How public opinion shapes Taiwan's Sunflower Movement
In: Journal of east Asian studies, Band 19, Heft 3, S. 289-307
ISSN: 2234-6643
10 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Journal of east Asian studies, Band 19, Heft 3, S. 289-307
ISSN: 2234-6643
World Affairs Online
Introduction -- 1. Institutional designs and prospect of democracy -- 2. Why presidentialism is dangerous: An institutional perspective of the attitudinal foundation of political violence in democracy -- 3. Presidentialism and violent attitudes: Evidence from the World Value Survey -- 4. Presidentialism and violent behavior: Evidence from the Asian Barometer Survey -- 5. Presidentialism and democratic crisis: A two-step examination of the global democracies.
In: Journal of Asian and African studies: JAAS, Band 55, Heft 2, S. 221-234
ISSN: 1745-2538
World Affairs Online
In: International relations of the Asia-Pacific: a journal of the Japan Association of International Relations, Band 21, Heft 2, S. 265-293
ISSN: 1470-4838
AbstractWhen a war directly intrudes citizens' living space, it becomes a war of necessity for the public to defend themselves. However, current literature on public support for war has focused exclusively on wars of choice, not of necessity. Thus, we wonder if existing indicators of war support have explanatory power in this context. In this article, we examine existing indicators in a war of necessity—a cross-Strait conflict between Taiwan and China—to study how the public in Taiwan reacts. In addition to finding support for most of our hypotheses, the new context also contributes novel findings to the literature.
In: Foreign policy analysis, Band 20, Heft 3
ISSN: 1743-8594
Abstract
The United States has successfully prevented the military conflict between China and Taiwan since the 1980s through the Strategic Ambiguity (SA) strategy, which discourages both sides from deviating from the status quo by not committing to defend or not to defend Taiwan. The recent US–China tensions and the rising nationalism in China and Taiwan drew critics to SA and suggested it be replaced with the strategic clarity strategy. We argue that the choice of Dual Clarity (DC)—the United States promises to defend only if Taiwan does not unilaterally declare de jure independence—is widely ignored. We examine the psychological mechanisms behind the three strategies through a pre-registered, within-subject survey experiment in Taiwan (n = 910). The result shows that DC can keep the status quo similar to SA—respondents lowered their support of independence in both DC and SA conditions. The results hold through robustness checks and formalized by a game-theoretical model.
In: International interactions: empirical and theoretical research in international relations, Band 49, Heft 1, S. 132-146
ISSN: 1547-7444
Great powers often use high-level visits to reassure weaker states. The literature on public diplomacy shows that these visits can bring a number of advantages while overlooking their potential impact on increasing support for the great power's security agenda and confidence in the host country's defense policy and military. This note employed a quasi-experiment in Taiwan, in which three high-profile US Senators visited Taiwan unexpectedly during a one-week national survey (n = 1,500) in June 2021. Propensity score matching and regression discontinuity analysis showed that the visit significantly increased Taiwanese respondents' confidence in their own military, the government's security policy, and support for the security policy favored by the US (strengthening the Taiwanese military). Limitations, scope conditions, and suggestions for future work were also discussed.
World Affairs Online
In: Social science journal: official journal of the Western Social Science Association, S. 1-14
ISSN: 0362-3319
In: Asian politics & policy: APP, Band 13, Heft 2, S. 212-227
ISSN: 1943-0787
AbstractThe 1992 Consensus is perhaps the most crucial political term for cross‐strait relations. Surveys show that the public consistently supports it in Taiwan. Despite the alleged broad support, there has not been an academic study examining if Taiwanese people understand the content of the 1992 Consensus. Such an inquiry is important as the administration in Taiwan has yet accepted the Consensus in its interactions with Beijing. A nearly representative online survey was conducted in July 2018, and 1001 Taiwanese respondents were recruited to choose among different "definitions" of the 1992 Consensus. Results show that only one‐third of the respondents chose the version that Kuomintang agreed on, while another one‐third misperceived the 1992 Consensus as a country‐to‐country agreement. Taiwanese people might have supported the Consensus for content that it is not. We then discuss the policy implications of our study for both China and Taiwan and provide future research orientations.
Funder: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONCYT); doi: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100007350 ; Funder: Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) postdoctoral fellowship ; Funder: The HSE University Basic Research Program ; Funder: JSPS KAKENHI Grant JP20K14222 ; Abstract: This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.
BASE
The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis. ; Peer reviewed
BASE