臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

台灣是個言論自由、開放的民主國家，人民有多種管道可以表達對於公共事務的看法，透過報章雜誌、電視媒體、公民論壇、集會遊行及投票參與等方式，都能夠反映出社會大眾的需求及觀點。近年來，所得分配不均成為國際間矚目的議題，台灣的所得分配長期來看也呈現愈來愈不公平的趨勢，人民在面對貧富差距惡化下，對於相關的社會福利政策有更迫切的需要，而政策的推行使某些人受益亦會使得某些人的賦稅成本提高，因而雙方會經由民主的過程角力，來決定政策的推行與否，表達自身需求的直接方式就是投票給合乎自身理念的政黨及候選人，因此在投票行為上，會是高所得者經由他們較多的政治資源獲益，壓抑了低所得者的投票行為，或是在高、所得者雙方積極參與，促使投票率的增加，為本研究要探討的議題。

本文使用家庭收支調查及財政部財稅資料中心的所得資料來衡量所得分配公平與否，對投票率的影響，根據迴歸分析之結果顯示，在最小平方法下，以可支配所得衡量的所得分配不均度對投票率的影響為負向顯著，符合過去學者提出的相對力量理論，即所得分配愈不均，投票率愈低；在固定效果下，兩者則不具有統計上的顯著性。

根據實證結果可以發現，台灣人在政治參與上，面對貧富差距擴大時，的確會減少投票，在民眾的意見無法充分反映至投票行為上時，政府應當積極主動傾聽人民的聲音，替百姓制定更加合乎公眾利益的法案及政策，避免當政治資源受到財團及富人壟斷時，會左右國會及政府的決策。

Taiwan is a democratic society. People have the right for free speech to show their opinions toward public affairs. Public views and people’s needs are usually reflected by the media, social movements and electoral results. Income inequality has become one of the most significant issues across countries in recent years. While the income inequality has become more severe in Taiwan over the past decades, government welfare policies are often essential. To provide more welfare benefits for the poor and needed, an increase in tax burden for wealthy people may be necessary. This may lead to a political competition on the welfare policies between the poor and the rich through electoral participation to express their preferences over government’s redistributive policies. It has been argued that the high-income people with more political resources have an advantage over the low-income people in competing for redistributive policies through voting. However, this argument has not extensively examined for the case in Taiwan. This research attempts to investigate people’s electoral participation in competing for redistributive policies in Taiwan, while the society’s income inequality has continued to increase drastically over the past decades.

This research utilizes the data from the Survey of Family Income and Expenditure and the Financial Statics of the Ministry of Finance in Taiwan. The empirical results using the OLS model from this study show that, the level of income inequality measured by the disposable income has a significantly negative effect on voting turnout, which is consistent with the relative power theory addressed in previous literature. That is, the more unequal the distribution of income is, the lower turnout rate will be. However, this negative effect becomes less statistically significant with the fixed effect estimations. Based on the results from this study, it is found that the turnout rates decrease with the larger poverty gap in Taiwan. Public opinions for redistributive policies might not be fully reflected in the electoral results and the high-income people often have an advantage in expressing their preferences through voting.

第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究動機與背景 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、重分配政策 10
第二節、投票行為的決定因素 14
第三節、黨派傾向對於投票決策的影響 18
第四節、國內文獻對於政治參與的探討 23
第五節、小結 25
第三章、理論基礎與實證模型 27
第一節、理論基礎來源 27
第二節、實證模型與設立 32
第四章、資料來源與變數定義 34
第一節、資料來源 34
第二節、變數定義 35
第三節、敘述統計 39
第五章、實證結果分析 44
第一節、不同的所得分配指標在OLS下之實證結果 45
第二節、不同的所得分配指標在固定效果及隨機效果下的實證結果 52
第六章、結論與建議 56
第一節、結論 57
第二節、建議 59
第三節、研究限制與未來研究方向 60
參考資料 61
附錄 65

中文文獻
胡佛，1998。《政治參與與選舉行為》。台北：三民書局。
徐偉初、歐俊男、謝文盛，2008。《財政學》，二版。台北：華泰文化事業股份，
有限公司。
黃世鑫、余漢儀、吳炎成、鄭文輝、蔡爵霙，1992。《我國全民社會醫療保險制
度之研究》。台北：業強出版社。
楊孟麗，2003。＜投票意願與經濟不景氣：台灣的情形＞。《選舉研究》10，2：
159-191。
廖益興，2006，＜台灣選民投票參與行為的研究＞。《中華行政學報》，(3)：185-202。
游雅嵐，2005，＜投票率研究之初探＞。東吳大學學政治學研究所碩士論文。
吳親恩，2007，＜所得分配惡化對公共支出增加的影響：1980-2004＞。東吳政治學報。

英文文獻
Alesina, A. and Rodrik, D., 1994. Distributive Politics and Economic Growth.Quarterly Journal of Economics. 109, 465–490.
Ansolabehere, S.,.deFigueiredo, J. M., and Snyder, J. M., Jr. 2003. Why Is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?Journal of Economic Perspectives.17 (1), 105-30.
Arrow, K. J., 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.
Bachrach, P. and Baratz M. S., 1970. Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. London: Oxford University Press.
Bassili, J. N., 1995. On The Psychological Reality of Party Identification: Evidence from The Accessibility of Voting Intentions and of Partisan Feelings.Political Behavior.17 (4), 339-358.
Bartels, L., 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. New York:Russell Sage.
Black, D., 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brady, H. E. 2004. An Analytical Perspective on Participatory Inequality and Income Inequality.In Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 667-702.
Brunner, E .J., Ross, S., and Washington, E. L. 2011. Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?NationBureauof Economic. Research Cambridge, MA.02138
Edlund, L. and Pande, R. 2002. Why have Women Become Left-Wing: the Political Gender Gap and the Decline in Marriage, Quarterly Journal of Economics. 117(3), 917-961.
Erikson, R. S. and Bhatti, Y. 2011. How Poorly Are The Poor Represented in The US Senate? In Who Gets Represented?eds. Peter Enns and Christopher Wlezian. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Finseraas, H. 2007. Voter Turnout, Income Inequality, and Redistribution.PaperPrepared for Presentation at The ECPR Conference in Pisa.
Franklin, C. H., and John E. J., 1983.The Dynamics of Party Identification,American Political Science Review. 77, 957-973.
Franzese, Robert J., 1998.Political Participation, Income Distributionand Public Transfers in Developed Democracies.Departmentof Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Typescript.
Franzese, R. J. 2002.Macroeconomic Policies of Developed Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gelman, A., Shor,B., Park,D., and Bafumi,J., 2007. Rich State, Poor State,Red State, Blue State: What’s the Matter with Connecticut?Quarterly Journal of PoliticalScience.2(4), 345-367.
Gelman, A., Shor, B., Park, D., and Cortina,J., 2009. Red State, Blue State,Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote The Way They Do, 2nd ed. New York: Princeton University Press.
Gelman, A., Kenworthy, L. and Su Yu-Sung, 2010. Income Inequality and Partisan Voting in The United States. Social Science Quarterly.91(5).1203-1219.
Goodin, R. and Dryzek, J., 1980. Rational Participation: The Politics of Relative Power.British Journal of Political Science.10(3), 273-92.
Leigh, A., 2005. Economic Voting and Electoral Behavior: How Do Individual,Local and National Factors Affect the Partisan Choice? Economics and Politics.17(2):265-296.
Lijphart, A. 1997. Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma. American Political Science Review. 91(3), 1-14.
Lukes, S., 2005. Power: A Radical View. Second ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
McCarty, N. M., Poole, K. T., and Rosenthal,H., 2006.Polarized America: TheDance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meltzer, A. H. and Richard, S. F., 1981.A Rational Theory of the Size of Government.Journal of Political Economy.89(5), 914-927.
Milanovic, B., 2000. The Median Voter Hypothesis, Income Inequality, and Income Redistribution: An Empirical Test with the Required Data. European Journal of Political Economy. 16(3), 367-410.
Moene, K. O. and Wallerstein, M., 2001.Inequality, Social Insurance, and Redistribution.American Political Science Review. 95 (4), 859-874.
Oliver, J. E., 2001. Democracy in Suburbia.Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Persson, T. and Tabellini, G., 2003.The Economic Effects of Constitutions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Romer, T., 1975.Individual Welfare, Majority Voting, and the Properties of a Linear Income Tax.Journal of Public Economics.14(5), 163–85.
Schattschneider, E. E., 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
Solt, F., 2008.Economic Inequality and Democratic Political Engagement.American Journal of Political Science. 52(1), 48-60.
Solt, F., 2010. Does Economic Inequality Depress Electoral Participation? Testing the Schattschneider Hypothesis.Political Behavior. 32(2), 285-301.
Verba, S. Schlozman, K. L. and Brady, H. E. 1995.Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weston, R. and Smyth, B., 2000. Financial Living Standards After Divorce. Family Matters(Australian Institute of Family Studies). (55), 11-15.