跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.140.218) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/18 05:06
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:徐子傑
研究生(外文):Tzu-Chieh Hsu
論文名稱:貪腐感知如何影響公民參與:以政治效能感為中介變數的定群追蹤分析
論文名稱(外文):How Corruption Perception Influences Citizen Participation: A Panel Study with Political Efficacy as the Mediator
指導教授:郭銘峰郭銘峰引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ming-feng Kuo
口試委員:莊文忠黃心怡
口試委員(外文):Wen-Zhong ZhuangHsin-I Huang
口試日期:2023-07-13
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:公共事務研究所
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:公共行政學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2023
畢業學年度:111
語文別:中文
論文頁數:91
中文關鍵詞:公共治理廉政形象公民參與中介分析定群追蹤研究
外文關鍵詞:Public GovernanceCorruption PerceptionsCitizen ParticipationMediation AnalysisPanel Study
DOI:10.6342/NTU202303697
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:63
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
在現代民主國家中,反貪與促進公民參與都是公共治理的重要組成部分。我國政府也在這方面做出了相當多的努力,包括修訂反貪法規制度、拓展公民參與的管道及賦權培力等,我國政府在清廉度和政治權利方面也多受國際組織評鑑所肯定。近年來,國際上關於公民參與的研究文獻越來越重視貪腐因素,並且實證結果顯示公部門貪腐對公民參與具有影響力。然而,目前我國對於貪腐因素對公民參與的影響研究相對較少,且定群追蹤研究的比例也相對罕見,因此本研究計劃利用台灣政經傳播中心 (TIGCR) 提供的2018至2020年民眾定群追蹤資料 (panel data),探討民眾的貪腐感知對其公民參與的影響。
本研究認為政治效能感在解釋貪腐感知如何影響公民參與方面扮演著重要角色,因此在研究方法上同時採用定群追蹤研究與中介分析方法,以探討在民眾的貪腐感知變化轉化為公民參與行動的過程中,政治效能感是否扮演著關鍵的機制。本研究的分析結果顯示,貪腐感知對選舉和非選舉式的公民參與均具有負面影響。當個人貪腐感知隨著時間增加,其公民參與行為的強度將進一步減弱。在影響機制方
面,對於投票參與而言,政治效能感並非解釋貪腐感知影響的關鍵因素;然而,對於非選舉式的公民參與行為而言,政治效能感則成為解釋貪腐感知影響機制的重要因素。因此,貪腐感知對兩種公民參與形式的影響存在著機制上的差異。本文期望透過上述分析,使貪腐因素能夠在我國公民參與相關研究中獲得更多的重視,對我國廉政治理和促進公民參與方面的理論和政策提供不同角度的見解和反思。
In modern democratic countries, anti-corruption conducts and promotion of citizen participation are essential components of public governance, in which the Taiwanese government has put significant efforts, including amending anti-corruption regulations, expanding avenues for citizen participation, and empowering citizen participation. This commitment to integrity and political rights has also been recognized by international organizations. In recent years, international research on citizen participation has increasingly emphasized the role of corruption, and empirical findings indicate that corruption in the public sector influences citizen participation. However, there is relatively little research on the influence of corruption on citizen participation in Taiwan, particularly using panel data analysis. Therefore, this study aims to utilize the panel data provided by the Taiwan Institute for Governance and Communication Research (TIGCR) from 2018 to 2020 to explore the impact of perceived corruption on citizen participation among the Taiwanese public.
This research posits that political efficacy plays a crucial role in explaining how perceived corruption affects citizen participation. Thus, the study employs both panel data analysis and mediation analysis methods to investigate whether political efficacy acts as a critical mechanism in transferring individuals' perceptions of corruption into citizen participation. The results of this study indicate that perceived corruption has a negative impact on both electoral and non-electoral participation. As individual perceptions of corruption increase over time, the intensity of their citizen participation decreases. Concerning electoral participation, political efficacy does not emerge as a key factor in explaining the influencing mechanisms of corruption perceptions. Yet, in the context of non-electoral participation, political efficacy serves an important role as a mediating factor. As a result, the influence of perceived corruption on these two forms of citizen participation shows differences in the underlying mechanisms. Through the aforementioned analysis, this study aims to draw greater attention to the role of corruption in citizen participation research in Taiwan, also offering alternative perspectives and reflections on anti-corruption governance and citizen participation policies and theories.
誌謝 I
中文摘要 II
英文摘要 III
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 11
第三節 章節架構安排 12
第二章 貪腐感知對民主治理的威脅:公民參與的視角 13
第一節 貪腐感知定義及其對於公民參與的重要性 13
第二節 公民參與定義與參與動機 18
第三節 貪腐感知如何影響公民參與:政治效能感的中介效果 22
第四節 人口特徵變數對公民參與的影響 29
第三章 資料介紹、分析方法與模型設計 31
第一節 研究資料介紹 31
第二節 定群追蹤資料的分析優勢與常見方法 35
第三節 兼顧組內與組間效應:固定與隨機效果並用法之運用 36
第四節 探索影響機制:中介效應分析之概念與方法 38
第五節 貪腐感知影響公民參與之模型設定 40
第四章 公民參與、貪腐感知與政治效能感之測量及變化趨勢 42
第一節 投票參與及非選舉式的公民參與的測量與年度變化 42
第二節 貪腐感知及政治效能感的測量與年度變化 44
第五章 貪腐感知對公民參與的影響:兼論政治效能感之中介效果 48
第一節 貪腐感知對投票參與的影響 49
第二節 貪腐感知對非選舉式的公民參與的影響 53
第三節 貪腐感知對兩種公民參與行為的影響機制差異 56
第四節 不同貪腐感知變化群的人口特徵分析 59
第六章 結論與未來研究建議 63
第一節 理論與實務意涵 63
第二節 研究貢獻 66
第三節 研究檢討與未來展望 69
參考文獻 72
附 錄 TIGCR-PPS 2018-2020 問卷內容及分析編碼 87
中選會,2020,〈第15 任總統副總統選舉概況表、第10 屆全國不分區及僑居國外國民立法委員選舉概況表〉,https://web.cec.gov.tw/central/cms/109news/32427,瀏覽日期:2022/12/28。
王己由,2017/10/10,〈賄貪故鄉?屏東1/3 鄉鎮市長涉弊〉,中時新聞網,https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20171010000201-260118?chdtv,瀏覽日期:2022/12/29。
吳重禮、湯京平、黃紀,1999,〈我國政治功效意識測量之初探〉,《選舉研究》,6(2):23-44。
余一鳴,2012,〈從個人貪腐到組織腐化的歷程探索-以Bandura 的道德疏離理論為分析架構〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,9(2):1-38。
余致力,2006,〈倡廉反貪與民主治理〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,3(3):165-175。
余致力、方凱弘、蘇毓昌,2018,〈貪腐為何難以界定?Q方法論在廉政研究之應用〉,《行政暨政策學報》,67:39-78。
何明修,2004,〈政治機會結構與社會運動研究〉,《國立政治大學社會學報》,37:33-80。
周思廷、郭銘峰、林水波,2021,〈貪腐關乎性別?性別刻板印象影響廉能治理之初探〉,《東吳政治學報》,35(3):41-99。
林向愷,2008,〈貪腐與民主〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,5(3):167-176。
林宗弘、韓佳,2008,〈政治貪腐的制度理論:以亞洲各國為例的分析〉,《台灣政治學刊》,12(1):53-99。
林孟潔、王宏舜、王聖藜,2022/07/15,〈扁珍國務機要費16 年審不完 弊案始末大事記看這裡!〉,聯合新聞網,https://udn.com/news/story/7321/6462894,瀏覽日期:2022/12/29。
林長順,2022/07/06,〈立委涉貪案 蘇震清廖國棟陳超明徐永明判7年4個月至10年〉,中央通訊社,https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202207065002.aspx,瀏覽日期:2022/12/29。
呂欣芷,2021/10/27,〈不只三中案!盤點馬英九涉4 大弊案 最終均全身而退〉,TVBS 新聞網,https://news.tvbs.com.tw/politics/1618897,瀏覽日期:2022/12/29。
沈如峰,2022/02/23,〈涉嫌貪瀆 林姿妙與女兒、宜縣府農業處長遭聲押禁見〉,中央通訊社,https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202202230012.aspx,瀏覽日期:2022/12/29。
胡佛,1985,〈台灣地區民眾的參與行為:結構、類型與模式的比較分析〉,《第四次社會科學研討會論文集》,臺北:中央研究院。363-397。
俞振華、翁定暐,2017,〈影響台灣民眾政治參與的因素:從公民規範認知的觀點出發〉,《調查研究-方法與應用》,38:9-56。
徐明莉、莊文忠,2020,〈臺灣民眾的公民意識與公民參與〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》,32(3):333-366。
郭銘峰、王鼎銘,2014,〈小泉執政時期眾參兩院選舉之定群追蹤分析:固定與隨機效果並用法之應用〉,《選舉研究》,21(1):127-167。
郭銘峰、徐子傑,2022,〈貪腐感知、政治效能感與公民參與:一項定群追蹤資料的分析〉,中國政治學會2022 年會暨國際學術研討會,東華大學。
郭銘峰、蔣林秀、黃心怡,2023,〈妥協的集體與貪婪的個人:透明、課責與反貪的交織效果〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》,35(2):1-53。
陶宏麟、邱于恆,2019,〈貪腐容忍的性別差異〉,《調查研究-方法與應用》,42:83-123。
陳敦源、蔡秀涓,〈國家發展的倫理基礎:反貪腐與公職人員倫理準則〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,3(3):185-199。
陳俊明、莊文忠、徐明莉,2017,〈106年廉政民意調查 第一階段調查報告:民眾對廉政認知評價與訊息來源〉,法務部廉政署委託研究案。臺北市:廉政署。
陳俊明、莊文忠、徐明莉,2018,〈107年度廉政民意調查報告〉,法務部廉政署委託研究案。臺北市:廉政署。
陳俊明、莊文忠、徐明莉,2019,〈108年度廉政民意調查〉,法務部廉政署委託研究案。臺北市:廉政署。
陳俊明、莊文忠、郭宗城,2020,〈109年度廉政民意調查〉,法務部廉政署委託研究案。臺北市:廉政署。
陳俊明、莊文忠、郭宗城,2021,〈110年度廉政民意調查〉,法務部廉政署委託研究案。臺北市:廉政署。
莊文忠,2010,〈台灣民眾公民意識的變化:2008 年政權二次輪替前後的比較分析〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》,22(2):201-246。
莊文忠、余致力,2017,〈貪腐容忍度的類型化建構:內在與外在效度的評估〉,《行政暨政策學報》,64:37-67。
莊文忠、徐明莉、黃東益、李仲彬,2017,〈政黨認同如何影響民衆對政府清廉的評價〉,《東吳政治學報》,35(1):93-141。
黃東益、莊文忠、李仲彬、徐明莉、彭婉柔、黃筱芸、吳曜竹,2011,〈民眾對於政府清廉感受之成因分析〉(報告編號:RDEC-TPG-100-003),行政院研考會委託研究報告。臺北市:行政院研究發展考核委員會。
游清鑫、蔡佳泓,2009,《選舉預測》,臺北:五南。
黃信豪,2006,〈政治功效意識的行動效果(1998-2003)〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,3(2):119-158。
溫嘉楷,2018/09/25,〈炒股案被判刑8 個月 傅崐萁今入監服刑〉,公視新聞網,https://news.pts.org.tw/article/407514,瀏覽日期:2022/12/29。
廉政署, 2022a ,〈聯合國反貪腐公約第二次國家報告〉,https://www.aac.moj.gov.tw/6398/6436/6438/6456/900536/951449/post,瀏覽日期:2022/12/29。
廉政署, 2022b ,〈地方檢察署偵辦列管貪瀆案件起訴案件〉,https://www.aac.moj.gov.tw/6398/6666/6688/6692/Lpsimplelist,瀏覽日期:2022/12/29。
廖興中、呂佩安,2013,〈臺灣縣市政府貪腐現象之空間自相關分析〉,《臺灣民主季刊 》,10(2):39-72。
廖興中,2014,〈全球貪腐傳染之空間分析:以世界銀行貪腐控制指數為例〉,《公共行政學報》,46:1-28。
廖興中、徐明莉,2017,〈臺灣地方政府貪腐現象之時空掃描〉,《公共行政學報》,53:1-23。
廖興中,2018,〈全球各國貪腐與電子治理發展之關係:空間異質性的初探〉,《台灣政治學刊》,22(1):89-141。
趙永茂,2018,《社會代議的崛起:臺灣政治與社會的平行發展》,台北:翰蘆。
鄭夙芬,2014,〈候選人因素與投票抉擇-以2012 年臺灣總統選舉為例〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,11(1):103-151。
劉嘉薇、黃紀,2012,〈父母政黨偏好組合對大學生政黨偏好之影響-定群追蹤之研究〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,9(3):37-84。
劉嘉薇,2014,〈民眾政黨認同、媒介選擇與紅衫軍政治運動參與〉,《政治學報》,58:101-126。
蔡佳泓,2001,〈解析台灣選民的投票參與〉,《選舉研究》,8(2):125-154。
蔡佳泓,2008,〈反貪倒扁運動的支持度之多層次貝式定理分析〉,《政治學報》,45:67-93。
蕭怡靖,2019,〈台灣民眾的黨性極化及其對民主態度的影響〉,《台灣政治學刊》,23(2):41-85。
蘇毓昌、胡龍騰,2013,〈誰能容忍貪腐?〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,10(2):1-38。
警政統計查詢網, 〈處理集會遊行概況〉,https://ba.npa.gov.tw/npa/stmain.jsp?sys=100,瀏覽日期:2022/12/29。
Abramson, P. R. & Aldrich, J. H. 1982. “The decline of electoral participation in America.” American Political Science Review, 76(3): 502-521.
Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. 2005. “What do we mean by “civic engagement”?.” Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3): 236-253.
Agerberg, M. 2019. “The curse of knowledge? Education, corruption, and politics.” Political Behavior, 41(2): 369-399.
Aldrich, J. H. 1993. “Rational choice and turnout.” American Journal of Political Science, 37(1): 246-278.
Allison, P. D. 2009. Fixed Effects Regression Models. Los Angeles : SAGE publications.
Amundsen, I. (Ed.). 2019. Political corruption in Africa: Extraction and power preservation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Anderson, C. J. & Tverdova, Y. V. 2003. “Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies.” American Journal of Political Science, 47(1): 91-109.
Bäck, H., & Hadenius, A. 2008. “Democracy and state capacity: exploring a J‐shaped relationship.” Governance, 21(1): 1-24.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182.
Barnes, S. H., & Kaase, M. 1979. Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Bazurli, R. & Portos, M. 2019. “Crook!: The impact of perceived corruption on nonelectoral forms of political behaviour.” International Political Science Review, 42(2): 245-260.
Barros, L., Goldszmidt, R., & Pereira, C. 2020. “Why do voters choose corrupt candidates? The role of ideology on cognitive mechanisms.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(4): 676-692.
Bauhr, M., & Grimes, M. 2014. “Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for societal accountability.” Governance, 27(2): 291-320.
Bauhr, M., & Charron, N. 2018. “Insider or outsider? Grand corruption and electoral accountability.” Comparative Political Studies, 51(4): 415-446.
Belli, R. F., Traugott, M. W., & Beckmann, M. N. 2001. “What leads to voting overreports? Contrasts of overreporters to validated voters and admitted nonvoters in the American National Election Studies.” Journal of Official Statistics, 17(4): 479-498.
Berger, B. 2009. “Political theory, political science and the end of civic engagement.” Perspectives on Politics, 7(2): 335-350.
Bernburg, J. 2015. “Economic crisis and popular protest in Iceland, January 2009: The role of perceived economic loss and political attitudes in protest participation and support.” Mobilization, 20(2): 231–252.
Bermeo, N. 2016. “On democratic backsliding.” Journal of Democracy, 27(1): 5-19.
Beyerle, S. M. 2014. Curtailing Corruption: People Power for Accountability and Justice. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Biswas, B. & Vijaya, R. M. 2018. “Who protests? An exploration of the class dimensions of anticorruption mobilization.” Governance, 32(6): 639-655.
Blake, C. H., & Martin, C. G. 2006. “The dynamics of political corruption: Re-examining the influence of democracy.” Democratisation, 13(1): 1-14.
Bohara, A. K., Mitchell, N. J., & Mittendorff, C. F. 2004. “Compound democracy and the control of corruption: A cross‐country investigation.” Policy Studies Journal, 32(4): 481-499.
Boyte, H. C. 2005. “Reframing democracy: Governance, civic agency, and politics.” Public Administration Review, 65(5): 536–546.
Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. 1997. “The public consequences of private inequality: family life and citizen participation.” American Political Science Review, 91(2): 373-389.
Caiden, Gerald. E. 2001. “Corruption and governance.” In G. Caiden, O. P. Dwivedi, and J. Jabbra (eds.), Where Corruption Lives. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 15-37.
Caillier, J. 2010. “Citizen trust, political corruption, and voting behavior: Connecting the dots.” Politics & Policy, 38(5): 1015-1035.
Campbell, Angus, Gerald Gurin, and Warren E. Miller 1954. The Voter Decides. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Canache, D., & Allison, M. E. 2005. “Perceptions of political corruption in Latin American democracies.” Latin American Politics and Society, 47(3): 91-111.
Carreras, M., & İrepoğlu, Y. 2013. “Trust in elections, vote buying, and turnout in Latin America.” Electoral Studies, 32(4): 609-619.
Carothers, T., & Youngs, R. 2015. The Complexities of Global Protests (Vol. 8). Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Carreras, M., & Vera, S. 2018. “Do corrupt politicians mobilize or demobilize voters? A vignette experiment in Colombia.” Latin American Politics and Society, 60(3): 77-95.
Carmo, A. R. D. 2018. “Turkeys do not vote for Christmas. The Brazilian anti-votebuying law.” Comparative Southeast European Studies, 66(3): 325-348.
Chong, A., De La O, A. L., Karlan, D., & Wantchekon, L. 2015. “Does corruption information inspire the fight or quash the hope? A field experiment in Mexico on voter turnout, choice, and party identification.” The Journal of Politics, 77(1): 55-71.
Cordero, G., & Blais, A. 2017. “Is a corrupt government totally unacceptable?.” West European Politics, 40(4): 645-662.
Dahlberg, S., & Solevid, M. 2016. “Does corruption suppress voter turnout?.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 26(4): 489-510.
De Vries, C. E., & Solaz, H. 2017. “The electoral consequences of corruption.” Annual Review of Political Science, 20: 391-408.
Donovan, T., & Karp, J. 2017. “Electoral rules, corruption, inequality and evaluations of democracy.” European Journal of Political Research, 56(3): 469-486.
Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. 2012. “Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology.” Human Affairs, 22: 283-300.
Feddersen, T. J., & Pesendorfer, W. 1996. “The swing voter's curse.” The American Economic Review, 86(3): 408-424.
Ferraz, C., & Finan, F. 2008. “Exposing corrupt politicians: the effects of Brazil's publicly released audits on electoral outcomes.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2): 703-745.
Fernández-Vázquez, P., Barberá, P., & Rivero, G. 2016. “Rooting out corruption or rooting for corruption? The heterogeneous electoral consequences of scandals.” Political Science Research and Methods, 4(2): 379-397.
Finkel, S. E., Muller, E. N., & Opp, K. D. 1989. “Personal Influence, Collective Rationality, and Mass Political Action.” American Political Science Review, 83(3): 885-903.
Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. 2019. “Democratic Deconsolidation in Developed Democracies, 1995-2018.” CES Open Forum Series 2018-2019.
Freedom House. 2021. Freedom in the World 2022: Taiwan. https://freedomhouse.org/country/taiwan/freedom-world/2022. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
Galeotti, F., & Zizzo, D. J. 2018. “Identifying voter preferences: The trade-off between honesty and competence.” European Economic Review, 105: 27-50.
Giommoni, T. 2021. “Exposure to corruption and political participation: Evidence from Italian municipalities.” European Journal of Political Economy, 68, 102000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2021.10200
Goetgeluk, S., & Vansteelandt, S. 2008. “Conditional generalized estimating equations for the analysis of clustered and longitudinal data.” Biometrics, 64(3): 772-780.
Hayes, A.F. 2017. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T., 2014. “Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments.” Political Analysis, 22(1): 1-30.
Heidenheimer, Arnold J. 1970. Political Corruption: Readings in Comparative Analysis. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Heidenheimer, Arnold J. 1989. “Perspectives on the Perception of Corruption” , in A. J. Heidenheimer, M Johnston and V. T. LeVine (eds.), Political Corruption: A Handbook, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 149-163.
Heidenheimer, Arnold J. 2004. “Disjunctions between corruption and democracy? A qualitative exploration.” Crime, Law and Social Change, 42(1): 99-109.
Hooghe, M., & Stolle, D. 2004. “Good girls go to the polling booth, bad boys go everywhere: Gender differences in anticipated political participation among American fourteen-year-olds.” Women & Politics, 26(3-4): 1-23.
Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. 2013. “A comparative analysis of the relation between political trust and forms of political participation in Europe.” European Societies, 15(1): 1-22.
Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. 2014. “Political participation in European countries: The effect of authoritarian rule, corruption, lack of good governance and economic downturn.” Comparative European Politics, 12: 209-232.
Huntington, S. P., 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
Hsiao, C. 2022. Analysis of Panel Data: Fourth Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Incerti, T. 2020. “Corruption information and vote share: A meta-analysis and lessons for experimental design.” American Political Science Review, 114(3): 761-774.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. 1984. “Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2): 307-321.
Klašnja, M., Tucker, J. A., & Deegan-Krause, K. 2016. “Pocketbook vs. sociotropic corruption voting.” British Journal of Political Science, 46(1): 67-94.
Kostadinova, T. 2009. “Abstain or rebel: Corruption perceptions and voting in East European elections.” Politics & Policy, 37(4): 691-714.
Kostadinova, T., & Kmetty, Z. 2019. “Corruption and political participation in Hungary: Testing models of civic engagement.” East European Politics and Societies, 33(3): 555-578.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. “A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.” Psychological Methods, 7(1): 83–104.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. 2007. “Mediation analysis.” Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 593-614.
Machado, F., Scartascini, C., & Tommasi, M. 2011. “Political institutions and street protests in Latin America.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(3): 340–365.
Malmberg, F. G., & Christensen, H. S. 2021. “Voting women, protesting men: a multilevel analysis of corruption, gender, and political participation.” Politics & Policy, 49(1):126-161.
Marien, S., Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. 2010. “Inequalities in non-institutionalised forms of political participation: A multi-level analysis of 25 countries.” Political Studies, 58(1): 187–213.
Michels, A. 2011. “Innovations in democratic governance: how does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy?.” International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2): 275-293.
Min, J. 2013. “The influence of scandal on vote intention during Korean presidential campaigns: Why do voters support the “corrupt” candidate?.” Asian Survey, 53(2): 393-422.
Montinola, G. R., & Jackman, R. W. 2002. “Sources of corruption: A cross-country study.” British Journal of Political Science, 32(1): 147-170.
Monyake, M. & Hough, D. 2019. “Citizens, bribery and the propensity to protest.” Journal of Comparative and Commonwealth Politics, 57(3): 282-302.
Muñoz, J., Anduiza, E., & Gallego, A. 2016. “Why do voters forgive corrupt mayors? Implicit exchange, credibility of information and clean alternatives.” Local Government Studies, 42(4): 598-615.
Neuhaus, J. M., & Kalbfleisch, J. D. 1998. “Between-and within-cluster covariate effects in the analysis of clustered data.” Biometrics, 54(2): 638-645.
Niemi, R. G., & Barkan, J. D. 1987. “Age and turnout in new electorates and peasant societies.” American Political Science Review, 81(2): 583-588.
Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C. & Mattei, F. 1991. “Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study.” American Political Science Review, 85(4): 1407-1413.
Norris, P. 2002. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. 1994. “The assessment of reliability.” Psychometric Theory, 3: 248-292.
Oh, Y. &Lim, S. 2017. “Connecting a missing link between participation in administration and political participation: the mediating role of political efficacy.” International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(4): 694-716.
Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Olsson, S. A. 2014. “Corruption and political participation: A multilevel analysis.” The Quality of Government Institute (QoG) Working Paper Series, 12: 1-53.
Pavão, N. 2018. “Corruption as the only option: The limits to electoral accountability.” The Journal of Politics, 80(3): 996-1010.
Pereira, C., & Melo, M. A. 2015. “Reelecting corrupt incumbents in exchange for public goods: Rouba mas faz in Brazil.” Latin American Research Review, 50(4): 88-115.
Pope, J., & Vogl, F. 2000. “Making anticorruption agencies more effective.” Finance & Development, 37(2): 6-9.
Pope, J. 2000. Confronting Corruption: The Elements of a National Integrity System. Germany, IL: Transparency International.
Putnam, R. D. 1993. “The prosperous community: social capital and public life.” The American Prospect, 13: 36-42.
Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: MacMillan.
Seligson, M. A. 2002. “The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American countries.” Journal of Politics, 64(2): 408-433.
Sjölander, A., Lichtenstein, P., Larsson, H., & Pawitan, Y. 2013. “Between–within models for survival analysis.” Statistics in Medicine, 32(18): 3067-3076.
Skelcher, C. & Torfing, J. 2010. “Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe.” Regulation & Governance, 4(1): 71-91.
Školník, M. 2020. “The effects of corruption on various forms of political participation in colombia.” Latin American Policy, 11(1): 88-102.
Sousa, L. & Bezerra, M. M. 2013. “Why voters do not throw the rascals out?—A conceptual framework for analyzing electoral punishment of corruption.” Crime Law and Social Change, 60(5): 471-502.
Sobel, M. E. 1982. “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models.” In S. Leinhardt (ed.), Sociological Methodolog, Washington DC: American Sociological Association, 290-312.
Stockemer, D., LaMontagne, B. & Scruggs, L., 2013. “Bribes and ballots: The impact of corruption on voter turnout in democracies.” International Political Science Review, 34(1): 74-90.
Stockemer, D. 2016. “What affects voter turnout? A review article/meta-analysis of aggregate research.” Government and Opposition, 52(4): 698-722.
Sunshine Hillygus, D. 2005. “The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education and political engagement.” Political Behavior, 27: 25-47.
Sundström, A. & Stockemer, D., 2015. “Regional variation in voter turnout in Europe: The impact of corruption perceptions.” Electoral Studies, 40: 158-169.
Tanzi, Vito. 1998. “Corruption around the world: Causes, consequences, scope, and cures.” Staff Papers, 45(4): 559–594.
Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. 2003. “Unraveling the effects of the internet on political participation?.” Political Research Quarterly, 56(2): 175-185.
Transparency international. 2021. Corruption perceptions Index-Taiwan. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021/index/twn.
Weitz-Shapiro, R. 2008. “The local connection: Local government performance and satisfaction with democracy in Argentina.” Comparative Political Studies, 41(3): 285-308.
Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. 1980. Who Votes?. New Haven: Yale University Press.
van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. 2013. “The social psychology of protest.” Current Sociology, 61(5–6): 886–905.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politcs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Verba, S. 1996. “The citizen as respondent: Sample surveys and American democracy presidential address, American political science association, 1995.” The American Political Science Review, 90(1): 1–7.
Zhang, Y., Kuo, M. F., Guo, J., & Wang, C. Y. 2019. “How do intrinsic motivations, workrelated opportunities, and well‐being shape bureaucratic corruptibility?.” Public Administration Review, 79(4): 552-564.
Zhu, A. Y. F., Chan, A. L. S.& Chou, K. L. 2021. “Psychological transformation of youth after engaging in non-radical and radical political activities.” Current Psychology, 41(11): 7843-7853.
電子全文 電子全文(網際網路公開日期:20250814)
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top