政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/112227
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113303/144284 (79%)
造訪人次 : 50817266      線上人數 : 694
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112227


    題名: 政黨代表性、政黨極化與民主滿意度： 跨國調查資料的分析
    Party Representation, Party Polarization, and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis
    作者: 涂志揚
    Tu, Chih-Yang
    貢獻者: 俞振華
    Eric Chen-hua Yu
    涂志揚
    Tu, Chih-Yang
    關鍵詞: 民主滿意度
    政黨代表性
    政黨極化
    階層廣義線性模型
    Party representation
    Party polarization
    Satisfaction with democracy
    Hierarchical generalized linear model
    日期: 2017
    上傳時間: 2017-08-28 11:50:53 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 民主品質不僅可從民主滿意度上探知，亦可自代表性上看到端倪，不具備良好代表性的民主政體稱不上一個好的民主政體。其中，代表性有多種形式，而本文的代表性是政黨代表性，即選民與最親近政黨的意識型態位置差距，距離越小，代表性越好。現代政黨在民主體制運作下，不僅是介於政府與公民社會之間的重要橋樑，也是民主政治的核心議題，因此政黨代表性至關重要，但民主國家的政黨體系非單一政黨的運作，不同政黨間的意識型態和政策競爭，會影響選民對民主體制的評價。本文關心的問題是：選民如何看待政黨意識型態（或政策）定位與個人定位的差異？如此的差異是否會對民主政治的運作造成負面評價？若個人與政黨恰好契合，則政黨擁有完美代表性，個人亦有一個完美的政治代表，選民應滿意民主政治的運作。但在經驗世界中，選民與政黨的互動關係有點複雜，政黨會有意識型態和政策立場變動方向與選民不一致的問題。過往的文獻揭露，低民主滿意度不僅出現在極化（離心競爭）的政黨體系中，亦出現在向心競爭的政黨體系下。為什麼民主滿意度偏低的現象會共同出現在極化競爭和向心競爭的政黨體系下？向心競爭是個問題嗎？首先，極化競爭時，中間選民沒有選擇；另外，向心競爭時，政黨立場過於模糊使得選民難以選擇。是以本文提出兩項研究假設：（1）個人的政黨代表性越高，民主滿意度越高；（2）個人的政黨極化感知程度與民主滿意度呈現開口向下拋物線關係，也就是說，選民個人覺得國內政黨意識型態過於趨同，會不滿意於民主體制的運作，或者個人覺得政黨意識型態過度極化，也會不滿意於民主體制的運作，而是在一個適當的極化程度下，民主滿意度達到最高。並使用The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems（CSES） Module 4的調查資料搭上階層廣義線性模型驗證假設。研究發現，代表性越好民主滿意度越高，但政黨極化程度卻是在向心競爭下有較好的民主滿意度。
    Satisfaction with democracy (SWD) is a well-known index to reflect the quality of democracy. Yet, there exist some debates about the external validity of SWD. In modern democracies, political party can be regarded as a bridge between the government and the electorate. Thus, the extent to which parties represent the electorate has become a critical issue. In this study, I measure the distance between a voter’s self-evaluated ideological position and his/her perceived closest party position as the measure of “party representation”. Meanwhile, the dynamic of party competition may also affect how the electorate evaluates the way democracy works. Recent studies show that lower SWD may appear in both the center-seeking type and center-fleeting types of party competition. Why does lower SWD can be appeared in the two completely different patterns of party competition? What could be the problems caused by the center-seeking or center-fleeting competition? Such as, if parties choose a center-seeking competition strategy, voters may feel that the ideological positions of parties are too ambiguous to be identified; on the other hand, if parties choose a center-fleeting competition strategy, those voters in the center may be forced to choose polarized parties. These two situations may have negative impacts on satisfaction with democracy. Thus, I raise two hypotheses: (1) the higher the party representation, the higher SWD is; (2) the relationship between party polarization and SWD is non-linear but a concave curve—that is, the highest SWD is between at the minimum and maximum values of party polarization. I test these two hypotheses by using the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) Module 4 survey data and hierarchical generalized linear model in R. My empirical results show that party representation indeed has a positive impact on SWD whereas the relationship between polarization and SWD is barely concave.
    參考文獻: 參考文獻
    中文：
    謝復生，2013，《實證政治理論》，台北：五南。
    英文：
    Aarts, K., and Thomassen, J. 2008. “Satisfaction with Democracy: Do institutions matter?” Electoral Studies, 27(1): 5-18.
    Aldrich, J. H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. University of Chicago Press.
    Almond, G., and Verba, S. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in five countries. Princeton: Princeton University.
    Anderson, C. J., and Guillory, C. A. 1997. “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-national Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” American Political Science Review, 91(1): 66-81.
    Armingeon, K., and Guthmann, K. 2014. “Democracy in Crisis? The Declining Support for National Democracy in European Countries, 2007–2011.” European Journal of Political Research, 53(3): 423-442.
    Blais, A., Morin-Chassé, A., and Singh, S. P. 2017. “Election Outcomes, Legislative Representation, and Satisfaction with democracy.” Party Politics, 23(2): 85–95.
    Bormann, Nils-Christian and Golder, M. 2013. “Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946-2011.” Electoral Studies, 32: 360-369.
    Brandenburg, H., and Johns, R. 2014. “The Declining Representativeness of the British Party System, and Why It Matters.” Political Studies, 62(4): 704-725.
    Canache, D., Mondak, J. J., and Seligson, M. A. 2001. “Meaning and Measurement in Cross-national Research on Satisfaction with Democracy.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(4): 506-528.
    Cheibub, Jose Antonio. 2007. Presidentialism, Parliamentarian, and Democracy. New York. Cambridge University Press.
    Clarke, H. D., Dutt, N., and Kornberg, A. 1993. “The Political Economy of Attitudes Toward Polity and Society in Western European Democracies.” The Journal of Politics, 55(4): 998-1021.
    Constantatos, C., and Perrakis, S. 1997. “Vertical Differentiation: Entry and Market Coverage with Multiproduct Firms.” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 16(1): 81-103.
    Dahl, R. A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    Dalton, R. J. 1985. “Political Parties and Political Representation Party Supporters and Party Elites in Nine Nations.” Comparative Political Studies, 18(3): 267-299.
    Dalton, R. J. 2004. Democratic Choices, Democratic Challenges: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press
    Dalton, R. J. 2008. “The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems Party System Polarization, Its Measurement, and Its Consequences.” Comparative Political Studies, 41(7): 899-920.
    Downs, A. 1957. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy, 65(2): 135-150.
    Easton, D. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis Vol. 25. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Easton, D. 1975. “A Re-assessment of The Concept of Political Support.” British Journal of Political Science, 5(4): 435-457.
    Erikson, R. S., MacKuen, M. B., and Stimson, J. A. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge University Press.
    Ezrow, L., and Xezonakis, G. 2011. “Citizen Satisfaction with Democracy and Parties’ Policy Offerings.” Comparative Political Studies, 44(9): 1152-1178.
    Fuchs, D. 1999. “The Democratic Culture of United Germany.” In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, ed. Pippa Norris. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Fuchs, D., and Klingemann, H. D. 1995. “Citizens and the State: A Changing Relationship.” In Citizens and the State, eds. D Fuchs and HD Klingemann. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Fuchs, D., Guidorossi, G., and Svensson, P. 1995. “Support for the Democratic System.” In Citizens and the State, eds. D Fuchs and HD Klingemann. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Golder, M. 2005. “Democratic electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000.” Electoral Studies, 24: 103-121.
    Golder, M., and Stramski, J. 2010. “Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science, 54(1): 90-106.
    Holmberg, S. 1999a. “Down and Down We Go: Political Trust in Sweden.” In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, ed. Pippa Norris. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Holmberg, S. 1999b. “Collective Policy Congruence Compared.” In Policy Represen tation in Western Democracies, eds. Warren Miller, Roy Pierce, Jacques Thomassen, Richard Herrera, Sören Holmberg, Peter Esaisson, and Bernhard Wessels. Oxford University Press.
    Hotelling, H. 1929. “Stability in Competition.” The Economic Journal, 39(153): 41-57.
    Karp, J. A., and Bowler, S. 2001. “Coalition Government and Satisfaction with Democracy: An Analysis of New Zealand`s Reaction to Proportional Representation.” European Journal of Political Research, 40(1)”: 57-79.
    Kaase, M. 1988. “Political Alienation and Protest.” In Comparing Pluralist Democracies, ed. M Dogan. Boulder: Westview Press.
    Klingemann, H. D. 1999. “Mapping Political Support in the 1990s: A Global Analysis.” In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, ed. Pippa Norris. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Kumlin, S., and Esaiasson, P. 2012. “Scandal Fatigue? Scandal Elections and Satisfaction with Democracy in Western Europe, 1977–2007.” British Journal of Political Science, 42(2): 263-282.
    Lancaster, K. 1975. “Socially Optimal Product Differentiation.” The American Economic Review, 65(4): 567-585.
    Leiter, D., and Clark, M. 2015. “Valence and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross‐national Analysis of Nine Western European Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research, 54(3): 543-562.
    Lijphart, A. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries. Yale University Press.
    Lijphart, A., Bruneau, T. C., Diamandouros, P. N., and Gunther, R. 1988. “A Mediterranean Model of Democracy? The Southern European Democracies in Comparative Perspective.” West European Politics, 11(1): 7-25.
    Linde, J., and 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.
    Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Rokkan, Stein 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-national Perspectives. Free Press.
    Listhaug, Ola. 1995. “The Dynamics of Trust in Politicians”. In Citizens and the State, eds. D Fuchs and HD Klingemann. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Lockerbie, B. (1993). “Economic Dissatisfaction and Political Alienation in Western Europe.” European Journal of Political Research, 23(3): 281-293.
    Mansbridge, J. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review, 97(4): 515-528.
    McDonald, M. D., and Budge, I. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford University Press on Demand.
    Merkl, P. H. 1988. “Comparing Legitimacy and Values Among Advanced Democratic Countries.” Comparin Pluralist Democracies, ed. M. Dogan. Boulder: Westview.
    Miller, A. H., and Listhaug, O. 1990. “Political Parties and Confidence in Government: A Comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States.” British Journal of Political Science, 20(3): 357-386.
    Miller, A. H., and Listhaug, O. 1998. “Policy Preferences and Political Distrust: a Comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States.” Scandinavian Political Studies, 21(2): 161-187.
    Norris, P. 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Pitkin, H. F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Powell Jr, G. B. 1987. “The Competitive Consequences of Polarized Pluralism.” In The Logic of Multiparty Systems, ed. MJ Holler. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    Powell Jr, G. B. 2004. “Political Representation in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, 7: 273-296.
    Rae, D. 1971. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
    Raudenbush, S. W., and Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
    Reher, S. 2015. “Explaining Cross‐national Variation in the Relationship Between Priority Congruence and Satisfaction with Democracy.” European Journal of Political Research, 54(1): 160-181.
    Rohrschneider, R., and Whitefield, S. 2012. The Strain of Representation: How Parties Represent Diverse Voters in Western and Eastern Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Rose, R., Mishler, W., and Haerpfer, C. 1998. Democracy and Its Alternatives: Understanding Post-Communist Societies. Cambridge: JHU Press.
    Ruiz-Rufino, R. 2013. “Satisfaction with Democracy in Multi-Ethnic Countries: The Effect of Representative Political Institutions on Ethnic Minorities.” Political Studies, 61(1): 101-118.
    Sanders, D., Clarke, H., Stewart, M., and Whiteley, P. 2014. “Output-Oriented Legitimacy: Individual-and System-Level Influences on Democracy Satisfaction.” In Elections and Democracy: Representation and Accountability, ed. Jacques Thomassen. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Schmitt, H. 1983. “Party Government in Public Opinion: A European Cross‐National Comparison.” European Journal of Political Research, 11(4): 353-376.
    Shaked, A., and Sutton, J. 1987. “Product Differentiation and Industrial Structure.” The Journal of Industrial Economics, 36(2): 131-146.
    Singh, S. P. 2014. “Not All Election Winners are Equal: Satisfaction with Democracy and the Nature of the Vote.” European Journal of Political Research, 53(2): 308-327.
    Stecker, C., and Tausendpfund, M. 2016. “Multidimensional Government‐Citizen Congruence and Satisfaction with Democracy.” European Journal of Political Research, 55(3): 492-511.
    Stimson, J. A., MacKuen, M. B., and Erikson, R. S. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review, 89(03): 543-565.
    Thomassen, J., and Schmitt, H. 1999. “Issue Congruence.” In Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union, eds. Hermann Schmitt and Jacques Thomassen. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Wagner, A. F., Schneider, F., and Halla, M. 2009. “The Quality of Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy in Western Europe—A Panel Analysis.” European Journal of Political Economy, 25(1): 30-41.
    Wauthy, X. 1996. “Quality Choice in Models of Vertical Differentiation.” The Journal of Industrial Economics, 44(3): 345-353.
    Weil, F. D. 1989. “The Sources and Structure of Legitimation in Western Democracies: A consolidated Model Tested with Time-Series Data in Six Countries Since World War II.” American Sociological Review, 54(5): 682-706.
    Wessels, B. 1999. “System Characteristics Matter: Empirical Evidence from Ten Representation Studies.” In Policy Representation in Western Democracies, eds. Warren Miller, Roy Pierce, Jacques Thomassen, Richard Herrera, Sören Holmberg, Peter Esaisson, and Bernhard Wessels. New York: Oxford University Press.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    政治學系
    103252022
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1032520221
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[政治學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    022101.pdf2808KbAdobe PDF2535檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋