請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/74939完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 郭乃菱(Nai-Ling Kuo) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Chi-An Yen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 顏啟安 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T09:10:46Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-12-02 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2019-12-02 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2019-08-13 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 壹、 中文部分
李國興，2004，〈政府社會福利資源之配置〉，《主計月刊》，577：52-61。 吳重禮，2000，〈美國「分立性政府研究文獻之評析」：兼論台灣地區的政治發展〉， 《問題與研究》，39(3)：75-101。 宋至晟，2018，《行政部門的資訊優勢對立法的影響力—以第八屆立法院為例》， 台北：國立政治大學政治學研究所碩士論文。 周萬來，2000，《議案審議》，台北市：五南。 邱訪義、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〉，《台灣政治學刊》，16(1)：1-58。 邱訪義、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、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。 俞振華、蔡佳泓，2011，〈社會公平與經濟發展：台灣民眾的政策意向之初探〉，《社會科學論叢》，5(2)：135-172。 孫克難，2006，〈投資租稅獎勵之成本效益分析〉，《租稅改革的公與義》，台北：時報文教基金會，頁138-149。 孫克難，2016，〈租稅優惠與產業發展—臺灣經驗評析〉，《財稅研究》，45(3)：1-29。 盛杏湲，1997，〈立法委員的立法參與：概念、本質與測量〉，《問題與研究》，36(3)：1-25。 盛杏湲，2001，〈立法委員正式與非正式立法參與之研究：以第三屆立法院為例〉，《問題與研究》，40(5)：81-104。 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，2005，〈選區代表與集體代表：立法委員的代表角色〉，《東吳政治學報》，21：1-40。 盛杏湲，2014a，〈再探選區服務與立法問政：選制改革前後的比較〉，《東吳政治學報》，32(2)：65-116。 盛杏湲，2014b，〈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〉，黃秀端等（著），《轉型中的行政與立法關係》，台北：五南，頁23-60。 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。 黃紀、王德育，2012，《質變數與受限依變數的迴歸分析》，台北市：五南。. 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。 楊婉瑩、陳采葳，2004，〈國會改革風潮下黨團協商制度之轉變與評估〉，《東吳政治學報》，(19)：111-150。 監察院，2012，《我國賦稅結構與政府稅制改革措施專案調查研究報告》，台北市： 查院。 蕭怡靖，2007，〈我國立法委員選擇常設委員會之研究：以第五屆立法委員爲例〉，《東吳政治學報》，25(3)：131-182。 蕭怡靖，2013，〈台灣民眾政治課責觀之初探－認知、評價與影響〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，10(2)：1-32。 謝雨豆，2016，《稅式支出之評估：以產業創新條例為例》，台北：世新大學行政管理學系博士論文。 蘇彩足，1999，〈民主化對於政府預算決策的衝擊與因應之道〉，《理論與政策》，11(3)：47-64。 貳、 西文部分 Barrett, A. W. 2004. “Gone public: The impact of going public on presidential legislative success.” American Politics Research 32(3): 338-370. Burman, L. E., Geissler, C., & Toder, E. J. 2008. “How big are total individual income tax expenditures, and who benefits from them? ” American Economic Review 98(2): 79-83. Burman, L. E., & Phaup, M. 2012. “Tax expenditures, the size and efficiency of government, and implications for budget reform.” Tax Policy and the Economy 26(1): 93-124. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Agency theory: An assessment and review.” Academy of management review 14(1): 57-74. Eshbaugh‐Soha, M. 2006. “The conditioning effects of policy salience and complexity on American political institutions. ” Policy Studies Journal 34(2): 223-243. Faricy, C. 2015. “The distributive politics of tax expenditures: how parties use policy tools to distribute federal money to the rich and the poor. ” Politics, Groups, and Identities 4(1): 110-125. (doi:10.1080/21565503.2015.1066688) Faricy, C., & Ellis, C. 2014. “Public attitudes toward social spending in the United States: The differences between direct spending and tax expenditures.” Political Behavior 36(1): 53-76. Garrett, E. 1998. “Harnessing politics: the dynamics of offset requirements in the tax legislative process. ” The University of Chicago Law Review 65(2): 501-569. Gormley, W. T. 1986. “Regulatory issue networks in a federal system.” Polity 18(4): 595-620. Greve, B. 1994. “The hidden welfare state, tax expenditure and social policy A comparative overview. ” Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare 3(4): 203-211. Harvey, R., & Gayer, T. 2010. “Public finance. ” New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Haselswerdt, J. 2014. “The lifespan of a tax break: Comparing the durability of tax expenditures and spending programs.” American Politics Research 42(5): 731-759. Haselswerdt, J., & Bartels, B. L. 2015. “Public opinion, policy tools, and the status quo: evidence from a survey experiment. ” Political research quarterly 68(3): 607-621. Howard, C. 1995. “Testing the tools approach: Tax expenditures versus direct expenditures.” Public Administration Review 55(5): 439-447. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. “Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure.” Journal of financial economics 3(4): 305-360. Jerit, J., & Barabas, J. 2006. “Bankrupt rhetoric: How misleading information affects knowledge about social security.” International Journal of Public Opinion Quarterly 70(3): 278-303. Kernell, S. 1993. “Going public: new strategies of presidential leadership (2nd ed.) ” Washington, DC : CQ Press. Kirkland, J. H. 2011. “The relational determinants of legislative outcomes: Strong and weak ties between legislators. ” The Journal of Politics 73(3): 887-898. Kleinbard, E. D. 2010a. “The Congress Within the Congress: How Tax Expenditures Distort Our Budget and Our Political Processes. ” Ohio NUL Rev. 36: 1-30. Kleinbard, E. D. 2010b. “Tax Expenditure Framework Legislation.” National Tax Journal 63(2): 353-381. Kone, S. L., & Winters, R. F. 1993. “Taxes and voting: Electoral retribution in the American states.” The Journal of Politics 55(1): 22-40. Kraan, D.-J. 2004. “Off-budget and tax expenditures.” OECD Journal on Budgeting 4(1): 121-142. Krippendorff, K. 2013. “Content Analysis. An Introduction to Its Methodology (3rd ed).” California, CA: Sage Publications. Lowi, T. J. 1972. “Four systems of policy, politics, and choice.” Public Administration Review 32(4): 298-310. Mayhew, D. R. 1991. “Divided party control: does it make a difference? ” PS: Political Science & Politics 24(4): 637-640. McFadden, D. 1978. “Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behaviour of individuals: Some recent developments.” In D. Hensher & P. Stohper, “Behavioural travel modelling”. London: Croom Helm London, 279-318. Mettler, S. 2011. “The submerged state: How invisible government policies undermine American democracy. ” Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Migué, J.-L., & Belanger, G. 1974. “Toward a general theory of managerial discretion.” Public Choice 17(1): 27-47. Neustadt, R. E. 1980. “Presidential power: The politics of leadership from FDR to Carter” New Jersey, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Niskanen, W. A. 1968. “The peculiar economics of bureaucracy.” The American Economic Review 58(2): 293-305. Niskanen, W. A. 1971. “Bureaucracy and representative government.” Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. OECD. 2010. “Tax Expenditures in OECD Countries” OECD Publishing. Paul, P., Pennell, M. L., & Lemeshow, S. 2013. “Standardizing the power of the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test in large data sets.” Statistics in medicine 32(1): 67-80. Peters, B. G. 1991. “The politics of taxation. A Comparative Perspective.” Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Petrocik, J. R. 1996. “Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study.” American journal of political science 40: 825-850. Ringquist, E. J., Worsham, J., & Eisner, M. A. 2003. “Salience, complexity, and the legislative direction of regulatory bureaucracies.” Journal of public administration research and theory 13(2): 141-164. Rivers, D., & Rose, N. L. 1985. “Passing the president's program: Public opinion and presidential influence in Congress.” American Journal of Political science 29(2): 183-196. Schick, A. 2007. “Off-budget expenditure: an economic and political framework.” OECD Journal on Budgeting 7(3): 7-38. Schick, A. 2011. “Repairing the budget contract between citizens and the state.” OECD Journal on Budgeting 11(3): 1-27. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. 1990. “Behavioral assumptions of policy tools.” The Journal of Politics 52(2): 510-529. Shaviro, D. 1990. “Beyond public choice and public interest: A study of the legislative process as illustrated by tax legislation in the 1980s.” U. Pa. L. Rev. 139: 1-123. Sundquist, J. L. 1988. “Needed: A political theory for the new era of coalition government in the United States.” Political Science Quarterly 103(4): 613-635. Surrey, S. S. 1970. “Tax incentives as a device for implementing government policy: a comparison with direct government expenditures.” Harvard Law Review 83(4): 705-738. Surrey, S. S., & McDaniel, P. R. 1975. “The Tax Expenditure Concept and the Budget Reform Act of 1974. BC Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 17: 679-737. Surrey, S. S., & McDaniel, P. R. 1985. “Tax expenditures” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Swift, Zhicheng Li. 2006. “Managing the effects of tax expenditures on national budgets.” Policy, Research working paper no. WPS 3927. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ura, J. D., & Socker, E. M. 2011. “The Behavioral Political Economy of Budget Deficits: How Starve the Beast Policies Feed the Machine.” The Forum 9(2): Article 7. Waterman, R. W., & Meier, K. J. 1998. “Principal-agent models: an expansion? ” Journal of public administration research and theory 8(2): 173-202. Weingast, B. R. 1984. “The congressional-bureaucratic system: a principal agent perspective (with applications to the SEC).” Public Choice 44(1): 147-191. Worsham, J., Eisner, M. A., & Ringquist, E. J. 1997. “Assessing the assumptions: A critical analysis of agency theory.” Administration & Society 28(4): 419-440. Wyckoff, P. G. 1990. “The simple analytics of slack-maximizing bureaucracy.” Public Choice 67(1): 35-47. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/74939 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 租稅優惠以減少稅收的途徑間接地構成政府支出，因此被稱為「稅式支出」（tax expenditures）。相對於透過預算過程的「直接支出」（direct expenditures），稅式支出具有行政效率、隱匿、穩固等優勢，使其獲得政治人物的偏愛。這些優勢加上現行稅式支出管理的不足，可能有助於立委追求其偏好的政策。據此，本文意在研究立委稅式支出提案的內容、動機以及影響通過與否的因素，藉此瞭解立委如何運用此一政策工具及立法過程。
本文首先回顧稅式支出及立法通過因素的相關研究，並以代理人理論與官僚極大化模型作為理論架構，闡述代議政治的委託－代理關係中，稅式支出如何滿足不同行為者的利益且通過；接著藉由次級資料分析法與內容分析法，彙整第二屆至第九屆第五會期之間立委提出的稅式支出條款，分析其內容與提案動機；最後利用邏輯斯迴歸模型（logistic regression model）分析立法通過的影響因素。 根據分析結果，立委提出的稅式支出集中於社會福利與產業政策，民進黨立委偏重前者，國民黨立委則偏重後者。動機方面，受限於會議記錄的內容，本文無法確定立委是否考量稅式支出的優勢而提案。最後，影響立委稅式支出提案通過與否的主因為行政部門的意見與立委的學經歷，提案者屬於多數聯盟未必有利於提案通過，仍需考慮提案策略對通過與否的潛在影響。整體而言，本文的研究發現呼應官僚在委託－代理關係中的優勢，且財政部為立法過程的關鍵角色。 基於上述發現，本文認為除了過去研究關注的產業稅式支出，也需要檢視我國社會福利稅式支出的運用情形。此外，基於過去稅式支出管理的不足，評估機制的改善、稅式支出的成效與影響，亦為後續研究值得探討的議題。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Tax expenditures indicates government expenditures spent through tax relieves. It is more politically attractive compared to direct spending since it has administrative efficiency, low level of visibility, and high level of stability. Therefore, legislators might opt to use tax expenditures to pursue policies they preferred. This thesis aims at analyzing tax expenditure bills initiated by legislators to explore the contents of those bills and determinants of legislative success.
The data is composed of tax expenditure bills and verbatim records of committee deliberation from February, 1993 to July, 2018. Using content analysis and logistic regression analysis, this thesis finds that tax expenditures are used mostly for social welfare and industrial development policies, and DPP initiate the former more than KMT, whereas KMT tends to initiate more for the latter. Results of logistic regression indicate that the opinion, in terms of tax relieves, of the executive branch contribute the most to legislative success is. This finding is in line with “the information advantages of bureaucracy” suggested by the agency theory. In addition, the professional background of a legislator serves as the second-important determinant. Finally, 'majority party” does not increase the legislative success, and this might be because legislators’ strategical proposing-- to propose a bill similar to the executive branch’s that gains higher support while confronting lower conflict. Suggestions for future research are presented in the final section of the thesis. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T09:10:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R04343004-1.pdf: 2917751 bytes, checksum: 586f003fdd2a197335e8600ec23eaef0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 I
謝 辭 III 中文摘要 V 英文摘要 VII 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 4 第二章 文獻回顧 7 第一節 稅式支出的概念 7 第二節 制定稅式支出的誘因 9 第三節 稅式支出的負面影響 12 第四節 立法通過的因素 17 第五節 小結 23 第三章 研究設計 25 第一節 理論架構 25 第二節 研究假設 30 第三節 方法、範圍與資料 34 第四節 研究設計 38 第四章 稅式支出與提案動機 49 第一節 提案概況 49 第二節 提案內容 51 第三節 立委提出稅式支出的動機 61 第五章 稅式支出的通過因素 67 第一節 模型設置與變數 67 第二節 邏輯斯迴歸分析 69 第三節 結果討論 77 第六章 結論與建議 83 第一節 研究發現 83 第二節 研究限制與建議 86 參考文獻 89 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 稅式支出 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 立委提案 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 代理人理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 通過因素 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 邏輯斯迴歸 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | initiation of legislators | en |
| dc.subject | Tax expenditure | en |
| dc.subject | logistic regression | en |
| dc.subject | determinants of legislative success | en |
| dc.subject | agency theory | en |
| dc.title | 立法委員稅式支出提案與通過因素之研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Study of Tax Expenditure Bills and Determinants of Legislative Success | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 108-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 郭昱瑩(Yu-Ying Kuo),黃心怡(Hsin-I Huang) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 稅式支出,立委提案,代理人理論,通過因素,邏輯斯迴歸, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Tax expenditure,initiation of legislators,agency theory,determinants of legislative success,logistic regression, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 95 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201903425 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2019-08-14 | |
| 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-108-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 2.85 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。