本文旨在分析日本戰前藩閥與戰後自民黨派閥政治的關連，明瞭在歷史因素下政治寡頭者理念的傳承，且進一步影響現今政治的運作。以往有關派閥政治的研究，多數是以選區制度、權力均衡等觀點進行探討，然本文認為尚可由制度與歷史的因果關係，探究制度的動態與變遷、制度的柔軟性和限制性等要素說明。故本文取日本藩閥與派閥之例，認為兩者之間藉由近代政黨政治運作連結而起，對應政府體制轉變，成為民主政治理念的展現。本文發現近代日本藩閥政治與自民黨派閥的連續性上，存在有保守與改革派意識形態的對抗，藉由依賴路徑發展而來的..

This paper’s purpose is to analyze the relationship between the pre-war Hanbatsu politics and the post-war factional politics in Japan in order to understand the continued ideals of the political oligarchy and their effect on the operations of present politics. In terms of the studies on factional politics in Japan, most scholars use the viewpoints of the election system or the balance of power, etc. However, this paper tries to explore factional politics from the institutional and historical cause and effect viewpoint. To do so, this..

日本政府分別於 2001 年與 2009 年兩度改革預算制度，都是在內閣層級設立新的組織，移轉部分預算編列權限到內閣，希望透過改變編列預算的方式，來提高首相與內閣領導力，並解決各省廳的本位問題。前者是在內閣府設立經財政諮詢會議，後者則是分別在內閣官房與內閣府設立國家戰略室與行政刷新會議。儘管小泉內閣時期，透過經濟財政諮詢會議改革原有的預算編列方式，也成功地刪減財政支出，以及民主黨執政初期，行政刷新會議做出刪減預算的決定，國家戰略室也有設定降低財政赤字的目標，..

The Japanese government reformed its budget institutions and budget processes in 2001 and 2009, establishing the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy(CEFP)in 2001, and the National Strategy Office(NSO)and the Government Revitalization Unit(GRU)in 2009. By moving the Ministry of Finance’s budget formulation authority to the Cabinet, it was expected that these new institutions would facilitate the prime minister’s leadership. However, despite institutional changes, the budget formulation processes and the existing ..

戰後日本的政治安定與經濟成果，被譽為「日本第一」或「經濟奇蹟」，引發日本研究者的好奇心，而在觀察日本的政治過程中，政治人物與官僚的角色是主要的焦點。日本的學術界對於政治過程的主導者為誰，先後出現「官僚主導」與「政黨主導」的論爭，爾後又出現「政策類型」的論點，主張政治人物與官僚處於合作或競爭的狀態。本文主要目的是論述上述論點的主要內容，同時分析其成立的背景，最後提出解釋上的侷限性，期望有助於瞭解日本的政治決定過程。  

After World War ΙΙ, “Japan as No.1 (or ‘economical miracle’),” which signifies Japan’s political and economical achievements, always attracted researchers’ curiosity. As we know, politicians and bureaucrats play leading roles in Japanese political processes; consequently, the Japanese academia argued over the perspectives of “bureaucracy domination” and “party domination,” then the argument was switched to “policy domination,” which emphasizes t..