Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Two Regimes of Land Dispossession: Ordeal and Strategies of Anti-Eviction Movement in Taiwan
|Advisor:||范雲(Yun Fan),陳東升(Dung-sheng Chen)|
neoliberalism,developmentalism,expropriation,urban renewal,urban land consolidation,informal settlements,
|Publication Year :||2018|
In recent years, there are massive anti-eviction campaigns in Taiwan triggered by land development and clearance, which has gradually aroused the concern of the society on related issues. However, we still don’t have an comprehensive analytical framework that can explain how the related institutions constrain or evoke resistance. This article cites Michael Levien's theory of “regimes of dispossession” as the analytical framework, trying to answer: What kind of regime of dispossession does the contemporary Taiwan's anti-eviction movement face? What are the features of contentious politics under the certain regime?
This study analyzes five institutions and policies: zone expropriation, urban land consolidation, urban renewal, expropriation and clearance of informal settlements. I claim that after the mutual interaction between these institutions and policies in post-war Taiwan, two regimes of land dispossession formed around 1990: developmentalist one and neoliberal one. Though the economic purposes of these two regimes are often mixed and difficult to be distinguished, we can still identify these two regimes by their means(constellation of coercion, material compensation and normative persuasion) of producing compliance and their different effects.
In the neoliberal regime, the main mean is to draw the affected people to becoming subjects of land development by its material compensation; therefore, the opposing sides in a land-development case are the main feature of the contentious politics; the regional real estate market is an important factor of feasibility of the regime. In the developmentalist one, normative persuasion is the main mean of suppressing rebellion; the rebels must not only oppose the official discourse, but also compete with the hegemonic discourse in civil society. Under different situation of contentious politics, there are also different strategies of movement.
|Appears in Collections:||社會學系|
Files in This Item:
|2.28 MB||Adobe PDF|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.