台灣政黨的政策位置：非介入式與介入式測量的比較研究

Policy Positions of Political Parties in Taiwan: A Comparative Study of Unobtrusive and Obtrusive Measurements

10.6683/TPSR.200612.10(2).3-62

劉從葦(Tsung-Wei Liu)

政黨位置測量 ； 顯著性理論 ； 內容分析 ； 專家調查 ； measurement of party position ； saliency theory ； content analysis ； expert survey

台灣政治學刊

10卷2期（2006 / 12 / 01）

3 - 62

繁體中文

政黨位置的測量雖然只是單一變數的測量，但仍然屬於理論導向的經驗研究。本文首先簡要說明研究途徑與理論如何影響變數選擇與測量的方法。接著分別討論以政見研究小組的內容分析法為主的非介入式測量，與專家調查、候選人調查、抽樣調查等三種介入式測量的方法及其優缺點。第三部份使用以顯著性理論為基礎所發展的內容分析法，以政黨政見與選舉公報為文本來測量台灣主要政黨與派系在統獨立場、左右議題、環境保護與經濟發展三個政策空間上的位置。另外輔以專家調查與抽樣調查資料，除了呈現不同測量方式的結果外，也比較內容分析法與專家調查的結果，以信度檢驗來作為推測內容分析是否具有效度的基礎。結果顯示，以政黨政見與選舉公報為文本的內容分析所呈現的政黨相對位置大致相同。內容分析與專家調查所呈現的政黨相對位置也沒有重大差異。因此，從理論基礎、公開可複製的科學流程、到信度與效度檢驗，都顯示政見研究小組的內容分析法是有效的測量方式。

To measure party positions should be a theory-guided empirical research, even though it is only about to measure a variable. This research starts with explaining why approach and theories are important to the selection of variables and how to measure them. Secondly, the content analysis developed by Manifesto Research Group (MRG) and a variety of obtrusive methods of measurements are introduced, including what they are and their advantages and disadvantages. Thirdly, the Taiwanese parties' positions on Taiwan Independence, Left-Right Dimension, and Environmental Protection and Economy Growth are measured by the MRG methods with party manifestos and electoral gazettes. Besides, expert surveys and mass surveys are used as a supplement. The measures from content analysis are compared with that from surveys in order to assure the validity of the data. The results show that party positions measured by content analysis and surveys are similar. Therefore, because of its solid theory, public and replicable coding procedure, and acceptable reliability and validity, the method of measuring party positions developed by MRG provides quality data of party positions.

1. 王鼎銘(2003)。政策認同下的投票效用與選擇：空間投票理論在不同選舉制度間的比較。選舉研究，10(1)，171-206。
   連結：
2. 王鼎銘(2005)。「新中間路線」在2000年總統選舉的意義與作用：中位選民定理的應用分析。台灣政治學刊，9(1)，39-81。
   連結：
3. 盛杏湲、陳義彥(2003)。政治分歧與政黨競爭：2001年立法委員選舉的分析。選舉研究，10(1)，7-40。
   連結：
4. 劉從葦(2004)。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爲例。人文及社會科學集刊，16(1)，151-195。
   連結：
5. Adams, James.(2001).Party Competition and Responsible Party Government.Michigan:University of Michigan Press.
6. Beyme, Klaus Von.(1985).Political Parties in Western Democracies.UK:Palgrave.
7. Blondel, J.(1968).Party Systems and Patterns of Government in Western Democracies.Canadian Journal of Political Science,1(2),180-203.
8. Budge, Ian(1976).Party Identification and Beyond.New York:John & Sons.
9. Budge, Ian(2001).Mapping Policy Preferences.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
10. Budge, Ian.(2001).Validating Party Policy Placements.British Journal of Political Science,31,210-223.
11. Budge, Ian.(2000).Expert Judgments of Party Policy Positions: Uses and Limitations in Political Research.European Journal of Political Research,37,103-113.
12. Budge, Ian,David Robertson,Derek Hearl(1987).Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
13. Budge, Ian,Dennis Farlie.(1977).Voting and Party Competition.London:John Wiley and Sons.
14. Budge, Ian,Dennis J. Farlie.(1983).Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies.London:George Allen & Unwin.
15. Budge, Ian,Hans Keman.(1990).Parties and Democracy.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
16. Budge, Ian,Richard I. Hofferbert.(1990).Mandates and Policy Outputs: U.S. Party Platforms and Federal Expenditures.American Political Science Review,84,111-131.
17. Castles, Francis G.,Peter Mair.(1984).Left-Right Political Scales: Some 'Expert' Judgements.European Journal of Political Research,12,73-88.
18. Cox, Gary W.(1999).The Empirical Content of Rational Choice Theory.Journal of Theoretical Politics,11(2),147-169.
19. Cox, Gary W.(1997).Making Votes Count.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
20. Dow, Jay K.(2001).A Comparative Spatial Analysis of Majoritarian and Proportional Elections.Electoral Studies,20,109-125.
21. Downs, Anthony.(1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy.New York:Harper and Row.
22. Duverger, M.(1963).Political Parties.New York:John Wiley.
23. Enelow, James M.,Melvin J. Hinich.(1984).The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
24. Fell, Dafydd.(2001).Party Platform Change in Taiwan's 1990 Election Campaigns.paper presented at the Seventh Annual Conference of the North American Taiwan Studies Association
25. Friedman, Jeffrey (ed.)(1996).The Rational Choice Controversy.New Haven:Yale University Press.
26. Gaines, B. J.(1997).Where to Count Parties.Electoral Studies,16,49-58.
27. Green, Donald P.,Ian Shapiro.(1994).Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory.New Haven:Yale University Press.
28. Hardin, Russell.(1982).Collective Action.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.
29. Hearl, Derek J.,Ian Budge (eds.)(2001).Mapping Policy Preferences.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
30. Hofferbert, Richard I.,Ian Budge.(1992).The Party Mandate and the Westminster Model: Election Programmes and Government Spending in Britain, 1948-85.British Journal of Political Science,22,151-182.
31. Huber, John,Ronald Inglehart.(1995).Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies.Party Politics,1(1),73-111.
32. Kim, Hee-Min,Richard C. Fording.,Ian Budge. (ed.)(2001).Mapping Policy Preferences.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
33. Krippendorff, Klaus.(1980).Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.Beverly Hills:Sage.
34. Laakso, M.,R. Taagepera.(1979).Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to Western Europe.Comparative Political Studies,12,3-27.
35. Laver, Michael,Ian Budge.(1992).Party Policy and Government Coalitions.New York:St. Martin's Press.
36. Laver, Michael,John Gary.(2000).Estimating Policy Positions from Political Texts.American Journal of Political Science,44(3),619-634.
37. Laver, Michael,Kenneth Benoit,John Garry.(2003).Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data.American Political Science Review,97(2),311-331.
38. Laver, Michael,Norman Schofield.(1990).Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
39. Laver, Michael,W. Ben Hunt.(1992).Policy and Party Competition.London:Routledge.
40. Lijphart, A.(1994).Electoral Systems and Party Systems.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
41. Liu, Tsung-Wei.(2000).The Impact of Electoral Systems: How to Test It by Saliency Theory?.Paper presented at the Conference of Election Study Center,Taipei:
42. Liu, Tsung-Wei.(2002).U.K.,Department of Government, University of Essex.
43. Mair, Peter.,Michael Laver. (ed.)(2001).Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors.London:Routledge.
44. Matthews, Steven A.(1979).A Simple Direction Model of Electoral competition.Public Choice,34,141-156.
45. McDonald, Michael D.,Silvia M. Mendes.,Ian Budge. (ed.)(2001).Mapping Policy Preferences.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
46. Merrill Samuel,Bernard Grofman.(1999).A Unified Theory of Voting.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
47. Merton, Rebecca B.(1999).Methods & Models.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
48. Neto, Octavio Amorim,Gary W. Cox.(1997).Electoral Institutions, Cleavages Structures, and the Number of Parties.American Journal of Political Science,41(1),149-174.
49. Norris, Pippa. (eds.),Geoffrey Evans (eds.)(1999).Critical Elections.London:Sage.
50. Norris, Pippa,Joni Lovenduski.(2004).Why Parties Fail to Learn: Electoral Defeat, Selective Perception and British Party Politics.Party Politics,10,83-102.
51. Norris, Pippa,Joni Lovenduski.(1995).Political Recruitment.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
52. Olson, Mancur.(1965).The Logic of Collective Action.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
53. Panebianco, Angelo.(1988).Political Parties: Organization & Power.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
54. Rabinowitz, George,Stuart Macdonald.(1989).A directional Theory of Issue Voting.American Political Science Review,89,93-121.
55. Rae, D.(1971).The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws.New Haven:Yale University Press.
56. Riker, William H.(1982).The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science.American Political Science Review,76,753-766.
57. Riker, William H.(1982).Liberalism against Populism.San Francisco:Freeman.
58. Riker, William H.(1962).The Theory of Political Coalitions.New Haven:Yale University Press.
59. Robertson, David.(1976).A Theory of Party Competition.London:John Wiley and Sons.
60. Sartori, G.(1976).Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
61. Scarrow, Susan E.(1996).Parties and Their Members.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
62. Shepsle, Kenneth A.(1991).Models of Multiparty Electoral Competition.New York:Harwood Academic.
63. Taagepera, R.(1997).Effective Number of Parties for Incomplete Data.Electoral Studies,16,145-151.
64. Taagepera, Rein,Bernard Grofman.(1985).Rethinking Duverger's Law: Predicting the Effective Number of Parties in Plurality and PR Systems-Parties Minus Issues Equals One.European Journal of Political Research,13,341-352.
65. Taylor, Michael.(1987).The Possibility of Cooperation.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
66. Tsebelis, George.(1990).Nested Games.BerKeley:University of California Press.
67. Volkens, Andrea.(1992).Content Analysis of Party Programmes in Comparative Perspective: Handbook and Coding Instructions.Abteilung:Institutionen und Sozialer Wandel.
68. Weisberg, Herbert F.(1992).Central Tendency and Variability.London:Sage.
69. Wittman, Donald.(1983).Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories.American Political Science Review,77,142-157.

1. 許恒禎(2012)。台灣與蒙古半總統制下政府型態的比較。東吳政治學報，30(2)，71-125。
2. 許恒禎(2014)。半總統制下不同政府型態之比較：羅馬尼亞與臺灣。中華行政學報，14，89-126。
3. 許恒禎(2020)。蒙古與台灣的憲政體制與政府型態。臺灣國際研究季刊，16(4)，97-122。
4. 劉嘉薇、陳陸輝、耿曙(2009)。打破維持現狀的迷思：台灣民眾統獨抉擇中理念與務實的兩難。臺灣政治學刊，13(2)，3-56。
5. 劉子昱,廖達琪,黃郁慈,林福仁,李承訓(2012)。台灣立法委員政見資料庫之建置。選舉研究，19(2)，129-158。
6. 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。
7. 蒙志成(2016)。越融合或越疏離？解析當前兩岸交流下台灣民眾身分認同的內涵與影響。臺灣政治學刊，20(2)，187-262。
8. 王宏忠(2012)。政治意識及政治菁英的論述對於台灣民眾議題立場的影響─對Zaller之主流效應及極化效應之檢證。臺灣民主季刊，9(2)，71-123。
9. 蕭怡靖、鄭夙芬(2014)。台灣民眾對左右意識型態的認知：以統獨議題取代左右意識型態檢測台灣的政黨極化。臺灣政治學刊，18(2)，79-138。