臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本文研究的目的為分析台灣人類發展的表現。研究方法為採透過多面向實證數據之趨勢圖進行觀察，並進一步以相關性探討各指標及各面向間在人類發展時的關係。實證發現，台灣地區人類發展指標中的人類發展指數(HDI)與性別發展指數(GDI)從1990至2006年的指數均高於0.8，達到聯合國定義的高度人類發展的標準。性別權力測度(GEM) 從1990至2006年的指數的平均值為0.58，代表於台灣人類發展中並未給於女性足夠的機會。由各面向進行觀察可發現到台灣地區的人類發展中個人精神福祉面向的不快樂指標是越來越高，自主權面向中女性與藍領階層的自主權是逐漸獲得改善，政治自由也是逐漸轉好，台灣休閒狀況的表現亦是逐年改善中。台灣社會關係面向中的家庭關係的表現顯示為不佳狀況，單親家庭比率、兒童受虐率及離家出走率平均而言都呈上升趨勢，離婚率也是在攀升中，乃至社會關係轉為疏離及惡化。台灣的環境狀況若由空氣與河川的汙染指標來衡量會發現最近這幾年是越來越好的，但是若又考慮到二氧化碳的排放量時會發現到台灣的排放量是逐年增加，這代表台灣對於溫室效應的減緩未盡其力。由相關性的探討發現，各指標與每人平均所得達中度相關的共有18項與人類發展指標達中度相關的共有25項。因此在詮釋台灣地區的人類發展表現時，HDI相較每人平均所得包含了更多的指標，亦即透過HDI，就可觀察出其餘25項指標的表現狀況，所以HDI較每人平均所得更適合用來詮釋台灣人類發展的狀況。

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the long-run trend of the human development in Taiwan . We examine 11 categories of human development and select plausible variables as indicators of these categories. We use the Taiwanese data to calculate the well-known Human Development Index (HDI), gender-related development index (GDI), gender empowerment measure, (GEM), Gini of income. In addition, the other 31 indicators are examined.
The study shows that HDI and GDI from 1990 to 2006 in Taiwan are higher than 0.8, indicating Taiwan is a country with high human development. The mean of GEM from 1990 to 2006 in Taiwan is 0.58, which shows women do not have enough chances in the human development of Taiwan. We also observe that people become less happy over time. However, the empowerment of women and labor, the political freedom, the leisure conditions improve gradually. The family relationship gets worse. Single-parent family rate, children maltreated rate and running away from home rate and the divorce rate are soaring on average. It shows that the social relationships are worsening. As for environmental condtion, we cannot have a decisive conclusion. On the one hand, we find that it improves according to the air and rivers pollution indicator, on the other hand, the emission of the carbon dioxide in Taiwan is increasing over time, indicating its detrimental impact on the environment gets stronger and stronger. We also find HDI is better than income per capita as a HD index.

論文題目
謝辭
中文摘要
英文摘要
目次
圖目次
表目次
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景
第二節 研究目的
第三節 研究步驟
第四節 研究範圍
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 國外文獻
第二節 國內文獻
第三章 研究方法
(一) 核心指標
(二) 十一個面向指標
第四章 實證結果
第一節 各面向指標的描述
第二節 相關係數探討
第五章 結論
參考文獻

吳佩璇(2001)，「我國人類發展指數試編結果與國際比較」，《主計月報》， 529， 25-36。
林德昌(2006)，《人類發展報告與人類發展指數：發展的困境與挑戰》，v，台北市：行政院青年輔導委員會。
翁嘉禧(2004)，「戰後台灣經濟發展路向的解析」，《興大歷史學報》，15，221，229。
戴台馨(2006)，「人類發展、經濟成長與自由」，《經濟前瞻》，108，104。
Chowdhury, S. and L. Squire (2006),“Setting Weights for Aggregate Indices: An Application to the Commitment to Development Index and Human Development Index,” Journal of Development Studies , 42 ,761-771.
Costantini, V. and S. Monni (2005),“Sustainable Human Development for European Countries,”Journal of Human Development , 6, 329-351.
Dar, Humayon A.(2004); “On Making Human Development More Humane ,”International Journal of Social Economics, 31, 11/12, 1071-88.
Daviesand, A., and G. Quinlivan (2006),“A Panel Data Analysis of the Impact of Trade on Human Development,”Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 868-876.
Dickey, D.A. and W.A. Fuller(1979), “Distribution of the estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root.”Journal of American Statistical Association,74,366,427-431.
Dickey, D.A. and W.A. Fuller(1981), “Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root.” Econometric,55,1057-1072.
Foster, J. E., L. F. Lopez-Calva, and M. Szekely (2005),“Measuring the Distribution of Human Development: Methodology and an Application to Mexico,”Journal of Human Development, 6, 5-29.
Hamilton, J.D.(1994),Time Series Analysis, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,475-543.
Hodrick,R. and E.C. Prescott (1997), “Post-War U.S. Business Cycle：An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of money, Credit and Banking,29,1-16.
Kwiatkowski, D., PC.B. Phillips, P. Schmidt, and Y. Shine (1992), “Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationary Against the Alternative of a Unit Root?” Journal of Econometric,54,159-178.
Leigh, A., and J. Wolfers (2006),“Happiness and the Human Development Index: Australia Is Not a Paradox,”The Australian Economic Review,39,2, 176-184.
Leigh, A.and J. Wolfers(2005),“Happiness and the Human Development Index :Australia is not a Paradox.”The Australian Economic Review , 39, 2, 176-184.
Lewis, W.A. (1955), The Theory of Economic Growth. London: Allen and Unwin, 9-10, 420-421.
Mazumdar, K. (2003),“A New Approach to Human Development Index,”Review of Social Economy, 61, 4, 535-549.
Mazumdar, K. (2005), “Socio-Economic Factors Determining Adult Literacy in Developing Countries,” International Journal of Social Economics, 32, 1/2, 98-120.
Noorbakhsh, F. (1998), “The Human Development Index: Some Technical Issues and Alternative Indices,” Journal of International Development, 10, 589-605.
Ogwang, T. (1994),“The Choice of Principle Variables for Computing the Human Development Index, ” World Development, 22, 2011–2014.
Osberg, L., and A. Sharpe (2005),“How Should We Measure the ''Economic'' Aspects of Well-Being? ”Review of Income and Wealth, 51, 311-336.
Perron, P(1989),“The Great Crash,the Oil Price Shock and the Unit Root Hypothesis.” Econometrica,57,13615-1401.
Perron, P. (1997), “Further Evidence on Breaking Trend Function in Macroeconomic variables,” Journal of Econometrics, 80, 355-385.
Ranis, G., F. Stewart, and E. Samman (2006),“Human Development: Beyond the Human Development Index,”Journal of Human Development , 7 , 323-358.
Sen, A.K. (1998),“Human Development and Financial Conservatism,”World Development, 26, 733-742.
Sen, A.K. (1999), Development as Freedom, New York : Knopf.
United Nations Development Programme (1990), Human Development Report, New York: UNDP, 10.
United Nations Development Programme (2007), Human Development Report, New York: UNDP, 355-361.
Wallerstein, I. (1991),“Development: Lodestar or Illusion? ”Unthinking Social Science, Polity Press.