| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 地理環境資源學研究所 === 102 === Taiwan’s local government system derives from China’s local government system. After democratization, “one province, two centrally administered municipalities” were set up by constitutional amendment. Howerever, there is almost overlapping between province and nation and administrative inefficiency due to excess administrative tiers. Therefore, province system were downsized, reorganizing local government system. After downsizing province system, there are different resource allocation between centrally administered municipalities and counties and centrally administered municipalities are vastly superior to counties. With the result, it becomes an approach that counties or cities plan actively to upgrade themselves to centrally administered municipalities. Counties and cities reorganized to centrally administered municipalities by consolidation in 2010, unveiling a new era of Taiwan’s local self-government. After that, there are multiple district-level spaces in enlarged centrally administered municipalities, changing the accountabilities of director in district. For this reason, it is worth further studying concerning district-level space governance.
Three types of district space are divided in the thesis, including urban-type, rural-type and indigenous district. Firstly, urban-type districts are original types of district-level governance and are set up for administrative governing easily, and district offices become subsidiary bodies of bureaus of municipalities. Even units of district office were set up according to unitary regulation for administrative efficiency and overall arrangement of centrally administered municipalities. Secondly, rural-type districts stem from rural or fishing villages. There are more stronger bonding of social capital of factions and clans in rural-type district than in urban-type district. After consolidation city with county, rural-type districts are forced to imitate urban-type districts, appointed director and distorted incentives lead to weakened democratic responding functions in rural-type district. Therefore, noticeable center-periphery space relations will gradually appear. Thirdly, indigenous districts are an administrative space connecting racial and political meaning. The units of indigenous district office are also forced to imitate urban-type districts. That can’t take actions to suit local special conditions. After fiscal systems of indigenous districts become a part of centrally administered municipalities, indigenous districts lost subsidies from indigenous ministry. That gradually leads to greater fiscal gaps of indigenous districts.
Nowadays, it is a drawback for centrally administered municipalities that a unitary system applies to multiple spaces of districts. Directors of indigenous districts will be elected in 2014, but it is difficult to reflect heterogeneous space in centrally administered municipalities. There are some suggestions as follow. Firstly, it is necessary to set up cognition of multiple special developments. Secondly, it is also important to position district organizations and properly divide the work between bureaus and district offices. Thirdly, district organizations with special-responding capacities should be built up to improve the quality of district-level governance.
|
|---|
