩. (2003). 一致性到分立性政府的政黨合作與衝突: 以第四屆立法院為例. 東吳政治學報, 16, 49-95.
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(1):73-119。
羅清俊與萬榮水. (1999). 選舉與補助款的分配: 綁樁? 還是平衡地方財政?. 選舉研究, 6(2), 121-161.
羅清俊. (2008). 桃園縣特別統籌款分配的政治分析. 東吳政治學報, 26(3), 1-56.
羅清俊與詹富堯。(2012)。立法委員特殊利益提案與中央政府計畫型補助款的分配: 從民國 94 年至 98 年之資料探析。公共行政學報,(42):1-31。
羅清俊與廖健良。(2009)。選制改變前選區規模對立委分配政策提案行爲的影響。臺灣政治學刊,13(1):3-53。
羅清俊與謝瑩蒔。(2008)。選區規模與立法委員分配政策提案的關聯性研究: 第三, 四屆立法院的分析。行政暨政策學報,46:1-48
謝敏捷。(2005)。國民黨主席選舉後台灣政黨政治與 2008 大選的分析. 臺灣民主季刊, 2(3), 133-137.
貳、英文部分
Akhmedov, Akhmed and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya. 2004. “Opportunistic Political Cycles: Test in a Young Democracy Setting.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 15: 75-117.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D.(1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The journal of Politics 53(04): 1044-1074.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D.(1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. University of Chicago Press.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D.(2003). Social Movements, the Rise of New Issues, and the Public Agenda. Public Policy, and Democracy.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D.(2009). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. University of Chicago Press.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D.(2015). The politics of information: Problem definition and the course of public policy in America. University of Chicago Press.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Mahoney, C.(2005). Social movements, the rise of new issues, and the public agenda. In: Meyer DS, Jenness V, Ingram H, ed. 2005, Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy, 65-86.
Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D., & Mortensen, P. B.(2014). Punctuated equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In Sabatier, Paul and Christopher Weible. Eds. Theories of the policy process, 59-103.
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.
Edwards III, G. C., & Barrett, A.(2000). Presidential agenda setting in Congress. In Polarized politics: Congress and the president in a partisan era (pp. 109-33). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Green‐Pedersen, C.(2007). The growing importance of issue competition: The changing nature of party competition in Western Europe. Political studies, 55(3), 607-628.
Green-Pedersen, C.(2010). Bringing parties into parliament: The development of parliamentary activities in Western Europe. Party Politics, 16(3), 347-369.
Green‐Pedersen, Christoffer. & Mortensen, P. B.(2009). 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.
Jennings, W., Bevan, S., Timmermans, A., Breeman, G., Brouard, S., Chaqués-Bonafont, L., ... & Palau, A. M.(2011). Effects of the core functions of government on the diversity of executive agendas. Comparative Political Studies, 44(8), 1001-1030.
Jennings, W., S. Bevan, A. Timmermans, L. Chaques, G. Breeman, S. Brouard, C. Green-Pedersen, P. John, P.B. Mortensen, and A. Palau.(2011). Effects of the Core Functions of Government on the Diversity of Executive Agendas. Comparative Political Studies 44 (8): 1001-1030.
Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R.(2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. University of Chicago Press.
Kernell, S. (1978). Explaining presidential popularity: How ad hoc theorizing, misplaced emphasis, and insufficient care in measuring one's variables refuted common sense and led conventional wisdom down the path of anomalies. American Political Science Review, 72(2), 506-522.
Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Krutilla, K.(2005). Using the Kaldor‐Hicks tableau format for cost‐benefit analysis and policy evaluation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(4), 864-875.
Lindblom, C.E.(1979).Still muddling, not yet through.Public Administration Review,40(6),517-526.
Larkey, P. D., & Smith, R. A.(1989). Bias in the formulation of local government budget problems. Policy Sciences, 22(2), 123-166.
Mueller, J. E. (1970). Presidential Popularity from Truman to Johnson 1. American Political Science Review, 64(1), 18-34.
Mortensen, P. B., & Seeberg, H. B.(2015). Why Are Some Policy Agendas Larger than Others?. Policy Studies Journal, 44(2), 156-175.
Peter, J., & De Vreese, C. H.(2003). Agenda‐Rich, Agenda‐Poor: A Cross‐National Comparative Investigation of Nominal and Thematic Public Agenda Diversity. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(1), 44-64.
Rundquist, B. S., & Ferejohn, J. A. (1974). Observations on a distributive theory of policy-making: Two American expenditure programs compared.
SIMON, Herbert A. (1976a) Administrative Behavior: A study of Decision making Processes in Admi nistrative Organization, 3rd ed., with new introduction, New York.
Stimson, J. A. (1976). Public support for American presidents: A cyclical model. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(1), 1-21.
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.
Simon, H. A.(1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79(02), 293-304.
Simon, Herbert. A.(1957). Models of man; social and rational. New York: Wiley.
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.
Veiga, Linda G. and Francisco J. Veiga. 2007b. “Does Opportunism Pay Off?” Economics Letter, 96 (2): 177-182.
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.
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21779-
dc.description.abstract近年來我國面臨許多挑戰,如全球暖化、食安危機、環境汙染、經貿自由化、資訊科技的蓬勃發展、及高齡化與少子化等,為回應民眾需求及外在環境挑戰,政府應透過修法來進行改革,但因政府資源、時間、與注意力有限,因此一個社會問題或現象必須受到一定程度的注意與操作才有可能進入政策議程,並需要獲得眾多立法委員的集體處理才能改變相關法規。
  本研究從政府注意力有限的角度出發,檢視馬政府執政期間的通過法案趨勢為何?比較第一、二任的通過法案之差異?有無明顯的選舉年效應?總統蜜月期和其他會期的差異?最後加入馬王政爭之影響。
  主要發現有五項:1.整體而言,馬政府通過法案集中在法律與金融商業兩大政策領域;2.第一任相較於第二任通過之法案數較多,議程較窄,多樣性較低;3.兩次選舉年的通過法案數皆是任期內之最高峰,第一任選舉年相對第二任選舉年通過法案數較多,但議程較窄,多樣性較低;4.總統蜜月期第一任維持較第二任長,通過法案數也較多,議程較廣,多樣性較高;5.馬王政爭後,通過法案所涉及的政策領域較寬,多樣性較高,但涉及的政策領域不完全是馬政府的施政意志。
關鍵字:馬政府、議程設定、注意力有限、多樣性指標、馬王政爭
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractIn recent years, We have faced many challenges, such as global warming, food safety crisis, environmental pollution, economic and trade liberalization, the development of information technology, and aging society with fewer children. In response to the needs of the people and external environmental challenges, the government should reform through amending the law. Due to the limit of the government resources, time, and attention, Therefore, a social problem or phenomenon must be subject to a certain degree of attention before it can enter the policy agenda, and it also requires the collective treatment of many legislators to change the relevant regulations.
  From the perspective of limited government attention, this study examines the trend of the passing of the bill during the period of the Ma administration. What is the difference between the first and second passed? Is there a clear election year effect? What is the difference between the president's honeymoon period and other sessions? Finally, I added the influence of Ma Wang’s political struggle.
  There are five main findings: 1. Overall, the Ma administration passed the bill to focus on two major policy areas: law and financial business. 2. The number of bills passed by the first term is higher than that of the second term. The agenda is narrower and the diversity is lower. 3. The number of bills passed in the two election years is the highest in the term of office. The first election year has more bills than the second election year, but the agenda is narrower and the diversity is lower. 4. The first term of the president's honeymoon period is maintained longer than the second one, the number of bills passed is also larger, the agenda is wider, and the diversity is higher. 5. After the Ma Wang’s political struggle, the policy areas involved in the passage of the bill were broader and more diverse, but the policy areas involved were not entirely the will of the Ma administration.

Keywords: Ma administration, agenda setting, the limit of attention, diversity measurement, Ma Wang’s political struggle
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T03:46:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-107-R05343014-1.pdf: 1947301 bytes, checksum: 3a9bface23f7b1ae767a3ce2c62172e7 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2018
en
dc.description.tableofcontents口試委員審定申請書 I
謝辭 II
中文摘要 III
英文摘要 IV
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二章 文獻回顧 3
第一節 政策議程的演進與影響因素 3
第二節 政府注意力有限 5
第三節 注意力多樣性的重要 8
第四節 立法過程與行為簡介 10
第五節 政府注意力與立法產出及政策議程的關係 12
第六節 小結 14
第三章 研究問題與假設 15
第一節 馬政府第一、二任的差異 16
第二節 選舉年效應 17
第三節 總統蜜月期 18
第四節 馬王政爭之後的影響 19
第四章 研究方法 21
第五章 研究結果 25
第一節 立法院通過法案的整體趨勢 25
第二節 馬政府兩任期通過法案的比較 27
第三節 選舉年效應 31
第四節 總統蜜月期 34
第五節 馬王政爭後通過法案的情況 36
第六章 結論 40
參考文獻 46
附錄一 52
附錄二 馬政府執政期間大事紀 60
dc.language.isozh-TW
dc.title從政策議程角度看臺灣馬英九政府時期立法院通過法案之分析zh_TW
dc.titleThe Analysis of Bills passed by the Legislative Yuan under the Ma Ying-Jeou Administration from the perspective of the Policy Agendaen
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear107-1
dc.description.degree碩士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee羅清俊,黃心怡
dc.subject.keyword馬政府,議程設定,注意力有限,多樣性指標,馬王政爭,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordMa administration,agenda setting,the limit of attention,diversity measurement,Ma Wang’s political struggle,en
dc.relation.page64
dc.identifier.doi10.6342/NTU201900476
dc.rights.note未授權
dc.date.accepted2019-02-12
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-107-1.pdf
  未授權公開取用
1.9 MBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


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。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved