Compensation and Remediation Policy at the Polluted An-Shun Plant Site: Towards Collaborative Governance Peter J. Robertson * School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA, USA and Yungnane Yang Department of Political Science College of Social Sciences National Cheng Kung University Tainan, Taiwan, R.O.C April, 2011 * This research was supported by the Center for Humanities and Social Sciences at National Cheng Kung University, where this author held a position of Visiting Associate Researcher during the preparation of this manuscript.
34
Embed
Compensation and Remediation Policy at the Polluted An ......Compensation and Remediation Policy at the Polluted An-Shun Plant Site: Towards Collaborative Governance In 1981, high
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Compensation and Remediation Policy at the Polluted An-Shun Plant Site:
Towards Collaborative Governance
Peter J. Robertson* School of Policy, Planning, and Development
University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA, USA
and
Yungnane Yang Department of Political Science
College of Social Sciences National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan, R.O.C
April, 2011
* This research was supported by the Center for Humanities and Social Sciences at National Cheng Kung University, where this author held a position of Visiting Associate Researcher during the preparation of this manuscript.
2
Compensation and Remediation Policy at the Polluted An-Shun Plant Site: Towards Collaborative Governance
Abstract
This paper focuses on the processes through which two policy decisions were made pertaining to the pollution at the former site of the An-Shun plant in Tainan, Taiwan. In particular, the analysis addresses the extent to which these processes reflected the principles of collaborative governance. Collaborative governance is first described in terms of three ideal characteristics that differentiate them from more traditional modes and mechanisms for making policy decisions. We then provide details regarding the An-Shun plant case, including characteristics of the affected communities and the stakeholders involved in the decision processes. Drawing on this case, as well as collaborative governance research more generally, we identify a number of “pitfalls” that can get in the way of developing systems and processes that approximate the ideal features identified in the first part of the paper. The final section then outlines implications for public managers who wish to take a proactive role in establishing effective collaborative governance mechanisms, especially in contexts where they are not supported by broader cultural and/or institutional forces.
3
Compensation and Remediation Policy at the Polluted An-Shun Plant Site: Towards Collaborative Governance
In 1981, high levels of toxic pollutants were found in a reservoir near the An-Shun
plant in Tainan, Taiwan, as well as in fish from the reservoir that local citizens were
catching to eat and/or sell. The following year, Taiwan’s central government shut down
the plant for what they indicated were economic reasons. Twenty years later, research
indicated that citizens in the communities closest to the plant property had higher dioxin
rates in their blood than people in other parts of Taiwan, and further suggested that higher
dioxin levels were correlated with higher cancer rates. In 2004, Taiwan’s Environmental
Protection Agency identified the property as a pollution remediation cite, and the following
year the Executive Yuan passed a bill to set aside NT$1.3 billion for a period of five
consecutive years to compensate victims of dioxin pollution. Taiwan’s highest
administrative court subsequently ruled that the owner of the property – the China
Development Petroleum Company (CPDC) – was the responsible party and thus had to pay
both the compensation costs and the remediation costs. CPDC’s Board of Trustees set
aside NT$1.65 billion over 20 years for remediation of the plant site, and their remediation
plan was approved by Tainan’s Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB) in 2008.
Citizens from the affected communities were given an opportunity to participate in
meetings with government officials and CPDC representatives to discuss how the
compensation money should be utilized and what the remediation plan should entail. Since
these pollution policy decision processes involved actors from the public and private
sectors as well as those representing civil society, they provided an ideal context for the
use of collaborative governance as a mechanism for reaching agreement among the various
4
stakeholders. The notion of collaborative governance has been receiving considerable
attention in the public administration literature recently (Ansell & Gash, 2008; O’Leary,
Gerard, & Bingham, 20061), reflecting its growing use in various arenas to develop and/or
implement policies that take into account the diverse interests with a stake in the decision.
In Taiwan, the process of democratization over the last twenty years has resulted in greater
public pressure on the government to establish mechanisms for citizens to participate in
public decisions such as those pertaining to environmental management (Tang, Tang, & Lo,
2005). In this context, recent research has investigated public involvement and cross-
sectoral collaboration in various policy arenas (Chen, 2011; K. Lee, 2003; T. Lee, 2010;
Tang & Tang, 2006; Yang, 2010c).2 However, the practice has not yet diffused widely, such
that cultural and institutional support for its use is still relatively limited.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the policy-making processes pertaining to
the An-Shun plant case from a collaborative governance perspective, to better understand
the challenges involved in establishing such systems and thus to extract some lessons
regarding steps public managers can take to help develop and maintain them. In the first
part of the paper, we briefly describe collaborative governance systems in terms of three
ideal characteristics that differentiate them from more traditional modes and mechanisms
for making policy decisions. We then provide more detail regarding the An-Shun plant
case, including characteristics of the affected communities and the stakeholders involved in
the decision processes. Drawing on this case, as well as collaborative governance research
more generally, we identify a number of “pitfalls” that can get in the way of developing
systems and processes that approximate the ideal features identified in the first section.
The final part of the paper then outlines implications for public managers who wish to take
5
a proactive role in establishing effective collaborative governance mechanisms, especially
in contexts where they are not supported by broader cultural and/or institutional forces.
The Potential of Collaborative Governance
Collaborative governance refers to a group of interdependent stakeholders, usually
from multiple sectors, who work together to develop and/or implement policies to address
a complex, multi-faceted problem or situation (Robertson & Choi, forthcoming). The
concept includes a wide variety of specific multi-stakeholder arrangements utilized to
address a broad array of policy issues. Despite variations in the specific structures and
processes actually used in these diverse contexts, literature on this topic (e.g., Ansell &
2006; Rethemeyer & Hatmaker, 2008). It is our hope that the lessons derived from the An-
Shun plant case provide useful ideas for other public managers who are working with
28
community members and private sector actors to identify mutually-acceptable approaches
for addressing issues they confront together.
29
Footnotes
1. In 2006, Public Administration Review published a special issue on the topic of
collaborative public management, for which this paper is the introductory article.
2. Some of this research has been published in Chinese rather than English, e.g., Tang and
Cho (2007) and Tseng (2011). There has also been some investigation of collaborative
governance in a private sector context, e.g., Wu, Wu, and Lo (2004).
3. This research was supported by grants from Taiwan’s National Science Council, from
Tainan City’s Department of Social Work, and from National Cheng Kung University.
4. Japan had control of Taiwan from 1895 until the end of World War II in 1945.
5. The Control Yuan is one of five branches of government defined by Taiwan’s constitution,
the role of which is to serve as ombudsman for the government. Along with the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches, Taiwan also has an Examination Yuan that is responsible
for administering the civil service examination to aspirants for positions in Taiwan’s civil
service.
6. It is likely that these negotiations went smoothly in part because the mayor of Tainan
and the president of Taiwan at the time were close friends who belonged to the same
coalition within their party political party. In any case, as noted above, the government
ultimately did not have to spend that money since CPDC was held responsible for paying
the compensation costs.
7. Household registration is required by the Taiwanese government, such that everyone
has a registered address. This registration is necessary in order to vote in elections, and
provides proof of residence that is used for other purposes as well. However, there are
30
various circumstances in which a person may not be living in the same residence at which
s/he is registered, such that there is a mismatch between the two.
8. Essentially, this means 64 picograms of toxin per gram of lipid. A pecogram is one-
trillionth of a gram, and lipids are blood fats. TEQ means toxic equivalent and is a
standardized measure used to assess toxicity across various dioxins and dioxin-like
compounds.
9. In fact, residents of a fourth township affected by the toxic pollutants decided to forego
any compensation money so as to avoid the stigma of being associated with the pollution
problem.
10. This organization was the Self-Rescuing Association from Shan-Gon Community, which
was formed in 2005 but had it first formal membership meeting on March 8, 2008. There
were only about three key members operating the association, including participating in
important meetings at city hall.
11. The idea we have in mind here is similar to the Japanese concept of “ba” which Nonaka
and Konno (1998), in the context of organizational knowledge creation, defined as “a
shared space for emerging relationships…that can be physical, virtual, mental or any
combination” (p. 37).
31
References Andranovich, G. (1995). Achieving consensus in public decision making: Applying interest-based problem solving to the challenges of intergovernmental collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31: 429-445. Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4): 543-571. Beierle, T. C. and Konisky, D. M. (2001). What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environment and Planning C, 19(4): 515-528. Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., and O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65: 547-558. Bingham, L. B. and O’Leary, R. (2006). Conclusion: Parallel play, not collaboration: Missing questions, missing connections. Public Administration Review, 66(s1): 161-167. Booher, D. E. (2004). Collaborative governance practices and democracy. National Civic Review, 93(4): 32-46. Booher, D. E. and Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3): 221-236. Bouwen, R. and Taillieu, T. (2004). Multi-party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: Developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(3): 137-153. Bryson, J. M. and Anderson, S. R. (2000). Applying large-group interaction methods in the planning and implementation of major change efforts. Public Administration Review, 60: 143-162. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., and Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1): 44-55. Chen, J. C. C. (2011). Is there any “cross-sector governance network” during the relief operation for typhoon Morak in Liukuei tribal? Paper presented at the International Conference on Governance and Citizenship in Asia: Paradigms and Practices, Hong Kong. Cooper, T. L. (1983). Citizen participation. In T. Lynch (ed.), Organization theory and management, 3-45. New York: Marcel Dekker.
32
Cooper, T. L., Bryer, T. A., and Meek, J. W. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(s1): 76-88. Frederickson, G. H. (1991). Toward a theory of the public for public administration. Administration & Society, 22: 395-423. Fung, A. and Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered local governance. Politics and Society, 29(1): 5-41. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gunton, T. I. and Day, J. C. (2003). The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and environmental management. Environments, 31: 5-19. Healey, P. (1996). Consensus-building across difficult divisions: New approaches to collaborative strategy making. Planning Practice and Research, 11(2): 207-216. Huxham, C. (2003). Theorizing collaboration practice. Public Management Review, 5: 401-423. King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., and Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58: 317-326. Leach, W. D. (2006). Collaborative public management and democracy: Evidence from western watershed partnerships. Public Administration Review, 66(s1): 100-110. Lee, K. C. (2003). Enhancing collaborative governance for natural area management: Some experiences from Taiwan. International Planning Studies, 8(1): 35-51. Lee, T. P. (2010). Collaborative mechanisms in environmental protection: The voluntary approach in China and Taiwan. Paper presented at the Public Administration Symposium on Reform in China, Hong Kong. Lee, T. P., Yang, Y., and Tung, C. H. (2009). Social welfare needs of residents in polluted areas: A case of dioxin pollution in southern Taiwan. Public Administration and Development, 29: 239-249. Mandell, M. and Keast, R. (2007). Evaluating network arrangements: Toward revised performance measures. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(4): 574-597. McGuire, M. (2002). Managing networks: Propositions on what managers do and why they do it. Public Administration Review, 62(5): 599-609.
33
McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(s1): 33-43. Milward, H. B. and Provan, K. G. (2006). A manager's guide to choosing and using collaborative networks. Arlington, VA: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government. Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3): 40-54. O’Leary, R., Gerard, C., and Bingham, L. B. (2006). Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(s1): 6-9. Rethemeyer, R. K. and Hatmaker, D. M. (2008). Network management reconsidered: An inquiry into management of network structures in public sector service provision. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4): 617-646. Roberts, N. C. (2002). Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62(6): 658-669. Robertson, P. J. and Choi, T. (forthcoming). Deliberation, consensus, and stakeholder satisfaction: A simulation of collaborative governance. Public Management Review. Saltzstein, G. H. (1992). Bureaucratic responsiveness: Conceptual issues and current research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2: 63-88. Schein, E. H. 1999. Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Sun, M. T. W., Tsai, Y. T., Shih, M. C., and Lin, J. Y. W. (2009). Public participation and the concept of space in environmental governance : An application of PPGIS. Public Administration and Development, 29: 250-261. Susskind, L. E., McKearnan, S., and Thomas-Larner, J. (Eds.) (1999). The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tang. C. P. and Cho, C. Y. (2007). Plural democracy, political inclusion, and policy responsiveness: The pollution of Taiwan Alkali Industrial Corp. Journal of Humanity and Society, 1: 10-39. Tang, C. P. and Tang, S. Y. (2006). Democratization and capacity building for environmental governance: Managing land subsidence in Taiwan. Environment and Planning A, 38(6): 1131-1147. Tang, S. Y., Tang, C. P., and Lo, C. W. H. (2005). Public participation and environmental impact assessment in mainland China and Taiwan: Political foundations of environmental management. Journal of Development Studies. 41(1): 1-32.
34
Thomson, A. M. and Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66(s1): 20-32. Tseng, K. C. (2011). The challenges confronting managers and their capacity-building: The perspective of collaborative governance. Journal of Civil Service, 3(1): 27-52. Vangen, S. and Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39: 5-31. Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62: 527-540. Werther, W. B. and Chandler, D. B. (2006). Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wu, W. Y., Wu, W. J., and Lo, Y. J. (2004). The impact of governance mechanisms on interfirm learning and relationship performance. Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Management Conference, 447-462. Yang, Y. (2007). The analysis of environmental policy formulation processes: The An-Shun company case. Paper presented at the First International Symposium on Democracy for the Sustainable Future: Multi-level Environmental Governance for the Sustainable Development, Kyoto. Yang, Y. (2008). Compensation policy and environmental justice: The An-Shun plant case. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago. Yang, Y. (2010a). Environmental policy for chemical pollution in Taiwan: The An-Shun plant case. In Y. Adachi (ed.), Environmental Government: Theory and Practice. Kyoto: Kyoto University. Yang, Y. (2010b). The remediation policy and citizen participation: The An-Shun plant case. Paper presented at the Annual National Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. Yang, Y. (2010c). The 9/21 earthquake in Taiwan: A local government disaster rescue system. Disasters, 34(1): 112-136. Yang, T. (2011). De-stigmatization of polluted communities: The An-Shun plant case. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society for Public Administration, Baltimore.