Title

後列寧半總統制政體的憲政轉型與民主表現 外力、經濟、民族主義激蕩下的變奏: 台灣、俄羅斯、蒙古

Translated Titles

Constitutional Transition and Democratic Performance in Post-Leninist Semi-presidential Regimes– A View of External Influence, Nationalism and Economy: Taiwan, Russia, Mongolia

DOI

10.6342/NTU201602641

Authors

官晴

Key Words

政治制度 ; 半總統制 ; 民主轉型 ; 制度影響 ; 民族主義 ; 俄羅斯 ; 蒙古 ; Political Institutions ; Semi-presidentialism ; Democratic Transition ; Institutional Effects ; Nationalism ; Russia ; Mongolia

PublicationName

臺灣大學政治學研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2016年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

吳玉山

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本研究的主旨在於探索民主轉型與制度設計的關係,以及制度設計和民主表現的關係。具體的理論關懷則聚焦於實行列寧主義黨國體制的政體在民主轉型後為何易進入半總統制的憲政架構,以及此種憲政架構會如何切實影響到民主轉型之後的政經社運作。本文採最大近似法的比較研究邏輯,深入探討了台灣、俄羅斯、蒙古此三個後列寧個案在轉型後的半總統制制度抉擇(1990年代初期)和制度影響(2014-2016年初)上的異同。 在解釋架構與分析模型上,本文整合了既有文獻於此問題意識上的多方研究成果、集各家視角之長、發展出了一套更具全面解釋力的綜合模型。該模型含括了數對常在一般文獻中打對台的解釋途徑,如「宏觀」和「微觀」、「結構決定論」與「菁英理性選擇」、「制度性」和「非制度性」因素,並且在人的行為者因素中也同時強調了「菁英」和「民眾」兩者的作用。此套解釋架構特別強調了外力、經濟、民族主義此三個重要非制度變項的影響,解釋它們是如何通過轉化為一種社會危困局面下的民意認知、再通過政治菁英的角色與已在位的制度變項結合,形塑了半總統制的制度選擇和制度表現。 本文從台俄蒙的個案經驗中得出如下研究發現:首先在制度選擇階段,黨國體制的制度遺緒搭設了半總統制可能形成的雙軌平臺;非制度因素通過危機和民意形塑了政治菁英間的權力對比關係,而半總統制便是此種特定權力對比關係落實於憲政架構上的最終結果——危機越強、搭配上民意詮釋中越強的強人偏好,多數菁英就越佔優,半總統制中的總統相比於國會的權威就越強;危機越弱、搭配上民意詮釋中越弱的強人偏好,少數菁英就越佔優,半總統制中總統相比於國會的權威就越弱。其次,在制度影響階段,非制度因素形塑出的社會分歧和民意背景與制度上的總統權威程度共同作用,一起造成了特定的制度表現結果。 本文嘗試以個案深入來突破理論創新、以初始因素貫穿洞悉完整制度流程、聯結制度性與非制度性的分析途徑、溝通台灣和後共產國家在民主轉型與民主發展上的跨區域比較,並連結半總統制憲政體制與宏觀民主研究此兩領域的智慧,將政治制度研究與比較政治的學術主流接軌;冀望以此充實學者專家、政治實踐者和普羅大眾對民主制度之產生與運作發展的關切省思,並貢獻於新興民主國家、政治轉型與全球民主發展的時代主題。

English Abstract

This thesis examines the relationship between democratic transition and institutional choice, and the relationship between institutional choice and democratic performance. Theoretically, the focus is on explaining why and how the majority of post-Leninist states have chosen a semi-presidential constitutional structure after democratic transition, and how this constitutional structure tends to lead to certain political, economic and social results in the democratic consolidation period. Utilizing a “most-similar cases” strategy of comparative analysis, this study focuses on Taiwan, Russia and Mongolia, three post-Leninist semi-presidential regimes, with regard to their initial institutional choices during the early 1990s and their more recent institutional performance during the 2014-2016 period. In seeking to explain these phenomena, this study develops a holistic theory that integrates several perspectives and analytical approaches from the existing literature. The resulting model encompasses several pairs of explanatory factors that are usually viewed as contradictory in the literature, such as “macro” versus “micro”, “structural determinism” versus “elites’ rational choice”, “institutional” versus “non-institutional” factors, and “elites” versus the “public”. In particular, the thesis highlights the causal effects of three key non-institutional variables (or structural preconditions) on both institutional choice and institutional performance: external influence, economy and nationalism. Drawing on the experiences of Taiwan, Russia and Mongolia, the study concludes several important empirical observations. First, during the phase of initial institutional choice (the early 1990s), the Leninist institutional legacy of dual-leadership provides a structural foundation from which semi-presidentialism takes shape. Against this structural backdrop, country-specific background dynamics, including structural preconditions and intra-elite relations, as well as involvement by the public under crisis situations during democratization, led to the variation in presidential powers among the three semi-presidential regimes. As a result, stronger crises and public opinion more in favor of strongman politics lead to stronger bargaining power for pro-presidentialism elites that, in turn, results in stronger institutional power being bestowed on the president (vis-à-vis the parliament) under a semi-presidential framework. Second, in the more recent phase of institutional performance (2014-2016), the three key non-institutional variables from which particular social background and public opinion are derived, combine with the semi-presidential institutional configuration, influence democratic performance. This study aims to achieve theoretical innovation through in-depth comparative analysis, and to leverage the perspective of “initial conditions” to gain insights into the process of institutional evolution. Through cross-regional comparison, it also aims to bridge the study of Taiwan with the experiences of post-communist countries with regard to democratic transition and democratic development, and to put the institutional study of semi-presidentialism in dialogue with the mainstream study of democracy in comparative politics. The author anticipates this study to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the issue of the constitutional design of nascent democracies and to the discussion of the overarching topics of political transformation and global democratic development.

Topic Category 社會科學院 > 政治學研究所
社會科學 > 政治學
Reference
  1. 王维芳,2009,〈第三波民主化後的蒙古政治體制設計〉,《政大民族學報》,28: 33-72。
    連結:
  2. 吳玉山,2002,〈半總統制下內閣組成與政治穩定:比較俄羅斯、波蘭與中華民國〉,《俄羅斯學報》,2:229-265。
    連結:
  3. 吳玉山,2006,〈政權合法性與憲改模式:比較台灣與歐洲後共新興民主國家〉,《問題與研究》,45 (1):1-28。
    連結:
  4. 吳玉山,2009,〈解釋俄羅斯的民主倒退〉,《台灣民主季刊》,6(1):199-205。
    連結:
  5. 吳玉山,2011,〈半總統制:全球發展與研究議程〉,《政治科學論叢》,47:1-32。
    連結:
  6. 吳玉山,2012,〈孫中山思想、民國百年與兩岸發展模式—一個總體的分析架構〉,《政治科學論叢》,52:1-42。
    連結:
  7. 沈有忠,2004,〈半總統制下的權力集散與政府穩定:台灣與威瑪共和的比較〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,1(3):99-129。
    連結:
  8. 沈有忠,2009,《威瑪憲政變奏曲:半總統制憲法的生命史》,台北:五南。
    連結:
  9. 沈有忠,2011,〈半總統制下行政體系二元化的內涵〉,《政治科學論叢》47:33-64。
    連結:
  10. 沈有忠、烏凌翔,2016,〈半總統制的憲政秩序與權力轉移—臺灣與蒙古的案例 研究〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,13(1):1-38。
    連結:
  11. 李鳳玉、藍夢荷,2012,〈一致政府下的內閣穩定:比較2008年總統大選之後的俄羅斯與台灣〉,載於沈有忠、吳玉山編,《權力在哪裡?從多個角度看半總統制》,台北:五南。
    連結:
  12. 其木格 (Enkhchimeg Baatarkhuyag),2015,《蒙中俄關係與蒙古國對1911-1945年中國的認識》,台北:國立臺灣大學國家發展研究所博士論文。
    連結:
  13. 周陽山,1996,〈總統制、議會制、半總統制與政治穩定〉,《問題與研究》,35(8):50-61。
    連結:
  14. 徐正戎、呂炳寬,2002,〈九七憲改後的憲政運作〉,《問題與研究》,41(1):1-23。
    連結:
  15. 烏凌翔,2016,《弱國面對強權之生存策略: 一般化理論之建構》,台北:國立台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  16. 陳宏銘,2007,〈台灣半總統制下「少數政府」的存續:2000∼2004 〉,《東吳政治學報》,25(4): 1-64。
    連結:
  17. 陳宏銘、梁元棟,2007,〈半總統制的形成和演化—台灣、法國、波蘭與芬蘭的比較研究〉,《台灣民主季刊》,4(4):27-69。
    連結:
  18. 黃德福,2000,〈少數政府與責任政治:台灣半總統制之下的政黨競爭〉,《問題與研究》,39(12):1-23。
    連結:
  19. 張峻豪,2011,〈半總統制運作類型的跨國研究〉,《問題與研究》,50(2):107-142。
    連結:
  20. 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。
    連結:
  21. 許恒禎,2013,《半總統制下不同政府形態之成因—台灣、蒙古、波蘭及其他後列寧民主國家》,台北:國立台灣大學政治學研究所博士論文。
    連結:
  22. 葉俊榮、張文貞,2006,〈路徑相依或制度選擇?—論民主轉型與憲法變遷的模式〉,《問題與研究》,45(6):1-31。
    連結:
  23. 趙竹成,2011,〈二○○八年後梅普架構下俄羅斯半總統制的檢視〉,《政治科學論叢》,47:143-174。
    連結:
  24. 廖淑馨,2000,〈外蒙古政治民主化的過程分析〉,《中國大陸研究》,43(5):17-29。
    連結:
  25. 蘇子喬,2011,〈哪一種半總統制—概念界定爭議的釐清〉,《東吳政治學報》,29(4):1-72。
    連結:
  26. Bayar, S. 1995. “Mongolia’s National Security Challenges.” The Mongolian Journal of
    連結:
  27. International Affairs, Number 2, 1995.
    連結:
  28. Chang, Yu-tzung, Yun-han Chu, and Min-hua Huang. 2011. “Procedural Quality Only?
    連結:
  29. Cheibub, José Antonio and Svitlana Chernykh. 2009. “Are Semi-presidential
    連結:
  30. Constitutions Bad for Democratic Performance?” Constitutional Political
    連結:
  31. Colton, Timothy J. and Cindy Skach. 2005. “The Russian Predicament.” Journal of Democracy 16 (3): 113-126.
    連結:
  32. Crawford, Beverely and Arend Lijphart. 1995. “Explaining Political and Economic Change in Post-Communist Eastern Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 28 (2): 171-199.
    連結:
  33. Crawford, Beverely and Arend Lijphart, eds. 1997. Liberalization and Leninist Legacies: Comparative Perspectives on Democratic Transitions. Berkeley: International and Area Studies.
    連結:
  34. Diamond, Larry and Leonardo Morlino. 2004. “The Quality of Democracy: An Overview.” Journal of Democracy 15(4): 20-31.
    連結:
  35. Easter, Gerald M. 1997. “Preference for Presidentialism: Postcommunist Regime Change in Russia and the NIS,” World Politics 49(2): 184-211.
    連結:
  36. Elgie, Robert. 2011. “Varieties of Semi-Presidentialism and Democratic Survival,” in Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance, ed. Robert Elgie. New York: Oxford University Press.
    連結:
  37. Elgie, Robert and Petra Schleiter. 2011. “Variation in the Durability of Semi-presidential Democracies.” in Semi-Presidentialism and Democracy, eds. Robert Elgie, Sophia Moestrup and Yu-Shan Wu. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
    連結:
  38. Elgie, Robert and Christine Fauvelle-Aymar. 2012. “Turnout under Semi-presidentialism: First- and Second-order Elections to National-Level Institutions.” Comparative Political Studies 45 (12): 1598-1623.
    連結:
  39. Elster, Jon, Claus Offe, and Ulrich K. Preuss. 1998. Institutional Design in the Post-Communist Societies: Building the Ship at Sea. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    連結:
  40. Fish, M.S. 1998. “Mongolia: Democracy without Prerequisites.” Journal of Democracy 9 (3): 127–141.
    連結:
  41. Fish, M.S. 2001. “The Inner Asian Anomaly: Mongolia’s Democratization in Comparative Perspective.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 34 (3): 323-338.
    連結:
  42. Fish, M.S. 2005. Democracy Derailed in Russia: the Failure of Open Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    連結:
  43. Fritz, Verena. 2007. “Democratisation and corruption in Mongolia.” Public Administration and Development 27 (3): 191-203.
    連結:
  44. Fritz, Verena. 2014. “Dealing with a Resource Shock: Political Economy Analysis and Its Impacts in Mongolia.” in Problem- Driven Political Economy Analysis: The World Bank’s Experience, eds. Verena Fritz, Brian Levy. and Rachel Ort. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/16389/9781464801211.pdf?sequence=1
    連結:
  45. Frye, Timothy. 1997. “A Politics of Institutional Choice: Post-Communist Presidencies.” Comparative Political Studies 30(5): 523-552.
    連結:
  46. Geddes, Barbara. 1995. “A Comparative Perspective on the Leninist Legacy in Eastern Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 28(2): 239-274.
    連結:
  47. Ginsburg, Tom. 1995. "Between Russia and China: Political Reform in Mongolia." Asian Survey 35 (5): 459-471.
    連結:
  48. Ginsburg, Tom. 1999. "Nationalism, Elites, and Mongolia's Rapid Transformation." In Mongolia in the Twentieth Century: Landlocked Cosmopolitan. eds. Bruce A. Elleman & Stephen Kotkin. M.E. Sharp
    連結:
  49. Heaton, William R. 1991. “Mongolia in 1990: Upheaval, Reform, but No Revolution Yet.”Asian Survey, 31(1).
    連結:
  50. Heaton, William R. 1992. “Mongolia in 1991: The Uneasy Transition.” Asian Survey 32(1): 50-55.
    連結:
  51. Hulan, Hashbat. 1994. “Mongolia’s Political Transformation: Observations and Comparisons.” The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs. Number 1, 1994: 29-39.
    連結:
  52. Hulan, H. 1996. "Mongolia’s New Constitutional Regime: Institutional Tensions and Political Consequences." The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs. Number 3, 1996: 35-42.
    連結:
  53. Horowitz, Donald L. 2002. “Constitutional Design: Proposals versus Processes.” In The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional Design, Conflict Management, and Democracy, ed. Andrew Reynolds. New York: Oxford University Press, 1-36.
    連結:
  54. Kaufmann, Daniel, Kraay Aart, and Mastruzzi Massimo. 2005. Governance Matters IV: Governance Indicators for 1996-2004. Washington, DC: World Bank.
    連結:
  55. Kopstein, Jeffrey S. and David A. Reilly. 2000. “Geographic Diffusion and the Transformation of the Postcommunist World.” World Politics 53 (1): 1-37.
    連結:
  56. Levisky, Steven and Lucan A. Way. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    連結:
  57. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    連結:
  58. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1960. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Doubleday & Company.
    連結:
  59. Moestrup, Sophia. 2007. “Semi-presidentialism in Young Democracies: Help or Hindrance?” in Semi-Presidentialism Outside Europe: A Comparative Study, eds. Robert Elgie and Sophia Moestrup. Oxon: Routledge.
    連結:
  60. Moestrup, Sophia and Gombosurengiin Ganzorig. 2007. “Semi-presidentialism in Mongolia : Trade-offs between Stability And Governance.” in Semi-presidentialism outside Europe: A Comparative Study, eds. Robert Elgie and Sophia Moestrup. Oxon: Routledge.
    連結:
  61. O'Donnell, Guillermo and Philippe C. Schmitter. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    連結:
  62. Protsyk, Oleh. 2011. “Semi-Presidentialism under Post-Communism,” in Robert Elgie, Sophia Moestrup, and Yu-Shan Wu, eds., Semi-Presidentialism and Democracy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 98-116.
    連結:
  63. Reeves, Jeffrey. 2011. “Resources, Sovereignty, and Governance: Can Mongolia Avoid the ‘Resource Curse’?” Asian Journal of Political Science 19(2): 170-185.
    連結:
  64. Reilly, Benjamin. 2011. “Semi-Presidentialism and Democratic Development in East Asia,” in Robert Elgie, Sophia Moestrup, and Yu-Shan Wu, eds., Semi-Presidentialism and Democracy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 117-133.
    連結:
  65. Rose, Richard. 1995. “Russia as an Hour-Glass Society: A Constitution without Citizens.” East European Constitutional Review 4(3): 34-42.
    連結:
  66. Sartori, Giovanni. 1997. Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes. New York: New York University Press.
    連結:
  67. Schmitter, Philippe C. 2005. “The Ambiguous Virtues of Accountability.” In Assessing Quality of Democracy, eds. Larry Diamond and Leonardo Morlino. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press: 18-31.
    連結:
  68. Shugart, Matthew S. and John M. Carey. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    連結:
  69. Shugart, Matthew S. 1996. “Executive-Legislative Relations in Post-Communist Europe.” Transition 2(25): 6-11.
    連結:
  70. Skach, Cindy. 2005. Borrowing Constitutional Designs: Constitutional Law in Weimar Germany and the French Fifth Republic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
    連結:
  71. Tsai, Jung-Hsiang. 2008. “Sub-types of Semi-presidentialism and Political Deadlock." French Politics 6(1): 63-84
    連結:
  72. Transparency International. 2015. “The Corruption Perceptions Index.” in http://www.transparency.org/country Retrieved July 2016
    連結:
  73. Varieties of Democracy Project. in https://v-dem.net/en/ Retrieved July 2016
    連結:
  74. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2000. “The ROC’s Semi-presidentialism at Work: Unstable Compromise, Not Cohabitation.” Issues and Studies 36(5): 1-40.
    連結:
  75. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2001. “Comparing Third-Wave Democracies: East Central Europe and the ROC,” Issues and Studies 37(4): 1-37.
    連結:
  76. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2005. “Appointing the Prime Minister under Incongruence: Taiwan in Comparison with France and Russia.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 1(1): 103-32.
    連結:
  77. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2007. “Semi-Presidentialism—Easy to Choose, Difficult to Operate: The Case of Taiwan.” In Semi-Presidentialism Outside Europe: A Comparative Study, eds. Robert Elgie and Sophia Moestrup. London: Routledge, 201-218.
    連結:
  78. Wu, Yu-Shan and Jung-Hsiang Tsai. 2011. “Taiwan: Democratic Consolidation under President-Parliamentarism,” in Robert Elgie, Sophia Moestrup, and Yu-Shan Wu, eds., Semi-Presidentialism and Democracy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 174-191.
    連結:
  79. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2013. “Comparing Taiwan and the CEE Trio- The Impact of Social and Institutional Factors on Democracy.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy, special issue: 103-127.
    連結:
  80. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2014. “Comparing Career-driven Constitutional Changes in Semi-presidentialism.” Paper presented at the XXIII World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Montreal, July 16-24, 2014.
    連結:
  81. Zimmerman, William. 2014. Ruling Russia: Authoritarianism from the Revolution to Putin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    連結:
  82. 壹、 中文部分
  83. 王天成,2012,《大轉型:中國民主化戰略研究框架》,香港:晨鐘書局。
  84. 王振寰等著,林佳龍、邱澤奇主編,1999,《兩岸黨國體制與民主發展 : 哈佛大學東西方學者的對話》,台北 : 月旦。
  85. 王維芳,2000,〈政治制度設計與政治穩定:以外蒙古為例〉,台北:蒙藏委員會。
  86. 王維芳,2001,《半總統制下的政治穩定─蒙古與中華民國的比較》,台北:蒙藏委員會。
  87. 王維芳,2002,〈蒙古左、右翼政黨的消長〉,《蒙藏地區現況雙月報》,11(5):29-42。
  88. 王維芳,2003,《半總統制新興民主國家的制度設計與政治穩定 : 蒙古及波蘭的比較分析》,台北:國立政治大學中山人文社會科學研究所博士論文。
  89. 中華民國行政院主計總處,2015,「國民所得統計常用資料」,http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=14616&CtNode=3566&mp=1,2016/07/10
  90. 田弘茂,1997,〈台灣民主鞏固的展望〉,載於田弘茂、朱雲漢等主編,《新興
  91. 民主的機遇與挑戰》,台北:業強出版社,頁255。
  92. 台灣指標民調,2016,「台灣民心動態調查」,http://www.tisr.com.tw/,2016/07/10
  93. 東亞民主動態調查(Asia Barometer Survey),2016,http://www.asianbarometer.org/,2016/07/10
  94. 朱雲漢,2009,〈中國模式與全球秩序重組〉,載於潘維主編,《中國模式:解讀人民共和國的六十年》,北京:中央編譯出版社,603-630。
  95. 朱雲漢等著,2012,《台灣民主轉型的經驗與啟示》,北京:社會科學文獻出版社。
  96. 吳玉山,1995,《共產世界的變遷-四個共黨政權的比較》,台北:東大。
  97. 吳玉山,1997a,〈歐洲後共產社會的政治制度變遷-以俄羅斯聯邦為例〉,《美歐季刊》,12(4):89-145。
  98. 吳玉山,1997b,《抗衡或扈從—兩岸關係新詮:從前蘇聯看台灣與大陸間的關係》,台北:正中。
  99. 吳玉山,2000,《俄羅斯轉型1992-1999:一個政治經濟學的分析》,台北:五南。
  100. 吳玉山,2001,〈制度、結構與政治穩定〉,《政治學報》,32:1-30。
  101. 吳玉山,2007,〈宏觀中國─後極權資本主義發展國家:蘇東與東亞模式的揉合〉,載於徐斯儉、吳玉山編,《黨國蛻變─中共政權的菁英與政策》,台北:五南,頁309-335。
  102. 吳玉山,2015,〈我國半總統制憲法的困局與抉擇〉,載於王業立編,《臺灣民主之反思與前瞻》,台北:臺灣民主基金會。
  103. 吳玉山,2016,〈台灣沿著政治周期前進〉,聯合報網頁,2016/01/16。
  104. 吳重禮、吳玉山主編,2006,《憲政改革 : 背景、運作與影響》,台北:五南。
  105. 沈有忠、吳玉山編,2012,《權力在哪裡?從多個角度看半總統制》,台北:五南。
  106. 李酉潭,2006,〈民主鞏固或崩潰:台灣與俄羅斯的觀察〉,《問題與研究》, 45(6):33-77。
  107. 李鳳玉,2001,《半總統制下的總統干政與政府穩定 : 威瑪德國、法國第五共和、後共波蘭與台灣》,台北:國立台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
  108. 祁玲玲,2012,〈蒙古的民主化:政治精英的理性選擇〉,《二十一世紀》,頁28-39。
  109. 呂炳寬,2009,〈半總統制的解構與重建:概念、類型與研究方法之檢視〉,《金融海嘯下的全球化、民主化與民主治理研討會》(11月6-7日),台北:中國政治學會與國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系。
  110. 林佳龍,2000,〈半總統制、多黨體系與不穩定的民主:台灣憲政衝突的制度分析〉,林繼文(編),《政治制度》,台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所,頁177-211。
  111. 林濁水,2015,〈關鍵時刻關鍵領袖的關鍵抉擇:直選總統準內閣制是台灣人民的智慧〉,《美麗島電子報》,2015/4/27。
  112. 林繼文,2000,〈半總統制下的三角政治均衡〉,載於林繼文編,《政治制度》:135-175,台北:中研院社科所。
  113. 林繼文、蔡榮祥,2012,〈半總統制的分類研究與國際聯結〉,載於沈有忠、吳玉山編,《權力在哪裡?從多個角度看半總統制》,台北:五南,頁460-477。
  114. 黃炎東,2004,《新世紀台灣憲政體制與政黨政治發展趨勢》,台北:正中書局。
  115. 娜琳,2001,〈蒙古國經濟社會現狀〉,內蒙古大學周邊國家研究所:東北亞論壇,http://202.119.108.161:93/modules/showContent.aspx?title=&Word=&DocGUID=c0085cf570e147fd820cfcc503e9f670
  116. 紀慧貞,2008,《政治菁英與蒙古的民主化》,台中:逢甲大學公共政策研究所碩士學位論文。
  117. 俞可平,2016,〈俄羅斯民主:中國學者的視角〉,《國際政治研究》,2016年第2期
  118. 郭正亮,1998,《民進黨轉型之痛》,台北:天下文化。
  119. 桂宏誠,2003,〈總統直選在我國憲改過程中的意義─歷史回顧與動態觀察〉,《理論與政策》季刊,17(2):39-57。
  120. 陳奎德,2011,〈失蹤的「憲法之父」——張君勱〉,《纵览中国》,http://www.chinainperspective.com/ArtShow.aspx?AID=12243,2016/5/30。
  121. 張君勱,1971,《中華民國民主憲法十講》,台一版,台北:台灣商務。
  122. 張佑宗、朱雲漢,2013,〈威權韌性與民主赤字:21世紀初葉民主化研究的趨勢與
  123. 前瞻〉,載於吳玉山、林繼文、冷則剛編《政治學的回顧與前瞻》,台北:五南,
  124. 頁121-150。
  125. 張富忠、邱萬興編著,2005,《綠色年代—台灣民主運動25年》上冊,台北:印刻出版。
  126. 許宗力,2000,〈「發現」雙首長制〉,財團法人陳隆志新世紀文教基金會,http://www.taiwanncf.org.tw/ch01/public_show.asp?title=03.%A1u%B5o%B2%7B%A1v%C2%F9%AD%BA%AA%F8%A8%EE%A1%5D%B3%5C%A9v%A4O%A1%5E
  127. 葉俊榮,2003,《民主轉型與憲法變遷》,台北:元照。
  128. 趙儒煜,2013,《蒙古國:從傳統走向現代的草原之國》,香港:香港城市大學出版社。
  129. 廖達琪、沈有忠、张峻豪,2013,〈憲政研究的回顧與展望(2000-2011)〉,載於吳玉山、林繼文、冷則剛編《政治學的回顧與前瞻》,台北:五南,頁151-172。
  130. 廖淑馨,1991,〈外蒙古現階段的政治改革〉,台北:蒙藏委員會。
  131. 廖淑馨,1998,〈民主改革後的蒙古國家大呼拉爾:「民主團結聯盟」的國會〉,台北:蒙藏委員會。
  132. 潘德禮、許志新,2002,〈關於葉利欽時代的若干思考〉,《東歐中亞研究》,2002年第4期,北京:中國社會科學院俄羅斯東歐中亞研究所。
  133. 黎晉禎,2003,《蒙古民主化進程之研究》,台北:中國文化大學大陸研究所碩士論文。
  134. 額爾登巴雅爾(Erdenebayar Munkhuu),2014,《從民主轉型到民主鞏固:蒙古與台灣之比較分析》,台北:國立政治大學國家發展研究所博士論文。
  135. 蘇子喬,2013,《中華民國憲法 : 憲政體制的原理與實際》,台北: 三民。
  136. 貳、西文部份
  137. Asia Foundation. 2014a. “Study of Private Perceptions of Corruption.” http://www.asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/STOPPIVeng.pdf. Retrieved May 2015
  138. Asia Foundation. 2014b. “Survey on Perceptions & Knowledge of Corruption.” http://www.asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/SPEAKIVEnglishJune2014.pdf. Retrieved May 2015
  139. Taiwanese Democracy Reconsidered.” International Political Science Review,
  140. 35(5): 598-619.
  141. Economy, 20 (3-4): 202-229.
  142. Chene, Marie. 2012. “Corruption in Natural Resource Management in Mongolia.” U4 Expert Answer. Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/files/content/corruptionqas/354_Corruption_in_natural_resources_management_Mongolia.pdf
  143. Chu, Yun-han and Pei-shan Lee. 2003. “Crafting Taiwan’s Semi-presidentialism in the Shadow of History.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Semi-Presidentialism and Nascent Democracies, October 24-25, Taipei: Academia Sinica.
  144. Elgie, Robert. 1999. “The Politics of Semi-Presidentialism.” in Semi-Presidentialism in Europe, ed. R. Elgie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  145. Elgie, Robert. 2005. “A Fresh Look at Semi-Presidentialism: Variations on a Theme.” Journal of Democracy 16 (3): 98-112.
  146. Elgie, Robert and Sophia Moestrup, eds. 2007. Semi-presidentialism Outside Europe: A Comparative Study. London: Routledge.
  147. Fish, M.S. and Matthew Kroenig. 2009. The Handbook of National Legislatures: A Global Survey. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  148. Freedom House Rating. https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world#.VbTJ3fmqqkr. Retrieved July 2016.
  149. Ginsburg, Tom. 1994. "The Transformation of Legal Institutions in Mongolia, 1990-1993." 12 Issues and Studies 77.
  150. Ginsburg, Tom and Gombosuren Ganzorig. 1996. "Constitutional Reform and Human Rights." In Ole Bruun and Ole Odgaard, eds., Mongolia in Transition. London: Curzon Press, 147-64.
  151. Ginsburg, Tom and Gombosuren Ganzorig. 2001. "When Courts and Politics Collide: Mongolia's Constitutional Crisis." 14 Columbia Journal of Asian Law 309.
  152. Ginsburg, Tom. 2003. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  153. Ginsburg, Tom. 2015. The Role of the Constitution of Mongolia in Consolidating Democracy. United Nations Development Program.
  154. http://www.mn.undp.org/content/dam/mongolia/Publications/DemGov/ConstReview_eng.pdf
  155. Ganzorig, Gombosuren. 2015. “Semi-presidentialism: Mongolia’s Perspective.” In Da-chi Liao, Yu-chung Shen, and Yu-shan Wu (eds.), Semi-presidentialism across Continents: A Dialogue between Asia and Europe, 117-35. Kaoshiung: National Sun Yat-sen University.
  156. Global Barometer Survey. in http://www.jdsurvey.net/gbs/gbs.jsp Retrieved July 2016
  157. Hasnain, Zahid. 2011. “Incentive Compatible Reforms: The Political Economy of Public Investments in Mongolia.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 5667, World Bank. http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5667
  158. Horowitz, Donald L. 2006. “Three Ways to Make a Constitution.” In Constitutional reform: background, operation, and impact. eds. Wu Chung-li, Wu Yu-Shan. Taipei: Wu-nan.
  159. Hsieh, John F.S. 1993. “Parliamentarism vs. Presidentialism: Constitutional Choice in the Republic of China.” Chinese Political Science Review 21: 173-202.
  160. Huntington, Samuel. 1991. The Third Wave:Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press.
  161. Liao, Da-Chi and Hui-chih Chang. 2010. “The Choice of Constitutional Amendments in a Young Democracy—from Indirect to Direct Election of the President in Taiwan." Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, no. 1 (2010): 111-131.
  162. Levada Center. 2016. “Russian public opinion survey” in http://www.levada.ru/eng/. Retrieved July 2016
  163. Moran, Theodore H. 2013. “Avoiding the ‘Resource Curse’ in Mongolia.” Policy Brief No. PB13-18, Peterson Institute for International Economics. http://www.piie.com/publications/pb/pb13-18.pdf.
  164. Remington, Thomas. 2001. The Russian Parliament: Institutional Evolution in a Transitional Regime, 1989-1999. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  165. Samuels, David J. and Matthew S. Shugart. 2014. “Party Capacity-Building in Third Wave Democracies: How Regime Type Affects Executive Recruitment.” Democratization 21(1): 137-160.
  166. Sant Maral Foundation. 2016. “Politbarometer March 2016.” in http://santmaral.mn/en/publications. Retrieved July 2016
  167. The Polity IV Project. 2013. http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4x.htm.
  168. Von Beyme, Klaus. 2001. “Institutional Engineering and Transition to Democracy,” in Jan Zielonka, ed., Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe, Volume 1: Institutional Engineering. New York: Oxford University Press.
  169. World Bank. World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators Retrieved July 2016.
  170. Wu, Yu-Shan. 1998. “Comparing Semi-Presidentialism in the ROC and the Russian Federation,” Chinese Political Science Review 30: 123-186.
  171. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2008. “Study of Semi-Presidentialism: A Holistic Approach.” paper presented at the Conference on Semi-Presidentialism and Democracy: Institutional Choice, Performance, and Evolution, Institute of Political Science at Academia Sinica, Taipei, October 17-18.
  172. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2009. “Modes of Democratic Failure in Semi-presidentialism: Plunge into Breakdown or Slide into Authoritarianism.” Paper presented at the XXI World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Santiago.