How Discipline and Institutions Reinforce Each Other: a Case of Taiwan
Recent posts on this blog has been strongly focused on the role of institutions, both political and socio-economic, on the development (or lack thereof) of a national entity or a community. But instead of just focusing on what institutions are needed, as done before, it is probably more pertinent to consider how to make those institutions "stick," i.e. their rules enforced, followed, and respected by the vast majority of leaders and people so that the institutions remain relevant and central to the operation of the society in question. A quick examination of Taiwan for few days may give an answer, even if incomplete.
The author's previous trip to Taiwan over three years ago was focused on how the democratic structure on the island led to certain social and economic differences vis-a-vis the mainland, by which more equitable allocation of resources led to a sense of calmness and peace not found on the mainland, where people competing for limited resources in daily life creates a pervasive an hostile lack of trust throughout society. Yet, while all this is happening, it is also important to note that the resources available in Taiwan is also limited, and competition is stymied by a orderly bureaucracy for distribution.
For instance, continuing a focus on infrastructure development from previous posts, the author noticed that the road system, even in major urban areas, is not truly world-class in Taiwan. The roads remain narrow (likely due to difficulty to evicting residents on both sides for expansions) and pose difficulties for even small cars to navigate. Aside from the rumors of heavy traffic during rush hours, however, the author witnesses little traffic in the middle of downtown Taipei, where the few cars jostling for space seem to have no problem moving forward on half-empty roads.
The author speculate that while the efficient MRT system does play a role in reducing need for cars, the main restraint maybe a bureaucratic system that limit the use of resources through legislative constraints. The author has already experienced such principles in purchase of SIM cards for cellphones and dumping of garbage in residential areas. For phones, people must go to designated shopfronts for local telecom companies to register their purchases via presentation of IDs. The limited resources, then, can be doled out in limited number of places, alleviating shortage.
And for trash, people must only take them out at designated times in the day so as to not clog streets with full trash bags. This much is not surprisingly as most countries in the world would have something similar on paper. But the level of adherence of these rules are beyond impressive in Taiwan. there are no black markets for SIM cards, and certainly no piles of trash on the road when most people know they will likely never be caught for throwing them out off-hour anyways. Their strict following of the rules have given these rules "teeth" to restrain behavior of potential deviants.
In many ways, such behavior is similar to the Japanese sense of peer pressure to reduce dissent within a community. When used in a corporate sphere, they can lead to suppression of innovative thinking, but if used for rules that ought not to be changed (i.e. most bureaucratic procedures pertaining to ordinary matters), the results are creation of social norms that make it not just legally, but socially unacceptable to break those rules. The lack of such normative institutions is precisely why many rules in developing countries are there but not followed by nearly everyone.
Unfortunately, introducing discipline can be even more difficult than introducing legal means of enforcing certain rules. Illogical as it seems, many communities in developing countries, for one reason or the other, take pride in their ability to bend the rules for personal benefit, or simply flaunt their rebelliousness and independence. Extensive awareness and educational campaigns may do little to suddenly change their cultures, without accompanying pressure in a top-down fashion to heavily punish those who deviate from the rules. This will use much of limited resources with little return.
It is then, interesting to note that mature democratic countries, where the idea of personal freedom has taken strong roots, paradoxically are more keen to follow rules. They realize that their freedom is not based on the lack of particular rules, but adherence to the limits of those rules so that freedom within certain boundaries can be achieved. Once the boundaries are taken away, chaos would ensue as everyone would focus on personal benefit rather than preservation of democratic institutions. Perhaps the Thai protesters on the streets, for one, can take note before its too late.
The author's previous trip to Taiwan over three years ago was focused on how the democratic structure on the island led to certain social and economic differences vis-a-vis the mainland, by which more equitable allocation of resources led to a sense of calmness and peace not found on the mainland, where people competing for limited resources in daily life creates a pervasive an hostile lack of trust throughout society. Yet, while all this is happening, it is also important to note that the resources available in Taiwan is also limited, and competition is stymied by a orderly bureaucracy for distribution.
For instance, continuing a focus on infrastructure development from previous posts, the author noticed that the road system, even in major urban areas, is not truly world-class in Taiwan. The roads remain narrow (likely due to difficulty to evicting residents on both sides for expansions) and pose difficulties for even small cars to navigate. Aside from the rumors of heavy traffic during rush hours, however, the author witnesses little traffic in the middle of downtown Taipei, where the few cars jostling for space seem to have no problem moving forward on half-empty roads.
The author speculate that while the efficient MRT system does play a role in reducing need for cars, the main restraint maybe a bureaucratic system that limit the use of resources through legislative constraints. The author has already experienced such principles in purchase of SIM cards for cellphones and dumping of garbage in residential areas. For phones, people must go to designated shopfronts for local telecom companies to register their purchases via presentation of IDs. The limited resources, then, can be doled out in limited number of places, alleviating shortage.
And for trash, people must only take them out at designated times in the day so as to not clog streets with full trash bags. This much is not surprisingly as most countries in the world would have something similar on paper. But the level of adherence of these rules are beyond impressive in Taiwan. there are no black markets for SIM cards, and certainly no piles of trash on the road when most people know they will likely never be caught for throwing them out off-hour anyways. Their strict following of the rules have given these rules "teeth" to restrain behavior of potential deviants.
In many ways, such behavior is similar to the Japanese sense of peer pressure to reduce dissent within a community. When used in a corporate sphere, they can lead to suppression of innovative thinking, but if used for rules that ought not to be changed (i.e. most bureaucratic procedures pertaining to ordinary matters), the results are creation of social norms that make it not just legally, but socially unacceptable to break those rules. The lack of such normative institutions is precisely why many rules in developing countries are there but not followed by nearly everyone.
Unfortunately, introducing discipline can be even more difficult than introducing legal means of enforcing certain rules. Illogical as it seems, many communities in developing countries, for one reason or the other, take pride in their ability to bend the rules for personal benefit, or simply flaunt their rebelliousness and independence. Extensive awareness and educational campaigns may do little to suddenly change their cultures, without accompanying pressure in a top-down fashion to heavily punish those who deviate from the rules. This will use much of limited resources with little return.
It is then, interesting to note that mature democratic countries, where the idea of personal freedom has taken strong roots, paradoxically are more keen to follow rules. They realize that their freedom is not based on the lack of particular rules, but adherence to the limits of those rules so that freedom within certain boundaries can be achieved. Once the boundaries are taken away, chaos would ensue as everyone would focus on personal benefit rather than preservation of democratic institutions. Perhaps the Thai protesters on the streets, for one, can take note before its too late.
Comments
Post a Comment