21世纪台湾政党转换中的民进党“总统”竞选策略探析
|
摘要
一、研究缘起
2000年的台湾“总统”大选,民进党籍候选人陈水扁,在1546万张选票中,以39.3%的得票率,在近五百万票的相对多数情况下获胜,成为台湾的新领导人。国民党这个台湾政坛上的庞然大物,一夜之间分崩离析,五十余年的执政历史,至此告一个段落。民进党人入主“总统府”,实现了台湾政党的轮换,台湾五十年的政治生态,瞬间解体重构。
2004年的台湾“总统”大选,3月20日晚在连宋抗议声中,执政业绩不佳的陈吕配,以6,471,970票对6,442,452票,不到三万票的微小差距,击败国亲联盟的连宋配,获得继续执政的机会。
民进党一次以相对多数取得了政权,一次以有争议的微弱优势获得连任,这只是一种巧合吗?
近年来,我在担任上海海峡交流公司董事长一职上有机会与台湾各界人士接触,使我萌生了研究民进党竞选策略的念头。
90年代以来全球“民主化”的浪潮对台湾政治生活产生了深刻的影响,台湾“政治民主化”的标志始于1996年的“总统大选”,这是台湾地区第一次以“直选”的方式选出最高领导人。台湾“民主化”不但改变了台湾地区人民的政治生活,同时也影响着两岸关系的发展与东亚地区的安全。伴随台湾“民主化”而形成的“台湾自主意识”与“国家认同”问题,严重冲撞着两岸关系,隐含着两岸发生军事冲突的危险。
民进党自2000年执政以来,惯常利用选举动员的方式捞取政治资源。所有的政治作为,是以选举为核心,“胜选”成了民进党政治活动最大的诱因与动力。台湾的政党体系呈现极端庸俗化的现象,“政治市场”概念取代传统的政治理念;“市场区隔”取代了“政党区隔”(political cleavage);“意识形态”取代”经济”因素成为社会分歧的源头。以政党政治的发展来看,因为理想性的丧失,
一、IntroductionThe winner of Taiwan's 2000 " Presidential " election was Chen, Shui-Ben, A Democratic Progress Party (Refer to DPP) candidate , got 39.3% of total 15,460,000 votes to won and finished the half century rule by Kuominton Party( Refer to KMT) in this Island. KMP collapsed suddenly. The DPP became the host of "President Office" from 2000, the Ruling Party turned over.In 2004 "Presidential " election, although the performance of the past 4 years was awful, Chen and Lu still won the election in a very slight difference about 30,000 votes to defeat the candidate from KMT and People's first Party (Refer to PFP), Lien and Sung, again.Is this a coincidence that DPP won the election by related majority in 2000 and won another election by very slight difference and ambiguous chaos in the process?I was the Chairman of the Shanghai Cross-Strait Communication Company during the past few years, I had the chance to meet all kinds of peoples from Taiwan and which inspire me to start this study at the field of Election Strategy of DPP in Taiwan.Indeed, the wave of "Democratilization" from early 90s deeply impacted the areas of social and political life in Taiwan. In 1996, the first direct election of the "Presidency" was the symbol of Taiwan's "Democratilization". The "Democratilization" of Taiwan is not only the change of social and political life of the Taiwan's people but also a influential factor of the stability of the Cross-Strait situation. Accompanied with the expanding of the "democracy" idea, the " Taiwan Subjectivism" and "National Identity" tasks became the hot potato between the cross strait, and might caused some potential military conflict in the future.From year 2000 the DPP became the ruling parry. To "win" all kinds of elections in Taiwan is obviously a major political purpose regardless any moral perspectives. Thus, "winning " an election is the biggest driven force to make the DPP move forward. Hence, the tendency of the political system in Taiwan is so called the process of the " secularization", which means the political rational purpose or moral are substituted by political "market"; the traditional social or political "cleavage" are
substituted by " market" value and the difference of "ideology" is the major factor of social conflict instead of "economy". This is a " Broker Party" system existed in Taiwan.In order to meet the "preference" of the voters, the " Broker Party" will try to create the voting incentive for the voters, shaping the social image of the political party to grasp every possible vote for the public. The "Broker Party" will promote themselves through the channel of Mass Media and create the special political terminology to raise public attention.This research is mainly focus on the political party competition between year 2000 to 2004 in Taiwan. It analyses the Political Market and try to find out the campaign strategy of DPP and other parties in Taiwan, besides, this research will try to provide certain predictions toward the future direction of the political party system in Taiwan.二、 Main Theoretical means and Methodology The methodology of this research is base on three theoretical means:1. "Party Politics and competition"---"political market" theory2. "political marketing" theory3. theory of "Advantage of Dominant Party" .Our research subject is the :Party Competition" in Taiwan, basically focus on DPP, time frame is from 2000 to 2004, at the " Presidential " election and Political marketing in that period.First, we have to clarify the concepts of "Party competition" and "political Market" and some relatedIn a democratic system, the broker party is in a very tactic manner to manipulate the party position at the "political spectrum" in the "Market" . When the effective party numbers are very few or just two, the political parties will move forward along with the spectrum to meet the position of medium voter, thus, it is so called " political Market" behaviors.The basis of the supporting theory is come form "spatial Model" of economist Antony Downs in 1957
2000年的台湾“总统”大选,民进党籍候选人陈水扁,在1546万张选票中,以39.3%的得票率,在近五百万票的相对多数情况下获胜,成为台湾的新领导人。国民党这个台湾政坛上的庞然大物,一夜之间分崩离析,五十余年的执政历史,至此告一个段落。民进党人入主“总统府”,实现了台湾政党的轮换,台湾五十年的政治生态,瞬间解体重构。
2004年的台湾“总统”大选,3月20日晚在连宋抗议声中,执政业绩不佳的陈吕配,以6,471,970票对6,442,452票,不到三万票的微小差距,击败国亲联盟的连宋配,获得继续执政的机会。
民进党一次以相对多数取得了政权,一次以有争议的微弱优势获得连任,这只是一种巧合吗?
近年来,我在担任上海海峡交流公司董事长一职上有机会与台湾各界人士接触,使我萌生了研究民进党竞选策略的念头。
90年代以来全球“民主化”的浪潮对台湾政治生活产生了深刻的影响,台湾“政治民主化”的标志始于1996年的“总统大选”,这是台湾地区第一次以“直选”的方式选出最高领导人。台湾“民主化”不但改变了台湾地区人民的政治生活,同时也影响着两岸关系的发展与东亚地区的安全。伴随台湾“民主化”而形成的“台湾自主意识”与“国家认同”问题,严重冲撞着两岸关系,隐含着两岸发生军事冲突的危险。
民进党自2000年执政以来,惯常利用选举动员的方式捞取政治资源。所有的政治作为,是以选举为核心,“胜选”成了民进党政治活动最大的诱因与动力。台湾的政党体系呈现极端庸俗化的现象,“政治市场”概念取代传统的政治理念;“市场区隔”取代了“政党区隔”(political cleavage);“意识形态”取代”经济”因素成为社会分歧的源头。以政党政治的发展来看,因为理想性的丧失,
一、IntroductionThe winner of Taiwan's 2000 " Presidential " election was Chen, Shui-Ben, A Democratic Progress Party (Refer to DPP) candidate , got 39.3% of total 15,460,000 votes to won and finished the half century rule by Kuominton Party( Refer to KMT) in this Island. KMP collapsed suddenly. The DPP became the host of "President Office" from 2000, the Ruling Party turned over.In 2004 "Presidential " election, although the performance of the past 4 years was awful, Chen and Lu still won the election in a very slight difference about 30,000 votes to defeat the candidate from KMT and People's first Party (Refer to PFP), Lien and Sung, again.Is this a coincidence that DPP won the election by related majority in 2000 and won another election by very slight difference and ambiguous chaos in the process?I was the Chairman of the Shanghai Cross-Strait Communication Company during the past few years, I had the chance to meet all kinds of peoples from Taiwan and which inspire me to start this study at the field of Election Strategy of DPP in Taiwan.Indeed, the wave of "Democratilization" from early 90s deeply impacted the areas of social and political life in Taiwan. In 1996, the first direct election of the "Presidency" was the symbol of Taiwan's "Democratilization". The "Democratilization" of Taiwan is not only the change of social and political life of the Taiwan's people but also a influential factor of the stability of the Cross-Strait situation. Accompanied with the expanding of the "democracy" idea, the " Taiwan Subjectivism" and "National Identity" tasks became the hot potato between the cross strait, and might caused some potential military conflict in the future.From year 2000 the DPP became the ruling parry. To "win" all kinds of elections in Taiwan is obviously a major political purpose regardless any moral perspectives. Thus, "winning " an election is the biggest driven force to make the DPP move forward. Hence, the tendency of the political system in Taiwan is so called the process of the " secularization", which means the political rational purpose or moral are substituted by political "market"; the traditional social or political "cleavage" are
substituted by " market" value and the difference of "ideology" is the major factor of social conflict instead of "economy". This is a " Broker Party" system existed in Taiwan.In order to meet the "preference" of the voters, the " Broker Party" will try to create the voting incentive for the voters, shaping the social image of the political party to grasp every possible vote for the public. The "Broker Party" will promote themselves through the channel of Mass Media and create the special political terminology to raise public attention.This research is mainly focus on the political party competition between year 2000 to 2004 in Taiwan. It analyses the Political Market and try to find out the campaign strategy of DPP and other parties in Taiwan, besides, this research will try to provide certain predictions toward the future direction of the political party system in Taiwan.二、 Main Theoretical means and Methodology The methodology of this research is base on three theoretical means:1. "Party Politics and competition"---"political market" theory2. "political marketing" theory3. theory of "Advantage of Dominant Party" .Our research subject is the :Party Competition" in Taiwan, basically focus on DPP, time frame is from 2000 to 2004, at the " Presidential " election and Political marketing in that period.First, we have to clarify the concepts of "Party competition" and "political Market" and some relatedIn a democratic system, the broker party is in a very tactic manner to manipulate the party position at the "political spectrum" in the "Market" . When the effective party numbers are very few or just two, the political parties will move forward along with the spectrum to meet the position of medium voter, thus, it is so called " political Market" behaviors.The basis of the supporting theory is come form "spatial Model" of economist Antony Downs in 1957
引文
1. Aldrich, John H. (1983a),. "A Downsian Spatial Model With Party Activism.". APSR, 77, 947-90.
2. Aldrich, John H. (1983b), "A Spatial model with Party Activists: Implication for Electroal Dynamics"o Public Choice, 41, 63-100.
3. Bendix, Reinhard, (1960), Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Garden City, NY: Doubleday)
4. Borcherding, Thomas E. (Ed.) (1977), Budgets and Bureaucrats: The Sources of Govememnt Growth. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
5. Buchanan, J. M & Tullock, G (1965), The Calculus of consent. .The University of Michigan Press..
6. Buchanan, J. M. & Flowers, M. A. (1975), The Public Finance(4th ed.). Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
7. Bush, Richard (2004), "The Ordeal of Dual Deterrence: the United States between Talwan and China," paper presented at the Conference on the Military Balance and Decision Making across the Taiwan Strait," St. Antony's College, Oxford, February 27-28, 2004.
8. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes.(1960). The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
9. Cheng, Tun-jen, and Hsu, Yung-ming. (2000), "Strategic Voting, the Third Party, and a Non-Duvergerain Outcome: The March 2000 Election in Historical and Comparative Perspective." Paper presented at An International Forum for President Lee Teng-hui's Legacy, Formation and Implications. May 12-13. Taiepi.
10. Chu, Yun-han (1999), "The Political Economy of Taiwan's Mainland Policy," in Across the Taiwan Straits: Mainland China, Taiwan and the 1995-1996 Crisis, ed. by Suicheng Zhao, New York: Routledge, pp. 163-195.
11. Chu, Yun-han (2003), "Taiwan's Security Dilemma: Military Rivalry, Economic Dependence, and the Struggle over National Identity," Paper delivered at International Conference on Peace, Development and Regionalization in East Asia, organized by East Asia Institute, Seoul, September 20.
12. Converse, Philip E. (1966). "The Concept of Normal Vote." In Elections and the Political Order, ed. Campbell et al. New York: John Wiley.
13. Cox, Gary W. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Crain , W. M. & Tollison, R. D. (1976), Campaign Expenditure and Political Competition. Journal of Law and Economics, 19, 177-88 .
15. Dalton, Russell J. (1988). Citizen Politics in Western Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
16. Dalton, Russell J. (1988). Citizen Politics in Western Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
17. Dalton, Russell J., Scott C. Flanagan, and Paul A. Beck. eds. (1984). Electoral Changes in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
18. Dalton, Russell J., Scott C. Flanagan, and Paul A. Beck. eds. (1984). Electoral Changes in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
19. Diamond, Larry (1992), "Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered," American Behavioral Scientist, Mar./June, pp. 450-99.
20. Doel, Hans van den & Velthoven, Ben ven (1993), Democracy and welfare economics (2nd ed. ). Cambridge University Press.
21. Douglass C. North: (1990) Institution, Institutional Change, And Economic Performance. Cambridge University press.
22. Duverger, Maurice.(1954), Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State.. (Barbara & Robert North Trans.) London: Muthuen.
23. Enelow, James M. &: Hinich, Melvin J.(1984), The Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Farmer, D. J. (1995). "The language of public administration: bureaucracy, modernity, and postmodernity." Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Fox, C. J., & Miller, H. T. (1995). Postmodern public administration: oward discourse. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, Inc..
25. Ferejohn, John A. & Fiorina, M. R (1974), "The Paradox of not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis", APSR, 68, 525-36.
26. Fiorina, Morris P.(1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27. Franklin, Mark, Thomas T. Mackie, and Henry Valen. eds. (1992). Electoral Change: Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Franklin, Mark, Thomas T. Mackie, and Henry Valen. eds.(1992). Electoral Change: Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Frey, B and Schneider, F(1978), "Politico-Economic Cycles and Models", in Journal of Public Economics, Volume 9.
30. Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
31. Gunther, Richard, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, and Hans-Jurgen Puhle. (1995). The Politics of Democratic Consolidation: South Europe in Comparative Perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
32. H. Con Res. 148 (Defense of Taiwan/Passage), Congressional Quarterly Weekly Reports, March 23, 1996, p. 834.
33. Hartle, D. G. (1987), The Expenditure Budget Process of the Government of Canada: A Public Choice Rent-Seeking Perspective. Canadian Tax Paper, 81.
34. Hennipman, Pieter (1995), Welfare Economics and the Theory of Economic Policy..England & USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
35. Herberger, A. C. (1954), Monopoly and Resource Allocation. in American Economic Review, 44, 77-87.
36. Higley, John, and Richard Gunther, eds. (1992). Elites and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe. Cambridge University Press.
37. Huntington, Samuel P. (1991.) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press.
38. Huntington, Samuel P. (1996). "Democracy for the Long Haul." Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 3-13.
39. Inglehart, Ronald (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press
40. Inglehart, Ronald. (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
41. Inglehart, Ronald. (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
42. Inglehart, Ronald. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press
43. Knutsen, Oddbjorn, and Elinor Scarbrough. (1995). "Cleavage Politics." In Beliefs in Government Volume Four: Impact of Values. Eds. Jan W. van Deth and Elinor Scarbrough. Oxford University Press.
44. Knutsen, Oddbjorn, and Elinor Scarbrough. (1995). "Cleavage Politics." In Beliefs in Government Volume Four: Impact of Values. Eds. Jan W. van Deth and Elinor Scarbrough. Oxford University Press.
45. Kotler, Philip & Neil, (1999)," Political Marketing.", In Newman, Bruice Ⅰ (ed.),1999: Handbook of Political Marketing, pp3-18. London; Sage Publication.
46. Krueger, A. O. (1974), The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society. American Economic Review, 64, 291-303.
47. Laver, M. &Hunt, w. Ben. (Eds.)(1992), Policy and party Competition.. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc.
48. LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris, eds. (1996). Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. thousand Oaks (California): Sage.
49. Leibenstein, H. (1966), Allocative Efficiency vs. X-inefficiency. American Economic Review, 56, 392-415
50. Levy, Jack S.(1988), "Domestic Politics and War," in Robert Ⅰ. Rotberg and Theodore K. Robb, eds., The Origin and Prevention of the Major War, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79-99.
51. Lijphart, Arend (1994).Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University.
52. Lin, Tse-min, and Baohui Zhang. (1998). "Cross-cutting Issues and the Consolidation of Democracy in Taiwan." Democratization, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 118-43.
53. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein Rokkan. (1967). "Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments," reprinted in Consensus and Conflict: Essays in Political Sociology. by Seymour Martin Lipset. New York: Transactions Books. Pp. 113-185.
54. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein Rokkan. (1967). "Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments," reprinted in Consensus and Conflict: Essays in Political Sociology. by Seymour Martin Lipset. New York: Transactions Books. Pp. 113-185.
55. Max Weber, (1978b), Economy and Society, vol.Ⅱ, edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley: University of California Press
56. Max Weber, (1978a). Economy and Society, vol.Ⅰ, edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley: University of California Press,
57. McCarthy E. Jerome, (1960). Basic Marketing: A Managemerial Approach. Homewood, Ⅲ: Richrad D.Irwin.
58. Morgan M. S. & Malcolm Rutherford M, eds., (1998), From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism, Duke University Press
59. Mostov, Julie (1992), Power, Process, and Popular Sovereignty, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
60. Mueller, Dennis C.(1979), Public Choice (1 st ed). Cambridge University Press.
61. Mueller, Dennis(1989), Public Choice Ⅱ(lst printed). Cambridge University Press
62. Mullard, Maurice(1987), The Politics of Public Expenditure.London: Croom Helm.63. Niffenegger, P. (1989),"Strategy for success from the political Market". Journal of Consumer Research, 6(1), 45-51.
64. Nordhaus, W. (1975) ,"The Political Business Cycle", Review of Economy Studies, April. 1975. pp 159-178
65. O'Shanghnessy, N.,(1990), The Phenomenom of Political marketing. Hampshire, UK: Macmillan.
66. Olson, Mancur(1965), The Logic of Collective Action.. Cambridge, Mass
67. Peter, B. Guy (1980), "Fiscal Strains on the Welfare State: Cause and Consequences." In Levine, Charles H. & Rubin, Irene (Eds), Fiscal Stress and Public Policy.. Beverly Hill & London: SAGE Publications. pp. 23-48
68. Putnam, Robert D.(1988) "Diplomacy and, Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games," International Organization, Vol. 42, pp. 427-460.
69. Rawls, J. (1971), Theory of Justice. Harvard Univ. Press.
70. Reid, D,(1988). "Marketing the political Products",. European Journal of Marketing, 22(9),34-47
71. Riker, William H. & Ordeshook, Peter C. (1973), An Introduction to Positive Political Theory.. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prientice Hall.
72. Riker, William H. & Ordeshook, Peter C. (1973), An Introduction to Positive Political Theory.. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prientice Hall.
73. Rogoff, K & Sibert, A. (1988), "Elections and Macroeconomic Policy Cycle" in Review of Economic Studies, 1988. Vol.55.pp1-16
74. Rogoff, K, (1990). "Equilibrium Political Budget Cycle" in American Economic Review, 1990, March.pp21-36
75. Russett, Bruce (1990), Controlling the Sword: The Democratic Governance of National Security, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
76. Rustow, Danwart(1970), "Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model," Comparative Politics, April, pp. 337-63.
77. Samuelson, RA., (1981),"Bergsonian Welfare Economics", in S. Rosefielde, ed., Economic Welfare and the Economics of Soviet Socialism: Essays in Honor of Albram Bergson, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press, pp223-166.
78. Shin, Doh Chull. (1994). "On the Third Wave of Democratization: A Synthesis and Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research." World Politics, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 135-70.
79. Smart, B.(1993). Postmodernity. New York, N. Y.: Routledge.
80. Stigler, G. J.(1972), Economic Competition and Political Competition. Public Choice, 13, 91-106
81. Sugden, Robert(1981), The Political Economy of Public Choice. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
82. Taagepera, Rein and Matthew Shugart (1989). Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.
83. Tullock, G. (1967), The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies and Theft. Western Economic Journal, 5, 224-320
84. Tullock, G. (1993), Rent Seeking. Brookfield, Vermont: Edward Elgar Publishing Company.
85. U.S. Department of State Dispatch, Vol. 7, No. 13, March 25, 1996, 151.
86. Wachman, Alan M.(1994). Taiwan: National Identity and Democratization. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
87. Wang, Vincent Wei-Cheng (1996), "Does democratization enhance or reduce Taiwan's security? A democratic-peace inquiry," Asian Affairs, an American Review, Vol. 23, Issue 1, pp.3-20
88. Wildavsky, A. (1979), The Politics of the Budgetary. Process (3rd ed.). .Boston & Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.
89. Wilier, Ann Ruth., (1984), The Spellbinders: Charismatic Political Leadership. New Heaven and London: Yale University Press.
90. Wittman, Donald A (1983), "Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories". APSR, 77, 142-57.
91. Wring, D. (1997). "Reconciling marketing with Political Science: Theories of Political Marketing". Journal od Marketing Management, 13. 651-664.
1.马淑明,(2000),中国统一说,北京:台海出版社。
2.中共中央台湾事务工作办公室,(1998),中国台湾问题,北京:九州岛图书出版社。
3.中国社会科学院台湾研究所,(2001),台湾研究年度报告。时事出版社。
4.中国社会科学院台湾研究所,(2002),台湾研究 2002年1—4期。
5.王业立,(1996)。比较选举制度。台北:五南图书出版公司
6.王业立,(2001),比较选举制度。台北:五南。三版。
7.王仕图,(2003),「政党轮替下的社会福利政策」。台湾社会福利学刊(电子期刊)第四期,pp.79-105
8.王甫昌,(1994),族群同化与动员—台湾民众政党支持之分析。南港:中央研究院民族学研究所集刊。
9.王甫昌,(1995),台湾民众政党支持的社会心理基础。(中央研究院民族学研究所小型专题研讨会系列十五论文)。
10.王顺民,(2003),对王津贴快乐丸我们真的只能无异议的接受吗?台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
11.王健壮,(2003),「到处都听得到反对的声音」。新新闻833期。
12.邓中坚、高永光、黄奎博,(2003),政治沟通与谈判技巧。台北县:空中大学。
13.韦端、何金巡,(1990),「(我国)公共支出结构之探讨」。财税研究 Vol22,No.4,pp.13-33。
14.台湾日本综合研究所,(2004),重建、转化与变型:台湾政商关系的重构之路。http://www.japanresearch.org.tw/politics-15.asp
15.史明,(1992).民族行成与台湾民族。东京:台湾草根文化协会。
16.司马辽太郎,(1995)。台湾纪行。台北:台湾东贩。
17.刘从苇,(2002),台湾政党位置的测量—政见研究小组(Manifesto Research Grouo)与专家调查(Expert Surveys)的比较研究,2002年12月至2003年7月,国科会(NSC 91-2414-H-194-029)。
18.刘从苇,(2003),空间理论与政党位置测量一个体数据与内容分析之比较研究,2003年8月至2004年7月,国科会(NSC 92-2414-H-194-001)
19.刘红,(2004),民进党执政状况研究,北京:九州岛岛岛图书出版社。
20.刘国深,(2002),当代台湾政治分析。北京:九州岛岛岛图书出版社。
21.刘建清,(2003),「民进党的优势与困境」,上海:台湾研究第三辑。
22.刘念夏,(1996),「一九九六年总统大选选举预测:民意调查中未表态选民行为规则假设的提出与验证」。选举研究,Vol.3 No.2 Nov.1996
23.刘嘉如,(2004),2004年总统大选负面竞选的运作与影响。台湾日本综合研究所,2004/09/08 新闻最前线。
24.向阳,(1998),被口水淹没的选举。1998.11.13.中国时报「人间」副刊。
25.孙敏师,(2003)。「营销旧瓶装新酒,政府政策「置入式营销」该不该?」,传管电子报第一期(2003/12/1.31)。
26.庄佳颖,,(2004),阿扇的异想世界。台北:前卫出版社
27.毕刁瑜,(2004),「政府广告统包案真相大曝光—中时联合通通有份」。财讯月刊262期,2004年1月号
28.许立一,(2002).政治操作的后现代性之反思:以提升社会资本与促进公共对话为改革策略。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
29.许安琪(2001),整合营销传播引论,台北:学富文化
30.许信良,(1995),新兴民族。台北,远流。
31.严安林(等),(1998)。台湾选举纵横谈。上海:台海出版社。
32.严安林(等),(2004),陈水扁有关两岸关系言论摘要汇编,上海:上海台湾研究所。
33.严泉,(2003),「五届“立委”选举对2004年“总统”选举的影响」,上海:台湾研究第三辑。
34.何思因,(1994),「台湾地区选民政党偏好的变迁:1989-1992」。选举研究 1-1.pp.39-52
35.吴乃德,(1997)。「国家认同和民主巩固」收于游盈隆编民主巩固或崩溃——台湾二十一世纪的挑战。Pp.15-30。台北:月旦。
36.吴玉山,(2000),「台湾总统大选对于两岸关系产生的影响:选票极大化模式与战略三角途径」。远景季刊,第1卷第3期。Pp.1-34
37.吴芳铭,(2001),「政党民调初选十大法则——从民进党公职人员提名第一阶段民意调查初选得出的暂时结论」。决策季刊,创刊号,PP.19-23
38.吴燕玲,新新闻549期,专访马英九化妆师孙大伟。
39.张文生(等),(2004),民进党选举策略研究,北京:九州岛岛岛图书出版社。
40.张正修,(1995),「解剖李登辉情结」。民众日报 1995.7.17第4版。
41.张茂桂,(1999),「「新台湾人」之非论」。当代,137期。Pp.66-77。
42.张卿卿,(2002),「竞选媒体使用对选民竞选议题知识与政治效能感的影响—以两千年总统大选为例」。选举研究期刊,第九第一期,p1。
43.张菁雅 & 尚道明,(1998),「选战中的创意金头脑」,新新闻611期,pp24-6
44.张慈佳,(2000),「地方经济之政治景气循环现象-以台湾地区县市长选举为例」。人文及社会科学,No3,Vol.10,pp362-377
45.李心怡,(2004),「正义联机重整旗鼓,新潮流座大:民进党派系重组」。新 台湾新闻周刊461期。2005/01/21。
46.李心怡,(2004),「民进党派系内斗,阿扁要求改革:冲着新系而来?」。新台湾新闻周刊430期。2004/06/18。
47.李怡慧,(1988),县辖市地方财政之研究—板桥市实例分析。台北:政治大学财政研究所硕士论文
48.李昆泽,(2002),民主进步党初选制度的研究—初选制度的设计与演变。高雄:中山大学政治学研究所在职班硕士论文
49.李家泉,(2001),两岸“双赢”之路,北京:中国友谊出版社公司。
50.李培元,(1997),政治商品化理论。台北:杨智。
51.李登辉,(1999),台湾的主张.台北:远流.
52.李登辉,(1999)。台湾的主张。台北:远流。
53.李鉴慧,(2004),「粗燥的历史连结,唱族群和谐」。联合报民意论坛(2004/02/27)。
54.杨仁甫,(2004)。「民进党「长久执政」变新潮流「永续执政」」?财讯月刊268期,2004年7月号。
55.杨永明,(2004),「台湾民主化与台湾安全保障」,台湾民主季刊,Vol.1,No. 3,September 2004,pp.1-25。
56.杨剑,(2004),「台湾两大阵营争取中间选民的主要策略分析」,上海:台湾研究第四辑。
57.杨剑,(2004),「台湾媒体新闻框架的变迁分析」,上海:台湾研究第四辑。
58.杨洁勉(等),(2002),世界格局中的台湾问题:变化和挑战。上海:上海人民出版社。
59.杨圆娟,(2002),民进党提名制度的形成与变迁。台湾大学社会学研究所硕士论文。
60.邱家宜,(2000),「五亿元电式广告大作战,26天全广告让选民看不完」。 新新闻680a期,pp76-9。
61.邹景雯,(2003),李登辉执政告白实录。台北:刻印。
62.陈义彦,(1994),「我国选民的集群分析及其投票倾向的预测—从民国八十一年立委选举探讨」。选举研究r,1-1,pp.1-38。
63.陈义彦,(2001),民意调查。:台北五南书局。
64.陈义彦、黄丽秋,(1986),[选民政见取向的再探讨」。中国政治学会编,投票行为与选举文化(pp.206-38)。台北:中国政治学会。
65.陈心怡,(2005).「蓝绿板块消长透露什么讯息」,新新闻927期。
66.陈水扁服务处新闻稿,(1998),金达尼号的破冰之旅,从扁帽工厂开始,民进党的胜选希望:就丛台北市开始!(http://www.highline.com.tw/taipei/ab/1106 7.html)
67.陈水扁竞选总部编,(1998)。阿扁一族1998选战纪念手册。
68.陈华升、杨钧池,(2001),民进党派系政治与家族政治。台北:国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
69.陈启清,(2003),政治绑桩的扩大就业方案。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会
70.陈朝平,(2004).[2004年立委选后政治局势评估」。台北:国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
71.陈嘉弘,(2005).「朝野四党玩「虚拟三国」。蕃薯藤新闻,2005/03/02于http://news.yam.com/chinatimes/politics/200503/20050302392504.html
72.周敏凯,(1998),国际政治学,上海:华东师范大学出版社
73.周敏凯,(2004),「台湾“非典”疫情与2004年政党轮替态分析」,上海:台湾研究第四辑。
74.国务院台湾事务办公室新闻局,(2000),两岸关系与和平统一,北京:九州岛岛图书出版社。
75.明居正,(1998),「向心竞争与中华民国政党政治之发展」,理论与政策,第12卷,第2期,142-156
76.林万亿、许锦汶、王嘉蕙、潘英美,(1995),台北县政府实施「敬老福利津贴」计划施政绩效评估研究报告。台北县:台北县政府。
77.林东璟,(2003),「阿扁传真:温馨有余、热量不足。不是强制播出、不是竞选文宣」.新台湾新闻周刊,364期
78.林央敏,(1988)。台湾民族的出路。凤山:南冠。
79.林佳龙,(1999)。「总统选制的选择与效应」,新世纪智库论坛,第六期(六月),pp.44-65。
80.林莹秋,(2005),「新潮流集钱集权秘籍大公开:新系细火慢炖廿年终成民进党第一大派系」。财讯月刊275期,200年2月号。
81.林照真,(2001),「拥抱特定政党竟是如此痛苦」,中国时报,特稿。
82.林翠玉,(1996),对政府预算分派之利益竞逐观之理论研究。台北:政治大学财政研究所硕士论文
83.郑自隆(2003)。置入式营销不是毒蛇猛兽.动脑杂念,324,70-71
84.郑自隆,(1995)。竞选广告—理论、策略、研究案例。台北:正中书局。
85.郑自隆,(1998a),竞选文宣策略:广告,传播与政治营销台北:远流
86.郑自隆,(1998b),竞选广告-理论、策略、研究案例 台北;正中
87.郑自隆,(2004),竞选传播与台湾社会。台北:杨智
88.郑明德,(2003),民进党派系政治之研究。高雄:中山大学政治学研究所博士论文。
89.金小川,(2000),打破僵局:未来西岸关系的走向,北京:华文出版社。
90.施正锋(编),(1999a)。台湾关系法二十年。台北:前卫。
91.施正锋,(1996)。「战后的台、中关系——结构性现实主义的观点」收于张炎宪等编,台湾近百年史论文集。台北:吴三连台湾史料基金会。
92.施正锋,(1998)。族群与民族主义——集体认同的政治分析。台北:前卫。
93.施正锋,(1999b)。台湾政治建构。台北:前卫。
94.施正锋,(2002)。台湾民主巩固的擘划——政权轮替与制度改革。台北:前卫。
95.施正锋,(2004a)。「总统大选以来的民进党与泛绿阵营」。台湾民主季刊,1卷,3期,pp213-30。
96.施正锋,(2004b)。「政党转型与立委选后政治新局」。民主进步党十一届第十五次中常会引言,台北,2004/11/23。
97.施富士,(1995),「财政幻觉的理论与实证」。财税研究,27-6,63-99。
98.洪雅惠,(1998),政治广告策略VS商业广告策略。广告杂志89期
99.洪雅慧,(1998)。「漫谈政治广告」。广告杂志88期。
100.洪镰德,(1995),”李总统”应勇于凸显台湾的国家主权。台湾教授协会通讯 第三期,1995年7月
101.胡幼伟,(2003),拼形象的阿扁传真。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊
102.胡全威,(2004)。「一中两国」的理论与政治争议。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
103.胡佛,(1982),「政见取向的选民」。载于近代中国的变迁与发展,pp.117-95。台北:时报出版公司。
104.胡佛、游盈隆,(1983),「选民的投票取向:结构类型的分析」。政治学报,11,pp.225-80。
105.钮则勋,(2002)。传播科技与竞选策略。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会。
106.钮则勋,(2003a),阿扁传真最失败的营销广告。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
107.倪永杰,(2003),「2001年底“立委”选举后的台湾政局」,上海:台湾研 究第三辑。
108.唐怡,(2004),「2004年陈水扁选举策略分析」,上海:台湾研究第四辑。
109.徐火炎,(1992),「民主转型过程中政党的重组:台湾地区选民的民主价值取向、政党偏好与党派投票改变之研究」。人文及社会科学集刊,5-1,pp.213-62
110.徐火炎,(1993),「选举竞争与政治分歧结构的变迁:国民党与民进党势力消长」。中央研究院人文及社会科学集刊,6-1,pp.37-74。
111.徐火炎,(1995),「「李登辉情结」与省市长选举的投票行为:一项政治心理学的分析」,选举研究Vol.2 No.2 Nov.1995
112.徐永明,(2004),民调与真相。2004/03/21民视座谈会
113.徐永明,(2004a),「立委选后台湾政治三大动向——泛蓝、泛绿、执政体制都会有变化」。财讯月刊273期,2004年12月。
114.徐永明,(2005),[泛绿选票即将移动政治新版图归谁?」。自由时报,2005/02/27
115.桂宏诚,(2002),民主倒退的隐忧。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
116.郭正亮(1998)。民进党转型之痛。台北:天下文化。
117.郭正亮,(1999),「抢当摩西门徒,李登辉情结再现」。新新闻629期,pp68-70。
118.陶令瑜,(2003),「一本书,道尽李摩西与乔舒亚的传承情」。新新闻740期,pp30-3.
119.曹俊汉、陈朝平,(2001)。国民党与民进党执政之比较。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
120.梁世武,(1994),「一九九四年台北市长选举之预测:「候选人形象指针」预测模式之验证」。选举研究,Vol.1 No.2 Nov.1994
121.盛治仁,(2000 a),「八十九年总统大选地区效应与弃保效应分析」,辅仁学志 ,第三十一期,pp.117-132。
122.盛治仁,(2000b),「统独不再对决-从2000年总统选举看台湾新社会分歧的兴起及影响」,理论与政策,Vol 14 No 2 Nov.pp.119-139。
123.章国良,(2000),台湾之选举与总体政策循环。中山大学经济学研究所硕士论文
124.章念驰,(2002),西崖关系与中国前途,香港:中国评论文化有限公司。
125.黄世鑫,(1990),民主政治与国家预算:(我国)政府預算政策之形成。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
126.黄昭堂,(2000)。.台湾独立建国联盟的故事:「序文」。pp2-3。台北:前卫。
127.黄嘉树(等),(2002),台湾选举研究,九州岛岛岛出版社。
128.黄德福,(1992),民主进步党与台湾地区政治民主化。台北:时英出版社。
129.彭怀恩(主编),(2004),选举无效。台北:风云论坛。
130.曾宪郎、简文政,(2002),「内阁制政治景气循环」,问题与研究。No.4,Vol 41
131.游盈隆,(1996),民意与台湾政治变迁。台北:月旦出版社
132.游清鑫,(2000),总统选举与民意调查。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。Vol.14,2000.05.19.
133.游清鑫,(2001),选战策略:2001年选举的总体观察.台北:国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
134.谢长廷,(2001)。「扁政府表现与社会期待落差大」,民众日报,2001年三月十八日。
135.谢复生,(1992),政党比例代表制。台北:理论与政策杂志社。
136.谢复生,(1995),三党不过半?——省市长选举后台湾的政党政治生态。「省市长选举后台湾的政党政治生态」研讨会论文。台北:国立政治大学。
137.谢复生、牛铭实,(1996),总统选举中选民投票的抉择:一个理性抉择理途的分析。国立政治大学「选举制度、选举行为与台湾地区政治民主化」学术研讨会论文。
138.谢复生、牛铭实、林慧萍,(1996),「民国八十三年省市长选举中之议题投票:理性抉择理论之分析」。选举研究,2-1,pp.77-92。
139.简文政,(2000),政治景气循环。中山大学 经济学研究所硕士论文
140.简锡阶,(2004),自主性NGQ与台湾民主深化。http://www.peace.org.tw/Content.asp
141.褚静涛,(2003),「台湾“公民投票”问题研究」,上海:台湾研究第三輯。
142.澄社,(2000),「针砭新政府」,2000年八月二十日。见澄社网页:http://ts.yam.org.tw/document/docul-11.htm
143.瞿海源,(1998),总统声望重挫的原因。民视评论,1998/05/21。
144.瞿海源、章英华,(2000)。「台湾社会变迁基本调查的运作成效及未来的努力」。调查研究8:pp.105-119。
2. Aldrich, John H. (1983b), "A Spatial model with Party Activists: Implication for Electroal Dynamics"o Public Choice, 41, 63-100.
3. Bendix, Reinhard, (1960), Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Garden City, NY: Doubleday)
4. Borcherding, Thomas E. (Ed.) (1977), Budgets and Bureaucrats: The Sources of Govememnt Growth. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
5. Buchanan, J. M & Tullock, G (1965), The Calculus of consent. .The University of Michigan Press..
6. Buchanan, J. M. & Flowers, M. A. (1975), The Public Finance(4th ed.). Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
7. Bush, Richard (2004), "The Ordeal of Dual Deterrence: the United States between Talwan and China," paper presented at the Conference on the Military Balance and Decision Making across the Taiwan Strait," St. Antony's College, Oxford, February 27-28, 2004.
8. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes.(1960). The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
9. Cheng, Tun-jen, and Hsu, Yung-ming. (2000), "Strategic Voting, the Third Party, and a Non-Duvergerain Outcome: The March 2000 Election in Historical and Comparative Perspective." Paper presented at An International Forum for President Lee Teng-hui's Legacy, Formation and Implications. May 12-13. Taiepi.
10. Chu, Yun-han (1999), "The Political Economy of Taiwan's Mainland Policy," in Across the Taiwan Straits: Mainland China, Taiwan and the 1995-1996 Crisis, ed. by Suicheng Zhao, New York: Routledge, pp. 163-195.
11. Chu, Yun-han (2003), "Taiwan's Security Dilemma: Military Rivalry, Economic Dependence, and the Struggle over National Identity," Paper delivered at International Conference on Peace, Development and Regionalization in East Asia, organized by East Asia Institute, Seoul, September 20.
12. Converse, Philip E. (1966). "The Concept of Normal Vote." In Elections and the Political Order, ed. Campbell et al. New York: John Wiley.
13. Cox, Gary W. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Crain , W. M. & Tollison, R. D. (1976), Campaign Expenditure and Political Competition. Journal of Law and Economics, 19, 177-88 .
15. Dalton, Russell J. (1988). Citizen Politics in Western Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
16. Dalton, Russell J. (1988). Citizen Politics in Western Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
17. Dalton, Russell J., Scott C. Flanagan, and Paul A. Beck. eds. (1984). Electoral Changes in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
18. Dalton, Russell J., Scott C. Flanagan, and Paul A. Beck. eds. (1984). Electoral Changes in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
19. Diamond, Larry (1992), "Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered," American Behavioral Scientist, Mar./June, pp. 450-99.
20. Doel, Hans van den & Velthoven, Ben ven (1993), Democracy and welfare economics (2nd ed. ). Cambridge University Press.
21. Douglass C. North: (1990) Institution, Institutional Change, And Economic Performance. Cambridge University press.
22. Duverger, Maurice.(1954), Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State.. (Barbara & Robert North Trans.) London: Muthuen.
23. Enelow, James M. &: Hinich, Melvin J.(1984), The Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Farmer, D. J. (1995). "The language of public administration: bureaucracy, modernity, and postmodernity." Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Fox, C. J., & Miller, H. T. (1995). Postmodern public administration: oward discourse. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, Inc..
25. Ferejohn, John A. & Fiorina, M. R (1974), "The Paradox of not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis", APSR, 68, 525-36.
26. Fiorina, Morris P.(1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27. Franklin, Mark, Thomas T. Mackie, and Henry Valen. eds. (1992). Electoral Change: Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Franklin, Mark, Thomas T. Mackie, and Henry Valen. eds.(1992). Electoral Change: Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Frey, B and Schneider, F(1978), "Politico-Economic Cycles and Models", in Journal of Public Economics, Volume 9.
30. Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
31. Gunther, Richard, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, and Hans-Jurgen Puhle. (1995). The Politics of Democratic Consolidation: South Europe in Comparative Perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
32. H. Con Res. 148 (Defense of Taiwan/Passage), Congressional Quarterly Weekly Reports, March 23, 1996, p. 834.
33. Hartle, D. G. (1987), The Expenditure Budget Process of the Government of Canada: A Public Choice Rent-Seeking Perspective. Canadian Tax Paper, 81.
34. Hennipman, Pieter (1995), Welfare Economics and the Theory of Economic Policy..England & USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
35. Herberger, A. C. (1954), Monopoly and Resource Allocation. in American Economic Review, 44, 77-87.
36. Higley, John, and Richard Gunther, eds. (1992). Elites and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe. Cambridge University Press.
37. Huntington, Samuel P. (1991.) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press.
38. Huntington, Samuel P. (1996). "Democracy for the Long Haul." Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 3-13.
39. Inglehart, Ronald (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press
40. Inglehart, Ronald. (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
41. Inglehart, Ronald. (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
42. Inglehart, Ronald. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press
43. Knutsen, Oddbjorn, and Elinor Scarbrough. (1995). "Cleavage Politics." In Beliefs in Government Volume Four: Impact of Values. Eds. Jan W. van Deth and Elinor Scarbrough. Oxford University Press.
44. Knutsen, Oddbjorn, and Elinor Scarbrough. (1995). "Cleavage Politics." In Beliefs in Government Volume Four: Impact of Values. Eds. Jan W. van Deth and Elinor Scarbrough. Oxford University Press.
45. Kotler, Philip & Neil, (1999)," Political Marketing.", In Newman, Bruice Ⅰ (ed.),1999: Handbook of Political Marketing, pp3-18. London; Sage Publication.
46. Krueger, A. O. (1974), The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society. American Economic Review, 64, 291-303.
47. Laver, M. &Hunt, w. Ben. (Eds.)(1992), Policy and party Competition.. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc.
48. LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris, eds. (1996). Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. thousand Oaks (California): Sage.
49. Leibenstein, H. (1966), Allocative Efficiency vs. X-inefficiency. American Economic Review, 56, 392-415
50. Levy, Jack S.(1988), "Domestic Politics and War," in Robert Ⅰ. Rotberg and Theodore K. Robb, eds., The Origin and Prevention of the Major War, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79-99.
51. Lijphart, Arend (1994).Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University.
52. Lin, Tse-min, and Baohui Zhang. (1998). "Cross-cutting Issues and the Consolidation of Democracy in Taiwan." Democratization, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 118-43.
53. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein Rokkan. (1967). "Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments," reprinted in Consensus and Conflict: Essays in Political Sociology. by Seymour Martin Lipset. New York: Transactions Books. Pp. 113-185.
54. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein Rokkan. (1967). "Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments," reprinted in Consensus and Conflict: Essays in Political Sociology. by Seymour Martin Lipset. New York: Transactions Books. Pp. 113-185.
55. Max Weber, (1978b), Economy and Society, vol.Ⅱ, edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley: University of California Press
56. Max Weber, (1978a). Economy and Society, vol.Ⅰ, edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley: University of California Press,
57. McCarthy E. Jerome, (1960). Basic Marketing: A Managemerial Approach. Homewood, Ⅲ: Richrad D.Irwin.
58. Morgan M. S. & Malcolm Rutherford M, eds., (1998), From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism, Duke University Press
59. Mostov, Julie (1992), Power, Process, and Popular Sovereignty, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
60. Mueller, Dennis C.(1979), Public Choice (1 st ed). Cambridge University Press.
61. Mueller, Dennis(1989), Public Choice Ⅱ(lst printed). Cambridge University Press
62. Mullard, Maurice(1987), The Politics of Public Expenditure.London: Croom Helm.63. Niffenegger, P. (1989),"Strategy for success from the political Market". Journal of Consumer Research, 6(1), 45-51.
64. Nordhaus, W. (1975) ,"The Political Business Cycle", Review of Economy Studies, April. 1975. pp 159-178
65. O'Shanghnessy, N.,(1990), The Phenomenom of Political marketing. Hampshire, UK: Macmillan.
66. Olson, Mancur(1965), The Logic of Collective Action.. Cambridge, Mass
67. Peter, B. Guy (1980), "Fiscal Strains on the Welfare State: Cause and Consequences." In Levine, Charles H. & Rubin, Irene (Eds), Fiscal Stress and Public Policy.. Beverly Hill & London: SAGE Publications. pp. 23-48
68. Putnam, Robert D.(1988) "Diplomacy and, Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games," International Organization, Vol. 42, pp. 427-460.
69. Rawls, J. (1971), Theory of Justice. Harvard Univ. Press.
70. Reid, D,(1988). "Marketing the political Products",. European Journal of Marketing, 22(9),34-47
71. Riker, William H. & Ordeshook, Peter C. (1973), An Introduction to Positive Political Theory.. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prientice Hall.
72. Riker, William H. & Ordeshook, Peter C. (1973), An Introduction to Positive Political Theory.. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prientice Hall.
73. Rogoff, K & Sibert, A. (1988), "Elections and Macroeconomic Policy Cycle" in Review of Economic Studies, 1988. Vol.55.pp1-16
74. Rogoff, K, (1990). "Equilibrium Political Budget Cycle" in American Economic Review, 1990, March.pp21-36
75. Russett, Bruce (1990), Controlling the Sword: The Democratic Governance of National Security, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
76. Rustow, Danwart(1970), "Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model," Comparative Politics, April, pp. 337-63.
77. Samuelson, RA., (1981),"Bergsonian Welfare Economics", in S. Rosefielde, ed., Economic Welfare and the Economics of Soviet Socialism: Essays in Honor of Albram Bergson, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press, pp223-166.
78. Shin, Doh Chull. (1994). "On the Third Wave of Democratization: A Synthesis and Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research." World Politics, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 135-70.
79. Smart, B.(1993). Postmodernity. New York, N. Y.: Routledge.
80. Stigler, G. J.(1972), Economic Competition and Political Competition. Public Choice, 13, 91-106
81. Sugden, Robert(1981), The Political Economy of Public Choice. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
82. Taagepera, Rein and Matthew Shugart (1989). Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.
83. Tullock, G. (1967), The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies and Theft. Western Economic Journal, 5, 224-320
84. Tullock, G. (1993), Rent Seeking. Brookfield, Vermont: Edward Elgar Publishing Company.
85. U.S. Department of State Dispatch, Vol. 7, No. 13, March 25, 1996, 151.
86. Wachman, Alan M.(1994). Taiwan: National Identity and Democratization. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
87. Wang, Vincent Wei-Cheng (1996), "Does democratization enhance or reduce Taiwan's security? A democratic-peace inquiry," Asian Affairs, an American Review, Vol. 23, Issue 1, pp.3-20
88. Wildavsky, A. (1979), The Politics of the Budgetary. Process (3rd ed.). .Boston & Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.
89. Wilier, Ann Ruth., (1984), The Spellbinders: Charismatic Political Leadership. New Heaven and London: Yale University Press.
90. Wittman, Donald A (1983), "Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories". APSR, 77, 142-57.
91. Wring, D. (1997). "Reconciling marketing with Political Science: Theories of Political Marketing". Journal od Marketing Management, 13. 651-664.
1.马淑明,(2000),中国统一说,北京:台海出版社。
2.中共中央台湾事务工作办公室,(1998),中国台湾问题,北京:九州岛图书出版社。
3.中国社会科学院台湾研究所,(2001),台湾研究年度报告。时事出版社。
4.中国社会科学院台湾研究所,(2002),台湾研究 2002年1—4期。
5.王业立,(1996)。比较选举制度。台北:五南图书出版公司
6.王业立,(2001),比较选举制度。台北:五南。三版。
7.王仕图,(2003),「政党轮替下的社会福利政策」。台湾社会福利学刊(电子期刊)第四期,pp.79-105
8.王甫昌,(1994),族群同化与动员—台湾民众政党支持之分析。南港:中央研究院民族学研究所集刊。
9.王甫昌,(1995),台湾民众政党支持的社会心理基础。(中央研究院民族学研究所小型专题研讨会系列十五论文)。
10.王顺民,(2003),对王津贴快乐丸我们真的只能无异议的接受吗?台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
11.王健壮,(2003),「到处都听得到反对的声音」。新新闻833期。
12.邓中坚、高永光、黄奎博,(2003),政治沟通与谈判技巧。台北县:空中大学。
13.韦端、何金巡,(1990),「(我国)公共支出结构之探讨」。财税研究 Vol22,No.4,pp.13-33。
14.台湾日本综合研究所,(2004),重建、转化与变型:台湾政商关系的重构之路。http://www.japanresearch.org.tw/politics-15.asp
15.史明,(1992).民族行成与台湾民族。东京:台湾草根文化协会。
16.司马辽太郎,(1995)。台湾纪行。台北:台湾东贩。
17.刘从苇,(2002),台湾政党位置的测量—政见研究小组(Manifesto Research Grouo)与专家调查(Expert Surveys)的比较研究,2002年12月至2003年7月,国科会(NSC 91-2414-H-194-029)。
18.刘从苇,(2003),空间理论与政党位置测量一个体数据与内容分析之比较研究,2003年8月至2004年7月,国科会(NSC 92-2414-H-194-001)
19.刘红,(2004),民进党执政状况研究,北京:九州岛岛岛图书出版社。
20.刘国深,(2002),当代台湾政治分析。北京:九州岛岛岛图书出版社。
21.刘建清,(2003),「民进党的优势与困境」,上海:台湾研究第三辑。
22.刘念夏,(1996),「一九九六年总统大选选举预测:民意调查中未表态选民行为规则假设的提出与验证」。选举研究,Vol.3 No.2 Nov.1996
23.刘嘉如,(2004),2004年总统大选负面竞选的运作与影响。台湾日本综合研究所,2004/09/08 新闻最前线。
24.向阳,(1998),被口水淹没的选举。1998.11.13.中国时报「人间」副刊。
25.孙敏师,(2003)。「营销旧瓶装新酒,政府政策「置入式营销」该不该?」,传管电子报第一期(2003/12/1.31)。
26.庄佳颖,,(2004),阿扇的异想世界。台北:前卫出版社
27.毕刁瑜,(2004),「政府广告统包案真相大曝光—中时联合通通有份」。财讯月刊262期,2004年1月号
28.许立一,(2002).政治操作的后现代性之反思:以提升社会资本与促进公共对话为改革策略。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
29.许安琪(2001),整合营销传播引论,台北:学富文化
30.许信良,(1995),新兴民族。台北,远流。
31.严安林(等),(1998)。台湾选举纵横谈。上海:台海出版社。
32.严安林(等),(2004),陈水扁有关两岸关系言论摘要汇编,上海:上海台湾研究所。
33.严泉,(2003),「五届“立委”选举对2004年“总统”选举的影响」,上海:台湾研究第三辑。
34.何思因,(1994),「台湾地区选民政党偏好的变迁:1989-1992」。选举研究 1-1.pp.39-52
35.吴乃德,(1997)。「国家认同和民主巩固」收于游盈隆编民主巩固或崩溃——台湾二十一世纪的挑战。Pp.15-30。台北:月旦。
36.吴玉山,(2000),「台湾总统大选对于两岸关系产生的影响:选票极大化模式与战略三角途径」。远景季刊,第1卷第3期。Pp.1-34
37.吴芳铭,(2001),「政党民调初选十大法则——从民进党公职人员提名第一阶段民意调查初选得出的暂时结论」。决策季刊,创刊号,PP.19-23
38.吴燕玲,新新闻549期,专访马英九化妆师孙大伟。
39.张文生(等),(2004),民进党选举策略研究,北京:九州岛岛岛图书出版社。
40.张正修,(1995),「解剖李登辉情结」。民众日报 1995.7.17第4版。
41.张茂桂,(1999),「「新台湾人」之非论」。当代,137期。Pp.66-77。
42.张卿卿,(2002),「竞选媒体使用对选民竞选议题知识与政治效能感的影响—以两千年总统大选为例」。选举研究期刊,第九第一期,p1。
43.张菁雅 & 尚道明,(1998),「选战中的创意金头脑」,新新闻611期,pp24-6
44.张慈佳,(2000),「地方经济之政治景气循环现象-以台湾地区县市长选举为例」。人文及社会科学,No3,Vol.10,pp362-377
45.李心怡,(2004),「正义联机重整旗鼓,新潮流座大:民进党派系重组」。新 台湾新闻周刊461期。2005/01/21。
46.李心怡,(2004),「民进党派系内斗,阿扁要求改革:冲着新系而来?」。新台湾新闻周刊430期。2004/06/18。
47.李怡慧,(1988),县辖市地方财政之研究—板桥市实例分析。台北:政治大学财政研究所硕士论文
48.李昆泽,(2002),民主进步党初选制度的研究—初选制度的设计与演变。高雄:中山大学政治学研究所在职班硕士论文
49.李家泉,(2001),两岸“双赢”之路,北京:中国友谊出版社公司。
50.李培元,(1997),政治商品化理论。台北:杨智。
51.李登辉,(1999),台湾的主张.台北:远流.
52.李登辉,(1999)。台湾的主张。台北:远流。
53.李鉴慧,(2004),「粗燥的历史连结,唱族群和谐」。联合报民意论坛(2004/02/27)。
54.杨仁甫,(2004)。「民进党「长久执政」变新潮流「永续执政」」?财讯月刊268期,2004年7月号。
55.杨永明,(2004),「台湾民主化与台湾安全保障」,台湾民主季刊,Vol.1,No. 3,September 2004,pp.1-25。
56.杨剑,(2004),「台湾两大阵营争取中间选民的主要策略分析」,上海:台湾研究第四辑。
57.杨剑,(2004),「台湾媒体新闻框架的变迁分析」,上海:台湾研究第四辑。
58.杨洁勉(等),(2002),世界格局中的台湾问题:变化和挑战。上海:上海人民出版社。
59.杨圆娟,(2002),民进党提名制度的形成与变迁。台湾大学社会学研究所硕士论文。
60.邱家宜,(2000),「五亿元电式广告大作战,26天全广告让选民看不完」。 新新闻680a期,pp76-9。
61.邹景雯,(2003),李登辉执政告白实录。台北:刻印。
62.陈义彦,(1994),「我国选民的集群分析及其投票倾向的预测—从民国八十一年立委选举探讨」。选举研究r,1-1,pp.1-38。
63.陈义彦,(2001),民意调查。:台北五南书局。
64.陈义彦、黄丽秋,(1986),[选民政见取向的再探讨」。中国政治学会编,投票行为与选举文化(pp.206-38)。台北:中国政治学会。
65.陈心怡,(2005).「蓝绿板块消长透露什么讯息」,新新闻927期。
66.陈水扁服务处新闻稿,(1998),金达尼号的破冰之旅,从扁帽工厂开始,民进党的胜选希望:就丛台北市开始!(http://www.highline.com.tw/taipei/ab/1106 7.html)
67.陈水扁竞选总部编,(1998)。阿扁一族1998选战纪念手册。
68.陈华升、杨钧池,(2001),民进党派系政治与家族政治。台北:国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
69.陈启清,(2003),政治绑桩的扩大就业方案。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会
70.陈朝平,(2004).[2004年立委选后政治局势评估」。台北:国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
71.陈嘉弘,(2005).「朝野四党玩「虚拟三国」。蕃薯藤新闻,2005/03/02于http://news.yam.com/chinatimes/politics/200503/20050302392504.html
72.周敏凯,(1998),国际政治学,上海:华东师范大学出版社
73.周敏凯,(2004),「台湾“非典”疫情与2004年政党轮替态分析」,上海:台湾研究第四辑。
74.国务院台湾事务办公室新闻局,(2000),两岸关系与和平统一,北京:九州岛岛图书出版社。
75.明居正,(1998),「向心竞争与中华民国政党政治之发展」,理论与政策,第12卷,第2期,142-156
76.林万亿、许锦汶、王嘉蕙、潘英美,(1995),台北县政府实施「敬老福利津贴」计划施政绩效评估研究报告。台北县:台北县政府。
77.林东璟,(2003),「阿扁传真:温馨有余、热量不足。不是强制播出、不是竞选文宣」.新台湾新闻周刊,364期
78.林央敏,(1988)。台湾民族的出路。凤山:南冠。
79.林佳龙,(1999)。「总统选制的选择与效应」,新世纪智库论坛,第六期(六月),pp.44-65。
80.林莹秋,(2005),「新潮流集钱集权秘籍大公开:新系细火慢炖廿年终成民进党第一大派系」。财讯月刊275期,200年2月号。
81.林照真,(2001),「拥抱特定政党竟是如此痛苦」,中国时报,特稿。
82.林翠玉,(1996),对政府预算分派之利益竞逐观之理论研究。台北:政治大学财政研究所硕士论文
83.郑自隆(2003)。置入式营销不是毒蛇猛兽.动脑杂念,324,70-71
84.郑自隆,(1995)。竞选广告—理论、策略、研究案例。台北:正中书局。
85.郑自隆,(1998a),竞选文宣策略:广告,传播与政治营销台北:远流
86.郑自隆,(1998b),竞选广告-理论、策略、研究案例 台北;正中
87.郑自隆,(2004),竞选传播与台湾社会。台北:杨智
88.郑明德,(2003),民进党派系政治之研究。高雄:中山大学政治学研究所博士论文。
89.金小川,(2000),打破僵局:未来西岸关系的走向,北京:华文出版社。
90.施正锋(编),(1999a)。台湾关系法二十年。台北:前卫。
91.施正锋,(1996)。「战后的台、中关系——结构性现实主义的观点」收于张炎宪等编,台湾近百年史论文集。台北:吴三连台湾史料基金会。
92.施正锋,(1998)。族群与民族主义——集体认同的政治分析。台北:前卫。
93.施正锋,(1999b)。台湾政治建构。台北:前卫。
94.施正锋,(2002)。台湾民主巩固的擘划——政权轮替与制度改革。台北:前卫。
95.施正锋,(2004a)。「总统大选以来的民进党与泛绿阵营」。台湾民主季刊,1卷,3期,pp213-30。
96.施正锋,(2004b)。「政党转型与立委选后政治新局」。民主进步党十一届第十五次中常会引言,台北,2004/11/23。
97.施富士,(1995),「财政幻觉的理论与实证」。财税研究,27-6,63-99。
98.洪雅惠,(1998),政治广告策略VS商业广告策略。广告杂志89期
99.洪雅慧,(1998)。「漫谈政治广告」。广告杂志88期。
100.洪镰德,(1995),”李总统”应勇于凸显台湾的国家主权。台湾教授协会通讯 第三期,1995年7月
101.胡幼伟,(2003),拼形象的阿扁传真。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊
102.胡全威,(2004)。「一中两国」的理论与政治争议。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
103.胡佛,(1982),「政见取向的选民」。载于近代中国的变迁与发展,pp.117-95。台北:时报出版公司。
104.胡佛、游盈隆,(1983),「选民的投票取向:结构类型的分析」。政治学报,11,pp.225-80。
105.钮则勋,(2002)。传播科技与竞选策略。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会。
106.钮则勋,(2003a),阿扁传真最失败的营销广告。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
107.倪永杰,(2003),「2001年底“立委”选举后的台湾政局」,上海:台湾研 究第三辑。
108.唐怡,(2004),「2004年陈水扁选举策略分析」,上海:台湾研究第四辑。
109.徐火炎,(1992),「民主转型过程中政党的重组:台湾地区选民的民主价值取向、政党偏好与党派投票改变之研究」。人文及社会科学集刊,5-1,pp.213-62
110.徐火炎,(1993),「选举竞争与政治分歧结构的变迁:国民党与民进党势力消长」。中央研究院人文及社会科学集刊,6-1,pp.37-74。
111.徐火炎,(1995),「「李登辉情结」与省市长选举的投票行为:一项政治心理学的分析」,选举研究Vol.2 No.2 Nov.1995
112.徐永明,(2004),民调与真相。2004/03/21民视座谈会
113.徐永明,(2004a),「立委选后台湾政治三大动向——泛蓝、泛绿、执政体制都会有变化」。财讯月刊273期,2004年12月。
114.徐永明,(2005),[泛绿选票即将移动政治新版图归谁?」。自由时报,2005/02/27
115.桂宏诚,(2002),民主倒退的隐忧。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
116.郭正亮(1998)。民进党转型之痛。台北:天下文化。
117.郭正亮,(1999),「抢当摩西门徒,李登辉情结再现」。新新闻629期,pp68-70。
118.陶令瑜,(2003),「一本书,道尽李摩西与乔舒亚的传承情」。新新闻740期,pp30-3.
119.曹俊汉、陈朝平,(2001)。国民党与民进党执政之比较。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
120.梁世武,(1994),「一九九四年台北市长选举之预测:「候选人形象指针」预测模式之验证」。选举研究,Vol.1 No.2 Nov.1994
121.盛治仁,(2000 a),「八十九年总统大选地区效应与弃保效应分析」,辅仁学志 ,第三十一期,pp.117-132。
122.盛治仁,(2000b),「统独不再对决-从2000年总统选举看台湾新社会分歧的兴起及影响」,理论与政策,Vol 14 No 2 Nov.pp.119-139。
123.章国良,(2000),台湾之选举与总体政策循环。中山大学经济学研究所硕士论文
124.章念驰,(2002),西崖关系与中国前途,香港:中国评论文化有限公司。
125.黄世鑫,(1990),民主政治与国家预算:(我国)政府預算政策之形成。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
126.黄昭堂,(2000)。.台湾独立建国联盟的故事:「序文」。pp2-3。台北:前卫。
127.黄嘉树(等),(2002),台湾选举研究,九州岛岛岛出版社。
128.黄德福,(1992),民主进步党与台湾地区政治民主化。台北:时英出版社。
129.彭怀恩(主编),(2004),选举无效。台北:风云论坛。
130.曾宪郎、简文政,(2002),「内阁制政治景气循环」,问题与研究。No.4,Vol 41
131.游盈隆,(1996),民意与台湾政治变迁。台北:月旦出版社
132.游清鑫,(2000),总统选举与民意调查。台北:财团法人国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。Vol.14,2000.05.19.
133.游清鑫,(2001),选战策略:2001年选举的总体观察.台北:国家政策研究基金会研究专刊。
134.谢长廷,(2001)。「扁政府表现与社会期待落差大」,民众日报,2001年三月十八日。
135.谢复生,(1992),政党比例代表制。台北:理论与政策杂志社。
136.谢复生,(1995),三党不过半?——省市长选举后台湾的政党政治生态。「省市长选举后台湾的政党政治生态」研讨会论文。台北:国立政治大学。
137.谢复生、牛铭实,(1996),总统选举中选民投票的抉择:一个理性抉择理途的分析。国立政治大学「选举制度、选举行为与台湾地区政治民主化」学术研讨会论文。
138.谢复生、牛铭实、林慧萍,(1996),「民国八十三年省市长选举中之议题投票:理性抉择理论之分析」。选举研究,2-1,pp.77-92。
139.简文政,(2000),政治景气循环。中山大学 经济学研究所硕士论文
140.简锡阶,(2004),自主性NGQ与台湾民主深化。http://www.peace.org.tw/Content.asp
141.褚静涛,(2003),「台湾“公民投票”问题研究」,上海:台湾研究第三輯。
142.澄社,(2000),「针砭新政府」,2000年八月二十日。见澄社网页:http://ts.yam.org.tw/document/docul-11.htm
143.瞿海源,(1998),总统声望重挫的原因。民视评论,1998/05/21。
144.瞿海源、章英华,(2000)。「台湾社会变迁基本调查的运作成效及未来的努力」。调查研究8:pp.105-119。