English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 95940/126530 (76%)
Visitors : 31803559      Online Users : 322
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/140.119/131326


    Title: 專制體制與環境表現
    Authoritarian Regime Types and Environmental Performance
    Authors: 石夢佳
    Stemler, Morgan
    Contributors: 張文揚
    Wen-Yang Chang
    石夢佳
    Morgan Stemler
    Keywords: 極權政權
    環保績效
    政體
    二氧化碳
    黨政
    惡化
    Authoritarian regime
    Environmental performance
    Regime type
    Carbon dioxide
    Party regime
    Degradation
    Date: 2020
    Issue Date: 2020-08-03 18:38:02 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 氣候變遷儼然在各學術領域,成為前所未見的重要議題。許多與政體及環境惡化的相關研究,已著重在民主政體及非民主政體的比較上,並且得出民主政體有利於環境改善,因此民主化有利於環保相關議題。然而,隨著環境變遷,這些觀點也可能不再適用。此篇論文之主旨,
    試圖重新分析此項議題,並著重於極權政體對於其境內二氧化碳排放的影響。作者不僅提出論點,證實極權政體之相關影響,同時也提出黨政體制對於自1997至2010年間,降低二氧化碳排放量的顯著影響。為提出堅實佐證,作者參考了相關文獻,並製出兩項量化研究結果: 時間序列及跨部門分析,並且使用地理信息席統做空間分析。統計數據顯至多證實:極權政體確實在二氧化碳排放量方面,起了一定的作用,相反地,並非黨政體系,而是軍政體系,於這方面具有最大影響力。不過,經由穩健性測試後,也發現了時間維度及樣本數不足,也導致了統計結果稍微偏差;在第二輪的測試後,也發現了影響二氧化碳排放量的最關鍵因素,還是人均國內生產總值,而非政體類型。
    Climate change has become an ever-increasingly important topic in a multitude of academic fields. A lot of the research on regime type and environmental degradation has focused on democracies versus non-democracies, and concluded that because democracies outperform in this sector, then democratization could be the solution. However, viewpoints seem to be shifting in terms of whether this research is as accurate in the current environment. This paper attempts to reanalyze this topic with a specific focus on whether certain authoritarian regime types, if any, have an effect on carbon dioxide levels within a regime. I argue that not only will authoritarian regime types have an effect, but that party regimes will have the greatest effect in limiting or decreasing carbon dioxide emissions from 1997-2010. To provide empirical support, I include a vast literature review on the topic and utilize two different quantitative methods of analysis: time-series cross-sectional and spatial analysis using Geographic Information Systems. Statistical results mostly confirm that authoritarian regime type can play a role in determining carbon dioxide emission levels, but on the contrary, it is military regimes and not party regimes that have the greatest effect on CO2 levels. However, after robustness checks, it seems to be that limitations skew the results due to a short time-frame and small sample size. This results in the secondary analysis concluding that, while positive, regime type is not significant in determining carbon dioxide emissions, but rather that GDP per capita has a greater effect.
    Reference: Art, David. 2012. “What Do We Know About Authoritarianism After Ten Years?” Comparative Politics, 44(3): 351-373. www.jstor.org/stable/2321280.
    Azomahou, Théophile, François Laisney, and Phu Nguyen Van. 2006. “Economic development and CO2 emissions: A nonparametric panel approach.” Journal of Public Economics 90(6-7): 1347-1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.09.005.
    Baltagi, Badi H. 2008. “Fixed effects and random effects.” In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, ed. Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1–6.
    Beeson, Mark. 2010. “The Coming of Environmental Authoritarianism.” Environmental Politics 19(2): 276-294.
    Bell, Andrew, and Kevin Jones. 2015. “Explaining fixed effects: Random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data.” Political Science Research and Methods 3(1): 133–153.
    Bonvecchi, Alejandro, and Emilia Simison. 2017. “Legislative Institutions and Performance in Authoritarian Regimes.” Comparative Politics 49(4): 521-539.
    Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson, and James D. Morrow. 2003. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Cao, Xun, and Hugh Ward. 2015. "Winning Coalition Size, State Capacity, and Time Horizons: An Application of Modified Selectorate Theory to Environmental Public Goods Provision.” International Studies Quarterly 59: 264–279.
    Carpini, Michael X. Delli. 2000. “Gen.com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information Environment.” Political Communication 17(4): 341-349.
    Cavatorta, Francesco. 2012. “Conclusion.” In Civil Society, Activism under Authoritarian Rule: A Comparative Perspective, eds. Francesco Cavatorta. London, UK: Routledge.
    Chandra, Siddharth, and Nita Rudra. 2013. "Reassessing the Links between Regime Type and Economic Performance: Why Some Authoritarian Regimes Show Stable Growth and Other Do Not." British Journal of Political Science 45: 253-285.
    Chang, Wen-Yang, and Dan Wei. 2019. “Natural Resources and Infectious Diseases: The Case of Malaria, 2000-2014.” The Social Science Journal 56: 324-336.
    Cherniwchan, Jevan. 2012. “Economic Growth, Industrialization, and the Environment.” Resource and Energy Economics 34(4): 442-467.
    Clark, Tom S., and Drew A. Linzer. 2014. “Should I use fixed or random effects?” Political Science Research and Methods 3(2): 399–408.
    CNN Editorial Research. 2020. “Kyoto Protocol Fast Facts.” CNN, April 8. https://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/26/world/kyoto-protocol-fast-facts/index.html.
    Diamond, Larry. 2008. “The Democratic Rollback.” Foreign Affairs, March/April.
    Freedom House. 2019. “Democracy in Retreat.” Freedom in the World. Available at https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/democracy-retreat.
    Gandhi, Jennifer, and Adam Przeworski. 2007. “Dictatorial Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats.” Comparative Political Studies 40(11): 1279-1301.
    Gat, Azar. 2007. “The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers.” Foreign Affairs, July/August.
    Geddes, Barbara. 1999a. “Authoritarian Breakdown: Empirical Test of a Game Theoretic Argument.” in Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta: 1-55.
    Geddes, Barbara. 1999b. “What Do We Know About Democratization After Twenty Years?” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 115-144.
    Geddes, Barbara. 2005. “The Role of Elections in Authoritarian Regimes.” Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC.
    Geddes, Barbara, Joseph Wright, and Erica Frantz. 2014. “Autocratic Breakdown and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set.” Perspective in Politics 12(2): 313-331.
    Gilley, Bruce. 2012. “Authoritarian Environmentalism and China’s Response to Climate Change.” Environmental Politics 21(2): 287-307.
    Grimm, Nancy B, David Foster, Peter Groffman, J Morgan Grove, Charles S Hopkinson, Knute J. Nadelhoffer, Diane E. Pataki, and Debra P.C. Peters. 2008. “The Changing Landscape: Ecosystem Responses to Urbanization and Pollution Across Climatic and Societal Gradients.” Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment 6(5): 264-272.
    Grossman, Gene M. and Alan B. Krueger. 1995. “Economic Growth and the Environment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(2): 353–377.
    Hadenius, Axel and Jan Teorell. 2006. “Authoritarian Regimes: Stability, Change, and Pathways to Democracy, 1972-2003.” Kellogg Insitute Working Paper Series 331. November. Available at http://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/331.pdf.
    Hadenius, Axel, and Jan Teorell. 2007. "Pathways from Authoritarianism." Journal of Democracy 18(1): 143-157.
    Hankla, Charles R., and Daniel Kuthy. 2013. "Economic Liberalism in Illiberal Regimes: Authoritarian Variation and the Political Economy of Trade.” International Studies Quarterly 57(3): 492–504.
    Hausfather, Zeke. 2019. “Analysis: Global Fossil-Fuel Emissions up 0.6% in 2019 Due to China.” Carbon Brief, December 4. Available at https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-fossil-fuel-emissions-up-zero-point-six-per-cent-in-2019-due-to-china.
    Heilbroner, Robert L. 1974. An Inquiry into the Human Prospect. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
    Ishiyama, John, Ryan Conway, and Katherine Haggans. 2008. "Is There a Monadic Authoritarian Peace: Authoritarian Regimes, Democratic Transition Types and the First Use of Violent Force." African Journal of Political Science and International Relations 2(3): 31-37.
    Kailitz, Steffen, and Daniel Stockemer. 2017. "Regime Legitimation, Elite Cohesion, and the Durability of Autocratic Regime Types." International Political Science Review 38(3): 332-348.
    Kirlin, John. 1996. “What Government Must Do Well: Creating Value for Society.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6(1): 161-185.
    Klick, Jonathan. 2002. “Autocrats and the Environment or It’s Easy Being Green.” George Mason Law and Economics Working Paper Series 02-16. May 13. http://ssrn.com/abstract_id= 311063.
    Korsbakken, Jan Ivar, Robbie Andrew, and Glen Peters. 2019. “Guest Post: China’s CO2 Emissions Grew Slower than Expected in 2018.” Carbon Brief, March 5. Available at https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-slower-than-expected-in-2018.
    Kotchen, Matthew. 2014. “Public Goods.” In Environmental and natural resource economics an encyclopedia, eds. Tim Haab and John Whitehead. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 271-273.
    Lektzian, David, and Mark Souva. 2009. “A Comparative Theory of Democratic Peace Arguments, 1946-2000.” Journal of Peace Research 46(1): 17-37.
    Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan A. Way. 2002. “Elections Without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy 13(2): 51-65.
    Lindsey, Rebecca. 2020. “Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, February 20. Available at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.
    Martinez-Bravo, Monica, Gerard Padró i Miquel, Nancy Qian, and Yang Yao. 2012. "Elections in China." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 18101. May. Available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w18101.pdf.
    Nguyen, Thieu-Dang, and Simone Datzberger. 2018. “The Environmental Movement in Vietnam: A New Frontier of Civil Society Activism?” Transnational Institute: Challenging Authoritarianism Series 4. May. Available at https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/tni-authoritarianism-vietnams-environmental-movement.pdf.
    Peceny, Mark, and Christopher K. Butler. 2004. "The Conflict Behavior of Authoritarian Regimes." International Politics 41(4): 565-581.
    Peceny, Mark, Caroline C. Beer, and Shannon Sanchez-Terry. 2002. "Dictatorial Peace?" The American Political Science Review 96(1): 15-26.
    Peterson, E. Wesley F. 2000. “The Design of Supranational Organizations for the Provision of International Public Goods: Global Environmental Protection.” Review of Agricultural Economics 22(2): 355-369.
    Reuter, Ora John, and Graeme B. Robertson. 2015. "Legislatures, Cooptation, and Social Protest in Contemporary Authoritarian Regimes." The Journal of Politics, 77:1 (January): 235-248.
    Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. "The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory." The American Political Science Review 97(4): 585-602.
    Rosenzweig, Steven C. 2015. “Does Electoral Competition Affect Public Goods Provision in Dominant-Party Regimes? Evidence from Tanzania.” Electoral Studies 39: 72-84.
    Sah, Raaj K. 1991. “Fallibility in Human Organizations and Political Systems.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(2):67-88.
    Song, Sha. 2018. “Here’s How China is Going Green.” World Economic Forum, April 26. Available at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/china-is-going-green-here-s-how/.
    Takeuchi, Hiroki. 2013. “Vote Buying, Village Elections, and Authoritarian Rule in Rural China: A Game-Theoretic Analysis.” Journal of East Asian Studies 13: 69-105.
    Tsai, Lily L. 2007. “Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability, and Local Public Goods Provision in Rural China.” The American Political Science Review, 101(2): 355-372.
    United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2019. Emissions Gap Report 2019. http://www.unenvironment.org/emissionsgap.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.” Available at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data.
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2020. “What is the Kyoto Protocol.” Available at https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol (Accessed April 15, 2020).
    Wahman, Michael, Jan Teorell, and Axel Hadenius. 2013. “Authoritarian regime types revisited: updated data in comparative perspective.” Contemporary Politics 19 (1): 19-34.
    Weede, Erich. 1996. “Political Regime Type and Variation in Economic Growth Rates.” Constitutional Political Economy 7: 167-176.
    Weeks, Jessica L. 2008. “Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve.” International Organization, 62(1): 35-64.
    Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid and SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY. 2007. “Rediscovering Europe in the Netherlands.” Amsterdam University Press: 119-136.
    World Bank. 2019. World Bank Open Data | Data. Available at https://data.worldbank.org/
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    國際研究英語碩士學位學程(IMPIS)
    107862019
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107862019
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202000806
    Appears in Collections:[國際研究英語碩士學位學程] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    201901.pdf1729KbAdobe PDF25View/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