第六章 結論
第二節 研究限制和未來研究方向
雖然本文的研究假設在實證資料上得到高度支持，但仍存在一些研究限制。首 先，在大黨與小黨的參選誘因究竟有否不同上，目前仍無法從現有的文獻以及資料 中找到一個令人信服的說法。雖然本文使用Laver & Hunt（1992）政黨目標資料，
在一定程度上能支持本文對大黨與小黨參選誘因上並無根本上差異的假設，但該 問卷所設計的題目將政黨面臨的情況限縮在「當被迫做出選擇時」，使我們無法探 知在一般情況下，政黨究竟是如何看待政策目標及執政目標。另外，Laver & Hunt 所調查的國家政黨又多為內閣制國家，且各國囊括的政黨數亦不多，缺乏許多小黨 在放棄政府與放棄政策光譜上的資料。因此大小黨在參選誘因上是否有所差異仍 有待未來繼續做更深入的個案研究。
其次，為了得以衡量各政黨的實力，本研究以最近一次參選國會選舉的政黨名 單為分析樣本，並以該次國會選舉各參與政黨的席次率結果作為政黨實力判定標 的。然而此種方式並無法全面的納入其他雖有參與總統大選但卻沒有參與國會選 舉的政黨，即便將其納入，也無法以一客觀標準來衡量這些政黨的實力，使得這些 政黨樣本只能被排除在本研究的分析之外。但可以確定的是，這些沒有被納入分析 的政黨樣本，通常在總統大選中所獲得的得票率都極低，且又沒有投入最近一次的 總統大選，使我們得以猜想這些樣本的政黨實力並不高，並可將其歸類為小黨。基 於上述原因，本研究所得出之結論屬於較為保守的研究發現。
最後，在模型選擇上，本研究使用的模型為二元勝算對數模型，以國家集群來 調整標準誤，並再放入國家虛擬變項及總統大選年虛擬變項來控制其它現階段難 以用單純變項衡量，但卻會影響政黨是否單獨參選的因素。然此模型並無法處理本 文樣本的資料結構問題。由於本文的分析對象為政黨，屬個體層次，而政黨又內嵌
88
於國家這個總體層次中。在這種資料結構下，若採用一般的非階層迴歸模型，忽略 總體層次的存在，會造成分析單位膨脹，導致錯誤結論（Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002）。 但必須注意的是，本文的研究資料在國家數上僅有23 個國家，使得國家層次的資 料，在資料變異性上仍有不足。也使得本文在使用隨機係數勝算對數階層模型進行 假設檢定推論時，國家層次的相關變項（如政府體制、總統選制）的估計結果會有 所偏差。因此未來若要繼續研究政治制度如何影響政黨參與總統大選的決定，最好 的方式便是增加研究的國家數。根據過去學者的建議，當依變項為二分變項時，在 使用勝算對數階層模型時，資料的國家數至少要有30 個，才能確保國家層次變項 的估計結果是可信賴的（Bryan & Jankims, 2016）。
89
參考文獻
壹、中文部分
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。
李鳳玉，2018，〈政黨實力、政治制度以及半總統制下政黨投入總統大選的決定〉，
《政治學報》65：81-107。
蔡榮祥、石鵬翔，2011，〈總理總統制與政府穩定：以烏克蘭、羅馬尼亞為例〉，
《政治科學論叢》47：65-106。
蔡榮祥，2014，〈總統和國會權力抗衡與民主運作之成敗—以拉丁美洲總統制國家 為例〉，《問題與研究》53(2)：1-30。
蘇子喬，2018，〈選舉制度及時程對政黨體系與政府型態的影響：總統制與半總統 制國家的跨國分析〉，《政治學報》65：37-80。
蘇子喬、王業立，2012，〈總統與國會選制影響政黨體系跨國分析〉，《問題與研 究》51(4)：35-70。
貳、西文部分
Abou-Chadi, Tarik, and Matthias Orlowski. 2016. “Moderate as Necessary: The Role of Electoral Competitiveness and Party Size in Explaining Parties’ Policy Shifts.”
Journal of Politics 78(3): 868-881.
Adams, James, Michael Clark, Lawrence Ezrow, and Garret Glasgow. 2006. “Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the
90
Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976-1998.”
American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 513-529.
Arriola, Leonardo R. 2009. “Patronage and Political Stability in Africa.” Comparative Political Science 42(10): 1399-1362.
Bäck, Hanna. 2008. “Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Formation: Evidence from Swedish Local Government.” Party Politics 14(1): 71-89.
Birch, Sarah. 2009. Full Participation: A Comparative Study of Compulsory Voting. New York, NY: United Nations University Press.
Bormann, Nils-Christian, and Matt Golder. 2013. “Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946-2011.” Electoral Studies 32(2): 360-369.
Bryan, Mark L. and Stephan P. Jankins. 2016 “Multilevel Modeling of Country Effects:
A Cautionary Tale.” European Sociological Review 32(1): 3-22.
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dawisha, Karen, and Stephen Deets. 2006. “Political Learning in Post-Communist Elections.” East European Politics and Society 20(4): 691-728.
Doyle, David and Robert Elgie. 2015. “Maximizing the reliability of cross-national measures of presidential power.” British Journal of Political Science 46(4): 731-741.
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Elgie, Robert. 2011. Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
91
Elgie, Robert, and Christine Fauvelle-Aymar. 2012. “Turnout Under Semipresidentialism:
First- and Second-Order Elections to National-Level Institutions.” Comparative Political Studies 45(12): 1598-1623.
Elgie, Robert, Christina Bucur, Bernard Dolez, and Annie Laurent. 2014. “Proximity, Candidates, and Presidential Power: How Directly Elected Presidents Shape the Legislative Party System.” Political Research Quarterly 67(3): 467-477.
Elgie, Robert. 2018. “Semi-Presidentialism, Premier-Presidentialism and President-Parliamentarism–A New Country-Years Dataset.” In http://presidential-power.com/?p=7869. Latest update 3rd April 2018.
Fearon, James D. 2003. “Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country.” Journal of Economic Growth 8(2): 195-222.
Filippov, Milhail G., Peter C. Ordeshook, and Olga V, Shvetsova. 1999. “Party Fragmentation and Presidential Elections in Post-Communist Democracies.”
Constitutional Political Economy 10: 3-26.
Gerring, John. 2005. “Minor Parties in Plurality Electoral Systems.” Party Politics 11(1):
79-107.
Golder, Matt. 2006. “Presidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation.” American Journal of Political Science 50(1): 34-48.
Laakso, Markku and Rein Taagepera. 1979. “Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12(1): 3-27.
Hicken, Allen. 2009. Building Party Systems in Developing Democracies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
92
Hicken, Allen, and Heather Stoll. 2008. “Electoral Rules and the Size of the Prize: How Political Institutions Shape Presidential Party Systems.” The Journal of Politics 70(4): 1109-1127.
Hicken, Allen, and Heather Stoll. 2013. “Are All Presidents Created Equal? Presidential Powers and the Shadow of Presidential Elections.” Comparative Political Studies 46(3): 291-319.
Janda, Kenneth. 1967. “Retrieving Information for a Comparative Study of Political Parties.” In Approaches to the Study of Party Organization, eds. William J. Crotty.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Press, 159-215.
Jones, Mark P. 1994. “Presidential Elections Laws and Multipartism in Latin America.”
Political Research Quarterly 47(1): 41-57.
Jones, Mark P. 1999. “Electoral Laws and the Effective Number of Candidates in Presidential Elections.” The Journal of Politics 61(1): 171-184.
Jones, Mark P. 2004. “Electoral Institutions, Social Cleavages, and Candidate Competition in Presidential Elections.” Electoral Studies 23(1): 73-106.
Jones, Mark P. 2018. “Presidential and Legislative Elections.” In The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, eds. Erik S. Herron, Robert J. Pekkanen, and Matthew S.
Shugart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Keefer, Philip. 2007. “Clientelism, Credibility, and the Policy Choices of Young Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 51(4): 804-821.
Lago, Ignacio, and Ferran Martinex i Coma. 2012. “Forgetting to Make Votes Count: The Role of Previous Democratic Experience.” Electoral Studies 31(2): 413-421.
93
Laver, Michael, and W. Ben Hunt. 1992. Policy and Party Competition. New York, NY:
Routledge Press.
Laver, Michael, and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments:
Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Lijphart, Arend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein Rokkan. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Lundell, Krister. 2004. “Determinants of Candidate Selection: The Degree of Centralization in Comparative Perspective.” Party Politics 10(1): 25-47.
Mainwaring, Scott. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
McClintock, Cynthia. 2009. “Presidential Election Rules in Latin America: Is Plurality or Runoff Better for Democracy?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 3-6, Toronto, Canada.
Morgenstern, Scott, Stephan M. Swindle, and Andrea Castagnola. 2009. “Party Nationalization and Institution.” The Journal of Politics 71(4): 1322-1341.
Moser, Robert G. 1999. “Electoral Systems and the Number of Parties in Post-Communist States.” World Politics 51(3): 359-384.
Mozaffar, Shaheen, James R. Scarritt, and Glen Galaich. 2003. “Electoral Institutions.
Ethnopolitical Cleavages, and Party Systems in Africa’s Emerging Democracies.”
American Political Science Review 97(3): 379-390.
94
Ordeshook, Peter C., and Olga V. Shvestsova. 1994. “Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 38(1):
100-123.
Pedersen, Helene Helboe. 2012. “What do Parties Want? Policy versus Office.” West European Politics 35(4): 896-910.
Plümper, Thomas, and Vera F. Troeger. 2007. “Efficient Estimation of Time-Invariant and Rarely Changing Variables in Finite Sample Panel Analyses with Unit Fixed Effects.” Political Analysis 15(2): 124-139.
Plümper, Thomas, and Vera F. Troeger. 2011. “Fixed-Effects Vector Decomposition:
Properties, Reliability, and Instruments.” Political Analysis 19(2): 147-164.
Raudenbush, Stephan W., and Anthony S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models:
Application and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.
Raymond, Christopher D., Michael Huelshoff, and Marc R. Rosenblum. 2016. “Electoral Systems, Ethnic Cleavages, and Experience with Democracy.” International Political Science Review 37(4): 550-566.
Rose, Richard, and Derek W. Urwin. 1970. “Persistence and Change in Western Party Systems since 1945.” Political Studies 18(3): 287-319.
Samuels, David J. 2000. “The Gubernatorial Coattails Effect: Federalism and Congressional Elections in Brazil.” The Journal of Politics 62(1): 240-253.
Samuels, David J. 2002. “Presidentialized Parties: The Separation of Powers and Party Organization and Behavior.” Comparative Political Studies 35(4): 461-483.
Samuels, David J. 2003. Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in Brazil. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
95
Samuels, David J., and Matthew S. Shugart. 2010. Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Satori, Giovanni. 1986. “The Influence of Electoral Systems: Faulty Laws or Faulty Method?” In Electoral Laws and their Political Consequences, eds. Bernard Grofman and Arend Lijphart. New York, NY: Agathon Press, 43-68.
Selway, Joel, and Kharis Templeman. 2012. “The Myth of Consociationalism? Conflict Reduction in Divided Societies.” Comparative Political Studies 45(12): 1542-1571.
Shugart, Mathew Soberg, and John M. Carey. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies:
Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Spoon, Jae-Jae, and Karleen Jones West. 2015. “Alone or Together? How Institutions Affect Party Entry in Presidential Elections in Europe and South America.” Party Politics 21(3): 393-403.
Strøm, Kaare. 1990. “A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 565-598.
Van de Walle, Nicolas. 2003. “Presidentialism and Clientelism in Africa’s Emerging Party Systems.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 41(2): 297-321.
Wagner, M. 2012. “When do Parties Emphasise Extreme Positions? How Strategic Incentives for Policy Differentiation Influence Issue Importance.” European Journal of Political Research 51(1):64-88.
Warwick, Paul V. 1996. “Coalition Government Membership in West European Parliamentary Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 26(4): 471-499.
96
Web, Paul, David Farrell, and Ian Holliday. 2002. Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
West, Karleen Jones, and Jae-Jae Spoon. 2013. “Credibility versus Competition: The Impact of Party Size on Decisions to Enter Presidential Elections in South America and Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 46(4): 513-539.
Wunsch, James S., and Dele Olowu. 1990. “The Failure of the Centralized State.” In The Failure of the Centralized State: Institution and Self-Governance in Africa, eds. James S. Wunsch and Dele Olowu. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1-22.
97
West & Spoon 2013
West & Spoon 2013
0.1%
West & Spoon
West &
Spoon 35
1995/5/14
1-1 1989/5/14
1991/10/27 1993/10/3 1991
1993 1995/5/14
Republican Force
West & Spoon 1989/5/14 West &
Spoon 238 13.3%
Republican Force
5%
t-1
t-1
35
1993/6/6 0.1%
98
Republican Force 1995/5/14
t-1 t-1
t-1
1-1 Union of Democratic Centre 1991/10/27 West & Spoon
t-1
Union of Democratic Centre 1991 t-1 1993
West & Spoon
West & Spoon
West
& Spoon
99
Republican Force 1995/5/14
1995/5/14
1995/5/14 Republican Force
West & Spoon
2009 1-2 1
MAS 2005/12/18
2009
2009
2009
Social Alliance Social Democratic Bolivia UN Gente MAS Social Patriotic Unity Movement PPB-CN
100
1-1 West & Spoon 2013 1995/5/14
t-1
Argentina Republican Force 1995/5/14 1 1991/10/27 0.0181 0.0181 1 2.98 2.98 0 Argentina Republican Force 1995/5/14 1 1993/10/3 0.0139 0.0139 1 2.68 2.68 0 Argentina Republican Force 1995/5/14 1 1995/5/14 0.0083 0.0139 1 2.86 2.68 1 Argentina Union of
Democratic Centre
1995/5/14 0 1991/10/27 0.0519 0.0519 0 2.98 2.98 0
West & Spoon 2013
101
1-2 West & Spoon 2013 2005/12/18 2009/12/6
t-1
Bolivia FEREPAB 2005/12/18 1 2005/12/18 0.0100 . . 2.299 4.966 1 Bolivia FUN 2005/12/18 1 2005/12/18 0.0950 . 2.299 4.966 1 Bolivia MAS 2005/12/18 1 2005/12/18 0.4960 0.2090 0 2.299 4.966 1 Bolivia MIP 2005/12/18 1 2005/12/18 0.0260 0.0610 0 2.299 4.966 1 Bolivia MNR 2005/12/18 1 2005/12/18 0.0710 0.2250 0 2.299 4.966 1 Bolivia NFR 2005/12/18 1 2005/12/18 0.0130 0.2090 0 2.299 4.966 1 Bolivia PODEMOS 2005/12/18 1 2005/12/18 0.2850 . 2.299 4.966 1 Bolivia USTB 2005/12/18 1 2005/12/18 0.0040 . 2.299 4.966 1 Bolivia Social Alliance 2009/12/6 1 2009/12/6 0.2310 . . 1.853 2.299 1 Bolivia Social Democratic
Bolivia
2009/12/6 1 2009/12/6 0.0022 . . 1.853 2.299 1
Bolivia UN 2009/12/6 1 2009/12/6 0.5650 . . 1.853 2.299 1 Bolivia Gente 2009/12/6 1 2009/12/6 0.0034 . . 1.853 2.299 1 Bolivia MAS 2009/12/6 1 2009/12/6 0.6422 0.4960 0 1.853 2.299 1 Bolivia Social Patriotic
Unity Movement
2009/12/6 1 2009/12/6 0.0051 . . 1.853 2.299 1
Bolivia PPB-CN 2009/12/6 1 2009/12/6 0.2646 . . 1.853 2.299 1
West & Spoon 2013
102
103
附錄二
附表
2-1 West & Spoon
（2013
）分析的國家總統選舉年和選舉制度國家名稱 總統大選年 選舉制度 第一輪門檻
Argentina 1983、1989 選舉人團
Argentina 1995、1999、2003、2007 條件多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得超過 45%以上的得票率，或未獲得超過 40％以上得票率且與第二高票候選人的得票率差距至少有 10%，需由人民進行第二輪投票
Austria 1980、1986、1992、1998、2004 絕對多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由人民進行第二輪 投票
Bolivia 1979、1985、1989、1993、
1997、2002、2005
Brazil 1989、1994、1998、2002、2006 絕對多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由人民進行第二輪 投票
Bulgaria 1992、1996、2001、2006 絕對多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由人民進行第二輪 投票
Chile 1989、1993、1999、2001、
2005、2009
絕對多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由人民進行第二輪 投票
104
Columbia 1978、1982、1986、1990 相對多數決
Columbia 1994、1998、2002、2006 絕對多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由人民進行第二輪 投票
Croatia 1992、1997、2000、2005、2009 絕對多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由人民進行第二輪 投票
Cyprus 1978、1983、1988、1993、
1998、2003、2008
絕對多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由人民進行第二輪 投票
Ecuador 1979、1984、1988、1992、1996 絕對多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由人民進行第二輪 投票
Ecuador 1998、2002、2006、2009 條件多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 40%以上得票率且與第二高票候選人的 得票率差距至少有10%，需由人民進行第二輪投票
Finland 1988 條件多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由選舉人團進行第
二輪投票
Finland 1994、2000、2006 絕對多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由人民進行第二輪 投票
France 1981、1988、1995、2002、2007 絕對多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由人民進行第二輪 投票
Ireland 1983、1990、1997、2004 單選區單記 可讓渡投票
Macedonia 1994、1999、2004、2009 絕對多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得 50%以上得票率，需由人民進行第二輪 投票
Paraguay 1989、1993、1998、2003、2008 相對多數決
105
Peru 1980 條件多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得三分之一以上的得票率，需由國會進行
Peru 1980 條件多數決 第一輪未有候選人獲得三分之一以上的得票率，需由國會進行