11
This policy thus reshaped the landscape of disability rights organizations in
Taiwan. First, it created a quasi-service market in which service NGOs compete for
limited resources from both state and charitable sources.
4
Second, advocacy
organizations became service-oriented organizations. Finally, competition among NGOs
for funding resulted in unequal distribution of resources for social services.
I examine
each of these changes in more detail below.
NGOs in a Quasi-Service Market
The private management of public facilities policy was first introduced in Taipei
in 1994 and quickly adopted nationally. Implementation of this policy immediately
created a quasi-service market for NGOs, particularly the newly emerging
service-oriented NPOs. Under this system, NGOs and NPOs competed for limited state
f
undi
ng.
The
s
t
a
t
e
e
s
t
a
bl
i
s
he
d
a
s
e
t
of
r
egul
a
t
i
ons
t
o
de
t
e
r
mi
ne
t
he
“
wi
nne
r
”
of
t
he
s
oc
i
a
l
we
l
f
a
r
e
“
c
ont
r
a
c
t
.
”
I
n
ot
he
r
wor
ds, service NPOs
be
c
ame
“
s
ubc
ont
r
a
c
t
or
s
”
t
o
t
he
s
t
a
t
e
.
5
The
“
c
ons
umer
s
,
”
t
he
peopl
e
who
woul
d
a
c
t
ua
l
l
y
us
e
t
he
s
oc
i
a
l
we
l
f
a
r
e
pr
ogr
a
m,
we
r
e
not given much opportunity to determine the quality of service thus provided.
In
addition, because state funding was limited, NPOs had to find private funding and
organize volunteers to manage social services and facilities. NPOs therefore competed for
state funding not only on the basis of the quality of services they could provide, but also
their ability to obtain private donations. Competing for charitable resources became one
of the main tasks of service-oriented NPOs. The rapidly expanding service-NPO sector
mea
nt
a
ve
r
y
c
ompe
t
i
t
i
ve
f
undr
a
i
s
i
ng
“
ma
r
ke
t
.
”
4
The
“
qua
s
i
-s
er
vi
c
e
ma
r
ke
t
”
c
onc
e
pt
i
s
a
dopt
e
d
f
r
om
Sun (2004).
5
Pekkanen
(
2004)
us
e
s
t
he
t
e
r
m
‘
s
ubc
ont
r
a
ct
or
’
t
o
de
s
c
r
i
be
t
he
pos
i
t
i
on
of
registered NGOs in Japan. He
notes that many observers regard such social-welfare organizations as little more than cheap subcontractors
for the government, without the autonomy necessary to qualify them as true NPOs.
Convention