| 摘要: | After 1987, four areas of extensive regulatory reform were launched in Taiwan. The four areas are: (1) Financial liberalization, (2) Privatization of state enterprises, (3) Fair trade and consumer legislation, and (4) Media regulatory reform.
For financial liberalization, three major financial industries--securities services, banking, insurance--were largely deregulated by three statutes passed in 1988, 1989, and 1992. The liberalization included market entry deregulation, expansion of business powers, and allowing foreign entry and investment.
The policy of privatizing public-owned enterprises (POEs) began in 1989 and aimed to gradually privatize most of the POEs. Through privatization, POEs can enhance their efficiency by avoiding budgetary constraints and bureaucratic regulations and by laying off redundant staff. By the end of 1996, however, only six POEs were privatized. Moreover, the Taiwanese government still retains substantial sharesof, and control of, these privatized firms. It shows that the privatization move has been more strategic than substantial in nature.
The Fair Trade Law (FTL) legislation was intended to be a new legal infrastructure for a freer economic system. The process of the FTL legislation illustrates the rise of interest group politics. The FTL extensively regulates monopolies, mergers, cartels, and unfair competition behaviors. The enactment of the Consumer Protection Law (CPL) was an overdue response to civil society's appeals. The CPL establishes strict liability schemes and regulates "standardcontracts."
The media regulations were largely reformed. The decades-long restrictions on entry into newspapers, radio, television channels were removed. The popular underground cable market was finally legalized in 1993 when the Cable Television Law was enacted.
Taiwan's regulatory reform was a shift from a restrictive state to regulatory state. The pattern of Taiwan's regulatory reform can be understood by the following three propositions. (1) Regulatory reform in Taiwan was a response of the Nationalist (KMT)-state to the legitimacy crisis. (2) Regulatory reform in Taiwan represented a contraction of state boundaries from the economy and society, while the state's regulatory capacity did not generally decline. (3) Regulatory reform in Taiwan has been shaped by participation of interest groups and implies a declining state autonomy. |
