English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 93244/123616 (75%)
Visitors : 27776440      Online Users : 454
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/52655


    Title: 都市政治與土地政策之政經結構分析-以台南科學工業園區特定區開發案為例
    The political-economic structural analysis of urban politics and land policies- Case study of the Tainan Science-based Industrial Park Special District
    Authors: 鍾麗娜
    Chung, Li Na
    Contributors: 徐世榮
    Hsu, Shih Jung
    鍾麗娜
    Chung, Li Na
    Keywords: 都市政治
    成長機器
    權力
    南科特定區
    都市政權
    Urban Politics
    Growth Machine
    Power
    Tainan Science-based Industrial Park Special District
    Urban Regimes
    Date: 2011
    Issue Date: 2012-04-12 14:14:35 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 國家是在一定的領域內所有權力集中的中心。長久以來,都市政治所關心的核心議題為國家機器等行動主體之權力結構為何、結盟的誘因及權力運用的機制與結果又為何等等,此皆攸關都市發展,而都市的發展則脫離不了土地政策的制定與實施,以土地的管理分配與土地利益的炒作,是透過政治運作而成,而政治的本質在於利益的追求,則都市政治與土地政策之政經關係為何,是值關切。本研究以都市政治的理論基礎為主軸,輔以權力三面向作為理論分析的架構,並以南科特定區開發案為例,論述都市政治與土地政策之政經結構,探究國家機器等行動主體之權力結構,並剖析我國土地政策之結構性問題及作進一步的反省。
    研究發現,隨著政治民主化,地方與中央的權力關係面臨了轉變與調節,中央雖仍居關鍵地位,惟地方與中央已建構起「地方挑戰中央,中央仰賴地方」的巧妙關係。在南科特定區開發案中,誘發成長下土地利益為都市成長機器背後成長的基礎,地方、中央政府與資本利益團體之間已鏈結為利益共生的妥協性結盟,過程中雖然在地農民從被迫呈現「親開發」的無奈,到反成長聯盟為國家機器意識形態操弄下制度性的排除與嚇阻,惟卻點燃了對抗成長聯盟的火苗。而個案「三贏」的真相,不僅是地方與中央權力的較勁,更是政客與官僚自利心作祟下,挾持公共利益,游走法律邊緣,操弄文字為資本利益團體「圈地」、「養地」的野蠻遊戲。此不僅呼應成長機器論者所論述「Local Politics = Land Politics」的鐵律,更驗證都市政權理論者所強調「power to」的權力關係,另地方的主要本質雖為成長機器,惟關鍵卻是「成長」的結果,所創造的利益並非為全民所共享。在土地政策為選票保證的關鍵舞台,政客選舉至上的習性,視民意為糞土,其經濟發展掛帥的結果,官僚不僅在名利束縛下盲目的迎合上意,邊陲部門更是自我矮化淪為附庸。以土地作為空間規劃的平台,位居關鍵地位,土地應承擔更多的使命,則土地政策結構性問題的解決應回歸制度面,以跳脫「金權城市」的枷鎖。而民意的覺醒,對抗成長的共識已凝聚成一股巨大的力量,反成長聯盟的聖戰終將迫使政經合流國家機器這異形巨獸無所遁形,且這股力量亦將促使大地的守護者—人民成為國家機器權力巨獸的領航者,帶領國家駛向康莊大道,共創社會福祉。
    In certain areas, a country is the concentrated center of all powers. Over the past few years, urban politics concern for the following core issues; what is the political structure of the state machinery and the other political actors? What are the incentives for alliances? And what is the functioning mechanism for using powers and what are their results etc.? These are euphemistically vital to urban development. In addition, urban development is inseparable from land policy formulation and its implementation. Land management, land allocation and land profit speculations are all made through a political operation. But the essence of politics is to pursue interests. Therefore, it is worthy of concerning and discussing the political relationship between urban politics and land policies.In this case study, the theoretical basis of urban politics is a main element for discussion, supported by a theoretical analysis framework of the power’s three dimensions, also taking Tainan Science-based Industrial Park Special District as an example to elaborate the political and economic structure of urban politics and land policies, to explore the power structure of state apparatus and other emergent political actors, to explore the structural problem of Taiwan’s land polices and other further reflections.
    According to the case study, accompanying Taiwan’s political democratization, local and central governments were facing a shift and adjustment in their power relationship. In this case study’s period, the central government still led a key position. However, local and central governments had constructed a clever relationship as “local government challenging the central government”, and “central government relying on local government.”In the case of Tainan Science-based Industrial Park Special District, the induced growth of interests behind the land profits are laying the background growing foundation of the urban development. Between capital interest groups and local (including central) governments, both have links to a compromise alliance for their symbiotic interests. During the developmental process, local farmers were forced to show their helpless “pro-development” attitude. Under the institutional exclusion and deterrence, farmers were forced to join anti-growth coalition by the ideological manipulation of the state apparatus, but it also fired the flames against the growing alliances.
    The in-depth truth under the case “three win,” is not only describing the competition between local and central authorities, but also describing their self-serving hearts of politicians and bureaucrats to held hostage in terms of public interests, to walk a legal edge, and to manipulate the text for capital interest groups’ excuses of “land enclosure” and “land raised,” in a brutal game of earning profits.The case study is echoed growth machine commentators’ discussing the iron law of “Local Politics” equals “Land Politics.” It also verifies the urban regime theorists’ emphasizing “power to,” the relationship of power. The other main area is discussing the push for local growth, “although the nature of the growth machine.” However, the key is “growth results,” of which were not shared by all the people.It holds a key position to use spatial planning as a platform, among which the land policies should shoulder more of the mission. The land policies should return back to the systemic way and be institutionalized to escape the yoke of “money power rooted in the city.” The awakening of the public opinion against growth has been a consensus and condensed into a strong force. The anti-growth coalition jihad will eventually force the state apparatus, with political and economic convergence like a twisted-shaped monster, from the escape of detection. And this force will eventually be promoted as a guardian of the earth – therefore, the people will become the leader of the state machinery (power monster) to guide the country towards a broader road and create more social well-being.
    Reference: 壹、中文參考文獻
    Babbie, E.著,李美華譯,1998,『社會科學研究方法』,台北:時英出版社。
    Mcloughlin,J.B.,1968, 倪世槐譯,1972,『都市及區域之系統規劃原理』,台北:幼獅出版社。
    Monson, D.,1967,『台灣今後之都市與住宅建設』,行政院經合會都市建設與住宅計劃小組。
    Monson, D.著,倪世槐譯,1965,「台灣人口都市化與都會區域計畫」,『土木工程』,7(3)。
    Parker, S.著、王志弘、徐苔玲譯,2007,『遇見都市-理論與經驗』,台北:群學出版有公司。
    Savage, M. and Warde, A.著,『Urban Sociology, Capitalism and Modernity』,孫清山譯,2004,『都市社會學』,台北:五南圖書出版公司。
    于明誠,1982,『都市計畫概要』,台北:詹氏書局。
    內政部,1954,「台灣省市政建設考察小組報告」,台北。
    內政部,1983,「全面實施平均地權」,地政十年叢書之三,台北。
    內政部,2005,「麻雀地變鳳凰城—台灣區段徵收案例實錄」,台北。
    趙永茂,2002,『台灣地方政治的變遷與特質』,台北:翰蘆出版社。
    劉玉婷,2007,「台南縣政府會關係之研究1993-2005年」,東海大學政治學系碩士論文:台中。
    鄭竹雅,2006,「浮動分區開發模式之研究」,政治大學地政學系碩士論文:台北。
    鄭明安,2007,「台灣地區抵價地模式與整體開發之分析」,『土地問題研究季刊』,6(2):53-65。
    鄭明安,郭壽豐,1980,「積極辦理區段徵收以解決公共設施保留地問題」,『土地改革月刊』,頁4-6。
    盧偉民,1970,「台灣都市之危機與希望」,經合會報告。
    盧偉民,1973,『都市計畫學』,台北:台灣學生書局。
    蕭全政,1995,『台灣新思維:國民主義』,台北:時英出版社。
    蕭全政,1997,『台灣地區的重商主義』,台北:業強圖書公司。
    蕭全政,2000,『政治與經濟的整合- 政治經濟的基礎理論』,再版,台北:桂冠圖書有限公司。
    內政部地政司,1990,「區段徵收作業模式之研究」,行政院七十九年度研考經費補助專案,台北。
    蕭全政,2001,「台灣威權政體轉型中的國家機器與民間社會」,中央研究院台灣研究推動。
    蕭全政,2004,「經濟發展與台灣的政治民主化」,『台灣民主季刊』,1(1): 1-25。
    蕭新煌、劉華真,1993,「台灣的土地住宅問題與無住屋者運動的限制」,『香港科學學報』,2:1-20。
    蕭錚,1980,『蕭錚回憶錄:土地改革50年』,台北:中國地政研究所。
    謝宏昌,1999,「成長機器,或文化聯盟?高雄市內惟埤文化園區特定區計畫政策形成的社會基礎分析」,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫報告。
    鍾麗娜,2008,「區段徵收開發完成後可建築用地專案讓售課題之探討」,『土地問題研究季刊』,7(4):125-136。
    鍾麗娜,2009,「區段徵收法制變遷之回顧與展望」,『土地問題研究季刊』, 8(3):89-109。
    鍾麗娜,2010,「區段徵收制度與抵價地課題之分析」,『土地問題研究季刊』,9(3):3-12。
    鍾麗娜,2011a,「由權力的觀點審視抵價地式區段徵收制度之研究」,『土地經濟年刊』,22:111-148。
    鍾麗娜,2011b,「都市治理與空間治理策略-以南科特定區開發案為例」,『土地經濟年刊』,22:149-186。
    內政部營建署,1985,「都市計畫委員會審議原則及作業注意事項」,台北。
    鍾麗娜,2011c,「區段徵收開發後土地之處理從專案讓售到預標售之省思」,『土地問題研究季刊』,10(2):89-104。
    鍾麗娜、徐世榮,2011,「省悟-土地徵收問題之根源所在」,『土地問題研究季刊』,10(3):22-31。
    魏堂利,2006,「樹谷園區設立對南科產業群聚與資源排擠效應之研究」,成功大學政治經濟研究所碩士論文:台南。
    邊泰明,2003,『土地使用規劃與財產權-理論與實務』,台北:詹氏書局。
    嚴家淦,1968,「都市計畫研討會閉幕式致詞」,『台灣都市問題研討會資料彙集』,行政院經合會都市建設及住宅計畫小組。
    蘇一志,2002,「發展型地域主義與地方經濟空間的社會生產-以高科技園區、觀光遊憩區為例」,自行出版。
    蘇志超,1991,『土地法規新論』,自版,增修訂第九版。
    蘇煥智,2010,『進化南科-南科特定區開發模式解析』,台南:台南縣政府。
    酆裕坤,1963,「現行都市計畫法修正意見」,台灣省都市計畫考察團報告書,工業發展投資研究小組印行。
    貳、外文參考文獻
    王弓,1997,「台南科學園區特定區:建構跨世紀的科技新都會」,台南科學園區籌備處掛牌揭幕儀式簡報。
    宮島喬(編集),2003,『岩波小辞典-社會學』,岩波書局。
    Alford, R.A. and Friedland, R.,1985, Powers of Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Amsden, A.H.,1985,“ The state and Taiwan,s Economic Development.”pp.78-106 in Evans, P.B., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T.(eds), Bringing the state back in, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Arnstein, S.R.,1969,“ A Ladder of Citizen Participation”,Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4):216-224.
    Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S.,1962,“Two Faces of Power”,American Political Science Review, 56(4):947-952.
    Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S.,1963,“Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework”,American Political Science Review, 57(3):632-642.
    Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S.,1970, Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    Bates, R., 1988,“Governments and Agricultural Markets in Africa.”in Bates, R.(ed.), Toward a Political Economy of Development: A Rational Choice Perspective, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
    Berger, P.L.,1963, Invitation to Sociology:A Humanistic Perspective. New York: Doubleday.
    Bosco, J.,1992,“Taiman Factions: Guanxi, Patronage, and the State in Local Politics”, Ethnology, 31(2):157-183.
    王佳煌,2005,『都市社會學』,台北:三民書局。
    Cardoso, F.H. and Enzo, F.,1979, Dependency and Development in Latin America, Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Castells, M.,1983, The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements, California: University of California Press.
    Connolly, W.,1969,“The Challenge to Pluralist Theory. ”in Connolly, W.,(ed.),The Bias of Pluralism, New York: Atherton.
    Crane, G.T.,1982,“The Taiwanese Ascent: System, State, and Movement in the World Economy.”pp.93-113 in Friedman, E.,(ed.), Ascent and Decline in the World System, Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
    Crenson, M.A.,1972, The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decision-Making in the Cities, Johns Hopkins University Press.
    Dahl, R.A.,1957,“The Concept of Power ”,Behavioral Science, 2:201-215.
    Deutsch, K.W.,1974, Politics and Government: How People Decide Their Fate, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
    DiGaetano, A. and Lawless, P.,1999,“Urban governance and industrial decline: Governing structures and policy agendas in Birmingham and Sheffield, England, and Detroit, Michigan, 1980-1997”, Urban Affairs Review, 34(4): 546-577, ine and the Power Elite: A Challenge to Pluralists and Marxis.
    Domhoff, G.W.,1986,“The Growth Machts Alike. ”pp.53-73 in Waste, R.J.,(ed.), Community Power: Directions for Future Research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Dowding, K.,2001,“Explaining Urban Regimes”,International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(1):7-19.
    王振寰,1993a,「台灣新政商關係的形成與政治轉型」,『台灣社會研究季刊』,14:123-163。
    Elkin, S.L.,1987, City and Regime in the American Republic, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Fainstein, S.S. and Campbell, S.,2011, Readings in Urban Theory, New York: Oxford Blackwell.
    Fainstein, S.S.,1994, The City Builders: Property, Politics, and Planning in London and New York, New York: Oxford Blackwell.
    Friedland, R., Piven, F.F. and Alford, R.A.,1985,“Political Conflict, Urban Structure, and the Fiscal Crisis.” pp.273-297 in Tabb, W.K. and Sawers, L.,(eds.), Marxism and the Metropolis (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    Friedmann, J.,1987, Planning the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action, Princeton University Press.
    Gaventa, J.,1980, Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley, Urbana: University of Illinois Press .
    Giddens, A.,1985,“ The Nation-State and Violence ”, Cambridge: Polity.
    Gendron, R.,2006, “Forging Collective Capacity for Urban Redevelopment:‘Power To,’‘Power Over,’or Both? ”, City Community, 5(1):5-22.
    Gendron, R., and Domhoff, G.W.,2009, The Leftmost City: Power and Progressive Politics in Santa Cruz, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Gordon, C,.1991,“ Governmental Rationality: An Introduction. ”pp.1-15 in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, London: Harvester.
    王振寰,1993b,『資本、勞工與國家機器—台灣的政治與社會轉型 』台北:國家政策研究資料中心。
    Gore, C.,1984, Regions in Question: Space, Development Theory and Regional Policy, London: Methuen.
    Grindle, M.S. and Thomas, J.W.,1991, Public Choices and Policy Change: The Political Economy of Reform in Developing Countries, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
    Habermas, J. and Rehg, W.,1996, Between Facts and Norms: Contribution to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Translated by Rehg, W., Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
    Hall, P.,1988,“Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century”, Basil Blackwell, MA: Oxford.
    Hallett, G.,1980, Urban Land Economics: Principles and Policy, Palgrave MD.
    Harding, A.,1995,“Elite Theory and Growth Machines.”pp.35-53 in Judge, D., Stoker, G. and Wolman, H.,(eds.), Theories of Urban Politics, London: Sage.
    Harding, A.,1996,“Is There a ‘New Community Power’and Why Should We Need One?”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 20(4):637-655.
    Healey, P.,1983, Local Plans in British Land Use Planning, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    Hillman, A.L.,2003, Public Finance and Public Policy: Responsibilities and Limitations of Government, New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Ho, S.P.S.,1978, Economic Development of Taiwan, 1860-1970, New Haven: Yale University Press.
    王振寰,1996,『誰統治台灣?轉型中的國家機器與權力結構』,台北:巨流圖書公司。
    Hunter, F.,1953, Community Power Structure, Chape1 Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
    Jessop, B.,1990, State Theory: Putting Capitalist States in Their Place, Cambridge: Polity.
    Jonas, A.E.-G. and Wilson, D.,1999,“The City as a Growth Machine: Critical Reflections Two Decades Later.”pp.3-18 in The Urban Growth Machine:Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later, Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
    Judge, D., Stoker, G. and Wolman, H.,1995, Theories of Urban Politics, London: Sage.
    Kantor,P. and Savitch, H.V.,2001,“Can Politicians Bargain with Business? A Theoretical and Comparative Perspective on Urban Development.” Kantor, P.(eds.) pp.276-295 in Judd, D.R. and Kantor, P.,The politics of Urban America, A Reader, New York: Longman.
    Karl, P.,1957, The Great Transformation, Beacon Press.
    Kimelberg, S.M.,2011,“Inside the Growth machine: Real Estate Professionals on the Perceived Challenges of Urban Development ”,City Community, 10(1):76-99.
    Krumholz, N.,2001,“Planners and Politicians:A Commentary Based on Experience from the United States”,Planning Theory and Practice, 2(1):96-100.
    Kwok, R.Y.W.,2005,“Current dilemma and future uncertainty.” pp.241-250 in Kwok, R.Y.W.(eds.), Globalizing Taipei: The Political Economy of Spatial Development, Routledge: New York.
    Land,e, C.H.,1977,“Introduction: The Dyadic Basis of Clientelism.”pp.xiii-xxx-vii in Schmidt S. W., Guasti, L., Land,e, C.H. and Scott, J.C.,(eds.),Friends, Followers, and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism, California: University of California Press.
    王振寰,2007,「空間再尺度化的角力-全球化下的台灣資通訊產業及國家機器」,『地理學報』,49:39-54。
    Lauria, M.,1999,“Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulation Theory and Institutional Arrangements.”pp.125-139 in Jonas, A.E.G., Wilson, D., The Urban Growth Machine:Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later.
    Lindblom, C.E. and Cohen, D.K.,1979, Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Lipietz, A.,1994,“Post-Fordist and Democracy.”pp.338-357 in Amin, A.(eds.), Post-Fordist a reader, Chapter 11, Blackwell.
    Loewenstein, K.,1957, Political Power and the Governmental Process, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Logan, J.R.,1976,“Notes on the Growth Machine-Toward a Comparative Political Economy of Place”, American Journal of Sociology, 82(2):349-352.
    Logan, J.R. and Molotch, H.,1987, Urban Fortunes:The Political Economy of Place, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
    Luard, E.,1984, Economic Relationships Among States, London: The Macmillan Press.
    Lukes, S.,1974, Power: A Radical View, London: Macmillan.
    Lyon, L.,1987, The Community in Urban Society, Chicago, Temple University Press.
    Lyon, L., Felice, L G., Perryman, M.R. and Parker E.S.,1981,“Community Power and Population Increase: An Empirical Test of the Growth Machine Model”, American Journal of Sociology, 86(6):1387-1401.
    王振寰,瞿海源主編,2003,『社會學與台灣社會』二版,台北:巨流圖書公司。
    Macleod, G. and Goodwin, M.,1999,“Reconstructing an Urban and Regional Political Economy: On the State, Politics, Scale, and Explanation”, Political Geography, 18(6):697-730.
    Marger, M.N.,1981, Elites and Masses: An Introduction to Political Sociology, New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.
    Mills, C.W.,1956, The Power Elite, New York: Oxford University Press.
    Mollenkopf, J.,1983, The Contested City, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Mollenkopf, J.,1989,“Who(or What)Runs Cities, and How?”, Sociological Forum, 4(1):119-137.
    Mollenkopf, J.,1992,“How to Study urban political power -From A phoenix in the ashes: The rise and fall of the Koch coalition in New York city politics. ” pp.257-267 in LeGates R.T. and Stout, F., 1996 (eds.), The city reader.
    Molotch, H.,1976,“The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place”,American Journal of Sociology, 82(2):309-332.
    Molotch, H. and Logan, J.,1984,“Tensions in the Growth Machine: Overcoming Resistance to Value-free Development”,Social Problems, 31(5):483-499.
    Nelkin, D.,1974, Jetport: The Boston Airport Controversy, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
    Offe, C.,1981,“The Attribution of Public Sectors to Interest Groups.”pp.123-158 in Berger, S.D., Organizing Interests in Western Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    王銘正,1990,「我國實施都市計畫五十年之回顧」,『營建季刊』,1(1):24-35。
    Painter, J.,1994,“Regulation Theory, Post-Fordism and Urban Policies.”pp.276-295 in Judge, D., Stoker, G. and Wolman, H.(eds.), Theories of Urban Politics, London: Sage Publications.
    Porter D.R., Phillips, P.L. and Lassar, T.J., 1988, Flexible Zoning-How it Works, Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
    Saunders, P.,1981, Social Theory and the Urban Question, New York: Holmes and Meyer Press.
    Savage, M., Warde, A. and Ward, K., 2003, Urban Sociology, Capitalism and Modernity,(2nd ed.)New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
    Schattschneider, E.E., 1960, The Semisovereign People: A Realist,s View of Democracy in America, Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press.
    Scott, R.,2009,“Urban geography: urban growth machine.”pp.1-21 in Rob, K.& Nigel,T.(eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography, Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
    Simon, D. F.,1980, Taiwan, Technology Transfer, and Transnationalism: The Political Management of Dependency, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Californis, Berkeley.
    Stoker, G. and Mossberger, K.,1994,“Urban regime theory in comparative perspective”,Environment and planning C: Government and Policy, 12(2):195-212.
    Stoker, G.,1995,“ Regime Theory and Urban Politics. ”pp.54-71 in Judge, D., Stoker, G., Wolman, H., Theories of Urban Politics. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
    Stone, C.N.,1980,“Systemic Power in Community Decision Making: a Restatement of Stratification Theory”, American Political Science Review, 74(4):978-990.
    王鴻楷、夏鑄九,1979,「台灣地區都市計畫問題之回顧與展望-訪張祖璿先生紀錄」,『建築師』。
    Stone, C.N., 1987,“The study of the Politics of Urban Development. ” pp.3-22 in Stone, C.N. and Sanders, H.T.(eds.),The Politics of Urban Development , Lawrence: University Press of Kanasa.
    Stone, C.N.,1989, Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta,1946-1988, Lawrence: Kansas University Press of Kansas.
    Stone, C.N.,1993,“ Urban Regimes and the Capacity to Govern:A Political Economy Approach”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 15(1):1-23.
    Stone, C.N.,1998,“Regime Analysis and the Study of Urban Politics”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 20(3):249-260.
    Stone, C.N.,2004.“It,s more than the economy after all: continuing the debate about urban regimes”, Journal of Urban Affairs , 26(1):1-19.
    Stone, C.N.,2006.“Power, Reform, and Urban Regime Analysis ”, City Community, 5(1):23-38.
    Telling, A.E.,1986, Planning Law and Procedure, seventh edition,London: Butterworths.Lexis Law Publishing
    Vaughan, R.J. and Buss, T.F.,1998, Communicating Social Science Research to Policy Makers, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
    Ward, K.,1996,“Rereading Urban Regime Theory:A Sympathetic Critique”, Geoforum , 27(4):427-438.
    Weick, K.E.,1979, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Readind, Second Edition, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    天下雜誌,1984,「經建會的過去、現在與未來」,『天下雜誌』,天下雜誌出版社,第42期。
    Williamson, P.J.,1989, Corporatism in Perspective; An Introductory Guide to Coporatist Theory, London: SAGE Publications.
    Winckler, E.A.,1981, “National, Regional and Local Politics.” pp.13-37 in Ahern, E.M. and Gates, H. (eds.), The Anthropology of Taiwanese Society, Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.
    丘昌泰,2003,『公共政策:基礎篇』,台北:巨流圖書公司。
    台南縣政府,2002,「新訂南科特定區計畫書」,台南。
    台南縣政府,2005,「擬定南科特定區計畫(新市區建設地區開發區塊L&M細部計畫書)」,台南。
    台南縣政府,2008,「南瀛新象月刊」,台南。
    台南縣政府,2008,「南科特定區計畫(不含科學園區部分)(第一次通盤檢討)書」,台南。
    台南縣政府,2010,「台南科學工業園區特定區計畫新市區建設地區開發L&M區段徵收成果報告書」,台南。
    台灣省政府研究發展考核委員會,1984,「都市計畫公共設施保留地取得方式 土地徵收、區段徵收、市地重劃之比較硏究」,南投。
    行政院經合會都市發展處,1971,「都市建設及住宅計畫工作報告」,台北。
    行政院經濟建設委員會,1988,「平均地權條例立法沿革及理由」,台北。
    行政院經濟建設委員會,1991,「國家建設六年計畫(民國80年至85年)」第一冊總體經濟發展目標,台北。
    行政院經濟建設委員會,2010,「2010年至2060年台灣人口推計」,台北。
    行政院國家科學管理委員會,1997,「科學發展月刊」,25(12)。
    利燕伶,1991,「台灣都市計畫先驅-專訪張祖璿」,『工程』,64(11)。
    吳文彥,2002,「都市規劃調節範型變遷之研究:高雄市都市計畫個案變更分析(1955∼2000)」,成功大學都市計畫學系博士論文:台南。
    吳定,2001,『公共政策辭典』,台北:五南圖書出版公司。
    吳榮義,1992,『均富的意涵與實踐』,台北:理論與政策雜誌社。
    吳音寧,2007,『江湖在哪裡?台灣農業觀察』,台北:INK印刷出版有限公司。
    李先良,1959,「都市計畫新觀念」,『中國地方自治』,12(5)。
    李鴻毅,2001,『土地法論』,第25版,台北:三民書局。
    李承嘉,1998,『台灣戰後(1949-1997)土地政策分析-「平均地權」下的土地政策與土地稅制變遷』,台北:正揚出版社。
    李承嘉、廖本全、戴政新,2010,「地方發展的權力與行動分析:治理性與行動主體網絡理論觀點的比較」,『台灣土地研究』,13(1):95-133。
    李建良,2000,「損失補償」,收錄於翁岳生編『行政法』2000(下)。
    周志龍,1999,「規劃理論的論爭與發展」,『都市與計劃』,26(2):165-187。
    周志龍,2000,「台灣新市鄉開發歷程與政策」,『經社法制論叢』,25:287-307。
    周志龍,2004,「台灣新都市主義與都市規劃的挑戰」,『都市與計劃』,31(3):195-213。
    周育仁,1993,『政治與經濟之關係-台灣經驗與其理論之意涵』,台北:五南圖書出版公司。
    周素卿,1998,「科學園區的另一種發展版本:台南科學園區」,『台灣社會研究季刊』,32:125-163。
    周素卿、吳幸玲、江尚書,2009,「後工業化台北與新自由主義都市政治」,『中國地理學會會刊』,43:15-32。
    周素卿、陳東升,1998,「基層選舉下的地方政治與經濟利益:以房地產開發為例」。頁71-126,收錄於陳明通與鄭永年主編,『兩岸基層選舉與政治社會變遷』,台北:月旦出版社。
    林英彥,2011,「台灣土地政策之省思與批判」,『土地問題研究季刊』, 10(4):6-11。
    林元興,2003,「都市計畫土地使用分區彈性管制策略之研究」,台北:中國地政研究所。
    林明鏘,1996,「都市更新法制之研究」,國科會專題研究計畫。
    林樹埔,1982,「都市計畫之計畫程序與人民權益之關係」,『現代地政』,2(7):17-20。
    邱瑜瑾,1995,「解嚴後台中市都市發展形塑的社會機制」,東海大學社會社會學研究所博士論文:台中。
    邱馨儀、林政鋒,2008,『搶救南方大作戰』,台北:經濟日報編印。
    美援運用委員會法律修編籌劃組編譯,1962,『各國都市計畫法令概要』。
    胡兆煇,1951,「台灣都市計畫令及其施行規則的譯」,『台灣建設月報』,1(5)。
    連震東,1967,『蔣總統與台灣光復之重建』,台北:蔣總統對中國及世界之貢獻叢編編篡委員會。
    夏正鐘、張璠,1986,「都市計畫機構組織與職掌之檢討」,發表於『光復四十年來台灣地區都市計畫之回顧與展望研討會』,都市計畫學會主辦:台北。
    夏鑄九、張景森,1990,「台灣地區國土規劃歷史的回顧與檢討」,國土規劃的挑戰,民間國建會特輯(5):國策中心,頁11-30。
    徐世榮,2001,『土地政策之政治經濟分析:地政學術之補充論述』,台北:正揚出版社。
    徐世榮,2005,「住民投票、土地使用計畫變更及電力設施選址之研究」,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫報告。
    徐振國,1988,「我國威權政體的發展及經濟制的演變:其互動關係的初探」,『政治學報』,16:21-47。
    財訊周刊,1994,「『都委』辦事,縣太爺最放心-都委『沾親帶故』為那樁?」,1月份,頁83-86。
    高啟明,1964,「新舊都市計畫法之比較」,『中國一周』,754:15。
    高雄市政府地政處,1987,「以抵價地改進區段徵收之研究」,高雄市政府地政處七十六年度研究報告,高雄。
    商業周刊,1999,「陳唐山-『美國縣長』的台南傳奇-台南縣,叫我第一名」,第612期。
    張景森,1988,「戰後台灣都市研究的主流範型:一個初步的回顧」,『台灣社會研究季刊』,1(2、3):9-31。
    張景森,1991,「台灣現代城市規劃-一個政治經濟史的考察(1895-1988)」,台灣大學土木工程學研究所博士論文:台北。
    張景森,1993,『台灣的都市計畫(1895-1988)』,台北:業強出版社。
    許嘉緯,1999,「都市建設與住宅計畫小組(1966-1971)對台灣都市規劃影響之研究」,台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文:台北。
    陳立夫,2007,『土地法研究』,台北:新學林出版股份有限公司。
    陳忠信,1997,『國家政策與批判的公共論述』,台北:業強出版社。
    陳明通,1997,『派系政治與台灣政治變遷』,台北:月旦出版社。
    陳東升,1995,『金權城市─地方派系、財團與台北都會發展的社會學分析』,台北:巨流圖書公司。
    陳東升,1997,「都市政治與都市政策之分析」。頁477-511,收錄於蔡勇美、章英華主編,『台灣的都市社會』,台北:巨流圖書公司。
    陳博雅,2003,「新國土規劃理念下土地使用分區管制之研究」,研究單位:中國文化大學市政暨環境規劃學系,委託單位:內政部營建署市鄉規劃局。
    彭懷恩,1990,『台灣發展的政治經濟分析』,台北:風雲論壇出版社。
    曾水亭,1988,「台灣房地市場與民間資本:以國泰集團為例」,台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所博士論文:台北。
    曾旭正,1994,「戰後台北的都市過程與都市意識形構之研究」,台灣大學土木工程研究所博士論文:台北。
    曾信超,1998,『南科秘辛-科技的希望快樂的台南』,台南:復文書局。
    黃世孟,1992,「新高港都市計畫與台中特定區計畫規劃模型之比較分析」,『都市與計劃』,19(1):53-74。
    黃亮猛,1991,「區段徵收定義及功能之探討」,『人與地雜誌』,86:28-36。
    黃信勳,2003,「台灣空間規劃與典範遞移之考察-以台北市地區環境改造計畫為例」,政治大學地政學系碩士論文:台北。
    黃建勛,2004「浮動開發方式之研究-以南二高交流道特定區為例」,政治大學地政學系碩士論文:台北。
    黃錦堂,1984,「讓住民參與都市計畫」,『中國論壇』,第208期。
    黃麗玲,2002,「都市更新與都市統理:台北與香港之比較研究」,台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所博士論文:台北。
    黃昭富,2009,「第七屆立委選舉結果對台南縣政治生態之影響」,師範大學政治學研究所碩士論文:台北。
    楊友仁,1998,「從新竹到台南-科學園區、新興工業與地方發展的政治經濟分析」,台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文:台北。
    楊友仁、蘇一志,2002,「地域競爭與空間政治:台灣南部科學園區的個案分析」,『地理學報』,31:35-81。
    楊友仁、蘇一志,2005,「地方成長聯盟轉化與空間治理策略:以台南科學城為例」,『都市與計劃』,32(1):1-23。
    楊松齡,1994,「區段徵收制度之公平性與分配內涵之分析」,『台灣地政』,101:10-16。
    楊裕富,1991,「從立法過程論台灣地區都市計畫法」,『都市與計劃』,18(1):37-58。
    溫豐文,1999,『土地法』,作者自版。
    葉怡君,2006,「南部科學園區之中央政府、地方政府與高科技企業投資三邊關係分析」,台灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文:台北。
    漢寶德,1971,台大社會系之演講稿「國內都市計畫之基本難題」。頁11-23,收錄於漢寶德,1975,『建築、社會與文化』,台北:境與象出版社。
    漢寶德,1975,「國內都市計畫專業的基本難題」,氏著『建築、社會與文化』,台北:境與象出版社。
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    地政研究所
    96257504
    100
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096257504
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[地政學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML145View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback