影子經濟與主流經濟幾乎以相同的模式影響人類的經濟行為，但是卻難以用相同的經濟模式來評估，而其對政府治理的影響卻相當深遠。博奕是最容易產生的影子經濟活動之一，政府對於博奕的治理，一方面以父愛主義告訴民眾博奕是不好的行為，禁止賭博；一方面卻又以公益為名，由政府做莊，大肆宣揚，矛盾與衝突在不同體制中衍生。而政府參考國外發展成功之博奕政策，研議中之觀光賭場博奕娛樂條例，在歷經多年爭辯後，雖以地區博奕產業必須附帶通過公投之有條件方式開放離島地區發展博奕產業，然台灣島內卻也有多數縣市著眼於博產業利基，積極爭取設置觀光賭場，囿於體制與不同利害當事人間主觀價值存在著認知差異造成衝突，因此，政策仍在管制與解禁中擺\盪。本研究結合體制分析發展與公共事務管理架構之跨域分析，對於博奕治理的體制與條件探討分析，並由認知的角度切入，以高雄市「管制」與「解禁」觀光賭場為受測者間變項，探討市府人員、警察人員與一般民眾等不同利害當事人對於不同博奕政策體制下，「效益」及「成本」兩個受測者內變項之資訊認知代數驗證與體制之社會福利水準，另以「經濟產業」、「社會文化」與「環境設施」等三個決策參考變數探討不同利害當事人之認知衝突釐清，研究結果如下：
一、認知代數驗證
（一）市府人員對於管制情境觀光賭場，整體分析使用等權重平均模式整合「效益」及「成本」資訊，對於解禁情境觀光賭場，整體分析使用不等權重平均模式整合資訊。
（二）警察人員對於管制與解禁兩種情境之觀光賭場，整體分析均使用不等權重平均模式整合「效益」及「成本」資訊。
（三）一般民眾對於管制與解禁兩種情境之觀光賭場，整體分析均使用等權重平均模式整合「效益」及「成本」資訊。
（四）市府人員對於解禁情境觀光賭場之效益與成本相對權重比較，效益權重大於成本權重。
（五）警察人員對於管制與解禁兩種情境觀光賭場之效益與成本相對權重比較，效益權重均大於成本權重。
二、社會福利水準
（一）對於管制情境觀光賭場之社會福利水準，一般民眾有較高的社會福利水準，市府人員次之，警察人員最低，而警察人員與一般民眾有顯著差異。
（二）對於解禁情境觀光賭場之社會福利水準，以警察人員之社會福利水準最高，市府人員次之，一般民眾最低，但三個群體無顯著差異。
（三）三個群體對於解禁情境觀光賭場之社會福利水準均大於管制類型社會福利水準，其中僅警察人員對於兩類型觀光賭場之社會福利水準有顯著差異。
三、認知衝突釐清
（一）「經濟產業」、「社會文化」與「環境設施」等三個變項，為探討管制或解禁觀光賭場之有效決策參考變數。
（二）認知一致性在管制情境中以警察人員最佳、其次為一般民眾、最後為市府人員；在解禁情境中以一般民眾最佳、其次為市府人員、最後為警察人員。
（三）三個群體在管制與解禁觀光賭場認知的實際判斷值與推估判斷值均很接近，顯示決策表現良好。
（四）在管制情境觀光賭場的判斷中，「經濟產業」、「社會文化」、與「環境設施」等三個變數之相對權重優先順序如下，市府人員：社會文化最高，經濟產業次之，環境設施最低；警察人員：社會文化最高，經濟產業次之，環境設施最低；一般民眾：經濟產業最高，社會文化次之，環境設施最低。
（五）在解禁情境觀光賭場的判斷中，「經濟產業」、「社會文化」、與「環境設施」等三個變數的相對權重優先順序如下，市府人員：經濟產業最高，社會文化次之，環境設施最低；警察人員：社會文化最高，經濟產業次之，環境設施最低；一般民眾：經濟產業最高，社會文化次之，環境設施最低。
（六）「經濟產業」、「社會文化」、與「環境設施」等三個決策參考變數與管制或解禁情境觀光賭場之可接受性判斷，均屬於正相關。

Shadow economy is affecting economic behavior of human beings in almost the same mode as mainstream economy, yet it is difficult to evaluate in same economic mode and it has heavy impact on the regulation of a government. Gaming is one of the most possible shadow economic activities. The regulation of government over gaming is in one way in paternalism, telling its subjects that gaming is not a good behavior and gambling is forbidden. But on the other way, in the name of social welfare, the government is playing as banker and make it public to promote. The conflict and contradiction are generated in different systems. Taking the overseas successful development of the gaming policy and studying and discussing the provisions governing the gaming and entertainment of tourist casinos, the government has gone through years of debates. Although it allows the off-shore areas to develop gaming industry, the gaming industry areas will be allowed to run only on condition that they pass the referendum. However, there are a lot of counties and cities in Taiwan also bent on gaining the benefit of gaming industry and actively striving to set up tourist casinos. Bound by the institution and the subjective values of different stakeholders, resulting in differences in cognition and leading to conflict, the government is still wavering between regulation and deregulation. This study combines th institutional analysis and development with the cross-border analysis of the public affairs management framework, exploring and analyzing the institution and condition of gaming governance. Besides, from the angle of cognition, take the regulation and deregulation of tourist casinos of Kaohsiung city to question a number of people as a variable, also to explore the government employees, policemen and city people of different interests, asking them what they think about the benefit and cost of different gaming policies, including their information, cognitive algebra confirmation and the social welfare standard of the system. Moreover, use three strategic decisions such as economic industry, social culture, and the facilities of environment as reference to explore the cognitive conflicts of different interest groups. The results of this study are as follows:

I. Cognitive algebra confirmation.
i. With regard to the regulated tourist casinos situation, the city government employees use equal-weight averaging model to integrate benefit and cost information in whole analysis, and with regard to the deregulated tourist casinos situation, they use different-weight averaging model to integrate information in whole analysis.
ii. With regard to the regulated and deregulated tourist casinos situation, policemen use unequal right and weight average model to integrate benefit and cost information in whole analysis.
iii. With regard to the regulated and deregulated tourist casinos situation, city people use equal right and weight average model to integrate information.
iv. When city government employees compare the right and weight of the deregulated tourist casinos situation, the right and weight of benefit are greater than those of cost.
v. When policemen compare the right and weight of the regulated and deregulated tourist casinos situation, the right and weight of benefit are greater than those of cost.
II. Social welfare standard.
i. With regard to the social welfare standard of the regulated tourist casinos situation, city people have the highestr social benefit standard, then city government employees, and policemen are the lowest. There are noticeable differences between policemen and city people.
ii. With regard to the social welfare standard of the deregulated tourist casinos situation, policemen have the highest social welfare standard, then the city government employees, and city people are the lowest. However, there is little noticeable difference among the three groups.
iii. With regard to the social welfare standard of the deregulated tourist casinos situation, the three groups have higher standard than that of the regulated one.
III. Clarification of cognitive conflict.
i. Three variables such as economic industry, social culture, and the facilities of environment are useful variables for exploring the effective strategic decisions of the regulated or deregulated tourist casinos situation
ii. In the judgment in the regulated tourist casinos situation, the priority order of the relative right and weight of three variables such as economic industry, social culture, and the facilities of environment is as follows: with city government employees: the highest is social culture; then comes the economic industry, the lowest is the facilities of environment; with policemen, the highest is social culture, then economic industry, and the lowest is the facilities of environment; with city people, the highest is economic industry, then social culture, and the lowest is the facilities of environment.
iii. In the judgment in the deregulated tourist casinos situation, the priority order of the relative right and weight of three variables such as economic industry, social culture and the facilities of environment is as follows: with city government employees , the highest is economic industry, then social culture, and the lowest is the facilities of environment: with policemen, the highest is social culture, then economic industry and the lowest is the facilities of environment: with city people, the highest is economic industry, then social culture, and the lowest is the facilities of environment.
iv. Three variables as reference for strategic decisions such as economic industry, social culture, and the facilities of environment are all related to the acceptable judgment of the regulated or deregulated tourist casinos situation.

論文審定書.................................................................................................................i
誌謝..............................................................................................................................ii
中文摘要....................................................................................................................iii
英文摘要.....................................................................................................................v
第一章、緒論........................................................................................................1
壹、研究背景與動機..........................................................................................1
一、研究背景.......................................................................................................1
二、研究動機.......................................................................................................6
貳、研究目的........................................................................................................9
參、研究範圍........................................................................................................9
肆、研究流程......................................................................................................13
第二章、文獻探討............................................................................................15
壹、影子經濟......................................................................................................15
貳、博奕產業......................................................................................................18
一、博奕.............................................................................................................18
二、博奕現況.....................................................................................................22
三、博奕的效益與成本....................................................................................29
參、博奕治理......................................................................................................53
一、高雄地區的博奕管理..............................................................................53
二、警察服務...................................................................................................54
三、警察失靈....................................................................................................58
四、警察貪瀆...................................................................................................61
肆、決策與判斷分析.........................................................................................64
一、決策思考模式.............................................................................................64
二、公共決策特性.............................................................................................66
三、決策與判斷.................................................................................................72
伍、公共事務管理整合參考架構................................................................75
一、公共事務管理的演進................................................................................75
二、公共事務管理整合參考架構...................................................................79
三、社會發展矩陣.............................................................................................88
四、公共事務管理之跨域分析.......................................................................90
陸、體制與治理.................................................................................................92
一、體制分析.....................................................................................................92
二、體制分析與發展架構................................................................................99
三、PAM與IAD之區分與對應....................................................................103
四、治理與公民社會......................................................................................109
第三章、研究方法...........................................................................................114
壹、透鏡模式....................................................................................................114
貳、系統範圍....................................................................................................116
參、社會判斷理論..........................................................................................120
肆、資訊整合理論..........................................................................................124
一、目的性定理...............................................................................................124
二、多元決定論...............................................................................................125
三、心理衡量...................................................................................................125
四、整合圖.......................................................................................................126
五、三個不可觀察值......................................................................................127
六、認知代數和功能衡量.............................................................................127
第四章、研究假說與設計..........................................................................137
壹、研究方法......................................................................................................137
貳、研究假設建立............................................................................................138
參、認知代數驗證架構與施測...................................................................140
一、研究架構...................................................................................................140
二、研究設計...................................................................................................141
三、施測程序...................................................................................................142
肆、認知衝突釐清架構與施測...................................................................144
一、研究架構...................................................................................................144
二、研究設計...................................................................................................145
三、預試............................................................................................................146
伍、假設檢驗...................................................................................................147
第五章、結果分析............................................................................................148
壹、檢驗利益與成本的資訊整合模式.......................................................148
一、操控檢驗...................................................................................................148
二、資訊整合模式...........................................................................................149
三、權重分析...................................................................................................179
四、社會福利水準比較..................................................................................180
貳、認知衝突釐清..........................................................................................182
一、認知一致性...............................................................................................183
二、實際與推估判斷......................................................................................185
三、相對權重與函數型態..............................................................................190
四、迴歸方程式...............................................................................................193
第六章、結論與後續研究.........................................................................196
壹、認知代數驗證..........................................................................................196
一、不同群體的資訊整合模式.....................................................................196
二、不同群體對於成本與效益的相對權重...............................................196
三、不同群體的社會福利水準.....................................................................197
貳、認知衝突釐清..........................................................................................197
一、不同群體的認知一致性分析.................................................................197
二、不同群體對於認知的實際與推估判斷值一致性..............................197
三、不同群體對於相關變項的相對權重與函數型態..............................198
四、迴歸方程式..............................................................................................198
參、研究結果發現..........................................................................................199
肆、研究結果討論..........................................................................................201
伍、後續研究建議..........................................................................................205
參考文獻.............................................................................................................208
附錄......................................................................................................................221

參考文獻
一、中文部份
丁仁方（2007），公民社會與民主政治的相互建構－日本與台灣近年組織性公民社會發展之比較，台灣民主季刊，4卷2期，頁1-31。
王文誠、何敏華（2005），澎澎湖縣爭取設置觀光特區附設博奕產業之公共事務互動管理：名義團體技術實證研究，公共事務評論，第6卷第1期，頁1-24。
王五一（2004），賭害的國際分配，博彩產業與公益事業國際學術研討會。
王五一（2005），政策支撐型與市場自立型—兩類賭城之比較，澳門理工學報，第8卷第2期，頁9-17。
王崑義（2008），台灣發展博奕事業的展望與檢討，http://blog.nownews.com/article.php?bid=21332&tid=1297864&tyid=A。
中國評論新聞網（2011），新加坡賭場開禁周年經濟增速成亞洲第一，http://www.chinareviewnews.com。
王俊秀（1999），全球變遷與變遷全球：環境社會學的出發，巨流，台北。
方文碩（1999），地下經濟與GDP，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃，計劃編號：NSC 89-2415-H-035-003。
毛壽龍、李梅（2000），有限政府的經濟分析，三聯書店，上海。
內政部（2011），成人性交易工作將採「適度開放、有效管理」，http://www.moi.gov.tw/。
台灣透明組織（2010），國際透明組織公布 2010 年「全球貪腐趨勢指數」，http://www.tict.org.tw/。
行政院主計處（2011），人力資源統計月報，台北。
交通部（2011），「博奕專法」草案出爐！將於四月中起陸續舉辦3場地方說明會，http//www.motc.gov.tw/。
自由電子新聞網（2001），儂儂案 30中高警官疑接受不當招待，錯誤! 超連結參照不正確。 2001/new/aug/23/today-c6.htm
朱鎮明（2002），博奕事業管理制度之研究，中國行政評論，第11卷第2期，頁139-156。
汪銘生（1989），多元公共認知決策之研究－社會判斷理論的應用，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃，計劃編號：NSC77-0301-H-110-09R。
汪銘生（1992），環境決策與管理，復文書局，高雄。
汪銘生、張寧（1998），環境污染案例與交通過失案例之量刑因素結合模式，管理學報，第15卷第4期，頁665-682。
汪銘生（2003），認知衝突典範之準實驗：以美濃水庫為例，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃，計劃編號：NSC91-2416-H-110-025。
汪銘生（2004），民眾與政府對政策公平衡量多元認知之資訊整合研究：以登革熱防治為例，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃，計劃編號：NSC92-2414-H-110-004。
汪銘生（2005），多元社會下高雄市招商策略認知與判斷之研究-以實驗法對IIT 與其它多屬性權重衡量模式之比較，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃，計劃編號：NSC93-2416-H-110-008。
汪明生、黃國良、郭文俊（2005），酒後駕車風險知覺之實驗研究-資訊整合理論之應用，管理學報，第22卷,第4期,頁429-447。
汪明生（2006），公共事務管理研究方法，五南書局，台北。
汪明生（2011），互動管理與公民治理，智勝文化，台北。
呂育誠（2007），今日地方政府採行治理的問題與展望，研習論壇，第74期，頁15-27。
李庸三（1991），台灣地區地下經濟之探討，經濟前瞻，第23號，頁4-9。
李震山（2002），警察法論－警察任務篇，正典文化出版社，台南。
何毓芬（1997），模糊理論與成本效益分析方法之整合應用，國立交通大學運輸管理研究所碩士論文。
林錦郎（2001），社會判斷理論與認知衝突典範，公共事務評論，第2卷第1期，頁209-227。
林錦郎（2005），多元社會之衝突管理－判斷分析的觀點，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
法務部（2007），95 年法務統計重要指標分析，法務部統計處。
胡其瑞（2002），愛國獎券與近代台灣社會，政大史粹，第四期，頁55-88。
涂文學（2006），賭博的歷史，中國文史出版社，北京。
香港賽馬會（2010），慈善事務，http://corporate.hkjc.com/。
香港文匯網（2010），澳門新規劃拒絕博彩業，http://news.wenweipo.com/ 2010/11/04/IN1011040027_p1.htm。
財政部國庫署（2007），公益彩券營業報告書簡表，http://www.nta.gov.tw/business/ roclotto.asp.
徐仁輝（2010），五都制下地方財政的未來，財稅研究，第42卷第5期，頁87-102。
財團法人工業技術研究院（2011），高雄地區重點產業與策略性產業招商引資策略之研究，高雄市政府經濟發展局。
孫克難（1996），台灣地區地下經濟之探討，經濟前瞻，頁46-49。
孫義雄（2006），各國賭博刑事政策概論，中央警察大學警學叢刊，第36卷第4期，頁185-212。
高明瑞與蔡敦浩（1989），自然資源保育中的國家公園管理問題，國科會專題研究報告書。
高雄市政府（2009），市政新聞，發展博奕應有完整配套高雄旗津發展條件最佳，http://www.kcg.gov.tw/jsf/KcgNewsList.jsf?orgId=383180000E。
高雄市政府（2011），認識高雄，http://www.kaohsiung.gov.tw/。
高雄市議會（2010），高雄市議會公報，第57卷第10期。
高雄市政府警察局（2011），警政統計網－處理刑事案件，http://www.kmph.gov.tw/SubStation/theme-tongji/
陳麗貞（1996），觀光賭場開放設置之影響認知研究，文化大學觀光事業研究所碩士論文。
郭文俊（2001），酒後駕車風險知覺之資訊整合實驗，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
郭春敏（2008），博奕娛樂事業概論，揚智出版社，台北。
郭瑞坤、賴正能、廖英賢（2006），在地利害關係人對澎湖設置觀光賭場政策影響觀點之研究，公共行政學報，第20卷，頁33-68。
陳碧珍（2001），決策與判斷分析領域簡介，公共事務評論，第2卷第1期，頁171-182。
陳碧珍（2006），群體共識判斷中社會影響網絡之研究，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
張世宗（2006），游藝學應用模式初探：以博奕遊戲的功能性分析為例，國立臺北教育大學學報，第19卷第1期，頁99-116。
張其祿（2006），政府管制政策績效評估─以OECD國家經驗為例，經社法制論叢，第38期，頁49-91。
張嘉玲（2001），大眾運輸需求模式之資訊整合實驗，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
黃平（2008），挑戰博彩：澳門博彩事業開放及其影響，社會科學文獻出版社，北京。
黃俊英（1980），台灣省政府集中辦公及促進內外聯繫問題之研究，台灣省政府研考會編印。
黃雁鴻（2004），淺論博彩發展對澳門社會價值觀的衝擊，博彩產業與公益事業國際學術研討會。
黃瓅輝（1994），序列資訊對機率判斷影響之實驗，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
楊芳玲，汪銘生，高明瑞，吳英明（1992），環境中介的基礎研究：認知衝突的準實驗，國科會專題研究報告書。
楊瑪利、范榮靖（2008），展望未來兩岸新局各縣市4大因應趨勢(下)，遠見雜誌，第265期。
趙永茂（2003），台灣府際關係與跨區治理：文獻回顧與策略途徑初探，政治科學論叢，第18 期，頁53-70。
游常山（2007），新加坡的新契機之一解禁賭場，把國家禁忌變國家競爭力，遠見雜誌，3月號。
童貴珊（2007），從上帝之埠到賭城骰子搖出經濟奇蹟，經典雜誌，第103期。
鄭凱方（2001），如何估算地下經濟，經濟前瞻，頁70-75。
鄭玉波（1977），論賭債，法學叢刊，第85期，頁1。
董玉庭（1999），賭博犯罪研究，當代法學，第4期，頁28-31。
劉心玉、張質平（1982），賭博犯罪之研究，法務部。
劉代洋（2008），開放觀光賭場之社會影響評估，行政院經濟建設委員會。
劉代洋（2008），台灣發展觀光賭場之策略規劃，行政院經濟建設委員會。
簡張基（2001），我國地下經濟行業分類之研究（以服務業分類為探討），私立中原大學企業管學系碩士論文。
葉智魁（2002），藉「賭博合法化」與「開放賭場特區」以興利除弊的迷思，理論與政策，第16卷第3期，頁71-93。
葉智魁（2008），為賭場犧牲河岸景觀生態，真的有助於地方經濟嗎？http://lovepenghu.blogspot.com/2008/12/blog-post_1333.html
蔡憲卿（2004），我國警察貪腐成因與防制策略之研究，第三屆政府與公共事務碩士在職專班論文研討會，台北、國立台灣大學政治系。
鄧哲偉（2002），我國地下經濟規模變動之研究，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
澳門特別行政區政府（2010），印務局第一組公報，http://cn.io.gov.mo/。
澳門特別行政區政府（2010），金融情報辦公室通訊（博彩業），第2期，http://www.gif.gov.mo。
澳門特別行政區政府（2011），統計局，http://cn.io.gov.mo/。
趙麗雲（2000）， 因勢利導 除弊興利－台灣開放觀光賭場爭議的另類思考，國家政策論壇，第1卷第3期，http://old.npf.org.tw/monthly/00103/theme-126.htm。
魏清圳（2001），台灣地下經濟之估計與因果關係，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃，計劃編號：NSC 89-2415-H-324-006。
蕭富元（2008），GDP榮景下的真相，天下雜誌，第398期。
戴韻珊（2007），臺灣地下經濟之探討 : MIMIC模型之應用，第5屆全國實證經濟學研討會，頁1-21。
蘋果日報（2010），DNA揪兇被逐小弟涉殺翁奇楠，http://tw.nextmedia.com/ applenews/ article/art_id/32581581/IssueID/20100612。
蘋果日報（2011），無縣市願設紅燈區，政策沒效，來亂ㄟ，http://tw.nextmedia.com/ applenews/article/art_id/33304474/IssueID/20110408。

二、英文部份
Alexender, E. R.III. (1979). The Reduction of Cognitive Conflict : Effect of Various Types of Communication , Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vo1.23, No.1, pp.120-138.
Ali, K. (1998). Governance and Science: Market-like Modes of Managing Society and Producing Knowledge. International Social Science Journal, Vol. 115, pp.69-79.
Arkes H. R., & Hammond K. R. (1986). Judgment and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader, Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, N. H. (1973). Information integration theory applied to attitudes about U.S. president, Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, p1-8.
Anderson, N. H., & Butzin, C. A. (1974). Performance = motivation x ability: An integration theoretical analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 598-604.
Anderson, N. H., ＆ Butzin, C.A. (1978). Integration theory applied to children’s judgments of equity, Developmental psychology, 14, p593-606.
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of Information Integration Theory, New York: Academic press.
Anderson, N. H. (1982). Methods of Information Integration Theory, New York: Academic press.
Anderson, N., & Zalinski, J. (1991). Parameter estimation for averaging theory. In N. H. Anderson(Ed.), Contributions to information integration theory. Vol. I. Cognition (pp. 353-394).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Anderson, N. H. (1996). A functional of Information Integration Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Anatol, R. (1960). Fights, Games, and Debates, Harvard Business Review; Nov/Dec60, Vol. 38 Issue 6, p115-115, 1/2p.
Australian Institute for Gambling Research, (1997). Definition and Incidence of Problem Gambling, Including the Socio-Demographic Distribution of Gambling, Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority, Melbourne.
Australia Productivity Commission, (1999). Australia’s Gambling Industries：Inquiry Report, Volume 1：Report.
Becker, G. (1989). Higher sin taxes: a low blow to the poor, Business Week, 5 June.
Blaszczynski, A. (1987). Does Compulsive Gambling Constitute an Illness? Responsibility of the State in rehabilitation, in Faces of Gambling,Proceedings of the Second National Conferenceof the National Association for Gambling Studies, ed. Michael Walker, National Association forGambling Studies, Sydney.
Bybee, S. (1999), History, development, legislation of Las Vegas casino gaming In C.H.C. Hsu,(Ed.), Legalized Casino Gaming in the United States. New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
Burke, J. D. (1996), Problem Gambling Hits Home, Wisconsin Medical Journal, 95(9): pp.611-614.
Castellan, N. J. (1973). Comments on the “lens model” & equation and the analysis of multiple-cve judgment tasks. Psychometrika, Vol. 38, pp.87-100.
Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.3, pp.1-44.
Connolly, T., Arkes, H.R., & Hammond, K.R. (Eds.) (2000). Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooksey, R. W., Freebody, P., & Davidson, G. R. (1984). Teachers’ predictions of children’s early reading achievement : An application of social judgment theory. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Cooksey, R. W. (1996). Judgment analysis: theory, methods and application. New York: Academic Press.
Dell’Anno, R., & Solomon, O. H. (2006). Shadow Economy And Unemployment Rate In U.S.A. Is There A Structural Relationship? An Empirical Analysis.
Dhir, K. S., & Markman, H. J. (1984). Application of Social Judgment Theory to Understanding and Treation Marital Conflict, Journal of Marriage and The Family, pp.597-610.
Dowding, D. (2002). Interpretation of risk and social judgment theory, In: Clinical decision Making and Judgment in nursing . Thompson, c. & Dowding, D.（eds）,Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp.81-94.
Duckett, J. (2001). Bureaucrats in Business, Chinese Style: The Lessons of Market Reform and State Entrepreneurialism in the People’s Republic of China. World Development, Vol.29(1), pp.23-37.
Dunn, W. N. (2008). Public policy analysis: An introduction (4th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ellen, M. I. (1998). The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism, Politics & Society, 26(1): 5-34.
Farkas, A. J., & Anderson, N.H. (1976). Integration theory and inoculation theory as explanations of the paper tiger effect. The journal of social psychology, 98, p253-268.
Feeney, D. (1993). Demand and Supply of Institutional Arrangement, in Ostrom, V., Feeny, D., Picht, H.(Eds)., Rethinking Institutional Analysis and Development: Issues, Alternatives, and Choices. San Francisco: International Center for Economic Growth.
Feige, E. L. (1979). How Big is the Irregular Economy? Challenge: 5-13.
Fleming, M., Roman, J., & Farrell G. (2000). Conceptualizing the shadow economy. Journal of International Affairs. Volume 53, No. 2.pp. 387-409.
Franklin, W. (1994), Testimony and prepared statement. In U.S. House(1995).
Garret, T. A. (2003). Casino Gambling in America and its Economic Impacts, Senior conomist, Community Affairs Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Gerald, D. (1988). The Theory and Practice of Autonomy, Cambridge University Press.
Grinols, E. L., & Mustard, D. B. (2006). Casinos, Crime, and Community Costs, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(1), 28-45.
Godbey, G. (2003). Leisure in your life: An exploration (6th ed.). State College, PA: Venture.
Goodnow, F. J. (1900). Politics and Administration, New York: Macmillan. Publishing.
Goodman, R. (1995). Legalized Gambling as a Strategy for Economic Development, Northampton, Mass :United States Gambling Study.
Govoni, R., Frisch, G. R., Rupcich, N., & Getty, H. (1999). First year impacts of casino gambling in a community. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14(4), 347-58.
Grinols, E. (1995). Gambling as economic policy: Enumerating why losses exceed gains, Illinois Business Review, pp.6-12.
Grinols, E., & Omorov, J. D. (1996). Development or dreamfield delusions?: assessing casino gambling’s costs and benefits. The Journal of Law and Commerce, 16(1): 49–87.
Hammond, K. R. (1965). New Directions in Research on Conflict Resolution, Journal of Social Issues, Vol.21, pp.44-66.
Hammond, K. R., Stewart T. R., Brehmer, B., & Steinmann, D. O. (1975). Social Judgment The and ory , in M. F. Kaplan and S. Schwartz(eds.), Human Judgment and Decision Processes. New York, Academic Press.
Hammond, K. R., Mcalelland, G. H., & Mumpover, J. (1980). Human Judgment and Decision Making, Theories, Method and Procedures, New York: Praeger Prblication.
Hammond, K. R., & Wascoe, N. E. (1980). Realizations of Brunswik’s representative design. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science, 3, 271–312
Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2001), Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Holzworth, J. (1983). Intervention in a Cognitive Conflict , Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Vol. 32, pp.216-231.
Hsu, C. H. C. (2005). Casino Industry in Asia Pacific: Development, Operation, and Impact. Philadelphia: Haworth Press.
Hing, N. (2006). Social Impacts of Gambling in Australia, in Cathy HC Hsu (ed.), Casino industry in Asia Pacific: development, operation and impact, Haworth Hospitality Press, Binghamton, NY.
Hursch, C., Hammond, K. R., & Hursch, J. (1964). Some methodological considerations in multiple0cue probability studies. Psychological Review, Vol. 71, pp.42-60.
James G. M., & John P. O. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions, New York: The Free Press.
Jand F. E., & Gillette, P. (1985). Win-win Negotiating – Turning Conflict into Agreement. New York, Wiley & Sons.
Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development, International Social Science Journal, 50 (155), 29-45.
Karol, S. (1998). Institutions as products of politics, Institutions and Social Order, Edited by Karol Soltan, Eric M. Uslaner and Virginia Haufler, University of Michigan Press.
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E.(1972)., General Systems Theory: Applications for Organization and Management, Academy of management Journal, vol.15, pp.447-464.
Keller, L. R. (1985). The effect of problem representation on the sure-thing and substitution principles. Management Science, vol.31(6), pp.738-751.
Kerby A. (2005). Gambling, Probe Ministries, http://www.leaderu.com/ orgs/ probe/docs/gambling.html.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the Psychology of Prediction, Psychological Review, 80, 235-251.
Kooiman, J. (1999). Social Political Governance: Overview, Reflections and Design, Public Management, 1:1 , 67-92.
Lee, C. K., & Back, K. J. (2003). Pre and post casino impact of residents’ perception. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(4), 868-885.
Leftwich, A. (1993). Governance, Democracy and Development in the Third World, Third World Quarterly, 14(2), pp. 605~624.
Lesieur, H. R. (1996). Measuring the costs of Pathological Gambling. National Conference on Gambling Behavior. Sept. 3-5.
Lippert, O., & Walker, M. (Eds. 1997). The Underground Economy. Global Evidence of Its Size and Impact, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.
Littlejohn, D. (1999). The real Las Vegas: Life beyond the trip. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lorenz, V. C., & Shuttlesworth, D. (1983). The impact of pathological gambling on the spouse of the gambler. Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 67-76.
Lowi, T. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choices, Public Administration Review, 33:298-310.
Lucinda, R., & Arvate, R. (2005). A Study on the Shadow Economy and the Tax-Gap: The case of CPMF in Brazil, paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the public Choice Society, New Orleans, Louisiana 10-13 March.
Luther G. (1933). politics, Administration, and the New Deal. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science(9), 545-566.
Mantzavinos, C. (2001). Individuals, Institutions, and Markets, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCramm. T. (1996). Why the wages of sin is a Gst, The Weekend Australian.
Merrien, F. X. (1998). Governance and modern welfare states, International Social Science Journal, 50 (155), 57–67.
Miriela, C., & Lennie P. (2007). The shadow economy in the Netherlands, Antilles Salises 8th Annual Conference, Crisis, Chaos and Change: Caribbean Development Challenges in the 21st Century.
Mises, L. von, (1983). Bureaucracy, The Libertarian Press, Inc.: Grove City, PA.
Nelissen, N., & Goede, P. (2003). Public management : the need for ambiguity tolerance and moral engagement, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol.26(1), pp.19-34 .
Nee, V. (2001). Sources of the New Institutionalism, The New Institutionalism in Sociology, Brinton, M. C. and Nee ,V. ed., Standford University press.
North, D. C. (1981). Structure and Change in Economic History, Norton, New York.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
North, D. C. (1991). Institutions, Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pp. 97-112, Winter.
Olson, M. (1992). Foreword in Todd Sandler, Collective Action: Theory and Application, The University of Michigan press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2005), Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princetion University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework, In Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edition, ed. Paul A. Sabatier, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 21-64.
Paul, B. (1988). Analyzing Legal Paternalism, International Review of Law and Economics, vol.15, pp. 489-508.
Peters, B. G. (1996). The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence: the University Press of Kansas.
Peters, J.T., Hammond K. R., and Summers D. A. (1974). A note on intuitive vs. analytic thinking, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol.12(1), pp.125-131.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Paul P., & Van, R. (1995). Luther Gulick on Frederick Taylor and scientific management, Journal of Management History, Vol. 1(2), pp. 6-7.
Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W. W. Norton.
Rapoport, A. (1960), Fights, Games, and Debates, Harvard Business Review; Nov/Dec60, Vol. 38 Issue 6, p115-115, 1/2p.
Rainey, H. G. (1990). Public Management: Recent Developments and Current Prospects, in NaomiB. Lynn and Aaron Widavsky(eds), Public Administration: The State of the Discipline. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. P.184.
Rothstein, H. G. (1986). The Effects of Time Pressure on Judgment on Multiple Cue Probability Learning, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 37, pp.83-92.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing Without Government, Political Studies, XLIV:652-667.
Ruttan, V. W., & Hayami, Y. (1984). Toward a Theory of Induced Institutional Innovation, Journal Development Studies, vol. 20, no.4, pp. 203~223.
Schneider, F., & Enste, D. (2002). Hiding in the shadows-The Growth of the Underground Economy, International Monetary Fund.
Schneider, F. (2005). Shadow economies around the world: what do we really know? European Journal of Political Economy, 21 (3), pp. 598-642.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Sharp, A. M., Register, C. A., & Grimes. P. W. (1998). Economics of Social Issues ,Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Columbus.
Shu-Hong Z., & Anderson, N. H. (1991). Self-estimation of weight parameter in multiattribute analysis, Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 48, 36-54.
Smeral, E. (1998). Economic aspects of casino gaming in Austria. Journal of Travel Research, 36 (4), 33-39.
Simon, H. A. (1944). Decision-making and administrative organization, Public Administration Review( 4), pp.16-31.
Simon, H. A. (1976). Administration Behavior:A study of Decision-Making . New York: Macmillam.
Smith, J. D. (1985). Market motives in the informal economy, in: Gaertner, W. and Wenig, A.(eds.): The economics of the shadow economy, Heidelberg: Springer Publishing Company, pp. 161-177.
Smouts, M-C. (1998). The proper use of governance in international relations, International Social Science Journal, 50 (155), 81-89 .
Stewart, T. R., & Leschine, T. M. (1986). Judgment and Analysis in Oil Spill Risk Assessment, Risk Analysis, Vol.6, No.3.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). Economic of the public sector. New York: Norton.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as Theory: Five Propositions, International Social Science Journal, 50(155), pp. 17-28.
Stone, D. (1997). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Stitt, B. G., David G., & Mark, N. (2000). The Effect of Casino Gambling on Crime in New Casino Jurisdictions, Journal of Crime and Justice, 33(1), 1-23.
Thaler, R. H. (2000). From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens. Journal of Economics Perspectives 14, 133-141.
Tamborini, R. (1997). Knowledge and economic behaviour. A constructivist approach, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, vol. 7(1), 49-72.
Thompson, W.N., Gazel, R., & Rickman, D. (1996). Casinos and Crime in Wisconsin: What’s the Connection? Thie nsville: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc.
Thompson, W. N., & Quinn, F. (2000). The Video Gaming Machines of South Carolina: despairing soon? A socio economic analysis, paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking, Las Vegas, NV.
Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R., & Mitchell, J. (1991). (ed.) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: the Coordination of Social Life, London sage.
Tunyan, B. (2005). The Shadow Economy of Armenia: Size, Causes and Consequences, Armenian International Policy Research.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Vickers, S.G. (1995). The Art of Judgment. London: Sage Publications.
Vold, G. B., Bernard, T.J., & Snipes, J.B. (2002). Theoretical Criminology (5th Edition). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wang, M. S. (1987). Addition of A Cognitive Dimension to the Analytical Hierarchy Process-A Land Use Decision-Making Example, Dissertation , the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Walker, D. M. ( 2007). The economics of casino gambling. New York, NY: Springer.
Wilson, w. (1887). The Study of Administration, Political Science Quarterly 2(2): 197-222.
Young, O. R. (1999). Governance in World Affairs, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple Criteria Decision Making, New York: McGraw hill Book Company.