Recent discussions surrounding the potential merger of Hsinchu City and Hsinchu County have sparked widespread debate over the adjustment of administrative boundaries. However, public discourse has largely focused on local political landscapes and electoral impacts, overlooking the close interconnection between administrative divisions and issues such as urban-rural planning, land resources, fiscal structures, and local governance. To promote a more holistic perspective and foster interdisciplinary dialogue on major public policy issues, the College of Social Sciences held a “Chihnan Policy Forum” on January 11, hosted by Dean Wan-Ying Yang. Faculty members from various departments were invited to present comprehensive analyses and policy recommendations on administrative boundary restructuring, aiming to stimulate more in-depth and diverse public reflection on the issue.

Associate Professor Hsiu-Hsiung Tai of the Department of Land Economics, an expert in land planning legislation, began by emphasizing the importance of an “integrated” approach to national spatial planning. He pointed out that spatial planning involves multiple levels of administrative agencies and often encounters implementation challenges due to irrational boundary divisions, uneven resource distribution, and the lack of interagency coordination. He identified three key issues: (1) land use often affects neighboring areas, yet horizontal negotiation mechanisms are lacking; (2) disparities in available resources among agencies hinder collaboration; and (3) boundary planning frequently ignores cultural and geographical contexts, resulting in disjointed spatial strategies. Professor Tai noted that these structural limitations contribute to growing imbalances in local governance across Taiwan.

Associate Professor An-Ting Cheng, also from the Department of Land Economics and a Chartered Town Planner in the UK as well as author of the “National Spatial White Paper,” distinguished between three interrelated concepts: spatial planning, national land planning, and administrative zoning. He explained that spatial planning refers to the long-term strategic vision for national spatial development; national land planning, established under the 2016 Spatial Planning Act, classifies land use nationwide; and administrative zoning concerns the institutional adjustment of jurisdictional boundaries. While recent legislative proposals advocate aligning zoning reforms with spatial planning, Professor Cheng raised fundamental questions: What is the current vision for national spatial planning? What are its goals? And do those goals truly require zoning reform to be achieved? He emphasized that while boundary restructuring may help address some land governance issues, it is also the costliest option. Local identity and lived spaces, he argued, should form the foundation of administrative zoning.

Professor Kuo-Liang Chen of the Department of Public Finance posed a direct question: Does Taiwan truly need 22 local administrative regions? He analyzed both the advantages and concerns of regional consolidation. Benefits include resource integration, economies of scale, cost-sharing, and internalization of externalities. However, he also cautioned about potential risks such as detachment between central and local priorities, lack of inter-local competition, and increasing fiscal polarization. Professor Chen emphasized the need for thorough cost-benefit assessments, national-level development planning, and procedural legitimacy—stressing that reforms must not be driven by private interests or tailored to individuals.

Associate Professor Kai-Ju Chang of the Department of Public Administration, an expert in local governance, first addressed why the central government should consider adjusting administrative divisions. Reasons include over-urbanization, marginalization of non-metropolitan areas, the highly politicized nature of zoning, and disputes over fiscal allocation. From the local government’s perspective, she explored the incentive structures behind seeking mergers or upgrading to special municipality status, along with the hidden governance risks. She further proposed areas of central-local cooperation, including improving vertical coordination, addressing urban-rural development imbalances, and modernizing administrative zoning procedures.

This forum featured insights from scholars in land economics, public finance, and public administration, examining the fundamental issues behind city-county boundary reforms. It aimed to promote interdisciplinary dialogue and provide a foundation for more comprehensive, professional, and in-depth policy debate. While the panelists offered differing perspectives, they converged on three key points: (1) City-county consolidation should be approached holistically, with a clear vision for spatial planning that addresses current challenges and accounts for regional imbalances between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. (2) Spatial planning involves real governance challenges that require attention to central-local relations and horizontal coordination mechanisms between local governments. (3) Spatial planning, national land planning, administrative zoning, and fiscal allocation involve multiple legal frameworks that must be considered collectively to ensure coherent reform.

Related Link
Original article (Chinese): NCCU Campus News