Abstracts & Papers in Stream 5

The research question of this paper is 'how residents can build their capacity?' Analysing residents' participation in community development projects, this paper aims to find out the factors which make residents interested in neighbourhood issues, participate in and lead the community development.
Three indicators to characterise capacity building, particularly for participation, are explored in this paper: 'participation initiatives', 'sustainability' and 'openness'. Focusing on analysing sustainability and openness, this paper selects six sub-indicators from easy ones to difficult to be performed. The factors which possibly effect on capacity building are categorised into three: personal disposition, the experience of participation and social network. Each category has 2~4 sub-factors for a survey. This paper analyses the relation between the sub-indicators and sub-factors with co-relational approach.
As a result, three factors have strongly influenced capacity building. The most influenced factor is 'the active participation in a local organisation' which is followed by 'the experience of social education' and 'leading power in social network'.
The finding suggests supporting local organisations so that the organisations can take the focal role for capacity building at a community level and provide learning and training programmes for residents.

"Building partnership" between public and private sectors has been an important idea, an aim as well as a sound political slogan in the welfare privatization process in Taiwan.  Since 1990s, the Central Government of Taiwan has been making every endeavor to build an institutional environment and to urge public sectors contracting out social welfare programs or public setting management to private sectors.  The implementation of privatization, according to the Central Government's expectation, should restructure the governmental system into an "entrepreneurial government" in which contains the qualities of "small but effective", "small and less costly" and "small but beautiful".  On the other hand, private sectors (especially those nonprofit organizations in the social welfare arena), by working with the government hand in hand, should also benefit from the release of decision-making power and resource reallocation.
    According to the rules of privatization, when public sectors contracted out social welfare programs to private sectors, the selection of the program implement organizations and management of programs should follow formal contract requirements.  These measures had created a very different way of doing business between local governments and local non-profit organizations. 

Based on a three-year (2006-2009) research data, this paper intends to discuss changing system relations between local governments and nonprofit organizations under the implementation of social welfare privatization in Taiwan.  In our research, we invited representatives who came from local governments around Taiwan and held five focus group sections to explore what changes had happened between local governments and nonprofit organizations in terms of their working relationship under the welfare privatization?  How the officials of local governments perceived and explained these changes?  We also conducted a survey with 272 nonprofit organizations to find out how they viewed the impact of welfare privatization on their organizational operation and service delivery.  The result showed that, although public bidding system and formal contracts had been using as a major mechanism to build and regulate the partnership between local governments and nonprofit organizations, and which had further effectively restructured service delivery systems of both sectors, paradoxically, the struggle of power relations and resource distribution had also subtly operated under the process of welfare privatization.  The changing relations of both sectors and their impact on the frontline social workers as well as social service consumers under the regulations of welfare privatization are worth of further examination.


Full paper: Shious_chao_woo_The Paradoxical Partnership(full paper).doc 

This cross-national comparative research explored patterns of social and economic participation in increasingly market-orientated economies in which housing wealth is an important element. In particular, it was concerned with how actual and potential flows of material assistance and asset transfer within families differ cross-culturally. Through the qualitative research with three generations of families in Shanghai and Tokyo, amidst the transitions of post-war East Asian welfare systems, the research found that families have been, and remain, a key institution in negotiating and sustaining housing wealth and housing opportunities over the generations. Families often negotiate and cope with changing housing systems and policies, and act to maximise their collective and individual benefits in housing access and asset accumulation. This was evident in the cities whether post-war Tokyo or through the transition from planned to market economy in Shanghai. The paper also examines changing nature of family relations - increased 'monetisation' of welfare provision within families; as well as the interconnection between increased dependence and independence within the family generations.

Centre for Urban Studies
School for Policy Studies
University of Bristol
E: M.Izuhara@bristol.ac.uk