英文摘要 |
On December 26, 2010, Taiwan legally achieved the biggest administrative integration among several highly populated and neighbored cities and counties in her own history. The so-called direct jurisdictional municipalities by the central government have increased from the previous two, Taipei & Kaohsiung, to five, plus New Taipei, Taichung, and Tainan. Although Taiwan has legally entered the era of five metropolitan cities, the structures and the functions of the five are still subject to debate and discuss. One of the hot debating issues is: whether the structures and functions of a metropolitan city should be more democratically or more efficiently oriented? In general, democratic governance and efficient management are quite apart from each other in terms of institutional designs. For instance, if democratic governance is the leading principle in governmental institutional design, the entire organizational structure should be relatively flat and open up for public participation. On the contrary, if efficiency is the primary concern for a governmental institution, its organizational design should be more hierarchically oriented, and quite discourage a check and balance system. The main question raised by the paper then is: whether the democratic governance or the efficient management principle plays a more important role in the organizational design of metropolitan cities in democracies? In order to answer this question, this paper selects several metropolitan cities across different geographical and historical areas to be compared. These cities include: New York, London, Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul, and Sidney. The paper expects to derive lessons from these metropolitan cities regarding how to balance between the necessity of democratic rule and the demand of efficient management within their governmental institutional designs. These lessons hopefully can offer some insights for Taiwan to learn and to consider how to further improve the quality of governance across the five metropolitan cities. |