課程資訊
課程名稱
 都市政治
urban politics 
開課學期
 105-1 
授課對象
 工學院  建築與城鄉研究所  
授課教師
 王志弘 
課號
 BP7182 
課程識別碼
 544 M4750 
班次
  
學分
 3 
全/半年
 半年 
必/選修
 選修 
上課時間
 星期五A,B,C(18:25~21:05) 
上課地點
 工綜313 
備註
 限碩士班以上
總人數上限：15人 
Ceiba 課程網頁
 http://ceiba.ntu.edu.tw/1051BP7182_politics 
課程簡介影片
 
核心能力關聯
 核心能力與課程規劃關聯圖
課程大綱
為確保您我的權利,請尊重智慧財產權及不得非法影印
課程概述

都市是政治的原初所在，古希臘城邦的市場兼廣場，正是以公共辯論作為典型都市政治場景的原型。然而，隨著都市發展日益複雜，都市政治的異質性也隨之提高。於是，除了誰統治、如何統治的古典問題外，都市政治也涉及政治範疇本身的知識建構、政治與經濟和文化的關係、市民主體化和認同政治，以及市民抵抗和都市社會運動等議題。本課程乃鎖定介紹西方學術傳統中，都市政治的各種研究取向和概念，尤其關注：(1)晚近嘗試結合都市政權理論（urban regime theory）和調節理論（regulation theory），藉此掌握都市治理（urban governance）之各種尺度和層次的取向；(2)傅柯派的治理術（governmentality）或生命政治（bio-politics）取向；(3)新自由主義化、基礎設施、環境治理、都市作為「拼裝體」（assemblage）等新研究觀點、方法與議題，以及(4)都市社會運動、參與和市民抵抗的相關討論。此外，本課程也期許能探討台灣和東亞城市之都市政治運作邏輯的特質，產生本地經驗和既有學術傳統的對話。 

課程目標
 本課程目標在於令修課者

1.掌握西方都市政治學術傳統中的重要理論和議題；
2.通過閱讀、報告、討論和實際課題研究，學習運用既有理論概念來探討真實的都市政治議題；
3.通過實際都市政治議題的探討和掌握，摸索與既有理論取向對話的可能性。
 
課程要求
 ■課程要求：
盡力閱讀課程材料，勇於發問，勤於出席。修習者的投入與表現，對本課程能否順利運作非常重要。本課程採取講演和討論課（seminar）並行方式，每次上課由教師講授和提示重點，並由參與者分配導讀該週的閱讀材料，每篇文章報告時間，必須控制於十五分鐘，盡量留時間發問和討論，探討能跟理論概念對話的經驗議題。報告者必須分發書面提要（必須包含三百字以內之摘述，主要論點和論證邏輯之說明【配合論證圖示】，以及評論和問題）。
沒有分配到當週閱讀材料導讀的同學，則需繳交針對某一篇或全部閱讀材料的讀書心得和提問，至少一頁。旁聽的同學，不需分配閱讀材料的導讀，也不必繳交作業，但是必須每堂課繳交讀書心得和提問。

本課程的設計份量，需要修課者在課堂外花費四倍以上的時間，也就是3 X 4＝12個小時，包括閱讀教材、與同學討論、撰寫摘要或讀書心得及提問的時間。

■摘要寫作要點：
書面摘要必須於首頁列明報告文獻書目（APA格式）、日期、報告人，先有三百字摘要，述明整篇文章的問題意識和主要論點。然後是經過消化的、條理分明的內容概述。換言之，不宜逐段摘譯，最好是整理出文中討論的主要問題，以及作者對這些問題的回答或爭辯，建議以圖表方式整理出主要的論證架構，也可以搭配一些圖片，譬如說作者照片、書影或文中提到的人物和事件圖片。如果直接引述文中語句或段落，必須以不同字體清楚標示，並加註頁碼。最後，必須針對文獻內容提出問題，或是可供延伸討論的經驗議題。

書面摘要和提問討論單，都要於當日下午四點以前，上傳至本課程Ceiba網頁討論區。

各項報告須準時繳交，逾期不候。繳交時間明定於各周進度中。 
預期每週課後學習時數
  
Office Hours
 另約時間 
指定閱讀
 授課內容與進度
□閱讀材料註記*號者將放置於課程網頁，請自行下載。其餘材料請自行準備。閱讀材料份量將視上課情況調整。

第一週　課程介紹：何謂都市政治？ 9/16 中秋節調整放假（自修）
□閱讀材料
1.Ward, Kevin and Imbroscio, David (2011). Urban Politics: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35(4): 853-71.*
2.Rodgers, Scott, Clive Barnett and Allan Cochrane (2014). Where is Urban Politics? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(5): 1551-60.*
3.MacLeod, Gordon and Martin Jones (2011). Renewing Urban Politics. Urban Studies 48(12): 2443-72.*
4.Sharp, Elaine B. (2014). Back to Basics: Two Issue Areas for the Future Urban Politics Agenda. Journal of Urban Affairs 36(S2): 555-66.*
5.McGuirk, Pauline (2012). Geographies of Urban Politics: Pathways, Intersections, Interventions. Geographical Research 50(3): 256-68.*
□參考材料：
1.Sapotichne, Joshua, Bryan D. Jones and Michelle Wolfe (2007). Is Urban Politics a Black Hole? Analyzing the Boundary between Political Science and Urban Politics. Urban Affairs Review 43(1): 76-106.*
2.Cox, Kevin R. (1991). Questions of Abstraction in Studies in the New Urban Politics. Journal of Urban Affairs 13(3): 267-80.*
3.Martin, Deborah, Eugene McCann, and Mark Purcell (2003). Space, Scale, Governance, and Representation: Contemporary Geographical Perspectives on Urban Politics and Policy. Journal of Urban Affairs 25(2): 113-21.*
4.Dear, Michael and Nicholas Dahmann (2008). Urban Politics and the Los Angeles School of Urbanism. Urban Affairs Review 44(2): 266-79.*
5.Judge, David, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (1995). Urban Politics and Theory: An Introduction. In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 1-12). London: Sage.*
6.Davis, Jonathan S. and David L. Imbroscio (2009). Introduction: Urban Politics in the Twenty-first Century. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-14). Los Angeles: Sage.
7.Davidson, Mark and Deborah Martin (2014). Thinking Critically about Urban Politics. In Mark Davidson and Deborah Martin (eds), Urban Politics: Critical Approaches (pp. 1-13). Los Angeles: Sage.
8.Cox, Kevin R, Murray Low, and Jennifer Robinson (eds.)(2008). The SAGE Handbook of Political Geography. Los Angeles: Sage.*

第二週　台灣都市政治：構造、機制與轉變　9/23
□閱讀材料
1.王振寰（1996）〈崛起的都市政權：台中市〉，收於《誰統治台灣？轉型中的國家機器與權力結構》（頁171-214）。台北：巨流。
2.王振寰（1996）〈反對者的可能性：高雄縣的地方政治〉，收於《誰統治台灣？轉型中的國家機器與權力結構》（頁215-55）。台北：巨流。
3.王振寰（1996）〈社區權力、反對勢力與社區運動：豐原市個案〉，收於《誰統治台灣？轉型中的國家機器與權力結構》（頁257-304）。台北：巨流。
4.王振寰（1996）〈結論：新國家、統治危機與民主問題〉，收於《誰統治台灣？轉型中的國家機器與權力結構》（頁305-335）。台北：巨流。
5.王光旭、熊瑞梅（2014）〈解嚴前後台灣都市政治的再檢視（1986－1992）：網絡觀點下的台中市都市發展〉。《都市與計劃》41(1): 1-41。*
6.鍾麗娜、徐世榮（2013）〈都市政治與都市計畫之政經結構分析－以南科樹谷園區為例〉。《台灣土地研究》16(2): 63-87。*
□參考材料：
1.王振寰（1993）〈臺灣新政商關係的形成與政治轉型〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》14: 123-63。*
2.王光旭、熊瑞梅（2014）〈運用網絡分析探討政策掮客在政策過程中的角色：以解嚴前後台中市都市發展為分析案例〉。《調查研究－方法與運用》31: 31-88。*
3.楊友仁、蘇一志（2005）〈地方成長聯盟轉化與空間治理策略：以台南科學城爲例〉。《都市與計劃》32(1): 1-23。*
4.蘇一志（2005）〈地方發展過程中的衝突與折衝：以恆春半島觀光空間之轉化為例〉。《建築與城鄉研究學報》14: 1-14。*
5.陳東升（1995）《金權城市：地方派系、財團與台北都會發展的社會學分析》。台北：巨流。
6.彭揚凱（1998）《綠色之城：台北市都市政權之統治分析，1994-1998》。台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
7.黃麗玲（2002）《都市更新與都市統理：台北與香港的比較研究》。台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所博士論文。

第三週 台灣地方治理：派系、農會、廟宇、社區政治與民主化 9/30
□閱讀材料：
1.趙永茂（2007）〈從地方治理論臺灣地方政治發展的基本問題〉。《政治科學論叢》31: 1-38。*
2.高永光（2004）〈台北縣地方派系與黑道互動模式之研究〉。《選舉研究》11(1): 33-72。*
3.卓仕文（2011）〈臺灣農會政治角色的歷史變遷〉。《大葉大學通識教育學報》8: 37-52。*
4.邱崇原、湯京平、黃建勳（2011）〈地方治理的制度選擇與轉型政治：台灣水利會制度變革的政治與經濟分析〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》23(1): 93-126。*
5.蔡育軒、陳怡君、王業立（2007）〈社區發展協會、選舉動員與地方政治〉。《東吳政治學報》。25(4): 93-135。*
6.湯京平、陳冠吾（2013）〈民主化、派系政治與公民社會－以嘉義縣的社區營造與「終結派系」為例〉。《台灣民主季刊》10(2): 105-37。*
7.莊雅仲（2005）〈巡守社區：權力、衝突與都市地方政治〉。《台灣人類學刊》3(2): 79-114。*
8.林秀幸（2012）〈縫隙中的抉擇：地方與國家交鋒下的象徵建構〉。《台灣社會學刊》49: 103-46。*
□參考材料：
1.高永光（2000）〈“城鄉差距”與“地方派系影響力”之研究—1998年台北縣縣議員與鄉鎭市長選舉的個案分析〉。《選舉研究》7(1): 53-85。*
2.吳由美（2003）〈都市化、地方派系與選舉：第五屆新竹縣立法委員選舉之實證分析〉。《中國地方自治》56(2): 20-44。*
3.王良卿（2011）〈評介任育德著《向下紮根：中國國民黨與臺灣地方政治的發展(1949-1960)》〉。《國史館館刊》27: 165-77。*
4.高永光（2000）〈台北縣地方派系與鄉鎮市調解委員會互動關係之實證研究〉。《選舉研究》7(2): 1-36。*
5.趙永茂（2004）〈地方派系依侍結構的演變與特質—高雄縣內門鄉的個案分析〉。《台灣民主季刊》1(1): 85-117。*
6.吳親恩（2008）〈地方議會金權政治的變化：司法判決書的分析〉。《台灣政治學刊》12(2): 165-212。*
7.蔡明惠（2004）〈民主轉型中的澎湖地方政治生態〉。《選舉研究》11(2): 133-62。*
8.陳朝建（2008）〈二○○八年選後的地方政治發展－以“小縣大鎮”效應_〉。《中國地方自治》61(7): 16-28。*
9.王靜儀、傅恆德（2007）〈派系政治下之府會關係：台中縣的個案研究（一九五一至二○○五）〉。《政治科學論叢》34: 45-71。*
10.王業立（2004）〈從對立到共治：台中縣地方派系之轉變〉。《政治科學論叢》21: 189-215。*
11.湯京平、吳重禮、蘇孔志（2002）〈分立政府與地方民主行政：從台中縣「地方基層建設經費」論地方派系與肉桶政治〉。《中國行政評論》12(1): 37-76。*
12.王金壽（2007）〈政治市場開放與地方派系的瓦解〉。《選舉研究》14(2): 25-51。*
13.劉佩怡（2009）〈宗族、宗親會與選舉動員〉。《選舉評論》6: 77-90。*
14.何鴻明、王業立（2010）〈地方派系如何操控寺廟的管理權？－以大甲鎭瀾宮的人事選舉爲例〉。《台灣民主季刊》7(3): 123-86。*
15.李丁讚、吳介民（2005）〈現代性、宗教、與巫術：一個地方公廟的治理技術〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》59: 143-184。*
16.劉錚雲（1995）〈金錢會與白布會－清代地方政治運作的一個剖面〉。《新史學》6(3): 63-94。*
17.羅士傑（2012）〈地方宗教傳統與「去中心化」的地方政治：重探溫州金錢會事件（1850－1862）〉。《中央研究院近代史研究所集刊》75: 109-202。*

第四週 西方都市政治的誕生與轉變Ｉ：古代 10/7
□閱讀材料：
1.Parker, Simon (2011). The Civic City: The Emergence of Urban Societies. In Cities, Politics and Power (pp. 13-32). London: Routledge.
2.Morris, Ian (2010). The Early Polis as City and State. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume I: Traditions and Transitions (pp. 13-38). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1991.)
3.North, J.A. (2010). Democratic Politics in Republican Rome. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume I: Traditions and Transitions (pp. 63-79). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1990.)
4.Holmes, George (2010). The Emergence of an Urban Ideology at Florence c. 1250-1450. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume I: Traditions and Transitions (pp. 139-158). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1973.)
□參考材料：
1.Kotkin, Joel (2006)《城市的歷史》（The City: A Global History）（謝佩妏譯）。台北：左岸。

第五週　西方都市政治的誕生與轉變II：近現代 10/14
□閱讀材料：
1.Hays, Samuel P. (2010). The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume I: Traditions and Transitions (pp. 241-261). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1964.)
2.Castells, Manuel (2010). Urban Renewal and Social Conflict in Paris. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume I: Traditions and Transitions (pp. 263-291). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1972.)
3.Hankins, Katherine and Deborah Martin (2014). The Neighbourhood a Place for (Urban) Politics. In Mark Davidson and Deborah Martin (eds), Urban Politics: Critical Approaches (pp. 23-41). Los Angeles: Sage.
4.Ward, Kevin (2014). Splintered Governance: Urban Politics in the Twenty-first Century. In Mark Davidson and Deborah Martin (eds), Urban Politics: Critical Approaches (pp. 42-54). Los Angeles: Sage.
5.Pickvance, Christopher (1995). Marxist Theories of Urban Politics. In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 253-75). London: Sage.*
6.Geddes, Mike (2009). Marxism and Urban Politics. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 55-72). Los Angeles: Sage.
□參考材料：
1.Engels, Frederick (1987). The Condition of the Working Class in England. London: Penguin Classics. (Originally published in 1845.) 中譯《英國勞工階級狀況》，參見連結：https://www.marxists.org/chinese/engels/1844-1845/。
2.Harvey, David (2003) Paris, Capital of Modernity. New York: Routledge.（黃煜文譯（2007）《巴黎，現代性之都》。台北：群學。）
3.Jacobs, Jane (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.（吳鄭重譯（2007）《偉大城市的誕生與衰亡：美國都市街道生活的啟發》。台北：聯經。）
4.Pickvance (1977). Marxist Approaches to the Study of Urban Politics: Divergences among Some Recent French Studies. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 1: 219-255.*

第六週 誰統治？菁英論、多元論、官僚、領導與成長機器 10/21
□閱讀材料：
1.Judge, David (1995). Pluralism. In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 13-34). London: Sage.*
2.Harding, Alan (1995). Elite Theory and Growth Machines. In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 35-53). London: Sage.*
3.Jones, Bryan D. (1995). Bureaucrats and Urban Politics: Who Controls? Who Benefits? In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 72-95). London: Sage.*
4.Kjaer, Anne Mette (2009). Governance and the Urban Bureaucracy. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 137-152). Los Angeles: Sage.
5.Stone, Clarence N. (1995). Political Leadership in Urban Politics. In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 96-116). London: Sage.*
6.Greasley, Stephen and Gerry Stoker (2009). Urban Political Leadership. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 125-136). Los Angeles: Sage.
7.McNeill, Donald (2014). Mayors and the Representation of Urban Politics. In Mark Davidson and Deborah Martin (eds), Urban Politics: Critical Approaches (pp. 100-111). Los Angeles: Sage.
□參考材料：
1.Parker, Simon (2011). The Government of Cities. In Cities, Politics and Power (pp. 75-94). London: Routledge.
2.Dahl, Robert A. (2010). Extract from Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume II: Power and Political Economy (pp. 1-19). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1961.)
3.Bachrach, Peter and Morton S. Baratz. (2010). Two Faces of Power. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume II: Power and Political Economy (pp. 71-80). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1962.)
4.Molotch, Harvey (2010). The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume II: Power and Political Economy (pp. 81-102). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1976.)
5.Cochrane, Allan (2010). Redefining Urban Politics for the Twenty-first Century. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume II: Power and Political Economy (pp. 103-122). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1999.)
6.Jonas, Andrew E.G. and David Wilson (eds)(1999). The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives, Two Decades Later. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

第七週　如何統治？政權理論與治理聯盟　10/28
□閱讀材料：
1.Stone, Clarence N. (1993). Urban Regimes and the Capacity to Govern: A Political Economy Approach. Journal of Urban Affairs 15(1): 1-28. *
2.Stoker, Gerry (1998). Governance as Theory: Five Propositions. International Social Science Journal 50(155): 17-28.*
3.Stoker, Gerry (1995). Regime Theory and Urban Politics. In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 54-71). London: Sage.*
4.Mossberger, Karen (2009). Urban Regime Analysis. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 40-54). Los Angeles: Sage.
□參考材料
1.Stone, Clarence N. (2010). Systemic Power in Community Decision Making: A Restatement of Stratification Theory. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume II: Power and Political Economy (pp. 175-196). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1980.)
2.Peterson, Paul E. (2010). The Interests of the Limited City. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume II: Power and Political Economy (pp. 175-196). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1981.)
3.Dunleavy, Patrick. (2010). The Urban Basis of Political Alignment: Social Class, Domestic Property Ownership, and State Intervention in Consumption Processes. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume II: Power and Political Economy (pp. 217-252). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1979.)
4.Harding, Alan (2010). Urban Regimes and Growth Machines: Toward a Cross-national Research Agenda. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume III: Institutions and Governance (pp. 75-98). Los Angeles: Sage.. (Originally published in 1994.)
5.Stone, Clarence N. (1998). Regime Analysis and the Study of Urban Politics, A Rejoinder. Journal of Urban Affairs 20(3): 249-60.*
■繳交都市與區域政治短評

第八週 制度、治理與區域主義 11/4
□閱讀材料：
1.Pierre, Jon (1999). Models of Urban Governance: The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics. Urban Affairs Review 34(3): 372-96.*
2.Lowndes, Vivien (2001). Rescuing Aunt Sally: Taking Institutional Theory Seriously in Urban Politics. Urban Studies 38(11): 1953-71.*
3.Lowndes, Vivien (2009). New Institutionalism and Urban Politics. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 91-105). Los Angeles: Sage.
4.Savitch, Hank and Ronald K. Vogel (2009). Regionalism and Urban Politics. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 106-124). Los Angeles: Sage.
5.Carr, John (2014). Making Urban Politics Go Away: The Role of Legally Mandated Planning Processes in Occluding City Power. In Mark Davidson and Deborah Martin (eds), Urban Politics: Critical Approaches (pp. 112-129). Los Angeles: Sage.
□參考材料：
1.Wolman, Harold (1995). Local Government Institutions and Democratic Governance. In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 135-159). London: Sage.*
2.Dowding, Keith, Patrick Dunleavy, Desmond King, Helen Margetts and Yvonne Rydin (2010). Understanding Urban Governance: The Contribution of Rational Choice. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume III: Institutions and Governance (pp. 211-233). Los Angeles: Sage.. (Originally published in 1994.)
3.Wolman, Harold (1988). Understanding Recent Trends in Central-local Relations: Centralisation in Great Britain and Decentralisation in the United States. European Journal of Political Research 16(4): 425-435.*
4.Brenner, Neil (2003). Metropolitan Institutional Reform and the Rescaling of State Space in Contemporary Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 10(4): 297-324.*
5.Dreier, Peter, John Mollenkopf and Todd Swanstrom (2010). Regionalisms: Old and New. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume III: Institutions and Governance (pp. 247-283). Los Angeles: Sage.. (Originally published in 1994.)
6.Ward, Kevin G. (2000). A Critique in Search of a Corpus: Re-visiting Governance and Re-interpreting Urban Politics. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 25: 169-185.*
7.Cox K.R. (1993). The Local and the Global in the New Urban Politics: A Critical View. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 11: 433-448.*
8.Sellers, Jefferey M. (2005). Re-Placing the Nation: An Agenda for Comparative Urban Politics. Urban Affairs Review 40(4): 419-45.*
9.Kantor, Paul and H.V. Savitch (2005). How to Study Comparative Urban Development Politics: A Research Note. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Volume 29(1): 135-51.*
10.王志良、詹富堯、吳重禮（2012）〈鞏固支持或資源拔樁？解析中央對地方補助款分配的政治因素〉。《政治科學論叢》51: 51-90。*
11.杜慶承（2005）〈中央政權輪替對地方派系的影響－彰化縣個案研究〉。《選舉研究》12(1): 117-45。*
12.王金壽（2006）〈台灣的司法獨立改革與國民黨侍從主義的崩潰〉。《台灣政治學刊》10(1): 103-62。*
13.王金壽（2004）〈重返風芒縣：國民黨選舉機器的成功與失敗〉。《台灣政治學刊》8(1): 99-146。*
14. 湯京平、陳金哲（2005）〈新公共管理與鄰避政治：以嘉義縣市跨域合作為例〉。《政治科學論叢》23: 101-32。*
15.張智瑋（2015）〈蔣介石與現代國家的建構：以1930年代江西的地方政制改革為例〉。《政大史粹》28: 1-37。*

第九週 調節理論與政權理論的匯流 11/11
□閱讀材料：
1.Painter, Joe (1995). Regulation Theory, Post-Fordism and Urban Politics. In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 276-295). London: Sage.*
2.Goodwin, Mark and Joe Painter (1997). Concrete Research, Urban Regimes, and Regulation Theory. In Mickey Lauria (ed.), Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy (pp. 13-29). London: Sage.*
3.Feldman, Marshall M. A. (1997). Spatial Structures of Regulation and Urban Regimes. In Mickey Lauria (ed.), Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy (pp. 30-50). London: Sage.*
4.Jessop, Bob (1997). A Neo-Gramscian Approach to the Regulation of Urban Regimes: Accumulation Strategies, Hegemonic Projects, and Governance. In Mickey Lauria (ed.), Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy (pp. 51-73). London: Sage.*
5.Goodwin, Mark and Joe Painter (1996). Local Governance, the Crises of Fordism and the Changing Geographies of Regulation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 21(4): 635-648.*
□參考材料：
1.Jessop, Bob (1995). The Regulation Approach, Governance and Post-Fordism: Alternative Perspectives on Economic and Political Change? Economy and Society 24(3): 307-333.*
2.Lauria, Mickey (1997). Introduction: Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory. In Mickey Lauria (ed.), Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy (pp. 1-9). London: Sage.*
3.Painter, Joe (1997). Regulation, Regime, and Practice in Urban Politics. In Mickey Lauria (ed.), Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy (pp. 122-143). London: Sage.*
4.Leo, Christopher (1997). City Politics in an Era of Globalization. In Mickey Lauria (ed.), Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy (pp. 77-98). London: Sage.*
5.Cox, Kevin R. (1997). Governance, Urban Regime Analysis, and the Politics of Local Economic Development. In Mickey Lauria (ed.), Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy (pp. 99-121). London: Sage.*
6.Lauria, Mickey (1997). Regulating Urban Regime: Reconstruction or Impasse? In Mickey Lauria (ed.), Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy (pp. 233-241). London: Sage.*
7.Stoker, Gerry (1998). Theory and Urban Politics. International Political Science Review 19(2): 119-129.*
8.Goodwin, M, S. Duncan and S. Halford (1993). Regulation Theory, the Local State, and the Transition of Urban Politics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 11: 67-88.*

第十週 國家權力：策略－關係取向 11/18
□閱讀材料：
1.Jessop, Bob (2008). The Development of the Strategic-Relational approach. In State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach (pp. 21-53). Cambridge, UK: Polity.*
2.Jessop, Bob (2008). Bringing the State Back in (Yet Again). In State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach (pp. 54-79). Cambridge, UK: Polity.*
3.Jessop, Bob (2008). Complexity, Contingent Necessity, Semiosis, and the RSA. In State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach (pp. 225-245). Cambridge, UK: Polity.*
□參考材料：
1.Jessop, Bob (2008). State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity.*
2.Jessop, Bob (2003). The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge, UK: Polity.*
3.Jessop, Bob (2016). The State: Past, Present, Future. Cambridge, UK: Polity.*
4.Jessop, Bob and Ngai-Ling Sum (2006). Beyond the Regulation Approach: Putting Capitalist Economies in Their Place. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.*
■繳交期末報告計畫書

第十一週 都市治理術與生命政治11/25
□閱讀材料：
1.Foucault, Michel (2013). Right of Death and Power over Life. In Timothy Campbell and Adam Sitze (eds), Biopolitics: A Reader (pp. 41-60). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.*【出自History of Sexuality, Volume 1, An Introduction, pp. 135-145。有中譯】
2.Foucault, Michel (2013). “Society must be Defended,” Lecture at the Collège de France, March 17, 1976. Life. In Timothy Campbell and Adam Sitze (eds), Biopolitics: A Reader (pp. 61-81). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.*【有中譯】
3.Kraftl, Peter (2014). Liveability and Urban Architectures: Mol(ecul)ar Biopower and the ‘becoming Lively’ of Sustainable Communities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32(2): 274-292.*
4.Wan, Xiaoyuan (2016). Governmentalities in Everyday Practices: The Dynamic of Urban Neighbourhood Governance in China. Urban Studies 53(11): 2330-2346.*
5.Hoffman, Lisa M. (2014). The Urban, Politics and Subject Formation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(5):1576-88.*
6.Arboleda, Martín (2015). The Biopolitical Production of the City: Urban Political Ecology in the Age of Immaterial Labour. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 33(1): 35-51.*
7.Lippert, Randy (2009). Signs of the Surveillant Assemblage_ Privacy Regulation, Urban CCTV, and Governmentality. Social & Legal Studies18(4): 505-22.*
□參考材料：
1.Lemke, Thomas (2011). Biopolitics: An Advanced Introduction. New York: NYU Press.*
2.Campbell, Timothy and Adam Stize (eds.) (2013). Biopolitics: A Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.*
3.Ward, Kevin (2014). Policing the City. In Mark Davidson and Deborah Martin (eds), Urban Politics: Critical Approaches (pp. 85-99). Los Angeles: Sage.
4.Raco, Mike and Rob Imrie (2000). Governmentality and Rights and Responsibilities in Urban Policy. Environment and Planning A 32(12): 2187-2204.*
5.Zeiderman, Austin (2013). Living Dangerously: Biopolitics and Urban Citizenship in Bogota, Colombia. American Ethnologist 40(1): 71-87.*
6.Merry, Sally Engle (2001). Spatial Governmentality and the New Urban Social Order: Controlling Gender Violence Through Law. American Anthropologist 103(1): 16-29.*
7.Jha, Manish K., P. K. Shajahan, and Mouleshri Vyas (2013). Biopolitics and Urban Governmentality in Mumbai. In Sandro Mezzadra, Julian Reid, and Ranabir Samaddar (eds), The Biopolitics of Development: Reading Michel Foucault in the Postcolonial Present (pp. 45-65). New Delhi: Springer India.*
8.Appadurai, Arjun (2001). Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the Horizon of Politics. Environment & Urbanization 13(2): 23-44.*

第十二週 企業主義治理與新自由主義都市論 12/2
□閱讀材料：
1.Hanson, Susan (2014). The Embedded Politics of Entrepreneurs. In Mark Davidson and Deborah Martin (eds), Urban Politics: Critical Approaches (pp. 172-188). Los Angeles: Sage.
2.Hall, Tim and Phil Hubbard (1996). The Entrepreneurial City: New Urban Politics, New Urban Geographies. Progress in Human Geography 20(2): 153-74.*
3.Bassett, Keith (1996). Partnerships, Business Elites and Urban Politics: New Forms of Governance in an English City. Urban Studies 33(3): 539-55.*
4.Brand, Peter (2007). Green Subjection: The Politics of Neoliberal Urban Environmental Management. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31(3): 616-32..*
5.藍逸之（2013）〈一個新自由城市、兩種都市政權？1997後香港都市治理的空間爭議〉。《城市學學刊》4(1): 87-139。*
□參考材料：
1.Harvey, David (2010)〈從管理主義到企業主義：晚期資本主義都市治理的轉變〉，收於《資本的空間》（王志弘、王玥民譯）（pp. 503-536），台北：群學。
2.Peck, Jamie, Nik Theodore and Neil Brenner (2010). Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Moments, Mutations. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume II: Power and Political Economy (pp. 317-333). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 2009.)
3.Parker, Simon (2011). The Confines of Power: Cities, Regions and States in a Global Perspective. In Cities, Politics and Power (pp. 95-115). London: Routledge.
4.周素卿、吳幸玲、江尚書（2009）〈後工業化臺北與新自由主義都市政治〉。《中國地理學會會刊》43: 15-32。*
5.藍逸之、李承嘉（2009）〈臺北市企業型都市治理在空間政治角力過程中的制度危機－一個尺度的政治經濟分析〉。《建築與規劃學報》10(2): 123-46。*
6.王鼎傑（2014）〈書評：流動的城市治理－全球時代的都市與政策制定〉。《台灣民主季刊》11(2): 167-74。*
7.陳金哲（2012）〈契約委外與都市政治：台南市立醫院第三期委外經營為例〉。《政治科學論叢》53: 121-61。*
8.洪啟東（2005）〈面對權利的地方政府文化空間發展：上海松江大學城個案〉。《建築與規劃學報》6(2): 147-62。*

第十三週 都市政治、基礎設施與環境治理 12/9
□閱讀材料：
1.Young, Douglas and Roger Keil (2014). Locating the Urban In-between: Tracking the Urban Politics of Infrastructure in Toronto. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(5):1589-1608.*
2.Hubbard, Phil and Keith Lelly (2004). Pacemaking the Modern City: The Urban Politics of Speed and Slowness. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22(2): 273-94.*
3.Rodgers, Scott, Clive Barnett and Allan Cochrane (2009). Mediating Urban Politics. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(1): 246-9.*
4.Ward, Kevin (2009). Urban Political Economy, ‘New Urban Politics’ and the Media_ Insights and Limits. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(1): 233-6.*
5.Swyngedouw, Erik (2009). The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic Politics of Environmental Production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(3): 601-20.*
6.Rutherford, Jonathan and Olivier Coutard (2014). Urban Energy Transitions: Places, Processes and Politics of Socio-technical Change. Urban Studies 51(7): 1353-77.*
7.Jonas, Andrew E. G., David Gibbs and Aidan While (2011). The New Urban Politics as a Politics of Carbon Control. Urban Studies 48(12): 2537-54.*
□參考材料：
1.Parker, Simon (2011). Information, Communication and the Networks of Urban Power. In Cities, Politics and Power (pp. 132-45). London: Routledge.
2.Parker, Simon (2011). The Landscapes of Urban Power. In Cities, Politics and Power (pp. 146-62). London: Routledge.
3.Krikpatrick, L. Owen and Michael Peter Smith (2011). The Infrastructural Limits to Growth: Rethinking the Urban Growth Machine in Times of Fiscal Crisis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35(3): 477-503.*
4.Meer, André Van der and Willem Van Winden (2003). E governance in Cities: A Comparison of Urban Information and Communication Technology Policies. Regional Studies 37(4): 407-419.*
5.Koskela, Hille (2000). ‘The Gaze Without Eyes’: Video-surveillance and the Changing Nature of Urban Space. Progress in Human Geography 24(2): 243-265.*
6.王冠棋（2008）〈“科技治理”之形成、變遷及路徑：台灣的經驗，1979-1999〉。《資訊社會研究》14: 261-89。*
7.洪冬力（2014）〈都市基礎設施治理的失靈與調節：台北市公共無線網路的個案〉。《資訊社會研究》27: 1-29。*
8.Huber, Matthew (2014). The Urban Imaginary of Nature: Cities in American Environmental Politics. In Mark Davidson and Deborah Martin (eds), Urban Politics: Critical Approaches (pp. 206-222). Los Angeles: Sage.
9.Bulkeley, Harriet and Michele Betsill (2005). Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and the 'Urban' Politics of Climate Change. Environmental Politics 14(1): 42-63.*
10.Bulkeley, Harriet and Michele Betsill (2013). Revisiting the Urban Politics of Climate Change. Environmental Politics 22(1): 136-154.*
11.Swyngedouw, Erik and Nikolas Heynen (2003). Urban Political Ecology, Justice and the Politics of Scale. Antipode 35(5): 898-918.*
12.Tang, Ching-Ping (2003). Democratizing Urban Politics and Civic Environmentalism in Taiwan. The China Quarterly 176: 1029-51.*
13.湯京平、翁偉達（2005）〈解構鄰避運動－國道建設的抗爭與地方政治動員〉。
《公共行政學報》14: 12-49。*
14.湯京平、呂季蓉（2006）〈全球保育運動與地方派系：鰲鼓濕地開發案的政治經濟分析〉。《政治學報》42: 1-35。*
15.柯于璋（2015）〈都市治理的權力與政策網絡之研究：以高雄市溫室氣體減量策略計畫為例〉。《政治學報》60: 41-70。*
16.李安如（2013）〈地方、認同和想像地理：高雄大眾捷運系統的文化政治〉。《台灣人類學刊》11(1): 93-122。*

第十四週 拼裝都市論（Assemblage Urbanism） 12/16
□閱讀材料：
1.McFarlane, Colin (2011). The City as Assemblage: Dwelling and Urban Space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29(4): 649-71.*
2.McCann, Eugene and Kevin Ward (2012). Assembling Urbanism: Following Policies and ‘Studying Through’ the Sites and Situations of Policy Making. Environment and Planning A 44(1): 42-51.*
3.Rankin, Katharine N and Jim Delaney (2011). Community BIAs as Practices of Assemblage: Contingent Politics in the Neoliberal City. Environment and Planning A 43(6): 1363-80.*
4.Wezemael, Joris Van (2008). The Contribution of Assemblage Theory and Minor Politics for Democratic Network Governance. Planning Theory 7(2): 165-185.*
□參考材料：
1.McCann, Eugene (2011). Veritable Inventions: Cities, Policies and Assemblage. Area (2011) 43(2): 143-7.*
2.Jacobs, Jane M. (2012). Urban Geographies I: Still Thinking Cities Relationally. Progress in Human Geography 36(3): 412-22.*
3.王志弘（2015）〈拼裝都市論與都市政治經濟學之辯〉。《地理研究》62: 109-22。*
4.Brenner, Neil, David J. Madden and David Wachsmuth (2011). Assemblage Urbanism and the Challenges of Critical Urban Theory. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action 15(2): 225-240.*
5.Müller, Martin and Carolin Schurr (2016). Assemblage Thinking and Actor-Network Theory: Conjunctions, Disjunctions, Cross-Fertilisations. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 41(3): 217-229.*
6.王志弘（2015）〈城市作為翻譯政治的場域：理論性的探索〉。《城市學學刊》6(1): 1-28。*

第十五週 社會認同與都市政治：階級、種族、族群、性別、性傾向與社區 12/23
1.Parker, Simon (2011). The Politics of Urban Identity. In Cities, Politics and Power (pp. 119-131). London: Routledge.
2.Sidney, Mara S. (2009). Poverty, Inequality and Social Exclusion. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 171-187). Los Angeles: Sage.
3.Davidson, Mark (2014). Is Class Relevant to Urban Politics? In Mark Davidson and Deborah Martin (eds), Urban Politics: Critical Approaches (pp. 189-205). Los Angeles: Sage.
4.Thompson, J, Philip (2009). Race and Urban Political Theory. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 188-203). Los Angeles: Sage.
5.Garber, Judith A. (2009). Gender and Sexuality. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 204-220). Los Angeles: Sage.
6.Oswin, Natalie (2014). Queering the City: Sexual Citizenship in Creative City Singapore. In Mark Davidson and Deborah Martin (eds), Urban Politics: Critical Approaches (pp. 139-155). Los Angeles: Sage.
7.Winders, Jamie (2014). Making Space in the Multicultural City: Immigrant Settlement, Neighbourhoods and Urban Politics. In Mark Davidson and Deborah Martin (eds), Urban Politics: Critical Approaches (pp. 156-171). Los Angeles: Sage.
8.DeFilippis, James, Robert Fisher and Eric Shragge (2006). Neither Romance Nor Regulation: Re-evaluating Community. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(3): 673-689.*
9.Kataoka, Serena (2009). ‘Posty’ Urban Political Theory. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 73-87). Los Angeles: Sage.
□參考材料：
1.Sulliva, Helen (2009). Social Capital. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 221-238). Los Angeles: Sage.
2.Harding, Alan (2009). The History of Community Power. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 27-39). Los Angeles: Sage.
3.Lowndes, Vivien (1995). Citizenship and Urban Politics. In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 160-80). London: Sage.*
4.Clarke, Susan E., Lynn A. Staeheli and Laura Brunell (1995). Women Redefining Local Politics. In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 205-27). London: Sage.*
5.Katznelson, Ira (2010). City Trenches. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume II: Power and Political Economy (pp. 147-173). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1981.)
6.Reed, Adolph, Jr. (2014). The Black Urban Regime: Structural Origins & Constraints. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume IV: Publics and Policies (pp. 63-106). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1988.)
7.Machimura, Takashi (1998). Symbolic Use of Globalization in Urban Politics in Tokyo. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22(2): 183-94.*
8.Shin, Yong Jun (2014). Reconstructing Urban Politics with a Bourdieusian Framework: The Case of Local Low-Income Housing Policy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(5): 1833-48.*
9.MacLeod, Gordon (2011). Urban Politics Reconsidered: Growth Machine to Postdemocratic City. Urban Studies 48(12): 2629–60.*
10.林文一、邱淑宜（2014）〈後政治的社區動員與共識建構－一個臺北社區文化建構的案例〉。《地理學報》72: 85-109。*
11.張峻豪（2012）〈台灣社區發展的脈絡與類型：一個歷史制度主義的分析〉。《國家與社會》12: 259-97。*
12.林明禎（2011）〈中介團體：台灣社區發展運作難題與另類選擇〉。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》15(1): 137-66。*
13.劉立偉（2008）〈社區營造的反思：城鄉差異的考量、都市發展的觀點、以及由下而上的理念探討〉。《都市與計劃》35(4): 313-38。*
14.王文誠（2011）〈反身性的社區營造：實踐性的地理學想像〉。《都市與計劃》38(1): 1-29。*
15.陳介英（2013）〈社區文化與地方政治的發展〉。《庶民文化研究》8: 45-71。*
16.柯于璋（2005）〈社區主義治理模式之理論與實踐－兼論台灣地區社區政策〉。《公共行政學報》16: 33-57。*
17.吳明儒、林欣蓓（2011）〈社區結盟、社區培力與社區行動之個案研究－以台南市北區社區旗艦計畫團隊為例〉。《台灣社區工作與社區研究學刊》1(1): 45-90。*
18.湯京平、呂嘉泓（2002）〈永續發展與公共行政：從山美與里佳經驗談社區自治與「共享性資源」的管理〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》14(2): 261-87。*
19.賴兩陽（2010）〈地方政治人物對推動社區工作的影響性分析：桃園縣觀音鄉社區工作者的觀點〉。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》14(1): 39-79。*
20.包正豪（2012）〈原鄉的基層社區治理：宜蘭縣南澳鄉K村個案研究〉。《台灣原住民族研究季刊》5(1): 73-98。*
21.邵軒磊（2015）〈社群意識與原鄉敘事－以交工樂隊在美濃社區運動之作用為例〉。《人文社會科學研究》9(2): 1-19。*
22.何明修（2010）〈誰的家園、哪一種願景？－發展主義陰影下的社區運動〉。《台灣民主季刊》7(1): 1-30。*
23.嚴祥鸞（2011）〈性別主流化：女性在地方的政治參與〉。《政治與政策》1(2): 47-64。*
25.陳映男（2006）〈當單位遇見居委會：中國大陸城市基層治理體制的轉型〉。《東亞研究》37(2):155-83。*
■繳交期末報告初稿

第十六週 參與、抵抗與都市社會運動 I 12/30
□閱讀材料：
1.Rabrenovic, Gordana (2009). Urban Social Movements. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 239-254). Los Angeles: Sage.
2.Mayer, Margit (2014). Urban Social Movements in an Era of Globalization. In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume IV: Publics and Policies (pp. 209-226). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 2000.)
3.Castells, Manuel (1983). Part 5: The Making of an Urban Social Movement: The Citizen Movement in Madrid towards the End of the Franquist Era. In The City and the Grassroots (pp. 213-288). Berkeley: University of California Press.*
4.Purcell, Mark (2002). Excavating Lefebvre: The Right to the City and its Urban Politics of the Inhabitant. GeoJournal 58(2): 99-108.*
□參考材料：
1.Castells, Manuel (1983). Part 1: Cities and People in a Historical Perspective. In The City and the Grassroots (pp. 1-72). Berkeley: University of California Press.*
2.Castells, Manuel (1983). Part 6: A Cross-cultural Theory of Urban Social Change. In The City and the Grassroots (pp. 289-336). Berkeley: University of California Press.（有中譯）*
3.Fainstein, Susan S. and Clifford Hirst (1995). Urban Social Movements. In David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 181-204). London: Sage.*
4.許立一（2004）〈地方治理與公民參加的實踐；政治後現代性危機的反思與解決〉。《公共行政學報》10: 63-94。*
5.湯京平、張元嘉（2013）〈社區發展、市民社會與生態政治－以恆春半島灰面鷲的參與式保育為例〉。《政治學報》56: 1-25。*
6. 廖坤榮、陳雅芬（2003）〈後物質主義之地方開發政策－台南縣濱南工業區開發案探討〉。《中國行政評論》12(4): 43-76。*
7.巫仁恕（2000）〈節慶、信仰與抗爭－明清城隍信仰與城市群眾的集體抗議行為〉。《中央研究院近代史研究所集刊》34: 145-213。*

第十七週 參與、抵抗與都市社會運動 II 1/6
□閱讀材料：
1.Parker, Simon (2011). The Uncivil City: Violence, Conflict and Resistance. In Cities, Politics and Power (pp. 33-51). London: Routledge.
2.Stone, Clarence N. (2009). Who is Governed? Local Citizens and the Political Order of Cities. In Jonathan S. Davis and David L. Imbroscio (eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.) (pp. 257-273). Los Angeles: Sage.
3.Browning, R.P., D.R. Marshall and D.H. Tabb (2014). The Prospect for Political Equality: Is Protest Enough? In Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (eds), Urban Politics. Volume IV: Publics and Policies (pp. 147-168). Los Angeles: Sage. (Originally published in 1984.)
4.Fung, Archon and Erik Olin Wright (2001). Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Politics & Society 29(1): 5-41.*
□參考材料：
1.Goonewardena, Kanishka and Stefan Kipfer (2005). Spaces of Difference: Reflections from Toronto on Multiculturalism, Bourgeois Urbanism and the Possibility of Radical Urban Politics. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29(3): 670-8.*
2.Goonewardena, Kanishka (2005). The Urban Sensorium: Space, Ideology and the Aestheticization of Politics. Antipode 37(1): 46-71.*
3.Batuman, Bülent (2008). The Image of Urban Politics: Turkish Urban Professionals and Urban Representation as a Site of Struggle. Journal of Architectural Education 62(2): 54-65.*
4.王志弘（2010）〈都市社會運動的顯性文化轉向：1990年代迄今的台北經驗〉。《建築與城鄉研究學報》16: 39-64。*

第十八週 期末報告發表會 1/13
■繳交期末報告完稿：修課同學準備十五分鐘以內的口頭報告（製作PPT），並繳交期末報告完稿。

 
參考書目
 ■主要教材：
Castells, Manuel (1983). The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Davidson, Mark and Deborah Martin (eds) (2014). Urban Politics: Critical Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
Davies, Jonathan S. and David L. Imbroscio (eds) (2010). Urban Politics. Volume I: Traditions and Transitions. Los Angeles: Sage.
Davies, Jonathan S. and David L. Imbroscio (eds) (2010). Urban Politics. Volume II: Power and Political Economy. Los Angeles: Sage.
Davies, Jonathan S. and David L. Imbroscio (eds) (2010). Urban Politics. Volume III: Institutions and Governance. Los Angeles: Sage.
Davies, Jonathan S. and David L. Imbroscio (eds) (2010.) Urban Politics. Volume IV: Publics and Policies. Los Angeles: Sage.
Davies, Jonathan S. and David L. Imbroscio (eds)(2009). Theories of Urban Politics (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Jessop, Bob (2008). State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Judge, David, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman (eds)(1995). Theories of Urban Politics. London: Sage.【中譯：劉曄譯（2009）《城市政治學理論》。上海：上海世紀出版集團。】
Lauria, Mickey (ed.) (1997). Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy. London: Sage.
Parker, Simon (2011). Cities, Politics and Power. London: Routledge.
■參考書目
Bernal, Rodrigo Garcia (2006). Urban Politics: The Political Culture of Gangs. Bloomington, IN: Author House.
Cochrane, Allan (2007). Understanding Urban Policy: A Critical Approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
della Porta, Donatella and Mario Diani (2002). 《社會運動概論》（苗延威譯），台北：巨流。
Dilworth, Richardson (ed.)(2009). The City in American Political Development. Mew York: Routledge.
Gallaher, Carolyn, Carl T. Dahlman, Nary Gilmartin, and Alison Mountz (eds)(2009). Key Concepts in Political Geography. Los Angeles: Sage.
Judd, Dennis R. and Todd Swanstrom (2015). City Politics: The Political Economy of Urban America (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Levine, Myron A. (ed.)(2013). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Urban Studies. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nelles, Jen (2012). Comparative Metropolitan Policy: Governing beyond Local Boundaries in the Imagined Metropolis. London: Routledge.
Newman, Peter and Andy Thornley (2011). Planning World Cities: Globalization and Urban Politics (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Orr, Marion and Valerie C. Johnson (eds)(2008). Power in the City: Clarence Stone and the Politics of Inequality. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Pierre, Jon (2011). The Politics of Urban Governance. New York : Palgrave Macmillan.
Pierre, Jon and B. Guy Peters (2002)《治理、政治與國家》（謝宗學、劉坤億、陳衍宏譯），台北：智勝。（原書出版於2000年）
Saunders, Peter (1979). Urban politics: A Sociological Interpretation. London: Hutchinson.
Strom, Elizabeth A. and John H. Mollenkopf (eds) (2007). The Urban Politics Reader. London: Routledge.
王振寰（1996）《誰統治台灣: 轉型中的國家機器與權力結構》。台北：巨流。
莊雅仲（2014）《民主台灣：後威權時代的社會運動與文化政治》。香港：香港中文大學出版社。
彭揚凱（1998）《綠色之城：台北市都市政權之統治分析，1994-1998》，台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
黃麗玲（2002）《都市更新與都市統理：台北與香港的比較研究》，台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所博士論文。
趙永茂（1997）《台灣地方政治的變遷與特質》。台北：翰蘆出版社。
 
評量方式
(僅供參考)
  
No.
項目
百分比
說明
1. 
 都市與區域政治短評 
15% 
 針對台灣或東亞的實際案例，撰寫都市或區域政治事件或爭議之短評，約三千字，佔15%。 
2. 
 期末報告 
35% 
 以都市與區域政治（政策、治理、抗爭）為主題的學術論文一篇，必須以經驗材料為基礎，運用本課程提到的概念來協助分析。該經驗現象可以位於台灣或其他國家，也可以是歷史材料。該項作業的具體題目，必須事先與教師商議，並撰寫一份期末報告計畫書，說明問題意識、相關文獻和研究方法等（約三頁）。學期中先繳交初稿，經教師批閱後，於學期最後一周繳交完稿，並準備課堂口頭報告。期末報告題目可以是「都市與區域政治短評」題目的延伸。期末報告的規格和排版必須符合學術要求，可參照《台灣社會學刊》或《台灣社會學》的格式。完稿必須包含中英文題目、中文摘要和關鍵詞等項目；字數以一萬五千字為度。期末報告計畫書佔5%，期末報告初稿佔20%，期末報告完稿佔10%，合計35%。 
3. 
 平時表現 
50% 
 包含出席狀況10%、參與討論10%、課堂口頭報告與書面摘要表現30%等，合計50 %。 
 
課程進度
週次
日期
單元主題
第1週
 9/16  課程介紹：何謂都市政治？（中秋節調整放假（自修）；第二週討論） 
第2週
 9/23  台灣都市政治：構造、機制與轉變 
第3週
 9/30  台灣地方治理：派系、農會、廟宇、社區政治與民主化 
第4週
 10/07  西方都市政治的誕生與轉變Ｉ：古代 
第5週
 10/14  西方都市政治的誕生與轉變II：近現代 
第6週
 10/21  誰統治？菁英論、多元論、官僚、領導與成長機器 
第7週
 10/28  如何統治？政權理論與治理聯盟 (繳交都市與區域政治短評（3000字）)
 
第8週
 11/04  制度、治理與區域主義 
第9週
 11/11  調節理論與政權理論的匯流 
第10週
 11/18  國家權力：策略－關係取向 (繳交期末報告計畫書) 
第11週
 11/25  都市治理術與生命政治 
第12週
 12/02  企業主義治理與新自由主義都市論 
第13週
 12/09  都市政治、基礎設施與環境治理 
第14週
 12/16  拼裝都市論(Assemblage Urbanism）(繳交期末報告初稿) 
第15週
 12/23  社會認同與都市政治：階級、種族、族裔、性別、性傾向與社區 
第16週
 12/30  參與、抵抗與都市社會運動 I 
第17週
 1/06  參與、抵抗與都市社會運動 II 
第18週
 1/13  期末報告發表會，口頭報告，並繳交報告完稿（15000字左右）