Suchergebnisse

This article critically examines the policy capacity crisis in post- 1997 Hong Kong. In particular, it provides a framework that allows for a more sophisticated analysis of new social movements (NSMs) and their role in challenging the government in policy making and implementation. A number of studies examining recent campaigns conducted by NSMs reveal that the social activists involved have distinctive goals, organizational structures, and political styles, and that the distinctiveness of NSMs has challenged the traditional ways in which public policy has been made, which emphasized rationality, scientific analysis, and policy coherence. However, this article argues that the policy capacity crisis cannot be explained purely in terms of the rise of NSMs. The form and strength of their challenge to policy capacity can only be fully understood in relation to the prevailing political structures which define the connected set of political opportunities/constraints facing the protest groups. In particular MSMs only become relevant in mobilizing and intensifying antagonistic forces when their values and actions are mediated by the structure of political opportunities. Moreover, any effect on government policy derived from confrontational action also has to be mediated by the political structures. In short, the structural opportunities/constraints enshrined in particular policy areas are equally, if not more, significant than the internal dynamics of NSMs in understanding the impact of such movements on public policy. Hence, there is no real reason to assert that the rise of NSMs necessarily poses a considerable challenge to the policy capacity of the Hong Kong government. (Issues Stud/GIGA)

Central to the debates on the transition of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty is how this process has affected change in the policy process and policy outputs. Many see policy change as a result of the evolving political environment in Hong Kong following the political transition. This article, however, adopts the notion of policy networks and argues that the analysis of policy change cannot be reduced to a simple contextual stimulus - the policy alteration model. A case study - 'the development of civic education' - demonstrates the importance of policy networks, as a particular structure of government and group relations in decision making, in explaining the course of policy change. It is apparent that the relationship between regime change and political liberalization, on the one hand, and established networks, on the other, tends to be complex and dialectical in Hong Kong. Despite the importance of sovereignty transition and political restructuring, the effect of contextual factors on public policy greatly depends on the nature of the network involved. (Pac Rev/GIGA)