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.
AnsellC. & GashA. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.
2.
BanninkD. & OssewaardeR. (2011). Decentralization: New modes of governance and administrative responsibility.Administration and Society, 44(5), 595–624.
3.
BaeY.JooY. M. & WonS. Y. (2016). Decentralization and collaborative disaster governance: Evidence from South Korea.Habitat International, 52, 50–56.
4.
BhattG. (2000). A resource-based perspective of developing organizational capabilities for business transformation.Knowledge and Process Management, 7(2), 119–129.
5.
BrinkerhoffD. W. & CostonJ. M. (1999). International development management in a globalized world.Public Administration Review, 59(4), 346–361.
6.
ChaoY. M. (2009). Local governance reform and engineering in Taiwan.Journal of Research and Development Bimonthly, 33(4), 44–59. (in Chinese)
7.
ChaoY. M. (2016). Democratic development and challenges in local governance:Urban governance and regional governance. Taipei: National Taiwan University. (in Chinese)
8.
ChenD. Y. & ChangS. J. (2010). The paradoxes of public-private partnerships.Journal of Civil Service, 2(3), 17–71.
9.
CollinS.-O. (1998). In the twilight zone: A survey of public—private partnerships in Sweden.Public Productivity and Management Review, 21(3), 272–283.
10.
ComfortL. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control.Public Administration Review, 67(s1), 189–197.
11.
ComfortL. K.KoK. & ZagoreckiA. (2004). Coordination in rapidly evolving disaster response systems the role of information.American Behavioral Scientist, 48(3), 295–313.
12.
ConnickS. & InnesJ. (2003). Outcomes of collaborative water policy making: Applying complexity thinking to evaluation.Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46, 177–197.
13.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
DaleyD. M. (2008). Interdisciplinary problems and agency boundaries: Exploring effective cross-agency collaboration.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 477–493.
15.
DawesS. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377–394.
16.
DawsR. M. (1975). Formal models of dilemma in social decision making. In KaplanM. F. & SchwartsS. (Eds.), Human judgement decision process (pp 87–108). New York, NY:Academic Press.
17.
De VriesM. S. (2000). The rise and fall of decentralization: A comparative analysis of arguments and practices in European countries.European Journal of Political Research, 38(2), 193–224.
18.
DrabekT. E. (1985). Managing the emergency response.Public Administration Review, 45, 85–92.
19.
ElazarD. J. (1997). Contrasting unitary and federal systems.International Political Science Review, 18(3), 237–251.
20.
ElcockH. (1986). Decentralization as a tool for social services management: Going local in humberside.Local Government Studies, 12(4), 35–49.
21.
EmersonK.NabatchiT. & BaloghS. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.
22.
FangK. H. & ChenH. H. (2014). Governance and citizen participation: A Q methodology study on the governance of Tamsui River basin.Taiwan Democracy Quarterly, 11(1), 41–101. (in Chinese)
23.
FalletiT. G. (2003). Governing governors: Coalitions and sequences of decentralization in Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico. (Ph.D. dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
24.
FalletiT. G. (2005). A sequential theory of decentralization: Latin American cases in comparative perspective.American Political Science Review, 99(3), 327–334.
25.
GaffikinF. & MorrisseyM. (1998). Why partnerships? Border crossings project (Unpublished report). Belfast: The Urban Institute.
26.
GlasbergenP.BiermannF. & MolA. P. J. (2007). Partnerships, governance and sustainable development: reflections on theory and practice.Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar.
27.
GazleyB. & BrudneyJ. L. (2007). The purpose (and perils) of government—nonprofit partnership.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 389–415.
28.
GopalakrishnanC. & OkadaN. (2007). Designing new institutions for implementing integrated disaster risk management: key elements and future direction. Disasters, 31(4), 353–372.
29.
GonzálezL. (2012). The redistributive effects of centralization and decentralization across subnational units. Latin American Research Review, 47(3), 109–133.
30.
GordinJ. P. (2010). Paradoxes of federalism?: Political institutions and fiscal decentralization in Argentina and Spain.Revista of Federal and Autonomic Studies, 11, 142–168.
31.
HanklaC. & DownsW. (2010). Decentralisation, governance and the structure of local political institutions: Lessons for reform?Local Government Studies, 36(6), 759–783.
32.
HardinG. (1968). The tragedy of the commons.Science, 162, 1243–1248.
33.
HelfatC. E. & PeterafM. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 997–1010.
InnesJ. & BooherD. E. (1999a). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 412–423.
36.
InnesJ. & BooherD. E. (1999b). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning.Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 9–26.
37.
InnesJ. & BooherD. E. (2003). Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. In HajerM. A. & WagenaarH. (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 33–59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
KamenskyJ. M. & BurlinT. J. (2004). Collaboration: Using networks and partnership.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
39.
KapucuN.ArslanT. & DemirozF. (2010). Collaborative emergency management and national emergency management network.Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 19(4), 452–468.
40.
KeastR. & MandellM. P. (2009). What is collaboration?In ARACY Advancing Collaboration Practice (pp. 1–3) (Fact Sheet). Canberra: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth.
41.
KelmanS. (2005). Unleashing change: A study of organizational renewal in government.Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.
42.
KuoM.-F.WangC.-Y.ChangY.-Y. & LiT. S. (2015). Collaborative disaster management: Lessons from Taiwan's local governments. In JingY. (Ed.), The road to collaborative governance in China (pp. 147–170). New York, NY:Palgrave MacMillan.
43.
KusumasariB.AlamQ. & SiddiquiK. (2010). Resource capability for local government in managing disaster.Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 19(4), 438–451.
44.
KwonO. (2013). Fiscal decentralization: An effective tool for government reform? Public Administration, 91(3), 544–560.
45.
LeeC. Y. (2009). The exploration of Tamsui River watershed management from collaborative governance model. China Local Self-Government, 62(10), 3–19. (in Chinese)
46.
LeeC. Y. & LinH. S. (2009). Analyzing on collaborative partnership in Taiwan's central and local governments—The case of a flood control construction project on Han River in Tanzih township in Taichung County. Journal of Public Administration, 31, 49–100.
47.
LijphartA. (1999). Pattern of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
LinH. C. (2006). Introduction to the Cross-ministries Project—Example for regulation project of flood-prone areas.Research and Evaluation Bimonthly, 30(6), 105–114.
49.
LindenR. M. (2002). Working across boundaries: Making collaboration work in government and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
50.
LueY.-C. (2012). The implementation of cross-regional governance: Challenges and prospect. Journal of Civil Service, 4(1), 85–106. (in Chinese)
51.
MillsJ. S. (1861). Utilitarianism, liberty and representative government. London:Dent.
52.
MonteroA. P. & SamuelsD. J. (2004). Decentralization and democracy in Latin America. Notre Dame: IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
53.
MoynihanD. P. (2009). The network governance of crisis response: Case studies of incident command systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 895–915.
54.
MusgraveR. A. (1959). The theory of public finance: A study in public economy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
55.
OatesW. E. (1977). The political economy of fiscal federalism. Toronto: Lexington Books.
56.
OECD. (2001). Local partnerships for better governance. Paris: OECD Publications.
57.
OlsenM. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
OsborneD. & GaeblerT. (1993). Reinventing government. New York: Addison Wesley.
59.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60.
PetersB. G. & PierreJ. (2001). Development in the intergovernmental relations: Towards multi-level governance. Policy & Politics, 29(2), 131–136.
61.
ProvanK. G. & KenisP. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.
62.
Prud'HommeR. (1995). The dangers of decentralization. The World Bank Research Observer, 10(2), 201–220.
63.
RikerW. H. (1975). Federalism. In GreensteinF. I. & PolsbyN. W. (Eds.), Handbook of political science, 5: Governmental institutions and process (pp. 93–172). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
64.
RondinelliD. A. (1981). Government decentralization in comparative perspective: Theory and practice in developing countries. International Review of Administration Science, 2, 133–145.
65.
RondinelliD. A.McCulloughJ. S. & JohnsonR. W. (1983). Analyzing decentralization policies in developing countries: A political-economy framework. Development and Change, 20, 57–87.
66.
RondinelliD. A.NellisJ. R. & CheemaG. S. (1983). Decentralization in developing countries: a review of recent experience. Staff Working Paper. No. SWP 581. Washington, DC:The World Bank.
67.
RyanJ. J. (2004). Decentralization and democratic instability: The case of Costa Rica.Public Administration Review, 64(1), 81–91.
68.
SaltielI. M. (1998). Defining collaborative partnerships.New Directions For Adult and Continuing Education, 79, 5–11.
69.
SegalL. (1997). The pitfalls of political decentralization and proposals for reform: The case of New York City public schools.Public Administration Review, 57(2), 141–149.
70.
SeidenfeldM. (2000). Empowering stakeholders: Limits on collaboration as the basis for flexible regulation. William and Mary Law Review, 41, 411–501.
71.
SmokeP. (2015). Rethinking decentralization: assessing challenges to a popular public sector reform. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 97–112.
72.
StegarescuD. (2005). Public sector decentralisation: Measurement concepts and recent international trends. Fiscal Studies, 26(3), 301–333.
73.
TeismanG. R. & KlijnE. H. (2002). Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhetoric or governance scheme?Public Administration Review, 62(2), 197–205.
74.
TieboutC. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures.Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424.
75.
The Executive Yuan. (2016). Disaster management white paper. Taipei: The Executive Yuan. (in Chinese)
76.
United Evening News. (2010, Sept. 21). Li: The middle managers worried about the NT$ 22 budget. They were incapable for spending money to deal with flooding. Retrieved from https://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NAT3/5862547.shtml
77.
WangC.-Y. & KuoM.-F. (2017). Strategic styles and organizational capability in crisis response in local government.Administration and Society, 49 (6): 798–826.
WernerfeltB. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm.Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
81.
WillisE.GarmanC. & HaggardS. (1999). The politics of decentralization in Latin America.Latin American Research Review, 34(1), 7–56.
82.
WitesmanE. M. & WiseC. R. (2009). The centralization/decentralization paradox in civil service reform: How government structure affects democratic training of civil servants.Public Administration Review, 69(1), 116–127.
83.
WolenskyR. P. & WolenskyK. C. (1990). Local government's problem with disaster management: A literature review and structural analysis.Review of Policy Research, 9(4), 703–725.
84.
WrightD. S. (1988). Understanding intergovernmental relations (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.
85.
WuW. N.ChangS. M. & CollinsB. K. (2015). Mobilizing voluntary organizations in Taiwanese emergency response: citizen engagement and local fire branch heads.Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 14(2), 45–55.
86.
WuW. N.ChangK. & TsoY. E. (2016). If only we knew what we know: Factors for mobilizing citizen participation in community-based emergency preparedness. Chinese Public Administration Review, 7(1), 77–109.
87.
YangY. N. (2009). Research on disaster rescue system: The 88 flood case in Taiwan. Journal of Public Administration, 32, 143–169. (in Chinese).
88.
YangY. N. (2010). Disaster rescuing system of local government—The 921 Earthquake in Taiwan. Disasters, 34(1), 112–136.
