摘要:本計畫將結合亞洲民主動態查計畫的跨國資料以及晚近有關族群關係的理論議題,開拓研究議程的廣度。在冷戰結束後,影響民主發展至鉅的因素已由國與國間的衝突,轉為國內不同族群團體與團體之間的對抗與攻擊,因此對於政治學者來說,探究政治制度如何影響族群關係就成為很重要的研究課題。根據Minorities at Risk(MAR)這個資料庫的資料,亞洲民主動態調查所涵蓋的13個國家或地區中,其中包括台灣、中國、日本、菲律賓、泰國、新加坡、印尼、越南、柬埔寨以及馬來西亞,都存在少數民族,這些少數民族都集體地受到國家不公平的對待,而且也為了促進團體利益,集體地被動員起來,與國家進行各式各樣程度不一的對抗。
過去的量化研究發現,比例性的選舉制度會比單選區制更能夠確保和諧的族群關係,也發現政府體制對於緩解族群衝突是有作用的。不過,這些研究與分析都是強烈倚賴MAR所提供的關於族群衝突的資料,這個資料庫以族群團體為單位,記錄他們每年所發生的最大規模的衝突,然而這種資料蒐集方式未必能得到正確而完整的資料,透過「亞洲民主動態調差」可以從個體層次收集調查資料來分析族群衝突如何受到制度設計所影響,有其特殊價值與重要性。
這個子計畫也可以在「全球民主動態調查」的合作平台上深入而系統性地探究如何與其他地區的民主調查計畫進行更密切的接軌,我們可以加問有關族群團體定位的問題,以及詢問他們和其他族群的相處與衝突情形,依據這些資料,我們就能夠更正確地探究不同的族群團體是否在不同的制度設計下,感受到不同的政府對待,進而影響到族群的關係。
由於族群衝突已取代國與國之間的對抗,成為影響民主發展的最主要障礙,因此關於群衝突的研究已備受學界所重視,如果我們能順利成立這項子計畫,將相關題目推展至台灣以外的東亞其他研究團隊,甚至是所有其他地區的研究團隊,而能夠成為MAR資料庫之外,研究族群衝突的學者都必須要分析的資料庫,那麼對於國際學術的進展,必然能夠發揮重要的影響與貢獻。
配合計畫的整體研究進度與預算規劃,本計畫將於未來五年中的第一與第二年執行。
Abstract: This subproject will combine ABS cross-national data with recent theoretical work on ethnic relations. Since the 1990s, ethnic divisions have replaced the Cold War as the world’s most serious source of violent conflict. The problem of ethnic tensions is so widespread and serious that it has presented a major impediment to further democratization in this century and has possibly caused a third reverse wave of democratization. It is thus very important to investigate how to mitigate or prevent ethnic conflict through proper institutional design.
In our Program for East Asia Democratic Studies, there are ten countries in which there exist substantial minority groups that collectively suffer, or benefit, from systematic discriminatory treatment vis-a-vis other groups in a state, and/or are the focus of political mobilization and action in defense or promotion of their self-defined interests. According to the Minorities at Risk (MAR) dataset, all thirteen countries covered by ABS contain minority groups. These groups are at risk and need to be empowered to feel secure about their group identity and interests. Lacking power sharing and any probability to influence policy-making, these minority groups could cause a lot of trouble for the progress of democracy.
Existing research have proved that proportional representation systems better facilitate minority representation and minority support for the political system than single-member district systems. Scholars also found that government structures play an important role in reducing the intensity of ethnic conflict. However, all these analyses are based on the MAR dataset which has several limitations. When information is partial, data is more likely to be flawed and analysis can be seriously biased. Second, the analysis unit of the MAR dataset is group/year(s), and ethnic groups are assumed to overcome collective action problems and are covered in the MAR dataset only if these groups are treated unfairly and are inclined to engage in ethnic conflict. However, that ethnic groups act together as a whole should not be taken for granted, and we should also not exclude ethnic groups from analysis simply because they are not likely to engage in conflict. All these problems of the MAR dataset, including lack of complete information, lack of micro-foundation analysis, and selection bias, can be solved to a large extent by doing studies based on the dataset of survey research.
In order to provide such a kind of dataset, this sub-project of political institutions is indispensable. This sub-project will launch a systematic and in-depth exploration about how to closely link with other barometer surveys conducted in Africa, Europe, and Latin America, namely, Afrobarometer, Eurobarometer, and Latinobarometro. For example, our survey can add questions that other barometer surveys have included in their questionnaires, such as asking respondents their group identities and their relations with other ethnic groups. With these data, together with what we already have about people’s evaluation about governments’ treatment toward different ethnic groups, we can explore whether different institutions affect how people judge governments’ performance and how people have different propensity to engage in ethnic conflict. This example illustrates how fruitful survey research can contribute to the research about the link between institutions and ethnic conflict. There are many other examples, but we do not have enough space to elaborate here. Suffice it to say that there are many other possibilities of institutional research. We can ask more questions about political efficacy and trust of ethnic groups, and then associate these attitudes with institutions and behavior. We can also analyze how different parameters of ethnic politics, such as the number and geographic distributions of ethnic groups, influence the effect of institutions on ethnic relations.
Since many countries have been wrecked by ethnic tensions and conflict, how to mitigate this problem by institutional design has become an important issue in the discipline. If this sub-project can be approved and constructed, and promote related research agenda and questions to all the other survey teams in the world, then we can help create an alternative (and even more important) dataset that students of ethnic conflict must rely on to do research, in addition to the MAR dataset. This progress will have crucial contribution to the discipline.
On the basis of budgetary planning for the overall project, this subproject will take place in the first and second year of the five-year plan.