English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113318/144297 (79%)
Visitors : 51018443      Online Users : 860
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/20285


    Title: 中共與蘇共高層政治的演變：軌跡、動力與影響
    Other Titles: The Evolution of the Communist Leadership in China and the Former Soviet Union: Trajectory, Dynamics and Impact
    Authors: 寇健文
    Kou, Chien-Wen
    Keywords: 制度化;菁英政治;領導人更替;領導體制;中共;蘇聯
    institutionalization;elite politics;leadership replacement;decision-making;China;the Soviet Union
    Date: 2006-05
    Issue Date: 2008-12-30 14:51:45 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文透過比較中共與蘇聯兩國，解釋為何極少數共黨國家能夠跳脫絕大多數共黨國家面臨的體制缺陷，使得高層政治出現制度化的趨勢。本文認為兩國出現路徑歧異的關鍵在於領導人主要權力來源的差別－「個人權威」或「職務權力」。「個人權威型」領導人在建立歷史功勳的過程中，讓追隨者對他產生敬畏感與信任感，因而具有建立新制度，或是改變既有制度的能力。與「個人權威型」領導人相比，「職務權力型」領導人更需要爭取「推舉人團」(selectorate)多數支持，無法承受過多反彈壓力。因此，他們很難在損及「推舉人團」權益的情形下推動制度改革。由此可見，「個人權威型」領導人有利於創建制度，「職務權力型」領導人則有利於既有制度的深化繁衍。中共即是在這種情形下出現制度化趨勢。蘇聯則因制度建立者均為「職務權力型」領導人，出現人亡政息的現象。
    This paper answers the question of why institutionalization of leadership replacement and decision-making occurs in a few communist regimes while others do not experience similar developments by comparing and contrasting China and the Soviet Union. The difference in top leaders main power source-personal authority or institutional power-is the key factor in answering the question. Leaders with strong personal authority are best institutions for founding because they have earned prestige and trust from followers through the process of establishing their historical feat. This gives leaders the capacity to ease objections to new rules and norms from peers and subordinates. However, rules and norms are more likely to accumulate only if successors are leaders with institutional power as the main power source. The Chinese case fits this pattern while the Soviet case does not.
    Relation: 問題與研究, 45(3), 39-75
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    39-75-a.pdf2723KbAdobe PDF2971View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    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 ©   - Feedback