請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65677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 | Wei-Chih Hao | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 郝為之 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T23:58:19Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2012-07-20 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2012-07-20 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2012-07-17 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部分
中國時報社論，2007，〈請正視快速崩壞的台灣民主品質〉，中國時報，10月9日。 朱雲漢、張佑宗，2011，〈東亞民主政體的民主品質如何低落？亞洲民主動態調查第二波資料的分析〉，余遜達、徐斯勤(編)，《民主、民主化與治理績效》，杭州：浙江大學出版社，頁38-66。 江宜樺，2001，《自由民主的理路》，台北：聯經。 吳乃德，2005，〈麵包與愛情：初探台灣民眾民族認同的變動〉，《台灣政治學刊》，9(2)：5-39。 吳良健譯，2003，《資本主義、社會主義與民主》，台北：左岸文化。譯自Joseph A. Schumpeter. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge. 1992. 吳重禮，2008，〈台灣民眾威權懷舊的初探：蔣經國政府施政的比較評價〉，《選舉研究》，15(2)：119-142。 呂亞力、吳乃德編譯，2000，《民主理論選讀》，台北：風雲論壇。 李柏光、林猛譯，1999，《論民主》，台北：聯經。譯自Robert A. Dahl. On Democracy. New Haven,Conn.: Yale University Press. 1998. 李培元譯，2006，《民主即其批判》，台北：韋伯文化。譯自Robert A. Dahl. Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University Press. 1989. 李鵬，2010，〈共識民主與21世紀民主化的”第四波”〉，《雲南社會科學》，4：29-33。 東亞民主研究計劃，〈調查主題〉，東亞民主研究計劃：http://www.asianbarometer.org/，2011/10/6。 林震岩，2007，《多變量分析：SPSS的操作與應用》，台北：智勝。 芮紹陽、方同義，2011，〈程序民主：我國社會主義民主建設的路徑選擇〉，《浙江師範大學學報》，172(36)：84-88。 胡佛，1998，《政治文化與政治生活》，台北：三民書局。 徐斯勤，2011，〈導論─民主、民主化與治理績效：雙向因果關係的概念探索與經驗檢證〉，余遜達、徐斯勤(編)，《民主、民主化與治理績效》，杭州：浙江大學出版社，頁3-15。 袁頌西，1999，〈當代政治研究與自然語言問題〉，《政治科學論叢》，10：1-26。 張佑宗，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。 張佑宗，2011，〈選舉結果、政治學習與民主支持一兩次政黨輪替後台灣公民在民主態度與價值的變遷〉，《台灣民主季刊》，8(2)：99-137。 張傳賢，2009，〈民主的脆弱性與鞏固：一個敗者同意的視角〉，《政治科學論叢》，42：43-84。 張翠蘭，2007，〈政府能力 我5大指標退步〉，蘋果日報，7月12日。 郭秋永，2001，《當代三大民主理論》，台北：聯經。 陳崎譯，2006，《民主的模式：36個國家的政府形式和政府績效》，北京：北京大學出版社。譯自Arend Lijphart. Patterns of Democracy Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven : Yale University Press. 1999. 陳堯，2011，《新興民主國家的民主鞏固》，上海：上海人民出版社。 喬貴平，2010，〈實質民主與形式民主之爭─二十世紀自由主義與社會主義關於民主問題的分歧之一〉，《雲南行政學院學報》，3：25-28。 游清鑫，1997，〈共識與爭議：一些民主化研究問題的探討〉，《問題與研究》，36(9)：59-73。 馮克利、閻克文譯，2008，《民主新論》，上海：上海人民出版社。譯自Giovanni Sartori. The Theory of Democracy Revisited. New Jersey: Chatham House. 1987. 劉軍寧譯，1994，《第三波：二十世紀末的民主化浪潮》，台北：五南。譯自Samuel P. Huntington. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press. 1991. 鄭嘉君，2006，《民主品質的概念、測量與分析：台灣個案的研究》，台北：台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。 蕭全政，2001，〈台灣威權體制轉型中的國家機關與民間社會〉，中央研究院台灣研究推動委員會(編)，《威權體制的變遷：解嚴後的台灣研討會論文集》，台北：中研院台灣史研究所籌備處。 蕭全政，2006，《政治與經濟的整合》，台北：桂冠。 錢永祥編譯，1991，《學術與政治：韋伯選集(一)》，台北：遠流。 魏洪鐘譯，2009，《民主》，上海：上海人民出版社。譯自Charles Tilly. Democracy. Cambridge University Press. 2007. 貳、西文部分 Acemoglu, Daron& Jame A. Robinson. 2005. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Massachusetts: Harvard University. Altman, David and Anival Perez-Linan. 2002. “Assessing the Quality of Democracy: Freedom, Competitiveness, and Participation in Eighteen Latin American Countries.” Democratization 9(2): 85-100. Anderson, Christopher J. & Andre Blais & Shaun Bowler & Todd Donovan & Ola Listhaug. 2005. Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Anderson, Christopher J. & Christine A. Guillory. 1997. “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” The American Political Science Review 91(1): 66-81. Andreev, Svetlozar A.. 2005. “Conceptual Definitions and Measurement Indicators of the Quality of Democracy: An Overview.” European University Institute Working Paper. Baker, Bruce. 1999. “The Quality of African Democracy: Why and How it Should be Measured.” Journal of Contemporary African Studies 17(2): 273-286. Beetham, David. 1994. Defining and measuring democracy. Sage Publication. Beetham, David. 2004a. “Towards a Universal Framework for Democracy Assessment.” Democratization 11(2): 1-17. Beetham, David. 2004b. “Freedom as the Foundation.” Journal of Democracy 15(4): 61-75. Boyd, Richard & Philip Gasper & J.D. Trout. 1991. The Philosophy of Science. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Campbell, Angus & Philip Converse & Warren Miller & Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chang, Yu-tzung & Chu Yun-han & Huang Min-hua. 2011. “Procedural Quality Only? Taiwanese Democracy Reconsidered.” International Political Science Review 32(5): 598-619. Chang, Yu-tzung & Chu Yun-han & Tsai Frank. 2005. “Confucianism and Democratic Values in Three Chinese Societies.” Issues & Studies, 41(4): 1-33. Chang, Yu-tzung & Chu Yun-han. 2008. “How Citizens Evaluate Taiwan’s New Democracy.”, In How East Asians View Democracy: Attitudes and Values in Eight Political Systems, ed. Yun-han Chu, Larry Diamond, Andrew J. Nathan and Doh Chull Shin. New York: Columbia University Press, 83-113. Chu, Yun-han & Huang Min-hua. 2010. “Solving an Asian Puzzle.” Journal of Democracy 21(4): 114-122. Collier, David & Steven Levitsky. 1997. “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.” World Politics 49(3): 430-451. Cullell, Jorge Vargas. 2004. “Democracy and the Quality of Democracy: Empirical Findings and Methodological and Theoretical Issues Drawn from the Citizen Audit of the Quality of Democracy in Costa Rica.” In The Quality of Democracy Theory and Applications, ed. Guillermo O'Donnell & Jorge Vargas Cullell & Osvaldo M. Iazzetta. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 93-162. Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven,Conn.: Yale University Press. Dalton, Russell J. & To-chi Sin & willy Jou. 2007. “Understanding Democracy: Data from Unlikely Places.” Journal of Democracy 18(4): 142-156. Diamond, Larry and Leonardo Morlino. 2004.“The Quality of Democracy: An Overview.”Journal of Democracy 15(4): 20-31. Diamond, Larry，2011，〈民主與治理績效：第三波浪潮民主國家的實踐〉，余遜達、徐斯勤（編），《民主、民主化與治理績效》，杭州：浙江大學出版社，頁16-37。 Easton, David. 1967. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Economist Intelligence Unit. 2010. “The Democracy Index 2010.” In www.eiu.com/Default.aspx. Latest update 5 October 2011. Faulks, Keith. 1999. Political Sociology: A Critical Introduction. New York: New York University Press. Foweraker, Joe and Roman Krznaric. 2000. “Measuring Liberal Democratic Performance: An Empirical and Conceptual Critique.” Political Studies 48: 759-787. Foweraker, Joe and Roman Krznaric. 2001. “How to Construct a Database of Liberal Democratic Performance.” Democratization 8(3): 1-25. Freedom House. “Freedom in the World.” In www.freedomhouse.org. Latest update 4 October 2011. Fukuyama, Francis. 2006. The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press. Gaines, Brian J. & James H. Kuklinski & Paul J. Quirk & Buddy Peyton & Jay Verkuilen. 2007. “Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq.” The Journal of Politics 69(4): 957-974. Geissel, Brigitte. 2008. “Reflections and Findings on the Critical Citizen: Civic Education – What for?” European Journal of Political Research 47(1): 34-63. Gerber, Alan S. & Gregory A. Huber. 2010. “Partisanship, Political Control, and Economic Assessments.” American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 153-173. Hartlyn, Jonathan. 1999. “Contemporary Latin America, Democracy and Consolidation: Unexpected Patterns Shifting Concepts, Multiple Tasks.” Paper Presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Hill, Kim Quaile. 1994. Democracy in the Fifty States. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Holmberg, Soren. 2007. “Partisanship Reconsidered.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, eds. Russell J. Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. New York: Oxford University Press, 557-570. Lavine, Daniel H. & Jose E. Molina. 2007. “The Quality of Democracy in Latin America: Another view.” University of Notre Dame working paper. Lijphart, Arend. 1993. “Constitutional Choices for New Democracies.” in The Global Resurgence of Democracy, ed. Diamond, Larry & Marc Plattner. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Linz, Juan J. & Alfred C. Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-communist Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Morlino, Leonardo & Bjoern Dressel & Riccardo Pelizzo. 2011. “The Quality of Democracy in Asia-Pacific: Issues and Findings.” International Political Science Review 32(5): 491-511. Morlino, Leonardo. 2004. “What is a ‘Good’ Democracy.” Democratization 11(5): 10-32. Nadeau, Richard & Andre Blais. 1993. “Accepting the Election Outcome: The Effect of Participation on Losers’ Consent.” British Journal of Political Science, 23(4): 553-563. Niedermayer, O. 2001. Bürger und Politik. Politische Orientierungen und Verhaltensweisen der Deutschen. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Norris, Pippa. 1999. “Introduction: The Growth of Critical Citizens?”In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, ed. Pippa Norris. New York: Oxford University Press, 1-30. Norris, Pippa. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2004a. “Human development, Human rights, and Democracy.” In The Quality of Democracy Theory and Applications, ed. Guillermo O'Donnell & Jorge Vargas Cullell & Osvaldo M. Iazzetta. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 9-92. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2004b. “Why the Rule of Law Matters.” Journal of Democracy 15(4): 32-46. Plattner, Marc F. 2004. “The Quality of Democracy: A Skeptical Afterword.”Journal of Democracy 15(4): 106-110. Polity IV. In www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm. Latest update 4 October 2011. Powell, G. Bingham. 2004. “The Chain of Responsiveness.” Journal of Democracy 15(4): 91-105. Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. NJ: Princeton University Press. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 2004. “Addressing Inequality.” Journal of Democracy 15(4): 76-90. Russell, Bertrand. 1946. What Is Democracy. London: Phoenix. Salvadori, Massimo. 1957. Liberal Democracy. Garden City: Double-day. Schedler, Andreas & Rodolfo Sarsfield. 2007. “Democrats with Adjectives: Linking Direct and Indirect Measures of Democratic Support.” European Journal of Political Research 46(5): 637-659. Schedler, Andreas. 1998. “What is Democratic Consolidation.” Journal of Democracy 9(2): 91-107.. Schmitter, Philippe C.. 2004.“The Ambiguous Virtues of Accountability.”Journal of Democracy 15(4): 47-60. Thomassen, J.1976. “Party Identification as a Cross-national Concept: Its Meaning in the Netherlands.” In Party Identification and Beyond, ed. Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe and Dennis Farlie. London: John Wiley & Sons, 63-79. Tilley, James & Sara B. Hobolt. 2011. “Is the Government to Blame? An Experimental Test of How Partisanship Shapes Perceptions of Performance and Responsibility.” The Journal of Politics 73(2): 316-330. Vanhanen, Tatu. 1997. Prospects of Democracy: A study of 172 Countries. London: Routledge. World Bank. “The Worldwide Governance Indicators.” In http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp. Latest update 5 October 2011. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65677 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 民主品質是民主近代研究新興的概念，將民主視為政治系統製造的主要產品，包括產品的製造程序、產品的實質內容、產品的滿意度與回應性等各層面皆是構成民主良善的品管標準，透過專業機構或公民眼底民主樣貌的評鑑，便可提醒政府施政的缺失之處；然而許多案例證明公民民主品質的主觀評價並非直接反映政府的民主表現，而會受到其他因素影響，民主品質可能的影響變因便是本文關注的焦點。
本文以民主品質的「批判者」與「偏袒者」代稱「批判性公民」與「選舉贏家」，檢驗兩者是否影響公民的民主品質評價，其假設為：批判性公民可能因其挑剔性格在民主品質評價上依高標準而給予批評；選舉贏家則因與權威當局同屬勝選陣營，不欲對己選舉抉擇自我否定，常以較為寬容的態度看待政權表現而有所偏袒。 透過2011年「亞洲民主動態調查」第三波台灣區域的實證資料作統計分析，發現民主品質評價的「批判者」與「偏袒者」確實有其影響效果，在「程序」、「內容」、「結果」、「治理」品質評價上見於批判性公民的嚴苛評分與選舉贏家的偏袒心態。此外，評價指標越是抽象則越易受到主觀好惡感受的影響，具體事項的評價內容則少見個人觀感左右，由此可知公民主觀的民主品質未必如想像的公正，存在太多因素干擾民主品質的評價。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The quality of democracy is the new concept of democratic research in modern times. People study the quality of democracy views democracy as the main product of political system. The procedure, content and outcome of political system are the criteria for measuring what a good democracy is. The study in quality of democracy can remind government of the shortcoming they have. However, it was evident that in many cases democratic evaluations from people didn’t directly reflect the performance of government. The evaluation of the quality of democracy may be affected by other factors. As a result, this article focuses on how citizens evaluate the quality of democracy.
In this article, we use “Critics” and “The biased” of quality of democracy to be the substitutes for “critical citizens” and “election winners.” What we want to know is whether “Critics” and “The biased” may affect the evaluation of citizens or not. The hypothesis here is that critical citizens may have low evaluations because of their high standards of democracy and election winners may have high evaluation because of bias which exists between electee and voter. By using data from the third wave of the Asia Barometer Survey in Taiwan 2011, this article reveals that “Critics” and “The biased” of the quality of democracy actually have real impact on the dimension of the quality of democracy including procedure, content, result, and governance. Furthermore, the more abstract the indices of evaluation are, the more easily the indices of evaluation will be influenced by personal subjective perception. The specific indices of evaluation are less influenced by personal subjective perception. In conclusion, the quality of democracy may not be as fair as our imagination. There are too many factors that intervene in the evaluations of the quality of democracy. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T23:58:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R98322026-1.pdf: 2568921 bytes, checksum: 45dcfd101cad033650ad290ef76e67ef (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 i
謝辭 iii 中文摘要 vi 英文摘要 vii 第一章 導論 1 第一節 研究動機與問題意識 1 第二節 文獻回顧 5 第三節 研究架構 10 第四節 章節安排 14 第二章 民主品質概念與理論 15 第一節 「善」的方向 15 第二節 抽象定義與具體指標 21 第三節 懷疑與爭議 32 第四節 建構民主品質 35 第三章 研究方法與測量 39 第一節 資料來源 39 第二節 概念測量 40 第四章 台灣民主品質現況評價 65 第一節 台灣民主的特殊性 65 第二節 公民眼中的民主程序 68 第三節 公民眼中的民主內容 73 第四節 公民眼中的民主結果既治理 75 第五節 台灣民主品質評鑑 79 第五章 批判者與偏袒者 83 第一節 批判者 83 第二節 偏袒者 91 第三節 民主品質的批判者與偏袒者 97 第四節 結論 107 第六章 結論 109 第一節 研究成果 109 第二節 研究限制與建議 112 參考文獻 113 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 民主品質 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 選舉贏家 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 批判性公民 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | quality of democracy | en |
| dc.subject | election winners | en |
| dc.subject | critical citizens | en |
| dc.title | 批評與偏袒：公民如何評價台灣民主品質 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Criticism and Bias: How Citizens Evaluate the Quality of Democracy in Taiwan | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 游清鑫(Ching-hsin Yu),陳光輝(Kuang-Hui Chen) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 民主品質,批判性公民,選舉贏家, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | quality of democracy,critical citizens,election winners, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 119 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2012-07-17 | |
| 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-101-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 2.51 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。