臺灣的政治歷史中，主要為國民黨與民進黨在互相抗衡，在兩黨獨大的情況下，政治極化的現象愈演愈烈對於社會將帶來負面的影響。民眾會因為政治菁英訴諸情感、同溫層間的感染而提高政治活動參與程度。在民眾參與政治活動的過程中，立場的對立就容易產生衝突，立場兩端的群體互相謾罵與不認同，即是政治兩極分化對社會帶來的危害。本研究主要以臺灣地區為研究對象，以1994年至2019年的總統選舉、直轄市長選舉、縣市長選舉和立委選舉作為政治極化指數衡量的選舉層級。模型納入經濟面與社會面的因素，包含衡量所得不均的吉尼指數，與社會面的每萬人口醫院病床數、青壯年人口、老年人口、教育程度等因子，探討是何種原因使得政治極化更嚴重。本文使用追蹤資料的固定效果模型與隨機效果模型做實證研究，結果發現吉尼指數在臺灣只有在直轄市長選舉的情況下對政治極化有顯著的正向影響。並且在縣市長選舉層級下，本篇論文的研究的假設才有比較好的體現，顯示出每萬人口醫院病床數、教育程度在高中以上、青壯年人口、老年人口等社會極化現象對政治極化會有顯著的影響，代表經濟極化之吉尼指數則是落遲一期會對政治極化有顯著影響，北部相較中部和東部會有較嚴重的政治極化，且政治極化會隨著時間而增加。

In the political history of Taiwan, the KMT and the DPP fought against each other. Under the approximate two-party system, the phenomenon of increasing political polarization would bring negative effects on the society. People will increase their participation in political activities because the political elite appeals to emotion and the infection between the echo chamber. In the process of people's participation in political activities, the opposition of positions is prone to conflicts. Groups at both ends of the positions abuse and disapprove each other, which is the harm that political polarization brings to the society. This study mainly takes Taiwan as the research object, and takes the presidential election, municipal mayor election, country and city mayor election and legislature election from 1994 to 2019 as the election hierarchy measured by the political polarization index. Economic and social factors were included in the model, including the Gini index to measure income inequality. The number of hospital beds per 10,000 population, young and middle-aged population, elderly population, education level and other factors related to social aspects. Explore the reasons for increasing political polarization. Using the fixed effect model and random effect model of panel data, this paper finds that the Gini index has a significant positive effect on political polarization only in the election of municipal mayor in Taiwan. Moreover, the hypothesis of the research is better reflected at the country and city mayor election. The results show that the number of hospital beds per 10,000 population, the education level above high school, the young and middle-aged population, the elderly population and other social polarization phenomena have a significant impact on the political polarization. Gini index of economic polarization also have a significant impact on political polarization with one period lag. Compared with the central and eastern regions, the north has a more serious political polarization. Moreover, the political polarization will increase with time.

英文文獻
Abramowitz, A. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. Yale University Press.
Abramowitz, A. I. (2011). The 2008 election: Polarization continues. Controversies in voting behavior, 5.
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542-555.
Alt, J. E., & Lassen, D. D. (2006). Transparency, political polarization, and political budget cycles in OECD countries. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 530-550.
Azzimonti, M. (2011). Barriers to investment in polarized societies. American Economic Review, 101(5), 2182-2204.
Azzimonti, M., & Talbert, M. (2014). Polarized business cycles. Journal of Monetary Economics, 67, 47-61.
Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 35-50.
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2017). Is the internet causing political polarization? Evidence from demographics (0898-2937).
Brady, D. W., & Han, H. C. (2006). Polarization then and now: A historical perspective. Red and blue nation, 1, 119-151.
Brzezinski, M. (2013). Income polarization and economic growth. National Bank of Poland working paper(147).
Dennis, R. (1980). Why study segregation? More thoughts on Victorian cities. Area, 12(4), 313-317.
Ehrhart, C. (2009). The effects of inequality on growth: a survey of the theoretical and empirical literature. ECINEQ WP, 107.
Ellis, C. R., & Ura, J. D. (2008). United We Divide?: Education, Income, and Heterogeneity in Mass Partisan Polarization. Education, Income, and Heterogeneity in Mass Partisan Polarization (November 6, 2008).
Esteban, J.-M., & Ray, D. (1994). On the measurement of polarization. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 819-851.
Fiorina, M. P. (2009). with Samuel J. Abrams. . Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics, 11.
Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2010). Where’s the polarization. Controversies in voting behavior, edited by Niemi, Richard G and Weisberg, Herbert F and Kimball, David C, 309-318.
Fiorina, M. P., & Levendusky, M. S. (2006). Disconnected: The political class versus the people. Red and blue nation, 1, 49-71.
Forrest, R., & Murie, A. (2014). Selling the welfare state: The privatisation of public housing. Routledge.
Foster, J. E., & Wolfson, M. C. (2010). Polarization and the Decline of the Middle Class: Canada and the US. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 8(2), 247-273.
Frye, T. (2002). The perils of polarization: Economic performance in the postcommunist world. World politics, 54(3), 308-337.
Hamnett, C. (1984). Housing the two nations: socio-tenurial polarization in England and Wales, 1961-81. Urban Studies, 21(4), 389-405.
Hamnett, C. (1996). Social polarisation, economic restructuring and welfare state regimes. Urban Studies, 33(8), 1407-1430.
Hamnett, C. (2001). Social segregation and social polarization. Handbook of urban studies, 162-176.
Henderson, J., & Karn, V. (1984). Race, class and the allocation of public housing in Britain. Urban Studies, 21(2), 115-128.
Henri, T., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of intergroup relations, 2, 7-24.
Hetherington, M. J. (2009). Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 413-448.
Hunter, J. D. (1992). Culture wars: The struggle to control the family, art, education, law, and politics in America. Avalon Publishing.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). " Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization": Erratum.
Kloosterman, R. C. (1996). Double Dutch: polarization trends in Amsterdam and Rotterdam after 1980. Regional Studies, 30(5), 467-476.
Lindqvist, E., & Östling, R. (2010). Political polarization and the size of government. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 543-565.
Lupu, N. (2015). Party polarization and mass partisanship: A comparative perspective. Political Behavior, 37(2), 331-356.
Marcuse, P. (1989). ‘Dual city’: a muddy metaphor for a quartered city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 13(4), 697-708.
Massey, D. S. (1981). Social class and ethnic segregation: A reconsideration of methods and conclusions. American sociological review, 641-650.
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2016). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. mit Press.
Milanovic, B. (2000). The median-voter hypothesis, income inequality, and income redistribution: an empirical test with the required data. European Journal of Political Economy, 16(3), 367-410.
Pahl, R. E. (1988). Some remarks on informal work, social polarization and the social structure. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 12(2), 247-267.
Pooley, C. G. (1984). Residential differentiation in Victorian cities: A reassessment. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 131-144.
Preteceille, E. (1995). Division sociale de l'espace et globalisation. Le cas de la métropole parisienne. Sociétés contemporaines, 22(1), 33-67.
Salverda, W., Nolan, B., & Smeeding, T. M. (2009). The Oxford handbook of economic inequality. Oxford University Press.
Song, Z. (2012). Persistent ideology and the determination of public policy over time. International Economic Review, 53(1), 175-202.
Theriault, S. M. (2008). Party polarization in congress. Cambridge University Press.
Voorheis, J., McCarty, N., & Shor, B. (2015). Unequal incomes, ideology and gridlock: How rising inequality increases political polarization. Ideology and Gridlock: How Rising Inequality Increases Political Polarization (August 21, 2015).
Weisberg, H. F., & Christenson, D. P. (2007). Changing horses in wartime? The 2004 presidential election. Political Behavior, 29(2), 279-304.
Weisberg, H. F., & Devine, C. J. (2010). Partisan defection and change in the 2008 US presidential election. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 20(2), 213-240.
Winkler, H. (2019). The effect of income inequality on political polarization: Evidence from European regions, 2002–2014. Economics & Politics, 31(2), 137-162.
Wolfson, M. C. (1994). When inequalities diverge. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 353-358.

中文文獻
吳仁傑. (2011). 臺灣家庭所得分配不均之研究-跨縣市縱橫資料分析. 中興大學應用經濟學系所學位論文, 1-79.
呂素蓮, & 施泰彬. (2018). 從犯罪類型探討所得分配不均程度與刑案發生率相關性研究. 犯罪與刑事司法研究(30), 1-44.
俞哲民. (2009). 人口老化對於所得分配之影響-以臺灣二十三的縣市為 例, 國立政治大學財政所碩士論文. In: 連結.
施泰彬. (2016). 從犯罪類型探討所得分配不均程度與刑事案件相關性研究. 中山大學經濟學研究所學位論文, 1-63.
陳芷苓. (2008). The Impact of Income Inequality on Social Welfare Spending in Taiwan: County-level Analysis 陳芷苓].
黃明鳳. (2009). 台灣地區各縣市社會福利支出, 人力資本對所得分配影響之研究. 朝陽科技大學財務金融系學位論文, 1-59.
葉金標. (2008). 臺灣各縣市所得分配不均之探討.
劉孟奇, & 盧敬植. (2011). 所得分配不均與犯罪: 台灣縣市動態追蹤資料分析. 經濟論文叢刊, 39(2), 243-276.
蕭怡靖. (2019). 台灣民衆的黨性極化及其對民主態度的影響. 台灣政治學刊, 23(2), 41-85.
賴鈺璇. (2015). 影響臺灣縣市貧富差距因素: 2009 年至 2013 年的實證分析. 臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系學位論文, 1-94.
謝博明. (2006). 台灣家庭所得與住宅消費之分配與變動: 1980—2000. JOURNAL OF HOUSING, 15(1).
魏郁倫. (2008). 台灣各縣市所得水準與所得分配對其國民健康之影響. 政治大學財政研究所學位論文, 1-53.