單一行動者預設與政黨、派系競爭理論的建立－以單記非讓渡投票制下的選舉為例

The Assumption of Unitary Actors and Theory of Party and Faction Competition under the Single Non-Transferable Vote

10.6350/JSSP.200403.0151

劉從葦(Tsung-Wei Liu)

理性抉擇理論 ； 顯著理論 ； 政黨位置測量 ； 單一行動者 ； 派系 ； rational choice theory ； saliency theory ； measurement of party position ； unitary actor ； faction

人文及社會科學集刊

16卷1期（2004 / 03 / 01）

151 - 195

繁體中文

理性抉擇理論是方法論上個人主義的研究途徑，因此理性抉擇理論和單一行動者預設應該是不相容的。從博奕理論的觀點來看，一群有共同利益的自利個人不必然會合作去追求他們的共同利益。從社會選擇理論的觀點來看，聚合一群理性個人的偏好所產生的集體偏好不必然是理性的。然而，理性抉擇理論者所建立的政黨競爭模型又大多預設政黨為單一行動者，而使得其模型與研究途徑自相矛盾。 另一方面，在理論測試上政黨位置的測量也有相同的問題。不論是專家調查或政見研究小組的測量都僅提供政黨在政策空間裹的單一位置，而沒有政黨內部分歧的相關資訊。理論的自我矛盾加上測量的不足，使得政黨競爭理論的重新檢視變得十分重要。 集體行動與集體理性的問題使得在建立政黨競爭模型時必需考量政黨內部的分歧與衝突。可行的起始點之一為將派系競爭納入模型裹。本研究以單記非讓渡投票制下的政黨競爭為例來討論如何建立同時考量政黨與派系競爭的理論模型。 除了理論的修正，政黨位置的測量也必須要能呈現政黨內部分歧的狀況，以避免理論與實證資料問的不相關而使得理論無法得到支持或被否證。本研究以台灣立法委員選舉為例，說明如何測量個別候選人的位置並將其聚合來分別呈現政黨、派系的位置與同黨候選人在政策空間裹的分佈情形。

Rational choice theories are methodological individualism, so they are not compatible with the assumption of unitary actors. Game theorists argue that people who have interests in common would not necessarily cooperate. Social choice theorists demonstrate that preferences of collectives aggregated from individuals' preferences are not necessarily rational. However, parties are usually assumed to be unitary actors when rational choice theorists develop their models of party competition. This makes their models and approach contradictory. The measurements of party positions have the same problem. Both expert surveys and Manifesto Research Group provide party positions in the policy space without the information about intra-party conflicts. Therefore, it is crucial to rethink the theories of party competition and measurements of party positions. Because of the problems of collective action and collective rationality, intra-party conflicts must be considered when developing models of party competition. One of the possible starting points is to include factions into the models. Electoral competition under the single nontransferable vote is used as an example in this research to show how to develop a model that includes both parties and factions. In addition to the revision of theories, the measurements of party positions should be improved to make the examination of models possible. This research discusses how to measure candidates, factions, and parties' positions in the elections of the Legislative Yuan in Taiwan and tests the theory against the data obtained.

1. Agasoster,Bodil(2001).Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors.London:Routeldge.
2. Budge, Ian et al.(1987).Ideology,Strategy, and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in19 Democracies.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
3. Budge, Ian et al.(2001).Mapping Policy Preference.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
4. Budge, Ian, Hans Keman(1990).Parties and Democracy.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
5. Budge, Ian,Dennis J. Farlie(1983).Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies.London:Geogre Allen& Unwin.
6. Budge, Ian,Dennis J. Farlie(1977).Voting and Party Competition.London:John Wiley and Sons.
7. Budge, Ian,Richard I.Hofferbert(1990).Mandates and Policy Outputs: U.S. Party Paltform and Federal Expanditures.American Poliitical Science Review,84,111-131.
8. Budge,Ian(2000).Expert Judgements of Party Policy Positions: Uses and Limitations in Political Research.European Journal of Political Research,37,103-113.
9. Budge,Ian(2001).Validating Party Policy Placements.British Journal of Political Science,31,210-223.
10. Castles,Francis G.,Peter Mair(1984).Left-Right Political Scales: Some 'Expert' Judgement.European Journal of Political Research,12,73-88.
11. Dow, Jay K.(2001).A Comparative Spatial Analysis of Majoritarian and Proportional Elections.Electoral Studies,20,109-125.
12. Downs,Anthony(1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy.New York:Harper & Row.
13. Elster, Jon(1986).Rational Choice.New York:New York University Press.
14. Enelow,James M.,Melvin J.Hinich(1984).The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
15. Friedman. Jeffery(1996).The Rational Choice Controversy.New Haven:Yale University Press.
16. Gabel,Matthew J.,John D. Huber(2000).Putting Parties in Their Place: Infering Party Lift-Right Ideological Positions from Party Manifestos Data.American Journal of Poliitical Science,44,94-103.
17. Gibbard,A.(1973).Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A Gerneral Results.Econometrica,41,587-602.
18. Glazer, Amihai,Susanne Lohmann(1999).Setting the Agenda: Electoral Compitition, Commitment of Policy, and Issue Salience.Public Choice,99,377-394.
19. Green, Donald P.,Ian Shapiro(1994).Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory.New Haven:Yale University Press.
20. Hardin, Russell(1982).Collective Action.Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press.
21. Hearl, Derek J.(2001).Mapping Policy Preference.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
22. Hinich,Melvin J.,Michael C. Munger(1997).Analytical Politics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
23. Hofferbert, Richard I.,Ian Budge(1992).The Party Mandate and the Westminster Model: Election Programmes and Government Spending in Britain,1984-85.British Journal of Political Science,151-82.
24. Hsieh, John Fun-sheng(1996).Taiwan's Electoral Politics and Democratic Transition.New York:
25. Huber, John,Ronald Inglehart(1995).Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies.Party Politics,1,73-111.
26. Katz,Richard S.(1980).A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems.Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press.
27. Klingemann, H.D., R.I. Hofferbert,Ian budge et al.(1994).Parties,Policies,and Democracy.Boulder:Westvies Press.
28. Krippendorff,Klous(1980).Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology.Beverky Hill:Sage.
29. Laver, Michael(2001).Party System Dynamics and the Markting and Breaking of Italian Governments.Electoral Studies,20
30. Laver, Michael(1998).Party Policy in Britain 1997: Results from an Expert Survey.Political Studies
31. Laver, Michael(2001).Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors.London:Routeldge.
32. Laver, Michael,Ian Budge(1992).Party Policy and Government Coalitions.St. Martin's Press.
33. Laver, Michael,John Gary(2000).Estimating Policy Positions From Political Text.American Journal of Poliitical Science,44,619-634.
34. Laver, Michael,Norman Schofield(1990).Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
35. Laver, Michael,W. Ben Hunt(1992).Policy and Party Competition.London:Routeldge.
36. Lijphart, Arend(1999).Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries.New Haven:Yale University Press.
37. Liu, Tsung-Wei(2002).The effects of Electoral Laws on Party Competition in Taiwan 1989-1998,with particular reference to the single non-transferable vote (SNTV).
38. McDonald,Michael D.,Ian Budge,Richard I.Hofferbert(1999).Party Mandate Theory and Time Series Analysis: A Theoretical and Methodological Response.Electoral Studies,18,587-596.
39. McDonald,Michael D.,Slivia M. Mendes(2001).Mapping Policy Preference.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
40. Merrill Ⅲ,Samuel,Bernard Grofman(1999).A Unified Theory of Voting.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
41. Mueller, Dennis C.(1997).Perspectives on Public Choice: A Handbook.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
42. Olson, Mancur(1965).The Logic of Collective Actions.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
43. Riker, William H.(1982).Liberalism against Populism.San Francisco:Freeman.
44. Riker, William H.(1993).Agenda Formation.Michigan:The University og Michigan Press.
45. Riker, William H.(1962).The Theory of Political Coalitions.New Haven:Yale University Press.
46. Robertson, David(1976).A Theory of Party Compitition.London:John Wiley and Sons.
47. Shepsle, Kenneth A.(1991).Model of Multiparty Electoral Compitition.New York:Harwood Academic Publishers.
48. Taylor, Michanel(1987).The Possibility of Cooperation.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
49. Tsebelis, George(1990).Nested Games.Berkeley:University of California Press.
50. Volkens Andrea(1992).Content Analysisof Party Programmes in Comparative Perspective: Handbook and Coding Instructions.
51. Volkens Andrea(2001).Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors.London:Routeldge.
52. Wang, Yeh-Lin(1996).The Political Consequences of the Electoral System: Single Non-Transferable Voting in Taiwan.Issue and Studies,32,85-104.
53. Weber,R.P.(1985).Basic Content Analysis.London:Sage.
54. Wittman, Donald(1983).Candicate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories.American Political Science Review,77,142-57.
55. 宋朝欽、何榮幸、張瑞昌(1993)。民進黨執政之路。台北:風雲論壇。
56. 李俊毅(1995)。醜陋的立法院。台北:福爾摩沙。
57. 廖忠俊(1998)。台北地方派系的形成發展與質變。台北:允晨。

1. 劉從葦(2006)。台灣政黨的政策位置：非介入式與介入式測量的比較研究。臺灣政治學刊，10(2)，3-62。
2. 蒙志成(2014)。「92 共識」對2012年台灣總統大選的議題效果：「傾向分數配對法」的應用與實證估算。選舉研究，21(1)，1-45。