Critiques of the classical model assert that “real world” policy
implementation occurs in a multi-jurisdictional, multi-organizational environment characterized primarily by uncertainty (Matland, 1995; Perry et al., 1999). From this perspective, the logic that underlies the achievement of Taiwan’s free port goals in the statutory language probably does not coincide with local standards of successful implementation. For the central government, competition as a regulatory tool was to be used cautiously because of its potential to destabilize port operations and profi t levels. Thus when the top-down limited development coalition collided with the bottom-up broad participation coalition, domestic port competition was allowed and encouraged through liberal entry policies, based on the principle of loose regulation and stringent scrutiny.
To achieve its goals, the central government is based on hierarchical demand mechanisms and defi nes demands of society on an aggregated level (Teisman and Klijn, 2002). Although the central government is unwilling to abandon its formal superior position, inter-governmental chains and maritime networks are a reaction to the rising expectations and demands of clients. The central government is becoming more and more dependent upon local governments, private sector actors, and academics. In this respect, governmental organizations and actors are functioning in similar networks (Teisman, 2001). This makes the implementation of the free port policy a complex process of interaction between various coalition actors.
A twofold question, why the free port policy initiative was needed and how different actors and coalitions interact and negotiate, has been answered through the ACF analysis. By dealing with these two questions at the same time, this study has been able to better demonstrate the splits that many governments fi nd themselves in.
Three features can be incorporated into theorizing the implementation of
the free port policy: (1) The achievement of the goals of each individual actor and advocacy coalition requires activities by the other actors (Teisman and Klijn, 2002); mutual adjustment and effective combinations of partnership and hierarchy are an important prerequisite. (2) Complexity is a result of the interaction and negotiation processes between different actors and advocacy coalitions, whose supports and resources are indispensable for a joint undertaking. All these actors and coalitions bring their own belief systems and strategies (Klijn, Koppenjan, and Termeer, 1995; Lissack and Gunz, 1999). (3) The decision-making process of Taiwan’s free port policy indicates how diffi cult it is to establish a partnership, in spite of all the sincere efforts made by various coalition members. Scholars therefore should focus on the inter-organizational processes and network-like co-ordination mechanism and policy instruments that shape a growing amount of public policy.
References
Agranoff, Robert and Michael McGuire. 1998. “Multi-Network Management:
Collaboration and the Hollow State in Local Economic Policy,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 8 no. 3 (January), pp.
67~91.
Baumgartner, Frank and Bryan Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).
Browne, William. 1988. Private Interests, Public Policy, and American Agriculture (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas).
Chackerian, Richard and Paul Mavima, 2001. “Comprehensive Administrative Reform Implementation: Moving Beyond Single Issue Implementation Research,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 11, no. 3(July), pp. 353~377.
Chalmers, Jim and Glyn Davis. 2001. “Rediscovering Implementation,” Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 60, no. 2(June), pp. 74~85.
Chen, Cristina Pi-Fen. 2002. “Special Report: Taiwan Moves Toward Free Ports,”
Sinorama Magazine, vol. 99(December), pp. 1~23.
Chou, Chien-Chang. 2002. “Analysis of Container Throughput of Major Ports in Far Eastern Region,” Maritime Research Journal, vol. 12(April), pp. 59~71.
Chou, Chien-Chang, Liang, Gin-Shuh, and Ching-Wu Chu, 2003. “Competitiveness Analysis of Major Ports in Eastern Asia,” Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, vol. 5 (October), pp. 682~697.
Comtois, Claude. 1994. “The Evolution of Containerization in East Asia,” Mariti-me Policy and ManageMariti-ment, vol. 21, no. 3(July), pp. 195~205.
Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd., 2003. China’s Transport Infrastructure and Lo-gistics (London: Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd).
Elmore, Richard 1982. “Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions,” in Walter Williams, ed. Studying Implementation: Methodological and Administrative Issues, (Chatham, N.J.: Catham House), pp. 18~35.
Evergreen Marine Transportation Co. Ltd.. 2001. Evergreen Marine Transportation
Co. Ltd. Statistics, (Taipei: Evergreen Marine Transportation Co. Ltd).
Exworthy, Mark., Martin Powell and John Mohan. 1999. “The NHS: Quasi-Market, Quasi-Hierarchy and Quasi-Network? ” Public Money and Management, vol.
19, no. 4(October), pp. 15~22.
Exworthy, Mark. and Martin Powell. 2004. “Big Windows and Little Windows:
Implementation in the ‘Congested State’,” Public Administration, vol. 82, no.
2(June), pp. 263~81.
G. P. Wild International Limited. 1995. International Ports (London: The LloydɅs Business Intelligence Center).
Hill, Michael and Peter Hupe. 2002. Implementing Public Policy (London: Sage Publications).
Ho, Mei-Yueh. 2002. “An Interview with Key Free Port Planner Ho Mei-Yueh,” in Cristina Pi-Fen Chen ed., “Special Report: Taiwan Moves Toward Free Ports,” Sinorama Magazine, vol.99, (December), pp. 9~11.
Hoyle, Brian. 2000. “Global and Local Change on the Port-City Waterfront,” The Geographic Review, vol. 90, no. 3(July), pp. 395~417.
Huang, Tien-Mu Thomas. 2000. “Privatizing Public Enterprises in TaiwanɅs Government-Owned Banks,” International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 23, no 10, pp. 1777~1805.
Huang, Wen-Chih. 2004. “Evaluation of Development Strategies for Kaohsiung Port Using A Goals Achievement Method,” Journal of Marine Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 4(December), pp. 334~342.
Hula, Kevin 1999. Lobbying Together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Po-litics (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press).
Imperial, Mark 1998. Intergovernmental Policy Implementation: Examining Inter-organizational Networks and Measuring Network Performance presented for the 1998 Academy of Management Meeting (San Diego, California, August 7-12).
Jenkins-Smith, Hank and Gilbert St. Clair. 1993. “The Politics of Offshore Energy,”
in P. Sabatier and H. Jenkins-Smith eds., Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), pp. 149~176.
Jenkins-Smith, Hank Gilbert. K, St. Clair, and Brain Woods. 1991. “Explaining Change in Policy Subsystems: Analysis of Coalition Stability and Defection Over Time,” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 35, no.
4(November), pp. 851~880.
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Boston: Little, Brown).
Klijn, Erik-Hans and Geert Teisman. 2002. “Partnership Arrangements:
Governmental Rhetoric or Governance Scheme? ” Public Administration Re-view, vol. 62, no. 2(March/April), pp. 197~205.
Klijn, Erik-Hans, Joop Koppenjan, and C.J.A.M. Termeer. 1995. “Managing Networks in the Public Sector,” Public Administration, vol. 73, no.
3(Autumn), pp. 437~454.
Lester, James. 1990. “A New Federalism? Environmental Policy in the States,” in Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft eds., Environmental Policy in the 1990s (Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press), pp. 59~79.
Lester, James and Malcolm Goggin. 1998 “Back to the Future: The Rediscovery of Implementation Studies,” Policy Currents, 8(3) September, Newsletter of the Public Policy Section, American Political Science Association.
Lester, James and Joseph Stewart. 1996. Public Policy: An Evolutionary Approach (Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing Co).
Lin, Hsin-I. 2002. “Creating Bases for Global Competitiveness: An Interview with Vice Premier Lin Hsin-I”, in Cristina Pi-Fen Chen, “Special Report: Taiwan Moves Toward Free Ports,” Sinorama Magazine, vol.99 (December), pp. 6~8.
Ling, Tom. 2002. “Delivering Joined-Up Government in the UK: Dimensions, Issue and Problems,” Public Administration, vol. 80, no. 4(Winter), pp.
615~642.
Lissack, Michael and Hugh P. Gunz. eds. 1999. Managing Complexity in Organiza-tions: A View in Many Directions (Westport, CT: Quorum Books).
Long, Edward and Aimee Franklin. 2004. “The Paradox of Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act: Top-Down Direction for Bottom-Up Implementation,” Public Administration Review, vol. 64, no. 3(May), pp.
309~319.
Matland, Richard. 1995. “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity Confl ict Model of Policy Implementation,” Journal of Public Ad-ministration Research and Theory, vol. 5, no. 2(April), pp. 145~174.
Munro, John. 1993. “California Water Politics: Explaining Policy Change in a Congnitively Polarized Subsystem,” in Sabatier, Paul and Hank Jenkins-Smith eds., Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press), pp. 105~127.
Newman, Janet. 2001. Modern Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society (London: Sage Publications).
OɅMahony, Hugh ed. 1998. Opportunities for Container Ports: A Cargo Systems Report (London: IIR Publications Ltd).
Peffley, Mark and Jon Hurwitz. 1985. “A Hierarchical Model of Attitude Constraint,” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 29, no. 4(November), pp. 871~890.
Peng, Wen-Shien. 2000. “The Adaptation of Taiwan’s Administrative Organizations to Its Economic Development,” International Journal of Public Administrati-on, vol. 23, no. 10(October), pp. 1815~1831.
Perry, James, Ann Marie Thomas, Mary Tschirhart, Debra Mesch, and Geunjoo Lee. 1999. “Inside a Swiss Army Knife: An Assessment of AmeriCorps,”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 9, no. 2. Data from http://www.questia.com (accessel: November 09, 2006).
Peters, Guy. 1998. “Managing Horizontal Government: the Politics of Coordination,” Public Administration, vol.76, no. 2(Summer), pp. 295~311.
Pressman, Jeffrey and Aaron Wildavsky. 1984. Implementation (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press).
Riker, William. 1980. “Implications from the Dis-equilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions,” American Political Science Review, no. 74(June), pp. 432~446.
Riker, William. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Rhodes, Rod. 1997. Understanding Governance (Buckingham, Open University Press).
Sabatier, Paul. 1998. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and Relevance for Europe,” Journal of European Public Policy, no. 5(March), pp.
98~130.
Sabatier, Paul. 1986. “Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis,” Journal of Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 1(January), pp. 21~48.
Sabatier, Paul and Jenkins-Smith, Hank. 1999. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment,” in Paul Sabatier ed. Theories of the Policy Pro-cess (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), pp. 117~166.
Sabatier, Paul and Jenkins-Smith, Hank. eds. 1993. Policy Change and Learning:
An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
Schofi eld, Jill. 2001. “Time for a Revival? Public Policy Implementation: A Review of the Literature and an Agenda for Future Research,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 3, no. 3(September), pp. 245~263.
Scheberle, Denise. 1997. Federalism and Environmental Policy: Trust and the Po-litics of Implementation (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press).
Teisman, Geert and Erik-Hans Klijn. 2002. “Partnership Arrangements:
Governmental Rhetoric or Governance Scheme,” Public Administration Re-view, vol. 62, no. 2(March/April), pp. 189~198.
Teisman, Geert. 2001. Creating Abilities for Cooperative Governance Processes, Inaugural Speech, (Rotterdam: Erasmus University).
Thompson, James. 2000. “Reinvention as Reform: Assessing the National Performance Review,” Public Administration Review, vol. 60, no.
6(November/December), pp. 522~534.
Weible, Christopher, Paul Sabatier, and Mark Lubell. 2004. “A Comparison of a Collaborative and Top-Down Approach to the Use of Science in Policy:
Establishing Marine Protected Areas in California,” Policy Studies Journal, vol. 32, no. 2(May), pp. 187~207.
World Cargo News, February 2005. http://www.worldcargonews.com/
places)asia)china.htm (accessed: Jonuary 01,2007).
Worsham, Jeffery. 1997. Other People’s Money: Policy Change, Congress, and Bank Regulation (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
Zafonte, Matthew and Paul Sabatier. 2004. “Short-Term versus Long-Term Coalitions in the Policy Process: Automotive Pollution Control 1963-1989,”
Policy Studies Journal, vol. 32, no. 1(February), pp. 75~107.