In brief, the term 'intergovernm ental relations' (IGR), means the interactions between
governm ent units o f all types and levels (Rhodes, 1981, p.76). Gage and Mandell (1990) state that intergovernmental relationships are like networks where managers play a role as intermediaries to coordinate and connect. The concept is based on m ulti-coordination and individual agencies which are equal and shares power.
Coordination rather than authority is the linkage in such network and is used widely to explore the relationship between central and local governm ents (Rhodes, 1997, p.7).
IGR refer to all governmental activities, official actions and attitudes, regular interactions and policy issues within governm ent structure. Wright (1974, p.4) argues that IGR stresses the ‘m u ltip le, b eh a viou ral, con tin u ou s a n d d yn a m ic ex c h a n g es o c c u r r in g b e tw e e n va rio u s officia ls in the p o litic a l s y s t e m A ccording to his definition, the network o f IGR is. in fact, much broader than central-local relations and can be extended to cover policy coordination and multi-level governmental relations.
However, in spite o f the broad application o f the concept o f IGR, it has a weakness for policy studies. While the concept highlights the interdependence between levels and types o f governm ents, it seems to ignore the basis for this interdependence. In other words, it refers to but does not explain the relationship. Benson (1982, p. 148), based in an intergovernmental view, points out that groups and com plex organisations are linked to each other due to interdependent resources. Also, adm inistrative structures and interest groups will attempt to cooperate to ensure their own policy needs and preferences are met and to exclude those o f others.
N evertheless, the concept o f IGR is relevant for exploring the interactions between governm ent officials in charge o f governmental service delivery, although, the source o f service delivery is divergent today because o f the developm ent o f privatisation
resulting from neo-liberalism. Thus the governm ent is currently not the only one to provide public services, since, in many aspects, its role has been replaced by the involvement o f private and voluntary sectors (Rhodes, 1992).
However, for the study o f policy coordination, the concept o f IGR can be regarded as a 'starting-point' since public services (Rhodes, 1997, p.7-8), such as planning still relies on intergovernmental networks for their delivery. N otw ithstanding it is necessary to go beyond intergovernmental networks to explore how and why the policy-m aking process operates.
2.2.2 Governance
G overnance has arisen as an important concept in order to respond to the phenomena o f fragmented policy-m aking process and m ulti-layer participant networks. There are various definitions o f governance found in many fields. The UNDP (United Nations Developm ent Programm e) policy document. 'G overnance for Sustainable Human D evelopm ent', presents a multi-dimensional definition o f governance:
'UNDP defines governance as the exercise o f political, economic and adm inistrative authority in the management o f a cou n try’s affairs at all levels.
Governance com prises the complex mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, mediate their differences and exercise their legal rights and obligations. ’ (UNDP, 1997, h ttp ://m irro r, undp. o rz/m a zn e t/p o lic y /su m m a ry , htm, accessed 1 7th Oct 2005)
According to the U N D P's explanation, governance com prises three legs: economic, political and adm inistrative. While economic activities improve the quality o f life,
political governance is the process o f decision-m aking to formulate policy, and adm inistrative governance is the system o f policy im plem entation. Good governance is com pleted only if it can encompass all three and define the processes and structures that guide political and socio-economic relationships (Ibid, http://mirror.undp.org/
m agnet/policy/chapter 1 .htm). For good governance, consensus orientation, that mediates differing interests to reach a broad consensus on what is in the best interests o f the group, and effectiveness and efficiency that meet needs while making the best use o f resources are essential, and these will only exist in im plem entation if there is policy coordination. In other words, policy coordination is at least one of, if not the most, significant elem ent to good governance.
In addition, governance theory points out the disadvantages o f a hierarchical structure.
Traditional governm ental hierarchy relies on authority and layer control which inevitably results in difficulties for policy im plementation and integration (Chang, S-M.. 1998) and would gradually lead to unbalanced pow er relationships, disconnection and incapable adm inistrative processes. At the same time, fragmented structure or authority and departmentalism make intergovernmental coordination less achievable (Agranoff, 1988, p.540). Once conflicts within government arise, intergovernmental disconnection and policy fragmentation emerge. Accordingly, how to manage intergovernmental relations becom es a concern for good governance.
The concept o f governance has had a significant impact on traditional planning in Taiwan. Chou, T. (2004, p.205) defines the difference between government and governance as the form er is operated only in official institutions whilst the latter is em bedded in the ‘social context and local m ilieu \ The trend o f ‘from government to governance' has influenced the nature o f planning and led to the development o f the
discourses o f social capital and cultural context (Liau, 2005). A broad definition o f institutions is already adopted in those studies to explore w hat and how the planning process operates. Accordingly, the neo-institutionalist is therefore employed to investigate the informal institution elem ents o f institutions within the planning system.
Institutionalism is becom ing increasingly important in the planning discourses since more academ ics point to the significance o f relationships in governance. For instance, Vigar et al. (2000. p.34) states the significance o f various relationships which those involved in governance bring to p olicy processes, both within and beyond the fo rm a l agencies where they w ork'. In other words, there is a need for a more inclusive planning process to coordinate both formal and formal agencies, and private and public sectors in order to achieve good governance.
2.2.3 Networks
As well as from intergovernmental relations and governance, there is another element that should not be ignored in the issue o f coordination. While many have em phasised the relationship between actors in the formal planning processes, Hillier (2000, p.33) points out that the networks and channels outside o f the formal planning processes are also worthy o f mention. She states:
‘A ctors (both officers o f governance, such as planners, and private-s ector groups and individuals) m ay take direct action and lobby elected members or chain themselves to trees or bulldozers, fo r example. The energies and p o w er o f these networks m ay influence planning decision-m aking in ways which may never form ally enter the pu blic domain, m ay never be pu blicly expressed, visible, or
recorded. They are unlikely to be norm alised into a rational, communicative, consensus-seeking debate. ’
H illier thus argues that informal networks m atter since they are inter-mediators in governmental operations. They not only define the roles o f actors and the issues but also privilege certain interests, including preferred policy outcomes (M arsh and Smith,
1995). All discussions related to policy coordination, such as the links between structure, netw ork and actors and formal or informal interactions between central departm ents, inevitably focus on policy networks. Therefore to identify ‘how pow er is exercised in m odern politics and who benefits fro m its exercise ’, it is necessary to consider the policy network (Rhodes, 1997, p. 10).
Policy network research has been also very popular in the public policy study in Taiwan for many years. The most significant reason is that policy network research offers an ideal way to interpret the com plexity o f policy-making in such a pluralistic society (Tsao. J-H.. 2003. p.205-221). A ccording to Lin. Y-H.'s (2002) study on policy networks in Taiwan, there are three characteristics o f the relationship between groups and governm ent in a policy network. First, there must be interdependence since each participant needs others to attain their goal (Benson, 1982). Second, the policy network contains many participants and no individual can determine others' strategies and actions. However, it is not necessary that each member in the network has equal pow er and resources (Scharpf, 1978). Third, institutions matter to policy networks since networks are comprised o f relationships and interactions between members and rules and regulations ensure their operation and support (Benson, 1982;
Rhodes, 1988).
On the other hand, networks are not necessarily based on a formal structure. Lu (2003, p. 164) explains that in a policy network, the policy-making process can be operated w ithout a hierarchical authority, and policy coordination is made by bargaining among powers. Policy netw orks provide a better framework for resolving some particularly difficult issues (see Lu, 2003). In addition, a policy network can be distinguished by the num ber o f its m em bers, its function and the distribution o f pow er (van Waarden, 1992). N otw ithstanding, w hatever the kind o f policy network, policy will not be effective w ithout the legitimate process. If coordination is not produced during the policy form ulating stage, it will necessarily be transferred to the more political stage for policy legitim acy (Wu, D., 2003).
As policy coordination is a central issue in the thesis, theories about intergovernm ental relations and governance and related discourses are relevant to the topic. The role o f actors and the functions o f organisations are also important considerations in policy coordination. W ithout an understanding o f personal networks, it is difficult to uncover the reciprocity am ong actors within institutions. As this research focuses on policy coordination from the neo-institutionalist perspective, an exploration o f networks present a channel through which to investigate policy coordination in depth.