| 摘要: | Land is the original and primary factor of production, not only for supporting labor productivity but also using as a place of residence or manufacture, which turn land into a commodity with marketability and direct-tradablility. In this sense, the benefits of land trading are far higher than its contribution to supporting labor production which has led to the housing construction not only limited to responding the residential needs but also mainly to meet the real estate investment and even short-term speculation purposes, such a phenomenon particularly evident in the metropolitan areas where the population is highly concentrated. The scarceness of building blocks in urban area risen the costs of real estate developer and even become a main obstacle for speculation.
While China emerged as a global manufacturing hub since 1990s, poor industrial transformation made Taiwan difficult to maintain economic growth. Suffering from weak economic development, Taiwan Government turned its minds to the urban renewal as the saver to the real estate bubble as one of the important policy instruments to revitalize the national economy and enacted and implemented Urban Renewal Act (the Act) to stimulate the real estate industry. The core mechanism of the Act is the “majority rule”－ as long as gaining the consent of the majority of property owners, the developer from the private sector can legally disregard the protesting voices from those who disagree to participate the development plan and tear down their dwells with the assistance of the authority. Such a first-sector-supported fragmentary-land-combination by second sector involved concerns of human right violation. Rights violations and residents' protesting occurred wherever has urban renewal business project, as consequence, the Act gone through 9 times of amendments and two Judicial Interpretations. During the long process of amending the Act, in an attempt to dim the irreconcilable conflict to the substantial injustice, the authority continually issued more norm, enforcement rule, guidance and canon, that made urban renewal related statutes a rather complex and huge legal system which quite hard to understand.
In order to comfort the people’s panic regarded to the complicated statutes, the authority subcontracted campaign and training courses to the urban renewal related “third sector” organizations to improve peoples’ understanding of the statutes and to train more urban renewal coordinators to help government to promote and implement the urban renewal policies. The huge financial aids and business opportunities of urban redevelopment attracted more new registered NPO which were mostly organized by urban renewal related practitioners from the second sector competed for the training-institution contracts. Moreover, certificated trainees grouped together to register more NPO related to urban renewal affairs at local level and even national wide. Leaders of these organizations are invited by the government as a specialist or representatives of relative association to participate public hearings of policy making and even the members of business plans and related dispute review commission. Contrary to those third sectors with strong industrial background, the policy advocacy groups organized by the residents obviously lost media attention not only have no financial support for their campaigns, their opinions and protests are often intentionally distorted and neglected by the government.
The goal of this paper is to show a paradoxical phenomenon in the development of the third sector in Taiwan. Most of the urban-renewal-issue related NPOs are financially supported or even organized by the first and second sector, which make them become the dominant voices while policies advocating, and, as a consequence, more conducive for bias mobilization (Schattschneider, 1960; Bachrach & Baratz, 1962) and ideological manipulating (Luke, 2005) by the first and second sector. In the sphere of the urban renewal policy, the third sector, which the center belief should be not for profit, highly autonomy and publicness and advocating for the public interest(Ku, 2000), is shifting into an instrument of policy propaganda and corporate profit-making. |
