making mechanics are not inviting of groups ... Second, we now have a market-
based economy and consumerism. These reasons lead to conflicts among different
levels of government, and they fight for budgetary resources and financing.
Institutions need resources in order to grow.’^6The Pattern in Taiwan
Taiwan’s economic development in the post-World War II era has been
achieved at the expense of ecological degradation. At early stages in the rise
of environmental consciousness, the government adopted a ‘command-and-
control’ style of management. In 1987, the Committee on Environmental
Protection under the Executive Yuan initiated the first National Environmental
Policy Guidelines as a common basis for the establishment of environmental
programs. Yet, notwithstanding the guidelines, the central government pursued
an industrial policy that among other incentives provided grants to support
heavily polluting industries. The development-first credo of the ruling
Kuomintang (KMT) government in the 1970s and 1980s reflected the idea that
Taiwan’s economic development depended on high growth rates.
In practice, while using the command-and-control style of environmental
management, Taiwan adopted a ‘grow first, clean up later’ strategy in the
initial stages of modernization. It was not until the late 1980s that govern-
ments, civic groups, and enterprises began to undertake more rigorous
environmental conservation efforts. Despite improvement in the island’s
overall pollution record, regions at lower levels of economic development
tended to lag behind environmentally compared to regions at higher levels.^7
The KMT’s dominance of local politics also made local control of pollution
problematical. The KMT offered a variety of tangible rewards in exchange for
political activities conducted by local factions, such as providing votes for
KMT candidates, political support and allegiance. Many businesses operated
by KMT factional leaders spewed wastewater and other pollutants into the
environment. Local officials turned a blind eye toward pollution laws and
protected illegal activities conducted by local factions. Faced with double
pressures from the central KMT apparatus and faction-controlled businesses,
local governments conducted few enforcement activities to ensure regulatory
compliance by targeted groups. County magistrates were also inclined to
regard environmental regulations and policies formulated by the central
government as merely empty words.^8
Tang and Tang maintain that local governments and enterprises formed
‘development coalitions’ to pursue economic growth projects and evade
environmental regulations. For example, residents of Huben village, a gravel
extraction site, objected to the county government’s approval of a permit.
Although the EIA Act required that all development projects above a certain
scale be reviewed for environmental impacts, the extraction company failed to
Politics and biodiversity conservation 195