6 97 Uniting Food and the Countryside The Contemporary Taiwanese Case

Seitaro MAENO

1. Introduction

This paper introduces a new trend in Taiwanese social movements and practice after the 2000s. Taiwan or the Republic of China (ROC) was known by its rapid industrial growth and called the “Asian miracle” in the 1980s. Political liberalization and democratization followed growth in the economic field. Social or political activists constructed mutual networks during this democratizing period. Today’s practitioners are al- so utilizing these networks of social movements. When speaking with Taiwanese activists, one may be surprised at their broad networks of re- lationships. Recent social practices in Taiwan seem not to be as radical as those in the early period of democratization. However, this does not mean that social movements are powerless in Taiwanese society. The occupation of parliament in 2014 proved their capacity for mobilization. There is some social imbalance remaining between primary and other economic sectors, and between rural and urban areas. These are the negative lega- cies of economic development. Interest in social injustice is now awak- ening people to social practices (Ho 2014, pp. 114–115).

2. Social movements and the historical context in Taiwan

2-1. The society in historical perspective1 Taiwan is an island in the South China Sea. Twenty-three million peo- ple live on its mainland and other islands. The area is almost as large as 98 Seitaro MAENO

the Netherlands (36,000 sq. km). Austronesian aborigines built their so- ciety in Taiwan during prehistoric time. The relationship with continen- tal China was not so close in this era. After a short period of European colonization by Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands, the Qing dynasty founded their rule over the island in the late 17th century. Chinese mi- grants from Hokkien and Kwangtong Province engaged in settled culti- vation in the early period of colonization. In 1894, the Sino-Japanese war broke out and the Qing dynasty ced- ed Taiwan to imperial Japan. The Japanese ruled Taiwan for 50 years before their empire went to ruin in WWII. On the other hand, the Chi- nese nationalist party (KMT) took over the Qing dynasty in 1911. KMT founded a new republic (ROC) in continental China. Taiwan re- turned to ROC government after WWII. In 1949, ROC was defeated by communist China (the People’s Republic of China, (PRC)) in a civil war. ROC leaders transferred their government from continental China to Taiwan. The ROC military and emigres followed their leaders into exile and these emigres generated diverse ethnicity in Taiwan. President Chiang Kai-shek (1887–1975) and his son Chiang Ching- kuo (1948–1988) ruled Taiwan in the Western bloc. On February 28, 1947, the ROC government suppressed Taiwanese revolt by the mili- tary. Afterwards, political liberty was strictly limited. Ironically, under the KMT regime Taiwan experienced great change. Taiwanese society had been transformed from an agricultural to an industrial society. This rapid economic development was called the “Asian economic miracle” (Ishida 1999, pp. 36–40). At the same time, the developmental state has sacrificed its agricultural sector and rural areas to achieve industrializa- tion (Ishida 1999, pp. 49–76). In January 1988, President Chiang Ch- ing-kuo died in office and Vice-president Lee Teng-hui became the first Taiwanese president of the ROC. His presidency began to promote and develop democratizing reforms.

2-2. Tradition and Innovation of social movement It was in the 1970s that the “non-party” or non-KMT activists appeared

1 This section is mainly based on Copper (2007, pp. 1–28). Uniting Food and the Countryside 99 in Taiwanese politics. Their early activity was as monitors for local elec- tions. Such activity sometimes turned into riots. In 1977, demonstrators burned the police station in a city in northern Taiwan. Some non-KMT candidates put up candidates in a political division of the KMT and won a seat among the national representatives (Wakabayashi 1992, pp. 191– 197, Ho and Hsiao 2006, pp. 47–53). In 1986, “non-party” activists founded the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), and put an end to KMT’s dictatorship. Hsiao (2010) says the decade of the 1980s was a golden age of social movements in Taiwan (Hsiao 2010, p. 5). People in a restricted political space mobilized “self-solving” activities to oppose local government. They tried to solve local environmental issues by themselves. Local pollution was a sub-product of rapid industrialization. The right wing of the KMT regarded environmental, industrial, and farmers’ movements as “outlaws” in the early 1990s. In fact, demonstra- tions became less violent than in the 1980s (Ho 2006, pp. 180–181, Ho and Hsiao 2006, pp. 137–140). Activists formed mutual networks to enhance their ability to negotiate with the government (Ho 2006, pp. 191–200). In 2000, the DPP candidate Chen Shui-bian defeated the KMT can- didate and started his eight years’ presidency. Hsiao (2010) writes that activists experienced “days of honeymoon and disappointment” with the administration under the DPP government (Hsiao 2010, p. 9). The DPP was relatively “sympathetic” to social movements. Civil activists be- gan to participate in the public decision-making process (Ho 2006, pp. 155–164, Hoshi 2013, pp. 66–71). On the other hand, some groups began to protest the DPP government (Ho 2006, pp. 222–225). KMT also chose a strategy for mobilizing demonstrations to confront DPP policy (Ho 2006, pp. 228–229). In 2006, non-DPP groups, including organized “Red-shirt troops” moved a “million voices against corruption and President Chen’s movement.” Demonstrations mobilized by the two political camps became a part of Taiwanese politics. KMT’s leader Ma Ying-jeou put an end to the DPP’s administration in the 2008 election. The Taiwanese social movements had confronted a new environment. Activists lost their influence on the ruling party (Ho 2014, pp. 110– 112) and a changed policy with continental China and financial tsunami 100 Seitaro MAENO

in 2008 affected the society. The number of social protests increased once again in 2009 (Ho 2014, pp. 104–106).

3. Bridging urban and rural society

3-1. Farmers in the street “Self-solving” collective protests appeared in the 1980s (Ho and Hsiao 2006, pp. 61–65). Inhabitants attempted to solve local pollutions in- stead of unreliable local administration. They called on multiple ways for solving environmental problems: petitions to local politicians, barri- cading communities, breaking productive facilities, or organizing vigi- lante groups (Ho 2006, pp. 61–65). In the early 1980s, self-solving involved nothing but conflicts inside the local community. Mobilization for protests was conducted through individual networks. They lacked cooperation within different local communities, and suffered from insufficient solidarity (Ho 2006, pp. 9–10, p. 65). It was not until large-scale protests occurred, such as the anti-Sunko factory movement or the anti-Du Pont factory move- ment in the 1980s, that local people organized beyond communities (Ho 2006, pp. 17–18). Another origin of the Taiwanese environmental movement was the conservation activities of professional ecologists and intellectuals in the 1970s. However, the two streams of activism, self- solving and ecologist activity, did not have direct relations with each other (Ho 2006, pp. 38–39, pp. 41–42, Ho and Hsiao 2006, pp. 58– 61). Increasingly, local intellectuals and resource mobilization from out- side the community encouraged ecological and anti-pollution move- ments to work together (Ho 2006, pp. 140–142, Ho and Hsiao 2006, pp. 260–269).2 The Anti-Meinung dam movement in Kaosiung County was a typical case of broader mobilization. Of course, there are also small-scale local protests today. Local activists have built loose and broad networks through larger-scale protests (Wang and Woods 2013,

2 For information about the relationship of Anti-Meinung dam movement and com- munity building, see Hoshi (2013). Uniting Food and the Countryside 101 pp. 209–210). According to Ting (2011), protesting farmers in Taiwan appeared in the streets in the late 1980s. The first example was the December 8th in- cident in 1986, which protested against foreign fruit importation. In 1988, the “March 20th incident” broke out. Several thousand farmers demonstrated in Taipei city center. As the demonstrators heated up, they were transformed into a riot. Police arrested 93 rioters (Ho and Hsiao 2006, p. 90, Ting 2010, pp. 282–284). The Taiwanese affiliation with the WTO in 2002 shocked the agricultural products market. Local farmers carried out the “1123 living with agriculture” demonstration in Taipei to protest the entry into WTO. It was the largest farmers’ dem- onstration since WWII (Ting 2010, pp. 284–287). Increasing administrative land expropriation made farmers rise up again. Land expropriation itself was legally conducted after WWII. However, serial legal amendments in the 2000s enabled local govern- ment to expropriate land more easily (i.e., the amendment of the agri- cultural development act in 2000, enactment of industrial innovation statutes in 2010, and amendment of the land expropriation act in 2012). The number of cases of clashes between inhabitants and local adminis- tration had increased. The most symbolic incident occurred in Dapu Village in Miau-li County in June 2010. On that night, the Miau-li gov- ernment enforced expropriation with power shovels (Tsai 2010, pp. 323–329, Hsu 2013, pp. 63–66). Dapu became a symbol for the followers of the land justice movement. Inhabitants organized self-solv- ing associations the same as former local “self-solving” groups, but they had external support this time. Self-solving was no longer a conflict in the local community. Actually, forceful land expropriation occurred not only on the rural side. Residential areas were also expropriated in the city periphery or even in the city center of Taipei. These were the quar- ters of the retired soldiers, ethnic minorities, or other vulnerable people (Li 2013, pp. 26–46). Activists had formed horizontal alliances through these anti-land expropriation movements. The Taiwan Rural Front (TRF) was one of the groups that played a leading role in the land justice movement. The group was founded by scholars, journalists, university students, and other social activists as crit- 102 Seitaro MAENO

ical discussion groups against the rural rejuvenation bill in 2008 (Tsai 2010, p. 321). Despite their protest, the bill was enacted in the parlia- ment in 2010. After the enactment, TRF turned their effort to the land expropriation issues. When the Tapu case occurred in 2011, TRF decid- ed to move to night demonstrations on July 17. Dapu, Erlin, and other local self-solving groups founded the “farmland protection league” in 2010 and TRF supported their united demonstration in Taipei. This “717 night demonstration” mobilized 1,000 farmers and 3,500 followers in front of the presidential office with the slogan “Land justice; Stop bad enclosure laws” (Tsai 2010, pp. 323–324). Groups such as TRF are not established entities, but are loosely struc- tured road networks. In fact, TRF’s influence over its members was lim- ited. Tsai Pei-hui, who herself is a key figure in TRF, describes TRF as an organization of horizontal networks (Tsai 2010, p. 320). TRF “mem- bers” take part in various activities. Some support peasant livelihoods, others encourage food education. If it is needed, participants of the TRF network can mobilize these “members.” However, this does not mean TRF always takes collective action. A typical example of TRF’s branch activity is the peasant supporting activity in Chuanghua District. These members were working in Xizhou township office after university gradu- ation. They had joined TRF in their student days. In 2011, the Chuan- ghua irrigation association attempted to supply irrigation water for the central Taiwanese science park for industrial use. The young practitio- ners in Xizhou joined a local self-solving group and demonstrated in Taipei with a thousand local farmers (Hsu 2013, pp. 56–57, pp. 64– 65). As mentioned above, participating in local environmental move- ments was a tradition among Taiwanese social movements. Not satisfied with only this kind of participation, they tried a new practice. It was a project for the conservation of ecological wetland and rice production in Xizhou. Rice farmers called for “guardians” outside of the community, and supplied them with pesticide-free rice in exchange for funding (“guardians” pay 80 thousand yuan per 0.2 ha wetland).3 It was a new branch rooted in the land justice movement that connected local and

3 According to interviews and leaflets published by Xizhou. Uniting Food and the Countryside 103 urban society.

3-2. Activities for the “homeland” Self-solving practices were already seen in local society. Ho (2006) notes that Taiwanese environmental movements were supported by local in- habitants rather than intellectuals. Their primitive sense of a homeland encouraged the protests to continue (Ho 2006, pp. 80–82). Such feel- ings for their own community were connected with the cultural move- ment of Taiwanization and indigenization in the 1990s. In fact, Taiwan was nothing but a temporary residence for the KMT elites. KMT and ROC government existed for recovering and uniting their “real” home- land, continental China. Accordingly, information on Taiwanese local history was omitted from educational curriculum under KMT regime. President Lee Teng-hui attempted to change China-oriented opposition through cultural policy. The community building movement is a local practice that began in the 1990s. Local working groups appeared to study their homeland in early 1990s. These “grassroots historians” contributed to organizing hu- man resources in the local society. Some of them, in turn, engaged in community organizing or community building (Ho and Hsiao 2006, pp. 160–161). They tried to enhance a sense of community through “Taiwanese” local history and culture. The Lee government, which ad- opted Taiwanization policy, supported these local actions (Ho and Hsiao 2006, pp. 162–163). Assistance on policy for the community building movement was expanded by Chen’s DPP government. These processes tied local practitioners to one another. Some self-solving activ- ists were transformed into community building workers. Some began to participate in food and agricultural activities. The Tugou association of rural culture and community building (TARCCB) is a typical case. In 2000, inhabitants began self-solving ac- tivities against the Taiwan Sugar Corporation, which dumped waste soil. After removing the waste, inhabitants started community building activ- ities to recover their land.4 The group accepted university students and

4 About early organization, see Lu (2006). 104 Seitaro MAENO

promoted “Art village or village art” activities. Activities were supported by external human resources. Invited artists and some villagers created contemporary art in the village. Events themselves helped to make new networks with outsiders. Qimei community college in Kaohsiung Coun- ty is also a case in which self-solving activists joined in community building. Its founders had participated in the anti-dam movement in 2001. Members organized community educational associations (com- munity college) after the protest. Their practices were expanded to the prevailing organic rice and farmers’ markets (Wu 2005, pp. 165–169, Lai and Tan 2011, p. 20). These actions for their “homeland” or local society were now involving outsiders.

3-3. Connection through farmers market Taiwan had formed a peasant-based farming system through agricultural reform in the 1950s. It broke up the large land-holding system, but at the same time, farmers had low competencies because of their small-scale management practices. Low competency in agricultural production led to low income in peasants’ livelihoods. Recently, farmers’ markets have appeared in urban areas to support local farmers. Farmers’ markets are a traditional practice in the U.S. and EU states.5 In farmers’ markets, management organizations provide space for farmers to sell their prod- ucts, which enables consumers to buy food directly from their produc- ers. Lai and Tan (2011) point out that the earliest case in Taiwan was Qimei farmers market founded in 2006 (Lai and Tan 2011, p. 20). They are basically organized by civil groups or academic organizations. The cycles for holding markets are different in every market; some are held once a week, some once a month. There are united conferences among market organizers and the first conference was held in 2010 (Lai and Tan 2011, p. 20).

5 The number of farmers market has increased in the USA since the mid-1990s. There are 8,268 markets in 2014. See USDA, 2015. Farmers Markets and Direct-to- Consumer Marketing [online]. Available from: https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/ local-regional/farmers-markets-and-direct-consumer-marketing [Accessed 1 March 2016]. Uniting Food and the Countryside 105

These new farmers markets are different from traditional markets in the ways they are organized. Of course, they will not replace traditional markets. It is rather to say their competence is not strong across the whole agricultural market. They have more than a few disadvantages: they are expensive, there is a shortage of goods, and short opening times (Lai and Tan 2011, p. 21). The differences between them and tradition- al markets lie in other areas as well. First, these markets are an alternative path to connect consumers and producers directly. For farmers, it is eas- ier to join farmers’ markets than to organize cooperative farming. Sec- ond, some markets prepare study tours or learning programs for civil so- ciety and consumers. Members can exchange information through par- ticipating (Lai and Tan 2011, p. 27, pp. 31–32). In fact, demands in urban areas have promoted the formation of alter- native paths. Recent food safety incidents are closely related to this trend. Two major incidents made TV news headlines in the 2010s: the ractopamine pollution case of beef in 2012, and food oil pollution case in 2014. Beef and oil were essential for everyday diets in Taiwan. These polluted foods were provided by many stores and restaurants, and the incidents deeply shocked society. Cooperative purchase associations were another kind of trial for urban habitants to build alternative paths. To- day, some of these associations also have joined in direct support to farmers (Wu 2005, pp. 102–109).6 Moore (2006) presents a typology of three kinds of farmers’ markets from an institutional and regulational perspective, namely, pioneer, pri- vate, and participating markets (Moore 2006, pp. 25–28). To some ex- tent, his typology can be applied to the Taiwanese farmers’ markets. In the Taiwanese case, market categories are divided into 1) small-scale models for community building activities, 2) loose regulations aimed at communicating and networking for participants, and 3) tight regula- tions aimed at forming solid ties. Actually, there are many local organi- zations that try to hold farmers’ markets. However, it is quite difficult

6 The Taiwanese consumers’ movement originated in the late 1970s. The Consumers Foundation of Chinese Taipei was founded in 1979 (Ho and Hsiao 2006, pp. 56– 57). 106 Seitaro MAENO

for regulation and economic viability to go together (Moore 2006, p. 28). Not a few markets regard urban consumers as the main targets for economic viability. One of the successful farmers markets is the “248 farmers’ market.” They have six weekly market places, five daily sale places, and one educational site. All of the points are within Taipei area.7 On the other hand, Wanyao market, which is managed by TRF, is an instance of enforcing the regulation. In 2009, Typhoon Morakot and floods disinterred central Taiwan. TRF started a rural reconstruction project, and soon it expanded to the rural peasants’ revitalization proj- ect. TRF chose the farmers’ market system to support the reconstruction of agriculture (Su 2014, pp. 158–163).8 Rural practice groups like TRF and Qimei community college encouraged local groups to connect with the whole of Taiwan. These organizations became a hub or a model for matching rural and urban problems.

4. Resurgence and reunion: Sunflower movement in 2014

As described above, social activities after the 2000s created local leaders who have the capacity for solving many kinds of problems: environ- ment, food production, land expropriation, organic farming, farmers market, community building, etc. The Sunflower movement in 2014 was a result of mobilization and reunion of these “citizens.” After President Ma Ying-jeou took office in 2008, the KMT govern- ment promoted economic exchange with continental China, i.e., with the PRC. In 2013, the government signed a service trade agreement with the PRC. The agreement allows two areas to mutually open trades in services including financial and transporting sectors. Some scholars expected Chinese companies would move in Taiwanese transportation and their financial market. The agreement awaited ratification by the parliament (the Legislative Yuan) at the beginning of 2014. On March

7 The “sell to city residents” trend is also seen in majority of markets in the US (Woods 2005, pp.153–154). 8 For information about TRF’s reconstruction program, see Chen et al. (2011). Uniting Food and the Countryside 107

18, student activists occupied the Taiwanese parliament and claimed to reconsider the agreement. Occupation by the students continued from March 18 to April 10. During the long-term occupation, many civilians, students, and activists, including the TRF came to Taipei to support the occupation. They surrounded the parliament from outside to defend the occupying activists. On March 30, half a million people gathered and demonstrated in front of presidential office.9 The gathered people held sunflowers as an emblem, so the media called them the “sunflower movement.” In the end, the Ma government yielded to the demand and decided to stop deliberation on the agreement until a supervisory system was legitimated (Ho 2015, pp. 82–91). During the days of occupation, many posters and leaflets were distrib- uted. On the first page, one of the leaflets said:

“Consumers, How can we save Taiwanese agriculture? It’s easy, let’s eat meals!”10

The anonymous author claims that Taiwanese agriculture and food will be controlled through alien transport companies in the following pages. There was no doubt: people’s daily lives were a main theme in the occu- pying movement. Although there was a kind of nationalistic enthusiasm against PRC, we can also see people’s aspirations for social justice in ev- eryday life. Students sprayed “Revolution is justice” on the wall of par- liament, which stirred up people’s feelings of social injustice. The Sunflower movement was a successor to the accumulation of pre- vious social movements discussed above.11 Student leader, Chen Wei- ting and his fellows engaged with the land justice movement and other

9 Reported by Liberty times, 2014. Liberty times. 31 March, p. 1. 10 Quoted from a leaflet “Consumers, How can we save Taiwanese Agriculture? It’s easy, let’s eat meals! Discussing the possible impacts on Taiwanese agriculture by CSSTA and free economic pilot zones. 11 Students and their supporters wore black T-shirts and were called the “Black-shirt troops.” The uniform came from the wild strawberry movement, who were against the Ma government in 2008. 108 Seitaro MAENO

environmental movements.12 Occupied parliament became a focus for the practitioners who had engaged with former movements. The move- ment was supported by many local activists in agriculture and commu- nity building as well as by the self-solving groups. They expressed an an- ger against the social structures that forced the rural people to hold neg- ative industrial legacies.13 The land justice movement had been connected with agricultural and community building movements. Ur- ban consumers also began to be related to the rural areas through food safety incidents. The “urban civilian” and “rural civilian” were connected in the networks of social movements. Of course, social movements themselves are polyphonic. They some- times involve dislocation. Urban consumers demand food safety. Rural inhabitants, on the other hand, hope for local development.14 Yet given this ambivalence, there are signs of a new coalition, and innovation. We should pay attention to these social forces that would generate a new Taiwanese politics.

References

Copper, J., 2015. Introduction. In: Historical Dictionary of Taiwan (Republic of China). 4th ed. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1–50. Ho, M., 2006. Luse Minzhu: Taiwan huanjing yundong de yanjiu (in Chinese). Taipei: Socio. Ho, M., 2014. The resurgence of social movements under the Ma Ying-jeou government: A political opportunity structure perspective. In: J. P. Cabestan, and J. De Lisle, eds. Political Changes in Taiwan Under Ma Ying-jeou: Partisan Conflict, Policy Choices, External Constraints and Security Challenges. London: Routledge, 100–119. Ho, M., 2015. Occupy Congress in Taiwan: Political opportunities, threats and the Sun- flower Movement. Journal of East Asian Studies, 15 (1), 69–97.

12 Wu, J. (2013). Apple daily, 2013. Shengyuan Dapu chuanhuan Liu Zhenghong huodong, bao lingxing tuiji. Apple daily, 14 September [online] Available from: http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20130914/258951/ [Ac- cessed 1 March 2016]. 13 An independent band, “The village armed youth band” played in occupied parlia- ment. 14 Wu (2005) writes “Just caring about health, not caring about environment” about urban consumers’ attitudes. In fact, there is a “vegetable factory” of water cultivation that is managed by the farmer’s market. Uniting Food and the Countryside 109

Ho, M., and Hsiao, H., 2006. Taiwan Quanzhi shehuizhi, shehuiyundong pian (in Chinese). Taipei: Academia Historica. Hoshi, J., 2013. Gendai Taiwan kommuniti undou no chiiki shakai gaku: Takao ken mino chin ni okeru shakai undou, minshuka, shaku soutaieizou (in Japanese). Tokyo: Ochanomizushobo. Hsiao, H., 2010. Taiwan shehui yundong de tiaozhan yu tupo. In: H. Hsiao, and C. Ku, eds.,Taiwan shehui yundong zaichufa (in Chinese). Taipei: Chu-Liu Book Company, 3–10. Hsu, Y., 2013.·Kexueyuanqu yu nongdi Ruguo zhengfu zongshi zimenjia zhan zai yiqi, women jiu yao chuangzaochu bu yiyang de gonggong jiazhi. In: C. Kwang. ed. Gongmin bu lengxue: Xinshiji Taiwan gongmin xingdong shijianbo (in Chinese). Taipei: Under Table, 47–66. Ishida, H., 1999. Taiwan Keizai no kouzou to tenkai: Taiwan ha “kaihatsu dokusai” no moderu ka (in Japanese). Tokyo: Otsuki Shoten Publishers. Lai, F., and Tan, H., 2011. Taiwan Hupu nongxue shiji de xingcheng guocheng: xing- dongzhe wangluo lilun de guandian (in Chinese). Journal of Geographical Research, 54, 19–42. Li, Y., 2013. Dugeng yu baoli poqian bei shangye fazhan yu zibenzhuyi suo bangjia de du- shiguihua zhengce. In: C. Kwang, ed. Gongmin bu lengxue: Xinshiji Taiwan gongmin xing- dong shijianbo (in Chinese). Taipei: Under Table, 26–46. Lu, Y., 2006. Dongshou yingzao zan de suozai: Tainan xian Tugou.nongcun zili yinhzao jingyan (in Chinese). Thesis (MA). National Tainan University. Moore, O., 2006. What farmers’ markets say about the post organic movement in Ireland. In: G. Hold, and M. Reed, eds. Sociological perspectives of organic agriculture: From pioneer to policy. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 18–36. Su, Z., 2014. Ni yuqi zai nongfu ahiji yujian shenme? In: Haoran jijinhui zuozhequn ed. Xiaonong fugeng: haoshicai, haoshengtai, haoshiji, haoluxing (in Chinese). Taipei: Azoth books and Reveal books, 158–163. Ting, W., 2011. Taiwan nongmin yundong (in Chinese). Agricultural Extension Anthology, 56, 281–290. Tsai, P., 2010. Zhenshi shi yichang shehui xingdong: fansi Taiwan nongcun zhenxian de xingdong yu zhuzhi (in Chinese). Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies, 79, 319– 339. Wakabayashi, M., 1992. Taiwan: Bunretsu kokka to minshuka (in Japanese). University of Tokyo Press. Wang, K., and Woods, M., 2013. The role of Guanxi in rural social movements: Two case studies from Taiwan. Journal of Agrarian Change, 13 (2), 197–212. Woods, M., 2005. Rural geography: Processes, Responses and Experiences in Rural Restructuring. London: Sage. Wu, T., 2005. Taiwan de youji nongye (in Chinese). Taipei: Walkers Cultural Print.