請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71890完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 王宏文(Hong-Wung,Wang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ya-Hui Tang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 湯雅惠 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T06:13:44Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-10-02 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2018-10-02 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2018-09-26 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 壹、 中文部份
王宏文、柯昀伶、孫寧〈2018）。地方派系的資源配置策略：以嘉義縣社區營造資源為例的個案研究，人文及社會科學集刊，30（2） (TSSCI)。 王志良、詹富堯、吳重禮〈2012）。鞏固支持或資源拔樁？解析中央對地方補助款分配的政治因素，政治科學論叢，5：51－90。 王維邦（2009），次級資料的分析與應用， 東海大學社會系課程。 李俊達 （2010），總統得票率、地方補助款與行程安排之相關性探討，選舉研究，17（2）: 71－102。 李美華、孔祥明、林嘉娟、王婷玉譯（1998），社會科學研究方法，台北：石英。（原書 Earl Babbie (1998),The Pracitice of social Research）。 洪永泰（2014）。誰會勝選？誰能凍蒜？：預知政治版圖，讓民調數字告訴你，台北：天下文化。 胡幼慧(編)（1996），質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例，台北：巨流。 袁方（2002） ，社會與行為科學研究方法，台北：五南。 畢恆達（1996），詮釋學與質性研究，載於胡幼慧(編) ，質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例，台北:巨流，27-45。 盛杏湲（2000），政黨或選區？立法委員的代表取向與行為，選舉研究，7（2），37－70。 陳向明（2002），社會科學質的研究，台北:五南。 楊永年、王宏文（2015），里長運用里鄰建設服務經費之研究-以臺北市信義區為例，國立臺灣大學社會學院政治學系碩士論文。 劉彩卿、朱澤民、陳欽賢、黃瑞春（2003），鄉鎮市補助款分配之實證研究，財稅研究，35（4），1－15。 韓裴爾（1998），社會科學方法:量化與質化Q&A， 台北：風雲論壇。 簡君玶（2010），行政監督失靈下的分配政治－村里基層工作經費之研究，國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。 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，頁1-45。 羅清俊（2001），台灣分配政治，台北：前衛。 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、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。 貳、 西文部份 Anagnoson. J. Theodore (1980). Politics in the Distribution of Federal Grants: The Case of the Economic Development Administration. In Barry S.Rundquist(ed). Political Benefits. MA: Lexington Books. Anderson, Gary M., & Robert D.Tollison (1991). Congressional Influence and Patterns of New Deal Spending. Journal of Law and Economics, 34(1), 161-175. Bullock, C. S., & M. V. Hood (2005). When Southern Symbolism Meets the Pork Barrel: Opportunity for Executive Leadership. Social science quarterly, 86(1), 69-86. Case, A, (2001). Election Goals and Income Redistribution: Recent Evidence from Albania. European Economic Review, 45(3), 405–423. Cox, G. W. & M. D. McCubbins. (1986). Electoral Politics as a Redistributive Game. Journal of Politics, 48(2), 370-389. Cohen, Jeffrey E., & John A. Hamman. (2003). Interest Group PAC Contributions and the 1992 Regulation of Cable Television.The Social Science Journal, 40, 357-69. Costa, C. (2015). The Political Economy of Party Building. Theory and Evidence from Peru’s Infrastructure Development Programme. Party Politics, 21(2), 169–182. Couch, Jim F. & William F. Shugart II. (1998). The Political Economy of New Deal Spending. UK: Edward Elgar Crisp, B. F. & S. W. Desposato. (2004), Constituency Building in Multimember Districts: Collusion or Conflict. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 136-156. Diaz-Cayeros, A., F. Estévez, & B. Magaloni. (2012). Strategies of Vote Buying: Democracy, Clientelism and Poverty Relief in Mexico. Unpublished manuscript: Stanford University Dixit, A. & J. Londregan. (1996). The Determinants of Success of Special Interests in edistributive Politics. Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1132-1155. Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Longman: Pearson College Division. Ferejohn, John A. (1974). Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation. 1974-1968. CA: Stanford University Press. Fishback, P. V., S. Kantor, & J. J. Wallis. (2003). Can the New Deal’s Three Rs Be Rehabilitated? A Program-by-program, Countyby-county Analysis. Explorations in Economic History, 40(3), 278-307. Fleck, Robert K. (2001). Inter-Party Competition, Intra-party Competition and Distributive Politics: A Model and Test Using New Deal Data. Public Choice, 108(1-2), 77-100. Golden, M. & B. Min. (2013), Distributive Politics around the World. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 73-99. Gottlieb, J. & H. Larreguy. (2015). An Informational Theory of Electoral Targeting: Evidence from Senegal. Working Paper Presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Hall, P. A., & R. C. R. Taylor (2007). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Institutionalism (Volume 1) (pp. 169-193). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Horiuchi, Y. & S. Lee. (2008). The Presidency, Regionalism, and Distributive Politics in South Korea. Comparative Political Studies, 41(6), 861-882. Krasner, Stephen D. (1978). Defending the National Interest. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press Kramon, E., & Posner, D. N. (2013). Who benefits from distributive politics? How the outcome one studies affects the answer one gets. Perspectives on Politics, 11(02), 461-474. Larcinese, Valentino, Leonzio Rizzo, & Testa Cecilia. (2006). Allocating the U.S. Federal Budget to the States: The Impact of President. The Journal of Politics, 68(2), 447-456. Lasswell, H. D. & A. Kaplan. (1950). Power and Society. A Framework for Political. Transaction Publishers Lindbeck, A. & J. W. Weibull. (1987). Balanced-budget Redistribution as the Outcome of Political Competition. Public Choice, 52(3), 273-297. Lowi, Theodore J. (1964). American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies and Political Theory. World Politics, 16, 677-715. Lowi,Theodore J. (1969). The End of Liberalism：The second Republic of the United States. W.W.Norton. McCarty, Nolan M. (2000). Presidential Pork: Executive Veto Power and Distributive Politics. American Political Science Review, 94(1), 117-129 McFarland & Andrew S. (1992). Interest Groups and Policymaking Process: Sources of Countervailing Power in America. In Mark P.Petracca(ed.). The Politics of Interests, Interest Groups Transformed CO: Westview Press. Nordlinger, Eric A. (1981). On the Autonomy of the Democratic, State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univesity Press. Nichter, S. (2008). Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot, American Political Science Review, 102(1), 19-31. Niou, Emerson & Peter Ordeshook. (1985). Universalism in Congress, American Journal of Political Science, 29, 246-258. Peterson, Paul E.B. Rabe, & Kenneth Wong. (1986). When Federalism Works. Washington. D.C.: Brookings Institution. Plott, Charles R. (1968). Some Organizational Influences on Urban Renewal Decisions歐Amenican Economic Review, 58, 306-321. Rich, Michael J. (1985). Congress, Bureaucracy, and the Cities: Distributive Politics and the Allocation of Federal Grants for Community and Economic Development. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northewstern University (Unpublished); (1989). Distributive Politics and the Allocation of Federal Grants. American Political Science Review, 83, 193-213; (1993). Federal Policymakihg and The Poor: National Goals, Local Choices, and Ddistributional Outcomers. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Rundquist,Barry S. & Ferejohn, John A. (1975). Two American Expenditure Programs Compared. In McCamant C.Liske & W. Loehr(eds). Comparative Public Policy. New York: Wiley Inc. Shepsle, Kenneth & Barry Weingast. (1981). Political Preferences for the Pork Barrel. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 96-111; (1994). Positive : Theories of Comgressional Institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly, XIX, 149-179. Siavelis, P. M. & S. Morgenstern. (2008). Candidate Recruitment and Selection in Latin America: A Framework for Analysis. Latin American Politics and Society, 50(4), 27-58. Weingast, Barry R., Kenneth A., Shipsle & Christopher Johnsen . (1981). The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs:A neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 642-664. Weingast, Barry R. (1979). A Rational Choice Perspective on Congressional Norms. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 245-262. Wimmer, R. D. & Dominick, J.R. (1991). Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont : Wadsworth. Wilson, Rick .(1980). An Empirical Test of Preference for the political Pork Barrel: District Level Outlays for River and Harbor Legislation, 1899-1913. American Joumal of Political Science. 30, 621-649. Wright, G. (1974). The Political Economy of New Deal Spending: An Econometric Analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 56(1), 30-38. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71890 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究藉由分配政治理論，探討行政機關之分配行為，適逢103年度市長改選，本研究計畫以改選前最近一次的標案為研究標的，查行政機關標案契約是以101年至102年為劃定範圍，故研究範圍以該兩年為限。本研究計畫以「里」為分析單位，分析藍色執政的臺北市政府在實施人行道資源分配至各里時，是否會因政治因素而有所差別。
本研究計畫有幾點發現：首先，執政黨雖為國民黨，但在人行道資源的配置上，對藍色票倉里及綠色票倉里並無明顯的差別待遇，大部分仍是以各里的客觀需求來分配；第二，議員地盤的策略運用，統計結果在第一、第四及第五選區上較有顯著的反應，可見得該選區的市議員，願意對自己的地盤投入更多的資源以求鞏固，這點支持了過去文獻中，政治人物會將資源優先分配給核心選民的結論；第三，第四選區及第六選區內，女性里長的表現似乎更為出色，為該里民爭取到更多人行道的修補面積及經費。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | It is routine for city government who allocates sidewalk maintenance outlays to each village. In theory, the ruling party should give appropriate sidewalk resources according to the demands of each administrative region. However, in partical, some loopholes may exist. For example, councilors are likely to provide more sidewalk resources for their stronghold to get extra political benefits. In order to server the public, village chief will also seek more sidewalk maintenance outlays of the city government.
This research is base on the theory of distributive politics. The previous studies showed that the ruling party would more likely to give more resource as feedbacks to their stronghold. To use case-study method to find out the distribution behavior of the politician. This study is to verify whether the ruling party actually give more maintenance outlays to the stronghold area by statistic analysis. It is worth noting that both councilors and villiage chiefs are involved in the distribution process. It is worthy to study the behaviors among the three parties. There are several interesting points are found in this research. First, only a few councilors tend to distribute more resources to their stronghold. Secondly, ruling party is not as expected, that they do not distribute more sidewalk maintenance outlays to the stronghold they owned. Thirdly, the objective demands, in the other hands, are the most important reason for the government to detemine where to allocate sidewalk maintenance outlays. In conclusion, in the Taipei City Government, no specific political distribution behaviors are found on the sidewalk maintenance outlays. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T06:13:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-P03322004-1.pdf: 2089231 bytes, checksum: 43091a7299be241a53dcb7d9eaf70860 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I
中文摘要 II 英文摘要 III 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究緣起與動機 1 第二節 研究背景及目的 3 第三節 研究範圍及假設 4 第二章 文獻回顧 5 第一節 分配政策的起源及發展 5 第二節 分配者的行為模式 6 第三節 客觀需求因素 15 第四節 小結 16 第三章 研究設計 18 第一節 人行道設計作業流程 18 第二節 編製人行道預算流程 23 第三節 研究方法 24 第四節 訪談內容 26 第五節 研究步驟 28 第六節 變數操作型定義 31 第四章 研究結果 39 第一節 次級資料分析 39 第二節 量化結果分析 41 第五章 結論 52 第一節 研究發現與結論 52 第二節 未來研究建議 55 參考文獻 56 附錄(量化統計結果表) 61 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 臺北市人行道維修支出的政治分配-以101-102年為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | An Empirical Study on the Distribution of City Sidewalk Maintenance Outlays in Taipei City during 2012-2013 | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 107-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 羅清俊,李俊達 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 分配政治,分配行為,臺北市議員,地盤,里長,人行道, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | distributive politics,sidewalk maintenance outlays,taipei city councilors,village chiefs, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 84 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201804147 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2018-09-27 | |
| 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-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.04 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。