Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0120121-113427 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0120121-113427
論文名稱
Title
高雄市民罷免韓國瑜之投票意向探討
A Study of Voting Intention in Recall Election of Kaohsiung City Mayor Han Kuo-yu
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
86
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2021-01-28
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2021-02-20
關鍵字
Keywords
韓國瑜、施政評價、政黨支持、罷免、背叛感
party support, recall election, betray, Han Kuo-yu, governance evaluation
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 348 次,被下載 93
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 348 times, has been downloaded 93 times.
中文摘要
2018年高雄市長選舉讓韓國瑜快速崛起,提出政策或言行舉止,引起全台民眾熱議。但是韓國瑜就任高雄市長未滿一年即決定參選2020年總統大選,引起輿論一片譁然,對他最嚴厲的批判係「落跑市長」,其餘批判則針對韓國瑜的執政效能不佳,尤其是市府強打的路平專案。然而高雄市民對韓國瑜的施政評價呈現兩極化,反對者強烈厭惡,支持者讚譽有加,此情況顯示政黨認同為重要的影響因素。
  本研究以高雄市民對韓國瑜罷免案的投票意向為依變數,政黨支持為自變數,施政評價與背叛感為中介變數,探測因果關係與中介效果。經由文獻探討得知,政黨認同是選民長期的心理依附,不僅直接影響投票行為,亦影響其他變數;施政評價則是影響選民投票行為的短期因素,選民回溯評估執政者表現,評價好則繼續支持,評價差則轉投給挑戰者。施政評價會受主觀的政黨認同影響。背叛則是以韓國瑜決定競選總統而被批判落跑所建構出之變數,選民的道德認知能產生直覺式的決策。背叛此道德原則若啟動作用,被認為是叛徒者,人們會想懲罰、放逐或殺死他們。
  本文就政黨支持部分特別區分出2014年支持陳菊但2018年支持韓國瑜的「搖擺選民」,關注他們的投票意向影響因素,並深入探討本研究特別建構的「背叛感」變數。研究結果發現,政黨支持是投票意向的主要影響變數,背叛發揮中介效果,施政評價則無中介效果。說明背叛的道德原則藉由政黨支持的催化影響投票意向,使落跑市長成為罷免案的主軸論述。但部分高雄市民能仍客觀分辨執政者的施政效能,並給予評價作為投票決策的依據。年齡20-39歲的選民則是罷免投票中主要同意罷免的族群;教育程度則是與有無背叛感呈現負向關係。
Abstract
Han Kuo-yu aroused exceptionally in 2018 Kaohsiung mayor election. His personalities and behaviors had caused lots of attentions and discussions all over Taiwan. However, as new city mayor, he decided to run for president for KMT in the first year of first term. It generated an uproar in the public that people started to criticize him as a “run off mayor”. There was not only critics of Han’s running off, also critics of Han’s governing performance, especially in the policy of road quality improving construction that Han had been bragging about. Han’s supporters highly praised it, on the other hand, Han’s opposers exceedingly despised it, opinions were polarized.
In literature review, party identification is long term psychological attachment, it determines how voters perceive the world and deciding votes, and it effects other variables. Governing performance evaluation is short term factor that effects voting decisions, for voters tend to cast votes to incumbent due to good evaluation and cast votes to challenger due to bad evaluation of incumbent. As for betray, is constructed from by the fact that Han’s run-off, it could drive people’s mind to the unambiguous direction, people decide intuitively at first hand and justify the decision afterward. Once betray functions as an ethical principle, those who betrays are no longer teammates, they should be punished, exiled, or killed.
This research set party support as an independent variable, voting intention as a dependent variable. Governance evaluation and betray (run off mayor) are set as mediators, for detecting causality and mediation between them. Results show that, the main factor to voting intention is party support, betray shows mediation, but governing evaluation dose not. This explains party support effects voting intention through sense of betray, making run-off become the main argument in the recall election. However, citizens in Kaohsiung are still able evaluate incumbent’s governing performance objectively, and consider it as a reason for deciding how to vote. Voters’ age between 20-39 are the main group of agree in recall election; the sense of betray was related to educational level negatively.
目次 Table of Contents
目錄
論文審定書 i
論文公開授權書 ii
誌謝 iii
摘要 iv
Abstract v
目錄 vii
圖次 ix
表次 x
第一章:緒論 1
1.1研究背景及動機 1
1.2研究目的 3
1.3章節安排 5
1.4 研究範圍與限制 5
第二章:文獻探討與理論歸結 7
2.1 選舉與罷免 7
2.2 回溯投票模型 8
2.3 政治道德原則:背叛 13
2.4 我國投票行為相關文獻 15
2.5 我國罷免制度及相關研究 18
2.6 小結 22
第三章:研究方法 24
3.1 研究設計 24
3.2 研究假設 26
3.3 研究方法與資料來源 28
3.4 變數說明與建構 28
3.4.1 依變數 28
3.4.2 自變數 29
3.4.3 中介變數 30
3.4.4 控制變數 32
第四章:資料分析與模型檢定 33
4.1描述性統計分析 33
4.1.1 罷免案投票意向 33
4.1.2 施政評價滿意與否 34
4.1.3 政黨支持分布 35
4.1.4 背叛感受 36
4.2 變數之交叉分析 37
4.2.1 政黨支持與投票意向 37
4.2.2 政黨支持與施政評價 38
4.2.3 政黨支持與背叛感受 39
4.2.4 施政評價與投票意向 41
4.2.5 背叛感受與投票意向 41
4.3 投票意向影響因素的回歸模型分析 43
4.3.1 政黨支持的影響力 43
4.3.2 中介變數對投票意向之影響 45
4.4.3 中介效果之檢證 47
第五章:結論 50
5.1 研究結果 50
5.2 研究建議 54
5.3 研究展望 55
參考文獻 56
附錄一:問卷 65
附錄二:本研究R語言分析編碼 69
參考文獻 References
參考文獻
華文部分

王業立(2017)。政治學與臺灣政治。台北市:雙葉。
王柏耀(2004)。經濟評估與投票抉擇:以2001年立委選舉為例。選舉研究,11(1),171-195。
石之瑜(1998)。「威權人格」研究的今昔。問題與研究,37(9),67-86。
包正豪(2017)。政黨形象與原住民投票選擇。選舉研究,24(1),61-96。
----------(2013)。人格特質與施政滿意度:以馬英九總統為個案的探索性研究。法政學報,25,1-26。
----------(2009)。政黨認同者等於政黨鐵票?2000-2008總統選舉中選民投票抉擇之跨時性分析。淡江人文社會學刊,40,67-89。
李冠成(2020)。政治情緒與選舉參與:2012年和2016年臺灣總統選舉的經驗分析。人文及社會科學集刊,32(1),81-122。
何思因(1994)。台灣地區選民政黨偏好的變遷:1989-1992。選舉研究,1(1),39-52。
吳重禮(2008)。政黨偏好、制衡認知與分裂投票-2006年北高市長暨議員選舉的實證分析。臺灣民主季刊,5(2),27-85。
吳重禮、許文賓(2003)。誰是政黨認同者與獨立選民?-以二○○一年台灣地區選民政黨認同的決定因素為例。政治科學論叢,18,101-140。
吳重禮、李世宏(2003)。總統施政表現對於國會選舉影響之初探:以2001年立法委員選舉為例。理論與政策,17(1),27-52。
邱皓政(2019)。量化研究法(二)統計原理與分析技術。台北市:雙葉。
林長志、黃記(2007)。不同層級選舉中之一致與分裂投票:2005年台北縣之分析。問題與研究,46(1),1-32。
俞振華(2012)。探討總統施政評價如何影響地方選舉-以2009 年縣長選舉為例。選舉研究,19(1),69-95。
姚怡平(譯)(2015)。好人總是自己為是:政治與宗教如何將我們四分五裂(原作者:Jonathan Haidt)。新北市:大和書報圖書。(原著出版年:2012)
徐火炎(1995)。「李登輝情節」與省市長選舉的投票行為—一項政治心理學的分析。選舉研究,2(2),1-36。
徐子軒(2015)。政治人物之人格與動機如何影響政策:以2 0 0 8 ~ 2 0 1 2 年馬英九總統任期為例。民主與治理,2(1),65-86。
曹修源、方鄒昭聰、林慶昌、吳采軒(2019)。創新的社群文字探勘方法分析2018 台北市市長候選人形象定位。電子商務研究,17(4),277-293。
張傳賢(2012)。政黨認同、負面資訊的競爭與選民投票抉擇:2010年五都選舉的實證研究。選舉研究,19(2),37-70。
----------(2000)。台灣選民政黨認同的持續與變遷。選舉研究,7(2),109-139。
盛杏湲(2002)。統獨議題與台灣選民的投票行為:一九九○年代的分析。選舉研究,1(9),41-80。
----------(2010)。台灣選民政黨認同的穩定與變遷:定群追蹤資料的應用。選舉研究,17(2),1-33。
盛盈仙、曾馨婷、盧國益、蘇若萍(譯)(2017)。政治學(原作者:Andrew Heywood)。台北市:雙葉書廊。(原著出版年:2016)
邱俊廷、廖達琪、蔡雲琤、楊雅汝(2019)。個人化是王道?柯文哲與韓國瑜臉書經營策略之比較。張佑宗(主持人),社群媒體時代的政治學:新資訊社會中的台灣民主。2019年台灣政治學會年會暨「社群媒體時代的政治學:新資訊社會中的台灣民主」國際學術研討會,國立中正大學。
黃志呈、許勝懋(2012)。民眾之兩岸經貿交流認知—實質利益或政黨認同考量?2010台北市、台中市、高雄市直轄市長選舉個案分析。城市學學刊,3(2),107-151。
黃紀(2018)。政黨偏好是好左右經濟評估?定群追蹤之因果效應分析。選舉研究,25(2),89-115。
黃秀端(2008)。國會監督、立委表現與選舉課責,臺灣民主季刊,5(1),161-169。
----------(2006)。兩大黨對決局面儼然形成。臺灣民主季刊,4(3),181-190。
----------(2005)。候選人形象、候選人情感溫度計、與總統選民投票行為。臺灣民主季刊,4(2),1-30。
黃智聰、程小綾(2005)。經濟投票與政黨輪替-以台灣縣市長選舉為例,選舉研究,12(2),45-78。
黃德福、黃靖麟(2008)。回溯投票或議題投票:2005年台北縣與高雄縣長選舉之比較分析。選舉研究,15(1),19-49。
莊文忠、徐明莉、黃東益、李仲彬(2017)。政黨認同如何影響選民對政府清廉的評價。東吳政治學報,35(1),93-142。
游清鑫、蔡宗漢、林長志(2017)。政治課責與選民投票行為-以2014年高雄市氣爆事件為例。臺灣民主季刊,14(4),101-137。
游清鑫、范惕維(2014)。選制差異影響選舉課責的探索研究:以立法委員選舉為例。民主與治理,1(1),111-141。
傅明穎(1998),北市選民的候選人評價與投票決定。台灣政治學刊,3,195-243。
廖達琪、陳月卿、林祐聖、陳東升、葉欣怡、康世昊、沈有忠(2020)。網路崛起的社會運動對臺灣的影響。高雄市:國立中山大學出版社。
劉嘉薇(2008)。2005年縣市長選舉選民投票決定之影響因素-台北縣、台中市、雲林縣以及高雄縣的分析,臺灣民主季刊,5(1),1-43。
劉嘉薇、鄭夙芬、陳陸輝(2009)。形象與能力—2008年總統選舉中的候選人因素。載於陳陸輝、游清鑫、黃紀(主編),2008年總統選舉—論二次政黨輪替之關鍵因素(235-258頁)。台北市:五南。
董旭英、黃儀娟(譯)(2000)。次級資料研究法(原作者:David W. Stewart & Michael A Kamins)。台北市:弘智文化。(原作出版年:1993)
陳義彥(2003)。台灣選舉行為調查研究的回顧與展望~「TEDS2001」學術研討會圓桌論壇講詞。選舉研究,10(1),1-6。
陳陸輝、耿曙(2008)。政治效能感與政黨認同對選民投票抉擇的影響-以2002年北高市長選舉爲例。臺灣民主季刊,5(1),87-118。
陳陸輝(2018)。情緒政治與2016總統選舉。選舉研究,25(2),31-53。
蔡宗漢、游清鑫(2018)。政府責任與課責行為:理論與測量。台灣政治學刊,22(2),47-102。
蔡佳泓(2012)。選舉課責:以2009年台灣縣市長選舉為例。社會科學叢論,6(2),35-68。
蔡佳泓、徐永明、黃琇庭(2007)。兩極化政治:解釋台灣2004總統大選,選舉研究,14(1),1-31。
韓國瑜(2009)。從基層地方舉罷免看地方自治發展的困境與衝擊:以雲林縣林內鄉鄉長罷免個案為例。選舉評論,6,91-106。
蕭怡靖、黃紀(2011)。施政表現在不同層級地方選舉中的影響:2009年雲林縣縣長及鄉鎮市長選舉之分析,選舉研究,18(2),59-86。
蕭怡靖、游清鑫(2008)。施政表現與投票抉擇的南北差異-2006年北高市長選舉的探討,臺灣民主季刊,5(2),1-25。
蕭怡靖(2017)。競選期間選民對候選人評價的變化:以2012 年台灣總統選舉為例,選舉研究,24(2),1-38。
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。
----------(1993)。候選人形象與選民投票行為的關聯分析。選舉行為與台灣地區的政治民主化--第二屆立法委員選舉探討,62-81,主持人陳義彥,計畫編號:NSC82-0301-H004- 034。
鄭夙芬、陳陸輝、劉嘉薇(2005)。2004年總統候選人中的候選人因素。臺灣民主季刊,2(2),31-70。

西文部分

Achen, Christopher H. and Wang, T. Y. (2017). The Taiwan Voter: An Introduction. In Christopher H. Achen, & T. Y. Wang(Eds.), The Taiwan Voter(pp.1-23), Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Achen, Christopher H., & Bartels, Larry M. (2016). Democracy for Realist: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
-----------. (2004). Musical Chairs: Pocketbook Voting and the Limits of Democratic Accountability. Presented at APSA Annual Meeting, Sep. 1-5, Chicago, IL.
-----------. (2002). Blind retrospection: electoral responses to drought, flu, and shark attacks. Presented at APSA Annual Meeting, Aug. 29-31, Boston, MA.
Alvarez, R. Michael, Goodrich, Melanie, Hall, Thad E., Kiewiet, D. Roderick and Sled, Sarah M. (2004). The Complexity of the California Recall Election. Political Science and Politics, 37(1), 23-26.
Alvarez, R. Michael and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. (2009). Rationality and Rationalistic Choice in the California Recall. British Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 367-290.
Anderson, Christopher J. (2007). The End of Economic Voting? Contingency Dilemmas and The Limits of Democratic Accountability. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 271-296.
Barreto, Matt A. & Ramírez, Ricardo. (2004). Minority Participation and the California Recall: Latino, Black, and Asian Voting Trends, 1990-2003, Political Science and Politics, 37(1), 11-14.
Barreto, Matt A., Streb, Mattew J., Marks, Mara and Guerra, Fernando. (2006). Do Absentee Voters Differ from Polling Place Voters? New Evidence from California. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(2), 224-234.
Barro, Robert J. (1973). The Control of Politicians: An Economic Model. Public Choice, 14, 19-42.
Bartels, Larry M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behaviors, 24(2), 117-150.
Berry, Christopher R., & Howell, William G. (2007). Accountability and Local Elections: Rethinking Retrospective Voting. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 844-858.
Boyd, Richard W. (1986). Electoral Change and Floating Voter: The Reagan Elections. Political Behaviors, 8(3), 230-244.
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., & Strokes, Donald E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Carriquiry, Alicia L. (2011). Election Forensics and the 2004 Venezuelan Presidential Recall Referendum as a Case Study. Statistical Science, 26(4), 471-478.
Cheibub, José Antonio, & Przeworski, Adam. (1999). Democracy, Elections, and Accountability for Economic Outcomes. In Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes & Bernard Manin (Eds.), Democracy, Accountability (pp.222-249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Choi, Eunjung. (2010). Economic Voting in Taiwan: The Significance of Education and Lifetime Economic Experiences. Asian Survey, 50 (5), 990-1010.
Claassen, Ryan L. (2007). Floating Voters and Floating Activists: Political Change and Information. Political Research Quarterly, 60(1), 124-134.
Converse, Philip E. (2006). The Nature of Belief System in Mass Public (1964). Critical Review, 18(1-3), 1-74.
Diamond, Larry. (2008). The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. New York: Henry Holt Books.
Downs, Anthony. (1957). An Economic Theory to Democracy. New York: Harper.
Dunleavy, Patrick & O’Leary, Brendan. (1987). Theories of the State: The Politics of Liberal Democracy. Hampshire: Macmillan.
Duverger, Maurice. (1986). Duverger’s Law: Forty Years Later. In Bernard Grofman, & Arend Lijphart (Eds.), Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequence (pp,69-84). New York: Agathon Press.
Dye, Thomas. R & Zeigler, Harmon. (2006). The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Elster, Jon. (1999). Accountability in Athenian Politics. In Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes & Bernard Manin (Eds.), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation (pp.253-278). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Fearon, James. D. (1999). Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance. In In Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes & Bernard Manin (Eds.), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation (pp.57-97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fiorina, Morris. P. (1978). Economic Retrospective Voting in American National Elections: A Micro-Analysis. American Journal of Political Sciences, 22(2), 426-443.
-----------. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Fiorina, Morris. P., Sam Abrams, & Jeremy Pope. (2003). Can Retrospective Voting Be Saved?. British Journal of Political Science, 33 (2): 163–87.
Ferejohn, John. (1986). Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control. Public Choice, 50, 5-25.
-----------. (1999). Accountability and Authority: Toward a Theory of Political Accountability. In Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes & Bernard Manin (Eds.), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation (pp.131-153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garrett, Elizabeth. (2004). Democracy in the Wake of the California Recall. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153(1), 239-284.
Hall, Peter. A, & Taylor, Rosemary C. R. (1998). The potential of historical institutionalism: A response to Hay and Wincott. Political Studies, 46(5), 958-962.
-----------. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalism. Political Studies, 64, 936-957.
Handelman, Howard, & Tessler, Mark. (1999). Democracy and its Limits: Lessons from Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Healy, Andrew J., & Malhotra, Neil. (2013). Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 285-306.
-----------. (2010). Random Events, Economic Losses, and Retrospective Voting: Implications for Democratic Competence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5(2), 193-208.
-----------. (2009). Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy. American Political Science Review.103, 387-406.
Healy, Andrew J., and Malhotra, Neil & Mo, Cecilia. (2010). Irrelevant Events Affect Voters’ Evaluations of Government Performance. Proceeding of the National Academy Sciences, 107(29), 12804-9.
Held, David. (2006). Models of Democracy (Third Edition). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hocheschild, Jennifer, Page, Benjamin I., Stimson, & James A. 2009. Perspective on Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of The New Gilded Age. Perspective on Politics, 7(1), 145-153.
Key, V.O., Jr. (1966). The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Kinder, Donald R., & Kiewiet, D. Roderick. (1981). Sociotropic Politics: The American Case. British Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 129-161。
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard & Gaudet, Hazel. (1948). The People’s Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lau, Richard R., & Redlawsk, David P. (2006). How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landa, Dimitri, & Pevnick, Ryan. (2020). Representative Democracy as Defensible Epistocracy. American Political Science Review, 114(1), 1-13.
Lewis-Beck, Micheal S. (1988). Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Lewis-Beck, Micheal S., Jacoby, William G., Norpoth, Helmut, & Weisberg, Herbert F. (2008). The American Voter Revisited. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Lupia, Arthur, & MaCubbins, Mathew D. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Express.
Manin, Bernard, Stokes, Susan C., & Przeworski, Adam. (1999). Elections and Representation. In Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes & Bernard Manin (Eds.), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation (pp.29-54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manin, Bernard. (1997). Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Express.
Maravall, José María. (1999). Accountability and Manipulation. In Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes & Bernard Manin (Eds.), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation (pp.154-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michels, Robert. (1962). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: The Crowell-Collier Publishing Company.
Niemi, Richard G., Weisberg, Hebert F., & Kimball, David C. (2011). Controversies in Voting Behavior (5th ed). Washington: CQ Press.
Sheng, Shing-yuan & Liao, Hsiao-chuan(Mandy). (2017). Issue, Political Cleavages, and Party Competition in Taiwan. In Christopher H. Achen & T. Y. Wang (Eds.), The Taiwan Voter(pp.98-138). Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Smidt, Corwin D. (2017). Polarization and the Decline of the American Floating Voter. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 365-381.
Stone, Walter J. and Datta, Monti Narayan. (2004). Rationalizing the California Recall. Political Science and Politics, 37(1), 19-21.
Sitton, Tom. (1988). Direct Democracy vs. Free Speech: Gerald L. K. Smith and the Recall Election of 1946 in Los Angeles. Pacific Historical Review, 57(3), 285-304.
Tsai, Chia-hung. 2017a. “Who is the Taiwan Voter?”, In Christopher H. Achen & T. Y. Wang (Eds.), The Taiwan Voter(pp.27-43). Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Tsai, Chia-hung. 2017b. Economic Voting in Taiwan, In Christopher H. Achen & T. Y. Wang (Eds.), The Taiwan Voter(pp.139-156). Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Yu, Ching-hsin. (2017). Parties, Partisan and Independents in Taiwan, In Christopher H. Achen & T. Y. Wang (Eds.), The Taiwan Voter(pp.71-93). Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Weghorst, Keith R. & Lindberg, Staffan I. (2013). What Drives the Swing Voter in Africa? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 717-734.
Welp, Yanina & Milanese, Juan Pablo. (2018). Playing by the rules of the game: partisan use of recall referendums in Colombia. Democratization, 25(8), 1379-1396.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內校外完全公開 unrestricted
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code