請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73916
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 | Po-Han Hsiang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 項柏翰 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T08:13:40Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-02-20 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2021-02-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2021-02-02 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 吳玉山,1998,〈現代化理論 vs 政權穩定論––中國大陸民主發展的前景〉,《政治科學論叢》,9(16):443-465。 吳親恩,2009,〈經濟議題與民主體制評價—東亞國家的觀察〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,6(1):1-39。 林聰吉,2013,〈換了位置就換了腦袋嗎?—探索台灣總統大選的選舉輸家〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,10(1):1-34。 張佑宗,2011,〈選舉結果、政治學習與民主支持-兩次政黨輪替後台灣公民在民主態度與價值的變遷〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,8(2):99-137。 張佑宗、朱雲漢,2013,〈威權韌性與民主赤字:21世紀初葉民主化研究的趨勢與前瞻〉。吳玉山、林繼文、冷則剛主編,《政治學的回顧與前瞻》:121-150。台北:五南。 黃信豪,2012,〈批判性公民與民主赤字〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,9(3):157-164。 黃信豪,2016,〈大眾民主認知與政治學習–不同政治體制的比較研究〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,13(3):1-44。 Abts, K., Rummens, S. (2007). “Populism versus democracy”. Political studies, 55(2), 405-424. Almond, G. A., Verba, S. 1963. The civic culture; political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Altman, D., Pérez-Liñán, A. (2002). “Assessing the quality of democracy: Freedom, competitiveness and participation in eighteen Latin American countries”. Democratization, 9(2), 85-100. Baviskar, S., Malone, M. F. (2004). “What democracy means to citizens–and why it matters”. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. Canache, D. (2012). “Citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy: Structural complexity, substantive content, and political significance”. Comparative Political Studies, 45(9), 1132-1158. Caplan, S. (2007). “Latinos, acculturation, and acculturative stress: A dimensional concept analysis”. Policy, Politics, Nursing Practice, 8(2), 93-106. Chang, Y.-T., Chu, Y.-H., Huang, M.-H. (2011). “Procedural quality only? Taiwanese democracy reconsidered”. International Political Science Review, 32(5), 598-619. Clarke, H., Dutt, N., Kornberg, A. (1993). “The Political Economy of Attitudes toward Polity and Society in Western European Democracies”. The Journal of Politics, 55(4), 998-1021. Collier, D., Levitsky, S. (1997). “Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research”. World politics, 49(3), 430-451. Dahl, R. A. 1973. Polyarchy: Participation and opposition: Yale University Press. Dahl, R. A. 1989. Democracy and its Critics: Yale University Press. Dahl, R. A. 2008. On democracy: Yale university press. Dahlberg, S., Holmberg, S. (2014). “Democracy and bureaucracy: How their quality matters for popular satisfaction”. West European Politics, 37(3), 515-537. Dalton, R. J., Sin, T.-c., Jou, W. (2007). “Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places”. Journal of Democracy, 18(4), 142-156. Diamond, L. (2015). “Facing Up to the Democratic Recession”. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 141-155. Diamond, L. J., Plattner, M. F. 2008. How people view democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Doorenspleet, R. (2012). “Critical citizens, democratic support and satisfaction in African democracies”. International Political Science Review, 33(3), 279-300. Easton, D. (1965). “A systems analysis of political life”. Easton, D. (1975). “A re-assessment of the concept of political support”. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 435-457. Foa, R. S., Mounk, Y. (2016). “The danger of deconsolidation: The democratic disconnect”. Journal of Democracy, 27(3), 5-17. Follesdal, A., Hix, S. (2006). “Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik”. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3), 533-562. Gibson, R., Cantijoch, M. (2013). “Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline?”. The Journal of Politics, 75(3), 701-716. Inglehart, R. 2007. Postmaterialist values and the shift from survival to self‐expression values. In The Oxford handbook of political behavior. Inglehart, R. F., Norris, P. (2016). “Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash”. Janos, A. C. 1986. Politics and paradigms : changing theories of change in social science. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. Jou, W. (2009). “Political Support from Election Losers in Asian Democracies”. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 5(2). Kimmich, C., Marquand, D. (1979). “Parliament for Europe”. Foreign Affairs, 58(1), 197. Levitsky, S., Way, L. 2010. Competitive authoritarianism : hybrid regimes after the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press. Linde, J., Ekman, J. (2003). “Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics”. European Journal of Political Research, 42(3), 391-408. Linz, J. J., Stepan, A. C. 1996. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation : southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mishler, W., Rose, R. (2005). “What Are the Political Consequences of Trust?: A Test of Cultural and Institutional Theories in Russia”. Comparative Political Studies, 38(9), 1050-1078. Moravcsik, A. (2002). “In defence of the 'democratic deficit': reassessing legitimacy in the European Union”. Journal of common market studies : JCMS, 40(4), 603-624. Mudde, C. (2004). “The populist zeitgeist”. Government and opposition, 39(4), 541-563. Nadeau, R., Blais, A. (1993). “Accepting the election outcome: the effect of participation on losers' consent”. British Journal of Political Science, 23(4), 553-563. Newton, K. (1999). “Mass media effects: Mobilization or media malaise?”. British Journal of Political Science, 29, 577-599. Nisbet, E. C., Stoycheff, E., Pearce, K. E. (2012). “Internet use and democratic demands: A multinational, multilevel model of Internet use and citizen attitudes about democracy”. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 249-265. Norris, P. 1999. Critical citizens : global support for democratic government. New York: Oxford University Press. Norris, P. 2011. Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited: Cambridge University Press. Przeworski, A. 1991. Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America: Cambridge University Press. Przeworski, A. 2010. Democracy and the limits of self-government. New York: Cambridge University Press. Putnam, R. D. (1995). “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital”. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78. Rooduijn, M. 2013. A populist Zeitgeist?: the impact of populism on parties, media and the public in Western Europe: Universiteit van Amsterdam [Host]. Rose, R., Mishler, W., Haerpfer, C. 1998. Democracy and its alternatives: Understanding post-communist societies: JHU Press. Schedler, A., Sarsfield, R. (2007). “Democrats with adjectives: Linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support”. European Journal of Political Research, 46(5), 637-659. Singh, S., Lago, I., Blais, A. (2011). “Winning and competitiveness as determinants of political support”. Social Science Quarterly, 92(3), 695-709. Sirovátka, T., Guzi, M., Saxonberg, S. (2019). “Satisfaction with democracy and perceived performance of the welfare state in Europe”. Journal of European Social Policy, 29(2), 241-256. Welzel, C., Alvarez, A. M. (2014). “Enlightening people”. The civic culture transformed, 59-88. Yun, S., Min, H. (2012). “Democracy in South Korea: Consolidated but in deficit”. Korea Observer, 43(1), 145. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73916 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 近年來各國民眾對於民主體制運作的不滿逐漸攀升,Norris曾提出「民主赤字」的概念來討論該現象產生的原因,並運用批判性公民的概念來解釋民主赤字可能造成的影響。本文嘗試驗證該理論的假設,並加入民主認知的概念來強化該理論的解釋力。透過分析世界價值調查第六波資料,研究發現民主赤字的提升,確實對民主支持有正向的影響。其次,民主認知可以做為評斷批判性公民的門檻,當民眾理解民主的方式越傾向民主的實質精神而非其作為體制帶來的產出,同時能區分不符合民主價值之作為,則越接近批判公民的理念,該民眾之民主赤字會對民主支持產生正向的效果。最後,民主認知除了扮演門檻的角色之外,不同的認知類型亦會對民主支持產生各種直接與間接影響。本研究以台灣為基礎,透過單一國家研究,描繪出民主認知、民主赤字、民主支持三種不同民主變項的互動關係,並強化批判性公民對於民主赤字的解釋力。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Recently, people dissatisfied with the performance of democracy in many countries. Norris proposed “democratic deficit” to explicate this phenomenon, and used “critical citizens” to explain the possible impact of the democratic deficit. This article attempts to verify Norris’s hypothesis and add the understanding of democracy as a variable to strengthen the explanatory power of the theory. By analyzing World Value Survey Wave Six, the study found that the increase in the democracy deficit does have a positive impact on democratic support. Secondly, we can see the understanding of democracy as a threshold for judging critical citizens. Critical citizens should consider democracy to be a value or realize it from the essence rather than the output. They will say no to the action which .do not conform to democratic values. If people get closer to these concepts, the democratic deficit will have a stronger effect on democratic support. Finally, the understanding of democracy not only plays the role of threshold, but also have some direct and indirect effects on democratic support in different types. This studying not only provides relevance to the understanding of democracy, democratic deficit, and democratic support, but strengthens critical citizens ' interpretation of the democratic deficit by using Taiwan's data. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T08:13:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2701202117441000.pdf: 2439973 bytes, checksum: de1c8c063acfc27ba112b6f6223d388a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2021 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 壹、前言 7 一、研究動機 7 二、章節安排 9 貳、文獻回顧 10 一、民主支持 11 二、民主赤字 16 三、民主認知 20 參、研究設計 27 一、理論假設 27 二、變項建構 29 (一)、依變項 29 (二)、自變項 29 (三)、控制變項 31 肆、研究資料與方法 34 一、研究資料 34 二、研究方法 34 伍、研究結果與討論 36 一、民主認知的變項建構 36 二、民主赤字與認知對民主支持的影響 37 三、批判性公民對民主赤字的解釋 40 四、民主認知、民主赤字、民主支持的交互關係 43 陸、結論 46 一、研究發現 46 二、研究現制 47 三、未來展望 47 附錄一:CFA探索分析結果 50 附錄二:CIF模型檢測 51 附錄三:結構方程模型檢驗結果 53 柒、參考資料 54 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 民主認知、民主赤字與民主支持的相關性-以台灣為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The relevance of understanding of democracy, democratic deficit and democratic support in Taiwan | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 109-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃旻華(Min-Hua Huang),吳親恩(Chin-en Wu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 民主赤字,民主認知,民主支持,批判性公民, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Democratic Deficit,Understanding of Democracy,Democratic support,Critical Citizen, | en |
dc.relation.page | 58 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202100212 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2021-02-03 | |
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 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-2701202117441000.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.38 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。