Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of urban governance on public sector performance by observing the urban governance practices of the Taipei City. The study shows that since 2014, Taipei City has promoted urban governance in a performance-oriented manner, and after 8 years of efforts, it has achieved the overall synergy of an international metropolis. The urban governance practice of Taipei City takes becoming a livable city as its vision and goal, and uses the Balanced Scorecard as an implementation tool. The results show that, according to The Economist's 2018 ranking of the top 100 livable cities in the world, Taipei City has entered the top 60, and will advance to 33 in 2021. The performance of urban governance is quite remarkable.
Keywords
：Urban governancelivable citybalanced scorecardgovernance performance
References
- Arreortua, L. “Housing policy and metropolitan management in sprawl the periphery of the Metropolitan Area Mexico City”. Cuadernos Geograficos, 55, 217-237, 2016.Google Scholar ↗
- Bunnell, T. and Kathiravelu, L. “Extending urban livability: friendship and sociality in the lives of low-wage migrants”. International Development Planning Review (IDPR), 38 (2), 201-220, 2016.Google Scholar ↗
- Cowell, R., & Martin, S. “The joy of joining up: Modes of integrating the local government modernization agenda”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(2), 159–179, 2003.Google Scholar ↗
- D. Irwin. “Strategy mapping in the public sector”. Long Range Planning, 35(6), 637-647, 2002.Google Scholar ↗
- Douglass, M. “Livable Cities: Conviviality Versus Neo-Developmentalism in Pacific Asia’s Urban Future”. Presentation at International Conference on Hanoi – A Livable City for All, Hanoi, 1-2, 2009.Google Scholar ↗
- Efroymson D.,Tran T.K.T.H, Pham T. H. Public places: How they humanize cities. HealthBridge – WBB Trust, Dhaka, 2009.Google Scholar ↗
- Francesca Governa. “Competitiveness and cohesion: urban government and governance’s strains of Italian cities”. Análise Social, 197, 663- 683, 2010.Google Scholar ↗
- Greiving, S., & Kemper, R. TRANSLAND—Integration of transport and land use policies: State of the art. Dortmund, Germany: Institut für Raumplanung, Universität Dortmund, 1999.Google Scholar ↗
- Greatbanks, R. and Tapp, D. “The impact of balanced scorecards in a public sector environment: Empirical evidence from Dunedin City Council”, New Zealand. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(8), 846-873, 2007.Google Scholar ↗
- Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. “Performing governance through networks”. Euro-pean Political Science, 4, 340–347, 2005.Google Scholar ↗
- Harvey, D. “Neoliberalism and the city”. Studies in Social Justice, 1, 2–13, 2007.Google Scholar ↗
- Hendriks F. “Understanding Good Urban Governance: Essentials”. Urban Af-fairs Review, 50(4), 553-576, 2014.Google Scholar ↗
- Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. Governance networks in the public sector. Ab-ingdon, England: Routledge, 2016.Google Scholar ↗
- Lennard, S.H.C. and Lennard, H.L. Livable Communities Observed. A Source Book of Images and Ideas for City Officials, Community Leaders, Architects, Planners, and All Others Committed to Making Their Cities Livable. Carmel, CA, Gondolier Press, 1995.Google Scholar ↗
- Lynch, K. The image of the city. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, 1960.Google Scholar ↗
- Mark Bovens. “Analyzing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework”. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447- 468, 2007.Google Scholar ↗
- Mendes, Paula, et al. “The balanced scorecard as an integrated model applied to the Portuguese public service: a case study in the waste sector”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 20-29, 2012.Google Scholar ↗
- Mossberger, K., & Stoker, G. “The evolution of urban regime theory the chal-lenge of conceptualization”. Urban Affairs Review, 36, 810- 835, 2001.Google Scholar ↗
- Parnell, S. “Defining a global urban development agenda”. World Development, 78, 529–540, 2016a.Google Scholar ↗
- Powell, W. W. “Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization”. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336, 1990.Google Scholar ↗
- Rode, P. Governing compact cities: How to connect planning, design and transport. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar, 2018.Google Scholar ↗
- Stone, C. Regime politics: Governing Atlanta 1946–1988. Lawrence: Uni-versity Press of Kansas, 1989.Google Scholar ↗
- Stone, C. “Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: A political economy approach”. Journal of Urban Affairs, 15, 1- 28, 1993.Google Scholar ↗
- Syahdan, S.A., RR Siti M., and Masithah A. “Balance Scorecard Implementation in Public Sector Organization, a Problem?” International Journal of Accounting, Finance, and Economics 1.1, 1-6, 2018.Google Scholar ↗
- Thornley, A. “Planning policy and the market. In M. Tewdwr-Jones (Ed.), British planning policy in transition: Planning in the 1990s”. Lon-don, England: UCL Press, 191–206, 1996.Google Scholar ↗
- The Economist Intelligence Unit. 2013-2021 Livability ranking and overview. London, The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, 2021.Google Scholar ↗
- Vincent Kanyamuna, and Kangacepe Zulu. “Participatory Research Methods: Importance and Limitations of Participation in Development Practice”. World Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 8(1), 9-13, 2022.Google Scholar ↗
- Wheeler, S. “Planning sustainable and livable cities. In R. Le Gates and F. Stout (eds.)”, The City Reader, 486-496. London and New York, 2001.Google Scholar ↗