淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2806200719211100
中文論文名稱 社會資本與民主政治:台灣的案例研究
英文論文名稱 Social Capital and Democracy: The Case Study of Taiwan
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 公共行政學系公共政策碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Public Administration
學年度 95
學期 2
出版年 96
研究生中文姓名 楊湘齡
研究生英文姓名 Shiang-Ling Yang
學號 693550047
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2007-06-08
論文頁數 59頁
口試委員 指導教授-林聰吉
委員-游清鑫
委員-王中天
中文關鍵字 社會資本  社會網絡  社會信任  民主支持度  政治效能感  政治參與 
英文關鍵字 Social Capital  Social Network  Social Trust  Democratic Support  Political Efficacy  Political Participation 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學行政與地政
中文摘要 「社會資本」在近幾年已成為社會學界的熱門概念,其影響涉及社會學、經濟學、政治學和管理科學等諸多領域。本文主要著重於社會資本的政治面向,從國家整體角度切入,探討其與台灣民主發展的關係。利用「東亞民主化與價值變遷:比較調查」研究計畫資料,本文主要研究問題為:(一)台灣社會資本分佈情形?社會網絡參與數量與類型比例?社會網絡參與及政治討論頻率?以及社會信任的程度?(二)社會網絡的數量及類型與社會信任的關係?(三)社會資本的政治效果?對民主支持、政治效能感與政治參與影響程度為何?
研究結果發現,台灣在2001年的社會資本並不豐沛,社會網絡參與度不僅未達五成,且網絡政治討論頻率十分低迷。網絡類型中以宗教團體及閒話家常所占比例最高,政治團體及在商業或金錢來往類型居末。在社會信任部分則有下滑趨勢。其次,對於社會網絡與社會信任之間關係,研究發現社團參與數量及類型與信任之間存有顯著關聯性。最後,在社會資本政治效果面向,發現社會網絡參與數量和類型確實有助於提升內在政治效能感及政治參與,而社會信任對民主支持與外在效能感有顯著功效。然而,團體類型中的職業團體對民主支持呈現負相關,顯示社團參與對民主並非皆為正面效果。結論指出,欲解決台灣目前政治窘境,唯有累積豐厚社會資本,塑造良好的政治文化與培養積極成熟的民主公民,台灣新興的民主政體才能進一步深化與鞏固。
英文摘要 More recently, the concept of social capital has become one of the most widely discussed topics in the field of sociology. Not only does the concept of social capital have a profound effect on sociology, but it invokes a broad research and application in the areas of politics, economics, and management. This study focuses on the political aspect of social capital. The purpose of this thesis is an understanding, from the entire viewpoint of the country, of the relationship between social capital and the development of democracy in Taiwan. The data come from the East Asia Barometer. This study is intended to explore the following research questions as: (1) What is the current distribution of social capital in Taiwan? What is the participation amount of social network? What types of social network? What is the frequency of political discussion? What is the degree of social trust? (2) What is the relationship between social trust and the amount of social network? What is the relationship between social trust and the types of social network? (3) What is the political effect of social capital? What is the influence of political effect of social capital on democratic support, political efficacy, and political participation?
This study reveals that it is evident that Taiwan has a relatively low degree of social capital in 2001. About the relative low level of social capital, two matters are clear: first, the participation of social network is less than 50 percent of the whole population; second, it is the low frequency of online political discussion. Among the types of network, religious society and online chatting enjoy high level of participation than others. Political and commerce groups have the lowest participation. In terms of social trust, it shows that there is a recent trend of decline. Then, as for the relationship between social capital and social network, this study demonstrates that the amount and type of participating groups and social trust are of significantly related. At last, with the political respect of social capital, this study shows that the amount and type of social network have the ability to enhance the internal political efficacy and political participation. Besides, social trust has significant effect on democratic support and external political efficacy. However, there is a negative correlation relationship between occupational groups and democratic support. This result displays that group participation, Taiwan as an example, does not always generate positive effect in the process democracy development. In summary, these findings suggest that one possible way to resolve the political dilemmas currently happened in Taiwan would be to increase the level of social capital. A better accumulation of social capital has the ability to generate positive political culture and cultivate developed democracy in Taiwan.
論文目次 第一章 緒論..........................1
第一節 研究動機與目的................1
第二節 文獻檢閱......................3
第三節 研究設計.....................12
第二章 台灣社會資本之分析...........15
第一節 社會網絡參與數量和類型分佈...16
第二節 社會網絡參與及政治討論頻率...26
第三節 社會信任之分佈情況...........28
第三章 社會資本與民主政治...........31
第一節 社會網絡與社會信任...........32
第二節 社會資本的民主效果...........36
第四章 結論.........................42
第一節 研究發現.....................42
第二節 研究限制與建議...............44
附錄一 變項的測量與處理方式.........46
附錄二 問卷題目.....................50
參考文獻............................52
中文部分............................52
英文部分............................54

圖表目錄
圖1-1 社會資本與民主政治的關係圖 14
表2-1 台灣與東亞各國民眾的社會網絡參與數量(2001) 17
表2-2 台灣民眾正式團體參與類型(2001) 19
表2-3 台灣民眾的政治興趣及政治討論(2001) 22
表2-4 台灣民眾非正式團體參與類型(2001) 24
表2-5 台灣民眾的網絡參與及網絡政治討論頻率(2001) 27
表2-6 台灣與東亞各國民眾的社會信任(2001、2003) 29
表3-1 台灣民眾社會信任與社會網絡數量交叉分析表(2001) 33
表3-2 台灣民眾社會信任與社會網絡類型交叉分析表(2001) 35
表3-3 社會資本(社會信任與社會網絡數量)對民主政治的影響 40
表3-4 社會資本(社會信任與社會網絡類型)對民主政治的影響 41



參考文獻 中文部分
王中天,2002,〈社會資本及其政治效應初探:以台灣為例〉,台灣政治學年會暨「全球化與台灣政治」學術研討會。嘉義:台灣政治學會。
2003,〈社會資本:概念、源起、及現狀〉,《問題與研究》,第42卷第5期,頁139-164。
內政部統計處,2006,〈中華民國台灣地區各級人民團體概況調查報告〉,內政部統計服務資訊網,http://www129.tpg.gov.tw/mbas/society/index.html,2005/12/09。
江明修,2004,《充實社會資本之研究》,台北:行政院經濟建設委員會。
行政院主計處,2003,《社會發展趨勢調查報告:社會參與》,台北:行政院主計處,http://www129.tpg.gov.tw/mbas/society/index.html,2005/12/10。
吳乃德,2004,〈搜尋民主公民—社團參與的理論與實務〉,李丁讚等著,《公共領域在台灣:困境與契機》,頁177-214,台北:桂冠圖書。
吳重禮、湯京平、黃紀,2000,〈我國「政治功效意識」測量之初探〉,《選舉研究》,第6卷第2期,頁23-28。
吳惠巧,2005,《台灣宗教社會觀察》,台北:大元書局。
何思因,1992,〈我國選民的政黨偏好〉,《東亞季刊》,第23卷第2期,頁39-50。
李惠斌,2000,〈什麼是社會資本〉,李惠斌、楊東雪主編,《社會資本與社會發展》,頁3-19,北京:社會科學文獻。
林聰吉,2007,〈解析台灣的民主政治:以民主支持與滿意度為觀察指標〉,《選舉研究》,第14卷第1期,頁61-85。
施正仁,2005,《政治效能感與政治參與—2004年總統大選的個案分析》,台北:淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士班碩士論文。
徐火炎,1991,〈政黨認同與投票抉擇:台灣地區選民的政黨印象、偏好與黨派投票行為之分析〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》,第4卷第1期,頁1-57。
陳東升、陳端容,2005,〈跨族群政治討論網絡的形成及其影響因素〉,《台灣社會學》,第4期,頁119-157。
陳陸輝,2000,〈台灣選民政黨認同的持續與變遷〉,《選舉研究》,第7卷第2期,頁109-139。
陳欽春,2004,《民主治理與社會資本:台灣地區公民信任實證研究》,台北:國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系博士論文。
張培新,2005,〈台灣宗教組織運作的社會資本考察:以慈濟功德會為例〉,《中山人文社會科學期刊》,第14卷第1期,頁125-163。
張英陣,2006,〈志願性部門與社會資本:創造或消耗?〉,內政部全球志願服務資訊網,http://vol.moi.gov.tw/ScholarArticle_1.aspx?NO=23andClickNo=1andCurPageNo=1,2005/10/20。
黃信豪,2005,〈台灣民眾政治功效意識的持續與變遷:政黨輪替前後的分析〉。《選舉研究》,第12卷第2期,頁111-147。
2006,〈政治功效意識的行動效果(1998 - 2003)〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,第3卷第2期,頁119-158。
瞿海源,1997,《台灣宗教變遷的社會政治分析》,台北:桂冠圖書。
1999,〈結社自由、團體參與、與民主〉,「自由、平等與社會正義研討會」。台北:殷海光基金會。
2002,《宗教與社會》,台北:台大。
羅家德、趙延東,2004,〈社會資本的層次及其測量方法〉,李培林主編,《公共領域在台灣:困境與契機》,北京:社會科學文獻。
顧忠華,2002,〈公民社會在台灣的成形經驗〉,瞿海源等主編,《法治、人權與公民社會》,頁161-196,台北:桂冠圖書。
Fukuyama, Francis,張美惠譯,2000,《跨越斷層:人性與社會秩序重建》,台北:時報文化。
Lin, Nan,林祐聖、葉欣怡合譯,2005,《社會資本》,台北:弘智文化。

英文部分
Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba, 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bacon, D, 2002. “Revitalising Civil Society through Social Capital Formation in Faith Based Organisations: Research Findings from North Ireland.” Paper Presented at the Fifth Conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research, University of Cape Town.
Balch, George I, 1974. “Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept Sense of Political Efficacy.” Political Methodology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-43.
Barber, Bernard, 1983. The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Bernhard, Michael, 1993. “Civil Society and Democratic Transition in East Central Europe.” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 108, No. 2, pp.307-326.
Booth, John A. and Patricia Bayer Richard, 1996. “Repression, Participation, and Democratic Norms in Urban Central America.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 1205-1232.
1998, “Civil Society, Political Capital, and Democratization in Central America.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 780-800.
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1983. “Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J. G. Richardson, pp.241-258. New York: Greenwood.
Brehm, John, and Wendy Rahn, 1997. “Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 141, No. 3, pp. 1999-1023.
Campbell, Angus, Gerald Gurin and Warren Miller, 1954. The Voter Decides. Evanston: Row, Peterson and. Company.
Carroll, Thomas F, 1992. Intermediary NGOs: The Supporting Link in Grassroots Development. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian.
Cohen, Joshua, and Joel Rogers, 1992. “Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance.” Politics and Society. Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 393-472.
Coleman, James S, 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Economic Review, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 84-88.
1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Diamond, Larry, 1994. “Toward Democratic Consolidation.” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 4-17.
Dowley; Kathleen M. and Brian D Silver, 2002. “Social Capital, Ethnicity and Support for Democracy in the Post-Communist States.” Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 505-527.
Erickson, Bonnie H. and T. A. Nosanchuk, 1990. “How an Apolitical Association Politicizes.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 206-219.
Foley, Michael W. and Bob Edwards, 1998. “Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and Social Capital in Comparative Perspective.” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 5-20.
Fukuyama, Francis, 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: The Free Press.
1999. “Social Capital and Civil Society.” Paper Presented at the Conference on Second Generation Reforms of International Monetary Fund, November 8-9, Washington, D.C.
Giddens, Anthony, 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK : Polity Press in Association.
Hirschman, Albert O, 1984. Getting Ahead Collectively: Grassroots Experiences in Latin America. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press.
Huntington, Samuel P, 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press.
Ikeda, Ken’ich., Yasuo Yamada. and Masaru Kohno, 2003. “Influence of Social Capital on Political Participation in Asian Cultural Context.” Democracy, Governance and Development Working Paper Series: No.10, Asian Barometer Project Office National Taiwan University and Academia Sinica Taipei. In
http://www.asianbarometer.org/newenglish/publications/workingpapers/no.10.pdf. 2005/11/03.
Inglehart, Ronald, 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Knack, Stephen and Philip Keefer, 1997. “Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 112, No. 4, pp. 1251-1288.
Krishna, Anirudh and Norman Uphoff, 1999. “Mapping and Measuring Social Capital: A Conceptual and Empirical Study of Collective Action for Conserving and Developing Watersheds in Rajasthan, India.” Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No.13, Social Development Department. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Levi, Margaret, 1996. “Social and Unsocial Capital: A Review Essay of Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work.” Politics and Society, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 45-55.
Lincoln, James R, 1982. “Intra- (and Inter-) Organizational Networks.” Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 1, pp. 1-38.
Michta, Andrew A, 1997. “Democratic Consolidation in Poland after 1989.” in The Consolidation of Democracy in East-Central Europe, Edited by K. Dawisha and B. Parrott. Cambridge, pp.66-108. England: Cambridge University Press,
Mishler, William., and Richard Roes, 2001. “What Are The Origins of Political Trust Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-Communist Societies.” Comparative Political Studies, Vol.34, No. 1, pp. 30-62.
Muller, Edward N, 1970. “The Representation of Citizens by Political Authorities: Consequences for Regime Support.” American Political Science Review, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 1149-1166.
Newton, Kenneth, 1999. “Social Capital and European Democracy in Modern Europe.” in Social Capital and European Democracy, edited by Jan W. van Deth, Marco Maraffi, Ken Newton, and Paul F Whiteley, pp.3-24. London: Routledge.
2001. “Trust, Social Capital, Civil Society, and Democracy."International Political Science Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 201-214.
Norris, Pippa, 2002. Democratic Phoenix:Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oberschall, Anthony, 1993. Social Movements: Ideologies, Interests, and Identities. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.
Olsen, M. E, 1972. “Social Participation and Voting Turnout: A Multivariate Analysis.” American Sociological Review. Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 317-333.
Park, Chong-min and Doh Chull Shin, 2003. “Social Capital and Democratic Citizenship: The Case of South Korea.” Democracy, Governance and Development Working Paper Series: No.12, Asian Barometer Project Office National Taiwan University and Academia Sinica Taipei. in
http://www.asianbarometer.org/newenglish/publications/workingpapers/no.12.pdf. 2007/10/25.
Parry, Geraint, George Moyser, and Neil Day, 1992. Political Participation and Democracy in Britain. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, Orlando, 1999. “Liberty against the Democratic State.” in Democracy and Trust, Edited by Mark E. Warren, pp. 151-207. Cambridge University Press.
Paxton, Pamela, 1999. “Social Capital Declining in the United States: A Multiple Indicator Assessment.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 105, No. 1, pp. 88-127.
2002. “Social Capital and Democracy: An Interdependent Relationship.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 254-277.
Portes, Alejandro, 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Putnam, Robert D, 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
1995. “Bowling Alone: American’s Declining Social Capital”. Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 65-78.
2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Putnam, Robert D. and Kristin A. Goss, 2002. “Introduction.” in Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Socie. edited by Robert D. Putnam, pp.3-19. New York: Oxford University Oress.
Rosenstone, Steven J., and John M. Hansen, 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
Semetko, Holli A. and Valkenburg Patti M, 1998. “The Impact of Attentiveness of Political Efficacy:Evidence From A Three-Year German Panel Study.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 195-210.
Schudson, Michael, 1996. “What If Civic Life Didn't Die?” The American Prospect, Vol. 7, No. 25, pp. 17-20.
Shingles, Richard D, 1981. “Black Consciousness and Political Participation: The Missing Link.” American Political Science Review, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 76-91.
Skocpol, Theda, 1996. “Unraveling from above.” The American Prospect, Vol. 7, No. 25, pp. 20-25.
Smith, Christian, 1991. The Emergence of Liberation Theology: Radical Religion and Social Movement Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Stolle, Dietlind. and Thomas R. Rochon, 1998. “Are All Associations Alike? Member Diversity, Associational Type, and the Creation of Social Capital.” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 47-65.
Tocqueville, A. de, 1969. Democracy in America, Edited by J.P. Mayer. New York: Doubleday.
Uphoff, Norman T, 1996. Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for Participatory Development and Post-Newtonian Social Science. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Verba, Sidney, and Norman H. Nie, 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.
Verba, Sidney., Kay Lehman Schlozman. and Henry E. Brady, 1995. Voice and Equality:Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Verba, Sidney, Nancy Burns, and Kay Lehman Schlozman, 1997. “Knowing and Caring about Politics: Gender and Political Engagement.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 1051-1072.
Warren, Mark E, 1999. Democracy and Trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wasserman, Stanley. and Katherine Faust, 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weatherford, Stephen W, 1982. “Interpersonal Networks and Political Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 117-143.
Wollebaek, Dag and Per Selle, 2002. “Does Participation in Voluntary Associations Contribute to Social Capital? The Impact of Intensity, Scope and Type.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 32-61.
Yamagishi, Toshio and Midori Yamagishi, 1994. “Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan.” Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 129-166.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2007-06-29公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2007-06-29起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信