[Research Questions]
What kind of critical roles do ‘Committee Politics’ play as venues and forums within the policy subsystems?
Is the ‘Legitimacy Stream’ helpful for explaining the difference between policy brokers (Advocacy Coalition Framework) and policy entrepreneurs (Multiple Streams Approach)?
[Case Background and Lessons Learned]
According to research of Lu (2014, 2015, 2016), the legal procedures of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Land Expropriation Act (LEA) are hard to change committee members’ individual perceptions of scientific knowledge, whereas personal characteristics of committee representatives of government agencies cannot be over-expected on the other hand. Empirical analysis of Lu (2014) and Lu (2015) provide a point of contention with the ACF that the role of decision-makers and policy brokers in resisting or proposing policy alternatives and the influence of mass media upon the consensus-based institutional setting of the EIA Committee. By highlighting and framing the issue, the MOTC Minister and Hualien County Magistrate, as major policy brokers, influence the weighting of information streams in the policymaking process. With sets of mediating options and persuasive policy arguments, they helped competing coalitions or forced coalition actors to reach negotiated agreements or ‘an unsatisfactory, yet acceptable’ alternative. Lu (2016) argues that ‘Legitimacy Stream’ may be helpful to clarify multiple streams approach by illustrating the role ‘political entrepreneurs’ (with legal authority) and bureaucrats (with land administration expertise) play in linking alternative specification to dynamic and fluid policymaking process. The research illustrates the essential role played by governmental bureaucrats and public managers. While policy alternatives are confronted with time-constrained, policy sector-focused and politically driven policymaking process, many efforts for ‘political entrepreneurs’, such as the president and prime minister, to integrate policy goals are severely restricted. In Lu’s case (2016), political entrepreneurs chose the least technically difficult alternatives which were promised to the self-help organization and civic groups as well as the attentive public.
References
Lu, Wilbur Bing-Yan, 2014. Who Is in Charge? Advocacy Coalition Framework for Su-Hua Highway Policy Change (1990-2014), Taipei City, Taiwan: Wu-Nan. (296 pages, ISBN 978-957-11-7677-2)
--------December 2015. “Why Do Policy Brokers Matter? A Lesson for Competing Advocacy Coalitions”, Journal of Administrative Sciences and Policy Studies, 3(2): 33-51.
--------2016. Public Policy and Democratic Governance: Multiple Streams Analysis for Taiwan’s Land Expropriation Case Study (2010-2016), Taipei City, Taiwan: Wu-Nan. (249 pages, ISBN 978-957-11-8951-2)
