研究生: |
邱培涵 Chiu, Pei-Han |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
臺灣民眾的民粹態度與民主態度:以2020年總統選舉為例 Popular Attitudes to Populism and Democracy in Taiwan: The Case of the 2020 Presidential Election |
指導教授: |
黃信豪
Huang, Hsin-Hao |
口試委員: |
游清鑫
Yu, Ching-Hsin 周應龍 Chou, Ying-Lung 黃信豪 Huang, Hsin-Hao |
口試日期: | 2023/06/28 |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
公民教育與活動領導學系 Department of Civic Education and Leadership |
論文出版年: | 2023 |
畢業學年度: | 111 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 88 |
中文關鍵詞: | 民粹主義 、民粹態度 、民主正當性 、民主滿意度 、民主支持 、臺灣選舉與民主化調查 |
英文關鍵詞: | populism, populist attitudes, democratic legitimacy, satisfaction with democracy, support for democracy, Taiwan's Election and Democratization Study |
研究方法: | 次級資料分析 |
DOI URL: | http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202300686 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:156 下載:21 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究從大眾層次出發,分析民粹主義對民主正當性的影響。我們將解析臺灣民眾的民粹態度,分析其與民主態度的關係。過去研究大多主張民粹主義不利民主,然而本研究認為民粹態度的不同面向應可能對民主態度有不同的影響。因此,我們將以「權變論」作為本研究的基礎。本研究將民粹態度界定為「人民主權」、「反菁英」、「反建制」三個面向,民主態度分為「民主滿意度」與「民主支持」。我們採用TEDS 2020年總統選後調查,分別建立多元線性迴歸模型、二元邏輯迴歸模型,以釐清民粹態度與「民主滿意度」、「民主支持」的關聯性。研究結果如下:首先,我國的民粹主義者較可能為男性、政治信任低、施政評價低的民眾。第二,有「人民主權」態度者較會對民主體制展現正向情感,應有益民主正當性。第三,「反菁英」態度的民眾對民主運作有負面評價,也較不會展現其對民主制度的絕對支持,「反菁英」面向應有害民主正當性。總的來說,不同面向的民粹態度對民粹態度有不同的影響,符合本研究「權變論」的主張。故民粹主義可能對民主正當性產生威脅與壓力,也可能有助維繫民主正當性,我們不全然要以負面觀感看待民粹態度。
This study examines the impact of populism on democratic legitimacy from popular attitudes perspective. Using a "contingency theory" framework, we define populist attitudes based on three dimensions: "popular sovereignty," "anti-elitism," and "anti-establishment." Through Multiple regression analysis and Binary logistic regression model of data from Taiwan's Election and Democratization Study(TEDS 2020), we explore the relationship between "satisfaction with democracy" and "support for democracy." Findings indicate that individuals with certain characteristics, such as being male, having low political trust, and negative government performance evaluation, are more likely to exhibit populist attitudes. Those with a "popular sovereignty" attitude show positive emotions towards the democratic system, enhancing legitimacy. However, those with an "anti-elitism" attitude hold negative evaluations of democratic functioning and express less absolute support for democracy. Overall, different dimensions of populist attitudes have diverse effects on democratic attitudes, supporting the "contingency theory" proposed in this study. Populism may pose threats or pressures to democratic legitimacy, but it can also help sustain it. Thus, we should not solely view populist attitudes in a negative way.
Muller, J.(2018)。解讀民粹主義(林麗雪,譯)。時報文化。(原著出版於2017年)
王柏燿(2001)。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。
王振寰、錢永祥(1995)。邁向新國家?民粹威權主義的形成與民主問題。台灣社會研究季刊,(20),17-55。
朱美珍、陳淑娟、黃欣柔(2016)。跨越政治戒嚴的洪流─解嚴前後國中公民與道德教科書之課程演變。市北教育學刊,53,57-86。
林文正、林宗弘(2019,5月)。韓流與柯粉:台灣民粹政治的社會起源[研討會演講]。社會意向暨臺港社會發展研討會,臺北市,臺灣。
林聰吉(2007)。解析台灣的民主政治:以民主支持度與滿意度為觀察指標。選舉研究,14(1),61-84。
林聰吉(2013)。欲迎還拒:臺灣民眾對政黨必要性與政黨信任的態度分析。台灣政治學刊,17(1),185-226。
胡正光、江素慧(2020)。民粹主義在台灣—韓國瑜及其支持者。台灣國際研究季刊,16(3),155-183。
俞振華(2012)。探討總統施政評價如何影響地方選舉─以2009年縣市長選舉 為例。選舉研究,19(1),69-95。
張佑宗(2009a)。選舉輸家與民主鞏固—台灣2004年總統選舉落選陣營對民主的態度。臺灣民主季刊,6(1),41-72。
張佑宗(2009b)。搜尋台灣民粹式民主的群眾基礎。台灣社會研究季刊,(75),85-113。
張毓思(2020年1月17日)。全球民粹主義崛起,為什麼來到台灣就失靈了?。天下雜誌。https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5098666
張鐵志(2019年4月17日)。張鐵志:韓國瑜與柯文哲—台式民粹主義的兩種類型。上報。https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?Type=2&SerialNo=61397
陳陸輝(2003)。政治信任、施政表現與民眾對台灣民主的展望。台灣政治學刊,7(2),149-188。
陳陸輝(2006)。政治信任的政治後果—以2004年立法委員選舉為例。臺灣民主季刊,3(2),39-61。
陳陸輝(2019)。台灣的民主治理與政治支持。東亞研究,50(1),119-152。
郭靜晃(2016)。SPSS統計實務操作。威仕曼文化。
黃紀(2020)。2016年至2020年「選舉與民主化調查」四年期研究規劃(4/4): 2020年總統與立法委員選舉面訪案(MOST 105-2420-H-004-015-SS4)。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫。
黃信豪(2011)。民主態度的類型:台灣民眾二次政黨輪替後的分析。選舉研究,18(1),1-34。
黃信豪(2016)。大眾民主認知與政治學習—不同政治體制的比較分析。臺灣民主季刊,13(3),1-44。
黃昱珽(2014)。台灣民粹主義轉變的探討:選舉民粹主義的形成。弘光人文社會學報,(17),52-73。
黃昱珽、蔡瑞明(2015)。晚近臺灣民粹主義的發展:「人民」與「他者」想像的形成。思與言,53(3),127-163。
鄭進耀(2019年11月8日)。【看懂韓粉番外篇】每個韓粉生命中都有一個韓國瑜(下)。鏡週刊。https://www.mirrormedia.mg/premium/20191106cul009
劉嘉薇(2018)。政治知識的來源:社經地位、傳統媒體使用與新媒體使用。政治學報,(66),29-63。
蔡佳泓(2009)。台灣民眾的民主評價:以2004年為例的驗證性因素分析。社會科學論叢,3(1),151-184。
蔡明璋、潘欣欣(2021)。臺灣民粹主義者與反菁英情緒:世界價值調查臺灣資料的分析。臺灣社會學刊,(69),101-140。
閻紀宇(2020年10月27日)。閻紀宇專欄:不是只有美國瘋選舉,拉丁美洲「粉紅浪潮」蓄勢待發。風傳媒。https://www.storm.mg/article/3147237?mode=whole
賴怡君(2018年6月7日)。他剛好站在民粹浪潮風頭上 柯文哲死忠粉絲的三種樣貌。信傳媒。https://www.cmmedia.com.tw/home/articles/10273
羅鈞禧(2016年11月21日)。羅鈞禧:奧巴馬扭轉的拉美政策,將被特朗普推翻?。端傳媒。https://theinitium.com/article/20161121-opinion-michaellaw-apec/
Albertazzi, D., & McDonnell, D. (2008). Twenty-First Century Populism. Palgrave Macmillan London.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton University Press.
Akkerman, A., Mudde, C., & Zaslove, A. (2014). How Populist Are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters. Comparative Political Studies, 47(9), 1324-1353.
Arditi, B. (2004). Populism as a Spectre of Democracy: A Response to Canovan. Political Studies, 52(1), 135-143.
Canache, D., Mondak, J. J., & Seligson, M. A. (2001). Meaning and Measurement in Cross-National Research on Satisfaction with Democracy. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(4), 506-528.
Canovan, M. (1981). Populism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy. Political Studies, 47(1), 2-16.
Craig, S.C., Niemi, R.G. & Silver, G.E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Polit Behav, 12(3), 289-314.
Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices:The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford University Press.
Dennison, J., & Turnbull-Dugarte, SJ. (2022). Populist attitudes and threat perceptions of global transformations and governance: Experimental evidence from India and the United Kingdom. Political Psychology, 43(5), 873-892.
Fieschi, C., & Heywood, P. (2004). Trust, Cynicism and Populist Anti-Politics. Journal of Political Ideologies, 9(3), 289-309.
Fitzi, G. (2018). Introduction: Political Populism as a Symptom of the Great Transformation of Democracy. Populism and the Crisis of Democracy. 1-10.
Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2016). The Democratic Disconnect. Journal of Democracy, 27(3), 5-17.
Geurkink, B., Zaslove, A., Sluiter, R., & Jacobs, K. (2020). Populist Attitudes, Political Trust, and External Political Efficacy: Old Wine in New Bottles? . Political Studies, 68(1), 247-267.
Giebler, H., Hirsch, M., Schürmann, B., & Veit, S. (2021). Discontent With What? Linking Self-Centered and Society-Centered Discontent to Populist Party Support. Political Studies, 69(4), 900-920.
Hawkins, k., Riding, S., & Mudde, C. (2012). Measuring Populist Attitudes. C&M Working Paper, (55).
He, K., Eldridge II, S., & Broersma, M. (2021). Conceptualizing Populism: A Comparative Study Between China and Liberal Democratic Countries. International Journal of Communication, 15, 3006-3024.
Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton University Press.
Huber, R.A., Jankowski, M. & Wegscheider, C. (2023). Explaining Populist Attitudes: The Impact of Policy Discontent and Representation. Polit Vierteljahresschr , 64, 133-154.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization : Culture , Economic, and Political Change in 43 Society. Princeton : Princeton University Press.
Kaltwasser, C. R. (2014). The Responses of Populism to Dahl’s Democratic Dilemmas. Political Studies, 62(3), 470-487.
Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. Verso.
Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mendelberg, T. (2018). From the Folk Theory to Symbolic Politics: Toward a More Realistic Understanding of Voter Behavior. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 30 (1-2), 107-118
Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition , 39(4), 541- 563.
Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2013). Exclusionary vs. Inclusionary Populism: Comparing Contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and Opposition, 48(2), 147-174.
Mudde, C. (2017). Populism: An Ideational Approach. The Oxford Handbook of Populism, 27-47.
Pinto, J.F. (2017). Populism, is it Democracy’s Bastard or Twin? The Case of the European Union. Chinese Political Science Revi, 2, 328-344.
Rico, G., & Anduiza, E. (2019). Economic correlates of populist attitudes: an analysis of nine european countries in the aftermath of the great recession. Acta Polit , 54, 371-397.
Rooduijn, M., Brug W. & Lange S.L. (2016). Expressing or fuelling discontent? The relationship between populist voting and political discontent. Electoral Studies, 43(1), 32-40.
Schulz, A., Müller,P., Schemer, C., Wirz, D., Wettstein, M., & Wirth, W. (2018). Measuring Populist Attitudes on Three Dimensions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(2), 316-326.
Spruyt, B. (2014). An asymmetric group relation? An investigation into public perceptions of education-based groups and the support for populism. Acta Polit, (49), 123-143.
Spierings, N., & Zaslove, A. (2017). Gender, populist attitudes, and voting: explaining the gender gap in voting for populist radical right and populist radical left parties. West European Politics, 40(4), 821-847.
Taggart, P. (2000). Populism. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Učeň, P. (2007). Parties, Populism, and Anti-Establishment Politics in East Central Europe. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, 27(1), 49–62.
Urbinati, N. (1998). Democracy and Populism. Constellations, 5 (1), 110-124.
Van Hauwaert, S. M., Schimpf, C. H., & Azevedo, F. (2020). The measurement of populist attitudes:Testing cross-national scales using item response theory. Politics, 40(1), 3-21.