跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.208.186.139) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/05/29 03:19
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:謝宛婷
研究生(外文):Hsieh,Wan-Ting
論文名稱:相對所得與公民參與之關係
論文名稱(外文):The Relationship between Relative Income and Civic Participation
指導教授:張文俊張文俊引用關係
指導教授(外文):CHANG, WEN-CHUN
口試委員:毛治文劉嘉薇
口試日期:2013-06-18
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:財政學系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:財政學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:中文
論文頁數:55
中文關鍵詞:公民參與社團參與相對所得社會資本
外文關鍵詞:civic participationassociation participationrelative incomesocial capital
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:360
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:9
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
台灣地區係屬民主自由、多元化的社會,但卻在所得不均等背後夾雜著不確定性和不安全感,使得經濟與社會朝向失衡發展,連帶著產生社會不公與價值觀扭曲等問題。此種不平等確切地影響各種公民和社會參與活動,但在過往的研究中乏見將公民參與和社會參與跟不均等做完整而且有系統之探討。然而,若不均等是“參與”的決定因素時,那麼可以預見對於公民和社會參與在不同的不平等制度之下,相對所得的地位是有著不同含意。
本研究以2003年行政院主計處編制之「台灣地區社會發展趨勢調查訪問表—社會參與」資料,與2007年中央研究院社會學研究所執行「台灣社會變遷基本調查—社會階層」之資料,觀察受訪者「相對所得位置」、「個人基本社會經濟特性」對公民參與情形的影響。
根據實證的結果可以得知,在大部分的情況下,當臺灣民眾的相對所得愈高時,公民參與的情形也愈踴躍;當相對所得位置處於較劣勢時,的公民往往可能因社會疏離感或忙於生計等問題而忽略公民參與。因此如何提升相對低所得者的參與意願,便成為值得重視的議題,政府可能可以給予相對低所得者適當的補助或提出其他有效輔助政策,以降低公民參與成本,進而增進公民參與的意願,也促使民眾社團參與不普遍的情形能獲得改善,無形中社會資本也悄悄的累積起來。

Taiwan is a society of liberal democracy as well as diversity; however, the uncertainty and the lack of security are both suppressed with the rising income inequality. Meanwhile, the pattern of civic participation is substantially altered by the increasing inequality.
The study investigates the relationship between relative income and various types of civic participation with the data drawn from 2003 Survey on Social Development Trends (SSDT) and 2007 Taiwan Social Change Survey (TSCS).
The results indicate that a positive relation between relative income and citizen participation is documented in a general phenomenon for Taiwanese citizens. Specifically, the higher relative income is possessed, the more active of citizen participation would be, whereas the inferior relative income being obtained, the less of civic participation. These probably result from the sense of estrangement from society. Therefore, how to encourage the civic participation for people with a lower level of relative income becomes an important policy issue. Hence, appropriate subsidization along with assistance for whom with relative lower income could be provided by government in order to minimize the cost of civic participation.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 7
第三節 研究方法與架構 9
第二章 文獻回顧 10
第一節 所得不均對社會層面的影響 10
第二節 所得不均對政治層面的影響 15
第三節 何謂社會資本 17
第三節 社會資本與公民參與之關係 18
第五節 小結 20
第三章 理論基礎與實證模型 21
第一節 理論基礎來源 21
第二節 實證模型與設立 26
第四章 資料來源與變數分析 28
第一節 資料來源與說明 28
第二節 變數定義與分析 30
第三節 敘述統計 34
第五章 實證結果分析 38
第一節 相對所得位置分析 38
第二節 個人社會經濟特性分析 40
第六章 結論與建議 47
第一節 結論 48
第二節 建議 50
參考文獻 52
中文文獻
吳乃德(2004),「搜尋民主公民:社團參與的理論與實際」,《公共領域在台灣:困境與契機》,台北市:桂冠出版社。
林聰吉、楊湘齡(2008),「台灣社會資本的分佈及其民主效果」,東吳政治學報,26(2),39-83。
陳欽春(2004),「民主治理與社會資本:台灣地區公民信任實證研究」,國立台北大學公共行政暨政策研究所博士論文。

英文文獻
Akdede, S.H. (2012). Income inequality and political polarization and fracturalization: An empirical investigation of some European countries. Bulletin of Economic Research, 64(1), 20-30.
Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E.L. (2004). Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 847-904.
Almond, G.A., & Verba, S. (1989). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. London: Sage Publications.
Andersen, R. (2012). Support for democracy in cross-national perspective: The detrimental effect of economic inequality. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(4), 389-402.
Andersen, R., & Fetner, T. (2008). Economic inequality and intolerance: Attitudes toward homosexuality in 35 democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 942-958.
Bjørnskov, C. (2008). Social trust and fractionalization: A possible reinterpretation. European Sociological Review, 24(3), 271-283.
Brandolini, A., & Smeeding, T.M. (2008). Inequality patterns in Western democracies: Cross-country differences and changes over time. In P. Beramendi & C. J. Anderson (Eds.), Democracy, Inequality, and Representation (pp. 25-61). New York.
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 999-1023.
Broome, J. (1989). What’s the Good of Equality? Current issues in microeconomics.
Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1995). Associations and Democracy: Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Dagger, R. (1997). Civic Virtues: Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Deaton, A. (2001). Relative deprivation, inequality, and mortality.
Durkheim, E., & Coser, L.A. (1997). The Division of Labor in Society: Free Press.
Eibner, C., & Evans, W.N. (2005). Relative deprivation, poor health habits, and mortality. Journal of Human Resources, 40(3), 591-620.
Elgar, F.J., & Aitken, N. (2011). Income inequality, trust and homicide in 33 countries. European Journal of Public Health, 21(2), 241-246.
Erikson, R., & Goldthorpe, J.H. (1992). The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies. USA: Oxford University Press.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada. (2005). Income and well-being: An empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5), 997-1019.
Fischer, J.A.V., & Torgler, B. (2006). Does envy destroy social fundamentals? The impact of relative income position on social capital. U of St. Gallen Economics Discussion Paper, 2006-04.
Fukuyama, F. (1999). The Great Disruption. London: Profile Books London.
Glaeser, E.L., Laibson, D., & Sacerdote, B. (2002). An economic approach to social capital. Economic Journal, 112(483), F437-F458.
Goldthorpe, J.H. (2010). Analysing social inequality: A critique of two recent contributions from economics and epidemiology. European Sociological Review, 26(6), 731-744.
Lancee, B., & Van de Werfhorst, H.G. (2012). Income inequality and participation: A comparison of 24 European countries. Social Science Research, 41, 1168-1178.
Levin-Waldman, O. (2012). Wage policy as an essential ingredient in job creation. Challenge, 55(6), 26-52.
Lynch, J.W., Smith, G.D., Kaplan, G.A., & House, J.S. (2000). Income inequality and mortality: importance to health of individual income, psychosocial environment, or material conditions. British Medical Journal, 320(7243), 1200-1204.
Meltzer, A.H., & Richard, S.F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914-927.
Mill, J.S. (1989). JS Mill:'On Liberty'and Other Writings: Cambridge University Press.
Paskov, M., & Dewilde, C. (2012). Income inequality and solidarity in Europe. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(4), 415-432.
Paxton, P. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American Sociological Review, 67, 254-277.
Podder, N. (1996). Relative deprivation, envy and economic inequality. Kyklos, 49(3), 353-376.
Pryor, F.L. (2012). The impact of income inequality on values and attitudes. Journal of Socio-Economics, 41(5), 615-622.
Putnam, R.D. (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community: Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R.Y. (1994). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy: Princeton University Press.
Runciman, W.G. (1966). Relative Deprivation & Social Justice: Study Attitudes Social Inequality in 20th Century England: Berkeley and Los Angeles University of California Press.
Schoeck, H., Glenny, M., & Ross, B. (1969). Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour. London: Secker & Warburg.
Sorokin, P.A. (1959). Social and Cultural Mobility: Free Press.
Stjernø, S. (2009). Solidarity in Europe: The History of An Idea: Cambridge University Press.
Stockemer, D., & Carbonetti, B. (2010). Why do richer democracies survive?—The non-effect of unconventional political participation. Social Science Journal, 47(2), 237-251.
Tocqueville, A. (1969). Democracy in America (J. Mayer Ed.). New York: Harper Perennial.
Verba, S., & Nie, N.H. (1972). Participation in America: Social Equality and Political Democracy: University of Chicago Press.
Wilkinson, R.G., & Pickett, K.E. (2007). The problems of relative deprivation: why some societies do better than others. Social Science & Medicine, 65(9), 1965-1978.
Wilkinson, R.G., & Pickett, K.E. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better: Allen Lane.
Yaish, M., & Andersen, R. (2012). Social mobility in 20 modern societies: The role of economic and political context. Social Science Research, 41(3), 527-538.
Yitzhaki, S. (1979). Relative deprivation and the Gini coefficient. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 321-324.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊