本文研究政體類型與包括稅前和租稅補貼在內的能源補貼間的關係,並討論這種關係如何被通貨膨脹程度所制約。文中指出不同政權的生存邏輯和不同類型能源補貼的成本,是影響民主和威權政府能源補貼政策差異的重要因素。稅前補貼需要政府編列預算支應部分能源供應的成本,政府不易迴避。因為威權政體優先考量社會穩定,所以在稅前燃料補貼上的支出比民主政體來得多。租稅補貼是指刻意不對能源商品使用的外部性進行賦稅,處理外部性的重要性沒有滿足人民基本物資價格的穩定來得高,而且提供這些補貼的成本可以留給未來世代,所以兩種政體的政治領導人都較願意提供這些補貼。不過不同政體提供能源補貼的決定還與通貨膨脹程度有關,因為當一個國家的通貨膨脹情形嚴重時,政府提供補貼的意願會跟著降低。稅前補貼涉及能源供應的成本,政府不易迴避,民主政府在必須負擔較多公共財支出的情況下,當通貨膨脹率高,仍會選擇提供較少的稅前補貼。與此相對,租稅補貼是未來世代才會要負擔的成本,政府的財政壓力也小,因此通貨膨脹率高時,民主國家提供的租稅補貼也跟著增加,與威權體制間差異縮小。這些發現,清楚地說明不管通貨膨脹的高低,民主國家相對威權體制提供較少的稅前能源補貼,且在低通貨膨脹程度的情況下,也提供較少的租稅補貼。
This paper examines the relationship between regime type and energy subsidies, including pre-tax and tax subsidies, and discusses how these relationships are mediated by the degree of inflation. The paper suggests that the logic of political survival and the costs of energy subsidies are two of the main factors shaping energy subsidy policies. Pre-tax subsidies require the government to budget for part of the cost, which is not easy for the government to avoid. Since authoritarian regimes prioritize social stability, they spend more on pre-tax fuel subsidies than democracies. Dealing with the externality of energy commodities is less important for political survival than keeping the price of basic goods affordable. Moreover, the costs of providing tax subsidies can be passed on to future generations. Political leaders in both regimes are more willing to provide these subsidies. However, the decision to provide energy subsidies is also related to the level of inflation, as high inflation often preventing a country from reforming subsidies. Democratic governments tend to provide less pre-tax subsidies even when inflation is high because they have to bear more of the public's financial costs. In contrast, tax subsidies are a cost that will only be borne by future generations, so governments are under less financial pressure to provide them. The subsidy behaviors of the two regimes are similar under this condition. These findings clearly show that, regardless of inflation, democracies provide less pre-tax energy subsidies than authoritarian regimes, and they also provide less tax subsidies given low levels of inflation.
當代民主和平研究已不再局限於民主政體間的戰爭機率,有些學者已經開始轉向研究威權政體間的戰爭機率。這樣的研究發展,有利於促進國際政治和比較政府兩個次領域的對話,而本文亦嘗試將威權政體分類相關的比較政治研究,帶入國際政治場域進行分析。2002 年 Mark Peceny、Caroline C. Beer和 Shannon Sanchez-Terry 提出 「獨裁政體和平假說」(dictatorial peace),主張威權政體間亦存在低武裝衝突機率。而且,如果再將威權政體進一步分類,則僅有單..
When analyzing the relationship between regime type and the possibility of militarized interstate conflict, an interdisciplinary dialogue between the fields of comparative politics and international relations is vitally demanded, especially when stepping into the further area of democratic peace, “dictatorial peace." In 2002, Mark Peceny, Caroline Beer, and Shannon Sanchez-Terry concluded that a lower conflict possibility does exist among non-democratic regimes. Moreover, after classifying non-democracies into three categories, t..
本文初探各國社會資本、政體與新冠肺炎疫苗接種普及率與進度的關聯性。筆者關注社會資本的不同要素是否有助於各國推行疫苗接種;此外,社會資本能否作為解釋政體在疫苗接種差異的來源,特別是民主、非民主國家的區隔。本研究建置涵蓋世界價值觀調查、自由之家與疫苗接種資訊的87個國家資料庫進行實證分析。分析結果顯示制度信心如預期地對疫苗接種普及率有顯著正向效應;規範認知則對疫苗接種達標風險率有顯著負向影響,與社會資本的理論相悖。其次,不論疫苗接種普及率與達標風險率的分析,都顯示社會資本能作為解釋政體與疫苗..
This paper explores why some countries share higher COVID-19 vaccinations than others. The author addresses how social capital and regime types are associated with the rate and speed of vaccination in countries. It is argued that elements of social capital are not only able to promote the vaccinations, but also be one of mediating factors that account for the differences between types of political regimes in vaccination. Country data on social capital and political regimes is linked to data on COVID-19 vaccinations in 87 countries (includin..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.