政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/126749
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 97333/127992 (76%)
Visitors : 33836036      Online Users : 258
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/140.119/126749

    Title: 民主程度和發展程度對各國二氧化碳排放治理的影響
    The Effects of Democracy and Development on the Governance of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions
    Authors: 薛健吾
    Hsueh, Chien-wu Alex
    Contributors: 國際事務學院
    Keywords: 民主; 經濟發展; 二氧化碳; 氣候變遷; 全球治理  
    democracy ; development; Carbon Dioxide (CO_2) ; climate change; global governance
    Date: 2019-06
    Issue Date: 2019-10-08 09:07:28 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 近年來,各種氣候變遷的重大災害頻傳,不分國界地威脅到整個人類社會,使得如何有效地對氣候變遷進行全球治理成為刻不容緩的問題。在氣候變遷治理的文獻中,有一個普遍的觀點是,當一個國家的「民主程度」或是「經濟發展程度」增加,將有利於減低該國二氧化碳的排放量;然而,若仔細深究其中的因果關係,則「民主政治」與「經濟發展」事實上對於二氧化碳的排放同時具有正面和負面的影響,這個事實也解釋了為何過去的研究並未在「民主」與「經濟發展」對「二氧化碳排放治理」的影響上達成共識。本文的目的,即在於透過既有文獻的建議,在邏輯上釐清「民主程度」、「發展程度」與「二氧化碳排放治理」三者之間的關係。本文論點的建立有四個階段:首先,本文將論證,由於經濟發展程度的本身就涉及到對環境資源的汲取能力,所以二氧化碳的「環境顧志耐曲線」應該是以一個二階的效果,也就是說,二氧化碳的「環境顧志耐曲線」的效果應該是在考量到各國經濟發展程度之後的殘差值上呈現。其次,由於二氧化碳汙染的性質特殊,所以必須倚靠由「跨國倡議」所引進的規範與觀念來改變人民的價值觀,才能夠使人民注意到這個問題的嚴重性。第三,由於某些穩定的威權國家有維護環境的誘因,而轉型中的民主國家普遍極度缺乏維護環境的誘因,所以民主程度與人均二氧化碳排放量之間應該是呈現「倒U型」的關係。最後,民主政治至少包含了「制度民主」(競爭和參與)和「實質民主」(政治權利和公民自由)這兩種不同的面向,在「制度民主」程度高的國家中,由於競爭性和參與性皆高,政治人物面對著必須透過刺激經濟發展來爭取選票的強大壓力,因此難以採行可能減緩經濟發展的政策來控制二氧化碳的排放量;而在「實質民主」程度高的國家中,人民更可能具足夠的政治權利和公民自由來讓減少二氧化碳排放的跨國倡議和普世價值得以在社會中成功傳播,進而使國家推動相關的立法來規範排放標準,因此「實質民主」的程度就成為國家是否能夠有效控制二氧化碳排放的關鍵。來自全球150個國家涵蓋1972~2013年的追蹤資料證實了本文的論點。
    The frequent occurrence of severe natural disasters in recent years highlights the importance of global climate change governance, and especially the management of carbon dioxide (CO_2) emissions. The literature on environmental governance presents the argument that the levels of democracy and development of a state are positively correlated with the state's performance in terms of environmental governance. However, if we analyze the causal relationships between democracy, development, and environmental governance, we find that democracy and development actually exert both, positive and negative effects on the environment. This also explains why previous literature failed to reach a consensus regarding the influence of these factors on environmental governance. The goal of this article is to put forward an argument clarifying the relationship between democracy, development, and states' CO_2 emission governance. I establish this argument in four steps. Firstly, I argue that since the amount of CO_2 emissions per capita can serve as a proxy for the degree of development, the CO_2 environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) effect will be present in the residuals of the CO_2 EKC equation. Secondly, because of the special characteristics of CO_2 emissions, the main impulse urging states to regulate their CO_2 emissions is from transnational advocacy groups that affect people's perceptions, values, and ideas. Thirdly, based on the suggestions of literature on the logic of political survival, both, democracies and stable autocracies may have incentives to protect the environment, while new democracies have the least incentive to do so. Therefore, the relationship between democracy and environmental governance should be U-shaped. Lastly, "democracy" has at least two different dimensions: (1) the procedural dimension emphasizes the degree of political competition and participation, while (2) the substantive dimension emphasizes the degree of people's political rights and civil liberties. These two different dimensions should exert different effects on environmental governance. In states with a high degree of procedural democracy and a low degree of substantive democracy, political leaders have to compete for votes in order to remain in power; thus, it is more difficult for them to adopt emission regulation policies, as they may compromise their commitments to economic development made to the supporters. Instead, in states that have a high degree of substantive democracy, people are more likely to enjoy more liberties and rights, which are positively associated with the spread of emission-regulation transnational advocacy. Thus, it is more likely for them to realize the emission-regulation policy outputs. Empirical evidence from 150 countries over the 1972-2013 period confirms my argument.
    Relation: 台灣民主季刊, Vol.16, No.2, pp.65-117
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[College of International Affairs] Periodical Articles

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    190.pdf1038KbAdobe PDF92View/Open

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

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback