The Praxis of Civic Engagement in Taiwan: The Comparative Study of Community Consensus Conference and Town Meeting.
| Autor: | Yung Chih Huang, 黃勇智 |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2010 |
| Druh dokumentu: | 學位論文 ; thesis |
| Popis: | 98 Community participation has become a mainstream policy in the most counties. Promotion of community engagement is one of the major policy agenda for the government of Taiwan. In the initial stages of community participation development in Taiwan, most of the projects were government-led or controlled by local elites of community-based associations. Recently, people are more concern about the direct civic engagement. From 2002 to 2008, the deliberative democracy became a hot issue for the public. The community consensus conferences are applied from the western countries. However, town meeting has rooted in local governance for long time, but it has been ignored. Thus, this study adopted qualitative approach to explore the mechanism about community consensus conference and town meeting. Through in-depth interview, this study explored the viewpoints of eight residents of their perceptions on community participation. Community consensus conference was different from town meeting about the structure of members, civic agenda, and the operation mechanism. First, for the participant members, the participants of community consensus conference were more diversified than of town meeting. On the other hand, participants in community consensus conference were screened by some strict criteria and only allowed some specific residents to join. The motivations of participating these two kinds of mechanism were varied. Most participants of community consensus conference were visionary and checking what’s going on. Participants of town meeting were invited or mobilized by local elites. Most issues discussed in the community consensus conference could influence the whole community. The agenda of town meeting influenced small part of the community. On the other hand, the civic agenda in community consensus conference was less conflict of interests than that of town meeting. The interests in community consensus conference were separate from each other, rather than in town meeting were entangled. The feasibility of civic agenda was more than town meeting. It was because the agenda in community consensus conference was government-based. There’s no budget problem in community consensus conference. On the contrary, budget issue was a key point in the discussion of town meeting. The community consensus conference discussed a series of topics framed within a single agenda. The mechanism in town meeting worked multiple agendas. On the other hand, members in these two mechanisms differed in roles and interaction. In the community consensus conference, community residents were problem solvers. Officials were complements and nonprofit worker was an assistant. In the town meeting, community residents were issue initiators or audiences. Officials were problem solvers or announcers and the head of neighbor was a mediator. Whether in community consensus conference or town meeting, the power of decision-making and administration was controlled by government officials. For community residents, these two mechanisms fulfilled the needs of knowledge, discourse, and relationship. As a whole, the function of community consensus conference was recommendatory, and town meeting was issue-forming and meditative. However, community consensus conference faced the lack of resource. Holding town meeting was affected by head of neighbor and its efficacy. Community residents were satisfied with the speech condition of community consensus conference. On the other hand, because of time, town meeting could not form a condition for sufficient speech. It was appropriate to announce civic information. Finally, there was a plight in both mechanisms about civic engagement. Community residents not necessarily engage civic affairs or engage continuing. Based on these findings, the conclusion was that both mechanisms only achieve the partial democracy. This is because the value of capitalism and the bureaucracy is that overly represent citizen reduce the civic atmosphere and opportunities of citizen engagement. Even though under this condition, these two mechanisms still have its niche to deepen democracy. On the basis of the conclusion, this study suggests a “tandem” model to enhance the praxis of community civic engagement. |
| Databáze: | Networked Digital Library of Theses & Dissertations |
| Externí odkaz: |
|