臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　就西方民主政治的發展歷程而言，不論時代的特性是因應社會參與要求或如S. M. Lipset與S. Rokkan所言的固有社會分歧已然定型化（frozen cleavage system）的情況，政黨制度一直以來即被視為是國家機器與市民社會之間不可或缺的中介機制。若從較抽象的角度來看，政黨制度的存在實為公民與國家之間無可避免的「距離」界定了某種特殊的聯結模式。
　　然而，若欲持平評價政黨制度對民主生活的價值，似乎只能從千緯萬端的民主定義及模式中回溯政黨制度的不同作用。有趣的是，政黨制度的嬗演蘊含另一重要啟示：在民主化過程當中，政黨通常是民主轉型（democratic transition）期政治動力來源，卻往往又是民主鞏固（democratic consolidation）階段民主深化的絆腳石（或稱「雞肋」更恰當些）。難到政黨制度的命運就如Hayek的論斷，「當人沿著曾導致他取得偉大成就之路繼續前進時，他就會陷入最深的泥淖之中」？這是相當有趣及值得思索的問題。
　　從新制度論角度來分析這個問題，制度被視為是社會中的遊戲規則，其運作邏輯包括具體的的實際行為與隱晦的符號結構，而這兩者對每個成型的制度秩序而言是「一體之兩面」。因此，在這層意義下，所謂制度轉型嚴格來說乃意味著舊有制度秩序的解構，以及新的行為互動模式與符號意義產生的過程和結果。這個定義最大的優點即在強調進行臺灣政黨轉型現象分析時，除了要注意「形式」或正式制度的變化之外，「實質」或非正式的政治習慣及符號操弄部份究竟發生什麼情況更是不能忽略。而這樣的分析理路，對臺灣民主化過程中特殊的「國家認同」問題在政黨轉型內涵上的制約而言，別具解釋能力：讓研究者去注意政黨的「蛻變」（metamorphosis）究竟是新瓶裝舊酒的「量變」？抑或浴火重生的「質變」？
　　因此，本論文借重新制度論關注制度環境、制度與策略行動者之間如何相互影響的分析方式與研究成果來解釋臺灣的政黨轉型動力與過程。

The symbols and organizations of political parties not only influence political orientation of voters, but also help reduce information costs and make political participation accessible. Thus, political parties are the important mechanism in modern representative politics. At the same time, the party transformation, owing to trust between voters and parties, citizens and representative, is a worthing focus.
In this way, this thesis aims to analyze political party transformation in Taiwan from the perspective of the New Institutionalism. In this thesis, “institutions” are viewed as the rules of the game, their logic of operation includes a set of practical behaviour and symbolic constructions. Thus, the term “transformation” is seriously referred to the process and outcome of deconstruction of old institutional orders. Up to this point, this thesis examine the institutional environment, process and “temporal” outcome of party transformation in Taiwan.
The emphasis of this thesis is that part transformation would be constrained to “path-dependent” pattern, so the direction of the transformation would depend on power of various “veto points”.

第一章　緒論　　　
第一節　問題意識與研究目的
第二節　理論反省與研究策略之提出
第三節　研究架構
第二章　新制度論─社會科學典範的「第三條路」？
第一節　個體與結構分析的分庭抗禮
第二節　新制度論的派別
第三節　新制度論的超越與囿限
第三章　政黨轉型的制度環境
第一節　新制度論的啟發
第二節　社會分歧與政黨區隔
第三節　選舉制度
第四節　憲政體制
第五節　國家攏絡手段
第四章　政黨轉型的過程：制度的延續與斷裂
第一節　新制度論的啟發
第二節　國家論述與政黨定位的糾結
第三節　黨員及選民「存在價值」的弔詭
第四節　政黨組織再造的兩難
第五章　結論

(1) Books
Aldrich, John H., Why Parties?. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Appleton, Andrew, “The Formal Versus Informal rules of French Political Parties,” in Kay Lawson ed., How Political Parties Work. London: Praeger(1994), 23-54.
Bobbio, Norberto, Which Socialism? Marxism, Socialism and Democracy. Oxford, UK: Polity, 1988.
Collier, Ruth B., and David Collier, Shaping the Political Arena. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Cotter, Cornelius P., et al., Party Organizations in American Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, 1989.
Dickson, Bruce J., Democratization in China and Taiwan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
DiMaggio, Paul, and Walter W. Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality,” in Walter W. Powell, and Paul J. DiMaggio eds., The New Institutionalism In Organizational Analysis. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press(1991), 63-82.
Duverger, Maurice, “Duverger’s Law: Forty Years Later,” in Benard Grofman, and Arend Lijphart, eds., Electoral Laws and Political Consequences, New York: Agathon Press,1986
Friedland, Roger, and Robert Alford, “Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions,” in Walter W. Powell, and Paul J. DiMaggio eds., The New Institutionalism In Organizational Analysis. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press(1991), 236-263.
Gallagher, Michael et al., Representative Government in Western Europe. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992.
Gebethner, Stanislaw, “Proportional Representation Versus Majoritarian Systems,” in Arend Liphart, and Carlos H. Waisman eds., Institutional Design in New Democracies. Bouldeer, CO: Westview Press(1996).
Grafstein, Robert, Institutional Realism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.
Hermens, Ferdinand A., “Representation and Proportional Representation,” in Arend Liphart, and Bernard Grofman eds., Choosing an Electoral System. New York: Praeger(1984).
Huntington, Samuel P., The Third Wave: Democratization in The Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.
Jepperson Ronald L., “Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism,” in Walter W. Powell, and Paul J. DiMaggio eds., The New Institutionalism In Organizational Analysis. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press(1991), 143-163.
Linz, Juan, and Alfred Stepan, “Stateness, Nationalism, and Democratization,” in Juan J. Linz, and Alfred Stepan eds., Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopinks University Press(1996), 16-37.
Lipset, S. M., and S. Rokkan, “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems and Voter Alignments: an Introuduction,” in S. M. Lipset, and S. Rokkan eds., Party Systems and Voter Alignment: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press(1967), 1-64.
Mair, Peter, Party System Change. New York: Clarendon, 1997.
March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press, 1989.
Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan, “Institutionalized Organizations,” in Walter W. Powell, and Paul J. DiMaggio eds., The New Institutionalism In Organizational Analysis. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press(1991), 41-62.
Nohlen, Dieter, “Electoral Systems and Electoral Reform in Latin America,” in Arend Liphart, and Carlos H. Waisman eds., Institutional Design in New Democracies. Bouldeer, CO: Westview Press(1996).
Offe, Claus, “Designing Institutions in East European Transitions,” in Robert E. Goodin ed., The Theory of Institutional Design. New York: Cambridge University Press(1996), 199-226.
Pennings, Paul, and Jan-Erik Lane, “Introduction,” in Paul Pennings, and Jan-Erik Lane eds., Comparing Party System Change. London: Routledge(1998), 1-20.
Peters, B. Guy, Institutional Theory in Political Science: The “New Institutionalism’ . New York: Pinter, 1999.
Rothstein, Bo, “Political Institutions: an Overview,” in Robert E. Goodin, and Hans-dieter Klingemann eds., A New Handbook of Political Science. New York: Oxford University Press(1996), 133-166.
Sartori, Giovanni, “The Sociology of Parties: A Critical Review,” in Peter Mair ed., The West European Party System. New York: Oxford Universuty Press(1990), 150-182.
Schimitter, Philippe C., “Organized Interests and Democratic Consolidation in Southern Europe,” in Richard Gunther, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, and Hans-Jurgen Puhle eds., The Politics of Democratic Consolidation. Baltimore, MD: the Johns Hopinks University Press(1995), 284-307.
Scott, W Richard, “Unpacking Institutional Arguments,” in Walter W. Powell, and Paul J. DiMaggio eds., The New Institutionalism In Organizational Analysis. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press(1991), 164-182.
_____________, “Institutions and Organizations: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis,” in W. Richard Scott, and John W. Meyer eds., Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE(1994), 55-80.
Shaw, Eric, The Labour Parties since 1979: Crisis and Transformation. London: Routledge Press, 1994.
Shepsle, Kenneth A., “Institutional Equilibrium and Equilibrium Institutions,” in H. A. Weisberg ed., Political Science: The Science Of Politics. New York: Agathon(1986), 51-81.
Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Peter Evans, et al., Bringing the State Back In. New York: Cambridge University Press(1985), 3-37.
Thelen, Kathleen, and Steven Steinmo, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” in Steven Steinmo eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press(1992), 1-33.
Ware, Alan, Political Parties and Party System. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Wu, J. Joseph, Taiwan’s Democratization. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1995.
(2)Periodicals
Appleton, Andrew, “Parties Under Pressure: Challenges to ‘Established’ French Parties,” West European Politics, vol. 18, no. 1(1995), 52-77.
Baker, Gideon, “Civil Society and Democracy: The Gap Between Theory and Possibility,” Politics, vol. 18, no. 2(1998), 81-87.
Bates, Robert H., et al., “The Politics of Interpretation: Rationality, Culture, and Transtion,” Politics & Society, vol. 26, no. 2(1998), 221-256.
Biezen, I. Van, “Building Party Organizations and the Relevance of Past Models: The Communist and Socialist Parties in Spain and Portugal,” West European Politics, vol. 21, no. 2(1998), 32-62.
Cammack, Paul, “The New Institutionalism: Predatory Rule, Institutional Persistence, and Macro-Social Change,” Economy and Society, vol.21, no. 4(1992), 398-429.
Clark R. William, “Agents and Structures: Two Views of Preferences, Two Views of Institutions,” International Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2(1998), 245-270.
Habermas, Jurgen, “Three Normative Models of Democracy,” Constellations, vol. 1, no. 1(1994).
Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C R. Taylor, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms,” Political Studies, vol. 44, no. 5(1996), 936-957.
Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C. R. Taylor, “The Potential of Historical Institutionalism: a Response to Hay and Wincott,” Political Studies, vol. 29(1998), 958-962.
Hay, Colin, and Daniel Wincott, “Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism,” Political Studies, vol. 46, no. 5(1998), 951-957.
Hees, Martin Van, “ Explaining Institutions: A Defense of Reductionism,” European Journal of Political Research, vol. 32, no. 1(1997).
Immergut, Ellen M., “The Theoretical Core of The New Institutionalism,” Politics & Society, vol. 26, no. 1(1998), 5-34.
Jesse, Neal, “Falling into a Niche: Institutional Equilibrium Between Plurality and Proportional Representation for Large Political Parties,” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2(1998), 481-503.
Kato, Junko, “Review Article: Institutions and Rationality in Politics─ Three Varieties of Neo-Institutionalists,” British Journal of Political Science, no. 26(1996), 533-582.
Koeble Thomas A., “The New Institutionalism in Political Science and Sociology,” Comparative Politics, vol. 27, no. 2(1995), 231-243.
Kreuzer, Marcus, “Electoral Institutions, Political Organization, and Part Development,” Comparative Politics, vol. 30, no. 3(1998),273-291.
March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen, “New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life,” American Political Science Review, vol. 78(1984), 734-749.
Norgaard, Asbjorn S., “Rediscovering Reasonable Rationality in Institutional Analysis,” European Journal of Political Research, vol. 29, no. 1(1996), 31-57.
Ostrom, Elinor, “An Agenda for The Study of Institutions,” Public Choice, vol. 48(1986), 3-25.
Remmer, Karen, “Theoretical Decay and Theoretical Development: The Resurgence of Institutional Analysis,” World Politics, vol. 50(1995), 34-61.
Robertson, David B., “The Return to History and The New Institutionalism in American Political Science,” Social Science History, vol. 17, no. 1(1993), 1-17.
Rustow, Dankwart, “Transitions to Democracy,” Comparative Politics, vol. 2, no. 3(1970), 337-365.
Selznick, Philip, “Institutionalism “Old” and “New” ” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 41(1996), 270-277.