臺灣與南韓「政黨選舉競爭穩定性」的比較分析：「選舉浮動性」的測量

Comparative Analysis on the Stability of Political Party Electoral Competition in Taiwan and South Korea: Measuring the Electoral Volatility

楊以彬(I-Pin Yang)

臺灣 ； 南韓 ； 政黨選舉競爭穩定性 ； 政黨體系制度化 ； 選舉浮動性 ； Taiwan ； South Korea ； the Stability of Party Electoral Competition ； Party System Institutionalization ； Electoral Volatility

長庚人文社會學報

9卷1期（2016 / 04 / 01）

115 - 150

繁體中文

民主轉型後的臺灣與南韓已經逐步邁入民主鞏固階段，一套健全的制度化政黨體系的建立和形成乃是重要條件之一。其中，最優先的分析面向和觀察指標，即是兩國政黨選舉競爭是否已經具備足夠的穩定性和長期的規律性，具體表現在各政黨在換屆選舉中其浮動性高低程度的變化及消長。值此，本文研究主題，旨在比較分析臺灣與南韓政黨選舉競爭穩定性的高低程度及優劣表現，進而評估對政黨體系制度化的影響。為達成預期的研究目標，筆者將引用Pedersen 設計的「選舉浮動性」公式作為操作性測量工具，藉以計算臺灣與南韓政黨席次浮動及政黨得票浮動情況。根據比較分析後的結果，本文發現，臺灣的總體選舉浮動性較南韓為低，顯示臺灣政黨選舉競爭穩定性優於南韓，因此相對有利於政黨體系制度化的健全。

Taiwan and South Korea after democratization have gradually entered the consolidation phase of democratic development. The institutionalization of political parties, that is, to establish a well-developed party system, is one of the most important conditions for this phase. In both countries, the stability of the electoral competition of the political parties and the long-term regularity of the elections are taken as first primordial consideration among all the analysis models and the indicators, which can be measured by the range of the changes in the electoral volatility of the political parties. The purpose of this comparative analysis is to compare the stability and the performance of the electoral competition of political parties in Taiwan and South Korea as well as to evaluate its impact on the political party system institutionalization. In order to achieve the intended goal of the research, I will use the Pedersen Index of electoral volatility as the measuring tool to calculate the changes in voter volatility and seat volatility in Taiwan and South Korea elections. According to the results of the comparative analysis, I found that Taiwan has a lower aggregate volatility than South Korea, which means the stability of Taiwan's political electoral competition is higher than South Korea, thus leads to a better-institutionalized political party system in Taiwan.

1. Coppedge, M.(2007).Continuity and Change in Latin American Party Systems.Taiwan Journal of Democracy,3(2),119-149.
   連結：
2. Lee, S. M.(2007).Democratic Transition and the Consolidation of Democracy in South Korea.Taiwan Journal of Democracy,3(1),99-125.
   連結：
3. 吳重禮(2000)。美國「分立性政府」研究文獻之評析：兼論臺灣地區政治發展。問題與研究，13(3)，75-101。
   連結：
4. 沈有忠(2012)。半總統制「權力總統化」之比較研究。臺灣民主季刊，9(4)，1-36。
   連結：
5. 林繼文(2006)。政府體制、選舉制度與政黨體系：一個配套論的分析。選舉研究，13(2)，1-35。
   連結：
6. 湯德宗(1998)。論九七修憲後之權力分立─憲改工程的另類選擇。臺大法學論叢，27(2)，171-172。
   連結：
7. 湯德宗(1998)。論九七修憲後之權力分立─憲改工程的另類選擇。臺大法學論叢，27(2)，171-172。
   連結：
8. 蘇子喬、王業立(2010)。為何廢棄混合式選舉制度？─義大利、俄羅斯與泰國選制改革之研究。東吳政治學報，28(3)，1-81。
   連結：
9. Shin, D. C. and Y. H. Chu (2004), “The Quality of Democracy in South Korea and Taiwan: Subjective Assessment from the Perspectives of Ordinary Citizens,”Working Paper Series, 25, 1-70.
10. Ágh, A.(1998).The politics of Central Europe.London:Sage Publications Ltd..
11. Bartoliniand, S.,Mair, P.(1990).Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: The Stabilization of the European Electorate, 1885-1985.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
12. Basedau, M.(ed.),Erdmann, G.(ed.),Mehler, A.(ed.)(2007).Votes, Money and Violence.Uppsala, Sweden:Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
13. Biezen, I. V.(2004).Political Parties as Public Utilities.Party Politics,10(6),701-722.
14. Birch, S.(2003).Electoral Systems and Political Transformation in Post-Communist Europe.Basingstoke, UK:Palgrave Macmillan.
15. Brady, D. W.,Mo, J.(1992).Electoral Systems and Institutional Choice: A Case Study of the 1988 Korean Elections.Comparative Political Studies,24(4),405-430.
16. Chan, K. K. L.(2001).Structuralism Versus Intentionalism in Post-Communist Party System Evolution.Party Politics,7(5),605-619.
17. Chung, J. M.(2013).The Impact of Electoral Environment and Political Institutions on Post-Democratization Party Change in South Korea and Taiwan.Korea Observer,44(1),1-30.
18. Croissant, A.(ed.)(2002).Politics in Southeast and East Asia.Singapore:Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
19. Croissant, A.,Vroiss, P.(2012).Party System Types and Party System Institutionalization: Comparing New Democracies in East and Southeast Asia.Party Politics,18(2),235-265.
20. Daalder, H.(ed.),Mair, P.(ed.)(1983).Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change.Beverly Hill, C.A.:Sage.
21. Diamond, L.(1997).Consolidating Democracy in the Americas.Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science,550(34),12-41.
22. Diamond, L.(1996).Is the Third Wave Over?.Journal of Democracy,7(3),20-37.
23. Diamond, Larry Jay,Lipset, Seymour Martin,Linz, Juan J.(1989).Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America.Boulder, CO:Lynne Rienner.
24. Dix, R.(1992).Democratization and the Institutionalization of Latin American Political Parties.Comparative Political Studies,24(4),488-511.
25. Dunleavy, P.,Margetts, H.(1995).Understanding the Dynamics of Electoral Reform.International Political Science Review,16(1),9-29.
26. Duverger, M.(1980).A New Political System Model: Semi-Presidential Government.European Journal of Political Research,8(2),165-187.
27. Elgie, R.(ed.)(1999).Semi-Presidentialism in Europe.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
28. Gallagher, M.(1991).Proportionality, Dispropertionality and Electoral Systems.Electoral Studies,10(1),33-51.
29. Gallagher, M.(ed.),Mitchell, P.(ed.)(2005).The Politics of Electoral System.New York:Oxford University Press.
30. Goodin, R. E.(ed.),Klingemann, H. D.(ed.)(1996).A New Handbook for Political Science.New York:Oxford University Press.
31. Gunther, R.(ed.),Diamandouros, P. N.(ed.),Puhle, H. J.(ed.)(1995).The Politics of Democratic Consolidation: Southern Europe in Comparative Perspective.Baltimore M.D.:The Johns Hopkins University Press.
32. Gunther, R.(ed.),Diamond, L.(ed.)(2003).Political Parties and Democracy.Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.
33. Hicken, A.,Kasuya, Y.(2003).A Guide to the Constitutional Structures and Electoral Systems of East, South and Southeast Asia.Electoral Studies,22(1),121-151.
34. Hicken, A.,Kuhonta, E. M.(2011).Shadows From the Past: Party System Institutionalization in Asia.Comparative Political Studies,44(5),572-597.
35. Huntington, S. P.(1991).The Third Waves: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century.Norman, O.K.:University of Oklahoma Press.
36. Jones, M. P.(2007).Political Parties and Party Systems in Latin America.conference on "Prospects for Democracy in Latin America",Denton, Texas:
37. Katz, R. S.(ed.),Crotty, W.(ed.)(2006).Handbook of Party Politics.London:Sage.
38. Katz, R. S.(ed.),Crotty, W.(ed.)(2006).Handbook of Political Parties.London:Sage.
39. Kitschelt, H.,Dimitrov, D.,Kanev, A.(1995).The Structure of the Vote in Post Communist Party Systems: The Bulgarian Example.European Journal of Political Research,2,143-160.
40. Korosteleva, E. A.(2000).Electoral volatility in post-communist Belarus: Explaining the paradox.Party Politics,6(3),343-358.
41. Lijphart, A.(ed.),Waisman, C. J.(ed.)(1996).Institutional Design in New Democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America.Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
42. Lupu, N.,Stokes, S.(2010).Democracy, Interrupted: Regime Change and Partisanship in Twentieth-Century Argentina.Electoral Studies,29(1),91-104.
43. Madrid, R.(2005).Ethnic Cleavages and Electoral Volatility in Latin America.Comparative Politics,38(1),1-20.
44. Mainwaring, S.(1999).Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil.Santa Clara, C.A.:Stanford University Press.
45. Mainwaring, S.(1998).Party Systems in the Third Wave.Journal of Democracy,9(3),67-81.
46. Mainwaring, S.(1993).Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination.Comparative Political Studies,26(2),198-228.
47. Mainwaring, S.(ed.),Scull, T.(ed.)(1995).Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America.Santa Clara, C.A.:Stanford University Press.
48. Mainwaring, S.,Zoco, E.(2007).Political Sequences and the Stabilization of Inter-Party Competition.Party Politics,13(2),155-178.
49. Park, C. W.(2009).Adopation of the Two -Vote Mixed - Member Majoritarian System and Its Effects on Citizens' Voting Behavior in the Korean National Assembly Election.conference on "Elections in Taiwan, Japan, and Korea under the Mixed-Member Electoral Systems",Taipei:
50. Pedersen, M. N.(1982).Towards a New Typology of Party Life Spans and Minor Parties.European Journal of Political Research,7(1),1-26.
51. Pedersen, M. N.(1980).On Measuring Party System Change: A Methodological Critique and a Suggestion.Comparative Political Studies,12(4),387-403.
52. Pedersen, M. N.(1979).The Dynamics of European Party Systems: Changing Patterns of Electoral Volatility.European Journal of Political Research,7(1),1-26.
53. Pennings, P.(ed.),Lane, J. E.(ed.)(1998).Comparing Party System Change.New York:Routledge.
54. Przeworski, A.(1975).Institutionalization of Voting Patters, or is Mobilization the Source of Decay?.American Political Science Review,69(1),49-67.
55. Rose, R.(ed.)(2000).International Encyclopedia of Elections.Washington, D.C.:Congressional Quarterly Press.
56. Rose, R.,Munro, N.,Mackie, T. T.(1998).Elections in Central and Eastern Europe since 1990.Glasgow, UK:University of Strathclyde, Studies in Public Policy.
57. Shamir, M.(1984).Are Western Party Systems 'Frozen'?. A Comparative Dynamic Analysis.Comparative Political Studies,17(1),35-79.
58. Shugart, M. S.(2005).Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns.French Politics,3,323-351.
59. Sikk, A.(2005).How Unstable? Volatility and the Genuinely New Parties in Eastern Europe.European Journal of Political Research,44,391-412.
60. Tavits, M.,Annus, T.(2006).Learning to Make Votes Count: The Role of Democratic Experience.Electoral Studies,25(1),72-90.
61. Tóka, G.(1997).Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation in East Central Europe.Glasgow, UK:University of Strathclyde, Studies in Public Policy.
62. 王業立(1995)。單記非讓渡投票制的政治影響：我國民意代表選舉制度的探討。選舉研究，2(1)，147-167。
63. 王業立(2006)。比較選舉制度。臺北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
64. 田弘茂編、朱雲漢編、賴瑞．戴蒙編、馬克．普萊特編(1997)。鞏固第三波民主。臺北:業強出版社。
65. 林永芳(2006)。俄羅斯的政黨體系與民主化。俄羅斯學報，2006，25-50。
66. 施正鋒(2000)。亟待尋求共識的中央政府體制。政策月刊，59，26-31。
67. 高朗編、隋杜卿編(2002)。憲政體制與總統權力。臺北:國家政策研究基金會。
68. 張世賢編(2011)。各國選舉制度。臺北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
69. 陳寧寧、劉德海(2001)。韓國研究導論。臺北:中國文化大學出版部。
70. 黃德福(1992)。民主進步黨與臺灣地區政治民主化。臺北:時英出版社。
71. 楊日青編(2003)。兩岸立法制度與立法運作。臺北:韋伯文化出版股份有限公司。
72. 雷競旋(1989)。選舉制度。臺北:洞察出版社。
73. 謝復生(1994)。憲政體制、選舉制度與政黨運作。理論與政策，8(2)，5-13。
74. 蘇子喬(2002)。我國當前憲政體制中總統、行政院院長與立法院之三角關係─應然面與實然面之探討。憲政時代，27(3)，84-119。
75. 蘇永欽編(2001)。政黨重組─臺灣民主政治的再出發？。臺北:新臺灣人文教基金會。

1. 鍾宇軒,曾映綾(2023)。公司政治獻金與公股銀行貸款合約利率：來自臺灣總統大選之證據。臺大管理論叢，33(2)，169-234。
2. 鍾宇軒,王嘉汝(2020)。政治不確定性與企業投資：來自臺灣總統大選的證據。當代會計，21(2)，133-184。