| 摘要(英) |
After a long period of martial law, Taiwan′s gradual democratization and success from the dictatorship to the democratic regime since the 1990s, Taiwan has become a successful example of the third wave of democratization. The political and economic environment of Taiwan today is quite democratic and free. But compared to the political democratization, in terms of income growth, Taiwan can be said to be stagnant in the dilemma in the past decade. Compared with the economic development that Taiwan has been praised by the world in the dictatorship, the economic development is not as good as the dictatorship in the recent years after the successful democratization. This can not help but wonder whether to pursue democratization for economic growth is absolutely beneficial.
Therefore, this study will focus on populism to discuss the problem of Taiwan′s wage stagnation and to compare the four tigers in Asia, the main concept of populism is that politics must follow the people′s preferences, that is, different issues in society must respect and refer to the voice of the people, in this case, it is proud to be a democratic country, but on the other hand it will make the implementation of the policy inefficient, the ruling party may only consider the short-term interests of the ruling party and ignore the long-term development of the country, and ultimately will hamper the overall economic growth of the country.
This paper studies countries for Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, the study period is from 1990 to 2013, the dependent variable is Log per capita GDP (PPP), the main independent variable pop is the result of the conversion of media degrees of freedom, it can be used as quantitative data of populism in this study, and to use the square of pop to discuss whether there is a turning point. After observing the results of the regression, it was found that the pop of Taiwan and Hong Kong were positive to negative; South Korea was negative; there is no significant impact in Singapore. that is, excessive prosperity of populism is not beneficial to the growth of Taiwan and Hong Kong′s income. |
| 參考文獻 |
一、中文文獻
江宜樺 (2001)，《自由民主的理路》，初版，台北：聯經出版社。
吳介民 (2003)，「解除「民粹」的魔咒」，《新新聞周報》，869，2017年6月30日取自於：https://sites.google.com/site/wujiehmin/home/she-hui-zheng-zhi-ping-lun/jie-chu-min-cui-de-mo-zhou
林淑芬 (2005)，「「人民」 作主 ? 民粹主義、民主與人民」，《政治與社會學評論》，12：141-18。
林宗弘 (2007)，「民主與威權的制度績效︰亞洲四小龍政治經濟發展的量化分析」，《台灣政治學刊》，11(11)：3-67。
梁明義與王文音 (2002)，《台灣半世紀以來快速經濟發展的回顧與省思》，2017年6月30日取自於：
http://www.tedc.org.tw/sol/handout13.pdf
張佑宗 (2009)，「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。
黃光國 (2004)，《民粹亡台記》，初版，台北：民主行動聯盟。
黃昱珽 (2013)，「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。
歐陽利姝與馬泰成 (2013)，「經濟成長與民主政治－臺灣的實證經驗」，《人文及社會科學集刊》，25(3)：485-524。
褚瑞婷 (2013)，「新聞議題不能只流於民粹的極大值」，《國政評論》，2017年6月30日取自於：
http://www.npf.org.tw/1/12920
陳方隅 (2015)，《台灣充滿民粹嗎?談「民粹主義」做為名詞和形容詞》，2017年6月30日取自於：
http://whogovernstw.org/2015/09/26/fangyuchen12/
陶儀芬 (2008)，「全球化、民粹主義與公共知識社群」，《思想》，9：223-231。
羅天人 (2015)，《民粹主義與公民政治參與》，2015年建構公民社會學術研討會。
二、英文文獻
Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, James Robinson and Pierre Yared. 2005. “Income and Democracy.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 11205.
Barro, Robert J. 1997. “Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Study.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 5698.
Barro, Robert J. 1999. “Determinants of Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy, 107(6):158-183.
Barro, Robert J. 2000. “Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries.” Journal of Economic Growth, 5(1):5-32.
Baum, Matthew A. and David A. Lake. 2003. “The Political Economy of Growth: Democracy and Human Capital.” American Journal of Political Science, 47(2):333-347.
Bollen, Kenneth A. and Robert W. Jackman. 1985. “Political Democracy and the Size Distribution of Income.”American Sociological Review, 50(4):438-57.
Canovan, Margaret. 1981. Populism. Junction Books.
Canovan, Margaret. 1999. “Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy.”Political Studies, 47(1):2-16.
Doucouliagos, Hristos and Mehmet Ali Ulubaşoğlu. 2008. “Democracy and Economic Growth: A Meta-analysis.”American Journal of Political Science, 52(1):61-83.
Forbes, Kristin J. 2000. “A Reassessment of the Relationship between Inequality and Growth.”American Economic Review, 90(4):869-887.
Freedom house. 2017. “Freedom in the World 2017: Populists and Autocrats: The Dual Threat to Global Democracy.” https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FIW_2017_Report_Final.pdf (accessed June 30, 2017)
Goodell, Grace and John P. Powelson. 1982. “The Democratic Prerequisites of Development.” Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties, New York: Freedom House.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. Yale University Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Hausmann, Ricardo, Lant Pritchett and Dani Rodrik. 2005.“Growth Accelerations.”Journal of Economic Growth, 10(4):303-329.
Johnson, Chalmers. 1982. MITI and Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy: 1925-1975. Stanford University Press.
Kuznets, Simon. 1955. “Economic Growth and Income Inequality.” The American Economic Review, 45(1):1-28.
Knack, Stephen and Philip Keefer. 1997. “Does Inequality Harm Growth Only in Democracies? A Replication and Extension.” American Journal of Political Science, 41(1):323-332.
Knowles, Stephen. 2005. “Inequality and Economic Growth: The Empirical Relationship Reconsidered in the Light of Comparable Data.”The Journal of Development Studies, 41(1):135-159.
Kurzman, Charles, Regina Werum and Ross E. Burkhart. 2002. “Democracy’s Effect on Economic Growth: A pooled Time-series Analysis, 1951-1980.”Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(1):3-33.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review, 53(1):69-105.
Mukhopadhaya, Pundarik. 2003. “Trends in Income Disparity and Equality Enhancing (?) Education Policies in the Development Stages of Singapore.” International Journal of Educational Development, 23(1):37-56.
Mudde, Cas. 2004. “The Populist Zeitgeist.” Government and Opposition, 39(4):541-563.
Mazzoleni, Gianpietro. 2008. “Populism and the Media.” In Twenty-First Century Populism: The spectre of Western European democracy, ed. Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell, 49-64. Palgrave Macmillan.
Perotti, Roberto. 1996. “Growth, Income Distribution, and Democracy: What the Data Say.” Journal of Economic Growth, 1(2):149-187.
Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, New York: Modern Library.
Soysa, Indra de. 2003. Foreign Direct Investment, Democracy and Development, Assessing Contours, Correlates and Concomitants of Globalization. Routledge.
Schwarz, Gerhard. 1992. “Democracy and Market-Oriented Reform: A Love-Hate Relationship?”Economic Education Bulletin, 32(5):13-128.
Sirowy, Larry and Alex Inkeles. 1990. “The Effects of Democracy on Economic Growth and Inequality: A Review.” Studies in Comparative International Development, 25(1):126-157.
Sen, Amartya Kumar. 1999. “Democracy as a Universal Value.” Journal of Democracy, 10(3):3-17.
Zakaria, Fareed and Lee Kuan Yew. 1994. “Culture Is Destiny: A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew.” Foreign Affairs, 73(2):109-126. |
[Endnote RIS 格式]
[相關文章]
[文章引用]
[完整記錄]
[館藏目錄]
[檢視]
plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
facebook
twitter
google
reddit