Chinese Public Administration CPAR Review Volume 8 Issue 2, December 2017 In the Twilight Zone of Collaborative Disaster Prevention? The Experience of Flood Control in Different Levels of Government in Taiwan Ming-feng Kuo *, Chun-yuan Wang † * National Taiwan University, Taiwan † Central Police University, Taiwan With the coming of risk society, natural and human-made disasters have challenged the governance capacity of national and local governments. Although decentralization is a governance trend in various fields, little is known about the appropriate mode and crucial factors influencing its capacity for disaster management. The authors contend that a twilight zone exists between decentralization and centralization, and thus the purpose of this study is to explore how different levels of governments in Taiwan may collaborate in flood control effectively. By conducting in-depth interviews with public officials in Taiwan’s branches of flood control in central and local governments, we analyzed the existing conflicts of power and responsibility between central- and local authorities. We defined the factors that influence the construction of effective collaboration across the levels of governments. Based on our empirical findings, this study ultimately makes policy suggestions to facilitate the establishment of mechanisms for effective governance. Keywords: centralization, decentralization, collaborative disaster prevention, flood control, local governance, Taiwan INTRODUCTION in the act and the trend of decentralization has been confirmed in Taiwan, many controversies related to xamining how different levels of government power and responsibility have still emerged between have worked effectively and collaboratively central and local governments in the last two decades. Eduring disaster management has raised a big question and attracted considerable attention One of the most prominent cases in Taiwan is the dispute in academia and practice (Drabek, 1985; Kapucu, of flood control. Since 2011, the disaster prevention Arslan, & Demiroz, 2010; Wolensky & Wolensky, budget has been approximately 1.09% -- 1.33% of the 1990). In Taiwan, the Local Government Act was central government’s annual general budget. In 2015 passed by the Legislative Yuan in 1999, regulating the and 2016, the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ budget for three levels, structures, and self-government affairs flood and drought control accounted for more than 49% of the local government. In 2009, the legislature of the entire disaster prevention budget (The Executive passed amendments to the Local Government Act to Yuan, 2016). On one hand, one of the more intriguing provide a legal basis for cities and counties to merge issues prevailing in Taiwan throughout the last few or upgrade to special municipalities in order to devote years has been the outcomes of flood control while the more power and responsibility to the authorities at central government invested so much in this field. On the local level (Chao, 2009, pp. 48–51). Although the the other hand, how government at different levels work clear scope of autonomic affairs has been identified more effectively has also drawn a lot of attention. The authors would like to express our appreciation that part of this study was supported by the research grant from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. (103-2410-H-015-006-). Address correspondence to the author Dr. Wang at [email protected]. View this article at cpar.net Kuo & Wang • 68 Twilight Zone of Collaborative Disaster Prevention Literature on disaster management in Taiwan has organizations—schools, public housing department, addressed the importance of collaboration (Kuo, Wang, park training programs—have the authority to make Chang, & Li, 2015; Wu, Chang, & Collins, 2015; Wu, their own decisions.” In practical terms, studies Chang, & Tso, 2016). In the case of flood control in have demonstrated increased decentralization in Taiwan, according to Articles 18 and 19 of the Local most OECD countries and developing countries Government Act, the rectification and management of during the last three decades (Rondinelli, 1981; rivers, the conservation of catchment areas, and the Stegarescu, 2005). On the other hand, those against construction and management of flood-prevention decentralization emphasize the problems of the tragedy and drainage systems in the special municipality and of the commons (Hardin, 1968), the logic of collective county or city are local government affairs. For several action (Olsen, 1965), and the inabilities of the local reasons, the Executive Yuan passed the Flood-prone authority (Prud’Homme, 1995; Segal, 1997). These Area Management Plan (2006–2013) and Integrated arguments seem plausible although they tend to lead River Basin Management Plan (2014–2019), both of to a dichotomy of centralization and decentralization. which rely on a centralized orientation, generating two major questions for this study:(1) what factors Given this background, this paper starts with an might influence the existence of the twilight zone overview of the theoretical debates of centralization of centralization–decentralization? And (2) how can and decentralization. It subsequently identifies a the different levels of government collaborate more mixed authority model and explores the effective effectively in flood control once the twilight zone of governance factors in it. In this paper, an empirical centralization–decentralization appears? study with qualitative data of flood control issues in Taiwan is analyzed. The scope of intergovernmental relations involves at least cross-boundary governance (Daley, 2008), CENTRALIZATION VERSUS multilevel governance (Peters & Pierre, 2001), and DECENTRALIZATION IN DISASTER collaborative public management (Ansell & Gash, PREVENTION 2007; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012). These various approaches discuss the phenomenon of In recent years, scholars have debated the nature conflicts and cooperation across levels of government and merits of centralization and decentralization in via vertical systems, horizontal relations, and the academia and the real world. Centralization refers perspectives of governance (Lue, 2012). The purpose to the concentration of a government’s power and of this study is to emphasize and understand the its overwhelming coercive powers; decentralization vertical system of intergovernmental relations; is defined as empowering the authorities and therefore, we elaborated the theoretical centralization– administrative responsibilities over public functions decentralization framework for further discussions. or policies from the national level to the local level (De Vries, 2000, p. 193). Multiple forms of decentralization, Decentralization has been a core issue debated greatly such as de-concentration, devolution, and delegation, in public administration in the past decades (Elcock, as well as factors such as administrative, fiscal, and 1986; Hankla & Downs, 2010; Kwon, 2013; Smoke, political dimensions have been suggested in the 2015). For those in favor of decentralization, it was literature (Rondinelli, Nellis, & Cheema, 1983). considered as a means of overcoming the limitations of centrally controlled national planning and moving However, the field has not reached consensus in closer to solving the problems (De Vries, 2000, p. 197). terms of how centralization and decentralization These problems include a lack of responsiveness and influence the effectiveness and efficiency of public accountability to local citizens. For example, Osborne governance. Of the two distinctive schools in public and Gaebler (1993, p. 251) argued that “in today’s world administration, academics favoring the centralization things simply work better if those working in public approach argue that centralized planning and control 69 • Chinese Public Administration Review Volume 8 Issue 2, December 2017 systems can enhance the integration, uniformity, public services’ efficacy delivered to citizens. decisiveness, and cost-efficiency for public service Nowadays, the focus is more on the concepts of (De Vries, 2000, p. 202). They argue that, when decentralization and the implementation of programs dealing with public affairs, problems inevitably arise for local governance. Such a tendency toward in terms of “the tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, decentralization has been observed in both developed 1968), “the free-rider problem” (Olsen, 1965; Ostrom, and developing countries worldwide (De Vries, 2000, 1990), and “the prisoner’s dilemma” (Daws, 1975). p. 193), which resulted from various factors, such To avoid such “tragedies,” scholars have proposed the as the bottom-up demand (e.g., post-Communist need for a centralized governance framework, such as Europe), aspirations of nationalist movements (e.g., the Leviathan country derived from the classic theme Spain, Belgium, United Kingdom, Canada, Indonesia, put forth by Thomas Hobbes (1968). Researchers Nigeria, Russia), the post-war peace-building have further pointed out that these problems “cannot process (e.g., Uganda, South Africa, Cambodia, be solved by cooperation” and “the rationale for Iraq), and even the role of international development government with coercive powers is overwhelming” agencies (Brinkerhoff & Coston, 1999; Gordin, (De Vries, 2000, p. 199). 2010; Rondinelli, 1981; Rondinelli, McCullough, & Johnson, 1983; Rondinelli, Nellis, & Cheema, 1983). Scholars favoring the decentralization approach also came up with strong theoretical arguments. THE TWILIGHT