Title

民主意識與兩岸經貿:臺灣民眾貿易態度的分析

Translated Titles

Individual Preferences over Cross-strait Trade in Taiwan: The Impact of Democratic Values

DOI

10.6342/NTU201701036

Authors

盧秉謙

Key Words

兩岸貿易態度 ; 自由貿易態度 ; 民主意識 ; 經濟自利 ; 符號政治 ; Individual Preferences over Cross-strait Trade ; Individual Preferences over Free Trade ; Democratic Values ; Self-interest ; Symbolic Politics

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

張佑宗

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本文的研究問題為,臺灣民眾為何會反對兩岸經貿?本文嘗試納入過去文獻所忽略的重要因素──臺灣民眾的民主意識,作為主要的解釋變項。本文認為,民主意識程度較高的民眾,在思考與兩岸經貿的議題時,由於中國大陸「威權政體」符號的作用,會比較容易產生負面的印象、喚起負面的訊息,因此根據符號政治途徑的解釋,會傾向反對兩岸經貿。除此之外,本文亦檢驗經濟自利途徑變數(如就業產業、技術能力、主觀經濟評估等)及符號政治途徑變數(國家優越感及光榮感、國家主權意識、文化保護意識、國族認同、統獨立場、政黨偏好、臺灣意識等)對於臺灣民眾兩岸經貿態度的影響。 為了驗證上述變數的作用,本文利用臺灣社會變遷基本調查6期4次國家認同組問卷進行統計分析。研究結果顯示,民主意識程度越高的民眾,的確越有可能反對兩岸經貿。此外,無論經濟自利變數還是符號政治變數都可以解釋臺灣民眾為何會反對兩岸經貿。最後,本文也發現民主意識是那些不反對自由貿易的民眾,之所以會反對兩岸經貿的獨特原因。

English Abstract

Why do some Taiwanese people disagree with the government on the trade policy with China? Do someone’s democratic values make an impact on his or her opinion about the trade issue with China? To answer this question, there are two main research approaches that we can adopt, i.e. “Self-Interest Approach” and “Symbolic Politics Approach”. From the viewpoint of the self-interest approach, people support the policy which might benefit them and oppose the policy which might hurt them. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of the symbolic politics approach, people support the policy because the image of that policy acts in accordance with their long-term political identity. On the basis of symbolic politics approach, my hypothesis is that those who have greater democratic values are more likely to disagree the policy of expanding the trade relationship with China. To examine the hypothesis, I use the survey data of Taiwan Social Change Survey (survey year: 2013, 6 round 4th year, survey topic: national identity). The result shows that Taiwanese people who have greater democratic values do have a greater probability of disagreeing on expanding trade relationship with China. Moreover, this article shows that both self-interest approach and symbolic politics approach can explain the differences in individual preferences over cross-strait trade policy. In conclusion, those who have a positive view on free trade but a negative view on cross-strait trade tend to have greater democratic values. Based on these observations, we could say that when talking about trade issues with China, Taiwanese people care not only the profitability but also the democratic performance of China.

Topic Category 社會科學院 > 政治學研究所
社會科學 > 政治學
Reference
  1. 文采薇,2010,《分析臺灣民眾對自由貿易的支持度與貿易夥伴偏好》,台北:國立臺灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  2. 王文中,2012,〈試題反應理論〉,瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞(編),《社會及行為科學研究法(一)總論與量化研究法》,台北:東華書局,頁335-374。
    連結:
  3. 吳介民,2009,〈中國因素與臺灣民主〉,《思想》,11: 141-157。
    連結:
  4. 吳介民,2012,《第三種中國想像》,台北:左岸。
    連結:
  5. 吳介民,2015,〈從統獨到中國因素:政治認同變動對投票行為的影響〉,《臺灣社會學》,29: 87-130。
    連結:
  6. 吳親恩、林奕孜,2012,〈經濟投票與總統選舉:效度與內生問題的分析〉,《臺灣政治學刊》,16(2):175-232。
    連結:
  7. 張佑宗,2009,〈選舉輸家與民主鞏固-臺灣2004年總統選舉落選陣營對民主的態度〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,6(1):40-72。
    連結:
  8. 陳陸輝、耿曙、涂萍蘭、黃冠博,2009,〈理性自利或感性認同?影響臺灣民眾兩岸經貿立場因素的分析〉,《東吳政治學報》,27(2): 87-125。
    連結:
  9. 黃旻華,2006,〈態度量表的心理計量學分析:2003年TEDS統獨態度量表的研究〉,《選舉研究》,13(1): 43-86。
    連結:
  10. 黃冠博,2006,《當「理性遇上感性」:民眾兩岸經貿立場分析之研究》,台北:國立政治大學東亞研究所學位論文。
    連結:
  11. 劉大年、盧鈺雯、許茵爾,2014,〈全球區域經濟整合與臺灣〉,陳添枝、劉大年(編),《由 ECFA 到 TPP:臺灣區域經濟整合之路》,台北:兩岸交流遠景基金會,頁5-32。
    連結:
  12. 劉長萱,2012,〈古典測量理論〉,瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞(編),《社會及行為科學研究法(一)總論與量化研究法》,台北:東華書局,頁303-334。
    連結:
  13. Allen, N. W. 2015. "Keeping Rising Asia at a Distance: Canadian Attitudes toward Trade Agreements with Asian Countries." International Journal 70: 286-308.
    連結:
  14. Ardanaz, M., M. V. Murillo, and P. M. Pinto. 2013. "Sensitivity to Issue Framing on Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey Experiment." International Organization 67: 411-37.
    連結:
  15. Baker, A. 2005. "Who Wants to Globalize? Consumer Tastes and Labor Markets in a Theory of Trade Policy Beliefs." American Journal of Political Science 49: 924-38.
    連結:
  16. Beaulieu, E., M. Benarroch, and J. D. Gaisford. 2011. "Intra-Industry Trade Liberalization: Why Skilled Workers Are More Likely to Support Free Trade." Review of International Economics 19: 579-94.
    連結:
  17. Beaulieu, E., R. A. Yatawara, and W. G. Wang. 2005. "Who Supports Free Trade in Latin America?". World Economy 28: 941-58.
    連結:
  18. Bechtel, M. M., T. Bernauer, and R. Meyer. 2012. "The Green Side of Protectionism: Environmental Concerns and Three Facets of Trade Policy Preferences." Review of International Political Economy 19: 837-66.
    連結:
  19. Blonigen, B. A. 2011. "Revisiting the Evidence on Trade Policy Preferences." Journal of International Economics 85: 129-35.
    連結:
  20. Blonigen, B. A., and J. McGrew. 2014. "Task Routineness and Trade Policy Preferences." Economics & Politics 26: 505-18.
    連結:
  21. Chian, Chun-fang, Jin-Tan Liu, and Tsai-Wei Wen. 2013. "Individual Preferences for Trade Partners in Taiwan." Economics & Politics 25(1): 91-109.
    連結:
  22. Chiang, C. F., J. T. Liu, and T. W. Wen. 2013. "Individual Preferences for Trade Partners in Taiwan." Economics & Politics 25: 91-109.
    連結:
  23. Daniels, J. P. 2005. "Religious Affiliation and Individual International-Policy Preferences in the United States." International Interactions 31: 273-301.
    連結:
  24. Druckman, James N., and Arthur Lupia. 2000. "Preference Formation." Annual Review of Political Science 3: 1-24.
    連結:
  25. Edwards, M. S. 2006. "Public Opinion Regarding Economic and Cultural Globalization: Evidence from a Cross-National Survey." Review of International Political Economy 13: 587-608.
    連結:
  26. Ehrlich, S. D., and E. Hearn. 2014. "Does Compensating the Losers Increase Support for Trade? An Experimental Test of the Embedded Liberalism Thesis." Foreign Policy Analysis 10: 149-64.
    連結:
  27. Ehrlich, S., and C. Maestas. 2010. "Risk Orientation, Risk Exposure, and Policy Opinions: The Case of Free Trade." Political Psychology 31: 657-84.
    連結:
  28. Fordham, B. O., and K. B. Kleinberg. 2012. "How Can Economic Interests Influence Support for Free Trade?". International Organization 66: 311-28.
    連結:
  29. Hainmueller, J., and M. J. Hiscox. 2006. "Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes toward International Trade." International Organization 60: 469-98.
    連結:
  30. Hays, Jude C., Sean D. Ehrlich, and Clint Peinhardt. 2005. "Government Spending and Public Support for Trade in the Oecd: An Empirical Test of the Embedded Liberalism Thesis." International Organization 59: 473-94.
    連結:
  31. Herrmann, Richard K., Philip E. Tetlock, and Matthew N. Diascro. 2001. "How Americans Think About Trade: Reconciling Conflicts among Money, Power, and Principles." International Studies Quarterly 45: 191-218.
    連結:
  32. Hicks, R., H. V. Milner, and D. Tingley. 2014. "Trade Policy, Economic Interests, and Party Politics in a Developing Country: The Political Economy of Cafta-Dr." International Studies Quarterly 58: 106-17.
    連結:
  33. Hiscox, M. J. 2006. "Through a Glass and Darkly: Attitudes toward International Trade and the Curious Effects of Issue Framing." International Organization 60: 755-80.
    連結:
  34. Hoffman, M. E. S. 2009. "What Explains Attitudes across Us Trade Policies?". Public Choice 138: 447-60.
    連結:
  35. Johnston, C. D. 2013. "Dispositional Sources of Economic Protectionism." Public Opinion Quarterly 77: 574-85.
    連結:
  36. Kaltenthaler, K. C., R. D. Gelleny, and S. J. Ceccoli. 2004. "Explaining Citizen Support for Trade Liberalization." International Studies Quarterly 48: 829-51.
    連結:
  37. Kaltenthaler, K., and W. J. Miller. 2013. "Social Psychology and Public Support for Trade Liberalization." International Studies Quarterly 57: 784-90.
    連結:
  38. Kleinberg, K. B., and B. O. Fordham. 2010. "Trade and Foreign Policy Attitudes." Journal of Conflict Resolution 54: 687-714.
    連結:
  39. Lau, Richard R., and Caroline Heldman. 2009. "Self-Interest, Symbolic Attitudes, and Support for Public Policy: A Multilevel Analysis." Political Psychology 30: 513-37.
    連結:
  40. Lu, X. B., K. Scheve, and M. J. Slaughter. 2012. "Inequity Aversion and the International Distribution of Trade Protection." American Journal of Political Science 56: 638-54.
    連結:
  41. Mansfield, E. D., and D. C. Mutz. 2009. "Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and out-Group Anxiety." International Organization 63: 425-57.
    連結:
  42. ———. 2013. "Us Versus Them Mass Attitudes toward Offshore Outsourcing." World Politics 65: 571-+.
    連結:
  43. Margalit, Y. 2012. "Lost in Globalization: International Economic Integration and the Sources of Popular Discontent." International Studies Quarterly 56: 484-500.
    連結:
  44. Mayda, A. M., and D. Rodrik. 2005. "Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist Than Others?". European Economic Review 49: 1393-430.
    連結:
  45. Naoi, M., and I. Kume. 2015. "Workers or Consumers? A Survey Experiment on the Duality of Citizens' Interests in the Politics of Trade." Comparative Political Studies 48: 1293-317.
    連結:
  46. Scheve, K. F., and M. J. Slaughter. 2001. "What Determines Individual Trade-Policy Preferences?". Journal of International Economics 54: 267-92.
    連結:
  47. Sears, D. O., R. R. Lau, T. R. Tyler, and H. M. Allen Jr. 1980. "Self-Interest Vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting." American Political Science Review 74: 670-84.
    連結:
  48. Spilker, G., L. M. Schaffer, and T. Bernauer. 2012. "Does Social Capital Increase Public Support for Economic Globalisation?". European Journal of Political Research 51: 756-84.
    連結:
  49. Urbatsch, R. 2013a. "Industries, Occupations, and Trade Policy Preferences." Political Behavior 35: 605-20.
    連結:
  50. ———. 2013b. "A Referendum on Trade Theory: Voting on Free Trade in Costa Rica." International Organization 67: 197-214.
    連結:
  51. Wals, S. C., E. Theiss-Morse, F. J. Gonzalez, and T. Gosda. 2015. "Love Thy Neighbor? Trust in Foreigners and Support for Transnational Policies." Political Research Quarterly 68: 537-51.
    連結:
  52. 壹、中文部分
  53. 余民寧,2009,《試題反應理論(IRT)及其應用》,台北:心理出版社。
  54. 黃紀、王德育,2012,《質變數與受限依變數的迴歸分析》,台北:五南。
  55. 劉碧珍、陳添枝、翁永和,2007,《國際貿易導論》,台北:雙葉書廊。
  56. 盧其宏、江淳芳、劉錦添,2014,〈臺灣民眾對貿易自由化的態度分析〉,「臺灣妳好嗎?國家、市場與公民社會的再形構」臺灣社會學年會暨科技部社會學門成果發表會(12月6日),新竹:國立清華大學人文社會學院。
  57. 謝復生,2013,《實證政治理論》,台北:五南。
  58. 貳、外文部分
  59. Green W. H. 2012. Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  60. Mansfield, E. D., D. C. Mutz, and L. R. Silver. 2015. "Men, Women, Trade, and Free Markets." International Studies Quarterly 59: 303-15.
  61. Rankin, D. M. 2001. "Identities, Interests, and Imports." Political Behavior 23: 351-76.
  62. Sears D. O., C. L. Funk, 1990, “Self-Interest in Americans’ Political Opinions”. In Beyond Self-Interest, eds. Jane. J. Mansbridge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 147-170.